Quartiers en Crise - European Regeneration Network

This is the central goal of this project. In year one a concept framework and methodology has been developed. The first version formed the basis for discussion at the Prague peer review. Subsequently, a second version was produced based on the discussion in Prague and feedback from the LDGs. This formed the basis of further discussion at the second peer review in Rome. Subsequently, a third version was produced and this formed the basis for further discussion amongst the LDGs. The version presented in this report therefore constitutes the fourth version of the document. This will be subject to further discussion, addition and refinement in year two of the project.

The methodology and framework for local and regional action planning is seen as a resource that will empower local/regional actors to develop action plans that relate to EU priorities and provide a means for feeding into Naps.

Section Two provides the policy context. The aim here is to ensure that local/regional actors are "tuned in" to the EU policy context.

Section Three introduces a nine step methodology for the development, implementation and monitoring of Laps and Raps.

Section Four provides some case studies in terms of local and regional action plans.

Section Five focuses on measuring impact. The aim is to enable local and regional actors to be aware of the range of indicators that can be used in relation to developing plans.

Section Six focuses on one of the priority themes agreed by project partners: "Access to the Labour Market for Vulnerable groups". This reflects one of the EU priority policy issues. The Section provides an overview of the issue, case studies and suggested indicators relating specifically to this theme.

Section Seven provides some initial conclusions and outlines the key steps for year two.

Firstly, the need for such a tool is evident in light of the evaluations of the first two rounds of Naps. The overarching policy challenge that emerges is the need for Member States to ensure that there is a strong vertical and horizontal integration of economic, employment, lifelong learning, cultural, housing, health (including safety) and social policies and that a concern with preventing and eradicating poverty and social exclusion is mainstreamed across all these policy areas. Such a functional mix is essential if an integrated and co-ordinated approach to eradicating poverty and social exclusion is to be achieved.

Secondly, too often the mainstream programmes and initiatives of various levels of government have different goals, budgets and timetables, and are targeted towards different geographical areas. Additionally, policy measures may have unintended consequences. Sometimes, measures intended to solve certain problems work against each other or create barriers to action at lower governmental levels. The result is fragmentation of effort, reducing the potential impact of programmes and resources. Better vertical integration is required.

The primary target group for this report are local and regional actors who are active in the field of poverty and social inclusion. The report, however, is also targeted at national and European actors who are directly involved in the development, monitoring and evaluation of Naps. It is hoped that the common framework and methodology will provide a means for creating better links between these different levels.

Since the mid 1970's the EU has been increasingly worried by the persistence and new forms of poverty and social exclusion. The EU Council took its first resolution approving a social action programme to combat poverty in January 1974. This was the origin of the first Poverty Programme (Poverty 1, 1975-80). This was followed by Poverty 2 (1984-89) and Poverty 3 (1989-94) Programmes.

Following the recognition under Articles 136 and 137 EC of the Amsterdam Treaty of combating social exclusion as one of the fields where the Community had an active role in supporting and complementing the activities of Member States, the Lisbon European of March 2000 agreed on the need to take steps to "make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty by 2010".

It also agreed that Member States should co-ordinate their policies for combating poverty and social exclusion on the basis of an open method of co-ordination combining common objectives, National Action Plans and a Community Action programme. A range of common indicators was also established: common indicators

In December 2000 the Nice European Council decided to launch the new method in the field of combating poverty and social exclusion and defined a common set of four objectives:

To facilitate participation in employment and access to resources, rights, goods, and services for all;
To prevent the risks of exclusion;
To help the most vulnerable;
To mobilise all relevant bodies.

National Action Plans for social inclusion (NAPs/inclusion for short) play a key role in the EU process, to the extent that they translate the common objectives into national policies, while taking into account their individual national circumstances and the particular nature of national social protection systems and social policies.

All Member States submitted their first NAPs/inclusion in June 2001. A second round of plans were produced in 2004 and a third round of plans issued in 2006 for the period 2006-8. After this they will be produced on a three yearly cycle. Details of the NAPs for all member states are available on the following link: National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion

Their preparation provided an opportunity for wide information and consultation of the most concerned stakeholders and to review the bases of the national strategies to fight poverty and social exclusion. It also represented an opportunity to develop a more strategic and integrated approach. Moreover, the information provided in the NAPs/inclusion provided a good basis for the exchange of learning and best practice across the Union.

However, it needs to be noted that this potential has not been very effectively realised in practice. Most significantly, that despite the centrally of the issue of social exclusion in terms of urban policy, the role of cities and regions in the development of National Action plans for Social Inclusion (NAPs) has been ad hoc and somewhat marginal.

The NAPs inclusion are not widely known about or understood either by policy actors involved in inclusion, the social partners or by the target groups themselves. The local level offers an opportunity to engage actors and beneficiaries in a serious discourse about practical action that is impossible in the rarefied atmosphere of government departments at national level.

New Member States have been involved in this process, well before the date of formal enlargement. DG EMPL and each of the Acceding Countries agreed in 2002 to initiate a bilateral co-operation process centred on the drafting of Joint Inclusion Memoranda (JIMs) with the aim of identifying the key social challenges in each country, setting out the major policies in place or envisaged and highlighting a few key policy issues for further review. The JIMs were signed jointly by the Commission and each of the 10 acceding countries on 18 December 2003. This process was designed to prepare the accession countries for their full participation in the social inclusion process, which started in mid-2004 with the submission of their first NAPs/inclusion for the period 2004-2006.

The review of the Lisbon strategy in spring 2005 posed a two-fold challenge for the work under the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) for social protection and social inclusion:

It found a gap between the common European objectives and the policies established to address them - for the OMC, this means that the process should move beyond identifying broad principles to focus on the effectiveness of policies.
While restating the importance of the social dimension of the strategy, it sought a concentration of policy effort on creating higher growth and more and better jobs. Thus close interaction between the social protection and social inclusion OMC, with its focus on providing a high level of social protection and social cohesion, and policies for employment and growth is required.

In response, the Commission's Communication A new framework for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union ( streamline) outlines three overarching challenges for policies in the social protection and inclusion fields.

(a) Promote social cohesion and equal opportunities for all through adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient social protection systems and social inclusion policies

(b) Interact closely with the Lisbon objectives on achieving greater economic growth and more and better jobs and with the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy

The interaction between the OMC and the revised Lisbon process should be a dual one - social protection and inclusion policies should support growth and employment objectives, and growth and employment policies should support social objectives.

Among the Member States, Belgium, Hungary and Finland offer clear examples of this dynamic interaction in their National Reform Programmes (NRPs), by placing social objectives at the heart of their Lisbon planning, stating that their medium-term economic and employment planning should support the future sustainability and development of their social policies.

In the fight against social exclusion, "facilitating access to employment" is at the heart of Member States strategies, even more so given the increased stress on transition to work in recent reforms. Active labour market policies and a review of tax and benefit systems are being carried out, or planned, in most Member States. Where economic and employment performances have been good, and salaries and benefits were comparatively low, as in the Baltic states, employment and inclusion policies have been integrated by linking a rise in benefit levels with a rise in minimum wages, as a means both to spread the benefits of recent growth and enhance incentives to work. A number of Member States outline in their NRPs the important role which immigration is expected to play in sustaining their labour markets in the future. However, acknowledgement of the challenge of integrating immigrants, a big issue in recent NAPs for inclusion, is not evident in the NRPs.

(c) Strengthen governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, implementation and monitoring of policy

One of the key policy messages emerging from work under the OMC is that policy making, and delivery, bears fruit if all actors, branches and levels of government work together. The OMC has had some impact in reinforcing this message, particularly in the social inclusion area. The implementation NAPs of the EU15 reveal a wide spread of measures to improve cooperation between central, regional and local authorities. Good governance also includes the aim of mainstreaming social inclusion concerns in public policy making (including budget setting) and stronger evaluation and monitoring. In both these areas, however progress has been limited.

A number of policy priorities have also been highlighted/reinforced for the 2007-2013 period:

to increase labour market participation,
modernise social protection systems,
tackle disadvantages in education and training,
eliminate child poverty and enhance assistance to families,
ensure decent housing,
improve access to quality services
to overcome discrimination and increase the integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and immigrants.

The Staff working Paper Social Inclusion in Europe 2006 also highlights the need for NAPs to take on board the issue of the concentration of multiple disadvantages in certain urban and rural communities and among some groups. The paper recommends that Member States develop integrated and co-ordinated responses to multiple disadvantages and the needs of groups at particular risk such as people with disabilities, migrants and ethnic minorities (including the Roma), homeless, ex-prisoners, addicts and isolated older people. There needs to be both improved access to mainstream provision and, where necessary, targeted measures.

Finally, three current developments emerge more strongly. These are: challenges linked to increasing immigration; rising health and insurance costs; and the need for affordable care provision for children, disabled and elderly dependants in the light of both demographic change and increasing female labour force participation.

Challenges for the future of the EU social Inclusion strategy include the need for mainstreaming - i.e., to better integrate the NAPs with national policy making, including budgetary processes, and with the revised Lisbon process; better governance – i.e., better mobilisation of actors and links between different levels (national, regional and local) of government and clearer responsibility for implementation, monitoring and evaluation; and better links between the NAPs for inclusion and the Structural Funds, in particular the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund.

As stated above, at an EU level a number of policy priorities have been identified. Of these there are five which have considerable resonance at a local/regional level:

These five priorities should constitute the backbone of the local and regional action plans. Particular local concerns can then be added as a sixth priority or integrated into the existing structure. For example a concern for the digital divide could be included under the third priority: Access to services.

Top

This project is financed by the European Commission through the Community Action Programme to Combat Social Exclusion 2002-2006, Transnational Exchange Programme