1a

EU INCLUSION STRATEGIES GROUP4-5 March 2015

MinutesAttendance: Elke Vandermeerschen (EAPN BE), Stanislav Mrózek (EAPN CZ), Rune Løgstrup (EAPN DK), Mart-Peeter Erss (EAPN EE), Jiri Sironen (EAPN FI), Jeanne Dietrich (EAPN FR), Jürgen Schneider (EAPN DE), Johanna László (EAPN HU), Thorbera Fjölnisdóttir (EAPN IC), Paul Ginnell (EAPN IE), Norberts Snarskis (EAPN LV), Jekaterina Navickė (EAPN LT), Robert Urbé (EAPN LU), Maja Staleska (EAPN MK), Vincent Magri (EAPN MT), Dag Westerheim (EAPN NO), Ryszard Szarfenberg (EAPN PL), Paula Cruz (EAPN PT), Iris Alexe (EAPN RO), Marija Babović (EAPN SR), Slavomíra Mareková (EAPN SK), Graciela Malgesini (EAPN ES), Jimmie Trevett (EAPN SE), Katherine Duffy (EAPN UK), Stephan Burger (Eurodiaconia), Maciej Kucharczyk (AGE Platform) EAPN staff: Amana Ferro, Fintan Farrell, Rebecca Lee, Nellie Epinat (in part)Apologies: Eugen Bierling-Wagner (EAPN AT), Douhomir Minev (EAPN BG), Suzana Jedvaj (EAPN HR), Marina Koukou (EAPN CY), Nicoletta Teodosi (EAPN IT), Sonja Leemkuil (EAPN NL), Sian Jones (EAPN Secretariat) No answer: Maria Marinakou (EAPN GR), Marco Aliotta (CARITAS Europa), Agata D’Addato (Eurochild)

1. Introduction

The meeting debuted with a tour de table, which incorporated a ‘getting to know each other’ activity, where each participant was asked to share a small (or big) victory they feel their Network or Organisation achieved over the past period.

Elke / BE introduced the buddy system for new members – if you would like some more information about our work and the processes, get in touch with the Secretariat, who will pair you up with a more veteran member, willing to answer your questions and support you in your work. Equally, Amana from the Secretariat will stay on after 17h30, if there are any immediate questions or clarifications new members might wish to ask. The agenda of the meeting was adopted. The Action Points of the last meeting were all done.

The Minutes were adopted, with two comments:- The UK report back is missing in page 2- In page 5, Marija Babović is identified as being from Sweden, instead of Serbia.

ACTION POINTNew members who would like a buddy should contact the Secretariat (amana.ferro@eapn.eu) and ask for one.

1

1a

2. Setting the Frame: EU ISG Work Programme 2015 -

2016

Amana / Secretariat briefly went through the Work Programme 2015, highlighting what has been done. This programme is available on the Members’ Room on EAPN’s website (click here, username: eapn; password: 1515) and it is updated regularly with links to our work. She then presented the proposed Work Programme for 2016, based on the EU ISG Advocacy Strategy, EAPN’s Strategic Plan, and EAPN’s overall work programme (as endorsed by the General Assembly and as submitted to the European Commission). Most of the items in it will be picked up for more detailed discussion in specific sessions during the two days now.

Reactions to the Work Programme - Katherine / UK – Will EAPN be doing any work on the UK referendum? Perhaps we

should produce an EAPN statement about the implications of Brexit on poverty; also, do the proposed meeting dates for June take into account the referendum.

- Jiri / FI – Does the Alter Summit still exist, and are we still engaged with it?- Johanna / HU – Can the October meeting be after the 17th of October, because we

are all busy before that?

Amana / Secretariat explained that the dates in June were indeed chosen keeping in mind the UK referendum, but about October, we are looking at the first week, as it is a combined event (EU ISG, EXCO, GA, and capacity building) and we are also trying to have it outside of Brussels, so it depends on the hosting network, too. Regarding the Alter Summit, we used to be very engaged, now less because of less of resources, and because some meetings are out of Brussels, and we don’t have the funding for it. However, we are keeping an eye on it.

ACTION POINTMembers who are interested in the Alter Summit or are working with their structures at a national level should contact the Secretariat (amana.ferro@eapn.eu).

The Work Programme for 2016 was agreed.

3. Europe 2020 / European Semester – Getting more impact!

Amana / Secretariat made a brief introduction of Europe 2020 and the European Semester highlighting changes and new elements, and referring to the upcoming Toolkit on Stakeholder Engagement, which the Secretariat prepared every year.

Questions for clarification- Where is the Toolkit on the website? – On the public website, under Resources /

Policy Toolkits - the 2015 edition, at the moment; the updated one will be sent by email.

2

1a

- Can we work on housing for refugees? It might be a contribution to save Schengen from collapsing. – We will have a session tomorrow morning on members’ priorities, and that is the place to bring that discussion up.

ACTION POINTS If members manage to obtain the Guidance Note for the NRPs from their Governments, please share it with the Secretariat (amana.ferro@eapn.eu). The Secretariat will finalise the Toolkit and will send it to members as soon as possible.

Work in buzz groups: How have people managed to engage at the national level?

LV, MT, IC, Eurodiaconia – Iceland is not a Member State, so no engagement. Malta – the Government does not take Europe 2020 seriously and doesn’t promote engagement. Latvia – resolution of the PEP Meeting was forwarded to the Government, which was well received and led to meetings with the ESO, the Prime Minister, and other (but need to see how it works regarding the upcoming NRP). LU, CZ, DE – We had new people in our group, so we did mainly ‘buddy work’, clarifying the processes. Luxemburg – situation deteriorated last year, no involvement of civil society, because the Government and the ESO are focussed mainly on the social partners.

LT, NO, MK – Macedonia and Norway are not Member States. Lithuania – not a lot of active engagement, it is also difficult to mobilise member NGOs. Macedonia – unstable Government and political climate, very difficult to engage.

RO, EE, FR, SK - Slovakia – there was a conference in December, but the focus seems to be on jobs and employment, not so much on the social dimension. Romania – there are elections soon, so it is hard to engage during an electoral campaign. Estonia – discussions started about in-work poverty. France – managed to discuss the CSRs with the European Commission representation, which was a first, but also, our social input was not taken on board.

UK, PT, HU – In the UK, it is difficult to find consensus between the four countries, and he main work was on the Income Recommendation and the child poverty target. Portugal and Hungary were both involved in the pilot project, which was extremely beneficial.

PL, DK, FI + AGE Platform – In Finland and Denmark, the process around the European Semester is very far from the realities of people experiencing poverty and from civil society. In Poland, not all NGOs manage to have access, but EAPN Poland is involved with a platform bringing together trade unions and employers, so they have slightly better access. Poland has achieved its national poverty target already two years ago, so EAPN PL is trying to get the Government to revise the target – they are not open to that, but they managed to obtain one annual meeting focussing on poverty.

IE, ES, SR, BE – Belgium – people are starting to have an interest in engaging in Europe 2020, and the Toolkit has been very helpful. In Spain, they have a group of different stakeholders, the Platform of the Third Sector, of which EAPN is a part, which is very engaged and trying

3

1a

to have influence. Ireland – working group on Europe 2020, but also national alliance set up two years ago as part of the Semester Alliance, which enabled them to have a lot of engagement with our ESO.

Introduction to the Country Reports

Amana / Secretariat explained what the Country Reports are and where they fit in the structure of the European Semester. She also introduced the process outlined in the Background Note, about the work that we will be doing together to assess them – both in small groups after lunch, as well as after the meeting, through the questionnaire and Report.

4. Learning from national engagement – Europe 2020 / European Semester

Pilot Projects on Europe 2020

Amana / Secretariat – In 2015, we had some funding available for national networks to develop pilot projects, at national level, to raise awareness on Europe 2020 and the Semester, to improve knowledge of and engagement with these processes on the ground. Full information on this initiative, including on each of the five pilots, with links to the main outputs, can be seen here: http://www.eapn.eu/en/what-we-do/projects/eapn-supports-national-pilot-projects-on-europe-2020-and-the-european-semester

Portugal & Bulgaria – It was a very positive experience. People in Portugal are not very aware about Europe 2020 and the Semester process, so it was very useful. The outputs were also useful – we produced a video with key messages (available online, only in Portuguese), a report summarising main activities and conclusions (in English), and we are currently working on a Europe 2020 explainer (in Portuguese). The project also helped strengthen the links with the European Semester Officer, but it also helped forge alliances at the national level, including with people experiencing poverty. In Bulgaria, the project also produced a national alliance. We had a transnational seminar together in Lisbon, where they presented their work.

Serbia and Macedonia – We are both candidate countries, so not yet part of the Europe 2020 project. We hence produced an implementation report for South-East Europe 2020, however we concluded that this strategy shouldn’t be implemented, as it is a neoliberal approach with no social dimension. There is a lot of emphasis on labour mobility. There will be economic reform programmes, but apparently there will include a social dimension. Aside the shadow report, we also formulated recommendations for future engagement.

Spain and Italy – Our project focussed on the invisibility of the gender dimension in Europe 2020, despite the rises in female poverty in every Member State. We conducted a thorough desk research first, incorporating work done by the European Parliament on the subject (2013). Women are expected to join the labour market (often on precarious contracts and

4

1a

low wages), while domestic and care responsibilities still fall disproportionally on them. The European Institution on Gender Equality (EIGE) produces very interesting indexes, with gender segregated data. The final report is about 90 pages, you can see it online (in English, being translated into Spanish and Italian). It has two chapter – voices of women in poverty in Italy, and in Spain. In Italy, it was very successful, and raised political interest on the topic. We had a press release, and we will launch our report on the 8th of March.

Fintan / Secretariat – The Commission is pleased that the employment rate for women is increasing, but EAPN raises questions about the quality of the jobs offered to women, which is a very important point. Under the last Portuguese Presidency of the EU, a report on gender and poverty was released, and the work we are doing with the upcoming Slovakian Presidency includes pushing for a revision of this report, and an event on the subject, so it would be useful to link up to the work of the pilot project and build on the report for this purpose.

Hungary and Croatia – The project was a great opportunity for us, also because we have very different profiles, the Hungarian network is more grassroots, whereas the Croatian one is more academic. We are dealing with many common issues, including the refugee crisis. We had productive exchanges about issues such as community management and how to deal with the press. We had a symposium in Croatia, before their elections, which served as the only open debate where the candidates were asked about the poverty target. In Hungary, we organised an event called Days of Games to Raise Social Awareness, transforming board games like Monopoly to apply to situations of poverty, which attracted a lot of young people, some of whom became activists and volunteers with the Hungarian network. We also used the methodology of Paulo Freire of ‘the theatre of the oppressed’, which worked very well and was very powerful. It was an extremely successful experience, and we are continuing our cooperation with Croatia in the framework of another project.

Ireland – We are the only ones who didn’t have another partner. We focussed on two publications: 1. Using the Toolkit that EAPN produced, we transformed that into a tool that could be used at the national level; 2. A Briefing on poverty, with recommendations for the upcoming year. We wanted to use this also a lobby tool for the elections which took place in Ireland last Friday. A section is dedicated to what an anti-poverty strategy may look like, to try to influence political parties’ manifesto, as well as the next Government.

National Semester Alliance pilots

Amana / Secretariat – In 2014, EAPN received funding from the European Commission to lead what is called the Semester Alliance, a cross-cutting coalition, bringing together social, environmental, and rights organisations, to have a more comprehensive look at Europe 2020 and the Semester process, to render it more social, sustainable, democratic, and participative. The Alliance was very successful and, despite the lack of funding, it continues on a voluntary basis, and it is still very active in Brussels. Aside the European dimension, funding was available to pilot such cross-cutting alliances in three countries – Bulgaria, Denmark, and Ireland, all led by our National Networks in these Member States.

5

1a

Ireland – We set up the Better Europe Alliance, which worked better in 2014, when we had funding for it. We developed proposals on Europe 2020 and input to the Country Specific Recommendations, met with representatives in the Parliament and Government, as well as with the European Commission. We have been a little less active once funding ceased, but we are still meeting and discussing, and we produced an analysis of the CSRs last year. It has helped us consolidate our stakeholder status, and gain better access to key decision-makers.

We do not have Bulgaria present, and Denmark was not prepared to intervene, but full information about the work of the Semester Alliance at the European level, as well as updates about the national pilots, can be found on the Alliance blog here: https://semesteralliance.net

ECFIN Stakeholder Dialogue feedback

Amana / Secretariat – We traditionally engage with DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, but social policy is a shared competence between Member States and the EU, while economic policy is an exclusive competence of the EU, who can tell Member States what to do. This is why it is very important to also engage with economic policy and economic actors, as economic decisions often have a significant impact on social policies. Since last year, we started engaging with DG ECFIN, in the framework of a stakeholder dialogue with civil society they initiated, and this year we were invited again, which is a victory for EAPN, as it establishes us as a credible interlocutor and recognises the important work that we do.

Graciela / ES – We met for one day and a half with different people in DG ECFIN. They are trying hard to show that they are not living in a bubble and are not disconnected from reality. Democratic accountability came up several times in the debate, because even national Parliaments are being marginalised in this dialogue. One of their proposals was to reduce the tax on labour and consumption, and move it on housing instead, which would hit people in poverty tremendously. There was also an announcement about the Social Pillar, that a communication will be coming out on the 8th of March. Our input was centred on presenting the conclusions of our NRP report, its key messages and recommendations. We were told that Europe 2020 as such may not continue, and there is little willingness to talk about the targets, which is worrying.

Jiri / FI – EAPN’s messages were very strong and well presented, and the AGE Platform, CARITAS, and FEANTSA were also present. It is very good to have this dialogue, but it is not a real partnership or consultation, where we feel that we can have structured, meaningful input, it is more a discussion. The social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union was not as present in the debate as it could have been, but it was a very good experience.

Maciej / AGE Platform – We also managed to have three participants (from MT, NL, SI). It was a good opportunity to have access to interlocutors who are not usually available, but it is also worrying that this is becoming a parallel process, because DG Employment was not

6

1a

really present. This means little coordination with DG Employment, it means DG ECFIN is taking its own approach, rather than contribute to an integrated one. Maybe civil society organisations could go back to the Commission and ask about the follow-up of these meetings, as well as what are the links with DG Employment.

5. Working Groups: Exchange on the Country ReportsSee separate document for full notes on the group discussions, and below for the report in plenary for each of them.

Plenary feedback from the Group Work

GROUP 1 - The Country Reports are better, more social, and they pick up on our input; they

provide a snapshot of the situation, but there is no in-depth analysis of the causes, and no solutions are proposed (slight exception – Ireland and Spain).

- Macroeconomic concerns (balancing budgets, reducing deficits) are still the main driver, and social issues take a much less prominent role.

- The social impact of proposed macroeconomic measures, especially of cuts and austerity, is not highlighted in the Reports.

- Poverty and inequality are on the rise, particularly for specific groups (for example, children).

- Key issues: taxation versus investment; housing (evictions, homelessness, inability to pay mortgages, unaffordable rents

or prices, insufficient housing supply); adequate social protection and minimum income (adequacy, coverage, take-up).

- The alternative Recommendations of our members largely stay the same as last year, which is rather worrying…

- It would maybe be a good idea to look at some sort of capacity building on tax issues.

GROUP 2

- The main focus is still on economic issues, though there is a slight improvement on how social issues are dealt with (still with a narrow focus on employment though).

- There is a slight slow recovery in some countries, unemployment seems to be going down, but challenges for specific groups (youth, asylum-seekers, extremely vulnerable groups) remain.

- Corruption is still an issue in some countries.- Concerns about education, which is not inclusive, segregation remains.- Social policies mainly are seen through a labour market – activation lens. - There are significant gaps – regarding absolute poverty, quality of social services,

housing and homelessness, Roma inclusion. - Serbia doesn’t have a Country Report, but has a progress report regarding accession,

also very focussed on economic issues or other issues, such as freedom of media,

7

1a

and social aspects are only marginally mentioned, and again it employment-focussed.

- We need to find ways to reach out to national Parliaments to get them more involved.

GROUP 3 - The Reports are rather positive, but the context is still one of austerity and

predominance of macroeconomic concerns, so many things are overlooked.- Facts and figures are rather accurately presented, but taken at face-value and the

text doesn’t go into details and does not propose concrete recommendations to address real situations.

- Specific groups are mentioned in a number of countries – child poverty, women, Roma, rural poverty, etc.

- Housing a big concern, eg social housing, as well as housing affordability, and push for women to work yet no childcare (SK).

- Pension system in Malta is not working.- Many elements are still missing in the Reports: health, education (UK), migration &

housing (MT), long-term solutions on prevention (DK), housing, in-work poverty, over-indebtedness, long-term unemployment (CZ), measures for working age population between 35-50, housing affordability, energy prices and minimum wage remaining low (SK), homelessness, better links between macroeconomic and social policies (RO), child poverty, social services, over-indebtedness, intragovernmental cooperation & community involvement (LT).

- Recommendations / thoughts for action we could take: we need to be economists to react! (UK), create a space for NGO interaction (DK), childcare, school absenteeism and pensions (MT), absorption and over-reliance on EU funds, monitoring of implementation (RO), debt relief (SK), over-indebtedness, child poverty, inequality, health, education, community involvement (LT).

ACTION POINTS Members to fill in the questionnaire and send it back to the Secretariat (amana.ferro@eapn.eu) by 15 March. The Secretariat will draft the assessment report by end March, circulate it for final comments and input, and finalise by mid-April.

6. Member Exchange: EAPN projects

Short update on EAPN EU projects: ESF, FEAD, EMIN

Fintan / Secretariat – EAPN has been aiming to develop a project approach in recent years, to diversify the sources of funding for the organisation, but also to diversify our work and working relationships with other actors (academics, local authorities etc). We submitted 14 project applications, and about 7 of them were successful. Some are small-scale engagement (sitting on advisory boards etc), but some require more consistent engagement. Out of the 7 projects currently ongoing, 4 are led by National Networks. There is a project led by the Serbian network on building a Balkan network, there is a project on

8

1a

journalism led by the Austrian network, there is a project of the Macedonian network called “Not in my backyard”. There is a difference between tenders, where you are subcontracted to deliver something specific, and grants, where you can apply with your own idea (and come up with 20% matching funds). Tenders don’t require matching funds, and are better seen by the European Institutions. But both imply a trade-off.

Two important projects are ongoing at the moment. One of them is on the FEAD (Fund for the Most Deprived, previously food aid). This is a call for tender, so it is a service contract, trying to manage exchanges between Member States about how they are delivering this aid. 9 National Networks are involved, trying to organise national stakeholder meetings to provide input. We are currently doing an evaluation with the members involved, to see if it was a helpful exercise or not. We are also trying to see if it is possible to secure additional funding for more such meetings to take place at the national level. There will be a conference organised on the 2nd and 3rd of June – no certainty who of the Networks received the invitation or not, and there is no obligation to attend, but it could be interesting.

The other project is that EAPN is officially the thematic expert on social inclusion for the transnational exchanges under the European Social Fund. We have about 40 days to manage three meetings of the National Authorities responsible for the inclusion part of the spending of the ESF. The first meeting took place in December, and a second meeting is foreseen, where Member States are able to bring a second person (stakeholder) for this meeting, so some EAPN members will be attending. On the agenda of the second meeting is also how Member States are involving stakeholders at the national level.

EMIN 1 worked well, and had both some visibility, and some impact. We engaged with the European Parliament to make sure that there was funding for a next round, and we were successful, though it wasn’t easy. We need to distinguish between EAPN’s National Networks, and the Minimum Income Networks, which should be a different entity, bringing together more actors (trade unions, local authorities, academics etc). Together with the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), we are trying to have a conference in the European Parliament, to report on the results of the project.

The ETUC are also project partners for EMIN 2, which poses some challenges, but also brings some advantages. The ETUC will try to push their national affiliates (national trade unions) to become part of national Minimum Income Networks. The aim is also to strengthen public authorities, although they can’t be part of the Networks per se, and there will be two meetings with them. We are also required to spread the conclusions of the Reference Budgets project, so there will be an event showcasing this. The project will be managed by EAPN, but the advisory board of the project will include other actors as well. There are 16 work packages at the moment – peer reviews, work with the public sector, communications etc. European Organisations will be involved in different ways. Regarding the involvement of National Networks, an email was sent with all relevant information. About 10400 euro will be available for each National Network. The call asks that we focus on 15 countries (BG, CZ, GR, EE, ES, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI), which have inadequate income schemes, have very poor dialogue, or CSRs on the topic.

9

1a

Johanna / HU – It would be good to receive some feedback on the email we sent in reaction to the proposal, around the participation of people experiencing poverty and other issues.

Jiri / FI – Do we know the timeline, when will we know if we’ve won it, when does the work start? Is it possible to use the money in different ways, or are we obliged to use it towards the salary of the national coordinator?

Fintan / Secretariat – We hope that experts by experience will be on the bus at all times, contributing their expertise, also on the Steering Committee. We are hoping to have an answer to our proposal before the summer, and start activities around September. As it is a call for tender, financial reports are not required, but members are strongly encouraged to keep detailed track of expenses. One person needs to be nominated coordinator, but the work could be split between several people.

Elevator presentations of members of current or new projects

Elke / BE – The Walloon Network on Access to Energy is not a member of our network, but we work very closely together on energy poverty, and we are colleagues in the Vulnerable Consumers group. They are looking for partners for an energy poverty project they are currently developing, to train those working with people experiencing poverty. It employs innovative educational tools, and some of the project is about developing these tools, to raise awareness on energy poverty and empower people to engage with it. The deadline is very short, it is the end of March. If interested, please contact Elke elke.vandermeerschen@bapn.be and Aurélie Ciuti – aurelie.ciuti@rwade.be.

Stephan / Eurodiaconia – The European Commission launched a call for proposals on non-discrimination and Roma integration, supporting both national and transnational actions, on combatting negative stereotypes against Roma. It is particularly interesting in exchanges of best practices, as well as empowering Roma women and children. The Finnish member of Eurodiaconia is looking for partners for this project. The deadline is 12 April. If you are interested, please contact Stephan - stephan.burger@eurodiaconia.org

Norberts / Latvia – We are working on a proposal for legislation in Latvia on social entrepreneurship. If you have any input that you think could be useful, please contact Norberts - norberts.snarskis@gmail.com

7. Member Exchange: What’s On Top? Members’ Priorities?

Migration crisis, refugees, asylum seekers

10

1a

Norberts / LV – The Government says that refugees and asylum seekers should receive a guaranteed income of 250 euro, instead of the 50 euro which is the guaranteed income for Latvians. It was a starting point for a debate on the cost of living in Latvia.

Vincent / MT – For the past year, almost nobody came by boat to Malta, they all want to go to Italy and avoid Malta at all cost – because we are an island, so once there, people are stuck, whereas Italy is mainland Europe. The Italian government has not complained. But there are still migrants coming by plane, from places like Vietnam, North Korea etc. The Jesuit Refugee Service does a lot of work to defend the rights of these people, especially in Court. For the time being, there is work available for them, which is also a ‘pull’ factor. The media is not very sensitive in dealing with these issues, so sometimes it becomes a very emotional subject.

Elke / BE – We have some worrying developments, especially since the Paris attacks, as all refugees are regarded as potential terrorists. We have the army in the streets, and nobody questions that anymore. The media are also playing a key role, and not a very positive one. Fear at the dismantling of the ‘jungle’ at Calais. One mayor at the coast went as far as to urge people ‘Don’t feed the refugees’. Much volunteerism, also from new groups outside the social sector.

Mart / EE – We do not have any refugees, nobody wants to come, because we are a small and cold country, without a lot of benefits. The biggest issue is housing, so it is high time to start a debate on housing at the European level. For now, it is dealt with at a municipality level.

Jeanne / FR – The situation in France has shifted very recently. EAPN FR in favour of an EAPN statement, with Babelea having much to say. We now have an issue in Calais, the so-called ‘Calais jungle’. The UK does not want the people in Calais to come over, so an agreement is currently being negotiated, but there are children stranded in Calais, while their parents are already in the UK. It was said that 30.000 migrants would be welcome in France, over two years, but Germany thinks it’s too little. Social housing solutions are places where nobody wants to go, because they are far away from public transport, services, job opportunities etc.

Jiri / FI – We received ten times more than the usual number of migrants we usually have, which has created panic and has fuelled the extreme right parties, but it also sparked support (volunteers, NGOs etc). Estimate that only a third will stay. Housing is of course one big issue. It is important not to have groups fighting against each other for rights and resources. Government tries to split the benefits system to give refugees less and so dissuade them. EAPN FI will discuss the two issues: poverty & refugees on Europe day in May.

Katherine / UK – People are caught between providing a humanitarian response and fear due to security issues. The scale of the problem means that people are afraid they can’t cope, when we already have a serious situation of austerity cuts affecting the most vulnerable. Historically, the UK has taken people after wars, so what’s changed now is austerity. It is also a foreign policy crisis, because the UK is also bombing the Middle East.

11

1a

There apparently is money for bombs and for renewing Trident, yet support for these people is still supposed to come out of social budgets. People use the terms (economic) migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers interchangeably, which further confuses the issue. No matter how much we make it hard for them, how much we cut support and services to them, they will still come, as it is still a better life than the war zones and failed states they are leaving behind.

Maja / MK – We have an issue because of our border with Greece, and the Government said every person has 3 days to transit Macedonia and get out. Also, only people coming from Syria or other war zones are allowed, so many people are stuck at the border between Macedonia and Greece, and they get frustrated, they attacked the police with stones… Pride in the big help Macedonians have offered, but it’s still a problem.

Marija / SR – We are also a transit country, and we also have people stranded there, as they can’t move to the EU, and they can’t go back. EU policy is completely wrong, it focuses on restrictions, rather than being evidence-based. During the war in Yugoslavia, Serbia, which is a country of 7.5 million people, received 600.000 refugees, plus 100.000 displaced people from Kosovo, and Germany took on one million people – and we didn’t have all these discussions at the time. There is no tracing of people on the move, for instance, children get medicated in every camp they stop at, without any medical records or control. They will built one centre between Macedonia & Greece. 500 people broke through to Croatia forcibly, showing how desperate people are.

Robert / LU – Our Constitution says that, in case of external attack, some rights may be rescinded temporarily, and some freedoms are suspended. Rights are set at borders. Now the Constitution is changed to extend that to internal attacks, so our civil rights and liberties are in danger.

Amana / Secretariat – At EU level, the facilitation of the arrival and stay of third country nationals in the EU is currently penalised, including those who try to help (with food, water, shelter) any person who is on EU territory without the right and documents to do so. This extends to penalising smugglers, some of whom are not looking to exploit or make a profit, but offer a sole lifeline for people to get out of war zones and failed states, so there needs to be a nuanced treatment. The Social Platform, of which EAPN is an active member, will prepare input to the European Commission, addressing these issues.

Paul / Chair – There are some red threads: freedom of movement is being given up, even in the Schengen area; things that we take for granted are being criminalised; media portrayals versus solidarity; housing.

Fintan / Secretariat – It is difficult to come up with a quick EAPN response, given the complexity of the issue. We could have some kind of statement on the humanitarian issues, but we need to build our work up on migration first, in order to have a proper position.

Brexit – EU Referendum concerning EU membership

12

1a

Katherine / UK – There is little discussion in Britain about the concessions Cameron managed to negotiate, because this is not the issue, nobody cares. There are restrictions on the freedom of movement for workers, and on their access to benefits. But this was a political move, to divert votes from the UKIP. The mentality still hasn’t changed much from “Britain AND Europe”, as opposed to “Britain IN Europe”. The Labour Party is led by a man who is an old leftist, but not a convinced European, as they believe that the EU is a neoliberal conspiracy, so their stance on it is not very strong. Conservatives are split in half. There already is a high rate of net migration, most of it from other Member States, even before the refugee crisis. The media is not helping, as they are rather supporting the ‘out’. Debates are at a very low level. Foreign policies are not criticized as 80% of the media favours them, being in the hands of Rupert Murdoch who fell out with the EU. The UK is the first military power in Europe, the 5th biggest economy in the world, 60 million people, third biggest contributor to the EU budget (putting in much more than we get out). Had the migration crisis been managed better, the situation could have been different.

Robert / LU – There was a debate in the Parliament about this, after the last round of negotiations in Brussels. The general feeling is that it would be a pity, but also that we can’t do anything about it.

Graciela / ES – We received ten million people in ten years, but other countries didn’t notice. This is not a new phenomenon, it’s just that now we are talking about it, because they are white now and want to go to the rich North and not stay in the South any more. This is new, and the EU doesn’t have the political tools to deal with it. So I don’t believe that the migration crisis is behind the Brexit. Norberts / LV – Many Latvians moved to the UK. 12% of Latvia’s GDP comes from remittances from Latvians in the UK. As mentioned, we are negotiating with the Government to get social supports up, also to prevent people from leaving.

Fintan / Secretariat – We know we have a demographic crisis in Europe, so if we look at the numbers of workers we will need in a few decades, the numbers of people coming in are not that scary anymore. If we had open borders, this might lead to Member States having more responsible foreign policy, but can’t happen all at once. The reality is that we have open borders, but it hasn’t led to cooperation. Germany demanded cooperation on the refugee crisis from Greece, when they didn’t offer any cooperation on the Greek crisis. It is logical that people in the UK think the EU can’t organise properly, but then the UK has behaved over the last ten years in a way to prevent common social policy. We still don’t have the mentality that we are all in the European Union and need to think about issues and tackling them together.

Jimmie / SE – Politicians in Sweden are very afraid of the UK leaving, so there is a lot of talk about it, including in the media.

Mart / EE – There is discussion in Estonia about the UK limiting benefits for migrant workers, but this is not seen as a problem, for two reasons. First of all, it is believed that if people go to another country to work, they should work, not go to receive benefits. Second, there is great concern about the loss of workforce and brain-drain from many Eastern European countries, so such deterrents may limit the exodus of our qualified labour.

13

1a

Amana / Secretariat – Aside the direct implications for the UK and for the European Union if the UK leaves, there is also the important issue of the precedent it creates. No country has ever, voluntarily or involuntarily, left the EU (Greenland is a different situation), whereas there is no telling what will follow a potential Brexit, people are already speaking of a Czexit. Also, there is discussion about why does the UK get to negotiate preferential treatment and special deals, and pick and choose what it wants, whereas all other Member States have to obey to whatever the EU decides.

Katherine / UK – It is naive to think that other countries don’t negotiate, they are just less vocal about it. The UK can shift ground as they don’t have majority support with the first-past-the-post system. The UK is not just the bad boys though – it has good things to offer on race, gender, liberal history. And music. It needs to be better on solidarity.

Paul / IE – There would be new borders for Northern Ireland if the UK were to leave.

8. EU Policy Update and Progress on EU Social Pillar

Amana / Secretariat presented a PowerPoint on policy updates, and answered clarification points about the process around the Pillar on Social Rights, which is supposed to deliver on a Social Triple A for Europe, and complete the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union. The process is: a Green Paper on 8 March, underpinning a public consultation till the end of the year, which will lay the foundations for a White Paper in early 2017.

ACTION POINTS The Secretariat will circulate the link to the European Pillar on Social Rights paper on the 8th of March as soon as it comes out. Members are invited to share their quick reactions by email. The Secretariat will propose next steps, including the preparation of a full response, based on these reactions, and circulate to members for approval.

Peer Review in the Netherlands: Social Community Teams against Poverty

Graciela / ES – I presented the EAPN input to the review of Social Community Teams. Representatives from BE, CZ, DK, FI, IE, LI, MT, PL, LV, RO, NL, with comments from ESN. They explained how social services are managed in countries, and how this compares to the community team approach.The idea is to decentralise social services in the context of austerity, with cuts of 30%. King Baudouin said that the new model is an individual view of welfare. The Netherlands had a classic model of social & employment services, and now uses multi-dimension intervention with people in community teams. Municipalities seem to take different models though. Some analyse models; others stick to a more classical approach of one contact point and case being analysed, then people being transferred to specialists. The EAPN paper written by Graciela is critical.

14

1a

Katherine / UK – I struggle to see if it’s new or innovative, and I didn’t see any evaluation either.

Graciela / ES – There is a problem of decentralization without reference to national standards, with the possibility that rich municipalities make good teams and poor ones not. If the person moves, they begin from scratch. It makes people responsible for poverty, rather than making it structural. This is unacceptable for us. Synergy is better, but the team approach is not really new.

9. Annual Convention & European Meeting of PEP

Fintan / Secretariat – Many other European Organisations (including, in part, EAPN) were criticising the Annual Convention for being a big jamboree, with lots of people and little concrete work, conclusions and outcomes. To respond to that, the Commission tried to build the Convention more around stakeholder dialogue, so a number of thematic meetings were organised in the run-up to the event, and the Convention was supposed to serve as conclusion to those inputs and debates. However, the delay in publishing the initiative on the European Social Pillar has made preparations for the Convention more difficult. So we end up with a lower profile event, and it is not so clear how the Convention will be a decisive event to adopt some agreed directions for the future. Also, there were significant changes in the structure of DG Employment, and for the first time ever all people we have been working with have left, and new people are in place. For this reason, we have tried to be a bit less critical of how the event is planned and have tried to contribute as best we can.

Show of hands – most people in the EU ISG will be coming personally, or someone from the networks will. Networks who don’t yet have any representative on the national delegation: UK, PL, SK, RO, HU, SR, BE, LT, MT (maybe Saviour?). Sérgio Aires (PT) will speak in the plenary at the end of the day as an EAPN representative, and Portugal is also involved in the side-event we are organising on the 20% of ESF monitoring (with the European Economic and Social Committee), as the ones who led on our Task Force on this topic. Paul will speak in one of the workshops on the European Semester, and Elke in another. We also have 5 paid places for people experiencing poverty, we are currently trying to identify them, and they will contribute also to the workshop on social convergence. We will also cooperate with ETUC on the workshop on ‘working poor’.

The key messages from the PEP meeting will be finalised by then and presented. Usually at this point we have overall draft Key Messages for the Convention for us to discuss together, but, as they will have to pick up on the Social Pillar consultation document, we will circulate them for endorsement by email.

Jeanne / FR – How will the Commission act? Will there be any attempt to bring in other DGs?

Fintan / Secretariat – The idea was to discuss some conclusions, possibly in the workshops, but this is lost now. The Convention is basically the opening of the consultation, in effect.

15

1a

ACTION POINTS Members to try to engage with their Governments to get places in the national delegations for EAPN. The Secretariat will draft Key Messages for the Convention and will circulate them by email to members for approval.

10. Policy Task Forces

Policy Task Force in 2015

Monitoring 20% of the ESF for poverty reduction

Paula / PT – Many thanks to everybody in the Task Force, to Sian, and to all members who contributed and helped us finalise this report. We also prepared an Infographic, bringing together all the graphics that resulted from the questionnaire. Please disseminate it on your websites as well. We prepared a short document, of 6-10 pages, presenting the Task Force and the main findings of our work, as well as Recommendations. We need to see how to finalise this document with the Secretariat. All documents are in English. EAPN PT is translating it and other networks could perhaps translate the smaller document. There will be a press release, and the outputs will be disseminated to decision-makers and other stakeholders. We now need to think about what kind of follow-up we can envisage for this work, we are suggesting to continue the monitoring of the implementation, maybe through another questionnaire.Graciela / ES – Most funds are dealt with at a regional level, in Spain and other countries, so it would be interesting to also use this information somehow.

Fintan / Secretariat – The question of follow-up is not only a question of resources in the Secretariat, but also the demands placed on members, if questionnaires keep being sent out, asking for more and more information. But this is one of the areas that EAPN has deemed very important for our ongoing work, and we have built significant expertise and are recognised for it, so we need to see how we can manage that with the current resources, in the staff and not only.

Paula / PT – The last EAPN restructuring meant the loss of a Structural Funds Working Group, and people were unhappy about it. EAPN PT will be continuing this work anyway.

Social Innovation Task Force

Marija / SR – Thanks to everybody in the Task Force and to Amana for Secretariat support. The Task Force met three times, and also worked by email in between meetings. What was asked of us was to come up with EAPN’s own definition and interpretation of the concept, also critically discussing the European Commission approach, which is more focussed on business innovation, rather than social. We also developed an analysis of the risks and threats, as well as a checklist, to be able to identify what constitutes good practices. Based on this, we launched a mapping in the membership and collected a number of good

16

1a

practices from the ground. The results were brought together in a Booklet, which was launched in the European Parliament hearing yesterday (with the European Commission, an MEP, other stakeholders) which was rather successful, and we received very good feedback.

Amana / Secretariat – The countries involved in the Task Force were Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, and Spain, and we produced a Briefing on Social Innovation for EAPN members. Additionally, 11 countries submitted 19 good practices, based on which we produced a full Mapping. Both the Briefing and the Mapping are available on the Task Force’s page on the Members’ Room on the EAPN website. The main elements of the Briefing (EAPN’s definition of social innovation, analysis of opportunities, risks, threats, and checklist), as well as 4 best practices, as selected by Task Force members, were brought together in a public product, EAPN’s Booklet on Social Innovation. Special thanks to Marija, chair of the Task Force and author of the Briefing, to all Task Force members, to all who contributed to the mapping, and particularly to Belgium, Portugal, Finland, and Hungary, whose dedicated contribution to finalising the Booklet under extremely short deadlines was essential.

Policy Task Force in 2016

Poverty and Human Rights

Paul / IE – This Task Force was proposed at the last meeting, and voted highly by members of this group. An email was sent out to ask for applications, and the Steering Group of the EU ISG has selected yesterday 6 candidates out of the 11 applications received. The members of the Task Force are: EAPN Denmark (proposer), EAPN Belgium, EAPN Finland, EAPN Ireland, EAPN Macedonia, and the International Federation of Social Workers. The Task Force will only meet twice during 2016. Amana from the Secretariat will provide support to this Task Force, and she will be in touch with selected candidates to confirm their engagement, and to set a date for the first meeting, already before the summer. Katherine / UK – There should be more transparency with regard to the selection procedure, with clear criteria and scoring sheets made public. As it stands, it feels like an arbitrary decision behind closed doors, with no accountability and no explanation given to those who have been rejected. It often seems that smaller countries are picked.

Amana / Secretariat – When we had more Task Forces, including on communication, participation, membership development etc, the Bureau used to make the decision on their membership. Since the Task Forces are only concerned with policy, this responsibility was delegated to the EU ISG Steering Group. However, the process has not changed, and scoring sheets and explanations were never made public in the past. If you want to re-discuss this process and make it more transparent, that is an option. Regarding criteria, those were clearly specified in the Terms of Reference of the Task Force, which accompanied the call for applications when it was sent out. Gender and geographical balance concerned were also taken into account.

Fintan / Secretariat – Any selection is always a contentious process. When we recruit staff, we have scoresheets, but we didn’t think we should be so rigid about Task Forces. It is the

17

1a

same situation with the applications we receive for support from the EAPN Fund, some Networks get chosen, and some don’t. It is always very difficult to say no, but at the end of the day, a selection needs to be made. We can discuss the criteria and look at the bigger/smaller country issue.

Asylum-seekers and refugees / migration

Paul / IE – This Task Force was originally proposed by EAPN Italy and EAPN Spain, and Terms of Reference were developed for that. However, the two proposing networks informed, later on, that they are no longer in a position to lead on this Task Force, due to changes in internal and external circumstances. The Steering Group of the EU ISG, together with the Secretariat, worked a lot through emails and Skype meetings to redraft the Terms of Reference, which has now been done. EAPN’s Membership Development Group is also looking at this topic, and planning an online training on it. The situation right now is that we have a redrafted Terms of Reference, but no Network prepared to lead on it, so we are trying to identify now if anybody is up for leading on this Task Force.

Paula / PT – As we explained in an email to the Secretariat, EAPN PT is unable to lead a Task Force this year, and hasn’t even applied for membership in any of them.

Maja / MK – I would need to check back in my network, but we could be interested.

ACTION POINTS The Secretariat will send official emails, on behalf of the Steering Group, to both the selected and the rejected candidates for the Poverty and Human Rights Task Force, and will circulate a Doodle among TF members to set a date for the first meeting. The Secretariat will circulate the redrafted Terms of Reference for the Task Force on Migration / Asylum Seekers / Refugees. Members to check quickly in their Network if they are prepared to lead on this latter.

11. Access to affordable, quality services – housing and health

Amana / Secretariat - Services used to be a key topic for EAPN, and it remains an area of work of utmost importance, so it was felt by this group that it was high time it was brought back on the agenda. Following the initial discussion and exchange at our last meeting in October, housing and health were chosen as key topics for our analysis, and subsequently a questionnaire has been dispatched to members, launching a mapping on these issues. This process was managed by our previous intern, Mihael Topolovec, who put together a document with all responses before the end of his placement with us in December. A Background Note, which includes a suggested structure for the final report, was also produced. We would like, today, to ask for your feedback on this proposed structure of the final product, to deepen the exchange on the two chosen topics, and to decide together next steps for this process. Given the current staff shortages in the Secretariat, as well as the

18

1a

busy schedule of the Europe 2020 / European Semester process in the first half of the year, it is proposed that work on this is slightly delayed towards the summer.

Feedback from small group discussions

PL, DK, FI, BE, SR: A universal approach to service provision is preferable to a targeted one, but then needs to be complemented with specific support for key groups. One issue was that not all illnesses are recognised in all countries. There is a lack of supply of quality housing all over Europe, people are forced to live in settlements and slums. We need to define the concept of quality and what we mean by it, what is quality housing, for instance? Free access to healthcare is very important. The structure of the report is OK, but it would be good to define quality at the beginning – maybe enlisting FEANTSA for defining quality housing.

PT, HU, SK, FR, EE, RO, UK: We focussed on policy solutions at national and EU level – we want to add an integrated strategy concerning social services, employment and housing. Very often, these are disconnected in policy making and in practice, which is not helpful. There are trends to revise legislation on rents in our countries. In France, this was a failure, a cap on rents was proposed, and it cleared Parliament, but the Prime Minister rejected it. The “First House” programme in Romania meant that people who bought houses and then it didn’t work out, could give them back and have the rest of their mortgage excused. Regarding health, there needs to be a reference about health workers, because many belong to the working poor, such as, for instance, nurses etc. Structural Funds could be used for social housing. The idea of the Estonian Government that the free market could provide housing for refugees is unrealistic, it is a poverty trap, people can’t afford it, or they can afford rents, but nothing else. In the Main Obstacles and Causes, there might be some overlap between sections. In Slovakia, Structural Funds can be used for housing, but the issue is the land – private land owners don’t want to sell it, and the State doesn’t want to give more money to buy them out.

MK, NO, LT, DE: We had very different starting points, for instance, between the situation in Macedonia and the situation in Norway, so it may be difficult to draw out common recommendations. Regarding the structure, we want to know what is the goal, how it will be used, who is it aimed at. EAPN’s added value is to bring the voices from the ground, of actual people who use services, rather than experts, so the report should reflect that. It would be good to have quotes, life stories, or other direct examples from people experiencing poverty.

IC, MT, LV, SE: It is good to have an introduction at the beginning of the report. In Iceland, a new draft bill is discussed in parliament for affordable housing for low income families, as many people can’t afford the down payment. In Sweden, there is a lack of accommodation. Many people tend to stay with their parents for a long time. First buyers have a particularly hard time. In Latvia, people own old houses, in need of works and upgrading, but tenants can’t afford proper maintenance. Those who are homeless and have to rely on shelters can’t break the vicious circles and stay in shelters forever, unable to afford accommodation. In Malta, the Government is committed to building new social housing and to provide support with the rent, as well as to opening more centres for the homeless (asking NGOs to run

19

1a

them). There is the possibility for state subsidies for low earners for upgrades or repairs of their houses. In Malta, healthcare is free, hospitals are free, and medicine is free.

Fintan / Secretariat – It is not easy to find a common definition, of either quality health or quality housing, as there are big differences from country to country. However, in the work done on minimum income with reference budgets, and there are quite a few references to quality housing and services in general, which may prove useful.

Marija / SR – We can also look at international organisations and statistical bodies, UN Habitat and EU -SILC have some useful definitions.

ACTION POINTS The Secretariat will send the questionnaire out again, as we received too few responses, and a number of members who haven’t replied would like to do so. Members to send back the filled in questionnaire, together with a) quotes and life stories from people experiencing poverty and service users and b) reference material that can be useful to craft a definition of ‘quality’, to amana.ferro@eapn.eu

12. EAPN Policy Conference

Fintan / Secretariat – This year, we would like to use the conference to have a bit of a more in-depth reflection about post-Europe 2020 and the paradigm we want for Europe. The discussion about merging with the Sustainable Development Goals should be for the next strategy, whereas the remaining years till 2020 should still be used to start reversing the figures on Europe 2020, rather than giving up on it and rushing into the next Strategy already. We would like to propose a three-pronged approach. One big strand is sharing what have we learned in EAPN about engaging with these strategies after 25 years of work, first with poverty programmes, then with the Social OMC, then with integrated strategies like Lisbon and Europe 2020. Maybe what works best is not one or the other, but a merging of all three. Another strand is indeed the Sustainable Development Goals, and how they can be used – but there are also risks, such as poverty, which is defined in absolute terms in the SDGs, and in relative terms in Europe. The final strand is identifying what other ideas are out there about a post-Europe 2020 strategy, we could do a mapping of what exists, and create a panel with possible options.

Regarding dates, the first preference is the 16th of June, and the second preference is the 30th of June. The format will be: the Thursday morning will be dedicated to an internal reflection exercise, done jointly with the EXCO and the EU ISG; Thursday afternoon will dedicated to a public event, presenting our first ideas and dialoguing with others. The objective is to build an EAPN initial perspective about our position, and produce a discussion paper, which could then be taken to the General Assembly for further discussion and endorsement in October. However, we will need to see how the process unfolds. The Steering Group of the EU ISG and the Bureau will need to work together to guide this process.

20

1a

Graciela / ES & Elke / BE – It would be good to interview some key people from the history of EAPN over the past 25 years, to get a flavour of different countries and different perspectives. But, of course, this depends on the resources available. We could also ask people in the Commission or other institutions who have worked closely with us over the years for their contribution. It is also useful to have a more human exchange, and rebuild partnerships with people, beyond our institutional attire.

Jiri / FI – We can also try to get a keynote speaker, someone external, to give us perspective, such as Richard Wilkinson, or somebody of that calibre.

Paul / IE – It is indeed very important to differentiate between the two things, the current strategy and the future one, and ensure that they don’t get mixed up. One thing is delivering on the current strategy and keeping to commitments made, and something else is a broader reflection on the next strategy.

ACTION POINTS The Secretariat will finalise the Concept Paper based on the discussion, submit it for the discussion at the EXCO meeting next week, and subsequently propose a process, with the full engagement of the EU ISG and its Steering Group, as well as EXCO and the Bureau.

13. Final Wrap Up

Next meetings

Marija / Serbia – Our next encounter will be two days and a half, on the following format: Thursday morning: internal reflection in the form of a joint session between the EU ISG and the EXCO; Thursday afternoon: public event; Friday all day and Saturday morning: parallel EU ISG / EXCO meeting. The dates we are looking at are either 16-18 June, or 30 June – 2 July, but please do not book till we confirm when it will be. In October, we will have parallel EU ISG and EXCO meetings, as well as General Assembly and a capacity building session. Dates are not fixed, but it should be around 6-8 October – again, please do not book till this is confirmed.

Evaluation

Graciela / ES – It is important to say that organised dinners are paid for in advance, whether you show up or not, so please take that into account next time. The meeting venue was lovely, please use it again.

Jiri / FI – There is a Facebook group, bringing together EU ISG and EXCO members, to facilitate exchanges between us. Please join, while keeping in mind that not everybody is on Facebook, and it is not to be used as an official information channel for the Secretariat, so please continue to use email for important communications that need to reach everybody.

21