Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan of Council of Europe:

1. Conseil de l‘Europe – Council of Europe Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan of Council of Europe: A response to the crisis in Europe and in the world, starting from the local and regional levels Gilda Farrell et Samuel Thirion, Division R&D Social Cohesion Riga, 1 July 2011

2. Presentation Outline The Council of Europe and social cohesion Social cohesion as a response to crisis Methodology for social cohesion at local level How to develop Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan in Latvia

3. 1- The Council of Europe and Social Cohesion

4. Council of Europe main steps 1949 : Creation of the Council of Europe with three core values : democracy, human rights, and rule of law. 1950 : European Convention for fostering Human Rights and Fundamental liberties 1959: Creation of the European Court of Human Rights 1961 : European Social Charter From 1973, the growth rates decrease drastically, with unemployment issues, regression of social rights and increasing of inequalities. A thinking begun on how to complete laws to sustain the application of rights 1997 : The second Summit of the Council of Europe states that the social cohesion becomes "one of the foremost needs of the wider Europe and an essential complement to the promotion of human rights and dignity"

5. Developing Social Cohesion • 1998: Set of the EuropeanCommittee for Social Cohesion • 2000: First version of the Strategy for Social Cohesion, revised in 2004. It defines cohesion as the capacity of the society to ensure the well-being of all its members, avoiding disparities and polarisation and focusing on shared responsibilities to achieve this objective.

6. Social Cohesion strategy Social cohesion as a complementary objective of the core values: humanrights, democracy, rule of law The definition of Social Cohesion and its four pilars. The social cohesionstrategy of the Council of Europe introducestwomayor changes in the concept of societalprogress: On the objective of progress: well-being of all, future generations included On the way for this progress: co-responsibility  Co-responsibility for well-being of all implies concerted indicators and involvement of stakeholders and citizens in the definition of well-being.

7. The implementation of the strategy • 2005: Publication of a first methodological guide "collaborative development of indicators of social cohesion“ • 2005 - 2010: experiments in different cities, regions and institutions (companies, schools) • Concept of "territory of co-responsibility '= territory in which a process of shared responsibility for the wellbeing of all is taking place between actors (public and private) of that territory. • Extended to" School of co-responsibility", “Corporate co-responsibility", etc.. • September 25, 2009: First international meeting of the Territories of co-responsibility in Mulhouse. and launching of the Territories of Coresponsibility Network, financed by Urbact II – project TOGETHER – 8 towns in 8 countries (one is Debica) + other 25 other towns

8. From Strategy to Action Plan for Social Cohesion in Europe • 2010: Publication of a second methodological guide book: involving citizens in the societal progress towards well-being of all • February 2010: Conference of all Ministers in Moscow • 2010: Launching the social cohesion action plan of the Council of Europe, crossing 2 approaches: • A bottom up approach starting from the citizens expression of well-being/ Ill-Being to build indicators at local level, then at regional level and national level to revisit the policies at these different levels from what the citizens said • A top down approach to adapt the policies to citizens needs

9. 2- Social cohesion as a response to the crisis

10. Current crisis is not only financial and economic. It is as well- social- environmental- political (crisis of governance and regulation)- cultural, concerning knowledge itself- crisis of confidence  Crisis of society: what is progress?

11. Crisis of society goals: the progress I- Since the industrial revolution the progress of society has been designed on the basis of a constant and very rapid growth in terms of wealth, mainly material wealth (estimated over last 60 years by GDP). This growth was made possible by the widespread use of non-renewable resources, including fossil energies, leading, in a few centuries to the point of their exhaustion. Limits of this model regards: Dissatisfaction with this model because, despite the increase of wealth, much of humanity is excluded, inequality is increasing and even in the richest countries subjective indicators show a decrease of well-being, especially since 1980 The impossibility to continue with this model and the need to establish as quickly as possible an alternative model without massive use of non-renewable resources  Need to get back to basics: what is progress? What should the progress of societies tend towards? and how to make these changes?

12. An issue on the agenda • These questions have been raised since the 1970s by organizations such as the Club of Rome • From the 2000s the debate involves public institutions, at national and international level • In 2004 OECD launched a global project "beyond GDP" • In 2008 the French government forms a committee with two Nobel Prize winners (Stiglitz and Sen) • Since 2008 the European Commission undertakes a specific program "beyond GDP"  Conclusions are similar • GDP is not enough and progress must be rethought in relation to the well-being of humans and of our planet in general. • Well-being must be defined by citizens  Convergence with the social cohesion strategy and action plan of the Council of Europe

13. The need to rethink Rethinking the goals of progress: from a single quantified objective, to a multidimensional objective : the well-being of all Rethinking intellectual and cultural references of our society: well-being of all, lifestyles, ways of reflection, guiding our choices Rethinking responsibility for progress: from the responsibility of the states (welfare state) to the responsibility of society (weffare society) actors co-responsibility Rethinking approaches: from a centralized approach to a dual approach, ascending and descending Rethinking the construction of knowledge: from a knowledge produced by specialized institutions to a co-produced knowledge by civil society within society Rethinking the tools to measure progress: from simple quantitative indicators to the indicators measuring the path to progress Rethinking approaches to evaluation: From a goal-based evaluation to a multidimensional evaluation Rethinking the modes of conception of actions and partnership: starting from the human and social assets – For instance rethinkingg employment creation through local social links and not only market

14. Rethinking progress • 1st observation: the progress of societies needs rethinking • 2nd observation: there is urgency • 3rd observation: the passage of a single objective (GDP) to a multidimensional objective leads to review all the tools and methods of measurement and decision making: major change requiring a process of experimentation and learning network.. • 4th observation: the main challenge is to reconcile two goals that seem a priori incompatible or impossible to achieve: the well-being of all for present and well-being of future generations (ie the well-being of present generations while conveying the property and resources to the future generations = without using non-renewable resources) • 5th observation: it requires a revision of the content we give to the notion of well-being, and a review of how to develop this content. Currently, the content of the common sense of wellbeing is mainly defined by the market, particularly through advertising,, even reducing the notion of well-being to that of material well-being

15. Rethinking well-being of all • The well-being of all the as an objective of society cannot be defined by either the market or by a central structure, or by specialists:well-being is a concept that belongs to citizens  need of an overall democratic and participatory debate. • The experiments that we have been carried out for five years in this sense clearly demonstrate that the well-being of all defined by citizens give more room for intangible dimensions of wellbeing, opening a key route for societal progress. These dimensions depending on human relationships, social and personal balance, sense of life, participation and engagement in society, etc.. are an inexhaustible source of untapped wealth, although they are often misused, explaining the increasing feeling of ill-being, despite the increase in material wealth.

16. Multi-dimension aspect of Well-Being The eight dimensions of well-being according to the criteria expressed by citizens SUBJECT LIVING ENVIRONMENT Physical components Endogenous Components F- Personal balances H-Commitment/engagement A- Access to livelihoods G- Sense of well-being/ill-being E-Social balances and sense of belonging C- Relations with institutions B- Living environment D-Human relations GROUP OF SUBJECTS Social components

17. 3- Methodology for social cohesion at local level

18. Local process Step 1: Setting a coordination group involvingrepresentatives of local actors

19. Local process Step 2: Definingprogress in well-being of all withcitizens by : • Organizinghomogeneous groups • Collectingcriteriathrough 3 open questions: • Whatis for youwell-being? • Whatis for youill-being? • What do you do or can do for well-being of all? • Great number of criteria Synthesis • Restitution, validation by homogeneous groups and fourth question about future generations

20. Local process Step 3: Using the criteria of ill-being/ well-being to evaluate the policies and existing actions : • General assessment of policies adequacy and possibilities of adjustments • Assessment of policies for specific target groups and possibilities of adjustment • Assessment of specific action: co-evaluation with managers and beneficiaries  identifying possible improvements

21. Local process Step 4: Identifyingwithcitizens actions to bedevelopped : • Organizingheterogenous groups • Presenting the results of generalsynthesis and assessment of policies and existing actions, and possibilities of improvements • Debating and identifyingpossibilities for new complementary pilot actions to developcoresponsiblity

22. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

23. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

24. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

25. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

26. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

27. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

28. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

29. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

30. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities PROGRESS CYCLE

31. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities PROGRESS CYCLE

32. Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities CONSULTATION CYCLE PROGRESS CYCLE

33. Second cycle indicators and action plan • Second cycle: Using criteria of ill-being/well-being to build indicators of progress in well-being.

34. Désignation of the degree 1 Very unsatisfactory situation 2 Unsatisfactory situation 3- Medium situation 4 Good situation 5- Ideal situation Satisfactory situation but without having achieved the objective of progress Rethinking how to measure Transversal scale of signification of progress indicators The objective of progress is achieved but without guarantee of sustaina-bility Signification Situation of risk of degradation in chain and/or irreversibi lity The objective of progress is achieved with guarantee of sustaina-bility No satisfactory situation but without short term risk

35. Désignation of the degree 1 Very unsatisfactory situation 2 Unsatisfactory situation 3- Medium situation 4 Good situation 5- Ideal situation Satisfactory situation but without having achieved the objective of progress Rethinking how to measure Transversal scale of signification of progress indicators The objective of progress is achieved but without guarantee of sustaina-bility Signification The objective of progress is achieved with guarantee of sustaina-bility Situation of risk of degradation in chain and/or irreversibi lity No satisfactory situation but without short term risk

36. Degrees Very unsatisfac-tory situation 2-Unsatis-factory situation 3- Medium Situation 4- Good situation 5- ideal‏ situation Building indicators of progress in WBA Elaboration of value for every degree Criteria of ill-being/well-being Duple Criteria (negative/positive Scale of values By combinaison of criteria values Validation by citizens

37. Building indicators of progress in WBA ‏

38. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

39. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

40. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

41. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

42. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

43. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

44. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

45. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

46. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities PROGRESS CYCLE

47. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities PROGRESS CYCLE

48. Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities CONSULTATION CYCLE PROGRESS CYCLE

49. Links with other levels Local processesshouldbelinked to regional, national and europeanones: • Criteria and indicators of progress in well-beingbuiltatregional, national and europeanlevel on the basis of local resultsmight lead to reviewingpoliciesatthesedifferentlevels • Pilot actions of coresponsibility and action plan for coresponsibiltycanbedeveloped as wellattheselevelsin fieldssuch as: social inclusion and fightingpoverty, education, health, housing, consumption, jobs creation , etc

50. 4- How to develop social cohesion strategy and action plan in Riga region and Latvia