Minutes of the Ad-Hoc Meeting of the ESF Technical Working Group Held On

Minutes of the ad-hoc meeting of the ESF Technical Working Group held on

29 June, 2005,

Crowne Plaza Hotel, Brussels

Mainstreaming Seminar on EQUAL Principles

The meeting was opened by Jean-Francois Lebrun who identified the key objectives in relation to the principles as being:

• To introduce good practice and results developed and tested under EQUAL in applying the principles and learn from one another;

• To share ideas for ways in which the principles can be applied in the new programmes;

• To identify concerns and key issues in the design and implementation of the new ESF programmes, related to the principles

Marie Donnelly then informed participants about the state of negotiations in Council and Parliament, highlighting that:

• The Parliament will discuss its opinion on the ESF Regulation in the first week of July, which will be informed by the opinions of 9 Committees;

• Negotiations in the Council are progressing, and a compromise has been found for most of the issues;

• The adoption of the Regulations will be delayed until an agreement on the financial perspectives has been reached.

For each of the four main principles there would be a short introduction by the Commission, highlighting the value added of applying the principle in question and the issues and concernsrose so far in meetings and workshops.Representatives from Member States would then provide examples and illustrations from the perspectives both of a committed user [responsible for designing the new ESF Programmes] and of an EQUAL advocate, explaining what they have learnt from EQUAL andillustrating the advantages of applying the principle in the new programmes.

Session 1 - Gender Mainstreaming

The discussion on the principle of gender mainstreaming was introduced by Monique Tousseyn. The starting point of her presentation was Article 6 of the draft ESFregulation which stipulates that Member States shall ensure that operational programmes include a description on how gender equality is promoted in programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, including all relevant indicators. The promotion of Gender Mainstreaming is therefore an obligatory element in all new ESF programmes. She emphasized that the principle of gender mainstreaming is enshrined in the Treaty and therefore obligatory in future programming.

Gender Mainstreaming is not an add-on to policies, actions or projects; rather, it should underpin underlying approaches and attitudes at all levels. As regards expertise and experience gained from EQUAL, a working group has been established at European level. It has produced a guide on gender mainstreaming for the second round of EQUAL. In addition, guides have also been drawn up at national level. Shereferred to the added value of gender mainstreaming which has been identified by the working group and evaluators. Gender mainstreaming ensures for example that women as well as men are active, it reduces poverty and boosts economic growth, it tackles inequalities, it targets major economic and social policies, it recognizes that gender is one of the most fundamental organising features in society and it involves a willingness to establish a balanced distribution of responsibilities between women and men.

Turning to the future she identified the requirements for programme design and for implementation based on the experience of EQUAL. With respect to programme design, she stressed the need for the introduction of sex disaggregated statistics, for the use of gender sensitive indicators and for the analysis of gender inequalities in socio-economic circumstances. With regard to implementation the key words were incentive measures, awareness raising measures and training, use of expertise and capacity building. Furthermore, gender equality must be a criterion when selecting projects. She concluded her presentation by putting the questions as to how to raise awareness in future programming, how to ensure the allocation of funding for gender equality issues, how to ensure the availability of tools and measures and how to ensure transnational exchange of expertise and learning.

Janne Pennanen (FI) then spoke as an advocate of the principle of gender mainstreaming. From lessons learned[b1]from EQUAL in Finland he concluded that the principle had to be included in every project, including mainstream programmes. He presented the Finnish approach as one that could be applied in other Member States and in particular the following elements.

• All selected Development Partnerships (DP's) had to provide a gender mainstreaming plan;

• External evaluators took part in the selection process and during the second round take part in training of DP's as well as providing guidance and tutoring during the whole life span of DP's;

• A gender mainstreaming checklist for the DPs has been drawn up and gender mainstreaming issues are regularly followed up during the projects to ensure implementation of the principle;

• Evaluation is carried out both at programme and project level. This enables the authorities to direct the DP's if they are not following the right track.

The Finnish approach has several advantages. The use of external experts enables them to come up with suggestions for projects on how to apply a gender mainstreaming approach in all activities. The obligation for DPs to draw up a plan on gender mainstreaming, forces them to think of the impacts on men and women at the planning stage. The check list helps to ensure that gender equality really has been taken into account. Janne Pennanen emphasized that in DPs involving a large number of partners, it is important to ensure that information and practises are spread to all partners.

The floor was then given to Ulrike Rebhandl (AT) who spoke as a user.Based on her experience in Austria, notably with EQUAL, she stressed the importance of gender mainstreaming taking place at all levels. At EU-level, it must be an obligation in all regulations and guidelines of the structural funds. Allocation of funding must be ensured and the gender dimension must be integrated in all stages of the programming procedure. It must furthermore be an obligation in all strategic guidelines, i.e. the Lisbon process and the community strategic guidelines and the national follow up. A twin track strategy must be followed; gender mainstreaming has to be accompanied by specific measures for women.

She then turned to the level of the operational programme. She underlined the importance of including the gender dimension in all phases of the programme (programming, monitoring, evaluation etc.) and the need for it to be compulsory to implement gender mainstreaming in all programmes. She identified a number of keywords that are important in the process of implementation; strong commitment, concrete objectives, measurability and obligation, integration in structures and procedures, support structures, knowledge, know how, awareness raising, networking, training of project promoters, resources, positive encouragement of actors and large scale engagement of leading figures.

In the discussions which followed the importance of empowering people at all levels, in the projects was stressed. There were examples of gender mainstreaming activities not succeeding due to the fact that low level persons participated in the activities but were not empowered.Another message from the debate was the importance of not only focussing on statistics, i.e. the number of women and men in projects, the managements structures etc, Whilst recognising that these are important indicators there were a broader range of issues that had to be addressed.

Session 2 - Innovation and Mainstreaming

The session was introduced bySteve Arnottwho covered the requirements for innovation and mainstreaming in the draft ESF regulation (Article7) which obligesMember Statesto promote innovation and choose their themes for funding.

Considerable expertise and guidance had been developed under EQUAL including the EU Project Cycle Management toolkit and a Mainstreaming Guide thatwould be issued shortly. Based on the experience of EQUAL, programme design and implementation of innovation and mainstreaming would need to address a number of issues including the identification of the themes and scope for innovation, simple but robust approaches for monitoring and evaluation, the capacity to validate and exchange good practice and the development of mainstreaming plans and strategies.

Presentations were then given by two advocates and two users of innovation and mainstreaming.

Firstly, Louis Geelhoed (NL) spoke as an EQUAL advocate of mainstreaming with particular reference to the work of the EQUAL National Thematic Networks (NTNs). In the Netherlands the NTNs involvedthematic experts, policy makers, social partners and NGOs and were mandated to draw lessons and develop mainstreaming activities as well as to determinate the degree of innovation during the second round. Activities and outcomes of their work included the creation of good practice check lists, conferences and yearly events with DPs involving policy makers at the highest possible level, good practice reports (five) to the Parliament and executive documents.

A number of lessons had been learned. It was important to start early, undertake a cost benefit analysis and allocate the necessary support and resources.Engaging politicians and policy makers is critical as well as trying to influence the administrators. Often, small scale targeted actions (e.g. executive lunches/dinners) can be more cost effective and room for real experimentation is needed.Contact with other Member States had been very useful in helping them to develop and deliver their plans. For the future there were a number of issues. Innovation would be a topic for the future but will need to address specific topics and be more focussed. Would the resources be available to supportcurrent levels of activity and infrastructure? Should there be a revised approach for innovation: the bottom-up approach of EQUAL may not be possible?

Ken Lambert (UKgb) then spoke as a user of EQUAL results. From a strategic perspective innovation has to be approached using R&D methods in order to guarantee value for money. For mainstreaming to be effective, the involvement of the right policy makers was essential in order to match the supply of innovations with the demand for policy change. In ordertotackle local constraints there needed to be adequate instruments to address appropriate policy change opportunities. With regard to implementation mechanisms, there was a need to develop a mainstreaming strategy from the outset and ensure that it was integrated into programming documents as a horizontal priority, to exploit the NTN approach, to mobilise resources and engage key players.

Next, Piotr Stronkowski (PL)spoke as a user ofthe approach to innovation as applied under EQUAL. In Poland economic and social conditions presented new challenges and therefore demanded ambitious targets. There was a need for innovation to address social inclusion issues in order to cope with the demand. With regard to implementation, this would not be through a separate priority but innovation would be embedded in chosen priorities on the basis of criteria such as difficulties with current policy and the predictability of challenges such as demographic change. Examples of areas where innovation could address issues were new methods to activate people with disabilities and reconstruction of rural areas.

Cohesion between main priorities and innovation and the flows of knowledge among innovation projects must be supported.

A number of conditions to implement innovative policies were necessary. For the management capacity to be developed in the projects,Project Cycle Management (PCM) which in Polandhas been tested as an obligatory toolunder EQUAL is probably the answer.Statistical analysis instruments to measure innovation are also needed and have to be 'sold' to policy makers in order to ensure value for money. There needed to be enough resources to support the innovation process.

There was also a presentation by Lucia Scarpitti(IT) as an advocate of innovation. This presentation was made at the beginning of the final session of the day because Ms Scarpitti had reached Brussels later than scheduled, due to fog in Rome.

Ms Scarpitti distributed an outline document on "The Innovation Process and PCM in EQUAL", which highlights the importance attached by the Italian Managing Authority to Project Cycle Management (PCM) as an integrated method being tested by EQUAL on a large scale. She drew attention to the EQUAL Italia web site ( where a PCM guide (200 pages) is available.The Piemonte region of Italy had been a pioneer in testing PCM since Round 1 of EQUAL and had obtained some promising results, which would be presented in detail in October 2005.

In the discussion which followed, Jean-Francois Lebrun noted thatinnovation and mainstreaming are linked but have different features which need to be tackled separately. Alain Calmes (LU) said that innovation faces constraints when assessing immediate cost and benefit.Louis Geelhoed (NL) agreed adding that the main challenge is to make visible the long-term benefits and identify measuring instruments because experimentation is always more expensive than routine activity.Ute Heinen (DE) noted that one issue relating to the Lisbon strategy concerning innovation relates to the fact that the top down prescribed innovation can fail whereas bottom up participatory innovation (stakeholders convinced of its real value) may succeed.

Fotini Tsiller (GR) said that experimentation has proven its value in EQUAL but are we sure that the operational programmes will accept trial and error? Tommy Murray (IE) felt that one way should be to use the EQUAL DP model. DPs and exchange between them at national level have brought innovation and European Thematic Groups (ETGs) and Transnational Cooperation Agreements (TCAs) are also reinforcing innovation. Different lessons can be extracted concerning the way a policy is changing. But is it the policy that changes or the way the policy is implemented?Louis Geelhoed (NL) added that changes of rules can lead to innovation. For example, in small business promotion the regulations of social benefits discourage people to establish small business when they are not in the position of accepting a salaried job. Rules have to change to make it possible.

Jean-Francois Lebrun said it is the added value from EQUAL that can make a policy effective. Should we maintain the EQUAL platforms as a means for the exchange of innovation by themes at European level? SteveArnott added that EQUAL networks at European level are also an issue for Transnational Cooperation. If resources are available they can help to focus real innovation in the new programmes and Member States will benefit reciprocally from innovations in other Member States.

Session 3 -Transnational cooperation

Marcin Stryjeckiintroduced the session stating that transnational cooperation had been an important building block in the effort to promote new means of combating discrimination and inequalities in the labour market.In the current period transnational cooperation was implemented at 3 levels:

• between DPs;
• between NTNs through European level working groups and bilateral/regional networking;
• between managing authorities through the organisation of events and exchanges.

Transnational co-operation took different forms. Over1200 transnational cooperation agreements (TCAs) were concluded in the first and second rounds. The Commission/Member States Working Group hadproduced the Guide on Transnational Cooperation 2004-2008 which identified the steps and criteria for concluding TCAs and assisting them in their transnational work. Three learning seminars were organised where the modalities and support for transnational activity were agreed.

The EU evaluators confirmed the added value of transnational co-operation which has contributed to the exchange of experience,encouragement by peers, building up capabilities, validating and benchmarking, importing new models and approaches, avoiding duplication of effort and adding credibility to projects.

The 2007-2013 draft ESF regulation fully integrates transnational cooperation under both the "Convergence" and the "Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objectives", through mainstreaming it within the national and regional operational programmes (Article 3). In doing so Member States shall ensure that there is coherence and complementarity with other Community transnational programmes. Member States would be free to decide on the scale and scope of transnational co-operation which could take the form of a specific priority axis within an operational programme or a specific operational programme (Article 8).To make transnational co-operation possible a number of issues would need to be addressed in future consultations i.e. the availability of mechanisms for co-operation between Member States, the extent to which an optional/obligatory set of rules would have to be established for Member States who wish to develop transnational cooperation, the extent to which transnational cooperation should be linked with partnership and innovation.

Presentations were then given by two pairs of advocate-users.

Johannes Wikman (SE) spoke as an advocate and emphasized that transnational co-operation had proved to be a well founded and verified tool contributing to both personal and organisational development through stimulating learning, strengthening the power of initiative, benchmarking, the development of new ideas and new perspectives. Hereferred to some representative findings of an evaluation made by a TCA where transnational cooperation had given reality to EU membership, improved the national approach through a process of peer review, raised the profile of national work and therefore contributed to more successful mainstreaming, enabled experimentation in areas of common interest and increased the ability to relate to various perspectives.

However, transnationality was a heavy process and there was a need for simplification. Concerning the way forward he proposed to set up a task force which could elaborate a proposal on the transnational cooperation framework to be discussed in the ESF Committee on 22 September. The work of this task force would concentrate on identifying good practice from current implementation and transferring it to the future programming period. Possible participants in this task force could be SE, BE (NL), PT, CZ, IT and FI.

As a user, Anna Carlsson (SE) also underlined the need for simplification and stated that it was necessary to draw lessons from existing good and bad experience and exchange views. Cooperation between MemberStates and regions was important as this would allow national policy to be influenced by other Member States and to develop a better understanding of how other authorities work.