The Belgian platform against poverty and social exclusion EU 2020 : synthesis report, Belgium, 14-15 January 2014.
Date: 2015-09-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Subjects: Belgium, marginalisation, poverty, report, social inequality, social integration

ISSN 1977-7973

Peer Review  

in Social Protection  

and Social Inclusion  

The Belgian Platform against 
Poverty and Social Exclusion 
EU 2020

Synthesis Report

Belgium, 14-15 January 2014

Social Europe

 
This  publication  is  supported  by  the  European  Community  Programme  for  Employment  and  Social 
Solidarity (2007–2013). 

This programme is managed by the European Commission. It was established to financially support 
the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment, social affairs and 
equal opportunities area, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Europe 2020 Strategy 
goals in these fields.

The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appro-
priate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and 
EU candidate and pre-candidate countries.

For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/progress

The Belgian Platform 
against Poverty and 
Social Exclusion EU 2020

Hugh Frazer 
National University of Ireland Maynooth

Synthesis Report

European Commission

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Manuscript completed in March 2014

This publication has been prepared for the European Commission by  

© Cover illustration: European Union

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held 
responsible for use of any information contained in this publication.

Further information on the Peer Reviews is available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls  

(though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).  
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-79-36736-6 
ISSN 1977-7973 
doi: 10.2767/13584

© European Union, 2014 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

 
 
 
 
Table of contents

Executive Summary 

A. Policy context at European level 

B. The Belgium Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion EU2020 

C. Policies and experiences in peer countries and stakeholder contributions 

D. Main issues discussed during the meeting 

E. Conclusions and lessons learned 

F. Contribution of the Peer Review to Europe 2020 and the SIP  

References 

5

7

12

17

21

29

32

34

3
3

Synthesis report — Belgium

3
1
0
2

4
4

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

Executive Summary

The  Peer  Review  of  the  Belgian  Platform  Against  Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion  EU2020 
(BPAPSE) was held in Brussels on the 14th and 15th January 2014. It was hosted by the 
Federal Public Planning Service Social Integration and brought together government officials, 
NGO representatives, people experiencing poverty and experts from the host country and 
from eight peer countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, 
and  Malta.  Also  participating  were  stakeholder  representatives  from  the  European  Anti-
Poverty  Network  and  the  Social  Platform  together  with  representatives  of  the  European 
Commission’s DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and ÖSB Consulting.

The focus of the Peer Review was on the involvement of stakeholders in the social inclusion 
dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection 
and Social Inclusion (Social OMC) and the Social Investment Package (SIP). The Peer Review 
examined the BPAPSE, which is an innovative initiative to gather together all stakeholders 
to monitor and make recommendations in relation to the current European situation in the 
area of poverty and social exclusion. The BPAPSE was found to be an important initiative 
that  has  been  successful  in  involving  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders,  especially  from  the 
different regions and from civil society, including people experiencing poverty. It has also 
proved an important source of information and awareness-raising about EU social inclusion 
processes. However, several participants felt that its impact on Belgium policies to combat 
poverty and social exclusion in general and the Europe 2020 and Social OMC has, to date, 
been quite limited. In order to enhance its impact in the future, in particular on the content 
of the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), National Social Reports (NSRs) and Country 
Specific  Recommendations  (CSR),  there  are  a  number  of  key  challenges  it  will  need  to 
address. These include: increasing its formal status as a consultative body within Belgium 
policy making and strengthening high level political support; making its work more visible; 
providing  more  feedback  to  participants  on  the  results  of  its  work;  further  improving  its 
positive efforts to involve people experiencing poverty; expanding the issues it addresses to 
include economic areas within the NRP which have a direct impact on social outcomes; and 
broadening its engagement with officials and policy makers to include those not directly 
involved with social policies but responsible for the fields of economic policy, employment 
and labour market related issues.

More  broadly  the  Peer  Review  highlighted  that  there  is  a  strong  policy  framework  for 
stakeholder involvement in EU social inclusion policies. It is a key element of the Lisbon 
Treaty, the Europe 2020 Strategy, the EU’s social protection and social inclusion objectives 
and the Social OMC, the SIP and the Commission Recommendation on investing in children 
and the EU Structural Funds. However, in many Member States efforts to involve stakeholders 
in the European processes have been disappointing. This was identified as a key factor in 
the  lack  of  progress  towards  the  EU’s  poverty  and  social  exclusion  target  and  urgently 
needs to be rectified. At the same time the Peer Review also highlighted that there is much 
good practice on which to draw and over a decade of experience of involving stakeholders, 
particularly in relation to the Social OMC since 2001.

Key issues that were discussed included: how should stakeholder involvement be defined; 
why is stakeholder involvement necessary for good policy making; who are (or should be) 
stakeholders  and  how  should  they  be  selected;  are  formal  (legal)  and  representative  or 

5
5

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

more open structures better; what is needed to ensure participation of people experiencing 
poverty; how can one manage expectations so as not to lead to stakeholder disillusionment; 
how can (and why should) stakeholder involvement be increased in Europe 2020 and the 
SIP?

In addition to the specific conclusions about the BPAPSE the main overall conclusions were 
that: 

1.  stakeholder involvement is vital to address the growing democratic deficit, to ensure 
greater  social  inclusion  across  the  EU  and  to  achieve  the  EU’s  poverty  and  social 
exclusion target; 

2.  political leadership is essential to ensure that stakeholder involvement has an impact; 

3.  stakeholder  involvement  in  European  processes  needs  to  be  built  on  a  culture  of 

involvement at all levels of governance starting at the local level; 

4.  stakeholders must come from a broad range of policy domains (economic as well as 

social), all levels of governance (national, regional, local), and all sectors; 

5.  it is essential to define clearly at the outset what the status and purpose of stakeholder 
involvement  is  and  to  ensure  that  it  has  a  meaningful  and  transparent  impact  on 
national policy making; 

6.  the participation of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion is essential and 

must be adequately supported and resourced; 

6
6

7.  EU  support  and  advocacy  for  greater  stakeholder  involvement  (particularly  in  the 
context  of  the  European  Semester,  the  NRPs,  the  NSRs,  the  Annual  Growth  Survey, 
Country Specific Recommendations, the implementation of the SIP and the European 
Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion) should be continued and enhanced; 

8.  there should be enhanced support from the Commission and SPC including through 
enhanced  exchange  of  learning,  the  development  of  guidelines  for  good  practice, 
enhanced monitoring and increased support from EU Structural Funds).

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

A. Policy context at European level

The European policy framework for this Peer Review was set by the Lisbon Treaty, the Europe 
2020 Strategy, the EU’s social objectives underpinning the Open Method of Coordination 
on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (Social OMC) and the Social Investment Package 
(SIP).  These  important  policy  initiatives  aim  to  mainstream  efforts  to  tackle  poverty  and 
social exclusion at the heart of EU and national policy making. In doing so each stresses 
the  importance  of  Member  States  involving  all  relevant  stakeholders  and  all  levels  of 
governance in the process of developing, implementing and monitoring policies to promote 
social inclusion.

Lisbon Treaty

Article 9  TFEU of the Lisbon Treaty mainstreams the struggle against poverty and social 
exclusion  as  a  central  concern  of  the  European  Union.  It  states  that  “In  defining  and 
implementing  its  policies  and  activities,  the  Union  shall  take  into  account  requirements 
linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social 
protection,  the  fight  against  social  exclusion,  and  a  high  level  of  education,  training  and 
protection  of  human  health”.1  Article  11  TUE  of  the  Treaty  stresses  the  importance  of 
stakeholder  involvement.  It  talks  about  giving  “citizens  and  representative  associations 
the  opportunity  to  make  known  and  publicly  exchange  their  views  in  all  areas  of  Union 
action”  and  maintaining  “an  open,  transparent  and  regular  dialogue  with  representative 
associations and civil society”.

7
7

Europe 2020

The  Europe  2020  Strategy  (European  Commission  2010),  at  least  in  theory,  puts  social 
inclusion at the heart of the EU’s current priorities. It emphasises enhanced socio-economic 
coordination and the incorporation of inclusive growth as one of the EU’s three key priorities, 
alongside smart and sustainable growth. It includes, for the first time an EU headline target 
on for the reduction of poverty and social inclusion.2 The creation of the European Platform 
Against Poverty and Social Exclusion (EPAPSE) as one of the seven flagship initiatives which 
were established as core elements of the Europe 2020 strategy also provides an important 
context for work on social inclusion issues and the involvement of stakeholders.

The Europe 2020 Strategy also emphasises consultation and involvement of stakeholders 
in the implementation of the Strategy. The Commission Communication which underpins 
the Strategy emphasises a partnership approach which “should extend to EU committees, 
to national parliaments and national, local and regional authorities, to social partners and 
to stakeholders and civil society so that everyone is involved in delivering on the vision.” 
(European  Commission  2010)  This  is  then  reflected  in  the  arrangements  for  delivering 
the strategy. In particular, the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), which set out and 

1 
  The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has elaborated on the potential of  
Article 9 for mainstreaming social inclusion in EU and national policy making. (See EESC 2011).
2 
reducing school drop outs) are also very significant from a social inclusion perspective.

  Two of the other Europe 2020 targets (raising the employment rate for women and men and 

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

report  on  how  Member  States  are  implementing  the  strategy,  are  prepared  in  line  with  
the Integrated Guidelines3 and with the general guidance to Member States issued by the 
Commission (in the Annual Growth Survey) and the European Council at the beginning of the 
annual cycle of surveillance. Guideline 10 is on promoting social inclusion and combating 
poverty. 

The importance of involving a broad range of stakeholders in the development of policies 
which  impact  on  poverty  and  social  exclusion  is  stressed  in  the  guidance  notes  for  the 
preparation  of  the  NRPs.4  In  its  2014  Annual  Growth  Survey  the  Commission  “continues 
to recommend that the National Reform Programmes (NRP) and Stability or Convergence 
Programmes (SCP) be discussed with national parliaments and all relevant parties, notably 
social partners and sub-national actors.” (European Commission 2013d).

EU Social Objectives and the Social OMC 

The  EU’s  Common  Objectives  for  Social  Protection  and  Social  Inclusion,  which  were 
originally adopted in March 2006 and re-affirmed in June 2011, as well as prioritising the 
struggle against poverty and social exclusion, put significant emphasis on the involvement 
of  stakeholders.  For  instance,  one  of  the  three  overarching  common  objectives  is  “to 
promote good governance, transparency and the involvement of stakeholders in the design, 
implementation and monitoring of policy.” Specifically in relation to social inclusion there 
is  an  objective  emphasising  that,  in  order  to  make  a  decisive  impact  on  the  eradication 
of  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  “that  social  inclusion  policies 
are  well-coordinated  and  involve  all  levels  of  government  and  relevant  actors,  including 
people experiencing poverty, that they are efficient and effective and mainstreamed into all 
relevant public policies, including economic, budgetary, education and training policies and 
structural fund (notably ESF) programmes.”

8
8

These objectives are pursued through the Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection 
and Social Inclusion (Social OMC).5 This has led to the social dimension of the NRPs now 
being complemented by National Social Reports (NSRs) covering the three strands of the EU 
cooperation in the social field (social inclusion, pensions as well as healthcare and long-term 
care). These are currently submitted bi-annually with an update (Strategic Social Reporting) 
in intervening years. The importance of stakeholder involvement in the preparation of NSRs 

 Europe 2020: Integrated Guidelines for the economic and employment policies of the Member 

 “In line with the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines and the conclusions of the European Council 

3 
States, available at http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/Brochure%20Integrated%20Guidelines.pdf 
4 
of 24-25 March 2011, the Europe 2020 strategy should be developed in close partnership with all 
national, regional and local authorities, closely associating parliaments. Depending on the division of 
competencies in individual Member States, regional and local authorities also play an important role 
in implementing the strategy. When reporting on implementation of the NRPs, Member States are 
invited to refer to any good practice at regional or local level. Social partners and representatives 
of civil society shall also be consulted in the preparation of the NRPs and involved in the follow-up, 
as relevant and in line with national practices. All NRPs should continue reporting on how concerned 
parties are involved in the process.” (European Commission 2012)
5 
on the recommendation of the SPC, concluded that the social dimension of Europe 2020 would 
benefit from being underpinned by continuing and “reinvigorating” the Social OMC.

 The Social OMC began in 2001, was modified in 2005 and then in June 2011 the EPSCO Council, 

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

is stressed in the guidance given to Member States.6 Again in 2013 the guidance note to 
Member States on Strategic Social Reporting stressed that “Member States are invited to 
consult  the  national  stakeholders  according  to  their  national  practice  before  submitting 
their Strategic Social Reporting by 30 April 2013.” It is likely that the guidance note for the 
2014 NSRs will contain similar encouragement.

Social Investment Package

The emphasis on involvement of all relevant stakeholders which is evident in the Europe 
2020 Strategy and the Social OMC was reinforced in February 2013 with the Commission’s 
launch of the Social Investment Package (SIP) (i.e. the Commission Communication on Social 
Investment for Growth and Cohesion, the accompanying Recommendation on investing in 
children and the various staff working papers). This is an important initiative to reinforce and 
underpin the social dimension of Europe 2020. The SIP urges Member States “to strengthen 
the  involvement  of  relevant  stakeholders  at  all  levels,  most  notably  social  partners  and 
civil society organisations, in the modernisation of social policy as part of the Europe 2020 
Strategy.” (European Commission 2013, p.22) Also, when emphasising the key role that can 
be played by EU Funds, the SIP stresses the importance of involving stakeholders: “Involve 
stakeholders,  particularly  civil  society  organisations  close  to  the  target  groups  for  social 
interventions,  in  programming  and  implementation  and  facilitate  their  access  to  funds.” 
(European  Commission  2013,  p.18)  The  accompanying  Commission  Recommendation 
on investing in children emphasises the need to “Promote close cooperation and regular 
dialogue  between  public  authorities  at  all  levels,  social  partners,  local  communities  and 
civil society organisations” and to “Support and further develop the involvement of children, 
including in the implementation of the present Recommendation.” (European Commission, 
2013b) In addition the staff working paper on active inclusion which accompanies the SIP 
is very critical of the limited involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of active 
inclusion policies to date. It recommends that Member States “Engage relevant actors more 
vigorously in the development, implementation, and assessment of policies. Active inclusion 
is a joint responsibility in European societies. Efforts to engage the relevant actors need 
a  boost.  The  actors  include  those  affected  by  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  civil  society 
organisations, nongovernmental organisations, local administrations and the private sector.” 
(European Commission 2013c, p.56)

Limited stakeholder involvement to date

In spite of the significant emphasis at EU level on the importance of involving stakeholders, 
a key part of the policy context for the Peer Review was the limited involvement of social 

6 
 “In line with the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines, the conclusions of the European Council of 
24-25 March 2011, Europe 2020 should be developed in close partnership with all national, region-
al, local authorities as they play a key-role in implementing the strategy. In accordance with the SPC 
opinion (§ 15) and the OMC overarching objectives, it is also important to improve the involvement 
of social partners and NGOs with a view to increasing the ownership and effectiveness of the poli-
cies in the context of the Social OMC. The NSRs should report on how the stakeholders are involved 
in the process of policy design, implementation and monitoring. Member States are also invited to 
consult with the relevant stakeholders as part of the preparation of the NSR.” (Guidance note for the 
preparation of the 2012 NSRs)

9
9

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

inclusion stakeholders in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and the Social 
OMC in many Member States since 2010.

Evidence from the first three rounds of the NRPs is that, from a social inclusion perspective, 
the involvement of key stakeholders in the process has, in many countries, been limited 
and of poor quality. This has been highlighted by the EU Network of Independent Experts 
on  Social  Inclusion  in  their  assessments  of  the  2011,  2012  and  2013  NRPs  for  the 
European  Commission.  For  instance,  in  2011,  “The  extent  of  stakeholder  involvement  in 
the preparation process was quite varied. In many cases, consultation seems to have been 
quite limited and certainly less extensive on social inclusion issues than was the case with 
the National Strategy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Also, in many cases 
the  consultations  that  did  take  place  on  social  inclusion  issues  seem  to  have  had  little 
impact on the final version of the NRPs. Experts highlight that quite often the limited or 
absent  consultation  with  NGOs  reflects  the  predominantly  economic  and  labour  market 
focus of the NRPs.” (Frazer and Marlier, 2011, p. 11) Again in 2012 the overall conclusion 
from the experts’ assessments was that “Stakeholder involvement is only rated as being 
well addressed in two NRPs and two NSRs. There is significant criticism that consultation 
with stakeholders was still too limited and one-sided, and in several countries experts point 
to  a  weakening  in  consultation.”  (Frazer  and  Marlier,  2012,  p.  10)  In  2013  “Stakeholder 
involvement is assessed positively in the case of only five NRPs and two Strategic Social 
Reports  (SSRs).  While  in  most  other  countries  there  is  some  degree  of  stakeholder 
involvement there is considerable room for improvement.” (Frazer and Marlier, 2013, p.8)

10
10

In its Annual Report for 2012 the Social Protection Committee (SPC), while reiterating the 
importance  of  stakeholder  involvement  and  noting  that  measures  can  be  identified  in  a 
number  of  Member  States,  reported  that  “No  involvement  or  very  limited  involvement 
of  relevant  actors  (including  those  affected  by  poverty  and  social  exclusion,  civil  society 
organisations, non-governmental organisations and service providers) in the development, 
implementation  and  evaluation  of  active  inclusion  strategies  is  reported  by  larger  civil 
society organisations (such as EAPN, Eurodiaconia, Eurocities).” (Social Protection Committee 
2013, para. 4.2.6)

The  lack  of  meaningful  involvement  of  people  experiencing  poverty  in  the  NRP  process 
has been highlighted repeatedly by the European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN). In its 2013 
assessment  of  the  NRPs  it  reported  “an  overall  lack  of  progress  towards  implementing 
meaningful participation in the NRPs processes at national level” and went on to state that 
“Organisations start to question the value of engagement. Organisations working with and 
for people experiencing poverty have been demanding and have been prepared to input into 
the NRP process at national level since it was launched. But given the lack of engagement and 
room for influencing the actual content of the NRPs they are about to put this engagement 
under  question.”  (EAPN  2013,  p.10)  A  similar  criticism  can  be  found  from  organisations 
working on child poverty and well-being. For instance, Eurochild’s assessment of the 2013 
NRPs concludes that “Civil society organisations in general and organisations working with 
children in particular, were rarely consulted on the preparation and implementation of NRPs 
(and  consultation  with  children  themselves  is  completely  absent).”  (Eurochild  2013,  p.4) 
According to the European Social Network (ESN), senior officials involved in delivering social 
services were not much involved in the development of the NRPs in 2012 even though the 
issue of “adequate and affordable social services” had been highlighted as an important 
issue by the Commission in the Annual Growth Survey 2012. Thus ESN concluded that “Even 

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

if the NRPs (and NSRs) are unlikely to produce new policy initiatives, greater stakeholder 
involvement could at least close various reporting gaps.” (ESN 2012, p.6)

Much accumulated learning

Although the overall development of stakeholder involvement has been disappointing over 
the last few years, an important part of the EU policy context that informed discussions at 
the Peer Review was the considerable body of learning on stakeholder involvement that has 
been build up at EU level over the last decade and more.

Over the course of the Social OMC from 2001-2010 and even before that with the three EU 
poverty programmes in the 1970s, 80s, 90s (see for instance European Commission 1999) 
a considerable emphasis was put on the involvement of all levels of governance and all 
stakeholders in the development of policies to combat poverty and promote greater social 
inclusion in the key EU initiatives. This has generated a considerable body of learning and 
many examples of good practice have been identified that are readily available. For instance, 
from the outset of the Social OMC this was a topic that featured regularly in Commission 
reports  on  the  process  and  Member  States  were  encouraged  to  report  on  stakeholder 
involvement every two years in their National Action Plans on Inclusion and then in the social 
inclusion strand of their National Strategy Reports on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 
(NSRSPSIs).  Their  approach  to  involving  and  mobilising  all  relevant  bodies  and  actors, 
including those experiencing poverty, was then analysed each time by the Commission and 
reported  on  in  Joint  Reports  on  Social  Inclusion  (see  for  instance  European  Commission 
2002,  pp  68-74  and  European  Commission  2004,  pp  112-125).  In  addition  there  have 
been a whole series of initiatives to document and highlight good (and bad) practice in this 
area. For instance there have been transnational exchange projects (e.g. on mainstreaming 
social inclusion, see Combat Poverty Agency 2006), Peer Reviews (e.g. on the NAP Inclusion 
Social Inclusion Forum, Swinnen 2007), research studies (e.g. Inbas and Engender 2010 and 
Frazer, Marlier and Nicaise 2010), reports from civil society organisations (e.g. EAPN, 2012), 
the Annual European Meetings of People Experiencing Poverty7 and regular assessments 
of the NSRSPSIs and NRPs by the EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion8.

11
11

7 
 Readers can find out more about the 12 European Meetings of People Experiencing Poverty at 
http://www.eapn.eu/en/what-we-do/issues-we-focus-on/the-european-meetings-of-people-experi-
encing-poverty-history 
8 
ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId=en 

 The reports of the EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion can be found at: http://

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

B. The Belgium Platform against Poverty and Social 

Exclusion EU2020

B.1. Origins and Role

Origins

The  Belgian  Platform  against  Poverty  and  Social  Exclusion  EU2020  (BPAPSE)  builds  on 
a  long  tradition  of  dialogue  with  people  experiencing  poverty  and  other  relevant  actors 
involved in poverty and social exclusion issues which goes back to the General Report on 
Poverty  in  1994.  More  particularly  it  builds  on  the  experience  of  Belgium’s  involvement 
in the Social OMC in the period 2001-2010. During this period innovative processes were 
developed  in  which  all  stakeholders  were  involved  in  the  formation  (specifying  priorities 
and  targets),  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  National  Action  Plan  for  Social  Inclusion 
(NAP Incl.). An Actions Working Group and an Indicators Working Group were established for 
this purpose by mandate of the Interministerial Conference ‘Integration in Society’ whose 
members  are  the  ministers  in  charge  of  the  coordination  of  poverty  policies  at  different 
governmental levels.

The Actions Working Group had an open structure and attributed a key role to stakeholder 
dialogue  concerning  policy  measures  whereas  the  Indicators  Working  Group  concerned 
itself with statistical indicators. The Actions Working Group gathered all the stakeholders 
around the table: the federated entities, social partners, people living in poverty and their 
associations,  local  administrations,  private  and  public  actors,  social  workers,  research 
institutions…  The  working  group  reported  to  the  Interministerial  Conference  and  came 
together 3 to 4 times per year.

12
12

With the advent of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the decision to reinvigorate the Social 
OMC  (see  section  A)  Belgium  reviewed  its  existing  procedures  and  decided  to  transform 
the Actions Working Group into the Belgian Platform against poverty and social exclusion 
EU2020. The transformation occurred by analogy to the European Platform against Poverty 
and Social Exclusion.

Role

The overall role given to the BPAPSE is to monitor the current European situation in the 
area of poverty and social exclusion and to gather together all stakeholders. The concrete 
tasks are: 

 • preparing policy proposals; 

 • content and information exchange;

 • formulating suggestions;

 • exploring themes;

 • proposing actions and priorities. 

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

As  was  the  case  with  the  Actions  Working  Group,  participation  and  an  open  structure 
are the key concepts that underpin the functioning of the BPAPSE. It also reports to the 
Interministerial  Conference  on  Social  Integration,  in  which  all  competent  ministers  for 
poverty reduction take part.

Participants

The meetings of the BPAPSE are attended by about 40 people with a mix of participants 
from all bodies identified by the Interministerial Conference. These include: the federated 
entities;  the  Combat  Poverty,  Insecurity  and  Social  Exclusion  Service;  private  actors  such 
as  social  services  and  organisations  focused  on  combating  poverty;  local  authorities  by 
means of their respective umbrella bodies; social partners, research institutions; the Central 
Economic Council; people living in poverty and their organisations; and the Working Group 
on Social Indicators Europe 2020/OMC. A key feature of the Platform is its flexibility and 
openness: open to any stakeholder that comes forward.

Activities

Since it started in 2011 there have been eight regular meetings of the BPAPSE and one 
open Platform day. The different topics and issues that have been discussed at the regular 
meetings include: the preparation of the Annual Convention of the Platform against Poverty 
and Social Exclusion; the strategic framework and priorities for the contribution on poverty 
and  social  exclusion  in  the  National  Reform  Programme  and  National  Social  Report;  the 
federal governmental declaration; the different regional plans for the fight against poverty; 
proposals for the federal Plan for the fight against poverty and social exclusion and its follow-
up; and the evaluation of the European semester and the country specific recommendations 
for Belgium.

13
13

The Open Platform Day involves about 150 people from a very wide range of stakeholders 
(federal,  regional  and  local  authorities,  administrations,  bodies  and  advisory  boards, 
aid  organisations,  social  partners,  civil  society  organisations,  research  institutions  and 
universities  and  people  who  are  living  in  poverty).  The  central  theme  of  the  Day  (28th 
March 2013) was to discuss progress since the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the 
European  Union  (2010)  in  social  priority  areas  such  as  the  fight  against  child  poverty, 
homelessness, active inclusion and a minimum income. These themes were dealt with in 
separate working groups, complemented with a working group on the use of indicators and 
working  with  sub-targets.  The  conclusions  of  the  working  groups  were  considered  to  be 
those of the Belgian Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion EU2020 on the 2013 
National Reform Programme and strategic social reporting in the framework of the Open 
Method of Coordination. The opinion was provided to the Belgian State Secretary for Social 
Integration and, via the State Secretary, to the Prime Minister. It was also published on the 
website of the PPS Social Integration.

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

Ways of working

The Federal Public Service for Social Integration is the lead government body responsible 
for  the  Platform  and  the  secretariat  of  the  Platform  is  established  within  the  Federal 
Programming Service Social Integration. The secretariat, in consultation with the technical 
committee,  determines  the  agenda,  coordinates  the  preparation  of  content,  calls  the 
meetings,  draws  up  the  reports  and  is  responsible  for  ensuring  open  and  transparent 
communication with all stakeholders. The technical committee involves liaison officers from 
the federated entities and the federal government mandated to this end. There are no civil 
society organisations represented on the technical committee.

Considerable efforts are made to involve people experiencing poverty in the work of the 
BPAPSE. Their participation is supported by the preparatory work undertaken by the Belgian 
Anti-Poverty Network (BAPN) and by the ongoing and in-depth work of the Service to Combat 
Poverty,  Insecurity  and  Social  Exclusion  (Service  Lutte  Contre  la  Pauvreté).  Government 
resourcing  to  these  organisations  to  support  the  participation  of  people  experiencing 
poverty in policy discussions is an essential prerequisite for their meaningful participation.

Success factors

14
14

In  developing  the  Platform  the  organisers  have  tried  to  meet  a  series  of,  what  earlier 
experience  has  taught  them,  are  pre-conditions  that  must  be  met  in  order  to  guarantee 
efficient and effective functioning of such a participation structure. These are: grounding 
the  work  in  a  European  framework;  guaranteeing  continuity  and  long  term  processes; 
investing in capacity building; empowering joint ownership; providing feedback; stimulating 
representativeness  and  covering  the  whole  spectrum  of  social  actors;  ensuring  public 
debate  and  open  dialogue;  offering  strong  and  high-level  political  commitment.9  These 
pre-conditions provided the background issues for much of the discussion during the Peer 
Review (see section D).

B.2. Evaluation of the Belgian Platform

The Peer Review spent a considerable time in discussing and assessing the effectiveness of 
the BPAPSE. In doing so it was informed particularly by two sources: an assessment by the 
Belgian Anti-Poverty Network (BAPN) Europe 2020 working group and a formal evaluation 
by an on-line survey carried out by the PPS Social Integration in November 2013.

The main conclusions of the BAPN evaluation were:

 • the  Belgian  Platform  offers  structured  dialogue  with  different  stakeholders  with 
a  wide-ranging  expertise.  This  is  extremely  valuable  and  can  be  translated  as  an 
effective structure to fight poverty;

 • but, the participation of people experiencing poverty demands time for preparation. 
The agenda sometimes arrives at the last minute;the language used at the meetings 
is sometimes too technical and too complicated;

 How each of these pre-conditions are implemented in practice is outlined in the Host country 

9 
paper for the Peer Review.

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

 • there is a lack of visible and tangible impacts on policies. The results can be described 
as  “soft”:  capacity  building,  credibility  of  the  BAPN,  networking.  There  is  the  risk  of 
becoming a powerless talking shop that serves as excuse for window-dressing.

At the meeting these views were expanded on by the BAPN, including representatives of 
people experiencing poverty.

The PPS Social Integration evaluation received predominantly positive reactions to many 
questions. Just over 80% respondents consider that the BPAPSE offers them the possibility 
to stay informed about the European policy processes and measures in the fight against 
poverty. Nearly 88% agree that the Belgian Platform covers topics that are important in 
the fight against poverty at the European level. 75% consider that the topics covered on 
the Belgian Platform are in alignment with their areas of interest and a similar percentage 
consider that it unites and mobilises the different stakeholders in the fight against poverty. 
However, only 50% of respondents consider that the activities and recommendations of the 
Belgian Platform have an impact on the Belgian policy in the fight against poverty while 44 
% disagree. Just over half consider that the documents and information that they receive 
from the Belgian Platform supports them in their professional life but 44% disagree.

The ensuing discussions reinforced the view that the Belgium Platform has been successful 
in engaging a wide range of actors, particularly from civil society and people experiencing 
poverty. Its emphasis on openness has been one of its great strengths. It has also proved a 
useful source of information and an effective mechanism for information exchange on EU 
developments in relation to poverty and social exclusion. However, many participants are 
concerned that its impact on the policy making process is very limited. However, it was noted 
that the BPAPSE is still at a fairly early stage of development and it is necessary for it to 
evolve in a pragmatic and realistic manner taking account of the existing political realities. 
It  was  also  pointed  out  that  Belgian  civil  servants  use  information  from  the  Platform  in 
preparing  policies  so  there  is  an  impact,  but  it  is  indirect,  and  doesn’t  bring  immediate 
change for individuals.

15
15

A number of challenges for the future development of the BPAPSE were identified which 
could help it to increase its impact on social inclusion policy in general and the content of 
the NRPs and NSRs in particular. These included:

 • increasing its formal status within the Belgium policy making process as a consultative 
body on social inclusion policies and strengthening high level political commitment so 
that its outputs are more likely to be taken into account; 

 • developing a clearer link between discussions at Platform meetings on specific policy 

issues and the formulation or review of concrete policies;

 • ensuring  that  there  is  more  visibility  for  its  work  and  recommendations  (e.g.  by 

attaching its recommendations as an Annex to the NRP and NSR);

 • further  developing  the  already  positive  commitment  to  the  participation  of  people 
experiencing  poverty  by  addressing  issues  of  timing  (e.g.  late  arrival  of  agendas), 
use of too technical language and by introducing a more non-traditional and creative 
format for meetings;

 • improving  feedback  to  participants  on  what  happens  to  their  suggestions  and  why 

they have or have not been taken on board;

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

 • enabling the BPAPSE to address economic areas within the NRP which have a direct 

impact on social outcomes;

 • expanding  its  role  in  the  Europe  2020  process  to  include  contributing  to  the 

development and implementation of Country Specific Recommendations;

 • broadening  the  engagement  of  officials  to  include  officials  and  policy  makers  not 
directly involved with social policies but responsible for the fields of economic policy, 
employment and labour market related issues, etc.;

 • increasing social partner participation, particularly employers.

16
16

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

C. Policies and experiences in peer countries and 

stakeholder contributions

In  preparation  for  the  Peer  Review  the  peer  countries  prepared  background  papers 
commenting  on  the  BPAPSE  and  giving  information  on  stakeholder  involvement  in  their 
Member States. There was also a presentation at the meeting on Ireland’s Social Inclusion 
Forum  (SIF).  European  stakeholders  were  represented  by  a  paper  and  presentation  by 
EAPN and a presentation from the Social Platform. Given limitations of space only some 
of the main developments relevant to stakeholder involvement in social inclusion policies 
are  summarised  here.10  However,  many  of  the  points  raised  in  the  papers  informed  the 
discussions during the Peer Review (see section D below).

In Austria the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection (BMASK) 
gives  a  high  priority  to  the  participation  of  stakeholders,  including  NGOs  and  people 
experiencing poverty. Building on previous initiatives developed in the context of the Social 
OMC and the 2010 European Year Against Poverty and Social Exclusion it has created a 
national poverty platform, in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy and its core target 
for poverty reduction (ÖPAP). It brings together representatives from: ministries, provinces, 
municipalities,  cities  and  towns,  Statistics  Austria  and  selected  representatives  from  the 
scientific community; social partners; Senior Citizens’ Association, Senior Citizens, National 
Youth Council; NGOs and representatives of civil society (poverty conference, BAWO, Caritas, 
ÖAR,  Roma  organisations,  etc.);  and  people  experiencing  poverty.  Meetings  are  informed 
about and discuss developments in relation to the Europe 2020 Strategy and issues such 
as  the  development  of  national  indicators  to  measure  poverty,  the  implementation  and 
interaction  between  the  poverty  and  employment  targets  (especially  the  working  poor) 
and  energy  poverty.  Inputs  were  made  on  the  content  of  the  meetings  of  the  Austrian 
platform for the monitoring of the national target regarding relative poverty in 2013. In 
addition, opportunities were given for the interaction of people having experienced poverty 
with  representatives  of  civil  society  (project  “be  visible”  2013:  training  and  education  to 
strengthen self-organisation and participation of people experiencing poverty).

In  Bulgaria  in  2009  the  National  Council  on  Social  Inclusion  Issues  to  the  Council 
of  Ministers  (NCSII)  was  established.  The  Council  is  presided  by  the  Minister  of  Labour 
and  Social  Policy  and  includes  deputy  ministers  from  all  involved  ministries  (Ministry  of 
Education and Science; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Interior; Ministry 
of  Regional  Development,  etc.)  as  well  as  the  chairpersons  of  all  involved  institutions, 
representatives of the National Association of the Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria, 
representatives  of  the  social  partners,  representatives  of  the  organisations  members  of 
the European networks, the chairpersons of  NGOs with proven experience in  the  field  of 
social inclusion and representative of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The Council is the 
body for coordination, cooperation and consultation in the development, implementation, 
monitoring and assessment of the state policy in the field of social inclusion. It meets at a 
minimum twice a year. People experiencing poverty and social exclusion do not participate 

10 
 The background papers and the powerpoint presentations are all available on the Peer Review in 
Social Protection and Social Inclusion website at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&lan
gId=en&newsId=1897&furtherNews=yes 

17
17

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

personally in the sessions of the NCSII but are represented by the European Anti-Poverty 
Network – Bulgaria.

In  the  Czech  Republic  the  Commission  on  Social  Inclusion  is,  since  2008,  the  standing 
advisory,  proactive  and  coordinating  body  of  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Affairs 
(MoLSA) in the area of social policy, with a focus on combating poverty and social exclusion. 
It  facilitates  the  implementation  of  Czech  and  European  social  inclusion  policies  and 
monitors  and  analyses  Czech  strategic  documents  in  this  field,  in  particular  fulfilling  the 
goals of these documents. The Commission has 45 members and involves all actors that 
are important for the protection of interests of people facing poverty and social exclusion 
–  delegates  of  public  administration,  self-governing  bodies,  non-governmental  sector, 
academics, trade unions and employers’ associations. In response to the social inclusion 
targets set within Europe 2020 Strategy and the National Reform Programmes the MoLSA 
in cooperation with the Commission on Social Inclusion is currently preparing a Strategy for 
Social Inclusion 2014-2020. This formulates priority areas for social inclusion till the year 
2020 and includes concrete measures and indicators for evaluation.

In Finland the country’s policies have been developed through close collaboration between 
central and local government, the labour market organisations and NGOs. Social welfare and 
health care organisations are major players as far as civil participation and influence and 
the production of services and support are concerned. Increasing emphasis is put on using 
ICT in listening to citizens’ views and dialoguing with citizens’ organisations. In preparing the 
National Social Report (NSR) in 2012 the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health organised a 
hearing for stakeholders to discuss the content of the NSR. Participants represented various 
governmental  organs  (Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  Health,  Ministry  of  Finance,  Prime 
Minister’s  Office),  representatives  of  municipalities,  the  Finnish  Centre  for  Pensions,  the 
Social Insurance Institution of Finland, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Finnish Pension 
Alliance, non-governmental organisations (the Finnish Society for Social and Health, mental 
health association Helmi ry, the Finnish Heart Association, the Finnish Diabetes Association, 
Single-Parents’  Association),  the  Central  Association  of  Finnish  Pensioners,  and  labour 
market organisations (the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions, the Confederation 
of Finnish Industries, the Finnish Medical Association). There was no direct involvement of 
the people facing and experiencing poverty.

In France the National Committee of policies against poverty and social exclusion (CNLE) 
reports  directly  to  the  Prime  Minister  and  is  responsible  for  performing  studies  about 
poverty  and  its  consequences,  and  for  making  any  useful  proposals  to  the  government. 
In recent years, the CNLE has been consulted on the NRP and NSR. Last year, members of 
CNLE participated in the European anti-poverty platform. Composed of 65 members, the 
committee includes a wide range of stakeholders: members of Parliament, representatives 
from  local  authorities,  ministries,  social  security  organisations,  NGOs  etc.  An  important 
initiative, which was instigated as an experiment by the CNLE in 2012, has been the creation 
of a college of people experiencing poverty or social exclusion. Following a highly positive 
assessment  this  has  now  been  generalised  both  for  the  CNLE  itself  and  also  for  other 
consultative  committees  such  as,  for  instance,  the  economic,  social  and  environmental 
council. Members of the college are proposed by NGOs active in the field of social inclusion, 
and assisted by referees from the NGOs. In parallel, the CNLE has provided consultants to 
train those members in preparation for each CNLE plenary session. Special attention has 
been given to funding and logistic issues to facilitate members’ participation. Members of 

18
18

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

the college have been closely associated with the setting up and the first assessment of the 
national plan against poverty and for social inclusion.

In Greece there is little tradition/practice in social dialogue and there is no structured way 
to ensure the involvement of stakeholders in the fight against poverty and social exclusion 
and there is no structure focused on Europe 2020 or the social OMC. However there is the 
National Committee for Social Protection (NCSP) which is composed of representatives of 
governmental bodies, social partners and some times of non-governmental organisations. 
The role of the NCSP is to promote social dialogue on combating poverty and social exclusion 
and to contribute to the establishment of a Social Protection and Social Inclusion Network. 
It is possible that in future the NCSP, probably in cooperation with the Greek Anti-Poverty 
Network, could become an effective structure to fight poverty. Recently one big step was 
taken in Greece in the direction of establishing a mentality of participation and consultation, 
when open public consultation was offered by the office of the Prime Minister through the 
website  http://www.opengov.gr/home/  where  many  interested  parties  and  citizens  posted 
their opinions.

In  Ireland  there  has  been  a  long  tradition  of  formal  stakeholder  involvement  and 
consultation  on  poverty  and  social  inclusion  through  the  National  Action  Plan  for  Social 
Inclusion  and  its  predecessors  and  National  social  partnership  agreements  covering 
macro-economic and social policy. The Social Inclusion Forum (SIF) was established by the 
Government as part of the structures to monitor and evaluate NAPinclusion. This annual 
event is part of the institutional structures put in place to underpin the implementation, 
monitoring  and  ongoing  development  of  the  Government’s  social  inclusion  agenda.  The 
event  provides  a  forum  for  wider  public  consultation  and  discussion  on  social  inclusion 
issues,  in  particular  for  people  experiencing  poverty  and  social  exclusion  and  the  groups 
that  work  with  them.  A  report of  this  event  is  produced  and  published,  which  includes  a 
summary of the proceedings and outcomes. It presents details of the key themes and policy 
issues raised at the event workshops. This report is submitted to the Government via its 
Senior Officials Group on Social Policy and the higher level Cabinet Committee on Social 
Policy. There is no structure specifically focused on Europe 2020 or the Social OMC and to 
the extent that there is consultation of EU policy, e.g. the National Reform Programme, this 
is done through existing structures.

In  Malta  the  Malta-EU  Steering  and  Action  Committee  (MEUSAC)  is  responsible  for  the 
coordination of consultative sessions with civil society on EU policies and other decision-
making processes with the aim of engaging stakeholders and fuelling national debate on 
European  ideals,  values,  objectives  and  long  term  strategies.  The  MEUSAC  Employment, 
Social  Policy  and  Health  sectoral  committee  offers  a  multistakeholder  representative 
structure to engage with different categories of stakeholders active in the social field and 
has been successfully utilised as a platform for consulting with stakeholders on main social 
inclusion policy documents, such as the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) and National 
Social Reports (NSRs). Despite its effectiveness and wide representation, this forum is largely 
limited to the EU dimension and apart from being reserved to organised social partners, 
tends to be relatively technical, which factors may hinder the participation of the general 
public, particularly people experiencing poverty and social exclusion. The good practice on 
participation of people experiencing poverty and service users in the drafting of the NSRs 
for the 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 OMC cycles, as well as the upcoming National Poverty 
Strategy, have not been as evident in the preparation of the NRPs and NSRs since then.

19
19

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) members throughout the EU have continued 
to  strive  to  develop  and  improve  participation  and  engagement  throughout  the  Europe 
2020 process. In order to support the development of this engagement EAPN produced a 
Toolkit in early 2013 to support engagement in the process5. The following are some of the 
positive examples of engagement highlighted in the Toolkit. EAPN Germany produced their 
own shadow report in 2012, on both wealth and poverty. Also in Germany stakeholders’ 
engagement resulted in the extension of the NRP poverty section from half a page up to 
3 pages. Furthermore, a discussion about the modification of the poverty reduction aim, 
starting from 2015, was announced. EAPN France has contributed to the Opinion of the 
National Council for the Fight against Poverty and Social Exclusion. The opinion followed 
the structure of the NRP. This Opinion was attached in its entirety to the 2012 National 
Reform Programme sent to the European Commission. EAPN Luxembourg reported that 
Caritas  Europe,  which  is  a  member  of  EAPN,  developed,  together  with  their  members, 
an  alternative  shadow  National  Reform  Programme  since  2011.  Also  in  Luxembourg  a 
standing  Committee  has  been  set  up  which  is  working  with  the  Ministry  of  Family,  and 
sub  working  groups  have  been  created.  EAPN  Denmark  represents  civil  society  in  the 
Government’s  advisory  board  for  the  Europe  2020  Strategy.  There  is  a  hearing  process, 
including meetings, providing opportunities for input. Proposals have no effect immediately, 
but might have some impact on upcoming plans and reports. The Network proposed to the 
Government to support a stronger OMC, including shadow reports, awareness programmes, 
local and national activities.

20
20

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

D. Main issues discussed during the meeting

During the course of the meeting seven key, often interrelated, issues were the main focus 
of discussion. These were: 

1.  how should stakeholder involvement be defined; 

2.  why is stakeholder involvement necessary for good policy making; 

3.  who are (or should be) stakeholders and how should they be selected; 

4.  are formal (legal) and representative or more open structures better; 

5.  what is needed to ensure participation of people experiencing poverty; 

6.  how can one manage expectations so as not to lead to stakeholder disillusionment; 

7.  how can (and why should) stakeholder involvement be increased in Europe 2020 and 

the SIP?

Defining stakeholder involvement

Early in the meeting it became clear that there are different types or levels of stakeholder 
involvement in policy making. Confusion and unrealistic expectations can arise when it is 
unclear what type and degree of involvement is intended. As was apparent from the various 
national  inputs  at  the  meeting  the  extent  and  nature  of  stakeholder  involvement  varies 
widely across Member States and from issue to issue and policy area to policy area. There 
is also great variation in the extent to which social inclusion stakeholders are involved in 
the Europe 2020 processes. In the light of this participants found it helpful to think in terms 
of a continuum of stakeholder involvement which can range from information provision, 
through consultation, to developing joint policy proposals and ultimately to joint-decision 
making or co-determination.11

21
21

It was stressed that the appropriate point of the continuum at which to pitch stakeholder 
involvement can vary in different situations. It can also be influenced by countries’ different 
cultures  and  political  traditions.  Representatives  of  civil  society  at  the  meeting  stressed 
that stakeholder involvement is often only at the first step of the continuum. Normally it 
should  aim  to  go  well  beyond  information  and  consultation  and  stakeholders  should  be 
actively  encouraged  and  enabled  to  participate  in  the  formation  of  policies  on  an  equal 
basis. The Social Platform representative said that there are three types of involvement: 
cooperative policy-making, starting with a blank paper; consultative policy-making, starting 
with a proposal; or confirmative policy-making, where people are merely asked to agree 
with  the  policy.  The  Platform  wants  the  cooperative  model.  On  the  other  hand,  several 
representatives  from  Member  States  emphasised  that  there  are  often  limits  to  how  far 
along the participation continuum it is possible to go. While consulting stakeholders during 
the development of policy proposals is often possible,  developing  joint  proposals  can  be 
more  problematic.  Also,  when  final  decisions  are  being  taken  this  becomes  a  political 
process. This means that joint decision making or co-determination is often not realistic, 
particularly in an area that is politically contentious.

 See Inbas GmbH and Engender 2010, p.10 and Combat Poverty Agency 2006 pp 153-154 for 

11 
more detailed descriptions of different types of stakeholder involvement.

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

The case for stakeholder involvement

Underpinning much of the discussion was the question of why go to the trouble of creating 
structures  to  involve  stakeholders  in  the  development  (and  the  implementation  and 
monitoring)  of  policies  to  combat  poverty  and  social  exclusion  generally  and  policies  to 
achieve national Europe 2020 social inclusion targets in particular. Involvement can be a 
time consuming and lengthy process requiring considerable resources when there is already 
a political process for making policy decisions. Essentially four main reasons for developing 
structures to promote stakeholder involvement emerged from the discussion.

First and foremost, involving a broad range of stakeholders leads to better, more evidence 
based and more consensual policies. It ensures that there is a wider pool of knowledge 
to draw on when developing policies. It provides detailed and specific evidence from the 
ground  on  the  impact  of  existing  policies  that  is  often  not  available  to  policy  makers  at 
national  level  and  contributes  to  the  early  identification  of  new  and  emerging  issues.  It 
brings new energy, ideas and creativity into the policy making process. This can lead to new 
solutions that might not be found by officials and policy makers working in isolation. Also, 
by involving stakeholders from different policy domains and different levels of governance, 
social inclusion goals are mainstreamed across all areas. This in turn helps to avoid policy 
segmentation and fragmentation of policy in different silos. It thus becomes more possible 
to ensure horizontal and vertical coordination of policies so that they are coordinated and 
mutually reinforcing. The process of dialogue and exchange in developing policies helps to 
build consensus and increase the legitimacy of policies as a broader range of people “own” 
the policy.

22
22

Secondly, stakeholder involvement is a matter people’s fundamental rights and is a key 
tool in empowering people. Inclusion of those affected by policies in their development is 
a recognition of people’s right to be consulted about the decisions that affect them and 
empowers them as active citizens. As one French participant remarked: “People have to be 
involved in every decision taken on their behalf”. For people experiencing poverty and social 
exclusion, participation in policy making is a means of empowerment and an important step 
towards social inclusion and full citizenship.

Thirdly, rising poverty and social exclusion as result of the economic crisis and austerity 
measures means that the Europe 2020 target of reducing poverty or social exclusion by 
20 million is becoming more distant. Thus it is more necessary than ever to mobilise all 
stakeholders if the EU is to have any chance of achieving its Europe 2020 target.

Fourthly,  greater  stakeholder  involvement  is  a  necessary  step  in  addressing  the 
democratic deficit which increasing numbers of people believe is at the heart of the EU. 
Particularly as a result of the economic crisis and austerity policies there is a perception 
that decisions are being taken that affect people without their being consulted. Thus the 
legitimacy of EU policies and programmes is increasingly being questioned and alienation 
from the EU is growing. To enhance the legitimacy of EU policy making (and thus the long 
term survival of the EU) it is necessary to complement representative with participatory 
democracy. In particular, involving social inclusion stakeholders in the European semester 
can help to create greater awareness of EU social inclusion processes. This can help to build 
support for EU involvement in social inclusion issues.

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

Stakeholder Involvement and Democratic Legitimacy

“Involvement and close association of parliaments, social partners and representatives 
of  civil  society  is  essential  to  ensure  ownership  and  facilitate  progress  on  the 
implementation of policy recommendations, objectives and targets. Insufficient levels 
of involvement of such actors is one factor behind increasing criticism regarding the 
lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Semester. Member States are invited 
to use tWhe opportunity of the NRPs to encourage such involvement and to report on 
the process as regards the preparation of the NRPs and the implementation of past 
guidance and commitments.”

Catherine Day, Secretary General of the European Commission, quoted at the Peer Review by 
Commission representative, Frederik Lamberty

23
23

Defining and selecting stakeholders

A key challenge that was identified is to define the range of stakeholders who should 
be involved. First, there was a general recognition that because of the multi-dimensional 
nature  of  poverty  and  social  exclusion  many  different  policy  areas  and  interests  play  a 
role and one needs involvement across the policy spectrum. Thus it is important to involve 
economic as well as social policy makers. Secondly, one needs to ensure that stakeholders 
from the different levels of governance (national, regional and local) are involved. Thirdly, it 
is important to involve the different sectors – i.e. the statutory sector (government ministers 
and advisers, civil servants), those responsible for delivering policies on the ground, social 
partners, civil society organisations, academics and researchers and those affected by the 
policies (i.e. people experiencing poverty and social exclusion). One definition of stakeholders 
that was highlighted is that they are “those people and organisations that are affected by 
something – for instance a policy, programme, action or organisation – literally, those who 
have a stake in it” (Inbas and Engender 2010, p.8). Another point that was made is that, 
depending on the particular policies under discussion, one should also take account of age. 
Thus when discussing the social inclusion of older people they should be involved and when 
discussing child poverty children affected should be consulted.

A second issue that arose was how, given the very wide range of potential stakeholders, to 
decide who to involve from the different sectors. In Belgium flexibility and openness 
to any stakeholder that comes forward is a very important principle for the Belgian Platform 
and people are never excluded. This is very helpful in engaging key parts of civil society and 
particularly people experiencing poverty. On the other hand, some felt that if you want to 
get a balance of interests across different stakeholders and achieve more in depth dialogue 
it can be useful to have more structured representation from different sectors. However, a 
problem that can arise with this is that some sectors, such as social partners, often have 
well established procedures for selecting representatives whereas in many countries civil 
society is often not so well organised and a more pragmatic approach is needed.

When the involvement of stakeholders is on a consultation basis rather than a decision-
making basis the importance of the representativeness of participants is a less important 
concern. There is also a risk that if you set up more formal representative structures you risk 
killing the social dynamism. The main conclusion that can be reached from this discussion 

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

is  that  choosing  what  are  the  most  appropriate  arrangements  to  make  for  involving 
stakeholders needs to take account of what the particular objective of the exercise is and 
which stakeholders are being prioritised.

One  particular  problem  in  several  countries  has  been  that  it  can  be  difficult  to  engage 
social partners in discussions with other stakeholders on social inclusion issues. This can be 
because they already have their own structures for inputting into policy and therefore do 
not feel the need to engage.

Status of structures: formal (legal) and representative or more open

A key issue in the discussion was how to ensure that arrangements to involve stakeholders 
in policy making, such as the Belgian Platform, have sufficient political status to have an 
impact. Several participants stressed that, if stakeholder involvement is to be fully effective 
in contributing to the development of social inclusion policies, it is important to move beyond 
once-off and ad hoc consultations. Impact is likely to be greatest when there is regular and 
continuous  structured  dialogue  on  the  planning,  design,  implementation,  monitoring  and 
evaluation of EU and national policies across the whole range of areas which impact on 
people experiencing poverty and social exclusion.

It was suggested that one way of achieving this is to give a formal, or sometimes even legal, 
basis to stakeholder involvement in social inclusion policy making. This helps to ensure that 
the views of stakeholders are taken into account when decisions are made. For instance, it 
was suggested that the Belgian Platform’s impact could be enhanced by giving it a formal 
consultative status in the policy making process on a par with that currently enjoyed by 
the consultative bodies involving social partners. However, at present the Belgian Platform 
does at least have the formal status to make recommendations which are forwarded to 
the political level. However, in many countries the involvement of stakeholders is merely 
consultative and does not involve making recommendations. For instance one participant 
pointed that in Austria there is a national platform on Europe 2020, but it is part of the 
Ministry and is not used to formulate resolutions to go to the political level, though it is 
interesting to note that there are some other platforms, e.g. for elderly people or voluntary 
services, that do have the power to put recommendations to government.

It was noted that in many countries, as in Belgium, negotiations with social partners which 
lead to agreements often do have a formal place in the policy making process and a formal 
structure and it was suggested that discussions on social inclusion issues should have at 
least the same status. Less formal arrangements can be useful in being more flexible and 
open.  However,  they  run  the  risk  that,  unless  they  are  integrated  into  the  policy  making 
process, they will have little impact. It was generally agreed that there is a place for both 
formal and informal arrangements for stakeholder involvement as they can be mutually 
reinforcing.

There  was  a  general  agreement  that,  whatever  the  formal  status  of  arrangements  for 
involving stakeholders, political commitment and leadership are really critical. It is when 
Ministers are committed to listening to and taking into account the views of stakeholders 
that  the  outcomes  of  discussions  can  have  an  impact  on  policies.  The  problem  in  many 
countries in relation to Europe 2020 processes (in particular the preparation of National 

24
24

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

Reform  Programmes)  is  that  there  has  been  limited  political  commitment  to  involving 
stakeholders in the process.

Many participants stressed that formal structures like the Belgian Platform should be the 
tip  of  the  iceberg  of  a  culture  of  participation.  Consultation  of  stakeholders  should 
routinely be built into policy making at all levels of governance. To achieve this it is probably 
useful to envisage having a mix of both informal and formal arrangements for involving 
stakeholders.  One  participant  pointed  out  that  in  France,  participation  is  a  cross-cutting 
principle, which has to be implemented at all levels. People have to be involved in every 
decision  taken  on  their  behalf.  But  there  are  different  levels  and  people  need  different 
skills. Stakeholders who take part in national consultative bodies need training. Efforts are 
underway to connect participants at local, regional and national level. Local groups propose 
people to take part at national level. However France has not found the perfect solution and 
national reports are still largely focused on economic, not social issues.

Ensuring the participation of people experiencing poverty

Inspired by the Belgium experience there was general acceptance that people experiencing 
poverty  should  be  consulted  as  stakeholders.  However,  how  best  to  achieve  this  was  an 
important subject of discussion.

It was stressed that inviting people experiencing poverty to participate into formal structures 
without proper support, encouragement and resources is ineffective and can be perceived 
as window-dressing or tokenism. Enabling people living in poverty to participate has to start 
at grass-roots level and be built up over time. Key elements for developing their effective 
participation were:

25
25

 • long-term resourcing and support for people experiencing poverty and the organisations 

working with them;

 • ensuring that people have all the information they need to participate as equals;

 • allowing  sufficient  time  to  prepare  for  meetings  by  circulating  the  agenda  well  in 

advance;

 • ensuring that meetings are run in ways that are open, transparent and accountable 
and the use of methodologies that take account of the different levels of knowledge 
among stakeholders and build trust and dialogue between different stakeholders, thus 
enabling them to participate as equals;

 • fostering a culture amongst policy makers that understands and is open to stakeholder 

consultations – training can be a very important tool in this regard.

Some participants suggested that using the internet and on-line forms of communication 
can  create  new  opportunities  for  participation.  However,  a  Finnish  participant  said  that 
while there is a strong belief in the effectiveness of the internet in Finland it is not certain 
that online discussion forums are increasing involvement. Experts suggest that it is more 
important to strengthen face-to-face contacts.

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

Ensuring impact and avoiding disillusionment

Arising from the experience of the Belgian Platform some participants felt that the actual 
impact on policy making had been very limited and that this risked leading to disillusionment 
with the process.  There was a  general  recognition that consulting stakeholders  can  lead 
to  expectations  of  policy  developments  that  cannot  be  delivered.  During  the  discussions 
a  variety  ways  were  identified  of  ensuring  expectations  are  realistic  and  that  they  are 
delivered on. For instance:

 • be clear at the outset what the remit and purpose of a consultation process is (i.e. is 
it about information, consultation, developing joint recommendations or co-decision-
making);

 • be clear about the outcomes reached, how they will be transmitted and used in the 

policy making process;

 • make  recommendations  visible,  for  instance  by  publishing  them.  It  was  noted  that 
some Member States have attached inputs from stakeholders as an annex to their 
NRPs and NSRs;

 • make stakeholders  aware  of the  complexities of legislation and explain that  policy 

making can take a long time to make progress;

 • give feedback on outcomes and explain what elements of a consultation process have 

been taken on board and which not, and if possible explain why not;

 • carrying out a regular evaluation with all stakeholders involved on how the process is 

working and what are the results.

26
26

How to increase stakeholder involvement in Europe 2020 and SIP

Many  participants  felt  that  stakeholder  involvement  in  the  social  inclusion  dimension  of 
Europe 2020, especially in the development and monitoring of NRPs and, to a lesser extent, 
the  NSRs,  has  been  disappointing  in  many  countries.  This  is  in  spite  of  encouragement 
given  to  Member  States  in  the  Annual  Growth  Survey  and  in  guidance  notes  to  develop 
stakeholder involvement and in spite of the fact that stakeholder involvement in EU social 
inclusion processes is a binding requirement, not an optional extra. Some of the reasons 
that people suggested for this were: the relatively low priority that has been given so far 
to the social dimension of Europe 2020; the fact that NRPs have to be prepared in a very 
short time frame; the reality that preparation of NRPs tends to rest with economic rather 
than  social  ministries  and  they  have  no  experience  of  stakeholder  involvement;  the  fact 
that  NRPs  are  often  a  detailing  of  existing  policies  rather  than  the  development  of  new 
ones; the fact that there is a low awareness of the Europe 2020 strategy amongst civil 
society organisations in many countries; the lack of resources and coordinating structures 
for NGOs; the weak tradition of involving civil society organisations and people experiencing 
poverty in policy discussions in some countries.

Several participants suggested that increasing and deepening stakeholder involvement will 
be key to strengthening the social dimension to the Europe 2020 strategy, and especially the 
NRPs, in future. Many participants also stressed the importance of stakeholder involvement 

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

in the development of National Social Reports and in the implementation of the SIP and the 
Recommendation on investing in children. Thus quite a lot of the discussion on the second 
day revolved around what more could be done at European level to support Member States 
in increasing stakeholder involvement.

There was a general welcome for the commitment by the Commission in its Communication 
on establishing the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion to elaborate 
voluntary guidelines on stakeholders’ involvement in the definition and the implementation 
of policy actions and programmes to address poverty and exclusion, and to promote their 
implementation at national, regional and local level. (Commission 2010b, p.17)12 However, 
in his concluding remarks, the Commission representative indicated that it is unlikely that 
the  Commission  will  prioritise  the  development  of  such  voluntary  guidelines  before  the 
midterm review of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Another  suggestion  was  that,  in  monitoring  and  reporting  on  the  implementation  of 
Europe  2020  the  Commission  and  SPC  should  report  on  the  extent  to  which  Member 
States  have  involved  stakeholders  in  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  NRPs  (and 
NSRs).  Some  participants  thought  it  would  be  helpful  if,  where  stakeholder  involvement 
is very weak or is going in the wrong direction, the Commission were to propose Country 
Specific Recommendations (CSRs) for improving such involvement. However, others felt that 
governance  arrangements  are  a  matter  for  national  decision  and  not  appropriate  for  a 
CSR.13

Several participants suggested that it would be helpful if Member States were encouraged 
to draw on the experience of countries such as Belgium, France and Ireland in involving 
stakeholders and to establish national platforms against poverty and social exclusion 
(or equivalent bodies) to help develop  national anti-poverty  strategies  and  feed  into  the 
Europe 2020 process. These could also become a more structured way for civil society to 
feed into meetings of the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion.

27
27

Several participants suggested that increasing and deepening civil society involvement in the 
work of the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion and especially 
in the Annual Convention could help to enhance the status of stakeholder involvement in 
the  Europe  2020  processes.  It  was  suggested  that  meetings  of  the  Platform  should  be 
structured so as to facilitate more active debate among stakeholders and inject greater 
urgency on identifying how to make progress in achieving the targets for reducing poverty 
and social exclusion. Also strengthening links and synergies between the Annual Convention 
and the Meetings of People Experiencing Poverty could be useful.

During the discussion it became clear that considerable experience has been built up over 
the last decade, particularly in the context of the Social OMC, on stakeholder involvement 
in  policy  development,  implementation  and  monitoring  in  the  field  of  poverty  and  social 
exclusion. Thus many participants felt that this is an area that could benefit from enhanced 
exchange and learning and increased awareness raising. Ideas suggested included:

12 

 This commitment repeats a commitment in the Commission’s 2008 Communication on reinforc-

ing the Social OMC (Commission 2008, p. 8).
13 
 It was reported during the meeting that early in 2014 the European Anti Poverty Network will 
publish a handbook on stakeholder engagement, including common principles, which could be useful 
in informing any EU voluntary guidelines.

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

 • organising more Peer Reviews highlighting good practices like the Belgian Platform;

 • using the new Knowledge Bank (proposed under the SIP) to document and highlight 

good practice on stakeholder involvement;

 • encouraging  the  European  Social  Policy  network  (when  established)  to  regularly 
report on interesting developments in Member States and to identify weaknesses in 
stakeholder involvement;

 • using  the  new  European  Semester  Officers  in  the  European  Commission  Office 
in  Member  States  to  raise  awareness  and  promote  the  importance  of  stakeholder 
involvement.

Another way in which it was suggested that the EU level could help is through encouraging 
greater use of Structural Funds to resource participation of stakeholders and in particular 
to support the participation of people experiencing poverty and the organisations that work 
with them in the policy making process. Also it was suggested that the new partnership 
principle for the ESF should be adapted and implemented at national level, so that funds 
are used for inclusive growth.

28
28

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

E. Conclusions and lessons learned

Ten main conclusions and lessons learned during the Peer Review are summarised below. 
Many of them are elaborated in more detail in the earlier sections of this report.

Belgian Platform - a valuable initiative

The BPAPSE is an important initiative and it provides valuable lessons about how best to 
ensure stakeholder involvement in the Europe 2020 process and related national processes 
on  combating  poverty  and  social  exclusion.  As  it  is  still  in  a  relatively  early  stage  of  its 
evolution  there  are  some  areas  requiring  further  development  and  it  is  important  to  be 
open to new needs and methods. The most urgent issue is to enhance its impact on policy 
making and the development of the Belgian NRP and NSR. This will require further enhancing 
its (political) status and visibility. In this regard strengthening its legal status so that its 
recommendations are required to be considered when developing policies could be helpful. 
EU recognition of the potentially key role it can play in the implementation of Europe 2020 
in Belgium could also help to enhance its status. However, a key learning point is that the 
evolution of such a mechanism has to take account of the existing political and cultural 
environment and should not be overly ambition but should be pragmatic and realistic.

Stakeholder involvement - vital for greater social inclusion

The  impact  of  the  economic  crisis  and  austerity  measures  in  increasing  and  deepening 
poverty and social exclusion highlights the need for greater stakeholder involvement in the 
implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Greater stakeholder involvement is important 
for five main reasons: first, it will lead to better policies; secondly, it will increase the chance 
of achieving the EU poverty target; thirdly, people experiencing poverty and social exclusion 
have a fundamental right to be involved in the development of policies and programmes 
that affect them; fourthly, it will help to address the growing perception of a democratic 
deficit at the heart of the EU by complementing and enhancing representative democracy 
with increased participatory democracy; fifthly, it will enhance awareness of and support for 
EU involvement in social policies.

29
29

Ensure political leadership and give status to stakeholder involvement

Political  commitment  and  leadership  are  fundamental  to  the  successful  involvement  of 
stakeholders  in  the  development  of  social  inclusion  policies.  This  is  key  to  ensuring  that 
consultative arrangements are given the necessary status and visibility within a country’s 
established policy making process.

Develop a culture of involvement

Formal arrangements for stakeholder involvement (such as the Belgium Platform) should 
be the tip of the iceberg. Effective stakeholder involvement needs to be built on a culture of 

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

participation which fosters involvement of stakeholders at all levels (national, regional and 
local) and all stages of policy making (preparation, delivery and monitoring). This requires 
building the capacity of all actors to support stakeholder involvement.

Define stakeholders broadly

Given the multidimensional nature of poverty and social exclusion it is important to involve 
stakeholders across a broad range of policy domains (economic as well as social), across 
all levels of governance (national, regional, local), across all sectors (public, private, social 
partner, NGO, academic and people experiencing poverty).

Ensure clearly defined role and clear outcomes

To  avoid  disillusionment  it  is  important  to  define  clearly  at  the  outset  what  the  status 
and  purpose  of  stakeholder  involvement  is  and  what  the  status  of  any  outcomes  or 
recommendations is. The involvement must be seen to have an impact on policy making 
over time and outcomes of consultations should be made visible. Feedback should be given 
both when inputs are and are not taken on board in the policy process and the impact of 
stakeholder involvement should be regularly evaluated and discussed.

Increase support for the participation of people experiencing poverty

30
30

The participation of people experiencing poverty as stakeholders in EU and Member States’ 
efforts to combat poverty and social exclusion is essential. Achieving this requires balancing 
openness and accessibility with the development of appropriate structures, solving problems 
of  representativeness,  providing  resources,  support  and  capacity  building,  and  allowing 
sufficient time to prepare their involvement.

Continue and enhance EU advocacy for greater stakeholder 
involvement

The EU should continue to encourage permanent dialogue as part of Europe 2020 process: 
e.g.  through  the  Annual  Growth  Survey;  by  increasing  its  importance  in  the  preparation 
and monitoring of NRPs (economic as well as social aspects); in the CSR process; in the 
development of NSRs. Stakeholder involvement in the European Platform Against Poverty 
and Social Exclusion (EPAPSE) should be further enhanced. Stakeholder involvement could 
also become a key element in monitoring the Social Dimension of EMU and the European 
Semester.

Enhance support from Commission and SPC

The  EU  can  boost  practical  support  through  using  EU  Funds  to  support  involvement  at 
all levels. It can encourage the development of more national platforms to feed into the 
EPAPSE.  It  can  promote  more  exchange  and  mutual  learning  in  future,  for  example  by 

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

highlighting good practice through the Knowledge Bank, through the European Social Policy 
Network’s reports, through more Peer Reviews and through social innovation initiatives. The 
development of guidelines of good practice on stakeholder involvement could be helpful 
as they can assist Member States in developing their own practice in this regard and can 
provide a basis for monitoring arrangements in the context of the EU Semester.

Build on good practice and continue dialogue

There  is  much  good  practice  on  stakeholder  involvement  on  social  inclusion  issues  and 
many opportunities for mutual learning. The dialogue inspired by this Peer Review on the 
Belgian Platform should be continued and deepened in the future.

31
31

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

F. Contribution of the Peer Review to Europe 2020 

and the SIP 

As the Belgian Platform has been created specifically to enhance stakeholder involvement in 
European social inclusion processes, particularly the Europe 2020 strategy and associated 
initiatives such as the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion, the Social 
OMC and the Social Investment Package, the Peer Review proved highly relevant.

First and foremost the Peer Review served to reinforce the importance of stakeholder 
involvement in the European process from a social inclusion perspective. It highlighted the 
emphasis put on stakeholder involvement in the Lisbon Treaty, the European 2020 Strategy, 
the  EU’s  Social  Objectives,  the  Social  Investment  Package  and  the  Recommendation  on 
Investing  in  Children.  For  instance,  the  Peer  Review  fleshed  out  the  Social  Investment 
Package’s (SIP’s) emphasis on stakeholder involvement, urging Member States to “engage 
relevant  actors  more  vigorously  in  the  development,  implementation  and  assessment 
of  policies.”  Promoting  active  inclusion  is  at  the  heart  of  the  SIP,  and  is  seen  as  a  joint 
responsibility for all actors in society, including civil society organisations, people experiencing 
poverty, NGOs, local administrations and the private sector. The Peer Review thus served 
to  emphasise  that  stakeholder  involvement  in  EU  social  inclusion  processes  is  a  binding 
requirement, not an optional extra and should be at the heart of the European Semester 
and the implementation of the Social Investment Package.

32
32

Secondly,  the  Peer  Review  went  further  than  just  to  highlight  that  there  should  be 
stakeholder  involvement  in  the  Europe  2020  and  SIP  process.  It  strongly  reinforced  the 
argument that one of the reasons for the weak social dimension of Europe 2020 to date 
has been the failure to adequately engage with the broad range of stakeholders. This lack 
of  engagement  is  part  of  the  growing  democratic  deficit  at  the  heart  of  the  EU  and, 
unless addressed, this will undermine support for initiatives like Europe 2020 and the SIP 
and ultimately will undermine Social Europe.

Thirdly  the  Peer  Review  highlighted  many  of  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  existing 
approaches to stakeholder involvement in the Europe 2020 semester. It also focussed the 
spotlight on the need for significant improvements in stakeholder involvement in many 
Member  States.  This  provides  an  important  challenge  for  the  future  implementation  of 
Europe  2020  and  the  SIP.  Addressing  this  challenge  will  be  vital  if  the  social  dimension 
of  the  European  semester  is  to  be  strengthened.  A  key  first  step  will  be  to  enhance  the 
monitoring and reporting on progress on stakeholder involvement in the implementation of 
Europe 2020 and the SIP.

Fourthly, the Peer Review demonstrated the value of mutual exchange and learning between 
Member States as part of the Social OMC. This served to remind and reinforce awareness of 
the important role that the Social OMC can play in underpinning the social dimension 
of Europe 2020 through supporting such learning as well as through initiatives such as the 
National Social Reports.

Fifthly, and finally, the Peer Review made a very concrete contribution to Europe 2020 and 
the SIP by providing a whole range of practical  learning  points  and  suggestions on 

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

how Member States can improve their practice in this area. It also provided many concrete 
suggestions as to what the Commission and Social Protection Committee can do to enhance 
stakeholder involvement. These are all documented in the preceding chapters.

33
33

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

References

Combat Poverty Agency (2000): Guidelines for Effective Involvement, Combat Poverty 
Agency, Dublin.

Combat Poverty Agency (2000), Practice to policy – models for involving excluded people: 
learning from five EU Member States, Dublin. Available at: http://www.combatpoverty.ie/
publications/conferencepapers.htm

Combat Poverty Agency (2006), Better policies, better outcomes: promoting 
mainstreaming social inclusion, Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin. Available from: http://
www.cpa.ie/publications/BetterPoliciesBetterOutcomes-MSI_2006.pdf

Eurochild (2013), The 2013 National Reform Programmes from a child poverty and well-
being perspective, Eurochild, Brussels. Available at: http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/
ThematicPriorities/Crisis/Eurochild%20updates/Eurochild_NRP_2013_analysis.pdf

European Anti Poverty Network (2012), Breaking Barriers – Driving Change - Case studies 
of building participation of people experiencing poverty, Brussels. Available at: http://www.
eapn.eu/images/stories/docs/eapn-books/2012-participation-book-en.pdf

European Anti Poverty Network (2013), Widening the Gap, EAPN assessment of the 
National Reform Programmes 2013. Available at: http://www.eapn.eu/images/stories/docs/
NRPs/2013-EAPN-NRP-Report.pdf

European Commission (1999): Interim Report on the implementation of the medium-
term Community Action Programme, Office for Official Publications of the European 
Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2002), Joint report on social inclusion, European Commission, 
Brussels.

European Commission (2004), Joint report on social inclusion, European Commission, 
Brussels.

European Commission (2008), A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the 
Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, Commission 
Communication COM(2008) 418 final, Brussels.

European Commission (2010), Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth, Communication COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commission (2010b), The European Platform against Poverty and Social 
Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion, SEC(2010) 1564 final, 
Brussels.

34
34

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

European Commission (2012), Guidance for the National Reform Programmes – 2012 
update.

European Commission (2013), Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion 
– including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020, Commission 
Communication COM(2013) 83 final, Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobS
ervlet?docId=9761&langId=en 

European Commission (2013b), Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage, 
Commission Recommendation, 2013/112/EU, Brussels. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:059:0005:0016:EN:PDF

European Commission (2013c), Social Investment Package Follow-up on the implementation 
by  the  Member  States  of  the  2008  European  Commission  recommendation  on  active 
inclusion  of  people  excluded  from  the  labour  market  -  Towards  a  social  investment 
approach, Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013) 39 final, Brussels. Available at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2013:0039:FIN:EN:PDF

European  Commission  (2013d),  Annual  Growth  Survey  2014,  Communication  from  the 
Commission: COM(2013) 800 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-
happen/annual-growth-surveys/index_en.htm

European Economic and Social Committee (2011), Strengthening EU cohesion and EU social 
policy coordination through the new horizontal social clause in Article 9 TFEU, EESC Opinion, 
CESE  1591/2011  -  SOC/407.  Available  at:  http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.soc-
opinions.14961

35
35

European  Social  Network  (2012)  Are  adequate  and  affordable  social  services  a  priority 
in  Europe  2020?  ESN  assessment  of  the  National  Reform  Programmes  2012,  Brighton. 
Available at: http://www.esn-eu.org/news/130/index.html

Frazer  H.,  Marlier  E.  and  Nicaise  I.  (2010),  A  social  inclusion  roadmap  for  Europe  2020, 
Garant, Antwerp.

Frazer H. and Marlier E. (2011), Assessment of Progress towards the Europe 2020 social 
inclusion  objectives,  EU  Network  of  Independent  Experts  on  Social  Inclusion,  European 
Commission, Brussels.

Frazer H. and Marlier E. (2012), Assessment of Progress towards the Europe 2020 social 
inclusion  objectives,  EU  Network  of  Independent  Experts  on  Social  Inclusion,  European 
Commission, Brussels.

Frazer H. and Marlier E. (2013), Assessment of Progress towards the Europe 2020 social 
inclusion  objectives,  EU  Network  of  Independent  Experts  on  Social  Inclusion,  European 
Commission, Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId
=en&newsId=2050&furtherNews=yes

Inbas  GmbH  and  Engender  asbl  (2010),  Study  on  Stakeholders’  Involvement  in  the 
Implementation of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) in Social Protection and Social 

Synthesis report — Belgium 

3
1
0
2

Inclusion, Inbas GmbH / Engender asbl. Available at: http://www.stakeholders-socialinclusion.
eu/site/en/finrep Marlier E, Natali D. and Van Dam R. (2010). Europe 2020: Towards a more 
Social EU?, Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

Schepers  W.  and  Nicaise  I.  (2013),  Assessment  of  progress  towards  the  Europe  2020 
objective: a study of national policies, EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion.

Service de lutte contre la pauvreté, la précarité et l’exclusion sociale (2003), La participation 
politique et le Plan d’action national inclusion sociale: du pain sur la planche. Méthode et 
conditions, Brussels. Available at: http://www.luttepauvrete.be/publications/PANfinalfr.pdf

Social  Protection  Committee  (2011),  Opinion  of  the  Social  Protection  Committee  on 
reinvigorating the social OMC in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy, with a view to the 
session of the Council (EPSCO) on 17 June 2011.

Swinnen  H.  (2007),  Peer  Review:  The  NAPinclusion  Social  Inclusion  Forum,  Dublin  15-16 
November 2007, Peer Review in Social Inclusion.

36
36

3
1
0
2

Synthesis report — Belgium

European Commission

The Belgian Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion EU 2020 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2014 — 36 pp. —  17.6×25 cm

ISBN 978-92-79-36736-6
ISSN 1977-7973 
doi: 10.2767/13584  

This publication is available in electronic format in English, French, German and Dutch.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:
one copy:  
•	
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

•	 more than one copy or posters/maps:  

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_
en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge 

you).

Priced publications:
•	

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions 
•	

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union  
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
K
E
-
B
F
-
1
4
-
0
0
2
-
E
N
-
N

The Belgian Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion 
EU 2020

Host country: Belgium

Peer countries: Austria - Bulgaria - Czech Republic - Finland - France - Greece - 
Ireland - Malta

Stakeholder: the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) and the Social Platform

The onset of the economic crisis has increased the risk of poverty across Europe making 
the need for action to fight poverty all the more pressing. In mid-January 2014 Peer 
Reviewers met in Brussels to hear about the approach in Belgium where the Platform 
against Poverty and Social Exclusion involves a wide range of stakeholders to formulate 
policy recommendations.

The Belgian Platform is designed to feed into the Europe 2020 Strategy, which includes 
the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion as one of seven flagship 
initiatives. Since 2011 the Belgian Platform has brought together a wide variety of 
participants, including government representatives, social partners, social services, 
NGOs and – crucially – people experiencing poverty, for quarterly meetings. Although 
the Platform has no real policy making authority, it provides an important forum for 
open dialogue and increasing awareness of the European framework for fighting social 
exclusion.