DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Research for REGI Committee - Integrated use of ESI funds to address social challenges
STUDY
This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Regional Development.
AUTHORS t33: François LEVARLET, Nicola BRIGNANI, Andrea GRAMILLANO Tamam Sarl: Armelle LEDAN PRADE EureConsult: Thomas STUMM Nordregio: Lisbeth GREVE HARBO
In addition the research team included the following national experts: Konstantinos APOSTOLIDIS, Sebastian BONIS, Pietro CELOTTI, Roxana DIACONU, Andrea FLORIA, Dea HRELJA, Elodie LORGEOUX, Marjan MARJANOVIC and Luca SANTIN.
Research manager Diána HAASE Project and publication assistance Lyna PÄRT Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament
LINGUISTIC VERSIONS
Original: EN
ABOUT THE PUBLISHER
To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to updates on our work for the REGI Committee please write to: [email protected]
Manuscript completed in July 2017 © European Union, 2017
Print ISBN 978-92-846-0744-0 doi:10.2861/460615 QA-04-17-334-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-846-0743-3 doi:10.2861/287700 QA-04-17-334-EN-N
This document is available on the internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/601968/IPOL_STU(2017)6019 68_EN.pdf
Please use the following reference to cite this study: Levarlet, F, Brignani, N, Gramillano, A, Ledan Prade, A, Stumm, T & Greve Harbo, L, 2017, Research for REGI Committee – Integrated use of ESI funds to address social challenges, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels Please use the following reference for in-text citations: Levarlet, Brignani, Gramillano, Ledan Prade, Stumm and Greve Harbo (2017)
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Research for REGI Committee - Integrated use of ESI funds to address social challenges
STUDY
Abstract
The study aims to analyse the implementation of integrated approaches under the ESI Funds in addressing challenges related to social inclusion, including integration of migrants and refugees. Programme logic of intervention, combinations of thematic objectives, synergies with other EC policy instruments and the use of integrated tools are analysed for a set of programmes. Conclusions and recommendations are provided for the 2014-2020 and the next programming period.
IP/B/REGI/IC/2016-087 July 2017
PE 601.968 EN
Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5
LIST OF TABLES 7
LIST OF FIGURES 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
1. INTRODUCTION 13 1.1. Objective of the study 13 1.2. Methodology 14
2. STATE OF PLAY OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND MIGRATION ISSUES IN THE EU 19 2.1. Key concepts and definitions 20 2.2. Statistical overview of social inclusion 22 2.3. EU policy framework 33 2.4 Main policy challenges 43
3. SOCIAL INCLUSION AND MIGRATION ISSUES IN EUROPEAN COHESION POLICY 45 3.1. Social inclusion in Structural and ESI Funds 46 3.2. Social inclusion in ESI Funds Intervention logic 53 3.3. Integration between ESI Funds 57 3.4. Synergies and coordination between ESIF and other EU policies 59 3.5. Strengths and weaknesses in addressing social inclusion 61
4. INTEGRATED TOOLS 63 4.1. Definition of integrated tools 64 4.2. State of play of integrated tools implementation in ESI Funds 67 4.3. Examples of integrated tools 72 4.4. Barriers to the diffusion of integrated tools 84
5. CONCLUSIONS 85 5.1. General findings 85 5.2. Social inclusion policy challenges 85 5.4. Synergy between policy instruments 87 5.5. Integrated tools for social inclusion 88 5.6. Recommendations 91
3 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
REFERENCES 95
ANNEX 103
4 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AMIF Asylum, migration and integration fund
AROPE At risk of poverty or social exclusion
CBC Cross-border cooperation
CF Cohesion Fund
CLLD Community-Led Local Development
CPR Common Provision Regulation
CSF Common Strategic Framework
DG Directorate-General of the European Commission
EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EaSI Employment and Social Innovation
EC European Commission
EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
EMN European Migration Network
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
ESI European Structural and Investment
ETC European Territorial Cooperation
EU European Union
EURES European Employment Services
FEAD European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived
IP Investment priority
IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance
ITI Integrated territorial investment
5 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
MS Member State
RQ Research question of the study
SO Specific objective
TO Thematic Objective
6 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Research questions and corresponding chapters 15 Table 2 Illustration of some vulnerable groups by type of exclusion 26 Table 3 Overview of social inclusion-relevant TOs in the analysed programmes 54 Table 4 Synergy in ESIF programmes (reviewed in the study) 57 Table 5 Overview of themes covered by the two Urban Innovative Action calls for proposals in relation to the EU Urban Agenda 80 Table 6 Strengths and weaknesses of integrated approaches in ESI funds for promoting social inclusion 90 Table 7 Recommendations 92 Table 8 List of programmes reviewed and selected interviews 103 Table 9 List of institutions interviewed through the study 106
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Methodological overview 14 Figure 2 Category of people-at-risk of poverty and social exclusion, 2015 23 Figure 3 Population at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Member States (MSs), 2014, 2015 24 Figure 4 Asylum applications (non-EU) in the EU-28 Member States, 2008-2016 (thousands) 27 Figure 5 Proportion of population at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by degree of urbanisation, 2015 30
7 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Figure 6 Working age population born outside the EU by degree of urbanisation, 2014 30 Figure 7 Proportion of population who agree that foreigners in their city are well integrated 31 Figure 8 People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2005–13 (million people) 35 Figure 9 MIPEX country performance score 41 Figure 10 Share of the total participations of different population groups in the ESF funded projects in 2007-2013 (%) 48 Figure 11 Total 2014-2020 ESIF budget by theme 52 Figure 12 Population groups most referred to in ESIF 2014-2020 programming documents 53 Figure 13 Synergies between TO 9 and other TOs in the programmes reviewed 55 Figure 14 Synergy with Union Instruments (number of programmes) 59 Figure 15 Tools selected by type of programme (unit: number of programmes) 68 Figure 16 Share of tools selected among the programmes 69 Figure 17 Disadvantaged groups targeted by integrated tools in analysed programmes 72
8 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim of this study is to analyse how integrated approaches under European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) have been used to address social inclusion challenges in European Union (EU) Member States. In the framework of this study, specific attention is given to issues related to the integration of migrants and refugees into European communities.
The specific objectives of the study are the following: 1) Overview of challenges linked to social inclusion in EU regions and urban areas and the role of European cohesion policy in tackling such challenges; 2) Analysis of the role the ESI Funds have played and can play in tackling the challenges linked to social inclusion, in particular to migration issues, in EU regions and urban areas; and 3) Analysis of integrated approaches to territorial development taken by Member States to tackle challenges of social inclusion, including those associated with migration.
The research methodology – presented in Chapter 1 – is based on a thorough literature review, as well as on data collected through a review of 47 selected ESI Funds programmes. Finally, interviews with stakeholders provide additional insights and validate collected data.
Chapter 2 presents the state of play of social exclusion and migration issues. Statistics show that since the financial crisis of 2007, poverty and social exclusion have reached a high level in the EU with around 20 % of population involved. Poverty and social exclusion concern many diverse groups: people with disabilities and chronic health problems, children and young people, long-term unemployed, older workers, low-skilled workers, marginalised groups, women in the labour market, ethnic minorities (e.g. Roma) and migrants. There are various causes of social exclusion and poverty in EU cities and regions, but most often they can be found in economic reasons (e.g. unemployment), social marginalisation or personal situations (e.g. health issues, old age, remote locations, etc.). However, large differences emerge across Member States.
The main policy challenges related to social inclusion and the integration of migrants include: the multidimensionality of social exclusion (economic, social and cultural), a changing socio- economic context (the economic crisis), disparities across Member States (with rich and poor areas), citizen acceptance (in relation to migrants and security issues), as well as local stakeholders and authorities’ involvement in addressing these issues.
Chapter 3 illustrates how social inclusion and migration issues have been addressed in European Cohesion policy programmes over the past 10 years. Some examples of coordination, complementarities and synergies between funds are given illustrating to what extent funds have been used in an integrated manner.
Over the period 2007-2013, EUR 42.5 billion were spent by Structural Funds (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF)) for social inclusion, targeting around 7.2 million people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. In the current programming period 2014-2020, EUR 67 billion will be directly disbursed under TO9 ‘social inclusion’, mainly by ESF, ERDF and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
In the 2007-13 programming period, social inclusion was mainly addressed through ESF interventions (actions in favour of disadvantaged groups of people), with a smaller role played by ERDF, i.e. social housing and sustainable urban development. EAFRD support had
9 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______been also activated through the LEADER initiative in some rural areas. In the current programming period, tools for better integration of funds have been defined within the regulatory framework. Cohesion policy promotes the combination of funds at various implementation levels (Partnership Agreements, programmes and priority level), as well as the use of integrated approaches to address social inclusion. As it emerges from the study, the new regulatory framework has contributed to strengthening the complementarity of ESI Funds programmes, especially for EDRF and ESF, but also for EAFRD and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).
For ERDF and ESF programmes, integration mainly builds on the adoption of Thematic Objective (TO) 9 (Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and discrimination) and partially relates to TOs 8 (Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility) and 10 (Investing in education, training and lifelong learning). EAFRD programmes consider integrated approaches for social issues mainly under Union Priority 6 and through Measure 7 (Basic services and village renewal in rural areas), which is usually combined with other relevant measures. Complementarity of funds is also promoted by supporting local action groups that contribute to TOs 8, 9, and 10 through community-based initiatives (e.g. LEADER).
The majority of the analysed programmes also show synergy with various EU instruments. Instruments most often mentioned in programme documentation with respect to social inclusion are the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) and Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).
The integrated tools used in ESIF to address social exclusion and migration issues are analysed in Chapter 4. Integrated tools for the priority of social inclusion that are usually adopted in ESIF programmes are: Community-led local development (CLLD), Integrated territorial investments (ITIs) and Sustainable urban development (SUD). The CLLD tool is mainly applied in EAFRD and EMFF funded programmes, where Local Action Groups (LAGs) are empowered to address social issues of rural and coastal areas (including islands), combating poverty and depopulation, fostering employment and reducing disparities.
When it comes to ERDF and ESF funded programmes, CLLD is usually implemented under a specific priority axis for promoting social inclusion and reducing poverty. Social inclusion related issues are most thoroughly addressed through sustainable urban development actions implemented via ITIs.
In the 2014-2020 programming period, integrated approaches are not specifically designed to directly address integration of migrants and refugees, but often migrants and refugees are considered as part of a wider group of disadvantaged people.
Chapter 5 provides a synthesis of the study, drawing conclusions and illustrating the overall role and contribution of ESI Funds 2014-2020 in addressing social inclusion challenges. The 2014-2020 framework ensures flexibility and responsiveness of ESI Funds to address the multifaceted nature of social inclusion challenges as well as a changing socio-economic context by promoting the involvement of a multi-level governance approach that can be easily applied at various territorial levels. In this regard, integrated approaches introduced in the current programming period enable further integration, coordination and complementarity between EU and national level strategies and actions to tackle social issues by involving local authorities and stakeholders and bringing decisions closer to citizens.
10 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
For the current programming period, the study suggests:
Assessing the effectiveness of the funds to cover a wide spectrum of policy fields in the area of social affairs and to react to emerging new needs (mid-term evaluation exercises); Providing guidance on coordination rules, and assessing the ease of implementing CLLD, ITI and Joint Action Plan (JAP). Note that JAP has not been used in the Programmes.
Moreover, this study recommends to Member States, Programme Authorities and EU institutions for beyond 2020:
Adding explicit priorities related to migrants and refugees in regulations and guidance that might be applicable to specific contexts affected by the migration crisis and when there is a specific need for allocating a dedicated amount of funds to this specific topic; Introducing rules/simplification and harmonization procedures between the different policy instruments in the field of social inclusion;
Increasing the involvement of local partners to improve coordination between policy instruments (especially related to migrants and refugees);
Adopting a set of common indicators and categories related to social inclusion issues;
Increasing the ERDF contribution to sustainable urban development for social inclusion (in relation to the EU Urban Agenda);
Ensuring adequate territorial balance of resources for inner cities and rural areas.
Some of the above recommendations related to simplification are already under discussion in the so-called OMNIBUS, i.e. proposal for a regulation of European parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (Procedure 2016/0282/COD).
11 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
12 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Objective of the study This study analyses the implementation of integrated approaches under European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) in the specific context of tackling challenges related to social inclusion. Integrated approach is considered in a broad sense, in relation to coordination, complementarity and synergies between EU policies, programmes and priorities, as well as regarding the definition of specific integrated tools at territorial level1.
In this framework, integration of migrants and refugees in EU regions and urban areas is reviewed. The analysis is based on available evidence in the 2007-13 and 2014-2020 programming period.
Under the general framework, three specific objectives have been set out to provide a more detailed picture of the issues at stake. These objectives can also be considered as analysis steps that lead to more specific conclusions and recommendations. The specific objectives of the study are the following:
1. Overview of challenges linked to social inclusion in EU regions and urban areas and the role of European cohesion policy in tackling such challenges; 2. Analysis of the role ESI Funds have played and can play in tackling the challenges linked to social inclusion, in particular migration issues, in EU regions and urban areas; 3. Analysis of integrated approaches to territorial development taken by Member States to tackle challenges of social inclusion, including those associated with migration.
In relation to the first specific objective, the study identifies and maps the main challenges linked to social inclusion and migration faced by EU regions and urban areas over the last decade, considering the recent economic crisis, the recent refugee crisis as well as internal security issues. As the second specific objective and step of analysis, the study ‘opens the box’ of ESI Funds (and related EU policy instruments) to understand the extent to which in both past and current periods the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) have tackled the challenges related to social inclusion and migration. ESF, ERDF and EAFRD remain the priority in the analysis, which examines funds that address these issues either directly through dedicated priorities, or indirectly as a cross-cutting issue. In relation to the third specific objective, a third step in the study focuses on integrated approaches adopted at programme level, which are related to social inclusion and migration. At this stage, the focus is on the integrated instrument tools as defined in the regulations – i.e. Community-Led Local Development, Integrated Territorial Investment and Sustainable urban development - specifically designed for urban areas or covering larger territories, such as rural or cross-border areas.
The three levels of analysis are combined to deliver conclusions about the implementation of ESI Funds in tackling issues linked to social inclusion and migration focusing on the use of integrated approaches at regional and territorial levels, considering the general objective of inclusive growth as declared by EU institutions in the EU 2020 strategy.
1 See the Common Strategic Framework , Annex I of the Common Provisions Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of 17 December 2013), sections 3 and 4.
13 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
1.2. Methodology The methodological approach of the study has three steps: definition of research questions (RQs) (set out in the Terms of Reference), data collection, data analysis and reporting.
Figure 1: Methodological overview
Source: Authors
The team of experts started with a list of RQs covering a large range of themes related to social inclusion, migration and integrated approaches in an EU policy framework.
The RQs, drawn-up in the Terms of reference of this study, have been regrouped under issues or themes addressed in different chapters of the study. The themes are:
State of play of social exclusion at EU level, including migration issues and territorial patterns of social exclusion, and related policy challenges in terms of social inclusion; Social inclusion in the EU cohesion policy framework, and in connexion with other EU policies; Integrated instruments in ESI Funds to address social exclusion and migration issues.
14 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Table 1 below shows the link between the RQs (grouped by theme and key issues) and the chapter of the study addressing these issues.
Table 1: Research questions and corresponding chapters
RESEACH QUESTIONS THEMES CHAPTER SECTION
What are the main challenges linked to social 1 inclusion in European regions and urban Section 2.4 areas?
Are specific aspects regarding the integration of immigrants compared with other social Sections 2.2 2 groups targeted by social inclusion and 2.3 measures? Chapter 2 Sections How does the refugee and migration crisis State of 3 2.2, 2.3 and influence such challenges? play of 2.4 social exclusion What are the links between social inclusion 4 Section 2.3 and internal security?
What role do local authorities (especially in 5 Section 2.3 urban areas) play in this context
What is and has been the role of European cohesion policy (ESI Funds) in promoting 6 Section 3.1 social inclusion and tackling migration issues? Chapter 3 What are the links between cohesion policy Social and broader policy actions at European level inclusion 7 Section 3.4 linked to social inclusion and migration in ESI issues? Funds
How far has an integrated approach to 8 territorial development been applied and how Integrated Section 4.1 has it addressed social inclusion? approach in ESI Chapter 4 Have migration issues/integration of Funds Sections 4.2 9 migrants been part of such integrated and 4.3 approaches?
How far have actions under the different ESI Funds been coordinated and have there been 10 Section 3.3 synergies with instruments of other relevant Social inclusion EU policy areas? Chapter 3 in ESI
What are the main strengths and weaknesses Funds of cohesion policy instruments in addressing 11 Sections 3.5 social inclusion in a coherent and coordinated way?
15 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
RESEACH QUESTIONS THEMES CHAPTER SECTION
Integrated Are there barriers to the practical 12 approach implementation of integrated approaches to Chapter 4 Sections 4.3 in ESI territorial development? Funds
What role have European Territorial Social Cooperation activities played in addressing inclusion Cross 13 social inclusion and migration and are these in ESI - cutting issues being addressed in the 2014-20 Funds programming period?
Source: Authors
To deliver a clear picture of the challenges and issues at stake, as well as to include the most recent data in the analysis, data collection started with a literature review of sources at EU, national and local levels. In the second step, a desktop review of selected programmes used a common template (see list of programmes in Annex A). Finally, 20 stakeholders at EU and national/regional levels were interviewed to reinforce the analysis with more qualitative and updated information.
1.2.1. Literature review The literature review investigated RQs 1 to 5 (see table above) linked to the identification of challenges faced by regions and urban areas in fields covered by this study. This provides a picture of the EU regulatory framework, illustrating past experience of Structural Funds during the programming period 2007-2013 and changes observed over recent decades in this policy area, including the refugee crisis.
The main documents analysed are reported in the Bibliography (see section References) and include European Commission (EC) studies, statistical reports, working papers, research papers and guidance from EU institutions. Online sources are also reported when available.
1.2.2. Programme review and geographical coverage In a preliminary phase, for the inception report, the team of experts identified a list of ESI Fund programmes of interest and a set of countries to focus on. ERDF, ESF and EAFRD programmes were identified as a priority and a few EMFF programmes were also included when social inclusion was part of their strategy. A number of Cross-border cooperation (CBC) programmes completed the previous list.
Programmes were reviewed based on their strategy in the policy field of social inclusion, their target groups and their actions addressing social inclusion and migrant issues. Programme review covers mainly RQs 6 to 10.
The list of countries and related programmes was based on the following criteria: geographical localisation (from South to North Europe), evidence of experience with social inclusion policies, specific challenges addressed at policy level, such as the recent migratory and refugee crisis. Countries covered are Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia and Greece.
The 46 programmes reviewed are listed in Annex A.
16 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
1.2.3. Interviews A total of 20 interviews completed the data collection and analysis. They were conducted with a balanced set of European, national and regional authorities (Commission Directorate Generals, national contact points, managing authorities), covering the geographical and thematic areas being reviewed:
interviews with representatives of Directorate-Generals of the European Commission Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL) and Migration and Home Affairs (DG Home), mainly gathering information on: EU policy for migration and internal security issues in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 periods; adoption of territorial integrated approach to address specific social and migration challenges; ongoing and previous ad hoc initiatives and programmes at the European Commission level;
interviews with managing authorities in countries identified by the study. Information was collected on programme interventions for social inclusion and migrant issues, calls for projects/proposals launched, examples of integrated approaches financed by the programme; interviews with stakeholders at urban and territorial levels, to collect additional feedback on current experiences and ongoing challenges at local and urban levels; included one interview with a representative of the Urban Innovative Actions Initiative, which has recently launched the first call for projects to integrate migrants and refugees.
Interviews illustrated the main challenges authorities faced when dealing with integration of policies in the field of social inclusion and migration (RQs 11 to 12). The list of organisations interviewed is reported in Annex A.
The methodological limits of the study are related to:
the partial coverage of countries and programmes concerning this field of research; the lack of information on results from programmes and projects implemented at territorial level in the current programming period 2014-2020, due to the late adoption of most programmes supported by ESI Funds, leading to a delayed start of implementation on the ground2.
2 European Commission (2016), “2016 Summary report of the programme annual implementation reports covering implementation in 2014-2015”, COM(2016) 812 final.
17 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
18 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
2. STATE OF PLAY OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND MIGRATION ISSUES IN THE EU
KEY FINDINGS
The headline indicator ‘people at risk of poverty or social exclusion’, set up in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy target of ‘lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and social exclusion’ by 2020 compared with the year 2008, is composed of three sub-indicators capturing the level of income (compared with the national average), the degree of material deprivation and the situation of workers in private households. Since the financial crisis of 2007, the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) has increased in the European Union (from 114.5 million people at risk in the EU-27 in 2009 to 123.9 million people in the EU-28 in 2012, the highest peak). Despite a slight overall decrease since that year (118.7 million people in the EU-28 in 2015), it remains a key target for the EU 2020 Strategy with almost every fourth person at risk in the EU, and large differences across Member States (in 2014, 15 % of the population was affected in the Czech Republic compared with 40 % in Bulgaria). In general, northern and western European countries weathered the crisis better and society was impacted less than in Eastern and Southern European countries.
The reasons for poverty and exclusion vary: economic (e.g. unemployment), social marginalisation and personal situations (e.g. people with health problems, gender or age). People at risk of poverty and social exclusion include people with disabilities and chronic health problems, children and youth, the long-term unemployed, older workers, low-skilled workers, women in the labour market, ethnic minorities (e.g. Roma people) and immigrants.
EU Member States have for decades regularly received immigrants from third countries for family reunification, economic or political reasons. The recent refugee crisis represents a change in proportion (600,000 new asylum applicants in 2014 and over 1 million in 2015 and 2016), type (people fleeing conflicts, asylum seekers) and origin (almost entirely Middle East and Mediterranean). Member States and regions are not similarly affected by the refugee crisis. For instance, Germany and the UK are primary destination countries, while Greece, Italy, Croatia and other Balkans states, in particular the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia are entry points for migrants moving on to other Member States.
In a larger context, social inclusion of people at risk of poverty, social integration of minorities and the fight against segregation can be seen in relation to internal security, i.e. reducing the risk of violence and crimes. Migrant smuggling and the presence of illegal immigrants in the EU are well-documented phenomena addressed through specific policies at EU and national levels.
Improving social inclusion and the integration of migrants requires facing and overcoming policy challenges such as the multidimensionality of social exclusion, a changing socio-economic context, disparities across Member States, citizen acceptance, as well as local stakeholder and authority capacity and involvement in the definition of policies and their implementation.
19 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
In this chapter, before focussing on the main challenges linked to social inclusion, section 2.1 illustrates the key concepts and definitions used in the study. Section 2.2 provides statistical evidence of phenomena related to social exclusion, while section 2.3 presents an overview of the regulatory framework at EU level. Section 2.2 has a specific focus on rural versus urban poverty and a short section on migrants and internal security.
2.1. Key concepts and definitions
2.1.1. Social exclusion / inclusion The study deals with the thematic of ‘social inclusion’, referring to policy intervention with the objective to tackle social exclusion at various territorial levels in targeting a wide range of disadvantaged groups of people. ‘Social inclusion’ and ‘social exclusion’ are both used in this study: ‘social exclusion’ refers to observations at territorial level for groups of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion (e.g. young people excluded from the labour market), while ‘social inclusion’ refers specifically to policy interventions aiming to reduce social exclusion and poverty (e.g. employment policies)3.
It is worth noting, that these key concepts have not yet reached an official and stable definition at EU level, coexisting with various national definitions, however all recognising their multidimensionality. This absence of a common EU definition is largely explained by the fact that social policies are shared competencies between the EU and Member States, but they remain primarily under the responsibility of the latter. So, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the role of the EU in this area is limited to supporting and complementing the activities of Member States4.
Social exclusion first appeared on the “EU scene” in a 1989 Council resolution on ‘combating social exclusion’5. Broader than the previously used term ‘poverty’, ‘social exclusion’ better underlines the multidimensionality of the problem it intends to describe. Since the mid- 1990s, EU documents have referred to ‘poverty and social exclusion’ together. In 2002, Eurostat proposed a definition, recognising its complexity and proposing a conceptual multifaceted framework considering the labour market position, the ascribed forms of stratification (gender/minority status), the traditional forms of stratification (social class, education and training), life history and capital, personal social capital and welfare resources.
Eurostat measures the risk of poverty or social exclusion as a condition where people experience a risk of poverty, or severe material deprivation, or live in households with very little work6:
‘At risk of poverty’, having an income below 60 % of the national median equalised disposable income after social transfers.
3 Social inclusion, as defined in the Joint report on social inclusion, is a process which ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion gain the opportunities and resources necessary to participate fully in economic, social and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of living and well-being that is considered normal in the society in which they live. It ensures that they have greater participation in decision making which affects their lives and access to their fundamental rights. Commission of the European Communities, COM(2004)773 final. 4 EUR-Lex, summaries of EU legislation, Social policy. 5 Resolution of the Council and of the ministers for social affairs meeting within the Council of 29 September 1989 on combating social exclusion (89/C 277/01) 6 Eurostat Glossary, in http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Glossary:At_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion_(AROPE)
20 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
‘Severe material deprivation’, experiencing at least four of the nine following deprivations: 1. arrears on mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, hire purchase instalments or other loan payments; 2. unable to afford one week’s annual holiday away from home; 3. unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day; 4. unable to face unexpected financial expenses; 5. unable to buy a telephone (including mobile phone); 6. unable to buy a colour television; 7. unable to buy a washing machine; 8. unable to buy a car; 9. unable to keep the house warm. ‘Living in households with very low working intensity’ (people aged 0-59 living in households where adults worked less than 20 % of their potential over the past year).
2.1.2. Social exclusion of migrants The study places a specific focus on migrants as people particularly at risk of exclusion. Specific risks faced by migrants are economic, social, cultural and linked to territorial segregation. The term ‘migrant’ is considered in a broad sense, covering immigrants, migrants and refugees as defined in the box below7.
Box 1: Definitions of migrants, immigrants and refugees Migrant: A broader-term of an immigrant and emigrant, referring to a person who leaves one country or region to settle in another. Migration is mainly due to socio-economic or political reasons, such as better work opportunities, higher salaries, better life quality or more freedom.
Immigrant: A person undertaking an immigration and who establishes his or her usual residence in a Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, at least 12 months, having previously been usually resident in another Member State or a third country (Council Regulation (EC) number 862/2007)
Refugee and Asylum seeker: A person (migrant) with a ‘refugee status’ (UNHCR, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) or a ‘subsidiary protection status’ as defined in Article 2d and 2f of Directive 2004/83/EC. An asylum seeker is a person who has sought protection as a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been assessed (Directive 2013/33/EU).
2.1.3. Integrated approaches in ESI Funds Integrated approach emphasises that promoting development requires close coordination of public policies to address diverse and multidimensional development challenges.
Dating from the origin of the Cohesion Policy, the integrated approach principle has been reinforced in EU policies since the Treaty of Lisbon, as territorial cohesion has been included as an explicit key goal of the European Union alongside economic and social cohesion.
More than ever, the integrated approach can be very valuable in the current context. As stated in the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), ‘Member States and regions increasingly face challenges that relate to the impact of globalisation, environmental and energy concerns, population ageing and demographic shifts, technological transformation and innovation
7 https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/e-library/glossary/a_en. See also European Parliament (2017), ‘Migration and asylum’: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/infographics/migration/public/index.html?page=intro
21 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______demands, and social inequality. Due to the complex and interrelated nature of such challenges, the solutions supported by the ESI Funds should be of an integrated nature, multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional’ 8.
The Common Strategic Framework (CSF, Annex 1 -CPR) illustrates how to combine ESI Funds in a common programming framework, the type of synergies between ESI Funds and with other policy instruments, as well as the implementation tools available to ensure an integrated approach at territorial level.
Integrated approach is increasingly becoming a way to tackle complex societal issues, such as poverty and social exclusion even when transcending the territorial dimension. Acknowledging the multidimensional nature, the Council called on the Commission and the Member States, in its conclusion entitled ‘Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion: An integrated approach’ from June 20169, to develop an integrated approach under the EU 2020 Strategy and related implementing instruments, by combining adequate income support, access to quality services and inclusive labour markets, while ensuring equal opportunities for women and men. The integrated approach is here characterised by comprehensive, continuous and coordinated interventions throughout the life cycle and requires cooperation among all stakeholders. It recognises the role of and consequences for other life domains, such as employment, health and long-term care, reconciliation of work and family life, education and housing. The Council strongly encouraged Member States to take them into account when designing and implementing policies to prevent and combat poverty and social exclusion, in order to reach their national poverty and social exclusion targets, with a better use of ESIF support.
Therefore, when conceiving and implementing programmes supported by ESIF, adopting an integrated approach allows cross-financing, mobilising different actors to answer collectively to interwoven challenges, and appears to be the best way to tackle them in a systemic approach, especially at territorial level.
2.2. Statistical overview of social inclusion
2.2.1. Social exclusion in EU15/28 According to most recent Eurostat data10 (in 2015) 118.7 million people, or 23.7 % of people in the EU-28 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion. These people presented at least one of the following conditions (Figure 2):
at risk of poverty considering their relative income (around 51 million people), severely materially deprived (16.0 million people), or living in households with very low work intensity (13.3 million people).
8 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 9 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10434-2016-INIT/en/pdf 10 Eurostat (December 2016), ‘Social inclusion Statistics’ in Statistics explained.
22 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Another 29.4 million people faced at least two of these three situations. Compared with 2013, there were 564 000 fewer people at risk of poverty in 2014.
Figure 2: Category of people-at-risk of poverty and social exclusion, 2015
Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_pees01)
As stated in the Social Inclusion Monitor Europe 2015 (SIM Europe)11, whereas the situation has stopped deteriorating compared with 2014, partially due to a small labour market improvement, ‘Social conditions and participation opportunities for people in most EU countries remain considerably worse than in the pre-crisis period’.
However, the context and trends vary considerably in different Member States. While more than a third of the population (in 2014) was at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Romania (40.2 %), Bulgaria (40.1 %) and Greece (36.0 %), Member States like Finland (17.3 %), Sweden (16.9 %), the Netherlands (16.5 %) and the Czech Republic (14.8 %) had significantly lower proportions. While some countries made considerable improvements, reducing overall poverty and social exclusion levels (as in Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Ireland and Slovakia), the proportions of the population at risk of poverty or social exclusion still remain high in most Member States. Some even recorded an increase in population at risk (e.g. Greece, Spain and Estonia). Comparable data for 2015 and 2014 is in Figure 3.
11 Social Justice in the EU – Index Report 2015 Social Inclusion Monitor Europe Daniel Schraad-Tischler
23 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Figure 3: Population at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Member States (MSs), 2014, 2015
Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_peps01)
The risk of poverty and social exclusion usually affects some people in the EU population more severely, such as children and youth, long-term unemployed, marginalized groups etc.
(1) Children and active-age people are more at risk of poverty or social exclusion than elderly people in several countries.
On average, 26.9 % of children in the EU-28 were at risk of poverty and social exclusion, which is considerably higher than for elderly people (17.4 %). This can be attributed to a number of factors, from labour market conditions and government income support to pension systems and the structure of each population category. However, there are also national differences between Member States as well as between the regions in the same country. Additionally, there are differences within population categories. For instance, among the elderly, women tend to be more vulnerable and face much higher risks than men, as are children of migrant parents12. The 2015 SIM Europe underlines the worsening of generational imbalances since 2014, with an increased risk of poverty or social exclusion for children and youth in most Southern European MS, a big concern.
(2) Income poverty: 17.3 % of the EU-28 population faces risk of poverty.
This indicator estimates the share of people at risk of poverty by comparing their disposable income against national poverty thresholds, which differ among Member States. As these national thresholds have decreased in most Member States due to the financial and economic crisis, current poverty levels in absolute value may be even higher. The highest shares of population at risk of poverty were in Romania (25.4 %) and Latvia (22.5 %), Lithuania (22.2 %), Spain (22.1 %) and Bulgaria (22.0 %). At the other end of the scale were countries like
12 Eurostat (2016), ‘Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion’, in Statistics explained, March.
24 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Finland (12.4 %), Slovakia (12.3 %), Denmark (12.2 %), the Netherlands (11.6 %) and the Czech Republic (9.7 %), which experienced the lowest proportion of population at risk of poverty.
(3) Work intensity: 10.5 % of the population in the EU-28 is living in households with very low work intensity.
Work intensity of a household refers to the number of months working-age household members (18-59, excluding students aged 18-24) worked during the reference period (usually a year) compared with the potential number of months they could have worked during the same period. Low work intensity is defined by a ratio of less than 20 %. In 2015, Member States like Greece (16.8 %), Spain (15.4 %), Belgium (14.9 %) and Croatia (14.4 %) had the highest proportion of low work intensity households. These rates were lowest in Poland (6.9 %), the Czech Republic (6.8 %), Estonia (6.6 %), Sweden (5.8 %) and Luxembourg (5.7 %). These findings depend on a number of different factors, mainly labour market conditions, but factors like culture and tradition can also play an important role.
(4) Material deprivation: 8.1 % of the EU-28 population was severely materially deprived.
The severe material deprivation rate is the proportion of people who cannot afford at least four of nine key items (see section 2.1). This indicator showed the highest differences between Member States. The worst situation was in Bulgaria and Romania, which had severe material deprivation of 34.2 % and 22.7 % respectively, followed by Greece with 22.2 %, while the lowest deprivation scores were in Sweden (0.7 %), the Netherlands (2.6 %), Denmark (3.2 %), Finland (2.2 %) and Luxembourg (2.0 %).
(5) Unexpected expenses: 37.3 % of the population in the EU-28 could not afford unexpected financial expenses.
This indicator measures the ability of a household to cover — from their own resources — an unexpected expense amounting to a fraction of the poverty threshold (/12), leading once more to different amounts between Member States. The proportion of people unable to cover unexpected expenses varies drastically per Member State and ranged from 27.0 % or less in Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Malta and Sweden to more than 60.0 % in Hungary, Cyprus and Latvia.
The table below summarises some available statistics about significant categories of population at risk of exclusion and the associated type of social exclusion13.
13 See http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Main_Page
25 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Table 2: Illustration of some vulnerable groups by type of exclusion Vulnerable group Issues at stake Type of exclusion In 2012, 70 million people in the EU-27 Social discrimination had disabilities, (i.e. 17.6 % of the population over 15 years old). In 2013, People with about 30 % of the EU-28 population disabilities (over 15 years old) with an activity limitation was in a situation of risk of poverty or social exclusion. More than 30 % of young people aged Labour market 18-24 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013. The youth unemployment rate (workers aged 15- Young people 24) increased from 15.4 % in 2008 to 22.2 % in 2014, while long-term unemployment doubled from 2.6 % to 5.1 %. More than one third (34.8 %) of people Economic poverty with at most lower secondary Low-skilled workers educational attainment were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013. Women are more at risk of poverty and Economic poverty social exclusion than men (25.4 % compared with 23.6 % in 2013. The lower activity rate of women (25 to 49) leading to gender employment gap has Women several causes including the need to stay at home for childcare (38.3 % in 2013) and for other family or personal circumstances such as marriage, pregnancy or long vacation (15.5 % in 2013). Low accessibility of Roma people to the Cultural discrimination Ethnic groups and education system, labour market, health migrants system and appropriate housing conditions.
Source: Eurostat
2.2.2. Recent migrant flows and social inclusion challenges Eurostat reports that there were 3.8 million new immigrants in the EU-28 Member States during 2014, of which approximately 1.9 million were citizens of non-EU-member countries, the highest figures since 199214. This upward trend continued due to conflicts in the Middle East (mainly Syria) and Africa, but also because of underlying trends in demographics, climate change, poverty and globalisation in transport and communications. This resulted in a record number of immigrants and refugees received by EU Member States in 201515. Moreover, EU countries also received a record number of asylum applications (of
14 Eurostat (2016), ‘Migration and migrant population statistics’, in Statistics explained, May. 15 EC (2016), DG Home affairs, ‘On the state of Play of Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration’, Communication from Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2016)85 final, February.
26 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______which around 50 % are approved) in 2015, the highest number in the last thirty years16. It is estimated that there were close to 1.3 million applications, which was more than double the number in 2014 (627 000) and almost twice as high as for the EU-15 in 1992 (672 000)17. Figure 4 below shows the number of asylum applications in EU-28 Member States between 2008 and 2016.
Figure 4: Asylum applications (non-EU) in the EU-28 Member States, 2008-2016 (thousands)
Source: Eurostat (online data codes: migr_asyctz and migr_asyappctza)
According to Eurostat data, in 2015 almost 30 % of asylum applicants are Syrian, while other significant groups are people from Afghanistan (14 %) and Iraq (10 %)18. Most asylum applications were submitted in Germany (442 000), while countries like Hungary, Sweden, Austria and Finland recorded very large increases in first time applicants. However, the acceptance rate of asylum applications decreased significantly from 2012 (48.6 %) to 2015 (31 %), even though the absolute acceptance volumes gradually increased19.
Immigrants continue to be at much greater risk of experiencing poverty than native- born citizens. Based on 2015 figures, 40.2 % of the non-EU-born population in the EU was assessed to be at risk of poverty compared with 21.7 % of the native-born population. The greatest gaps between nationals and non-EU citizens were generally observed in Sweden and Belgium, with the highest severe material deprivation of non-EU citizens observed in Greece (55.6 %) and Portugal (29.8 %).20
16 European Parliament (2016), ‘Labour Market Integration of Refugees: Strategies and good practices’, Study for the EMPL Committee. 17 Eurostat (2016), ‘Asylum statistics’, in Statistics explained, March and April. 18 Eurostat (2016), ‘Migration and migrant population statistics’, in Statistics explained, May. 19 ESPON (2015), Policy Brief: Territorial and urban aspects of migration and refugee inflow, Policy Brief, compiled by ESPON in cooperation with CEMR, EUROCITIES and EUKN. see also ESPON (2013); Post-crisis migration trends: challenges and opportunities for Europe’s competitiveness, ESPON evidence brief. 20 2017 Eurostat update on the risk of poverty and social exclusion
27 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
There are different statistical instruments to evaluate the integration of migrants and refugees.
The integration of immigrants in the host country is a multi-dimensional concept. It involves their socio-economic integration, i.e. the convergence between the immigrant and native population with respect to access to the labour market, earnings, education and training, housing, social benefits and social services, but also legal–political integration, i.e. citizenship rights, and, in the more extensive notion of assimilation, cultural integration: acceptance of the host country’s values and beliefs. Labour market integration is the single most important step toward socio-economic integration, even if it does not necessarily guarantee it. In some countries employment is also important for the acquisition of residence permits and civil rights21. Labour market integration is the most relevant durable solution for most refugees, a widely-shared consensus among experts as stated in the study from the European Parliament ‘Labour market integration of refugees: strategies and good practices’ from March 201622. The EU Common Basic Principles (CPB) of Immigrant Integration, adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in November 2004 also state that ‘employment is a key part of the integration process and is central to the participation of immigrants, to the contributions immigrants make to the host society, and to making such contributions visible’ (CPB 3 in Annex I).
The concept of ‘integration’ is broad, encompassing social inclusion. This wide scope is illustrated in the European Commission Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals adopted on 7 June 2016. Their integration requires actions in the following policy areas: pre-departure and pre-arrival measures; education; employment and vocational training; access to basic services such as housing and healthcare; active participation and social inclusion. This Action Plan respects the role if the EU in relation to integration, which remains primarily a national competence, and therefore strengthens ‘soft coordination’. To assess the implementation of this Action Plan, Eurostat provides statistics measuring migrants’ integration in terms of employment, health, social inclusion and active citizenship in the host country. Note that, the labour market integration of migrants has a direct effect on the three components of the AROPE indicator: income, material deprivation and low working intensity.
Therefore, it is interesting to look at other indicators, such as labour market integration, closely linked to the social inclusion of migrants as mentioned by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound, 2016)23.
For labour market integration24, Eurostat uses a distinct set of indicators that generated the following findings in 201525:
21 Peer Review in Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2010 - Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market (Norway) – synthesis report - November 2010, 22 Labour Market Integration of Refugees: Strategies and good practices - March 2016 - IP/A/EMPL/2016-08 - PE 578.956 23 Eurofound (2016), ‘Approaches to the labour market integration of refugees and asylum seekers’. 24 European Parliament (2016), ‘Labour Market Integration of Refugees: Strategies and good practices’, Study for the EMPL Committee. 25 Eurostat (2016), ‘Migrant integration statistics – labour market indicators’, in Statistics explained, April.
28 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
The gap in labour market participation at EU level between non-EU citizen migrants and EU citizens (both the national population and EU citizen migrants) increased further in 2015; Despite a decrease of around 1 % in 2015, the unemployment rate of non-EU citizens remains 10 % higher than the unemployment rate of nationals; Unemployment for the non-EU-born population aged 15–29 increased by 10.3 % between 2008 and 2015; Long-term unemployment, as a percentage of total unemployment, increased for the non-EU-born population from 28.4 % in 2009 to 51.2 % in 2015, after a decrease between 2008 and 2009; In 2015, the employment rate of non-EU citizens was 56.7 % compared with 70.6 % for nationals, with significant dissimilarities between men and women; The employment rate of the young non-EU-born population (39.4 %) was lower than for the EU-born (56.4 %) and native-born (47.2 %).
2.2.3. Poverty and migrants in urban and rural areas Most of the EU population lives in urban areas (around 72 % in 2011), with a high number of foreign-born persons. The percentage of foreigners living in many of Europe’s cities has risen. Concurrently, increased mobility and a decline in some national or regional populations will likely result in more migrants arriving in urban areas of the EU during the coming decades. These developments are likely to be particularly prevalent in the largest global economic centres, which often act as magnets for migrants26. The recent human tragedy and the resulting flows of asylum seekers and migrants are reflected by national statistics that are already capturing many of these developments; however, data on cities and metropolitan regions generally take several years to produce and are not yet available. Despite variations among countries, globally, this increases social inclusion challenges in urban areas.
In absolute terms, in the EU-28, urban areas include more people at risk of poverty than rural areas. However, the situation is different among Member States and depends on the type of poverty. In 2014, according to Eurostat data, rural areas were more affected by (relative) income poverty than urban areas; while the share of population with a very low intensity of work was higher in cities27. At the same time, considering all three criteria above, the risk of poverty or social exclusion is lower in urban than rural areas in Romania, Bulgaria and Poland; while the reverse is true in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Iceland and Austria (see Figure 5 and Figure 6).
26 Eurostat (2016), ‘Urban Europe, statistics on cities, towns and suburbs’, Chapter 11 on Foreign-born persons in cities, 2016 edition. 27 Eurostat (2016), ‘Urban Europe — statistics on cities, towns and suburbs — poverty and social exclusion in cities’, in Statistics explained, February-April.
29 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Figure 5: Proportion of population at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by degree of urbanisation, 2015
Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_peps13)
Figure 6: Working age population born outside the EU by degree of urbanisation, 2014
Source: Eurostat (2016)
30 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Finally, a survey on the quality of life conducted by Eurostat in 2015 in 79 European cities illustrates the public perception of migrants in local communities (see Figure 7 below)28. The survey shows a very diverse situation across European cities. In some cities, the population agreed that foreigners are well integrated into the local community, such as greater London and Lisbon, Luxembourg, Budapest and Zagreb. Other cities, such as Sofia, Rome or Greater Athens report low integration. Above all, a good perception of migrant integration was specifically observed in cities with a relatively large foreign population.
Figure 7: Proportion of population who agree that foreigners in their city are well integrated.
Source: Eurostat on line survey (2016)
28 Eurostat (2016), Perception survey result, online result: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=urb_percep&lang=en
31 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
2.2.4. Social inclusion and internal security issues In a larger context, social inclusion of people at risk, social integration of minorities and the fight against segregation can be seen in relation to internal security. The question of migrants related to internal security issues is more recent.
… social inclusion and security …
The 6th Cohesion Report highlights that ‘crime rates are higher in urban regions, border regions and tourism destinations’ than in the rest of Europe29. Reducing urban segregation and increasing urban inclusion to decrease crime rates has been one of the objectives of urban initiatives. In recent years, the theme of internal security has become a priority issue in the EU agenda with increased threats of terrorism, serious and organized crime, cybercrime, cross-border crime and violence. The EC Communication on European Agenda on Security adopted in 2016 identified threats to internal security. Most of them refer exclusively to internal security and external policy. However, some relate to social inclusion. Indeed, ‘Integration, social inclusion and the fight against discrimination’ has been recognised as a key element for EU internal security and is included in the EU Internal Security Strategy principles and guidelines for actions to foster internal security30. In 2015 (in the renewed European Union Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020), the Council of the European Union reaffirmed the need to promote social cohesion and social inclusion in the EU to prevent criminal phenomena.
… and migrants …
In a survey conducted by Eurobarometer in 2016 on the most important issues facing the EU, data show that European citizens rank both ‘immigration’ and ‘terrorism’ far above their other concerns31. In a few Member States, the link between migration and security is under political debate. However, even if events demonstrate that migrants could be involved in crimes, there are no statistical studies that identify a clear link between legal migrants reaching European borders and EU internal security in general. The link is better documented for illegal migrants crossing borders and criminal organisations, especially related to migrant smuggling32. Moreover, there is a high risk for non-regular migrants once settled in EU Member States to be victims of criminal networks, traffic in human beings, or contribute to irregular activities, such as irregular work. Finally, persons staying illegally in Member States are almost always socially excluded, without access to basic public services (such as health, housing and education) or benefitting from other financial support necessary for their integration.
29 European Commission (2014), ‘Investment for jobs and growth: Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities’, Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. 30 Council of the European Union, ‘Internal security strategy for the European Union - Towards a European security model’, 2010. It was renewed in 2015: Council of the European Union, ‘Draft Council conclusions on the Renewed European Union Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020’, 2015 31 EC (2016), Standard Eurobarometer 86, ‘Public opinion in the European Union’, First results, Autumn. 32 EC (2014), ‘Annual report on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the return of illegal residents’ Brussels, Commission staff working paper, SEC(2004) 349.
32 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
2.3. EU policy framework
2.3.1. General overview of EU policies for social inclusion and migration
… EU policies and social inclusion …
The social dimension of European integration has been developed through the years, notably with the Treaty of Lisbon; however, responsibility for social policy lies primarily with national governments, and the EU has no exclusive competence in this field.
several areas related to social policy are cross-cutting, a general principal stated in Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). shared competences between the EU and Member States apply to social policy, only for those aspects defined in the TFEU (Title X): combating social exclusion is one of the eleven fields listed. However, social policies are implemented more effectively at Member State level than at European level. In this way, and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the role of the EU in this area is limited to supporting and complementing the activities of Member States). for other aspects of social policy that are not explicitly mentioned in Article 151 of the TFEU, EU competence is limited to providing arrangements within which EU MSs must coordinate policy.
The Europe 2020 Strategy33, however, identifies inclusive growth (fostering a high- employment economy that delivers social and territorial cohesion) as one of its three priority areas, in addition to smart and sustainable growth. It specifically addresses social inclusion challenges because, for the first time, a clear target for its ‘social’ pillar is mentioned: the objective of lifting 20 million people out of the risk of poverty by 2020), together with a renewed commitment to an ambitious goal in the area of employment (75% employment for the 20-64 age group).
Of the seven Flagship Initiatives adopted to achieve Europe 2020 targets, three are related to the social policy area: the Agenda for Skills and Jobs, Youth on the move, and even more importantly for this study, the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion.
actions under the European platform against poverty and social exclusion are planned to cover the full spectrum of policies including labour market, healthcare, education, housing, minimum income support and access to basic banking. These actions use EU funds to support social inclusion, focus on social innovation to find smart solutions in post-crisis Europe and lastly, they seek to create new partnerships between public and private sectors 34. the New Skills Agenda for Europe adopted in June 2016 proposes actions to ensure that the right training, skills and support are accessible to people in the EU. It aims to tackle two of the main causes of social exclusion, namely the lack of competence and lifelong learning opportunities, by equipping people with new skills that would help them find quality jobs and improve their life chances35. Among the ten actions
33 Communication from the Commission, EUROPE 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth - COM(2010) 2020 final 34 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=961 35 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223
33 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
proposed by the Commission to be taken forward over the coming years, a 'Skills Profile Tool Kit for Third Country Nationals' will support the early identification and profiling of skills and qualifications of asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants. Both the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion and the New Skills Agenda for Europe focus on policy objectives set out in the EC 2012 Social Investment Package36. The package establishes a link between social policies, reforms to reach Europe 2020 targets and the relevant EU funds, providing guidance to combat social exclusion in Europe. This Social Investment Package is complementary to the Employment Package37, focused on EU employment policies, as well as to the Youth Employment Package, providing a series of actions and strategies to support young people38.
The Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, adopted by the European Commission in 2011, in accordance with articles 174 and 175 of the TFEU stating that “ all policies and actions of the Union should contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion” is another key element of the EU framework supporting social inclusion. Therefore, when designing and implementing social inclusion policies, Member States and local authorities should consider the principles and objectives of the Territorial Agenda. One of the challenges identified in the Agenda is the ‘Territorially diverse demographic and social challenges, segregation of vulnerable groups’. The agenda includes six priorities relevant to promote social inclusion across European regions.
To support EU policy aiming at social inclusion, other EU level programmes and financial support complement ESI Funds, much smaller both in terms of scope and budget. Among the most relevant programmes and funds, are the following:
the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, established in 2006, provides support for workers made redundant as a result of changes in patterns of world trade. The EGF has a maximum annual budget of EUR 150 million for the period 2014-2020; the Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) programme is a financing instrument at EU level to promote a high level of quality and sustainable employment, guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection, combating social exclusion and poverty and improving working conditions, with a budget of EUR 919.469 million for 2014-202. As of January 2014, these programmes form the three axes of EaSI. They support: the modernisation of employment and social policies with the PROGRESS axis (61 % of the total budget); job mobility with the EURES axis (18 % of the total budget); access to micro-finance and social entrepreneurship with the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis (21 % of the total budget). finally, the Fund for European Aid to the most Deprived (FEAD) is intended to further social cohesion through nonfinancial (in-kind) assistance (including food, clothing and other essential items for personal use, e.g. shoes, soap and shampoo) to those experiencing the most deprivation. Material assistance needs to go hand in
36 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion – including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020 - COM(2013) 83 final 37 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Towards a job-rich recovery, COM/2012/0173 final 38 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1036&newsId=1731&furtherNews=yes
34 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
hand with social inclusion measures, such as guidance and support to help people out of poverty. Over EUR 3.8 billion 39are earmarked for the FEAD for the 2014-2020 period.
However, with the economic crisis and despite a consistent regulatory framework, Member States and the EU as a whole are encountering significant difficulties in achieving objectives of the EU 2020 strategy. The EC communication ‘Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’40, published on 5 March 2014 indicates that it is unlikely to reach the headline target by 2020 due to the impact of the economic crisis and increasing disparities among Member States. As shown in Figure 8, the situation in recent years has moved away from the target path as set out in the EU 2020 strategy. In addition, as mentioned in the communication, the flagship initiative ‘European platform against poverty and social exclusion’ had not created a coherent and integrated framework for social policies and had limited added value.
Figure 8: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2005–13 (million people)
Source: Eurostat41 (tsdsc100)
... EU policies and migration …
As already mentioned, institutional developments were brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, making it clear that the EU shares competence in this field with the Member States, in particular as regards the number of migrants allowed to enter a Member State to seek work (Article 79(5) TFEU). Finally, the Court of Justice now has full jurisdiction in the field of immigration and asylum.
It is worth explaining the competences of the EU in relation to the European migration policy to better understand the scope that can be covered by its legislation in relation to social inclusion. A forward-looking and comprehensive European immigration policy, based on solidarity, is a key objective for the European Union. Immigration policy is intended to
39 Figure from 2016. 40 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2014) 130 final/2 41 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Sustainable_development_-_social_inclusion
35 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______establish a balanced approach to dealing with both regular and irregular immigration42. EU policies towards migrants greatly differ between those for EU citizens and non-EU citizens.
The EU is competent to lay down the conditions governing entry into and legal residence in a Member State, including for the purposes of family reunification, for third-country nationals. Member States retain the right to determine volumes of admission for people coming from third countries to seek work.
As set out in Article 79 (4) of the TFEU, the competence on integration lies primarily with the Member States. However, the EU may establish measures to provide incentives and support for Member States in promoting integration of third country nationals residing legally in their territories and has an important role in supporting, stimulating and coordinating Member States' actions and policies in this area.
Due to the limited EU competences in relation to migrants’ integration, existing instruments are related to information, guidance and mutual learning actions provided through the European Migration Forum (formerly the European Integration Forum), the Website on Integration and the network of National Contact Points on Integration.
Following the various documents providing orientation adopted since 2004 in this field (Tampere in 199943, Stockholm in 200944, The Hague in 200445), the Commission published a new communication in March 2014, setting out its vision on the future agenda for home affairs, entitled ‘An open and secure Europe: making it happen’ 46. In accordance with Article 68 TFEU, in its conclusions of 26 and 27 June 2014, the European Council then defined the ‘strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice’ for the period 2014-202047.
More recently, in reaction to the sudden and huge migration crisis, the Commission published on 13 May 2015 the European Agenda on Migration48. The Agenda proposes immediate measures to cope with the crisis in the Mediterranean and measures to be taken over the next few years to manage all aspects of immigration more effectively. Among its four policy areas: establishing a new policy on regular immigration, modernising and revising the ‘blue card’ system, setting fresh priorities for integration policies and optimising the benefits of migration policy for the individuals concerned and for countries of origin are those closely linked to the topic of this study.
At EU level, two funds have been created to support European migration and internal security policies: the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF).
AMIF: from the two regulations forming the legal basis of AMIF49, the Article 3 (1) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 sets out the main objective of AMIF, which is to contribute to
42 Fact Sheet on the European Union – Immigration Policy – European Parliament 43 Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999 – Presidency Conclusions 44 The Stockholm programme - an open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2010/c 115/01) 45 The Hague Programme: 10 priorities for the next five years COM (2005) 184 final 46 Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions - An open and secure Europe: making it happen – COM (2014) 154 final 47 European Council 26/27 June 2014 – Conclusions - EUCO 79/14, Brussels, 27 June 2014 48 Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions – A European Agenda on Migration – COM (2015) 240 final 49 Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (OJ L 150, 20.05.2014, p. 168) - Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the
36 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______the efficient management of migration flows and to the implementation, strengthening and development of a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection and the common immigration policy. Following article 3(2) in that regulation, there are four common specific objectives (SOs) for the Fund:
Asylum: to strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension;
Legal migration and integration: to support legal migration to Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-country nationals;
Return: to enhance fair and effective return strategies in Member States, which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit;
Solidarity: to enhance solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation.
The AMIF will also financially support the Union Resettlement Programme and the future development of the European Migration Network (EMN).
The proposal to establish a Union Resettlement Framework 50 was presented in 2016. The Union Resettlement framework intends to collectively open legal ways for persons seeking international protection or who cannot remain for other reasons in the first country of refuge. Member States should remain the ones deciding on how many people will be resettled each year, and this framework should be implemented through the annual EU resettlement plans, adopted by the Council and operationalised by targeted EU resettlement schemes adopted by the Commission (setting broad geographical priorities, the maximum total number of persons to be resettled in the following year).
The EMN, created in May 200851, provides up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable information on migration and asylum topics to policy makers (at EU and Member State level) and the general public.
In the 2014-2020 programming period, AMIF is being implemented by all EU Member States except Denmark and has a budget of EUR 3.14 billion. Of this, around 88 % is for shared management (multi-annual national programmes) while the rest is for direct management (by the European Commission) or to be implemented indirectly (e.g. by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development). The target group of AMIF is exclusively non-EU citizens. The main recent challenges addressed by AMIF are:
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management (OJ L 150, 20.05.2014, p. 112) 50 Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and the Council, establishing a Union Resettlement Framework and amending Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council – COM (2016) 468 final 51 Decision 2008/381/EC establishing a legal basis for the EMN was adopted on 14 May 2008.
37 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
the recent sharp increase in the flow of asylum seekers. So far, the biggest group addressed by AMIF was people who came to the EU as part of a family reunification process (40% of total immigration), followed by workers, students and researchers;
migrant integration in the EU labour market, which often takes time and until achieved, results in underemployment, risk of poverty, etc. Among obstacles to labour market integration, the most evident are the diploma equivalence of third country nationals and their informal competence, which is not usually recognised;
the challenges linked to the uncertain asylum status of some migrants (questions on the support they are entitled to, the duration to process asylum applications, their access to migrant holding centres);
the need to provide migrants with adequate skills, which is why AMIF often supports vocational training and language courses.
Due to its limited resources, AMIF is expected to work in synergy with other Union funds and instruments, and especially with ESF. Specific Guidelines52 have been provided by the EC to ensure integration and cooperation between Funds.
ISF: The instrument for financial support for external borders and visa (ISF Borders and Visa), in which all EU Member States except Ireland and the UK take part,5 is governed by Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and is based in particular on Article 77(2) TFEU. The Internal Security Fund (ISF) was set up for the period 2014-20, with a total of EUR 3.8 billion for the seven years. The Fund will promote the implementation of the Internal Security Strategy53, law enforcement cooperation and the management of the Union's external borders. The ISF is composed of two instruments, ISF Borders and Visa and ISF Police. For the 2014-20 period, EUR 2.76 billion is available for funding actions under the ISF Borders and Visa instrument, of which EUR 1.55 billion will be channelled through shared management and EUR 1.06 through direct management (including Calls for Proposals, Procurement, Direct Awards and Delegation Agreements). The ISF can also contribute to the integration of migrants, and more specifically address social inclusion themes with support for refugees and asylum seekers in the form of emergency assistance.
support for registration/fingerprinting of new arrivals; interpretation services for registration procedures; accommodation for new arrivals prior to registration/screening; food/non-food items for people in reception centres.
On the EU level, several important legal texts concerning migration have been adopted. However, it has to be reminded that EU directives need to be transposed by Member States, opposite to EU regulations that are directly applicable. Their implementation thus depends on the speed of the transposition in Member States. Regarding regular immigration, they mainly focus on labour market integration, which is key for social inclusion as stated before:
directive 2009/50/EC on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment created the ‘EU blue card’, a fast-track procedure for issuing a special residence and work permit, on more
52 The implementation of the performance frameworks in 2014-2020 ESI Funds – COM (October 2016) 53 The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action - COM(2010) 673 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/SK/ALL/?uri=URISERV:jl0050
38 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
attractive terms, to enable third-country workers to take up highly qualified employment in the Member States. the Single Permit Directive (2011/98/EU) sets out a common, simplified procedure for third-country nationals applying for a residence and work permit in a Member State. Directive 2014/36/EU, adopted in February 2014, regulates the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers. directive (EU) 2016/801 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, student exchange schemes or educational projects and au pairing was adopted on 11 May 2016.
In the field of integration, the EU’s competences are limited. The main Directive 2003/86/EC sets out provisions on the right to family reunification. Since the 2008 implementation report54 concluded that it was not being fully and correctly applied in the Member States, the Commission published a communication, in April 2014, providing guidance to the Member States on how to apply it.
In the box below, more information is given on the role of the European Parliament in defining EU policies for social inclusion and migration.
Box 2: The role of the European Parliament in social inclusion and migration policies55 For social inclusion, the European Parliament has been very active in pushing for actions supporting the fight against poverty, social exclusion and discrimination. During negotiation of the 2014-2020 cohesion policy package, the Parliament played a key role in highlighting the importance of social inclusion, supporting the Commission’s proposal to allocate a minimum of 20% of resources under the ESF to social inclusion that also would support the integration of migrants.
Many Parliament reports and resolutions have advocated the need for strengthening EU activities for social inclusion, especially the following:
Resolution of 6 May 2009 and Resolution of 15 November 2011 strongly support the Commission strategy of active inclusion and the European platform against poverty; Resolution of 20 October 2010 supports a minimum income and minimum wages in combating poverty and promoting an inclusive society in Europe; Resolution of 7 July 2011 establishes the scheme for food distribution for the most deprived people in the Union (in 2013, at Parliament’s request, the FEAD budget was increased from EUR 2.5 billion to EUR 3.5 billion); Resolutions of 20 November 2012 and 21 November 2013 advocate the need to strengthen the social dimension of Economic and Monetary Union and, especially, to establish social and economic benchmarks as a means of social protection; Resolution of 25 November 2014 calls for increased efforts to address the employment and social aspects of the Europe 2020 strategy; Resolution of 11 March 2015 advocates greater use of a social scoreboard in policy formulation;
54 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0610:FIN:EN:PDF 55 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.10.9.html
39 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Resolutions of 25 February 2016 and of 24 June 2015 call for greater consideration of social issues as well as socially balanced and sustainable structural reforms.
With regard to migration, the European Parliament favours the introduction of a European integration policy and the development of legal instruments to control the admission of third- country nationals. Moreover, it calls for measures to reduce incentives for irregular migration. Since the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament has always been involved in the adoption of new legislation dealing with immigration that could support the needs of the most vulnerable groups such as refugees and minors. For instance, Parliament played a key role in drafting the ‘Return’ and ‘Single Permit’ Directives.
In 2014, the Parliament adopted a resolution regarding the increasing number of migrants in Mediterranean countries and the pressing issue of numerous shipwrecks on their coasts since 2013. The text stressed the need for a holistic EU approach to migration, which authorised the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to draft an own-initiative report. In light of the increasingly pressing situation of refugees in recent years, Parliament has expressed concerns about EU financial support for asylum and asked the Commission to evaluate needs until 2020. In 2015, Parliament’s resolution stressed the importance of cohesion policy for the inclusion of migrants and refugees, underlining the significance of non-discrimination and of partnership principals, noting that EU-funded projects need a long- term perspective to be effective. The report on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration from 23 March 2016, accompanied by eight Working Documents focusing on different aspects of migration and asylum policy, and by the Opinions of several other parliamentary committees, was adopted by the plenary on 12 April 2016.
Another resolution, adopted on 5 July 2016, is dedicated to social inclusion and integration of the refugees into the labour market56.
2.3.2. Overview of national policies to integrate migrants When dealing with the integration of migrants, the situation in Members States is diverse.
The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) measures the performance of national policies to integrate migrants into their respective societies57. The Index analyses integration outcomes in eight key policy areas: labour market mobility, education, political participation, access to nationality, family reunion, health, permanent residence and anti- discrimination. Despite the fact that there are differences between countries in different policy areas, overall high-performing EU Member States are Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, while national policies in Malta, Slovakia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Latvia show less support for migrant inclusion into society (see Figure 9).
Overall, the MIPEX key findings conclude that national policies are more consistent and supportive for migrant employment, obtaining permanent residence and being protected from discrimination, as these themes are covered under common EU law. On the other hand, policies covering social services for migrants (especially healthcare and education) and
56 2015/2321(INI) 57 Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015 Huddleston, Thomas; Bilgili, Ozge; Joki, Anne-Linde and Vankova, Zvezda (2015) With the vision of Jan Niessen, the scientific review of Anna Bardolet, Francesc Fàbregues, J. David Ingleby and Elena Sánchez-Montijano and the support of Karina Shklyan. Barcelona/Brussels: CIDOB and MPG | www.mipex.eu
40 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______opportunities for political participation show less support for integration and differ significantly between Member States.
Figure 9: MIPEX country performance score
Source: MIPEX http://mipex.eu/play/
In the box below there are some country profiles and potential policy areas for improving migrant integration as revealed by the MIPEX report58.
Box 3: Country profiles and potential for improved migrant integration Austria. Despite the increasing number of EU citizens freely moving from and to Austria, the country is sceptical towards migration in Europe. The possible role of public policy should be explored for providing open and equal access to public sector jobs and trade licenses for non-EU citizens, increasing work placements, bridging courses and effective diversity strategies for both the high- and low-educated, as well as finding the best ways to support migrants learning German.
Croatia is the country where, in the last two decades, regional immigration, mainly from other former Yugoslav republics, replaced outflows of refugees and displaced persons, following the break-up of Yugoslavia. Integration policies for newcomers to Croatia are not the most favourable. Legal conditions to promote integration can be undermined by authorities’ discretionary procedures, a problem common across central and eastern Europe. Future policies and funds need to address areas missing in current integration strategies: work-related language courses, access to vocational training and study grants, targeted education support for children beyond language learning, health entitlements/access and a
58 European Migration Network, ‘EMN Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum 2015, A Synthesis of Annual Policy reports 2015 submitted by EU Member States and Norway’, June 2016. Note that insufficient information is available in the report for Slovenia and Romania.
41 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______migrant health plan, discrimination against non-EU citizens and political participation (e.g. voting rights, support and consultative bodies for immigrant leaders).
Denmark has been a country of net migration since the 1960s and almost 10 % of the population is foreign-born; and approximately 4 % of the population are Non-EU citizens (Eurostat 2013 figures/MIPEX 2015). Similar to other European countries, the number of humanitarian migrants has been increasing since 2013. Despite the topic of immigration being highly political, most people in Denmark – as in the other Nordic countries - think immigrants enrich the country economically and culturally and deserve equal rights with Danish citizens. However, Denmark’s integration policies are less comprehensive, responsive and evidence-based than in other north-western European countries since little political consensus exists on almost any aspect of integration policy, and rather than adopt one clear reform, the previous and current governments have chosen to make small changes over time. Investment in language, mentoring and work placement programs aims to boost migrants’ employment rates and quality, and equal access to social rights aims also to boost employment and integration outcomes so migrants have the same support as settled residents to find jobs, invest in their skills and avoid social exclusion and poverty. Nonetheless, the individual integration plans should be better coordinated, just as there is a need for a clear path to permanent residency in order to recognize the migrants’ efforts to participate in society to the best of their abilities.
Germany’s migration and integration policies are among the most supportive in Europe. However, labour market integration challenges both high- and low-educated immigrants. For example, Germany is one of a few countries with a language test, restrictions on dual nationality, limited healthcare entitlements for asylum-seekers and undocumented migrants, a weak equality body and weak equality policy. The role of public policy should be explored to reduce inequality in education and health, provide financial and human resources for structurally weak municipalities, strengthening the capacity of NGOs to support integration, etc.
Greece’s recent recession and austerity crisis exacerbated structural problems within Greece’s social and integration policies. The resulting increase in unemployment, a rigid labour market, together with arrivals of asylum seekers and irregular migrants led to an increase of anti-immigration attitudes and scepticism in the country. Much can, has been and must be done to fix the residence, citizenship and anti-discrimination policies for Greece’s now long-settled immigrant population. The needs for integration are greater now than ever before and are more visible both to the Greek public and the international community. Any solutions must rely on limited administrative capacity and significant political will.
Hungary, a destination country since the 1990s, experienced a big drop in immigration during the economic crisis. Since 2013, the country witnessed a dramatic increase in asylum- seekers coming across Hungary's southern border. This has led to discussions on migration and integration policies, which increased an anti-immigrant attitude that is stronger than in the rest of the EU. Indeed, from 2010, government reluctance towards accepting immigrants has been visible with a lack of reforms to protect refugees who face major obstacles integrating into Hungarian society.
42 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Italy has experienced significant net immigration since the mid-1970s, with mostly non-EU citizens settling long-term, but with fewer newcomers since the crisis. Contrary to recent negative perceptions of migration and restrictive policies against non-EU citizens, historically, Italian integration policies among the best of Europe’s major immigration countries. Public policy support in Italy should help to increase employment rates through on-the-job training and support, specifically for youth. It should also combat early school leaving.
Romania still remains a country mainly of emigrants, but immigration represents an important and increasing challenge for the national authorities. The geo-political situation of the country, which represents a key border area of EU, as well as the needs in the labour force as a consequence of the massive emigration of Romanian nationals towards western EU, are among the main factors explaining this phenomenon, together with some particular historical and cultural connections linking Romania with bordering countries like the Republic of Moldova. According to recent statistics, Romania has today the second highest rate in the EU of non-EU immigrants (86 %), mainly citizens from Moldova, Turkey and China. Moldovan citizens represent by far the largest group (56 %), and they can easily apply for the Romanian citizenship under current legislation. To face these challenges, the Romanian Government has approved, with legislative effect, the National Immigration Strategy 2015–2018, which, through yearly action plans, pursues numerous strategic goals, of which the following are worth mentioning: 1. to promote legal migration for the benefit of all parties: Romanian society, the immigrants themselves and their countries of origin; 2. to strengthen the control system of legal residence of third country nationals on Romanian territory and the proper implementation of removal and restrictive measures; 3. to improve the national asylum system so as to make it efficient and compliant with the national, European and international applicable legal standards; 4. to take an active part in the efforts of the international community and EU MSs to identify sustainable solutions for people in need of international protection and to socially integrate third-country nationals.
Sweden has been a country of net migration since the 1950s and more than 15 % of the population is foreign-born; and approximately 4 % of the population are non-EU citizens (Eurostat 2013 figures/MIPEX 2015). The numbers of family migrants (50 % children) and humanitarian migrants (nearly 50 % from Syria in 2013) have been increasing, and due to the high influx of asylum seekers and refugees in recent years, Sweden’s capacity has been under stress. Sweden has a very comprehensive and ambitious, multi-level system of migrant integration, introduced in its current form in 2009, and Sweden’s policies aim to respond to the needs of newcomers to enable them to take up equal opportunities in Swedish society. The Swedish public has the most positive attitudes towards immigrants in that the vast majority approve of Sweden’s policy of granting immigrants equal rights to SE citizens. The challenge for Swedish policy currently is to ensure access to health care for all migrants nationwide, to expand access to integration programs for vulnerable groups, and to better adapt programs to individual needs. Support for local communities and civil society organizations and enabling local adaptations of national programs could also be enhanced. Public policy should support investments in the education/training system, access to social services and active citizenship.
2.4 Main policy challenges The previous analysis highlights challenges for policies aiming at social inclusion, which need to be tackled both at EU level and by MS at the most relevant territorial levels according to the subsidiarity principle (given that most competencies in this field, as well as regarding
43 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______migration policies, lie within MS responsibilities). However, the EU has an important role to play in coordinating elements of these policies, providing clear guidance and information, as well as incentives through the various sources of financial support. These challenges are:
1. addressing the multidimensionality of social exclusion and poverty. Policy should address issues related to income redistribution between groups of population, the supply of basic services and public goods (e.g. housing) at an affordable price and employment for all. The variety of vulnerable groups should be taken into account, targeting different genders, ages and socio-economic profiles (e.g. early school leavers, unemployed people, migrants, unaccompanied minors and women). Furthermore, different types of intervention should address multiple reasons for social exclusion, such as labour market access, adequate social protection, lifelong learning schemes, low quality of health and housing, uneven income distribution, insufficient supply of basic services, as well as personal support for migrants and poor people. For instance, migrants and non-migrants might need different support (e.g. income and psychological support) and active labour market intervention (e.g. education, vocational training, language courses, etc.). At the same time, labour market policy should be integrated with other sectoral interventions such as social housing, to effectively promote social inclusion.
2. changing socio-economic context. In the last decade, the socio-economic context has dramatically changed due to the financial and economic crisis. This crisis is still unresolved for some EU countries that lag behind in growth recovery and employment rates, with increased economic insecurity and disparities within and across countries. Moreover, the recent migrant and refugee crisis has posed new challenges to EU countries. Member States and regions are not equally affected by the refugee crisis. Countries such as Germany are mainly destination countries, while others, such as Greece, Italy or the Balkans, are entry points for migrants moving to other Member States.
3. coping with disparities and citizen acceptance. As already mentioned, economic, financial and migratory crises have hit Europe unevenly, contributing to divergent opinions on challenges and issues in Member States. Migratory flows exert pressure on specific local ecosystems and cross-border areas and are sometimes associated, in public opinion, with internal security issues.
4. targeting interventions at the appropriate territorial and governance level. Not all social inclusion challenges can be directly addressed by EU Cohesion Policy, for legal reasons (lack of legal competencies) as well as to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. Some challenges relate to emergency interventions, such as initial help for migrants. Others depend on communication and information (to change behaviour or perceptions of certain groups of people), while others are the exclusive competence of national policies, such as income redistribution or internal security.
5. ensuring the adequate capacity of local authorities and stakeholders (and private organisations) to address the issues within a reasonable time. Lack of capacity can be due to a lack of policy guidance or specific recommendations for integration, weak organisational capacity in local institutions, lack of finance to support social integration, inadequate infrastructure, and limited experience of dealing with migrants and their diversity. As more than 70 % of the EU population live in urban areas, also attracting both internal and external migrants especially in the EU’s largest cities, urban authorities face specific challenges when dealing with social inclusion and the integration of migrants.
44 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
3. SOCIAL INCLUSION AND MIGRATION ISSUES IN EUROPEAN COHESION POLICY
KEY FINDINGS In the framework of Cohesion Policy, the policy pursuing social cohesion resulted in allocating 12.3 % (EUR 42.3 billion) of ESF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF to the objective of employment and social inclusion in the 2007-2013 period. Social inclusion was mostly addressed through interventions supported by ESF (in favour of women, low-skilled people, young people, minorities, migrants and people with disabilities), with certain aspects also supported by ERDF, i.e. housing for marginalised people in urban areas and social infrastructure mainly for education and health; while EAFRD addressed social inclusion, including migrant integration, to a more limited extent through measures implemented within the LEADER initiative. In the ESIF programmes 2014-2020, EUR 62.7 billion are directly allocated to social inclusion issues, i.e. around 10 % of the total ESIF allocations. In the programme documents, areas specifically affected by poverty are areas with socially marginalised communities, urban and rural areas and areas with permanent geographical and demographic handicaps. In the ESIF regulatory framework for 2014-2020, social inclusion is addressed directly with Thematic Objective (TO) 9(“promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination”), and indirectly with TOs 8 and 10 related to employment and education. Furthermore, social inclusion is also considered through horizontal principles related to gender equality, accessibility for people with disabilities and social issues related to demographic changes. Migrants are one of the targets groups reported in the programmes. In the field of social inclusion and migration, coordination mechanisms between ESI Funds are mentioned in all the analysed programmes. Synergies are mainly through the integration of TOs and investment priorities, the definition of horizontal selection criteria, and through the establishment of coordination mechanisms in the implementation phase (i.e. in the management structures involved, within the Monitoring Committee, or on a project-by-project basis). Most programmes report synergies with other EU policy instruments in the field of social inclusion and integration of migrants. Instruments most mentioned are FEAD (targeting the most deprived people), AMIF (related to migrants and refugees) and Horizon 2020 (social innovation). However, how (and how far) synergies and coordination reported are implemented at territorial level in the various programme implementation phases needs to be confirmed. Reported coordination activities are mostly related to an exchange of information between authorities through inter-service consultations (e.g. Agency for Cohesion policies in Italy), the definition of common actions and joint calls for projects (e.g. in the federal state of Bremen or in Nordrhein-Westfalen in Germany).
Section 3 gives an overview of how European Cohesion policy has addressed social inclusion and migration in the 2007-2013 and the 2014-2020 programming periods. A picture is provided of how the Funds have addressed the complex policy challenges highlighted in chapter 2. Section 3.1 analyses how ESI Funds are integrated to promote social inclusion and tackle migration issues consistently. The integrated use of ESI Funds is analysed at different levels: at programme level, examining the combination of TOs within the logical framework of programme interventions (section 3.2), considering the synergies and complementarities
45 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______between ESI Funds (section 3.3), as well as analysing the link between European cohesion policy and the broader EU policy framework in the area of social affairs (Section 3.4). The last section identifies the current strengths and weaknesses of policy integration to address social challenges.
3.1. Social inclusion in Structural and ESI Funds Section 3.1.1 illustrates the main results achieved in the past programming period by Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) in the field of social inclusion. It presents the regulatory framework of intervention, showing the main interventions and the main population groups at risk of poverty and exclusion, targeted by national and regional operational programmes. Section 3.1.2 provides an overview of how social inclusion is addressed in ESI Funds; information is related to the new regulatory framework of intervention, the expected target groups to be reached at the end of the programming period as well as the budget dedicated to social inclusion as defined in the Partnership Agreements.
3.1.1. Structural Funds - 2007-2013
3.1.1.1. Social inclusion in structural funds, the regulatory framework In Cohesion policy 2007-2013, the theme of social inclusion is covered through a set of specific priorities and objectives targeting vulnerable groups of people and territories such as urban areas or cross-border territories. Actions relevant to this topic are mainly funded by ESF, with certain aspects also supported by ERDF.
The scope of support of ESF is given in Article 3 of Regulation No 1081/200659 with the provision of various priorities that directly or indirectly benefit social inclusion, and mainly when it comes to labour market integration for marginalised groups of people. For instance, within the framework of the convergence and regional competitiveness and employment objectives, ESF contributes to such priorities, especially to actions that reinforce social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their sustainable integration in employment, and actions that combat all forms of discrimination in the labour market, as stated in point (c) of the first subparagraph of the Article 3 mentioned above. In particular, under the same point (sub-points I and II), ESF should support actions that promote:
pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people, such as those experiencing social exclusion, early school leavers, minorities, people with disabilities and people providing care for dependent persons, through employability measures, including in the field of the social economy, access to vocational education and training, and accompanying actions and relevant support, community and care services that improve employment opportunities;
acceptance of diversity in the workplace and combating discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market, including through awareness-raising, the involvement of local communities and enterprises and the promotion of local employment initiatives.
Other areas of ESF assistance defined in the same regulation complement the above priority of labour market integration for disadvantaged people. Likewise, within the framework of the
59 Regulation (EC) N° 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) N° 1784/1999.
46 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Convergence objective, as referred to in point (a) of the second subparagraph of the ESF regulation, ESF should support increased participation in education and training throughout the life-cycle, through actions reducing early school leaving and gender-based segregation of subjects as well as increased access to and quality of initial, vocational and tertiary education and training.
On the other hand, ERDF in the 2007-2013 programming period mainly treats social inclusion under the topic of housing60. Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 states that expenditure on housing will be programmed within the framework of an integrated urban development operation or priority axis for areas experiencing or threatened by physical deterioration and social exclusion. When defining these areas, Member States are advised to use the following criteria: (a) a high level of poverty and exclusion; (b) a high level of long-term unemployment; (c) a low level of education, significant skills deficiencies and high dropout rates from school; (d) a high number of immigrants, ethnic and minority groups, or refugees, as stated under the first point of Article 47 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006. The second point of the same article recognises eligible expenditure for housing in favour of marginalised communities only when (a) such housing investment is part of an integrated approach and support for housing interventions for marginalised communities takes place together with other types of intervention including those for education, health, social inclusion and employment; or (b) the physical location of such housing ensures spatial integration of these communities into mainstream society and does not contribute to segregation, isolation or exclusion61.
3.1.1.2. Social inclusion in Structural Funds 2007-2013, funded interventions and recipients In the framework of Cohesion policy in 2007-2013, according to the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission (DG Regio) SFC 2007 data62, 12.3 % (corresponding to EUR 42.3 billion) of the EU contribution to ESF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF was allocated to the objective of employment and social inclusion. 9.9 % of the resources allocated to the objective of convergence was allocated to employment and social inclusion, alongside 25.2 % of Regional Competitiveness and Employment and 8.1 % of European Territorial Cooperation.
According to the commission staff working document, Ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF programmes, nearly €76.8 billion from the EU budget were committed to the ESF, 14.3 % of which in favour of actions in the field of social inclusion. A bigger proportion of funds was allocated to the investment in human capital (45.5 %) and in action devoted to access to employment (34.3 %), while “strengthen institutional capacity” (0.7 %) and
60 Regulation (EC) N° 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) N° 1783/1999 61 Regulation (EC) 397/2009, of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Regulation (EC) 1080/2006 (European Regional Development Fund) extended the scope of ERDF in response to the financial crisis in 2009. The amending regulation increased the amount available for expenditures in energy efficiency in social housing (an additional 4% of ERDF financial allocation) and included all the Members states in the list of beneficiaries. Further modifications related to the inclusion of rural areas as eligible areas when dealing with marginalized communities were also introduced in 2010 by Regulation (EU) 437/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Regulation (EC) 1080/2006 (ERDF). 62 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/fr/policy/evaluations/data-for-research/
47 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
“promoting partnership” were less recognized as key priorities in ESF programmes. In total, around 7.8 million recipients benefited from social inclusion investments over the period63.
Unemployed and inactive people are the most represented category of beneficiaries of ESF funded projects and women are in the majority (53 % of total recipients). Relevant target groups for social inclusion actions are low-skilled people (46 % of total participations), young people (27 %) and the disadvantaged in general, i.e. minorities (7.6%), migrants (11 %) and people with disabilities (13.4 %).
A breakdown of participants in ESF funded social inclusion projects in 2007-2013 is presented in the chart below.
Figure 10: Share of the total participations of different population groups in the ESF funded projects in 2007-2013 (%)
60 52 53 50 45
40 32 30 23 24 18 20 16 14 12 10 6,8 6 7 1,2
0
Old
Young
Inactive
Women
Disabled
Migrants
Employed
Unemployed
Self-employed
Ethnic minorities Ethnic
In education or education training In
Long-term unemployed Long-term Upper secondary education secondary Upper
Primary or lower secondary education or secondary Primary lower Source: McGregor, A., Sutherland, V., Tödtling-Schönhofer, N., Naylon, I., & Radzyner, A. (2014). Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - Final synthesis report: Main ESF achievements, 2007-2013.
However, there are considerable variations in the scale of activities and expenditures for social inclusion across different Member States. The Structural Funds’ contribution is concentrated in three Member States (Germany, France and Poland), accounting for 57 % of the total commitment to social inclusion64. In terms of budget allocated by Member States to the social inclusion priority, high values (more than 25 % of the total budget allocated) are observed in only six countries, i.e. Cyprus, France, Germany, Belgium, Croatia and Netherlands. Migrants are mainly considered in Cyprus, Belgium,
63 European Commission (2016), Ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF Programmes, Commission Staff working document, SWD(2016) 452 final. 64 While only six Member States accounted for almost 75 % of the total commitment, i.e. DE, FR, PL, PT, IT and RO.
48 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Austria, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands and Spain (more than 10 % of participation), while minorities are targeted mainly in Latvia, UK, Netherlands, Slovakia and Croatia (more than 10 % of those targeted by ESF). Finally, people with disabilities are more often reported in UK, Czech Republic and Austria.
While most interventions concerning social inclusion targeted employment opportunities and labour market integration for disadvantaged groups, the multifaceted nature of the issues covered by social inclusion meant that a variety of measures for social integration were implemented65. The most common types of interventions are related to supporting and enabling actions (e.g. debt counselling, language training for migrants, confidence-building support), advice, guidance and training (e.g. personalised service, training and skills development, vocational rehabilitation), pathway approaches (e.g. address barriers to employment) and systematic measures influencing systems, institutions and cultural contexts (e.g. combating discrimination and awareness-raising on equal opportunities).
With regard to ERDF, the amount of funding allocated to social infrastructure and urban development projects at the end of 2013 was EUR 29 billion, which represents 11 % of the total ERDF allocation. Social infrastructure accounts for 7 % of the total, with a minor role played by housing infrastructure with EUR 638.63 million allocated (0.2 % of the total ERDF allocation over the period)66. However, urban development projects also provide investments in energy efficiency and building renovation targeting vulnerable groups of people, including minorities (such as Roma), old people, women and young people67.
Nine countries were responsible of 80 % of the total Structural Funds spent on integrated urban development and social infrastructures (and 20 % was invested in the remaining 18 Member States); i.e. Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Greece (around 60 % of the total Structural Funds allocation) and another 20 % of the resources allocated in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain and Germany.
3.1.2. General overview of social inclusion in ESIF 2014-2020 As mentioned in Section 2 “state of play of social exclusion and migration issues in the EU”, ESI Funds contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy that explicitly addresses challenges to social inclusion by introducing a headline target, for reducing by at least 20 million the population at risk of poverty and social exclusion and by investing through the flagship initiative ‘European platform against poverty and social exclusion’. The EU Cohesion policy 2014-2020, through ESI Funds, promotes social inclusion and supports actions and measures addressing related social issues (poverty, segregation, discrimination, unemployment and social exclusion in general) and the integration of marginalised groups of people (e.g. people with disabilities, younger and older workers, low-skilled workers, migrants and ethnic minorities such as the Roma, people who live in deprived areas, women in the labour market, etc.68).
65 Panteia, Fondazione Brodolini and Metis GmbH (October - 2016), ESF ex-post Evaluation - synthesis 2007- 2013, EU synthesis report – final version (Contract VC/2015/0098), p.23-24. 66 Metis GmbH, Ex-post evaluation of Urban Development and social infrastructures Final report Work package 10, March 2016. 67 Total account of allocation to social inclusion through housing intervention in ERDF 2017-2013 programmes is not easy as programmes used their own codification and monitoring rules to identify and report such interventions. 68 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/social-inclusion/
49 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
In the ESI Funds regulatory framework 2014-2020, social inclusion is addressed directly in Article 9 of the CPR related to TO 9; and indirectly in TOs 8 and 10 when related to employment and education. Furthermore, social inclusion is also considered through horizontal principles – related to gender equality, accessibility for people with disabilities and social issues related to demographic changes - and as such could be integrated in all eleven TOs. In addition, in section 5 of the OP templates69, MS are required to define, if appropriate, the ‘specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups at highest risk of discrimination or social exclusion’ (point a) of article 96(4) CPR).
The scope of support of each ESI Fund for social inclusion is illustrated in the following box70. For instance, ERDF projects can support infrastructure for employment services, EAFRD with investments in essential services and utilities, while ESF supports active inclusion under labour market policy. Specific actions include preparing asylum seekers to enter the labour market through training, language courses, counselling, coaching and vocational training.
Box 4: ERDF, ESF, EAFRD and EMFF regulations ERDF support for the priority of social inclusion is established in the following two investment areas, as defined in Article 3(1) of ERDF Regulation 1301/2013 (points (d) and (e)),
investment in social, health, research, innovation, business and educational infrastructure; investment in the development of endogenous potential through fixed investment in equipment and small-scale infrastructure, including small-scale cultural and sustainable tourism infrastructure, services to enterprises, support to research and innovation bodies as well as investment in technology and applied research in enterprises.
The same regulation (Article 5) also defines the following investment priorities within the TO of social inclusion to which ERDF is expected to contribute:
investing in health and social infrastructure which contributes to national, regional and local development, reducing inequalities for health status, promoting social inclusion through improved access to social, cultural and recreational services and the transition from institutional to community-based services; providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities in urban and rural areas; providing support for social enterprises; undertaking investment in the context of Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) strategies.
ESF should provide support to the investment priorities within TO 9, as stated in Article 3(1), point (b) of the ESF Regulation: active inclusion, also with a view to promoting equal opportunities and active participation, and improving employability; Socio-economic integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma; combating all forms of discrimination and promoting equal opportunities; enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest;
69 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/guidance/ 70 EC (2014), Thematic Objective 9: Social inclusion, draft thematic guidance fiche for desk officers.
50 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
promoting social entrepreneurship and vocational integration in social enterprises and the social and solidarity economy in order to facilitate access to employment; CLLD strategies.
As stated in Article 5(6) of the EAFRD Regulation, EAFRD support for social inclusion should come within the Union priority for rural development 6 - promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas, with a focus on: facilitating diversification, creation and development of small enterprises, as well as job creation; fostering local development in rural areas; enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of ICT in rural areas.
EMFF support for social inclusion is reflected in Union priority 4 of EMFF regulation, Regulation (EU) No 508/2014, Article 6(4): increasing employment and territorial cohesion by pursuing the following SO: the promotion of economic growth, social inclusion and job creation, and providing support to employability and labour mobility in coastal and inland communities which depend on fishing and aquaculture, including the diversification of activities within fisheries and into other sectors of maritime economy.
Finally, through the CPR, various instruments guarantee integration, coordination and complementarity of Funds in the field of poverty and social exclusion, notably the CSF, Partnership Agreements (articles 14-17) and ex-ante conditionalities (article 19 and Annex XI to the CPR). The following can be highlighted:
CSF introduces guiding principles for an integrated development approach using ESIF. CSF illustrates how to combine ESI funds in a common programming framework, possible synergies between ESIF and other policy instruments and the implementation tools available to ensure an integrated approach at territorial level. In the field of poverty and social inclusion, the instruments mentioned in the CSF section 4 are ERASMUS + and the European Union Programme EaSI. a Partnership Agreement following the guiding principles laid down in the CSF sets out the national framework for all ESI Funds in the Member State and the opportunities for integration between them and with other policy tools (as stated in PA section 2 about “arrangements to ensure the effective implementation of ESI Funds”71). ex-ante conditionalities are a set of prerequisites for programme implementation. In the field of social inclusion, thematic ex-ante conditionalities include the existence and implementation of a strategic policy framework for poverty reduction, the national Roma inclusion strategic policy framework and the national or regional strategic policy framework for health. Some of the general ex-ante conditionalities that at least partially refer to inclusive growth and social inclusion are ‘Anti-discrimination’, ‘Gender equality’ and ‘Disability’.
3.1.2.1. Social inclusion in Partnership Agreements Analysis of the 28 national Partnership Agreements 2014-2020 shows that around 10 % of the total budget, corresponding to EUR 62.7 billion, has been directly allocated to TO 9, in sixth position behind TOs 3, 6, 7, 1 and 472. Not surprisingly, TOs 8,
71 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/pa_guidelines.pdf 72 Data from the Open cohesion data portal https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/9
51 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
9 and 10 are mainly supported through ESF interventions. However, investments for increasing social inclusion are also made by ERDF and EAFRD.
Figure 11: Total 2014-2020 ESIF budget by theme
Source: Open cohesion data portal
Funds to TO 9 are mainly invested in Poland, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Romania and Portugal (approximately 64 % of the total ESIF allocation to TO9).
By far, the highest concentration of ESI Funds to the social inclusion objective can be found in the Netherlands, where almost 40 % of EU funds are dedicated to investments addressing social inclusion, followed by Germany with around 18 %. All other Member States have programmed financial allocations of less than 15 % of their ESIF budget. The lowest contributions in percentage of total budget are in Denmark (7 %), Cyprus (6.8 %), Slovenia (6.7 %), Finland (6.5 %) and Luxemburg (4.2 %). Finally, the 107 Interreg Programmes allocate less than 4.6 % of their total budget to the social inclusion objective73.
Throughout the EU, ESI Funds programmes will support in priority long-term unemployed people, youth, people with disabilities, minorities and migrants.
73 See footnote 73
52 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Figure 12: Population groups most referred to in ESIF 2014-2020 programming documents
Source Altus consortium, 201674:
Finally, 16 PAs Member States reported territories affected by poverty in reference to areas with socially marginalised communities, urban and rural areas and areas with permanent geographical and demographic handicaps. In addition, for these territories, the actions most frequently reported are related to social and antidiscrimination policies as well as employment and education.
3.2. Social inclusion in ESI Funds Intervention logic The regulatory framework for ESI Funds has introduced options of combining TOs, i.e. the possibility to address challenges with more TOs in the same priority axis (Article 96 of the CPR). In addition, TOs can also be covered by various funds, mainly ERDF, ESF and EAFRD, implemented in a multi-fund operational programme.
37 % of the 46 programmes reviewed in the study plan to use an integrated thematic approach, combining more than one TO (ESF and ERDF) or measure (EAFRD) in the same priority axis to focus on social inclusion issues.
3.2.1. Social inclusion in ERDF and ESF programmes For ERDF and ESF funds, 13 programmes combine at least two different TOs under the same priority axis. As described in Table 3 below, TO 9 is unsurprisingly the most used in combined ERDF and ESF programmes. 24% of total combinations include TO 9. The integrated use of TOs often addresses different aspects of sustainable urban development where different TOs are usually combined with TO 9. There are many examples of this, including the following:
In the Austrian national ERDF programme, the priority axis aiming at promoting sustainable urban development (in accordance with Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation) covers TOs 1, 4 and 9 for Vienna and TOs 4 and 6 for Oberösterreich. Integration is established around Investment Priority 9b - providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities in urban and rural areas, with a
74 Altus consortium, “The use of new provisions during the Programming Phase of the European Structural and Investment Funds”, study for the European Commission, May 2016, p.135.
53 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
specific focus on disadvantaged urban districts of Vienna. The actions of the measure covered by the TOs will target social groups such as people with disabilities, youth, low-skilled workers, women and ethnic groups. All these target groups will be included in the partnership-based planning and design of rehabilitation and of social networking measures in the neighbourhoods; In the Central Macedonia multi-fund programme, a combination of TOs 1, 2, 3 and 9 is articulated to contribute to social inclusion and to the RIS 3 strategy75. Indeed, the TOs are integrated to take advantage of entrepreneurship integrating vulnerable groups into the labour market. This objective involves local investment (creation of a health centre), awareness (information and education) and networking. The targeted groups are principally low-skilled workers, unemployed vulnerable groups and people eligible for guaranteed minimum income; In the regional programme ERDF Lombardy, the priority axis ‘Sustainable urban development’ encompasses TOs 3 (Investment Priority (IP) 3c ‘supporting the creation and the extension of advanced capacities for product and service development’), 4 (IP 4c ‘supporting energy efficiency, smart energy management and renewable energy use in public infrastructure, including in public buildings, and in the housing sector’) and 9 (IP 9b ‘providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities in urban and rural areas’) with an objective of reducing the number of households with social and economic vulnerability and with poor housing conditions. The actions under this axis support infrastructure rehabilitation for social purposes, collaborative R&D activities as well as start-up and business activities producing social effects.
Table 3: Overview of social inclusion-relevant TOs in the analysed programmes TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8 TO9 TO10 TO11 TO1 2 2 2 1 2 TO2 2 2 1 1 1 TO3 2 2 3 1 1 2 TO4 2 1 3 3 2 4 1 TO5 TO6 3 1 3 1 TO7 TO8 1 1 1 2 1 6 2 TO 9 2 1 2 4 3 6 5 TO10 1 1 2 5 TO11
Source: Authors
As described in Figure 13 below, TO 9 is mostly working in synergy with TO 8 or TO 10. The Hungarian multi-fund programme ‘Competitive Central Hungary’ focuses on the improvement of living conditions and access to local services and employment thanks to a combination of TOs 8 and 9. The actions developed under this combination are both investment (through the construction of infrastructure such as nursery schools, kindergartens, social and health care institutions) and soft actions (compensation for social disadvantages). Moreover, the
75 Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations. Please see: https://www.researchitaly.it/uploads/4713/RIS3_GUIDE_FINAL.pdf?v=176d16a
54 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Austrian national ERDF programme integrates TOs 8 (Investment Priority 8b ‘supporting employment-friendly growth through the development of endogenous potential’) and 9 (Investment Priority 9d ‘undertaking investment in the context of community-led local development strategies’) in the priority axis providing support for urban-rural development and local development strategies (CLLD) while aiming to initiate endogenous growth for employment in urban regions and provide the future-oriented use of CLLD. Furthermore, the ETC programme Euregio Maas-Rhein, combines TOs 9 (Priority 9a ‘investing in health and social infrastructure’) and 10 (Priority 10b “developing and implementing joint activities […]”) in the priority axis ‘Social inclusion and education’ increasing the social integration of disadvantaged groups in education.
Figure 13: Synergies between TO 9 and other TOs in the programmes reviewed (number of combination of TOs with TO 9)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8 TO9 TO10 TO11
Source: Authors
One example of comprehensive integration of TOs in relation to social inclusion is found in the Hungarian national ERDF-ESF multi-fund programmes ‘Territorial and Settlement Development’, ‘Competitive Central Hungary’ and ‘Economic Development and Innovation’. The social issues are addressed in different priority axes by combining various TOs, for instance (see box):
55 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Box 5: Example of TO integration in the Hungarian national ERDF-ESF multi-fund programmes For the OP ‘Territorial and Settlement Development’, TOs 8 and 9 are combined in the axis ‘county and local level human resource developments, stimulation of employment and societal cooperation’. This axis covers measures to improve employment and increase the number of people employed by local and regional economic actors as well as to improve possibilities for a better life for a greater number of people from deprived urban areas, while strengthening local identity and local social dialogue. For the OP ‘Territorial and Settlement Development’, TOs 4, 6, 8 and 9 are integrated in the axis contributing to ‘sustainable urban development in cities of county status’. However, activities relevant for social inclusion are mostly foreseen under TOs 8 and 9. TO 8 includes actions contributing to the improvement of local employment and, more specifically, to the return to the labour market of people with small children through development of child-care services, while TO 9 covers actions to develop the accessibility and quality of public services provided by municipalities as well as increase social activity and solidarity for people from deprived urban areas. For the OP ‘Competitive Central Hungary’, TOs 8 and 9 are combined in the priority axis ‘Development of the general environment and public service on settlement level’ aimed at improving living conditions, access to public services and employment (especially of parents with small children) in deprived urban areas. For the OP ‘Competitive Central Hungary’, TOs 9 and 10 are integrated into the priority axis ‘Programs for developing human resources and for extending social accessibility’. The axis aims to increase inclusion in the labour market of the long-term unemployed, and improve the social cooperation of different nationalities and ethnicities through action on education. These include reducing early school-leaving, increasing the educational level of children from disadvantaged groups, development of policy coordination, as well as improving competence contributing to the employment of people with a disadvantaged background, or excluded long-term from the labour market, and the professional capacity of people in the public service sector. Lastly, for the OP ‘Economic Development and Innovation’, TOs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 are combined in the axis ‘Financial instruments’, tailored to support the competitiveness of enterprises initiating investments that generate employment, and the competitiveness of social enterprises, by improving access to external financial sources. Specific focus is given to supporting young entrepreneurs in accessing finance.
Source: Authors
3.2.2. Social inclusion in EAFRD programmes Four of the 10 EAFRD programmes analysed in the study use an integrated approach to face social challenges, i.e. combining different measures within Union Priority 6 to address social exclusion issues. Measure 7 ‘basic services and village renewal in rural areas’ is the most used by programmes in combination with measures 1, 2, 6, 8, 16 and 19.
Most of the programmes using the integrated approach combine measure 7 with measure 19 ‘support for LEADER local development (CLLD)’. For example, the Croatian national EAFRD programme combines measures 7 and 19 under the axis ‘Fostering local development in rural areas’. The axis covers actions developing basic services, utilities, roads and social infrastructure and the conservation of cultural and natural heritage, which are to be implemented by the LEADER measure through Local Action Groups. Another EAFRD example of an integrated approach is in Belgium, the ‘Walloon rural development programme 2014- 2020’. Indeed, under Union priority 6A, the programme selected measures 6, 7, 8 and 16 for
56 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______one sub-priority and measures 7, 16 and 19 for the other sub-priority. The first combination of measures focuses on business development in the territory by supporting start-ups (young farmers, non-agricultural activities, small farms) and job creation of jobs. The second combination of measures aims to support pilot projects to involve farmers, foresters, or local environmental associations as ‘practical experts’ in the process of integrating the disadvantaged public. Training, networking and land provisions are planned to contribute to the pilot projects.
3.3. Integration between ESI Funds In the programmes analysed in the study, synergies and complementarities related to social inclusion issues diverge depending on the combination of ESI Funds (see Table 4 below):
synergies and complementarities between ERDF and ESF are the most frequently mentioned. Coordination between ESF and ERDF occurs mostly at regional level, e.g. ERDF ROP Wallonia in Belgium with the ESF ROP. EAFRD is also combined with ESF and/or ERDF programmes when dealing with social inclusion, as well as EAFRD with EMMF programmes. For example, three EMFF programmes in Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia clearly show links with national EAFRD programmes; synergies and coordination can involve more than two Funds, such as ERDF, ESF and EAFRD. This is the case for the Romanian ERDF ROP coordinated with the ‘Human Capital Operational Programme’ (ESF), ‘National Rural Development Programme’ (EAFRD), ‘Competitiveness Operational Programme’ (ERDF), ‘Operational Programme for Fisheries’ (EMFF) and ‘Large Infrastructure Operational Programme’ (ERDF). coordination can also involve ETC programmes; for example, the multi-fund programme ‘Slovenia Operational Programme for the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in the Period 2014-2020’ is supposed to coordinate activities with Slovenia- Croatia Interreg programme and Slovenia-Hungary Interreg programme.
Table 4: Synergy in ESIF programmes (reviewed in the study) Multi- ESF ERDF EAFRD EMFF IPA ETC fund ESF 0 7 4 2 4 0 1 ERDF 8 2 4 3 4 0 1 EAFRD 7 3 0 4 2 0 1 EMFF 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 Multi- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fund IPA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ETC 2 4 0 0 2 0 1
Source: Authors
The type of synergy and complementarity between funds varied. Integration between ESI Funds can be through multi-fund programmes or specific arrangements (e.g. networking, joint authorities or common calls) between Fund authorities to realise synergies and coordinate policies.
57 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
ESI Funds can coordinate actions and interventions targeting the same social group, as in the following programmes:
Synergy between ERDF and ESF programmes in Austria: In terms of content, the ESF employment programme is complementary to the ERDF programme because it offers qualification and employment measures for specific target groups of labour market policy. Particular attention is paid to labour market participation and equal opportunities for women and older workers as well as the participation of low-skilled persons. This focus on labour market policy target groups is also intended to prevent the exclusion of certain groups from the labour market and to support equal opportunities of access to the labour market. Synergy between ERDF and ESF programmes in Germany: investments and actions under ERDF and ESF are coordinated to support interventions in eligible urban areas supported under one of the priority axes of the ERDF programme. The aim of this coordination is to sustainably strengthen resources in districts with particularly severe poverty and unemployment problems and to address the issues of local economies as well as the strengthening of local education and employability. Synergy between ESF and ERDF national programmes in Croatia: some ESF actions targeting children without parental care, children and youth with behavioural disorders and people with disabilities are coordinated with ERDF investments in social infrastructures.
Complementarities between Funds can be defined through a clear delimitation of Fund interventions (i.e. actions implemented separately by each Fund), i.e. funding infrastructure projects from ERDF and EAFRD and funding ‘soft’ activity from ESF as described below:
synergy between ERDF and ESF funds in Romania: ERDF supports the implementation of social infrastructure for health, education and housing, while the ESF national programme invests in digital literacy and skills development in vulnerable communities to combat social exclusion; synergy between ESF and ERDF programmes in Croatia: an integrated area-based approach will be implemented combining ERDF interventions on physical, social and economic regeneration with ESF activities aiming to reintegrate beneficiaries in five degraded small towns; complementarity between ERDF and ESF in Germany: the ERDF programme Bremen envisages under action 7b of priority axis 4 that ERDF interventions are also implemented in close coordination with funding from the ESF programme supporting measures in the field of ‘active inclusion’. As part of an integrated strategy, the aim is to sustainably strengthen resources in city-districts with particularly severe poverty and unemployment problems and to address the issues of local economies as well as strengthen local education and employability.
Finally, institutional arrangements can be decided between authorities to exploit synergy and complementarity, as described below:
synergy between ERDF and ESF programmes in Belgium: synergies between the programmes are ensured through the governance and monitoring system. For example, the same independent expert drafted both ERDF and ESF Wallon OPs and there is also a partnership between Monitoring Committees and a Common Task Force to select projects.
58 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
synergy between Interreg V A Euroregion and other ESF-ERDF programmes in the area: there is coordination between the programme authorities and local administrative representatives. If a cooperation project includes aspects that address ESF objectives, there is coordination between the partners of the regions concerned and the respective ESF programmes (national and regional). complementarity between EAFRD and ESF programmes in Germany: interventions in rural areas are ensured through cross-representation of administrations on the Monitoring Committees of both programmes and through project-by-project coordination in the case of LEADER.
3.4. Synergies and coordination between ESIF and other EU policies
3.4.1. Synergies with EU instruments In the analysed programmes, 18 Union Instruments are mentioned by ESI Funds (see Figure 14 below). Logically, the instruments most often referred to are directly related to social inclusion and migration. When dealing with social inclusion, AMIF, FEAD and Horizon 2020 account for 50 % of the synergies mentioned with ESI Funds. Instruments less relevant for social issues are related to research, innovation, financial instruments and development initiatives76.
Figure 14: Synergy with Union Instruments (number of programmes)
Source: Authors
76 The European Investment Fund (http://www.eif.org/), the Joint Programming Initiative (http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/joint-programming-initiatives_en.html), Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/marie-sklodowska-curie-actions), Grundtvig actions (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme_fr), European Innovation Partnership (http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?pg=eip).
59 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
With regard to specific Funds, the situation is unequal:
ESF and multi-fund programmes frequently mention synergies and complementarities with Union Instruments, while the EMFF and (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance) IPA programmes do not consider social inclusion synergies at all; ERDF programmes such as ERDF ‘Wallonia 2020.eu’ in Belgium or the Regional Operational Programme of Romania point out ERASMUS+, Horizon2020 and Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME); ESF programmes in Germany such as the ‘Operational programme of the Federal Government for the European Social Fund in the funding period 2014–2020’ and ‘Operational programme Efficient Human Resources 2014-2020’ plan synergies and complementarities with AMIF, FEAD and ERASMUS+; EAFRD programmes, such as the rural development programme of Hungary or the rural development programme of Slovenia more commonly mentioned the LIFE instrument; Multi-fund programmes quote synergies and complementarities with AMIF and FEAD for social purposes, such as the OP Central Macedonia in Greece and ‘Human Resource Development Operational Programme’ in Hungary.
In practice, synergies and complementarities can be realised at different levels of governance or implementation:
in delimiting the fields and strategies of intervention; e.g. between AMIF and ESI Funds in operations targeting migrants. One example is the National OP Legality in Italy where investments in housing are funded by the ERDF programme, while AMIF supports emergency services (medical equipment, staff and related accommodation services); additional coordination is also provided with Internal Security Funds that finance police equipment for the identification and registration of migrants. For the Austrian ESF programme on employment, FEAD provides material goods in the form of school start-up packages, while ESF measures aim for integration into the labour market through personal assistance such as counselling, awareness raising, qualifications or employment. in defining committees or arrangements for coordination; e.g. the ESF Managing Authority of Wallonia is also the delegated authority for AMIF. The Managing Authority of the Human Resource Development OP in Hungary is involved in FEAD management; in adopting joint implementing actions or procedures (i.e. calls) for implementation.
3.4.2. Synergies with macro-regional strategies The analysed ESIF programmes with social inclusion objectives covered by at least one macro-regional strategy do not usually have explicit synergies with other macro-regional strategies. While most programmes such as those in Austria, Germany or Greece, are generally compliant with macro-regional strategies, specific complementarities with issues related to social or labour market integration are not cited in the programme documents. For example, in Calabria, there is a regional development strategy (coordinated under the programming department of the region) overarching all programmes with the aim of ensuring complementarities; and while the regional ERDF-ESF programme shows synergy with EUSAIR (EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region) through TO 1 (Strengthening
60 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______research, technological development and innovation), TO 5 (Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management), TO 6 (Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency), TO 7 (Promoting sustainable transport and improving network infrastructures) and TO 11 (Improving the efficiency of public administration), there are no specific provisions that could be related to social inclusion.
However, exceptions can be found. For instance, the Hungarian national multi-fund ERDF- ESF programme, under TO 9, includes actions dedicated to fighting poverty and the social exclusion of marginalised communities in the Danube Region, especially Roma communities. Moreover, Hungarian national multi-fund programmes present synergies with EUSDR (EU Strategy for the Danube Region) social priorities 7 (Knowledge Society), 8 (Competitiveness of Enterprises) and 9 (People & Skills), of which People and Skills is focused on target areas like employability, active citizenship and well-being, especially on inclusive education and training as well as promoting inclusive labour markets, equal opportunities and non- discrimination, the promotion of civic competences and lifelong learning opportunities for all77. Furthermore, in the Slovenian national EMFF programme, synergies are expected with EUSAIR in relation to CLLD – which will specifically focus on social inclusion activities. Likewise, the Croatian national EAFRD programme provides complementarities with Pillar 4 of EUSAIR (Sustainable tourism) under actions financed through the LEADER programme (especially providing support for coastal and rural areas).
In the regional ERDF Programme for Lombardy, potential complementarities can be found in relation to Pillar 1 (Fostering sustainable growth and promoting innovation in the Alps) of EUSALP (EU Strategy for the Alpine Region), especially when it comes to the provision of social and economic services in rural and remote areas, as well as to Pillar 2 (Connectivity for all) – through actions promoting higher accessibility to ICT.
Other programmes do not elaborate more on complementarity with the relevant strategies, which means that social inclusion is neither specifically considered nor completely excluded. This, however, does not depend solely on the programme, but also on the design of macro- regional strategies and on the extent to which they consider social inclusion under their thematic priorities (e.g. EUSAIR do not consider directly the thematic of social inclusion, while EUSDR address the issue through priority area 9)78.
3.5. Strengths and weaknesses in addressing social inclusion Compared to the past, the current regulatory provisions ensure major flexibility for ESI Fund programme authorities to combine TOs and Funds in the same programme and to guarantee synergy, complementarity and integration between ESI Funds and other EU policy instruments in the area of social affairs. ESIF Programmes can directly address social inclusion issues through T09, combining Funds or through integration with other EU policy instruments. Specific focus can also focus territories that are most affected by poverty or social exclusion or specific vulnerable groups of people.
Most programmes analysed report combination of TOs in a specific axis or in multi- fund programmes. TOs mostly involved are TO9, 8 and 10, but also TOs relevant to sustainable urban development, such as TOs 4 or 6. Coordination and complementarities
77 http://www.peopleandskills-danuberegion.eu/about-us/the-targets/ 78 http://www.peopleandskills-danuberegion.eu/about-us/the-working-groups/
61 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______between ESIF Funds are common in the field of social inclusion, mainly when it comes to ERDF and ESF, but also in relation to EARDF, EMFF and Interreg.
Most programmes report synergies with other EU policy instruments for social inclusion and integration of migrants. However, implementation rules usually differ between ESI Funds and other policy instruments in the area of social affairs. For example, AMIF, FEAD and ISF are implemented with defined rules and established at EU and national levels with the limited involvement of local stakeholders. This makes potential synergies with ESI Funds more difficult, as these are often managed with the direct involvement of regional and local authorities.
Considering the number of instruments available to address poverty and social exclusion issues at EU and national levels, there is a requirement for a high coordination effort at various institutional levels. In some Member States coordination is already ensured by national agencies, within inter-service steering groups or through regional committees (such as Monitoring Committees). Likewise, EU working procedures foresee inter-service consultations on complex issues such as migration, e.g. consultations between DG Home and the other DGs involved in internal security and territorial development such as DG EMPL and DG Regio. However, managing complexity requires time and entails organisational costs, regardless of the performance and efficiency of institutions involved. In general terms complexity and associated managing costs (e.g. staff costs) increase when the number of policy fields, Funds and stakeholders involved increases.
There is no confirmation (data is lacking) that the various instruments introduced to address social inclusion issues are effective on the ground (and what the managing costs are); more evidence based on the results emerging from OP implementation is still needed.
62 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
4. INTEGRATED TOOLS
KEY FINDINGS
Integrated tools are instruments targeting certain groups of people (and their plurality of needs) or focusing on specific territories with development gaps and/or challenges related to cohesion. In the current programming period, they refer to CLLD, Integrated territorial investment (ITI) and sustainable urban development approaches. ESI Funds 2014-2020 programmes use integrated tools for social inclusion to different degrees. Although some integrated tools are not specifically designed to directly benefit social inclusion, they support investments in housing and urban regeneration that are related to social issues in a broader sense. CLLD is the most often planned instrument for addressing social inclusion issues in ESI Funds programmes, mainly in EAFRD and EMFF funded programmes. In EAFRD, CLLD usually addresses issues for reducing poverty, depopulation and employment in rural areas. In EMFF, CLLD focuses on promoting social inclusion, fighting poverty and regional disparities in coastal towns, rural fishing areas and islands. ERDF and ESF funded programmes usually implement CLLD under the priority axis specifically dedicated to promoting social inclusion and the poverty reduction. Although most programmes include ITIs, they do not concern social inclusion only. Social inclusion is most thoroughly addressed in ERDF and ESF programmes through sustainable urban development actions implemented via ITIs. Sustainable urban development is the main approach for promoting social inclusion in many programmes. Social inclusion is primarily reflected in social urban rehabilitation programmes, where ESF build on ERDF investments. In the previous programming period 2007-2013, some projects in Leader rural areas dealt with migrant integration. In 2014-2020, integrated approaches are not specifically designed to directly address the integration of migrants and refugees, but these questions often form part of a broader approach to tackling social inclusion issues. So, in most cases, migrants and refugees are considered as part of a wider group of disadvantaged people. The use of integrated tools is limited by financial barriers and a lack of skills and competences. There is a clear need for more resources at urban level (currently programmes allocate approximately 8 % of ERDF total contribution). Innovative tools for territorial integration and development require further planning and programming prior to implementation, which can imply additional burdens and costs for local authorities and stakeholders. When it comes to instruments for sustainable urban development and innovative actions, one of the main risks is the concentration of resources in bigger cities or cities with higher administrative and governance capacities.
In this chapter, section 4.1 provides a general description of integrated tools as policy instruments used to implement integrated approaches, for social inclusion commonly used in ESI Funds 2014-2020. Section 4.2 highlights integrated tools used in the current programming period and section 4.3 includes specific examples from the research and the programmes analysed.
63 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
4.1. Definition of integrated tools In a broad sense, integrated tools are policy implementation instruments targeting specific groups of people (e.g. people with disabilities) or focusing on some specific territories with development gaps (e.g. urban areas, remote rural areas, areas in demographic decline). Integrated tools combine, in a multi-sectoral framework, different types of actions addressing the multidimensional needs of people and territories targeted.
In the current programming period, integrated tools are mentioned as key instruments for the implementation of integrated approaches, combining different funding sources, actions and policy fields. Integrated approaches are particularly called upon to contribute to the objective of territorial cohesion as a new objective added in the TFEU in 200879. Integrated approaches and tools are defined in the Regulations governing the ESI Funds and specifically in the CSF, Annex I of the CPR (see section 2.1 of this study for more details). From the EU policy side, the need for an integrated approach comes from the necessity to address complex development issues, involving different scales of interventions, cross-sectoral actions, categories of recipients (targeted groups) and governance levels. The use of integrated approaches to address territorial development is not new in the panorama of Cohesion Policy. The initiative Urban I and II, as well as the URBACT programme, are examples of an integrated approach at urban level used in past programming periods80.
Integrated tools for social inclusion usually adopted in ESI Funds programmes are CLLD, ITIs, and sustainable urban development.
4.1.1. Community-led Local Development (CLLD) According to Article 32 of the CPR, Community-led local development is supported by EAFRD, which is designated as a LEADER programme for local development81 and may be supported by the ERDF, ESF or EMFF. Further provisions for CLLD are found in Articles 33 (on community-led local development strategies), 34 (on local action groups) and 35 (on support from ESI Funds for CLLD). Additional complementary fund-specific rules for EAFRD (LEADER) and EMFF are also found in their respective regulations. ‘Guidance on Community-led Local Development in European Structural and investment Funds’ in ESI Funds offers a comprehensive view on the main principles guiding the CLLD approach82.
CLLD is an instrument used to strengthen public participation and involve citizens, at local level, more actively in designing and implementing strategies to increase the future sustainability of their areas. Although CLLD does not intend to oppose traditional, centralised top-down approaches, stakeholders who opt for this method are aware that CLLD is bottom- up. Indeed, being centred on the needs of sub-regional areas and being led by local action groups with representatives of public and private local interests, the bottom-up approach is
79 The Treaty of Lisbon introduced ‘territorial cohesion’ as a third dimension of EU cohesion, as a complement to social and economic cohesion. 80 Urban community initiatives 1994-1999, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/urban2/urban/initiative/src/frame1.htm, and Urbact program, which ‘helps cities to develop pragmatic solutions that are new and sustainable and that integrate economic, social and environmental urban topics’ http://urbact.eu/# 81 LEADER is a local development method used to engage local actors in the design and delivery of strategies, decision-making and resource allocation for the development of their rural areas. See: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld_en 82 European Commission (June 2014), European Structural and Investment Funds – Guidance for Member States and Programme Authorities.
64 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______best suited to helping local actors mobilise local resources, giving them a greater sense of ownership and commitment.
The CLLD approach has been tested for years in rural areas through the LEADER approach supported by EAFRD, and has been extended voluntarily in the current programming period to all ESI Funds.
CLLD has three main components:
local action groups: are made up of local private and public representatives such as entrepreneurs and their associations, local authorities, neighbourhood or rural associations, groups of citizens (such as minorities, senior citizens, women/men, youth, etc.), community and voluntary organisations, etc. One of their tasks is to engage in dialogue, from an early stage, with the relevant managing authorities to agree on needs and concerns to be taken into account in the programme design. local development strategies: need to show coherence with the ESI Fund programmes supporting them. The strategies define the area and the population targeted. A SWOT analysis describes the objectives and innovative features of the strategy. The strategy should also include an action plan to verify how the objectives are translated into concrete projects. area and population coverage: local action groups define the area and the population the strategy wishes to cover in line with criteria in Article 33(6) of the CPR.
In the current programming period, ERDF, ESF, EAFRD and EMFF can be used for CLLD projects. Member States opting for CLLD specify in their Partnership Agreement how they intend to support CLLD and indicate the areas where CLLD may be used. This is a compulsory requirement for EAFRD but optional for ERDF, ESF, and EMFF.
4.1.2. Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) ITIs implement territorial strategies that allow Member States to combine investments from several priority axes of one or more Operational Programmes.
According to article 36(1) of the CPR, where an urban development strategy, or other territorial strategy, or a territorial pact referred to in Article 12(1), requires an integrated approach involving investments from ESF, ERDF or the Cohesion Fund under more than one priority axis of one or more operational programmes, actions may be carried out as an ITI and may be complemented with financial support from EAFRD or EMFF. Other specific provisions in relation to ITI are in Article 7 of ERDF Regulation (EU) No 1301/201383, Article 12 of ESF Regulation (EU) No 1304/201384 and Article 11 of ETC Regulation (EU) No 1299/201385.
83 Comma 2: “Sustainable urban development shall be undertaken through Integrated territorial investment as referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.” 84 Comma 1: “The ESF may support community-led local development strategies in urban and rural areas, as referred to in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, territorial pacts and local initiatives for employment, including youth employment, education and social inclusion, as well as Integrated territorial investments (ITI) as referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.’ 85 ‘For cooperation programmes, the intermediate body for carrying out the management and implementation of an integrated territorial investment as referred to in Article 36(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 shall be either a legal body established under the laws of one of the participating countries provided that it is set up by public authorities or bodies from at least two participating countries, or an EGTC.”
65 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Interventions from ITIs are multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral. For ITIs to be efficient, they need to be applied to geographical areas with particular territorial cross-sectoral features. Key elements of ITIs are:
a designated territory and an integrated territorial development strategy: Important in ITI implementation is to define a geographical area with specific features. Once delineated, the investment can tackle any territorial feature ranging from specific urban neighbourhoods with multiple deprivations to urban, metropolitan, urban-rural, sub-regional or inter-regional levels. The ITI does not have to cover the whole territory of an administrative unit, but can focus on a detached geographical unit with similar characteristics within a region. a package of actions to be implemented: Although not compulsory, when employing ITI, it is advisable to combine contributions from different funds; ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund, optionally complemented with support from EARDF and EMFF. The ‘actions implemented through the investment shall contribute to the TOs of the relevant priority axes of the participating Operational Programme(s), as well as the development objectives of the territorial strategy’86. Grants and, when appropriate, financial instruments can deliver support to the package of actions. governance arrangements to manage the ITI: final responsibility for implementing and managing the ITI lies in the hands of the managing authority. This can, in turn, delegate implementation and management tasks to intermediate bodies including local authorities, regional development bodies or non-governmental organisations.
4.1.3. Sustainable urban development According to Article 7(1) of the ERDF regulation, sustainable urban development should be promoted through strategies that set out integrated actions to tackle economic, environmental, climate, demographic and social challenges affecting urban areas, while taking into account the need to promote urban-rural linkages. Point 2 of the same article states that sustainable urban development is to be undertaken through ITI, a specific operational programme, or through a specific priority axis.
Integrated actions for sustainable urban development are based on specific characteristics of the urban territory (place-based approach) and at least 5 % of any ERDF resources should be allocated at national level to these actions.
According to the Guidance for Member States on Integrated Sustainable Urban Development87, key elements have to be developed in the programming phase:
selection of urban areas. Principles for selecting urban areas for sustainable urban development actions are set out in the Partnership Agreement and can include pre- selection of urban areas based on an analysis of needs (e.g. economic growth centres, metropolitan areas, or deprived neighbourhoods), competitions, or on-going selection based on defined criteria such as the level of deprivation. delegation. Urban authorities are designated as intermediate bodies that should carry out certain tasks in designing and implementing sustainable urban development
86 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.pdf 87 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guidelines/2015/guidance-for-member- states-on-integrated-sustainable-urban-development-article-7-erdf-regulation
66 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
on behalf of the managing authority and 'shall be responsible for tasks relating, at least, to the selection of operations' (Article 7 of the ERDF regulation). method of implementation. As stated above, there are different methods of implementing sustainable urban development (ITIs, specific operational programme, specific Partnership Agreement). Regardless of the method selected, at least two TOs have to be used with integrated funding (Article 96(1)(c) CPR). integrated sustainable urban strategies. These strategies provide the framework for selecting individual operations and include interlinked actions that seek to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, environmental, climate, social and demographic conditions of an urban area, going beyond operations supported only by ESI Funds.
4.2. State of play of integrated tools implementation in ESI Funds
4.2.1. Integrated tools in Partnership Agreements: an overview According to the study on adopted Partnership Agreements88, CLLDs are used in all 28 EU Member States mainly as a way of continuing Local Action Groups under the EAFRD, while 20 Member States use ITIs, most often in order to address the urban dimension. CLLDs are both mono-funded and multi-funded and mostly cover rural areas (when financed by EAFRD) but also cities (when supported by ERDF and ESF). ITIs are mainly used to address the urban dimension through sustainable urban development, but there are also cases where they are used for rural or mixed areas.
Many Member States define the territorial approach of integrated tools in relation to addressing poverty89, usually by carrying out mapping to precisely determine geographical areas most affected by poverty and degradation. A number of countries implement an integrated tool to support people at risk of social exclusion, usually by combining ESF and ERDF supported actions, but also, in certain cases, by integrating support from the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived.
Joint Action Plans are not used as integrated implementation tools in the current programming period.
4.2.2. Integrated tools in 2014-2020 programmes The use of CLLDs, ITIs or sustainable urban development approaches in the field of social inclusion depends mainly on the type of programme.
In general terms, while the EAFRD and EMFF funded programmes analysed for this study selected at least one integrated tool in the field of social inclusion, only 40 % of the ESF and 60 % of the ERDF programmes did so. Multi-funded programmes usually consider more than one integrated tool. The ESF and ERDF funded programmes usually consider different integrated tools when addressing social inclusion, but most often they use sustainable urban development approaches. Not surprisingly, EAFRD and EMFF programmes mostly focus on CLLD when it comes to the issue of social inclusion (Figure 15).
88 European Parliament (2015), ‘Review of the adopted Partnership Agreements’, study from the REGI Committee, authors METIS-GmbH. A general overview of the state of play of integrated approaches in ESIF is also provided by the study ‘The use of new provisions during the programming phase of the European Structural and Investment Funds’ carried out for DG Regio by Altus Framework Consortium, May 2016, pp. 88 to 123. 89 Ibid.
67 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
In some of the programmes analysed, there were ad-hoc integrated tools (not referring to CLLD, ITI or sustainable urban developments mentioned in the regulations). In Hungary, the national multi-fund ERDF-ESF programmes use a new integrated instrument: a regional integrated programme. This is based on a coordination procedure at national level (and not as an ITI) and addresses social issues.
Figure 15: Tools selected by type of programme (unit: number of programmes)
20 18 16 No tools selected 14 12 Sustainable urban 10 development for social 8 issues ITI 6 4 2 CLLD
0
IPA
ESF
EMFF
ERDF EAFRD
Multifund Source: Authors (programmes analysed in the study)
The use of integrated approaches for social inclusion in operational programmes is not systematic across Member States.
For example, neither Denmark nor Sweden use ITIs – and only use CLLD to a lesser extent (and not particularly related to social inclusion). Likewise, most of the ESF and ERDF programmes in Germany and Austria do not use CLLD, or not for social inclusion. Only the Austrian ERDF programme90 uses CLLD in Tirol, but these activities only started with the elaboration of joint concepts that are focused on local economic development. (There are no examples of social integration available.) In Hungary, despite being cited in the Partnership Agreement, ITIs are not actually used by programmes in relation to social inclusion. Similarly, CLLD is used within the Rural Development Programme and the Territorial and Settlement Development OP (TSDOP), but none of the two CLLDs focus on social integration. Even if under TSDOP the Priority related to CLLD is financed through TO 9, the scope of the dedicated Priority Axis is oriented towards cultural heritage and community buildings, without a strong social focus. This approach is also reflected by indicators used in the programme (i.e. surface of rehabilitated community spaces and number of persons using these spaces), which do not measure specific dimensions of social inclusion.
4.2.2.1. CLLD in the field of social inclusion The tool most often used for addressing social issues is CLLD (see Figure 16 below). CLLD is mainly incorporated in EAFRD and EMFF funded programmes. When it deals with EAFRD, it is implemented through LEADER programmes and Local Action Groups that usually address issues reducing poverty, depopulation and fostering employment in rural areas (Croatia, Slovenia, Greece, Austria and Hungary). An interesting example is the transnational
90 Investment in growth and jobs Austria 2014-2020 - Operational programme for the use of ERDF funds
68 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
LEADER project ‘Immigrant Integration in Rural Areas’ under the Austrian national EAFRD programme91, which shows that the cooperative dimension can also be used to address social integration. On the other hand, with EMFF, the use of CLLD differs from programme to programme. For example, while CLLD in the Slovenian national EMFF programme92 focuses on promoting social inclusion, fighting poverty and regional disparities in small towns, rural areas and coastal fishing areas, in the Croatian national EMFF programme93, CLLD has a much broader scope, which includes strengthening economic development and social cohesion in coastal towns and on islands (fishing-dependent areas).
Figure 16: Share of tools selected among the programmes
22%
35% CLLD
ITI
25% Sustainable urban development for social issues 17% No tools selected
Source: Authors (programmes reviewed for the study)
In addition to EAFRD and EMFF, CLLDs (for social inclusion) are not unknown to other mainstream funds. For example, the Slovenian national multi-fund ERDF-ESF programme94 implements CLLD under the priority axis specifically dedicated to promoting social inclusion and reducing poverty risks. Furthermore, the Austrian national ERDF programme95 considers CLLD for the development of functional areas and new participatory territorial development approaches that are tested in the Tyrol region. They involve local and regional actors, in particular enterprises, more broadly in territorial development and aim at preserving existing jobs and creating new quality jobs. Through CLLD, cooperation in functional regions and urban-surrounding areas will be improved. The approach addresses TO 9 with IP 9b ‘providing support for physical, economic and social regeneration of deprived communities in urban and rural areas’. It is worth noting that Tyrol is suitable for testing the CLLD approach due to its particular structural features, including cooperation and coordination across funds. Another example is in Romania, where CLLD will be the mechanism through which a coordinated intervention of ESF and ERDF will be implemented for economic and social regeneration in many urban deprived areas, including a specific district of the country capital, Bucharest. In this case, social inclusion is the primary purpose of the integrated instrument, where ESF and ERDF are used together to target specific marginalisation issues in urban centres.
91 Rural Development Programme Austria 92 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund – Operational Programme for Slovenia 93 Operational Programme for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries in Croatia for the period 2014-2020 94 Slovenia Operational Programme for the Implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy in the Period 2014-2020 95 Investment in growth and jobs Austria 2014-2020 - Operational programme for the use of ERDF funds
69 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
4.2.2.2. Sustainable urban development and ITIs for social inclusion in ESI Funds programmes The theme of social inclusion is most thoroughly addressed through sustainable urban development actions implemented via ITIs. For example, in the Calabria regional ERDF-ESF programme, sustainable urban development is a pillar for promoting social inclusion in the region. There are three types of ITIs (with corresponding strategies): the first relates to the main urban areas (3 ITIs in Cosenza-Rende, Catanzaro and Reggio Calabria, the latter already addressed by the National Operational Programme ‘Citta' Metropolitane’96), the second relates to smaller urban areas - city ports and the hub of regional services (5 ITIs such as Crotone, Vibo Valentia, Lamezia Terme, Corigliano-Rossano, ‘Città porto di Gioia Tauro’), the third relates to inner areas (10 ITIs such as Pollino occidentale, Pollino orientale, Sila orientale, Valle dell’Oliva, Presila catanzarese, Reventino-Savuto, Serre calabresi, Versante Ionico-Serre, Aspromonte, Area grecanica).
In Hungary, sustainable urban development is tackled through a dedicated Priority within the TSDOP, which also integrates ERDF and ESF resources. Social inclusion is primarily reflected in social urban rehabilitation programmes, where ESF funds build on ERDF investments. Similarly, the Croatian national ESF OP Efficient Human Resources 2014-2020 implements sustainable urban development in the area of social inclusion through ITIs by integrating actions97.
Furthermore, through sustainable urban development, the ERDF programme in Romania will support 36 strategies for urban development in line with Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation, involving urban authorities in the selection of projects. All medium and large towns in the country will be covered by a strategy spreading the integration approach and empowering local authorities. Generally, all sustainable urban development measures have a component dedicated to social inclusion based on the problems of specific towns, but mainly consisting of infrastructure development for health, education and social care.
Sometimes, sustainable urban development approach is coordinated as a part of a broader strategic approach to social inclusion, which is the case in Germany. For instance, operations on integrated urban development in deprived urban neighbourhoods, which are implemented under ERDF programmes Bremen and Nordrhein-Westfalen, involve measures for social integration. In the ERDF programme for Bremen region98, preconditions for the use of ERDF funds in deprived city quarters are integrated urban development concepts. These concepts ensure a locally coordinated and strategic interplay of the various measures in the neighbourhoods. With regard to eligible urban areas and integrated urban development concepts under priority axis 4, ERDF interventions are also implemented - as an integrated strategy - in close coordination with funding from the ESF programme supporting measures in the field of active inclusion. The aim is to sustainably strengthen resources in subsidised districts with particularly severe poverty and unemployment problems and to address the issues of local economies as well as strengthen local education and employability. Likewise, in the Nordrhein-Westfalen regional ERDF programme99, the ‘Prevention Strategy of the State
96 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes/2014-2020/italy/2014it16m2op004 97 Actions are under the objective of ‘Progressive cities and drivers of economic growth’ (SOs 10iii3 ‘Enhancing access to lifelong learning, […]’ and 10iv1 ‘Improving the labour market relevance of education’ […]) with actions under the objective ‘Inclusive cities fighting poverty and supporting social integration’ (SOs 8ii ‘Sustainable integration of young people not in employment […]’, 9i1 ‘Active inclusion […]’, 9iv2 ‘Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high- quality services, including health care and social services of general interest’). 98 Operational Programme Bremen 2014-2020 for the European Regional Development Fund 99 Operational Programme NRW 2014 -2020 for the European Regional Development Fund
70 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______of North-Rhine Westphalia’ and the ‘Integrated Framework Concept for Social City/Preventive Neighbourhood Development’ are the basis for systematic intervention to counter the decline of cities and neighbourhoods. Only measures that are part of a local integrated development approach addressing these dimensions are promoted. They are allocated some EUR 218 million, or around 18 % of the programme's total ERDF contribution.
Interestingly, the German Federal ESF programme supports integrated urban development approaches in deprived urban neighbourhoods in various German cities (e.g. projects in the cities of Fürth and of Düsseldorf) 100. In the ESF programme Rheinland Pfalz, integration also takes place at the operations level for specific target groups (e.g. migrants, inactive people and long-term unemployed). It mainly consists of combining within a holistic and multi- disciplinary approach different methods and tools of intervention (e.g. coaching, socio- pedagogical accompaniment, training, language promotion, support to job application and creation) supplied by the programme.
4.2.2.3. Target groups considered in integrated tools Multiple vulnerable population groups are common in different programmes. It is rare that integrated tools target only one specific group of marginalised people. In more than half the analysed programmes, young people are considered for social issues along with other specific groups, including groups specific to each programme, such as people in remote areas, war-veterans, etc. Low-skilled workers and people with disabilities received comparatively less attention in integrated approaches (see Figure 17 below).
In most cases migrants and refugees are considered as part of a wider group of disadvantaged people, either as specific ethnic groups (minorities) or other vulnerable categories such as women, children, the unemployed, etc. However, the 47 programmes analysed highlight that there are considerable differences between Member States in the scope and extent to which migration issues are included in integrated approaches to address social inclusion. While some Member States have specific arrangements to address these issues (e.g. Austria and Germany), others do not consider them at all (e.g. Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary). Member States with a traditional immigrant background (i.e. immigration countries like Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, etc.) usually belong to the former group.
100 Operational programme of the Federal Government for the European Social Fund in the funding period 2014- 2020
71 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Figure 17: Disadvantaged groups targeted by integrated tools in analysed programmes
60%
52% 52%
50% 46% 46%
39% 40% 35%
30%
20%
10%
0% People with Young people Low-skilled Women Ethnic groups Other disabilities workers
Source: Authors
4.3. Examples of integrated tools In addition to the information from the 47 programmes above, examples of integrated approaches, implemented both in the previous and current programming periods have been identified during the analysis carried out in the context of this study.
4.3.1. Programming period 2007-2013 The examples in the boxes below were identified from literature or based on interviews and they concern migrant and refugee integration in a rural context. These examples, from Sweden, Italy, Greece, Austria and Hungary illustrate successful projects implemented under EAFRD LEADER approaches, as well as ERDF and ESF101. Key success elements are:
high participation from the local community on an interactive and voluntary basis, in activities supporting migrant integration; job oriented actions, to increase skills (linguistic) and capacities (work competence) of migrants for successful economic integration in a local rural context; cultural and/or artistic actions to facilitate mutual comprehension and guarantee conditions for better cultural integration.
101 The first three examples are illustrated in the publication ‘Migrant and Refugee Integration’, Project brochure, 2016; while the last example is from the Austrian Rural Network http://www.zukunftsraumland.at/projekte/1319.
72 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Box 6: Examples of use of integrated tools in Member States, 2007-2013 Project name: ‘Bröd i Bergslagen’ (‘Bread in Bergslagen’) Territory: ‘LEADER Bergslagen’, Sweden
Short summary: The Swedish ‘Bread in Bergslagen’ project encourages baking bread together as a means of facilitating cultural exchange in the local community. Arrivals learn more about each other’s traditions and non-native speakers pick up the language. The project first included restoration of traditional wood-fired ovens belonging to Ecomuseum Bergslagen, which covers the provinces of Dalcarlia, Västmanland and Örebro. After that, the ovens were used to bring people together around bread baking, which proved to be a simple but effective way of facilitating communication. The project was successful in integrating immigrants into the local community by improving their language skills, meeting local people and understanding local culture. In the end, around 300 people were directly involved in the project, one quarter coming from countries other than Sweden. In total, including people that did the restoration work, 1,200 people participated in the project. In 2013, this project won the award for the best integration project in Sweden.
Project name: ‘Terre & Comuni’ (‘Land and Municipalities’) Territory: Lazio Part of the Abruzzo National Park, Italy
Short summary: This project was carried out by the Local Action Group ‘Lazio Part of the Abruzzo National Park’ (VERLA)’ in central Italy as part of a wider project led by the social enterprise ‘Borghi Artistici’ (in Rome). The project set up a social network of Italian stakeholders and immigrants, supported by ESF in 2014 and provided training and work placement for young unemployed immigrants and local people around Frosinone in central Italy. It established an association working in close cooperation with the local asylum centre to provide opportunities for young immigrants. Although the project initially had only 46 participants in training and placement activities, it yielded long-term benefits, from setting- up micro-credit lending to refugees, facilitating their access to small farming activities, to cultural activities. These were very effective in integrating immigrants into the local rural area.
Project name: ‘Culture as a Lever for Sustainable Development’ Territory: Island of Lesvos, Greece
Short summary: The project ‘Culture as a Lever for Sustainable Development’ included the creation of a platform where artists and locals discussed and tried to present an understanding of the unfolding refugee crisis on the island of Lesvos. The project was part of a network of activities to stimulate sustainable local development by exploiting local know- how, traditions, architecture, gastronomy, art, etc. It brought together 39 representatives from 11 local development agencies, all of which act as LEADER Local Action Groups, and 145 artists specialising in different art forms who participated in series of events including exhibitions, workshops, book presentations and two master classes. As these events coincided with the ongoing refugee crisis, the result was a series of highly sensitive works of art based on themes of refugees, war and related social issues, which in turn inspired compassion, empathy and tolerance among participants and the local population.
73 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Project name: ‘Space for encounters’ (Raum für Begegnungen) Territory: Burgenland, Austria.
Short summary: Currently more than 500 asylum seekers live in Burgenland in private accommodation, guesthouses and provisional homes, while waiting for decisions on being granted asylum in Austria. Even if they cannot stay in Austria, newly acquired abilities and skills can help these people to re-build their lives in their country of origin. Positive experience abroad strengthens confidence and creates a positive attitude towards others. The project ‘Space for Encounters’ promoted by Literaturhaus Mattersburg helps asylum seekers. At the same time it opens up a human perspective on other cultures, religions and lifestyles for Austrian residents. The project supported: regular discussion groups (involving, as needed, interpreters and a psychotherapist, who accompany similar projects in Lower Austria and Vienna), small events, to get to know each other by eating together, chatting and celebrating, purchase of translated works by authors from the homelands of asylum seekers for the public library in the Literaturhaus, encounters for interested parties with authors and artists from asylum seeker homelands, excursions for asylum seekers and local people to markets, museums, etc., to exchange ideas about different cultural everyday habits in a concrete and simple way; targeted networking between asylum seekers and the literary house users and visitors.
Project name: Housing Integration Pécs - Improving the situation of people living in slums and moving 35 families to an integrated environment Programmes: Social Renewal Operational programme, Social Infrastructure Operational programme, South Transdanubia Operational programme Issues addressed: Social integration, deprived neighbourhoods, urban segregation
Short Summary: Pécs is a city of 150,000 inhabitants, with a substantial coal mining history. When the mining industry deteriorated in the 1990s, those living in mining communities lost their jobs and left, so the ratio of low-skilled, unemployed and Roma people increased further and the communities progressively become segregated. Housing integration activities started in 2012, as a project of the Municipality of Pécs. The process was encouraged by an amendment of the ERDF regulation that made EU funds available for housing. A single social urban rehabilitation program with several projects was implemented. In the spring of 2012, an opportunity for attracting ESF resources opened up for community development and to improve the education, employment and health of those living in segregated communities. A year later, a related Call for Proposals with ERDF resources opened up to complement the previous tender with investment such as the refurbishment of housing. A related project in the same area renovated 24 housing units and moved five families to an integrated environment. In 2013, another opportunity opened up with ERDF resources (only for the South Transdanubia region) to develop housing integration models. There were specific desegregation requirements. For each project, 30 to 36 persons were relocated to an integrated environment. Three projects relocated 30 families to an integrated environment and renovated 44 housing units. The housing situation improved for 127 families, or more than 400 people. 35 families moved into an integrated environment. 68 family apartments were renovated. Communities were strengthened and they also organised inclusion programmes (from cleaning up public spaces to leisure, sports and cultural events).
74 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
4.3.2. CLLD in the current programming period 2014-2020 There is still little information on projects funded through integrated tools for 2014-2020. Based on the programmes reviewed for this study, examples are described below from Austria and Germany (EAFRD) and Romania and Hungary (ERDF and ESF).
The topics covered by the projects vary: reinforcement of public organisation capacity building in a cross-border context to manage migratory flows; improvement of migrant skills and competencies to facilitate their integration in the local labour market; training of migrants in nature and protected areas; facilitating access of people with disabilities in natural areas (forest); community building actions in an urban context.
Box 7: Examples of use of CLLD in Member States, 2014-2020 (Source: Authors). Programme: Operational programme EAFRD Austria Issues addressed: Social inclusion of migrants and refugees/asylum seekers Integrated tool: CLLD - LEADER - transnational cooperation
Short summary: Within the transnational LEADER project ‘Immigrant Integration to Rural Areas’, 16 European LEADER regions cooperate together: 6 Tyrolean LEADER regions (regio³ Kitzbüheler Alpen, KUUSK, Wipptal, Imst, regioL), a region from Upper Austria (Linz-Land), the Hochsauerland region in Germany, the Halland region in Sweden and 7 regions in Finland. The background of this LEADER transnational cooperation project is the increasing inflow of refugees, which has been particularly high since 2015 in the countries involved in the project. In the transnational part of the project, partners examine different approaches to integration through best practice examples and implement integration measures in the partner regions and countries. Experiences and results of this implementation are then shared online and through regular exchanges. At the end of the project, a toolbox is created that can be used for integration in rural areas. The following measures are implemented: regional pilot actions in participating regions on different topics, so successful regional initiatives can be used as models for other regions in the participating countries; networking and exchanges between stakeholders and people involved in the integration process; comprehensive best-practice toolkit and a database of transferable measures and methods for rural regions; joint public relations, joint organisation and joint implementation. The focus in Austria is on volunteer work with immigrants and on initial integration into the labour market. The added value of this transnational cooperation project is the partner structure. With partners from Sweden and Germany, countries in the project have a strong tradition and experience of integration. These were also the most important recipients for immigrants and refugees in recent years. Since each region implements its own project within the framework of the transnational exchange, a range of measures can be used in rural areas. With this LEADER project, the 16 partner regions contribute to a larger European solution.
75 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Programme: Operational programme EAFRD Austria Issues addressed: Social inclusion of refugees/asylum seekers, labour market integration Integrated tool: CLLD - LEADER - transnational cooperation
Short summary: Based on experiences from the Leader project ’Asylum seekers as assistants for protected areas’ (‘Asylwerber als Schutzgebietshelfer’), this transnational project expands activities for asylum seekers, and provides them with the opportunity to participate in local public activities in the municipality of Fließ covering: road and rural pathway construction, open space design (greening, paving), manual skills in the maintenance of community buildings (carpentry, installations, tiles), agriculture and forestry (alpine farming, agricultural areas in the municipality). A municipal employee coordinates work assignments and trains asylum seekers in the activities. This familiarises, asylum seekers with work processes in the host country and paves their way into a professional activity. In consultation with the municipal administration, the coordinator also organises information meetings with interested companies.
Programme: Operational programme EAFRD Bayern, Germany Issues addressed: Social inclusion Integrated tool used: LEADER-CLLD.
Short summary: Inclusion means that everyone can participate in the environment and access the forest as well as experience the particular forest atmosphere, whether they have a handicap or not. This was the idea behind the barrier-free forest experience hiking trail ‘Sinneswandeln’ in Gramschatzer Wald, which was designed and established as an intensive exchange with regional institutions for people with disabilities and with future users, namely people in wheelchairs, visually impaired or blind people and people with mobility restrictions. Regular visits of people with disabilities during construction to ‘test’ the hiking trail and its different stations promoted intensive and inclusive cooperation that took into account the needs of future users. The forest trail opened in April 2016 and allows people with disabilities to visit the forest on their own and to discover manifold sensual impressions of the forest. The approximately 1 km long circular trail is equipped with a large range of resting benches and there is a guidance system for the blind and visually impaired. The trail includes five activity stations that provide the opportunity to enjoy the forest atmosphere in a variety of ways: through touching, listening, tasting and smelling, seeing and using all the senses. Overall, the new forest experience trail encourages - in the sense of inclusion - encounters between people with and without disabilities.
Programme: Operational programme EAFRD Austria Issues addressed: Social inclusion of refugees/asylum seekers, labour market integration Integrated tool used: LEADER-CLLD.
Short summary: In the Kaunergrat Nature Park, labour- and time-intensive activities are constantly taking place in the nature conservation areas. Due to a lack of time, municipality staff can only partly deliver these activities. As a result, a mobile intervention group has been formed specifically to help in the Kaunergrat Nature Park. Within the project, asylum seekers, together with a foreman or coordinator, carry out tasks in the protected areas and the nature park region. Manual skills are first learned, then practised. In addition, knowledge of German is extended and applied, social values are conveyed and environmental awareness is enhanced. For Kaunergrat Nature Park, this provides a cost-effective way of managing time- intensive activities and work that has been neglected in the past. Asylum seekers are given the opportunity to receive training in nature conservation and pursue a meaningful activity, while both sides benefit from msutual learning and integration.
76 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Programme: Operational programme ESF ‘POCU’ and Operational programme ERDF ‘POR’ Romania Issues addressed: Social inclusion Integrated tool: CLLD, covering all the eligible cities under the national programme.
Short summary: The most important example of a territorial integrated approach for social inclusion in Romania is the joint use of CLLD in the ESF ‘POCU’ OP and the ERDF ‘POR’ OP. While ERDF will finance investments in infrastructure (housing, health, social, education, urban public space infrastructure) identified in the Local Development Strategy, ESF will finance integrated soft measures for marginalised communities targeted by the strategy, in:
education: increasing access and participation in early, primary and secondary education, including second chance and reducing early school leaving employment: supporting access and/or participation in the labour market through advice, guidance, training, assessment of skills acquired in a non-formal and informal system, subsidising employers, participation in apprenticeships and internships, supporting entrepreneurship within the community, including self-employment and inclusion in the social economy, etc. providing social and health services, social assistance combatting discrimination or segregation with information and awareness campaigns, specific action in the field, including active involvement and volunteering of community members in solving community problems. Preparation of the strategies, as well as the establishment and functioning of Local Action Groups, will be supported by ESF. Through this mechanism, local urban communities will be empowered to identify strategic solutions to their social inclusion challenges, and to tackle them with the integrated use of ESF and ERDF, under the control of their own Local Action Groups.
Programme: Territorial and Settlement Development Operational Programme, ERDF-ESF - Hungary Issues addressed: Community building actions in eligible urban areas Integrated tool: CLLD
Short summary: Priority 7 of the Territorial and Settlement Development Operational Programme is dedicated to an experimental CLLD programme aimed at enriching and strengthening community life in urban areas. It is experimental, as the instrument (CLLD) was not previously used in Hungary, with the exception of the LEADER programme financed through EARDF. Consequently, the initiative is strongly building on the LEADER experience, especially in where institutional and procedural management is concerned. The budgetary resources available are of approximately EUR 139.8 million (93.6 million ERDF, 46.2 million ESF); the entire amount is being allocated to less developed regions, which means the territory of the entire country with the exception of Central Hungary region. The main activities supported through CLLD are infrastructural investments in public spaces and community development programmes linked to these investments. In line with the specificities of CLLD, the activities shall be part of a strategy developed by Local Action Groups, for urban areas with a population of at least 10 000 inhabitants. Even if financed under TO 9 (dedicated to promoting social inclusion and combatting poverty and any form of discrimination), the social focus of the CLLD is mainly linked to community building, while the social inclusion instruments are less prominent, such effects more likely being generated as an indirect result of community-building initiatives.
77 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
4.3.3. ITI in the current programming period In the programmes analysed in this study, ITIs including social-inclusion specific interventions are rarely used outside the sustainable urban development framework. However, their contribution can be significant and cover large areas, as illustrated by the following example in Romania. Two ITIs implemented through a Sustainable Urban Development approach are also illustrated for Greece.
Box 8: Examples of use of ITIs in Member States, 2014-2020 (source: Authors) Project name: ITI Delta Dunarii Funds: ERDF, ESF, EAFRD, EMFF, Cohesion Fund (CF) Issues addressed: Social inclusion, inclusion of Roma people Territory: 6 different operational programmes in Romania
Short summary: Romania is the home of one of the financially most important ITIs in Europe: Delta Dunarii. It is the only ITI in the country, covering a very specific area – the Danube Delta – and has a budget of more than EUR 1.2 billion from 5 different ESI Funds, through 6 different Operational Programmes. The amount involved, the multitude of sources and the extremely under-developed, but protected environment of the area makes ITI Delta Dunarii a remarkable territorial integration challenge. Within its 4th pillar, ITI Delta Dunarii dedicates a sector objective to social inclusion, based on the joint utilisation of ERDF and ESF for interventions to improve living, learning and working conditions in marginalised communities, especially the Roma minority. ERDF and ESF will, however, be allocated to ITI with different funding procedures from the respective OPs, limiting the integration of both funds, which will have to be assigned, with different times and procedures, to different projects.
Project name: ITI Athens, Greece Issues addressed: Urban development in general with a strong social inclusion component Integrated tool: ITI (part of a greater Sustainable urban development (SUD) plan also including a CLLD)
Short summary: This Integrated Territorial Investment is part of a greater Sustainable Urban Development plan in the municipality of Athens, along with a CLLD, and it is funded through OP Attica 2014-2020, OP Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ERDF), OP Transport Infrastructure, Environment and Sustainable Development (ERDF and Cohesion Fund), OP Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning (ESF), OP Public Sector Reform (ESF), as well as EAFRD and EMFF. With regard to the underlying intervention logic, it reflects the various priorities and objectives of the funds and programmes from which it draws funds. More specifically, on social inclusion issues, the main priority of the Prefecture is to support the integration of vulnerable and marginalized groups and improve their access to social and healthcare services, especially in view of the migration crisis and the large number of refugees in the region, as well as the wider socio-economic crisis. Social inclusion issues are addressed through investment priorities under TO 9 funded by ESF as well as ERDF. Actions include, inter alia: integrating and supporting vulnerable and marginalized groups (including refugees, immigrants and roma people); raising awareness; improving access of vulnerable groups to the job market;
78 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
developing a Regional Network of Infrastructure for facing poverty (arbitration centres, social convenience stores, hosting facilities, social pharmacies and medical centres etc.) and providing support services to vulnerable groups; mitigating the consequences of the socio-economic crisis on the health of members of vulnerable groups; developing a service delivery model; capacity building for field agents providing healthcare and social services at the local level; developing an ecosystem of social economy in Attica; supporting social entrepreneurship; improving access of vulnerable groups to services provided by social enterprises.
Project name: ITI Katerini, Greece Issues addressed: (Inter alia) Social inclusion in agricultural areas Integrated tool: ITI/SUD
Short summary: The region faces serious challenges in five major development fields (economic, social, demographic, environmental and climate change-related): economic challenges: 58 % of the active enterprises of the Municipality are based in the area covered by the ITI/SUD; social challenges: the region has high levels of unemployment, which has a much greater impact on vulnerable and marginalized groups; environmental and climate change-related challenges: mainly due to the fact that the area is very densely populated.
More specifically, with regard to social inclusion, selected actions will focus on the improvement of social infrastructure and the provision of social services. The priorities of the programme include: promoting social inclusion and fighting poverty by supporting social enterprises (ERDF); improving access of vulnerable and marginalised groups to the labour market (ESF); eliminating discrimination against vulnerable and marginalised groups in education; improving access of above-mentioned groups to health care and social services (ESF); taking advantage of social entrepreneurship to improve access of vulnerable groups to the labour market (ESF).
The programme is still in the very early stages of development. The call for proposals will be conducted in two stages with the first one launched on 18 November 2016.
4.3.4. Sustainable urban development tool Article 8 of the ERDF Regulation 1303/2013 establishes the Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) Initiative that contributes to the implementation of the EU Urban Agenda and supportgs projects with up to EUR 5 million of ERDF contribution. Urban Innovative Actions are set up with two main objectives:
to provide urban authorities with resources to test how new and unproven solutions work in practice and how they respond to the complexity of real life; to draw lessons and share knowledge with other urban authorities across Europe.
The initiative covers different themes relevant for sustainable development of cities, and that promote an integrated approach. Projects involve different categories of partners (private
79 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______organisations, NGOs, public bodies, etc.) and finance different types of actions (investments, staff support, etc.). Urban Innovative Actions are closely related to implementation of the EU Urban Agenda102 (Pact of Amsterdam) and 12 topics for sustainable development (see table below). However, a limited number of topics are covered by each call for proposals. The topics are updated and revised by the EC through inter-services consultation.
Table 5: Overview of themes covered by the two Urban Innovative Action calls for proposals in relation to the EU Urban Agenda Topic 1st call 2nd call Air quality Climate adaptation Digital transition Housing Innovation and responsible public procurement Sustainable use of land, nature-based solutions Integration of migrants and refugees X X Energy transition X Jobs and skills in the local economy X Urban poverty X Circular economy X Urban mobility X
Source: IUA
Innovative actions delivered under the first call have addressed three social inclusion themes103:
Migrants and refugees: empowerment, one stop shop and testing ‘traditional’ services on new target groups; Jobs and skills: anticipating economic transition, focusing on skill enhancement and social enterprises; Urban poverty: testing revolutionary approaches (urban common goods and basic minimum income) and area-based integrated approach (one stop shop).
The first call for proposals had a budget of EUR 80 million and boasted a strong social dimension with three of four selected themes related to social inclusion (integration of migrants and refugees, urban poverty, jobs and skills in the local economy). Overall, 378 projects were submitted in this call of which 50 (or 13 %) were directly related to the integration of migrants and refugees, while 91 (24 %) and 124 (33 %) addressed the themes of urban poverty and jobs and skills in the local economy respectively. At Member State level, integration of migrants and refugees was the most dominant theme in France and the United Kingdom, while Austria and Germany predominantly addressed the issue of urban poverty. On the other hand, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Hungary focused investments mainly on actions providing jobs and skills in the local economy.
102 http://urbanagendaforthe.eu/ 103 For more details see the UIA presentation “State of play of Urban Innovative Actions”, Urban Intergroup – European Parliament, January 2017. http://urban-intergroup.eu/wp- content/files_mf/uia_urbanintergroup_ep.pdf
80 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
The high interest of cities in the initiative is linked to the following features:
Cities are direct beneficiaries of resources allocated from the initiative, without intermediaries or arrangements with regional or national implementing bodies; The financial allocation is modest but sufficient considering the ‘innovative’ aspect of the projects funded; Payments in advance (80 % at the project start), and 20 % on completion, which makes the use of resources flexible.
Examples of five innovative projects from the first call and related to social inclusion and migrants are illustrated in the box below104.
Box 9: Example of project financed by UIA – first called (Source: IUA) City of Birmingham
The USE-IT! project seeks to identify and connect social and economic assets in poor and migrant communities to major capital and infrastructure investment, to reduce displacement and maximise the economic and social benefits of urban development for marginalised residents. The model will rely on Community Researchers, recruited from the local community and trained to identify local assets. Mechanisms will be tested in order to unlock the potential of poor communities and facilitate the creation of a matching skills service to enhance employment and encourage the spin-off of social enterprises. The project will provide peer-to-peer support for communities, and act as a change and innovation driver to bring out bold and sustainable solutions. Attention will be given to innovative forms of community finance that could be used locally to ensure sustainability and to support replication.
City of Barcelona
The B-MINCOME project will tackle poverty and social inequality in nine neighbourhoods in the north-eastern part of the city. The area has a disengaged population with low income, high unemployment and early school leaving rates. Through participation and empowerment activities and randomised controlled trials, the project will test the impact of different types of guaranteed minimum income. Ethnographic research will help to understand motivations, values and narratives of the target groups but also to gain insight on how they experience a guaranteed minimum income, and its subsequent impact. The findings will be used to prototype different models of guaranteed minimum income (including a local digital currency) and to define and implement modular services (health, education, employment) along with empowerment initiatives for different categories of recipients. Beyond the formal partnership, the project brings together a large group of stakeholders including municipal institutes for education and social services, metropolitan and regional governments as well as the Chamber of Commerce.
104 UIA, Call 1 – selected cities taking-off, September 2016 in http://www.uia- initiative.eu/sites/default/files/2016-10/Call%201%20selected%20cities%20taking%20off%20- %2018%20UIA%20projects.pdf
81 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
City of Utrecht
The U-RLP project seeks to capitalise on asylum seeker entrepreneurial skills. Starting before asylum status is granted, the ‘launch pad’ will enhance the entrepreneurial skills of refugees who remain in the Netherlands as well as those who return to their country of origin. Within an existing emergency shelter, the project will combine community housing, learning and incubator and workspaces. Targeting asylum seekers and local young NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training), who represent 20 % of the neighbourhood population, the project’s ambition is to establish bridges within the community. International entrepreneurship training, business language courses, peer-to-peer coaching and internships in local businesses will be offered. Special attention will be given to post-traumatic stress with innovative tools to reframe refugees’ broken narratives, encouraging resilience, and building confidence for entrepreneurship.
City of Bologna
The S.A.L.U.S. ‘W’ SPACE project wants to foster the social, cultural and economic inclusion of migrants in Bologna. Villa Salus, an abandoned former hospital for the elderly, will be refurbished and converted into an innovative reception and neighbourhood centre. The centre will combine a unique set of functions, including social housing (for both migrants and locals), training, public facilities, and an arts and crafts factory. Migrants will be involved in designing the centre and its dedicated spaces (urban farm, cultural centre, laboratories, housing), refurbishment, and the management of the new spaces though community enterprises. The project will allow migrants to acquire new skills and build micro-enterprises for community services in the neighbourhood. Beyond this partnership, the project will actively seek to attract, consult and involve citizens and associations who live and operate in the surrounding area.
4.3.5. Other integrated tools The 2015 European Commission study ‘Territorial Agenda 2020 put in practice’ provides further evidence and examples of how place-based interventions and an integrated approach can increase the effectiveness of Europe 2020 through a reinforced territorial focus105.
The study identifies five features for effective implementation of the place-based approach in Cohesion policy in general (not only related to ESIF):
‘Valuing and reviving territorial identity’ implies recognising local assets, potential and skills, as well as revitalising territorial development and aggregating consensus on a shared vision; ‘Going beyond geographical and sectoral boundaries’ is necessary to address multifaceted needs and development challenges concerning poverty and social exclusion, avoiding conflicting actions and integrating activities; ‘Promoting open governance’ consists of multi-level governance, bottom-up instead of top-down, with clear and transparent rules for citizens and stakeholder participation; ‘Stakeholder ownership and leading capacity’ identifies social exclusion policy challenges so the role of local partners is crucial. The study shows that strong leadership (such as
105 European Commission (2015), Territorial Agenda 2020 put in practice, study from Csil - Centre for Industrial Studies (Milan).
82 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
setting up an entrusted authority or a dedicated partnership) and ownership are key success factors; ‘Experimenting and learning by-doing’ seeks innovative solutions to emerging needs as well as resilience and learning capacity to adjust to changes.
All these features are specifically relevant for addressing social inclusion policy challenges, notably for overcoming geographical and sectoral boundaries for a functional approach and the role of open-governance, since poverty and social exclusion is multidimensional and target groups are very varied.
The following boxes provide three examples of integrated approaches in Cohesion policy programmes not directly related to CLLD, ITI or sustainable urban development tools106.
Box 10: Other example of integrated tools, 2014-2020 (Source: Territorial Agenda 2020 put in practice) Case study: Integrating education policies Fund: ERDF Target group: Immigrants and people who do not speak the local language Budget: Not available Territory: Antwerp city (Belgium) Short summary: The city of Antwerp has designed a strategy to offer Antwerp students equal access to education. The case is interesting as it foresees multi-level governance involving and informing authorities at different territorial levels (EU, national and local) and sectors (education, security, social services). A specific evidence-based reporting activity ensures monitoring, peer review and experience sharing.
Case study: Neighbourhood Plan of District 2 of Terrassa Fund: ERDF Target group: Poor people, marginalised communities and immigrants Budget: EUR 500,000 (ERDF), about EUR 20.5 million from city and regional budgets Territory: District 2 of the Municipality of Terrassa, Catalonia (Spain) Short summary: The neighbourhood of Terrassa had high levels of urban segregation and poverty, with a high concentration of poor and low-skilled immigrants, living in ethnic and religious communities. The objective of the plan was to improve social and town-planning, increasing territorial and community cohesion and integration through physical regeneration and socio-economic interventions. The project promoted the coordination of decentralised municipal services, integration of different policy measures and citizen participation.
Case study: ICT for territorial and social cohesion Fund: ERDF Budget: EUR 30.8 million (ERDF) and about EUR 120 million (local, regional and private contribution) Target group: People in Andalusian municipalities with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants with less experience of ICT services, immigrants included. Territory: Andalusia (Spain) Short summary: Guadalinfo telecenters network offers public broadband access to the whole region of Andalusia, including the most remote areas. This was relevant in particular for social groups most at risk of social exclusion such as women, the elderly and people with disabilities.
106 More examples are provided in the European Commission study previously mentioned.
83 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
4.4. Barriers to the diffusion of integrated tools Most Partnership Agreements planned the use of integrated tools to ensure a concentration of resources as well as the involvement of local stakeholders and to address local and territorial challenges. Furthermore, as illustrated in the analysis, a significant number of programmes have social inclusion as an objective of the integrated tools they intend to implement in coming years. However, interviews with stakeholders highlight barriers to the uptake of integrated tools in ESI Funds programmes.
The most relevant of these barriers are:
Most notably, innovative tools for territorial integration and development (namely CLLD, ITI and Joint Action Plan) require further planning and programming prior to implementation that may imply additional burdens and costs for local authorities and stakeholders (local plans for urban authorities with ITI, Local Action Plans for CLLD or intervention logic for JAP). This is most evident in local authorities with a weak administrative capacity that constrains their ability to develop appropriate integrated tools for territorial development. When it comes to instruments for sustainable urban development and innovative actions for sustainable urban development (Articles 7 and 8 of the ERDF regulation), one of the main risks is the concentration of resources in bigger cities and cities with higher administrative and governance capacities. Moreover, cities call for simplification of procedures and rules and direct access to funds to implement social inclusion policies. The first call of the Urban Innovative Actions Initiative shows that there is high interest from cities for direct access to funds (400 submitted projects, 38 approved). More specifically, for immigrant and refugee inclusion, the Eurocities statement (2015) on asylum in cities highlights the crucial role of European cities to ensure solutions at municipal and local levels to successfully integrate asylum seekers and recognise refugees socially and economically107. Similarly, the opinion of the European Social and Economic Committee on ‘Integration of refugees in the EU’, adopted in April 2016, points out that integration policy best- practices not only target refugees, in a purely ‘emergency approach’ but also include locals such as media, local authorities, trade unions, employer organisations and non- governmental organisations. This is critical for public acceptance of the integration measures.
Overall, barriers to integrated approaches most often include lack of capacity at the programming level to adequately design appropriate tools. This is further underpinned by the need to adopt cooperation arrangements between political and operational levels to successfully implement the tool (especially when it comes to CLLD). This is sometimes problematic in diverse or weak governance structures. Therefore, integrated tools are seen more as an additional burden to programming process than as an instrument enabling better-integrated territorial development.
107 EUROCITIES statement on asylum in cities: http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Final%20EUROCITIES%20statement%20on%20asylum.pdf
84 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1. General findings This study illustrates the role of Cohesion policy in addressing social inclusion challenges through integrated approaches in line with Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The analysis builds on the 2007-2013 ex-post evaluations, on programme review and on first findings of the implementation of the 2014-20 programming period.
The 2014-2020 regulatory framework introduces flexibility in the logic of intervention, proposing institutional arrangements and specific implementation tools (e.g. CLLD, ITI and Urban sustainable development actions). Programmes report specific provisions for the integrated use of ESIF for social inclusion issues, as well as synergies with other EU policy instruments in the area of social affairs, producing a varied picture across different combinations of actions to tackle development and social inclusion challenges, including those related to migration. Recommendations are provided to strengthen the integrated use of funds for social inclusion in the programming period 2014-2020, as well as to identify improvements to feed into the discussion on the next programming period.
5.2. Social inclusion policy challenges This study identifies the following main policy challenges for ESI Funds over the next years: multidimensionality of social exclusion phenomena, a changing socio- economic context, high disparities in socio-economic situations among regions and Member States, the multi-level coordination of interventions, local authorities and stakeholders’ capacity and involvement in order to address citizen’s concerns. Considering that not all the social and migration challenges can be addressed through ESI Funds programmes, strict coordination with other EU policies is required.
Social inclusion is more than ever a huge policy challenge for the EU and the Member States, encountering significant difficulties in achieving objectives of the EU 2020 strategy due to the economic and the migration crises, resulting in increased disparities among countries and regions. The headline target related to poverty is unlikely to be reached. That represents both an opportunity for improvement as well as a major challenge for ESIF programmes.
Social inclusion refers to policy interventions aiming to reduce social exclusion and poverty in groups of people at risk. The study indicates that vulnerable people (including seniors, long-term unemployed people and migrants) are more affected than others (including youth, active population). A targeted approach in favour of the groups of people at risk should thus be considered during the current programming period. Migrants continue to be at much greater risk of experiencing poverty than native-born citizens. Their integration implies a wide and coordinated strategy between various actors in the several policy areas, with a particular focus on employment and vocational training policies due to their close link with social inclusion, and on social services for migrants and opportunities for political participation, which differ significantly across Member States.
Addressing the multidimensionality of social inclusion challenges. Challenges related to social inclusion, poverty and migration are diverse because the reasons for poverty and exclusion encompass economic, social marginalisation and personal situations that
85 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______interconnect with each other, requiring coordination of several policy fields (labour market access, adequate social protection, lifelong learning schemes, low quality of health and housing, uneven income distribution, insufficient supply of basic services, etc.). Due to the complex and interrelated nature of such challenges, the solutions supported by EU policy instruments should be of an integrated nature, multi-sectoral and multi- dimensional.
Changing socio-economic context. In the last decade, the socio-economic context has dramatically changed due to the financial and economic crisis and the more recent refugee crisis. This crisis is still unsolved and the situation has even worsened for some EU countries like Greece. Since 2007, poverty and social exclusion have increased in the European Union (+1.1 % from 2009 to 2014), though with large differences across Member States. Overall, Eastern and Southern European countries have been more prone to adverse effects of the crisis, while Northern and Western European countries have proved to be more resilient and less affected. Moreover, Member States and regions are not equally affected by the refugee crisis: countries such as Germany are mainly destination countries, while others, such as Greece, Italy or the Balkans, are entry points for migrants moving to other Member States. Migration and the refugee crisis represent an additional threat for the countries and regions mentioned, in particular if strongly affected by the economic crisis and its social consequences.
Coping with disparities and citizens' acceptance. As already mentioned, economic, financial and migratory crises have hit Europe unevenly, contributing to diverging opinions on alternative interventions and different perceptions. Migratory flows exert pressure on specific local ecosystems and cross-border areas and are sometimes associated, in public opinion, with internal security issues. In addition, in the current macroeconomic conditions of the European Union and strict budget rules, there is the risk in some Member States of perceived competition in terms of rights and social benefits between the most disadvantaged groups of European citizens and immigrants and asylum seekers. These additional challenges for European communities could best be addressed through the use of integrated tools ensuring the maximisation of benefits from the allocated resources and a bottom-up approach for involving local partners and authorities.
Targeting interventions at the appropriate territorial and governance level. Social inclusion challenges cannot be exclusively addressed by ESI Funds, because available resources are limited and serve other policy objectives and because social policies fall under shared competencies between the EU and Member States, remaining mainly under the responsibility of the latter. So, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the role of the EU in this area is limited to supporting and complementing the activities of Member States. Beyond the issue of competencies, the situation is different among Member States and depends on the type of poverty for example. The uneven distribution of demographic and social challenges across the EU require targeting interventions at the appropriate level to adapt responses to the specificities and needs of each territory. For instance, regions and cities at the EU borders experience a different manifestation of migrants’ social inclusion challenges from what is experienced in the inner areas.
86 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
5.3. Social inclusion in ESIF
ESI Funds in the 2014-2020 programming period, more than in the previous programming period (2007-2013), have the objective of ensuring flexibility and responsiveness to address the multifaceted nature of social inclusion challenges as well as to cope with a changing socio-economic context at the appropriate territorial and governance level.
In the framework of Cohesion policy in 2007-2013, according to DG Regio SFC 2007 data, 12.3 % (corresponding to EUR 42.3 billion) of the EU contribution to ESF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF was allocated to the objective of employment and social inclusion; while in the current programming period, around 10 % of the total ESIF budget, corresponding to EUR 62.7 billion, has been directly allocated to TO 9.
In 2007-2013 programming period, social exclusion challenges were mainly addressed by the ESF. Social infrastructure and housing were also supported by the ERDF. In most Member States, social inclusion was often promoted implicitly in the Operational Programme and interventions through specific target groups benefiting from social inclusion. The EC final evaluations of Structural Funds 2007-2013 highlighted improvements in the inclusion of women, migrants, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities.
In 2014-2020 regulatory framework, ESI Funds ensure flexibility and responsiveness of programmes by covering a wide spectrum of policy objectives and territories. ESI Funds directly address social challenges by allocating resources to TO 9 (‘promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination’) but also to TOs 8 ‘Promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility’ and 10 ‘Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning’. Furthermore, social inclusion is also considered through horizontal principles – related to gender equality, accessibility for people with disabilities and social issues related to demographic changes - and as such could be integrated in all the eleven TOs.
Note that the regulatory framework has introduced options of combining TOs, i.e. the possibility of addressing challenges with more TOs in the same priority axis (Article 96 of the CPR). In addition, TOs can also be covered by various funds, mainly ERDF, ESF and EAFRD, implemented in a multi-fund operational programme. The large majority of the 46 programmes reviewed in the study plan to use an integrated thematic approach, combining more than one TO (ESF and ERDF) or measure (EAFRD) in the same priority axis to focus on social inclusion issues. As in the previous one, in the current programming period ESF is the main ESI Funds which supports actions related to social inclusion through TO 9 and in general, through interventions in education (TO 10) and employment (TO 8), supporting the reinsertion of marginalised people into society.
5.4. Synergy between policy instruments The current legislative framework introduced various instruments ensuring integration, coordination and complementarity between EU and national level policies in the field of social inclusion. Integration between ESI Funds and other policy instruments in the area of social affairs is reported in most programmes analysed. How far coordination mechanisms are effectively implemented at programme level need to be further investigated in a later stage of the programming period.
87 Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
The CSF introduces guiding principles to achieve an integrated development approach using ESIF. The CSF also illustrates how to combine ESI Funds in a common programming framework, ensuring possible synergies between ESIF and other policy instruments and the implementation of ad hoc tools for integrated approach at territorial level. Each Partnership Agreement follows guiding principles laid down in the CSF and sets out the national framework for all ESI Funds in the Member State as well as opportunities for integration between funds and with other policy tools. In addition, ex-ante conditionalities are a set of prerequisites for programme implementation. For social inclusion, thematic ex-ante conditionalities include the existence and implementation of a strategic policy framework for poverty reduction, the national Roma inclusion strategic policy framework and the national or regional strategic policy framework. Some ex-ante conditionalities that, at least partially, refer to inclusive growth and social inclusion are ‘Anti-discrimination’, ‘Gender equality’, ‘Disability’.
In reference to the coordination with other EU policy instruments as required by the CSF, most programmes analysed in the study refer to synergies with other EU policy instruments in the field of social inclusion and integration of migrants. The most recurring instruments encompass the AMIF and the EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation. However, implementing rules can differ between ESI Funds and other types of funds. The AMIF is implemented with rules defined and established at EU and national level with limited involvement of local stakeholders, who are, conversely, strongly involved in the implementation of ESI Fund programmes. Finally, it is worth noting that the analysed ESI Funds programmes with social inclusion objectives covered by at least one macro-regional strategy do not usually have explicit synergies with such macro-regional strategy. However, this does not depend solely on the programme strategy and arrangements, but also on the design of macro-regional strategies and on the extent to which they consider social inclusion under their thematic priorities.
However, managing coordination is complex, i.e. requires time and entails organisational costs, regardless of the performance and efficiency of the institutions involved. In general terms, complexity and associated managing costs (e.g. staff costs) increases in proportion to an increasing number of policy fields, Funds and stakeholders involved.
5.5. Integrated tools for social inclusion The regulatory framework for ESI Funds introduced a set of integrated tools, such as innovative tools at territorial level (e.g. ITI and CLLD) and instruments for sustainable urban development. Administrative burden and costs and the lack of skills and competences in Local and Regional Authorities are the main hurdles to the diffusion of integrated tools to address social inclusion issues.
Integrated tools are policy implementation instruments targeting specific groups of people (e.g. people with disabilities) or focusing on some specific territories with development gaps (e.g. urban areas, remote rural areas, areas in demographic decline). Integrated tools combine, in a multi-sectoral framework, different types of action addressing the multidimensional needs of people and territories targeted.
88 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
The 2014-2020 ESI Funds regulatory framework includes the following: 1) Innovative tools for territorial integration and development such as integrated operations, JAPs (Articles 104 to 109 of the CPR), innovative tools for territorial integration and development (for ITI and CLLD, see Articles 32-36 of the CPR); 2) Instruments for sustainable urban development (Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation), and innovative actions in the area of sustainable urban development (Article 8 of the ERDF Regulation and Commission Delegated Regulation 522/2014).
In the 2007-2013 programming period, social and migration issues have been addressed in some rural (LEADER) and urban (urban sustainable development) contexts through integrated tools. In ESI Funds programmes of the 2014-2020 programming period, CLLDs, ITIs and Urban Sustainable Development are used with a different approach. A significant number of programmes have social inclusion as an objective of the integrated tools they intend to implement. CLLD is the most often used instrument for addressing social inclusion issues in ESI Funds programmes, mainly in EAFRD and EMFF funded programmes. Social inclusion is the most thoroughly addressed in ERDF and ESF programmes through sustainable urban development actions implemented via ITIs.
However, integrated tools in ESIF show weaknesses that actually limit their diffusion. Most notably, innovative tools for territorial integration and development (namely CLLD, ITI and Joint Action Plan) require further planning and programming prior to implementation, which may imply additional burdens and costs for local authorities and stakeholders (local plans for urban authorities with ITI and Local Action Plans for CLLD). This is most evident in local authorities with a weak administrative capacity that constrains their ability to develop appropriate integrated tools for territorial development. This is further underpinned by the need to adopt cooperation arrangements between political and operational levels to successfully implement the tool (especially when it comes to CLLD). This is sometimes problematic in diverse or weak governance structures. Therefore, in some contexts, integrated tools are seen more as an additional burden to the programming process than as an instrument enabling better-integrated territorial development and stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process.
In the following table, strengths and weakness are summarised (integrated tools are addressed in the two last rows).
89 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Table 6: Strengths and weaknesses of integrated approaches in ESI funds for promoting social inclusion Integrated approaches Strengths Weaknesses ESI Funds regulations ensure the appropriate flexibility with the following combinations:
‘Urban priority axis’, combining investment Combining TOs may not always mean a priorities from different TOs with a specific high degree of integration in fund Combination of territorial focus; implementation. In addition, the thematic objectives ‘Parallel priority axes’ with two priority axes combination of different funds within the and funds in the same programme focusing on TO 9 but same priority axis may not ensure smooth each of them maintaining a unique ESI fund implementation due to different rules (e.g. one under ERDF and one under ESF); between funds. ‘Common priority axes’, financed by more than one ESI fund under TO 9. They require further planning activities Most Partnership Agreements plan integrated prior to implementation, implying Innovative tools for tools (e.g. CLLD, ITI) to ensure concentration of additional burdens and costs for local territorial integration resources as well as the involvement of local authorities and stakeholders (local plans for and development stakeholders, and to address local and territorial urban authorities in the case of ITI, Local challenges. Action Plans for CLLD or intervention logic for JAP). Articles 7 and 8 of the CPR ensure a dedicated budget for sustainable urban development, which is also relevant for promoting social inclusion in urban areas. Article 7 ensures that at least 5 % of the One of the main risks is the concentration Instruments for ERDF budget at national level is earmarked for of resources in bigger cities or cities sustainable urban sustainable urban development within operational with higher administrative capacities. development programmes. Article 8 establishes the Urban Innovative Actions Initiative directly selecting cities to implement the EU Urban Agenda through projects (up to EUR 5 million of ERDF contribution).
Source: Authors
90 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
5.6. Recommendations Based on the conclusions of the study a set of recommendations is proposed. Overall, recommendations suggest collecting information during the current programming period on the actual and effective implementation of the provisions related to the integrated use of ESI Funds. Secondly, recommendations contribute to the discussion on possible ways of improving the regulatory framework in the field of social inclusion and migrants, i.e. the introduction of specific indicators, the definition of guidance, the involvement of local stakeholders in the decision-making process, as well as the increase of financial allocation to some specific integrated tools (and territorial areas).
Therefore, the study provides two broad categories of recommendations. The first set of recommendations refers to the follow-up and proposes the mid-term assessment of the programmes in the current programming period. The second category of recommendations refer to the ‘beyond 2020’ scenario and to the design of future ESI Funds programmes.
Recommendations regard:
responsiveness of ESI Funds, flexibility of ESI Funds, national coordination of ESI Funds, complementarity with other EU and national policy instruments in the area of social affairs, combination of thematic objectives and Funds, use of innovative tools for territorial integration and development, use of instruments for sustainable urban development.
Note that some of the recommendations related to more simplification and flexibility, specifically related to migrants and refugees’ crisis, are already under discussion in the context of the OMNIBUS proposal108. At the time of writing REGI Committee has already started legislative work on a related opinion to be submitted to vote in committee in May and in plenary in June 2017. Tri-lateral discussion between Council and Parliament and the Commission, should start within summer 2017109.
108 Relevant provisions in the proposal related to the study fields of research: the possibility for the Member States to help also in case of man-made catastrophes like the refugee crisis and to use available funds immediately, a specific investment priority for migrants and refugees with related indicators, as well as a proposal for establishment of a European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/lib/COM-2016-603/COM-2016-605_en.pdf 109 For a state of play of discussions in the European parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0282(COD)&l=en
91 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Table 7: Recommendations TOPICS FOLLOW-UP BEYOND 2020 TO WHOM Add explicit priorities related to migrants and refugees to reinforce Assess the real capacity of Funds, in ESI Fund responsiveness that might terms of budget and interventions, to
flexibility Responsiveness of be applicable to specific contexts Member States + cover through ESI programmes a wide ESI Funds affected by the migration crisis and EU institutions spectrum of social inclusion issues when there is a specific need for (including migration) allocating a dedicated amount of
funds to this specific topic Assess the capacity of programmes to Introduce rules and simplification Flexibility of ESI react to emerging new needs in terms procedures to quickly change Member States + Funds of social inclusion in the mid-terms programme strategies and priorities in EU institutions
evaluation exercises. case of social emergency
Responsiveness and ESI Fundsof
Provide guidance and benchmarking Member States + National coordination on coordination rules at national level programme of ESI funds to address specific national social authorities inclusion challenges
Increase the involvement of local Complementarity Provide guidance ensuring higher partners and stakeholders in non ESI with other EU and operational (rather than exclusively Funds to ensure stronger coordination national policy strategic) coordination between ESI
instruments Funds and other policy instruments Member States + (including (included financial instruments related EU institutions interventions through to loans, capital-risk investments and specific financial guarantee schemes for social and
Coordination complementarity instrumentspolicy between instruments) and innovative enterprises)
92 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Assess with the on-going programme evaluations the effectiveness of combination of thematic objectives Promote further harmonisation and and funds, as well as the simplification across funds to facilitate Combination of implementation features (e.g. project joint management and promote ad Member States + thematic objectives selection, monitoring activities, hoc arrangements, e.g. integrated EU institutions and funds supporting activities to applicants and calls for projects in the area of social inclusion
beneficiary and partnership involvement).
Assess the ease of starting up and implementing CLLD, ITI and JAP Use of innovative Adopt a set of common indicators and tools for territorial Assess which tool has dedicated more Member States + categories of operations across funds integration and resources to social inclusion EU institutions for social inclusion challenges development beneficiaries and notably immigrants in the current programming period
Increase the ERDF contributions to Assess the intensity of the use of the EU Urban Agenda (in relation to Use of sustainable funding in territories with significant social issues) Member States + urban development social issues (e.g. cities) or with higher Ensure adequate territorial balance of EU institutions instruments administrative and governance resources for inner cities and rural capacities. areas to promote territorial cohesion
Integrated approaches for social inclusion
Source: Authors
93 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
94 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
REFERENCES
General sources Altus consortium, The use of new provisions during the Programming Phase of the European Structural and Investment Funds, Study for the European Commission, May 2016, p.135 Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung (2008), Lokale Gesellschaften und Flüchtlinge: Förderung von sozialer Integration. Die kommunale Integration von Flüchtlingen in Deutschland. Februar 2008, Berlin. Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015), Die Arbeitsintegration von Flüchtlingen in Deutschland. Humanität, Effektivität, Selbstbestimmung. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Frauen (2015), Flüchtlingskinder und –jugendliche an österreichischen Schulen. Beilage zum Rundschreiben 21/2015. Wien. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2014a), Partnerschaftsvereinbarung zwischen Deutschland und der Europäischen Kommission für die Umsetzung der ESI- Fonds unter dem Gemeinsamen Strategischen Rahmen in der Förderperiode 2014 bis 2020. Teil 1: Kapitel 1 und 2. CCI Nr. 2014DE16M8PA001. Stand: 15. September 2014 Commission of the European Communities (2003), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: joint report on social inclusion, COM (2003) 773 final, Brussels. Committee of the Regions (2015), Draft Opinion: European Agenda on Migration, Rapporteur: François Decoster (FR/ALDE), Member of Nord-Pas-de-Calais Regional Council. Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (2015), CPMR Policy Position on Migration Management. Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (2016), Background note: Funds that can be used to support actions targeting migration, 18 January 2016. Council of Europe (2009), Economic migration, social cohesion and development: towards an integrated approach, Patrick Taran with Irina Ivakhnyuk, by Maria da Conceição Pereira Ramos and Arno Tanner under the responsibility and in co-operation with the Editing Group of the European Committee on Migration (CDMG),Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Council of the European Union (2010). “Internal security strategy for the European Union - Towards a European security model”. Council of the European Union (2015), Outcome of the Council Meeting 3427th Council meeting, General Affairs – Brussels, 17 and 18 November 2015. Council of the European Union (2015). “Draft Council conclusions on the Renewed European Union Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020”. EC (2014), ‘Annual report on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders, and the return of illegal residents’. Brussels, Commission staff working paper, SEC(2004) 349. EC (2014), Thematic Objective 9: Social inclusion, draft thematic guidance fiche for desk officers. EC (2016), DG Home affairs, “On the state of Play of Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration”, Communication from Commission to the European Parliament and the Council’ COM(2016)85 final, February.
95 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
EC (2016), Standard Eurobarometer 86, “Public opinion in the European Union”, First results, Autumn. ESPON (2013); Post-crisis migration trends: challenges and opportunities for Europe’s competitiveness , ESPON evidence brief. ESPON (2015), Policy Brief: Territorial and urban aspects of migration and refugee inflow, Policy Brief, compiled by ESPON in cooperation with CEMR, EUROCITIES and EUKN. EUROCITIES (2008), Integration Governance in Europe’s Cities: lessons from the INTI- CITIES project. EUROCITIES (2015), Cities and migrants – implementing the Integrating Cities Charter Brussels. EUROCITIES (2015), Promoting an inclusive labour market at local level: social investment in cities, Brussels. EUROCITIES and DIVE (2010), Cities Accommodating Diversity: Findings and recommendations from the peer review project “Diversity and Equality in European Cities. Eurofond (2013), Role of governments and social partners in keeping older workers in the labour market, Dublin. Eurofond (2016), “Approaches to the labour market integration of refugees and asylum seekers”. European Commission (1999), Managing the refugee crisis: immediate operational, budgetary and legal measures under the European Agenda on Migration, Communication to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council, COM(2015) 490 final/2, Brussels. European Commission (2013), Using EU Indicators of Immigrant Integration, by Thomas Huddleston, Jan Niessen and Jasper Dag Tjaden, Report for Directorate-General for Home Affairs, Brussels. European Commission (2014), “Investment for jobs and growth: Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities”, Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. European Commission (2014), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Report on the implementation of the EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, COM(2014) 209 final, Brussels. European Commission (2014), Press release: Commission adopts Austrian programme to use €18,03 million from Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, Brussels. European Commission (2014), Press release: Employment: report shows lower skilled workers face increasing difficulties to find a job, Brussels. European Commission (2015), A European agenda on migration, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2015) 240 final, Brussels. European Commission (2015), Contribution of the European Structural and Investment Funds to the 10 Commission Priorities: Migration, DG Regional Policy. European Commission (2015), Factsheet: EU support for better management of integration of asylum seekers and refugees, Brussels. European Commission (2015), Guidance for Member States on the use of European Structural and Investment Funds in tackling educational and spatial segregation.
96 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
European Commission (2015), Statement made by the Commissioner for Regional Policy concerned reprogramming some of the structural funds in favour of reception facilities for illegal migrants, Speech by Commissioner Marianne Thyssen: EU funds in support of the refugee crisis, SPEECH/15/5720, Brussels, 25 September 2015, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?&ref=I109139&sitelang=en European Commission (2015), Support to asylum seekers under the European Social Fund and the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. European Commission (2015), Synergies between the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and other EU funding instruments in relation to reception and integration of asylum seekers and other migrants. European Commission (2015), Territorial Agenda 2020 put in practice. Csil, Centre for Industrial Studies. European Commission (2016), A European Agenda on Migration, State of Play: January 2016. European Commission (2016), A New Skills Agenda for Europe, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2016) 381 final, Brussels. European Commission (2016), Report: First Forum of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR); Dubrovnik, Croatia, 12-13 May 2016. European Commission (2016), Ex-post evaluation of the 2007-2013 ESF Programmes, Commission Staff working document, SWD (2016) 452 final. European Council (2015), European Council Conclusions of the European Council meeting (25 and 26 June 2015), by General Secretariat of the Council, Brussels. European Migration Network (2016). ‘EMN Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum 2015, A Synthesis of Annual Policy reports 2015 submitted by EU Member States and Norway’, June 2016. European Parliament (2009), On the social consequences of unemployment, by Furåker B., under the responsibility of Makipaa A., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Document for the European Parliament's Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis. European Parliament (2010), The Integration of migrants and its effects on the labour market, by Eichhorst W., Giulietti C., Guzi M., Kendzia M. J., Monti P., Frattini T., Nowotny K., Huber P., Vandeweghe B., under the responsibility of Smajda L., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Document for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2010), The Mobility and the Integration of People with Disabilities into the Labour Market, by Eichhorst W., Kendzia M. J., Knudsen J. B., Hansen M. O., Vandeweghe B., Verhoren I., Rückert E., Schulte B., under the responsibility of Smajda L., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Document for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2011), Occupation health and safety risks for the most vulnerable workers, by Belin A., Zamparutti T., Tull K., Hernandez G., Milieu Ltd, Graveling R., under the responsibility of Andreanelli M., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Document for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2011), The role of the minimum income for social inclusion in the European Union 2007-2010, by Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS), Crepaldi C., Castegnaro C., Naaf S. and with the contribution of Mesini, under the responsibility of
97 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Andreanelli M., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Document for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2013), Social Housing in the EU, by IZA – Institute for Study on labor, Braga M., Palvarini P., under the responsibility of Smajda L., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Note for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2014), Discrimination of migrant workers at the workplace, by Mallender J., Gutheil M, Heetman A., Griffiths D., Carlberg M., Marangozov R., under the responsibility of Schmid-Drüner M., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Note for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2014), Ensuring Access to Basic Banking Services, by Jérusalmy O., Gloukoviezoff G., Klamkovà K., Mülbert P., Westphal M., Anderloni L., Dyrberd P., under the responsibility of Kolassa D., Ballon E., Honnefelder S., Maier R., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Proceeding of the workshop requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. European Parliament (2015), Reasonable Accommodation and Sheltered Workshops for People with Disabilities: Costs and Returns of Investments, by Mallender J., Liger Q., Tierney R., Beresford D., Eager J., Speckesser S., Nafilyan V., under the responsibility of Smajda L., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Study for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. European Parliament (2015), Report on refugees: social inclusion and integration into the labour market, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Rapporteur: Brando Benifei. European Parliament (2015), Review of adopted Partnership Agreements, by Jϋrgen Pucher, Isabel Naylon, Herta Tödtling-Schönhofer, for the Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion policies. European Parliament (2015), Wage and Income Inequality in the European Union, by Kraatz S., Schmid-Drüner M., by Dreger C., Lòpez-Bazo E., Ramos R., Royuela V., Suriñach K., under the responsibility of Verbeken D., Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. Study for the European Parliament's Committee on Employment and Social Affairs; European Parliament (2016), Hotspots and emergency relocation - State of play, by Author: Anita Orav Members' Research Service. European Parliament (2016), Labour Market Integration of Refugees: EU Funding Instruments, Briefing by Susanne Kraatz and Boris Marschall, Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. European Parliament (2016), Labour Market Integration of Refugees: European Networks and Platforms, Briefing by Susanne Kraatz and Magdalena Dimova, Policy Department A: Economy and Scientific Policy. European Parliament (2016), Labour Market Integration of Refugees: Strategies and good practices, Study for the EMPL Committee, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy. European Parliament (2016), Mid-term review/revision of the MFF 2014-2020: State of play, Briefing by Minna Ollikainen, Policy Department D – Budgetary. European Parliament (2016), Research for REGI Committee: Mid-Term Review of the MFF and Cohesion Policy, by Diána Haase, Research Administrator. European Parliament (2016), The public health dimension of the European migrant crisis, Briefing by Nicole Scholz Members' Research Service.
98 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Eurostat (2015), Smarter, greener, more inclusive? - Indicators to support the Europe 2020 strategy, Statistical book, 2015 edition. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Eurostat (2016), ‘Asylum statistics’, in Statistics explained, March and April. Eurostat (2016), ‘Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion’, in Statistics explained, March. Eurostat (2016), ‘Migrant integration statistics – labour market indicators’, in Statistics explained, April. Eurostat (2016), ‘Migration and migrant population statistics’, in Statistics explained, May. Eurostat (2016), ‘Social inclusion Statistics’ in Statistics explained, February. Eurostat (2016), ‘Urban Europe — statistics on cities, towns and suburbs — poverty and social exclusion in cities’, in Statistical explained, February-April. Eurostat (2016), ‘Urban Europe, statistics on cities, towns and suburbs’, Chapter 11 on Foreign-born persons in cities, 2016 edition. Geschäftsstelle der Österreichischen Raumordnungskonferenz (2015), STRAT.AT 2020 – Partnerschaftsvereinbarung Österreich 2014-2020. Genehmigte Fassung – Version 2. Zuletzt von der Europäischen Kommission per Durchführungsbeschluss [C(2014) 6962 final] am 16. Oktober 2015 offiziell angenommen; CCI-Nummer 2014AT16M8PA001. Hamel C., Simon P. (2016), Trajectoires et origines (TeO), Enquête sur la diversité des populations en France, Sous la direction de Cris Beauchemin, Collection Grandes Enquêtes. Haut Conseil à l’intégration (2011), La France sait-elle encore intégrer les immigrés? Bilan de la politique d’intégration en France depuis vingt ans et perspectives Héran F. (2016) Parlons immigration en 30 questions - 2e édition, La Documentation Française Huddleston, T., Bilgili, O., Joki, A., & Vankova, Z. (2015). Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015. Barcelona/Brussels: CIDOB and MPG | www.mipex.eu Institut de Recherche sur l'Education (2015); Effets du lieu de résidence en ZUS sur les parcours et le sentiment de discrimination des jeunes issus de l’immigration, by Guégnard C., Brinbaum Y. Institut für Angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung (2009), Poverty and Wealth Reporting of the German Government:Approach, Lessons and Critique, Discussion Paper n.51, July 2009 by Christian Arndt (Nuertingen University / IAW Tuebingen) and Jürgen Volkert (Pforzheim University / IAW Tuebingen). Institut für Soziale Infrastruktur (2012), Zugang jugendlicher Asylsuchender zu formellen Bildungssystemen in Deutschland. Zwischen Kompetenzen und strukturellen Problemlagen. Ergebnisse des Projekts: “Access of minor asylum seekers to the educational system in Europe – Meeting the challenges” finanziert durch den EFF. März 2012. Frankfurt am Main. Institut national de la statistique et des etudes économiques (2016), La localisation géographique des immigrés, by Chantal Brutel, cellule Statistiques et études sur l’immigration, Insee Première N°1591. Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (2014), Les immigrés récemment arrivés en France. Une immigration de plus en plus européenne Chantal Brutel, cellule Statistiques et études sur l’immigration, Insee Première N°1524. McGregor, A., Sutherland, V., & Metis GmbH (2012). Final Synthesis Report on Social Inclusion. ESF Expert Evaluation Network.
99 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
McGregor, A., Sutherland, V., Tödtling-Schönhofer, N., Naylon, I., & Radzyner, A. (2014). Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - Final synthesis report: Main ESF achievements, 2007-2013. Ministerium für Generationen, Familie, Frauen und Integration des Landes Nordrhein- Westfalen (2008), Eine Möglichkeit sozialer Integration im deutschen Asyl. Ergebnisse der empirischen Begleitforschung zum Modellprojekt: „Sprach- und Kulturmittler/- innen“. Düsseldorf Ministerium für Integration, Familie, Kinder, Jugend und Frauen des Landes Rheinland- Pfalz (2015), Integrationskonzept für Flüchtlinge. Mainz. OECD(2016), Making Integration Work: Refugees and others in need of protection, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD/EU(2015), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In, OECD Publishing, Paris. Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (2015), Auswirkungen einer Erleichterung des Arbeitsmarktzuganges für Asylsuchende in Österreich. April 2015, Wien. Secrétariat Général Du Comité Interministériel De Contrôle De L’immigration (2011), Les orientations de la politique de l’immigration et de l’intégration, Huitième rapport, , la Documentation Française. Secrétariat général du comité interministériel des villes, Observatoire national des zones urbaines sensibles (2011); Rapport: situation socio-économique des immigrés, intégration et discriminations. La situation des quartiers. Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (2016), Develop Sweden! The EU Structural and Investment Funds in Sweden 2014-2020, Ordförrådet, Stockholm. UIA (2016). Call 1 – selected cities taking-off, September 2016.
Legal sources European Commission (2006), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006 setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund. European Parliament and of the Council (2013), Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal. European Parliament and of the Council (2013), Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006
100 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
European Parliament and of the Council (2013), Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006. European Parliament and the Council (2011), Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), Official Journal of the European Union, L337/9, 20.12.2011.
Online sources (February 2017) http://www.zukunftsraumland.at/projekte/1319 Austrian Rural Network, Raum für Begegnungen. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/newsroom/news/2016/11/15-11-2016- cohesion-policy-supports-the-integration-of-migrants-in-brussels. DG REGIO, Cohesion Policy supports the integration of migrants in Brussels http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/social-inclusion/ DG REGIO, Social Inclusion. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/what/territorial-cohesion/ DG REGIO, Territorial cohesion. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/fr/policy/evaluations/data-for-research/ DG REGIO, Data for research. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.pdf DG REGIO, Integrated Territorial Investment, a factsheet. Urban Agenda for the EU. https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/publi-eafrd-brochure-03-en_2016.pdf ENRD (2016). Migrant and Refugee Integration, Project brochure, 2016. http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Final%20EUROCITIES%20statement%20o n%20asylum.pdf EUROCITIES (2015), EUROCITIES statement on asylum in cities. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_sustai nable_urban_development_en.pdf European Commission (2015). Guidance for Member States on Integrated Sustainable Urban Development (Article 7 ERDF Regulation). http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223 European Commission, New Skills Agenda for Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=961 European Commission, European platform against poverty and social exclusion. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1036&newsId=1731&furtherN ews=yes European Commission, Youth employment: Commission proposes package of measures. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/9 European Commission, Cohesion data – Social inclusion. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum- borders/asylum-migration-integration-fund_en European Commission, Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF).
101 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda- migration_en European Commission, European Agenda on Migration. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes/2014- 2020/italy/2014it16m2op004 European Commission, National Operational Programme "Citta' Metropolitane". http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=3 European Commission, European Social Fund (ESF). https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld_en The European Network For Rural Development (ENRD), LEADER/CLLD. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/infographics/migration/public/index.html?p age=budgets European Parliament, Migration and Asylum. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php Eurostat, Statistics explained. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Sustainable_development_-_social_inclusion Eurostat, Sustainable development - social inclusion. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=urb_percep&lang=en Eurostat Perception Survey results. http://www.peopleandskills-danuberegion.eu/about-us/the-targets/ EU Strategy for the Danube Region, Targets of Priority Area 9. http://archive.interreg4a-2mers.eu/projects/approved-projects- database/en?page=3&sort=created_at&order=desc&keywords=&priority=Any&objecti ves=&status=any&commit=all INTERREG IV A 2 Seas, Approved Projects database. http://admin.interacteu. net/downloads/9565/HIT_Survey_Results_2015_10_2015.pdf INTERACT (2015) Harmonised Information Tool survey results 2015. http://mipex.eu/play/ Migrant Integration Policy Index 2015. http://urbanagendaforthe.eu/
102 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
ANNEX
List of cooperation programmes reviewed and interviews conducted Table 8: List of programmes reviewed and selected interviews
Funds / Countries CCI 2014-2020 Name 2014-2020 Financial support
Romania-Serbia IPA CBC Programme 2014- Romania - - IPA 2020 Serbia
Employment Austria 2014-2020 2014AT05SFOP001 ESF Austria Operational Programme
2014AT06RDNP001 Rural Development Programme Austria EAFRD Austria
Investment in growth and jobs Austria 2014AT16RFOP001 2014-2020 - Operational programme for ERDF Austria the use of ERDF funds
Wallonia-Brussels 2020.EU - Walloon and Brussels skills for a society of smart, 2014BE05M9OP001 ESF Belgium inclusive and sustainable growth in partnership with the European Union
Operational programme ESF 2014-2020 of 2014BE05M9OP002 the Brussels-Capital Region : “Investment ESF Belgium for growth and jobs”
Operational Programme ESF Flanders 2014BE05SFOP002 ESF Belgium 2014-2020
Programme wallon de développement rural 2014BE06RDRP002 EAFRD Belgium 2014-2020
2014BE16RFOP003 ERDF Wallonia 2020.eu ERDF Belgium
Operational programme of the Federal 2014DE05SFOP002 Government for the European Social Fund ESF Germany in the funding period 2014 - 2020
Operational Programme ESF Rhineland- 2014DE05SFOP015 ESF Germany Palatinate 2014-2020
Rural Development Programme Bavaria 2014DE06RDRP004 EAFRD Germany 2014-2020
Operational Programme Bremen 2014- 2014DE16RFOP005 2020 for the European Regional ERDF Germany Development Fund
103 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Funds / Countries CCI 2014-2020 Name 2014-2020 Financial support
Operational Programme NRW 2014 -2020 2014DE16RFOP009 for the European Regional Development ERDF Germany Fund
National programme for the European 2014DK05SFOP001 ESF Denmark Social Fund 2014-2020 - Denmark
2014DK06RDNP001 Denmark - Rural Development Programme EAFRD Denmark
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - 2014DK14MFOP001 Operational EMFF Denmark Programme for Denmark
National programme for the European 2014DK16RFOP001 Regional Development Fund 2014-2020 - ERDF Denmark Denmark
2014GR06RDNP001 Programme for Agricultural Development EAFRD Greece
2014GR16M2OP002 OP Central Macedonia ERDF, ESF Greece
2014GR16M2OP003 OP Thessalia ERDF, ESF Greece
ERDF, ESF, 2014GR16M2OP012 OP Attica Greece CF
2014GR16M2OP014 OP Eastern Macedonia and Thrace ERDF, ESF Greece
Operational programme Efficient Human 2014HR05M9OP001 ESF Croatia Resources 2014-2020
2014HR06RDNP001 Rural development programme 2014-2020 EAFRD Croatia
Operational Programme for Maritime Affairs and 2014HR14MFOP001 EMFF Croatia Fisheries in Croatia for the period 2014- 2020
Operational Programme Competitiveness 2014HR16M1OP001 and Cohesion ERDF-CF Croatia 2014 - 2020
Human Resource Development Operational 2014HU05M2OP001 ERDF, ESF Hungary Programme
2014HU06RNDP001 Rural Development Programme EAFRD Hungary
Economic Development and Innovation 2014HU16M0OP001 ESF, ERDF Hungary Operational Programme
104 Integrated use of ESI Funds to address social challenges ______
Funds / Countries CCI 2014-2020 Name 2014-2020 Financial support
Territorial and Settlement Development 2014HU16M2OP001 ESF, ERDF Hungary Operational Programme
Competitive Central Hungary Operational 2014HU16M2OP002 ESF, ERDF Hungary Programme
Calabria ESF and ERDF Regional Operation 2014IT16M2OP006 ESF ERDF Italy Programme
Lombardy Regional Operation Programme 2014IT16RFOP012 ERDF Italy ERDF
Operational Programme Human Capital 2014RO05M9OP001 ESF Romania 2014-2020
National Rural Development Programme 2014RO06RDNP001 EAFRD Romania 2014-2020
2014RO16RFOP002 Regional Operational Programme ERDF Romania
National programme for the European 2014SE05M9OP001 ESF Sweden Social Fund 2014-2020 - Sweden
Sweden - Rural Development Programme 2014SE06RDNP001 EAFRD Sweden (national)
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - 2014SE14MFOP001 Operational EMFF Sweden Programme for Sweden
National programme for the European 2014SE16RFOP009 Regional Development Fund 2014-2020 - ERDF Sweden Sweden
2014SI06RDNP001 Slovenia rural development programme EAFRD Slovenia
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund - 2014SI14MFOP001 Operational EMFF Slovenia Programme for Slovenia
Slovenia Operational Programme for the ERDF, ESF, 2014SI16MAOP001 Implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy Slovenia CF in the Period 2014-2020
Belgium, Germany 2014TC16RFCB001 Interreg V-A Euregio Maas-Rhein ERDF and the Netherlands
Romania, 2014TC16RFCB049 Interreg V-A Romania-Hungary ERDF Hungary
Source: Authors
105 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ______
Table 9: List of institutions interviewed through the study
Programme/Initiative Countries/City Institution (Name)
ESF Coordination unit European DG Employment Commission
Legal Migration and Integration Unit European DG Home Commission
Urban Innovative Actions (IUA) European Commission Initiative France
City of Amsterdam Urban Agenda Netherlands
Ministry of Interior (Managing PON Legalità Italy Authority)
DPS, Cohesion policy agency PON Città Metropolitane Italy (Managing Authority)
Managing Authority Interreg ADRION Italy
ESF-ERDF / Human Resource Ministry of Human Capacities Hungary Development Programme
ESF-ERDF / Territorial and Settlement Ministry of National Economy Hungary Development Operational Programme
Managing Authority ESF Wallonia Belgium
National Rural Development Managing Authority Romania Programme 2014-2020
Regional Operational Programme 2014- Managing Authority Romania 2020
Managing Authority Romania-Serbia IPA CBC Programme Romania 2014-2020
Managing Authority Interreg V-A Romania-Hungary Romania
Danish Business Authority LAG Sekretariatet (Leader) Danemark
Region of Southern Denmark Vækstforumssekretariatet Danemark
Projekts-sekretariatet, Central ESF-project ”Rummelig imidt” Danemark Denmark Region
AMU-Nordjylland, North ESF - project ”Ungeindsats Aalborg” Danemark Denmark Region
SID-job, North Denmark Region ESF-project ”LOGOS” Danemark
The Swedish Rural Network EAFRD Sweden (Landsbygdsnatverket)
Source: Authors
106