III Baltic Sea NGO Forum
From Social Exclusion to Participation 9.5.2003

Poverty and Inclusion from the European NGO Perspective

Marita Ruohonen, Member of Executive Committee, European Anti-Poverty Network EAPN

Dear participants of the Third Baltic Sea NGO Forum,

In my presentation I will, for the first, give a short overwiew to poverty, social exclusion and inclusion in Europe, seen from the European NGO perspective. My experience is based on eight years participation to the work within EAPN in different roles: as an active member and chair of the Finnish Network, as a Member of the European Working Group "Women, Poverty and Violence" and as an Exco Member. The Finnish Anti-Poverty Network was created in November 1994, just after the Finnish people had voted "yes" to Finland's membership in the European Union. Next year Finland was accepted as the Member of EU together with Sweden and Austria and all the networks of the three new member states were accepted as members of EAPN. The Finnish Federation for Social Welfare and Health was very well aware about European NGOs cooperation since the beginning of 1990's and - thanks to the Federation - Finland has been an active member of EAPN already eight years.

Secondly, I will handle the issue of the European Union's role in reducing poverty and promoting inclusion. What is going on in EU's member countries and what are the present results? What should be done in the future?
Finally, I shall draw conclusions from the NGO perspective concerning the fight against poverty and exclusion in the level of European Union.

But for the very first: some words about the European Anti-Poverty Network. EAPN was created in 1990 and it is an independent coalition of non-governmental organisations involved in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. EAPN is built on a network in each of the member states of the EU - with emerging networks in the future member states- and over twenty Trans-European organisations addressing issues of poverty and exclusion. EAPN seeks to defend the interests of people experiencing poverty and exclusion and to have their voice heard in EU policy debates and policy delivery.

EAPN has identified four strategic goals:

• promoting and enhancing the effectiveness of actions to eradicate poverty and prevent social exclusion
• the raising awareness around poverty and social exclusion
• the empowerment of people living in poverty and social exclusion
• lobbying for and with people and groups facing poverty and social exclusion.

1. Poverty is a serious problem in Europe

"It is a shocking reality that in one of the wealthiest areas that the world has ever known - the European Union - there are more than 56 million people who are experiencing poverty and exclusion and that at least one in every ten people living in Europe are experiencing consistent poverty. The evidence would suggest that there is a tolerance of this level of poverty in the EU among large sections of our political leaders and people in key positions to influence policy and priorities for action." This was said by Fintan Farrell, the director of the European Anti-Poverty Network, in the Conference of Social Policy Agenda in Brussels 19th March 2003.

The numbers are based on the newest statistics available. Eurostat, the statistical office of European Communities, released on 7 April 2003 the latest figures available on poverty and social exclusion, using the first set of 18 indicators adopted by Laeken European Council in December 2001:

• 15 % of EU inhabitants in 1999 (56 million people) were at risk of poverty, in other words living in households with a disposable income below the poverty threshold. This share was lowest in Sweden (9 %), and Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and finland (all 11 %), and highest in Greece and Portugal (both 21 %).
• Of those at risk of poverty in the EU, more than half, 9 % of the population (some 33 million people) were also at risk of poverty in at least two of the preceding three years and were therefore subject to a persistent risk of poverty.
• Social transfers reduce the risk of poverty rate in the EU from 24 % to 15 %. Social transfers had the strongest effect in Sweden (a drop of 19 points) and Denmark (13 points) and the weakest in Italy (3 points) and Greece (1 point).
• In 2001, 3 % of the EU's active population were unemployed for at least 12 months. Again, this percentage conceals differencies between member states: from less than 1 % Luxemburg, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria, to more than 5 % in Greece and Italy.
• The risk of social exclusion increases with the length of unemployment. In 2001, 2 % of the EU's active population were unemployed for at least 24 months.
• In the EU as a whole, 12 % of people living in "active age households" in 2001 lived in "jobless households". This average masks strong variations between member states: from 5 % in Portugal and 8 % in Spain to 14 % in the United Kingdom and 16 % in Belgium.

(In each Member State, the income threshold used to define the risk of poverty has been fixed at 60 % of the national median income per equivalent adult.)

According to statistics, the risk of poverty affects disproportionately the unempoyed, the disabled, single parents of families with numerous children. By age, the risk is higher than average for children, young people and older women.

2. The picture of poverty remains limited

The Picture of poverty remains very insufficient in the light of statistics. The problem is - for the first - the lack of timely and comparable statistics. It is the result of long-term work to develope comparable statistics concerning all the EU Member States. Eurostat has produced 18 common indicators to measure poverty in Europe and they were accepted as a common basis in Laeken European Council December 2001. Mostly those 18 indicators describe poverty in the meaning of lack of income. But, poverty is not just a matter of income. "Insufficient access to basic goods and services are endemic and still affect large sections of the population in some Member Countries, while in others, such as Finland, compherensive social security schemes and generalised access to public services in vital fields (education, health, long term care for elderly, housing) have concentrated the problem into well defined groups of the population" (National Expert Hugh Frazer from European Commision in the Finnish National Conference on Social and Health Policy in Helsinki April 2003.)

Poverty and especially social exclusion are multi-dimensional phenomenons and therefore difficult to define. According to Dutch researcher Aldi Hagernaas (1986) the definitions of poverty can be divided on three different dimensions:

• objective contra subjective definitions
• absolute contra relative definitions
• direct contra income definitions ("direct" means to ask people themselves).

Relative poverty has at least in Europe been the most usual way to describe poverty. There is a clear link between relative poverty and income distribution. For example in the Nordic countries the "common ethos" has been in favor of relative poverty which includes the idea of equality in the society as the important generally accepted value. What is the future of that value? Is it disappearing? EAPN is worried about the future in European Union when looking at the trends.

Poverty is too well tolerated at present. The work in the Convention on the future of Europe gives a clear example of the tolerance towards these levels of poverty within the EU. The draft constitutional articles produced to date includes "the eradication of poverty" when looking at the objectives of the EU in relation to the wider world but includes no such objective for the EU itself. In this world view poverty is only a real problem when it is extreme poverty. The struggle of those in relative poverty within the EU is understood as a matter of the people concerned suffering some inconveniences rather than a real struggle in their daily lives to meet basic needs. In this world view it is thought that the numbers in extreme poverty in the EU is small and that the cause of their poverty is to do with their own personal problems."There is an inability in those in powerful positions to see the reality of the lives of the people in the EU involved in this daily struggle against poverty and exclusion. In a world where we are privatising not only the services that we receive but also the spaces where we meet and socialise there is an inability for those who are prospering to see the reality of those who are not", says Fintan Farrell.

There is limited understanding of the lives of for example following people:

• The vast majority of immigrants and ethnic minorities where when a minimum wage does exist, it is a ceiling of their possibilities rather than the floor below which they won't drop.
• Roma, Gypsies and Travellers to be confined to living in slum areas of towns or forced to move on.
• People living in urban areas with multiple disadvantages where social security payments allow for survival rather than been at a level which enables them to be active in addressing their situation.
• People in isolated rural areas that are underemployed and where their communities have been abandoned by private and public services.
• People who are homeless and seek out public ponds in the early hours of the mornings in order to wash.
• People with disabilities that are locked out from employment opportunities and public services.
• Women whose work is not recognised or who access the job that makes them part of the working poor.

The problem of knowledge base is not solved only by developing comparable statistics. New ways to describe poverty and exclusion should also be developed. Statistics and traditional research just gives us a part of the picture. NGO's have a good position to develop new "instruments" to catch the so called "silent knowledge" and "weak signals" of the reality of people's lives in poverty. There are already some exercises to develop that kind of methods, for example the Finnish project "Extreme" in which EAPN-Fin is one of the partners. It is a Trans-European project with partners from Finland, Netherlands, Italy, France and Portugal.

3. The Lisbon European Council in March 2000: The EU Social Inclusion Strategy

It is quite new within European Union to talk about social coherence and social model. The union was a long time seen as a union strategy of growth, competitiveness and employment. The Amsterdam Treaty in 1999 was an important step: social policy was raised up to the same level of importance as employment policy and economic policy. Social policy questions are more and more present in the level of EU - they are not anymore only national issues as it used to be before the end of 1990's.

The Lisbon Council launched a strategy aimed at boosting Europe's competitiveness and economic growth, achieving higher employment rates and fostering social cohesion. The Heads of States and Governments stressed that higher competitiveness and social cohesion go hand in hand. If Europe is to achieve better economic and employment performance it must also work for social cohesion and social inclusion.

It was emphasised by the Lisbon Council that to achieve greater cohesion means fighting against poverty and social exclusion through co-operation and convergence towards the best practices. It thus established the Open Method of Coordination and - as an essential part of OMC - the National Action Plans and the Joint Council/Commission Report on Social Inclusion. The second round of NAPs is now going on in the Member States and the "second generation of NAPs" should be ready in July this year. The Joint Report on Social Inclusion will then be submitted to the Spring European Council of 2004.

4. The reality of the EU Social Inclusion Strategy

The first round of National Action Plans showed to be a useful bringing together of current policies and activities in the member states in relation to the poverty and exclusion. For EAPN as well as many other actors, assessment was also that the first round was "a far cry from the strategic input needed to meet the goal set by the Heads of States and Governments to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty by the year 2010", as Fintan Farrell has described the situation. There is still a long way to go. There still seems to be countries where little or no priority is given to this strategy.

In the view of EAPN it is ineffective to speak about poverty and extreme poverty without placing it in the context of a commitment to social solidarity, social justice and universal access to basic human rights for all, including social, economic and cultural rights. To do so is to reduce poverty to an issue of charity and not an issue of structural injustice. At the same time when addressing poverty we should be concerned about inequality and in particular income distribution. In Europe there is a widening gap between the class who are prospering from the wealth and those who are just surviving. It is clear that the countries with the higher levels of equality are also the countries with the lowest level of poverty.

marita.ruohonen@etu.inet.fi