Dr Mary Braithwaite

Paper prepared for the Mainstreaming Gender in European Public Policy Workshop, University of Wisconsin-Madison, October 14-15 2000

Dr Mary Braithwaite

Tacitus sprl

Rue Valduc 296

B-1160 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 502 72 25

Fax: +32 2 512 71 24

E-mail: MaryBraithwaite@compuserve.com

The European Structural Funds are the main source of European financial support for regional and local economic development and labour market integration. The main aim of the Funds is to reduce regional and social disparities and to establish the conditions which will assure the long-term development of the regions. The European Structural Funds comprise three Funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which finances investments in infrastructure (transport, telecommunications, environment, energy), economic and employment development and regional regeneration; the European Social Fund (ESF), which finances vocational training, employment and social integration measures; and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), which supports agricultural diversification and rural development.

"Equal opportunities for men and women" (as gender equality has been referred to within the EC’s policy areas) has been raised as an issue within the European Structural Funds since the late 1980s. Initially a concern within the European Social Fund, the issue was then extended to all the European Structural Funds, and, more recently, has taken on board the "gender mainstreaming" approach.

The reform of the European Structural Funds and the preparations for the new programming period (2000-2006) provided the opportunity for the application of the gender mainstreaming approach to the operations of the Structural Funds. Major efforts have been made by the European Commission, during the last four years in particular, to translate the commitment to gender mainstreaming in the European Structural Funds into practice.

The first test of the success of these efforts will become clear during 2000, as the programming documents are finalised by the EU regions and Member States, following negotiations with the European Commission. Some preliminary reflections can be made on the gender mainstreaming efforts so far, which suggest that, while major steps have been taken, not all the pieces in the puzzle are in place to ensure the full implementation of the policy initiatives.

This paper summarises the policy developments on gender equality and the European Structural Funds, provides an explanation of the background to these policy developments and makes an assessment of the current measures in place. The views expressed are entirely those of the author and are a personal, and somewhat summary, view — of an "outsider" in Brussels — on the changes that have taken place.

The principle that the European Structural Funds should contribute to the objective of equal opportunities for men and women in the labour market has existed in Community legislation since 1988. Prior to this, the European Social Fund had, since the reform of 1977, been financing vocational training and employment schemes for women as part of its general policy. The Council Regulation of 1988 proposed a specific measure on the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women on the labour market under Objective 3 of the European Social Fund.

The 1989 reform of the Structural Funds introduced the requirement that all Community support frameworks (the national or regional frameworks explaining the use of the Funds) contain a clause whereby schemes proposed by Member States should be compatible with the Community’s equal opportunities legislation and policy. Perhaps more importantly, in 1990 the NOW (new opportunities for women) Community Initiative was launched, providing for specific support for vocational training and enterprise support for women (EC 1991). NOW was part of the 3^rd Action Programme on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (1990-1995), but was financed by the European Social Fund.

The first specific piece of Community legislation on gender equality and the Structural Funds dates from 1994.The Council Resolution of 24 June 1994 on "the promotion of equal opportunities for men and women through action by the European Structural Funds" reflects the discourse of the late 1980s and early 1990s. It is concerned with the "promotion of the principle of equal opportunities for men and women on the labour market", with "contributing to the adoption of appropriate measures" and with "helping to ensure" that the principle of equal opportunities is implemented. No specific objectives for improved equality of participation of women and men in the labour market were set.

In December 1995, a Council Resolution on gender mainstreaming in Community development co-operation was adopted, and in 1996 a similar resolution was adopted for the European Structural Funds. Foreshadowing the 1996 resolution on "mainstreaming equal opportunities for men and women into the European Structural Funds", the 1996 Commission guidelines for the adjustment of Structural Funds programmes for the programming period 1997-1999 made specific reference for the first time to equal opportunities as a "horizontal priority", this applying initially to Objective 2 operations, which provided support to the development of industrial and urban areas. Since then, the principle of equal opportunities as a horizontal priority has been incorporated in guidelines for Objective 1, 5b and 6 programmes.

In the Spring of 1996, DG REGIO (then XVI) organised a series of discussion seminars for Objective 2 desk officers from DG EMPL (then V) and DG REGIO in the four "new" priority areas for Objective 2 operations: employment creation; promotion of SMEs; information society; and equal opportunities between women and men. Discussion papers were prepared, which served as background information for Objective 2 desk officers with regard to the preparation and implementation of Community structural funds interventions in Objective 2 areas. The preamble at the beginning of the report noted that "The content of these papers is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not therefore necessarily conform with the position of the Commission services". At this point, the Commission provided no formal guidance to regions or Member States preparing programme proposals, other than to indicate the formal requirements in the guidelines and to "encourage" attention to equal opportunities, in particular through highlighting "good practice" concerning initiatives targeted at women.

The preparations by the European Commission for the reform of the European Structural Funds — called "Agenda 2000" — provided a significant opportunity, and came at a critical moment, for a major change in the treatment of gender equality in the Structural Funds. Whereas the 1996 Council Resolution on "mainstreaming equal opportunities for men and women into the European Structural Funds" had come too late to influence more than superficially the adjustment of Structural Funds programmes for the final period 1997-1999, now it was possible to intervene at the beginning of the process of revision of the regulations and guidelines for the future programming period 2000-2006.

Moreover, the Treaty of Amsterdam, then in the process of being negotiated and then ratified, strengthened substantially the legal basis for Community action in favour of equality between women and men. Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty formalise the Community commitment to gender mainstreaming, by establishing equality between men and women as a specific task of the Community as well as a horizontal objective affecting all Community policies and programmes.

The Commission’s preparatory work on the new horizontal guidelines for the European Structural Funds (i.e. the guidelines applying to all three Funds) started in the Autumn of 1997. At this early stage the author was contacted by the then Director of the European Social Fund in DG EMPL (then V) to assist the Social Fund in developing its ideas and proposals on the integration of equal opportunities in the new horizontal guidelines. The proposals of the European Social Fund on the treatment of equal opportunities were ambitious, and caused some surprise among some of the civil servants involved in the inter-Service consultations. However, there was little resistance and the proposals on gender equality were largely adopted in the draft Commission guidelines. It was felt informally by those involved that many of the proposed new requirements would not survive the negotiations with the Member States, because of the policies on equal opportunities of certain Member States and, more generally, because of the normal attempts of the Member States to minimise directions from "Brussels". But the proposals on gender equality were successfully steered through the negotiations with the Member States. Surprisingly, none of the proposals were rejected, although the language for a number of them was softened ("may be one of the criteria" instead of "one criteria will be"; "balanced representation" instead of "equal representation").

On 21 June 1999 the Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds was approved. This contains substantially new features on the integration of equal opportunities for women and men, which should be taken into account in the preparation and implementation of Structural Fund programmes for the new Objectives 1, 2 and 3 by the EU regions and Member States (see below). If followed by the Member States and regions which manage Structural Funds programmes, the requirements should lead to a major change in the scope of application of gender equality in public programmes, not only extending the application of equal opportunities within traditional areas such as employment and SME support, but also to relatively new areas such as structural investments, industrial development and urban regeneration.

Various Articles in the horizontal guidelines address gender equality. The Commission’s technical document on Mainstreaming equal opportunities for women and men in Structural Fund programmes interprets the Articles as meaning that all proposals for Structural Fund programmes should meet the following requirements :

The articles in the horizontal regulations for the Structural Funds for the programming period 2000-2006 concerning the treatment of equal opportunities for women and men address six main aspects of the preparation and management of the programmes:

1. The overall objectives of Structural Fund programmes

The regulations state that all Structural Fund programmes should contribute to reduced disparities and improved equality between women and men. More particularly, the regulations state that Structural Funds programmes should demonstrate their contribution to the achievement of the four "pillars" of the European Employment Strategy and of the respective National Employment Plan, the fourth pillar of which concerns equal opportunities for women and men. The Strategy and Plans expect four areas of improvement regarding gender equality: in employment; in education and training; in enterprise; and with regard to the reconciliation of professional and family life.

2. Preparation of programme proposals

The regulations require that an ex-ante assessment is conducted specifically on equal opportunities issues, identifying the constraints and obstacles to improved equality and assessing the likely impact of the proposed programmes on equal opportunities for women and men (a gender impact assessment). It is also implied, as a consequence of the mainstreaming approach, that the overall "analysis of the situation", which should be conducted prior to the formulation of the programme, should take gender equality into account. This is, however, less explicit and is unlikely to be respected except by the most committed and advanced of the EU’s regions.

3. Structures for the management and monitoring of programmes

The regulations require that the monitoring committees and partnerships responsible for managing and monitoring the programmes should have a "balanced" participation of women and men, and that the committees or partnerships should ensure representation of equal opportunities issues in their composition. This is less precise that had originally been hoped for, but quotas are not accepted by many Member States (and could be difficult to implement) and not all regions have equal opportunities bodies that could be included in the committees and partnerships.

The European Commission has recommended awareness-raising and training of members of committees and partnerships, and has, in some instances (e.g. Ireland), recommended the establishment of an equal opportunities committee at the level of the Community Support Framework (i.e. the top national co-ordinating level for the Funds), a recommendation which goes beyond the text of the regulations. Much depends on the motivation of the Commission civil servants in interpreting the new requirements and advocating them to the Member States.

4. Monitoring and evaluation indicators

The elaboration and use of sex-disaggregated indicators for monitoring and evaluation are requested in the regulations, and the vade vecum produced by the Commission to guide the Member States and regions in interpreting the regulations elaborates on this requirement, giving examples of "indicative" indicators. The vade mecum also gives examples of specific equal opportunities at the three levels of monitoring and evaluation (impact, outputs, activities). The four axes of the fourth equal opportunities pillar of the European Employment Strategy are reflected in these examples of indicators. The monitoring indicators are used to determine the financial contributions and flows from the Commission to the Member States (below). This adds an important "stick" to ensure attention to equal opportunities by the regions and Member States.

5. Level of Community financial contribution and allocation of the reserve fund

The regulations state that one of the criteria for fixing the exact level of the financial contribution by the Community and for allocating the reserve fund between the regions within each Member States will be equal opportunities. The mid-term evaluation is used as the basis for allocating the reserve fund and equal opportunities will be expected to be included in this evaluation.

6. Information and publicity

It is expected that regions and Member States will specifically ensure that information on the Structural Funds is provided to organisations and associations representing women’s and equal opportunities interests, as well as to the female public. The aim here is to ensure that organisations working with women can tap Community funds, as well as to raise awareness among mainstream organisations on the importance of equal opportunities issues.

The European Commission did not rely only on the integration of gender equality principles into the regulations and guidelines for the reformed Structural Funds. It recognised the need to inform regions and Member States of the new approach and the new requirements, and placed considerable emphasis on European-level conferences and seminars. A first major conference was organised in Brussels in March 1996 on "Structural Funds and equal opportunities". This conference made a major impact in some Member States and regions, for example by empowering regional or national equal opportunities officers to claim policy ground, and funding areas, which they had previously not been allowed — or did not have the courage — to enter. Although many of the interventions and papers indicate that "gender mainstreaming" had not yet been fully understood, the conference proved a turning point for some officials working at regional and national levels on equal opportunities issues.

In September 1998, the second major European conference on gender equality and the Structural Funds was held in Viana do Castelo, Portugal. This time it was called "Mainstreaming equality between women and men in the Structural Funds", reflecting the policy change (or at least change of terminology) on equal opportunities. While the 1996 conference reviewed the extent to which the Structural Funds had, or had not, supported equal opportunities, the 1998 conference foreshadowed the reform of the Structural Funds and set out to explain to regions and Member States how they could integrate gender equality concerns into the various phases and areas of Structural Fund programming. This was still early days in the learning cycle on gender mainstreaming and the Structural Funds, and there were wide variations in how the issue was interpreted. More importantly, it raised the profile of the issue at European level, amongst policy makers and practitioners, which was one of the main objectives of the seminar.

The first conference in 1996 was organised by the Belgian Ministry for Employment and Equal Opportunities and the European Commission, within the framework of the 4^th Medium-Term Action Programme on Equal Opportunities. It was thus an initiative of DG V (Employment and Social Affairs). The 1998 conference in Portugal was financed by DG XVI (Regional Policy), although organised in collaboration with DG V. This shift from DG V to DG XVI in the organisation and financing of initiatives on gender equality and the Structural Funds was not merely for reasons of sharing out the responsibility, or of the main "chef de file" (DG XVI) taking on leadership in this area. Between 1996 and 1998 a shift of "centre of gravity" in efforts in the area of gender mainstreaming and the Structural Funds had taken place, as shall be explained later.

DG XVI - but this time the geographical Division responsible for Germany, France and the UK (the three largest Member States) - also took the initiative during 1998 and 1999 to undertake a survey of good practice in integrating equal opportunities into the Structural Funds, among Objective 1, 2 and 5b regions in Germany, France and the UK. The aim was to influence the preparation of future Structural Fund programmes, through disseminating examples of good practice and by providing "operational" recommendations. The working paper and the seminar in Gelsenkirchen, Germany, in January 1999 were very well received, and, like the 1996 conference in Brussels, acted as a catalyst for some regions in the three countries (in particular in France and the UK) to take initiatives at regional level in preparation for the future Structural Fund programming. The report was subsequently translated into French and German, and published on the Commission’s Web site, although once again too late to influence the preparation of programme proposals (Braithwaite 1999). However, briefings and short seminars on the integration of were given by the consultant to geographical desk officers (rapporteurs) of DG XVI, DG V and DG VI in the wake of this survey and report.

Within DG XVI, other number of initiatives had been taken, primarily by one very motivated civil servant in collaboration with supportive staff in other DGs, including the organisation of the 1998 conference. She had also been responsible for commissioning a series of national studies on equal opportunities and the Structural Funds, had initiated the production of a "good practice" brochure on "Women, actors of regional development" and had supported work on methodological approaches to the evaluation of equal opportunities in Structural Funds programmes. Not all of this work was methodologically coherent, nor was it properly integrated into an explicit mainstreaming strategy, nor supported with sufficient resources.

Many of the reports and documents were not published or widely disseminated, and those that have been published often took so long to be disseminated that they arrived just too late to have an influence on changes taking place at national and regional levels (for example, the technical document presenting the requirements for the preparation of programme proposals was finally put on the Commission’s Web site several months after the Member States and regions had prepared their first draft programme proposals for the new programming period).

In addition to the work of revising the regulations and elaborating operational guidelines, the Commission also undertook some parallel work on instruments and on indicators. The report by the MEANS programme on evaluating equal opportunities in Structural Funds programmes (EC 1998) was produced by DG XVI, while, at the same time, guidelines were being prepared for the Social Fund in DG V for the ex-ante assessment of programme proposals. The MEANS report was critically received by some of the experts then working with DG XVI on gender mainstreaming, and was finally disseminated in a limited way to Member States. The Social Fund’s initiative met with some resistance by its own Evaluation Unit, in part because the new mainstreaming approach was not accepted by the responsible in charge.

Work on indicators for evaluating gender equality in Structural Funds programmes was also undertaken, again raising some unhappiness amongst some of the experts involved. In part this was because of the conceptual limitations of what was sought, or considerable sufficient, by the Commission (for example, measuring female participation in schemes, rather than reduced disparities between the sexes at the level of effects and impact).

Many of the internal discussions and notes by the Commission, either inter-service or within a DG, highlight some of the limits of application of the mainstreaming approach. In spite of the clear policy commitment on the application of gender equality to all policy areas and programmes, certain areas of the Structural Funds have been protected from "interference", most notably the "harder" areas of Structural Fund support, such as transport and energy, and the more "technical" areas of the EAGGF (such as milk quotas, early retirement schemes). In DG Agriculture and Rural Development (formerly VI), where attention to gender has been even more limited, it has not yet been possible to take equality issues beyond the most "soft" of areas (training, agrotourism, crafts,..). Internal guidance to "rapporteurs" in DG Agriculture on what to check for in terms of the treatment of gender equality in the new programme proposals merely identified vocational training, agrotourism, small enterprise and craft activities and participation of women in agricultural organisations, as possible issues. Other significant issues (many of which have been identified clearly by researchers in the field of gender and rural development), such as early retirement and entry schemes which can influence gender patterns of farm ownership and transfer, have not been left untouched.

The author was once told by one of the Directors in DG Regional Policy not to raise the issue of gender equality and transport, not for strategic reasons (i.e. the need to take a step by step approach, focusing initially on some sectors and later extending it to others) but because this raised laughs amongst the staff responsible. The Director felt unwilling, or unable, to advocate gender issues in this important area of Structural Fund support. Basic knowledge of gender issues in the fields covered by the Structural Funds is widely absent, particularly among those responsible for ERDF programmes and even more so among those managing the EAGGF.

Without doubt the European Commission is stronger on policy formulation (and legislation), than on developing accompanying arguments, procedures and instruments for translating policy into practice within the framework of programmes and projects, and within specific sectors.

The policy change, from "equal opportunities for men and women" as an aspect to be merely promoted by the Structural Funds to the double-pronged strategy of "mainstreaming of gender equality into the European Structural Funds", was relatively rapid. A number of events took place during the mid-1990s, external and internal to the European Union institutions, that pushed forward the policy framework on gender equality, and extended it into new areas of public policy. 1995 was a pivotal year.

In 1995, the Beijing Women’s Conference was held. The preparations by the European Commission for the conference — which entailed more intensive communication and collaboration not only within the European Commission (in particular between Directorate-Generals) but also between the Commission, Member States and other international organisations than is normal — gave a substantial impetus to conceptual and strategic thinking within the Commission on "equal opportunities", and to the development of Community legislation on integrating gender equality into a number of "mainstream" policy areas. "Gender" and "mainstreaming" were adopted into the European vocabulary, in spite of hesitations and concerns about their translation into other languages.

In 1995, the European Parliament approved the new Commission, headed by Santer. The wish of Commissioner Pádraig Flynn to hold on to the equal opportunities dossier in the face of interest from the new Swedish Commission, Anita Gradin, pushed the issue up the political agenda. The Parliament’s sharp questioning of Flynn on equality issues served to raise the stakes even higher. Partly in response to the competition for the equal opportunities portfolio and the criticisms of the Parliament, a group of Commissioners’ on equality was formed, with the brief to co-ordinate on issues of equality between women and men and to ensure the integration of equal opportunities into the policies and actions of the Commission. The participation in this group both of Commission Flynn, responsible for employment and social affairs, and the then new Regional Policy Commissioner, Monika Wulf-Mathies, who also expressed an interest in women’s issues, served to focus particular attention on the Structural Funds.

The inter-service collaboration which took place in the lead up to the Beijing Conference improved internal information flows within the Commission and, among other things, brought together those involved in gender equality issues in development co-operation (an external policy area) and those involved in equal opportunities issues in EU policy areas. The recognition that the approach taken within DG Development (formerly DG VIII) was closest to the dominant discourse of Beijing raised the profile of "gender and development" within the Commission. This was further reinforced by the reviews of progress on gender mainstreaming in the European Commission by Anne Havnor, a Norwegian expert then working in the Equal Opportunities Unit in DG V. The reviews gave strong endorsement to the work on gender mainstreaming by DG VIII, which has been considered a model of good practice within the European Commission.

Pressure had also been bubbling up from other sources. Pressure from the new Member States with historically strong policies on equal opportunities, particularly Sweden and Finland, contributed to this growing stress on ensuring that the initiatives of the Structural Funds contribute to social policy objectives on gender equality.

There had been also persistent lobbying from women’s organisations, such as the European Women’s Lobby, on improved access by women to the Structural Funds. They argued, at local, national and European levels, for such things as more childcare provision, fairer participation in training, better support for female enterprise, improved transport provision.

The NOW Community Initiative, in operation since 1990, had been an important source of finance for vocational training and enterprise creation (self-employment and micro-enterprises) for women. By the mid-1990s, a substantial body of experience had been developed, and the programme had achieved a relatively high profile at European level and in many Member States. Together with the LEI (Local Employment Initiatives) and IRIS (vocational training for women) networks, which were much smaller, but still significant, initiatives under the 3^rd Equal Opportunities Action Programme, the NOW programme facilitated not only the development of approaches and methods, but also international exchanges between policy-makers and practitioners in the field. The build up not only of experience and expertise, but also of confidence among practitioners, were silent factors in moving "equal opportunities" out of its confines within specific programmes to claim new, and better-financed, ground, which could make a more substantial impact on the persistent inequalities in vocational qualifications and the labour market.

In addition, at a time when European employment statistics were showing the persistence of vertical and horizontal segregation of women and men in the labour market, of inequalities in activity and unemployment rates, and in pay and working conditions, a number of studies were showing that European policy and programmes were not necessarily contributing to reducing these inequalities.

Between 1996 and 1998 a series of studies were conducted, at national and European levels, which showed continued gender biases in Community support, in fields of vocational training, employment and the Structural Funds.

During 1996-7, DG XVI commissioned studies on ERDF interventions from a gender equality perspective (Avila 1997; Ferres 1997; Horelli and Roininen 1997; Murphy 1997). The studies on Finland, Ireland, Spain and Portugal showed the following:

• the role of women in the different phases of decision-making of structural fund interventions has been limited;
• the programme objectives and contents of measures are gender blind;
• only a small amount of resources (in the Nordic countries some 14-20%) is targeted toward women-specific measures.

However, the studies did point to a number of positive effects, seen in examples of best practice (business support services for women entrepreneurs, community development projects, resource centres, innovative use of social technology, etc.). It is argued that the Community programmes can act as catalysts of good practice, the Community financing giving credibility to innovative initiatives.

National evaluations of equal opportunities in Structural Funds programmes were also beginning to show gender biases. In Ireland, women’s participation in agriculture and rural development programmes financed by the ESF during 1989-1993 was 6.5%, while in the tourism programmes it was 62.5%. The number of women expected to complete training courses under the Operational Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development 1994-1999, financed by ESF and EAGGF, was around 14%. This Programme missed many opportunities to include equal opportunities objectives, such as in diversification, research and advice, and in measures to support young farmers. And, in spite of the importance of transport for rural women, the Operational Programme for Transport 1994-1999 did not even acknowledge the specific equal opportunities issues.

In France, evaluations of the treatment of equal opportunities for women and men in the Objective 2 and 3 programmes also highlighted the weakness of the overall approach, including the absence of precise objectives and strategy. More worrying was the fact that the introduction of the "transversal" (mainstreaming) approach during the 1996-1999 period for Objective 2 appeared to have led to even less resources being allocated to gender equality than in the previous phase: the mainstreaming principle had justified less funding going to "targeted" initiatives, but did not appear to have led to more resources within mainstream measures. The strong emphasis by the European Commission on a "dual mainstreaming strategy" appears to be justified.

Important work by European expert groups within the framework of the 3^rd and 4^th Medium-Term Community Action Programmes on Equal Opportunities also demonstrated the need for more explicit targeting of Community Structural Fund support in fields important to gender equality. The work of the European Network on Childcare was significant in highlighting the gaps in existing provision as well as good practice, while the Network of Experts on the Situation of Women in the Labour Market has done much to provide the data and arguments on women’s unequal participation in the European labour market.

One of the factors of change is certainly the rivalry between services (between Directorate-Generals and even within DGs) within the European Commission. When the Social Fund took the initiative in 1997 to propose, early in the process of the inter-service consultations, how equal opportunities should be integrated into the new horizontal regulations for the Structural Funds, it made clear that it wanted to produce its own proposals, with a clear "Social Fund" label. It saw these as being distinct, and perhaps different, from those that might have been produced by — or in collaboration with - the Equal Opportunities Unit, in the same DG. There was a clear feeling that it wanted to be "ahead of the pack", particularly on the issue of equal opportunities between women and men. The Social Fund also took the initiative to commission the production of guidelines for the ex-ante assessment of Social Fund programme proposals, and was talking of organising training for its country desk officers (rapporteurs). However, the move of the person responsible from one Unit to another, and the failure to identify who within the Social Fund was responsible for equal opportunities, was part of a loss of momentum within the Social Fund on gender equality issues. This is still the situation to date.

The initiative by the Social Fund on the proposals for the horizontal guidelines appears to have jolted DG XVI (Regional Policy) into more concerted action. Moreover, as is so often the case with the European Commission, the right combination of staff at that moment provided the catalyst for taking over the gauntlet from the Social Fund. Two interested Directors (a Finnish woman and an English man) in significant posts, a supportive Commissioner (Monika Wulf-Mathies) and a committed official (Frédérique Lorenzi) made it possible to take major initiatives in support of the proposed new treatment of gender equality in the Structural Funds regulations (the seminars and conferences, the studies, work on indicators and the technical document mentioned earlier).

Whether these "requirements" are fully respected in programme proposals by the regions and Member States remains to be seen. The negotiations between the regions, Member States and the European Commission are important in determining to what extent the formal requirements are respected, and how they are interpreted. Some regions are in advance of the European Commission (for example, South Wales in the UK, Rhône-Alpes in France, North-Rhine Westphalia in Germany) and act as models of "good practice" for the European Commission, influencing thinking with the Commission as well as being used by the Commission to influence progress in other EU regions. On the other hand, the Commission can take the lead in pushing recalcitrant regions to improve attention to equal opportunities, but at present this requires a motivated desk officer ("rapporteur"), supported by his or her Head of Unit or Director.

For equal opportunities organisations and officers in some regions and Member States (such as Ireland), initiatives at European level, and by the European Commission, are used to push progress at national level. A senior official in one UK region trying to push forward the treatment of gender equality in the regional Structural Fund programmes expressed frustration that, after an initial, critical comment by the Commission rapporteur on the treatment of equal opportunities in the region’s draft programme proposals, which pushed the region to undertake an ex-ante assessment of equal opportunities of its programme proposals (but not actually to revise the proposals), the rapporteur then made no follow-up remarks, which would have helped considerably in supporting those, like her, who wanted to ensure a much stronger strategy on gender equality within the programmes.

On the whole, the gender mainstreaming approach is leading to broader attention to equal opportunities in programme proposals, i.e. it is mentioned in a wider range of priorities and measures, and is encouraging improved efforts to ensure sex-disaggregated monitoring and evaluation indicators as well as to involve equal opportunities organisations in programme management (at least in a consultative capacity). However, many important areas of Structural Fund interventions in terms of gender equality are being missed. Gender issues are more easily accepted in "soft" areas of development, such as human resources development, than in "hard" areas — which receive the most financial support. The relevance of gender to measures in the fields of infrastructure (transport, etc.) or agricultural support, for example, is hotly contested and resisted. A similar difference in acceptance of the issue can be observed between "small-scale" and "large-scale", for example concerning enterprise development or tourism.

The extent to which organisations and associations representing women’s interests will be able to tap Community funds under the new guidelines is in some doubt. The NOW Community Initiative, which was used widely in the European Union during the 1990s to support women-targeted initiatives on employment, training and enterprise, is not being continued. The new Community Initiative EQUAL addresses "all forms of discrimination", including gender inequality, which should be a transversal dimension of the projects financed. The fifth strand of the European Social Fund specifically supports initiatives in the field of equal opportunities for women and men, but the percentage allocated to this is likely to vary between Member States (the Commission proposed fixing a minimum %, but this was not accepted by the Member States during negotiations on the new regulations).

The shift towards larger funding programmes and the difficulty that small organisations face already in managing Community grants may combine to make it difficult for organisations that have previously made good use of NOW resources to tap into the larger programmes. There are considerable worries among small organisations that they may lose out under the new programmes, and that the targeted and tailored programmes that they ran (which often used higher levels of support per participant) will be more difficult to provide in the future.

Within the European Commission itself, what are the prospects for following through on the policy initiatives on gender mainstreaming and the Structural Funds ?

• Policy

The policy framework and regulations on gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds are relatively robust. However, it is important to note that the main objective in terms of the Structural Funds and gender equality is to improve female participation in the labour market. While gender mainstreaming may have a relatively high policy profile at European level, there is a much stronger policy imperative concerning employment. The policy on gender mainstreaming and the Structural Funds could support use of the Structural Funds to reduce gender inequalities in a number of spheres. In practice, the main objective — explicit and implicit — is to strengthen implementation of the European Employment Strategy and the corresponding National Employment Action Plans, the fourth pillar of which concerns equal opportunities.

This can be seen in the treatment of "reconciliation of home and professional life", which is rightly identified as an important issue. This is, more implicitly than explicitly, treated as a means to facilitating women’s "more active" participation in the labour market, than as an equality objective in its own right, i.e. to achieve more equal sharing of domestic and family work between men and women. "Efficiency" and "effectiveness" are, in practice, more convincing arguments for integrating equality concerns into Structural Fund programmes than "equity", even if the discourse often presents it as the latter.

One of the general risks of a mainstreaming approach is that, in the absence of precise objectives on reduced gender inequalities, the treatment of gender can be too easily located within, and thus subject to, other policy goals, such as employment creation, economic growth or poverty reduction. The "transversal" treatment of gender is too easily translated as merely "horizontal" — a principle at operational levels or results levels - and thus becomes a means to achieving other objectives, rather than a goal in its own right. The risk is further increased by the tendency, evident in some Member States (such as the UK) and among some policy-makers in the Commission, to treat gender inequality as just one form of disadvantage, along with other disability, ethnicity etc.

Further efforts on gender mainstreaming and the Structural Funds, and the extension of work on gender to new sectors such as transport, are highlighted in the Commission’s proposals for the 5^th Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality, and this may provide a renewed impetus on gender mainstreaming in these areas.

• Structure

The process of institutionalisation of gender mainstreaming in the European Commission is relatively weak and insufficient supporting measures have been taken to ensure that the Commission can advocate and monitor implementation of the new requirements.

For example, in the European Social Fund, each geographical desk officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations on equal opportunities, supported by the Equal Opportunities Unit. But the Equal Opportunities Unit is located in a different service of DG Employment, and while it can provide advice, it does not have the authority to monitor compliance, much less to enforce it.

In DG Regional Policy, the geographical divisions, and more specifically the rapporteurs, have responsibility, but — like the staff in the Social Fund — are not trained in equal opportunities and there is no support or monitoring unit. Moreover, following appointment of the new Commission and reorganisation within DG REGIO, none of the previous advocates of gender mainstreaming are in their previous posts. It is no coincidence that, since then, there has been a substantial lull in follow-up initiatives on gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds.

• People and positions

The progress made on gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds — initiated most strongly by DG Employment (formerly DG V), but taken up and largely developed by DG Regional Policy (formerly DG XVI) — has depended in particular on certain people being in the right positions at the right moment. The combination of a few highly motivated junior officials (or national experts or consultants) supported by sufficient numbers of senior personnel (at Director and Cabinet level) appears to be a decisive factor. Where this is absent — for example in DG Agriculture (formerly DG VI) - very little has been achieved.

This situation is true for the Commission as a whole. Progress can be made and actions taken, but then the key person moves on, the momentum and institutional memory are lost, and the initiative fades away. This reinforces the argument that gender mainstreaming is insufficiently rooted in the institution, so that changes in personnel can have a major effect on sustained support for mainstreaming.

• People’s understanding and knowledge

The is a major lack of knowledge of gender equality issues within the European Commission at all levels. This is in spite of the studies and research, and the dissemination of information, financially supported by the European Commission under the Action Programmes and by various DGs (Education and Training, Employment and Social Affairs, Regional Policy). Thematic training is rare, management information systems are very poorly developed and the personnel policies do not support the development of specialist knowledge and know-how amongst civil servants. Civil servants are generalists, equipped to move from one DG to another without investment in retraining.

Very often, the technical expertise on gender equality is provided by consultants on fixed contracts and national experts, seconded to the Commission for a maximum of three years by their Government. While they can make very important contributions to pushing forward policy, their presence is temporary, and they do not occupy senior positions in the institution.

There is resistance to discussing gender, in part due to fear of feminism, in part due to the institutional culture, which rewards "male" behaviour (for example, in working late into the evening).

• Institutional culture

There is strong male bias in the culture of the institution; in gender balance in staffing, particularly at middle and top management levels; working practices are rarely based on consultation and collaboration; and work loads are incompatible with family responsibilities. Social and human goals and policy areas do not have high status in the institution, and financial and administrative considerations dominate discussions of "performance".

• Activities

Similar to the early experiences of other international institutions, the efforts on gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds have focused strongly on "policy statements" and on "procedures and instruments" — reflected in the form of technical guidelines. There have been major efforts to influence and inform Member States and the EU regions, but much less to change mentalities and understanding within the Commission itself.

• Resources

Resources allocated to support gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds are very limited, both technical, human and financial. There is no specific budget line to support actions in this area; financial resources are found from other budget lines (for studies, evaluations, training, seminars, publications) or from the Action Programmes on Equal Opportunities. Each official wishing to take an initiative often has to be creative, as well as have sufficient influence, to tap the budget lines or to use resources within pre-existing contracts, such as framework contracts signed with external contractors.

There is no technical unit, internal or external, which can provide on-going advice, information or data on gender mainstreaming and the Structural Funds. Nor are there any staff specifically trained in addressing gender equality in the sectors and issues concerned. Motivated, committed staff can do — and have done — much to push forward policy and actions in this area, but it is difficult for their efforts to be followed up and sustained in the absence of an explicit, adequately-resourced strategy for gender mainstreaming in the Structural Funds, within the European Commission and in the Member States.

Avila, T.M. (1997) Le FEDER et la femme-entrepreneur au Portugal. European Commission, DG XVI.

Braithwaite, M. (1999) Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities in the Structural Funds: how regions in Germany, France and the United Kingdom are putting into practice the new approach. Final Report of the survey of current practice and findings of the seminar at Gelsenkirchen, January 21-22 1999. European Commission, DG Regional Policy and Cohesion.

European Commission. (1991) Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. Social Europe, 3/91. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs.

European Commission. (1998) Evaluer l’application du principe d’égalité des chances dans les interventions des Fonds structurels. European Commission, DG Regional Policy and Cohesion, Evaluation Coordination.

European Commission. (2000) Technical Paper 3: Mainstreaming Equal Opportunities For Women And Men in Structural Fund Programmes and Projects. European Commission, DG Regional Policy and Cohesion.

Ferres, M. (1997) Etats des lieux des bonnes pratiques relatives à l’application du principe de l’égalité des chances dans les interventions du FEDER en Espagne. European Commission, DG XVI.

Horelli, L. and Roininen, J. (1997) Gender Aspects in the application of ERDF interventions in the Finnish context in 1995-1996. European Commission, DG XVI.

Murphy, C. (1997) Structural Funds and Application of the Principle of Equal Opportunities in Ireland. European Commission, DG XVI.