Future of the European Social Fund (ESF) and Europe 2020

1. Future of the European Social Fund (ESF) and Europe 2020 Brian Harvey, TSEN, London, 30th March 2011 brharvey@iol.ie

2. 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 First reformed round (Delors I) • 1994-9 Most expansive, ambitious (Delors II) • 2000-6 The great accession • 2007-13 Simplified, connected to Lisbon, Jobs & growth (‘earmarking’ 60 % to 75%)*. • *e.g. Innovation, energy, R&D, knowledge economy

3. 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 *An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy

4. 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

5. 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, trans-nationality. • Proportionate administration/rules • Striking a balance • Commission role, supervision, management

6. 5th cohesion report (301pp)Investing in Europe’s futureand 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%

7. 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)

8. Intermediary regions 75% to 90% In Britain, these are Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, Highlands & Islands, Merseyside, South Yorkshire

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. Meeting third sector concerns? • Social inclusion priority √ convergence, rest? • Partnership/civil society √ but await regulation • Innovation/trans nationality √? • Local development √ (part of new objective) • Global grants √? • Improved evaluation √? Heard this before • Targeting disadvantage ? • Technical assistance X • Commission supervision X • Improved administration X (lump sum payments?) • Improved NGO access X (100% proposal lost) - EU level debate has focussed on what regions in, out -

14. 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...

15. Johannes Hahn Regional affairs commissioner

16. Laszlo Andor Commissioner for employment, social affairs and inclusion

17. DanutaHubner Parliament regional affairs committee Finally, the European Platform and the ESF (over)

18. Platform COM 2010/758 and ESF (1) • Greater, more 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

19. 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

20. 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?

21. 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!