1

European Project

Campaign on Social Inclusion in Support of the Reinforcement of the Open Method of Coordination” (2008-2010)

F I N A L R E P O R T

R O M A N I A

The Open Method of Coordination (OMC)

in Social Protection and Social Inclusion (2007-2009)

Contents

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2

II. Outlook on the formal framework for the OMC implementation in Romania ............................. 10

Reflection of the OMC objectives in the NSR on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-2010 ..... 11

Romania’s participation in the “peer reviews” of the sectoral policies for social inclusion .................. 12

Consultation mechanisms and monitoring system in the OMC process in Romania: the distance

“formal” to “real”............................................................................................................................... 13

III. Findings of the interviews/ sociologic research ........................................................................... 15

The vision of the public responsible authorities managing the social inclusion policies ....................... 15

Institutional capacity to manage the inclusion policies in agreement with the OMC ........................... 15

Central and local public authorities’ involvement in the OMC process ................................................ 21

Utilisation of the monitoring indicators in social policy-making in Romania ........................................ 23

Transparency and visibility of measures undertaken in the OMC implementation process on social

inclusion in Romania; participation of the civil society organisations in the OMC process and the

involvement of beneficiaries .............................................................................................................. 24

National strategic reports on social inclusion and their function......................................................... 27

IV. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 29

Annex 1: List of people interviewed during the research ...................................................................... 31

Annex 2: List of people relevant to the functionality of OMC in Romania, identified through our

research ................................................................................................................................................ 32

Annex 3: On the OMC Working Group in Social Inclusion ..................................................................... 34

2

I. Introduction This research has been conducted under the project entitled “Promoting the debates supporting the strengthening of the Open Method of Coordination in social inclusion and

social protection in Belgium, Romania, and Bulgaria” (Raising awareness campaign on social inclusion and social protection in Belgium, Romania and Bulgaria), funded by the European Commission under PROGRESS programme run by the General Directorate for Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities. The project was designed in August 2008, one year and eight months following the

accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union, and aims at raising the awareness of the European citizens of the three countries on the OMC process and on how the EU policies and the national ones on social protection and social inclusion harmonise. The partnership among the three countries, Belgium, a country familiar with the OMC process from its very set-up, and two new member states, Romania and Bulgaria, is essential to the experience transfer of know-how and good practice in this field. Thus, the project has two dimensions – a transnational dimension, which implied meetings and conferences among the organisations from the partner countries, debates on the OMC process and the presentation on good practice, but also a national dimension, which implied the performing of activities in Belgium, Bulgaria, and Romania, based on specific approaches, according to the national context in social inclusion. In Romania, taking into consideration the expertise the NGO sector players have acquired by working directly with the beneficiaries of the social policies, the three project partners – PACT Foundation, the national coordinator (www.fundatiapact.ro), CeRe (www.ce-

re.ro), and CRONO (www.crono.org.ro) – have established a working group at national level, made up of NGOs and independent experts to be working in partnership with the public authorities in charge with the implementation of the National Reform Programme or of the National Action Plan on social inclusion, with the purpose of reviewing, assessing and improving such policies.

Although OMC was used in Romania in the social field, since the pre-accession period, the project initiators have failed to find sufficient information about the state of the facts in terms of the applying of the same. To develop a coherent approach and appropriate to the needs of different actors involved in the OMC – NGOs, but also public authorities - the initiators of the project have conducted a research describing how the OMC is applied in Romania and the outcomes in social inclusion. The research was conducted in August and September 2009 by an independent researcher and consisted of conducting

interviews with key actors at the governmental level, responsible for the implementation of the OMC. The research will be described in the sections of this report, with the mention that a first version of the research report was already presented at the Seminar on the OMC organised under the project in Bucharest, October 5 and 6, 2009.

3

Research objectives This study explores the way the OMC was implemented in Romania during 2001 - August 2009 and how it produces effect in the process of development and management of

social inclusion and social protection; it describes the institutional capacity of managing the inclusion policies in line with the OMC objectives, the extent of the involvement of NGOs and of the relevant public institutions both at central and particularly at the local level, in the process, the transparency and the degree of disseminating the measures undertaken under the process of implementing the OMC, the extent of using the monitoring indicators in generating social policies, the vision and the attitudes of the people with public authority towards the process and the public authorities’ way of reporting, to the European experience in managing the policies on inclusion. Specifically, the study highlights:

The way the objectives and the indicators agreed as between at the level of the European Union regarding social inclusion have been taken up in Romania’s specific policies and achieved: How the Romanian social policies have been included as part of the national

strategy on social protection and social inclusion; Whether such policies have been developed so as to meet the OMC

objectives).

The way public authorities in charge in Romania are involving the stakeholders in

developing social inclusion policies: Is there a reactive or a pro-active approach to involving the stakeholders? Are stakeholders involved in all the stages of the cycle of generating the

inclusion policies, including the monitoring and implementing of the national strategies?

What are the methods being used?

The perception and the relating manner of the Romanian authorities to the national strategic reports on social inclusion: Is this just an administrative exercise, as other relevant researchers point out? Is it a means to legitimise the policies already in progress or on the contrary, a

natural strategic effort?

Whether and to what extent Romanian authorities take into account the good practice of the involvement of the stakeholders in other EU Member States when developing the national policies and the strategies on social inclusion.

4

Methodology The research conducted took place in two stages. In the first stage, there were reviewed the relevant programming documents for the inclusion policies in Romania in order to

capture: 1) the way the OMC objectives established at the EU level, 2) the mechanisms for consulting the relevant stakeholders and 3) the monitoring system in the OMC process in Romania are reflected in such documents. The review conducted in this phase was limited to the “formal” level (described in the official documents) of the OMC operation in Romania in the field of social inclusion policies. In the second stage, interviews were conducted aiming at capturing the “real” way in which the OMC is operating and producing effects in Romania in the field of social inclusion policies. Thus, 11 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with experts from the following two target groups of stakeholders1:

People directly involved in the management of the programmes and policies for

inclusion and social protection in Romania, active in this respect within the relevant public authorities: the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection (MoLFSP), National Agency for the Roma, National Agency for Child Protection, National Institute of Statistics - 6 people interviewed.

People experienced in managing social inclusion policies, in the OMC, but from

outside the public management system of the same (experts having worked in relevant public institutions but currently working in the non-governmental environment, experts / practitioners in observing and monitoring the social inclusion policies and the operation of the OMC in Romania): 6 people interviewed (two people were interviewed at the same time).

The interviews were conducted in August and September 2009, at the workplace of the

subjects interviewed. This research study is organised in 4 sections, as follows:

- The description of the OMC - the section presents details about the OMC framework, as thought by the European Commission;

- The review on the formal framework of implementing the OMC in Romania – the section reviews both the way the OMC objectives at European level are reflected

in the documents prepared by Romania, and the formal mechanisms for the implementation and monitoring of the social inclusion policies, in the OMC context;

- The findings of the interviews – the section conducts an analysis based on the 11 interviews that really captures the way the OMC is operating in Romania;

- Conclusions.

1 See ANNEX 1

5

I. Description of OMC The OMC is a set of procedures enabling the coordination of certain EU Member States’ public policies at European level. It has occurred further to the need to coordinate the

policies of EU Member States that were not subject to economic integration, but which were strongly influenced by it (e.g. the policy on employment). The policies the OMC apply to are not subject to intergovernmental cooperation or of the Community method established by the EU treaties. Therefore, the OMC has often been called a third form of governance in the European Union (Larsson 2002).

The current OMC began to take shape with the European Council in Lisbon in 2000, when the heads of state and government approved the Lisbon Strategy with the objective of transforming the EU into “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010”.2 The European Council has engaged the Member States and the Commission to take steps to have a decisive impact on eradicating poverty by 2010. In 2000 there was also published White Paper on European Governance which was considering the criticism on the European construction concerning the democratic deficit, legitimacy and the social dimension missing from the European agenda. In the late 90s, Europe was coming out from another economic crisis, and people were reproaching Brussels the adopting of public decisions affecting their lives without them having had a say. At that time, at the EU level, this form of coordinating the national policies was already being used in the area of employment, public pensions and social inclusion measures.

Amid the increased demands to intensify the actions at European level in terms of social inclusion, but also amid the pressure from the governments of the member states to maintain the social policies within the national area, the European Commission proposes the OMC to Member States as a means to resolve the missing of the social dimension from the process of European integration. Thus, the use of OMC expands to other areas

as well3, and since 2005 the OMC in the social area4 comprises three main public policy sectors: social inclusion and social protection, pensions and medical services and long-term care. The working manner set by the European Commission and agreed by the Member States in coordinating such policies at European level implies a decentralised and volunteering-based approach to the process of public policy making and implementation.

Thus, the Member States agree on common objectives, use common indicators, prepare National Strategic Reports (NSR) that lay down guidelines for public policies, assess such strategies, along with the European Commission, by means of joint

monitoring reports (Joint Reports).

2 The tool for implementing the Lisbon Strategy (LS) at national level is the National Reform Programme

(NRP). National Reform Programmes of the Member States include general objectives and specific targets, measures and actions, and financial resources for the funding of the latter. In 2005, the European Commission

decided to re-launch the Lisbon Strategy, renaming it Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. 3 The Lisbon European Council introduces the use of OMC for the coordination of policies in research and

development, innovation, promoting entrepreneurship and businesses, e-Europe, information society, education and training; gradually, the OMC began to be also used in the coordination of the national youth policies,

culture and policies for the improvement of the regulating process in the Member States. 4 In jargon, in English, the phrasing is “Social OMC”, meaning “Social Open Method of Coordination”;

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Working together, working better: A new framework for

the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union”, Brussels, 22.12.2005, COM(2005) 706 final

6

What distinguishes the OMC from the Community method is the absence of regulations at EU level (as the normative acts specific to the Community method, such as: directives, decisions, etc) and the diminished role of the European institutions; therefore, neither are penalties should one of the Member States fail to meet its commitments in the

process. There is however a “motivating” mechanism, called peer review, which is the process of mutual learning and exchange of best practices whereby Member States are invited to share with one another such measures of successful social policies and, possibly, to take them on in their national policies. However, a peer review can also perform the function of punishment, because there can be also highlighted those negative aspects resulted from the social inclusion and social protection policies in Member States not making progress in implementing the National Action Plans.

At the same time, the OMC is the public policy process at European level enabling the

widest participation of the local and regional levels and of the non-governmental stakeholders in the development of public policy measures. Consequently, there have developed strong networks of non-for-profit organisations and experts active in the field of social inclusion at European level representing necessary tools of the civil society that can put pressure on national governments when they adopt measures related to various areas of the social inclusion.

Regulating

level Presence of sanctions

Decision-making forum

Right to initiative

Community method High Yes – contravention

sanctions EU Institutions EU Institutions

Open Method of Coordination

Medium No

European

Commission and Member States

European

Commission and Member States

Intergovernmental cooperation

Low Yes – political

sanctions Member States Member States

7

Within the OMC, the Member States’ responsibilities relate to: transposing the OMC objectives from the European level into national objectives

and indicators; gathering data and developing statistics with a view to using the same in

formulating the social policies; developing social national policies based on real needs; the larger participation of all stakeholders in all of the stages of the public policy

cycle (developing an ex ante review of the social impact, the participation of those directly experiencing poverty and social exclusion, of the non-governmental organisations and of the civil society in general, the inclusion of the local and regional levels in the developing of social policies);

implementing and monitoring the policies relevant to the OMC; improving the OMC visibility at national level; developing the NSR; participating in the „peer review” processes at European level.

Recent developments of the OMC in the social area Since 2008, it was established that Member States shall prepare NSRs to include measures for all the three policy areas mentioned above, for a period of three years. The NSRs shall be developed in the same way by all of the Member States, the contents and the layout of the same being dictated by the instructions developed by the European Commission and agreed by all Member States. The RNS segment on social inclusion measures is called the National Action Plan for Inclusion (NAPInc). Member States are

required to report annually on the progress in fulfilling the objectives undertaken by the NSR, which must be closely related to the OMC objectives at European level. On the basis of such national reporting documents, DG for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commission prepares every year a Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. The current objectives of the OMC at the European level were laid down in 2006 and reconfirmed in 20085. They are targeting the following:

a) Promoting social cohesion, equality between men and women, and equal

opportunities for all by means of social protection systems and social inclusion policies that are adequate, accessible, financially sustainable, adaptable and efficient;

b) Effective and mutual interaction between the Lisbon objectives on greater economic growth, more and better jobs, greater social cohesion, and the Strategy on Sustainable Development of the European Union;

c) The good governance, transparency and stakeholders’ involvement in designing, implementing and monitoring the policies;

d) Everybody’s access to resources, rights and services needed for participation in society, preventing and taking into account the exclusion and fighting all forms of

discrimination leading to exclusion; e) Everybody’s active social inclusion and participation, both by promoting participation

on the labour market and by fighting poverty and exclusion; f) Well coordinated social inclusion policies, involving all levels of government and

relevant actors, including individuals experiencing poverty, in order to increase efficiency, effectiveness and their involvement in all relevant public policies on the

5 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing

the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion”, Brussels, 2.7.2008, COM(2008)

418 final

8

economy, budget, education and training policies or programs carried out with structural funds (in this respect, prominent is the European Social Fund).

In July 2008, the European Commission published an assessment on the impact of the

OMC results at European level and the possible future developments of the same6. The conclusion to this assessment is that the OMC needs to strengthened, because the method records the following weaknesses:

the lack of political engagement and the low visibility of the social OMC; the lack of a horizontal coordination to cross several public policy sectors and the

considering of the concerns relating to social protection and social inclusion in all of the relevant public policies;

the need for a review on public policies, both at national level and at the level of the European Union;

the need to more and better engage the local and regional levels in the social OMC;

low participation from the stakeholders; the need to intensify mutual learning within the method (the sharing of best

practices). The European Commission’s assessment highlights weaknesses resulting from the absence of a concrete set of regulations correlated with penalties further to failing to observe the same. The main criticism to the Member States refer to the lack of participatory development of the social inclusion policy documents, the lack of ability to collect statistical data and to the incorrect or insufficient usage of the national indicators

in formulating the social policies, hence the RNS. Social inclusion in the context of the EUROPE Strategy 2020 In 2010, the Lisbon Strategy completes, occasion on which, in November 2009, the European Commission subjected for consultation a new strategy, “Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”. Already criticised for the fact that the time devoted to public consultation was too short (less than 60 days), the strategy proposed for the next 10 years has made the networks and organisations within the civil society area unhappy in that the new vision fails to consider the fight against poverty and social exclusion a priority.

The agenda of the European Council of March 2010 included objectives mainly related to employment and economic growth, following that the Europe 2020 Strategy to be formally adopted in June 2010. The objectives agreed by the Heads of State and Governments on social inclusion are:

obtaining a 75% employment rate for the women and men aged between 20 and 64 years, including through greater participation of young people, older and less skilled workers, and better integration of migrants legal;

improving the levels of education, particularly by setting the objective of reducing the school dropout rate and increasing the number of population with higher education or equivalent; taking into account the Commission’s proposal, the European Council will determine the numerical rates of such objectives in June 2010;

promoting social inclusion, particularly by reducing poverty.

In April 2010, the Commission published the document including the guidelines to laying down the relevant national objectives for Europe 2020. Ten in all, they are divided in two

6 Commission Staff Working Document, accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the

Regions, “A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion”, Impact Assessment, Brussels, 2.7.2008, SEC(2008) 2169

9

categories: economic and for employment. To the social area the following strategic targets are relevant:

increasing the employment rate of the population aged between 20 and 64 from the current 69% to 75% at least;

decreasing the early school-leaving to 10% from the current 15%; increasing the percentage of population aged between 30 and 34 graduating the

high-school from 31% to at least 40%; decreasing by 25% (meaning 20 million people) the number of Europeans living

on incomes below the national limit of poverty (objective calculated according to the national indicators)7.

By the “Memorandum regarding the Approval of Romania‟s preliminary position with regard to the Europe 2020 Strategy”, there have been established several inter-institutional working groups, one of which is at high level, with decision-making role. They were aimed at the developing Romania’s strategic goals, according to the objectives of EU 2020 Strategy. In the government session on July 7, 2010, the Government approved the Memorandum on “The Approval of final values of Romania‟s objectives for the Europe 2020 Strategy”. Here are the strategic objectives proposed by Romania in the social area, in the context of the EUROPE 2020 Strategy:

increasing the employment rate of the population aged between 20 and 64 from 64.4%, in 2008, to 70%;

decreasing the early school-leaving to 11.3%, as compared to the 15.9% in 2008; increasing the percentage of population aged between 30 and 34 graduating the

high-school from 15.96%, in 2008, to 26.7%; decreasing by 15% (meaning 580,000 people) the number of Romanians living on

incomes below the national limit of poverty.

7 Brussels, European Council Conclusions, March 26, 2010, EUCO 7/10, CO EUR 4, CONCL 1

10

II. Outlook on the formal framework for the OMC implementation in Romania In Romania, the institution in charge with the development of the National Strategic Report is the Ministry of Labour, Family, and Social Protection, through the Department

for Programmes on Family Policies, Social Inclusion and Assistance. After the accession, Romania is also required to take part in the OMC process. Therefore, it submitted for attention of the Commission and of the other Member States its latest NSR in September 2008 for the timeframe between 2008 and 2010.

According to the NSR on Social Inclusion, the main challenges for the following reporting period, namely 2008-2010,

refer to:

the prevention of social exclusion, the continuation of efforts in order to improve the access of citizens to their social

rights;

the development of multidimensional prevention programmes so as to avoid putting citizens into exclusion

situations;

the implementation of customised measures by means of aimed interventions when a potential risk is identified

which might lead to an impairment on living conditions;

improving the access to resources for the families experiencing social exclusion situations, which may contribute to

increasing the level of well-being of the society;

monitoring the programmes developed by the responsible authorities and developing a reporting system with a well-

established periodicity regarding the progress made;

organising continuous awareness and information campaigns for the citizens regarding their rights. (pp 21-22)

Within the report, the three priority objectives are set forth:

1. Increasing employment level for disadvantaged persons

2. Promoting integrated family policies by means of promoting a package of efficient social benefits and services

measures.

3. The continuation of efforts to improve the quality of life for Roma citizens.

In order to achieve objective 1, a number of „complex and multi-disciplinary” actions have been provided:

A. The promotion of social economy

Developing a coherent legal framework, adequate to the national needs but in harmony with the European legislation, to ensure the necessary foundation for the creation of the “social economy in Romania” sector;

Accomplishing social economy pilot projects, which can be subsequently enforced on a national level, in areas

identified as having social difficulties;

Training in the field of social economy both of professionals in social system and of managers in social enterprises,

as well as individuals in disadvantaged groups;

Promoting a national campaign of awareness and promotion of Social Economy in Romania, as well as raising

awareness of trading companies regarding their social responsibilities;

Developing a National Resource Centre to provide counselling and support for the new social economy initiatives.” (p

24)

B. Integration of disabled persons on the labour market

Developing vocational skill assessment instruments for the disabled persons;

Supporting the development and diversity of social services focusing on the integration of individuals on the labour market;

Implementation of professional training programmes for the relevant professionals so that they can organise the newly-created services. (p 25)

In order to achieve objective 2, the actions provided are the following:

Continuation of the development of programmes for integrated and quality social services as main means of fighting

social exclusion;

Increasing the investments in order to provide quality and accessible pre-school education;

Facilitating the access to a decent home, including social homes;

Granting subsidies for young families with small incomes;

Supporting the families with members under care (elderly people, disabled people): home assistance, day services,

encouraging the participation of the people under care in intellectual, cultural, and social activities, family

counselling and support programmes in order to provide care;

Creation of community homes and care centres;

Extracurricular activities organised in schools, before or after school, during the parents’ work hours (cultural, sports

activities, etc);

Supporting families with children by means of an adequate social benefits package;

Developing health programmes to ensure maternal and child care addressing families, pregnant women and children

under the age of 6, which include multidisciplinary interventions (doctor, child welfare professional, psychologist,

social worker, etc.)”. (pp 26-27)

Objective 3 has provided the following measures:

Enabling access to primary health services, by increasing the number of Roma people enlisted with family doctors;

Continuing the training programmes and preparing sanitary mediators and school mediators;

Improving educational participation of the Roma, reducing illiteracy and school leaving;

Developing national programmes aiming at the inclusion in the formal economy by developing paid jobs and

increasing professional skills;

Promoting anti-discriminating policies by achieving national awareness campaigns. (p 29)

11

Reflection of the OMC objectives in the NSR on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-20108

The research analyses the way the OMC objectives at European level are reflected in the latest reference document on the social policies in Romania, namely the National Strategic Plan on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008-2010 (NSP 2008-2010). This document mentions Romania’s commitment to harmonise the major objectives of the social policies in Romania with the new “integrated guidelines regarding the improvement and employment” and with the “new cycle regarding the Open Method of Coordination”. (p 8) The NSR is a tool essential to the operation of the OMC. It is the framework document describing the social situation specific to each EU Member State, the measures adopted and implemented to improve the social status of vulnerable groups. Based on these, along with the review on the primary, secondary, and tertiary indicators9 for the monitoring of the social condition, conclusions can be drawn on the effects of the measures taken for public intervention already implemented at the level of each country. This way, there can be highlighted the countries having made concrete steps in reaching the OMC objectives and there can be identified the best practices for public intervention in the management of social protection and inclusion. Based on the comparative analysis among countries of the data included in the national strategic reports there can be made a good coordination at European level of the social policies, by Community-like methods and tools, by common assessment standards and mutual learning among the EU Member

States. Romania’s 2008-2010 NSR specifies the general objective in the area: “The main objective of the Romanian Government regarding the field of social inclusion refers to the continuation of efforts as to the development of an inclusive society based on providing integrated social inclusion services whose development is based on a genuine assessment of an individual‟s needs by developing the tertiary sector and by ensuring equal opportunities for all, with a particular focus on vulnerable persons. At the same time, solutions shall be sought in order to increase the involvement of individuals, families or communities in the decision-making process, as well as in the measure-implementation process, which is one of the flaws of the Romanian system.” (p 21) As we can see, this objective is in line with European objectives of the OMC, which refers

to promoting an inclusive society with the participation of non-governmental stakeholders. The list with the latter is still wider and more specific, including NGOs, academics or business representatives, trade unions, members of vulnerable groups, etc. The 2008-2010 NSR also mentions as priority the need to inter-coordinate the activity of public authorities for accessing the structural funds, which is in line with the European objectives of the OMC: “The implementation of the commitments of this report benefits from the advantages of Romania‟s first cycle of access to structural funds.” (pp 20-22)

The main challenges for 2008-2010 mentioned in the NSR are in line with the OMC objectives, mentioning, besides the need to prevent the social exclusion and to promote the social inclusion of the vulnerable groups, and the need to “monitor the programmes

8 There are other documents of strategic importance in the management of social inclusion and

protection policies of which we mention here: The monitoring report on the progress on social inclusion in January 2006 - December 2007, The National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2006-

2008. 9 Primary and secondary indicators for the monitoring of the progress on social inclusion are established

and measured uniformly in the EU countries, while tertiary indicators are customised to each country, reflecting their specific challenges in the field of social inclusion and protection. The legal document specifying the

primary, secondary, and tertiary indicators and setting out the details of measurement and monitoring the same in Romania is GD No 488/2005.

12

developed by the responsible authorities and to develop a reference system with a well-established periodicity regarding the progress being made” (p 22), a mechanism essential to the OMC functionality.

It is not mentioned, although the OMC objectives clearly indicate, the need to engage all levels of public authority and all relevant actors in the entire process of policy coordination on social inclusion. This will be detailed in Section III, subsection “Transparency and visibility of measures undertaken in the implementation of the OMC on social inclusion in Romania; participation of the civil society organisations in the OMC process and the involvement of the beneficiaries”. Romania’s participation in the “peer reviews” of the sectoral policies for social inclusion “Peer reviews” are OMC key tools in social inclusion. They enable open discussions on policies for social protection and social inclusion in different Member States and facilitate mutual learning among the same. Each “peer review” is hosted by a Member State presenting a good practice - a social policy reform or an institutional mechanism referred to in the NSR – to the experts from the European Commission, to other interested Member States and to the relevant stakeholders. The aim is to evaluate that policy to see whether it is effective in a national context, to learn from the experience of other Member States and to determine whether the policy can be transferred to other Member States. Since 2007, the year when Romania became a full EU member, the authorities

responsible for the implementation of the OMC have participated in several “peer review” seminars organised within the OMC, on various topics, as follows:

In 2007: National Action Plan against “substandard housing” – hosted by France; Strategies for “active aging” supporting the strengthening of social inclusion –

hosted by Finland.

In 2008: Long-term care: how to organise accessible and sustainable services of long-term

care, taking into account the constraints provided by the norms and

responsibilities for collective services versus individual ones – hosted by the

Netherlands.

In 2009: Combining the right to choose, quality and fairness in social services – hosted by

Denmark; Ensuring the functioning of the health regions in declining regions, with aging

population – hosted by Germany; Developing well-defined tools for the active inclusion of the vulnerable groups –

hosted by Norway; Measuring the impact of active inclusion and of other policies for combating

poverty and social exclusion – hosted by France; Modernising and operating the measures regarding labour incapacity – hosted by

Spain.

In 2010, Romania organised a “peer review” seminar on “Obtaining excellence in providing social services.” The following countries attended: Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

13

Consultation mechanisms and monitoring system in the OMC process in Romania: the distance “formal” to “real” For the adequate functionality of the OMC the following need to exist:

(1) a mechanism for consultation, review, debate and information for all relevant actors – public authorities and institutions from all levels (central, local), social partners, NGOs, academics and business representatives, trade unions, experts, members and representatives of vulnerable groups, etc – in the process of social inclusion and social protection policy-making. and (2) a system for the monitoring of progress and dynamics of this area (measuring the primary, secondary and tertiary indicators is a pre-requisite) to be the subject of the wide dissemination to all relevant actors, and of analytical referencing to the evolution recorded by other Member States and mutual learning based on the relevant good practices and European experience. Here are details on these two aspects. (1) According to the 2008-2010 NSR, in Romania there is an institutional consultation mechanism under the form of the National Commission regarding Social Inclusion and the Social Observatory.

The 2008-2010 NSR specifies that the first assembly of the National Commission regarding the Social Inclusion took place in March 2007, no date being mentioned about another assembly. It also talks about the effort to establish in 2007 the Social Observatory under the Phare project 2004/016 – 772.04.02.02 “Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family in the field of social assistance – Technical Assistance for the establishment of the Social Observatory and National Agency for Social Benefits”. The Social Observatory is designed as a public institution with the role to “provide information” on the poverty and social exclusion existing in Romania. The Observatory becomes a barometer of the social needs, a basis for the development of strategic planning in social protection and social inclusion.” (p 34) This structure would also stimulate the debating on the outcomes of monitoring the social condition evolution in

Romania. Though the operation of the National Commission regarding the Social Inclusion and of the Social Observatory – as presented in the 2008-2010 NSR – can stand as justifications in favour of Romania’s proper joining up to the OMC functioning process, further to the research conducted, it has come out that the Social Observatory is an institution established pursuant to article 28 of Law No 47/200610, but which subsequently failed to

benefit from the tools needed to implement the same (such as budget allocations for the operation of the institution). (2) As far as the monitoring system is concerned, by means of the primary, secondary, and tertiary social indicators of the evolution in the social condition of the vulnerable groups in Romania, the 2008-2010 NSR mentions that there has been developed a protocol between the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection and the National

Institute of Statistics for the calculation of the same, that 15 public experts have been trained in calculating such indicators, as well as the fact that the software required to calculate them has been purchased. There is also a normative act (GD No 488/2005)

10 Law on the national system of social assistance, published in Official Gazette, Part I no 239 of March

16, 2006

14

stipulating the legal obligation to calculate such indicators, defining them and nominating the institutions in charge with making these arrangements. We need to outline here that despite the fact that the monitoring of social condition

through primary, secondary or tertiary indicators is a pre-requisite to the success of the OMC, it is not sufficient. In addition, such indicators need to be disseminated in a transparent manner, reviews and debates to be conducted on the significance of the same by comparing them to the numbers recorded in other EU Member States, and then, based on the same, conclusions and recommendations to be drawn for the improvement of the social condition of the vulnerable groups. Efforts made on within the Romanian institutional framework are still insufficient, the publishing of the indicators, the surveys, the teachings drawn and the effects extracted by mediating them being quite poor. As detailed in the following chapters, the findings of the sociological research have shown that the values of the primary and secondary indicators have not enough dissemination (they are not posted on the website of the official institution, there are no conferences or events to promote their dynamics), and the tertiary indicators education are only partially publicly disclosed. Moreover, there is no visible effort to review and use such indicators as a basis for the extraction of recommendations or the adopting of initiatives to improve social policies in Romania. In addition, it is desirable that non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders to be engaged to an even greater extent in updating tertiary indicators (those specific to Romania), having in view at least that the

social dynamics, especially in the current period marked by the crisis economic, is constantly raising new challenges related to the difficult condition of vulnerable groups. The conclusion can be drawn to this chapter that the priorities and social policies promoted and presented in the 2008-2010 NSR are in line, overall, with the OMC objectives and at the formal level at least, there are mechanisms for proper operation of the OMC in Romania, but the implementation de facto of such mechanisms still has gaps, as shown by the findings of the research presented in the following chapters.

15

III. Findings of the interviews/ sociologic research The vision of the public responsible authorities managing the social inclusion policies

The position and vision public responsible authorities managing the social policies show represent fundamental elements in Romania’s operational joining up to the process implied by the OMC. Based on the interviews conducted, we have managed to extract two important elements of this matter: on the one hand, the prominence of the importance given to the reporting on the progress made and on the way Romania’s activity in the area is assessed in the OMC process as comparing to the interest shown in the activity itself, and on the other hand the insufficient concern for increasing the capacity to change the condition of vulnerable groups by making the intervention measures used efficient and effective. In the interviews, we have captured the fact that the public officers in Romania tend to focus on how inclusion policies are assessed and considered at the level of the European Commission or of other European stakeholders. One of the government officials interviewed mentioned in this respect that over the last period prior to Romania’s accession to the EU, a priority had been to eliminate the “red flags” that were placed by certain aspects regarding social inclusion in Romania in the assessments made by the European Commission, to the expense of focusing on the issues raised by social inclusion and on resolving the same.

The OMC is an opportunity to improve the condition of the vulnerable groups in Romania, where the emphasis is placed on making social intervention measures taken efficient and effective. One of the public responsible authorities interviewed has expressed the opinion that the improvement of the vulnerable groups’ condition is a consequence of the positive evolution of the overall economy, and less of the intervention measures. In this context, it is desirable to enhance the efforts towards the awareness about the fact that in Romania there are social groups in great need and that the economic growth itself does not naturally lead to the improvement of the social condition of the vulnerable – which, in many cases, are outside the formal labour market. As far as social protection is concerned, there is an ongoing need to identify the most efficient and effective means to use the resources allocated to social protection, the European experience in the field being an excellent source of inspiration.

One of the areas where the efficiency should be questioned are the social services allocation system, as one of the non-governmental experts has pointed out: “There are many social work services which in one way or another (…) overlap. Not very much, but being overlapped with one single other non-contributing service is still too much. Because if I multiply with the number of services and the number of beneficiaries I get to a stunning figure. A restructuring is also needed, every now and then, of the entire

service system, on all parts. There are certain systems, such as the Pension System, that need stability, because otherwise they cannot generate sustainability, but there also other smaller systems from the social inclusion area that once in while can be revised because they might loose their role, run short of beneficiaries. They must be very well targeted, oriented towards the social work field.”

Institutional capacity to manage the inclusion policies in agreement with the OMC From the interviews conducted, two distinct stages were identified based on the respondents’ statements, separated in time, of the development of inclusion policies management and of social protection in Romania. We have chosen to present and insist

16

on them because, on the one hand, each of them has made and continues to make a defining mark on the Romanian institutional capacity of “joining” to the OMC process and, on the other hand, this way we shall better understand the nuances of the OMC process in Romania, being able to extract the necessary lessons from the best practices specific

to each of the two phases. The first stage covers the period of Romania’s pre-accession to the EU - 2001/2006 - and it is defined by the operation of CASPIS - Committee on Anti-Poverty and Promotion of Social Inclusion. It was an institutional structure established in the context of intensifying the pre-accession efforts and it operated under the direct coordination of the Prime Minister and which included specialists in social protection. The second stage covers the post-accession period (2007 – present), timeframe when the main institutional actor with responsibility in the field of social inclusion became a ministerial department within the Ministry of Labour, Family, and Social Protection, nowadays called Department for Social Work and Family Policies (DASPF). Below are details on the findings of the research conducted on the specific way in which the management of social inclusion in Romania progressed between the two stages referred to.

Pre-accession stage (2001/2006) or CASPIS stage.

CASPIS was established in 2001 and operated until 2006. In 2005, further to the elections, another government came into authority. In 2006, CASPIS was dissolved (GD

No 1217/2006, Art 16) and its attributions have been transferred to the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family (MoLSPF) (DASPF), run by a secretary of state. Within this ministerial department operates the Division for Social Inclusion Policies, Strategies, and Programmes that fulfils de facto the attributions of the former CASPIS; the structure of this division currently includes 10 employees. From the statements made by most of the people interviewed, it has come out that the time between 2001 and 2006 can be considered the “golden age” in the efforts to improve the condition of the vulnerable groups in Romania: “Firstly, it is about the fact that CASPIS has had the great merit to bring together around the table all the partners and to have those discussions that were going on in small groups, in the same room, together. That is to say that they could talk about the same thing, to ask the same questions, to think about using the same statistics.” (…) “When CASPIS was in operation

and was generating commissions and county anti-poverty plans, it used to do extraordinary things.” This institutional structure had some trumps emphasised by the respondents:

Being under the direct coordination of the then Prime Minister, it benefited from

the authority of this position, succeeding more efficiently to empower the

involvement of the relevant public institutions in the social inclusion field than a ministerial structure, run by a secretary of state – as DASPF now is – can succeed. “Coordinating from the level of General Secretariat of Government is important because, naturally, the Ministry of Labour has a key role with regards to social inclusion, but it seems that from the institutional standpoint, authority is better ensured from the Government level.” The empowerment of the involvement of the relevant public institutions reflected both in terms of data collection for the

monitoring of the effects of the social inclusion policies, and in terms of stimulating the making the process of implementing the inclusion policies undertaken by the relevant institutions more effective.

The CASPIS team had a better expertise in the area of inclusive policies; it was

lead by a well renowned expert in the field, Professor and author of representative

17

books in the field – Cătălin Zamfir. The structure of CASPIS team was completed through an intake of experts from the academic environment, and in time its employees benefited from specialised training in working with social indicators, delivered by the World Bank. There was a close collaboration between CASPIS and

other holders of know-how in the social field, such as the Faculty of Sociology and Social Work of the University of Bucharest or the Research Institute for the Quality of Life due to the performance of the leader of CASPIS in these two institutions.

A substantial political support originated in the then context, defined by the

process of Romania’s pre-accession to EU. As we know, Romania has made intense efforts at that time to make progress to contribute to reaching the EU-accession objectives.

These trumps allowed for the stimulation of cooperation within the experts and relevant stakeholders community for social inclusion in Romania and for the engagement of wide and regular consultations of the social partners. Most of the individuals interviewed agreed with the fact that between 2001 and 2006 there took place a large number of meetings, seminars, etc, attended not only by representatives of relevant public institutions, but also by representatives of the non-governmental and/or academic environment. In addition to this picture, there are the statements made by representatives of governmental agencies, relevant to the social inclusion of some specific groups, who are claiming that practically after 2006 they have not been involved in such meetings. In this framework, there have been developed some

programming reports in the fundamental social inclusion field (e.g. Joint Inclusion Memorandum - JIM)11, the effects of which are still present. The experts interviewed have indicated the fact that the intervention objectives and areas the European Social Fund provides support for by mediating structural funds have been mainly set forth based on such documents produced by CASPIS. Another idea that has clearly come out further to the interviews conducted has been that the visibility of the governmental actions regarding the efforts of social inclusion of the vulnerable groups has been much greater when CASPIS was in operation (2001-2006) than after this commission was dissolved. The institutional infrastructure between 2001 and 2006 (and particularly between 2001

and 2005) supported rather a process in which Romania was properly connecting to OMC. There were debates and consultations with the social partners and non-governmental stakeholders, the public institutions having attributions in managing some specific fields relevant to social inclusion – National Agency for the Roma, National Agency for Child Protection, National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Men and Women, National Agency for the Disabled, etc. – thus leading to an integrated approach to the field of social inclusion and an increase in the visibility of efforts to monitor the

effects of the social policies. One of the experts interviewed has synthetically pointed out this issue: “I would like to tell you that establishing CASPIS was an important moment because the consultation process was started again, this was the essence. It was a kind of applicability of OMC. We didn‟t call it OMC, but it was the process of consultation among institutions.” In order to take a step forward and to solve the involvement of the local authority level

in the OMC implementation process, between 2001 and 2002, a network of employees at local level was built – County Commissions of Anti-poverty and Promotion of Social

11

The Joint Memorandum in social inclusion, published in 2005

http://www.mmuncii.ro/pub/imagemanager/images/file/Domenii/Incluziune%20si%20asistenta%20sociala/Proiecte_cu_finatare_externa/2%20-%20JIM_Romania.pdf

18

Inclusion – that had the role to provide data and to produce a report on the condition of the vulnerable groups at local level. Respondents’ statements within the research carried out by us suggest that during the

pre-accession period clear progress was made in the management of social policies - but also regarding the connecting Romania to the OMC process - a key role being played by CASPIS. Below we present the evidence of our research regarding the post-accession stage in the evolution of social policies in Romania.

The second stage covers (as already specified) the post-accession period – 2007 to present – and it is specific to it the fact that the main responsibility in the public management of social inclusion lies with DASPF within the MoLFSP.

The restructuring of the Romanian institutional infrastructure with a view to ensure the monitoring of the social inclusion policies following Romania’s accession to the EU took place having as background both the completion of the integration process and the “clash” between two distinctive visions and practices regarding the role of the social inclusion process management in Romania, as shown below. The first context element has been well captured by one of our interlocutors in the interviews: “Now, this commission (CASPIS, our note), though very useful, does not exist anymore, since 2007, because it was considered to be a useful tool in the integration phase. Then it was considered that the Ministry was big enough and could handle itself.” In order to clarify the situation in terms of the CASPIS – MoLFSP relation, it is eloquent

the statement made by one of the governmental responders interviewed who indicated the fact that the reports developed by CASPIS failed to fully reflect Romania’s concrete achievements in social protection, which would have led to negative remarks on the part of the European Commission. In this context, the focus had to be placed on the “bureaucratic” reporting on the progress made, outlining more carefully the positive aspects so that the “red flags” by Romania’s side disappear. The CASPIS vision was focussing on monitoring the progress made in fulfilling the objectives undertaken in the fields of social intervention priority to Romania, the ongoing revising of the same by involving the actors concerned and the stimulation of proper implementation by emphasising the weak points or the areas where progress was not made. This vision is obviously closer to the way OMC should be operating.

Once CASPIS was dissolved and the experience and know-how gained were lost because; for instance, CASPIS had as an attribution the calculation of the tertiary indicators for the monitoring of the social inclusion, but the experts having the skills to work with a software specialised in data analysis were missing – SPSS. As indicated earlier, the vision of the new institutional structure has focussed mainly on fulfilling the bureaucratic rigors of reporting and submitting the social inclusion reports, the basis for such documents to become “dead paper”. The consultations with the social non-governmental partners, but

with the representatives of other institutions authorised to operate in fields relevant to social inclusion got rarer and rarer until no consultation was held. In 2008 and 2009, the experts interviewed from the public institutions were not aware of the organisation of and did not participate in any debate/consultation organised by the DASPF in 2008 or 2009. Practically, the liaison of the integrated, proactive approach to the social policies, by the involvement and large participation of the stakeholders.

The now DASPF still fails to fulfil the position of empowering the stakeholders relevant to the active participation in the process of social policy making, prerequisite for the proper operation of the OMC. At administrative level there is a normative act formally settling the national mechanism for the promotion of social inclusion in Romania – G.D. No 1217/2006. The central public

19

authorities having attributions in the field of social inclusion according to the normative act above are the following:

MoH - Ministry of Health;

MoJ - Ministry of Justice; MoAI - Ministry of Administration and Interior; MoEC - Ministry of Economy and Commerce; MoAFRD - Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development; MoT - Ministry of Transports, Constructions, and Tourism; MoER - Ministry of Education and Research; MoCIS - Ministry of Communications and Information Technology; MoEWM - Ministry of Environment and Water Management; NEA - National Employment Agency; NAEOWM - National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men; NAA - National Anti-Drug Agency; ANDZM - National Agency for Mine Areas Development; ANPDC - National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights; ANPH – National Authority for the Disabled; NAR - National Agency for the Roma; ANPF - National Agency for Family Protection; CNPAS - National House of Pensions and Other Social Insurance Rights; CNAS - National Health Insurance House.

This normative act stipulates (Art 2) the establishment, at the level of the public authorities mentioned above, of the social inclusion units, having as objective the

“monitoring of the implementation of the engagements undertaken by Romania in the international documents in the field of social inclusion”. It is again this normative act that stipulates (Art 3, Art 4) the establishment of the National Commission regarding the Social Inclusion as “body with consultative role, no legal status, operating within the Inter-ministerial Council for Social Affairs, Health, Consumer Protection, provided at item VI in annex no. 1 to the Government Decision No 750/2005 on the establishment of the permanent inter-ministerial councils.” This commission is made up of one representative each, at the level of secretary of state or president within the public authorities mentioned above. The nominal structure of this commission is established against Prime Minister’s decision. This commission is ruled by the relevant minister with the role to coordinate the social inclusion and protection policies – Ministry of Labour, Family, and Social Protection.

“The main attributions of the National Commission are the following (Art 7, GD No 1217/2006):

a. identifying the national priorities in the field of social inclusion; b. establishing the Action Plan in accordance to the national priorities identified; c. signing off the reports on the monitoring of the implementation of the priorities

from the social inclusion field;

d. signing off the sectoral indicators related to the social inclusion, used in the reporting systems;

e. signing off the National Report on the social inclusion and social protection field.” The same government decision specifies that to the works of this commission there may be invited to participate as well social partners, representatives of the civil society, representatives of the academic environment, etc, but does not make reference to

whether meetings are public. This framework describes in a desirable manner an integrated mechanism for the coordination of the social policy effect monitoring and the identification of the national priorities but, though the normative act mentioned was passed in 2006, this commission has operated de facto in part only.

20

According to the latest strategic report on the social inclusion and social protection, mention is made that in March 2007 there was held the first reunion of the National Commission on Social Inclusion, but later on it was not convened anymore, the report

being published in September 2008. In the period prior to the accession, there used to operate within CASPIS a similar consultative structure that used to convene at least once a year. A former employee of CASPIS told us in this respect: “I know this was the commission (National Commission of Social Inclusion, our note), we (CASPIS employees, our note) were the technical secretariat, some puppets who were doing the technical things, the commission was made up of ministers, secretaries of state, directors from the ministry (...) the coordinator was the Ministry of Labour, the state councillor was secretary general or technical coordinator, they had to meet once, twice a year to discuss about what had happened in the meantime, from strategies, plans, research reports, there were a lot of products that were coming in the meantime, of intentions of politics, an to make decisions as well. We haven‟t managed to make this process very operational, in fact they were supposed to meet twice a year and we managed once a year, but using a pretext, we couldn‟t manage to gather and mobilise them for a CASPIS debate and then there had to be a report, an event for them to gather around it (...) I don't know now about this commission, the terms it is operating under, but I haven‟t heard of it gathering for the past years.” As far as the current situation with the functionality of the National Commission of Social

Inclusion is concerned, here is what an expert hired in the public system interviewed has told us: “When there would be a problem that would need to be discussed or approved, then the commission is convened (the National Commission of Social Inclusion, our note), which makes a decision if needed. I would consider that for this national plan developed (the National Strategic Plan on Social Inclusion and Social Protection, our note) the Commission needed to be convened..., but it was developed by the Ministry of Labour, it didn't consider necessary to convene this commission. Maybe people didn't even know this commission was operating, as long as it didn't do anything for two years, it didn't convened, it wasn't heard of, everybody knew CASPIS had been dissolved, nobody asked about what it was replaced with, very likely that people didn't even think there might be such commission that should do something.” Naturally, according to the said normative act, the National Strategic Plan should have

been seen by this Inclusion Commission; it seems there have been only some communications “by email” on its contents. Another interviewee, member of the social inclusion unit within the institution the person is working in, has told us in this respect: “Respondent: Indeed, I am not aware of any meeting of the Social Inclusion Commission lately. Indeed I have submitted the report, they have developed a social inclusion report, work has been done by email. Interviewer: Can you remember when the last meeting was held? Respondent: No, I can't. Interviewer: Has there been such a meeting this

year? Respondent: No, it hasn‟t. Or we haven't been invited to. Maybe it has taken place, but we haven't been invited. I definitely know there has been an exchange of emails based on the report developed, to add to, comment on, submit our contribution on social inclusion, but a meeting at the level of the decision-makers, presidents within the commission, no.” Another institutional structure initiated by Romania is the Social Observatory, established

through Law No. 47/2006 as “public institution with legal status, operating as specialised body under the direct coordination of the Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family (the former name of the now Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection, our note). The Social Observatory has as purpose to make the process of social policy making and implementation at national level efficient.” Establishing this institution the intention was to make an effort to synthesise the data on the poverty condition and social inclusion

21

existing in Romania. This initiative was part of the Phare project 2004/ 016 – 772.04.02.02 - “Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Labour, Social Solidarity and Family in the field of social work – Technical Assistance for the establishment of the Social Observatory and the National Agency for Social Services”, also referred to by the

National Strategic Report on Social Inclusion and Social Protection (p 34). Again the operation de facto of this institution has not happened, various explanations being provided by the people interviewed: “Why is the Observatory not operating now? Because my colleagues from monitoring, for instance, resist to supporting the establishing of this institution, because you leave them „jobless‟….” Another governmental responsible has invoked the shortage of resources required for its operation, having in view the unfavourable economic circumstances. Central and local public authorities’ involvement in the OMC process The proper operation of the OMC requires the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in all the stages of the social policy making process – identifying the problem, identifying the alternative problem-solving solutions, choosing the problem-solving solution, implementing the solution, monitoring and assessing the effects by the implementation of the solution and, based on the feedback further to the assessment, adjusting and updating the social policies if needed. We will refer in this chapter to the extent to which the Romanian relevant authorities are

connected to the OMC process in Romania as indicated by the interviews conducted. Firstly, there should be noted that governmental experts know to little extent the OMC nuances and opportunities provided by the same. In this respect, a government expert interviewed, with responsibility in social inclusion, has given a categorical response: “Interviewer: Are you familiar with the open method of coordination? I don‟t know if you‟ve heard about this method… Government expert: No, I haven‟t. Interviewer: OMC, that whereby Romania and the EU decide to harmonise all social inclusion policies by establishing benchmarks, examples of best practices. So, a common set of social indicators is established, in various areas, which are jointly monitored, in the same way throughout the European Union, including in Romania and, based on comparing the evolution of such indicators, it is established: this country has done better, what went better, this one did worse, what went worse. So you are not familiar with this? Haven‟t you worked on this system of sharing practices? Government expert: No, our agency

has not worked on something like this.” Another government expert, being invited to comment on whether and how consultations within the OMC take place and whether she is aware of the activity of the institution that is formally coordinating this process (the Ministry of Labour through the DASPF), has stated: “I am not aware of this. It may be doing it, but not having any feedback this is lack of communication. So they may be doing it and ask us for information, as I was

telling you, we are requested this every now and then, but back there, what goes there and what responses we get from there, from the European Union and how this affects us, I, for one, haven‟t received anything.” One of the government experts interviewed, working in a public agency with responsibility in social inclusion, said that he knew nothing about a special system for the collection of data specific to the area he was working in, with the purpose of their

continuous monitoring: “I don‟t know. At one point, they sent us and I was asked by my colleague from Monitoring about some surveys they wanted to apply, but I think there was a study at some point, it was not about indicators, a monitoring system, there was a study at some point around June-July and I said my opinion on it, too. I do not know of a monitoring system developed with a manual of procedures, on how to enter the data.”

22

From interviews, the conclusion can be drawn that there is a lack of coordination of all public institutions at central level for an integrated approach within the public policies to the issues raised by the condition of the vulnerable groups in Romania, condition which contrasts with the process provided by the OMC. A minus in this context is held by the

Ministry of Labour through the DASPF which should undertake its role in accordance with the responsibilities and legal authority it has. Here is how one of the government experts describes the way the agency where he was working relates with that said department and the way in which the coordination of central public institutions takes place in the social inclusion and protection management process: “It doesn‟t seem to me they are doing (the Department of Social Care and Family Policies, our note) what they should be doing, integrating. I do not think that we coordinate from this point of view, or that such coordination is well focused. I do not think they coordinate from this point of view, or that they focus well on such coordination. Many times they request information from us when they are requested as well. I visit their website and I am glad to find information there, but otherwise I have not seen Ms D. (Director within the Department, our note), since 2001-2002 I believe. I would like them to gather us a few times a year to tell us what to do, to be a steering group.” The situation is equally problematic in terms of the actual operation of the OMC and of the involvement of the local level of public authority in the social policies generating and monitoring process. A prerequisite for the functioning of the OMC is the “bottom-up” approach to initiate social policies. Romania, however, seems to be, as one of the experts interviewed was noticing, still dependent on a certain tradition in which the initiator and main actor in policy management is at the central level (“top-down” perspective). One of

the experts interviewed stated in this respect: “I think we have a habit of implementing policies in a „top-down‟ manner. The role of the NGOs at local level, of the social partners, is not yet known.” Another government expert pointed out the major difficulties in obtaining data from local authorities to act as support of public initiatives, it being here about the lack of a tradition in the autonomous and responsible involvement of municipalities in the process of social inclusion policies management: “Yes, (...) you don‟t have the basis for information collection. I have also seen in Germany and France, the Netherlands and Sweden; they have set up the social services more in the NGOs, but also in public, in departments of the mayor halls, then they went to provinces or regional and there they made a sort of mini-governments which regulated - I mean since the „50s, and only later at the level of the country‟s Government or Parliament they had a structure to somehow

coordinate them all methodologically for uniformity or to collect information and enable them to develop. With us, it is the other way round. We have barely and hardly decentralised at the county level, but I cannot say we‟ve got to the mayor halls, and you cannot collect your data. 50% of mayors do not know they are dealing with this area, that it involves them, that it concerns them, that they have responsibilities in this part. The remaining 50% have a long way to developing a strategy starting from need assessment. If you do not have the data collection from there downwards, with a

common tool, then we‟ll talk a bit.” According to the recent statements made during the interviews, the function of the local infrastructure of support for the monitoring of the social inclusion and protection policies was changed with the dissolving of CASPIS: “there were the anti-poverty commissions that were also transferred, nobody knows why because they could have bee taken over

just as they were, I don‟t know why their transformation was needed anymore, transformation which went up to their destruction because I don‟t know if they are still doing anything, I haven‟t heard of the county commissions anymore.”. the employees of such county commissions seem to now have de facto task - as a government expert told us – to fulfil duties in awarding social benefits.

23

From interviews, it appears that the situation is different when talking about collecting data and feedback in case of Roma inclusion policies. Due to the fact that the government agency dealing with this specific issue has a territorial network specifically created for this - County Offices for the Roma – it could collect feedback from the local

level. “We worked on the principle of subsidiarity; we took it bottom to up. Our plans for social inclusion have never been developed here, in the office. They have been developed locally, by care of local Roma experts, who submitted to the County Office for the Roma, and then to the Regional Office of the National Agency for the Roma. I haven‟t done anything else than to collect, synthesize, break down plans by large objectives, because they were coming to me by activities.” It should be pointed out however that the involvement of the local level has not been achieved through the participation of municipalities or of the local council - local public authorities - but through a special network. We can conclude that, actually, the role of local stakeholders in providing feedback in the process of monitoring the evolution of social inclusion and social protection policies, save for the policies having targeted the Roma community, is rather marginal, insignificant. Utilisation of the monitoring indicators in social policy-making in Romania With this research we have tried to also assess the degree in which the primary and secondary indicators (the ones commonly agreed at EU level), but also the tertiary ones (the national ones, specific to Romania) are used as reference for the diagnosis of the existing social condition and as means to critically assess the efficacy of the existing

social policies. GD No. 488/2005 sets forth the indicators the value of which needs to be measured as part of the social inclusion and protection process monitoring process, and the institution in charge with calculating such indicators. The primary and secondary social inclusion indicators are produced by the National Institute of Statistics (which is stipulated through G.D. No 488 of 2005) and submitted to EUROSTAT, but there is no public debate to analyse their evolution and to extract teachings from this, which has been confirmed by several experts, both governmental and non-nongovernmental. The level of dissemination and of interest in the review on such indicators is shown at the European level rather than nationally. An expert from outside the governmental environment noted in this regard: “Some of the indicators, those used by the EU (the primary and secondary indicators, commonly measured across the EU, our note) are sent, the National Institute of Statistics is required to, every year

to EUROSTAT, and you can find them there rather than here in Romania. After a while, about one year, there they are, but they are very many having no connection with EUROSTAT because not many data match with our problems, the European Union doesn‟t have, like we do, 60% agriculture, doesn‟t have the same groups of excluded for this reason, it doesn‟t have so many Roma, it doesn‟t have so many people working in their own households failing to sell anything, but for own consumption only, which is a form of poverty as well, so it doesn‟t have all these and then in that law (the Romanian law

defining the monitoring indicators for social inclusion, GD No 488/2005), there were many indicators having nothing to do with EUROSTAT, they were tertiary indicators.” Romanian authorities have shown, in the context of social inclusion management, a high interest in the problems specific to Romania described by the tertiary indicators. This interest should have been completed with a systematic analysis of the tertiary indicators to identify weaknesses in existing social policies and improve them through effective

interventions. Tertiary indicators for the monitoring of social inclusion are generated by DASPF, but only some of them are voluntarily made public by the competent authority. However, according to the laws in force in Romania - Law no 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest - the public authority is bound, where an extra-governmental entity requires so, to make available these indicators. In conclusion, although the public authority does not always advertise information on indicators, in

24

Romania there is however the lever whereby tertiary indicators can be derived based on a legal approach initiated by the stakeholders. As with the primary and secondary indicators, neither were there on the tertiary indicators public debates or a broad advertising of the dynamics displayed by them. One of the experts interviewed, familiar

with the process of generating the social exclusion monitoring indicators, said: “In Great Britain there was a website where everyone could see the disaggregated indicators (...). (Indicators, our note) in Romania are calculated, but they are not disclosed. If someone from the administration asks for them, they have to give them, but I don‟t think anyone asks for them. It is a too technical matter.” At the same time, the experts interviewed did not know of any approach to analyse and assess the dynamics of the tertiary indicators, much less were they aware of the development of lessons or recommendations based on the same.

In the same respect, the National Strategic Report mentions (p 34) that “descriptive fiches were drawn up for each indicator, including information regarding: the definition of the indicator, method of calculation, type of indicator and information collection source.” Unfortunately, such descriptive fiches are not public, cannot be viewed or downloaded from the ministry website. The normative act regulating the need to calculate these indicators (GD No 488/2005) briefly presents what each of such indicators is about, but there is a need for wider dissemination, and in an accessible way, for a more elaborate version explaining the same, the calculation method and the relevance of measuring their dynamics.

The discussions held with the stakeholders have revealed that the usage of indicators is not effective. After being calculated by the INS and sent to EUROSTAT, no analysis is not carried out on their dynamics and neither is initiated a broad debate involving the governmental or non- governmental factors. A government expert, when asked to comment on the relevance of primary and secondary indicators in the process of social inclusion management, said that it was the INS task, set forth by law, and it was there

where we should be asking. INS calculates these indicators, but then public officials do not use these indicators anymore; the progress of their values is not benchmarked to other EU member states. According to the recommendations, the meaning of these indicators would be precisely to draw the attention when the situation of vulnerable groups is not the one designed, to identify the areas where further support actions need to be implemented, to identify solutions taking into account the cases of best practices in the EU. These indicators remain in Romania an unused resource, with no impact on the

social policy spectrum. The lack of a broader involvement of all stakeholders in the dissemination of these indicators, but also in updating them constantly is being felt. In conclusion, we believe that efforts must be made towards the awareness of the fact that reporting on the primary and secondary indicators is not a bureaucratic obligation and the broad purpose of such reporting has to be highlighted, namely that of being a resource for mutual learning at the level of the EU Member States and of identifying ways

to improve the condition of the vulnerable groups. Transparency and visibility of measures undertaken in the OMC implementation process on social inclusion in Romania; participation of the civil society organisations in the OMC process and the involvement of beneficiaries One of the common objectives of the OMC on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, agreed at EU level is: “Good governance, transparency and stakeholder involvement in the designing, implementation, and monitoring of the social inclusion policies”. Therefore, an important feature of the OMC has to be the encouraging of all stakeholders to actively participate in the process of social policy-making, a fundamental prerequisite

25

being the visibility and transparency of the policies, activities performed and information produced by public institutions. The transparency of public administration in Romania has a solid legal framework,

regulated by Law No 544/2001 on free access to public information and by Law No 52/2003 on decision-making transparency in public administration. These two laws are complementary in the sense that the former ensures the free access of citizens and civil society to the information concerning activities carried out by public institutions, and the latter regulates the framework in which citizens and civil society organisations can participate with ideas, suggestions and recommendations on the developing the draft legislation. The legal framework established by the said laws intended, on the one hand, to encourage Romanian public institutions and authorities to provide the information of public interest to stakeholders (the need to publish the information ex officio or to develop the annual activity report f specific to each institution is an example in this respect), but, on the other hand, the wish was that the civil society in Romania had a tool to enable it the broad access to decision-making. This framework is in close connection with any initiative and public policy implementation and carrying out process, with the public policies on social protection and social inclusion we refer to herein including. Actually, the existence of transparency laws supports the effective implementation of the OMC in social inclusion by encouraging the dissemination to the public of the initiatives and measures in the social field, but also by ensuring the free access to the activities, documents and information developed and resulting from the work of public institutions having the social policy management within their area of responsibility.

The Romanian legal framework is not sufficient to ensure full transparency and wide visibility of social protection policies and social inclusion in Romania, as reflected in the objectives of the OMC on Good Governance. It takes, on the one hand, the political will of public authorities to increase the participation of relevant actors for social inclusion and of beneficiaries and, on the other hand, a stronger commitment of an active role in this process by the stakeholders. If we analyse the Romanian authorities’ role in charge with developing the 2008-2010 NSR in the process of consulting the stakeholders, the opinion of the experts interviewed shows that it has not been sufficiently advertised and critically debated on. Representatives of civil society or other extra-governmental stakeholders were asked rather sporadically by the public authority to comment on it. The consultation and

debating on this report with the governmental experts relevant to the key fields of the social inclusion has been done by email at the best. Some of them have said that, though they are asked sometimes for data for the completion of this report by department responsible from the Ministry of Labour, they are not asked for feedback on the final version of the same as well. As a conclusion, there may be noticed the need for a wider transparency of the activity and the need for a greater effort on the part of Ministry of Labour to enhance the visibility of the public documents produced and their

dissemination towards other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, at the same time with a critical review on the same in order to draw lessons and recommendations for the future. Also, regarding the primary, secondary and tertiary indicators in particular, used in the OMC, we were told they were not made public, them being at the public policy-makers discretion which of them to be presented to the public. This suggests, as shown above as

well, the need to increase the transparency and the visibility of the indicators used in the process. Equally importantly is that these indicators are used in support of analysis, debate and consultation of all governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders, with the purpose of drawing recommendations and of identifying problems and challenges of vulnerable social groups.

26

Also regarding the authorities’ role in the consultation process, we can see that a gap in the social policy generating process in Romania is also the lack of the end-beneficiaries’ involvement in the process - for example, people at high risk of poverty, unemployed, elderly, single-parent families, people in rural areas, the Roma. The efforts of the

Romanian public authorities responsible for this direction should be significantly enhanced. As shown, from the OMC perspective, it is very important that all stakeholders (including those from the non-governmental area) take an active role in the consultation process and in the stages of social policy development, implementation, and monitoring. For this, the governmental environment, all stakeholders need to have a sufficient level of information regarding the specifics of the OMC operation, the way inclusion policies are monitored, the indicators used, their calculation method, and the way the data they are calculated on are obtained, the way indicators are interconnected and constantly improved depending on the effects of social policies. It is again important that all actors involved understand the “peer review”12 process as an opportunity to get to know and compare the models of social protection and social inclusion as shaped at the level of the EU Member States and to become familiar with the main public intervention levers in order to enhance the level of social inclusion. From this point of view, some of the respondents in the study could conclude further to the meetings attended along with representatives of NGOs that their expertise on how to increase the involvement in the policy-making process needed to be enhanced: “There are people who start work in an NGO without having experience and being taught on how to perform such institutional communications. A major project is proposed every 10-20 years; at that point, if you

refer to it in a wrong way, the stand of the association remains wrong, no one knows that the document in question was signed by X or Y or by somebody else, or that it was developed in itself, but by that association which was left with an insignificant standpoint.” Another element the non-governmental environment is missing is a coordination and integration mechanism for the participation in the social policy-making process in all their stages. One of the experts interviewed (former expert hired by the public system, currently an expert in the private sector) said: “If a mechanism would created whereby NGOs were more active and involved in the decision-making process, before making the decision, then basically, when preparing a social policy, in the monitoring of how social policies are implemented including, I think things went a little better.” This is important because, as another expert interviewed said: “NGOs have never had an aggregate,

convergent lobbying forces action, a „policy paper‟ signed by several NGOs ... (in social inclusion, our note).” In Romania we may say that now there is a number of NGOs that have experience in project management and have proved their ability to negotiate and impose themes of interest on the public agenda. In the field of social inclusion there are several NGOs aiming at providing support for certain vulnerable social groups – Roma population, the

elderly, discriminated groups, children with low chances of education success, etc. But there is no framework of collaboration among them for an integrated approach to the problems regarding social inclusion as it should normally be. Therefore, there would be needed efforts to lead to a wider participation of the non-governmental actors (civil society, academic environment, trade unions, businessmen organisations, members of the vulnerable groups) in the social inclusion and social protection policy-making process through consultations, by organising debates, monitoring the activity of the responsible

public authorities in this area, etc. Efforts may be based on two sources: on the one hand, increasing participation can come from public authorities, as an expression and political will, on the other hand, a level of involvement may be even stronger undertaken by the NGOs themselves. One of the experts commented on the importance of involving

12

See footnote no 2, p 4.

27

NGOs in the public management of social inclusion: “Respondent: In preparing the JIM (Joint Inclusion Memorandum, our note), a document underlying the SOP HRD (Sectoral Operational Programme - Human Resource Development, our note), consultations with NGOs have been very valuable. Interviewer: As far as you know, is the liaison with the

NGOs kept regarding social inclusion? Respondent: Yes. NGOs organise debates on this subject. There are so many things to be done that there is no other way to it than by cooperating with the NGOs, the NGOs of the local authorities. For example, the mayor hall of Alba-Iulia has collaborated with an NGO that has attracted European funding and has carried out the development of infrastructure and on social inclusion: kindergartens, playgrounds, etc.” At the end of this chapter, let us also highlight the lack of a standard for the consultation of social partners in the process of monitoring the effects of social policies in Romania included in the administrative procedures of the relevant public authorities to stipulate the permanence and the frequency of cooperation, the framework meetings / consultations take place in, the overall subject of such meetings, etc. National strategic reports on social inclusion and their function National strategic reports must reflect, in line with OMC proceedings, the conclusions on the evolution of the social condition and of the effects of the public intervention measures to enhance social inclusion. At the same time, these reports should become the basic tool for the amendment/improvement of the existing social policies; essential in this respect

is the process of comparing review on the National Strategic Report by referencing to the other frame documents developed by the other EU Member States. In order to fulfil this function and to produce actual effects in social inclusion plan, all relevant stakeholders – both from within the governmental environment, and from outside it – need to actively participate both in the development of the NSR, and in using its conclusions and formulating recommendations. Once the recommendations are formulated, they may be included on the governmental agenda and may become part of the public policies. Since the OMC is a “soft” method of coordinating the social policies, without any legislative penalties or rewards, the ability of the institutional environment specific to each Member State to generate itself on internal plan the motivation to complete the social policy coordination process by including the recommendations drawn further to analysing the strategic reports is vital.

The role of the extra-governmental environment is essential in this context by stimulating the internal debate and by the ability to place on the public agenda initiatives and proposals to amend the existing public policies. In Romania however, as we could see in the chapter that dealt with the degree of the social partners’ involvement in the social policy making process (p 17), the non-governmental stakeholders’ involvement in the social policy-making process is low.

In Romania, both in the stage of developing the contents of the strategic reports, and in the stage of its data and conclusion analysis by referencing to the other Member States’ reports and to the best practices at European level, the voice and contribution of the non-governmental stakeholders is marginal. The main cause, as stated above, consists in the low visibility level of the documents produced by the public institutions entitled to coordinate this process nation-wide, in their low interest in involving non-governmental

stakeholders in this process, but also in the still insufficient know-how and coordination of the non-governmental environment. Moreover, neither are the governmental experts in the sectoral fields of social intervention actively involved in the strategic report development and analysis process. Their statements have supported the idea that they have a major interest in learning about and involving in the debate on the social condition in their field of responsibility, but there is no consistent consultative

28

mechanism, extensive and integrative as a governmental expert was also emphasising: “We are part of a strategic institutional plan in terms of social inclusion and we have (…) some actions we follow up. But for a strategy-like tool to operate it must be continuously monitored, not just upon requests from outside, and I think for the time being it has not

become a valid tool for all of us professionals to be working around and to know each other from all ministries and to be able to draw on or consult each other (…). In this context, we can draw the conclusion that the strategic reports on social protection and social inclusion produce actual significant effects on the public intervention framework for the social inclusion improvement and do not have a positive and significant influence on the condition of the vulnerable groups from Romania. For instance, we could not identify during the interviews conducted an example of public intervention on the social inclusion policies adopted further to the conclusions and analysis of the latest NSR 2008-2010.

29

IV. Conclusions The overall conclusion of the research carried out is that, although theoretically, by the laws of Romania, an effective mechanism to regulate the social policy management

process, in line with the OMC recommendations is described and thought over, in practice, this mechanism does not function as originally expected; the functional institutional infrastructure now has a low capacity of ensuring a satisfactory standard of effort in achieving the OMC objectives. This is also due to the fact that the efforts in Romania during the pre-accession period in the social inclusion area were ignored after integration by changing the institutional framework responsible for social inclusion, and

thus much of its institutional capacity was lost, a capacity a lot had been invested in during the pre-accession period (the CASPIS period) to respond through coherent measures, of active inclusion, to the increasingly severe issues faced by the vulnerable groups in Romania. As far as the view of public responsible authorities is concerned, on how the OMC process should be managed, it is worth noticing that the attention seems to be focused more on the reporting process and on how reporting documents are assessed at EU level. To ensure proper functioning of the OMC at the national level, the emphasis should be placed on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of public intervention measures for improving the difficult condition of vulnerable groups. In this respect, it would be appropriate for public officials to seize the opportunity offered by the OMC through the peer-review process promoting the exchange of experiences and best practices among Member States. Romania has participated in such sectoral assessments of social policies

in other member states and even hosted such a process on excellence in social services. Analysis of successful models in the EU and try to implement them by adapting to the reality of Romania can benefit the precarious situation of vulnerable groups. The review of success models in the EU and the attempt to implement them by adapting to the reality of Romania may bring benefits to the precarious condition of vulnerable groups.

Following the recommendations of OMC, the role of indicators used in social inclusion is to draw the attention when the situation of vulnerable groups is not the one designed, to identify the areas where further support actions need to be implemented, to identify solutions taking into account the best practices cases at EU level. The conclusion of this report is that in Romania these indicators remain a resource not enough used, having no impact on the social policy spectrum. The lack of a broader

involvement of all stakeholders in the dissemination of these indicators, in order to analyse their evolution, including by dynamically comparing them at the level of other member states, but also to constantly update them is being felt. This way, weaknesses of the current social policies could be identified and improved through effective interventions. Increased efforts are needed to advertise and make strategic documents and information

on social inclusion developed by the public competent ministry transparent, and to disseminate the same to other stakeholders, governmental and nongovernmental. The participation of all stakeholders in the process of generating social policies in Romania is very low as compared to the coordination framework established at European level through the OMC. Although there is an institutional structure explicitly in charge with the management of this process (the National Commission of Social Inclusion), it is necessary to improve its activity in order to implement a wider consultation of stakeholders - both governmental and non-governmental ones, both from central and local level - in monitoring the progress made by Romania in the area of social inclusion. This requires action in several directions namely:

making actors in the non-governmental area aware of the role they should be playing in processes of social inclusion policies;

30

strengthening the capacity of nongovernmental actors to intervene in each stage, from social inclusion policy formulation to monitoring and evaluation, and where necessary, to the revising of the same;

involving the local public authority in the process of social inclusion policies -

possibly by setting clear responsibilities of local authorities’ representatives in providing feedback, collected including from members of vulnerable groups in Romania, but also regular quantitative information to reveal the effectiveness of the social inclusion measures implemented.

Thus, there would be created the conditions absolutely necessary to involve all relevant actors in the process of laying the bases for and adjusting the social policies in Romania. Equally useful is the effort to undertake the role of coordinating this process by a network of NGOs, which could also facilitate the involvement of members of vulnerable groups in the process. Currently in Romania is operating the National Anti-Poverty Network - Social Inclusion (RENASIS), member of the European Network Antipoverty (EAPN), which has to make additional efforts to increase visibility and to have a key role in the monitoring and evaluation of social inclusion policies Romania. The functionality of Romania’s strategic reports can be substantially improved; they can be important programmatic tools taking account their functions, on the one hand of analysing the situation and highlighting the progress achieved over the past two years, and on the other hand, of designing measures for social inclusion policies for the following two years. In this respect, we again consider that the focus should be placed on achieving concrete effects in terms of increasing the social inclusion level of vulnerable

groups, in line with the OMC objectives, and not on meeting a standard of positive reporting. For the measures referred to in NSR to meet the realities of the Romanian society vulnerable groups are facing, consulting and engaging non-governmental stakeholders is required, but also the beneficiaries of the social inclusion policies, both in the preparation of the reports and in the analysis on their conclusions. Also, now there is an insufficient degree of comparative analysis on social inclusion in Romania, by benchmarking to the situation in other EU member states; therefore, a distinctive stage of developing public intervention recommendations based on such reviews would be undoubtedly useful.

31

Annex 1: List of people interviewed during the research

Governmental experts (at the time of conducting the interviews, August – October 2009)

Drăgotoiu Adina, Director, Division for Social Inclusion Policies, Strategies and Programmes, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Marius Augustin Pop, Councillor to the Minister of Labour, Family and Social Protection on the social inclusion and social protection-related specific issues

Ovidiu Anemţoaicei, Councillor, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion, National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Men and

Women Manuela Dănescu, Director Policies and Strategies, National Authority for the

Protection of Children’s Rights Florea Plebis, Expert, National Agency for the Roma Andreea Cambir, Director Statistics on the life conditions within NIS, National

Institute for Statistics.

Nongovernmental experts in social inclusion and social protection-related matters

Ileana Neamţu, former executive manager with CASPIS. Codrin Scutaru, former expert with CASPIS Răzvan Cirică, former governmental expert with the Ministry of Labour; he dealt

with European affairs, social inclusion and social protection field, until 2005.

Cătălin Ghinăraru, Scientific secretary with the National Institute of Scientific Research in the Field of Labour and Social Protection - I.N.C.S.M.P.S. Bucharest

Cosmin Briciu, former expert with CASPIS, specialist in social indicator calculation, currently a researcher with the Institute of Research on the Quality of Life.

Marieta Radu, expert in the social inclusion policies, the Romanian ones in particular.

32

Annex 2: List of people relevant to the functionality of OMC in Romania,

identified through our research

A. Officials and governmental experts

Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection

Mariana Nedelcu Secretary of State, coordinator of the Department of Social Assistance and Family Policies, full member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Drăgotoiu Adina Director, Division for Social Inclusion Policies, Strategies and Programmes, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Călinoiu Dumitru Director, General Division for Social Assistance Policies

Grecu Mihaela Director, Division for Policies, Strategies and Methodology for Social Assistance

Manu Carmen Director, Division for Social Services within the General Division

for Social Assistance Policies

Marius Augustin Pop Councillor to the Minister of Labour, Family and Social Protection on the social inclusion and social protection-related specific issues

Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation

Adriana Pană Secretary of State, full member of the National Commission for

Social Inclusion

Liliana Preoteasa Director, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

National Agency for Employment

Silviu Bian President, full member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Sonia Diaconescu Head of Department, substitute member of the National

Commission for Social Inclusion

National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Men and Women

Maria Moţa President, full member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Ovidiu Anemţoaicei Councillor, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

National Agency for Family Protection

Mihaela Cristina Mostavi President, full member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Aura Manuela Colang Director, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

National Authority for the Protection of Children’s Rights

Ileana Savu President, full member of the National Commission for Social

Inclusion

Mioara Bogdan Secretary General, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Manuela Dănescu Director Policies and Strategies

National Agency for the Protection of the Disabled

Doina Dreţcanu President, full member of the National Commission for Social

Inclusion

Iustina Radu Vice-president, substitute member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

National Agency for the Roma

Robert Iapornicu President, full member of the National Commission for Social Inclusion

Dan Oprescu Zenda Councillor, substitute member of the National Commission for

33

Social Inclusion

Florea Plebis Expert

National Institute of Statistics

Andreea Cambir Director Statistics on the life conditions within NIS.

B. Non-governmental EXPERTS in social inclusion and social

protection-related matters

Ileana Neamţu, former executive manager with CASPIS. Codrin Scutaru, former expert with CASPIS

Răzvan Cirică, former governmental expert with the Ministry of Labour; he dealt with European affairs, social inclusion and social protection field, until 2005

Cătălin Ghinăraru, Scientific secretary with the National Institute of Scientific Research in the Field of Labour and Social Protection - I.N.C.S.M.P.S. Bucharest

Cosmin Briciu, former expert with CASPIS, specialist in social indicator calculation, currently a researcher with the Institute of Research on the Quality of Life

Marieta Radu, expert in the social inclusion policies, the Romanian ones in particular

34

Annex 3: On the OMC Working Group in Social Inclusion Under the project “Promoting debates in support of the strengthening of the Open

Method of Coordination in social protection and social inclusion”, the Social OMC NGO working group was established since October 2009; so far, the group have formally convened five times and received training in the OMC area. In various occasions, the group members discussed with Romanian and European experts on areas relevant to Social OMC: national indicators used in social policies, methods of involving various social actors in developing the social policies and the National Strategic Reports or on Romania

in the context of Lisbon and Europe Strategy 2020. So far, the Social OMC NGO working group:

has conducted a review on NSR 2008-2010; has made a stand regarding the way European Year 2010 for combating poverty

and social exclusion has been undertaken by the Romanian Government; has submitted proposals for NSR 2010-2012 to the Romanian relevant

institutions; has proposed a consultation mechanism to make OMC efficient in Romania.

Sources of information on OMC on the website of the European Commission, General Division for Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/the_process_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/common_objectives_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/common_indicators_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/joint_reports_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/strategy_reports_en.htm