evaluation of the european strategy on safety and health at work ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-201217national strategies, with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> those related to <strong>the</strong> health surveillance <strong>of</strong>workers. It has been found that national strategies have been developed withinspiration from <strong>the</strong> European <strong>strategy</strong> and its priorities, but adapted to <strong>the</strong> nationalcontext and key priority areas. This is in line with <strong>the</strong> intentions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> European<strong>strategy</strong>, which specifically states that <strong>the</strong> national strategies should be defined on<strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> a detailed <strong>evaluation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national situation.Objective 3: Prevention: Several campaigns at European level have beensuccessfully implemented through EU-OSHA. A risk-assessment tool for SMEs(OiRA) has been developed and information on this has been disseminated. It isnow being used in several countries. However, knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual take-up <strong>of</strong>EU-OSHA information and tools for risk assessment and management at nationaland company level is insufficient and this gives rise to concerns that <strong>the</strong>se are notbeing used to <strong>the</strong>ir full potential. The ACSH and <strong>the</strong> Commission have not takenaction in relation to mainstreaming <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> OSH into training programmes asforeseen by <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>.Member States are working to integrate OSH into <strong>the</strong>ir education and trainingprogrammes, but this has not been a primary concern for <strong>the</strong>m and <strong>the</strong>re has beenlimited use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> financing opportunities <strong>of</strong>fered through <strong>the</strong> EU's Social Fund.Objective 4: New and increasing risks: Reports on a number <strong>of</strong> new and emergingrisks have been produced and disseminated by more than one EU-level partner.Collectively, <strong>the</strong>se provide a valuable insight into possible future problems andareas <strong>of</strong> concern although <strong>the</strong>ir very nature as horizon-scanning means that manypartners understandably do not see <strong>the</strong>m as <strong>of</strong> immediate relevance. However, asalso indicated under objective 1, <strong>the</strong> knowledge produced has yet to result in actualnew or revised regulatory actions on how to address <strong>the</strong>se risks.In terms <strong>of</strong> addressing existing (ongoing) risks, <strong>the</strong> OiRA tool, developed at <strong>the</strong>EU-level, provides a potentially valuable tool. However, to be <strong>of</strong> real value toSMEs it needs to ei<strong>the</strong>r be made more directly accessible to individual employersor <strong>the</strong>re needs to be a considerable growth in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> sector-specific versionsdeveloped and distributed within <strong>the</strong> EU-27. In addition to this EU-level initiative,risk assessment tools have been developed and implemented at national level inmany MS, usually recognising national priorities and needs.Objective 5: Monitoring: The collection and collation <strong>of</strong> European-wide statisticaldata on occupational accidents was enabled through <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> commonstatistical methods by way <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Regulation on statistics on accidents at work(1338/2008) and its implementing Regulation (349/2011). However, <strong>the</strong>re has beenlittle progress with respect to arriving at common statistical methods foroccupational diseases although a report on <strong>the</strong> current situation in <strong>the</strong> EU MemberStates and EFTA/EEA countries was produced and provides a good basis foradditional activities in this methodologically challenging area.Objective 6: International cooperation: The Commission has been quite active in<strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> international promotion <strong>of</strong> OSH. Cooperation with ILO has beenstepped up through various projects related to ILO’s Decent Work Agenda.Bilateral cooperation with candidate countries, neighbouring countries and majorhttp://projects.cowiportal.com/ps/A019055/Documents/3 Project documents/Interim and final report/Final report October 2012/OSH <strong>evaluation</strong>-report_Final_submitted 14 March2013.docx
18 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY ON SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK 2007-201218economic partners has also yielded positive results. However, no substantiveprogress has been made on <strong>the</strong> key issue <strong>of</strong> obtaining a global ban on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>asbestos, or on improving <strong>the</strong> comparability <strong>of</strong> data on accidents.Impact has beenachieved but data areuncertainThe <strong>strategy</strong> aimed for an on-going, sustainable and uniform reduction in accidentsat work and occupational illnesses, and in relation to accidents, to reduce by 25 percent <strong>the</strong> total incidence rate <strong>of</strong> accidents at work in <strong>the</strong> EU 27.In respect to accidents at work, <strong>the</strong> latest Eurostat standardised incidence data onEU-27 is from 2009. The data shows a declining trend in <strong>the</strong> incidence <strong>of</strong> accidentsat work in <strong>the</strong> first two years <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>. This is supported by data from asurvey conducted in 2009 (<strong>the</strong> Scoreboard exercise), where Member States haveindicated that <strong>the</strong> incidence rates are declining. A similar survey conducted in 2012in connection with this <strong>evaluation</strong> indicates that this trend is continuing. Based on<strong>the</strong> available data, it thus seems likely that a reduction will have been achieved, andthat this could have an order <strong>of</strong> magnitude similar to what was aimed for in <strong>the</strong>European <strong>strategy</strong>. However, <strong>the</strong>re are uncertainties in <strong>the</strong> data, including thoserelated to underreporting.In respect to <strong>the</strong> incidence <strong>of</strong> occupational illnesses, <strong>the</strong> data is very limited. Datafrom <strong>the</strong> Scoreboard exercise in 2009 and <strong>the</strong> survey conducted for this <strong>evaluation</strong>indicates that <strong>the</strong> incidence <strong>of</strong> occupational illnesses has not been reduced. Takentoge<strong>the</strong>r with self-reported data from workers in <strong>the</strong> European Working ConditionsSurvey (EWCS) conducted by Eur<strong>of</strong>ound, <strong>the</strong>se data indicate that <strong>the</strong> incidencewill remain broadly at <strong>the</strong> same level as in 2007. However, <strong>the</strong>se are merelyindications as <strong>the</strong>re are considerable data uncertainties.As <strong>the</strong> development in <strong>the</strong> incidence <strong>of</strong> occupational accidents and diseases isaffected by many factors not influenced by <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong>, including notably <strong>the</strong>economic crisis, it is not possible to firmly establish <strong>the</strong> extent to which <strong>the</strong><strong>strategy</strong> has actually influenced <strong>the</strong>se indicators.The analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> six objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Strategy shows thatsome intermediate impacts have been achieved. I.e. <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>strategy</strong> did to some extent support <strong>the</strong> better implementation <strong>of</strong> legislation,improve awareness raising and lead to a better understanding <strong>of</strong> risks. However,lack <strong>of</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> some areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>strategy</strong> also meant a ra<strong>the</strong>r limitedimpact in some respects, in particular in relation to reducing administrative burdensand reaching out to SMEs and micro-enterprises.A new <strong>strategy</strong> isrelevantThe <strong>evaluation</strong> concludes that it is relevant for <strong>the</strong> Commission to prepare a new<strong>strategy</strong> for <strong>the</strong> forthcoming period 2013 and onwards. First and foremost because,even though progress has been made in some respects under <strong>the</strong> current <strong>strategy</strong>,occupational health and safety is still a concern for all Member States and MemberStates face similar challenges in relation to <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislativeframework.The experience from <strong>the</strong> current <strong>strategy</strong> shows that <strong>the</strong> policy area <strong>of</strong> OSH iscomplex with many issues and actors involved – both at <strong>the</strong> European and <strong>the</strong>Member State levels. Hence, even though some actions would have beenhttp://projects.cowiportal.com/ps/A019055/Documents/3 Project documents/Interim and final report/Final report October 2012/OSH <strong>evaluation</strong>report_Final_submitted14 March 2013.docx
Page 1 and 2: MARCH 2013DG EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFF
Page 3 and 4: EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY
Page 7 and 8: 10 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION
Page 13: 16 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION
Page 33: 36 EVALUATION OF THE EUREVALUATION
Page 64 and 65:
EVALUATION OF THE EUROPEAN STRATEGY
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
2/8 Lige titelNo Question Answer Co
Page 208 and 209:
4/8 Lige titel23. Does the<
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
show all

evaluation of the european strategy on safety and health at work ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?