Social Dialogue-Consultation Framework for Promoting Quality and Social Responsibility in Regional/Local Government

Methodological Tool: Social Dialogue-Consultation Framework for promoting Quality and Social Responsibility in Regional/Local Government

Activity 4.5

Table of contents

1. Introduction ______4 2. Social dialogue in general ______4 3. Identity and form ______7 4. Composition of participants ______8 5. Sectors of Intervention ______9 6. Founding Organization(s) ______9 7. Social Dialogue & Stakeholders in the National Level ______10 8. Purpose & Value of Social Dialogue ______13 9. Social Dialogue Methodology ______16 10. Social Dialogue (SD) and Social Partnership in practice (SP) ______32 I. Characteristics and Categorization of SP & SD ______32 II. Categorization of the Concept and the Content of SP and SD ______33 III. Social Partnership & Dialogue – Definitions / Forms ______33 IV. Differentiation of SP, SD ______36 V. Basic Principles and Practices of SP and SD at a Central Level (ΕU) ______37 VI. Main Preconditions for genuine SP & SD ______37 11. SOCIAL DIALOGUE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ______38 I. Introduction ______38 II. Social Dialogue in the European Union ______42 III. Developments of SD at the European Level ______43 IV. Conclusion ______44 12. European Past Experience (Territorial Employment Pacts- Territorial Partnerships) ______45 i. AUSTRIA TERRITORIAL EMPLOYMENTS PACTS ______45 ii. HUNGARY TERRITORIAL EMPLOYMENTS PACTS ______49

iii. GREECE – GREEK PARTNERSHIPS ______52 13. DISCUSSIONS – NEGOTIATIONS – PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES ______55 i. Baltic Islands Network position on EU Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion ______55 ii. Territorial Pacts : Making the Most of Europe 2020 Through Partnerships ______59

1. Introduction

The aim of this model is to contribute towards the creation of a basic methodology which will assist in approaching the social dialogue/consultation in local and sectoral level, in a way that will set up the major motivation requirements of the principal local Actors acting directly or indirectly and “officially” or “unofficially” as Social Partner Organizations.

2. Social dialogue in general

According to Prof. M. Rodriguez Pinero, member of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Organization, the term "social dialogue" frequently used in the European Union and now extremely widespread, covers "interactions and interrelationships amongst the social partners that surpass, improve upon or enhance the traditional framework of classical collective bargaining and the central role of the collective agreement in labour relations".(Diálogo Social, Participación y Negociación Colectiva, Relaciones Laborales No. 23, December 1995, Madrid).

Other academics regard it as one of the "various possible forms of interest intermediation" (Berndt Keller and Fred Henneberger. Prospects for social dialogue in the public sector. European Confederations, sectoral federations and forms of interest intermediation. TRANSFER 1/97). The social dialogue has also been described in terms of its usefulness as "a way and method of processing the varying social interests so as to arrive at basic understandings as to how to build the Social State" (D. Martinez and M. Simon in the Foreword of EI Diálogo Social en los Países Andinos: Nuevo Camino Para Los Sindicatos? J. M. Sepulveda and M. L. Vega. ILO, Lima, 1999).

From a practical point of view, let us stick to the most recent definition used by the International Labour Organization:

“ Social dialogue represents all types of negotiation, consultation and information sharing among representatives of governments, social partners or between social partners on issues of common interest relating to economic and social policy”.

Social dialogue is widely recognized as one of the principles underlying what is known as the European social model, based on good economic performance, a high level of social protection and education and social dialogue. In Europe, the concept of dialogue between governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations is generally accepted as a part of good governance, even if its modalities and its extent may differ substantially from one country to another and are often sensitive to electoral cycles.

In general, discussions concerning the social dialogue led to a number of conclusions which have generally been accepted by governments and social partners:

• Social dialogue does not supplement but complements classical parliamentary democracy. Allowing large groups in society to participate in the policy formulation and decision-making processes regarding economic and social policy can strengthen and consolidate traditional policy mechanisms. Democracy should not be limited to voting in periodic elections. Social dialogue is flexible: partners may meet whenever it is deemed necessary. But it may also be strategic: aimed at securing long-term rather then short-term gains. On the other hand, social dialogue is fully efficient only in a democracy, in a society which not only professes but also practises human rights (civil. political, economic, social, cultural).

• Social dialogue is not in contradiction with the market economy. On the contrary, it can help to sustain its effective functioning by dealing with its social aspects. It may prevent or solve unnecessary and violent social conflicts by achieving acceptable compromises between economic and social imperatives, and it may improve the business and investment environment. It is also an instrument of better productivity and competitiveness.

• Social dialogue is not an end in itself, but rather a tool for dealing with various economic and social problems. The European Union considers it as the driving force behind successful economic and social reforms. Social dialogue is recognized as having special merits in such innovative areas such as enhancing skills and qualifications, modernizing the organization of work, promoting equal opportunities and developing active ageing policies.

• There is no universal model of social dialogue. It is a concept flexible enough to be adapted to the most diverse situations. Content and impact on real social and economic life are what should be assessed.

• Social dialogue is not just a context of crisis management. Unfortunately, governments sometimes turn to the social partners uniquely in a situation of economic crisis when they are seeking support for unpopular measures. This approach is fundamentally flawed: dialogue must be based on mutual trust and confidence built up over long years of cooperation in good faith and on-going participation. Therefore, social dialogue should be used not only in adverse but also in favourable economic circumstances.

3. Identity and form

Whoever might the “entity” (“collaborative platform”) be, under whose responsibility and guidance an organized effort of local Social Consultation process will be carried out, it is necessary that this “entity” should have a form, an identity and a structure, which will ensure its credibility. This identity could be described as Territorial Governmental Social Responsibility Process, or by any other way that clearly states its subject and content.

The degree of representation/involvement of the various categories of Actors in the Initiative/Consultation process, will determine its credibility and the degree to which it can affect the public opinion.

It should remain – at least at the current phase – an unofficial instrument, in which anyone interested should participate equally and which will motivate the “local leaders” of all related categories. This motivation must have a long-standing and collective nature and not a “momentary one”, limited to just a few meetings without ensuring continuance and sustainability. Amongst major requirements for such kind of sustainability rank:

1. Effective local publicity

2. Stability of the individuals participating in the working groups

3. Official and declared support of everyone involved

4. A wider agenda of Local Interest

4. Composition of participants

Indicatively, Representatives – officers – experts of:

Local and regional Public Authorities;

Companies/Organizations of the wider Public Sector;

Representation Bodies/Unions of Employees of the Public Sector;

Educational – Research – Vocational Training Institutions;

Professional Associations;

Citizens’ Associations;

NGOs acting in various fields towards the benefit of the Community;

Knowledge Transfer - Dissemination Actors;

Chambers;

Local Developmental Agencies;

Representatives of political parties or trade unions, who may participate as observers;

5. Sectors of Intervention

The Initiative (“Territorial Social Consultation Process”) for Governmental Social Responsibility, could be activated covering a vast field and a wide spectrum of social and developmental issues and its structure can vary according to the nature of the issue, its character, its scope, the peculiarities and needs of each respective territory, and – of course – its complexity.

Possibly an issue of National-level scope, would not fall into its jurisdiction; however, in every case it should be able to interfere with a text or a statement reflecting the views of the Territorial Consultation Process.

6. Founding Organization(s)

Local organizations, such as the Structures hosting GSR Units are highly indicated to locally manage initiatives of Social Dialogue/Consultation, provided that appropriate staff is employed.

7. Social Dialogue & Stakeholders in the National Level

The stakeholders of the social dialogue are the social partners, employers’ and workers’ representatives as well as the governmental officers. Working models, labour rights, working conditions and employee participation (direct, indirect and financial) have been the dominant scheme of dialogue for decades while government is presented as the facilitator, mediator, regulator and law enforcer. Specifically, the social dialogue at national level could be considered as two-fold:

Firstly, the Bi-partite social dialogue, which refers to dialogue between the social partners and, secondly, the Tri-partite social dialogue, which refers to the dialogue among the social partners and the governmental agencies.

However, some countries have expanded the participation in social dialogue to other stakeholders within society. Such examples exist in Austria, Belgium, and Spain where, due to the importance of the agricultural sector for these economies, farmers have taken part in the national social dialogue. Other forms of representation included the owners of SME’s and craftsmen in Belgium and the Netherlands, representatives of cooperative unions in Denmark and Portugal and consumer organizations in Denmark and Spain. In most countries, therefore, social partners and governmental agencies are the main stakeholders of the social dialogue.

Governmental Agencies Role

Governmental agencies’ role in the advancement and sustainability of the national social dialogue is

quite important because it promotes reliance in the tripartite consultation process and encourages the proactive participation of social partners in policy-making processes. Governmental agencies are also responsible for applying the appropriate legal framework by ensuring social stakeholders’ independence and fundamental rights. In fostering tripartite and bipartite social dialogue, the labour administration should ensure that social partners enjoy freedom of association so that employers and workers are able to state their views independently.

As a protagonist and learning organizations, governmental agencies should also engage in active social dialogue with its own employees based on real participation and positive voice effect (i.e. public sector workers). By doing so, they do not only promote bipartite social dialogue in the public sector, but they also help in the establishment of a culture of social dialogue, which could lead to public sector reforms.

In social dialogue that takes place beyond the public sector, governmental agencies participate -in tripartite social dialogue- as a full partner or as a facilitator recognizing workers’ and employers’ organizations as crucial partners, which contribute equally to economic and social policy development.

Regarding to social dialogue as a dynamic and on-going process, the continuous investment/efforts to sustain it is crucial to its existence. Especially, governmental agencies have to guarantee that the institutions that ease social dialogue at national level are effective and sustainable so that they can contribute significantly in the process of social dialogue.

Workers’ and Employers’ Organizations Role

Social partners are experienced in collective bargaining processes on labour relations issues but social

dialogue at national level is a new responsibility with different and dynamic characteristics for social partners in countries without social democratic traditions.

There are certain structural schemes that social partners should explore in order to be proactive in social dialogue. Firstly, social partners must ensure their representative legitimacy, accountability and transparency. Secondly, they should have broad and consistent unions in order to augment their influence in tripartite social dialogue. Thirdly, shattering workers’ or employers’ organizations decreases their bargaining power and trustworthiness.

Furthermore, social partners should move beyond their direct benefits, think in broader terms and try to integrate goals. Rather than getting stopped by ideologies, they should enhance a problem-solving approach and try to reach acceptable solutions by negotiation. In order social partners to make serious contributions to national policy discussions, they should enrich their understanding of broad economic and social policy issues as wide national social dialogue requires social partners to be able to engage in in-depth discussions on various macro and micro economic issues, which have nothing to do with work-related issues.

All Parties role

The Governmental Agencies’ and the Social Partners willingness to get national social dialogue under way is the main issue here. Confidence and respect towards each other as partners as well as a solid assurance to the concept and process of social dialogue will make it meaningful and can, finally, lead to positive economic and social results for all concerned.

8. Purpose & Value of Social Dialogue

The purpose of social dialogue is to promote success in policy formulation and in reforming of public services in a people-centred manner. Reforms must benefit the wider public, including the public services employees’. Social dialogue must give adequate importance to transparency in sharing all relevant information, ensuring wide consultation at all stages, and engendering respect for the integrity of bipartite dialogue.

Social dialogue must not necessarily produce consensus. If it generates, at least a better understanding of the divergent views expressed by the various stakeholders, it can be considered to have largely achieved its purpose. Social dialogue must create commitment to the ideas produced, actions contemplated and results achieved based on creative participation.

So, the purpose of social dialogue remains the same – to inform, discuss and resolve key issues in the sector – but the scope and nature of the dialogue must be appropriate to the level it takes place in. At the wider national level, there must be a framework of laws, regulation and institutions to provide ground rules and support. At the industry (or sector) level, social dialogue requires commitment, resources and an agreed structure for it to operate effectively. At the enterprise or workplace level, social dialogue can be less formal but more specific. Collective bargaining can take place at any level of this structure, according to national circumstances and economic environment.

Respect for the norms of social dialogue depends on the manner of their formulation. They should not be imposed from above but should develop through the exchange of all relevant information and a

participatory approach involving consultation, negotiation and consensus. Only participation at each stage of decision-making can create better awareness and commitment. Social dialogue is a powerful tool for finding concrete ways of establishing and maintaining social cohesion and improving governance. It contributes to the creation of quality public services, both for employees and customers.

Furthermore, considering about the benefits of social dialogue, it is important to separate benefits associated with processes and outcomes of social dialogue.

1) Democratization of economic and social policy making

Social dialogue enforces the democratization of policy and decision-making processes as stakeholders view it as a mean of economic growth and development. Many European Union countries have promoted social dialogue as a norm for socially acceptable agreements to enhance the fiscal policy requirements imposed by the Maastricht Treaty for participation in European Monetary Union. International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have also increasingly acknowledged the significance of the participation of all parties in the social dialogue as, in democratic societies, one-sided actions by governments -without the consensus of the social partners- often create social tensions during periods of economic destitution and transitions. Many Central and Eastern European countries have managed their shift from socialist to market economies through social dialogue. Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, among others, founded tripartite national entities in the beginning of the period of their macroeconomic adjustment. Social dialogue in the EU candidate member countries is also regarded as a crucial mechanism to prepare them for full EU membership. Finally, it should be highlighted that social

dialogue should continue beyond the transition period in order social partners and the governmental agencies to participate in dialogue processes that would encourage the sustainability of the positive outcomes.

2) Benefits associated with the results of social dialogue

Social treaties

Social treaties are one of the most evident results of successful social dialogue. In many European countries, social treaties became an important tool in handling the economic and social challenges of globalisation, economic reformation and monetary integration. However, many countries without a tradition of policy concentration implanted in their political institutions have managed to agree on social treaties and they reached in agreements through the tripartite or tripartite plus stakeholders. The quality of social treaties differs and ranges from a declaration of intent to a detailed list of policy measures and methods for action through social dialogue.

Sustainable economic and labour market transformation

Social dialogue can also ease the sustainability of economic and labour market transformations. By unanimity, stakeholders’ opinions are reflected in reform agreements and they have an incentive and peer pressure to support what they have already accepted by agreement. Participation in decision- making on economic and social policy means that their demands will be included in policy reform.

National economic and social growth

Effective social dialogue can foster economic and social growth as stakeholders can get social issues to the national policy debate in order to ensure that economic progress can be accomplished without sacrificing social progress.

Social dialogue can help to bring about a fairer society through participation of a wide range of stakeholders in society.

It is, nonetheless, difficult to develop a quantitative causal relationship between social dialogue and economic performance at national level. On the one hand, countries with a tradition of social dialogue such as Austria, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands have augmented their economic performance as well as countries without the practice of national social dialogue, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which have significant economic growth and job creation in the past few years. This problem stems from the difficulties of quantifying social dialogue. Rather than debatable quantitative analyses, the benefit of social dialogue can be presented through a qualitative analysis by taking account of cultural traditions and historic-institutional differences. However, while the economic impact of tripartite social dialogue cannot be easily measured, it can be emphasized that social dialogue ensures a degree of social peace and progress that can set the stage for healthy economic growth.

9. Social Dialogue Methodology

Social dialogue processes must recognise the importance of:

• combining bipartite and tripartite processes to increase the responsibility and involvement of all actors, and • interaction between all the social partners at all levels.

Social dialogue is a complex enterprise that requires much preparation and a participatory approach, and advised participants that they should take necessary measures to ensure needs awareness, cohesion and preparedness for engaging in social dialogue.

It is clear that the local organization for social dialogue/ consultation / collaborative action has to act in a specific framework, making its contribution to issues of local development visible, useful, realistic and measurable. In this respect, every activity should be completed in a specific period of seven or eight weeks and with corresponding meetings. At the same time, the activity should result to an official text which, having taken into consideration the present situation in a specific sector, will include a series of conclusions and proposals to the competent authorities, according to the local needs, both short-term and medium-term and including the views of the organizations that participate in this local initiative. It is of course clear that in no case can this Local Initiative substitute the competent authorities, it can however and up-to a point coil up and motivate inactive forces of the society and un- exploited potential.

In brief the Methodology of setting up a local Social Dialogue/ Consultation Initiative could be:

The diagram shows how Social Dialogue begins with planning activities, which is followed by initiating measures, implementing activities, and monitoring and evaluating results. The latter activities provide feedback which is used for further planning. Phases - Suggested Actions - Means: Expected results – Provisions: Planning

1. Awareness Raising – Information 1. Introduction: Sensitising - Animating local Actors

Addressed to the local Actors. 2. Formation of a “Local Initiative” for Governmental

Initially aiming to form the group of Social Responsibility and Quality in the form of an

participants. unofficial instrument/Sub-network.

3. Internal Review by the Social Partners

Informative seminars, Training. 4. Action: Drafting the Declaration - Joint Strategic

Joint press conferences. Review of Utilities

Information through the Mass Media. Identification – Motivation of the local organizations.

Initial engagement of “opinion leaders” of the area.

Preparing the joint strategic review

Initiating

2. Creating a clear Thematic Agenda: Preparing–submitting an “Introductory Document” Involvement and commitment of interested parties. Discuss/review the agenda – intent and content – of public service reforms and examine the goals and concerns (or issues) from the viewpoint of different stakeholders (government/employer, civil servants and their organisations, users/user groups, etc.). Collection and processing of opinions – views of the participating Actors. Round table discussions and meetings of interested parties.

3. Submission of proposals from the Drafting and submitting proposals. local Initiative/Sub-Network. Sensitizing public opinion, competent organizations and Specifying an Action Plan for official authorities. implementing the adopted proposals. Collection and processing of opinions – Wider interest - commitment. views of the participating Actors. Undertaking of roles/responsibilities by the Participants. Thematic Working Group. Round table discussions and meetings of interested parties.

4. Presentation of the Action Plan to Sensitising interested parties as well as public opinion. engaged and to interested, as well as to Attracting interest. the competent authorities in local and national level, in the form of an Clear and definite target setting. Legal documentation. integrated Proposal.

Press Conferences – Press Releases, Publicity through the Mass Media. One- day meetings.

Implementation

5. Sectoral or local Implementation in Direct involvement of Governmental Agencies and of the framework of a Pilot Plan. their Employees (and of other interested parties and Actors). Scientific – Technical Support Improvement of the capacity of the Governmental Agencies to operate in as Socially Responsible and Quality Oriented Actors.

Monitoring and Evaluation 6. Evaluation and presentation of the Creating a data bank of “Experiences” and Successful results of the Action. Practices.

Scientific – Technical Support. Recording and capitalization of experiences. Contribution of the participating Actors.

1. The fact that the social dialogue process is not possible without the active participation of the members of the local organizations probably structures hosting GSR Unit, obviously entails informing the local organizations systematically on all relevant matters. The local press and other electronic mass media which are available (radio and television) must broadcast reports of local interest which transmit new dimensions and messages related to the governmental social responsibility.

As an Introduction, the social partners should:

- Acknowledge and define the problem

- Develop appropriate conditions, perceptions and attitudes

- Understand the problem solving process (diagnosis, prescription and action)

- Agree ground-rules, including: not interrupting one another, respect one another, indicate by hand desire to speak, maintain order of speakers

In the second step, the Diagnosis, the social partners should:

- Give each party the opportunity to present their arguments regarding the problem

- Identify all current symptoms of the problem

- Establish all the causes of the problem

- Explore all the needs of the parties

- Extract all the issues that need attention

- Group the issues in themes

- Prioritise the themes

In the third step, the Prescription, the social partners should:

- Generalise all possible solutions to each issue without evaluating them (using brainstorming, surveys, experts, etc)

- Identify objective criteria to evaluate each possible solution (e.g. in relation to costs/benefits, consequences, practicality, meeting of needs, addressing causes, dis/advantages, eliminating symptoms)

- Evaluate each possible solution using the agreed criteria

- Narrow the range of solutions

- Decide on the preferred solution or combination of solutions

In the fourth step, the Action, the social partners should:

- Determine acceptable action steps for the implementation of each solution

- Determine acceptable responsibilities and deadlines

- Determine acceptable monitoring and feedback steps

- Determine a review process

- Legitimacy and authority

Finally, the parties should engage in a Joint Strategic Review of the proposed changes. They may incorporate expert advice, but should not take as a blueprint, but rather build on their advice. Creating

their own plan builds ownership of the process and outcomes by the social partners. They should also agree to a timetable.

2. The agenda for a meeting involving social dialogue in the industry should be finalised in consultation with the participants.

The agenda should be appropriate to both:

– the level of the industry at which the discussion is to take place and from which the representatives derive, and

– the experience of the representatives in such forums and the familiarity and trust they have developed.

It is important at any level to ensure the topic is clear and agreed, that the time, place and participants are clear, and that the form of dialogue is understood – information sharing, consultation or negotiation. Representation at any level should be agreed with the organizations concerned.

The experience of the representatives is also critical. The less experienced they are, the shorter and less contentious the agenda should be. When participants have built experience and trust, agendas can become more complicated. The discussions may take longer or working groups may be set up to report on significant matters.

When considering a list of possible agenda items for discussion there are two principles that should be applied to help agree on their selection. These are:

(1) priority (urgent and important); and (2) risk (likelihood and impact).

Priority issues are those that are both urgent and important. Urgent means that it should be dealt with or decided as soon as possible, while important means that it will significantly affect a lot of people. Often agendas are driven by the urgent (such as agreeing the roll-out of new IT equipment) or by the important (such as reducing discrimination), but ideally all parties should perceive them as being both urgent and important.

Risk relates to an assessment of the likelihood of a problem or event occurring and the seriousness of its impact if it did. High-risk problems should be on the agenda. They are high risk if they are both relatively likely to happen and will have serious impact if they do.

The agenda and the contents of a social consultation/collaborative process in local level are decisive for the motivation of the principal participants, as mentioned above. By definition and nature, the dialogue should focus from the beginning on subjects dealing with the development of conscious, Socially Responsible and Quality oriented Governmental Agencies.

3 – 4 - 5. The implementation of the actions within the context of the social dialogue process requires all these activities to be recorded in an action plan, in order for each organisation or group of

participants to know what was agreed and what needs to be done. The concept of the action plan is referred to in the organized plan of action which includes the various activities, as well as the expected results, along with the mechanisms to assess the plan’s success.

The basic elements that need to be included in the social dialogue action plan are:

- Definition of the social dialogue vision for the target group and the local community to gain a better understanding.

- Drafting of action plan within the context of social dialogue: The drawing up of a social dialogue action plan is deemed necessary in order to make the transition from the first stage of basic discussions between the parties involved, to the action stage. The action plan is in fact a series of activities which will fulfill the common goals of both the members of the target group and the local community. The action plan must refer to the organisations and groups of people who will take part in the social dialogue, the type of actions that are likely to take place and the timetable for their implementation. These actions might include new initiatives, information campaigns, provision of advice, and changes to local policies etc.

- Implementation Mechanism: The social dialogue action plan must include details of the means by which the anticipated actions will be implemented, as well as the techniques to use in order to measure the progress made at each stage, and the methodology for evaluating the results that arise etc. Once the inter-scientific group has been set up and its objectives have been understood, the next step is to put together the contents of the social dialogue plan. This begins with the definition of the basic units, followed by the second stage which involves detailed reference to the issues that will be developed in each unit. It is certain that the proposed social dialogue plan will be revised several times before taking its final form, thus the

efforts made will in no way be considered as a waste of time. On the contrary, it will assist significantly with the following:

The exact pinpointing of the whole concept and the terms involved, which at first might seem vague, generalised and of an undefined nature; In the allocation of the social dialogue tasks in such a way that the social partners who participate in the network have a good understanding of the issues they will have to deal with; Defining the elements required for the social dialogue negotiations related to specific issues.

Associations, companies, organizations, citizens’ groups, and of course the members of the target group, in collaboration with the Prefectural and Local Administration must make up a collaborative partnership based on co-operation and trust and with the common desire to effectively handle the obstacles which hinder the whole situation of older unemployed workers. If this partnership is not cultivated and supported in the right way, then very little progress will be made.

6. This is an ongoing process that informs and improves future social dialogue. A systematic review should follow the implementation phase, to measure success. However, there should be self-reflection by the social partners during every phase and an on-going review of agreements: E.g., joint strategic review in planning phase and ground rules in initiating phase.

Data collection should be a matter of routine. When major structural changes are in progress, specialists may be required to collect and analyse data and provide feedback. The key elements for successful monitoring are:

- feedback

- remedial action

- conflict resolution

The criteria to be used to measure success must be agreed between the participants. Both the process and the outcome should be evaluated.

- Possible criteria for evaluating the process: trust, reciprocity, credible commitments, democratic involvement, efficient bargaining. - Possible criteria for measuring the outcomes: operators, users, public interests, employment- related

When evaluating the process, we must separate the “process” from the “outcomes.” If the “success” of the process is judged by the outcomes, as often happens, we miss elements necessary to monitor social dialogue. Many outcomes, however, may be good indicators of success: improvements to the efficiency of operations, a better service, economic growth, efficient use of public assets, or employment-related outcomes like health and safety or training, etc.

In the social dialogue process, it is of particular importance that a mechanism for monitoring the progress made is included in the plan. This serves two essential purposes:

Firstly, there is reliable information related to the achievement of the original objectives laid down at the beginning of the process. Secondly, it provides a feeling of satisfaction to all those participating in the social dialogue process about the progress made towards achieving the specific goals.

PREREQUISITES: FOUNDING COMMITTEE FOUNDING ENTITIES DECISION FROM FOUNDING ACTOR(S)

AVALIABILITY AND ENGAGEMENT OF 30 PARTNERS

PARTICIPATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

GSR

GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION ΤΟΠΙΚΗ AGENCIES, EMPLOYEES, OTHER ACTORS PROCESS/ ACTORSΡΓΑΖΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΙ ΦΟΡΕΙΣ INITIATIVE ΘΕΣΜΙΚΟΙ

SECTORAL/LOCAL THEMATIC AGENDA EXISTING STATUS

PROPOSITIONS PUBLICITY

ACTION PLAN PUBLICITY

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL PLAN DOCUMENTATION (WHEN REQUIRED)

EVALUATION – CAPITALIZATION VERIFIABILITY EFFECTIVENESS OFRESULTS

10. Social Dialogue (SD) and Social Partnership in practice (SP)

I. Characteristics and Categorization of SP & SD

As is apparent from recent developments over the last 10-15 years a very significant part of both policy and scientific research, as well as general examination of the development and course of labour relations, has been centred and spent on analysis of the economic and social results and performances of the concept of Social Partnership (SP).

This has occurred within the framework of an ever increasing trend among businesses towards a dynamic organizational structure / restructuring of organizational structures and flexibility, in combination with an apparent reorientation of the demands, concerns and interests of workers towards more qualitative work characteristics and chiefly towards increased levels of job security and quality of work conditions.

In many extreme cases the concept of SP is put forward as a panacea, as the only viable approach to contemporary work relations, which will be able to staunch the wounds and inconsistencies created by internationalized capitalism and relentless competition, at the same time restructuring the arteriosclerotic and unbending character of the decision making structure that prevailed in the neo- corporatist framework of the 70’s. On the other hand, critical analysts of SP argue against the insidious and chthonic operation of SP, which is no more than a veiled attempt to erode and weaken the labour unions and collective forms of representation and organization of the workers – Trojan Horse  a more refined attempt to achieve the same objective as the respective (though non collective) initiatives of the 80’s and 90’s.

II. Categorization of the Concept and the Content of SP and SD

A simple categorization of the term based on its component characteristics and the thematic areas it covers could easily create areas of overlap and gaps in the conceptual definition of the term. For this reason the presentation of the term will follow a modular structure, which will cover all alternative conceptual approaches and definitions of SP -and consequently the different principles, values, practices and preconditions -, the different content, objectives and priorities, the role of social partners and the implementation levels of SD and SP agreements. This will be completed with an evaluation and critical examination of the results of the collaborative approach.

III. Social Partnership & Dialogue – Definitions / Forms

Theoretical concept: umbrella term, Stakeholding, long-term relations of mutual trust, central role of collective representation, extensive consultation / collaboration, crucial role for the “voice” of the workers In practice: vehicle for organization and restructuring in periods of crisis, “new” commitment / pluralism or anti-union agenda, entrepreneurial success, mutual benefits & trust

Consequently, the theoretical definition of SP refers to a vague umbrella-term that covers various forms of collaboration and multi-level approaches to collective negotiations and ideological views. In Great Britain in particular, the term has been identified with the concept of multiparty decentralized dialogue between all social groups that represent collective interests and have an interest /

responsibility for the course of the enterprise or region (stakeholders). This approach further emphasizes the importance of relations of mutual trust and interdependence, assigns the central role to representatives of collective agencies (unions, organizations, local councils) and seeks active and extensive participation and consultation from the part of the workers.

The necessity of establishing and mobilizing institutions of social dialogue has been recognized internationally as a precondition for the fullest success of economic and social policy. It has been proven that if a policy wishes to gain the support of the interested parties it has to persuade them not only that the policy has been drawn up with their interests in mind but also that it is prepared to take into account the views of social partner representatives during its formulation. Though policy executing bodies cannot fully accept the view of all professional groups, as the conflicting interests of the latter often lead to opposing views, it is possible, however, to develop a mechanism for creating consensus through which is hammered out some sense of social benefit comprised of the competing claims of social groups.

The issue of the spirit and practice of social dialogue has been the object of considerable debate.

Its supporters believe that social dialogue constitutes an expedient and effective means of achieving commonly acceptable solutions to critical problems through seeking the highest possible level of agreement. Its critics, on the other hand, focus their arguments on the existence of conflicting social interests and emphasize that social dialogue aims at incorporating the logic of work into that of capital, thus perpetuating social injustice with the consent of the workers. Lastly, a third middle view claims that the competitive relations between the interests of capital and those of workers do not rule out temporary social agreements of mutual benefit.

Social dialogue is seen chiefly in European countries in a variety of forms. Thus, it may refer to information provided to social partners, the consultation and expression of views by the latter,

bipartite, tripartite or multi-level negotiations, joint agreements or joint decisions. In addition, social dialogue may be carried out the levels of enterprise, legislation, regional, sectoral, inter-occupational, European and international.

Social dialogue in European countries has taken the following forms:

Simple consultations by the government with every professional class before the adoption of measures of economic and social policy that affect their interests.

Bipartite negotiations between workers’ and employers’ organizations on a national, sectoral, professional, regional, local or operational level. These constitute the most common forms of dialogue and negotiation in Europe.

Tripartite negotiations between social representatives and the state, for the purpose of achieving a wide social consensus which will lead to the signing of national social agreements.

The difference between the three forms of social dialogue above has been located in the degree of commitment involved. Thus, in the first case the participation of the social partners takes on a consultative character, in the second it leads to contracts or agreements of a regulatory nature and in the last case it provides commitments of a political nature, through social consensus.

More specifically, social dialogue may be developed within the framework of institutions of a different nature and purpose, such as:

Direct development of social dialogue (e.g. social dialogue committees for special matters)

Development of social negotiations through participating institutions, chiefly at the enterprise level (e.g. workers councils)

The search for commonly acceptable solutions by representatives of capital and workers through the process of dialogue and negotiation (e.g. collective negotiations).

Despite the long tradition of conducting social dialogue, chiefly in developed countries, its implementation has not been without problems in certain cases. Thus, in many cases the legislated tripartite structure of dialogue between social partners concealed an attempt by the state to dominate, while at other times the balance of social partners does not reflect their corresponding parts on an operational, sectoral, regional and national level.

The practical analysis of the term -which in most research has been identified with non authentic forms of partnership-, refers to the use of SP and SD as a vehicle for organizational restructuring of enterprises and ensuring mutual benefits. In this case, we are referring to a new commitment by partners to pluralism and the collective solution to differences or to a hidden agenda of marginalizing and neutralizing labour unions and imposing the conditions of the most powerful negotiator.

It is worth noting at this point that the essence of the term “social dialogue” is borne out chiefly in the “European” approach, which is defined by a broader social acceptance and recognition of the different collective interests of national partners. These objectives and interests are represented centrally by commonly recognized collective organs and agencies in a central framework for settlement of LR issues.

IV. Differentiation of SP, SD

The new form of partnership differs in practice from the policies of neo-corporatism, replacing the practice of interest exchange policy between parties with an exchange of responsibilities for policy planning and settlements of LR. In other words, governments at a central level agree to grant

responsibility for policy planning to the social partners, who in exchange accept partial responsibility for the content and implementation of these policies. At the same time, this exchange involves a parallel transfer of responsibilities to more decentralized levels of collective negotiations and to respective processes of mutual concessions between the decentralized representatives of the participating social groups.

V. Basic Principles and Practices of SP and SD at a Central Level (ΕU)

 Redefined participation institutions (SD)

 Gradual “transfer” of responsibilities for formulating policy to organized institutions representing collective interests

 Re-establishment of the institution of (practical) policy exchange – allocation of responsibility between the partners

As mentioned above, the “European” approach to the concept of SD refers to a progressive transfer of responsibilities to social partners for the settlement of LR, which also includes the re-establishment of the institution of interest exchange policy that constituted the social-democratic, neo-corporatist model of government (70’s). This development redefines the role and form of collective bodies for representation and participation of social partners, which are called upon to undertake responsibility not only for implementation but also the planning of LR policies.

VI. Main Preconditions for genuine SP & SD

Laying the foundations for mutual trust between the social partners constitutes the most crucial prerequisite for achieving collaborative and consensus agreements. Of course, the concept of trust is

particularly fragile and requires significant time and effort to restore. For this reason a balanced mixture of trust and negotiating power is required, which will ensure the equality of collaborative relations and will prevent spurious partnership agreements that will essentially impose the terms of the stronger partner.

Another factor that hinders the implementation and success of consensus agreements is the inadequate use and spread of human resource management practices within the enterprise that promote and support the goals of the agreement. Moreover, managements often develop competitive initiatives and settlements, with the result that the message of collaboration is adulterated and unclear during implementation of the agreement. This is intensified by insufficient commitment by middle executives at the start of the collaboration and their reluctance to transfer responsibilities and powers to more flexible forms of organization (e.g. work groups). Another significant precondition is that workers have a common viewpoint regarding the evaluation and importance management places in their participation in decision making.

11. SOCIAL DIALOGUE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

I. Introduction

By the start of the 1980’s the Commission of the European Communities had already begun to place exceptional importance in dialogue between social partners with the prospect of creating a European social arena, which would be based on achieving agreements on a community level.

The search for ways of deepening social dialogue within the framework of the European Union was signalled by the founding Treaty of Rome as well as later with the Single European Act, with which the

European Commission is called upon to develop social dialogue at a European level, given that this dialogue could possibly lead to contractual relations.

However, the European Union has activated the institutions of social dialogue chiefly during the last decade. The most recent debates, in the enclaves of professional organizations of the Old World, have centred around the possibility of adopting procedures that would allow collective agreements on a European level. Specifically, social dialogue on a European level refers to the discussions conducted between social partners on a European scale, the joint actions and negotiations between them, as well as the consultations that have been scheduled between the social partners and organs of the European Union.

However, the decisive impetus for possible transformation of the dialogue between social partners, into a process for reaching collective agreements on a European scale, was given by the Maastricht Treaty’s Protocol for Social Policy. Thus, in accordance with the procedure of article 4 of the Protocol, dialogue between the social partners at a community level may lead, if the social partners desire it, to contractual relations, including agreements. The agreements concluded at a European level are implemented either in accordance with the procedures and practices of the interested social partners and member states or by decision of the Council, which is taken unanimously or by a majority vote following a recommendation by the Commission.

What is sought by European social dialogue is to be able to overcome the inherent difficulties of the traditional EU mechanism, to compensate in this manner the absence of legislated European collective work agreements. Until a related development is achieved, the functions and objectives of dialogue between the social partners will be two:

Α) Promotion of coordinated collective negotiation throughout the EU.

Β) Participation in the draft stages of traditional EU legislative processes.

The achievement of the above goals will chiefly depend on the will and persistence of social partners as well as the support of institutional mechanisms of the EU.

The endeavour to establish an effective and mutually beneficial social dialogue will be achieved after a lengthy process. It is significant, however, that social partners become accustomed to meeting on a European level and possibly reach agreement on certain matters. At the same time, professional organizations will have to gradually participate in the preparation and implementation of European social policy, an involvement that is, in any case, in line with the national traditions of most European countries.

Although the Commission carried out consultations with the social partners over a number of years, even before the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the Agreement on Social Policy that accompanied the above treaty legislated the obligation of the Commission to request the views of the social partners, before undertaking initiatives or proceeding with regulatory settlements in the area of social policy. In addition, it now also possible for social partners to proceed, independently of the Commission, with negotiation procedures that could lead to agreements on a European scale.

The social partners -and particularly UNICE (employers), ETUC (trade unions) and CEEP (public sector enterprises) have also formed a new Social Dialogue Committee -with representatives from all member countries- which operates as a body for directing social dialogue. Moreover, this committee also has a consultative character for matters of macroeconomics, employment policies, training policies and others

At a sector level, the committee has established a series of organs for social dialogue, through which the social partners of the sector can confer on sectoral matters and consult the Committee

Though the representatives of the professional groups in community dialogue organs often feel the Committee only consults them “on order”, social dialogue has progressed and indeed in certain cases has resulted in joint action in the areas of health, safety and training.

The minor progress made in the consultation procedures of the social partners must not be underestimated. On the contrary, it should be continued because achieving consensus and dialogue between professional organizations has been recognized as the best method for successful assimilation of the significant economic, technological and social transformations that the European economy is facing, and consequently the institutions of bipartite and tripartite collaboration could have a beneficial role as supplementary settlement organs of European social policy. These developments presuppose the achievement of a joint effort by interested parties in order that:

They recognize their joint responsibility in dealing with changes to the current European situation at supra-national, national and sector levels.

They acknowledge the exceptional potential of the results of social dialogue.

They adopt a strategy of mutual approaches without relying on the intermediary activities of the Commission.

Moreover, for the European Union, social dialogue constitutes a validation of democratic processes and practices, contributes to the improvement of policy decisions and facilitates the implementation of economic and social policies.

II. Social Dialogue in the European Union

Social dialogue is met in European countries in a variety of forms. Thus, it may refer to information provided to social partners, consultation and expression of view by the latter, bipartite, tripartite or multipartite negotiations, joint agreements or joint decisions. In addition, social dialogue may be carried out at the level of the enterprise, legislation, region, sector of production, inter-occupational,

European and international (Spyropoulos, 1998).

Social dialogue in European countries has taken the following forms (Robolis/Kollias,1998):

Simple government consultations with every professional class prior to adopting economic and social policy measures that concern their interests.

Bipartite negotiations between labour and employer organizations at a national, sector, professional, regional, local or operational level (most common form of dialogue and negotiation in Europe).

Tripartite negotiations between representatives of social parties and the state, for achieving a broad social consensus that will lead to the signing of national social agreements.

More specifically, social dialogue may be developed within the framework of institutions of a different nature and purpose, such as (Kouzis /Robolis, 2000):

Direct development of social dialogue (e.g. social dialogue committees for special matters)

Development of social negotiations through participating institutions, chiefly at the enterprise level (e.g. workers councils)

The search for commonly acceptable solutions by representatives of capital and workers through the process of dialogue and negotiation (e.g. collective negotiations).

Despite the long tradition of conducting social dialogue, chiefly in developed countries, its implementation has not been without problems in certain cases. Thus, in many cases the legislated tripartite structure of the dialogue of the social partners concealed an attempt by the state to dominate, while at other times the social partners are characterized by an imbalance between their parallel expressions on an operational, sectoral, regional and national level (European Commission, 1999).

III. Developments of SD at the European Level

According to community terminology, social dialogue is a consultation process conducted by European social partners, in other words the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). The members of these three organizations are the organizations or associations that represent the state members at a national level. The member organizations actively and truly participate in all forms of dialogue conducted at a community level.

European social dialogue includes: formal consultations within the framework of article 138 of the Treaty, bipartite discussions conducted between European social partners beyond the formal consultations of the Commission, the joint actions but also their negotiations (in accordance with article 139 of the Treaty), as well as tripartite understandings between social partners and the organs of the European Union.

The social partners recognize that, since 1991, the term has been widely used to cover every form of activity that involves them. They emphasize, however, that a clear distinction must be made between the three different types of such activities: firstly, tripartite understandings, secondly consultation (Treaty article 137) and thirdly bipartite social dialogue –either in the form legislated by articles 137 and 138 of the Treaty or informally– in order to facilitate entering countries in the process of developing autonomous social dialogue.

Social dialogue was an attempt by the European Community to cover an institutional gap in the social arena. Historically, the effort to cover this gap was less through institutions and more through unofficial Community initiatives or informal procedures for promoting dialogue at inter-occupational and sector level.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, we can focus on three findings concerning dialogue on a European level.

First, the European collective agreements constitute the first effort at contractual relations at a European level, and proof that the social partners can arrive at appropriate solutions through dialogue at this level as well.

Second, autonomous bipartite social dialogue within the framework of the Social Dialogue Committee produces tangible results for the actions of the social partners in the future. Moreover, the Social Summit Conference is developing into a legitimate new forum for conducting social dialogue, in which it is anticipated that European and national social partners will participate to reach joint positions (declarations) of wider policy interest. A trend for more autonomous and structured dialogue is apparent.

Third, the Conclusions of the European Councils expressly refer to the conclusions of the Social Summit Conference, while the social partners are now consistently called upon to take an active role in the monitoring of implementation and interim revision of both the European Employment Strategy (Luxembourg Process) and the Lisbon Strategy.

In all the above matters emphasis is placed on the synergy of European and national social dialogue, a fact which points to the start of an open and continuous process of interaction.

The ESC estimates that all the developments described above are of decisive importance for the future and quality of social dialogue on a national level and that they directly affect its content, processes and methods.

12. European Past Experience (Territorial Employment Pacts- Territorial Partnerships) i. AUSTRIA TERRITORIAL EMPLOYMENTS PACTS (www.oecd.org)

Framework and setting Geographic scale Territorial Employment Pacts (TEPs) are established in all nine Austrian Federal Provinces (Austria’s population is approximately 8,000,000).

Additionally, some TEPs have been set up at local level (NUTS III). Policy framework TEPs contribute to the realisation of the objectives laid down in the National Action Plan for Employment (NAP) and are in line with the European Employment Strategy. They are implemented under the Austrian Objective 3 Programme 2000-2006 / priority 6 / European Social Fund – ESF (acronym: O3), which aims to establish TEPs in all Provinces. Partnerships at work Rationale Austrian labour market and employment policy is confronted with particular challenges that cannot be met by individual institutions acting alone, such as the concentration of unemployment within certain groups or gender segregation in the labour market. The NAP integrates the aims of employment policy (especially economic and structural policy), with educational policy and regional policy. The TEPs provide the institutional framework for the delivery of the NAP, supporting joint working at the regional level to secure and create jobs. Objectives TEPs are contracted at the regional level to better link employment policy with other policies and thereby improve the local and regional employment situation. In co-operating as partners, the specific aims of the TEPs are to increase effectiveness and efficiency in the use of resources, to improve the quality of support given to certain target groups, to secure and create jobs, to obtain funding for the region and to ensure sustainability.

Functions The partnerships develop regional strategies with respect to employment policies. They identify local and regional issues, develop ideas and strategies and implement measures according to their objectives. All partners are involved in conceiving agreeing upon and implementing a work programme.

Policy areas Labour market and employment policy (in co-

ordination with other policies, such as regional development policies)

Policy tools/ Instruments The TEPs use a huge variety of different measures and instruments to address regional and local issues. Instruments include, for example, implacement foundations (Arbeitsstiftungen), qualification and training measures, social enterprises, counselling facilities, business start-ups and other innovative projects.

Timeframe In 1997, the EU-pilot programme to support Territorial Employment Pacts (1997-2000) supported the development of a number of TEPs in Austria. During the current ESF programming period (2000-2006), TEPs have been established in all Austrian Provinces and supported by the Objective 3 programme.

Partners Provincial Governments, Regional Labour Market Services, Federal Office of Social Affairs, Economic Chamber, Chamber of Labour, Federation of Trade Unions, Federation of Industry, Association of Municipalities, Provincial Chamber of Agriculture, Provincial School Board, gender mainstreaming experts, representatives of employees, representatives of employers, representatives of regional Non-Profit-Organisations, Regional Management Associations.

Contracts The contracting partners vary in each TEP but include the Provincial Government, Labour Market Service, Federal Office of Social Affairs and the social partners. Most partners establish their contracts for a period of one to three years.

Legal status None

Sources of Financing The TEPs’ measures are funded by financial contributions of the contracting partners, which amounted to approx. EUR 600,000,000 in 2005. For

the regional and local co ordination of each TEP additional funding of approx. EUR 200,000 p.a. is applied for from the Austrian Objective 3 (co- financed by the ESF with 46% and 54% by the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour). Results TEPs lead to positive results in terms of improving co-operation and partnership working, as well as in terms of improving the implementation of policy measures. The Austrian evaluation of TEPs (2003) has shown that the TEPs have increased the efficiency and effectiveness of the regional approach to active labour market policy, supporting the integration of unemployed persons into the labour market and raising employability. In addition, the partnership approach has indirectly affected the way a number of policies are carried out in the region. Mainstreaming equal opportunities in the design of policies is an additional result.

ii. HUNGARY TERRITORIAL EMPLOYMENTS PACTS (www.oecd.org)

Framework and setting Geographic scale At first, micro-regional Employment Pacts were established in the western part of the country covering the following counties: Vas, Zala, and Győr-Moson-Sopron. Recently, partnerships were set up in all seven NUTS II regions of Hungary (average population: approximately 1,000,000) on different levels (city, sub-regional, county, regional). As for the Operational Programme for Regional Development (OPRD) supported pacts there are two regional pacts (one of them focuses only on non- governmental employment in Northern Great Plain, the other one is a “classic” pact in Northern Hungary); seven pacts at county level (six “classic” ones, one focuses on gipsy employment), and three pacts in cities and 29 on micro-regional level (not only in NUTS 4 level, not only statistical micro- regions). The non-OPRD supported pacts are mostly on micro-regional level. Since Hungary has borders with new member states and non EU members, cross-border co-operation is getting to be more and more important question for Hungarian TEPs

Policy framework The first experimental Employment Pacts of Western Hungary were supported by the PHARE programme and used the Austrian example/best practice. Now, there is an overall framework for the establishment of the pacts: the Operational Programme for Regional Development (OPRD), Component 3.2.1. - Strengthening the local co-ordination of activities aimed at employment promotion, which supports 41 Employment Pacts on different levels. Besides, there are pacts supported by the INTERREG initiative and there are some new Employment Pacts working only by internal efforts. Partnerships at work

Rationale The unemployment rates in the regions increased to a great extent. Most of the labour force commuted out of the regions and there was no adequate communication between organisations working within the labour market. It was recognised that unemployment could be reduced through the effective co-operation of local actors. Objectives The objectives of the partnerships are to create jobs through supporting local enterprises, to preserve jobs by initiating training projects that meet employers’ demands, to match the professional training structure to the needs of the economy, to improve the chances of disadvantaged persons to find employment, to provide career orientation and vocational training programmes for young people with a poor educational background, to support the employment of youth with a higher educational degree, to develop local and community services and to promote equal opportunities for men and women. Functions Partnership functions include developing employment strategies, preparing employment programmes and assisting in the creation of employment projects, creating an employment database and an information network, supporting disadvantaged people, preparing regional employment analysis, studies and surveys and searching for allocating and co-ordinating funds. Policy areas Labour market policy, social policy and economic policy Policy tools/ Instruments The major instruments include: preparation of local employment strategies, drafting projects and recommendations based on the strategies, marketing, disseminating the role of the TEPs, background research, prior assessment, seminars, workshops, conferences, forums in order to strengthen the local strategies, participation in trainings, PR activities (e.g. website). Timeframe The appropriate call for proposal of OPRD was announced in April 2004. The pacts supported through OPRD are limited to operate for maximum of 24 months (until 30

September 2008). Partners The main partners are municipalities, Regional Councils, Labour Centres, training institutions, enterprises, employers, NGOs, associations, regional development agencies, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Chambers of Agriculture, Centres for Entrepreneurs, Members of Parliament and minority autonomies. Contracts Contracts are signed between partners. Legal status The partnerships have no legal status (optional and voluntary participation of partners). Sources of Financing The Operational Programme for Regional Development (co-financed by the European Social Fund) supported pacts approximately with EUR 3,800,000 (as for the Programme Compliment) in total. Due to the component’s success, Managing Authority supported some additional projects. Each OPRD pact could receive funding between EUR 26,400 and EUR 188,700. The support is 100% non-refundable grant. Results The pacts regularly contribute to permanent communication among partners in the field of employment. Employment strategies, which have not yet been prepared in micro-regions of Hungary, were prepared since pacts creation. Better linking between demand and supply at the local labour market has been assured, new jobs and new local services have been initiated.

iii. GREECE – GREEK PARTNERSHIPS (www.oecd.org)

Framework and setting Geographic scale At present, there are 242 partnerships in total operating at the regional and sub-regional level. There are 123 partnerships belonging to the Local Employment Initiatives programme (funded via the Regional Operational Programmes); 72 partnerships funded by the Urban Community Initiative and 47 partnerships covering mountainous and disadvantaged areas. Policy framework The partnerships function in the context of either the Regional Operational Programmes (ROPs) of the European Structural Funds or area- based schemes. Partnerships at work Rationale The primary scope of the partnerships is employment promotion and social inclusion, while in parallel promoting a bottom-up approach to local development. Objectives The major objectives of the Greek partnerships are to create a favourable environment for job creation, to prevent social exclusion associated to unemployment and discrimination, to develop innovative methods, tools and to promote co- operation amongst local, regional and, occasionally, national actors. Greek partnerships’ focus lies on creating of conditions for full employment, maintaining existing job positions while creating new ones, so as to overall increase employment and decrease unemployment rate. The voluntary extension of the working status and the improvement of quality of work and productivity (i.e. work satisfaction, life learning opportunity, equality of the sexes) is also targeted. Partnerships farther focus at the creation of measures which aim not only to help women’s equal access to employment but to its maintenance. In addition, the enhancement of employment for young persons is also stressed in the sense that high school graduates are offered

opportunities for employment, training, or acquisition of professional experience. These partnerships aim to combat unregistered unemployment, while enhancing measures directed to combating the inequalities in employment (people with special needs, disadvantaged, etc.). Functions The functions of partnerships in Greece include: development and implementation of projects and co-ordination of activities; consulting and facilitating services (especially for social vulnerable groups); improving and upgrading services of employment (Centres for the Promotion of Employment); promoting social dialogue and better governance; creation of active Employment Policies (e.g. Active Ageing); and supporting measures for the promotion of equality in the employment (i.e. compatibility/harmonisation of family and professional life). Policy areas The activities of the Greek partnerships correspond to the policy areas of employment and social inclusion, along with regional and local development, social economy, and community initiatives. Policy tools/ Instruments Relevant policy instruments / tools of the partnerships include the design and implementation of training programmes, support and advice for new organisations within the social economy, the creation of networks and soft social services delivery at a local level. Timeframe In Greece, the first partnerships appeared at the end of the eighties. There were seven pilot TEPs operating during the period 1997-2000. The majority of partnerships nowadays run within the EU operational programming period 2000-2006. In Greece, one of the disadvantages associated with partnerships is their short-life span. Partners The partnerships include representatives from the local authorities, regional authorities, social partners, educational and training organisations, actors of the social economy, representatives of SMEs and Employers’ Associations and occasionally representatives

from government bodies. Contracts Every partnership develops a contract on the basis of private law while a board of elected members with responsibility for the operation of the partnership undertakes the necessary administration. Legal status None Sources of Financing Primary sources of financing are the European Structural Fund Regional Operational Programmes, the European Community Initiatives, the European Article 6 Budget Line and own resources. Results Local Employment Initiatives influence the economic and social nexus of Greek regions. The implementation of the Local Employment Initiatives created a total of 3,637 beneficiaries in regions affected with a high rate of unemployment. Another 17,000 beneficiaries will be integrated in actions promoting employment. There will be acceleration as well as a qualitative upgrade of all procedures of implementation along with an increase in expenditure.

13. DISCUSSIONS – NEGOTIATIONS – PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ACTIVITIES

i. Baltic Islands Network position on EU Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion

(B7 Baltic Islands Network February 2009).

The B7 is a co-operation of the 7 largest islands in the Baltic Sea from 5 different countries that began in 1989. The B7 islands believe that as a co-operation they can influence developments for their common good. The partners of the co-operation are, Bornholm (Denmark), Gotland (Sweden), Hiiumaa (Estonia), Rügen (Germany), Saaremaa (Estonia), Åland (autonomous region of Finland), Öland (Sweden). The B7 has an annual rotating Chairmanship and Secretariat. In 2006 Åland holds the Chairmanship of the organisation and is responsible for the Secretariat. The principles of membership are: Each member is a Baltic Sea island. Each island contributes to the co-operation based on population size. -The B7 co-operation is a partnership of equals. The B7 islands believe that they can better serve the interests of our islanders and achieve more as a co-operation than alone.

The B7 Baltic Islands Network believes that adding the goal of territorial cohesion to those of economic and social cohesion will improve the governance of Cohesion Policy. That territorial diversity is a strength for the development of EU. The purpose of territorial cohesion is to ensure the harmonic, balanced and sustainable development of the EU as a whole. That citizen in all parts of the EU are ensured equal opportunities in relation to the EU’s policies such as the single market. In addition the goal must be to ensure that the entire EU has access to basic services within education, health and social welfare.

The B7 Baltic Islands Network states the following: 1 The B7 agrees with CPMR that Territorial Cohesion must be based upon a fair assessment of territorial realities and cannot be based simply upon basic economic and social indicators. It is regrettable that the studies undertaken by DG Regio in 2003 on island and mountain areas was not followed up and that data collection work has not been updated to ensure a proper basis for decision making.

2 Territorial Cohesion must promote a more cross sectoral and integrated approach to development within EU’s regions and accept territorial diversity as a strength.

3 EU’s role must be to strengthen the co-ordination of the different levels of authority (EU, state, regions, local authorities) such that territorial cohesion is promoted through close collaboration between these authorities – and in close co-operation with civil society actors, business life and local associations. In this connection B7 supports CPMR’s proposal on a European Territorial Pact.

4 In order to strengthen territorial co-operation there is first and foremost need for a strengthening of the existing partnership principle under Cohesion Policy such that regional and local authorities are actively involved at the earliest occasion in the elaboration of the coming Structural Funds Programmes. This also includes setting the geography for cross border territorial co-operation programmes that to a greater extent ought to take into consideration existing territorial co- operation and structures where many of the programmes at the moment cut across Euro Regions and similar cross border co-operation.

5 Concerning legislation, there are several member states that that have yet to implement regulations giving the opportunity to establish European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) as well as several countries that have introduced limitations to the inclusion of neighbour regions into the EU by limiting the possibility for partners with limited responsibility.

6 Territorial Cohesion ought to be included as a dimension of all EU policies, especially policies with a marked influence on territorial development. That includes the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and policies for the environment, climate, energy, transport and trans-European networks, culture and integrated maritime policy.

7 Finally the B7 regards it important in territorial co-operation programmes to take wider reaching consideration to islands based on their particular geographically related conditions for development.

The B7 recommends the following indicators:

Quantitative indicators: -Population density and demographics -Transport access and distance to national growth centres -Business Structure ( main industries, company size, productivity, competitiveness etc) -Vulnerability to climate change -Security of energy supplies

Qualitative indicators: -Nature and Cultural life (attractiveness) -Associations -Access to knowledge (education and libraries) together with social and healthcare services -Traffic fatalities, criminality, alcohol and drug abuse:

Baltic Sea Islands Dimension Element of island dimension Key issues for islands

Comparative disparities Policies often favour major centres. Baltic Sea Islands experience limited synergy benefits resulting from competition with neighbouring regions.

Economic growth, diversity & Peripheral locations and relatively high dependence on few sectors, such as investment tourism, agriculture and fishing, small local markets.

Limited labour markets Low degree of movement creates an inflexible labour market with a limited range of job and career opportunities

Public administration changes Trend of governments taking tasks & responsibilities away from regions as more legislation originates from Brussels. Administration costs per capita higher e.g. there is no opportunity to offer services in co-operation with neighbouring municipalities.

Urban areas more attractive than Opportunities for youth are limited or not available on islands. young people. islands for

ii. Territorial Pacts : Making the Most of Europe 2020 Through Partnerships (Committee of the regions’ proposal for local, regional, national authorities to design and implement the Europe 2020 strategy in partnership)

A Territorial Pact for Europe 2020 is an agreement between a country’s tiers of government (local, regional, national). Parties signing up to a Territorial Pact commit to coordinate and synchronise their policy agendas in order to focus their actions and financial resources on the Europe 2020 Strategy goals and targets.

The Committee of the regions promoting territorial pacts Each country has its own starting point – contingent on its own socio-economic and territorial situation – and its own constitutional structure and distribution of powers between various tiers of government. The Territorial Pacts will give the Europe 2020 strategy a territorial dimension and territorial ownership.

This “contractual” approach, underpinned by adequate indicators and targets shared between all partners, would unleash the synergies and systemic effects that countries need to meet the Europe 2020 goals. The Territorial Pacts would then help bridge the gap between the goals of the new strategy and what the European Commission’s Annual Growth Survey for 2011 calls a lack of ambition showed by the preliminary versions of the national reform programmes submitted in November 2010.

A Territorial Pact should allow a country’s national, regional and local governments to draft and implement the Europe 2020 National Reform Programme in partnership and to monitor its progress. To this end, a Territorial Pact should aim at:

• setting national and possibly regional targets, with recourse, when necessary, to indicators and targets other than GDP; • implementing one or several flagship initiatives; • identifying obstacles to the achievement of the targets at national level.

A Territorial Pact may include: • legal provisions, identifying which policies are needed and setting out how those policies can be adapted in order to secure more efficient delivery of the structural reforms required under the Europe 2020 strategy; • financial provisions, detailing which resources (EU, national or local, public or private funding) will be used to reach the targets; • governance provisions, giving information on possible new arrangements to deliver policies more effectively.

There is no one-size-fits-all recipe: in each country, those involved in a Territorial Pact should design it to reflect their local conditions, needs and starting points and provide for a monitoring and evaluation mechanism on which to base any revisions that might be needed.