1 / 13

Rome, 25 th February 2010

Rome, 25 th February 2010. Added value of local, regional dimension in social inclusion of Roma Brian Harvey brharvey@iol.ie. Potential of structural funds. Substantial funding, €347bn Multi-annual, 7 years, time & scale to be effective Highly systematized Principle of partnership, #11

said
Download Presentation

Rome, 25 th February 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rome, 25th February 2010 Added value of local, regional dimension in social inclusion of Roma Brian Harvey brharvey@iol.ie

  2. Potential of structural funds • Substantial funding, €347bn • Multi-annual, 7 years, time & scale to be effective • Highly systematized • Principle of partnership, #11 • Open to new entrants, innovation • New priorities, including minorities, with gender mainstreaming • Substantial scope in ESF regulation, ERDF, but • Governments find them challenging to operate

  3. Many examples of structural funds for Roma • Vocational & skills training • Roma economy • Prevention of early school leaving • Education & schooling (all ESF) • Facilities for schools, culture, health, information, social centres (ERDF) • Mainly Hungary, Spain, Finland, Slovakia See OSI Compendium of good practice www.romadecade.org/making_the_most_of_eu_funds_2008

  4. Many examples of EQUAL projects • Roma vision, broadcasting • Bridge project (training), both Hungary • Divercidade project, Portugal • Living and working together, Austria • Cultural mediation projects, IRL, Portugal • Centres in Slovenia • Pavee Point, IRL • EQUAL Poland • School assistants, Finland

  5. Many projects in adjacent funds • Social Exclusion Programme, 2000-6 • Programme against discrimination, 2000-6 • Culture programme • Health programme • Leonardo programme • PHARE (accession states) • CARDS • Democracy and Human Rights programme

  6. Local authorities in projects • Date to Poverty 3 programme (1989-94) • Local Authorities (LAs) key deliverers of education, training, health, housing, water, sanitation, waste • CARDS has some high level LA involvement • But few projects initiated by LAs. Most by NGOs with LAs as partners.

  7. The best projects • Involve many partners, incl. LAs (multi-institutionality) • Tackle many forms of exclusion (multi-dimensionality) • Bottom up, empowering Roma-led groups • Connected to political systems, policies, institutions • Dealing with ‘hard’ political issues • Innovation, imagination or new ways to tackle old, intractable problems • Scale, duration to be effective, leave a legacy

  8. Problem areas • Too many top-down, short-term, small-scale, inappropriate, under-prepared, unresearched, isolated interventions, ineffective • Low levels documentation, evaluation, dissemination, depends on individuals • Few leave a legacy • Few build capacity of Roma NGOs & groups • Focus on ‘soft’ issues • Learning not transferred Evaluations consistent, repetitive on these issues, but little attention paid to them at programme level

  9. Structural funds experience (EAPN) • Partnership principle little observed • Limited involvement of NGOs at key points • Structural funds little focussed on exclusion • ERDF little used • Failure or refusal to use: • Global grants • Technical assistance • Capacity building • Bureaucratic accounting, driving out good groups See EAPN manual www.eapn.eu

  10. Programming 2014-2020 • Prospects for social inclusion diminished: • Loss of EQUAL programme • Massification, governmentalization (PROGRESS) • Lack of Commission supervision of regulations • Failure to resolve bureaucratic issues (Striking a balance) • Barca report attempted to reform cohesion policy • Social inclusion as a top objective • Planning by regions, not by countries • Take funds away from local elites • Restore Commission supervision

  11. Ways forward Poor programmes get poor projects • We need improved design across SFs • Reduce entry barriers for Roma projects • Longer, better preparatory phases • Value quality, evaluation, dissemination more • Value technical compliance less • Make policy demands on applicants • Set requirements for multi-dimensionality, multi institutionality, links to government etc • Effective supervisory system, Commission to drive up quality, not endorse bad operational programmes

  12. Key elements (annexe) Programme design Project design Social inclusion Bottom-up approach Targeting incl. Roma Multi-dimensionality Partnership principle Multi-institutionality Access by NGOs Size, scale, duration Global grants Linked to policy, institutions Technical assistance Address the hard issues Capacity building Policy focus and themes NGOs design to monitoring Innovation Commission interest, supervision Evaluation, dissemination Proportionate compliance Legacy

  13. Conclusions • SFs still have potential for inclusion • Issue is not more LA involvement, but improved programme, project design • Now is time to prepare for 2014-2020 • Yes, role for more LAs as partners • Yes, role for LAs as project leaders, working with Roma-led organizations • Need for these issues to be brought to heart of making of SF, cohesion policy • Thank you for your attention

More Related