Subject: RE: EU comments to the draft LM strategy
From: Tamar Barkalaia </O=EXCHORGANIZATION/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=6F5B4218A42A4F0A85A453AB37727AE8-TAMAR B>
To: "JUODSNUKYTE Jurate (EEAS-TBILISI)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Lika Klimiashvili </o=ExchOrganization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=07e5375ce676406e8328e6f3ca148e5d-Lika Kl>; Davit Pheikrishvili </o=ExchOrganization/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=4e18d1a249f940e9a30efc1c68bdb201-Davit P>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 09:35:00 +0000

Dear Jurate,

I would like to thank you for comprehensive review and comments of the strategy draft.  Please note that the working language was Georgian and the English translation will be edited further before finalization and publishing. We will work on updating the document as per your comments/suggestions next week and hope to approve the Georgian version by the end of March.

Kind regards,

Tamuna Barkalaia

Tamila Barkalaia

Deputy Minister

144 Tsereteli ave, Tbilisi, Georgia, 0159

+995 599 281 281

From: JUODSNUKYTE Jurate (EEAS-TBILISI) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 9:55 AM
To: Tamar Barkalaia
Cc: Elza Jgerenaia; Lika Klimiashvili
Subject: EU comments to the draft LM strategy
Importance: High

Dear Ms Barkalaia,

I would like to thank you once again for sharing with us the draft strategy before its approval so we could contribute to it before its approval. Please note that the comments are provided to the English working translation of the document, which would require substantial revision in terms of language in case of further use and subsequent publishing.

Overall the strategy document is comprehensive and follows an understandable logic and coherence, the goals and objectives look relevant with respect to the labour market situation and challenges. The policy stance seems largely a continuation of what has been done so far.

The detailed comments of DG Employment, ETF and the EUD are provided in track changes in the two documents attached. Unfortunately merging them would not allow keeping all the changes and this way you can also identify the commenting party. The general comments and observations are the following:

-          All suggested “indicators” should be reviewed carefully and checked against the activities suggested to reach those objectives. They shall be measurable and show the progress between the baseline value and the target value. In addition, the indicators need to be improved by (1) specifying the baselines (current situation) to each of them with clear source and year shall be provided; (2) quantified targets need to be set and timeline for their achievement; (3) the indicators shall be aligned to the Skills 4 Jobs matrix to ensure its alignment to the strategy, which comes slightly later as now some are included, and some not (e.g. on LMIS).

-          The descriptions of the targets shall be consistent, as in current version some target descriptions lack the overview of the current situation (e.g. re low-skilled workers), some do not have the strategy of how it will be achieved (e.g. more jobs created).

-          As regards creation of new jobs, which is set as the first objective, the measures foreseen to reach this objective remain rather general and even confusing. For example, the only task given for this is “creation of new jobs in high-productive sectors”. However, “high-productive” sectors are generally not employment friendly or job-rich, such as ICT. On the contrary, “job-rich” (labour-intensive) sectors are generally low productive sectors, such as tourism. Indeed in the text, there is a reference to tourism sector, which is fine as a promising one for employment creation. Nevertheless, policies need to be more targeted if more jobs are to be created. As this is relevant and really important, more action is needed.

-          There is not always a direct, casual link between the tasks (its objective/actions) and indicators. For example, development of NQF is the main task (under Objective 2, task 1), while the indicator for this is “decrease in the unemployment rate of higher education graduates”. It is hard to imagine that NQF will automatically decrease graduate unemployment.

-          A more comprehensive reflection on social protection, whether the system could be developed to better support transitions in the labour market, would be welcome.

-          The role of the wage system could also be more developed and reflected in the strategy.

-          Further assessment of the targets of this strategy in relation to other policy targets would be welcome, e.g. assessment of the current tax system and its impact on labour would be useful in particular as regards low participation.

-          Creating a “Strategy Implementation Coordination Committee” is good and necessary, but not enough for effective implementation and coordination. The implementation of a strategy requires clear division of roles and responsibilities among all relevant institutions, and making each of them accountable for their performance, clearly defined in the strategy. In the current format, all the work is mainly left to the Ministry of Labour and SSA/ESS. Given their structural issues and staffing, it may not be realistic for them to implement all actions. Moreover, the Ministry of Labour depends on other institutions to reach quite a number of objectives. For example, Ministry of Economy is extremely important for job creation, but only LMIS is mentioned for this ministry. Other departments of the Ministry which make sectoral policies are probably more important for reaching this objective. The same is valid also for the Ministry of Education; e.g. not only the performance of VET but all other departments are very important to reach some objectives. To conclude, the roles and responsibilities of each institution should be very clear.

-          There were a number of references made to the ETF publications in the text, which is fine (and nice). However, some footnotes say “ETF calculation based on Geostat data” (e.g. Footnote 7), as if ETF was preparing the draft strategy. Probably they are taken from some excel files ETF prepared some time ago, but they are not published in any official publication. Therefore, it is difficult to use “ETF calculation” as reference. It does not look credible if a publication of ETF where this info was published is not cited. The same for some other indicators taken from the new EU Budget Support Program. They can certainly use the same indicators, but I do not think there is a need to make a reference to the program.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Jurate JUODSNUKYTE

Sector Manager for Labour Market, Migration, Gender

Delegation of the European Union to Georgia

38 Nino Chkheidze Street

0102 Tbilisi, Georgia

Cell: +995-557 76 66 68

Tel: +995-32-294 37 63

Fax: +995-32-294 37 68

Email: [email-masked]

Website: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/georgia