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)
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)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criteria)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criteria)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
5- decision / commitment
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criteria)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
6-Acting /
implementation
5- decision / commitment
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criteria)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criterai)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
PROGRESS CYCLE
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criteria)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
8-review /capitalizing
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
PROGRESS CYCLE
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress (criteria)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating
8-review /capitalizing
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4- Identifying improvments of existing action and new pilot actions
PROGRESS CYCLE
CONSULTATION CYCLE
Common framework of local processesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
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
1- set up of coordination group
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
4-Planning / comparing
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
5- decision / commitment
4-Planning / comparing
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
6-Acting /
implementation
5- decision / commitment
4-Planning / comparing
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4-Planning / comparing
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4-Planning / comparing
PROGRESS CYCLE
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
8-review /capitalizing
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4-Planning / comparing
PROGRESS CYCLE
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
2-Defining
the objective of progress
(indicators)
1- set up of coordination group
3- Evaluating/ measuring
8-review /capitalizing
6-Acting /
implementation
7 – re-evaluate (ex post)
5- decision / commitment
4-Planning / comparing
PROGRESS CYCLE
CONSULTATION CYCLE
Common framework for second cyclesThe 8 phases of the process developed involving citizens / communities
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