Fullscreen
Loading...
 

Under the current ESF programming period, the Learning for change Network on “stimulating Partnership thinking and implementation in the structural funds” explores the way partnerships are implemented in partner countries. This note summarizes the discussion on current programming in Sweden.

working note, July 2010

Summarized by Katalin Kolosy

Are cohesion instruments geared up for fostering local development?

The view of an ESF manager.

Context

Under the current ESF programming period, the Learning for change network on “stimulating partnership thinking and implementation in the structural funds” explores the way partnerships are implemented in partner countries. This note summarizes the ongoing discussion on current programming in Sweden.

Presentation summary


(Extract of the ‘key lessons’ draft report on Sweden)
In order to link regional growth with labour market policies, Sweden has adopted a joint organisational approach between the ESF and the ERDF for the implementation of the 2007-2013 Structural Funds.
The ESF and ERDF work together regionally through 8 Structural Fund Partnerships (SFPs). These have been established in each structural fund region (NUTS 2) and county. SFPs are supported by a national law, which came into force in June 2007.
The legal requirements stipulate that SFP membership must consist of a minimum of 50% municipal and regional politicians, as well as representatives from labour market organisations, the Swedish Employment Service, social partners, NGOs, universities, private sector, public authorities such as county councils, county administrative boards and county labour boards. The SFPs for Övre Norrland and Mellersta Norrland (the sparsely inhabited northern parts of Sweden) also include representatives from the Sami Parliament (Sametinget). SFPs usually include between 17-21 members in total and the chairperson of each SFP is appointed by the Government. The chairperson designates other representatives in the SFP in accordance with the principles laid down by the Government.

Comments

Source: German partner (ESF managing authority – Reiner Aster) after the Swedish presentation (November 2009).

“Emerging from the Swedish example is the question of “big projects”. As I understood, Sweden prefers big projects to gain better impact on the labour market and more meaningful outcomes. But isn’t the problem of big projects, at least in the ESF, that they often do not reach the people on the spot, in particular the most deprived target groups that are usually in the focus of the ESF? Don’t we need simultaneously local bottom-up structures and small projects in order to reach “the-hard-to-reach groups”? The evaluation of the “Local Social Capital” programme, for instance, which in Germany covered a volume of more than 80 Mio Euros in the last ESF-period, showed, that small projects up to 10,000 Euro can have impact, for instance, in terms of diminishing barriers to the labour market for special target groups or support to young founders if they want to launch their own business. I think we should have at least a balanced structure between big and small, local oriented projects embedded in local action plans and decided by local steering committees.”

Katalin Kolosy
11/01/2010
http://partnership.esflive.eu/node/479(external link)


Created by katalin kolosy70 points . Last Modification: Saturday 18 of February, 2012 12:18:44 GMT by Peter Ramsden3328 points . (Version 6)