This is a CTP of initiative: RIPESS/ Groupe Terre (Belgium)
Since the early 2000s, Groupe Terre has been involved or has contributed to create several networks in order to promote Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) through lobbying or though the participation in joint projects with other SSE entities. As the interviewee explains, “For about fifteen years, my work has consisted in promoting entities which fall within the SSE category, as we call it now. Before, we did not have a name for that. My work is, above all, to be in networks: when the networks already existed, I just became part of them whereas when they did not, I contributed to create them. If we want to promote SSE and to do lobbying, we need networks. In other words, I am part of several networks in order to have access to every tools which are necessary to be able to properly support lobbying activities, especially on democratic and participative governance issues”. This perceived necessity to join networks relies on a fundamental conception of societal change, which depends on institutional and/or legal transformations: “We think that if we want to make a difference, we need not only to rely on something that works (ie. the reality) but also to aim at transforming rules, laws, decrees. We need to intervene, otherwise we give some space to others, which can promote the contrary of what we are seeking to do”. In this sense, promoting SSE could be considered as a power struggle where diverging interests have to fight to appeal to existing institutions (see “contestation” part).
Given its diverse activities (eg. recycling, production of acoustic panels) and objectives (eg. promotion of SSE, insertion, participative governance), Groupe Terre is a member of different kind of networks (thematic, geographic) at several levels (regional, federal, supranational). This membership can be direct or indirect: indirect membership refers to the situation when Groupe Terre is part of a European network through its membership to a national one.
Particular attention is given to European networks like ENSIE (the European Network of Social Integration Enterprises, which was created in 2001) or Social Economy Europe (created in 2000 to promote the legal recognition of social economy) for reasons that are more detailed in the “co-production” part of this CTP. Groupe Terre is also involved in international networks like RIPESS (a network created in 1997 to promote SSE globally), in national networks like SAW-B (a network on social economy created in 1981) and in regional ones like RESSOURCES (gathering non-profit making companies involved in recovery and recycling in Wallonia and in Brussels since 1999).
The insertion in several networks at several levels relies on an understanding of multi-level governance and the perceived importance of leading multi-level lobbying activities. This understanding is heavily influenced by the fact that the number of areas covered by the European Union (EU) has increased over time.
As we mentioned in the previous part, European networking activities are particularly significant for Groupe Terre. As the interviewee recalls, “We realized soon enough that we were in an enlarged Europe and that, to be able to influence legislation in Belgium or in Wallonia, we needed first to try to influence European laws. I’m referring to Wallonia but this observation could apply to any region in Europe, since about 80% of laws and decrees are only implementations of European legislation [...] I would say that one third of my work consists in being in contact with Europe”. However, even though a great number of national and regional legislation derives from EU legislation, this does not mean that lobbying the regional level is a waste of time.
The first reason is that regions do have some manoeuvre in the implementation of EU legislation or on the provision of EU subsidies. Taking the example of the EU subsidies on the insertion of disadvantaged workers, the interviewee explains that “Europe does not say that we have to do insertion on 12 month, it says that it can only finance programs during 12 or 24 months (depending on the level of disadvantage of people). [...] In Wallonia, they decided to divide the wage cost of 12 months in 4, in order to spread over 4 years the subsidy initially thought for 1 year. This gives us more time to try to give back to people a place in the society”.
The other reason is that regions can go beyond EU legislation: as the interviewee explains, “Belgium is a very regionalised country, especially since the 6th reform of the State. This means that many things happen at the regional level. Even though European regulations provide a precise framework, which implies compliance when the legislation is mandatory, this does not mean that other levels cannot go further”. In order to illustrate his point, the interviewee takes the example of public procurements: “In the field of public procurement, there are two options: if a prescription is mandatory, the regional authorities incorporate it in their legislation; if it is not, they have the liberty to go beyond what Europe required. They can introduce for example reservation of access to public contracts for enterprises which have more than 30% of their staff composed of disadvantaged people under specific conditions”. Even though the conditions to introduce reservations of access are quite strict (so as to ensure free competition), the European legislation provides legal certainty to national or regional levels which would like to encourage social enterprises.
Finally, combining EU level and regional level lobbying is perceived as a clever step, since lobbying activities at one level can have repercussion on another: “If we take the example of insertion, which is one of our main objectives, there was something with the ENSIE network in 2007. Together with another colleague, we had a meeting with a civil servant from the European Commission in order to discuss a possible definition of disadvantaged people to be included in the regulation proposal they were preparing on disadvantaged people in the framework of State aids [...] This person asked us to work on a short definition and our definition turned out to be included in the regulation. [...] When, in 2013, Wallonia worked on a new insertion decree, they simply copy-pasted the European definition! [...]. This means that I did not have to do anything, not even trying to get with the Ministry in charge! It is an example, but I could mention many others”.
The related events cover the creation of the networks considered as essential for Groupe Terre: SAW-B (1981), RIPESS (1997), Social Economy Europe (2000) and ENSIE (2001).
Groupe Terre is one of the earliest member of SAW (Solidarité des Alternatives Wallonnes) based network created in 1981 in Liège (Belgium) to gather several French-speaking entities in order to decompartmentalize social economy (ie. to integrate in a common network entities part of the “historical social economy” and entities falling within the “new social economy” movement of the end of the 1970s). In 2005, the network was renamed “SAW-B” in order to acknowledge the long-term presence of Brussels-based entities. The idea was to structure and promote a common identity within the social economy movement. Today, this network, self-defined as a SSE movement, comprise over 120 members, being enterprises, cooperatives, associations, trade-unions etc. Its main activities consist in doing lobbying, organizing public trainings or events, providing assistance to social enterprises etc.
RIPESS is an intercontinental network that connects SSE networks throughout the world since 1997. From Lima (1997) to Quebec (2001), from Dakar (2005) to Luxembourg (2009) and Manila (2013), RIPESS organizes global forums every four years and is a nexus for learning, information sharing and international collaboration. It is composed by over 80 members from 5 continents (Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Europe, which can be networks, mutual funds, associations, fair-trade organizations, universities etc. RIPESS has a European brand (RIPESS Europe) since 2009 in order to overcome the impacts of the economic crisis and to promote organizational approaches from local to global that support freedom, reciprocity, solidarity and egalitarian exchange.
Social Economy Europe was set up in Brussels (Belgium) in November 2000, under the name of CEP-CMAF (European Standing Conference of Cooperatives, Mutual societies, Associations and Foundations). Its main objectives are to 1) promote the economic and social inputs of social economy enterprises and organisations in Europe, 2) promote the role and values of social economy actors in Europe, 3) reinforce the political and legal recognition of the Social Economy and of its different forms of enterprises and organisations (cooperatives, mutual societies, associations, foundations, as well as newer forms like social enterprises) at the European level. It is composed of 13 European networks.
Finally, Groupe Terre is also an indirect member of ENSIE (European Network of Social Integration Enterprises) through its membership to the Belgian network RES (Réseau des Entreprises Sociales). Indeed, ENSIE is a “network of networks” officially established in Brussels (Belgium) in 2001. ENSIE takes for its objective the representation, maintenance and development within the European Union of networks and federations for work integration social enterprises. In order to so, it carries out lobbying and exchange of practices and information activities and develops synergies with other networks. Today, ENSIE gathers 28 national and regional networks from 21 EU countries. All these networks pursue, in an adapted way to local constraints, objectives of social integration of disadvantaged groups. Together, they represent more than 2,500 Social Integration Enterprises, and about 400,000 salaried persons.
Working in networks can be a considerable challenge at times, given 1) the limited financial means of SSE entities, 2) the diverging interests involved in European Commission consultations, 3) the absence of an association status at the EU level.
The financial means of non-profit entities (which are at the core of SSE) being limited, this implies that network participation depends on the geographical location of meetings. Talking about their involvement in RIPESS, the interviewee explains that: “When it’s possible, we try to participate in the meetings they organize. If the meeting is in a city where we have staff, such as Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso, we send someone to attend the meeting. However, if there is a meeting in a country where we don’t have anybody and that it means that we have to pay for the travel, we just do not attend the meeting”. However, being in Belgium is an asset since lots of meetings happen in Brussels. More generally, this example shows how the financial costs come in the equation of networks’ involvement.
Moreover, regarding the EU lobbying process, even though the European Commission usually leads wide consultations with stakeholders on its proposals, where diverging interests compete in order to shape the latter: “We were involved during two years in the writing of a regulation proposal with the European Commission but an important problem occurred at the end of this process: one day, we discovered a new text fragment that we had never seen before. It had been added on the request of the English and we were against it. [...] We instantly warned the Commission and its representatives answered that if we went against it, we would lose all we had won during the two-year consultation. [...] We did not manage to make it removed but we were able to make it move to another article in the regulation, which was already a small victory”.
A final challenge to be overcome relies in the absence of a status of association at the EU level, which acted as a constant barrier regarding the formation of new networks. Despite a 1992 proposal from the European Commission on the Statute for a European Association (jointly presented with two other proposals on the Statutes for a European Mutual and a European cooperative), the lack of legislative progress on this file forced the Commission to withdraw its proposal in 2003. As our interviewee explains, this has consequences on the possibilities for European civil society to formally organize: “The absence of recognition of an association statute at the European level is a real challenge. When we created ENSIE, we were forced to make it under Belgian law, and to take a Belgian association statute. [...] If there was an EU association statute, it would be easier to organize actions at the European level. Europe exists but it does not give the possibility for civil society to organize at the European level. [..] For us, it’s a recurring problem: each time we create a network, we have to wonder where it will be legally based”. Obviously, this kind of observations tends to further criticism about the democratic deficit of the EU.
The members of Groupe Terre quickly anticipated the necessity to integrate several networks in order to acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of each network. By comparing two networks (ENSIE & RIPESS) our interviewee illustrates variations between them regarding membership policies, objectives and functioning processes.
For example, RIPESS gathers all kind of entities (networks, associations, enterprises, universities etc.) around the world, which ensures diversity but jeopardizes effective decision-making. On the contrary, members of Social Economy Europe are only networks at the European level, which facilitates decision-making, but tends to narrow its objectives: “Social Economy Europe is a social platform composed by European networks. Its small size [13 networks] and its structure allow taking decisions easily, because the decisions have already been discussed within each network. In RIPESS, it’s all mixed up. We end up with enterprises talking with networks. Sometimes, enterprises are members of these networks, sometimes they do not and they even do not agree with them. Moreover, it’s an international movement. For that matter, I think it is far more difficult to take a decision in the RIPESS platform, not least because you have Americans, Canadians, South-Americans, Africans etc. Decisions are more difficult but conviviality is higher”. However, this diversity in membership allows the coverage of a greater number of topics: “The solidarity aspect is far more important in RIPESS. There is a great variety of subjects that are discussed, which is wider than for Social Economy Europe. They do not cover the same topics. This is what makes things interesting”.
Moreover, the impetus of Groupe Terre for participating in each network is not the same. Social Economy Europe is rather used for lobbying activities whereas RIPESS is rather used for networking and exchanges on best practices. For RIPESS, “Our participation brings us contacts and relations which are useful when it comes down to developing projects in the South or lead campaigns in the North on Southern issues. On the other hand, I think we can bring a lot on democracy and participative governance issues. Our participation in RIPESS allows us to exchange good practices, which enriches our work”. However, RIPESS does not have the human or financial means to lead lobbying activities: “I think they are less advanced than Social Economy Europe when it comes down to lobbying activities. They do not have the resources for being continuously in contact with European Members of Parliament or civil servants from the European Commission”.
One of the first lessons is that the early creation of a network can bring legitimacy on the long-term, especially in the framework of consultations at the EU level. Taking the example of a success with the ENSIE network, our interviewee recalls that “We had successful results on social clauses in public procurement. What is striking is that it is the European Commission itself which called us to have advice on what they should write. We formulated several propositions and some of them were included in the text. [...] This happened because, with time, we became a reference”. Because ENSIE had been one of the main stakeholders on issues related to social economy since its creation (in 2000), it helps explaining why the European Commission did not hesitate to ask for advice when drafting a new legislation on these issues.
The second lesson is that if an organization does not practice lobbying, it takes the risk to suffer from unwanted legislation for reasons already invoked in the “contestation” part. On a smaller scale, it can miss funding opportunities. For example, there had been successful lobbying at the federal level from SST (Samenwerkingsverband Sociale Tewerkstelling), a Flemish federation for insertion enterprises, to increase subsidies to employ very disadvantaged people. When it came down to apply for these subsidies, Flemish entities were far faster than Wallonian ones because they had been involved in the setting-up of these governmental measures. As our interviewee explains, “When the law setting-up these measures passed and entered into force, they instantly applied for around 800 disadvantaged people to benefit from these subsidies [...] We were far less responsive because we did not know about them and we had to think about ways to benefit from them. And when we finally decided to take the plunge, it was too late, because the government had gone backwards and had decided to change the conditions for the granting of these subsidies”.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
