Social Economy Partnership under EQUAL Czech best practice case study Petra Francová Open Days 2008 Brussels 8th October 2008

Overview Description of the best practice example – social economy partnership in EQUAL Why we have been successful White paper of the new law of public benefit and its relation to EU policies Guidelines on partnership –why useful for new Member States Governance in Structural Funds – does it help? Formalism of EU communication in SF How to improve CSOs capacity to participate in SF Final remarks and recommendations

My personal background Responsible for 2 ESF Global Grants, Transition Facility programmes and Block Grant for NGOs from EEA/Norwegian Financial Mechanisms Member of 2 ESF Monitoring Committees (representation of the Implementation Body of GG) Elected as NGO representative into a Monitoring Committee of OP Human Resources and Employment Before – 2 years work at the ESF Managing Authority, MoLSA Head of the European Programmes Section in the biggest Czech foundation NROS Long-term expert for social economy EQUAL projects

History of partnership on social economy First initiative came from CSOs (information - conferences, ministries approached) CSOs took part in programming (SE in NSRF and in 2 OPs) Grant scheme on social economy (CSOs take part in Call for Proposals preparation)

National thematic network on social economy Good structure (project representatives incl. CSOs, experts, policy makers and MA) Good purpose – to promote general aim of social economy by horizontal and vertical mainstreaming Common standards and principles of social economy Vertical mainstreaming strategy of EQUAL Broad cooperation where CSOs are a driving force

Why we have been successful EQUAL structures - national thematic network, support of MA, emphasis on vertical mainstreaming Strong theme based on partnership of all sectors Communication focused on content (SE) with minimum of EU newspeak Strong support of experts Coordination of the network based on trans sectoral experience

White Paper on public benefit organisations Emphasis on transparency, public control and equal chances in financing Activities more important than legal forms ( i ndirect influence of EU and SF) Transparency in distribution of public admin subsidies Not-for-profit organisations with public benefit mission No committee de c i sion who is a public benefit organisation but statement of organisations

Guidelines on partnership New Member States consider it useful Different historical background Positive influence of recommended partnership in S F Both bottom-up and top -down approach

Governance in Structural Funds POSITIVE Better financial management in CSOs Internal rules of CSOs developed and admin structures strengthened Better technical functioning of organisations NEGATIVE Excessive admin rules in the Czech Republic Auditing processes focused on formal requirements, content is less important Value for money is not good, waste of funds

Formality in EU communication EU newspeak G ood general ideas, policies and content but too formal communication G eneral public who is not involved in EU and SF processes is discouraged EU dictionary is stiff and formal F ight stereotypes and support creativity and innovation C ommunicate content, put emphasis on message a nd not on form

How to improve CSOs capacity to participate in SF Combine bottom-up and top-down approach Make them stronger – capacity building Finance their intermediary

Conclusions Transparency is crucial, SF contribute to it Partnership has been improved with SF, sectors converge Support f r om the top is important, it makes space for grassroot activities to grow up Special funds should be allocated for partnership Partnership and transparency are chances for future

Thank you for your attention I am looking forward to your questions.