13th of December 2013/BH

Minutes - EAPN Executive Committee MeetingReykjavík, 22-23 November 2013

Present: Stephan Backes (EAPN Bel), Karel Schwarz (EAPN Cz), Per Thomsen (EAPN Dk), Kart Mere (EAPN Estonia), Izabella Marton (EAPN Hu), Villborg Oddsdottir (Iceland), Tess Murphy (EAPN Irl), Gediminas Salvaavicius (EAPN Lithuania), Giles Rod (EAPN Lux), , Saviour Grima (EAPN Mal), Quinta Ansem (EAPN Net), Johanna Engen (EAPN Nor), Kamila Plowiec (EAPN Pol), Sergio Aires (EAPN Por), Jasmine Krunić (EAPN Serbia), , Carlos Susias (EAPN Sp), Sonja Wallbom (EAPN Sw), Peter Kelly (EAPN UK), Clotilde Clark-Foulquier (Eurodiaconia), Marie-Cecile Renoux (ATD Fourth World), Freek Spinnewijn (FEANTSA), Maciej Kucharczyk (AGE), Alexandre Jutant (Babelea), Germen Stoffers (Salvation Army)Apologies: Verena Fabris (EAPN Austria), Maria Jeliazkova (EAPN Bul), Ninetta Kazantzis (EAPN Cy), Outi Ruishalme (EAPN Fin), Olivier Marguery (EAPN Fr), Alexander Kraake (EAPN Ger), Maria Marinakou (EAPN Gre), Letizia Cesarini Sforza (EAPN It), Mila Carovska (EAPN FYORM-Macedonia), Raluca Manaila (EAPN Rom), Zuzana Kusza (EAPN Slovakia).In attendance: Barbara Helfferich, Fintan Farrell, Sian Jones, Tanya Basarab, Vincent Caron, Amana Ferro, Philippe Lemmens, Nellie Epinat;

1) WelcomeMinutes and agenda approved.

2) Presentation by Iceland (Salvör Nordal) See PowerPoint presentation

What happened in Iceland following the crisis?

The crisis started on 6 October 2008, when the Prime Minister addressed the nation. The 3 big banks collapsed. Following that, a state of emergency was declared.

A special Investigation Commission was appointed to seek the truth behind the collapse of the Iceland banks. It was led by the Prime Minister. It was proposed to undertake a legal analysis as well as an ethical one, which resulted in a comprehensive report, which was published in 2010 (12 April). Parliament used the findings of the report to go ahead with further investigations.

Alongside all these attempts to come to terms with the crisis, there were many demonstrations outside parliament, but also in town. Then there were new election in April 2009. During the same year, the Constitution was revised. Icelanders needed to rebuild their values, so they decided to revise the Constitution and make it a common undertaking. It was in such a way that a substantial revision took place. This process of reforming the

1

Constitution was quite different from what was done in other countries, in a way to include people as much as possible.

This involved three steps:- National Forum in 2010 (June)- Constitutional Committee to organize a National Forum- Constitutional Assembly was elected by the public.

The idea was to launch a process to get civil society involved. Elections to the national forum took place in November 2010 with 522 candidates and 25 elected.

The constitutional Committee was a Committee of experts. This committee prepared national Forum meetings and evaluated them. A huge Report (700 pages) was released. A National Forum was organized for a day meeting with 950 participants to discuss constitutional issues. These people were randomly chosen from the national Registry to represent the nation.

However, the elections were taken to Supreme Court and invalidated. 25 citizens were originally elected and appointed by the Parliament (member of this council and Chair). This Constitutional Council had 4 months of work from April to July 2011 in an open and transparent way, which involved:

- Open dialogue on various constitutional issues- Unique process with big and various opportunities

As to the challenges: we had a very tight timeframe (only 4 months), but it took time to engage the public. The Council was criticized for its lack of diversity (most of the people came from Reykjavík and from similar backgrounds). Only few of issues were addressed by the public.

Biggest challenge: lack of dialogue between civil society and the political sphere (before, during, after the drafting process) with a lack of framework and structure (the public dialogue should have continued). We needed to have very broad consensus on constitutional amendments.

The current situation: There were heated discussions between political parties – agreement to amends article on constitutional amendments. New constitutional Committee has been appointed. It is important that politicians take that seriously.

Q/ASérgio/ Chair: This is an important process to reveal democracy.

Jasmina/ Serbia: Listening till the end of presentation, this is quite a surprise to hear about the outcomes given the big democratic process? Would it have been possible to establish a meaningful bottom-up mechanism? R/: No idea about what kind of mechanism would work. Constitutional committee with debate with civil society and again debates in Parliament –

2

one of the reasons that politicians stayed away and about what they would have been willing to accept – politicians have a tendency if there is a referendum they don’t want to do anything with it. They do not bear any responsibility but we have to work together and find a way to communicate. Everyone is responsible all the way.

Peter / UK: there is lot of interest about what’s happening in Iceland and Scotland (referendum issue): There is something still unclear: what’s the big difference/ radical changes proposed to Constitution?R/: The biggest challenges are the following: the new Constitution is more opened up to direct democracy with a greater separation between the Government & Parliament so as to make division between powers clearer. There was one big issue debated about national resources which was to have in our constitution that “our national resources are owned by the nation/ public”.

Gilles / Luxemburg: Do you feel like betrayed by politicians? Has it been now taken over by politicians? R/Of course, we would have liked to see more things taken on board, but it has been a great and positive process - inside in politics – and it was very much influenced by UK and US in politics – there was very strong opposition/ antagonism.

Tanya / Secretariat: After very high activism of people what is the follow-up? Are people still interested in this process or is there less motivationR/: It is hard to say but motivation is going down. But hopefully, maybe we can initiate it again.

Well Being Watch, Lara Björnsdóttir (Chair) See PowerPoint presentation

Wellbeing is very different from welfare. For centuries, Iceland was a very homogeneous nation (with almost no migrants). A rapidly changing society within the last few decades for the better (strong welfare system) and for the worse.320.000 inhabitants and 74 municipalities. Parliament (63 members). Iceland is a young country (children represent 25% of the population). Single parents = 27% of families with children – 24% of children live with single parents – employment rate = 79,3% - Elderly 67+ = around 10%.

The Icelandic situation after October 2008 is the following:- Banks collapsed- Iceland lost its credibility abroad- Widespread within the population were anger, disbelief, lack of confidence, sadness,

and grief. - How could this happen? Everything felt lost. What about our children’s future?

Welfare in Iceland - Almost in every field people expected the worst. Short term minority Government

ran the country from March to May 2009. 4 different governments were in place from October 2008 to 2013. All these Governments promised to protect the welfare system, so did all political parties, but how did they do it?

3

The short-term Government decided in March 2009 to establish a Welfare Watch to monitor the consequences of financial crisis on families and individuals and set up a steering group with 21 representatives: 6 ministries, NGOs, trade unions, City of Reykjavík.Simple advice in times of crisis could be summed up like this: exercise, eat sleep and mingle and stay active in leisure and work, but also try to look at the bright side of life. The main objectives of the Well-being Watch were:

- Collect information on what has been already put into action – and had it helped? - Collect info regarding possible consequences of the financial crisis- Present recommendations to the ministers and the Government.

How can this steering group be independent, when the Ministry for welfare gives a mandate? Because people came from various different fields bringing expertise on the ground;

Recommendations produced by the Welfare Watch should at all times be based on reliable info and research.

8 working groups with more than 100 individuals took part. Cooperation took place in all directions (info from the community, NGOs, local authorities), with the support of the University.

There was a focus on the children’s welfare in all areas (young families with children) and on the fight against unemployment. The unemployment rate was at 10% at that moment. Long-term unemployment and youth unemployment were on the rise.

Lots of actions were carried out and different letters were sent to local and national authorities. For instance, letters have been sent to local authorities and MPs to call for lunch to be provided to all school children. This was taken on board.

A Report on social indicators was produced and was now handed over to the official statistics Department.

Current situationSerious consequences of the economic crisis on families and individuals have been prevented. Nonetheless, there is still persistent long-term unemployment.

For 2013, the focus is on vulnerable groups and increased support alongside special measures to ensure welfare and economic viability of low-income families with young children, particularly of single-parent families. Poverty is now more visible than before the crisis.

Has the Welfare Watch made a difference?- Some visible results from Welfare Watch suggestions - Social indicators are a reality- An increased focus on children and families - Meals now provided for all children in primary schools- A broad ownership- Consensus on the main matters

4

- Backup from the Minister

Consequences are only visible in some areas:- Most people have jobs- No visible health problems- Children’s situation stable at home and in schools- It seems that infrastructure passed the test- The welfare watch has to be watched in the long run.

Q/AMaciej / AGE Platform: Very interesting presentation. In a recent OECD report, Iceland is pointed out as the best country for women in terms of reduced gender-pay gap. How does it relate to the findings of your Report? R/: If you want to have a prosperous country, you need to invest in women and children. Women in Iceland do not have the same pay – 10% less or even less. Women have main responsibilities with children and are the ones the most suffering from rise of poverty as well as children (especially single-parent families).

Johanna / Norway: Is there a free lunch for all children going to school? R/: Yes, but there was initial disagreement within the Welfare Watch. But, it is important that all children eat the same food. It has to do with the community feeling. Municipalities were supportive.

Sian / Secretariat: What about income and wealth inequalities? Wouldn’t it be better to have Welfare and Well-being Watch at the same time?R/: Inequalities have gone down with the crisis – with social indicators we can measure things 10 years back. Many people think that poverty came with economic crisis. But it did not. Welfare and Well-being Watch should be embraced in the future all together.

Batt Samfelag - Sidbot, NGO network for pensioners and unemployed

Sidbot was created in 2010. Open dialogue spaces involve older people, ministers, political parties,and insurance companies. A poverty card is given to all poor people and many of them came to discuss with us and, as a result, the disability card was introduced.

We started protesting in July 2013 in front of ministries – The Ministry for well-being received us. The President of Iceland went to our meeting and has actively worked with us. The latest demonstration was organized by using empty sheets of paper collected in the streets,with which we build up a poverty totem.

Those receiving money from the State have fallen under the poverty threshold. But people getting wages have seen their wages increasing. In 2014, we might think about organizing a demonstration based on the gay pride to make us more visible in a funnier manner.

5

Q/A:

Vilborg / Iceland: They pointed out how the system was breaking down with new methods to protest – they are very active. They never give up and find new ways – they have been doing a lot of good things.

3) Director’s Activity Report Barbara / Secretariat: This document is designed to update you on what we have been doing over the last few months. The new architecture for the EC call for proposals was published in July. We had to work on in it in August. Our application was sent on 6 sept to the Commission.

The main policy outputs are:- The 2013 NRP Report, which was officially launched during the EAPN annual Policy

Conference last October. - The Letter to President Barroso in October.- The Response to the AGS will be completed by the end of January/ beginning of

February 2014 . - The successful outcomes on the EU campaign EU Money for Poverty Reduction,

NOW! On the 19th of November, the European Parliament voted in plenary on the minimum shares, with a minimum budget for the ESF corresponding to at least 23,1% of the Cohesion Policy’s budget, and at least 20% of the ESF earmarked for social inclusion and poverty reduction.

- Closing of the Water campaign – 1,9 million signatures have been collected – the Commission is reviewing all the signatures. The idea would be to organize a Hearing at the European Parliament at the beginning of next year.

- A big work has been devoted to the Annual Convention, with around 40-50 people from EAPN Networks participating. T-shirts have been produced with the EAPN slogan. A preparatory EAPN meeting will be held to talk about the key messages – Sérgio will be giving one of the key note speeches, together with Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament.

There is a list of all the meetings we attendedbetween July until now (including TF meetings). Fundraising &European Election Campaign will be discussed later on. Social Platform: Barbara is member of the Management Committee.

Q/A:Gilles / Luxemburg: 3 persons from Secretariat were let go – why, and how this choice has been made? R/ Sérgio: This will be discussed later on.

Freek / FEANTSA: The budget foreseen for the Annual Convention 2014 amounts to around 800 000 euros for a 2 day meeting – EAPN should have a statement about these exaggerated costs in time of austerity – at this stage it is a rumor but we must verify it in

6

view of the next Annual Convention. This Annual Convention has a very limited impact and follow up – there are many other alternatives to organize it.

Carlos / Spain: we have to clarify these figures on spending. It is very important to have it clear because we should defend the existence of the Annual Convention and secondly, depending on the response we will have received, we could then question these figures with overall civil society organizations (not only EAPN, but also Social Platform and other stakeholders…)

Sian / Secretariat: We need good evaluation from members about what we want for the next Annual Convention.

Barbara / Secretariat: The 800 000 euros’ budget is not only about the Convention, but could cover other activities in relation to poverty reduction and other meetings, either with us or the Social Platform. We need to verify what the final amount is, and see how to coordinate our actions together with other actors like the Social Platform.

Freek / FEANTSA: What does it mean? It needs to be verified. Only few European networks are on the programme of the Annual Convention. But, I am concerned about the amount spent. Only 2 European NGOs will be taking the floor in plenary sessions (i.e. EAPN and Social Platform) – EAPN should express some concerns in a polite way.

Sérgio / Chair: We should first get clearer information about this Annual Convention – we should take position if official and clear information could be obtained before this Annual Convention – if yes, we could say something.

Maciej / AGE Platform: EAPN has a stronger say in this matter than the Social Platform. EAPN has more credibility and legitimacy to raise this question than any other organization. We could phrase it like this: “We do not know what the budget will be, but we would like to get clarity about the budget for next year’s Annual Convention”. EAPN could take the lead on it.

Sérgio / Chair: We will discuss it during the next item. But EAPN has a very limited time to take the floor – 3 min (out of 45 min of debate).

Carlos / Spain: If we decide that the EPAP is not working at all, we have to keep up with our costs. How are we going to present it to the Social Platform, and then how are we going to do it? How are we going to defend ourselves?

Sérgio / Chair: We should be careful about not attacking the Annual Convention and losing the space for stakeholders’ involvement.

Statement of accounts See Financial Report

- Staff costs: projected shortfall: 40 000 euros.Why? 3 persons laid-off, with rights to respect (advanced payments - days off and notices).

7

- Travel costs: projected savings: 50 000 euros. Why? Cheaper venues – not always 100% participation and over-estimation of travel costs at the beginning of the year.

- Services: project shortfall: 90 000 euros. Why? The biggest part where we could get co-funding, but there is a shortfall in co-funding. Hopefully, we will be getting more money in our accounts by the end of this year.

- Administration: 25 000 euros savings. - Total anticipated shortfall: 18,200 euros.

Q/A:Izabella / Hungary: The shortfall in co-funding – is it because EAPN has not received all our national reports? R/ Barbara: That’s basically true. Philippe / Secretariat: A lot of time is spent chasing people about the actions that could fit in EAPN’s work programme, so as to bring new co-funding. Sometimes, they can come up with some co-funding that we would need. Co-funding can be OK, but at the same time it raises our budget. We should be cautious about our expenditures. The guessing is a difficult thing – 20% of our budget goes to national networks. It is up to you to respect your contract with EAPN. The overall expenditure will not be solved so we should not exceed 100% expenditures.

Stephan/ Belgium: To what extent does the Commission have flexibility while approving our budget per heading?

Philippe / Secretariat: We cannot exceed the 20% margin per heading. It is possible to ask the Commission to go over this 20%, but this should be asked in advance. The Commission has the right to limit it.

Carlos / Spain: We cannot wait till end of year to search for co-financing, we can put in our programs things that can be done to meet the co-financing requirements, but we need to know what kind of actions in advance.

Philippe / Secretariat: EAPN ES is a big contributor. Co-financing should come not only from 2-3 National Networks, but from all of them (even a small contribution). But, I will check it with Isabel Allende as soon as possible.

Sérgio / Chair: This exercise is not easy, but we should do it properly, especially in the context of budgetary cuts. Call Philippe and ask what you canyou do to help. We should distribute our efforts in a fairer manner.

4) EAPN application to the Commission

Sérgio / Chair: Big changes had to be done quickly, because the information came very late. This could not be foreseen during the last EXCO meeting in June. Process was very speedy. From early August, we had to start working on the application proposal (both core budget and the joint activities’ proposal). We received 20 answers from National Networks on the

8

EAPN’s proposal, which was sent to EXCO members in August. We are still living with a scenario of cuts of around 40% in EAPN’s budget. The final decision is still outstanding. We will probably get an official answer by the end of November at the earliest. We wanted to speak with the Commission, but could not do it before because of equal treatment requirements. We met Commissioner Lászlo Andor last week. We addressed the issue of the call (i.e. the cuts in our budget and the way cuts have been made and the process). The Commission’s process put organizations in competition; in addition, the timeframe was extremely tight and ill chosen as it was the summer period. The first heading of savings is about reducing overhead 2014. The second is about reducing staff: why 3 persons? We have tried to be as reasonable as possible and to reduce the impact. Micheline – we had no possibility to continue to keep her because she was working on the PeP Meeting, and we had no clarity about the PeP meeting next year. Leticia – wanted to leave because of her health problems. Claire – we have made our choice in terms of needs in the policy team. Barbara has been running a very participative and transparent process. If the Commission approves exactly what we proposed, we will be able to manage as explained. But if not, we could have an emergency GA to approve further changes. Reducing costs for travels and meetings: EAPN will only be able to pay one representative from each network to attend the GA. EXCO members, attending the GA will be reimbursed.

Q/A:Freek / FEANTSA: FEANTSA is also heading for trouble. Does EAPN have a liability insurance for Board members? Sérgio / Secretariat: Each EXCO member has one.

Freek / FEANTSA: It was very tight timeframe – it made our life very difficult. The Secretariat and the Bureau had to draft the application, but it is here a question of trust and transparency. It could have been better – there was a possibility to be more transparent. FEANTSA budget is cut by 15%. Organisations hit by the ceilings should make a complaint (with Eurocities) – civil servants in Member States involved in PROGRESS were not consulted. The application procedure took so much time that we could not comply with labor law regarding the notice period for staff. There is still an issue of the link between the individual and the joint activities. It is still unclear. On the joint activities, all range of partners raised the point about how the proposal of joint activities was submitted – after we had sent our comments, the budget was shifted – we can understand that but our complaint has been highlighted to Barbara.

Carlos / Spain: I would like to congratulate Barbara. It has been really hard for her to do it. In Spain, I would have done it differently. We all have our own ideas. I have tried to help. During the next 2-year period: in 2015, things will remain similar, we have to see how things will go in 2-year period – we have to direct our attention to other sources of funding. I don’t agree with the idea that we cannot pay more people for their jobs.

Sérgio / Chair: On transparency – we can always have a different vision – if it could be better, I am sure yes but given the context, I’m quite happy as President, but again it is always possible to do better. Within 20 days we did the best we could. About the complaint, we’ve already said we were not happy. But, it should not be only EAPN to make a complaint. It was announced as an open call but it was not. If we want to go for a

9

legal complaint, we should do it jointly. This Commission’s process was very divisive and disruptive. It is not the first time that the Commission does so. The Commission did it in 1994 with the anti-poverty programmes. We should not be naïve. We should be careful. Let’s be together.

About the joint action, it is fair enough that you made this complaint. You said it was not fair to change the budget once the proposal was agreed within the partners – but we tried to meet you and we had only 48 hours to do it – this was explained to you during a meeting – the EXCO reacted to your complaint. For us, it is already solved but we should keep that in mind for the future and let’s see what will be the results.

Freek / FEANTSA: FEANTSA is not an enemy of EAPN. About the lack of transparency – between 15 July and 6 September, there could have been more transparency in both individual and joint actions from FEANTSA’s point of view but we accept the results.

Germen /Salvation Army: On the way of communicating between the Bureau and EAPN members, I agree with Freek’s points - I wish you all the best for next year and congratulation for what you have been doing with the EAPN proposals on the budget for the coming 4-years.

5) Policy Context and Challenges (14h30-15h15)

Sian Jones, Policy CoordinatorPowerPoint presentation

Our policy strategy derives directly from the Strategic Plan, where Goal 1 and Objectives 1.1. and 1.3. speak explicitly of policy work. Objective 1.1. is delivered through the EU Inclusion Strategies Group, whose Terms of Reference define it specifically as such. The Group has developed an overarching Advocacy Strategy, which was presented to you in detail and discussed in March. The second Objective is currently being dealt with through the EXCO and its Subgroups. In the EU ISG, we use policy hooks for a very clear aim – to have better and more effective anti-poverty policies, at national and EU level. Full list of actions, policy drivers and key developments – available in the PowerPoint.

Main challenges: Externally: Europe 2020 is dominated by economic governance, which is generating increased poverty – do we continue to support it? Do we have an alternative? The democratic deficit and the limited stakeholder involvement – is it still worth engaging? Do we want more Europe (which, right now, means more austerity). Internally: Only one policy group, and reduced policy staff; difficult to engage and mainstream work at the national level; how to be more membership-led, while retaining a common project?

Questions to discuss:1. Do you agree with the challenges? Are there others?2. What are the implications of the Commission application for our policy work?

10

3. How to create more space for real exchanges on anti-poverty practice and advocacy, while retaining a common project?

4. How to organize ourselves, especially at the national level, and link up to the EU level?

5. Should we revisit our overarching policy objectives, or rethink how we deliver them?

Debate with members

Freek / FEANTSA – One of the big problems with the European Semester process is the way the European Commission and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) monitor progress in the social area. A lot is based on how good and factual that monitoring is, and I think it is seriously flawed. The last report of the SPC looks at progress or regress in the social protection systems in Member States, and it serves as input to the Joint Employment Report, which is an Annex of the Annual Growth Survey (AGS). We look at homelessness, which was only a small section, and which was factually incorrect, and missed the point completely. UK was mentioned as a good practice, which is almost like a provocation. If the basis is so wrong, since the AGS is the start of the European Semester, which feeds in the NRPs, which lead to the CSRs, how can we have a good process afterwards? One problem is that Member States provide the input, and the other one is that the Commission does not have the resources and expertise to judge whether it is correct or not. There is a clear role for EAPN to address this. I share the pessimism about the context, but there is something interesting in the last AGS, something new. The Commission has committed itself in the document to focus specifically on the situation of the most vulnerable, and that’s new. There is an inflation of explanations of what constitutes a vulnerable group, but it is a hook nonetheless. The Social Investment Package (SIP) is also important, as DG Employment, still our biggest ally in the Commission, only has power on this SIP. Even if it is very unclear what will happen with the SIP, we should push them to do more, and Sérgio can maybe bring this point to the Annual Convention. About the internal challenges, the European Organisations were not mentioned. Many of them do what National Networks do, but on thematic areas. EAPN can do better to integrate that into its work. Related to that, we should be aware that it is important to be bottom-up, but in this process, it is also important to be top-down. The CSRs are being discussed at EU level now already, while the NRPs still have to be drafted. Let’s not have any illusions. We can only intervene in that if you have an element of top-down in this. EOs have a key role to play in this area.

Peter / UK (Chair) – Any reflections on our engagement at the national level?

Tess / Ireland – There is a real deficit at national level, and I assume there is a huge variety in the capability of different organisations to engage. Some have paid staff, others don’t, so it is not always easy to get your issues heard at national level. This is why organisations lose interest in the EU level, they just can’t wrap their heads around it. This is a real challenge, to keep up the interest in the EU level.

Peter / UK (Chair) – Do we still feel that these EU hooks that Sian presented are opportunities, the way they were 10 years ago?

11

Sérgio / Portugal – This is quite complicated to follow and understand, but, at the same time, this discussion, and the one after the coffee break, are the future of EAPN. This silence is quite disturbing, and it is part of the problem. What is the reason for this silence?

Clotilde / EuroDiaconia – Our members share what Tess said. They find it hard to get to know and follow EU issues, and also, after so many years, they are disillusioned. We face the same questions and challenges that Sian raised.

Peter / UK (Chair)- Is it a question of capacity, as Tess suggested? Or also relevance?

Freek / FEANTSA – We have the same problem. We can’t mobilize the whole membership on every aspect, as it is either irrelevant, or naïve to think we will have an impact of anything. Our membership has decided not to do any evaluation of the NRPs anymore, because of lack of capacity and relevance. We decided to focus on CSRs instead, and develop them at national level, and lobby with them at the EU level, especially with the European Commission. We now assume that if we get the right things in the NRPs, they will be reflected in the CSRs, but it is not true. It is more realistic to see what countries could be open to a social CSR, develop it, and lobby for it. I know this is a provocative suggestion, but it may be an answer.

Maciej / AGE Platform – I am not that pessimistic about the silence in the room, as I attended less than a month ago the EU ISG meeting, which is where the policy issues are discussed, and the discussion was more than lively. It is not easy in this EXCO format to tackle these issues. Your colleagues were more than engaged, and they knew what the discussion was about, and what the Secretariat is doing. However, everybody is a little confused right now at the national level about how to engage with the European level. We discussed also in the framework of the Alliance on the European semester, led by EAPN, where some organizations involved are part of EAPN, and some are not. This is also a space for us to strengthen. There are many changes coming up, we are a little lost, which is normal, as the context is very difficult, so it is difficult for one organization alone to make an input. Freek thinks that not even together we can have an impact, but I think we should try. This coordination and exchange between the Secretariat, National Networks, EOs, and other partners in the European Semester Alliance, is crucial, whatever we do - analysing the NRPs, preparing shadow CSRs etc. What I did not understand is what kind of hook is the Mid-Term Review, and how can we use it. My last point is: EAPN appreciated the setting up of the poverty target, as an outcome of the European Year 2010, although now the figures are completely disappointing, it is a total failure. But let’s try to use this “failure” during the Mid-Term Review, it should be our main policy message.

Carlos / Spain – Regarding the silence, I think my silence was because I think I speak too much. There is a problem with the Europe 2020 Strategy, as the measures adopted at the EU level go completely against the agreed objectives. It is as clear as that. This is not about how well we are following the objectives, it is about how the complete opposite is being down. This is the same strategy as the one used with the Lisbon Strategy – they will say that, since objectives can’t be met, we’ll give up on them. I am very afraid that this will happen. We need to be more relevant at national level, which is not the case with some countries. National Networks should ask themselves why they want to be in EAPN, and why they

12

created anti-poverty networks at the national level. In Spain, we got together so we could influence policies. For the EU level, we have the Secretariat. For the national level, it is up to us. Networks need to look at themselves and find out if they are doing what they should, if they are building alliances, including with trade unions, if they are being relevant, if they are establishing themselves as interlocutors and part of the discussion. One last thing, it is not just about Europe 2020. It is also about democracy and Treaty reform, not just in the direction of the Monetary Union, but also in the direction of the Social Union. If wealth and growth are Community issues, poverty, which is also an economic issue, needs to be a Community issue as well.

Stephan / Belgium – I agree with what Sian presented. Another great challenge, which was not mentioned, but was also Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP). This is not just economic governance, it is becoming corporate governance. This TTIP is negotiated backstage, far away from any democratic debate space. It should become concrete in 2015. The promises are significant GDP growth and massive job creation, but history lessons, such as NAFTA, show us that this is not true – Clinton promised more jobs, but there was a net loss of 1 million jobs in the USA instead. This will have a huge impact on the environment, consumer rights, social rights etc. Corporations will be able to put public authorities before a Court, if public authorities promote measures going against corporate interest. This is an issue we should not underestimate. We already have a lot of work, and I am not suggesting we do more, but at least we can do it through alliances with organizations such as the CEO (Corporate Europe Observatory), LobbyControl, the Transnational Institute, trade unions etc. We should link up more and better to these.

Karel / Czech Republic – We built, in the Czech Republic, a different type of organization, because, as EAPN, in my country, we are not an organization which can tackle social problems on our own. I think that also in Europe, if we want to change the status quo, we have to be more concrete in our objectives, needs, and programme. For instance, we can work with others on concrete topics. For instance, on social housing. We need to be very concrete in what we ask. Also, I think that the European Commission is not our only interlocutor, there is also the European Parliament, all our countries have MEPs, we need, each of us, to work more closely with them.

6) Orientation / Debate / Responding to Future Challenges (15h30-17h00)

Sérgio / Portugal – We are reaching the end of the Strategic Plan, so we need to start the discussion on the next one, taking into account the changes we are going through as an organization. This is just a first exchange, we are launching a debate which will continue in March. Some questions to keep in mind during the debate – see PowerPoint – about Governance, Membership Development, and Strategic Planning. We will discuss these three broad areas, based on the questions displayed, in buzz groups.

Results of buzz groups

Alexandre Jutant / BABELEA – Everybody agrees that many documents are received, and many are in English, while this is not an accessible language for everybody. In some cases, documents are sent very late – it would be helpful to make an effort to send them earlier. It

13

would also be good to have more time during meetings to discuss these issues. It would be good to have more time in the EXCO for a particular network or organization to present what they were doing (as was the case for Romania and the UK during the last EXCO). On development, e-learning tools can be very useful. In Norway, thematic forums were put in place online, to allow members to better communicate. It would be good to have a section of Frequently Asked Questions, for new members. For 2015, it would be good to find mechanisms to be more flexible, and have increased capacity for quick reaction. We should also strive to be as visible as possible, externally, even provocative if needed.

Stephan / Belgium – These are not the points of view of our organizations, but our personal ones, as we did not have time to consult with our networks beforehand. The overall picture of governance and decision-making is quite clear, as well as the roles of each of the statutory bodies. Sometimes communication can be improved, as well as transparency. EU ISG & EXCO – there is no competition between the two groups, the separate roles are clear, and the work of both is valuable and valued. The reality of cuts – staff has been reduced, so we need to identify what work needs to be reduced as well, and use more the expertise of specialized organizations.

Quinta / Netherlands –There was a question about the individual roles of the Bureau, we only know that Olivier is responsible for funding, but we don’t know what the others do, and what we can contact them for. For the EXCO, the agenda is too packed, there is too much information, and little time for input. It is not clear what practical management means in this question – it seems the Bureau decides, and we are presented with the decisions, and we say yes and no. The other way around would be for us to discuss, and for the Bureau to implement those decisions. There are some issues we don’t know, such as how do Task Force function, as we can’t evaluate how well they work without knowing them. It is also not clear the division between the EU ISG and the EXCO mandates, and what each of them does.

Clotilde / EuroDiaconia – We weren’t clear about the division between the EXCO and the EU ISG – why is the EXCO taking responsibility of the policy, while it is not shaping it? This group could focus more on good practices and membership exchange, while a larger Bureau could assume management responsibilities. It would be helpful to have a discussion to clarify the role of the European Organisations, but their involvement has improved in the EXCO and the EU ISG. We were quite happy with the Task Forces, which are working quite well, and serving their purpose of engaging members which otherwise would not be engaged in the work.

Gilles / Luxemburg – There is some lack of clarity between Bureau and the EXCO and their roles, and who is doing what. It would be useful that the Minutes or Action Points of the Bureau could be shared. We would also like to know about the individual responsibilities of each of the Bureau members – finance, communication, staff, membership etc. Role of the EXCO – everybody sings a solo, but this doesn’t make a choir. There is the eternal question about membership versus Secretariat – should it be top-down, or bottom-up? The truth is that we all want this to be a membership-driven organization, but members are overwhelmed, they don’t have the time, the language skills etc. to actually drive.

14

Sérgio / Portugal – The roles of the EXCO and EU ISG are explicit, are written, and have been agreed. The EU ISG has a political role, and the EXCO has a strategic role. European Union and Governance is a role of the EXCO, while individual policies, such as Europe 2020, are a mandate for the EU ISG. Members of the EU ISG are not alone, they don’t represent themselves, but the same networks that you represent. The Bureau represents the EXCO and also has clear responsibilities. The role of the EOs must be clarified further, and a process is underway – there was a recent meeting of the EOs. Some Task Forces should be permanent, such as one on Structural Funds. Many changes were mentioned, but, if we want to actually implement them, we must explain them very clearly, and in no more than 4 pages, which can be easily understood and translated. Another permanent Task Force could be the one on Membership Support. The discussion on the new Strategic Plan should not start from the one we have, and try to update it, instead we should think fresh, start from a clean slate.

Peter / UK (Chair) – Most discussions focused on governance issues, so clearly something we need to reflect on again.

PS – Numbers of items have been changed, with re-ordering of the agenda items.

7. Conclusions of the Orientation Debate

Sérgio’s summary:General

It’s the start, not the end of the discussion. The upcoming decision on funding will define more clearly some of the constraints.

Sergio requested that the position proposed by the Bureau regarding the application should be formally agreed by the EXCO, with the recognition that some further changes may still be necessary.

Future Challenges The key challenges arise because of new financial application constraints and the

end of current strategic plan/ The Bureau propose that they will draft a discussion paper on the basis of what was

discussed yesterday, although recognizing that it was mainly focussed on governance.

The next EXCO should make concrete decisions. So members should discuss with their networks/organisations in the coming months in March in Poland.

We will need to find faster ways of making or changing decisions – defining clearer procedures, particularly in relation to the Bureau and EXCO, including a decision on having a larger Bureau.

We should recognize that some areas are already going forward – ie the role of the EOS.

If financing is approved, an important part of EAPN activities, will be part of the CSR Alliance Project – which is not just an EAPN project. There is a Steering Committee with European Organisations. A part will still be our core business, but it will mean changes.

15

Freek wanted to intervene, but has had to go home and has asked the Bureau to make available the Bureau minutes. The Bureau agreed, but was concerned why this is only raised now. It is an obligation under Belgium Law. However, there are issues sometimes around confidentiality. Bureau has agreed that the agenda and minutes will now be publically available from this Monday.

Discussion

Maciej / AGE Platform: EOs have discussed this issue, and all EOs apply this rule. It’s not a problem. It is also normal to have sensitive issues off the record. The demand just shows an interest in the Bureau’s discussion and it is an important way to increase transparency.

Carlos / Spain:We mustn’t confuse transparency with stupidity. We are very tired of having ‘assassins’in EAPN, i.e.those who make attacks and then are not there to deal with the discussion. People who are obsessed to find out more should not involve the rest of the EXCO. It’s completely unacceptable that members are sending criticisms to outside organisations, including the trade unions.

Minutes of the Bureau should only have the decisions and the reasons, not who said what. All EXCO should access them, with the rest of documents from the EXCO, i.e. approved by the Bureau. If a member has a problem, then it should be raised in the EXCO – and not to have open discussions on internet, prejudicing the position of EAPN, and being sent to external actors, including trade unions.

Clotilde / EuroDiaconia: We are all in the same boat. We must try to work together, we just want transparency. Some of us believe the details are important. Please believe that we are all together in this.

Carlos / Spain: I just meant that using transparency as an issue, we are looking for something else. I’m in agreement with the Bureau’s decision. My raised tone isn’t about the Bureau, but how this issue has been pursued by some members, i.e. the emails and conversations that have been carried out, involving the Commission and trade unions.I’m very worried about what’s happening with EAPN Europe. It’s not a game, nor a game of errors. I’m not against transparency. But we need to use intelligence and have the interests of EAPN at heart

Clotilde / EuroDiaconia: We are allowed to disagree. The problem with your tone is that we can’t disagree.

Carlos / Spain: The Bureau should make the effort to be transparent, and the rest of us should strive for the best for EAPN.

Sérgio: The Bureau are human beings. And we felt strange about the demands being made on this Bureau and not on previous Bureaus – don’t you trust us? The silence endorses what I said I assume.

16

Peter / UK: We’ve reached agreement.

ACTION/DECISIONS Agreed unanimously that Bureau minutes from now on will be published on

Members’ Room, once they are approved. However, this applies to the formal meetings with an agenda, not more informal

Skype meetings. Minutes will be available, but not for discussions with individual members. The EXCO meeting will be the main forum to raise concerns.

The Bureau will draft a discussion paper for the next EXCO, as a follow up to the discussion on key challenges

7.1. Development Update

Tanya / Secretariat: In your folders, there is a report on the Learning Forum: 18 organisations ran workshops – the good practices are captured in the report. The Task Force on Training and Capacity Building has asked you to share your knowledge and resources. With less money, we need to be more creative. We received 13 responses from networks. We will discuss this during the capacity building on December 6 and 7 - how to make the Membership Assessment and Support System a real development tool. Before the EXCO, we tried out the tool with EAPN Iceland, and they seem favourable. The following week, in December, we will have the capacity building seminar and one on social networking. We have only received 22 out of 29 reports of national networks, so the remaining members should send these reports to comply with statutory requirements. Tanya will take 3 months career leave in December, but the work will be covered by the Secretariat in some form. Barbara will inform.

ACTIONS/DECISIONS Members who haven’t sent their annual reports should do so as soon as possible. Barbara to report on how Tanya’s work will be covered in the Secretariat. Sérgio made a request that all members should send information by email on the

number of members they have at national level. We need this information for our advocacy and fund-raising work.

Discussion:Vilborg / Iceland: We have big umbrella organisation with 28.000 people, should we include these?Maciej / AGE Platform: You need to specify what you want in terms of organisations/people and clarify.Carlos / Spain: Agreed it is complicated. In EAPN ES, they are still trying to work it out. They don’t know how to count it. He proposed that we send legal members, and then make an explanation what this means to help us to calculate the real number. Also include what type of organisations as well.Peter / UK: We have the Church of Scotland and the largest trade unions… so good luck with that.

17

7.2. Report back on the Meeting with the Commissioner Lászlo Andor and Conclusions of the Orientation Debate

Sérgio’s report:Our most urgent issues: funding, the European PEP meeting and policy concerns: The worrying answer on funding is the Commissioner wants to move away from core funding towards project funding. The PEP meetings are facing uncertainty. Last year the Commissioner gave his support, but it was a struggle to get the practical backing. In our opinion it was a very good meeting. This year he again gave his commitment and said the Presidencies in Greece and Italy were in support. He wanted 2 moments for engagement of the PEP – one in May and one linked to the Convention. This year PEP are invited to the Convention, and they are using this argument to undermine support for the other. We argued that the PEP EU meeting is an important model for national engagement and meetings. If the EU meeting does not take place anymore, then this process will end. He recognized the importance of particular groups – e.g. Roma. So committed to start the process. In the pm, they had the meeting to plan the calendar of meetings, and at least the Commissioner said he put it in the calendar. We know he’s the only one in support. So it will not be easy. We are also asking the EP for an annual hearing – we shouldn’t mix these things. It’s very ambitious but could be an important output.

8. Future of the European Meeting of People Experiencing Poverty

Fintan’s presentation:Last year’s PEP meeting took place in difficult and different circumstances. The Commission organized directly the travel and accommodation and this part worked better than in previous years. We had no money for writing reports, unlike previous years. Fintan volunteered to do it in August, but had to write the funding application. We had an impressive contact list with MEPs, though not so sure how many turned up, also many Commission officials. What has declined is the national ministries attendance. No money for translation or printing for the reports. But Nellie is preparing a 1 page flyer, which you can use to disseminate. Doing the work without Leticia from the Secretariat has been very difficult, meaning more work for Nellie, Rebecca and impacting on the admin work for Sigrid and Coralie.

There are 3 reports (see: www.eapn.eu)1) General Report – provides background and 10 key messages, note about workshops,

slogans and messages of support from stakeholders and institutional actors, then additional actions.

2) Slogans: from each delegation - useful to use in our reports, also as a national souvenir.

3) Preparation work for the meeting – to make this work transparent. A very impressive amount of work was carried out by national delegations, with very little resources. EAPN is asking for agreement from national networks for it to be a public document and to give some clarifications. Would have liked to use the information to make another publication – but with Claire leaving early, we don’t have the resources for this at the moment.

18

Future MeetingsA reminder was given that the original idea came from the Social OMC with objective 4: participation of people experiencing poverty.

Main questions Have we a common understanding what the PEP meetings are for? What could be a good format for next year?

Next steps1) Get agreement with European Commission early in 20142) Meeting with responsible from NN and EO to plan participation3) Create space for PEP in EAPN.

DiscussionQuinta/ Netherlands: Good to have discussion on creative ideas – but no proposals now.Tess / Ireland: Like to give feedback from 2 people from Ireland, for whom the process was hugely transformative. They have got back self-esteem and pride.Vilborg / Iceland: Same for us. We attended twice and can see the impact on the people. One person is now involved in MASS and another is working on our website. It’s a very important event, and will help us to have a stronger network in Iceland.Edgar / Malta: Also for us, some of the people are now engaged with us to help in our lobbying. Even one of the immigrants, she has started to discuss with the Prime Minister? about the situation of migrants.Peter / UK: It’s important to capture this personal impact in the reports. We have similar experiences in Scotland.Sérgio / Portugal: Participation takes time. After 12 years we are now seeing results and people are starting to create their own associations and are in dialogue with politicians and their own initiatives. It’s a good idea to have a separate report. Also good to have some figures, that give a clear picture of the number of people involved in the general report in the executive summary – i.e. this involved…. So many people… days of work. Regarding the format: Are we in a condition to have a decision? When we haven’t got any confirmation from the Commission. We are also working with the EP. There is also the issue of participation in the Convention. The Convention is a very important moment. We must be careful that they don’t use the involvement of some PEP in the current Convention to say that this is enough for PEP. From Portugal, I still don’t know who is coming from PEP from Portugal. Quinta / Netherlands: Haven’t the people in poverty already had creative ideas for the next time – isn’t it important to let the ideas come from them?Fintan / Secretariat: important to add further work with the EP to get more support. Honoratte from Norway will contribute to the Convention workshop, but not so many people filled in the evaluation forms – so there are only a few ideas. But we’re already late, so we’ll need to have some ideas soon with a meeting late in January to plan with delegates and we’ll need to push the Commission with our ideas of the format and to give them the

19

deadlines. Then tell them they are too late. Ask people to send in ideas. Still unclear who has responsibility in the staff for this follow up.Barbara / Secretariat: recalling the tight timetable, we need to be prepared with ideas. Possibility to have the coordination meeting already this year.

ACTION/DECISIONS Agreement on the common understanding as outlined by Fintan on what the

meetings are for. EXCO members to check emails and give the clarifications and agreement to publish

this work on the preparation. Secretariat (Fintan) to record the number of people involved in the preparation of

the event and the report in the executive summary in a table. Secretariat (Barbara) to inform of the date for the coordination meeting and updates

on developments with the Commission.

9. Fundraising and Project Strategy

Fintan gave an overview of draft fund-raising strategy – See PowerPoint.

Objectives: secure a funding base for EAPN, diversify our funding base, to get financial support for development of networks, particularly national networks, and support the participation of people experiencing poverty.5 Areas: a) public funding, b) sponsorship events, c) major donors, d) individual donors and e) projects.

Next steps: a) The move towards project funding from EU level has implications. In other Directorates General (DGs) there is already no core funding i.e. cultural NGOs have lost core funding and project funding not available until September. We must defend the principle of a healthy democracy using public money to support the part of society that isn’t heard. Part of the UN right to be involved in your own development. We should look at what activities they will fund. We should explore lifelong learning programme.b) 2 editions of Row for Rights, with first year success, and 2nd less. No event last year. Need to decide whether to have it in 2015.C) Some possibilities of different types of events.d) Major donors – we need to present a principles paper. And have had contacts and should explore this.e) Individual donors – should be tried again, but members should support it. Last time mainly the staff.f) Project approach: European Minimum Income Network (EMIN) and DRIVERS- latter bringing a lot of work to policy and development staff. 5 members involved in developing focus groups at national level. EMIN is a service contract and can build a surplus we can reinvest. We won’t do this now, but could in the future. As you’re working directly to the Commission they pay more attention so chances of more impact, but also some compromises can be forced on you. In EMIN – now trying to expand to 26 networks and will

20

have meeting on 9 and 10 December, but difficulties in DE, AT, SE, FI, LT. But need a full reflection in the EXCO about the approach. Do we need a separate EAPN social enterprise to manage the project wing? Political and project work are different skills – and you need separate financial systems and produce good documents in English – so be aware of the pre-conditions.

Next StepsSome initial ideas:- EAPN Fund: Follow up on the fund and national network solidarity fund.- Fund visibility: good newspaper and the Prize, but need a good evaluation with call in autumn 2014 for Prize in 2015.- Need to package our work to fund it. - Could try to get funds to finance training materials or the Learning Forum.- Structural Funds Technical Assistance.Barbara / Secretariat: Putting together a new fund raising strategy is building on existing work, and in the context of the Commission disengaging from funding support for NGOs. We must be careful about what the fundraising strategy can deliver. Social Platform is an important tool to lobby about funding opportunities. We should ensure what our roles are – who does fund raising and who does the lobbying. Do we as European NGOs accept this new approach by the Commission? And develop a lobbying strategy. Role of the EXCO is to decide where we focus, but we don’t have the capacity to look into all these areas.

Questions Have we the right objectives? Have we identified the right areas? Agreement on the next steps?

DiscussionQuinta / Netherlands: I think we have the right objectives, maybe when looking at diversifying our base we should focus on key topics.Barbara / Secretariat: our priorities should match our general objectives. Not clear that Drivers is serving our goals.Peter / UK: I disagree. I think Drivers is exactly the kind of work we should be doing, on health inequalities and the social determinants like poverty and it gives added value to our specific role – engaging people experiencing poverty in an otherwise academic work. It allows us to develop and learn from it. Agree that they are broadly the right objectives – diversifying the funding base should mean looking a diversity of funders (but bigger funders). This becomes a job in itself.Tess / Ireland: I fully support the comments made about the important of fighting for core funding and the democratic rights of people who are excluded. If we just accept we’ve lost it, and hold that line we’ve lost something fundamental.Stephan / Belgium: It’s a crucial discussion about major donors, we had this discussion a year ago about GDF Suez. We need a detailed discussion for next EXCO. I could draft a position paper to discuss. Supported by Per from Denmark.Sérgio / Portugal: The issue of projects is a long discussion. EAPN is a champion in this area. Projects can become very separate from an EAPN policy agenda. We should try to integrate it better and not just a distraction. Good projects do reinforce the networks, and can enrich

21

our common work, if we create the space to share on it. Important to involve EAPN Brussels in this, and the broader network. We should be more flexible.Fintan 7 secretariat: Key issue is VAT – but EAPN is finding solutions. It’s important not to be funding led. Not to have too big expectations, but we have to move forward.

ACTION Agree objectives but need to prioritise, with limited resources. Continue to lobby on access to EU core funding for antipoverty NGOs as a

democratic issue/ together with Social Platform and other EU actors. On major donors, Stephan will develop a discussion paper for next EXCO.

10. Campaign for the European Elections

Kärt / Estonia called for 2 minutes of silence in commemoration of the people who died in the accident in Latvia this week. EAPN Latvia has managed to establish a network – but bad news with the accident with 52 dead, including a small child. Elina Alere is supporting the families in dealing with the accident and their grief.

Introduction – SérgioNo new discussion on what was agreed in the conference. Now we should be practical focused on concrete proposals for action. We should also use it to decide what profile we want for the Commissioner and the Commission, and try to influence this process.

Main Objectives: Exchange on what is being done at national level Decide how to engage in other election campaigns by other EOs Gather momentum for a common action – i.e. agreeing common date for actions in a

number of Member States Gathering info on how the sec could support members.

Nellie / Secretariat: This is our big campaign this year. Need to see what we’re doing at national level and have an effective discussion. Most of this campaign happens at national level. There will be a campaign tool kit, including the tool kit for the training in December on info/communication technologies and how to get heard in the media.

See PowerPoint – presentation of the strategy and blog, connected to the Elections Campaign.

Discussion

Germen / Salvation Army: Impressed by the professional work. Also important to give the list of European Organisations in the blog.

Carlos / Spain: Congratulations on the presentation. Each network should have its space, to publicize all the campaigns, including the EOs. In the blog, there should be a strategy to ensure that all the EU institutions also contribute to the blog as well.

22

Johanna / Norway: Very good presentation – We would like to use the ideas in next national election in Norway.

Gilles / Luxemburg: What about the questionnaire to send to the candidates? Do they just sign? Not clear if we should send the card or not? Or do we ask a number of questions to get an answer – so we can screen our politicians?Sérgio / Portugal: The card isn’t the main objective. It’s an excuse to have a meeting with them.

Barbara / Secretariat: The problem is to engage at national level with these candidates, signing the postcard is part of the process. We offer them visibility if they support them. We will stay in contact with MEPs, when they are settling in, and then we can have a meeting face to face to get our voices hear. The secretariat has been frustrated in finding out where national networks are in terms of their preparation.

Carlos / Spain: In the campaign must have 3XL in sizes for the T-shirts/ backed by Gilles.

Maciej / AGE Platform: Want to share some concerns and conclusions from AGE discussion. Launched our own manifesto. It seems all the EOs have the same recipe – so everybody will be working in its corner with its own messages. But at a later stage, we should have a common event. Social Pact for Europe – for social and non-social NGOs to get on board other groups. Equally important, how we strengthen the part which is engaging people just to vote.

Stephan / Belgium: In Belgium, voting is compulsory. We’ve discussed it in the network, and it will be core business, and we will have 3 elections – EU, federal and regional. Board has decided that regional networks will run regional campaign, and BAPN focus on federal and EU level. We will use our own manifesto and integrate EAPN’s manifesto on the policy making – and will add aspects – e.g. the Transatlantic investment, and besides that we will make alliances for an extra manifesto on the EMIN project on Minimum Income – and will be used by all national stakeholders and try to reach all the parties, and to invite ourselves, to be part of discussions with the media. After the elections, bring forward national and European projects and have the EMIN conference then – part of a coalition making.

Sian / Secretariat: Important to connect up to broader alliances including the Spring Alliance, which is the main focus of the Social Platform, working together with Environmental and Developmental NGOs and Trade Unions, to develop a manifesto for a more social and sustainable EU finalized in December, with an Event in February and Event in September. Need to coordinate with this, as well as at national level, where national Spring Alliances are working.

Nellie / Secretariat: Don’t just send the postcard, but it’s an excuse for a face to face meeting.

Sérgio / Portugal: After lunch we need concrete answers on what national networks and EOs are doing on the questions.

23

Barbara / Secretariat: we also need to agree a common date for an action and for launching the campaign.

Final feedback Networks/Organisations who have already done something: ES,BE, AGE,NL, PT. Networks/Organisations who will nominate a coordinator: ES, BE, PL, IE, HU, MT, NL,

EE, DK, PT, UK. 11 networks not present – so important to follow up personally with them.

Kamila/Poland: In Poland, it’s a difficult topic, with the cuts in pensions.EU isn’t popular. Before the last election we organized a conference, but it wasn’t a big success, so some resistance from our own network. We haven’t started to do anything yet – we’ll have an EXCO meeting in December. It will need a lot of work for a national coordinator.

Quinta/Netherlands: Could be a good challenge for new network and members, but can’t promise it. Try to arrange meetings with the candidates and get new members to be contact person.

Tess/Ireland: We will definitely have a campaign, to start after Xmas. There’ll be huge changes. There will be quotas for candidates – e.g. 30% women. Also doing a voter education campaign.

Peter/UK: EU elections in UK will be low-key with likelihood of strong advances from UKIP; so it will be hard to know how to pitch it. We will hold a couple of meetings with other NGOs and use the postcards and social media.

Sérgio/Portugal: It’s a free choice. We should do it, and that we are going to find ourselves with only 3 or 4 networks. Easy options is to just highlight what you are already doing. PT network is doing it, in each speech/training session – we add it in. We are trying to safeguard democracy and to guard against abstentions. Postcard is in English/ but you could translate it. We are missing 11 networks.

Saviour/Malta: Idea of blog is good, but as it’s in English this is a restriction. We could make the template for each network with google translate on the national page.

Sian / Secretariat: EUISG meeting on the 9 and 10 May at the moment, and possible in PT or CZ. So this is a clash. The EUISG could be moved so it would not clash with the Action Day on May 9th – Europe Day.

Stephan /Belgium: What’s our position towards lobbying towards extreme right wing parties or homophobic parties?

Sérgio / Portugal: It’s up to each network to decide, not easy to define what is right wing and some will invite all legal parties. We in PT invite the full range of political parties. At national level it’s more difficult.

24

Germen / Salvation Army: We don’t believe in exclusion and should judge each on the content and approach.

Nellie / Secretariat: New parties using similar messages/so difficult to judge. There is an issue about the blog having to give space to a very extreme representative. But there is also the argument that we should also maybe try to persuade, but have common sense.

Peter / UK: National networks have to identify own approach and priorities. EAPN Scotland won’t work with racist or homophobic parties. On a blog, if we get racist or homophobic items, we shouldn’t post it. It’s our blog. We will contact UKIP and then try to have the discussion, but won’t publish fascist statements.

Sérgio / Portugal: We must go beyond the usual suspects if we are to have an impact. Proposed date for coordinating actions could be the 9th of May? Not clear what kind of symbolic action? At the moment clashes with the EUISG meeting – 9 and 10 May, probably in PT. To be discussed with Bureau and Secretariat about changing the date.

Barbara / Secretariat: We must think what the Social Platform is doing, and multiple alliances – links to the Spring Alliance, but we should stay with the Platform.

ACTION/DECISIONS Secretariat to go ahead with the materials and networks to comment and give

feedback or queries (Nellie) Networks/EO’s to nominate a coordinator at national level and discuss with

networks/organisations their approach/activities to feedback. Each network makes their own decision on which parties to work with, but we must

also go beyond the usual suspects.

Session finished at coffee break in pm on 23rd November.

11. EAPN Statutory Issues and Key Events

Sérgio introduced the session. Financial report until November 2013 was already presented (in a session on the first day of the EXCO). We all promised to find co-funding; even if it is only 100€, this is a more collective approach symbolically. Report of GA 2013, members received it. No comments.

EXCO in March – 14-15 March in Warsaw. EAPN Poland has a cooperation project with the Poverty Alliance, funded from Swiss grants. Therefore, Peter’s participation is covered from the project, and EAPN Poland proposes a half day morning seminar with about 40 Polish participants. The planning of the meeting will be done with the Polish EXCO.

GA 2014 – Letizia from EAPN Italy was thinking about hosting it. Now we know that it will be with an EXCO meeting. We will liaise with Letizia to know about EAPN Italy hosting the GA which would be an enlarged EXCO. Looking for alternative ideas. EAPN Czech Republic and

25

EAPN Portugal were considering to host the EUISG. Therefore, three options on the table with the co-funding issue to be clarified. The GA was proposed to be organized for one person – one day. Therefore, a combination of EXCO and GA means 3 working days with 2 delegates per NN and one delegate per each EO at the GA. GA 2014 dates: 27-28 June 2014.

Strategic Congress 2015 – The Strategic Congress should be a big event, as big as previous General Assemblies. However, it is not known whether EAPN can afford to organise it and if other statutory bodies get changed, this might also change. The Bureau proposes to take this up in the other overall reflection on the Governance and working structure which should be discussed in March. These discussions should be voted on at the June GA. The Bureau considers that it will be complicated financially to do it, considering already the 2014 GA will be hard to do with one delegate per network.

Next year, in Spain, 3 regional networks are turning 20, one of them being EAPN Andalucía. So, the network of Andalucía proposes to host the November EXCO meeting with a one full-day meeting the previous day. EAPN accepts the offer.

EUISG meetings will happen on 7-8 February + 9-10 May and 3-4 October, linked to the Policy Conference. The timing was linked to discussions on the National Reform Programmes, but dates can be discussed with the Bureau.

12. Preparing for the Next Strategic Plan

External Evaluation:Barbara introduced the issue: There is a document in the folders with questions at the end. The document is putting forward a process of external evaluation leading to the Strategic Planning period 2015-2018. We need to know what elements an external evaluator should look at. We have some funding available to pay an external evaluator and we have identified a person. Need to look at the questions. Evaluation is an opportunity to look at the things we have done, what really works and what things we need to change. The EXCO is asked to give guidance to an evaluator, but there is not much time left to do the work – it is an enormous task for one person to do. The questions at the end of the document need to be answered by the EXCO.

At the last EXCO, the Bureau had asked for names of people who can do the evaluation –have only one – a founding member of EAPN from the Spanish network – José Manuel Fresno. With him there are two strengths, one is that he knows the Network and he is very close to European level work. He was collaborating with the Commission on the Social Investment Package.

Clotilde / EuroDiaconia and Gilles / Luxemburg: Questions on the link between the evaluation as a requirement by PROGRESS funding or not. Germen / Salvation Army: Should we not be evaluating also the impact of EAPN on the political arena.Tess / Ireland: for me the most important one is point number two in the questions: what is the impact of EAPN policy work?

26

Gilles / Luxemburg: Since the last meeting, there was a crisis that came on us and we had to do big cuts and we should be clear that the return on investment that we have made is good considering the circumstances. It is difficult to explain other cuts when we go into the direction that we have to do things that is not an external obligation. We should be careful on the return on investment in this activity.

The Bureau will follow up with the Secretariat/Director to contact this external evaluator. This is a kind of consultancy. We have already in this meeting and will continue in Marc, and if possible we should invite the external evaluator to the March meeting and we look at it as a consultancy of how to make our work better. If we don’t get the commitment of JM Fresno, it will be difficult to find someone else who could do the work in the circumstances. 13. AOB:

Quinta / Netherlands raised a question for the whole of the network. A basic income group in the Netherlands is taking an initiative and as EAPN Netherlands we decided to support this initiative. My request is if you could help in your own countries to look for support signatures on this issue. We had a discussion in the EUISG previously, as EAPN was involved on the ECI on Water.

Sian / Secretariat: We had a discussion and there was quite a split between the networks, some were not necessarily opposed to it but preferred to work on the issue of minimum income as these are two different things. EAPN Italy, for example is very actively involved with this. So it was discussed as a national matter.

Fintan / Secretariat: The EMIN project has a discussion with civil society actors at European level on 29 November and Basic Income Network is going to be part of that discussion, so conversations are happening carefully on this matter.

14. Evaluation of the meeting

The Bureau knew that it would be a difficult meeting so would like to hear some feedback/reflection on the meeting.

Gilles / Luxemburg: The meeting was good, but what was really inspiring was the visit of the President’s house, the way how you can move around in some country’s President’s house and have discussions with him was really great. Thanks for that experience, Vilborg. Johanna / Norway: It’s good with the guests from the country we are in who can tell us about local stuff so we can bring it home. This EXCO has been the best ever that I have been to, I am so pleased Vilborg – you have done a great job!Maciej / AGE Platform: It took some time the session yesterday morning but was very interesting because the country we are visiting is not so much known so it was rewarding and fascinating for all of us to learn how you are dealing with things. If this is something EAPN can do in EXCO meetings, it would be great. The other point I wanted to make, we also are making progress in clarifying the relation between National Networks and European Organisations and we are on the right path to get the most of this exchange. Per / Denmark: I would also like to give compliments to our host from Iceland, it was an extremely pleasant meeting. It was also a good meeting with 2 days – it was a good meeting

27

to go through all the items on the agenda, the meetings where one day is spent in working groups is not enough time. Carlos / Spain: First of all, congratulations and thank you to the Icelandic network about the meeting. It was great to learn that Iceland took another road than the rest of us and it was great. I liked how the working meetings were organized because we could work all together in a quiet way. Gilles / Luxemburg: I suggest that Carlos books the King and Kamila the President. If I get to invite you to Luxembourg, I will try to get the Grand Duke. Asta / Iceland: I just wanted to say that when I look over the group I’m very proud, people from different groups and different gender and we are all trying to rid Europe of poverty, so I’m very proud. Karel / Czech Republic: Thank the Icelandic network, satisfied with the Secretariat work because the documents were sent in advance and well numbered. Thank you. Sérgio / President: Congratulations and thank you very much to the Icelandic network for hosting us, the meeting was very good and so comfortable, perfectly organised. Vilborg / Iceland: I’m just very pleased to have you here. We are not a big country but always very happy to host people and to show you our land, and especially happy if people leave with good memories. So I hope you do that. Sérgio / President: I invited the president of Iceland to be our Ambassador, he refused, but he said after being president he would think about it. He asked us to send all information and he would consider it in the future. I am almost sure that in the Convention I will find an opportunity to quote him.

The Meeting finished at 16:15.

28