EAPN’s members in national networks and European Organisations have been actively engaged in the follow-up on the European Employment Strategy since its beginning, through the National Action Plans on Employment.
With the reform of the Lisbon Strategy, EAPN members have attempted to engage more broadly with the macro economic and micro objectives as well as the employment priorities at national and EU level.
EAPN has supported this process with a Tool Kit to engage with NRP. (See Lisbon Tool Kit 2008/10). This engagement has not been made easier by the lack of willingness of Member States to engage with the NGO sector, in a process dominated by economic and financial interests.
EAPN produces:
Evaluations of the National Reform Programmes:
- 2011: Deliver Inclusive Growth – Put the Heart back in Europe! (first year of new Europe 2020 Strategy)
- 2007: EAPN Report: a Future Worth Having and Social Inclusion Scoreboard 2007)
Evaluations of the the Annual Progress Report and the Joint Employment Report:
- 2010: EAPN’s response to the draft Joint Employment Report 2010
- 2007: Growth and Jobs but not Inclusion! (annual progress report evaluation)
These documents have formed the basis of EAPN’s lobbying work with the Commission and the Council.
Some of our key concerns:
- The neglect of a social framework for the economy and explicit link to the objectives of the OMC on social protection and social inclusion.
- The emphasis on modernizing pension and social protection systems through reduced benefits and coverage.
- The focus on work at any price regardless of the low quality, and lack of demand-side measures to create and maintain quality, stable work or to promote the role of the social economy.
- The need for broader, positive activation, which can provide integrated strategies based on personalized support services to help people into work and support for those who cannot work.
- The priority given to flexicurity, without recognizing the negative impact on working poverty…
- The need to reinforce the role of structural funds in delivering social inclusion.
- The lack of any structured engagement with civil society in the entire process.