Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan of Council of Europe: A response to the crisis in Europe and in the world, starting from the local and regional

Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan of Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan of Council of Europe: Council of Europe:

A response to the crisis in Europe and in the A response to the crisis in Europe and in the world, starting from the local and regional levelsworld, starting from the local and regional levels

Gilda Farrell et Samuel Thirion, Division R&D Social Cohesion

Riga, 1 July 2011

Conseil de l‘Europe – Council of Europe

1. The Council of Europe and social cohesion

2. Social cohesion as a response to crisis

3. Methodology for social cohesion at local level

4. How to develop Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan in Latvia

Presentation Outline

1- The Council of Europe and Social Cohesion

1949 : Creation of the Council of Europe with three core values : democracy, human rights, and rule of law.1950 : European Convention for fostering Human Rights and Fundamental liberties1959: Creation of the European Court of Human Rights1961 : European Social CharterFrom 1973, the growth rates decrease drastically, with unemployment issues, regression of social rights and increasing of inequalities. A thinking begun on how to complete laws to sustain the application of rights1997 : The second Summit of the Council of Europe states that the social cohesion becomes "one of the foremost needs of the wider Europe and an essential complement to the promotion of human rights and dignity"

Council of Europe main steps

1998: Set of the European Committee for Social Cohesion

2000: First version of the Strategy for Social Cohesion, revised in 2004. It defines cohesion as the capacity of the society to ensure the well-being of all its members, avoiding disparities and polarisation and focusing on shared responsibilities to achieve this objective.

Developing Social Cohesion

Social Cohesion strategySocial cohesion as a complementary objective of the core values: human rights, democracy, rule of lawThe definition of Social Cohesion and its four pilars. The social cohesion strategy of the Council of Europe introduces two mayor changes in the concept of societal progress:

1. On the objective of progress: well-being of all, future generations included

2. On the way for this progress: co-responsibility

Co-responsibility for well-being of all implies concerted indicators and involvement of stakeholders and citizens in the definition of well-being.

2005: Publication of a first methodological guide "collaborative development of indicators of social cohesion“

2005 - 2010: experiments in different cities, regions and institutions (companies, schools)Concept of "territory of co-responsibility '= territory in which a process of shared responsibility for the wellbeing of all is taking place between actors (public and private) of that territory. Extended to" School of co-responsibility", “Corporate co-responsibility", etc..

September 25, 2009: First international meeting of the Territories of co-responsibility in Mulhouse. and launching of the Territories of Coresponsibility Network, financed by Urbact II – project TOGETHER – 8 towns in 8 countries (one is Debica) + other 25 other towns

The implementation of the strategy

2010: Publication of a second methodological guide book: involving citizens in the societal progress towards well-being of allFebruary 2010: Conference of all Ministers in Moscow2010: Launching the social cohesion action plan of the Council of Europe, crossing 2 approaches:

- A bottom up approach starting from the citizens expression of well-being/ Ill-Being to build indicators at local level, then at regional level and national level to revisit the policies at these different levels from what the citizens said

- A top down approach to adapt the policies to citizens needs

From Strategy to Action Plan for Social Cohesion in Europe

2- Social cohesion as a response to the crisis

Current crisis is not only financial and economic. It is as well- social- environmental- political (crisis of governance and regulation)- cultural, concerning knowledge itself- crisis of confidence

Crisis of society: what is progress?

Crisis of society goals: the progress

I- Since the industrial revolution the progress of society has been designed on the basis of a constant and very rapid growth in terms of wealth, mainly material wealth (estimated over last 60 years by GDP).

This growth was made possible by the widespread use of non-renewable resources, including fossil energies, leading, in a few centuries to the point of their exhaustion.

Limits of this model regards: Dissatisfaction with this model because, despite the increase of

wealth, much of humanity is excluded, inequality is increasing and even in the richest countries subjective indicators show a decrease of well-being, especially since 1980

The impossibility to continue with this model and the need to establish as quickly as possible an alternative model without massive use of non-renewable resources

Need to get back to basics: what is progress? What should the progress of societies tend towards? and how to make these changes?

An issue on the agenda

These questions have been raised since the 1970s by organizations such as the Club of Rome

From the 2000s the debate involves public institutions, at national and international level

In 2004 OECD launched a global project "beyond GDP"

In 2008 the French government forms a committee with two Nobel Prize winners (Stiglitz and Sen)

Since 2008 the European Commission undertakes a specific program "beyond GDP"

Conclusions are similar

GDP is not enough and progress must be rethought in relation to the well-being of humans and of our planet in general.

Well-being must be defined by citizens

Convergence with the social cohesion strategy and action plan of the Council of Europe

The need to rethink

Rethinking the goals of progress: from a single quantified objective, to a multidimensional objective : the well-being of all

Rethinking intellectual and cultural references of our society: well-being of all, lifestyles, ways of reflection, guiding our choices

Rethinking responsibility for progress: from the responsibility of the states (welfare state) to the responsibility of society (weffare society) actors co-responsibility

Rethinking approaches: from a centralized approach to a dual approach, ascending and descending

Rethinking the construction of knowledge: from a knowledge produced by specialized institutions to a co-produced knowledge by civil society within society

Rethinking the tools to measure progress: from simple quantitative indicators to the indicators measuring the path to progress

Rethinking approaches to evaluation: From a goal-based evaluation to a multidimensional evaluation

Rethinking the modes of conception of actions and partnership: starting from the human and social assets – For instance rethinkingg employment creation through local social links and not only market

Rethinking progress

1st observation: the progress of societies needs rethinking

2nd observation: there is urgency

3rd observation: the passage of a single objective (GDP) to a multidimensional objective leads to review all the tools and methods of measurement and decision making: major change requiring a process of experimentation and learning network..

4th observation: the main challenge is to reconcile two goals that seem a priori incompatible or impossible to achieve: the well-being of all for present and well-being of future generations (ie the well-being of present generations while conveying the property and resources to the future generations = without using non-renewable resources)

5th observation: it requires a revision of the content we give to the notion of well-being, and a review of how to develop this content. Currently, the content of the common sense of wellbeing is mainly defined by the market, particularly through advertising,, even reducing the notion of well-being to that of material well-being

Rethinking well-being of all

The well-being of all the as an objective of society cannot be defined by either the market or by a central structure, or by specialists: well-being is a concept that belongs to citizens need of an overall democratic and participatory debate.

The experiments that we have been carried out for five years in this sense clearly demonstrate that the well-being of all defined by citizens give more room for intangible dimensions of wellbeing, opening a key route for societal progress. These dimensions depending on human relationships, social and personal balance, sense of life, participation and engagement in society, etc.. are an inexhaustible source of untapped wealth, although they are often misused, explaining the increasing feeling of ill-being, despite the increase in material wealth.

Multi-dimension aspect of Well-Being

The eight dimensions of well-being according to the criteria expressed by citizens

LIVING ENVIRONMENTPhysical components

A- Access to livelihoods

B- Living environment

SUBJECT Endogenous Components

F- Personal balances G- Sense

of well-being/ill-being

H-Commitment/engagement

E-Social balances and sense of belonging D-Human

relations

C- Relations with institutions

GROUP OF SUBJECTSSocial components

3- Methodology for social cohesion at local level

Local process

Step 1: Setting a coordination group involving representatives of local actors

Local process

Step 2: Defining progress in well-being of all with citizens by :Organizing homogeneous groupsCollecting criteria through 3 open questions:What is for you well-being?What is for you ill-being?What do you do or can do for well-being of all?Great number of criteria SynthesisRestitution, validation by homogeneous groups and fourth question about future generations

Local process

Step 3: Using the criteria of ill-being/ well-being to evaluate the policies and existing actions :General assessment of policies adequacy and possibilities of adjustments Assessment of policies for specific target groups and possibilities of adjustmentAssessment of specific action: co-evaluation with managers and beneficiaries identifying possible improvements

Local process

Step 4: Identifying with citizens actions to be developped :Organizing heterogenous groupsPresenting the results of general synthesis and assessment of policies and existing actions, and possibilities of improvementsDebating and identifying possibilities for new complementary pilot actions to develop coresponsiblity

Common framework of local processes

The 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

1- set up of coordination group

Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

2-Defining

the objective of progress (criteria)



2-Defining



3- Evaluating


2-Defining



3- Evaluating

4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions


2-Defining



3- Evaluating

5- decision / commitment



2-Defining



3- Evaluating

6-Acting /

implementation




2-Defining



3- Evaluating

6-Acting /

implementation

7 – re-evaluate (ex post)




2-Defining

the objective of progress (criterai)


3- Evaluating

6-Acting /

implementation




PROGRESS CYCLE


2-Defining



3- Evaluating

8-review /capitalizing

6-Acting /

implementation




PROGRESS CYCLE


2-Defining



3- Evaluating


6-Acting /

implementation




PROGRESS CYCLE

CONSULTATION CYCLE


Second cycle indicators and action plan

Second cycle: Using criteria of ill-being/well-being to build indicators of progress in well-being.

Transversal scale of signification of progress indicators

Satisfactory situation but without

having achieved

the objective

of progress

5-Ideal

situation

4Good

situation

3- Medium situation

2Unsatisfa

ctory situation

1 Very

unsatisfactory

situation

Situation of risk of

degradation in chain and/or

irreversibility

The objective of progress is

achieved but without

guarantee of sustaina-

bility

The objective of progress is achieved

with guarantee of

sustaina-bility

No satisfactory

situation but without short term

risk

Rethinking how to measure

Transversal scale of signification of progress indicators

Satisfactory situation but without

having achieved

the objective

of progress

5-Ideal

situation

4Good

situation

3- Medium situation

2Unsatisfa

ctory situation

1 Very

unsatisfactory

situation

Situation of risk of

degradation in chain and/or

irreversibility

The objective of progress is

achieved but without

guarantee of sustaina-

bility

The objective of progress is achieved

with guarantee of

sustaina-bility

No satisfactory

situation but without short term

risk

Rethinking how to measure

Criteria of ill-being/well-being

Scale of values By combinaison of criteria

Duple Criteria (negative/positive

5- ideal

situation

4- Good situation

3- Medium Situation

2-Unsatis-factory

situation

Very unsatisfac-tory situation

Degrees

Validation by citizens

values

Elaboration of value for every degree

Building indicators of progress in WBA

Echelle Situation trèsmauvaise

Situationmauvaise

Situationmoyenne

Situation bonne Situation idéale

Expressiongénérale

N'a pas et n'a pasles conditions pourl'obtenir

N'a pas mais a lesconditions pourl'obtenir

A les conditionspour avoir et amais sans qualité

A et a desconditions dequalité

La qualité estassurée dans lelong terme grâce àmesuresspécifiques

Exemple: santé Est malade et n'apas accès ausystème de santé

Est malade mais aaccès auxsystèmes de santé

Est en bonne santéet a accès auxsystèmes de santémais sans qualité

Bonne santé etsytèmes de santéde qualité

Idem avec qualitéassurée dans lelong terme

Critères deconditions

Non Oui Oui Oui Oui

Critèresd'obtention

Non Non Oui Oui Oui

Critères de qualité Non Non Non Oui Oui

Critères dedurabilité

Non Non Non Non Oui

Building indicators of progress in WBA

Common framework for second cycles

The 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities


Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities

2-Defining

the objective of progress

(indicators)



2-Defining


(indicators)


3- Evaluating/ measuring


2-Defining


(indicators)



4-Planning / comparing


2-Defining


(indicators)






2-Defining


(indicators)



6-Acting /

implementation




2-Defining


(indicators)



6-Acting /

implementation





2-Defining


(indicators)



6-Acting /

implementation




PROGRESS CYCLE


2-Defining


(indicators)




6-Acting /

implementation




PROGRESS CYCLE


2-Defining


(indicators)




6-Acting /

implementation




PROGRESS CYCLE

CONSULTATION CYCLE


Links with other levelsLocal processes should be linked to regional, national and european ones:

Criteria and indicators of progress in well-being built at regional, national and european level on the basis of local results might lead to reviewing policies at these different levels

Pilot actions of coresponsibility and action plan for coresponsibilty can be developed as well at these levels in fields such as: social inclusion and fighting poverty, education, health, housing, consumption, jobs creation , etc

4- How to develop social cohesion strategy and

action plan in Riga region and Latvia

1. The process began in one town of Latvia: Salaspils

2. From Salaspils experience and other interested towns, the Region could be a pilot region for Latvia

3. Council of Europe can give support to do do

Ideas to be discussed

Website

1. Access to the concepts for a large public

2. Information on tools and methods for local processes

3. Specific space for networks

4. Specific space for working groups on relevant themes (human rights an poverty, creating jobs by reinforcing social links and social innovation in the public sphere, etc),

https://spiral.cws.coe.int

[email protected]

[email protected]

Documents

Social Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan of Council of Europe: A response to the crisis in Europe and in the world, starting from the local and regional