The OMC inclusion and national social NGOs: From enthusiasm to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OMC inclusion is helpful in its original goal that is the reduction of poverty and socialexclusion.3.4 The European implementationAs indicated above, this part is more cautious as it also bears on the findings of otherresearchers. At the EU-level, there are two central places in which the OMC inclusionmaterialises: the Social Protection Committee (SPC) and its Indicator Sub-Group (ISG), bothconsisting of two national delegates per member states as well as two officials of theCommission which provide the secretariat. While the SPC is responsible for the politicalsteering of the three OMC processes (inclusion, health, pensions) and their furtherdevelopment, the ISG is a more technical group where political discussions basically do nottake place, but where attention is centred around the development of common indicators. Bothcommittees meet 9 – 10 times a year, mostly for a short day and in closed sessions. Other thanthese two committees, the Council of social affairs takes the main political decisions aboutthese OMCs, in closed sessions, and the Commission assures its role of coordinating theprocesses. As the official routes all take place in closed sessions, one could expect socialNGOs to particularly address the Commission in order to introduce and represent theirinterests. And indeed, an official of the Commission reported that “the bureau of the chairmanof the SPC generally meets the evening before a session. This is the occasion (for NGOs) tocome in” 31 . So, there seem to be two ways of participating in the process: in formal ways (ifadmitted to the closed sessions) or in informal ways (by lobbying the Commission).At the NGO side, there are two big organisations, which have accompanied the OMCinclusion at EU-level, EAPN and FEANTSA 32 . While EAPN is the federation of nationalpoverty conferences (national federation of poverty associations) and therefore has a quitebroad coverage of associations and issues, FEANTSA represents national associationsworking with the homeless. Both European organisations are almost totally funded by theCommission, which is therefore a privileged interlocutor.Turning to the formal way, consultation of NGOs has apparently been very limited. Thesecretariat of the Commission reported that FEANTSA participated several times in the SPC.31 Interview with former secretariat (2000-2005) of the SPC, June 2005.32 Fédération Européenne des Associations Nationales travaillant avec les Sans-Abris, an NGO that lobbies forthe homeless.
With what results, however, remains largely unclear. With respect to the ISG, only the officialfrom the Commission and the chairman of the ISG mentioned that, again, FEANTSA tookpart several times in the sessions whereas EAPN is reported to never have asked toparticipate 33 . This participation (and the lobbying of FEANTSA) seems to have slight impactsas the Commission commissioned a study about the appropriate definition of homelessnessand related EU-wide indicators. However, a consensus about indicators measuringhomelessness has not been found yet. Several national delegates stated that there has been noconsultation of NGOs, at the national level and with respect to the OMC indicators. Here, themain actors (besides the national delegates) are officials from Eurostat, OECD or people withan academic background. These findings are confirmed by Friedrich who found that noformal participation rules existed for NGOs and that a limited degree of access was possibleupon request (Friedrich 2002).As far as the informal way is concerned, both European NGOs have produced a number ofpapers, comments about and evaluations of this OMC 34 and evidently try to influence theCommission in informal meetings. Camarasa Casals reports that while EAPN criticises thelack of openness of this OMC, it still considers that it influences the process. Contrastingly,FEANTSA finds that mobilisation has more resembled information instead of realconsultation and that it did not have any impact on the EU agenda (Camarasa Casals 2005).4. ExplanationBefore turning to the explanation, let me briefly summarise the results. NGOs in both memberstates used the OMC inclusion in order to create structures to accompany the process andthrough which awareness raising about the European process could be developed; this wasparticularly remarkable in France where a major effort for gaining synergies was made. Inboth member states, they tried to mobilise regional and local actors beyond those mobilised(or not) by the central administrations, this time more so in Germany, without successhowever. In both cases, consultation by the central administrations was deemed insufficient,even though French NGOs perceived an improvement to previous years. Little if no learningoccurred through the NAPs which are perceived with great scepticism and as governmentalreports aligning measures already in place (see also Brandsen et al 2005), the process33 Interview with the secretariat of the ISG, 21.10.2005.34 These can be found at their respective web sites: www.eapn.org and www.feantsa.org.
Page 1 and 2: The OMC inclusion and national soci
Page 3 and 4: consideration. The picture is compl
Page 7 and 8: existing tasks. This seems to have
Page 9 and 10: develop a consultative mechanism. I
Page 11 and 12: whatsoever of the regions, départe
Page 13 and 14: NAPs only after their adaptation by
Page 15: found that the consultation process
Page 19 and 20: mobilisation of the constituencies
Page 21 and 22: More generally, it is not reasonabl
Page 23: Scharpf, Fritz, 2002, The European

The OMC inclusion and national social NGOs: From enthusiasm to ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?