EU INCLUSION STRATEGIES GROUP5-7 July 2018, Brussels

MinutesAttending: Martina Brandstätter (EAPN AT), Aleksandra Selak Zivkovic (EAPN HR), Stanislav Mrozek (EAPN CZ), Mart-Peeter Erss (EAPN EE), Jiri Sironen (EAPN FI), Guy Janvier (EAPN FR), Jürgen Schneider (EAPN DE), Laufey Ólafsdóttir (EAPN IC), Paul Ginnell (EAPN IE), Letizia Cesarini Sforza (EAPN IT), Elina Alere Fogele (EAPN LV), Rimgaile Matulionyte (EAPN LT), Robert Urbé (EAPN LU), Maja Staleska (EAPN MK), Joe Inguanez (EAPN MT), Sonja Leemkuil (EAPN NL), Eva Karlsen (EAPN NO), Ryszard Szarfenberg (EAPN PL), Paula Cruz (EAPN PT), Stefan Constantinescu (EAPN RO), Marija Babovic (EAPN RS), Slavomíra Mareková (EAPN SK), Graciela Malgesini (EAPN ES), Gunvi Haggren (EAPN SE), Katherine Duffy (EAPN UK), Philippe Seidel (AGE Platform), Laure Drege (Eurodiaconia). EAPN Europe: Sian Jones, Chiara Fratalia, Rebecca Lee, Matteo Mandelli, Claudia Husdup.Apologies: Judith Tobac (EAPN BE), Douhomir Minev (EAPN BG), Marina Koukou (EAPN CY), Per K. Larsen (EAPN DK), EAPN EL, Johanna László (EAPN HU).

1. Introduction

Marija / RS, Chair, opened the session and participants were asked to introduce themselves.

The Minutes were approved. EAPN UK asked to review page 6, whereas EAPN PT asked to review page 14. The Agenda was agreed. All Action Points of the last meeting were done, but more contributions are asked to members on Gender-based violence and on who is responsible for the SDGs Agenda.

The participants were asked to evaluate EAPN’s 2018 Policy Conference, which took place on 5 June 2018 in the morning.

Positive aspects included: overall a positive assessment from the group highlighting high quality of content, speakers and contributions from the floor, the dynamic and participative methodology and the open, bright venue. People valued the mix of participants.

More negative ones: an overloaded agenda, the difficulties faced in talking to strangers during the table discussions and some technical weaknesses such as the lack of interaction with speakers intervening via skype and the fact that people did not received power-point presentations in advance. Finally, members highlighted that, although the conference was rich in contents and the problems were accurately described; it lacked application and a solution-based approach.

Proposals for improvement: They proposed to have more gender-balanced panels of speakers; to invite Members of the European parliament besides people working for other

1

EU institutions (they were invited, but the dates clashed with Strasbourg week); to adopt a harder approach in addressing structural issues; and to give a sense of what is happening on the ground from more people experiencing poverty during the conference.

ACTION POINTS

Members to send more inputs on gender-based violence to EAPN ES within two weeks to Graciela Malgesini (gmalgesini@hotmail.com). Members to send information on who is responsible for the SDG agenda in their countries to Chiara Fratalia (policy@eapn.eu). EAPN UK and EAPN PT to send corrections of the minutes from last meeting in track changes to Chiara Fratalia (policy@eapn.eu).

2. 2018 Work Programme

Sian / EAPN Europe presented the 2018 Work Programme and reminded members that EAPN is not completely free to develop its own agenda, primarily because it is funded by the European Commission, but also for capacity reasons within the policy team and with largely unfunded members, which have prevented EAPN from dedicating forces to more advocacy and lobbying activities outside of the Work Programme. Members pointed out that most of them are busy with the work related to the EMIN Project, which prevents them from doing many other activities.The documents related to the 2018 Work Programme were given to participants and could also be found in the Members’ Room.

3. 2019 Work Programme Priorities

Marija / RS, Chair, introduced the session, asking participants to form buzz groups and to agree on three to five priorities for next year for EAPN, by building on member’s work on the ground or on their interests and what they would like to work on together. This brainstorming exercise was meant to act as a thermometer of where members’ interests lie, rather than an actual decision on future work. The EUISG steering group would hope to see what can be taken up within restrictions of the Commission framework contract, existing work commitments and the broader member survey being carried out in the context of the Strategic Plan

Feedback from discussion in buzz groups

IT, FR, AGE Platform, MK, AT, NL, DE

People experiencing poverty, users involvement 2019 European Parliament elections Different methods of working with the European Commission on the Semester

2

Work against fragmentation at the EU level and against nationalism (linked to elections)

Right to nutrition

LU, IC, SE Involvement of people experiencing poverty Methodology of user involvement and meaningful involvement in policymaking Access to education (especially for people in poverty) Digital divide

PT, HR, UK, Latvia Migration Social Pillar, with special attention to minimum income Structural funds (ESF) Developing new policy narratives in EAPN (not just about communication)

LT, EE, NO, PL Over indebtedness EU as a strong and more resilient entity, in every dimension, not only the social one Rethinking the concept of poverty as truly multidimensional (i.e. comprising

educational, housing, health and inequality)

IE, ES, FI, RS Elections Minimum income Environmental sustainability and poverty (linked with the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda) Gender and poverty

Outcome: The three most voted proposals were over-indebtedness, minimum income and the 2019 European Parliament elections.

Sian / EAPN Europe, reminded that the EXCO is already working on the latter and that minimum income is currently the responsibility of EMIN.

4. Poverty Watch 2018

Sian / EAPN Europe presented the Revised Scoping Note on Poverty Watch 2018. She reminded the group that the aim of it is to use it at the national level first, then to input to the EU level (i.e. to feed the Country Reports). She also stated that this year in-work poverty was also included, as a direct follow-up to last PeP meeting. The attachment of the scoping note includes a package of data that members could use in drafting the Poverty Watch. The

3

Poverty Watch does not have to be a comprehensive analysis on poverty; it could rather be focused only on key priorities, or positive practices. With respect to the timeline, there is no coincidence between EU and national deadlines. However, it would be useful to prepare the Poverty Watch by 15 October at the latest. Members are invited to prepare an English summary, even though the original document should be in their language. Sian reminded that sending material before the deadline is important for EAPN Europe to work on the Country Reports.

Participants were invited to ask questions regarding the Poverty Watch and Sian / EAPN Europe clarified few points.

The Poverty Watches should be written in their own language to use at national level and translated, or a summary into English.

With respect to indicators, EU SILC (Survey of Income and Living Conditions) provides regular statistics on the same variables and on Europe 2020 targets including the poverty target. Other useful indicators can be found in the Social Scoreboard. There is a new index on deprivation, called the “Material and Social Deprivation” index, which is well done and could be used for analysis.

It is not important if members have already focused on certain topics for other publications and, thus, if the Poverty Watch is somehow repetitive. However, members are free to follow or not follow the guidelines given by EAPN Europe according to what they think is best for them. The original idea is to do the work yearly or bi-annually but, once again, it depends on each network. The networks are also free to write a joint report with other national organizations.

Members of the Steering Group gave a brief overview of the work of their networks on the Poverty Watch.

Paul / IE reported the approach of his network on the Poverty Watch in 2018, stating that EAPN Ireland will not write one this year, as they have done it last year in coincidence with national elections and it was launched in 2018. He further reminded the group that the template is there for members’ use but it is not a set of strict rules.

Graciela / ES. They have included some statistics, a report of the PeP meeting and a description of what EAPN does, mostly regarding lobbying the European Semester process to fight poverty and inequality in Europe. She asserted that the report was useful when EAPN Spain met with the European Commission, since some of the elements highlighted in the document were considered for the Country Reports. EAPN Spain followed the template drafted by EAPN Europe and next year the report will include in-work poverty.

Marija / SB. For the Serbian network, the Poverty watch is used to monitor poverty through the lenses of the SDGs and to reaffirm United Nations’ 2030 agenda. The Serbian government however does not want to recognize that there is poverty in the Country and the SDGs were implemented with a really modest effect. This year the Serbian network is struggling to survive. Funds go to new NGOS that are complicit with the regime. EAPN SB has done an analysis with the Red Cross focused on elderly people: agricultural pensions are so

4

low (about 60€ per months) that older people have to work if they want to survive. It is hard to get data on in-work poverty in non-agricultural sectors.

Jiri / FI. The network has produced its first Poverty Watch last year and this year they will update it including reflections on in-work poverty, minimum income and the European Pillar of Social Rights. They will also add new pictures coming from the EMIN bus tour. Members of the network have given good feedback last year, stating that they can use it for their own work.

Jürgen / DE pointed out that EAPN contract funds could only be used to translate from English to German and not the opposite. Given that the Portuguese network has used EAPN funds to translate to English, it should be possible to do so. However, the question should first be asked to the Administrative Team.

Kathrine / UK pointed out that a strict deadline forces people to work during their holidays. It might be better to ask NGOs their top 10 priorities, maybe with an online survey.

Letizia / IT highlighted that in Italy Istat and Caritas do a similar report every year, but

Sonja / NL stated that it is better to write the Poverty Watch as EAPN. The Netherlands network has drafted a report of fifty-four pages, using social statistics as well.

ACTION POINTS

Sian to ask the Administrative Team of EAPN Europe about translation Members to send EAPN Europe a draft of the Poverty Watch by 21 September to Sian Jones (sian.jones@eapn.eu) and Chiara Fratalia (policy@eapn.eu) – see scoping note Discussion about the topic during the next meeting (28/29 September) Member to send the final version of the Poverty Watch by 15 October to Sian Jones (sian.jones@eapn.eu) and Chiara Fratalia (policy@eapn.eu) A synthesis instrument will be produced and presented with some poverty watches at the Inter-group on Poverty in the European Parliament, probably in December (tbc).

5. Follow up on Migration, Gender and other themes

Jiri / FI, Chair, opened the session by explaining the methodology and the objectives: to enable a more bottom-up member space for groups of members to work together on key issues, and to follow up on important themes in our work.

Participants were asked to split in parallel buzz groups to support follow up work on key themes.

Feedback from discussion in buzz groups

Migration action plan: FR, MT, EE; HR, IE, Eurodiaconia

The Task Force has concluded its mandate. The Task Force has produced a Briefing, then a Position Paper, and finally an Action Plan. During the second last EUISG, every participant, except one, agreed with the Task Force’s proposals. However, there was a big split within

5

the EXCO in relation to the Position Paper and the Action Plan, which were not broadly accepted. In order to move forward with the Action Plan, the Buzz group proposed a mapping of how members are engaging with migrants and organizations that support migrants in their daily work. Different organizations are dealing with migration in different ways. In France and Ireland, there are migrant organizations in the network. The French network in fact does not have a position on migrants, they work more directly with them, which has proven to be a challenge for the network. Eurodiaconia is also working directly with migrants within their network. The Estonian Network is also directly engaged with migrants. However, they had an issue with the Position Paper. Therefore, there needs to be more time before EAPN could take an official position, thus no time frame was set. The incapacity of the whole network to make a statement about the issue came out last year, when EAPN Italy did a press release which was not shared by other EAPN members in its details. In order to avoid divisions and fractures, it was decided to avoid further discussion about EAPN’s position on migration. However, micro-level work around mapping, then building capacity, supporting better engagement with migrants’ organizations could help building solidarity around it.

ACTION POINTS

At the next meeting, Eurodiaconia will be asked to share their approach to mapping. The group will consider concrete proposals around following up on the action point.

Gender and Violence: IC, NL, AT, UK, RS, IT, ES, PT, MK, AGE Platform, NO, LV, SW

The buzz group talked about the documents that EAPN is drafting on the topic. With respect to the second document, about gender-based violence and poverty, changes and editions must be sent through google doc before July. The document will then be sent to EAPN Europe for a final edit, so that it can be presented at the next meeting in Vienna. Elke / EAPN Europe will be asked to finalize the documents, which she will do together with Graciela / ES and Sian / EAPN Europe that will check the English writing. The group also proposed to do a capacity building, either during the next EUISG meeting or online, on gender and gender-based violence and to promote the use of the documents for the whole EAPN network, by trying to engage them and by explaining how to use.

ACTION POINTS

Send changes and corrections to the Gender and Violence report before July to Graciela Malgesini (gmalgesini@hotmail.com) Graciela / EAPN ES to write on behalf of the group to Elke/Rebecca asking for clarity around lay-out and finalizing the document. Sian has offered to comment on content and proof-read if necessary.

6

Organize a capacity building on gender and gender-based violence, either online or during the next EUISG meeting

Energy Poverty: DE, Magda, Claudia and Matteo

The buzz group (which included 3 members of EAPN Europe besides EAPN Germany) lamented the lack of participation to the discussion, given that the political momentum is crucial. Ongoing negotiation at the EU level could in fact have a strong impact on people experiencing energy poverty. EAPN Germany and Caritas Germany would like to have energy poverty in the strategic planning and to work on the issue not with analyses and reports, but by engaging on the ground. EAPN Europe has been active driver of this issue at EU level, working with the EP, Commission and also other stakeholders like EPSU, and were key actors setting up the Right to Energy for All Europeans coalition. This group is now very active through lobbying activities, including a public letter addressed to Members of the European Parliament and signed by EAPN networks. There is also an energy poverty cluster and a project with national EAPN members involved.

ACTION POINTS

Contact Magda Tancau (magda.tancau@eapn.eu) and Claudia Husdup (intern@eapn.eu) for more information on the energy poverty cluster and on the energy poverty project.

Human Rights: FI, LT, PL, CZThe handbook on rights-based approach to poverty is on the website and, thus, members can read and disseminate it. The Polish network is translating document and EAPN Lithuania is using social media to disseminate it. Not all the Countries have ratified the UN Convention or the Collective Action procedure within the Council of Europe.

At the beginning of the session on Friday, Katherine Duffy/EAPN UK gave feedback on the EU/Japan Symposium she attended on behalf of EAPN.

EAPN was invited because of the work on the future of work, which Katherine co-wrote with the EUISG and staff, followed by the Annual Convention event. It was a really interesting opportunity.

Key learning points: the geopolitical context: EU and Japan are seen as needing to move closer together as they share the same values of freedom and democracy, given what is happening to US, China and Russia.

Japan on the future of work: the main concern of Japan is shortage of labor Academics approach: New ways of work: artificial intelligence will destroy routine

white-collar jobs, so we need to teach creativity. Japan minister seem to think that low paid work will disappear, and that we would

need to instill that kind of autonomy people need to make their own jobs

7

EU perspective: lots of data, but still at the stage of categorization rather than analysis; Recent ongoing legislative developments show that self-employed will turn into workers with some right (still, not the rights of an employee), 40% of people are on non-standard contracts and this percentage will continue to increase.

Katherine raised the problem of representation of independent workers; how they are dealing with specific group needs: by gender, by ethnic origin,? Shortage of labour can be addressed welcoming migrants, but the Japanese specified that they are looking for highly qualified workers.

ACTION POINTS Katherine will send the link to the conference. If you want more information

contact Katherine.. (k.b.duffy@dmanthony.plus.com)

6. European Semester: Exchange on NRPs and CSRSSian / EAPN Europe presented the European Semester Cycle. EAPN engages in every part of it. It is an economic and social coordination process, even though the economic is still the dominant variable. The Semester aims to identify economic and social priorities and convergence and support the Social Pillar as a ‘compass’ for ‘fair and functioning labour markets and welfare systems’. However, same 3 priorities: boosting investment, structural reforms and responsible fiscal policies. The social doesn’t get into the three main headings. The big new thing is The European Pillar of Social Rights, adopted in Gothenburg on 17 November 2017, will be delivered primarily through the European Semester to achieve upward social convergence. The Employment Guidelines were amended to reflect the Pillar, provide CSR legal basis. Civil society can be found for the first time in the guidelines. The final text on the employment guidelines hasn’t been adopted yet and we will need to look at the final wording.

The Commission is now much more interested in civil society feeding in information to them at national level. They publish guidelines for MS each year, but these are not publicly available. We should continue to press for this.

Exchange on member engagement – success/ challenges

Which networks managed to get some inputs into their NRP?

AGE, Eurodiaconia, NL, DE, PL, ES, IE

Did your inputs have some impact, were they reflected in your NRPs?

ES, IE, PL

Did you get a chance to react to the CSRS after they were published?

Eurodiaconia, LV, ES, IE, FI

8

Rimgaile / LT: We got a very good CSR: “Improve the design of the tax and benefit system to reduce poverty and income inequality”. It is a good CSR and we want to see it in all countries, together with a higher prioritization of minimum income and quality of employment, that still receive a little focus. There are some good proposals on inclusive active inclusion, but there is no recommendation on civil dialogue, we are pressing for it to be in the preamble (civil dialogue), the country annex. We had a discussion on this with the Commission representatives, after the country reports saying what was missing, but after CSRs we didn’t.

Graciela / ES: the new government doesn’t know what is going to do with the NRP, the economic office of the government disappeared. This a big pity, as we were very well connected with the Government and the semester office before with our proposals being taken up. We had a meeting with the Commission and semester officer. There were many people from the business sector, social partners and EAPN. We asked for the Pillar to be mainstreamed in the CSR.

Paul / IE: in the NRP they used to have a part of their website in which they put all the recommendations and submissions, but this time in the NRP they have an Annex that summaries all the recommendations and the issues from the submissions. It is not quite the same as including it in the main NRP document.

Jiri / FI: Since we are in the ministry EU committees, we were asked to explain our position. There was this meeting of EU committee of social issues and CSR were discussed there. From the government and the ministry side we had the possibility to comment them, but not from the Commission side.

Elina / LV: we were not officially asked for a reflection, but at the meeting of the steering committee at the ministry we had the opportunity to say something. I said that for many years Latvia got recommendations on improving adequacy of Minimum Income schemes, and the secretary replied that I wasn’t right because they were only asked to improve systems of general social benefits.

Katherine / UK: we used to have the same process as Spain has, but what seems really clear to me is the way of engaging with civil society depends very much on the politics of your government (and recently we have much more Eurosceptic governments than we used to have in the past) and also on whether your country is a net recipient of EU funds/pro Europe.

Sian: A clear message is that things are generally getting worse than last year. After the County Report is a crucial time to get involved. To get recommendation it needs to be in the executive summary of the Country Reports

Who has been able to engage with the EU semester officers?

ES, IE, FI, PL, LT, PT, HR, DE

SPAIN: but we had the chance to invite them to our meetings on the Social Pillar, the semester officer came, and she gave a speech.

9

UK: I wrote to the EU officers as well and I invited them to our meetings and I got back quite a long email

Key messages of the discussion

The new Employment Guidelines explicitly include engagement with civil society The commission is much more interested in civil society feeding information at

the national level: we should keep pressing on getting public access to the NRP guidelines letter that we can refer to (the letter the Commission sends to national Governments is not very transparent!)

After the County Report is a crucial time to get involved (to get CSR on our major concerns, they need to be in the executive summary of the Country Reports)

AGE, Eurodiaconia, NL, DE, PL, ES, IE managed to get some inputs into their NRP ES, IE, PL inputs to the NRPs were reflected in their NRPs Eurodiaconia, LV, ES, IE, FI had a chance to react to the CSRS after they were

published ES, IE, FI, PL, LT, PT, HR, DE have been able to engage with the semester officers

Group work - Exchange on the NRPs and CSRs 2018 in groups (see separate notes):

NRPs – Poverty/social rights: What are the positives/negatives, what’s missing? CSRs – Poverty/social rights: What are the positives/negatives, what’s missing?

Improvement on 2017? Do they reflect the Pillar of Social Rights? What are your main key messages to the AGS?

Plenary exchange with European Commission: DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Joining: Jeroen Jutte, Head of Unit A1 - Employment and social aspects of the European Semester; Katalin Szatmari, Policy Assistant, Unit C1 – Social investment strategy; Federico Lucidi, Team Leader Joint Employment Report, Unit A1; Graham Stull, Team Leader, Unit C1; Maria Baroni, Policy Assistant, Unit C1.

JUTTE: We don’t see social policies as a cost, but as an investment. We see inclusive growth as a tool that can boost economic growth and general welfare, we think that the society can benefit from that, it is a part of the future of Europe. In this economic governance process, we take this viewpoint. Out of the total number of recommendations, almost a half concern social policy. We considered as social also health care and employment related recommendations. Does that mean that we always want to move forward on social policies? No, of course it doesn’t mean that. You have to see this in a context of fiscal prudence at the same time, in more money for investments, and in a context in which many reforms are there to be made, and where social expenditure is not always efficiently used. All these kind of considerations interplay, on a case to case basis, every time different. On that basis, I will quickly go through the presentation, looking at the next year (see PP presentation in attachment).

10

The Pillar of Social Rights is an enormous change, not all the principle and rights contained in the pillar are revolutionary or new, but what is revolutionary is that 28 heads of state, EU parliament and EU commission have set this as an objective, as a target, as rights that they want to pursue as a real goal, to have more convergence, to have more social balance, to work towards more equality and fair working conditions. It is an evolution, it is not a revolution. It is very important to keep it high in the agenda and everybody has the responsibility to do so. There are different dimensions of driving the pillar forward: legislation (as stressed by Director General Korte yesterday), funds, programming period of social funds, the European Semester, and engagement of civil society and social dialogue.

Dialogue with civil society

The Commission is directly engaging with social partners at the EU level and with social partners at the national level, with a lot of success and progress. What we haven’t done at the same level of intensity is dialogue with civil society. Dialogue with civil society is there, but not as specific on the European Semester as it is done in the case of social partners. We are committed to strengthening this engagement, this is also one of the reasons why we are here and we have organized number of sessions of dialogue with civil society organizations at EU level during the last three months. We intend to improve the engagement with civil society. It took 4 years to make real improvements on the dialogue with civil society. For the social dialogue at the national level the picture is simpler, but civil society organizations are so many, but we will find ways together with you.

A few words on the implementation of the pillar: here the semester plays a key role. What is very important in that context is the employment guidelines. In November we proposed to fully align them with the pillar. The council has endorsed the formal adoption and now they have integrated the pillar, including engagement with civil society on economic governance and, in particular, on employment and social policy. It now includes explicitly engagement with civil society. This provide a legal basis for reporting, monitoring and an important part of the reporting happens through the joint employment report which reports both on data and how countries perform. It is a priority setting mechanism that is very important to drive at least the analysis and also the recommendations. What is also very important is that there are this legislative important initiative and if you look the MFF these negotiations will basically take place the second half of next year on where does the money go, already starting February/March next year, so the next package of the semester (AGS, CR, Joint employment report, scoreboard) will be important to drive the financing priorities of the MS. So the investment dimension or the investment gaps will play a much greater role in the next semester cycle than the current one.

Sharing experiences of National Networks

Jiri / FI: The Semester is not very visible in the media and public debate, it is discussed by the Parliament under the title of general fiscal plan, so all the social issues are downsized because the title is the fiscal plan. There is no open discussion with stakeholders, the Commission runs some panel discussions each year but there should be more discussions. NGOs involvement in the national reform program is not taken seriously and the poverty

11

target is not discussed extensively or taken very seriously. This year the social pillar was not even mentioned in the NRP, also the poverty target is not very much discussed there, it is not taken seriously.

What have we done? We are constantly connected with the Semester officer. We are happy with the discussion with the commission, we had training with semester officers.

Jutte: Member States will be in more pressure to engage with civil society because of the Guidelines, we will also report on it, but at the moment our resources are limited, we might also engage with EAPN and other civil society networks to see how to deal with it. Joint report will be weak, I suspect. On the NRP guidelines and the Pillar, I think that next year we will also try to adapt our guidelines to reflect the pillar in the context, and as a final point, I understand you don’t get many inputs in the NRP, but you can also use them in the Country Report. We do need your analysis, that leads to an opinion. We planned a seminar with civil society and we do look for good examples from civil society in the member states.

Graciela / ES: we have been doing a lot of work with the Semester officers. We met before the country report was written with them and we had an exchange of information. We feed in information, but the problem is that when we get to the CSRs, we don’t find a lot related to poverty. The reduction in the rate of poverty has brought benefits mostly to men, women are worse off, there are around one million people without income, a quarter of the population is at risk of poverty. We don’t see any reflection of these figures in the recommendations, we also don’t see that the pillar is properly mainstreamed. Is it possible to improve a little bit this process of the social components in the recommendations?

Jutte: I think I would disagree. He read Spain CSR on minimum income: “Improve family support and address income gaps through income guarantee schemes”.

Graciela / ES: No mention of poverty there.

Jutte: If you address minimum income, then you don’t have to use the word poverty. In fact, we moved away from using the word poverty during the last 3 years, because often also politically it is not very popular, and we simply focused on the actions that we need to pursue in order to improve the situation. If you want to address poverty, it is much better to say “improve your minimum income scheme ‘, or do something on other dimensions, and you rightly pointed out the gender gap. We try to be concrete. Spain is one of the countries that we in Directorate C are looking at quite intensively. How we deal with the issues regarding poverty, is by looking at the adequacy and coverage and we had some promising inputs in our interaction with the Spanish administration. The engagement it is really on the policy level, but when you read the country specific recommendations it is important to see them in the context of the country reports. Spain is one of those countries where we have seen an employment driven reduction in poverty.

Graciela / ES: there is also the problem of in-work poverty.

Jutte: We have some really positive developments, nevertheless unemployment really high, so let’s see what this government will do. Obviously, there are also regional differences.

12

Graciela / ES: I think I would disagree on the fight of poverty through the minimum income schemes, because the coordination is not necessarily clear and the problem in the regions persists and there are big inequalities among regions that are not properly addressed by a single scheme for everyone. This is why EAPN has called for a comprehensive minimum income scheme.

Jutte: This is why we say to address the income gaps in our recommendation.

Graciela / ES: another aspect is the coverage, as EMIN reports showed very clearly, the problem is not only that there are differences, but that there is a huge coverage gap, because homeless people, for example, are out of the minimum schemes, and severe deprived people are out.

Jutte: the starting point of making progress is to read carefully what we provide, it is in the Country Reports and it is also in the CSRs. The answers are there, then don’t come to us and say that we are not addressing those issues, use this work with your government and regional governments. The EC recommends this and that, the European Council adopted the guidelines. Use what we provide because the Commission alone won’t achieve anything without the engagement of everybody. We will not always agree with you, but we are on your side.

Graciela / ES: we need an EU framework directive to address all these issues.

Joe / MT: who is going to do the enforcement? To whom are the national governments accountable?

Jutte: the level of implementation that we can impose is close to zero, but it is better than it sounds. You argued that the Semester is dominated by the fiscal side, but for instance if we look at the fiscal and social policies implementation then the level is almost the same, and on the fiscal side there is enforcement. They also listen to social policies, but it is a slow process, it is a process where we engage politically, working level, political pressure through stakeholders, civil society social partners. A good quality of analysis is important, this engagement is taking place, sometimes you see that some member states do not progress, or you see very slow progress. Enforcement power is limited, but de facto, very strong political pressure can move step by step in the direction of implementation of important reforms. In your country is an interesting example, the government has taken good steps towards boosting women employment. Female employment in a number of years has jumped to almost the EU average. Things do take time, but at the end of the day you can see good results.

Joe / MT: On social issues EC is very slow…

Jutte: As you might know, the Treaties give shared competence to the member states and do not give full competences to the EU. For social policy, in treaty terms, it is national responsibility. We can recommend and co finance it, and if you think that more social investment is necessary, you should exploit the momentum and the ongoing negotiations to put pressure on member states.

13

Katherine / UK: when you say that 50% of the CSRs are social-related maybe it is just a ticking box exercise e.g. you mention health, but the CSR might be to increase efficiency, cutting services. Example of reference to social housing in UK, but the recommendation was a negative one. The quantity of social CSRs doesn’t have any meaning if we don’t look at the content and the impact, that in some cases can be negative for social policy reforms.

Jutte: We have the list of the UK officers and you can directly tell them this story. We only commit ourselves to listen and to take notes on what you are saying, we don’t commit to take actions, but when you have good common-sense explanation backed up by data and statistics, the Commission is there to engage and use your material.

Letizia / IT: We are in a very critical situation, we appreciated your CSRs on corruption, on judiciary system and also the anti-poverty. There are also some positive changes that would have never happened without your contribution, and one of those is the REI, inclusion income that was adopted last year, and the civil dialogue that have improved during the last four years. The 2018 NRP has the Social pillar throughout the document, even if it is mentioned only once, but it is mentioned. At the same time, that NRP says that very clearly at the beginning that the pillar it is just a framework and that they don’t know what it is going to happen with it. This NRP was written in a very unstable period, when the new government was forming. How does the Commission intend to follow up a country like mine, that is not far from default? We feel that it is in a very dangerous moment. How are you planning to follow that situation? Don’t you feel that the tools you have, in a situation like ours, can play a role?

Stefan / RO: We got CSRs on minimum income. We had a law on minimum income which is still not put in place. What can you do when the governments don’t comply with your proposed CSRs?

Jutte: Italy is not at the point of collapsing, but of course we share your concerns, but we will assess each government proposal. You can’t ignore the fact that your decision has social and economic implications, we will express our concerns better when writing the Country Reports, both for Italy and Romania.

Szatmari: This year for Romania there was a very pragmatic and to the point CSR on the anti-poverty strategy. Romania used to have a recommendation on general anti-poverty strategy, and this year we said “complete the minimum income inclusion reform”, which is very concrete. This is the proof that we keep monitoring the situation.

Ryszard / PL: You said that you expect analysis from us, what is a good analysis for you? We, NGOs, are not scientific research institutes, so doing quantitative econometric research would be impossible for most of us. It is not an easy task, especially when you don’t have enough money either to carry out research or to hire somebody to do it. So, what is a good analysis to you? You mentioned also common sense and some statistics, but some statistics is available without our engagement and common sense, well, it’s not a fact-based research. If you expect that from us, you should provide us the financial means to engage. Without money, we are not able to take up that task.

14

Jutte: My team is not very big, we are bombarded by information, questions etc. You said we already have all the info we need, but we don’t have and we do need relatively simple documents with anecdotal statistics or anecdotal facts, to understand how do certain rules work out in reality and what does it mean. We don’t need a top-notch 200 pages analytical research. If you write such kind of assessment, you will need to summarize it in 2 pages, because it is all very synoptic. Keep in mind also the context in which you are filling in this information.

Mart-Peeter / EE: One big problem is that the Semester process and the CSRs are quite invisible in Estonia.

Jutte: Not only in Estonia

Mart-Peeter / EE: But I think the EU has relations and staff in the member states that should work. Recently, our left-wing opposition party used the CSRs against our government. It is the first time it became visible, and then our Semester officer opened his mouth saying that it should be supported. Other organizations used the debate to raise more positive parts of the CSRs. This process is too invisible.

Jutte: I understand, it is true and it is an issue. The start will be to have a press conference for Estonia, for Italy, Romania, for each country. Not a general press conference. Also because public opinion does matter in creating the context, the environment of ownership and encourages the debate. In short, I agree. We do acknowledge that we need to improve this.

Paul / IE: We have a good process in terms of our engagement and the EU country teams. We are invited to engage with them at meetings. We provide our assessments and so on. The social pillar in the Country Report is in a box and it stays in a box.

Jutte: It drives the analysis, it is a check list. We try to pay more attention of bad performers…

Paul / IE: In the Irish report, the conclusion is that it will be challenging for Ireland to achieve its Europe 2020 poverty target. The scoreboard uses averages, and in my point of view that is a challenge because the attention to reach the target is taken off.

Jutte: mismatches with Europe 2020, for next strategy we will need to link the target to the GDP growth, so every time you make some progress in getting poor people higher income, also the target limit is moving up. We need to rethink what we want to do in terms of targeting poverty and do it differently, my personal thought is that we need to pay more attention to material deprivation which is also a big issue in Ireland and many member states. Europe 2020 should be replaced and agreed at the Council. It is really a personal thought, not a Commission statement.

Paul / IE: It is an excellent and very fair point in terms of what the scoreboard methodology says and what the Europe 2002 strategy says, maybe is fair to say that when the target was set, no one has a real idea of the magnitude of the impact the crisis would have in achieving the targets, in the case of the poverty target, the scoreboard methodology reflect the

15

position of the EU average, which has deteriorated in itself, but the message is not coming through. We also have done quite a bit of work on a new indicator for severe material deprivation, that we hope will address some of the weaknesses that hopefully the indicator of the new strategy will be called “material and social deprivation”, it is not included in the semester yet. It addresses some gaps of the severe material deprivation items list that were obsolete and replaced them with new items that we hope will improve the monitoring of deprivation in the next cycle.

Jutte: thank you for inviting us, and if you agree, I will share the participants list in the DG employment country teams with the recommendation to directly engage with you and also share with you the officers that have not been in contact with you yet, so our discussion doesn’t end here.

KEY MESSAGES & ACTION POINTS

EAPN members should send their NRP Questionnaires by Friday 13 th July to Sian (Sian.jones@eapn.eu).

The Brussels team will draft the report and circulate at the beginning of August with a deadline of 3rd September.

EC plan a seminar with civil society and look for good examples from civil society in the Member States. They asked EAPN to come with suggestions and engage. Sian will send an email to relevant members.

EC ask for relatively simple documents with anecdotal statistics or anecdotal facts, to understand how policies work on the ground.

EC acknowledged that the quality of public debate and media coverage of the EU semester in the Members States need to be improved. They will be investigating how to improve this from the Commission’s side.

EC will share the participants list in the DG employment country teams with the recommendation to directly engage with EAPN

7. Social Pillar, SDGs and post 2020

Sian / EAPN Europe, presented the EU policy update on EPSR, Social Fairness Package and post-2020 and highlighted the need to focus on national action/implementation on the Social Pillar, to get some impact, as well as EU action on some key initiatives like the Recommendation on access to Social Protection as well as through the European Semester and EU funds.

Members are split into buzz groups for discussion: Members’ engagement around EPSR and next steps

Feedback from discussion in buzz groups:

UK, PT, NO, LV

16

PT did a national event on the EPSR and now they look at how to pursue proper implementation and to make the Pillar more visible for the general public. They are also looking at each of the 20 principles and assess which ones are more closely related to poverty: a focus area for the future could be social protection (for all). LV is engaging in making the Pillar visible through some small meetings in some regions last year, and a broad mutual learning conference to be held in October. NO is working to make the Pillar more visible and shared in the country, since people are pushing back on rights and the government is only relying on Agenda 2030 to have a strategy for the future. UK is planning to do more work on fair wages, given also the close link to the EMIN project and the Living Wage campaign, to make people interested in EU social standards, especially in the low-income regions.

RS, FIFI will focus on the links between the Pillar and the SDGs and hold trainings on possible synergies for the future. RS is engaging on informing NGOs and networks on the Pillar.

MT, RO, FR, IT, CZ RO is working on minimum income and is planning to host an event on minimum income and the Pillar. FR too is still working on minimum income, and they will do an action linking the Pillar with minimum income on 17th October. MT is drafting a memorandum on the implementation of the Pillar to be disseminated to NGOs and institutions. CZ is going through a difficult political moment, so EAPN members are trying to see what space for engagement they have. IT is planning events in 5 big cities about the EU and the Pillar, and there’s a project to link the PeP meeting with the education principle in the Pillar.

AGE Platform, MA, IC, AT, HRAT is planning to lead a cluster on the Pillar, involving civil servants and ministries. HR is planning some action to be carried out in October. AGE Platform is drafting a manifesto for the upcoming EP elections linking policy domains with the Pillar and the SDGs. Age Platform is also planning to set up a reporting framework on people’s conditions, including poverty, on the blueprint of the Poverty Watch action.

BG, DE, NLBG held a workshop on access to essential services with 50 participants. DE held a meeting on the Pillar last year in Berlin. NL planned to do advocacy activities around the Pillar at the local level.

PL, SE, LT, EESE is not focusing much on the Pillar but pushing for some important reforms to be undertaken on segregation and minimum income, somehow connected with the EPSR. LT is planning some action around the presidential elections in 2019, that could be inviting candidates to debate around the Pillar. EE has a similar idea for general elections, sending questionnaires to candidates including questions on fight against poverty and issues around the Pillar. PL has been invited several times by the trade union federation to present their position around minimum income and is pushing for ratification of Article 13 of the Social Charter.

17

IE, ESES hosted a seminar on the Pillar earlier this year and got invited by the government to deliver a speech on Poverty Day last year. The government has also made funds available for three more seminars on the Pillar all around Spain. They also carried out an analysis of the Social Scoreboard. IE has nothing planned for the moment and got no response from institutional actors regarding invitations to meetings.

Martina / AT, gave details about the Conference on the Pillar, to be held in September in Vienna together with the General Assembly. She asked for members to volunteer to help in the session by being facilitators at the 12 world café style tables.

Members who volunteered to help: Philippe (AGE), Aleksandra (HR), Sonja (NL), Paula (PT), Jiri (FI), Graciela (ES), Paul (IE), Marija (RS).

ACTION POINT Members to send emails to Martina Brandstätter

(martina.brandstaetter1@chello.at) and Sian Jones (sian.jones@eapn.eu) if they want to volunteer as facilitators for the capacity building in September. Martina/Sian will be in contact with them around organizing the world café session in Vienna.

Members doing/planning national Social Pillar actions/events linked to minimum income/ EMIN: PL, SE, UK

Members doing/planning national Social Pillar actions/events more broadly and on other principles: AT, BG, DE, EE, ES, HR, LT, LV, NL, PT, AGE, Eurodiaconia

Members will continue engagement at the national level and organizing national events, while keeping the staff team (sian.jones@eapn.eu) informed including sending links to their activities (rebecca.lee@eapn.eu)

8. Human Impact of Austerity

Sian / EAPN Europe, briefly summarised the discussion in last EU ISG around this deliverable, issues related to funding and staff capacity, and the joint policy/comms proposal in the Concept Note.

Elke / EAPN Europe, presented the activity. The project consists in a video to be disseminated through social media, capable of interesting people who don’t necessarily have a political background, to create a bigger reach and giver stronger voice to PeP. The proposal is to have a shared EAPN-wide video with 5 different PeP, stories and countries, containing one concrete example of impact of austerity in everyday life; videos should be selected by steering group and staff. Single videos can be also used separately at the national level to complement this action, trying to build synergies. Staff would circulate guidelines for recording and format and length. This is an initiative for all members and not just for EU national networks.

Discussion:- We should wait for the PeP meeting, to film videos there.

18

- It would be good to have the videos ready for the 17th October. - Can we reuse and/or adapt materials we produced for EMIN project?- Is there a budget for this initiative?

Elke / EAPN Europe - We could arrange the deadline as the end of October, so people will have time to film at the PeP meeting; for the 17th of October, networks who wish to do it can produce the video earlier and use it on that date. It is something very simple, that can be done with just a good-quality smartphone. At the moment the situation is a bit uncertain and therefore we cannot guarantee a budget for that.

Members who might take part into this action: IT, HR, IC, NL, PT, NO, FI, ES.

ACTION POINT Members to send videos to Elke Vandermeerschen

(elke.vandermeerschen@eapn.eu) by the end of October.

9. In-Work Poverty: Promising Practices

Chiara / EAPN Europe, presented the draft collection of promising practices. She highlighted the idea of this compendium being an agile visual advocacy tool, geared towards providing accessible info on transferable practices to other stakeholders and decision-makers as well as attracting the general public. She encouraged members to provide contributions to the collection and underlined the importance of quotes from people who have a role in the submitted practices (especially PeP) and pictures. Members can submit contributions, quotes and pictures until the beginning of September; the collection will be finalised end of October.

Sian /EAPN Europe, underlined that pictures submitted should be not just descriptive, but something that makes people think, and encouraged members to be creative while choosing images to submit.

ACTION POINT Members to send contributions (fiches, quotes, pictures) to Chiara Fratalia

(policy@eapn.eu) by the 4th of September.

10. Evaluation and next meetings

Marija / RS – It would be good if all the activities were better coordinated, ie to have all the information about the full package of activities and events (agenda, dinners, etc) all in one document, and not split into so many separate emails.

Rebecca / EAPN Europe led the short session on dissemination of publications. Members who are not aware of dissemination activities can fill in the dissemination form and send it to EAPN Europe staff.

19

Members who did some dissemination of the CR report: IT, HR, PT, UK, LT, FI, ES, IE. Members who did some dissemination of the Future of Work paper: ES, PT, IE.Members who did some dissemination of the CSRs report: HR, PT, FI, LU.

Jiri / FI reminds members of the possibility to join the EAPN informal exchange Facebook group which is managed by members, exchanging on information/developments of interest.

Evaluation of the meeting

Members are split in buzz groups, providing positive elements, negative elements and suggestions. Positive elements

- the agenda/schedule was generally kept; - the overall quality of the exchanges was good- it felt good to feel that the group worked together on common projects and activities which were meaningful.- the Commission exchange provided members with meaningful information; the exchange was stimulating and provided inspiration and motivation to engage in the Semester; the meeting provided a nice chance to meet directly Commission’s representatives and demonstrate the expertise and concerns of members; - the social dimension of the meeting was good.

Negative elements - the hotel did not provide enough food; dinner on Thursday was not good; - there was no clear information on venues (floors, rooms, etc) for meetings and coffee

breaks; - no clear definition of what is expected from non-EU members, especially during

sessions focused on EU work;- too many acronyms were used; native English speakers should respect others and

speak slowly; - the debate tends to be monopolized by a few people; - too many background documents and too little time to read them; - too much contents on the agenda.

Suggestions - In groups sessions, make sure that all countries speak for the same amount of time, and that schedule is respected; - include less background documents, providing more summaries and resumes; get

background documents earlier, if possible- reintroduce an update session on national political conditions;

Dates of next meetings 27-29 September, in Vienna – with General Assembly. March 2019

MK volunteered to host March 2019 EU ISG meeting, to be confirmed later this year.

20

ACTION POINTS Members to fill in the publication dissemination form and send it to Rebecca Lee

(rebecca.lee@eapn.eu). Members who want to volunteer to host the March meeting (if any) should write

to Sian Jones (sian.jones@eapn.eu) and Rebecca Lee (rebecca.lee@eapn.eu)

21