· Web view- to build leadership and governance, ... The Conseil Superieur de Lutte contre la...

‘POVERTY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: BUILDING A COMMON VISION FOR ACTION’

EAPN CAPACITY BUILDING DAY - BRUSSELS, 27 September 2012

“Is the human being a core issue on the EU agenda?”

1

Background

The day was prepared by the EUISG group. The objectives were:

• To create a space for members to exchange at a time when cuts affecting organisations prevent them from taking the time to reflect on what is happening on the ground in these particularly hard times;

• To start a discussion to rebuild a vision likely to drive our fight in the coming years, after EAPN has gone through internal changes and renewal of members and is confronted with a changing environment;

• To start to prepare an input to the revision of the Poverty targets and indicators to happen in 2014 in the context of the Mid-term review of EU 2020.

It was attended by more than one hundred members (a maximum of 3 members from each network, including the EUISG member and a person/activist experiencing poverty).

The report gives a résumé of the presentations and discussions of the day, as well as conclusions. Presentations and key messages from the workshops are available on EAPN’s website on the members’ room, under EUIS Group/Capacity Building meeting.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE DAY........................................................................2

EU POVERTY TARGET AND EU INDICATORS: HOW FAR ARE THESE TOOLS INSTRUMENTAL IN REFLECTING THE REALITY AND FIGHTING POVERTY? - PLENARY SESSION......................................................................................................4

UNDERSTANDING THE REALITIES OF POVERTY TODAY, REBUILDING OUR VISION – WORSHOPS 11

Workshop 1 - Presentations from Poland, France, Eurohealthnet.................13

Workshop 2 - Presentations from Italian and Belgian Networks and Santé Mentale et Exclusion Sociale (SMES Europa) 18

Workshop 3 - Presentations from Portugal, Slovakia and Eurodiaconia.......23

Workshop 4 - Presentations from Greece, Denmark and the International Federation of Social Workers – Europe. 27

Workshop 5 - Presentations from Ireland, Cyprus and the FEANTSA.............32

Workshop 6 - Presentations from Bulgaria and the Netherlands...................35

2

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE DAY

Our vision

According to the respective situation and national context, the approach, definition and measurement of poverty may vary among EAPN members. However, members reiterated their commitment to the vision of poverty promoted by EAPN as still reflecting the broad range of their concerns today.

→ Both absolute and relative poverty is to be considered and combated.→ Growing poverty goes together with growing inequalities.→ Poverty is a multifaceted phenomenon, which can’t be reduced to

monetary poverty and attack to people’s rights.

Poverty today

Poverty is increasing appallingly in the EU and it is deeper than the official data says. Consequences are extremely serious as growing numbers of people can’t access decent standards of living, including proper food, heating, energy, housing, education, health and care services… Poverty and cuts are destroying families and affecting the development of children and the health status of people with consequences in the longer term. Moral and psychological consequences of poverty include isolation, lack of choice, lack of participation in social and cultural life, stigmatisation and mental health problems. The increase in suicides is a telling illustration of the despair people are confronted with.

We witness a rapid polarisation of our societies between the most vulnerable who are hit the most and the middle class – especially people working in the private sector - falling into precarity while the rich on the other hand get richer.

Increasing poverty goes together with the deterioration of social cohesion and of the functioning of our democracies, in a context of increased tensions and discrimination against vulnerable groups, increased stigmatization and criminalisation of people in poverty, hardship against benefits claimants, growing influence of far right movements and decreasing trust of citizens in institutions and policy makers.

The tendency among decision makers is to undermine the poverty issue and to not treat it as a priority.

Causes of poverty

Growing unemployment combined with cuts in social protection and disinvestment of States in core policies and public services are pushing people into poverty.

Women and young people are proportionally more affected and key target groups are concerned by additional risk factors (migrants, disabled, Roma, homeless, …)

Political choices made regarding challenging the model of the Social Welfare, (non) redistribution of wealth and (un) fair taxation policy are generating more poverty: poverty is a political choice, not an accident. It is not a problem of a lack of resources, but their distribution. Members have the feeling that poverty is admitted by decision-makers as a side effect of the race for competitiveness.

Policies

The general undercutting of social protection, the weakening of social rights and labour law are the dominant policies which generate poverty, together with the lack of quality jobs, and the unequal distribution of incomes, and redistribution measures

Although in some countries some positive measures are taken to alleviate the burden of poverty on the most vulnerable, members regret the general lack of an integrated approach against poverty

3

which alone could make the difference- eg. Active Inclusion. Social policies are far from delivering on the 2020 target.

The lack of access to adequate minimum income is even more needed today in the EU as numbers of people find themselves without any safety net.

Participation and stakeholder engagement are on a backward slide, with limited democratic involvement in key decisions.

The role of the EU is increasingly associated with Austerity, and is undermining trust in the EU or backing for more EU. Europe 2020 may offer opportunities, but is side-lined by economic governance

The lack of a clear EU integrated, participative strategy to fight poverty and social inclusion, backed by EU Funds, increasingly undermines chances of progress…

Measurements of poverty, indicators and targets

Existing EU indicators are very useful; particularly the full set developed through the Social OMC; they are still being refined and need to be worked in order to achieve progress regarding their comparability, timeliness and relevance.

The involvement of people experiencing poverty and their associations is crucial to highlight the gaps and identify new factors/indicators.

However these indicators, as a majority of national or regional indicators, fail to reflect the extent of the social impact of the crisis and of the austerity measures; they fail to describe the reality faced by the most vulnerable and the consequences of increased poverty, particularly the hardest to reach – eg migrants, homeless.. They should be complemented by quantitative and qualitative data at EU and national/regional level likely to reflect the reality of poverty today (including for example: difficulty to get adequately warm, requests for food aid, access to services, reversibility/depth and persistence of poverty, domestic violence…) as well as the reality of inequality, wealth and well-being in a given country.

Progress should be made to insure better comparability between data on poverty both at national level and at EU level.

NGOs working with people experiencing poverty are at the fore-front of the developments poverty makes. They are in a position to raise alert signals and to provide qualitative information on people and developments that are not described by the figures. They should be involved in the shaping and monitoring of poverty indicators and targets. Notably, EU indicators on severe deprivation should be reviewed in cooperation with anti-poverty NGOs.

The EU Target concept was seen as useful, particularly the 2 indicators on relative poverty and severe material deprivation. All 3 indicators, however, should be monitored separately to provide a truer picture of the reality.

Members are sceptical about the willingness of EU Members States to deliver on the 2020 target. The reasons why there is no progress to date towards this target should be debated and made a priority. If this target is to acquire some credibility, a strong commitment must be made to use all 3 indicators, and to set ambitious national targets, stringent review, with strong Country-specific Recommendations to back effective targets, policies and funding.

EU governments should shift their approach from destructive austerity to social investment, confirming a clear integrated strategy to fight poverty and social exclusion, based on rights.

The cost of inequality and poverty should be measured, as well as the costs of non-action and the benefits of investment.

4

EU POVERTY TARGET AND EU INDICATORS: HOW FAR ARE THESE TOOLS INSTRUMENTAL IN

REFLECTING THE REALITY AND FIGHTING POVERTY? - PLENARY SESSIONChair: Eric Marlier (CEPS/INSTEAD Institute, Luxemburg, Manager of the EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion

5

Aims of this specific session: Build capacity on EU definitions and measurement of Poverty and social exclusion; assess the current EU Social inclusion target and indicators - how has the target been implemented at national level and how could this be improved; and develop a common basis for an EAPN input into the Mid-Term review of Europe 2020 (2013-2014), with a particular focus on the social inclusion target and the possible revision of the EU indicators.

The Chair made a short introduction, first developing the reasons why it is crucial to measure poverty and social exclusion at EU level as well as at (sub-) national levels then giving an update on the new Europe 2020 Target indicator. He insisted it is crucial to measure poverty and social exclusion at EU level to compare the extent of poverty and social exclusion across countries, to determine progress made and to improve comparisons and mutual learning between countries.

Specific EU indicators are needed that complement national indicators: - They are used everywhere for a variety of purposes including in

the framework of international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations;

- They facilitate mutual learning from good and bad practices among Members States.

He recalled that the current EU framework for EU social protection and social inclusion (SP & SI) indicators was adopted in June 2006

based on the framework agreed in 2001 for the EU SI process. This framework was proposed by Atkinson, Cantillon, Marlier and Nolan in an academic study commissioned by the 2001

Belgian Presidency of the EU. 4 portfolios of EU indicators correspond to the 4 sets of objectives for the social OMC.He then made a series of remarks regarding the use of such specific EU indicators:- Close links are required between the design of social indicators and the questions that they are intended to answer;- A proper analysis of indicators must go beyond a simple comparison of national results, and benchmarking should be contextualised;- The primary focus of EU indicators is on Social outcomes, but input indicators are also important (e.g. expenditure and social transfers) to assess policy efficiency;- For allowing potential policy transfers, system-wide analysis is needed, taking into account the “how” and “why”.

He also clarified the content of the EUROPE 2020 Social Inclusion Target agreed upon in June. Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) are persons who are: at risk of poverty (AROP); and/or severely materially deprived (SMD), and/or living in households with very low work intensity (VLWI). People are counted only once even if they are in each of the three situations. In 2010 in the EU 27, of the 115,5 million people who are At Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion, 13,3 million combine the three problems.

He insisted on one positive aspect of the AROPE indicator: it takes into account different aspects of poverty and social exclusion, which means that, someone getting out of only one of the three problems but still suffering from one of the other two will still be counted (for example someone unemployed who gets a job which is not sufficient to lift him out of monetary poverty).

See full introduction by Eric Marlier on the EAPN Members’ Room, EUIS Group section, under Capacity building meeting.

6

Kornelia Kozovska, from the Secretariat of the Indicators Subgroup of the Social Protection Committee in DG Employment , gave an input on the state of play regarding EU indicators on social inclusion and social protection and the EU 2020 poverty and social inclusion target.

She explained that: EU social indicators are used for the monitoring of the Europe 2020 Strategy, in the reporting process part of EU cooperation on social inclusion and social protection as well as for in depth/specific policy work (e.g. child poverty) on behalf of the Commission and SPC.

She recalled the need for a multidimensional approach, including relative and absolute poverty and access to (quality) services, and the need to reflect an increasingly diverse Europe since enlargement and even more so today.

She reminded the meeting of the definitions of the 2020 target components: at risk of poverty rate: the share of people with an equivalised

disposable income being below the poverty threshold - after social transfer - which is set at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income

material deprivation: a measure of (absolute) poverty across the EU: persons who cannot afford at least 3/4 out of the following 9 items: to pay rent or utility bills, keep home adequately warm, face unexpected expenses, eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, a week holiday away from home, a car, a washing machine, a colour TV or a telephone

households with very low work intensity: a household having a work intensity below a threshold set at 0.20.; the work intensity of

a household is the ratio of the total number of months that all working-age1 household members have worked during the income reference year and the total number of months the same household members theoretically could have worked in the same period.

She also mentioned recent developments in the work on indicators: Improvement of the measure of material deprivation Developing a child deprivation measure Improving the use of work intensity as a measure of levels of

attachment to the labour market and its interrelation with the poverty status

Work on the timeliness of the dataWhat is the evolution of the components of the targets? Kornelia showed that between 2008 and 2010 (latest data available), the number of people facing risk of poverty has been stable (115 716 000 in 2010 against 115 186 000 in 2008) – but this may be due to the decrease of the level of the relative poverty line. The number of people facing deprivation decreased from 41 431 000 to 40 089 000. But the number of people living in jobless households rose from 34 267 000 to 37 861 000).

She then commented on a series of graphs reflecting the variety of national situations.

1 A working-age person is a person aged 18-59 years, with the exclusion of students in the age group between 18 and 24 years .

7

“The graph below shows the variety of national situations regarding the prevalence of monetary poverty and severe material deprivation”.

“The figure below shows the number of people falling under the three situations of the poverty and social exclusion target. 116 million of Europeans where are at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2010. They were 81 million facing at risk of poverty, 40 million facing severe material deprivation, 38 million living in jobless households.”

8

At risk of poverty Severe deprivation Jobless households

“Depending on the countries, the proportion of people facing one of these three situations varies as shown in the graph below: in Latvia deprivation prevails, in Italy relative poverty prevails, in Ireland the lack of employment prevails.”

“The graph below shoes that ambition levels are very different across Member States in terms of their contribution to the Europe 2020 Target.”

9

At risk of poverty81 mio

Jobless households38 mio

Severely materially deprived40 mio

Population at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2010 Target See Kornelia Kozovska’s full presentation on the EAPN Members’ Room,

EUIS Group section, under Capacity building meeting.DEBATE

The debate was introduced by three responses to the presentations.

Paul Ginnell from EAPN Ireland first recalled the position of EAPN regarding the Europe 2020 poverty target: While recognising its limitations and lack of ambition EAPN has

welcomed the existence of a poverty target and sees this as bringing more political and public attention to poverty and the measures of the EU and Member States.

EAPN has viewed the content of the target as an unsatisfactory compromise. We initially lobbied hard for our preference of retaining the ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator as the basis for the new target but EAPN recognized the value-added particularly of the material deprivation indicator which better captured deprivation in access to resources and services.

In the end we cautiously agreed to back the 3 indicators, as a reflection of the multidimensionality of poverty but key for EAPN is to

monitor closely the outcomes and its impact on the reduction of poverty.

He underlined however that political commitment is lacking in a context where policies are rather going the wrong way. If all Member States fulfil the ambition they’ve set there still will be a shortfall from the 20 million objective.

He developed the EAPN position as presented at a Peer review in Ireland in 2011. Issues raised included the need for targets to reflect the complexity and multidimensionality of poverty, the need to look at the three components of the target separately, the need to link the jobless household indicator to the issue of the quality of work, the need for sub-targets and specific focus on groups at risk, the need to avoid gaming and creaming, the need for using the target to facilitate engagement of civil society and fostered civil dialogue, the central issue of implementation

10

that must build on a wide range of policies, effective funding and stakeholder engagement.

Since 2011, members have expressed concerns regarding the lack of ambition of many of the poverty targets; the fact that MS can use any indicators they wanted resulted in many difficulties, lack of comparability of national targets chosen, the narrowing of the concept of poverty, the lack of sub targets focusing on specific groups.

Paul then focused on Ireland. EAPN Ireland is lobbying hard in favour of the visibility of people experiencing poverty, whose number has increased in the last 3years despite the fall in median incomes. EAPN Ireland also insists that different aspects of poverty become visible through different indicators. Ireland was one of the first countries to have a poverty target. But despite the target being set in 2010 to eliminate consistent poverty (a measurement of deepest poverty) by 2016, it has gone up by 50%, as a result of the lack of commitment and monitoring as well as the impact of the austerity policies.

Paul then mentioned that the 2014 Mid-Term Review of Europe 2020 will be an important opportunity to present our concerns about the impact of the targets and look for more political commitment. He listed the following demands arising from the EAPN assessment to date:

- Give the poverty target equal treatment to other targets;- Set specific sub-targets on key priority groups;- Monitor implementation transparently;- Ensure effective delivery.

In the end he raised some questions and challenges for discussion:1) Is the current EU poverty target a useful instrument to drive policy change to reduce poverty? What would we change? What else is needed?2) Are all 3 indicators used appropriately? Do they undermine or support the commitment to a multidimensional vision of poverty, based on the full set of OMC indicators?

3) Should the 3 indicators be used as an aggregate rather than addition?4) How can you stop MS cherry-picking the indicator that shows them in the most positive light (gaming)? or focusing on the most easily helped (creaming). 5) Would sub-targets be useful? For which groups and what indicator?6) Finally: How can we ensure that MS deliver through effective integrated strategies, backed by EU funding, that make a concrete impact on people’s lives?

See Paul Ginnell’s full input on the EAPN Members’ Room, EUIS Group section, under Capacity building meeting.

Liz Gosme from the FEANTSA reminded that a common framework on poverty as such is an achievement on the whole, with secondary and contextual indicators allowing for cross-country comparisons. She highlighted the two main limits of the Europe 2020 target: the risk of losing sight of the aspects that are not reflected in its three components, and the fact that the full reality of poverty is not taken into account, as some stay outside the statistics, notably the homeless. The FEANTSA recommends to keep the OMC, while adapting the conceptual framework, and being open to the use of new methodologies namely for the hard to reach groups.

Tadas Leoncikas from the Dublin Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions (Eurofound) made the following remarks:

His Foundation aims at drawing the attention of decision makers beyond monetary aspects;

An EU focus should be kept on emerging issues, such as the mobility of citizens, which is encouraged, but of which the consequences are not very well known;

11

As stated by EAPN, it is key to keep looking at the 3 strands separately;

A debate should be developed on the current definition of material deprivation;

We need to go beyond these indicators and try to provide the story behind them: on 29th November the Eurofound will launch a new European Quality of Life Survey including an index of perceived social exclusion and developed indicators on participation.

The following points were raised by participants:

There are strong limits to the capacity of the current indicators to describe the dramatic degradation of the situation:- In Greece, because the median income went down by 25% the

poverty indicator doesn’t capture the reality of the difficulties to survive and the widening inequalities;

- What we should look at is the widening of inequalities and the collapse of the middle class;

- The SMD measure is far too general and doesn’t reveal the reality of hunger (bad quality food, meals skipped…).

- We need a measure of participation to assess the level of growing disaffection of people from public space (today people don’t vote anymore …)

- Why compare one country to others if there is no way to change policies?

- Since there is no political commitment for the ambition to reduce the number of those in poverty by 20million, should we consider that the actual target is 12 million instead?

- A SPC report on Child Poverty contains a range of 30 indicators on Child Poverty? What about the indicators already existing within the OMC framework?

- Austerity laws are adopted that condemn people to poverty, with no poverty proofing or participation of people concerned.

- Why shift from 3 to 4 items in the measure of material deprivation? Why is it so difficult to create indicators likely to capture the lack of access to basic needs?

- Why is the Joint Assessment Framework not a transparent and participative process?

Eric Marlier made the following responses:- The 20 million target is still followed. The 2020 target is based on 2008

data, i.e. the most recent data available when the EU target was agreed upon. The agreement with the MS was that each should set (at least) one national social inclusion target. A MS could set a target based on one, two or all three components of the EU target. Alternatively, it could set a national target not based on any of the EU target’s component but would then need to indicate by how many people his country will contribute to the 20 million target through reaching its national target.

- The standard EU indicator of material deprivation is based on a 3-item threshold: a person is materially deprived if he/she lives in a household that lacks at least 3 items out of a list of 9 items. This indicator remains an EU indicator and provides an extremely useful complement to the income poverty threshold. In the EU social inclusion target, the threshold was increased from 3 to 4 items; with a 3-item threshold material deprivation measure, the percentage of people “at risk of poverty or social exclusion” would have been much too large in a number of countries to make it a useful indicator (and the 20 million EU objective would quite likely have been kept, making it much less ambitious).

- Two new indicators of material deprivation have been developed by experts belonging to the EU-funded research network “Second Network for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC2)”: one for the adult population and one specifically focused on children. These indicators include more items and cover more dimensions of deprivation (e.g. social deprivation). Guio, A.-C., Gordon, D. and Marlier, E. (2012),

12

“Measuring material deprivation in the EU: Indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators”, Eurostat Methodologies and working paper, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-12-018/EN/KS-RA-12-018-EN.PDF. Access to services is of major importance and should be monitored at EU level. But it cannot be satisfactorily covered in a material deprivation indicator; it requires one or more specific indicator(s).

- Child deprivation: the SPC report is an advisory report that will feed into the process leading to an agreement on an EU Recommendation on Child Poverty. It contains some new indicators as well as some indicators already in the OMC portfolio.

Kornelia Kozovska made the following responses:- All EU social indicators are continuously monitored, not only the

components of the Europe 2020 target;- The Commission tries to push Member States to involve stakeholders

and set high ambitions: address them also from your side;- In general, the Commission encourages Member States to do impact

assessments (including of social impacts) and take account of social impacts when putting forward policy reforms;

- The SPC has expressed its interest in working together with the Commission on social impact assessment;

- Work is on-going to further develop measures of access to services; it is a long process, but for example there is already have an indicator on childcare participation. Reference to national data is, of course, possible even if not strictly comparable.

Paul Ginnell added that we need a target that reflects reality and that we need a better connection between data, targets and policies.

Eric Marlier concluded the session with the following points:- It is agreed that the social inclusion target is a major step, however

data show a worrying evolution;- MS should be lobbied so that they link their national target and EU

2020 target;- There should be a clear signal that the EU should deliver and reaction

to the current shortfall of 8 million compared to the objective of 12 million;

- The monitoring of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy may not be limited to that of the EU social inclusion target. It needs to be based on all commonly agreed EU indicators for social protection and social inclusion; in this respect, the Joint Assessment Framework, developed jointly by the Social Protection Committee, the Employment Committee and the European Commission, provides a major monitoring and analytical tool;

- We should communicate correctly on targets;- The OMC should be kept;- There is a willingness at the EU level to capture better the reality on

the ground, notably of homeless and Roma, this should be pursued;- The use of indicators of comparative analysis should be

complemented with qualitative data;- It is not sure if everything can be monitored at the EU level along

common guidelines (for example participation); - We need progress on social impact assessment;- SPC and Employment Committee should better communicate about

the Joint Assessment Framework.

UNDERSTANDING THE REALITIES OF POVERTY TODAY, REBUILDING OUR VISION – WORSHOPS

13

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-12-018/EN/KS-RA-12-018-EN.PDF

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-12-018/EN/KS-RA-12-018-EN.PDF

Workshops were organised for the larger part of the day that gave space to members for exchanging on realities and discussing EAPN’s vision. Given the renewal in the membership of EAPN and the challenging times, do we need to adapt or develop new messages? How can we build a new vision for action?

Introduction: What is the current vision of poverty promoted by EAPN?

Sian Jones recalled EAPN’s current vision of poverty and social exclusion:

What is poverty?

There is a lack of consensus and political priorities tend to reduce the number of people considered poor;

Poverty can be both absolute and relative; Growing poverty is linked to growing equalities; Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon; The reality of poverty needs to be better captured.

How is poverty caused?

There are structural causes to poverty, not only individual: « Persistence of poverty in wealthy EU suggests poverty is primarily a consequence of the way society is organized + resources allocated »

What is at stake is the unequal distribution and redistribution of income, wealth, access to rights, resources and services

Additional « at risk » factors concern key target groups Poverty means also exclusion from participation in society

How is poverty measured?

Measurement reflects debate on definitions and on political priorities;

Relative poverty: at risk of poverty is set at 60% of the median household disposable income;

Absolute poverty: 2 dollars a day; (severe) Material Deprivation: lack of access to basic goods and services;

Within the social OMC, a broader set of indicators reflects the multidimensionality of poverty;

Does the Europe 2020 poverty target narrow the debate?

What do we want?

• Everybody has a right to a dignified life• More equal societies do better.• Adequate income including living wages + adequate minimum

income/social protection • Universal access to public services (affordable health, education,

housing, social services...)• Right to access to quality work, through Active Inclusion• Fairer Society – redistribution + tax justice, fighting inequality and

anti-discrimination• Participation and Empowerment at the heart

What role for the EU?

• Safeguarding or undercutting our social model?• EU Legal basis for framework of social rights and standards or

subsidiarity?• Is Europe 2020 driving delivery on poverty/ social targets or a

neo-liberal economic model, dismantling welfare states through economic governance?

14

• The EU Social Open Method of Coordination worked towards Common Social Objectives+ promoting mutual learning: where are we now?

What can we do?

• Work with people experiencing poverty to develop solutions and organize for change.

• Engage in civil dialogue to develop effective EU/national anti-poverty strategies…

• Raise awareness and visibility of reality of poverty and impact of current policy

• Exchange/Mutual learning• Campaign and Alliances for alternative models

See Sian Jones’ full input on the EAPN Members’ Room, EUIS Group section, under Capacity building meeting

Content of the workshops

The workshops were introduced by national networks and European organisations presentations focusing on:

- What poverty means today;- Recent developments re poverty in your country (trends, intensity, forms, groups…) in the last year and impact of policies.- Indicators/ data used for reflecting the reality of poverty on the ground.

The present report summarizes the main learning and discussion points in the workshops.

Presentations as well as key points presented by the workshop in the plenary session are accessible on the EAPN Members’ Room,

EUIS Group section, under Capacity building meeting.

15

Workshop 1 - Presentations from Poland, France and Eurohealthnet

Key points from the presentations

Polish network French network Eurohealthnet

What does poverty mean today?

- Invention of social exclusion term is rather recent and it was imported from European Union documents at the time of accession (2002-2004)

- Most people in Poland don’t understand what social exclusion means (survey from 2009)

- Multiple material deprivation is very recent, and probably majority don’t understand its meaning

- Poverty is increasingly considered as related to laziness

Under the Polish social assistance law:- To be recognised as poor, household should

have income lower than income threshold specified in law (it is indexed every three years)

- To be eligible for social assistance benefits, a family (household) should be poor and meet at least one another condition from the fourteen-point list e.g.:

- Unemployment, disability, to be victim of natural catastrophe, crisis situation, orphan

- Statistical definition: poverty threshold = 964€ / for a single person

- According to NGOs= not having access to fundamental rights

- According to the Conseil Consultatif des personnes accueillies (consultative body representing people in shelters) = not having enough for daily life

- Poverty is on the rise: + 400 000 people below the line in 2010

- NGOs witness increase in the number of requests for food aid, unpaid energy bills, minors living in the street.

16

hood, addiction, Chronic or severe illness, helplessness in family matters, family violence, homelessness…

Causes of poverty

- No access to minimum income for the 18-25 year olds

- No right to work for asylum seekers- Unemployment being ‘accepted’ as

variable of adjustment, employment creation lacking

- Access to care becoming more difficult

The condition in which people are born, grow, live, work and age mostly shape health status.

The social determinants of health and therefore policy choices are mostly responsible for the unfair and avoidable differences in health status within and between countries, in terms of life expectancy, health reported as good, healthy life years:

- At EU level there is 4 to 6 years difference in life expectancy between high and low socio-economic groups;

- The cost of care is the first reason for unmet medical and dental needs;

- The crisis impact on health is twofold: cuts in health, care and prevention budget and lower income of households and unemployment leading to lowering living conditions, increased mental health issues, less user’s budget for health, less healthy behaviour

Recent developments and impact of policies

17

New government ideas for social assistance reform, 2012

- Introduction of social and care vouchers - Three instead of one poverty thresholds

(e.g. one for able-bodied, one for old and one for disabled)

- Possibility for outsourcing social work to non-public sector and quality standards (social work and social services agencies)

- Separation of social work and social assistance benefits proceedings

- New role for social assistance offices – coordination

- New roles for social workers (e.g. community worker)

- New rules of co-payment for families having their members in institutional care

- After the elections of a socialist government, an inter-ministerial conference has been announced in December 2012 to discuss a 2013 plan. But doubts surround the financial means associated with this initiative

- EAPN FRANCE demands that the 2020 objectives that are not achievable are replaced by reformulated realistic objectives.

We need for the future:- to build leadership and governance,

- to build capacity,

- to keep raising awareness across all sectors

and develop inter-sectoral partnership at all

levels.

Monitoring of poverty – Indicators used – Proposals to put forward to improve system of indicators and data

- 2,5 million people in extreme poverty- Poverty lines in Poland’s statistical office

reports:- Dimension for calculating poverty lines:

expenditures of households

- Three poverty lines for calculating poverty rates:

- Extreme poverty line based on subsistence minimum methodology

- Official poverty line from social assistance act based on social minimum

- The 60% threshold is discussed: why not 40 or 50%?

- 16 indicators are used which are strongly debated: according to them poverty is decreasing!

- The Conseil Superieur de Lutte contre la Pauvreté is discussing the “reste à vivre” (remaining income after bills are paid) as a measure of poverty;

- The following elements should be better monitored: difficulties to get adequately warm, over indebtedness, rural poverty,

18

methodology but closer to subsistence minimum in level (from 2004, previously it was based on minimum pension, from 1996 only on amount specified in social assistance law)

- Relative poverty line based on 50 percent of average expenditures

in work poverty, 18-25 in poverty, poverty of those in precarious employment.

- The interest of investing in social is not publicised enough: the return on investment of social expenses is 2 € for 1€ (source: Conseil National de l’Insertion par l’Activité Economique)

Key points from the discussion

On poverty• Last report from Caritas in Spain shows that poverty is more and more

intense and that the social situation is deteriorating extremely rapidly. Budgets cuts are among the first causes: for example there is no more subsidies for allowing children in poverty to get their lunch from the school;

• Hardening of the attitudes towards the poor and social values reconsidered whereas the countries has a tradition of generous welfare (IE);

On policy-making and the impact of policies• Programme implemented by government doesn’t help people to stand

up; alcoholism remains a major problem; young people want to emigrate (LT);

• Programmes implemented don’t achieve expected results; in times of crisis it is even more difficult to talk about poverty and to fight against poverty, with the crisis as an excuse for not investing in social when spending on banks is 12 time more than before (BE);

• Need to help people not only with money but also with learning (LT);

On measurement of poverty and indicators• A growing number of government members press for considering

children poverty only from an absolute point of view in an approach tending to undermine the phenomenon (SE);

• In a rich country, relative poverty is not really considered, and poverty is stigmatised (LUX);

• In Macedonia, statistics used are not harmonised with EU ones; groups most at risk are large families, unemployed, Roma, people without qualification;

• Keeping the measure of relative poverty is important to press ‘rich’ country to still make some efforts (FR);

• Qualitative approach should always complement the quantitative approach; NGOs are totally overwhelmed by demands (SP);

• 2020 objectives are not realistic, we should acknowledge this and discuss the reason why (LT);

• In Poland poverty means material deprivation: the polish tradition of thinking about poverty does not coincide with the EU indicators of relative poverty;

• The choice of indicators used is not so important: most important is progress against the 2020 target, that should be monitored publicly (PL)

• Gini coefficient should be more often used (BE)• In Belgium: participative work on budget standards shows that for a

dignified life you need 200 more than the poverty threshold.

19

Key messages from the workshop

1. Both absolute and relative measurements of poverty are needed to fit with diverse national traditions and contexts

2. NGOs should be closely involved in the shaping and monitoring of poverty indicators and targets. We should lobby in this direction

3. Stigmatisation of people in poverty is increasing with the crisis/austerity measures

4. Growing poverty and polarisation of societies undermine social cohesion and lead to social disaffectedness (emigration, no vote...)

5. Disinvestment in core policies (employment, social services, housing, education, prevention) is in some countries the rule rather than the exception

6. Recommendation to invest in social innovation and social economic experimentation

Workshop 2 - Presentations from Italian, Belgium and Santé Mentale et Exclusion Sociale (SMES Europa)

20

“Poverty means feeling insecure and losing trust”2

“Poverty is a creation, a product of the society. Poor should not be helped but poverty should be eradicated.”“Lots of people facing poverty do not see themselves poor.”3


Italian Network Belgium Network SMES Europa

What does poverty mean today? Risk of falling into poverty/precarity is

really high especially for people in the private sector, industry and SMEs whereas people in the public sector are still not yet hit directly.

Poverty means insecurity, precariousness, losing trust in the central State and public institutions, people feel insecure, and feel at a growing distance from the values promoted by the State.

EAPN analysed the current circumstances of poverty in Italy but we lack along-term vision.

Along with organisations and associations, EAPN NN experiences cuts in EC programmes and national government.

Maybe EAPN - despite NN are very much ahead in terms of reflection-is too far away from realities on the ground.

Social exclusion is central but poverty is a result and a cause of social exclusion. We should not talk about poor as a category of people but to talk about poverty in relation with social exclusion.

We need to fight social exclusion to eradicate poverty.

The Belgian delegation doesn’t want the word poverty to be used too much. Because it comes above and not from PeP themselves. We do not feel poor ourselves but rather socially excluded

To be poor is to be destitute, deprived from means that empower you, possibility for you to make choices for a dignified life, for the well-being of your family and being stigmatised.

It could lead to negative outcome: more poverty and social exclusion. To get out of poverty, need access to psychological, economic, and social well-being.

Causes of poverty Among the major causes of poverty is Lack of knowledge: people don’t have Shift towards severe poverty can be very

2 Italian network3 Belgian network

21

the lack of a global, comprehensive vision of policy, along with action plans. Each Italian Institution (central, regional levels) just wants to achieve their objectives and hardly communicate with each other.

The impact of the lack of strategy is first a very high unemployment rate and lack of real social protection for poor families.

Overall unemployment rate is around 10% with two very vulnerable groups: young people from 16 to 24 years, women from 25 to 45 years

access to relevant information, young children, growing up in a family in situation of poverty/social exclusion, are not stimulated to read a lot: this goes against their success in school.

Structural causes, even if individual responsibility exists

fast if no support given. Well-being at risk when your dignity is impacted.

Such a gap between the rhetoric and reality. EAPN should address this, root causes of poverty. It is a civic, human problem first, a problem of cohesion, solidarity. Some particular attention given to severe poverty and ill-being. Training on Fundamental Rights, deprivation of Rights.


Italian Prime Minister said that we could see the light at the end of the tunnel. In last months, weeks, days, policy-making has not delivered at all.

At national level we only hear about austerity measures and budget cuts.

EAPN Italy supported the organisation of a 2-day working event on social situation in IT and EU with an organisation working with People experiencing poverty.

Right to unemployment benefits depend on whether you are self-employed – which means you can’t have unemployment benefits - or salaried – you are entitled to a percentage of your previous income. No minimum income.

Energy poverty went up, As did the poverty risk in lower middle

class Criminalisation of people experiencing

poverty (‘social fraud’, Communal Administrative Sanctions ‘feeling of insecurity linked to people sitting in the street....)

Policies are producing and reproducing poverty and growing inequalities.

Some measures are fine on paper but in practice it is difficult to claim one’s rights (for example with the heating subvention of the OCMW)

Plans are made but there is no accountability

22


23

• Poverty is measured through the method of EU SILC (statistics on income and living conditions).

• Data managed by National Institute for stat.

• With a poverty rate remaining stable around 11 % over last 10 years, this measurement is clearly not reflecting the reality.

• It should reduce number of poor people by 2,2 M people as contribution to the 2020 target.

• Italy will need to build a national data system to monitor and plan the social actions to cross social data bases, fiscal, and social security (source NRF 2012)

• Italy should build a national strategy (politics) and policy in cooperation with regional level

• Alternative data systems exist but only at local level.

• Projects monitoring social protection systems focusing on MI.

• Governance is an issue at EU, national, regional levels.

• Data collection could be improved through integrating systems of identification of needs, systems collecting data in various sectors, including social cohesion, education, training, health, social services…

• A social minimum standard should be set to prevent poverty

Process of linking all these indicators, which is positive.

A week ago, new national action plan on poverty approved – not concrete translation of this target.

Lobby for sub-targets: many meetings with Ministries about the kind of sub-targets – they got rid of all the sub-targets. Worrying as then no sub-targets and yearly targets.

We prefer the budget standard methodology (what you need to live a dignified life): need for distinguishing between real relative poverty and official one.

Lack of sub-targets, yearly targets, targets for this legislation

Still groups are not in the statistics, as for example homeless people and undocumented migrants.

Europe 2020 Target: Belgium should contribute with getting 380 000 persons out of poverty.

The Government is engaged in the indicators group

Tendency to get rid of problems by getting people out of the statistics like people who are unemployed (after some time, people get sanctions, thenthey’re out of the system and out of the number of unemployed.)

24

• A coordinated strategy against poverty should be built.


On poverty• Children in Estonia happen to lack proper food whereas it is extremely

rare in Belgium• The criminalization of poverty is increasing. Stigmatization prevents

people asking for social benefits (FR, BE)• Middle class people now at risk of poverty tend to move close to right

wing parties• Mental illness is not only a health issue but also a social issue.• The reality of poverty is much worse than reflected by the statistics

(FYROM, IE), • Groups hit the most are youth, women, ethnic minorities (FYROM, FR)

people with low education (FYROM), people living in rural areas (FYROM, FR) the elderly (FR, IE) large families (FYROM)

• Increase in the poverty rate reflects the reality (FR)• In Macedonia the unemployment rate is at 31 %. Most threatening: it

has been at this level for10 years. Allowances only are helping families to survive.

• Poverty is clearly increasing (IT, FR, BE…)• Need groups at risk: students, farmers who in addition suffer from

isolation (FR)

On policy-making and the impact of policies• What does public opinion say about poor people? What is the link

between representation of poverty in the public opinion and policy-

making? Poor don’t have any power; politicians may be interested in them at election time. We should work to change the representations of PEP.

• Some people from the middle class facing risk of poverty but move towards more right-oriented parties; criminalization of poverty is becoming mainstreamed and it is becoming common to blame PeP.

• Importance to consider and tackle the social aspects of mental disorders. What is needed? Improved system of education to combat the increase in the number of school drop-outs. (FR)

• Non take-up is a big problem: people are afraid to be stigmatised as social aid users – lots of people who are eligible for this allowance are afraid of finding a job and losing this allowance. (FR)

• The new government is quite sympathetic to our claims but lacks resources. EAPN working groups want to be involved in the decision-making on 5 topics of the5-years anti-poverty plan to be adopted. (FR)

On measurement of poverty and indicators• Measurement should also apply to sustainability of poverty and level

of dissatisfaction. (IT)• A country well-being indicator should be developed.• Wealth should be included in these indicators• We should look at poverty less as something connected to a person,

but more to something related to an unequal system. This means a shift of paradigm, from concentrating on PeP to looking more at the causes of poverty within different sub-groups (BE)

• The relative poverty rate has fallen from 10 – 11 to 8 -9 % since the crisis, because the median income went down (IS)

• Iceland put in place a good process after the crisis: the ‘”Welfare watch” including different ministries, NGOs, Trade-Unions, Employers,

25

meet every 2nd week, monitoring the situation of those most hit by the crisis. It is a good process.

• Severe material deprivation: EAPN should demand to be involved during designing the new items of the new indicators (FR)

• Poverty is much deeper than the statistics says (FYROM)• In Macedonia, relative poverty is based on the relative standard of

70% minimum equivalent expenditure (of one household). It is said to concern 1,3 million (30% of population).

• 2011: assessment of measurement of poverty according to EU indicators. 44% of the population are concern by at least one of the 3 EU indicators and 7,2% population affected by the 3 indicators.

• Measurement should include reversibility/persistence of poverty. The circumstances under which people fall into poverty should be analysed.

• Progress should be made at the EU level on common criteria for defining adequate income building on academic research on-going.

• Impact of the crisis in terms of migration is not taken into account.• Very difficult to use the indicator ‘household with very low work

intensity’ given the extent of informal work (IT).

• We need another set of ‘real indicators’ that reflect the reality of people’s needs.

• EU indicators difficult to use at the local level in Italy.


1. Poverty is an outcome of social exclusion and social exclusion is an outcome of poverty: it is crucial to promote equal access to knowledge on a binding basis.

2. Strategic vision is lacking at Government level: as a result those who are the most vulnerable are hit the most

3. It is important to strengthen the link between EAPN Europe and National Networks to get a better understanding of the realities on the ground

4. Indicators are needed that would reflect people’s access to their rights as well as people’s awareness of their rights; and indicators regarding persistence and flows of poverty.

5. A set of local indicators should complement the national ones 6. EAPN should be associated to the updating of the poverty indicators

(especially the severe material deprivation one).

26

Workshop 3 - Presentations from Portugal, Slovakia and Eurodiaconia

“Now, in Portugal, poverty is decreed by law. It's all legal.” Helder, Portugal

“The words Roma and maladjusted are used interchangeably.” “Instead of providing public housing, what we have is mass-scale demolition of self-built undocumented accommodations.”

Zuzana - Slovakia


Portuguese network Slovakian Network Eurodiaconia

Causes of poverty• Unemployment • Poor quality jobs (i.e. precarious)• Low wages / pensions / low income• Informal economy / absence of rights/social

protection• Low levels of education and skills• The size and type of family, gender• Disability or ill-health• Roma and immigrants/ undocumented migrants• Living in a remote /disadvantaged community• No access to justice

“Overnight, the Government decides to condemn more and more people to poverty.”

“Minimum income is a sentence to misery”


27

• Increased risk of being exposed to poverty, with the combination of growing unemployment and cuts in salaries, increased taxes and reduced social and unemployment benefits;

• The rate of poverty risk of employees in Portugal, is the third largest in the European Union and is rising: in 2010, almost 31% of employees were considered poor or at risk of being poor.

A study by the European Commission indicated that these measures have had a disproportionately negative impact on the poorest of the country’s population; (Social Situation Observatory – Living Conditions and Income Distribution 2011):

• The most vulnerable social groups have been the hardest hit by austerity measures implemented in Portugal (particularly children, the elderly and Roma);

• The risk of poverty is now more and more generalized, with increasing severity amongst the most fragile.

Impact of Government Policy• An economy under structural adjustment• Increasing tax burden and inequality• Labour Market severely affected by

unemployment and precariousness• A more expensive cost of living• The non-registered economy - 25,4% of GDP in

2011 (OBEGEF, FEP, 2011), comparing to 9,4% of GDP in 1970.

Implementation of the 2020 targets:• Lack of ambitions• Employment Increase is the only highlighted

antipoverty objective in the Slovak NRP but practical steps are postponed after reassessment of the present active employment measures

• Missing sub-targets for children, people living in poverty

• Focus on reduction of deficit at the expense of access to services, adequacy of income

• Missing evaluation of policies• Despite high unemployment, low salaries and low

social protection expenditures (in 2009 18.8% of GDP) Important cuts in employment policies (education and training programmes, contribution to commuting to work…)

• Access to education: weakness of the policies- Share of expenditures for education under the

EU27 average, various negative impacts;- Missing ambition to increase the share of 3-5

year-old children in kindergarten (less than 20 % of children from families on social benefit attend);

- Missing ambition to introduce Roma language as language of instruction (or mastery of teacher assistants), though 58 % of Roma households use Roma language on daily basis

- Insufficient scale of teacher assistants programme (1 assistant per more than 1 hundred disadvantaged pupils in average)

Despite low number of dwellings, low number of public rental flats (less than 3% of housing stock) and desperate situation in Roma marginalised communities support of public housing

Some developing concerns:• Over indebtedness • Roma• Intra-EU migration and

destitution• Austerity measures and

shrinking social spending

Increasing demand for services:• The three consecutive

Eurodiaconia studies revealed that Eurodiaconia members have clearly experienced an increasing demand for services, especially debt counselling, emergency financial support, food aid and employment advice.

“Our members simply have to make choices. They can't keep up with the

provision of all services that are required of them, and they have to choose who to

refuse. This is very hard. How do you choose between providing food, roofing,

or counselling?”

28

construction is been planned to be 0 in 2012 and 2013.

• National Strategy for Integration of Roma Community was approved by the Government in January 2012 but work on action plans has been halted

• Roma communities increasingly criminalised; Roma called „maladjusted“ in official documents (Union of towns and villages) - Ministry of interior is in charge of working out policy framework for Roma communities


The National Statistics Office (INE) uses the Europe 2020 poverty target indicators - relative poverty, severe material deprivation and low work intensity.

• The indicators/data do not fully portray the situation in Portugal;

• The media report about the evolution of over-indebtedness, food aid requests, school support requests, domestic violence and others;

• The available statistical data gives us a delayed portray of poverty (school drop-out), which is often incomplete

• EAPN Portugal collects the existing official data, analyses and distributes to its members documents related to the Poverty Indicators;

• Indicators and Data are extensively used in workshops, seminars, conferences and other events where EAPN Portugal participatesEAPN Portugal is also trying to develop a series of Alert Indicators4 (Regional level).

All poverty indicators for Slovakia are rather favourable (under the EU-average) => Reduced political attention, unwillingness to define poverty as public issue and not individual (group/ethnic problem) or policies postponed to „better times“

We need infrastructural indicators such as availability of community service facilities, number of houses per 1 thousand inhabitants, number of pupils per teacher measuring availability and access to services

Statistical coverage of most disadvantaged should be in focus at least in the same way as technical issues of improving poverty indicators.

29


On poverty• The media focuses on tragic stories, because they sell; the essence of

the issues goes uncaptured;

On policy-making and the impact of policies• Project to pass a law to define financial services and how banks

negotiate the spread of mortgage loans; if this passes, it would be a good thing (PT);

• 20% cuts in subsidies for cancer and AIDS medicines; pharmacies are closing down...(PT)

• We export products which were previously imported, but there is no demand on the internal market, so they get exported (cars, medicines...)(PT);

• Participation is more than writing a letter, coming to a meeting or shouting in the streets – it is all that, but especially, it means being part of the process;

On measurement of poverty and on indicators• More and more people sleeping in cars or using common showers –

no information or statistics on this;• Lisbon Poverty Observatory – Sergio is involved;• Norway is flooded with people (many Greeks, Spanish, Portuguese...)

who come to seek work;• -Support to the idea of developing indicators of accessibility of goods

and services;• We focus so much on the problem and indicators of the problem,

whereas we should be spending more time on monitoring and developing indicators for the solutions.


1. Current indicators do not capture realities on the ground – we need improved, alternative, evidence-based ones.

2. Indicators need to go hand in hand with the active participation of people experiencing poverty.

3. Too much focus on monitoring the problem, not enough on monitoring the solutions.

4. Need to spread information, build arguments, raise awareness and empower people to take an even more active role.

5. REVO-SOLUTIONS!

4 Including for example: number of businesses at risk of closing / closed; of closed NGO’s; of NGO’s at risk; of over-indebted families; number of food aid requests; of Evictions; number of medical prescriptions partially fulfilled / non fulfilled; of suicides; of poverty related diseases (ex. tuberculosis);of support requests at schools…

30

Workshop 4 -Presentations from Greece, Denmark and the International Federation of Social Workers – Europe

“The EU is producing the poverty they are measuring” (Greek network)


Danish network Greek network IFSW-Europe


• It is pointless to talk about poverty without talking about money and finances! Low income and material deprivation in relation to the generally accepted level of society is a significant part of the experience of being poor.

• Lack of a life that looks like everyone else. • Poverty is also a feeling that we give to

our children if they are born in poverty – not only about money.

• The south of Europe is burning and that is an issue for Europe. Is the reality of poverty and the means, i.e. tools, concepts, policies adequate in our country? For Greece, clearly they are not any longer.

• Poverty impact on people with disability.• Corrupted Welfare State and red tape are

huge obstacle to access rights; • 37% of small employers in Greece went

bankrupt. They don’t have unemployment

• A project comparing realities of social work showed already a difference of life-expectancy for people and children living in deprived areas since the crisis.

• 95% of the issues social workers deal with are caused by poverty

31

benefits, nor health insurance, only extreme debts. Corruption and tax evasion at high level is not challenged but blamed on these groups.

Causes of poverty

• 3 main causes: unemployment, health problems and low education. Sometimes substance abuse is another important factor. 3 questions now: Minimum income? Minimum wages? Working poor?

• Traditional solutions for inclusion rely on the elements listed above; holistic solutions build on job as a motivation for inclusion

• Inequality has been growing, to 40% more poverty than some years ago.

• The pressure is too high and the balance between self-interest and concern for the others is wrong in our society.


• The tax reform is generating more inequalities

• One of the biggest solidarity movements was to reduce working time. When fighting poverty we want to build up solidarity attitude and support also among politicians.

• Demonization process of minority groups (migrants, single parents, LGTB groups, people with disability).

• Extreme right Golden Dawn got 6% of votes and they would get 9% now. They organize attack squads at night on the vulnerable groups -increase in hate crimes

• Free healthcare used to be guaranteed for all; now hospitals are closing, lack of medical providers and supplies. Expensive operations are not performed any longer.

• Big number of deaths from easily treatable procedures/treatment.

• A pensioner has to survive on €360/month.

• For UK Thatcher admitted that poverty is there and cannot be cured and Blair just contributed to increased inequalities. T. Blair said “social workers are part of the problem”!• The vision of a better welfare system is being

challenged by current governments.

32

• Last year there have been 2500 suicides, which is a 3000% increase from 2008

• The bailout increased the debt from 120% to more than 180% of GDP in 2010 at ludicrous interest rates to all creditors.


• State: People living in long-term jobless households and their children.

• Economists prefer OECD’s 50 % limit.• New governmental expert group, aim:

propose different limits and measurement methods to follow poverty development, especially among children and long-time poor.

• The Danish network suggests: - EU 60 % + National minimum household

budget. - Children living in poverty - People living in long-term jobless

households and their children. - Health, abuse- Physical, mental or social disabilities - Low or no education - Interventions: Holistic social and health

care, training and education, flex jobs, social enterprises.

- Prevention?- Minimum income? Minimum wages?

Working poor?

• Suicide rate is an important alert indicator

• The Social Centre of Greece states that more than 30% of the population faces relative poverty. It is actually higher.

• We understood the concept of poverty as never having understood poverty or conceptualized it in the sense of rights. Need to change this debate into another understanding.

• New government set up an expert group to have national definition of poverty.

• Meanwhile all benefits have been reduced. There’s a prevailing idea among liberal and among some social democrat politicians that wages should generally be lowered.

• Europe 2020 is not a relevant strategy for the country and it’s not an important issue for any member state.

• Not an issue of how we measure poverty – the issue is if and how we accept, as a society, all these measures that are creating more deepening poverty.

33


On poverty• 11 places around Denmark helping young people (in relation to school,

shelter etc…). It’s not only money that helps homeless people, rather help from the heart. First people themselves need to decide what they need to do in order to get off the streets and then the others should see what support they can give.

• Poverty has a tremendous cost• Change of government, completely different from last one, so waiting

to see what they will do. There’s about 25% unemployment level and about 14% poverty rate. However, poverty is much worse among

• Roma, internally displaced persons (due to Kosovo conflict), migrants – they live in collective centres, bad housing, have no employment, high illiteracy and school dropout rates (SR)

• People with disabilities and foreign women in single-parent households are particularly suffering from the crisis. However children’s situation has really improved since the crisis (strong state support, parents spend more time with children etc) (IS)

• Consumerism drove people into taking big loans before the crisis which made their situation much worse during the crisis (IS)

• Housing is an issue because people used to build their own houses, no public housing. Because they have repossessed many houses, the banks are controlling the prices (IS)

• Poverty is currently a big issue in the media in Germany because Social Ministry published the draft Poverty and Wealth report (every 4 years). There is less engagement in preparing this report of other ministries and the Commerce ministry disagrees with the content (DE)

• Very high unemployment in some parts of Malmo area (and among migrants communities) (SE)

• Children living in poor households, unemployed people without an address are caught in a bad system, homeless persons (SE)

• Social assistance going down (3-level support system). Last year 50.000 lost their insurance benefits (long-term unemployed) (SE)

• No absolute poverty, no homeless (people without own houses but still with roof over their heads). One-parent families, pensioners and migrants are mostly touched. Mainly because a rather strong welfare state, supporting economically vulnerable groups (CY)

• Young unemployed are mainly supported by their families (no economic independence) – a sign of poverty.

• The rich don’t have an idea of what it means to live in minimal situations. The pain and suffering people go through is underestimated.

On policy-making and the impact of policies• It’s clear that these cuts have a direct impact on democracy and

stability. Greece is not far from the Middle East conflicts… • The Prime Minister of the UK (6th richest nation in the world) wants

more austerity and says we cannot afford to care for older people!• Politicians claim that the State should decrease expenses in public

sector in relation to benefits. (CY)• Public support to migrants seems to generate racism. (CY)• Cuts in the public sector affect the private sector (compromising

workers’ rights – low wages, bad work conditions etc). This will progressively affect what people consider to be normal living conditions in Cyprus. This shows that it is possible to go backwards in terms of Welfare States and workers’ rights (CY)

• The conditions imposed by external creditors are not helping the country to develop/strengthen so as to support its people (CY)

• In the UK the government wants to launch a discussion about what is poverty.

34

On measurement of poverty and on indicators• Indicators are not capturing enough the reality of poverty and that’s

why EAPN has a Task Force on the countries under Troika arrangements.

• We use the same definition as EAPN highlighted, but Germany is not engaging seriously with EU2020, looking only on reducing long-term unemployed indicator which they could have done in a year.

• We need another measure to capture the polarization (i.e. middle class people with public jobs going down and people with private jobs -lawyers, bankers etc - going upwards)

• We need another measure on absolute poverty • There are not only class differences but regional differences.• It is clear that national situations are different and not everybody has

been affected but people feel lack of understanding of what is happening.

• Issue of internalization of poverty and how we’re going out of it. • There is absolute poverty among some groups but in majority of

countries there’s relative poverty. • There’s an idea in Denmark to create minimum household budget –

politically accepted. • Clear trend that the life for people on the lower end is getting

absolutely worse; whether they live in a Troika or in rich, non-troika country or somewhere else – that’s a political choice.

• Are we seeing ‘Chinification’ of Europe (discussion in Troika Task Force)? Politicians saying we’ll meet them half way; China is investing in welfare and we’re cutting ours.


The rising of poverty increases not only the necessity of feeding people, or having more and better jobs, access to jobs, better or more welfare institutions. What we see also is a rising problem of democratic decisions, the participation of people in democratic discussions and acceptance of political decisions. We are seeing increasing inequality and the rising of racism in our countries.

The idea of relative measures of poverty is good, but for example, most of us didn´t know which of the European, or EAPN Indicators are used in our countries. We have so many definitions of poverty, finally no more knows what means poverty, how it feels, how is the poorest, the feeling of poverty, or so on.

Our definition, our common view is that the rate of participation in the daily life in our country would be a good measure. What we need too for our political work is a common measurement to compare our countries, to compare our views, in our common work in EAPN.

A minimum income may be a measure for us all. 3 / 11 / or 25 indicators this is an academic question, not useful for our daily work.

1. Agreed that relative poverty understanding should remain. 2. Agreed that to know if people are achieving a better life we need adequate minimum income – budget standards.3. Need to look at polarization because it’s driving up absolute poverty and driving the middle class down. 4. Need to look at access to services because of the welfare state argument. 5. Campaign for solidarity and identify a participation measurement. 6. Equality – inequality… 7. Procedures/bureaucracy creating obstacles to accessing entitlements. 8. Quality of services offered to people in poverty.

35

Workshop 5 - Presentations from Ireland, Cyprus and FEANTSA



Cypriot network Irish Network FEANTSA• A complex issue;• Obviously on the rise;• Poverty prevents economic development.

• Poverty is a physical life experience• Poverty was decreasing now increasing, with

economic downturn and austerity.• Key groups – young single adults and lone

parents, disabled, homeless, migrants• Rising in-work poverty, particularly with

families with children, increasing indebtedness.

• Impact of Austerity decisions reducing access to services and increasing poverty

• Poverty is the lack of resources, affecting an individual or a family

• This affects your choices about participation• Rise in homelessness – particularly young

people and migrants

Causes of poverty

• Consequences of the crisis • Structural inequalities, now exacerbated by the crisis


• Is human being a core issue on the EU Agenda or not?

• Declarations are not enough – no tangible results: this is a fight

• Cyprus becoming a ‘Troika’ country austerity measure under negotiations;

• Government’s attitude = finance austerity through tax on wealth and combating tax evasion rather than cutting allowances and salaries; or charging citizens for accessing health and education services;

• Quality criteria put aside; danger of losing social progress gained over years of struggles;

• Development of racism and xenophobia;• Cutting wages and benefits creates longer-

term problems.

• Main focus of Govt policies is to reduce deficits through cuts.

• 10% cuts from social welfare, in child benefit and increased taxes for low-paid workers

• Increasing conditionality, reforming social welfare payments so all are seen as unemployed and job-seekers, regardless of conditions/obstacles – eg disabled, single parents.

• EAPN arguing for more focus on revenue – wealth taxes

• Negative impact of the Troika, but unclear how far Government uses it to justify reforms.

• Housing debt major concern, as banks bailed out, with inherited debt for home-owners. Can’t pay, won’t pay campaign.

• Crisis is exacerbating homelessness • Also new homelessness, as a result of

financial crisis – ie home-owners or tenants who are evicted. EP called for a study on this and how it is addressed.

• Major difficulties for homeless migrants – with no access to health rights, and difficulties for EU migrant’s mobility undermining EU rights, often no clear status.


• How far do indicators reflect the reality? Or people in poverty involved in the process?

• Important debate on poverty target, but impression that governments move the goal posts.

• Lack of transparency over choice of indicators and why they are selected.

• Need for sub-targets • AROPE indicators should be measured

separately, and all govts follow them

• EU definitions and indicators are a good reflection of poverty – benefit of the OMC

• Concerns about narrow approach of AROPE, need for OMC full set.

• Homeless don’t have addresses, and so are under-measured

• Importance to reflect multidimensionality, not just income.

• Need better indicators to measure those who are hardest to reach

• Shouldn’t lose full dashboard of OMC indicators.

• Need to be clearer about how indicators part of Europe 2020 mechanisms.


On poverty• Poverty is multidimensional, and beyond income and material

deprivation – reference to Eurofound Quality of Life Survey• It is misery lived day to day – we must focus on the human story, but

also recognize people’s resilience in finding their own survival strategies

• New groups emerging – eg youth, large families, but also migrants – particularly EU migrants, without clear status, but worsening reality for already poor, made more invisible

• Pressure on families – parent’s migrating, grandparents supporting, children at risk.

On policy-making and the impact of policies• Austerity and deficit reduction are the main driver• Ex-ante Social impact assessment not being used effectively – what

indicators are being used? The need for more visibility, transparency and accountability on decisions.

• Impact of govt policy on services growing concern – particularly access, affordability, coverage and quality e.g. housing/health.

• Challenging the employment only focus. Employment is crucial but not providing an adequate income/stress for families – particularly single parents.

• Inadequate minimum incomes stretched by rises in cost of living – where is this captured: ie cost of cooking/energy, also problem of low take up. Most people don’t get their rights!

• Loss of ethical values – employers maximizing profit, cheap labour use of migrants as slave labour.

• Need to rethink how welfare states are financed – shift from labour to general taxation – martial the arguments.

• Deliberate stigmatization of people on benefits – criminalization, and setting groups against each other –particularly migrants.

On measurement of poverty and on indicators

• Don’t just focus on the target - Social OMC indicators provided an important reflection of multidimensionality, beyond income and material deprivation – depth and poverty gap also.

• Concerns about narrow AROPE approach, particularly low-work intensity, but relative and more absolute measures are important, measuring different aspects of poverty. All 3 indicators should be monitored separately

• Deprivation indicators don’t capture relative priorities in different MS – should be a ranking (ie a holiday not the same as a meal)

• Inequality indicators captures polarisation but measurement of wealth and squeezed middle not well captured, or how resources are redistributed..

• New indicators necessary to capture the hardest to reach, and new groups – eg migrants (EU and 3rd country), rural,

• Effective participation needs indicators – forgotten objective of the Social OMC and EPAP promise of guidelines on stakeholder engagement.

• More social surveys to capture perceptions of social exclusion• More participation needed in identifying factors to be

measured/trialling indicators and approaches.• More measurement hasn’t delivered a reduction of poverty – Without

political will, more evidence makes little difference.


1. Poverty is multidimensional. Both relative and absolute definitions are important, reflecting different aspects. Relative indicator captures also the distribution of resources, and is linked to inequality. It has to be combined with material deprivation and other indicators, but measured separately.

2. The human dimension gets easily lost. Indicators are tools to develop policies that must put people first. The focus should be on implementation as well as measurement of policy impacts.

3. Policy priorities at national and EU level now focus on economy. Social dimension is reduced to trickle down –theory. Priority in all countries is to reduce the deficit and the way to do that is by cutting services / austerity. In troika countries it is being used to dismantle the welfare state. What is the EU role?

4. Situation of Migration - (between EU Countries and from the 3rdCountries): Internal migration in the EU is increasing and the situation of these migrants is becoming more precarious. This puts into question the EU freedom of movement of people and its implementation, undermining the basic social rights and increasing racial tensions as poor people compete over diminishing resources.

5. Homelessness and indebtedness are increasing – crises in housing – Banks are the priority

6. Employment is crucial but it has to be quality employment, ensuring adequate income and acceptable working conditions. Low wages should not be used to drive down social benefits. Different individuals/groups need different solutions

7. The crucial question is: how do we finance our welfare societies based on the principle of universality? In the long run, inequality becomes very expensive.

Workshop 6– Presentations from Bulgaria and the Netherlands.

“They treat us like mushrooms; they keep us in the dark and feed us manure.”(Bulgarian Network)


Bulgarian network Dutch network

What is poverty?

• Poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. This means the lack of a basic capacity to participate effectively in society (UN);

• Participation and social inclusion are synonymous and refer to the opportunity to be involved in decision taking mechanisms;

People on welfare in 2010: 345.240In 2011: 356.280In 2012: 357.430

• Households with 1 adult and children under age and finding it very difficult to cope: 37%

• Disabled people who are suffering from the many different austerities coming together losing their grip on life…

• 494.000 registered unemployed in 2009521.000 registered unemployed in 2011

• 327.000 Children live in poverty in the Netherlands(so do their parents also)

Causes of poverty

• How is this possible? Through control, reduction and distortion of two basic social resources: knowledge, and authentic moral values.

• Distorted knowledge and moral values preclude participation, reduce democracy and provide basis for deceptive political decision making process;

• Poverty and inequalities, as well as the actual crisis, are deeply embedded in such political deceptions;

• Economies and policies have diverted from the authentic moral values” (Secretary General of Club of Rome)

• Poverty in EU (and Bulgaria) is a result of specific policy choices in distribution and redistribution

• More reliance on self-employment as a solution to poverty and poor conditions for supporting self-employed and linking to social protection systems

• Increasing costs for health insurances• Loss of jobs due to crisis


• Intensify the production of relevant knowledge about poverty and social exclusion (causes and consequences - damages);

• Involve poor people and their representatives in the production of reliable knowledge- especially in the elaboration and implementation of better – participatory – tools for monitoring and measurement of poverty and exclusion;

• Involve poor people also in elaboration of scientific policies.• Institutionalize effective and participatory social impact assessment

of the economic and social • How far do current measurements reflect situation in Bulgaria? They

don’t, as the following contradictions show:- According to this indicator poverty rate, Bulgaria and Belgium were

the same in 2007 (around 14% - source: JIM)- The at-risk-of-poverty rate was 21,8% in 2009, while the share of

people living in material deprivation (Eurostat) was 51%?- The poverty line set after the EU at risk of poverty rate provides 0,32

cents per meal per person?• Is it possible to seriously address poverty without reducing inequalities?• Things have gone so far that there is no need for any complicated measures – it is sufficient to be serious and honest.

Significant numbers include:• Increasing amount of non-declarable payment for health insurance!• Self-employed with a second job (686.000)• More and more people living under the minimum subsistence level

because of debts• Bankruptcies (112.510)


On poverty Poverty and social exclusion must be understood as a denial of

fundamental rights both the right to live free of poverty and the right for people in poverty to participate in their own development.

We must continue to fight relative Poverty while ensuring that we also tackle absolute poverty.

We need to know better the different realities of poverty in the different countries.

Access to rights and services is a key consideration when looking at what is poverty.

On policy-making and the impact of policies There is a strong link between democratic deficit and levels of

poverty. We need measures of democratic participation to help us to

put the fight against poverty in the wider perspective of healthy democracies.

We need more measurement of wealth, and indicators for distribution and redistribution.

We need to work with more partners and in particular Trade Unions to build strength for the fight against poverty.

We need to make our Representative Democratic systems more accountable for their responsibilities to ensure people can live free of poverty. We need a major step forward in participative democratic systems (involving people experiencing poverty) to address the enormous power imbalances in our societies.

On measurement of poverty and on indicators Regarding the new headline target for poverty reduction in the

Europe 2020 strategy, the at-risk-of-poverty rate and the material deprivation indicator were considered useful. The jobless household as part of the headline indicator is confusing.

However these headline indicators need to be enhanced with the full set of social indicators developed through the Social OMC.

We need indicators which look at what is needed for a descent life. Budget standard indicators can be useful for this and a common EU approach re Budget standards should be developed.

The measurement of poverty is just part of the story. The key is who gets to analyse the results from the measurement. There needs to be a way to have stakeholder engagement in the analysis that is made.

There needs to be more independent verification and analysis of the poverty figures and indicators.

Participants expressed concern that EU technical assistance money seemed to be made available to the World Bank for work on the measurement of poverty in Europe.


1. We need a large set of Indicators (building on the EU Social Indicators) enhanced by ‘Budget Standard Indicators’ and indicators which measure extreme poverty (homelessness…).

2. We need to concentrate on indicators that address redistribution and polarisation (80/20 - top 1%…) and look at what is happening on taxes, wealth and what is happening to wages.

3. There needs to be far greater independence in the development, monitoring and analysis of indicators and this requires a major step forward in participation processes (should be supported by EU Funds)

· Web view- to build leadership and governance, ... The Conseil Superieur de Lutte contre la...

Documents

Transcript of · Web view- to build leadership and governance, ... The Conseil Superieur de Lutte contre la...