Transcript Brian Harvey - Learning and Work Institute England

Future of the European Social
Fund (ESF) and Europe 2020
Brian Harvey, TSEN, London, 30th
March 2011
[email protected]
History
► Structural funds (ERDF,
ESF) important :
 Real money for voluntary organizations (ESF)
 One of largest areas of EU spending (€39bn, 2011)
 New policy priorities e.g. gender
► 5th




round of the structural funds
1989-93
1994-9
2000-6
2007-13
First reformed round (Delors I)
Most expansive, ambitious (Delors II)
The great accession
Simplified, connected to Lisbon, Jobs &
growth (‘earmarking’ 60 % to 75%)*.
 *e.g. Innovation, energy, R&D, knowledge economy
Timetable for new ESF
2009
Barca report (‘what might have been’)
- Focus on social inclusion
- Involve civil society
- Professional management
2010 Nov
5th cohesion report
2011Jun 30 Multi-annual financial framework 2014-2020
New regulations
2012
Common Strategic Framework (CSF)
2013
Development & investment partnership contract
CSF priorities at national level
Negotiation Operational Programmes (OPs)
2014 Jan 1 Start
EU2020 Strategy 2014-2020
► Objectives
agreed June 2010
 16% reduction poverty, 120m down to 100m + platform
 Education: ESL 15% to 10%, raise post secondary 31% to 40%
 Environment: gases, consumption -20%, efficiency +20%
(20/20/20)
 Raise employment 69% to 75%. R&D to 3% GDP
 Now bilateral discussions Commission – member states
► Commission set indicative targets across
member states
► Indicative range for Britain 2.3m -2.5m people (rate 18%)
► Required to file targets by November, delayed to April
► Member state proposals so far below indicative range e.g.
Germany, Italy and the overall targets will not be met
► EAPN has complained of lack of consultation with civil society
ESF, ERDF: NGO concerns
► Commitment
, priority to social inclusion,
sustainability, gender, minorities, reaching most
disadvantaged
► Partnership principle (#11 of regulations)
 From design through to monitoring, evaluation
► Access to funding by NGO community
► Suitable methods: global grants, technical
assistance, EQUAL-type programmes, transnationality.
► Proportionate administration/rules
 Striking a balance
► Commission
role, supervision, management
5th cohesion report (301pp)
Investing in Europe’s future
and COM 2010/642 (1)
► Align
ESF, ERDF with EU2020
 All five for poorest regions, but only 2-3 for richer
►But will they include the poverty objective?
 Scope for specific target groups for experimental
approaches e.g. local development (global grants)
 Must also respect 10 integrated employment guidelines
 Supported by European Platform against Poverty (later)
► More attention to social inclusion now, but
►Poor places rather than poor people e.g.
Severozapaden (BG), 28%; London, 343%
Key features new ESF, ERDF (2)
►5





regions:
Less developed regions/convergence/>75% GDP
More developed regions (competiveness)
Intermediate regions (>75% to <90% GDP) (over)
Cross border [incl. transnational, interregional]
Cohesion Fund (>90%, transport/environment)
► New
objective: territorial cohesion for:
 Cities/urban agenda
 Regions (towns, rivers, sea basins, outermost regions,
low population, islands, cross-border, mountains)
Intermediary regions 75% to 90%
In Britain, these are Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, Highlands & Islands,
Merseyside, South Yorkshire
Partnership in ESF, ERDF
► Strengthen, reinforce, support social
partners, civil society, NGOs
► Need for local development approaches




Active inclusion
Fostering social innovation
Regeneration of deprived areas
Rural and maritime areas
Extracts (1)
Ring-fencing for specific target groups or
experimental approaches (e.g. local development)
might also be considered, possibly in the form of
global grants
Representation of local and regional stakeholders,
social partners and civil society in both the policy
dialogue and implementation of social policy
should be strengthened. Support for the dialogue
with socio-economic partners and NGOs should
be maintained.
Extracts (2)
Local development approaches should be
reinforced for example by supporting active
inclusion, fostering social innovation or
designing schemes for regeneration of
deprived areas
Territorial cohesion means addressing
regions with high concentrations of socially
marginalized communities
Extracts (3)
Institutional reform is critical, complemented
by support to develop administrative and
institutional capacity and effective
governance, available to every member
state and region
The Commission needs some resources to
support directly experimentation and
networking
Meeting third sector concerns?
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
►
Social inclusion priority
Partnership/civil society
Innovation/trans nationality
Local development
Global grants
Improved evaluation
Targeting disadvantage
Technical assistance
Commission supervision
Improved administration
Improved NGO access
√ convergence, rest?
√ but await regulation
√?
√ (part of new objective)
√?
√? Heard this before
?
X
X
X (lump sum payments?)
X (100% proposal lost)
- EU level debate has focussed on what regions in, out -
Why this matters
► ESF, ERDF
mean:
 European priorities not reflected in domestic agenda
 Additional resources to tackle important problems
 Methods which can be enlightened, imaginative,
effective
 Benefits of programmes frameworks and disciplines
that extend beyond lifetime of a parliament BUT
► ESF
is not dominant fund, ERDF is. Cohesion
policy directed by DG REGIO where inequality is
seen as geographical, spatial
►
Over, the key personalities for the next stage...
Johannes Hahn
Regional affairs commissioner
Laszlo Andor
Commissioner for employment, social affairs and inclusion
Danuta Hubner
Parliament regional affairs committee
Finally, the European Platform and the ESF (over)
Platform COM 2010/758
► Greater, more




and ESF (1)
effective use of ESF, ERDF
Simplified access for NGOs, tailor made grants
Improved access high poverty, multiple disadvantage
Facilitating access to global grants small orgs.
Roma, vulnerable groups, institutions, digital literacy
► Partnership
 NGOs “essential actors”. Participation “uneven”
 “Strengthen, stabilize” incl. people experiencing poverty
 Voluntary guidelines on stakeholder participation.
CSF will outline how poverty target will be met
Platform and ESF (2)
► Evidence-based social innovation
 “Social experimentation”
 Small-scale actions to test policy innovation
►E.g.
Active retirement, utilities, child poverty,
education, homeless, health, welfare-to-work




Drawn from ESF and PROGRESS
High level steering committee
Research excellence network
Devising of methods and impact measurement
What’s missing...? (EAPN)
► Lack
of governance structure
► No European, national platforms
 Only voluntary guidelines on participation
 Not even involvement of social NGOs in the
social innovation steering committee
► EAPN proposes a SF Technical Assistance Unit in
each state to assist social NGOs.
► So: improved funding from ESF, but no more
influence?
Final comments
► Next years
will settle:
 ESF, ERDF for 2014-2020
 Key battleground : Parliament (regulations)
 European Platform against poverty
► Effective, skilful NGO
action at national,
European level for enlightened structural
funds, EU2020 strategy has never been
more important
►
Thank you for your attention!