Regional policy

Several evaluations of the 2000 – 2006 and 2007 – 2013 programming periods reveal that gender equality has not been integrated in the ESI funds coherently and systematicly at all stages of the policy cycle. According to these evaluations, the integration of a gender perspective in the context analysis is carried out unevenly among the Member States; in some cases, regional operational programmes include a specific gender analysis in the part dedicated to the analysis of the context, while in other cases no reference to specific gender inequalities and their possible causes are presented.

In the programming phase, gender equality is generally present as a broad principle, but it is rarely broken down into gender-specific objectives, or objectives that include a gender equality perspective. If it is, this is only in an ad-hoc manner. Furthermore, gender equality is often present in objectives that are immediately associated with gender inequalities (e.g. the labour market, childcare or elderly care). It is very seldom in those that are not ‘immediately’ related to women (e.g. energy, transport, ICT, waste). However, it should be noted that in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, specific attention is paid to gender mainstreaming in all actions of the ESI funds.

Allocation of financial resources to gender equality is rather limited. According to a European Parliament study, during the period of 2007 – 2013 across the Member States on average only 3.7% of the total ESF resources was allocated to specific gender equality actions. The study underlines that, despite the official declarations according to which the EU 2020 Strategy was conceived as an opportunity to reform the economy in order to achieve more gender equality, and the intention to make gender mainstreaming the pivotal strategy for gender equality, […] the gender perspective is far from being assumed in all policies, at all levels and at every stage of the policymaking process.

The implementation of a gender mainstreaming approach within the ESI funds is a widely debated issue in the literature; evaluations seem to show that the expectation of consistent reductions in gender imbalances in European societies has not been met. According to various experts, gender mainstreaming has been used instead as an excuse for neutralising positive actions, further reducing existing funds and incentives for gender equality, especially in the case of structural funds.

The selection criteria used to evaluate ESI funds applications are not generally gender-sensitive. The lack of adequate gender-sensitive criteria together with a lack of gender awareness among applicants, result in weak outcomes in terms of increased gender equality in society and the economy.

A limited set of indicators has been designed to monitor gender equality within ESI funds. These are mostly related to employment indicators and the population breakdown by sex within some of the created facilities (e.g. childcare facilities). However, there is a lack of gender-oriented result indicators on how women and men benefit from all the achievements of ESI funds. Specific evaluations of gender equality within ESI funds are rarely carried out.

Studies identify a weak integration of the gender equality perspective in ESI funds for a number of key reasons. First, there is a lack of political commitment on mainstreaming a gender equality perspective in the ESI funds at all levels. While there seems to be a commitment at high political levels, at lower levels the adoption of a gender equality perspective is mainly associated with compliance with international commitments. There is also an absence of specific equality bodies in charge of the programming and implementation of a gender perspective within ESI funds. Furthermore, there is a weak integration between the national/regional institutions in charge of ESI funds and the gender equality bodies at both national and regional level.

Second, there is a shortage of gender competence both within the institutions in charge of ESI funds and among project applicants. This lack of adequate skills is particularly relevant in those areas that are not explicitly perceived as having a differentiated gender impact (e.g. energy, urban infrastructure, waste).

Third, there is resistance on the part of public institutions to the subject of gender equality, while there is a lack of recognition of inequality on the part of the target population and society in general. The impact of the financial crisis contributed to making equality issues a low priority at both institutional and societal levels.

Even though the issue of the involvement of women’s associations in the programming and implementation of ESI funds receives little attention in the evaluations of gender equality in structural funds, a World Bank study underlines that gender issues have been excluded from most of the participatory development initiatives and diagnoses. This has led to policies and interventions that often reflect a poor understanding of the nature and capacities of women’s groups. Indeed, women’s capacity to network is smaller than that of men due to greater limitations in terms of physical mobility, resources and time. Women’s networks are therefore generally small, informal, and oriented towards everyday life and voluntary community activities. Indeed, such groups in themselves are unlikely to represent a strong lobbying potential in the adoption of a gender equality perspective in regional policy.

In the regional policy field, European institutions and EU Member States have made their commitment clear to ensuring the mainstreaming of the gender perspective in the European Structural Funds, the operational tool of regional policy at EU level.

European Commission

Since the 1994 – 1999 programming period, the European Commission has been taking action to ensure the promotion of equality between women and men in structural funds (ERDF/ESF/CF).

Following the Amsterdam Treaty, which strengthened focus on the achievement of equal opportunities, a dual approach was promoted for mainstreaming gender within Cohesion Policy funds. The dual approach implies the use of vertical priorities – that is, a priority that is essentially contained within the aims and activities of a specific programme – and horizontal priorities specifically integrating equality objectives into all general policies and measures. This approach characterised both the 2000 – 2006 and the 2007 – 2013 programming periods. With the adoption of the 2014 – 2020 regulations, the European Commission has taken further action to consolidate gender equality in the Cohesion Policy funds (ERDF/ESF/CF). Indeed, in order to ensure a proper mainstreaming of the gender perspective in the 2014 – 2020 Cohesion Policy, the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men drafted an Opinion on gender equality in the Cohesion Policy 2014 – 2020, identifying shortcomings and priorities to guide the definition of the new Cohesion Policy regulations.

The main provisions on gender equality in the 2014 – 2020 Cohesion Policy are included in Article 7 of the Common Provisions of the funds, which foresees that

Member States and the Commission shall ensure that equality between men and women and the integration of gender perspective are taken into account and promoted throughout the preparation and implementation of programmes, including in relation to monitoring, reporting and evaluation

Furthermore, according to the same article “Member States and the Commission shall take appropriate steps to prevent any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation during the preparation and implementation of programmes”.

The main European Commission gender equality priorities in regional policy are included in ESF regulations:

• increasing the sustainable participation and progress of women in employment;
• combating the feminisation of poverty;
• reducing gender-based segregation;
• combating gender stereotypes in the labour market and in education and training;
• promoting the reconciliation of work and personal life for all as well as the equal sharing of care responsibilities between women and men;
• reducing inequalities in terms of educational attainment and health status;
• facilitating the transition from institutional to community-based care, in particular for those who face multiple forms of discrimination (e.g. women).

Furthermore, the increased relevance of gender equality in the 2014 – 2020 programming period is included in the ex ante conditions laid down in the Commission and Member States’ partnership agreement. Accession to Cohesion Policy funds depends on this being fulfilled. Accordingly, the gender equality ex ante conditionality consists of the existence of administrative capacity for the implementation and application of EU gender equality law and policy in the field of ESI funds. The criteria to be respected for its fulfilment are:

1. arrangements in accordance with the institutional and legal framework of Member States for the involvement of bodies responsible for gender equality throughout the preparation and implementation of programmes, including the provision of advice on gender equality in ESI funding-related activities; and
2. arrangements for training staff in the authorities involved in the management and control of the ESI funds in the fields of EU gender equality law and policy as well as on the subject of gender mainstreaming.

There is a strong link between the European Structural and Investment Funds and other legal and non-legal tools for promoting gender equality at both EU and Member State level. The 2010 – 2015 Strategy for Equality between Women and Men foresees among its priorities:

1. supporting the promotion of gender equality in the implementation of all aspects and flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, especially as regards the definition and implementation of relevant national measures (through technical support as well as through the structural funds and other major funding programmes such as the Seventh Framework Programme for Research; and
2. promoting gender equality in European funds, and in particular in the ESF funds to support Member States to implement operational programmes. This includes measures for increasing women’s participation in the labour market and reducing gender segregation in career selection and professions as well as enhancing lifelong learning.

The 2011 – 2020 Gender Equality Pact outlines objectives and contains descriptions of the gender gaps to be tackled by the Cohesion Policy and the Structural and Investment Funds, such as closing the gender gaps, combating gender segregation in the labour market and promoting better work–life balance for women and men.

European Parliament

Promoting the use of Structural and Investment Funds to enhance gender equality is also a priority of the European Parliament. The EU Strategy for Equality between Women and Men Post-2015 calls on the Commission to support Member States in the increasing use of the structural funds for investment in public childcare and care for the elderly, as a core strategy to increase women’s participation in the labour market.

In terms of the European Social Fund, the European Parliament’s influence has grown over the years. Under the Maastricht Treaty, the parliament was required to give its assent to the general provisions governing the funds, whereas under the Treaty of Amsterdam, the adoption of implementing rules for the ESF is subject to the co-decision procedure. Thanks to the European Parliament’s action, in the current 2014 – 2020 programming period the ESF will account for 23.1% of the total EU Cohesion Policy funding, and 20% of each Member State’s ESF allocation will have to be spent on social inclusion. This is particularly relevant for women, considering they face a higher risk of social exclusion than men.