EUROCHILD BACKGROUND PAPER
On the use of structural funds to tackle child poverty and promote child
well-being
March 2013
“Member States could consider putting a particular focus on children as a contribution to the proposed objective of
"Promoting Social Inclusion and Combating Poverty" when elaborating their Partnership Agreement and
subsequent Operational Programmes, 2014-2020”(Social Protection Committee, 2012)1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – this part is incomplete

This policy document was prepared by Reka Tunyogi (Eurochild secretariat) as a background paper to the event Taking action to fight child
poverty and to promote child well-being ,10-11 April 2013 Dublin, Ireland.
1 Social Protection Committee Advisory Report to the European Commission: Tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child wellbeing, 27 June 2012
1
Why advocate for the use of structural funds to tackle child poverty?
It is a very concrete issue that can be communicated very clearly both to decision-makers and to
the wider public.
It is asking for something measureable: more investment in children can make a very tangible
positive impact on the lives of children and young people.
It is achievable because we have the policy mix and the resources from the EU to support Member
States. The recently adopted European Commission Recommendations on child poverty offers
important policy guidance on how funds should be used.
Most recent figures show that over 25 million children are at risk of poverty or social exclusion in
the EU. The relevance of taking action lies in the political readiness to address the unacceptably
escalating levels of child poverty (e.g. see commitment shown by Council of Ministers in June 2012)
and their recognition that child well-being is fundamental to future economic and social stability.
Finally, it is the time to take action because the next EU budget for 2014-2020 is launching next
year, and influencing its uptake has to be done beforehand.
INTRODUCTION
This background paper2 aims to explain the current processes of EU decision-making around the next seven-year
budgetary framework; and to highlight the opportunities for national level advocates on child poverty as well as the
challenges. It also looks at the specific ways in which civil society can influence the decision-making process at EU
and national level.
We are interested to get input from national civil society what support would help their work from the EU
institutions and European networks in using structural funds. We will also explore together how national level
organisations can be more effective in their advocacy on child poverty, in particular in the use of structural funds.
Though a complex issue, the EU budget has many opportunities to promote the well-being of children in our
countries, and the time is ripe to join efforts and exchange knowledge to make these resources accessible. The
Brussels-based advocacy has been ongoing to approve the financial framework and ensure it provides
guarantees to invest in children; but at the same time identification of priorities and programming have to take
place at national level - where the role of national civil society is crucial.
THE MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK (MFF) 2014-2020
The next EU budgetary cycle, bringing along a new set of rules and financial resources, is to start in 2014. The
Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, on which negotiations between Council and European Parliament
(EP) are expected to reach an end in 2013, will have an impact on resources available to tackle child poverty in
EU Member States. Based on the European Commission’s proposal, the structural funds will continue to play a
huge role in financing Member States’ structural reforms and way out of the crisis. The challenge lies in ensuring
that they are used efficiently and transparently to tackle child poverty and promote child well-being.
Acknowledging the potential of all structural funds, this paper will focus on the European Social Fund (ESF) and
2
Based on the notes contained below, more detailed discussions take place at the workshop on 11 April 2013. The aim will be to share,
gather and learn from the experience of national level civil society who advocate for the rights of the child, in particular for the use of European
Structural Funds to tackle child poverty and promote child well-being.
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which are most commonly used to the benefit of children and
young people.
The European Commission launched the debate with the ‘Budget for Europe 2020’ proposal in June 2011, and
adopted the legislative package on cohesion policy for 2014-2020 in October 2011. The latter foresees EUR 336
billion for cohesion policy, keeping it the second largest slice of all EU expenditure, but proposing a reduction by
EUR 18 billion compared to the current framework. Within cohesion policy, EUR 84 billion would go to ESF and
EUR 183 billion to ERDF. However, these numbers might and most probably will change as a result of
negotiations between the EU institutions. The European Parliament has individually looked at all the MFF
regulations, and in many cases managed to reinforce a reference to children in the text. The process will only
reach end though when the figures are also agreed, the timeframe of which is before the end 2013.
While our efforts have been targeted at keeping a strong emphasis in the text or improving it; we have grown
worried that the tendency is to reduce available funding. For the first time in the EU’s history, EU prime ministers
proposed to reduce the next cycle’s resources compared to the existing one. 3 The less resources available the
more efficiency it requires. The task of civil society, which is officially acknowledged as a stakeholder, has to be
constant vigilance and call for resourcefulness.
For civil society to have an impact on the use of Structural Funds at national level, not only do they have to be
familiar with the process – which are mainly dependent on national characteristics – but also be aware of the
possibilities and challenges that are in the EU Regulations. We believe that the latter can be enhanced through
mutual exchange and learning; sharing good and bad experiences, and jointly setting points for action.
OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES IN THE MFF 2014-2020 FOR THE USE OF
STRUCTURAL FUNDS FOR CIVIL SOCIETY WORKING WITH AND FOR CHILDREN
 Link to Europe 2020 and poverty reduction
Due to the on-going economic and financial crisis there is an increasing link between budgetary, economic, labour
market and social policies and the need to prevent fiscal and competitiveness imbalances. That is also a reason
why the structural funds will be more directed at achieving the targets set in the EU’s mid-term development plan,
the Europe 2020 strategy.4 One of these targets is to lift at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty or
social exclusion by 2020 in the EU.
Over the past years and budgets there has been an increased recognition of the need to utilise available EU
resources for social inclusion and poverty reduction. The ESF and ERDF both include a thematic objective to that
end, and the wording in the proposals is stronger than under the existing framework. The European Commission
proposes 25% of the cohesion policy envelope to be dedicated to the European Social Fund in each country.
Within the ESF itself, there is a specific earmarking of 20% foreseen for the thematic objective to promote social
inclusion and combat poverty.
 Thematic objectives + ex ante conditionality
The structural funds will have to be used to promote a certain number of thematic objectives. The focus of the
European Social Fund clearly goes beyond employment support measures, as among others it will foster
reconciliation between work and private life; promote access to good quality early-childhood education and care;
prevent and reduce early-school leaving; and importantly promote social inclusion and tackle poverty through
enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services and combatting discrimination. The ERDF
can also be used to promote social inclusion and education through investing in health, social and education
infrastructures, including the transition from institutional to community-based services. The proposed wording in
both cases is thus quite inclusive to allow for investment in family and parenting support, integrated services for
children and addressing the most disadvantaged children.
3
European Council 7/8 February 2013 Conclusions (Multiannual Financial Framework)
In June 2010, EU Heads of State and Government launched the Europe 2020 Strategy for “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” and
adopted in this context five EU-wide targets on: employment; research & development; climate change and energy sustainability; education;
and fighting poverty and social exclusion.
4
To reinforce performance of all structural funds, the European Commission will introduce new conditionality
provisions to ensure that EU funding is focused on results and creates strong incentives for Member States to
ensure the effective delivery of Europe 2020 objectives through cohesion policy. The ‘ex ante’ conditions, which
must be in place before funds are disbursed, are of particular importance for civil society. It requires that countries
comply with general principles such as non-discrimination, gender equality and implementing the rights of persons
with disabilities. There is also a specific ex ante conditionality on promoting social inclusion and combating
poverty, which requires that a national strategy for poverty reduction is in place, involving relevant stakeholders.
 Link to EC recommendation on child poverty
Child poverty is widely recognised to be a major drain on resources and waste of human potential, and the EU
has repeatedly acknowledged it as a barrier to achieving the Europe 2020 poverty target. Recently the European
Commission adopted a Recommendation on child poverty and well-being, entitled “Investing in children:
breaking the cycle of disadvantage” 5, as part of the Social Investment Package for Growth and Cohesion 6. The
Recommendation, and the broader SIP, clearly spell out that social investment in Member States’ social policies
must form an integral part of the exit strategy to the current crisis. More importantly, it states the potential of
structural funds for supporting children and families, as well as the principle of partnership in the programming
and access to structural funds by NGOs in order to mobilise action to combat child poverty. The role of EU
resources such as the structural funds has to be better spelled out in helping Member States reduce poverty in
society by preventing children and young people suffer from multiple disadvantages now.
Despite the encouraging improvements listed above, there are some hurdles to jump to ensure the money
available for cohesion policy is invested in children.
 Member States have autonomy in defining priorities
Whilst it can be expected that the overall budget will decrease, the EU has emphasised from the start the need to
achieve more efficient spending. For the EU structural funds this will imply a degree of streamlining rules of the
different funds under a common strategic framework and better targeting of resources. Thematic concentration
will be a key driver for every programme, when countries will be required to identify their priorities for spending a
fund from the objectives listed in the regulation. The minimum benchmarks of 25% to the ESF from all structural
funds and the at least 20% to social inclusion within ESF will be vital to ensure minimum spending also flows to
projects tackling child poverty.
[EYE] social innovation
Social innovation7 and social policy experimentation are specific forms of social investment that the EU supports,
with the aim to scale up successful innovation. This raises a number of questions from the start such as how will it
affect existing successful practices; and what makes a social initiative innovative? These questions form part of
the on-going policy debate on social investment and social protection, and the complementarities between public
and private sectors. Regardless these concerns, the openness of the EU to finance new ideas also has to be
recognised and to the best extent exploited by organisations that provide comprehensive services to children.
 Some MS impose restrictions on civil society access to funding
The new budgetary framework should be used to better involve civil society at national level in the allocation of
EU funding. The partnership principle is vital for the accessibility of funding for civil society organisations, as well
5
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=9762&langId=en
The Social Investment Package, adopted on 20 February 2013, consists of a main Commission Communication on Social Investment for
Growth and Cohesion, a Commission Recommendation on child poverty and 8 Staff Working Documents (SWDs) (on demographic and social
trends – part 1 and part 2, on active inclusion, on social services of general interest, on long-term care, on homelessness, on health, and on
European Social Fund). It also contains a summary and key facts and figures. The Commission Recommendation and Communication have
the most status, with the SWDs being mainly informative, representing the views and initiatives of the Commission, but not adopted by the
Council. Its main impact will be in how it is mainstreamed through Europe 2020 and the European Semester, Cohesion policy and other EU
funds, but also – and most importantly – in agenda setting at Member State level.
7 Social innovation has been defined as ‘innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. Specifically, [...] new ideas (products,
services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or
collaborations. They are innovations that are not only good for society but also boost society’s capacity to act. Staff Working Document on
Social Investment through the ESF
6
as for their meaningful involvement in the allocation of EU funding at national level, including for smaller NGOs.
The Partnership Agreements and the Operational Programmes which will be established between the EC and the
Member States on the use of structural funds will have to be more include a more meaningful involvement of civil
society organisations.
[!] Lack of monitoring capacity of the European Commission
The largest challenge to overcome however, remains that of influencing national decision-makers. In the end it is
up to Member States (responsible authorities) to decide and approve the use of Structural Funds for specific
projects. The European Commission can install conditionalities, checks, monitoring frameworks and can give
incentives, nonetheless a lot depends on the approach and practice at national level, mainly due to the aspects of
co-financing. Even when the EU co-funds 85% of the value, the remaining 15% can still pose a severe burden on
some municipalities. Member States must not be allowed to set additional conditions or burdens for civil society to
access or participate in programmes funded by structural funds. The Managing Authority in each Member States
should be made accountable to stakeholders, including civil society. Powerful mobilisation at local and regional
level and joint action with other organisations can help to change entrenched approaches and practices.
PROCEDURAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF CIVIL SOCIETY
The objective of this document is to empower civil society working with and for children, and it must be highlighted
what potential they represent. Eurochild, together with many European networks has been closely following
developments on the MFF since the start of the negotiations. Eurochild stated on many occasion the need for a
child-friendly budget that aims to help children reach their full potential, regarding them as rights-holders and not
merely seeing them as potential future labour force.
Many alliances were formed and joint advocacy pursued:




on children’s rights in the financial instruments to address social inclusion and fundamental rights (within
the Children’s Rights Action Group),
on the minimum 20% to social inclusion with the ESF (led by the European Anti-Poverty Network),
on the rights of children at risk of entering, growing up in or leaving alternative care (within the European
Expert Group on Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care),
on the social dimension of the structural funds in general (within the Social Platform).
The widespread sense of support and cooperation brought together a broad range of civil society representatives
to fight for the common goals in the MFF. That not only highlights the importance of this debate, but also
acknowledges the potential and timeliness to advocate for an EU that spends more on promoting the well-being of
children.
Throughout our work we found the European Parliament to be supportive of our goals and open to incorporate our
proposals in their reports on the structural funds. The EP is an important partner in this process also because of
its role as co-legislator. Decisions taken by the Council of Ministers and the meetings preparing them are
exceedingly non-transparent, giving us little insight to debates between different countries. Yet, they must
negotiate with MEPs to reach a final agreement. Influencing both institutions is probably the best way, but it
proved to be a lot easier and more efficient to approach the European Parliament.
While the MFF has not yet been agreed, some of the Partnership Agreements between Commission and a
Member State, and the Operational Programmes are already under development. Although European networks
have the overview of EU decision-making processes on the EU budget, they have very limited information about
processes at national level and their influencing. It is national civil society organisations and other actors that have
the knowledge about accessing and implementing funding through ESF or ERDF. The added value this
knowledge represents is not only relevant for actors within the same country, but for everyone looking to make
use of the structural funds.
Bearing in mind the limited capacity that our organisations individually might represent, the potential of pooling
knowledge from a number of national experts can enable many others to learn together from shared experiences.
Below you can find a limited number of such inspiring examples either on influencing the national draw-up of
programmes, or on accessing funding for a successful project.
Box I
Bulgaria, National Network for Children (NNC) as a General Representative for Human Rights
Organizations in Bulgaria in the thematic group for the design of the new OP “Human Resources
Development” (OPHRD)
Brief Description
In June 2012 the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (MLSP) announced a call for NGOs meeting
certain requirements to participate in the design of the Operational Programme “Human Resources
Development 2014-2020” (OPHRD). NNC applied to represent the group of Fundamental Human Rights
and Freedoms. Following a formal selection procedure set up by the MLSP, NNC became General
Representative for Human Rights Organizations in Bulgaria in the thematic group for the design of the
new OPHRD. The first organisational meeting of the thematic group was on August 10, 2012. Right after
the first meeting of the thematic group, NNC undertook the task to consolidate resources and support to
its 106 members, and to start unifying the efforts of the other NGO members of the thematic group, in
order to achieve a clear common position of the civil representatives on main issues, such as respect of
fundamental rights and non-discrimination, rights and integration of marginalized groups such as Roma,
children’s rights, fulfilment of the obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, etc.
Box II
Wales, UK, Children in Wales on the use of ESF for child participation and reducing the number
of NEET (Young people Not in Employment, Education or Training)
Brief Description
The Welsh Government officials were the lead sponsor managing the overall budget and reporting
process. Children in Wales were one of 8 joint sponsors developing a range of work streams around the
theme of participation and reducing the number of NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training)
young people in Wales. There were also work streams developed within Welsh Government to support
this work. While the identified beneficiaries were young people aged 14 to 19, a number of the strands of
work supported practitioner developments and knowledge building, including Children in Wales work. As
a result of the work there have been a range of new accredited units developed for young people, looking
at participation, confidence and skill building, interview skills etc.
There have also been a range of training courses for adults developed. There have been models of work
developed to support young people to continue in or return to education, or to become more confident in
STEM skills (Science, technology, engineering, and maths). Children in Wales delivered a range of work
aimed at supporting and up-skilling young disabled people. The whole project is currently being
evaluated
Box III