ESF Transnational Platform Second Meeting of Partnership TN 29 Feb 1 March 2016, Brussels

Transcription

1 ESF Transnational Platform Second Meeting of Partnership TN 29 Feb 1 March 2016, Brussels Participants: Member State representatives: Caroline Meyers (BE); Ruth Pritchard (Pobal, IE); Kertu Poial (EE); Hanna Hörnlund (SE); Alain Calmes (LU) EU Stakeholders: Aagje Leven (EUFAMI); ANDY Churchill (Network for Europe); Estela Lopez (CPMR); Lisa Schüler (Caritas DE); Ria van Peer (SERV, BE); Liivi Pehk (Equality Commission, EE) European Commission: Marie-Anne Paraskevas (DG EMPL/E); Florence Gérard (EMFF & EAFRD) AEIDL team: Leda Stott (thematic expert); Antoine Saint-Denis (policy expert) DAY 1 Welcome and introduction The meeting was led by Kertu Poial, from EE, in accordance with the rotating lead agreed last year. In her role of Thematic Expert, Leda Stott co-facilitated the meeting. She has been working on partnership for 20 years, being involved in EQUAL and other Learning Networks during the previous ESF programming period. In line with the composition of the Thematic Networks, the Partnership Thematic Network on Partnership (PTN) is a mix, with members from Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies, NGOs from countries and EU-wide stakeholders. Although social partners have expressed interest in the network, only one person came from this group which remains disappointedly underrepresented. Aims of the meeting Leda Stott presented the goals of the meeting as follows: To review our goal and objectives (update new members) To confirm focus areas, activities and outputs for our work To share examples of real-life practice To develop a work plan for the network She pointed out that participating in this network should be instrumental for efficiently implementing the partnership principle enshrined in the European Code of Conduct on Partnership (ECCP). The ambition for the TNP is to share (among stakeholders and countries), explore (practices), question (achievements), come up with good ideas, have access to tools and practices, reflect on what participants are doing in their countries. The TNP should be a safe place in which to exchange information and experience of partnership issues and challenges and report on contextual issues that matter. This should lead to improved mainstreaming of partnership in policy and practice. The Europe 2020 strategy, the Common Provision Regulation and the European Code of

2 Conduct on Partnership are strong drivers for improving partnerships. Yet, most challenges are related to how this can be achieved. The scope of the TNP is now clarified: whereas it is clearly rooted in the ESF Transnational Platform, it should take inspiration from the situation prevailing in the other ESIFs, whose representatives will occasionally be invited to participate. This is consistent with the fact that the thematic objectives 8 to 11 are common to the different ESIFs and that multi-fund approaches are being developed for the first time. The work of the network will have to mainstream two transversal dimensions, namely gender (gender is a principle of inclusion and inclusion is a principle of partnership) and social innovation (working outside of our comfort zones and including new/different actors; bringing the magic of small projects to bigger frameworks). Success will partly depend on the PTN's ability to: Foster more input/members from across ESIFs Get better buy-in from managing authorities Embed the partnership principle in the different policy areas of the ESF. For instance, the 'local employment partnerships' launched by the EU strategy to tackle long-term unemployment could be explored. The Baseline study and self-assessment exercise Participants were able to comment on the draft circulated by the Thematic Expert before the meeting. The final version contains a reference to the EC communication 'Investing in jobs and growth - maximising the contribution of ESIFs' (14 December 2015) and insists on the importance of influencing and motivating policy change. The grid contained in the baseline study was used as a basis for a self-assessment exercise. Participants were invited to fill in a questionnaire during the meeting to explore to what extent the different dimensions of an effective partnership - namely, ownership, accountability and impact - are reflected in their policy environment. The document used will be shared via Dropbox for others to complete. Potential areas for activities Participants discussed a number of proposals for PTN activities that emerged from the last meeting. These included: Clarifying the terminology, in particular the differences between consultation, cooperation and partnership ; Developing common principles, notably by looking across the funds Applying the partnership principle to the areas of the other Thematic Networks Preparing a challenge audit and solutions for addressing problems, with possible international bench marking Providing evidence of partnership added-value Influencing and motivating at policy level Learning from other experiences (CLLD) Gathering tools, tips and resources Developing partnership broker skills Further development of the self-assessment tool Other ideas came out: Monitoring the partnerships in the thematic networks set up in countries

3 Exploring how to promote a 'clause of the most favoured stakeholder' as a mean to enhance the implementation of the partnership principle Developing tools to contribute to the capacity building of members of monitoring committees. Marie-Anne Paraskevas, EC, mentioned that DG EMPL has just finalised a survey about the implementation of the European Code of Partnership. Marie-Anne will provide the link to this shortly. Leda Stott summarised a plan for working on 'tools+tips+skills' to be discussed in more detail on Day 2. DAY 2 Partnership in ESF in Estonia Kertu Poial, from the Ministry for Social Affairs (ESF Managing Authority) in Estonia presented the strategy developed for stakeholder consultation in the process of preparing the Operational Programmes for She discussed the issues and complaints from stakeholders, the problems faced and the results. Liivi Pehk, from the Estonia Equality Body, shared her organisation's experience of partnership in the ESF context. In spite of the official character of the Equality Body, it was difficult to become recognised as a relevant partner in the context of the preparation of the new programmes. Due to the transversal aspect of gender and nondiscrimination issues, the different ministries in charge of drafting the OPs initially tended to consider that the Equality Body was not a partner for reference. Gender equality was registered in the area of social affairs (each ministry had its own list of organisations), which limited the legitimacy of discussing other fields. A strong advocacy strategy had to be developed in order to address this. Also of interest: EQUINET's survey about the level of engagement of equality bodies in Europe 2020 and ESIFs ( Many were not invited to engage. Equality bodies should be proactive and national authorities should be more open. Many were interested in contributing but faced a lack of capacity. Details of the consultation process in Estonia can be found on: The Equality body managed to obtain recognition as a real partner, including the Finance Ministry. The participation process established on paper then became a reality. A commission is now reviewing all OPs in the light of gender. The group then shared information about engagement practices with equality bodies in their country: In Ireland, all departments were invited to react on the comments made by the Equality body. The limit of such a formal review of all ESIF was that it was difficult to get changes since the OPs had already been drafted. In Belgium/Flanders, the consultation process was part of the institutionalised dialogue held in the social tripartite council.

4 In England, most monitoring committees do not have a gender balanced composition. This has a negative effect on their capacity to promote gender equality. In Sweden, who the partners are is quite clear. Participants also discussed closed consultations of selected stakeholders vs. transparency and public consultations of all selected parties: Flanders stated that relationships with a number of umbrella organisations have been established over time. Not everybody should be consulted. Draft calls for proposals are to be approved by a management committee where some organisations have a seat. As a general rule it is important not to ask too much of partners, only what they can deliver. A limit is the lack of a general overview (everybody tends to focus on their own issues so some gaps exist). In Ireland, draft programmes were made accessible online. In addition, some organisations were directly consulted. Those two methods are complementary. Publishing opinions online may generate additional ideas by letting everybody know what different organisations think. In Germany, consultation and participation differed. The programme was developed in partnership with a number of organizations while other stakeholders were consulted at a later stage. PTN Activity Framework Possible framework for our work Influencing and motivating at policy level Developing and sharing tools, skills and resources (Partnership brokering, CLLD. etc) Sharing experiences, challenges and solutions Leda presented the above framework for developing the network s work. The idea is that these areas can be addressed simultaneously. In order to establish a work plan for the network s activities participants discussed:

5 How to get the right balance between a focus on partnership as a process and an interest in partnership as a means to improve policy. The importance of reflecting in the PTN's work that impacting policy and working in partnership is a challenge and can even cause conflict. We need to capture the messiness, the concrete world and the diversity of practice Whether our work should consider the whole policy cycle or particular phases. Participants felt that while there are, for example, many lessons to be drawn from the experience of designing OPs, as the PTN is action-oriented it is best to focus on supporting the implementation phase. The need to work on the articulation between the different levels: projects, programmes and policies. Participants will find all relevant documentation in the Dropbox shared folder managed by Leda Stott. Action Points The next physical meeting will be organised in September. The group agreed to invite a motivational speaker (possibly Ros Tennyson, co-director of the Partnership Brokers Association). Another external speaker, on community-led local development, could be also be invited to a later meeting. Information was shared by Antoine Saint-Denis about a seminar gathering all the nine Thematic Networks' member in June. The European Commission is also willing to hold the annual conference in September about 'the future of the ESF'. Leda Stott offered to work with the group on the following tasks: 1. Paper on Partnership Terminology by mid-march 2. Summary of work of previous Community of Practice - by mid-march 3. Framework + questions for participants to respond to - by end of March 4. Input from group - April (before the June Seminar) - including those unable to attend the meeting, as well as social partners 5. Presentation of information collated - September Kertu Poial reported on her experience as a lead of the PTN as 'not involving so much work, interesting and being an opportunity to bring a relevant topic to the table and engage in discussion'. Ruth Pritchard (Pobal, IE) will assume leadership of the network in June and lead the next meeting. Participants were reminded about the possibility of hosting a meeting in their country. Additional members are still welcome to join the PTN, The information sheet developed after the launch meeting (available via Dropbox) can be used by members to publicise the network.