Challenges and barriers

Progress made towards these headline targets is being measured by 10 indicators on both an EU and a national level. EU-wide and national figures for the years 2010-2018 can be consulted here. As these Eurostat figures illustrate, progress made towards Europe2020's headline targets has in many cases remained modest, or (in the case of poverty reduction) even pointed to a downward trend.

This can partly be explained through the Eurozone crisis, which has led many Member States to pursue austerity policies and cut back on investments into the social service sector. However, particularly in the case of poverty reduction, the lack of progress is also related to a lack of political commitment on a national level - EU member states have not undertaken any serious attempts to translate the EU-wide poverty target into concrete national targets and into country-specific policy and funding reforms.

What happens next?

With the upcoming European Parliament elections and the end of the current Commission, the question is whether a stock taking exercise on the Europe2020 strategy will take place, followed by a new Europe2030 strategy.

Although this would be the obvious way forward, this is not guaranteed for a number of reasons. Firstly, a formal Midterm Review never took place, even if the Europe 2020 continues to be mentioned as a relevant initiative in key documents such as the Annual Growth Survey (Go to the European Semester Chapter). Secondly, other instruments and policy initiatives have been put forward as new priorities such as the European Pillar of Social Rights and, to a lesser extent, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Their link with the Europe2020 strategy have not been clearly made and they to have so far more taken over it than complemented it.

Defining poverty

Despite the EU's efforts to reduce poverty and social exclusion using a ‘soft approach' through the EPAP, the number of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion has increased rather than decreased since 2010, as Eurostat figures indicate here. But what does this concretely mean, and how is it measured? The EU defines poverty and social exclusion on the basis of three indicators:

• At-risk-of-poverty: Share of persons with an equivalised disposable income below 60% of the national equivalised median income. Equivalised median income is defined as the household's total disposable income divided by its "equivalent size", to take account of the size and composition of the household, and is attributed to each household member.
• Severe material deprivation: Share of population living in households lacking at least 4 items out of the following 9 items: i) to pay rent or utility bills, ii) keep home adequately warm, iii) face unexpected expenses, iv) eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, v) a week holiday away from home, or could not afford (even if wanted to) vi) a car, vii) a washing machine, viii) a colour TV, or ix) a telephone.
• (Quasi-) jobless household: People aged 0-59, living in households, where working-age adults (18-59) worked less than 20% of their total work potential during the past year.

A contested definition

To read more about the indicators underpinning the EU's poverty target, please click here. It is important to note that the EU does not reduce its definition of poverty or social exclusion to any single indicator: rather, the number of people is equal to the sum of all people who either:

1. have a disposable income below 60% of the national median income; or
2. are severely materially deprived; or
3. live in households with very low work intensity; or
4. are facing any combination of these situations.

However, a major challenge lies in the fact that EU Member States did not all agree to the European Commission's definition. In fact, the choice was left to each individual Member State to come up with its own interpretation of the meaning of poverty. For example, one national government could define poverty primarily as material deprivation, whilst another government could instead claim to fight poverty by relying on the “jobless household” indicator. Two EU Member States can therefore use the same terminology for doing very different things. Moreover, and shockingly, the actual poverty targets agreed on by Member States do not add up to a poverty reduction of 20 million people, but of 12 million people.

These realities call into question Member States' political willingness to reduce poverty, and the actual value of the mechanisms introduced by the EPAP. Furthermore, the “Annual Conventions” of the EPAP have not yet led to innovative, integrated approaches, which would be really needed, and not yet provided enough space for a differentiated, critical discussion on the progress made toward the achievement of the poverty target.

To realise positive change, action needs to be taken at a national level. It is against this background that the European Semester becomes very important: you can read more about this mechanism here.

Further tips

Emphasise your experience and diaconal identity

Diaconal organisation are not like any organisation. They are different from a network of people experience poverty or a green organisation. As a faith-based social service provider, sometimes linked to a church, you can play special “cards”:

• Report on your experience as a social service provider. Numbers matter. The European Commission is very interested to hear more about your experience of the social situation. Your analysis may confirm or differ from your government's line, and that's important to know. Has demand for the social services you provide increased? By how much and since when? What is your analysis of the causes or solutions? Your experience matters for advocacy on the European Semester - please inform us, and use it as a basis for your own national advocacy. For instance, expertise in the area of homelessness or migration legitimise your organisation's voice on these topics if you feel that they are not being sufficiently addressed by the national reform program. Your experience can also be used to argue in favour of a stronger social investment approach. For instance, Kerk in Actie's ‘debt aid buddy' project demonstrated that each single euro invested in its activities would ultimately save the community 3 euros. This economical approach to the value of not- for-profit organisations shows the importance of supporting and investing in diaconal work.
• As a faith–based or church-related organisation, you can also argue in terms of broader moral issues, and insist on the need for a more people-centred approach to society as a whole, and the rebalancing of social and economic priorities.

Stay informed of EU policies impacting on your work

• It is not possible to follow everything that is happening at EU level, which is why we suggest you to sign up to our weekly newsletter here. These will enable you to keep an eye on what is happening at EU level. If you are interested in some specific areas, such as long term care or Roma inclusion you have also the possibility to sign up to thematic updates.
• Also, if you have a question on advocacy or a specific topic, why not reach out to your contact person in the Eurodiaconia secretariat or to the person responsible for this policy topic for some personal advice? We can also take joint initiatives, for example by organising a study visit for you to meet some of your representatives in Brussels, or by helping you write a letter to argue to your local/national authorities why civil society must be involved in the European Semester process.

Build Alliances

When working on broad issues such as the European Semester, it can be useful to cooperate with other organisations actorswith similar aims through (in)formal coalitions. These often carry more political weight as they represent a greater number of voices, and they allow individual organisations to exchange knowledge and complement each other’s areas of expertise. At the EU level, Eurodiaconia is a member of the Joint Alliance on the European Semester. which brings together not-for-profit social service providers such as Eurodiaconia with trade unions, anti-poverty organisations and environmental organisations.

At the national level, organisations like Kerk in Actie (NL) and Diakonie Austria have been involved in the European Semester Cycle through coalitions for many years. In the Netherlands, the ‘Social Alliance’ participates in the consultation around the NRP, and grants Kerk in Actie access to high-level stakeholder meetings which would otherwise remain out of reach. Similarly, Diakonie Austria is part of a working group (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft) of large national welfare organisations commenting on Country Reports and other key documents.