the european social fund: migrants and minorities · 2010. 9. 20. · 4 the european social fund:...

background report

The european social fund: migranTs and minoriTies

imporTanT noTe

This study is produced by Bernard Brunhes International (BBI, www.bb-international.eu) under the contract

“Reporting on ESF interventions in the EU.” The report was written by Dr. Nicholas Glytsos in cooperation

with Bruno Vilela and the support of BBI’s team of researchers: Georgios Voudouris, João Nunes, Livia Di

Nardo and Tanja El-Nemr. A brochure summarising the findings of this study is available in English, French,

German, Spanish, Italian and Polish at http://ec.europa.eu/esf

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

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

europe direct is a service to help you find answers to your

questions about the european union

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow

access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

© European Union, 2010Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.Printed in BelgiumPRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

1The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Table of Contents

List of abbreviations 2

Introduction 4

A. SCOPE OF THE STUDY 4

B. THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: FRAMEWORK & ACHIEVEMENTS 5

C. APPROACH 12

Chapter 1 – General Context 14

A. TRENDS AND RELEVANT CONCEPTS 14

1. International Developments 142. The European Context 16

B. RELEVANT EU POLICIES 21

Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements 26

A. INTEGRATION OF MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES AS A TARGET OF ESF SUPPORT 26

B. ESF INTERVENTIONS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES 27

1. Measures and Priority Axes 272. Expenditure on Migrants and Minorities 30

C. ESF ACHIEVEMENTS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES 33

1. Aggregate Achievements 2000-2006 332. Achievements by Type of Intervention, 2000-2006 343. Achievements, 2007-2013 44

Chapter 3 – Conclusion 48

Annexes 51

ANNEX 1: EXPENDITURE 2000-2006 AND BUDGET 2007-2013 51

ANNEX 2: ESF VOCABULARY 53

ANNEX 3: LIST OF ESF 2000-2006 MEASURES USED FOR THE STUDY 54

ANNEX 4: LIST OF ESF 2007-2013 PRIORITY AXES USED FOR THE STUDY 60

ANNEX 5: STANDARDISED INDICATOR NAMES USED FOR ANALYSIS 65

Index of fi gures, statistical tables and insights 71

2 The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Country codes

AT Austria IT Italy

BE Belgium LT Lithuania

BG Bulgaria LU Luxembourg

CH Switzerland LV Latvia

CY Cyprus MT Malta

CZ Czech Republic NL Netherlands

DE Germany NO Norway

DK Denmark PL Poland

EE Estonia PT Portugal

ES Spain RO Romania

FI Finland SE Sweden

FR France SI Slovenia

GR Greece SK Slovakia

HR Croatia TR Turkey

HU Hungary UK United Kingdom

IE Ireland US United States

IS Iceland

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

3The European Social Fund: Migrants and Minorities

Other abbreviations

BBI Bernard Brunhes International

BEST Business Employment Services Training

CBP Common Basic Principles on integration

COMPAS Centre on Migration, Policy and Society

EC European Commission

ECRE European Council on Refugees and Exiles

EPIM European Programme for Integration and Migration

EQUAL Community Initiative

ESRC Economic and Social Research Council

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GFMD Global Forum on Migration and Development

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

IDELE Identifi cation, Dissemination and Exchange of Good Practice in Local

Employment Development and Promoting Better Governance

ILO International Labour Organisation

IMISCOE International Migration Integration Social Cohesion

INTI (EU) Integration of Third Country Nationals

IOM International Organisation of Migration

IT Information Technologies

MIDIS (EU) Minorities and Discrimination Survey

MIPEX Indicators of migrant integration

M&M Migrants and minorities

MPI Migration Policy Institute

MS Member State

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

QED Quality education Data

RCE (Objective) Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective

SFC Structural Fund Database

SME Small and Medium Size Enterprises

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme


Introduction

A. SCOPE OF THE STUDY This study presents the interventions of the European Social Fund (ESF) in the area of Migrants and Minorities. It is

one in a series of 21 studies describing what the ESF does and achieves on a range of policy topics or target groups.

In addition to this background report, which exists only in English, a ‘summary fi che’ contains the major fi ndings of

the study and is translated in French, German, Spanish, Italian and Polish.

The study will look at the types of measures and priority axes that support migrants and minorities and, whenever

possible, their diff erent sub-groups. These subgroups consist of migrants (EU Citizens, Third Country Nationals),

asylum seekers, refugees, Roma, ethnic minorities and religious minorities. Although issues of mobility and

integration of EU citizens were reported in the ‘Labour Mobility’ study of this series, the EU enlargement brought

about new groups of EU citizens that, apart from various bureaucratic and legal hurdles, still have to cross economic

and social barriers for their full integration. These new EU citizens, along with third country nationals, are therefore

supported by ESF to overcome these problems.

The ESF is one of the Structural Funds of the European Union (EU) and devoted in particular to promoting

employment. The implementation of the ESF is structured along seven-year programming periods. This report

contains information on the ESF interventions in the fi eld of migrants and minorities for the programming periods

2000-2006 and 2007-2013. Since the programmes of the second period are currently in process, the fi ndings on

ESF achievements are limited to the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2008. Since 2000, the EU has grown from 15 to

27 Members, and thus the involvement of the respective Member States in ESF has also increased. Romania and

Bulgaria only participate in the current programming period of 2007-2013.

Following this introduction, the report consists of two chapters and a conclusion. The fi rst chapter is a general

context presentation which defi nes the theme and its dimensions for the scope of this study and puts it in a broader

perspective. Particular attention will be given to the problems of integration in the labour market and to the policy

responses from the EU for the social inclusion and the access to employment of migrants and minorities.

The interventions and achievements of ESF in the fi eld of migrants and minorities constitute the second and core

chapter of this report. Starting from the way the theme of migrants and minorities is addressed in the ESF regulations,

an overview will be given of the extent to which migrants and minorities are part of the individual Operational

Programmes in both the previous and the current programming periods. The diff erent types of assistance constitute

the basis for the description of the ESF achievements on migrants and minorities.

The concluding section contains a summary of the fi ndings and looks at the continuity that exists in the ESF

assistance to migrants and minorities across the programming periods.

5Introduction

B. THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: FRAMEWORK & ACHIEVEMENTSThe ESF is one of the EU’s Structural Funds set up to reduce the gap in living standards between regions and

between people and to promote economic and social cohesion across Europe. The ESF is devoted to promoting

employment in the EU. It helps Member States make Europe’s workforce and companies better equipped to face

new and global challenges. The ESF was created in 1957 at the time when the European Economic Community

was established. While the overall purpose of the Fund has remained unchanged, its objectives and scope of

application have been adapted to socio-economic developments. The ESF strategy and budget is negotiated and

decided between the EU Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. On this basis, seven-year

Operational Programmes (OPs) are planned by Member States together with the European Commission.

Programming Period 2000-2006

In the period 2000-2006, the Structural Funds were grouped around 3 Objectives1: Objective 1 promoted the

development of regions where the GDP per capita was below 75% of the EU average, outlying regions (e.g. Azores)

and sparsely populated regions in Finland and Sweden; Objective 2 supported areas adjusting to change in the

industrial and services sector, rural areas in decline, urban areas in diffi culty, and economically depressed areas

heavily dependent on fi sheries; Objective 3 provided funding throughout the EU to help adapt and modernise

policies and systems of education, training and employment. Objectives 1 and 2 were fi nanced by the ESF in

combination with other Structural Funds. Objective 3 was fi nanced solely by ESF.

ESF supported activities related to fi ve Policy Fields: (i) the development and promotion of active labour market

policies; (ii) the promotion of equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with particular emphasis

on those exposed to social exclusion; (iii) the promotion and improvement of training, education and counselling

as part of lifelong learning policy; (iv) the promotion of a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce; and (v) the

improvement of women’s access to and participation in the labour market. Across all programmes, the ESF has

also addressed three horizontal themes: (i) support for local initiatives concerning employment; (ii) the social and

labour market dimensions of the information society; and (iii) equal opportunities for women and men as part of

the mainstreaming approach.

Between 2000 and 2006 a total of 212 OPs2 were implemented by either regional or national authorities in the

Member States. In 2000, the ESF was open to 15 Member States. Additional OPs were set up in 2004 to accommodate

the priorities of 10 new Member States. The distribution of the programmes and the total ESF co-funded expenditure

per Objective is presented in Figure 1.

1. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24203.htm 2. The research is based on data collected for 207 OPs covering the years 2000 to 2006. The remaining programmes are technical assistance OPs

and a specifi c transnational OP promoting the peace process in Northern Ireland. This OP is not included in fi gure 1. The Equal Operational Programmes are not covered.


Figure 1: Number of OPs and total ESF co-funded expenditure per Objective in the ESF 2000-2006 period

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3

Budget in € billionNumber of OPs

58

5

106

4952

47

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006)

Between 2000 and 2006, over 75 million participants3 were involved in ESF funded activities. Because it is very likely

that some people have benefi ted more than once from ESF funded interventions, it is more correct to refer to over

75 million participations.

Figure 2: Average yearly participation per Member State

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

ES FR PT DE IT GB EU 25

PL GR IE SE BE AT FI CZ NL HU SK SI LV LT DK EE CY LU MT

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006

This corresponds to approximately a fi fth of the total population between 15-64 years4 in the 25 EU Member States.

Participants may have benefi ted from more than one ESF intervention. In the case of Portugal, no aggregated

data were available so data from the diff erent years were added up. In Spain, participants could be funded under

national and regional programmes. Furthermore, for the Netherlands limited data is available.

3. The fi ndings are based on a total of 1,567 measures of which 1,260 have reported on participants.4. Eurostat, Europe in fi gures, Eurostat Yearbook 2008, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/publications/eurostat_yearbook

7Introduction

Figure 3: The proportion of the yearly average of ESF benefi ciaries per Member State in relation to the

total population between 15-64 years per Member State

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

PT ES IE FR GR SE BE FI SI AT LV IT UK DE SL CZ PL HU LT LU NL EE MT CY DK

Proportion on ESF beneficiaries per MS in 2006 (yearly values)

EU Average

Source: Eurostat 2008 and for ESF, data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006

On an annual basis, ESF reached on average nearly 4% of the total EU-25 population between 15 - 64 years in the

25 EU Member States. In most of the Member States the yearly proportion of the active population benefi ting from

ESF money was lower. Exceptions to this were Portugal, Spain, Ireland and to a lesser extent France, Greece and

Sweden. New Member States started later with the programming and this may explain the lower proportion of

the active population addressed through ESF. Moreover in some Member States operational programmes focussed

more on assistance to systems and structures than in others.

The total ESF community expenditure was € 54 billion in the period 2000-2006. This amount was matched, through

the basic principle of co-funding within ESF with about € 51 billion from the public and private sectors in the Member

States concerned. A detailed breakdown of the fi nancial allocations per Member State is available in Annex 1.


Figure 4: Total ESF co-funded expenditure per Member State:

proportion between ESF and Member State funds

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SE FI BE DK FR AT GB LU DE NL CY EU

25

IT IE ES PT EE CZ SK PL LT SI MT LV HU GR

ESF community expenditure ESF national expenditure


The average percentage of the total ESF co-funded expenditure committed by Member States to ESF activities was

51.3%. The share of the ESF budget that each Member States received depended on several factors, such as the size

of the population and the objective covered5. On average the new Member States received a higher share of ESF

funding, which can be explained by the need for these countries to catch up with the global European economy.

Funding was allocated to Member States where support was most needed to ensure that the whole of EU moved

forward.

The average total expenditure per ESF benefi ciary was € 1,306 (€ 669 was the average ESF expenditure per

benefi ciary). Some Member States like Denmark and Germany, but also the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

exceeded this average amount considerably. This may refl ect a stronger focus of the Operational Programmes on

assistance to systems and structures.

5. Priority Objectives in 2000-2006 have been defi ned on the basis of the per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Objective 1 territory were the ones with a GDP lower than 75% of the Community average, Objective 2 programmes were aimed at helping regions with indications of industrial decline; Objective 3 programmes were not geographically targeted and delivered the European Employment Strategy. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/g24203.htm

9Introduction

Figure 5: Total ESF co-funded expenditure per participant per Member State (in €)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

DK LU DE NL GB SE EE FI LT IT GR PL BE MT HU SK AT PT LV IE CZ FR ES SI CY

Total Expenditure per participant

EU 25 Average ESF expenditure per participant

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006) data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme

reports 2000-2006.

The ESF supported two types of interventions, assisting people and systems. Actions targeting the enhancement

of systems (e.g. capacity building in Public Employment Services or the modernisation of vocational education and

training systems) will ultimately address individual benefi ciaries, too. However, such programmes tend not to have

the same number of participants as those interventions directly aimed at e.g. training disadvantaged sections of the

population in acquiring a better position for the labour market or supporting researchers to pursue part of their work

in another region or country. Member States implementing more system-related interventions had a relatively lower

number of participants and therefore the average ESF budget spent on each participant may be somewhat higher.

Figure 6: ESF community expenditure per participant per Member State (in €)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

DK EE LU NL DE LT GB GR PL SE IT MT HU FI SK LV PT CZ AT BE IE ES SI FR CY

ESF Expenditure per participant

EU 25 Average ESF expenditure per participant

Source: EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in September 2008 (2000-2006) data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme

reports 2000-2006.


The ESF Regulation strongly refl ected the EU’s commitment to eliminate inequalities between women and men

following a combined approach of gender mainstreaming and specifi c activities for women in diff erent fi elds. ESF

resulted in a balanced participation of women and men: 52% of the participants are women and 48% are men.

Figure 7: Gender breakdown of ESF participants

women52%

men48%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006.

Most Member States had a balanced division of male and female participants. Seven Member States had a proportion

of female participants exceeding 55% (Malta, Poland, Lithuania, Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Austria where 64% of

the participants were women).

37% of the ESF participants were young people (< 25 years) while 7% were benefi ciaries aged 50 years and older6.

ESF helped to prepare young people to fi nd suitable work and to succeed in their jobs. It assisted older workers to

stay in employment, by e.g. re-skilling programmes.

ESF addressed both employed and unemployed people: 54% of ESF participants were unemployed, of whom 25%

were long term unemployed, 42% short term unemployed and 33% were not further specifi ed. 38% were employed

people of whom 4% self-employed. Another 7% of the participants were inactive, e.g. students.

Figure 8: Status of ESF participants in the labour market

Unemployed54%

Employed38%

Inactive8%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports 2000-2006.

6. These two percentages were calculated independently. For the calculation of the proportion of young people and older persons, the maximum number of data was used for each of the respective categories. The proportions were calculated on the basis of all measures including data on young people on the one hand and on older persons on the other hand.

11Introduction

Furthermore, 700,000 projects were funded. The majority of these projects were reported by Operational Programmes

in Italy and Germany. In Germany, most of the 170,000 projects funded through ESF were situated in the priority

‘promotion of the work force potential and of equal opportunities’, while in Italy about 400,000 projects were spread

over various programmes and priorities.

Not all Member States have reported in the same way on results, meaning that in practice the scope and size of

the results are expected to be higher. The success rate of participants gaining a qualifi cation was on average 34%.

Success rates above 75% were achieved in Greece (97%), Estonia (89%) and Latvia (85%)7. 22% of the participants

were integrated into the labour market. Particularly high success rates were reported by Portugal (91%) and Slovakia

(72%)8. The success rates were largely infl uenced by the type of target group ESF addressed, i.e. groups at risk for

which it is diffi cult to, for example, (re)integrate into the labour market. Moreover, not all measures aimed at the

achievement of a formal qualifi cation or at an immediate integration in the labour market.

The creation of 600,000 jobs with ESF funds was reported particularly in Spain and Greece. In Spain 152,227 jobs

were created leading to self-employment. In Greece the majority of jobs were created in the framework of the

programme ‘employment promotion and vocational training’. This programme was entirely devoted to job creation,

including actions aiming at combating (long-term) unemployment, creating conditions to ensure job positions in

enterprises and strengthening the acquisition of work experience.

About 200,000 jobs were safeguarded as a result of ESF interventions. Finland and France reported particularly good

results. The results in France were mainly related to the programme Midi-Pyrénées.


In the current period 2007-2013, the Structural Funds are concentrated around 3 new Objectives: (i) Convergence

concerns the least developed regions, comparable to the old Objective 1, and aims to help the least-developed

Member States and regions catch up more quickly with the EU average by improving conditions for growth and

employment; (ii) Regional Competitiveness and Employment concerns the rest of the EU and aims to strengthen

the competitiveness, employment and attractiveness of all regions; and (iii) European territorial cooperation aims

at strengthening cross-border, trans-national and interregional cooperation through joint local and regional

initiatives.

The ESF is supporting activities under the fi rst two Objectives that relate to the following Priorities: (i) adaptability

of workers and enterprises; (ii) improved access to employment and the sustainable inclusion in the labour market

of job seekers and inactive people; (iii) reinforcing the social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to

their sustainable integration in employment and combating all forms of discrimination in the labour market; (iv)

enhancing human capital by promoting reform in education and training systems, as well as networking activities

between higher education institutions, research centres and enterprises; and (v) promoting good governance,

partnership and the involvement of social partners. Moreover, ESF addresses additional priorities under the

7. These rates have been calculated according to the number of measures on which data on participants gaining a qualifi cation have been reported.8. These rates have been calculated according to on the number of measures on which data on participants integrated into the labour market have

been reported.


Convergence Objective: (i) expanding and improving investment in human capital, in particular by increasing the

participation in education and training through the life-cycle and by developing human potential in research and

innovation; and (ii) improving the institutional capacity and effi ciency of public administrations and public services

at national, regional and local level.

The current programming period features 117 OPs for all 27 Member States, including Bulgaria and Romania which

did not participate at all in the previous ESF period. Half of the programmes concern Regional Competitiveness and

Employment (59 OPs), while 42 OPs belong to the Convergence objective. The remaining 16 OPs contain initiatives for

both objectives. The total co-funded budget available for ESF related interventions in the period 2007-2013 is € 117

billion, of which € 76 billion is contributed by the ESF. A detailed breakdown per Member State is available in Annex 1.

The programming, implementation and fi nancing procedures for the 2007-2013 period were simplifi ed for all

Structural Funds. In so far as the ESF is concerned, the current period features a strong link with the objectives of the

Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs: the ESF is supporting Member States’ policies to comply with the guidelines

and recommendations adopted in the European Employment Strategy. The most important ESF concepts and

documents across the programming periods are described in Annex 2.

In 2007 and 2008 more than 7 million participants entered ESF funded interventions. There were slightly more

women (53%) than men (47%). 37% of the participants were unemployed, including 9% of long-term unemployed;

32% were inactive of which 19% in education or training. The remaining 31% were employed, of which 2% self-

employed. One third of the ESF participants were younger than 25 and 4% were 55 years and older. The ESF mainly

targets people with modest educational attainment: 83% of the participants have a primary or a secondary school

degree (ISCED 1, 2 or 3). Also in this programming period the ESF funding targets people in society who are more

vulnerable to unemployment and social exclusion. 11% of the participants belong to one of the vulnerable groups

(minorities, migrants, disabled).

C. APPROACH This study describes the ways in which Member States took advantage of the fi nancial means off ered by the ESF

to promote the integration of migrants and minorities. It does not attempt to make any evaluation or judgement

about the eff ectiveness of planned versus realised initiatives, but rather has as its goal to off er an overview - as

comprehensively as possible - of initiatives implemented across the Member States and their achievements. The

report is based on EU policy documents and available ESF data in the fi eld of migrants and minorities.

The fi ndings on implemented actions and their outcomes are formulated on the basis of the database created

by BBI for the purpose of data processing. Information and data were collected primarily from the Operational

Programmes drafted by the Member States and regular reports on the progress of these programmes - Annual

Implementation Reports and Mid-Term Reviews.

This report mainly deals with the ESF programmes covering the period 2000-2006. The budget information was

gathered from the SFC (EC Structural Funds fi nancial database). All information on the 2000-2006 programme

13Introduction

fi nances in the text refers to the expenditure claimed by the Member States until September 2008, not to amounts

budgeted or disbursed.

The EC made available a series of documents on the current ESF programming period, in particular summaries (in

English) of the individual Operational Programmes, the allocation of the planned interventions into domains and

sub-domains, and the foreseen budget per programme and per theme. A key-word search was performed on the

Operational Programme summaries to identify relevant interventions in the fi eld of migrants and minorities in the

period 2007-2013. The budget information for this period is taken from the EC Structural Funds database and refers

to the amounts budgeted.

The core section of this report, i.e. ESF interventions and achievements, was elaborated in three stages. In the fi rst

stage, quantitative and qualitative information on migrants and minorities in ESF is collected; in the second stage,

the accumulated material is organised and analysed, while in the third stage the report is drafted.

The data collection was organised as follows: taking as a basis the ESF indicators database, every measure

containing at least some quantitative information on migrants or minorities was put on a preliminary list of relevant

measures for the programming period 2000-2006. Moreover, a qualitative search for migrants and minorities in

the ESF programme documents resulted in a number of additional measures taken on board. In order to select

only measures in which migrants and minorities were involved to a certain extent, the preliminary list was fi ltered

retaining only those measures that reported a certain number (1701) of migrants and minorities or in which migrants

and minorities represented a certain share (5%) of the total participants. The fi nal list contains about 97% of the

preliminary measures and reduced the overall number of reported participants by 3.6%. The fi nal list addressing

migrants and minorities in 2000-2006 is presented in Annex 3 and contains 276 measures.

It is important to bear in mind that this study refers to “migrants” and “minorities” in the way they have been defi ned

by the diff erent national or regional authorities and reported in the respective implementation reports. This means

that diff erent notions of “migrants” and “minorities” may co-exist. Moreover, not all Member States have specifi ed

consistently and to the same detail whether migrants were “EU nationals” or “third country nationals”. Finally, Member

States may have programmed interventions for migrants or minorities without reporting on their involvement

afterwards.

With regard to the current programming period, a qualitative search was performed on the Operational Programmes

identifying priority axes that contained reference to migrants, minorities or Roma. Moreover, every priority axis

reporting in 2007 and 2008 on the involvement of migrants and minorities has been taken into consideration

for the quantitative section of this study. The list featuring activities for migrants and minorities in 2007-2013 is

presented in Annex 4 and contains 180 priority axes.

For both fi nancing periods the identifi cation of relevant information was done as thoroughly as possible in order

to provide a comprehensive report. Nevertheless, given the quantity and variety of source documents it is possible

that individual relevant activities might have been overlooked. However, the scope for mistakes should be fairly

small and hence any possible errors should not aff ect the overall picture presented in this report.


Chapter 1 – General Context

A. TRENDS AND RELEVANT CONCEPTSSince the late 1990s, research on migrant integration has expanded. Apart from the traditional issues of work,

education, housing and health, as well as political, social and cultural/religious dimensions, it includes new topics

such as language, interethnic relations, discrimination, age, gender and generation9. Integration policies are far more

than providing facilities to immigrants to adapt and function in their new country and be part of their new society.

The International Migration Integration Social Cohesion (IMISCOE) suggests that the traditional thinking of

migration and integration as two independent fi elds of analysis should be merged into one more complex fi eld

to be approached from a new perspective of analysis and policy. In this respect, the societal systems into which

the phenomenon of migration and the immigrants themselves are to be integrated must be considered “both as

determinants of integration processes and as structures that (may) change as a consequence of migration and

settlement”10. Within this framework, contemporary policy thinkers tend to consider integration requirements as

criteria for the selection and admission of immigrants11.

1. International Developments

The Global Commission on International Migration sets as one of its 6 principles of migration policies the

strengthening of social cohesion through integration. It states in particular that migrants should benefi t from a

mutual process of adaptation and integration that accommodates cultural diversity and fosters social cohesion.

It further suggests that the integration process should be actively supported by local and national authorities,

employers and members of civil society, and should be based on a commitment to non-discrimination and

gender equity12.

In the same spirit, the European Commission considers the integration of migrants and minorities as a very broad

and multidimensional concept; migrant integration takes place at every level and in every sector of the society

involving a wide range of stakeholders.

According to the ILO, “integration is among the most diffi cult challenges raised by international migration today.

Finding workable balances between host community respect for diff erence and immigrant participation remains

extremely diffi cult for most countries. The integration policy dilemmas faced by many States are rarely separable

9. Penninx, R., D. Spencer and N. Van Hear, Migration and Integration in Europe: The State of Research. ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford, 2008.

10. IMISCOE, Policy Brief, The Future for Migration Research in Europe, March 2008 No. 7.11. Ibid.12. IOM, Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action. Report of the Global Commission on International Migration, Switzerland,

October, 2005

15Chapter 1 – General Context

from more general debates on discrimination and race relations within host communities”13. The integration process

involves such diverse activities as fi nding housing, jobs, and income, gaining access to educational and health

facilities, and adopting new languages and ways of life14.

The UN views migration as an “avenue that complements broader local and national eff orts to reduce poverty and

improve human development”. That is to say, the inclusion and integration of migrants have positive eff ects not only

for the migrant families but also for the host communities15. OECD considers integration as the totality of policies

and practices allowing societies to close the gap between the performance of natives and immigrants16. A study

by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission takes a broad social

view of the value and perspectives of migrant integration. Integration does not only alleviate migrants’ poverty but

is also promoting social cohesion and public confi dence on immigrant selection17. An ILO study acknowledges the

fact that equality of opportunity, as well as non-discrimination, is of primary importance for migrant integration in

the host societies18. Non-discriminatory policies are particularly important in employment, as it was found that in

this area the discrimination of migrants and minorities is more severe than in other areas19.

Recognising the importance of migration for the host society, the 2009 Global Forum on Migration and Development,

hosted by Greece, expanded the usual debate on migrant integration by looking at the links between the creation of a

protective, enabling environment for migrants and their contributions to development. The more migrants are included,

protected and accepted in their host societies, the better they may be able to contribute to development in both host

and origin countries; therefore migration policies should be integrated into national development strategies20.

Commenting on the EU policies on migrant integration, an OECD study notes that although several relevant

directives and communications have been issued since 1999, the Commission does not yet have a signifi cant

legal basis for common EU action21. In this context, the OECD study considers immigrant integration as an “exigent

challenge for the Union as a whole”, aff ecting not only its economic prospects, but also its social cohesion and its

strategy for enlargement. Therefore, there is clearly an “overriding political imperative for action both at the EU level

and the individual Member State level”22.

13. ILO, International Labour Conference, 92nd Session, 2004, Report VI. Towards a fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy, ILO, Geneva, 2004.

14. Mansoor Ali and Bryce Quillin, The Impact of Migrants and the Receiving Society: Integration Policies (Appendix 4.1). In Mansoor Ali and Bryce Quillin (Editors), Migration and Remittances: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, The World Bank, 2007.

15. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2009, Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2009.

16. OECD, Gaining from Migration: Towards a New Mobility System, OECD Development Centre, OECD, Paris, 2007.17. Migration Policy Institute (MPI) (authors: W. Somerville and M. Sumption). Immigration and the Labour Market: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Paper

prepared for the Equality and Human rights Commission, MPI, 2009. 18. Böhning W.R and R. Zegers de Beijl, The Integration of Migrant Workers in the Labour Market: Policies and their Impact. International Migration

Papers 8, Employment Department, International Labour Offi ce, Geneva, ILO Geneva, 1995.19. In a fi rst ever EU-wide survey on the experience of immigrants and ethnic minorities regarding discrimination, the EU MIDIS conducted a face-to-

face interview with 23,500 persons in all 27 EU Member States. Of the nine areas of discrimination in everyday life looked at in the survey, discrimi-nation in employment emerged as the most signifi cant area for discriminatory treatment and the situation is similar for education. This result is characterised as alarming by the survey as education and paid employment hold the key to integration and social inclusion (EU-MIDIS: European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: Main results Report, 9/12/2009).

20. GFMD, integrating migration policies into development strategies for the benefi t of all, Athens 4-5 November 2009.21. Dayton-Johnson Jeff , Louka T. Katseli, Gregory Maniatis, Rainer Münz, Demetrios Papademetriou, Gaining from Migration: Towards a new Mobility

System, OECD Development Centre, OECD 2007.22. Ibid. p.51.


Turning to the practical recommendations of policies for integration, international organisations such as the UN,

OECD or ILO, as well as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), have more or less converging views regarding the

scope and the nature of policies to be applied for the integration of migrants and minorities in the host societies.

For the scope, they view integration as a means for reducing poverty and unemployment of immigrants and

improving human development, with further positive eff ects upon the social inclusion of migrants and minorities

and the host communities23. Integration may also improve tolerance and alleviate discrimination and xenophobia.

The converging policy recommendations include anti-discrimination measures, language courses, recognition

of diplomas and qualifi cations, programmes to increase the relevance of migrant existing qualifi cations, life-long

learning, and fair and equal access to the labour market and also to educational and health systems.

According to the MPI, any eff orts towards integration would not be successful without the involvement of several

stakeholders, including workers, fi rms, communities and the immigrants themselves, as well as central governments,

state schools, municipalities and NGOs. In addition, integration requires societies to accept change by responding

and adapting accordingly24. The UN considers that participation of migrants in decision making of integration

increases the acceptance of reform25.

2. The European Context

Offi cial estimates give about 18.5 million third country nationals as residing (in 2007) in EU-27, making up 3.8% of

its 495 million total population26. The most numerous groups of third country nationals in the EU come from Turkey

(2.3 million), Morocco (1.7 million), Albania (0.8 million) and Algeria (0.6 million)27.

The international migrant population (from third countries and Member States) in the EU-27 is about 31 million

(2008), representing 6.2% of the EU-27 population. Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the UK host about 22 million

(77%). Six Member States (Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg and Latvia) have a rather heavy weight of

migrants on their population (11.6%-18.3.0%, Luxembourg 42.6%). Less signifi cantly populated by migrants are,

generally, most of the new Member States and Finland and Netherlands from the older ones (with migrant shares

in their total population of below 5%) (Table 1 and fi gure 9).

23. ILO studies show that more than one in every three qualifi ed immigrant applicants in industrialised countries are unfairly excluded in job selection procedures (ILO, Facts on labour migration, ILO, Geneva, June 2006).

24. Migration Policy Institute (MPI) (authors: W. Somerville and M. Sumption). Immigration and the Labour Market: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Paper prepared for the Equality and Human rights Commission, MPI, 2009.

25. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report 2009, Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2009.

26. EC, Moving Europe: EU Research on Migration and Policy Needs. Directorate-General for Research: Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, European Communities, 2009.

27. EC, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Third Annual Report on Migration and Integration, COM(2007) 512 fi nal, Brussels, 11.9.2007.


Table 1: Population of foreign citizens in the EU-27 Member States, 2008

Total foreign citizens Citizens of another EU27 Member State Citizens of countries outside the EU27

000s % of total

population

000s % of total

population

000s % of total

population

EU27 30 779 6.2 11 302 2.3 19 476 3.9

Belgium 971 9.1 659 6.2 312 2.9

Bulgaria 24 0.3 4 0.0 21 0.3

Czech Republic 348 3.3 132 1.3 216 2.1

Denmark 298 5.5 93 1.7 205 3.7

Germany 7 255 8.8 2 516 3.1 4 740 5.8

Estonia* 229 17.1 8 0.6 221 16.5

Ireland 554 12.6 392 8.9 162 3.7

Greece* 906 8.1 158 1.4 748 6.7

Spain 5 262 11.6 2 113 4.7 3 149 7.0

France* 3 674 5.8 1 283 2.0 2 391 3.8

Italy 3 433 5.8 934 1.6 2 498 4.2

Cyprus 125 15.9 81 10.3 44 5.6

Latvia 415 18.3 8 0.3 408 17.9

Lithuania 43 1.3 3 0.1 40 1.2

Luxembourg 206 42.6 177 36.6 29 6.0

Hungary 177 1.8 101 1.0 76 0.8

Malta 15 3.8 8 2.0 7 1.8

Netherlands 688 4.2 263 1.6 425 2.6

Austria 835 10.0 290 3.5 545 6.6

Poland 58 0.2 25 0.1 33 0.1

Portugal 446 4.2 116 1.1 331 3.1

Romania 26 0.1 6 0.0 20 0.1

Slovenia 69 3.4 4 0.2 65 3.2

Slovakia 41 0.8 26 0.5 15 0.3

Finland 133 2.5 47 0.9 86 1.6

Sweden 524 5.7 241 2.6 284 3.1

United Kingdom* 4 021 6.6 1 615 2.6 2 406 3.9

Norway 266 5.6 138 2.9 128 2.7

Switzerland 1 602 21.1 968 12.7 634 8.3

Source: Eurostat, News release 184/2009, 16 December 2009

* Data estimated by Eurostat

Out of the 31 million foreigners in the EU-27, 11 million are residents from another EU Member State and close to

20 million are third country nationals. The fi ve largest Member States (Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom

and Italy) are hosting 75 % of the former and 78 % of the latter.


Figure 9: Share of foreigners in total population, per Member State in 2007

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

LU LV EE CY IE ES AU DE BE GR UK FR SE DK IT NL PT MT CZ SI FI HU LT SK BG PL RO

share of foreigners amongst total population EU-25 Share of foreigners amongst total population average

41,63%

18,98%17,61%

15,17%

10,49% 10,36% 9,72% 8,81% 8,81% 7,95%6,01% 5,76% 5,40% 5,11% 4,97% 4,17% 4,10%

3,40% 2,88% 2,66% 2,31% 1,67% 1,17% 0,60% 0,33% 0,14% 0,12%

Source: Eurostat, Population by citizenship, 2007

Figure 10: Split of foreigners in the EU into third country nationals and migrants from EU-27

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Third country nationals Non nationals but citizens of other EU-27 countries

LU LV EE CY IE ES AU DE BE GR UK FR SE DK IT NL PT MT CZ SI FI HU LT SK BG PL RO EU-27

EU-25

EU ms with m

easures included

on study

Source: Eurostat, Population by citizenship, 2007

The fl ows of immigrants in recent years, rather than their accumulated number, are more relevant to integration

policies, which is the concern of this report. This is because the new arrivals have a more urgent need for integration,

rather than the old residents, most of whom may have already been integrated. Thus, in 2006 (the latest year with

available data) about 3 million people immigrated to the EU-27, of which a little over 1 million were EU-27 citizens

and a little less than 2 million were non-EU citizens. Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom received 1.8 million

(767 thousand of EU-27 citizens and 1 million non-EU citizens) (Table 2).

Figures presented by Eurostat show that compared to their population, Luxembourg, followed by Ireland, Cyprus

and Spain had high immigration rates28. Half of all immigrants were younger than 29 years of age. Women, who

represent about 47 % of the immigrants, were on average younger. Non-EU citizens were younger than the migrated

EU-27 citizens29.

28. Eurostat, Migration Statistics, Statistics in Focus, 98/200829. Eurostat, Migration Statistics, Statistics in Focus, 98/2008


Table 2: Immigrants (fl ow) by citizenship group, 2006 or latest available year (actual fi gures)

Member States Total Non-nationals EU-27 citizens Non-EU citizens

AT 85,384 45,170 40,214

BE (2003) 68,800 35,143 33,657

BG - - -

CY 14,535 6,017 8,518

CZ 66,125 10,912 55,213

DE 558,467 320,727 237,740

DK 34,281 16,833 17,448

EE - - -

ES 802,971 304,349 498,622

FI 13,868 5,368 8,500

FR 182,390 5,403 176,987

UK 451,702 141,407 310,295

GR 86,693 18,588 68,105

HU 19,367 10,516 8,851

IE 84,365 65,002 19,363

IT (2003) 392,771 102,045 290,726

LT 2,237 396 1,841

LU 13,731 11,512 2,219

LV 2,305 1,066 1,239

MT 658 - -

NL 67,657 31,921 35,736

PL 1,824 409 1,415

PT 27,703 4,392 23,311

RO 7,714 1,085 6,629

SE 80,398 25,482 54,916

SI 18,251 1,741 16,510

SK 11,309 6,096 5,213

TOTAL EU*- 3,095,506 1,171,580 1,923,268

Source: Eurostat, Migration Statistics, Statistics in Focus, 98/2008

* The total of the second and third columns do not add up to the total of column one because the Malta fi gure is

not split in its two components.

The asylum applications in the EU-27 totaled 245,210 in 2009, of which exactly half were fi led in 4 Member States

(Germany, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom). From the remaining Member States, Austria, Belgium, Greece,

Italy, and Netherlands had relatively high numbers, representing another 33% of the EU total. At the other end of the

scale, insignifi cant numbers of applications are found in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, and Slovenia (Table 3).


Table 3: Asylum applications in the EU, 2009 (actual fi gures)

Member States Number of applications % Distribution by Member State

AT 15,830 6.5%

BE 17,190 7.0%

BG 850 0.3%

CY 3,200 1.3%

CZ 1,260 0.5%

DE 27,650 11.3%

DK 2,750 1.1%

EE 40 0.0%

ES 3,000 1.2%

FI 5,910 2.4%

FR 41,980 17.1%

UK 29,840 12.2%

GR 15,930 6.5%

HU 4,670 1.9%

IE 2,690 1.1%

IT 17,600 7.2%

LT 210 0.1%

LU 510 0.2%

LV 50 0.0%

MT 2,390 1.0%

NL 14,910 6.1%

PL 10,590 4.3%

PT 140 0.1%

RO 830 0.3%

SE 24,190 9.9%

SI 180 0.1%

SK 820 0.3%

EU - 27 245,210 100%

Source: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialised Countries, 2009: Statistical Overview of Asylum Applications Lodged in Europe and Selected

Non-European Countries. Division of Programme Support and Management, 23 March 2010

Considering that access to employment is the sine-qua-non for the social inclusion of migrants and minorities,

the ability of Member States to attain this goal becomes more diffi cult. It means that Member States need to

take more comprehensive actions when the degree of unemployment of these vulnerable groups is particularly

extensive. Generally, the migrant unemployment rate is considerably higher than the unemployment rate of

natives in Member States. The unemployment rate of third country nationals rose over 2008 by 5 percentage

points against 2.8 for citizens who moved from other EU Member States and 1.8 percentage points of nationals

of Member States. In 2008 (Q4) and 2009 (Q1), the unemployment rate of non-EU nationals was 7-8 percentage

points higher than that of nationals over recent years, the gap widening to 11 percentage points by the second

quarter of 200930.

30. EC, Employment in Europe, 2009


Although global labour mobility is presumed to ensure effi cient and optimal utilization of labour, a match between

migration and labour market demand in the host countries is prevented by erected barriers to the eff ective

employment of foreign workers31. These barriers determine the types of actions required, either by ESF or any other

EU policies, for migrant integration. The EC IDELE project, which points to the multi-faceted nature of immigrant

integration, presents a typology of these barriers to integration in the labour market32 (Table 4).

A major barrier is ethnicity-based discrimination in the labour market, which deprives employers from the possibility

of overcoming their manpower shortages and leads to waste of human capital and valuable knowledge. In contrast,

equal opportunities widen the choices of employers to recruit workers and create business to the benefi t of the

economy of the host country33.

Table 4: Barriers to Migrant Integration in the Labour Market

Type of barrier Description

Migration history - Legal status in the host country (including in particular legislation

which restricts asylum seekers from seeking training or

employment opportunities)

- Personal diffi culties through experience of trauma/violence in

previous country

Skills and competencies - Language skills

- Lack of education in country of destination

- Lack of recognition of qualifi cation in country of destination

- No previous work experience in country of destination

Cultural background, attitudes and motivations - Cultural background and cultural norms

- Aspirations and attitudes to work (including longer term impacts

of exclusion over generations)

Personal obligations - Family structures and norms

- Dependents

Employer attitudes, knowledge and discrimination - Prejudice and the ascribing of false or stereotypical characteristics

- Lack of knowledge about the value and relevance of qualifi cations

and experience gained in other countries

Source: EC, Directorate General for Employment, Social Aff airs and Equal Opportunities (IDELE project). Theme: Integration of Minority Groups.

Implemented by ECOTEC, 2004.

B. RELEVANT EU POLICIESWithin the EC, The Directorate General for Justice, Liberty, Security (DG JLS) deals with EU migrant integration

policy, while the Directorate General for Employment and Social Aff airs (DG EMPL) and the Directorate General for

Education and Culture (DG EAC) also play a role in the integration of migrants34. Given the diff erent perspectives

of these Directorate Generals regarding inter-country population movements, the defi nition and the usage of

“migration” also diff ers. Thus, DG JLS, refl ecting its policy priorities to develop common EU immigration and asylum

31. ILO, Facts on labour migration, ILO, Geneva, June 2006.32. EC, Directorate General for Employment, Social Aff airs and Equal Opportunities, The Metropolitan City: seeking competitive advantage through

local actions to integrate immigrants and minority groups. IDELE, Theme: Integration of minority groups 33. Kraal Karen and Judith Roosblad, Equal opportunities on the labour market for immigrant people and ethnic minorities, IMISCOE Working Paper

No. 22, July 2008.34. European Policy Centre, What does the EU do on integration? April 2008.


policies, generally refers only to non-EU migrants. Other bodies (DG Research, DG Employment and Eurostat, for

example) use the term migrant in the broader sense, to refer to migration of all citizenships, including the nationals

of Member States35. This report on the ESF support of ‘migrants and minorities’ is not concerned with the diff erent

defi nitions of migration even within the EU. Thus, any sub-group of migrants and minorities that is supported by

relevant ESF measures falls within the scope of this report.

The integration of migrants in the labour market is one of the main priorities in the framework of the European

Employment Strategy and is expected to contribute signifi cantly to the attainment of the Lisbon goals36. Therefore,

the European Commission recommends greater resort to this Strategy and also the European Social Inclusion

Process to eliminate the barriers to integration. It suggests the European Social Fund (ESF) as a policy instrument,

including the lessons learnt from the EQUAL Community Initiative37. This initiative supported innovative good

practices to prevent unemployment and fi ght labour market discrimination of immigrants38, including racism

and xenophobia39. EQUAL Development Partnerships made eff orts to overcome barriers, such as diffi culties faced

in having immigrants’ qualifi cations and experience recognised, limited language skills, the reluctance of many

employers to hire immigrants, and poor information and advisory services. EQUAL also played a key role in the

identifi cation and dissemination of good practices on the integration of asylum seekers40.

Considering the unfavourable situation of immigrants in respect to employment, unemployment and wages

compared with native workers in many Member States, their integration is identifi ed as a key priority by European

governments41. Enhanced integration could lead to a signifi cant reduction in the unemployment gap between

non-EU and EU nationals that exists, as shown above, in the Member States42.

Ever since the Amsterdam Treaty and the Tampere Summit, awareness has grown that integration can be achieved

by appropriate common, comprehensive and proactive policies43. To this eff ect, the EU has moved forward towards

establishing a legal framework for managing migration, calling for “more effi cient management of migration fl ows

at all their stages” and providing for a common migration policy that included legal migration and integration44.

The Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment of the Thessaloniki Summit of 3 June 2003 was

accepted as a basis for developing an EU integration policy45. The main policy messages from this Communication

were: fi rst, increasing immigration fl ows are necessary in the EU; second, a better integration of immigrants should

be achieved as a condition of future immigration; and third, a more coherent framework of integration policies is

35. EC, Moving Europe: EU Research on Migration and Policy Needs. Directorate-General for Research: Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, European Communities, 2009.

36. European Council, Common Basic Principles for immigrant integration policy, 19 November 2004 [http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fund-ing/doc/council_conclusions_common_basic_principles.pdf ].

37. This report does not cover the achievements of the EQUAL Community Initiative38. ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal/index_en.cfm39. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Integrating migration issues in the European Union’s relations

with third countries Brussels, 3.12.2002 COM(2002) 703 fi nal.40. Mary-Anne Kate and Jan Niessen, Locating immigrant integration policy measures in the machinery of the European Commission. A report

prepared for European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM), June 2007.41. EC, Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security, Handbook on Integration for policy-makers and practitioners, Second Edition, May 2007,

Chapter 3.42. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-201343. Penninx Rinus, Integration of Migrants: Economic, Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions, Chapter 844. European Council (TAMPERE), “Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999, Presidency Conclusions”, 1999.45. COM (2003)336. European Commission (2003), Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment. June 3rd.


needed at the EU level46. In this spirit, the Commission has provided guidance to the EU and to the Member States

for integration policies, based on the Common Basic Principles adopted by the Council in November 200447. On

the same track, one of the recommendations of the Hague Programme on integration, endorsed by the European

Council on 4-5 November 2004, was the promotion of integration and intercultural dialogue and the fi ght against

all forms of discrimination at Member State and EU level48.

The European Commission underlines the necessity for migrants and minorities to be able to access the labour

market and integrate with a status equal to the native workers49. The 2006 European Council Presidency’s Conclusions

on a comprehensive European migration policy considered migration issues as “one of the major priorities for

the EU at the start of the 21st century”50. Guideline 19 for the employment policies in Member States underlines

the need to “Ensure inclusive labour markets, enhance work attractiveness, and make work pay for job-seekers,

including disadvantaged people, and the inactive”51. Several anti-discrimination measures aiming at generating

equal opportunities for immigrants are already in force in both EU directives and national laws52.

The European Union defi nes integration “as a two-way process based on mutual rights and corresponding

obligations of legally resident third-country nationals and the host society which provides for full participation of

the immigrant”53. This implies that the host society must ensure that the individual immigrant has the possibility

to participate in economic, social, cultural and civil life. In turn, the immigrants should respect the fundamental

norms and values of the host society and participate actively in the integration process54. The Council decision

on the Employment Guidelines indicates that actions “promoting access to employment for disabled people and

integrating immigrants and minorities are particularly essential” 55.

More recently, the EU is concerned with ‘Strengthening the Global Approach to Migration’56, emphasising the

importance of the external policy dimension, as outlined in the Communication issued in October 2008. Such

concern is also expressed in the Communication on ‘A Common Immigration Policy for Europe’57 and the Pact on

Immigration and Asylum, which was formally adopted by the Council of Ministers in October 2008. The main focus

of this pact is: legal immigration and integration; the control of illegal immigration; border controls; migration and

development; and the fi nalisation of a common European asylum system. The pact stresses in particular the need to

treat migrants fairly and promote their integration into society, with an emphasis on measures promoting language

acquisition and access to employment. It also calls on the Member States to combat any forms of discrimination to

which migrants may be exposed58.

46. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-201347. European Commission, A common Agenda for Integration: Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union, COM

(2005) 389 fi nal, Brussels, 2005. 48. EC, Communication: “Policy plan on legal migration” (COM (2005) 669 fi nal).49. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-2013.50. Council of European Union, Brussels 12 February 2007, 16879/1/06, Rev. 1, CONL 51. Council decision of 12 July 2005 (2005/600/EC)52. Ibid.53. European Commission, 2003. Communication on immigration, integration and employment. COM(2003)336.54. Ibid.55. EC, ‘A Common Agenda for Integration Framework for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals in the European Union’, A Communication from

the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, Brussels, 1.9.2005-COM (2005) 389 fi nal.

56. European Commission (2008), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Strengthening the global approach to migration: increasing coordination, coherence and syner-gies. COM(2008) 611 Brussels.

57. COM(2008)359 58. Human Rights Watch, EU: Integration Policies should respect rights, New Releases, Commentary, October 31, 2008.


For the integration of refugees, the Integration Network of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)

proposes some steps: fi rstly legal steps, such as facilitating the acquisition and application of citizenship and easing

the restriction on family reunifi cation; secondly, some practical actions, such as free orientation and language

programmes, including during the reception phase, and also policies promoting and encouraging civic, socio-

economic and cultural participation59.

According to a recent (21 October 2009) proposal of the then European Commission Vice President Jacques Barrot,

there are two important issues that need regularisation. First, the clarifi cation of the legal concepts that national

governments use to defi ne who should be protected. Second, assurance of the same treatment by National

governments of the accepted refugees, for instance, in the duration of residence permits or access to health care.

Barrot expects that his proposal would be approved by EU governments and the European Parliament by 201260.

As the 2004 European Council underlined, “integration takes place simultaneously at the individual, family, and

general community and State levels, and occurs in all facets of life; in fact, integration can easily span a generation

or more. The Council, consequently, suggested that successful integration policies must engage the local, regional,

and national institutions, with which immigrants interact, in both the public and private realms. The development

and implementation of integration policy is therefore the primary responsibility of individual Member States rather

than of the Union as a whole”61.

Apart from the ESF, which will be discussed in the next section, other instruments for migrant integration and their

objectives are:

The European fund INTI (Integration of Third Country Nationals) ● 62. It promotes cooperation between Member

States, regional/local authorities and other stakeholders63 and aims to create a new form of solidarity in Member

States for enabling immigrants to fulfi l conditions of residence and facilitate their integration64.

The European Refugee Fund supports tailored made integration measures for refugees and benefi ciaries of ●

subsidiary protection whose stay in the EU is of a lasting and stable nature65.

The new PROGRESS programme 2007-2013 supports the implementation of the anti-discrimination and gender ●

equality principles.

The URBAN II Community initiative with a strong focus on social inclusion in disadvantaged urban areas ● 66.

The EURES ● 67 is a cooperation network of public employment services set up by the EC in 1993 to facilitate free

movement of workers within the European Economic Area. Partners in the network include public employment

services, trade union and employers’ organisations. The main objectives of EURES are: to inform, guide and

provide advice to potentially mobile workers on job opportunities, as well as living and working conditions

59. European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Refugees ignored in EU integration policies, PR4/5/2007/Ext/BJ. Press Release 10th May 2007.60. Deutsche Presse Agentur, Brussels seeks end to EU ‘asylum lottery’ October 22, 2009. [http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/291181,brussels-

seeks-end-to-eu-asylum-lottery.html]61. Council of the European Union, Press Release, 14615/04 (Presse 321), 19 November 2004, p. 15.62. INTI is a European Union (EU) funding programme for preparatory actions promoting the integration in the EU member states of people who are

not citizens of the EU. Its aim is also to promote dialogue with civil society, develop integration models, seek out and evaluate best practices in the integration fi eld and set up networks at European level.

63. ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/2004_2007/inti/funding_inti_en.htm64. ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/integration/funding_integration_en.htm65. ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/refugee/funding_refugee_en.htm66. ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/urban2/index_en.htm67. http://ec.europa.eu/eures/home.jsp


in the EEA; to assist employers wishing to recruit workers from other countries; and to provide advice and

guidance to workers and employers in cross-border regions. Furthermore, 2010-2013 EURES guidelines include

a request to the national public employment services to establish cooperation mechanisms with organisations

active in the provision of information and assistance for the integration of workers and their families, in particular

vulnerable groups.

In 2009, the European Commission launched two new instruments to facilitate the implementation of integration

policies. The fi rst instrument is the European Integration Forum, where EU institutions, stakeholders, and civil

society organisations exchange views on integration issues. The second instrument is the European Website on

Integration for integration practitioners and policy makers, providing high quality content from across Europe68.

These instruments put into practice the Common Basic Principles on Integration, making integration a dynamic

two-way process and helping to mainstream and evaluate integration policies in Europe69.

Recently, the EC initiated two studies on overall migrant integration in Member states. The fi rst, fi nanced by the

European Commission, calculated a composite index of integration and the second was a response to a questionnaire

by the National Contact Points on Integration. The fi rst, initiated in 2007, concerns a system of 140 policy indicators

of migrant integration (MIPEX) that assigns scores of integration in six policy areas to the Member States70. More

specifi cally, these scores located eight Member States with policies characterised as overall ‘partially favourable’ to

integration; fi ve Member States scored with ‘at least partially unfavourable’ integration policies; while ten Member

States demonstrated the lowest scores. These Member states are however vastly diversifi ed with respect to their

six areas component scores. Overall, this report states that the integration policies of the EU-25 are scoring only

halfway towards best practice.

The second qualitative assessment collected specifi c information, through a questionnaire, on third country legal

migrants concerning various dimensions of the integration process for the calendar year 2005 and the fi rst half

of 200671. In contrast to the previous assessment, this study does not assign scores, but indicates the types of

integration. The results are structured along the eleven EC Common Basic Principles on integration (CBP) and the

Common Agenda for Integration.

The results show that the Principles of integration pursued by a high number of individual Member States are:

knowledge of the host society’s language, history and institutions (20 MS); education (17 MS); access to institutions

and public and private goods and services (17 MS); and participation in the democratic process and in the formulation

of integration policies and measures (18 MS). At the other end of the spectrum, principles of integration pursued

by only a small number of Member States are: respect of the basic values of the EU (10 MS); practice of diverse

cultures and religions (8 MS); mainstreaming integration policies and measures (7 MS); and clear goals, indicators

and evaluation mechanisms (8 MS).

68. EU Funding News, Launch of two new tools in the area of integration: the ‘European Integration Forum’ and the ‘European Web Site on Integration’, 23 April 2009.

69. EC, Two new tools in the area of integration: The ‘European Integration Forum’ and the ‘European Web Site on Integration’, Memo/09/166, Brussels 20 April 2009.

70. The six policy areas are: labour market access, family reunion, long-term residence, political participation, access to nationality and anti-discrimi-nation (Jan Niessen, Thomas Huddleston and Laura Citron in cooperation with Andrew Geddes and Dirk Jacobs, Migrant Integration Policy Index, The British Council, September 2007.



Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

A. INTEGRATION OF MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES AS A TARGET OF ESF SUPPORTESF is an important fi nancial instrument for actions of Member States in supporting the integration of migrants and

minorities72. The ESF regulations for both the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 make provisions for the support of

migrants and minorities, the former indirectly - without targeting them - through action on social exclusion and the

latter by explicitly setting migrants and minorities as targets.

Regulation 1784/1999 for the programming period 2000-2006 states its aim in Article 2b of the policy fi eld Promoting

Equal Opportunities as: “promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with particular emphasis

on those exposed to social exclusion”73.

Regulation 1081/2006 for the programming period 2007-2013 places emphasis on the migration issue and

explicitly targets migration along with labour mobility. Article 3.1.b(iv) states the need for “specifi c action to increase

the participation of migrants in employment and thereby strengthen their social integration and to facilitate geographic

and occupational mobility of workers and integration of cross-border labour markets, including through guidance,

language training and validation of competences and acquired skills”. Furthermore, in Article 3.1.c(i) this regulation

suggests the search for “pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people, such as

people experiencing social exclusion, early school leavers, ‘minorities’” and others, while Article 3.1.c(ii) underlines the

need for “acceptance of diversity in the workplace and in the accessing and progressing in the labour market” 74. Finally,

emphasis is given in recital 6 to the “integration of migrants, including those seeking asylum that in some Member

States have no work permit”.

Most of the ESF interventions that are related to migrants and minorities fall under the domain of social inclusion

and are dealt with in the policy fi eld “Promoting equal opportunities for all in accessing the labour market, with

particular emphasis on those exposed to social exclusion”. However, activities in other ESF policy fi elds, such as

“Developing and Promoting Active Labour Market”; “Improving Women’s access to and Participation in the Labour

Market”; or “Life Long Learning” support in various ways the integration of migrants and minorities or some sub-

groups of them, such as minority women.


INTI is a European Union (EU) funding programme for preparatory actions promoting the integration in the EU member states of people who are not citizens of the EU. Its aim is also to promote dialogue with civil society, develop integration models, seek out and evaluate best practices in the integration fi eld and set up networks at European level.

73. EC, Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund. 74. EC, Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999.

27Chapter 2 – ESF Interventions and Achievements

The integration of third country immigrants can be achieved through a two-track approach: mainstreaming and

specifi c migration actions75. The former suggests horizontal policies in all ESF programmes, ensuring that under all

priorities, special attention is paid to immigrant integration. At the same time, specifi c actions can be pursued in

parallel, targeting migrants through the priorities of access to employment and social inclusion.

Relevant ESF interventions address the following target groups:

Migrants (EU Citizens, Third Country Nationals) ●

Refugees and asylum seekers ●

Ethnic Minorities ● 76

Religious Minorities ●

National Minorities ●

Roma ●

Roma is a very special group of population numbering more than 10 million people in Europe, and they make up

the continent’s largest minority population77. Due to their particular importance, and the need for policies to suit

their culture and work practices78, a separate study on the European Social Fund and Roma has been prepared79.

Nevertheless, the present report cannot set aside the case of Roma that make up a considerable part of ‘minorities’

in some Member States. Therefore, any ESF measure on migrants and minorities that make special reference to

Roma will be considered in this report80.

B. ESF INTERVENTIONS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES

1. Measures and Priority Axes

Tables 5 and 6 present the ESF Operational Programmes, Objectives, Measures and Priority axes that support

migrants and minorities for the two programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013. For the period 2000-2006,

207 Operational Programmes (OP) were implemented in 21 Member States, of which 108 addressed migrants

and minorities, encompassing 276 measures (17.6%) out of the 1567 total ESF measures. 184 measures provide

quantitative data on participants while 92 measures have qualitative information but no data on the number

of migrants and minorities involved. Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy have the largest number of

measures, representing 70% of the total number of measures that support migrants and minorities.

75. EC, Migrants: Integration of Migrants in the European Social Fund 2007-2013.76. Ethnic minorities are by defi nition nationals of the country in which they reside. Ethnic minority groups include former migrant workers, their off -

spring who have obtained the nationality of their country of residence, and people gaining a new nationality as a result of geopolitical reconfi gu-rations. Their right to equal treatment is stipulated in the ILO’s Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), which aims to combat discrimination. In article 1.1(a) of this Convention, discrimination is defi ned as “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin which has the eff ect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation”.

77. Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma: Background Report produced by BBI on behalf of the European Commission, Brussels 2010.

78. EC, The Roma in the European Social Fund 2007-201379. Ibid.80. A recently commissioned EU study on the discrimination of minorities (EU-MIDIS) found that the pressing problems in the Roma communities are

very briefl y related to the following issues80: education, high unemployment rate, housing to avoid ghettoisation, health and health education, gender discrimination inside Roma communities, Roma culture as part of the national culture, and Roma political participation.


Overall, one out of six measures addresses migrants and minorities. In several Member States this share is somewhat

higher and in Luxembourg almost three out of four measures address migrants and minorities.

Table 5: Measures addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2000-2006

Member

State

Total

number of

OPs

OPs

supporting

migrants

and

minorities

Objective 1

OPs

Objective 2

OPs

Objective 3

OPs

Total

number

of ESF

measures

Number of

measures

supporting

migrants

and

minorities

Share of

measures

addressing

migrants

and

minorities

(in %)

AT 5 2 1 1 0 23 2 8.7%

BE 11 6 1 0 5 95 14 14.7%

CY 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0.0%

CZ 3 2 1 0 1 21 4 19.0%

DE 15 9 5 3 1 116 26 22.4%

DK 2 1 0 0 1 11 2 18.2%

EE 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.0%

ES 35 25 15 1 9 347 99 28.5%

FI 6 5 2 2 1 29 7 24.1%

FR 28 4 1 2 1 146 5 3.4%

GR 18 6 6 0 0 111 8 7.2%

HU 2 2 2 0 0 15 4 26.7%

IE 3 3 3 0 0 19 3 15.8%

IT 27 22 7 0 15 320 38 11.9%

LT 1 1 1 0 0 5 1 20.0%

LU 1 1 0 0 1 22 16 72.7%

LV 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.0%

MT 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0.0%

NL 2 2 1 0 1 15 4 26.7%

PL 2 1 1 0 0 16 1 6.2%

PT 15 2 2 0 0 72 4 5.6%

SE 7 2 1 0 1 25 5 20.0%

SI 1 1 1 0 0 4 1 25.0%

SK 2 1 1 0 0 12 1 8.3%

UK 17 10 4 3 3 126 31 24.6%

Total 207 108 56 12 40 1,567 276 17.6%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of the ESF Operational Programmes 2000-2006

In the current programming period 2007-2013, all Member States except for Cyprus and Lithuania have announced

actions supporting migrants and minorities through 106 out of 117 OPs. 180 Priority Axes announce actions in

support of migrants and minorities, representing 28.4% of the total number of priorities. Nine Member States (6 old

and 3 new Member States) are well above the EU average, with shares ranging between 33% and 67%.


Table 6: Priority axes addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2007-2013

Member StateTotal number

of OPs

OPs

supporting

migrants and

minorities

Convergence

objective OPs

RCE objective

OPs

Total priority

axes

Priority Axes

supporting

migrants and

minorities

Share of

priority axes

addressing

migrants and

minorities

(in %)

AT 2 1 0 1 10 2 20.0%

BE 6 6 1 5 26 6 23.1%

BG 2 1 1 0 12 4 33.3%

CY 1 0 0 0 3 0 0.0%

CZ 3 3 2 1 21 4 19.0%

DE 18 18 6 12 84 33 39.3%

DK 1 1 0 1 3 1 33.3%

EE 1 1 1 0 7 3 42.9%

ES 22 21 10 11 123 27 21.9%

FI 2 2 0 2 7 3 42.9%

FR 5 4 3 1 21 4 19.0%

GR 4 2 1 1 47 4 8.5%

HU 2 2 1 1 14 4 28.6%

IE 1 1 0 1 3 2 66.7%

IT 24 24 7 17 146 50 3.4%

LT 2 0 1 0 6 0 0.0%

LU 1 1 0 1 4 2 50.0%

LV 1 1 0 0 6 1 16.7%

MT 1 1 1 0 5 1 20.0%

NL 1 1 0 1 4 1 25.0%

PL 1 1 1 0 10 2 20.0%

PT 4 3 2 1 17 4 23.5%

RO 2 1 1 0 10 6 60.0%

SE 1 1 0 1 3 1 33.3%

SI 1 1 1 0 6 1 16.7%

SK 2 2 2 0 10 2 20.0%

UK 6 6 3 3 25 12 48.0%

Total 117 106 45 61 633 180 28.4%


The information in the tables above show that, moving from the past to the current programming period, there is

an increased attention to migrants and minorities in ESF. This is demonstrated fi rstly by the proportion of all OPS

that address migrants and minorities, which has increased from 52% in the past period to 91% in the current period,

and secondly by the proportion of all measures with actions on migrants and minorities (18%) in 2000-2006, and

the proportion of Priority axes (28%) supporting migrants and minorities in the current period.

The fact that some Member states in either period have not resorted to the ESF funding for the integration of

migrants and minorities does not necessarily mean that they have not applied policies of integration, but only

that they do it through other means, including other EU Funding instruments and national resources, as indicated

above81.



2. Expenditure on Migrants and Minorities


Considering that the budget of ESF programmes is presented up to the level of the measure (2000-2006) or the

priority axis (2007-2013) and that these units usually address more target groups than migrants and minorities

alone, the claimed expenditure (in 2000-2006) and the budget (in 2007-2013) allocated specifi cally to migrants and

minorities is not available and can only be roughly estimated82. The measures that support migrants and minorities,

among others, represented 25% of the total expenditure claimed during the ESF period 2000-2006.

Table 7 presents the detailed allocation of claimed expenditure for measures supporting migrants and minorities

per Member State. The range is enormous and goes from 0% up to 98%, with the EU average being 25%.

Table 7: Claimed expenditure of measures supporting migrants and minorities (2000-2006)

MSNumber of measures

supporting M&M

M&M expenditure (in €

million)

total expenditure (in €

million)

Share of M&M on total

expenditure

AT 2 8 1,326 0.6%

BE 14 1,202 2,422 49.6%

CY 0 0 22 0.0%

CZ 4 68 297 22.9%

DE 26 4,439 20,930 21.2%

DK 2 246 779 31.6%

EE 0 0 71 0.0%

ES 99 9,617 17,388 55.3%

FI 7 424 2,365 17.9%

FR 5 1,445 12,204 11.8%

GR 8 316 4,783 6.6%

HU 4 54 288 18.8%

IE 3 270 1,778 15.2%

IT 38 2,503 12,902 19.4%

LT 1 15 166 9.0%

LU 16 46 47 97.9%

LV 0 0 115 0.0%

MT 0 0 9 0.0%

NL 4 424 2,458 17.2%

PL 1 66 1,776 3.7%

PT 4 819 7,073 11.6%

SE 5 1,004 2,661 37.7%

SI 1 6 60 10.0%

SK 1 1 241 0.4%

UK 31 3,854 13,285 29.0%

Total 276 26,827 105,446 25.4%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of the ESF Operational Programmes 2000-2006 - EC Structural Fund Database (SFC), situation in

September 2008 (2000-2006)

82. As an indication of this magnitude, though not pursuing it any further because of its inaccuracy, a very rough estimated aggregate fi gure of the ESF claimed expenditure by Member States, during the period 2000-2006, for fi nancing the known fi gures of migrants and minorities is about € 8 billion. This was calculated from the total expenditure quoted by each relevant measure and the corresponding ratio of migrants and minorities over total participants of the measure This estimated total ESF expenditure is then totalled for each of the 12 Member States that provide data on migrants and minorities. But as noted above, many more migrants and minorities that do not appear in the statistics benefi t from the € 13.5 billion of the ESF fi nance that among others also support migrants and minorities.


Out of the total ESF expenditure of € 105 billion in the period 2000-2006, € 27 billion (25%) was spent on measures

supporting migrants and minorities. The Community contribution in these measures was € 13.5 billion (50%).

Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg and Sweden have relatively high shares of expenditure supporting migrants

and minorities in the total expenditure of this period, ranging between 32% and 55% (98% in Luxembourg), with an

EU average of 25%. At the other end of the spectrum, very low expenditure shares, between 0.4% and 10%, can be

seen in Austria, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Possible disparities between the share of M&M measures per Member State and the share of expenditure for M&M

per Member State can be explained by the fact that expenditure is not equally allocated amongst the several ESF

measures.

The fi nancial information available does not allow for a systematic breakdown per target group of the claimed

expenditure per measure, OP or Member State. There are only a few instances in which there is specifi c fi nancial

data on a given target group. One such case concerns the Roma, where fi nancial information is available on four

Member States (Spain, Hungary, Ireland and Slovakia) which have implemented interventions directly aimed at this

group. Ten measures were dedicated to activities for Roma as described in table 8. A total € 806 million has been

spent on these activities, € 506 million from the community fund and almost € 300 million from national private

and public funding83.

Table 8: Identifi ed measures clearly targeting Roma (ESF co-funded expenditure in 2000-2006

MSNumber of

Measures

ESF co-funded

claimed

expenditure €

million

EU claimed

expenditure €

million

National

Public claimed

expenditure €

million

National

Private claimed

expenditure €

million

HU 1 24 18 6 0

SK 1 79 63 16 0

ES 7 236 152 71 13

IE 1 467 273 194 0

Total 10 806 506 287 13

Source: Di Nardo L., Koncokova E., The European Social Fund and Roma, Brussels 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/esf_roma/

article_9932_en.htm#, Brussels 2010


In the current programming period 2007-2013, the priority axes that among others support migrants and minorities

represent 44% of the total budget.

Table 9 presents a detailed account of the Member States’ budget allocated to priority axes that support migrants

and minorities. Just as had been the case in 2000-2006, the range is very wide. The budget of these priority axes

amounts to € 52 billion out of the total of € 117 billion for this period, while the Community contribution is almost €

32 billion, which is 61% of the budget of priority axes supporting migrants and minorities. Ten Member States (7 old

and 3 new) in the relevant priority axes have shares between 56%-99%, which is well above the EU average (44%). 7

Member States (4 old and 3 new) have relatively low budget shares, ranging between 8.4% and 28%.



Table 9: Budget allocated to priority axes supporting migrants and minorities, 2007-2013

MSNumber of priority axes

supporting M&M

M&M budget (in €

million)

Total budget (in €

million)

Share of M&M on total

budget

AT 2 398 1,184 33.6%

BE 6 644 2,320 27.8%

BG 4 680 1,395 48.7%

CY 0 0 150 0.0%

CZ 4 1,567 4,436 35.3%

DE 33 8,737 15,666 55.8%

DK 1 358 510 70.2%

EE 3 334 462 72.3%

ES 27 5,035 11,426 44.1%

FI 3 472 1,420 33.2%

FR 4 2,679 10,275 26.1%

GR 4 582 5,726 10.2%

HU 4 2,561 4,270 60.0%

IE 2 1,354 1,360 99.6%

IT 50 9,013 15,321 58.8%

LT 0 0 1,210 0.0%

LU 2 39 50 78.0%

LV 1 224 657 34.1%

MT 1 37 132 28.0%

NL 1 790 1,705 46.3%

PL 2 2,059 11,420 18.0%

PT 4 1,292 9,210 14.0%

RO 6 3,926 4,335 90.6%

SE 1 929 1,383 67.2%

SI 1 75 889 8.4%

SK 2 297 1,764 16.8%

UK 12 7,684 8,598 89.4%

Total 180 51,766 117,275 44.1%


The priority theme number 70 “Specifi c action to increase migrants’ participation in employment and thereby

strengthen their social integration”84 is budgeted with € 1.17 billion of community funds in the current period.

Since any activity supporting disadvantaged groups - to which migrants and minorities are part - constitutes a form

of social inclusion, migrants and minorities will additionally benefi t from the budget of € 9.98 billion allocated to

the priority theme number 71: “Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people;

combating discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of diversity

at the workplace” 85.

84. Annex II of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 200685. Id.


One should be very careful in comparing the fi nancial information for both programming periods not only because

new Member States were present just for a part of 2000-2006, but also because the programming units of the

current period (priority axes) are much bigger than the measures of the previous period. However, the information

available seems to indicate that compared to the previous period, there is an increase of 10 percentage points in

interventions addressing migrants and minorities, as well as an increase of 19 percentage points between 2000-

2006 expenditure and 2007-2013 budget for actions targeting M&M.

C. ESF ACHIEVEMENTS ON MIGRANTS AND MINORITIES

1. Aggregate Achievements 2000-2006

On the basis of data for 12 Member States providing relevant fi gures, 1.166 million migrants and minorities - 949,000

migrants and 217,000 minorities - participated in ESF programmes during the period 2000-2006, and benefi ted

from the implemented 184 measures. Spain alone has a share of 58% in the total number of migrants and minorities

funded by the ESF through these measures, followed by Italy with 14% and Greece with about 8%. Table 10 also

indicates that the share of migrants and minorities among the total participants is very low in several measures.

Table 10: Number of migrants and minorities and total participants,

for Member States reporting relevant data, 2000-200686

Member StatesMigrants and

minorities

Total ESF

participants in

measures that deal

with migrants and

minorities

% migrants and

minorities on total

participants

Number of

migrants

Number of

minorities

BE 81,662 476,229 17.1 7,193 74,469

DE 12,062 1,049,503 1.0 12,001 61

ES 680,185 15,730,399 4.3 680,185 -

FI 9,977 156,728 6.4 - 9,977

UK 37,219 1,294,985 2.8 - 37,219

GR 93,519 175,232 53.3 - 93,519

HU 131 37,773 0.3 - 131

IE 16,710 200,713 7.6 16,710 -

IT 164,003 1,679,154 9.5 163,964 39

LU 15,940 28,634 55.7 15,940 -

NL 1,783 6,464 1.8 - 1,783

SE 53,361 190,307 28.0 53,361 -

Total 1,166,552 21,026,121 5.5 949,354 217,198

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of ESF Operational Programme reports, 2000-2006

Moreover, due consideration should be given to the 92 measures in 9 Member States which provide only qualitative

information on the ESF interventions on migrants and minorities. These measures have involved an unknown

number of migrants and minorities. A case in point is Denmark, which does not report any migrant or minority

fi gures, but nevertheless has implemented actions for these groups.

86. Note: the values on this table are presented as they were reported by the Member States, nevertheless the presentation and understanding of the categories “migrants” and “minorities” is not always clear or consistent amongst member states. Therefore, it is plausible that each category might include values from the other.


Some Member States (Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Sweden) include only migrants in their programmes, and

others (Finland, Greece, Hungary, Netherland and the United Kingdom) only minorities, while the rest of the 12

Member States include both (Table 10). Spain, Italy and Sweden report 95% of the migrants, whereas 92% of the

minorities are reported in OPs from Belgium, Greece and the UK.

Although Roma is an important minority in several Member States, the ESF Managing Authorities reported on only

about 100,000 Roma from fi ve Member States: Finland (500), Greece (33,000), Hungary (23,000), Ireland (7,000) and

Spain (35,000). These fi gures represent the minimum level of participation since other activities involving Roma

have been funded in other Member States and under the EQUAL initiative87.

2. Achievements by Type of Intervention, 2000-2006

ESF interventions usually address persons, systems or both. This study allocates the relevant measures on migrants

and minorities to one of two broad groups, i.e. measures addressed to persons (I) and measures addressed to systems

and structures (II). Each group covers a wide spectrum of policies and interventions which can be further divided

in three sub-groups, representing diff erent types of ESF interventions for migrants and minorities. Social inclusion

is the policy fi eld that embraces most of the ESF interventions on migrants and minorities. Some overlapping of

measures between diff erent types of intervention is inevitable, especially for measures that are addressed to both

persons and systems.

I. Individualised Actions and Pathways to Integration

1. Training and lifelong learning: Individual personalised training and education of all kinds for both youths and

adults.

2. Information, counselling and guidance: Assistance off ered to individuals through information giving,

counselling or guidance by any governmental or private agency or institution, for job seeking, increasing

employability and facilitating access to the labour market.

3. Integrated actions: This is a combined type of intervention that encompasses all sorts of integrated or

sequential actions, including actions of the above two sub-groups when they are taken as part of this package.

Such integrated packages may incorporate orientation, balance of competences, personalised counselling,

training and orientation courses, placements with companies and guidance to work, or other actions foreseen in

measures focusing on active labour market policies.

II. Systems, Mechanisms and Practices for Social Inclusion and the Fight against Discrimination

1. Networking and organisational support: Networking and partnerships between diff erent stakeholders and

public and private agencies at the national and local level; assisting existing and promoting new types of work

organisation.



2. Promoting entrepreneurship: Assistance to existing companies for the integration process of migrants and

minorities; help to business start-ups through training and guidance concerning management and entrepreneurial

skills; promotion of new models of entrepreneurship; development of advisory services for entrepreneurs and

support of mechanisms for SMEs.

3. Supporting education and training systems and practices: System development for facilitating access to

literacy, numeracy and basic adult education of migrants and minorities; development of a strategic and fl exible

framework for lifelong learning; training the trainers; development of methods of connecting language learning

and the labour market; provision of programmes of intercultural education and programmes for facilitating

coexistence in school of native and migrant pupils to help combat social exclusion.

A synopsis of this typology of ESF activities on the support of migrants and minorities is as follows:

Individualised actions to persons

and pathways to integration

Systems, mechanisms and practices for

social inclusion and the fi ght against

discrimination

Training and lifelong

learning

- personalised training and

education

Information,

counselling and

guidance

- job searching

- increasing employability

- facilitating access to the labour

market

Integrated actions - balance of competences,

- personalised counselling,

- training and orientation

- internships with companies

- guidance to work, etc.

Networking and

organisational support

- between private stakeholders

- between public and private agencies

- promoting new types of work organisation

Promoting

Entrepreneurship

- help business start-ups

- assist existing companies

- promote new models of entrepreneurship

- develop advisory services for entrepreneurs

- support mechanisms for SMEs

Supporting Education

and Training systems

and practices

- develop systems for access to literacy,

numeracy and basic adult education

- develop a strategic and fl exible framework

for lifelong learning

- develop methods of connecting language

learning and the labour market

- design programmes of intercultural

education

- design programmes for coexistence in

school of native and migrant pupils


Figure 11 presents the relative signifi cance of the two main groups of measures. An important fi nding is that 45%

of the relevant measures address both persons and systems and therefore off er a combination of the activities

presented in the table above.

Figure 11: Measures on migrants and minorities with actions for persons (I),

systems (II) and jointly for both (I&II), 2000-2006

I-119 I&II- 129 II- 28


Figure 12 indicates the incidence of each of the sub-groups. The majority of person-related measures are of an

integrated nature, i.e. integrated or sequential actions for the support of migrants and minorities. All three sub-

groups are well represented in the measures addressing systems and structures.

Figure 12: ESF measures supporting migrants and minorities by type of intervention, 2000-2006

63

26

159

55 59

43

training and lifelong learning

Information counselling and guidance

Integrated actions Networking and organizational support

Promoting Entreprenurship

Supporting Education and training systems

and practices


Table 11 presents the detailed allocation of measures supporting migrants and minorities into the above 6 types of

interventions per Member State for the period 2000-2006.


Table 11: Migrants and minorities’ measures, by typology per Member State, 2000-2006

Member

States

Total number

of measures

Measures supporting peopleMeasures supporting systems, structures and

practices

Training

and lifelong

learning

Information,

counselling

and guidance

Integrated

actions

Networking

and organisa-

tional support

Promoting

Entrepre-

neurship

Supporting

Education

and training

systems and

practices

AT 2 - - 2 - - -

BE 14 1 1 11 1 - -

CY 0 - - 1 - - -

CZ 4 1 - - 2 - 2

DE 26 5 2 16 2 4 4

DK 2 - - - 2 - -

EE 0 - - - - - -

ES 99 31 - 54 6 29 8

FI 7 1 - 4 3 1 3

FR 5 2 1 1 1 - 1

UK 31 8 4 16 6 14 6

GR 8 - 1 4 3 - 1

HU 4 1 - 1 3 - 1

IE 3 - - - 2 - 1

IT 38 6 3 29 15 5 13

LT 1 - - 1 - 1 -

LU 16 3 2 8 5 - 3

LV 0 - - - - - -

MT 0 - - - - - -

NL 4 - - 4 - - -

PL 1 - - 1 - - -

PT 4 2 - 2 2 1 -

SE 5 1 1 3 2 3 -

SI 1 1 - 1 - - -

SK 1 - - - - 1 -

Grand Total 276 63 26 159 55 59 43


Note: Due to the overlapping of some measures in the two major divisions, i.e. support to persons and support to

systems and structures, the sum of the allocated fi gures exceeds the number of total measures in the fi rst column

of data.

Four Member States (Germany, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom) have implemented 115 out of the 159 measures

with integrated actions to persons, while in the category of actions to systems and structures, three Member States

(Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom) have adopted 102 out of 157 relevant measures. For the promotion of

entrepreneurship in particular, Spain and the United Kingdom made use of 43 of the total 49 measures supporting

entrepreneurship.


Figure 13 shows that the majority of the claimed expenditure for measures addressing migrants and minorities

went to measures supporting persons.

Figure 13: Division of expenditure per type of intervention, 2000-2006

59%

6%

35%Only Group I - People

Only Group II - Systems and Structures

Group I&II


A more detailed account of the allocation of this expenditure by type of intervention is given in table 12.

Table 12: Expenditure (Community plus national and private) on people, on systems and structures,

and combined expenditure on both through the measures that support migrants and minorities,

2000-2006 (in € million)

Member StatesExpenditure only on

people measures

Expenditure only on

systems and structures

measures

Expenditure on people

and systems and

structures combined

measures

Total

AT 8 - - 8

BE 1,202 1 - 1,203

CZ - 4 64 68

DE 4,226 88 125 4,439

DK - 246 - 246

ES 6,724 299 2,595 9,618

FI - 207 217 424

FR 1,432 4 8 1,444

UK 459 310 3,085 3,854

GR 174 96 46 316

HU - 18 36 54

IE - 270 - 270

IT 997 - 1,506 2,503

LT - - 15 15

LU 32 3 11 46

NL 424 - - 424

PL 66 - - 66

PT 159 - 660 819

SE - - 1,004 1,004

SI 5 - - 5

SK - - 1 1

Grand Total 15,908 1,546 9,373 26,827



The sum of total claimed expenditure for the implementation of measures that, among others, fi nance migrants and

minorities, amounted for the period 2000-2006 to € 27 billion, of which € 16 billion went to the support of persons and

€ 9.5 billion to the joint support of persons and systems and structures. Only € 1.5 billion was spent on systems and

structures alone. Spain spent over one-third (€ 9.6 billion) of the total sum. Four Member States (Belgium, Germany,

Spain, and France) have absorbed 85% of the total expenditure allocated to persons, while Spain, Italy, Sweden and the

United Kingdom have spent 87% of the total amount addressing both persons and systems.

A total of 1.166 million migrants and minorities have reportedly benefi ted from ESF programmes in 2000-2006. A

considerable number of these have benefi ted from the individual support and from the services provided through

the support of systems and structures. Due to the number of M&M assisted by measures under these two types of

interventions, the sum of EU-wide participations presented on table 13 (1.743 million) in the two main categories

of interventions (people and systems/structures) exceeds the number of participating individuals (1.200 million).

With this caveat, the number of benefi ciaries from actions directed towards persons is about 1 million and from

actions towards systems and structures about 740,000. Figure 14 shows the number of migrants and minorities that

benefi ted from the ESF programmes.

Figure 14: Migrant and minority participants per type of intervention, 2000-2006

177911,8081

117538,7448

703521,2088

117429,488

352553,1651

274404,6851

training and lifelong learning

Information counselling and guidance

Integrated actions Networking and organizational support

Promoting Entreprenurship

Supporting Education and training systems

and practices


Figure 14 shows that the sub-group of integrated actions contains by far the biggest number of benefi ciaries.

The promotion of entrepreneurship also reached a considerable number of migrants and minorities.


Although Roma are included among the total number of migrants and minorities, it is useful to note that the

77 measures supporting Roma and other vulnerable groups are promoting employment (37%) and training (26%).

Moreover, particular attention is given to system actions improving the infrastructure (18%).88

The number of benefi ciaries of the ESF programme at the level of Member States per type of intervention is

presented in table 13.

Table 13: Migrants and minorities by type of intervention per Member State, 2000-2006

Member

States

Number of

measures

supporting

migrants and

minorities

People Systems and Structures

Training

and lifelong

learning

Information,

counselling

and guidance

Integrated

actions

Networking

and

organisational

support

Promoting

Entrepre-

neurship

Supporting

Education

and training

systems and

practices

BE 14 - 1,085 80,578 - - -

DE 26 5,036 109 5,610 145 940 2,701

ES 99 115,555 82,703 432,472 36,488 278,358 92,630

FI 7 1,770 - 8,207 8,123 - 1,854

UK 31 8,660 2,107 20,117 5,650 15,661 4,051

GR 8 - - - - - 93,519

HU 4 - - - 131 - -

IE 3 - - - - - 16,710

IT 38 27,880 15,435 120,687 47,133 23,726 58,687

LU 16 342 129 15,346 267 - 4,253

NL 4 - - 1,783 - - -

SE 5 18,669 15,971 18,721 19,492 33,868 -

Total 255 177,912 117,539 703,521 117,429 352,553 274,405


The table shows that there are in particular many interventions focusing on M&M in three Member States (Spain,

Italy and Sweden). In other Member States, notably Greece and Ireland, a large number of M&M benefi ted from

actions supporting education and training systems.

Spain has put particular emphasis on integrated actions and entrepreneurship. In fact, Spain applied a variety

of actions including training, the provision of administrative information and the development of partnerships

(see Insight 1 for Spain). Italy also emphasised integrated actions, while Sweden, targeting persons with a foreign

background, focused on promoting entrepreneurship, networking and partnership (see Insight 2 for Sweden).

Greece built training facilities which it then used for training and other services to benefi ciaries (see insight 3 for

Greece). Many benefi ciaries from the United Kingdom were involved in integrated actions (see insight 4 for the

United Kingdom). Germany and Finland reported a limited number of participants mainly involved in integrated

actions, training and lifelong learning and networking.



Insight 1: The multi-dimensional programme for migrants in Aragón, Spain89

Spain has a variety of actions targeting migrants. One of these actions is described as migrant’s socio-

vocational mediation and aims to help with the hiring of temporary workers in agricultural/farming activities

by providing information and administrative assistance to both employers and jobseekers. This action was

implemented by the Spanish Labour Relations Services in Aragón in collaboration with the Aragón Institute

of Employment (INAEM). The Federation of Aragón´s Agricultural Cooperatives, the Farmers’ Union and the

Association of Agricultural Entrepreneurs cooperated to programme the workplaces according to seasonal

farming/agricultural needs and manage the project.

A second action of this measure, entitled “Migrants”, was implemented by the training service of the Aragón

Institute of Employment (INAEM) and the Department of Economics, Finance and Employment of the Aragón

Government. It off ered training programmes specially designed for migrants, including Spanish lessons for

migrants, alphabetisation and initial training in sectors off ering jobs (welding, industrial cleaning, nursing home

assistance for old people, hotel sector).

A third action of this measure concerns orientation and counselling to support the integration of the migrant

population. The Aragón Government has signed several partnerships for promoting programmes for migrants,

especially those recently arrived who are more vulnerable, providing various, mostly legal services, but also

orientation services. A number of professional legal associations and social agencies cooperate in this eff ort.

Other services provided to migrants include mediation, training and awareness. Furthermore, the University of

Zaragoza has studied and reported about the impact of migration in Aragón´s economy, whereas the Picarral

Foundation provided training materials for the integration of migrants in the hotel sector. Finally, the Doctors of

the World helped with a programme preventing the Ulysses syndrome. Under this third action, almost 25,000

migrants were supported of which almost 10,000 were women. Most benefi ciaries were between 25 and 45

years old, possessed a vocational training degree and had a job.

89. 2000ES053PO301-7,2 Aragón Obj. 3


Insight 2: Sweden: developing networking and regional partnerships on integration and diversity90

In Sweden, measure 3.1, entitled “Integration and diversity”, aims to integrate people with a foreign background

and disabled persons into the labour market through skills development, validation of training, facilitation

of self-employment and increased ICT skills. The starting point is to test new approaches that can provide

additional and eff ective training methods. It concerns links to the corporate/activity action plans and the

competence analysis plans they have prepared. The action of this priority is characterised by a high degree

of fl exibility and adaptation to regional and local needs and conditions. It is therefore a task for the regional

partnerships to help with formulating calls for projects in this action which respond to the needs of the regions

and which stimulate interesting applications.

The primary target group are unemployed persons for whom the status as foreigner or their disability is a

major obstacle to entering the labour market. The total number of benefi ciaries was 27,989, of which 14,382

women. From the total, 18,668 were migrants, 7,193 EU citizens and 11,475 third country nationals. Examples

of activities are:

networking and opportunities for participants to show their real ability; ●

interaction between local trade unions and interest associations that engage in the situation of the target ●

groups;

targeted competence development and training measures in line with corporate needs; ●

competence development analysis as a basis for corporate action plans on diversity; ●

validation of professional skills acquired abroad; ●

furthering new businesses, business knowledge and promoting innovation eff orts, including ICT services. ●

90. 1999SE053DO001-3.31 Sweden, obj.3


Insight 3: Greece: Building and improving training and accompaniment facilities for assisting

specifi c disadvantaged groups in areas and sectors with high unemployment91

To deal with the exclusion of vulnerable groups from the labour market, the Greek OP for Employment Promotion

and Vocational Training created integrated intervention programmes, which were implemented by over 250

Vocational Training Centres, Centres of Accompaniment and Supportive Services and Specialised Centres.

Since the existing infrastructure for the implementation of these programmes was inadequate, additional

facilities were built for this purpose covering all needs nationwide. Overall, 2,150 integrated programmes were

implemented through which 31,694 persons benefi ted.

The aim of the integrated interventions was to provide equal opportunities in accessing the labour market

and, as much as possible, to facilitate the insertion into the social frameworks of persons who face diff erent

and multifaceted problems of inclusion and immigration status, with the priority being the unemployed. The

actions of this measure were mainly addressed to persons with cultural particularities, such as Greek Roma,

Greek Muslims, returning Greek emigrants, refugees and migrants. These programmes used an approach of

individual treatment and consisted of two categories of actions:

Integrated interventions for the unemployed from vulnerable groups where these people are at risk of ●

exclusion from the labour market. This is about training to develop basic knowledge and skills, including:

developing social abilities, specialised professional orientation, development of existing qualifi cations, job

seeking techniques, etc.

Assistance to the benefi ciaries to enter employment. This is given either in the form of new job subsidisation, ●

self-employment, or even encouragement and support of cooperative activities of those that who already

benefi ted from the integrated interventions.

Insight 4: Outcomes of projects with ethnic minorities in Great Britain92

The Objective 3 Programme for England, Scotland and Wales made a signifi cant impact in terms of promoting

the Equal Opportunities of the relevant target groups. Data analysed up to June 2005 shows that 23% of all

benefi ciaries (almost 470,000) in England belonged to an ethnic minority group. The corresponding data for

Scotland was 6% (over 10,000 people) and 7% for Wales (8,000 people).

The data shows that 21% of those moving into education and training found a job upon leaving their project.

The programme’s update to the Mid-Term Evaluation Report concludes that ESF can act as a ‘stepping stone’

to employment by encouraging benefi ciaries to progress towards further work-related education/training. In

fact, the most disadvantaged groups generally show the biggest net increase in positive outcomes, although

their employment rates are still lower than in other groups. The report considers the groups targeted by Equal

Opportunities, including ethnic minorities, as less likely to be in work following their courses than other groups,

on the grounds that structural inequalities play a large role in these trends.

91. 2000GR051PO001-2.3 Greece Employment promotion and vocational training92. Update to the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Community Support Framework for England/Gibraltar, Scotland and Wales (Final Report)


3. Achievements, 2007-2013

Data available on 76% of the current programmes show that at least 7 million people have benefi ted from ESF in

the years 2007 and 2008. 6% of these participants are migrants and 1% are minorities. Table 14 presents separately

the migrants and minorities and their total as a proportion of participants in priority axes that support migrants and

minorities along with other groups of benefi ciaries.

Table 14: Number of migrant and minorities participating in ESF 2007-2008

MS Migrants Minorities TotalTotal number of

participants

% of migrants and

minorities from

total participants

AT 31,412 100 31,512 157,022 20%

BE 46,319 - 46,319 335,826 14%

BG 464 18,762 19,226 125,540 15%

CY - - - - -

CZ - - - - -

DE 80,277 732 81,009 423,327 19%

DK 254 - 254 3,991 6%

EE 11 5,714 5,725 21,638 26%

ES 70,936 14,104 85,040 1,986,783 4%

FI 1,698 168 1,866 24,199 8%

FR 156,003 2,026 158,029 1,384,914 11%

GR - - - 9,136 -

HU - 4 4 26,462 0.02%

IE 5,664 2,330 7,994 250,459 3%

IT 10,632 - 10,632 808,368 1%

LT 96 - 96 3,500 3%

LU 1 2 3 561 1%

LV - 958 958 5,723 17%

MT - - - - -

NL 21,873 25,522 47,395 167,820 28%

PL 16 37 53 262,742 0.02%

PT 1,633 - 1,633 733,560 0.22%

RO - - - - -

SE 2,106 - 2,106 8,420 25%

SI - 26 26 5,193 1%

SK - - - 110 -

UK 884 35,343 36,227 422,755 9%

Grand Total 430,279 105,828 536,107 7,168,049 7%

Source: Data compiled by BBI on the basis of EC Structural Fund database, 28.05.2010.

The migrant and minority participants are 536,107, divided into 430,279 migrants and 105,828 minorities, with

women representing 55% of the total. These fi gures refer not only to the priority axes (180) selected on a qualitative

basis for their reference to migrants and minorities, but also to priority axes (196) who have reported on the

involvement of migrants and minorities but did not announce in the programming document that they would

address these target groups. The former amounts to 278,365 migrants and 88,649 minorities and the latter to

151,914 migrants and 19,179 minorities.


Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain have reported 89% of all migrants, whereas Bulgaria, Spain, the

Netherlands and the United Kingdom account for 89% of all reported minorities. Five Member States (Belgium,

France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands) make up almost 80% of all reported migrants and minorities. Seven

Member States (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Greece, Malta, Romania and Slovakia) have either not reported yet on the

migrant and minority participants in their Operational Programmes, or do not address these target groups.

Migrants and minorities are particularly present among the ESF participants in Austria, Estonia, the Netherlands and

Sweden, and their share is also well beyond the EU average in Bulgaria, Germany and Latvia. Even if data are not yet

complete, it should be noted that certain Member States who had not or who had hardly reported on migrants and

minorities in 2000-2006 - such as Austria, Estonia and Latvia - are now reporting on these groups through ESF in a

consistent manner. Moreover there are now actions supporting M&M taking place in Latvia.

Across the Member States with a focus on migrants and/or minorities, Estonia has a relevant programme with the

objective being a better harnessing of the immigration and migration potential of the labour force. Among the

activities for this purpose are the improvement of labour regulations, labour relations and the promotion of fl exible

working, an increase of administrative capacity for policy formulation and implementation, the development of

relevant information systems and the raising of the level of personnel qualifi cations in institutions that develop

and initiate employment policies. The Estonia Human Resource Development OP has benefi ted 5647 people from

minorities93.

Belgium assisted migrants (no minorities) through two OPs with actions relevant to specifi c and/or innovative social

inclusion activities in terms of alphabetisation (initial and language education), as well as combating discrimination

related to ethnic origin. Priority 3 of the Wallonie-Bruxelles OP94, aims to improve access to employment and combat

exclusion in the labour market, and it concerns 8,053 migrants, while Priority axis 1 of the Bruxelles-Capitale Region

OP95 concerns 15,277 migrants and has the general objective to avoid unemployment or to support inclusion into

the labour market. Particular attention is given to those who are most exposed to exclusion, targeting migrants

along with others, focusing on general assistance and help to fi nd a job. Counting in addition the benefi ciaries of

some other actions, BE assisted a total of 46,319 migrants.

Sweden applies actions jointly to persons and systems. Priority axis 2 of the Sweden OP96 embraces all migrants

(1,701 persons) and supports them to establish themselves in employment. It addresses in particular persons

outside the labour market. Education schemes or other measures to bring them closer to fi nding a job are part of

this eff ort. Specifi c policies to attain this involve encouraging early school leavers to return to education or training,

or to participate in activities designed to prepare them for working life. This programme also provides services of

assistance and follow-up for unemployed persons, including intensifi ed job-seeking, counselling, and guidance,

as well as mentoring. Furthermore, support is off ered for the cooperation between diff erent actors, including the

municipality, the Public Employment Service, educational institutions, private and public employers as well as

organisations and businesses within the social economy.

93. 2007EE051PO001-3 94. 2007BE052PO002-3 95. 2007BE052PO004-axev196. 2007SE052PO001-2


Insight 5: Supporting Entrepreneurship in the UK 97

A project in Leeds (UK), called New Start at the Unity Business Centre, Roundhay Leeds, is run by a partnership

of BEST (Business Employment Services Training) and QED (Quality Education Data). It provides a range of

support services to those who are newly arrived in the UK and are looking for work. This programme has a

regional dimension, is fl exible enough to be able to accommodate new arrivals with as diverse qualifi cations

as teachers and lawyers and people without adequate education, and can convert their qualifi cations to suit

the local labour market needs. Although this is an ongoing programme, it does give a result and an impact

indicator. A more detailed description is presented below in the form of an insight, following the previous

insights that referred to the 2000-2006 programming period.

The services of the programme include language support, skills for job application in the UK (which could

be very diff erent from those used in the country of origin), IT help and assisting individuals to compare their

qualifi cations with those used in the UK. Following assessment and counselling, other courses may also be

off ered, in line with the employment sector in which the individual is aiming to settle. Each individual is off ered

up to 18 weeks of support, with between 10 and 30 hours of support per week. Whilst some people are referred

by the national Job Centre, many of the people on New Start fi nd their way to the centre through word of

mouth. The employment advisers are highly skilled at using local intelligence to fi nd vacancies which may

not even have reached the point of being advertised, and at convincing employers that the people they put

forward for interview are well prepared and highly motivated.

New Start is able to be very fl exible in the support it can off er, vital for so varied a participant group. There are

those who are qualifi ed teachers, lawyers and businessmen from their own countries who may have to accept

work of a completely diff erent kind in order to enter the labour market. There are also those who did not receive

a high level of education in their own countries, and may need literacy as well as language support. However,

the degree of motivation is very great and this combined with the knowledge and networking skills of both

QED and BEST has meant that the project is able to meet its objectives and provide an essential service to this

group.

The project, which has a budget of £1,355,050, started in June 2008 and ends in June 2011. The number of

participants entering the project was 28,675, of which 11,220 were women, while the total completing the

project in 2008 was 12,878 persons, of which 4,768 were women.

Project results: Across the West Yorkshire sub region, the project has achieved more than its target for starts

and has achieved 85% of its target in getting people into work. These results are achieved through good local

knowledge and networking with employers, and a programme which is fl exible enough to address the needs

and aspirations of a wide range of individuals from many diff erent countries.

97. 2007UK05UPO001-1


Concluding the section on achievements, the following fi ndings covering both programming periods are worth

being reminded of:

The number of Member States reporting on migrants and minorities through the ESF is growing: from 12 ●

Member States in 2000-2006 to 20 Member States in 2007-2013;

The relative incidence of measures and priority axes addressing migrants and minorities is growing: 18% of all ●

measures catered for their needs in 2000-2006, while the share of relevant priority axes is 28%;

The fi nancial information available seems to indicate that compared to the previous period, a bigger number of ●

interventions addressing migrants and minorities will receive more fi nancial support in the current period;

While it is too early to say anything about the absolute number of migrants and minorities in the current ●

programming period, it is clear that the annual participation now exceeds the previous period, with 268,000

participations per year against the previous 167,000.

Member States are using ESF to a diff erent extent to support migrant and minority interventions across the

programming periods. For the EU as a whole, these changes in the Member States resulted in a greater support for

migrants and minorities in the current period compared to the previous, raising respectively their share from 4.9%

of the total number of participants to 6.3%.


Chapter 3 – Conclusion

Migration from third countries increased signifi cantly in recent years, and is still rising. By offi cial estimates (2007),

18.5 million third country nationals reside in the EU-27, making up 3.8% of the Union’s population. On top of that,

another 10 million citizens are residing in another EU Member State. This being the case, a major question is: how

can we prepare these individuals to feel at home, to make them and the human potential they bring from their

home country become an integral and productive element, alongside the local population, towards their own

wellbeing and the benefi t of the economies they live in?

The European Social Fund is an important fi nancial instrument that helps Member States to achieve such goals by

promoting equal opportunities, ensuring social inclusion, opening pathways to integration, accepting diversity in

the workplace, and combating discrimination.

This study reports on the ESF interventions in the fi eld of migrants and minorities for the programming periods

2000-2006 and 2007-2013. It presents an overview of initiatives implemented across the Member States and of

their achievements. Since the programmes of the second period are currently in progress, the fi ndings on ESF

achievements are limited to the periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2008.

The majority of Member States takes advantage of ESF co-funding and have been designing and implementing a

variety of policies for migrant integration. During the previous programming period, 276 measures (out of 1567) from

108 Operational Programmes (out of 211) in 20 out of 25 Member States have addressed migrants and minorities.

In 2007-2013, 180 priority axes (out of 683) from 106 Operational Programmes (out of 117) in 25 out of 27 Member

States target migrants and minorities.

Most of the ESF interventions that are related to migrants and minorities fall under the domain of social inclusion

and are pursued through the promotion of equal opportunities. In addition, migrants and minorities, or particular

groups of them, are supported by activities in the policy fi elds of promoting an active labour market and improving

women’s access to the labour market, as well as by lifelong learning.

A total of 187 measures (out of 276 supporting vulnerable groups) have reported on the involvement of 1.166

million migrants and minorities: 949,000 migrants and 217,000 minorities. This is certainly an underestimate of

the absolute number of migrants and minorities that were reached through ESF supported interventions. Some

Member States (Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Sweden) report only on migrants in their programmes, even if

they might very well address minorities as well, while others (Finland, Greece, Hungary, Netherland and the United

Kingdom) report only on minorities, even if these programmes may have also been open to migrants.

This report has discussed ESF interventions under the two broad categories of assistance to persons and assistance

to systems and structures, each containing three sub-categories of interventions. The assistance to persons refers

to individualised actions and pathways to integration, such as training and lifelong learning activities, information,

counselling and guidance, and integrated activities (i.e. packages of activities with a variety of specifi c policies).

49Chapter 3 – Conclusions

The assistance to systems consists of networking and organisational support, promotion of entrepreneurship, and

support to educational and training systems and practices.

Measures featuring interventions for migrants and minorities have claimed a total expenditure of € 27 billion,

25% of the total expenditure claimed in the period 2000-2006. 59% of the claimed expenditure went to actions

for persons, 6% to actions for systems and structures and 35% to combined actions to persons and to systems

and structures. Such combined actions attempt to implement a variety of activities and realise simultaneous

eff orts on several fronts in order to attain a holistic integration of migrants and minorities into the labour market.

Measures combining actions to persons and systems are prominently present in the United Kingdom, Italy, Czech

Republic, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal and Sweden. Many migrants and minorities have benefi ted in

two ways from ESF supported interventions: the fi rst directly as an individual and the second indirectly through

better quality services.

About 700,000 migrants and minorities have been supported through integrated actions encompassing a variety of

sequential actions, such as orientation, balance of competences, personalised counselling, training, internships with

companies and guidance to work. More than 350,000 benefi ciaries were reached through interventions promoting

entrepreneurship, and 274,000 migrants and minorities have benefi ted from improved services in education and

training, which related notably but not exclusively to literacy, numeracy and basic adult education. Concrete

examples of relevant interventions show that the ESF has supported a comprehensive mixture of actions and

policies for migrants and minorities in order to tackle the complex and multifaceted problems of social exclusion,

discrimination and equal opportunities in the labour market.

The ESF regulation for the current programming period 2007-2013 refl ects more strongly and more explicitly the

intention of the EU to proceed faster and deeper with the integration of migrants and minorities. The Member

States, for their part, made the most of this development and intensifi ed their eff orts for the social inclusion of

migrants and minorities in the new operational programmes. As a result, 91% of the current OPs and 28% of the

priority axes contain provisions supporting migrants and minorities.

Member States can commit part of their ESF budget to activities for migrants and minorities; the ESF budget for

the following priority themes amounts to more than € 11 billion: “specifi c action to increase migrants’ participation

in employment and thereby strengthen their social integration” and “pathways to integration and re-entry into

employment for disadvantaged people; combating discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour

market and promoting acceptance of diversity at the workplace”.

Overall, 536,107 participants have been reported as migrants or minorities in 2007 and 2008: 430,279 migrants

and 105,828 minorities. About 55% of the benefi ciaries in these interventions are women. Austria, Belgium, France,

Germany and Spain have reported 89% of all migrants, while Bulgaria, Spain, the Netherlands and the United

Kingdom account for 89% of all reported minorities. Five Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and the

Netherlands) make up almost 80% of all reported migrants and minorities.


Looking at the ESF co-funding achievements across the two programming periods up to the year 2008, for which

data are available, the reported number of migrant and minority benefi ciaries amounts to a little over 1.7 million:

1.4 million migrants and more than 300,000 minorities. This does not include the unrecorded - but most likely

high - numbers of migrants and minorities for which Member States are committed to help through measures and

priority axes addressed to vulnerable and socially excluded people in general. It also does not anticipate the future

benefi ciaries of the remainder of the programming period 2007-2013.

These developments show that ESF co-funded interventions towards the integration of migrants and minorities

in the labour market have worked and continue to work with even more intensity. This is one of the main priorities

in the framework of the European Employment Strategy and it is moreover expected to contribute eff ectively to

the attainment of the Lisbon goals. Through these achievements, ESF advances its fundamental mission to help

Member States make Europe’s workforce and companies better equipped to face new and global challenges,

reduce the gap in living standards between regions and between people, and promote economic and social

cohesion across Europe.

51Annexes

Annexes

ANNEX 1: EXPENDITURE 2000-2006 AND BUDGET 2007-2013

1. Operational Programmes 2000-2006 expenditure claimed (in € million) per Member State

MS EU % National public % National private % Total

AT 43.7% 48.7% 7.6% 1,326

BE 34.7% 55.3% 10.1% 2,422

CY 50.0% 50.0% -- 22

CZ 69.8% 30.2% -- 297

DE 46.5% 45.7% 7.8% 20,930

DK 41.5% 37.2% 21.3% 779

EE 69.3% 25.9% 4.9% 71

ES 60.4% 38.4% 1.2% 17,388

FI 31.4% 42.9% 25.6% 2,365

FR 43.4% 50.8% 5.8% 12,204

GR 78.6% 21.4% -- 4,783

HU 75.6% 24.4% -- 288

IE 53.9% 45.8% 0.3% 1,778

IT 52.7% 45.5% 1.8% 12,902

LT 74.6% 25.4% -- 166

LU 45.3% 52.8% 2.0% 47

LV 75.2% 24.8% -- 115

MT 75.0% 25.0% -- 9

NL 49.6% 21.6% 28.8% 2,458

PL 74.3% 25.7% -- 1,776

PT 62.2% 34.2% 3.6% 7,073

SE 31.3% 39.1% 29.6% 2,661

SI 75.0% 25.0% -- 60

SK 74.0% 25.2% 0.8% 241

UK 44.1% 51.5% 4.4% 13,285

EU 25 51.3% 42.8% 5.9% 105,446


2. Operational Programmes 2000-2006 co-funded expenditure claimed (in € million) per Objective

Objectives EU National Public National Private Total

1 30,859 16,627 833 48,319

2 2,167 2,352 582 5,101

3 21,103 26,111 4,811 52,026

EU25 54,129 45,091 6,226 105,446

3. Operational Programmes 2007-2013 budget (in € million) per Member State

MS ESF % National Public % National Private % Total Budget

AT 44.3% 46.4% 9.3% 1,184

BE 46.3% 49.8% 4.0% 2,320

BG 85.0% 15.0% -- 1,395

CY 80.0% 20.0% -- 150

CZ 85.1% 14.9% -- 4,436

DE 59.9% 30.6% 9.6% 15,666

DK 50.0% 33.4% 16.6% 510

EE 84.8% 11.2% 4.1% 462

ES 70.5% 28.4% 1.1% 11,426

FI 43.5% 56.5% -- 1,420

FR 52.5% 35.9% 11.6% 10,275

GR 76.2% 23.8% -- 5,726

HU 85.0% 15.0% -- 4,270

IE 27.6% 72.2% 0.2% 1,360

IT 45.3% 54.7% -- 15,321

LT 85.0% 8.7% 6.3% 1,210

LU 50.0% 50.0% -- 50

LV 83.8% 13.0% 3.1% 657

MT 85.0% 15.0% -- 132

NL 48.7% 27.4% 23.9% 1,705

PL 85.0% 15.0% -- 11,420

PT 70.7% 29.3% -- 9,210

RO 85.0% 15.0% -- 4,335

SE 50.0% 50.0% -- 1,383

SI 85.0% 15.0% -- 889

SK 85.0% 15.0% -- 1,764

UK 52.0% 46.9% 1.1% 8,598

EU 27 64.8% 32.1% 3.2% 117,275

53Annexes

ANNEX 2: ESF VOCABULARYThe table below compares a number of documents and concepts across the two consecutive programming

periods.

2000-2006 PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

The Community Support Framework (CSF) is

the basic programming document agreed between

the European Commission and the Member States,

setting out plans for Structural Fund support for

objective 1 regions. It identifi es the problems, the

strategy and the priorities for action and where money

should best be channelled. It must be supplemented

by more detailed Operational Programmes. CSF’s are

not compulsory for the objectives 2 and 3.

The National Strategic Reference Framework

(NSRF) is not a management instrument as the CSF

were in the preceding period. However, it defi nes

policy priorities whilst suggesting the key elements

of implementation such as the list of operational

programmes and an indicative annual allocation

from each Fund for each Operational Programme

It is applied to the convergence and regional

competitiveness and employment objectives. It is

optional for the territorial cooperation objective.

The Operational Programmes (OPs) detail how and where funds will be spent, what the expected impact is

and how the programmes will be monitored and evaluated. OPs may exist at a national or regional level.

An OP can cover only one of the three Objectives. An

OP can be fi nanced by more than one Fund.

An OP can cover more than one objective but can be

fi nanced by only one Fund.

Priorities are a set of aims within a operational

programme that have to be tackled through the

implementation of specifi c Measures.

In the new programming period priorities are formally

called Priority Axes.

Resource allocation (community and national co-

fi nancing) is done at the level of the priority axes.

Measures are the means by which a Priority is

implemented over several years and which enable

operations to be fi nanced. Measures are listed in

the Operational Programmes, fully described in the

Programme Complements and reported on in the

Annual Implementation Reports.

Resource allocation (community and national co-

fi nancing) is done at the level of the measure.

There are no measures in the 2007-2013

Programming Period. Instead of this, the description

of the priority axes contains an indicative list of

actions.

Programme Complements (PC) provide further

details on the implementation of the operational

programmes such as the indicators that are used.

Programme complements may be formulated as

needed throughout the implementation of the OP.

There are no Programme Complements for the

2007-2013 Operational Programmes. Information that

was contained in the PC such as about the indicators

is now to be found in the OP itself.

The Policy Fields refer to the fi ve broad types of

activities than can be fi nanced with ESF. Most OPs

are structured along these policy fi elds, one priority

corresponding to one policy fi eld.

The types of activities that can be fi nanced with ESF

are called priorities.


2000-2006 PROGRAMMING PERIOD 2007-2013 PROGRAMMING PERIOD

Annual Implementation Reports (AIR) are prepared every year by the national or regional managing

authorities and describe the progress on the implementation of the priorities and the fi nancial implementation

of the assistance. AIRs also report on the main socio-economic trends or on changes in national, regional or

sectoral policies that are relevant to the implementation of the assistance.

Indicators are used to “indicate” the outcomes of the ESF interventions. The types of indicators that are relevant

to this study can be quite diverse in nature: (i) output indicators relate to the immediate consequences of

an activity and are measured in physical or monetary units, e.g. number of people trained, number of fi rms

fi nancially supported. (ii) result indicators relate to the direct and immediate eff ects on direct benefi ciaries

brought by a programme. Result indicators can be of a physical (e.g. number of successful trainees) or fi nancial

nature (e.g. leverage of private sector resources); (iii) impact indicators refer to the consequences of the

programme beyond the immediate eff ects on its direct benefi ciaries.

ANNEX 3: LIST OF ESF 2000-2006 MEASURES USED FOR THE STUDY

MS CCI Title Measure

AT 1999AT161DO001 Burgenland 5,2

AT 2000AT162DO008 Wien 3,2

BE 1999BE161DO001 Hainaut obj. 1 6,2

BE 1999BE053DO001 Bruxelles-Capitale Obj. 3 1,10







BE 1999BE053DO002 Belgium Federal Ministry of Employment Obj. 3 2,1

BE 1999BE053DO003 Vlaanderen Obj. 3 1,2



BE 1999BE053DO004 Wallonie-Bruxelles Obj. 3 2,22

BE 1999BE053DO005 German-speaking Community of Belgium 2,21

CZ 2003CZ051PO001 Czech Republic HRD Obj. 1 2,1



CZ 2003CZ053DO001 Prague Region Obj. 3 2,3

DE 1999DE161PO001 Berlin 4,12





DE 1999DE161PO002 Thüringen 4,21


55Annexes



DE 1999DE161PO004 Mecklenburg - Vorpommern 4,21



DE 1999DE161PO006 Sachsen 4,4

DE 2000DE051PO007 Germany Obj. 1 2,4



DE 2000DE162DO001 Rheinland-Pfalz 5,2

DE 2000DE162DO002 Berlin West 1,41






DE 2000DE162DO004 Nordrhein-Westfalen 4,22

DE 1999DE053DO001 Germany SPD Obj.3 20,4



DK 1999DK053DO001 Denmark Obj. 3 2,1

DK 1999DK053DO001 Denmark Obj. 3 2,2

ES 2000ES051PO014 Spain Vocational Training System Obj. 1 41,12



ES 2000ES051PO015 Spain Entrepeneurship and Lifelong Training Obj. 1 43,2

ES 2000ES051PO016 Spain Fight Against Discrimination Obj. 1 44,11


ES 2000ES051PO017 Spain Employment Promotion Obj. 1 42,6




ES 2000ES161PO002 Cantabria 41,15



ES 2000ES161PO003 Andalucia 42,6







ES 2000ES161PO004 Asturias 41,15

ES 2000ES161PO004 Asturias 44,11

ES 2000ES161PO005 Canarias 42,6






ES 2000ES161PO006 Castilla-La Mancha 5,6




ES 2000ES161PO007 Castilla Y León 41,15

ES 2000ES161PO007 Castilla Y León 44,11

ES 2000ES161PO008 Ceuta 5,6

ES 2000ES161PO008 Ceuta 42,6

ES 2000ES161PO008 Ceuta 42,8

ES 2000ES161PO008 Ceuta 44,11

ES 2000ES161PO008 Ceuta 45,16

ES 2000ES161PO008 Ceuta 45,17

ES 2000ES161PO009 Comunidad Valenciana 42,7






ES 2000ES161PO011 Galicia 41,12




ES 2000ES161PO012 Melilla 42,6





ES 2000ES161PO013 Murcia 42,6






ES 2000ES162DO004 Cataluña 1,8

ES 2000ES053PO301 Aragon Obj. 3 6,1



ES 2000ES053PO302 Baleares Obj. 3 4,4



ES 2000ES053PO303 Cataluña Obj. 3 2,1





57Annexes



ES 2000ES053PO304 Comunidad De Madrid Obj. 3 1,1







ES 2000ES053PO305 Navarra Obj. 3 4,4



ES 2000ES053PO306 Pais Vasco Obj. 3 1,1






ES 2000ES053PO307 La Rioja Obj. 3 1,1











FI 1999FI161DO001 Pohjois-Suomen (North Finland) 3,4

FI 1999FI161DO002 Itä-Suomen (East Finland) 2,4

FI 1999FI162DO001 Etelä-Suomen (South Finland) 3,3

FI 1999FI162DO002 Länsi-Suomen (West Finland) 3,4

FI 1999FI053DO001 Finland SPD Obj. 3 2,22



FR 2000FR161DO002 Guyane 8,3

FR 2000FR162DO005 Pays de le Loire 5,2

FR 2000FR162DO019 Picardie 1,1

FR 2000FR162DO019 Picardie 2,3

FR 1999FR053DO001 France SPD Obj. 3 2,2

UK 1999GB161DO001 Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly 3,8

UK 1999GB161DO002 Merseyside 2,14

UK 1999GB161DO002 Merseyside 4,26

UK 1999GB161DO003 South Yorkshire 3,17

UK 1999GB161DO003 South Yorkshire 4,22

UK 1999GB161DO004 West Wales and the Valleys 1,4









UK 2000GB162DO002 West Midlands 3,4

UK 2000GB162DO007 East of England 2,3

UK 2000GB162DO007 East of England 3,3

UK 2000GB162DO009 London 1,3

UK 1999GB053PO001 East Wales Obj.3 1,1











UK 1999GB053PO002 Scotland Obj. 3 2,1

UK 1999GB053PO003 England Obj. 3 2,21



GR 2000GR051PO001 Greece Employment promotion and vocational training 2,1



GR 2000GR051PO002 Greece Education and initial vocational training 1,1

GR 2000GR161PO002 Attica 3,4

GR 2000GR161PO006 Thessaly 5,2

GR 2000GR161PO010 South Aegean 4,8

GR 2000GR161PO011 Ionian Islands 5,2

HU 2003HU051PO001 Hungary HRD 2,1



HU 2003HU161PO001 Hungary Regional development 3,2

IE 2000IE051PO001 Employment & HR Development in Ireland Obj. 1 22

IE 2000IE161PO005 Southern and Eastern Region 4,7

IE 2000IE161PO006 Border, Midland and Western Region 4,7

IT 1999IT161PO006 Calabria 3,4

IT 1999IT161PO007 Campania 3,4

IT 1999IT161PO008 Molise 3,4

IT 1999IT161PO009 Puglia 3,4

IT 1999IT161PO010 Sardegna 3,4

IT 1999IT161PO010 Sardegna 3,6

59Annexes


IT 1999IT161PO011 Sicilia 3,4

IT 1999IT161PO012 Basilicata 3,4

IT 1999IT053PO002 Marche Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO003 Piemonte Obj. 3 1,12






IT 1999IT053PO004 Emilia Romagna Obj. 3 1,12







IT 1999IT053PO005 Toscana Obj. 3 1,12




IT 1999IT053PO006 Bolzano Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO006 Bolzano Obj. 3 5,51

IT 1999IT053PO007 Italy Ministry of Employment Obj. 3 4,41

IT 1999IT053PO008 Trento Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO009 Valle d'Aosta Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO010 Lombardia Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO011 Umbria Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO012 Abruzzo Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO013 Liguria - Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO014 Veneto Obj. 3 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO015 Friuli Venezia Giulia 2,21

IT 1999IT053PO016 Lazio Obj. 3 2,21

LT 2003LT161DO001 Lithuania 2,3

LU 1999LU053DO001 Luxembourg 1,11


















NL 1999NL161DO001 Flevoland 3,2



NL 1999NL053DO001 Netherlands Active Labourmarket Policy and Lifelong

learning

1,1

PL 2003PL051PO001 Poland Human Resources Development 1,5

PT 1999PT051PO002 Portugal Employment, Training and Social Development 5,1



PT 1999PT161PO015 Lisboa e Vale do Tejo 3,6

SE 1999SE161DO001 Norra Norrland 3,3

SE 1999SE053DO001 Sweden Obj. 3 2,21




SI 2003SI161DO001 Slovenia SPD 2,2

SK 2003SK051PO001 Slovakia HR Development 2,21

ANNEX 4: LIST OF ESF 2007-2013 PRIORITY AXES USED FOR THE STUDY

MS CCI Title Priority Code

AT 2007AT052PO001 Austria Employment 3

AT 2007AT052PO001 Austria Employment 4

BE 2007BE051PO001 Hainaut 3

BE 2007BE052PO001 German-speaking Community of Belgium 3

BE 2007BE052PO002 Wallonie-Bruxelles 3

BE 2007BE052PO003 Belgium Federal State Axe 1

BE 2007BE052PO004 Bruxelles-Capitale Region axe1

BE 2007BE052PO005 Vlaanderen 2

BG 2007BG051PO001 Bulgaria Human Resources Development 01




CZ 2007CZ052PO001 Praha Adaptability 17.2

CZ 2007CZ05UPO001 Czech Republic Human Resources and Employment 4.3

CZ 2007CZ05UPO002 Czech Republic Education for Competitiveness 7.1

CZ 2007CZ05UPO002 Czech Republic Education for Competitiveness 7.3

DE 2007DE051PO002 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern C

DE 2007DE051PO003 Niedersachsen - Region Lüneburg A

61Annexes


DE 2007DE051PO004 Sachsen 1

DE 2007DE051PO005 Sachsen-Anhalt 3

DE 2007DE051PO006 Thüringen C

DE 2007DE052PO001 Baden-Württemberg C

DE 2007DE052PO002 Bayern C

DE 2007DE052PO003 Berlin B

DE 2007DE052PO003 Berlin C

DE 2007DE052PO004 Bremen B

DE 2007DE052PO005 Hamburg A

DE 2007DE052PO005 Hamburg B

DE 2007DE052PO005 Hamburg C

DE 2007DE052PO006 Hessen B

DE 2007DE052PO006 Hessen C

DE 2007DE052PO007 Niedersachsen (except for Region Lüneburg) C

DE 2007DE052PO008 Nordrhein-Westfalen 2

DE 2007DE052PO008 Nordrhein-Westfalen 3

DE 2007DE052PO009 Rheinland-Pfalz A

DE 2007DE052PO009 Rheinland-Pfalz B

DE 2007DE052PO009 Rheinland-Pfalz C

DE 2007DE052PO010 Saarland A

DE 2007DE052PO010 Saarland B

DE 2007DE052PO010 Saarland C

DE 2007DE052PO011 Schleswig-Holstein A

DE 2007DE052PO011 Schleswig-Holstein B

DE 2007DE052PO011 Schleswig-Holstein C

DE 2007DE05UPO001 Germany Federal State A.1

DE 2007DE05UPO001 Germany Federal State A.2

DE 2007DE05UPO001 Germany Federal State B.1

DE 2007DE05UPO001 Germany Federal State C.2

DE 2007DE05UPO001 Germany Federal State D.1

DE 2007DE05UPO001 Germany Federal State D.2

DK 2007DK052PO001 Denmark More and better jobs 01

EE 2007EE051PO001 Estonia Human Resource Development 1



ES 2007ES051PO002 Castilla La Mancha A1

ES 2007ES051PO002 Castilla La Mancha A2

ES 2007ES051PO003 Extremadura A2

ES 2007ES051PO004 Galicia A1

ES 2007ES051PO004 Galicia A2

ES 2007ES051PO005 Andalucia A1

ES 2007ES051PO005 Andalucia A2

ES 2007ES051PO006 Asturias B2

ES 2007ES051PO007 Ceuta B2

ES 2007ES051PO008 Melilla B2

ES 2007ES051PO009 Region De Murcia B2



ES 2007ES052PO001 Canarias D2

ES 2007ES052PO002 Castilla y Leon D2

ES 2007ES052PO003 Comunidad Valenciana D2

ES 2007ES052PO004 Aragon C2

ES 2007ES052PO005 Baleares C2

ES 2007ES052PO006 Cantabria C2

ES 2007ES052PO007 Cataluña C2

ES 2007ES052PO008 Madrid C2

ES 2007ES052PO009 Navarra C2

ES 2007ES052PO010 Pais Vasco C2

ES 2007ES052PO011 La Rioja C2

ES 2007ES05UPO001 Spain Employment and Adaptability A2

ES 2007ES05UPO002 Spain Fight Against Discrimination A2

ES 2007ES05UPO002 Spain Fight Against Discrimination A4

ES 2007ES05UPO002 Spain Fight Against Discrimination B2

ES 2007ES05UPO002 Spain Fight Against Discrimination B4

FI 2007FI052PO001 Mainland Finland 3

FI 2007FI052PO001 Mainland Finland 4

FI 2007FI052PO002 Finland: Åland 1

FR 2007FR051PO001 Martinique 3

FR 2007FR051PO002 Guadeloupe 3

FR 2007FR051PO003 Guyane 3

FR 2007FR052PO001 French National OP 2

GR 2007GR05UPO001 Greece Human Resource Development 04




HU 2007HU05UPO001 Hungary Social Renewal 1

HU 2007HU05UPO001 Hungary Social Renewal 3.



IE 2007IE052PO001 Ireland Human Capital Investment 1

IE 2007IE052PO001 Ireland Human Capital Investment 2

IT 2007IT051PO001 Campania 02

IT 2007IT051PO001 Campania 03

IT 2007IT051PO002 Calabria 02

IT 2007IT051PO002 Calabria 03

IT 2007IT051PO003 Sicilia 02



IT 2007IT051PO004 Basilicata 01





IT 2007IT051PO005 Puglia 02

63Annexes


IT 2007IT051PO005 Puglia 04

IT 2007IT051PO006 Italy Governance and System Actions 02

IT 2007IT051PO006 Italy Governance and System Actions 04

IT 2007IT051PO007 Italy Competences for Development 01

IT 2007IT052PO001 Abruzzo 02

IT 2007IT052PO001 Abruzzo 03

IT 2007IT052PO002 Emilia Romagna 02

IT 2007IT052PO003 Friuli Venezia Giulia 02



IT 2007IT052PO004 Lazio 02

IT 2007IT052PO004 Lazio 03

IT 2007IT052PO005 Liguria 02



IT 2007IT052PO006 Lombardia 02



IT 2007IT052PO007 Marche 02



IT 2007IT052PO008 Molise 02

IT 2007IT052PO008 Molise 03

IT 2007IT052PO009 Bolzano 02

IT 2007IT052PO010 Trento 02

IT 2007IT052PO010 Trento 03

IT 2007IT052PO011 Piemonte 02

IT 2007IT052PO012 Toscana 02

IT 2007IT052PO013 Umbria 02

IT 2007IT052PO013 Umbria 03

IT 2007IT052PO014 Valle d'Aosta 02

IT 2007IT052PO014 Valle d'Aosta 03

IT 2007IT052PO015 Veneto 02

IT 2007IT052PO015 Veneto 03

IT 2007IT052PO016 Sardegna 02

IT 2007IT052PO016 Sardegna 05

IT 2007IT052PO017 Italy Systemic Actions 02

LU 2007LU052PO001 Luxembourg 1

LU 2007LU052PO001 Luxembourg 2

LV 2007LV051PO001 Latvia Human Resources and Employment 3

MT 2007MT051PO001 Malta Empowering people for more jobs and a better

quality of life

3

NL 2007NL052PO001 Nederland 3

PL 2007PL051PO001 Poland Human Resources 01

PL 2007PL051PO001 Poland Human Resources 07

PT 2007PT051PO001 Azores EP1



PT 2007PT05UPO001 Portugal Human Potential EP6



RO 2007RO051PO001 Romania Human Resources Development 1






SE 2007SE052PO001 Sweden 2

SI 2007SI051PO001 Slovenia Human Resources Development 4

SK 2007SK05UPO001 Slovakia Education 26130

SK 2007SK05UPO002 Slovakia Employment and Social Inclusion 27120

UK 2007UK051PO001 Highlands and Islands of Scotland 2

UK 2007UK051PO002 West Wales and the Valleys 1



UK 2007UK052PO001 East Wales 1

UK 2007UK052PO001 East Wales 2

UK 2007UK052PO002 Lowlands and Uplands of Scotland 1

UK 2007UK052PO002 Lowlands and Uplands of Scotland 2

UK 2007UK05UPO001 England and Gibraltar 1




65Annexes

ANNEX 5: STANDARDISED INDICATOR NAMES USED FOR ANALYSISThe indicators used in the report have been collected from the offi cial ESF Operational Programme reports (Annual

Implementation Reports and Evaluations). Each Member State defi ned a set of physical indicators “to be able to

monitor a programme’s implementation and judge its performance against the objectives set”98. In each Operational

Programme (and more specifi cally in the Programme Complements) a set of indicators have been defi ned and

target levels that corresponded to the objectives of the programme have been assigned.

There are three levels of indicators that were used for the analysis: output, result and impact indicators99.

In order to analyse all indicators from diff erent Operational Programmes, a procedure was introduced to standardize

the indicators’ names.

This procedure consisted of inserting the indicator name in the database in its original language, then translate it

into English and allocate it a name mentioned in the list below.

Standardised indicator’s

name

Ex: Participants (TOTAL)

Indicator name in its

original language

Ex: Anzahl der geplanten

TeilnehmerInnen

Indicator exact translation

in English

Ex: Number of planned male

and female

98. European Commission Directorate-General XVI Regional Policy and Cohesion: coordination and evaluation of operations The New Programming period 2000-2006: methodological working papers WORKING PAPER 3. Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An indicative methodology. (Brussels: 2000) <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffi c/working/doc/indic_en.pdf>

99. For a description of the diff erences between types of indicators see Annex 4 - ESF Vocabulary.


List of Standardised Output, Result and Impact Indicator Names:

OUTPUT INDICATORS100

Name of the

standardised indicator

Defi nition Further specifi cations

Participants (TOTAL) Total participants of a measure or a

priority starting the activities.

Characteristics of participants can be

defi ned according to:

- Gender (Male, Female, Both)

- Age (<25, 25/50, >50)

- Status in the Labour Market

(Employed, Self employed

(entrepreneurs), Unemployed, Short

term Unemployed (less than 12

months), Long term Unemployed

(more than 12 Months), Inactive,

(all people who are not classifi ed as

employed or unemployed (among

persons of 16-64 years old), Inactive

in training (mainly students), Workers

with special status).

- Educational level ( Primary or lower

secondary, Upper secondary, Post-

secondary non-tertiary, Tertiary,

post-tertiary, other non-academic,

Vocational Education, Lower than

primary level).

- Vulnerable groups (Minorities,

Migrants, Disabled, Other

disadvantaged groups, EU

Citizens, Third country Nationals,

Disabled+Migrants).

- Status (Researcher, Students,

Households, Apprentices, Teachers,

Trainers, Managers, Social Workers,

Health workers, Civil servants,

Farmers).

Participants Participants101 starting the activities in

a measure or a sub-measure (activity

or action).

Participants (completing) Participants completing the activities

in a measure or in a sub-measure

(activity or action).

Participants (interrupting) Participants interrupting the activities

in a measure or in a sub-measure

(activity or action).

Participants (continuing

the same activities)

Participants continuing the same

activities even after the end of the

implementation year.

100. Please note that some standardised indicators can be used at diff erent levels, according to the context of the intervention. 101. Participants without specifi cation are considered to be benefi ciaries at the starting point.

67Annexes

Name of the



Organisations (TOTAL) Total of organisations participating in

a measure.

Characteristics of Organisations are:

Microenterprises, SMEs, Firms.

Organisations Organisations include all kind of

organisations supported, helped or

involved in ESF activities.

(size not specifi ed), Large enterprises,

Organisations not specifi ed, Public

Employment Services (PES), Schools

or education institutions (referring to

the individual schools/educational

institutes or training organisations

participating in a measure/being

supported), non-profi t organisations

(community, voluntary, charity, NGOs).

Systems + Structures Systems or structures supported by ESF Systems and structures can be:

Educational (for measures addressing

the creation or improvement of school

or educational systems or parts of

educational systems/structures in a

specifi c area/region, i.e. the creation of

new departments in Universities, new

life-long education centers etc), Human

Resource management, Other

Initiatives implemented Activities or initiatives implemented

under a measure.

Partnerships Partnerships or networks supported

Courses Training courses (Programmes)

realised under a measure.

Curricula designed New educational or training a course

of study developed (list of topics +

objectives , teaching methods and

contents).

Services delivered New services designed under ESF

delivered to participants.

Research and analysis Studies, research realised.

Jobs created102 Workplaces created

Jobs supported Workplaces supported

Jobs safeguarded Workplaces safeguarded

Qualifi cations achieved103 Number of qualifi cation achieved by

participants after the end of training

activities (certifi cations).

102. If those jobs refer to people placed into employment they could be used as result indicator and added to “Participants integrated into the labour market”. The indicator “Jobs created” is in fact used as Output or Result depending on the context.

103. Although in most of OPs it is listed as Output, “Qualifi cations achieved” can also be used as result indicator and analysed together with “Participants gaining a qualifi cation”.


Name of the



Projects funded (TOTAL) Total projects of a measure or a

priority funded.

Projects funded ESF projects funded (started)

Projects completed

(TOTAL)

Total projects of a measure or a

priority completed.

Projects completed ESF projects completed

Start-ups supported New Start-ups supported

Firms created New fi rms created

Events organised Events, conferences, meetings

organised.

Products new New products developed under a

measure.

Scholarships Scholarships funded under ESF.

Places created e.g. at universities (for students),

childcare, etc

Days Days of activities

Hours Hours of activities (training,

counselling, etc).

Years Years of duration of activities or

projects.

Months Months of duration of activities or

projects.

Apprenticeship places

created

New apprenticeship places created.

Apprenticeship places

supported

Number of apprenticeship places

receiving ESF support.

Incentives Economic individual incentives (for

training or business creation, self

employment, etc.)

Equipment New equipments purchased with ESF

(e.g. PC stations, etc.)

Participants * days Training and work number of days *

participants.

Participants*Hours Participants * Hours of Activities

Indirect Benefi ciaries For example: a measure is directed at

students, but teachers are trained in

order to teach the students. Teachers

are therefore indirect benefi ciaries.

69Annexes

Name of the



Electronic tools Electronic/Virtual tools developed

(portals, branch points, software etc).

Internships places created Traineeships-stages places created.

Vacancies notifi ed to PES Vacancies about which the PES is

informed, which is an indicator of

measuring success of contacts with

employers.

Action plans Individual action plans or

employment plans for jobseekers

produced.

RESULT INDICATORS

Name of the



Positive outcomes on

leaving

This label is used for all results

indicators for a measure, so all

positive outcomes of the measure

after the end of the activities.

Participants starting a

training

After having benefi ted from

counselling services or guidance

activities.

Participants integrated into

the labour market

People integrated into the labour

market after the end of the activities.

People integrated into the LM can be

classifi ed according to the time after

completion of activities in which they

have been integrated: 0-3 months

after the end of the activities, 3-6

months after the end of the activities,

6-12 months after the end of the

activities, more than 12 months after

the end of activities, before the end

of the programme.

Participants gaining a

qualifi cation

Participants gaining a qualifi cation

after the end of training activities.

Participants following

insertion paths

Participants following insertion paths

in the labour market after the end of

activities.

Start-ups existing after 1 year Number of start-ups that continue to

exist 1 year after the creation.


IMPACT INDICATORS

Name of the standardised indicator Defi nition

Activity Rate General activity rate of a country/ region/sector.

Unemployment rate General unemployment rate of a country/ region/sector.

Start-ups existing after 2 years Number of start-ups that continue to exist 2 years after the creation.

Unemployment rate of young people on

the total Unemployment rate

The relation of youth unemployment rate (persons aged 15-24

years) to the total unemployment rate (M/F).

Long-term unemployed on the total

unemployed

The relation of the long-term unemployed persons (12-24

months) to the total number of unemployed persons.

Participants that consider an advantage

participating in the measure

% of persons who consider that their participation in the

Measure was advantageous for them.

Employment rate General employment rate of a country/ region/sector.

Students access to Internet index

Productivity growth

The indicator measuring the students access to the Internet.

Participation in Lifelong learning

(% of 25-64 years age)

‘Participation in lifelong learning (% in the population

of 25-64 years).

Participants starting tertiary education Share of persons who continue studies at the college among

total of high school pupils -recipients of the scholarship in the

last grade.

71Index of fi gures, statistical tables and insights

Index of fi gures, statistical tables and insights

FIGURES

Figure 1: Number of OPs and total ESF co-funded expenditure per Objective in the ESF 2000-2006

period

6

Figure 2: Average yearly participation per Member State 6

Figure 3: The proportion of the yearly average of ESF benefi ciaries per Member State in relation to

the total population between 15-64 years per Member State

7

Figure 4: Total ESF co-funded expenditure per Member State: proportion between ESF and

Member State funds

8

Figure 5: Total ESF co-funded expenditure per participant per Member State (in €) 9

Figure 6: ESF community expenditure per participant per Member State (in €) 9

Figure 7: Gender breakdown of ESF participants 10

Figure 8: Status of ESF participants in the labour market 10

Figure 9: Share of foreigners in total population, per Member State in 2007 18

Figure 10: Split of foreigners in the EU into third country nationals and migrants from EU-27 18

Figure 11: Measures on migrants and minorities with actions for persons (I), systems (II) and jointly

for both (I&II), 2000-2006

36

Figure 12: ESF measures supporting migrants and minorities by type of intervention, 2000-2006 36

Figure 13: Division of expenditure per type of intervention, 2000-2006 38

Figure 14: Migrant and minority participants per type of intervention, 2000-2006 39


TABLES

Table 1: Population of foreign citizens in the EU-27 Member States, 2008 17

Table 2: Immigrants (fl ow) by citizenship group, 2006 or latest available year (actual fi gures) 19

Table 3: Asylum applications in the EU, 2009 (actual fi gures) 20

Table 4: Barriers to Migrant Integration in the Labour Market 21

Table 5: Measures addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2000-2006 28

Table 6 : Priority axes addressing migrants and minorities per Member State in ESF 2007-2013 29

Table 7: Claimed expenditure of measures supporting migrants and minorities (2000-2006) 30

Table 8: Identifi ed measures clearly targeting Roma (ESF co-funded expenditure in 2000-2006 31

Table 9 : Budget allocated to priority axes supporting migrants and minorities, 2007-2013 32

Table 10: Number of migrants and minorities and total participants, for Member States reporting

relevant data, 2000-2006

33

Table 11: Migrants and minorities’ measures, by typology per Member State, 2000-2006 37

Table 12: Expenditure (Community plus national and private) on people, on systems and structures,

and combined expenditure on both through the measures that support migrants and

minorities, 2000-2006 (in € million)

38

Table 13: Migrants and minorities by type of intervention per Member State, 2000-2006 40

Table 14: Number of migrant and minorities participating in ESF 2007-2008 44

INSIGHTS

Insight 1: The multi-dimensional programme for migrants in Aragón, Spain 40

Insight 2: Sweden: developing networking and regional partnerships on integration and diversity 42

Insight 3: Greece: Building and improving training and accompaniment facilities for assisting

specifi c disadvantaged groups in areas and sectors with high unemployment

43

Insight 4: Outcomes of projects with ethnic minorities in Great Britain 43

Insight 5: Supporting Entrepreneurship in the UK 47

73Index of fi gures, statistical tables and insights

What esf does for you

esf: active labour market policies and public employment services

esf: adaptability of enterprises and continuous training of workers

esf: developing human potential in research and innovation

esf and labour mobility

esf: education and lifelong learning

esf: women, gender mainstreaming and reconciliation of work and private life

esf and Roma

esf: sustainable development and eco-technologies

esf: migrants and minorities

esf: urban areas and local employment

esf and older workers

esf and health

esf and entrepreneurship

esf and young people

esf and disability

esf and institutional capacity

esf and social inclusion

esf and equality mainstreaming

esf and social partners

esf support to building partnerships

esf: culture and tourism

Check the latest on these publications at http://ec.europa.eu/esf

the european social fund: migrants and minorities · 2010. 9. 20. · 4 the european social fund:...

Documents