1. Social Platform : 18 February 2009 Saving the Social OMC Is it worth it? Sian Jones, Policy Coordinator, EAPN

2. Outline  What is the OMC?  Has it worked? – is it worth saving?  Commission proposals - reinforcing OMC.  EAPN’s proposals for a joint approach

3. The Original 2000 Lisbon Agenda  A new Strategic Goal for the EU ‘ To become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy of the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion ’‘  3 Pillars: –Sustainable Economic Development –More and better jobs –Social Cohesion

4. Lisbon – The original triangle: 2000 Competitiveness Broad Economic Policy Guidelines Employment Employment Guidelines and NAPs Employment Social Inclusion (NAPs Inclusion)

5. What’s the Social OMC? Open Method of Coordination on Social Inclusion (2000) - voluntary process:“Soft Law Coordination between MS”  Ambition : to make a decisive impact on eradication of poverty by 2010  Five main elements : 1.Common Objectives 2.National Action Plans/Reports 3.A set of commonly agreed indicators 4.Common Conclusions (Joint Reports) 5.Action program to underpin and reinforce the process: financing of EU stakeholder networks, peer reviews, independent experts network, round table, EU meeting of people experiencing poverty, transnational and awareness raising projects, studies, data collection….

6. Changing Lisbon Paradigm post 2005 « Growth and Jobs » -Following “KoK” Report 2005 -Separation of economic and employment strategy : ‘Growth and Jobs’ Strategy (National Reform Programmes based on Integrated Guidelines - macro, micro economic and employment) - From ‘OMC social inclusion to Social Protection and Social Inclusion’

7. Revised Lisbon Agenda post 2005 Integrated Guidelines: Macro/Micro + OMC on Social Inclusion and Social Protection Employment Guidelines = OMC on access to health and long term care, OMC on pensions + National Reform Programmes' National Strategies for for growth and jobsSocial Inclusion and Social Protection

8. New Social OMC: social protection and social inclusion post 2005 3 Social pillars brought together in “Streamlined OMC” 1)Social Inclusion (2000) 2)Pensions (2002) 3)Health and Long term care(2005 ) New Common Objectives for Social OMC (2006)  Social Cohesion, equality and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable social protection systems and social inclusion policies.  Effective interaction between Lisbon and social cohesion  Good Governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in design, implementation and monitoring.

9. First National Strategic Reports 2006-8 Cycle: Joint Report 2007: narrowing of integrated approach Key Priorities in social inclusion : active inclusion, child poverty 2007: light (thematic) year: child poverty  Social Protection Committee questionnaire: child poverty and well-being  Task force of the Indicators Sub-Group of the SPC on monitoring Child Poverty and Well-being  Reports by the independent experts in social inclusion on child poverty  Contributions by EU stakeholder networks  SPC peer review on 4 October 2007 Joint Report: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0042:FIN:En:PDF; Child poverty report: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/2008/child_poverty_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/2008/child_poverty_en.pdf - BUT WHAT RESULTS??????

10. Does the Social OMC work? What has worked well : -Kept issue of poverty/ social exclusion on political agenda -Contributed to consensus about key policy priorities eg Child Poverty, Homelessness… -Contributed to mutual learning (peer reviews, projects) -Improved data collection and analysis -Important model of good governance Participation of civil society, people experiencing poverty Multidimensional approach Policy coordination Mobilizing all actors

11. Good governance practice – let’s build on it! NAP Inclusion as a key driver for developing on-going structured dialogue with civil society and key actors on SI policy. Belgium: NGO’s and PEP integrated partners in full policy cycle (9 meetings 2008) UK: Social Policy Task Force now official civil society dialogue partner, with funding – link to regional participative peer reviews (Get Heard and Bridging the Policy Gap). Spain :Structured link between local/regional and national action plans involving all all key actors, interministerial commission (NGO’s official dialogue partner )) All 3 have used Progress Awareness Raising Funding to establish/reinforce these mechanisms

12. But big implementation gap… -16% of the EU at risk of poverty (78 million people) -19% families with children…. -Deterioration key groups – minorities, migrants, older people.. -One in five lives in substandard housing -10% of the EU lives in households where nobody works -8% of people in work – working poor -Long term unemployment approaches 4% -15% early school leavers -1 in 10 persons feels left out of society in the EU (Eurobarometer)

13. What progress on policy?  Child Poverty (first Light Year) – some progress on strategies and tools, but inadequate implementation (also Homelessness)  Activation not Active Inclusion, positive activation approaches but marred by punitive conditionality. Little focus on creating decent jobs.  Adequate Income the forgotten pillar..  Some increased focus on social services but lack of investment undermining universal approaches: affordability and access.  Inadequate mainstreaming of discrimination – particularly ethnic minorities, migrants (undocumented, asylum seekers)  Focus on priorities, useful at EU level but runs danger of replacing national integrated, multidimensional strategies for tackling poverty and exclusion

14. What hasn’t worked...  Weak implementation – minimal impact  National Reports not Plans – no link to National Policy making process or national parliaments..  Inadequate involvement of real actors  No understanding of key role of governance and participation for ownership and better policies  Limited impact of mutual learning – EU level.  Inadequate use of funding instruments (Structural Funds)  Insufficient mainstreaming to Lisbon (more feeding in than out)

15. But underlying problem is political! –No political will to reinforce social dimension –Subservience to “Growth and Jobs” means continual pressure to justify SI’s productive role –Hiding behind subsidiarity - sufficient legal basis exists for targets and other EU actions if wanted –Economic Crisis highlighting weaknesses of neo-liberal agenda/ EU social model essential to boost declining credibility…. –Time for social leadership!!!! but who?

16. Is the Social OMC worth saving? –On balance – Yes! –Basic instrument is strong – needs better implementation, tools and political backing –Need to recognize decline of social dimension –Not likely to get anything stronger – threat of further sidelining in shopping list social agenda –Tactically important to keep separate social instrument with effective mainstreaming

17. Commission’s proposals: Reinforcing the OMC “A renewed commitment to Social Europe: Reinforcing the OMC for social protection and social inclusion” COM(2008) 418 (2 July 2008) Main proposals: 1)Increasing political commitment and visibility: adopt some methods and approaches of Lisbon G+J: setting national targets, Commission recommendations, better reporting and dissemination. 2) Mainstreaming ( social impact), horizontal coordination 3) Reinforcing analytical tools – data collection/indicators/ links with academic community. 4) Better ownership : more strategic peer reviews, new tools for mutual learning including social experimentation and better governance at all stages of policy cycle. ( partic R and LA,)

18. A stronger Social OMC in post 2010 Lisbon: EAPN proposals. 1. Political will to deliver social objectives and social standards – yes we can! New role: Lisbon post 2010, social and sustainable. 2. Setting targets and implementing them : EU and national targets on poverty and social inclusion, monitoring – scoreboard/Recommendations 3.Governance - building ownership and link to National Policy through effective, participative action plans: -national/regional and local action planning -Involving all actors :developing guidelines/benchmarks for effective participative governance: LA’s, SPs, NGO’s and people in poverty -link to based on national policy cycle and national parliaments. 4. More effective mutual learning : broadening peer review – thematic review/consensus conferencing 5. Mobilising EU funding for Inclusion – ensuring that Structural Funds used for social and active inclusion/support to NGO actors 6. Mainstreaming social inclusion in all policy fields : effective, participative social and poverty impact assessment using / Lisbon held to account.

19. Contact Details Thanks for listening ! For key reports : See EAPN website – www.eapn.euwww.eapn.eu  Building Security, Giving Hope: EAPN assessment of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (2008- 10)  A Stronger OMC, but not enough to make the difference: EAPN proposals for Reinforcing the OMC  EAPN Lisbon Social Inclusion Scoreboard 2008-9: Will the economic crisis deliver a stronger social pillar in Lisbon? For more information contact: Sian Jones, Policy Coordinator, European Anti Poverty Network: sian.jones@eapn.eusian.jones@eapn.eu