Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
FEMM European Parliament
Follow its sittingsLina Gálvez
This is a social, a very important issue for us. So please, you have the floor for 10 minutes. The floor is yours. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you so much for inviting me to do the reports and also for inviting me to speak here. So I will put forward the main points from the briefing, and you find more in the briefing. And you can always ask me questions afterwards as well. Could I have the next slide, please?
Thank you. So let's start with the.
Speaker 11
Sit here, but we, oh, yeah. So if we cannot solve the technical problem, maybe you can take it outside the briefing and then follow the numbers through the briefing. I will recommend that. Otherwise, we cannot follow, so that will be a solution. Okay?
Lina Gálvez
So may I have one, two? Thank you. The however, I can follow here because this screen is working? So we are going to do that. Just pick up the briefing if you haven't so far, and then we can continue.
Lina Gálvez
So, how about we just proceed? Because I think the time is cut. Let me try to be clear.
Will be, that will be great. So if you have, later on, any comment or questions specific to any specific number that it is probably the more difficult to follow, just, we can repeat it as much as you need it. Thank you very much. I'm sorry about that. So, please, sorry about that.
The floor is yours. You see also here, we have technical problems. Thank.
you. Yeah.
Speaker 8
No worries at all. So let's start from the beginning, then. So if you start with the big picture, I'm sure that you already know this. So the ESF in the next term is not gonna be an independent funding instrument with a dedicated budget and dedicated programming documents. It's gonna be part of this bigger fund, national and regional partnership fund, that brings together all the shared management funding.
The ESF shared management activities are going to be part of the single national programming document, the NRP plan. And the ERC strand, so the commission managed part of the ESF plus is going to be part of this new entity called EU facility that brings together all the direct management activities of the funds to be merged. So the ESF is still gonna have a regulation, but it's gonna be less important than it is at the moment. So the energy fund regulation is gonna be more dominant in relation to the ESF than the current common provisions regulation is compared to the current ESF+. For instance, the NRP fund regulation already sets the objectives for the ESF.
In addition, many gender-relevant provisions that are currently in the ESF plus regulation or in the common provisions regulation will be part of the new performance framework regulation that includes provisions on horizontal priorities, including gender equality. So the takeaway here is that to really ensure that the ESF in the next term promotes gender equality, we also need changes in the NRP fund regulation and in the performance framework regulation. Then, let's now move on to think what kind of changes we can observe in the proposed regulations in comparison with the 2027 term. Starting from changes in objectives, it's pretty obvious that the ESF and the NRP fund regulation weaken gender equality objectives and requirements for targeted action. So the current ESF plus includes a gender equality objective among specific objectives, and there's also a provision that obliges member states to take targeted action across all the objectives.
In contrast, the articles of the proposed NRB fund and ESF regulation do not include any gender equality objectives, nor obligations to take targeted measures. The articles of the energy fund regulation mention equality, but not gender equality. They also mention care services, but care services are mentioned together with health care and with a modernization, rather than a gender equality framework. And what's really important to understand is that the NRP plans of member states must support the objectives of the NRP fund regulation. This is clearly stated in that regulation.
So without gender objectives in the NRP fund regulation, member states will not be obliged to have gender equality measures in their plans. So the takeaway here, the lack of objectives risks reducing targeted action for gender equality and funding as well. And in principle, the long history of the European Social Fund as a key EU instrument to promote gender equality is at risk, too. So then let's move to changes in gender mainstreaming. The briefing includes several points on this, but let me just focus on the two most important ones.
The first relates to general gender mainstreaming provisions, or rather the lack of them. So in '21-27 term, both the common provisions regulation and the ESF plus regulation include a gender mainstreaming provision that has this holistic policy cycle approach. It talks about preparation, implementation, monitoring, reporting, and evaluation. In contrast, there are no binding gender mainstreaming provisions in the proposed ESF and NRP fund regulation. This absence relates to the commission's new approach to gender mainstreaming in the MFF, that focuses on the performance framework regulation.
But that approach, as you will hear later today, is narrow and focused on expenditure tracking and monitoring. It does not compensate for these missing provisions in the ESF and NRP fund regulation. The second point about gender mainstreaming relates to gender-related requirements for national programming documents, so the NRB plus. The current regulations do not contain any detailed requirements. In contrast, the proposed performance framework regulation includes some obligations for the member states.
So basically, the NRP plans should include an explanation of how the activities are expected to contribute to gender equality. And the plans should also assign to each activity the appropriate gender tracking score and provide justifications. So this is new. This is something we didn't have or don't have in the current term. The NRP fund regulation, in contrast, does not mention gender in the article on the NRP plans.
It does mention the other horizontal priorities, though. And also the template for the NRP plans that's annexed to the regulation leaves very little room for substantial gender analysis. There is a 5,000-character slot to discuss contribution to gender equality. That's not much. So here, the takeaway is that despite some useful new elements, this new centralized and narrow approach is likely to weaken gender mainstreaming in the ESF.
So a lot of the long-standing work done risks perhaps disappearing. And there is also a risk of window dressing. Gender mainstreaming is not about a 5,000-character explanation text in the plan. It's not only about assigning scores to activities. Could I have the next slide, please?
So then the third point, funding. Yeah. So, as I said, the ESF will not have an earmarked budget within the NRP fund. And in general, the member states will have more flexibility on how they want to use their national envelopes than before. But there is a 14% target for spending on social objectives in the NRP fund, excluding the CAP income support.
And this 14% target also appears to apply to the NRP plans, although the wording is a bit unclear there, I think. What this means financially, and you can look at the figures there in the briefing. So, basically, a minimum of around €80,000,000,000 in 25 years should be spent on social objectives in the next term. But this is less than the current ESF plus budget of 88,000,000,000. And this 88,000,000,000 is 2018 prices.
So, actually, you know, the difference is actually bigger than just 8,000,000,000. And when we turn these nominal figures into relative figures and look at the share of the current ESF plus from the current MFF, and the share of the social earmarking minimum of the whole proposed MFF, we see an even bigger drop. So the graph there, below. So from more than 8% of the MFF to only about 4.5% of the MFF. So the takeaway clearly is that there is the risk of less funding for ESF-related objectives in the next MFF, and as part of that, also for gender equality.
And in addition, the ESF and gender equality objectives still have to compete with other political priorities. For instance, the NRP plans also have to address the country-specific recommendations. While these recommendations can push some member states to use national envelopes for social objectives and gender equality, they often encourage member states to do something completely else. Only very few member states currently have a CSR that relates to gender equality. Next slide, please.
Then my last point about changes in implementation structures. So as I already said, there will be a big change in comparison to the current term with the single national programming document, and also the single EU level programming document. And this contains some risks from a gender perspective. So first of all, the administrative bodies in charge of the NRP plans might be further removed from national gender equality actors than those administrative bodies that currently implement the ESF+. The energy fund regulation says that all authorities concerned by a relevant chapter should be involved, but, well, this is quite weak.
It doesn't tell us much. But an even bigger worry that I have is that the national and EU level expertise on gender mainstreaming in the ESF and all these good practices at the national level that have been created in the past decades might disappear if processes, documents, and authorities are streamlined. So takeaway here, there are a lot of potential challenges related to the single implementation documents that need to be tackled to ensure that the good practices in the ESF plus will not get lost. But there's also some kind of possibility here. So perhaps these ESF-related good gender mainstream practices might be expanded through this single programming document to other parts of the national envelopes as well.
Next slide, please. And then just to finish with some policy recommendations. So like I said earlier, ensuring that the ESF will deliver for gender equality requires changes also beyond the ESF regulation. And different issues need to be addressed in different regulations. For instance, everything about the indicators and monitoring is part of the performance framework regulation.
That's where we need to address that. Funding levels and targets are in the NPR fund regulation, whereas with gender mainstreaming, we can do something in all of them. So the most important changes that are needed in the proposed ESF regulation, in my view, are first to add a new article on gender equality that includes gender equality objectives and an obligation for member states to take targeted measures across all ESF objectives, and a similar obligation for the commission-managed part as well. In terms of gender mainstreaming, yes, we can try to insert a gender mainstreaming provision that would cover both member states and Commission activities in the ESF regulation. Ideally, however, we would have this kind of gender mainstreaming provision in the NRP fund regulation.
But if that's difficult, it's of course better to have one in the ESF regulation as well. And maybe as the last point that relates to the ESF regulation, it would be useful to really improve it from the perspective of care. We have the European care strategy that's not reflected in this regulation. So gender equality is not only about equality measures. Gender equality is also a lot about care.
And I think the ESF regulation, as well as the energy fund regulation, could be a lot stronger on that point. I'm not gonna go to the proposals on the NPR fund regulation. You'll find more of them in the briefing. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much for the word, the clarity, and then I hope it will be more. We will be now demonstrating in the Luxembourg square because, indeed, it is, yeah, not at all an improvement in the new proposal for the ESF. And I will say also, lack of coherence. I mean, you were mentioning at the end, and I will give the floor.
I will probably intervene at the end. But you were mentioning a care strategy. The current deal as such is included in the gender equality strategy that was recently presented, saying that it will be funds for it, and then there is not at all anything on the AESF. So there is a lack of coherence when it comes to mainstreaming, really mainstreaming, gender equality and to, at the end, in certain parts of the commission. So we will follow very much that issue also with our colleagues in Reyi.
But now, I would like to give the floor to our operator, Alessandra Moretti. You have the floor for six minutes. Thank.
Alessandra Moretti
You, chair. And I would also like to respect the disappointment. We asked for the approach to be different from the commission. We are going through a decisive moment, not just because of what's happening in the world geopolitically, but also because of the work that we're doing in our institutions. We're trying to set out the next MFF, which will have an influence on spending decisions up to 2034.
So this is a very long time. Today, we're talking about the European Social Fund in particular. Historically, this has been a very important fund for European citizens, and particularly the most vulnerable citizens. And so, as I said before, we can't hide a certain level of disappointment with the proposal that the commission has put forward. First of all, in the next MFF, the European Social Fund will no longer be an independent financial tool with a specific budget.
Rather, it will be part of a broader updated context, where states can get financing and then decide what to do with that money through national and regional plans. The commission is pronouncing this structure as additional flexibility, but we're all aware that in actual fact, a more flexible approach will mean that social programs will have to fight for financing with other priorities and other interests. And no one's unaware of the fact that when we talk about women, inclusion in the world of work, fighting poverty, inclusion, education, these always come up against the final decisions of governments who try to keep these types of issues slightly on the margins of political debate. And so these important topics, particularly when it comes to fighting inequality, tend to be marginalized from the budgets. In the way this new fund is designed, these specific funds will be eliminated, and that includes funds focused on gender equality.
The long history of the EU has had policies that have tried to promote women's participation in the world of work, striking a balance between work and private life. And this is something that the new framework completely ignores. We're asking for gender mainstreaming to ensure proper preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation for every project that's implemented through this financial tool. If we don't have any of that, then from 2028, the risk is that we'll see established practices on gender mainstreaming disappear. Data clearly show that women are disproportionately affected by unemployment, segregation at work, particularly in certain sectors, digitalization, or have part-time contracts.
But they're overrepresented when we talk about the care sector. It's even worse when it's informal, unpaid, non-recognized care. And that's not all. Women often don't have proper access to health care, and health care doesn't properly reflect the reality of their bodies. They're at a greater risk of poverty and of losing their housing.
So all of this demonstrates intersectional discrimination and the fact that women are at risk of violence that they can't escape from. The European Social Fund needs to have specific tools to fight structural systemic cultural institutional difficulties that make it difficult for women to be fully integrated into the world of work and social life. Over recent months, we've seen my voice, my choice, which is to ensure safe access to abortion. This is a historical battle. Our parliament has supported this initiative with strength and determination.
We want to see a specific budget line dedicated to this issue because it should be something that exists across Europe, and it should be incorporated into a program on health. We've seen, and we welcome the fact that the commission has accepted my voice, my choice initiatives, but we want this to be part of the European Social Fund. We would have liked things to be done differently, but whatever happens, our priority is to ensure that women's sexual and reproductive rights are recognized, and that includes abortion. So we will work to ensure that without undermining other social issues that are equally important, but we want to ensure that the European Social Fund will allow women and girls access to this fundamental right. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that member states do not use funds that are meant for gender equality for other issues.
Others that may have more consensus for parties and governments. We'll be vigilant on this and work to ensure that despite all of this, fighting discrimination and promoting gender equality remains a priority for member states. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Grazie, Alessandra. Thank you to the rapporteur from the S and D group, Socialists and Democrats. Now there is no one from the EPP, so we move to patriot.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Margarita, you have the floor for two minutes. Thank you. To the representative, the commission and the FAM report on the question of the European Social Fund, which is going to take a different form. So funds should yield results, and we've seen that the gender perspective has not been useful. It's been counterproductive.
In this committee, there's constant complaints that we are unable to see results. You speak a little bit more slowly? In this committee, we've seen that despite the enormous investment over the last two years in the gender perspective, there have been no results. And that's because the gender perspective has not always supported the achievement of gender equality. Comment on the report as a vision, we see that we have to protect and promote any woman who wants to work rather than dealing with care in the home.
It's not the situation in many families. Families don't have social support, where this is having a huge impact on society. And the only concern seems to be that women should always be working. And it's a vision which sees the independence of women as the target, which generates a poverty of solidarity, which is perhaps a greater gap than the poverty gap. So that's one of the huge problems that women can suffer from.
And I think another thing that we could question is that in the name of protecting women, these funds are going to be used, as the rapporteur said, for abortion. Abortion is not a human right. It's not a health issue, and it cannot be used to improve social issues or employment. And we are all aware of the polarization in opinion between the different political groups on this subject and, I think, in society. And insisting on including it puts at risk the viability of this framework of being approved by the plenary.
We don't understand why there is so much insistence on the human rights charter in the preamble, which clearly states that Europe has a spiritual and moral heritage based on the values of human dignity, solidarity, and equality. So what are these values? What is this spiritual legacy that the charter has to protect? Is it wokeism, which is just practically two days old? And it's a moral issue which has allowed our society to prosper.
The care issue, which is the spiritual foundation, is what is important. So including abortion in this fund is not just an irregular act, but it doesn't reflect the values that the European Union has been based on. Thank you. Thank you, Margarita. Thank you very much, madam Chairwoman, rapporteur, colleagues.
Valérie Devaux
I'd like to thank the Rapporteur for her draft opinion, which is for a better European Social Fund to reduce inequality. In my amendments, I want to defend four priorities. First of all, the follow-up to My Voice, My Choice. The commission was clear. Without calling into question national competence, the social front can contribute to reducing equality for health services, including abortion.
This approach needs to be put into practice and maintained in the next multi-annual financial framework. And then support for basic subsistence. The European budget funds one meal in four in France, and particularly women and single mothers in particular are one of the main beneficiaries. We need to consolidate this support. And that means that you can have a direct impact on women's poverty.
And it also means taking into account their specific needs, access, for example, to menstrual protection and to have protection for this type of aid, which makes it simpler and operational. Third point, taking into account that handicapped people who are disabled have more difficulty getting access to employment and care, and have a higher rate of poverty. The ESF programs should more systematically include this dual dimension: gender and disability. And it would also be consistent to include in the budgetary instruments recommendations in the report that we're going to vote on this week, on support for care workers. And also, this has to be started upstream.
Choices are still marked by stereotypes, which limits women's access to certain sectors, science and technology in particular. We have to ensure that adjustments in education and training correct these gaps in a sustainable way. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you very much. So we move to the left. Carolina Morache. Floor is yours. Thank.
Carolina Morace
You, chair, and thank you to the reporter. The ESF Plus is one of the most important tools in the EU to support people. It helps those who are unemployed and young people in accessing education and training, and it supports workers across all regions. And it does this by offering concrete opportunities and helping to build more inclusive societies. This fund represents the very best of what the EU can be.
It's a tool focused on solving problems that people in our communities face every day. Looking at this future, reshaping, we're concerned because it redefines the fund itself. The European Social Fund has to be strong. Investing in people, in women, in skills and opportunities must continue to be a key priority for the EU. The ESF Plus has to work for everyone in our societies.
So this means responding to various challenges that people face, including the need to enhance support for women to get into the world of work, to overcome inequalities, and support opportunities. Our shadow has defended the crucial role of EU funding. Funds like the ESF Plus should not be used for defense or other geopolitical concerns. We're very concerned about the fact that many people are pushing to cut the budget or to move funding towards military expenditure or strengthening the borders because we know that women are the ones who face the worst consequences. And based on what my colleagues see, perhaps there should be more investment in women, not less.
This is a key moment in time to define the future of this fund. Our colleague Kathleen Funcion plans to work constructively with colleagues to ensure that we continue to produce results for all of our communities, including women, and that this is the case across Europe.
Lina Gálvez
And now, other members have asked for the floor, only Maria Noych. So the floor is yours for one minute, please, from S and D.
Maria Noichl
Thank you for the presentation. Very interesting. Three questions to the reporters. First question, do you share my concern that in gender mainstreaming, we see it being implemented in everything, but the actual projects are being diluted. It's a question to the rapporteur.
So we've got this general bird's eye view of gender mainstreaming, but the actual projects are not following through. Flexibility is in every line, but normally flexibility is the enemy of equality. Flexibility means that the member states could actually shift the money elsewhere. And so I think that flexibility, perhaps, is the wrong approach. And third point, I'd be interested in co-funding.
The more member states are getting into financial difficulty, the more important it is for European projects to have a high percentage of EU funding in order to allow these projects to be possible. Could you say something about what's planned for co-funding? Thank you for your contribution.
Lina Gálvez
Thanks, Maria. Now I would like to make a very brief question, especially because I'm the rapporteur for the tracking methodology here in the FAM committees. So we have invited different hearings on the on gender mainstreaming, on gender budgeting. And the commission keeps saying to us that this new approach that goes from objective to principles is a kind of an improvement. But when we go to very big specific programs as this one and to the national envelopes, it is different, for instance, for Horizon Europe, that we are following more closely with gender conditionality.
But, this is kind of a downgrade as you were saying. So, I would like to know more of this inconsistency, on the narrative of the commission saying we are improving. But if they are improving just in the narrative, but not in the specific programs in big envelopes as this one. So it's really nothing. I would like also to insist it was Maria was saying on the co-financing and, on the flexibility now that there are a lot of pressure to the budget, especially because there are new needs, important ones, security and so on.
So we can end up with austerity, and we already know what happened to women when austerity comes. And finally, just to know more, how do you think of this, my voice, my choice, putting more pressure on the proposal to the commission, putting more pressure on a fund that it is not huge. But, yeah, I agree that it's good that we have money for my voice, my choice. I'm just asking, to the place the commission has put to that of my voice, my choice. Thank you.
Well, you have the floor for three minutes if possible, but you could take a bit more because we have a struggle later. So the floor is yours.
Speaker 8
Yeah. Thank you so much for the questions and other interventions. I would just first say about the co-financing. I have unfortunately not looked at that in detail, but that's indeed a really crucial question because there are at member state level a lot of issues with the national part not coming together for the gender equality project. So I think that's definitely something that we have to look at.
And then, of course, it's not the ESF regulation where this thing can be improved. It's again gonna be the NRP fund regulation. But of course, it's still important to be aware of this. About the commission's new external approach of focusing on the performance framework regulation. I also want to reiterate that this is a big change, and it's not a change for good.
So, basically, these provisions in the performance framework regulation that relate to gender mainstreaming, you are gonna hear more about them later today, they are not enough to replace the gender mainstreaming provisions in the sectoral programming regulations. Because, basically, what the preference framework regulation is saying is simply that all the programs should consider supporting gender equality. It's a very vague wording that's there. It actually does not really ask for any other type of action than tracking spending for gender equality. And although tracking can be an important part of a gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming strategy, in the end, it is not a tool to shift spending towards gender equality goals.
It's not a tool to ensure that in all the EU funds, we are going to have specific, targeted activities to promote gender equality. So that's why we really need to work with each and every program regulation that has been proposed. And I wanna return to the question of objectives still, and to this idea of consistency. So unless the program regulations have clear gender equality objectives, it's very unlikely that funding will actually be used for gender equality. And the question of objectives, it's not like we have to come up with these objectives out of thin air.
We do have the road map for gender equality or road map for women's rights, and that has already the eight general principles related to gender equality, and a long list of specific objectives. So, basically, what we can simply do is to look at what the commission has already proposed to be the EU's gender equality goals and integrate these then in the program regulations. And this is also what can be done with the ESF. And I was really happy to hear about these plans to enhance the health dimension of the proposed regulations in order to really bring these concerns about sexual and reproductive health and rights and abortion rights to the proposed ESF regulation. I think this is actually a good strategy to go, and I would very much hope that this could also be achieved.
Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. Thank you very much. You can imagine how useful it is for us, your knowledge, your presentation, because, indeed, with the pro the commission is proposing is a very deep, big change, and there is a lot of work done. You mentioned on promoting women's labor market participation where light balance and gender equality, and that can be overlooked with this proposal. So thank you very much, and we will keep working together.
Thanks a lot. So we move to the next point, but there is also a very important one, which is the establishing point five, sorry, establishing the Agora EU program for the period 2028, 2034, and repealing regulation 21692, 2021818. So this point is about the firm opinion establishing the AGRA, I already mentioned, which is the successor of the former Creative Europe program and the former CRV program, joining both programs under one regulation. The lead committee are called committees in a joint committee procedure. As the preceding agenda point, this program is part of the MFF and therefore part of the 2026 fund accompanying expertise.
As for the preceding point, I will first give the floor to someone I knew for years, in my previous life, doctor Elizabeth Klatze, and that will join us online, and afterwards to the rapporteur and shadow for both of the committees on the draft opinion. And at the end, we will open the floor for questions to doctor Klatzer. So, now I have the pleasure to give the floor to doctor Elizabeth Klatzer. And, you have the floor for ten minutes. And thank you very much for coming to the farm committee.
I hope a nice time you could join us in person. The floor is yours for 10 minutes. Thank you. Hello? Yes.
We can hear you, Elizabeth. So please take the floor. Now we can hear your computer, but not you. Hello? Yeah.
Can we send a message to her saying that we can hear her properly? That will be more appreciated. Thank you. Today, we are having some technical problems, but we will be solving them. I hope.
So, doctor Klatso, can you hear me? This is like COVID time.
Yes. Indeed.
Lina Gálvez
So the floor is yours, and thank you. Thank you. I was just saying that I'm so glad you are here, even if not in person, but I hope next time will be the case. And thank you. Thank you very much for joining us at the fund committee.
And, please, the.
Speaker 21
Floor is yours for two minutes. Thank you very much. Sorry for these technical glitches. Let me see. I do not see the presentation at the moment.
Lina Gálvez
Elizabeth, so you can open the camera? Because unless the interpreters can see you, you cannot be interpreted. And there are members and people that are following that cannot follow in English, so it will be, ah, now. Yeah. We can't see you.
Yes. As beautiful as always. So now, yes. Now the floor is yours for 10 minutes. So.
Speaker 22
Yes. Sorry for these technical glitches. I still do not see the presentation. I hope the presentation is visible in the room.
Speaker 24
Okay. So I just shall use mine, because I do not see where it is. So, next slide.
it. Yes. Now I see it.
Lina Gálvez
I was in it, but not the rest of the room. So now it's okay. So now, for the third time, the floor is yours. Ten minutes. So, thank.
Speaker 22
thank you very much. All things go for 3 times. So, next slide, please. And I can fully continue what has been said by doctor Elomeki. So, the Agora EU program, of course, is hugely important because it's the program expressly linked to EU's gender equality objectives.
However, what we do see is, compared to the current SURF program, there is a highly reduced visibility on gender equality. First of all, general and specific program objectives do not mention gender equality. They mention equality and non-discrimination. Unlike the current SURF program, which includes a specific objective on promoting gender equality and advancing gender mainstreaming. Next, please.
Speaker 24
So gender equality only appears on a third level as one of the six focus areas of the surplus strand, which is very much downgraded. Next. So what we do see is that this involves quite a bit. You can go ahead, please. Yes. Quite a bit of downgrading.
Speaker 22
What we do still have is combating gender-based violence as one of the specific objectives of Agora EU. Next. And so, sorry. This is, and importantly, also, and gender equality is not mentioned in relation to other strands, which currently in the current program is. So next, just as an overview of the current provisions.
So you see here what I have been talking about. There is no specific objective compared to the current service. Agora EU doesn't have it on gender equality and advancing gender mainstreaming. However, gender-based violence is still there as the strand specific. First of all, gender equality disappears from the strand title, and it is, as I had said, related to this lower level.
Next. So you see also, and you can read specifics in the briefing, please. You see also that the current serve contains a more comprehensive agenda mainstreaming, which is using the application of gender mainstreaming, gender budgeting, gender impact assessments at a fuller range. And very importantly, there is earmarked funding for gender equality in the current SURF program, which is not the case in Agora EU. Continue next.
And as I had mentioned, yes. Continue, please. So having no earmarked funding means that gender equality and combating violence are likely to be downgraded in terms of funding. And on the other hand, there is no guarantee that part of the funding is allocated to projects implemented by civil society organizations like support for them. That implies that support for women's organizations and the ability to participate in EU-funded activities might decrease.
On the men mainstreaming, doctor Elomeki had talked a lot. There is no program specific gender mainstreaming, and at the same time, the proposed performance regulation has a very weak, a very reduced gender mainstreaming understanding, which is basically reducing it to tracking spending and some monitoring. I was a bit hesitating because, actually, I had included in the slides a comparison of other priorities in the last version of the slides, which are not here. So let me talk about that because in the you're using a previous, like, a first version of the slides. I'm very sorry.
So let me just talk briefly about it without the slides. So what we do see is that Creative Europe, the predecessor program for the other strands, has very strong, quite strong gender equality provisions and several gender equality provisions which are not in Agora EU in the culture and media strands, where there is no gender equality mentioned. So that means, that is specifically actions focus area, like specific incentives to foster gender equality throughout the current Creative Europe program. As regards grants, there's a specific provision to set out appropriate criteria to achieve gender equality. There is a complementarity, pointing to programs relevant union policies, especially among others, those relating to gender balance.
The specific mention in the Creative Europe program of horizontal actions shall support in the field of culture, and with incentives to promote gender equality. The media strand focuses on more balanced gender participation in the audiovisual sector, which is very important. As we know, we have continued very low participation of women, especially also in the news media sector. Thank you. Now you can continue.
So what we do see is that we are not only talking about the surf strand, but we also need to talk about the two other strands which completely lost all the important gender equality provisions. And when it comes to recommendations, this means that one thing is to include promoting gender equality as a general objective in the Agora EU program as a whole, and also in the different strands as specific objectives, ideally in the three strands or alternatively with regard to creative culture, Europe culture, and media plus at least in the focus areas of these two strands. And, also, the current programs have an annex with a specification of activities, and it would be quite important to reintroduce such an annex to make sure that there is a specification of how activities contribute to promoting gender equality and women's rights. Then the other element of recommendation of me earmarking a minimum level of funding for promoting gender equality and combating violence that the deafness tends to avoid delusion and diversion of funds to all the other priorities. Again, a comprehensive gender mainstreaming provision in Agora EU or, alternatively, a more comprehensive, gender mainstreaming provision in the performance regulation and ensuring a full application in this program would be necessary to really achieve.
Guarantee support for civil society, especially women-led and women's rights organizations as key implementing partners to promote gender equality, combating gender-based violence, and upholding democratic participation. So this is the key recommendations, and I finish here. Thank you very much. And, again, sorry for the technical glitches.
Lina Gálvez
No worries at all. Thank you. It was a great presentation, which is an important one.
Lina Gálvez
Now I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur for her presentation for six minutes. Melissa Camara, from The Greens, the floor is yours. Thank.
Mélissa Camara
you. Hello, everybody. Chairman and colleagues, thank you for this presentation, which emphasizes what we got from the Commission's presentation. This is no small program. AGORA EU for the next few years is going to determine how the EU supports culture, media, fundamental rights, democracy, and civil society.
And in the current context, this program is deeply political. In Europe, we've seen the same dynamic: fewer and fewer civic spaces, tax on women's rights, on LGTBQI rights. And it's because of this that I wanted to draw up this draft opinion with a simple objective, to ensure that this program is up to these challenges, and that involves looking in a lucid way at the situation in the field. Civil societies, in particular, feminist organizations, victim support organizations, LGTB, yes, the Chairman asked the Speaker to stop reading so quickly. Anti-racist organizations, funding is too unstable, too complex and too uncertain. At the same time, there is growing political pressure, which is fragmenting the possibility of taking action.
And talking about rights, equality, and democracy without guaranteeing the capacity to exist is of little meaning.
That's why we've given structural support to civil society, particularly through reinforcing the subsidies for their functioning, to make sure that this is accessible and efficient. We also need to stand back from the commission's proposal and look at the reality facing people on the ground. Ankara has said the idea of bringing together certain programs, and this may be pertinent, but only as long as it doesn't set aside certain priorities, particularly gender equality. And this is something we have to keep weather eye on. Integrating DAFNI itself too gives rise to some doubts, particularly from players of civil society, particularly on the visibility given to preventing violence against women.
We know that there's a lot of this. It's structural, and the fight against violence against women is underfinanced, which is why it's essential to shore up Daphne with ring-fenced and easily identifiable funds. We want the realities of the program to be mirrored in the financing. So this is the point of the proposal, that part of the budget should be set aside for CERF Plus and Daphne, and also for promoting equality. I think it's important to emphasize that gender equality cannot be looked at as one subject among others.
It must be a thread that runs throughout the program. And it should be mirrored in all the different aspects. This means real gender mainstreaming throughout, from the design to the implication. Because at the end of the day, it's a very simple question. What kind of society do we want to support with this program?
Do we want a program which simply states rights? Or do we want a program which really makes it possible to implement these, particularly for those people who are most sidelined at the moment? I'm looking at this from the second purpose of the second point of view, and I'm very happy that we're going to have some exchanges on this over the next week. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
And now, I would like to give the floor to the EPP to Paolo Donachmento. Cabral, the floor is yours.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. I would like also to thank the presentation of doctor Elizabeth Klatzer and the work of our rapporteur, Melissa Kamara. From our side, we are ready to contribute to the discussion on the future MFF and the role that AGRA EU can play in strengthening European democracy, protecting fundamental rights, and reaffirming our unwavering commitment to uphold the rights of women and girls in the European Union. Contrary to other proposals on the MFF, the new structure presented to AgroEU brings, in our point of view, clear advantages. By putting together civil society, culture, participation, rights, the gender equality components, it offers an integrated vision essential to address today's complex and interconnected challenges.
Democracy, equality, culture, education, and social cohesion can benefit if it has a comprehensive approach using all the available instruments to be protected. This structure also strengthens democratic resilience by empowering NGOs, local actors, and cultural organizations through a bottom-up approach. The program helps foster a stronger sense of belonging and a shared European identity, especially at the time when polarization and disinformation are growing across Europe. Simplified rules, annual calls for multi-annual projects are, of course, needed in order to simplify the access for NGOs, for instance, to this important program. But, also, multilevel governance and fair territorial access will make it easier for smaller organizations, local authorities, and actors from rural, outermost regions and islands to participate.
This is particularly important to ensure that no region and no community is left behind. A key priority must remain the strong focus on preventing and combating all levels of forms and gender-based violence against women and girls through the continuation of the DAPNY program, ensuring it remains a visible and adequately funded pillar. This is particularly important at the time when we are, as we all know, new forms of violence are emerging. Our position remains clear. Zero tolerance for gender based violence in all these forms, including online violence.
Gender equality must therefore be integrated across programs, as a fundamental European value. This is particularly important in the context of the implementation of the provisions for the directive on combating violence against women and the upcoming revision of the victims' rights directive. If these instruments are to be fully implemented, they may be supported by adequate resources in the new MFF. We need stronger accountability for platforms, better reporting mechanisms, and more investment in education, culture, and awareness-raising. This is where AgroEU can play a decisive role.
Awareness campaign using the same codes of the young population, such as schools, social platforms, cultural initiatives, and EU-wide monitoring tools are essential for effective implementation. The experience of self program clearly demonstrates I needed to speak very slowly here.
Lina Gálvez
I know. I know. But it's still they are asking me to you. So, yeah. But it also concluded at the same time, so I know it's kind of okay.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
So to conclude, we believe that culture and education are powerful tools for change, helping to raise awareness, change mindsets, and promote respect and equality. This is exactly the kind of impact that AgriU should continue to support. Thank you so much.
Maria Noichl
Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Albert and the speaker. Thank you, Melissa, for this very comprehensive piece of work, and thank you for the important proposals. We in S and D can support all of them. This is an excellent piece of work you've done.
I agree. We're in the middle of a crisis. So we've got wars and so on, and we've really got to protect the Agora EU Agora program. This is something which is a priority not just for my group but for me as well, because here we're talking about competent violence against women. We want to push to the fore the rights of women and gender equality, and ensure democracy in all member states.
These are all areas which are traditionally underfinanced, and that's a big problem. Therefore, I hope we can all work together to get this program up and running. There's got to be a minimum budget. This minimum budget should not be subject to flexibility so that member states can use the funds elsewhere. We need a clear sanction package if member states take money away from this program.
It's really got to hurt them. If money which is earmarked for equality is used for other things in the member states, they've got they've been feel the punishment. We need to have a situation where smaller organizations can apply for funding, not just the big ones. And there's something else which I think is important. We have to make sure that not €1 of this money is used for anti-feminist, any democratic or other pro programs.
We have to make sure that this money really goes to the right place, so that we can push towards what Europe wants, namely equality. I'm afraid the money could be spent on the opposite. We have to make sure that this doesn't happen. Thank you very much for excellent cooperation, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. And now, from Patriots, Catherine Grissett. Oh, she's not. So ECR has not yet nominated anyone for this file. So we move to renew to Veronica Cifroa that is not, but Catherine de Valerie de Vaux.
Please, the floor is yours.
Valérie Devaux
Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm taking the floor on behalf of Veronica who can't be here today. We, first of all, would like to thank Arputeur for this report, which is solid and balanced, and which reflects a number of essential priorities in this area. On behalf of our political group, Véronique wants to stress some points which we think are particularly important. First of all, it's absolutely essential to shore up the citizen, equality, and rights program, including DAFNI.
This is absolutely essential in promoting fundamental rights, in supporting women and supporting minorities, and to protect against gender-based violence, and to accompany the victims. Vernik would like to say how essential civil society organizations are. They supplement and shore up public services, and they cannot continue to do their work unless they are appropriately funded and have foreseeable funding. We're seeing increasing online violence, which affects women and girls more than other groups. We're also seeing cyberbullying and abusive use of new technologies, particularly the sharing of deepfake content.
We have certain things that need to be done, such as banning tools which undress people online. But that's got to go hand in hand with funding organizations which aim to prevent this sort of thing and prevent victims in cyberspace. Vernique is glad to see good cooperation in this area.
Thank you.
Carolina Morace
And thank you to the rapporteur for the excellent work that she has done. We welcome the strong focus on gender equality and protecting civil society, as well as enhancing the fight against gender-based violence. In particular, we recognize the role played by women's organizations and feminist organizations as well as LGBTQIA plus organizations, particularly given the context in which civic space is reducing in a number of member states. However, we believe that a number of key areas could still be strengthened. That's why we'll be tabling a number of amendments on this.
First of all, we believe it's essential to ensure that the integration of a number of Agora EU programs will not lead to a reduction in the programs on fundamental rights, gender, and equality. The surplus pillar has to be clearly identifiable and politically strong. Secondly, we think it's important to explicitly safeguard adequate financing that is dedicated to gender equality and to prevent and fight gender based violence, including through DAFNI. Without proper resources, these priorities will be weakened in practice. Thirdly, civil society organizations have to remain at the heart of the program.
This means guaranteeing access to genuinely inclusive financing. There has to be predictable, multi-annual financing, and this is particularly important for grassroots organizations working on gender equality and women's rights. Finally, we think it's important to ensure that synergies between the different parts of the program do not penalize programs that are specifically focused on equality, gender parity, and fundamental rights. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
I don't see anyone from ESN, and I have all in my list of other members asking for the floor. Emma Rafowitz from S. Sandida, one minute. Thank you.
Emma Rafowicz
Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank all the rapporteurs and all the shadows who worked on this as rapporteurs for Agora and within the committee. I'd like to say that, obviously, we think the work that you've done is very important. And the work we've done with all the committees who may have an opinion on this very important text, Agora is something new. It's not something we had before.
It's the merging of a number of important programs in the EU: Creative Europe, Media Plus. And then we've got this bit about news, which is new, and Surf Plus, which we talked about as well. For the moment and here, I would agree with all the previous speakers, it's not good enough in terms of achieving what we're trying to achieve. It's a difficult time in the EU. We've got to be there to defend our cultural sovereignty in order to ensure that all the programs that we defend really defend our values and the values of the European Union.
Agora should be a space to defend our anti-racist values, our feminist values, and so on. That is absolutely essential. Specifically, we're going to have to shore up Agora. We've got to shore it up to make sure that we show how important gender equality is, how important it is to fight against sexist and gender-based violence, and also to support reproductive rights and also the rights of LGBTQ plus. And I'm thinking about DAFNI in particular, but we also need to focus on all the programs and put in this element of equality throughout. I look forward to working on this together, and thank you for this discussion.
Lina Gálvez
Merci, I now would like to give back the floor to doctor Elizabeth Klatzer for three minutes. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much, and I congratulate you all. I see that work is very advanced from the side of the repertoire, from the side of all members. So, I think I can even go in less than three minutes as there haven't been specific questions, but I'm very happy to hear about the focus of amendments of Agora EU, which are crucially important, which is enhancing Agora EU by ensuring securing funding at a high level for gender equality, for rights, for combating violence as a very, very important element. And the other element is also the securing of good, meaningful, and profound gender equality objectives at different levels. Hopefully, the global objectives, but also the specific objectives for all three strands, as it has been reiterated that it's very important.
And let me make one more, and, of course, ensuring civil society, guaranteeing support to civil society, including women's rights organizations. And let me make the link now to the next topic, the performance regulation. What is evident is that in Agora EU as it is now, it is not ensured that the key gender equality objectives of the EU, like in the road map and in all the documents, is really effectively integrated and monitored. And the opinion of the court of auditors of the performance regulation showed that the indicators that are related to Agora EU are not ideal, and quite a few lack gender equality specific results indicators. So it is very important to see Agora EU in combination with the performance framework we shall talk about later.
Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much. And I would like to give back the floor to the representative Lisa Garman for two minutes. Thank you.
Mélissa Camara
I just wanted to thank everybody and all the rapporteurs for their comments and for their support. I look forward to working with them over the next few weeks so we can end up with an ambitious text faced with the issues battering us on this continent, so we can protect civil society and protect women against violence, both online and offline, and also so we can integrate gender equality in all programs. So thank you once again, and I'm at your disposal to continue this work.
Lina Gálvez
Merci. So now we move to the next point that it is still on budget and how we can improve it. And for that, we will still have also the same expert with us because she's one of the main experts precisely on agenda budgeting. So next point is point six, which is establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and all the horizontal rules for the union program and activities. So, I would like to welcome back, again online, doctor Elizabeth Klatze, that will inspire us about this very important methodology that it is a novelty, and it is inspiring, during the budgeted in the commission proposal.
So the floor is yours for ten minutes. Thank you very much.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much. And indeed, this program, we are talking now about the performance framework regulation, the budget and budget expenditure tracking is key and needs to be seen in combination with other programs we have been talking about. So I see the wrong presentation is on the screen. It's the next one on Global Europe. If you can change to the budget, the gender budgeting in the budget expenditure tracking and performance framework.
Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Let me just a moment because let's still not, I mean, we would like to invite you for every point, but the next one is not yours. Exactly. Yeah. We are. Thank you.
The floor is yours. Sorry about.
Speaker 22
thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next slide. As a starting point, let me just go quickly into it. We have already been talking about the importance of gender equality objectives.
So the objectives in general, as specified by the financial recast financial regulation, are of very importance for the use of appropriations. And in this context, what we see is that we have very weak integration of gender equality objectives. In the performance regulation, what we do see is a double point. First of all, and I stress this because it's a bit contrary to the narrative of the European Commission, who underlines that gender equality is so predominant as an objective where it applies. However, in the performance regulation, we do have no clear commitment to an objective of promoting gender equality.
Article seven refers to programs and activities that aim to support gender equality, with the annex I will be talking about. And this annex is called list of programs and activities, mainstreaming gender. So no clear gender equality objective in the performance regulation, and at the same time, very few gender equality objectives in the program regulation. Actually, only in three do we see it. Part of Aguara EU that we have been talking about, parts of Horizon, the ERA, and more systematically in Global Europe, which we will be talking about, you will be talking about in a minute.
So the question is how to ensure appropriation of financial funds for gender equality within this gender mainstreaming approach without objectives. And as for the parliamentary obligations, objectives are a basis for reporting. Like, the commission is expected to report progress towards the achievement of the program objectives. Again, this will be a shortcoming to perform the scrutiny function. Next slide, if there are no gender equality objectives.
We are talking about gender budgeting, gender mainstreaming. What I do see from the analysis, there is a profound misunderstanding of what gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming is. The appropriate gender mainstream methodology and the performance regulation is tracking. I shall talk about it. It's a limited tracking, but this is by no means a comprehensive gender mainstreaming, gender budgeting, which starts on gender impact as a profound gender impact assessments, has gender equality objectives linked to the budget and adequate budget allocations goes to implementation, monitoring to its gender equality results.
So a profound misunderstanding. Next slide. And I just want to remind us that the court of auditors, and this is an image from the court of auditors, reiterates the same perspective. We need to have gender-related objectives related to the EU budget. Next slide.
So I shall, the appropriate gender mainstream methodology basically is limited to the gender tracking and the monitoring. Let the next slide. And the gender equality tracking is limited to a list of programs, next slide, which is included in Annex 4. You all know that. So the gender tracking methodology shall only apply to the programs listed in Annex four, and quite a few programs are left out, which to my reading is in contradiction to the treaty obligations in all its activities.
The EU shall promote gender equality. So connecting Europe, the different single market program and many other programs are left out. Next slide. So we do have a few more, and let me just quickly focus on that. We have a few more gender provisions related to gender equality indicators and data collection to be broken down by gender.
What we see in the performance framework in Annex one of this proposed regulation is not applied systematically. And we have some provisions that member states shall provide explanations on how the activities are expected to contribute to gender equality. Missus doctor has been talking about what that is in practice, a pre 5,000-character explanation and assigning gender scores, which will not compensate for the lack of gender equality objectives and dedicated activities. And there is some evaluation criteria where feasible and appropriate, gender equality is to be included. Next slide.
What we do see is when we look at the integration of horizontal principles, and please refer to the briefing, I can only say it briefly, The European Court of Auditors report already in '22 has asked to bring all horizontal principles to the same level because even in the current period, gender equality is much less integrated compared to other horizontal priorities. And I'm sorry to say the assessment shows this continues to be the case. You see here an overview. The tracking methodology is different. There is a much more limited range of application of the tracking.
There is no gender tracking, there is no spending targets for gender equality compared to the others, and there is no do significant harm approach, all of which is limiting the application compared to the others. So, next slide. And now I come briefly to the gender scoring, the gender tracking, the core methodology, the new core methodology. It has three scores. Compared to the current period, only the zero-star has been eliminated, and the commission shall provide technical guidance.
And the commission refers to that it implements the established system of OECD tracking methodology. However, again, this is a profound misunderstanding because the way the commission proposes the methodology is truncated and leaves out very important elements of the OECD methodology, which is a minimum criterion for all scores, especially a do no harm approach for all scores. Next slide. A gender analysis and a minimum criteria for score two and one monitor and report on gender equality results achieved. Yes.
So this is, among others. Next slide. And what we need is international standards to show that quality assurance is very important. So let's go to the next slide, and I apologize for being fast, given the short time. The NX1 is the main performance monitoring framework with a list of interventions, and it also includes an important element for gender tracking, namely that score two interventions are specified in this annex list, and there are quite a few questions raised.
Next slide. For example, score two interventions, which is gender equality as a principal objective. The commission proposes to qualify energy efficiency interventions, which happen to be of social infrastructure, to be a score two. And this is an element which shows that the reliability of the information might be very limited. Next slide. I cannot talk more about the monitoring framework.
The only thing is that there are quite a few limitations, the intervention fields do not reflect the EU gender equality objectives fully. Some of them do not have results indicators, and in general, results indicators are very weak. So there needs to be an enhancement of the monitoring framework as well. Let me come to the recommendations, and I hope I get one more minute. So, what we need is a clear commitment to the objective of promoting gender equality in the proposed regulation and including holistic gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting provisions, which are comprehensive, and it has been mentioned before from the preparation throughout the whole budget cycle.
And, on the other hand, enhance the current tracking system as said to, to have minimum criteria for different scores, to add a do no harm to gender equality approach, and make it a tool for policy achievement and not only a tool for simply counting. Recommendation is also to enhance the scope so that all programs and activities are defined as relevant to gender equality, which means either eliminating annex four or amending annex four to include more programs. Next slide. Review performance indicators and the scoring to improve the list of intervention fields and amend the list of output and results indicators to reflect both, to reflect gender equality goals, also enhance and improve the collection of gender disaggregated data and indicators to be systematic. I cannot talk now about Annex One, but there are quite a few unsystematic elements as far as when it comes to gender disaggregation, and there are very few appropriate gender indicators.
Conclude I am that will be great. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Yes. I am concluding. What we need is good independent and institutional support structures being financed to make sure that gender mainstreaming is well implemented, including a role for the European Institute for Gender Equality on implementing the gender tracking on the guidance and on gender mainstreaming, and sufficient funding, by the way, to the AEGA, which seems to be out of focus, but not sure if there is actually adequate financing to perform its role to the full extent. Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, again. So now I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur of this opinion. That is me.
So in order, as a member of the socialist and democrats group, so in order to distinguish my two roles, I will speak in Spanish. And like this, I will also take profit to say hello to the from Guato Grenada that will be with us today. So thank you very much for your visit. So I will have the floor now for three minutes. The
Commission proposal in the MFF has, is seen by this committee as an improvement because gender mainstreaming moves from being an objective to a principle. As we've heard from the expert and as we've heard all morning, we think this is correct. And in what we're talking about right now, this is focused on an exposed tracking mechanism. But as we've seen before, it's not included in the European Social Fund, the ESF Plus. And as we've also said this morning, national envelopes have a certain level of flexibility.
And so now is the time when we're increasing the expenditure priorities and looking at what we want to do with our money. We're seeing an increase in the common budget and funds available to member states, but we're seeing that we're not any advances in our resources. And so social issues are not priorities, and we can't make progress on gender-based equality when we're seeing cuts linked to austerity. So as a rapporteur, the work I'm doing is to look at a number of different issues, focusing on how we can improve the tracking mechanism. So we can improve inputs of civil society, as Elizabeth Kletzer said, and also following upon the work on what the other shadows have said.
But the second aspect that I want to emphasize, and this is something also that Madame Klatzer said, it's only if we focus on this tracking mechanism that we can make this work, but we need to see a genuine progress if we're to see any advances here. I think there's been a profound misunderstanding about exactly what gender mainstreaming means. We need clear measurable targets, as previous speakers have said. This is something that we talk about in all of our firm committee meetings, and gender equality has not yet been achieved. We have to continue to fight for it.
We have to continue to build the proper institutional architecture, and that's something that we're doing in the EU. 15, 20 years ago, I was involved in a pioneering budget in Andalusia, a focus on gender mainstreaming. And, also, the speaker represents another pioneering city, Vienna, and has spoken in a number of international fora. And yet all of this was removed when it, by EPP, when it came to simplification. So gender mainstreaming is a key topic, and the gender budgets are, of course, very sensitive to changes in political priorities.
So, what priorities do we want to see in this report? We want to see proper implementation of mainstreaming. We also want to have clear measurable targets. Thirdly, we have to ensure that we take account of the full political cycle in all programs. The DAFNI program should have its own budget.
And to conclude, I just want to underline the fact that, as the expert just has said and a number of speakers have said, we need to ensure that this budget doesn't take away from other lines and that we need to have proper data, data that does have proper women based sense sensitivity and that it takes account of gender mainstreaming, and we need to have the proper political will behind it. Thank you.
I pass on the floor to my show, the show reporters, so Juicy Princci from EPB. Thank you. The floor is yours for two minutes.
Giusi Princi
Thank you, chair.
This proposal is a significant step forward in building the framework to trace expenditure and the budget for the 2026-2034 period, as you said. Introducing shared indicators and a uniform methodology is a step in the right direction. We want to see a closer link between implementation of European funds and the objectives achieved. So from this perspective, article seven and gender mainstreaming require particular attention. The fact that it is integrated as a general principle is a significant step, as is the reference to the need to evaluate the impact of national plans where that is appropriate and possible.
This can help to properly strengthen the gender budgeting strategy. And for the EPP and FEM committee, what is key is to ensure that we have objectivity and targeted goals to ensure that we can properly track the use of EU funds in the most relevant policy areas. This instrument can help us better measure the impact of policies on our key priorities, but we still have to understand how this will work in practice. Therefore, the EPP believes that the discussion should focus on a number of key areas. First of all, focusing on gender disaggregated data, taking account of local realities to ensure that we can be more accurate in identifying different territorial trends, particularly when it comes to women's employment and childhood services.
Secondly, we need to have proper technical support for local bodies and bodies in the civil society sector to ensure that they can properly manage these funds, also to ensure effective tracking without imposing excessive administrative burdens. Thirdly, they need to have clearer, measurable targets. And this includes quantification of scores in key sectors such as education and employment. And this should go together with a midterm assessment at EU level. And this will ensure that the framework can be properly implemented.
The system has to be credible, transparent, and able to reflect the reality on the ground without resulting in excessive additional administrative burdens. This is particularly important for stakeholders and organizations that operate closest to the citizens. The value of this framework will depend on how it is actually implemented. It should help us to measure things better, not make life more complicated for those involved. Thank you.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
We're talking about how to use these funds. And in the previous chapter, we were talking about the social fund. And now on the horizontal priorities. There are no gender priorities, but this is going to be a cross-cutting principle that will apply to all expenditure of the EU. We don't agree with this.
We think that the EU budget expenditure should be neutral in its focus, and trying to introduce a gender perspective as a principle will leave out projects that will find it difficult to measure this tangibly, and so it might lead to arbitrary use of funds. This is something that we see that's already happening in the MFF that's currently underway, and we want to avoid it happening in the next one. This isn't just something that happens with the gender perspective or gender priority, but we see it also with the climate goals. We think we're at a key time to discuss this and to have a debate in this house about what we consider to be EU values. We think that they're being reduced to very limited areas, and we want to ensure that the funds reflect the initial spirit of the EU project.
We also think that we see all political groups and countries and families want to see better social inclusion and working towards equality, but this is going to lead to fragmentation and division, and the principles in the MFF may not be accepted by all countries and may be used against some of them.
Beatrice Timgren
Yes. Thank you, Sherry. I will speak in Swedish.
We want a more transparent and results-based budget with indicators for equality. We need to make sure that we spend taxpayers' money better, given how big the budgets are. But what is important and what we're doing at the moment is a long and technical examination of systems and follow-ups. I want to know something much more basic.
Lina Gálvez
Excuse me. Apparently, for the German translation, it is not working now. It's okay. I think so, could you restart? Sorry about that.
Yep. Please. So the floor is yours again for two minutes.
Beatrice Timgren
Okay. I restart. EU, Wilhelmir.
EU wants more transparency and more result-based budget with common indicators for equality as well. They wanted the taxpayers' money to be spent more wisely given the size of the budgets. But what we are hearing about now is a long technical examination with indicators and follow-up. I want to know something much more basic. Is this something which is really useful?
Are we going to get more jobs? Is it going to be easy to invest, or is it mainly a matter of Excel sheets and reports and more bureaucracy in Brussels? I'd like to make sure the expenditure is leading to concrete results, which people can feel in their day-to-day lives rather than achieving objectives and having a lot of reports. It's a very simple question. What do we get from our money?
And when it comes to equality, the commission can point to real results. So how do we go from just looking at something into actually measuring the effect of it? Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. I was waiting for the translation. So now, from Renew, Abir Salani, please, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Abir Al-Sahlani
Yes, madam chair. Thank you so much, and thank you also to our guests who were speaking. I needed to take some notes because I see that the contradictions are quite striking in why the patriots and the ECR are against gender budgeting, while their reasoning the rationale, but the result is the same. It's not ensuring that there is any gender-sensitive budgeting at all. And it's quite striking, and it's quite actually scary that when we want to follow-up on how taxpayers' monies are being spent and we want to see where each euro is going, then it's called bureaucracy and administrative burden.
When we make it easier, then it's called a waste of money. So how do you think that we can ensure that there is a gender sensitive budgeting then? I really wanna have a sense of what is your solution, because all you come with is just problems and things that are taken out of context. Because here are people who have been studying this, who are building this on scientific facts. It's not taking it from the air.
It's not taking from nothing. This is how budgets work. This is how science has been building it, how financial science has been building it, and still it's not good enough for you. You only come with problems. What is your solution?
But my question was, and I'm sorry, madam chair, that I went outside, but this is quite striking. But my question is whether you see this piece of legislation, and it's to our guest speaker, as the main pathway for improving gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting in the EU, or whether there are other significant measures that you consider more impactful. One of them, of course, you mentioned already is the implementation. Thank you so much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you for the greetings. Alison Regis, please, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Alexandra Geese
Thank you. With all due respect, chair, but you spoke for six minutes. It might take a little bit more than two minutes. First of all, there's no such thing as a neutral budget, and there's no such thing as an unideological budget. You have a budget because you want to promote policies.
This is what we do here. This is what every political committee does. This is what every government does. So the question is, what are the policy goals you want to get out of that? And I think the policy goal of most people who are members of this committee is gender equality.
The question by the colleague from the Patriots said, well, what do we get for our money? Well, that depends. If you only have the tracking system, well, maybe not much. You just get the data. If you have precise targets for gender equality, you get something very concrete out of that for European women.
And that is my main criticism to the proposal made by the European Commission on the Performance Regulation, because we do not understand how we can ensure gender mainstream and specific funds for gender equality if almost no program has a gender objective and we don't have a gender equality spending target. So what we need are really clear targets, because otherwise, we risk that the current MFF has even less money for women and gender equality than the previous one, because this is what happens if you don't make it gender sensitive. We looked at that at the recovery and resilience facility, a huge investment program. Gender equality was one of the priorities. Nevertheless, from 60 to 80% of the money basically went to men and to male-dominated sectors and did not benefit women.
So that risk harming women, actually. In more technical terms, what do we want in our amendments? We want to add a gender equality target. We have seen that we have that for climate. We have that for social.
We need a gender equality target. We need to add a horizontal gender mainstreaming provision for the regulation that should affect all programs. And now the methodology is a tracking system, not an implementation of gender mainstreaming. Therefore, we would like to add that the gender methodology should include minimum obligatory requirements linked to gender equality objectives and gender impact assessment, as doctor Klatzer pointed out. There also should be very clearly a do-no-harm assessment.
We need to delete Annex four to ensure gender mainstreaming is included at all programs, not only the ones included in annex four, because that would be really limiting it mostly to the programs that already have a gender sensitive approach. And we obviously need to revise the list of indicators and the list of intervention because you need to have serious measurement whether you are reaching those targets. For those in this committee who do not care that much about gender equality, think about competitiveness. I mean, we all know that the untapped potential, for example, on the labor market is the female one. It's women.
Yeah. We all know that the untapped potential in the economy is enterprises, companies, startups led by women who right now have very few access to capital. This is something we need to change. And we also know that violence against women is on the rise, especially in the digital era. The cost was calculated by AGE by 360 billion a year.
So every euro we take out of prevention and out of combating violence will increase our overall cost of our system. So if we wanna increase competitiveness, then we really need to have a gender sensitive approach in the performance regulation. Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much. And from the left, I don't have anyone. Carolina Maracci, do you want to take the floor?
Lina Gálvez
Don't see anyone from ESN. No other members asked for the floor. So I would like to give the floor to doctor Elizabeth Klatza for three minutes. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 22
For this dedicated discussion. Let me come to the question which was the most specific question, namely whether I see this performance regulation as a main pathway for improving gender mainstreaming or other measures. In a nutshell, I would like to say that there needs to be working on improving the performance regulation and at the same time, ensure other measures in the programs. Because what the performance regulation and the enhanced, like, unified approach on the horizontal gender equality has been used for is eliminating gender equality objectives and gender mainstreaming provisions and establishing gender equality procedures, including institutional aspects in other programs. And this is really going to reduce impacts on gender equality.
So it is the answer is working actually on both levels. And, yes. So, I mean, what we do have is a system which is basically mere reporting without setting clear priorities on gender equality, women's rights, etc., and without determining allocation of funds. And this needs to be changed. In the performance regulation, the focus can be on clearly, as said earlier, on also having a clear objective, improving the methodology of gender mainstreaming, including a focus on gender equality at each stage of the process, ensuring funding and ensuring achieving results.
So only then, because after exposed reporting will not really make the difference. And in the program regulations, of course, go with the gender equality objectives, provisions, etc. And there is a lot to do on improving Annex one, the monitoring performance framework, especially making sure to include gender equality intervention fields comprehensively based on the established gender equality objectives. This can be done fairly easily because the objectives are there in the road map and in others, and then have good results indicators to measure results and, ideally, also impact. So, I guess, this is the most important one, and continued outside, dedicated support, institutional support to make gender equality and gender mainstreaming work in all the programs is crucially important.
Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for preparing the briefing for our committee, and that will contribute to our opinion. Thank you also to the shadow rapporteurs. But just remember, we are not yet discussing the opinion, because the deadline for me as a rapporteur from S and D rapporteur, Socialist and Democrats rapporteur who present in the draft will be April 27.
So we will have the chance to discuss it, but I have already obviously taken some of your points. I would like just to close this point just remembering that gender equality is in our fundamental principles, in our treaties. Second, that there is no such thing as neutrality amid the budgets. Budgets are the main political tool of every government, of every institution. And, there is also no neutrality now because if you take, for instance, I know it is out of MFF, but we have a lot of studies that have been already presented.
You if you see the impact of the employment, for instance, created with Next generation funds that were huge funds went mainly to men, and that is with a budget we contribute to us as women. And, the future women, we will be paying also for this common indebtedness. So I think just, I would like just to remind all of us that we have a huge responsibility as a farm committee because, if we do it right or not, that will condition the well-being, the opportunities, the future of many women and girls, in over Europe and to a principle, which is the equality principle among us. And also the narrative, because at the end, if it is only a makeup of the gender mainstreaming and it is not a real improvement, we will be given the reason to the one saying that these gender policies are useless. So we really need to make it right.
So, thank you. Thank you very much. And we move now to the next point, number seven. And for that, I would like to invite missus Debusher on the podium. This point, it is on global, Europe.
And, so let me welcome that this time is with us. I'm taking out all my papers. So, thank you. Hello. Nice to meet you.
So let me welcome the author of the briefing on general budgeting in the post 2027 Global Europe instrument, doctor Petra DeBuscher. This briefing accompanies our opinion on the proposal for establishing a global Europe. So we will follow the same procedure as in previous point. So I will give first the floor to our guests for ten minutes, and then to the members of the farm committee. So, thank you.
Thank you very much for coming, for making the briefing, for joining us, for contributing to the briefing. And the floor is yours for ten minutes. Thanks.
Speaker 41
Thank you so much for inviting me. Thank you, Chair, for the introduction. So the new proposed regulation, Global Europe, is a major redesign of EU external financing, bringing all these different instruments together in a unified framework. It also has a much larger envelope. It's more strategic.
Speaker 42
It's more agile, simpler, more flexible. So far, so good. From a gender equality perspective, the real question is whether gender equality will remain operational. Will it remain strong enough? Will it remain binding, feasible, and enforceable?
Speaker 43
So it's here that I see some real concerns. Next slide, please. Yeah. So in the context of gender equality progress that is stagnating globally and in some places even reversing, in a context where there is an anti-gender backlash both in Europe and beyond. This is not just a technical debate on budget in the on budget architecture, on indicators, on wording.
Speaker 44
This is, in fact, a very political debate. So the main question is when priorities collide, when economic pressure, when geopolitical pressure, when there is a crisis, will gender equality still hold, or will it just become softer, vaguer, easier to sideline? So for me, this is the main question of the proposal. Next slide. So if you look at what the parliament has today, under Indiki, the previous framework, the parliament has something very important.
Speaker 41
There is an explicit commitment to the twin track approach, and this commitment is, so, mainstreaming and targeted action. And this is backed up by concrete targets. At least 85% of actions should have gender equality as principal or significant objectives. And then the second one, at least 5% should have gender equality as the principal objective. Now, the system is far from perfect, but it gives the parliament three things that matter enormously: benchmarks, leverage, and scrutiny.
It gives the parliament something very concrete to inquire about. It also gives EU staff in the EU delegations, for instance, something very concrete to push with internally. And in the framework of another study that I'm doing for the committee, I've been doing interviews with gender focal persons in the delegations. And they say that especially for the 5% specific principle objectives actions that it's tremendously important that this is in global, that this is in Ndiki. This is in global Europe because there are so many competing priorities.
And if you have this in hard law, it helps them to internally use that as leverage. Also, for civil society, it gives them something concrete to monitor from outside. Next slide, please. Yeah. So what changes after 2027 in the proposal that is now on the table?
I think the commission's proposal is attractive in one sense and the fact that it is a much larger instrument. It's around €200,000,000,000, and it promises more flexibility. It promises a simple and more unified architecture. And, of course, in essence, this sounds positive. But if you look at what disappears, then it's so striking that there are no more explicit gender targets.
There is no clear 85% logic. And importantly, apart from the targets that are going away, there is no explicit twin-track anchor. So the twin track strategy is not explicitly mentioned in the text when you compare that to the previous framework. So, yes, the budget becomes bigger. That holds a lot of opportunities, but the guardrails become so much weaker.
So this is, in essence, the political trade off that parliament is being asked to accept. Next slide. So for me, what you see is very much a move from commitment to vagueness because under the current NDK framework, targeted and mainstreamed actions are explicitly anchored. These are quantified targets, and parliament can assess those targets in the new proposal that clarity is lost. Gender equality is most definitely still present, but it is mainly through broader language and through mainstreaming provisions.
So we're moving towards a mainstreaming-only approach. If I have conversations about it with people from the commission, sometimes they tell me, but don't worry because there is still a reference to gap, and we will have those targets in the new gap. But if you look at the past, if you look at gap three, gap three was extremely ambitious, and it was only because some member states pushed for targets in Ndiqui that we were able to realize that ambitious agenda partly. So the proposal keeps the language of ambition, but it removes much of the underlying binding machinery of enforcement. So without hard benchmarks, mainstreaming becomes accountability without consequences.
So it's much easier to say that gender is everywhere without proving where the money, the resources are actually going. So from a gender budgeting perspective, this is a real downgrade. Next slide, please. So what do you get then as a parliament? And here, yeah, I'm referring to the earlier presentation by doctor Klatzig, because you need to read this global Europe proposal in tandem with the performance regulation, which it also refers to.
So I'm not going to go into the logic. This was explained by Elizabeth Klatzer. But this reporting is not useless. I think it also offers opportunities for a common structure. It makes things more comparable.
I kind of, like the idea behind it, but I think parliament needs to be very clear about the limitation. A score is never the same thing as a budget. This framework scores actions, but it does not show how many euros are actually going to support gender equality. And this is, as was also said by, my colleague, a core weakness, especially if you compare this with the climate marker, which uses a different system where you can track how many euros are being mainstreamed on climate. So what you get as a parliament, you get a scorecard, but not a euro visible reporting.
So you cannot answer the most basic question, how much money is actually going to gender equality? And without that, it was already said before, gender budgeting becomes a reporting exercise rather than a real accountability tool. Next slide, please. So the risk is not at all abstract, and you already see the problem in the current data. So even under a stronger framework, the EU is already struggling to meet the dedicated benchmarks.
These are data not only from development cooperation, but from all new EU external actions. In 2022, the most recent data that was available, only 3.7% of all new external actions had gender equality as a principal objective. So if you then look at support for women's organizations, it's even thinner. Less than 0.6% of the EU's gender-targeted aid is reaching women's rights organizations directly. So that is an extremely small share, especially in a climate where women's organizations are increasingly under attack, and their role is so important in keeping democratic democracies functioning.
Speaker 41
Yeah. So, really briefly, it's super important to put these binding targets back into the regulation as the parliament also did insist on with Andiki and Global Europe. So keeping what we have reporting in euros, not just in labels. Also, be wary of, when flexibility is used. We need gender impact statements when there are reallocations, because you want to know flexibility.
Okay. It can be good, but we still need reporting on what that means for gender equality. And then, as a fourth point, protecting funding for women's rights organizations. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. It was extremely interesting and in line with what had been already said by a previous expert, so it will gonna be very useful for all of us. And now, I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur for opinion, miss Avila Salani from Renew for three minutes.
Please, the floor is yours.
Abir Al-Sahlani
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to our distinguished guests for being here. This policy briefing was a really interesting read, and I think it's gonna be a really useful document to use also and integrate and incorporate in the parliament's opinion. When we negotiate this instrument, we must keep in mind that we have a crucial task ahead of us, ensuring EU countries, that the EU member states, on their own, but also EU as an entity, continues to be the world leading defender of gender equality and women's rights. This leadership is now put under pressure, and true leadership shows its nature when it is under pressure. So it is now or never.
We are living in an era of heavy pushback on women's rights and gender equality, and the EU's priorities have shifted towards economic competitiveness, but also partnerships with CNO countries and partners, security, and defense, while cuts to aid budgets have particularly affected gender equality funding. That is the first thing that goes. Therefore, it is important that we apply a strong gender-responsive approach to the global Europe instrument. I'm glad to see that your key findings and recommendations echo many of the priorities we have presented in the draft opinion that we are currently negotiating. First, we need to ensure that we continue today's multi-pronged approach to both agenda-dedicated actions and mainstreaming approach.
And as you pointed out very well yourself, that it is our delegations globally that need that as a pointing mark to where to go. Secondly, I fully echo the need to reinsert the targets so they are legally binding, not optional. And I will add, we must ensure they are not watered down, but rather strengthened, and being even more concrete and even being more to the point. There is no mainstreaming without targets, or it will just be an easy box ticking exercise, and that we don't want to. These targets must help us track spending, not just actions, track success, not just actions, and they must also reveal development on the ground at what changes they lead to when it to women and girls around the globe.
Third, I also echo your recommendation on scaling up support for women's rights organizations today. Too little EU funding is reaching local women organizations that are fighting for their survival. And we saw that very clearly, and we see that in all delegations when we travel around the globe. How little of the funding is actually reaching those who are the first victims, when it comes to climate change, when it comes to armed conflict, when it comes to fragile contexts, it's always women and girls that are affected first. And how little of the money is going to these organizations who are almost always the first responders as well, and who are keeping the rest of the family alive.
Thank you so much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much. And now, we move to EPP, Elisabetta Lukashievska. Please, the floor is yours for two minutes.
Thank.
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Thank you very much, madam chairman. Thank you for the information and for the briefing. In Europe, we have over 51% women, and in the world as a whole that proportion is 51% men. So it's just staggering that that's not taken into account in European policies. I would like to thank you, Madame Rabota, for all the information that you've provided us.
In the beginning, you said something, and I've got a question about it. When you were talking about the need to reestablish the transparency targets in Europe, well, in practice, how can you reconcile that need with the need for budgetary flexibility, particularly when you're in a crisis, so that we do not restrict the EU's capacity to take rapid action. We are, of course, facing crises, armed conflict, and so on. So I think that we need to analyze this instrument in more depth. And at the same time, I agree with those who have just said that the gender perspective needs to be taken into account.
Need flexible, effective solutions which are directed at precise objectives, strengthening resilience and the security of our partners. We need to factor in the gender equality aspects in our relationships with partnerships. We need actions which strengthen the efficiency of our external policy. That is the real objective of this instrument. It should not simply be a complement to it.
It is the primary objective of it. And increased participation of women in actions intended to maintain peace and prevent armed conflict must be promoted. Women should be more present. When women are present in public life and around the negotiation table, the situation is more stable and the state institutions stronger. It's also important to counter actions restricting the presence of women in political, economic, and social life because that is counter to the rule of law and stability in our regions. And at the same time, this is my last sentence, we cannot forget a broader context.
It's necessary to strengthen the presence of women, giving them access to education, the labor market, and that leads to increased social resilience, which is important to reduce migratory pressure because well-developed societies are less likely to lead to forced migration.
To take the floor, Maria.
Maria Noichl
We've touched on many topics, all moving in the same direction. And I do have a specific question for the rapporteur. Today, from various speakers, we've been hearing that there are overarching principles, but very little which is specific, concrete, actual, practical projects. How do we ensure that gender equality is everywhere, but at the same time, it's actually put into practice? That's my first question.
And I just wanted to refer to what I said at the beginning this morning. How do we create sanction mechanisms in such a way that the member states do not dare to shift money elsewhere? I mean, money ends up in rural development and going to farming and doesn't end up supporting gender equality. And there is a great need of the member states to have flexibility. We know that they need it.
But what does flexibility actually mean? It means that gender equality money can be channeled elsewhere. I mean, if that is what flexibility is, you can keep it. I think that anybody in the EU should be receiving money, should be able to ring-fence that money for gender equality. So how can we do that?
Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
You, Maria. Now from Patriots, Marieta Alapisa. Floor is here for 2 minutes. Thank.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Thank you very much. Yes, chairman. We're talking about the external action of the EU and the value in values set out in the treaties are the equality between men and women, which is the same as gender equality. For our group, this value should be a priority in external action in countries where the dignity of women is being attacked, and equality before the law is not even recognized in many cases. But what actions under the general umbrella of gender equality, what is being proposed?
Because a gender perspective affects general agendas which touch upon national issues such as health and education, and sexual or reproductive health needs to be included. Sometimes, conflicts with local traditions and legislation occur. We've also seen that there are projects for maternity. They are not aligned with the gender principles. Why don't we talk about issues which bring us together, rather than taking action in conflictual areas which are incompatible with the regulations of the member states and the states which receive donations, because we are moving away from common values which were the basis of the foundation of the EU.
We want practical objectives, but we want to not just reduce women to sexual reproductive health. And we have to insist on that. As far as equality and the protection of women is concerned, how are you going to address the progress of cultures which do not respect the rights of women in the EU? We often talk about the vulnerability of certain migrant groups and LGBTI groups. But why don't we talk with the same clarity about one of the greatest persecutions worldwide, such as the persecution of Christians as part of the European funds.
Is it justified to reject projects which align with the values of the union? I mean, we know the budget needs to be neutral, but we think it should be plural. We should take into account the polarity of the needs of our external policy. And do you consider that the defense of women is not aligned with the policies of the EU projects, which are pro-family, have been rejected? Would you think that in this particular context, the same will happen?
Lina Gálvez
I don't see anyone from ECR, so I move to the Greens. Alice Bunker, please. The floor is here for two minutes.
Alice Kuhnke
Thank you, Cher, and thank you, professor Debuscher and colleagues and rapporteur, Abel. Thank you for your excellent presentation and deeply worrying results. We, as Greens EAFE, agree that ambition must be matched by and we call for 85% of the EU ODA to be dedicated to programs that have gender equality as one of their objectives. 20% to gender-targeted projects and at least 5% to directly support women's rights organizations. Sexual and reproductive health and rights must remain explicitly safeguarded in line with the European consensus on development and reflected across all geographic and global pillars.
Furthermore, the program must support the EU commitment to the women, peace, and security agenda. And, finally, we must protect and increase the ODA target to 93%. We affirm poverty eradication in line with article 208 in the TFEU and ensure full alignment with the sustainable development goals. Global Europe must deliver concretely for women and girls in law and in the budget.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you. So I don't see any other member that would like, Carolina Morachio, please from the left. Sorry. Thank.
Carolina Morace
you. First of all, a clarification, because whenever the patriots take the floor, they talk about Christian values and so on. Secularism is not an option. It's a guarantee, and the European institutions must remain secular because religious values belong to the personal domain and not part of public decision making processes. Having said this, the Global Europe proposal is a very important tool for the external dimension of the EU and for promoting gender equality at a global level.
And yet, we do have a serious concern. In the current framework, there are binding expenditure frameworks for gender equality, such as the 85% of actions with a gender aspect and 5% as the general objective. In the new proposal, these targets are removed, and there is merely a mainstreaming approach to replace them. So this will weaken responsibilities and reduce visibility for resources destined to gender equality. My question is as follows.
Reintroducing binding targets, to strengthen this, would that help to improve the traceability of expenditure and ensure stronger support for organizations working for women's rights? Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
And now I would like to also make a question. I will make it in Spanish just, again to This.
New approach to the budget, which the commission has rolled out. And it looks very good because it's small, cross-cutting. But it doesn't go all the way because there are some issues which have been removed. But why have we got to this point? Because gender equality and ensuring that it's cross-cutting across the entire budget.
Is it more cosmetic? Is it cosmetic exercise that the commission is carried out? Because the commission is apparently affected by a narrative which seems to confuse gender equality with gender ideology, which is full of inconsistency. People saying that you should not encroach on the powers of the member states, you should not intervene too much in the culture and the policies of other countries. Is it because of that?
Or is it to do with the pressure that the budgets are under at the moment, the fact that priority is being given more to defense issues? And therefore, we need to reduce social spending and other areas which may advance the gender equality cause? Or is it to do with Global Europe? Is it more to do with this new approach to the way the EU functions externally, which is more transactional and less based on the principles of the EU?
Speaker 41
Okay. Thank you so much for all your comments. First of all, I also want to congratulate you and thank you on the work that you have done on the draft opinion. I think, it's tremendously important, and it's proof that you can always count on the parliament. In terms of, maybe I can mix some questions.
Yeah. The commission is not in the easiest position. That's for sure. And the point that was raised by the member of parliament here in front, yeah. There is a kind of payoff between flexibility, and there are a lot of competing interests.
I totally agree, and I understand that commission is under a lot of pressure. But for me, what I don't agree with is the narrative behind it. I also see this in national politics that it's presented as a trade off between, for instance, defense policy and social spending, but there are many more options on how to fund social policies. Another thing that strikes me is, for me, investing in women's rights, investing in rule of law, gender equality, this is actually a stabilizing factor which should go hand in hand with
a more
Speaker 41
Geopolitical commission. And I think the commission also realizes this to some extent. So, they are not opposites. That's my point. Then, yeah, on the neutrality of the budget, it was already said, yeah, a budget is not neutral.
But also, if you have over 50% women, then a budget that is not focusing on wing women enough is not a neutral budget. Then your question on the specific, yeah. How does everything work in practice? Well, yeah, we have been talking, now we are actually talking a lot about programming. We are measuring programming, but what we are not measuring is what’s happening in practice.
So if we say that 85% of our actions are gender mainstreamed, yeah. I had the conversation with a gender focal person about this figure, she said she says, I don't really know what happens after the contracts are signed. So this is also a problem. And if you look at GAP, the reporting by the member states and the commission has become lighter and lighter. There is less reporting.
It's so it's very easy to just give an example of gender mainstreaming and not actually report on the entire amount of budgets that is being spent. Yes. Then the point of, member of the Lapisa, yes, you do sometimes have these conflicts, that's okay.
Hurry up.
Speaker 41
Yes. I will so my answer to that would be it's tremendously important to work with women's organizations from these countries, because they know the sensitivities. They know how to navigate. So that's why I think we need a dedicated funding for women's rights funding. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, doctor DeBuscher, for being here, for your inputs and your presentation. So we, before we ask to join us at the table, the next speakers, and before moving to the next point and last point of this morning, which is the European gender based violence survey results, I would like to remind you something I have forgotten to say before, which is the deadline for amendments for the European Social Fund opinion is the March 27 at midday. And for the Agora EU opinion is the thirty-first March, the same hour.
So thank you very much. Thank you very much. And now we move to the next point. So as I was saying before we move to point eight, which is the European Union gender-based violence result, on this 2020, 4th edition. So it is an extremely interesting report and, or in results, to be honest.
And, probably some of you know that this report was launched by AG from the March 3 this month. And, just to remind you that this is the biggest ever European Union gender based violence survey. And I was saying before, the findings are a bit shocking. Just to name one important finder, though, is gonna be very much developed, but our guest, one in three women in the European Union experienced violence with devastating long term consequences. One in three.
This is really shocking, horrible, number, and it is not only number. We know that there are women and persons behind. So here to tell us more, representative from both the agencies, from the institutes, from AGE and from FRA. So we have Monica Barboz Boschi, a researcher on gender based violence at AGE. Thank you very much.
Sami Nevala, project manager, adjusted digital immigration from the FRAF, from the agency for fundamental rights. So, I would like to give the floor first to you, or do you want to speak first? A man first. Gentlemen first. So, you first, for ten minutes, then you have ten minutes, and then we open the floor.
We are running a bit late. So if you could be on time, that will be most appreciated. Thank you very much.
Speaker 50
No. Thank you very much for the introduction, and thank you very much for the invitation. So indeed, this report that was published on March 3 is a joint output of the European Institute of Gender Equality and the Fundamental Rights Agency. Therefore, we are also here to give a joint presentation, and I will present the first slides, and then I hand over to my colleague Monika. So in this presentation, we are able to give you a very brief snapshot of the results.
The report is very extensive and detailed and really goes through the different forms of violence that women experience in Europe, the consequences, and then reporting to the police and the context of both violence experienced in childhood and violence experienced in adulthood. So the report is based on a survey that was a major endeavor of, both, two agencies, but also, Eurostat. And it's important to acknowledge that Eurostat was coordinating the survey and the implementation in 19 EU member states by the national statistical authorities. But, because of the voluntary nature of the survey, this left a gap which Fra and EK filled by also conducting the survey in eight EU member states. And I think this is actually maybe our first conclusion from the survey.
So, currently, the survey has been carried out on a voluntary basis. Eurostat is committed, as far as I know, to also continue supporting member states and conduct the next survey in 2027, 2028. But in the future, it would be very important to move to having a legal basis for the survey to ensure that the data is available on regular intervals. And, the survey is based partly on the survey that the Fundamental Rights Agency carried out in 2014. That was the first EU wide survey on violence against women that really already showed the scale of the problem.
And one of the conclusions we have also looking at the results, and if we go to the next slide, please, we see that, unfortunately, not so much has changed from the results of the PRAS survey in 2014. Namely, again, in the survey now carried out, we see that one in three women in The EU have experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, and one in five women in The EU have experienced physical or sexual violence in a relationship or in the domestic setting. One in eight women have faced sexual violence, such as rape, by someone other than their partners outside an intimate relationship. One in three women have experienced physical or psychological violence in their childhood, and one in fifteen have experienced sexual violence during childhood. This was asked in the survey to then reflect people's women's experiences in adulthood and factors, different factors that make women more vulnerable to experiencing violence in different contexts.
Besides the survey results, the very detailed and comprehensive report that Fra and Aker have produced contains not only the survey findings, but also opinions or recommendations that the agencies have formulated together. Some of these recommendations you see on the slides, but there are many others in the report that are there for guidance for both the EU and the member states on action that can be taken in light of these results. One of the results we want to highlight here concerns the women's experiences of rape by different perpetrators in the EU. And from this, we see that, actually, the majority of rapes that women disclosed in the survey had to do with rape that was, involved was nonconsensual. So when women were unable to refuse, or when they were under coercion.
Low, lower rate, but still significant, is rape that was committed with the use of force or threats. But the fact that the high number of rape when unable to refuse and or under coercion, so not in non consensual, highlights the need to reflect this also in the definitions in the legal definitions of rape as well as the efforts that are included in the directive on violence against women for awareness raising across the EU on the definition of rape. If we go to the next slide, please. So, one of the findings from the report on intimate partner violence is that, of course, intimate partner violence often takes place at home. And the fact that it takes place at home means that there are often no witnesses, no people who can intervene, no people who can support the victim when violence is taking place, which makes the violence experienced by women, particularly, the consequences of violence against women particularly hard on women compared to, for example, many cases of violence that men experience, which often takes place in public settings where you can have witnesses, you can have security cameras, you can have people who intervene.
So for many women, these protections are not there when they experience violence. But that being said, also when we look at the results on nonpartner violence, so violence committed by people other than the intimate partner or other than domestic perpetrators, we see that also these in many instances, this violence happens at home, which really underlines women's vulnerability when it comes to dealing with the consequences of violence and reporting their experiences. Often compared to the violence committed by domestic perpetrators, which is predominantly physical violence as we see from the survey, the many cases of sexual violence women experience from nonpartners involves sexual violence. If we go to the next slide, please. So my I will finish my part by talking about sexual harassment.
This was also collected in the survey, especially with respect to women's experiences at work given the very solid legal basis in the EU on addressing sexual harassment at work. And the results also show that this is widespread. So close to one in three of women, who are working, they have experienced sexual harassment in the work context. Also worrying is to see that seven percent of women in the work have experienced online sexual harassment. And when we look at these results, based on other different factors, for example, women's age, we see that, especially young women are most affected.
But also, other vulnerable groups of women, such as women with disabilities, have higher rates. However, in the eight countries where FRAN and ECA jointly conducted the survey, we did not want to focus only on situations that happened at work because the FRAN 2014 survey had already shown that sexual harassment is also widespread outside the workplace. So in the eight countries where we the two agencies, jointly conducted the data collection, we also asked women about their experiences of sexual harassment outside work. And indeed, the results showed that, again, this is widespread. In particular, I want to highlight that in these questions and in these eight member states, eleven percent of women said that they have experienced online sexual harassment.
And, based on a separate set of questions that were also included in these eight countries, close to 5 percent said that they had experienced conduct such as abusive online behaviors, nonconsensual sharing of intimate photos or videos, or false or misogynistic comments online. So these results highlight the need to look at sexual harassment in a wider perspective, which I think will be taken in the next round of the EU GPV survey. And, with this, I will hand over to my colleague Monica for the second part of the presentation.
Speaker 52
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Thank you, for the invitation also from my side. I will continue with some insights on the intimate partner violence that women experience. So just to reiterate that this is just a snapshot from the wider report that we have, recently, published. So, we know that across the EU, intimate partner violence remains both widespread and severe.
So the survey shows that 11 percent of ever partner women have experienced physical violence by a partner, and 7 percent of them have been raped by their intimate partners, which is almost the double rate for raped by nonpartner. Psychological violence is also extremely prevalent. It affects around one third of women. And it frequently overlaps with other forms of abuse. Thirty-five percent of women who experience psychological violence by their current partners also experience physical or sexual violence.
We also have data in our report showing the severe impact of intimate partner violence, which appears to be more grave than violence by nonpartners. So for example, women disclose higher rates of physical injury, ten percent compared to four percent nonpartner, and more serious long-term consequences of intimate partner violence. And psychological impact follows the same par pattern with IPV, intimate partner violence, resulting in deeper harm. What we see here on the slides is, just, some characteristics of the victims experiencing higher rates of intimate partner violence. For example, women with disabilities face an elevated risk during their lifetimes.
They experience sexual violence by an intimate partner at 17 percent compared with 7 percent for women without a disability, and physical violence, again, 19 percent versus 11 percent for women without disabilities. We know also that younger women, 18 to 29 years old, experience higher rates of physical and sexual violence by their intimate partners. We also have data on women, with lower educational attainment and urban residents, which seem to be also relevant. Non EU nationals report higher recent intimate partner violence, and women born in another EU member state than the country where the survey took place show the highest lifetime sexual violence prevalence at 11 percent. The results show that economic dependence is a major vulnerability factor for women.
So women who depend on their partners in any capacity experience 11, 10.4 percent physical or sexual violence versus 3.4 percent for women who are financially independent. And they also face twice the prevalence of psychological violence. And we have more details on this type of victim, perpetrator relationship in the report. So you can see a few of these details on the screen. Next slide, please.
We have analyzed in-depth the economic violence, which is what you can see here, in this slide. So, psychological violence includes economic control, abusive behaviors, and this should be treated as a pattern of abuse and not isolated incidents. Overall, across the EU, 27.8 percent of women have experienced economic violence, but this is when we measure only two items which were included in the original EuroStar questionnaire. Those were being forbidden to work by their partner, the partner withholding access to household finances, or building up debt that women would be responsible for. So when we look at only these two items, the prevalence rate across EU 27 is eight percent.
However, when we include more detailed questions like Fra and included in the extended questionnaire for the eight member states, where we coordinated the data, the data collection, we see that this prevalence spikes up to almost 18 percent when a more comprehensive scale is used. For example, being discouraged or prevented to seek out employment or education, or prevented to have access to a bank account. Next slide, please. When it comes to women reporting the violence that they have experienced, we know there is a notable reporting gap. Fourteen percent of victims of physical and/or sexual violence contacted the police.
Twenty-one percent reached out to health or social services, but most victims did not report the violence or seek formal support. Altogether, approximately 27 percent of victims engaged with some sort of formal support, be that contacting police, health care, social services, or other organizations such as victim support services. What you see here in this slide is a comparison between women's experiences of violence perpetrated by their current partner and a nonpartner, reporting on the last episode of violence. And in general, the pattern is women tend to find it more difficult to speak about intimate partner abuse and to disclose what happened to them. For example, whereas seventy-three percent of women talk to someone close to them about the last incident of physical violence by a nonpartner, fewer than half, 47%, talk to a close person about the same type of physical violence when it was perpetrated by their current partners.
A similar pattern appears with formal reporting. Only 7.3 percent of victims report the last incidents of physical, intimate partner violence to the police compared to 21 percent for nonpartner violence. Seeking medical attention also differs. Eleven percent for intimate partner, sixteen percent for non-partner violence. So we can see a pattern here, with women, find it more difficult to disclose violence when it happens in their intimate relationships.
However, when it comes to talking in general about rape, we can see that victims talk to people close to them by a nonpartner less often than about physical violence or other sexual violence that did not involve rape. Next slide, please. In the report, we asked women about the reasons for not reporting the violence that happened to them to the police. And we know that most victims do not report, for example, nonpartner violence if they perceive it was not serious. However, when we dug a bit deeper and we analyzed the data, in more depth, many women who consider what happened to them was a crime or who felt that their life was in danger or who experienced a violence that caused injuries or psychological impact did not report the incident to the police, despite this being, appearing severe.
And we have in the report reasons for women not disclosing what happened to them. And they cite specific, specific motives. But, for example, if you look at rape, compared to other types of violence, so physical violence or sexual violence other than rape, we can see that the feelings of embarrassment or self blame is quite prevalent and more significant than for the other types of violence. So, 50% of women who did not report said that they did this because they were embarrassed. They also stated fear of retaliation from the perpetrator or other consequences for themselves or the perpetrator.
And also the belief that the police would not help. This was cited by 40, 24% of the victims. Next slide, please. In the report, we also have data on the violence during childhood, and this includes either experiences of the women respondents themselves, either being victims of wit or witnessing violence during childhood, but also data on the women's children as witnesses or victims themselves or of the respondent's violent partner. Overall, we know that one in three women in the EU experienced physical or emotional violence by their parents during childhood.
Thirteen percent experienced physical violence, 30 percent psychological violence. And what we see here is the results for sexual violence experienced by the respondents as children. So 6.6 percent, they said they experienced sexual violence in their childhood. 94 percent was perpetrated by men. Almost half of these women, it's almost, almost half did not tell anyone at this time, which means that the first time that they talked about what happened to them was in the context of this survey.
We also know, for example, that 20% of them told their parents about what happened. We are also able to analyze the data of what happened to women in their childhood and connected to their adult victimization experiences. So, we already know from previous studies, that the effects extend well into adulthood. So women who experience childhood sexual violence are three times more likely to be sexually victimized by an intimate partner later in life, and four times more likely to be victimized by a non-partner. And you can find further information in the report on women's children and witnesses or victims of the respondent's intimate partner violence.
Do we still have time? Not really. Okay. I will leave you just with this last slide. You can find more information with our social media handles, both Fra and Aje.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you again. I'm very interested in that, to see that the structural change has not yet taken place and that the institutional violence is still going on and that the shame has not changed side so far because we are still feeling shameful to tell these episodes or this continuous violence that are suffering. And now, I would like to open the floor for members of the fund committee. I don't see anyone from EPP, from SND.
Don't know if Mariano Ushi, do you want to take the floor? Two minutes. We are running out of time, so please no more than two minutes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Maria Noichl
Very much. I think it's important to look at the figures. This is a structural problem. It's not individual cases. When it comes to violence against women, domestic violence against women where there are only two people present, that's a structural problem, and it's a problem which affects the entire society.
We're seeing in some areas of Europe that they want domestic violence to be pushed into a box where it's a private issue. This idea that if the doors are shut, and it doesn't bother the neighbors, then it's a private issue. We need to combat this. We need to look at this in a broader context. It is a massive burden on society as a whole.
The women are, of course, the victims, but then there's the follow-up. There's the health costs and the general climate. We need to define victim much more broadly than the woman who is the immediate victim, because the whole of society is affected by men behaving in the wrong way. Obviously, it's not all men, but it is all men. I'd be interested to know whether we can see this as an overall societal issue.
There's a big debate on the subject in Germany at the moment, and I will particularly appeal to those men who are against violence towards women. We need them on our side. They must speak up. They must not be quiet, because then they're just protecting the perpetrators.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
I think there are two members here. So maybe you could give us a bit more time.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
All political groups are here. Margherita, we really don't have a lot of time. Please don't waste it arguing with me. Ladies and gentlemen, this report is supposed to be the great solution to gender based violence. We know that both men and women can be perpetrators.
However, we believe that there are some problematic issues in properly analyzing this phenomenon. Some of the issues have a personal, views and an ideological bent. The framework says that all violence that women suffer from is structural because they are women. It doesn't take account of other factors such as their social background, their alcohol consumption, and so on. So we think that they are blind to some of the real effects.
We also see defects in the methodology. There are over a thousand interviews with 27 member states, but let's be serious. Some member states didn't fill out the questionnaire. And as some didn't answer, then gaps were filled with other sources. And we see that there are a lot of cases due to conflicts within a couple, but a lot of the analysis carried out here is not helpful to carry out serious policymaking.
We think that the results don't really reflect the real situation. If you look at childhood, the physical and psychological damage affected by parents is almost equal between men and women. Also domestic violence, most aggressors are men, but 11.5% are women, and this isn't spoken about. There are these subtleties, but they're not looked at properly, so it's not to complicate the accepted narrative. We also see that a lot of victims are from outside the EU.
We need, we see that violence rates are actually much higher than declared in a number of cases. But what are all of your figures based on? When we see that, the data don't fit in with the theory, then they have to be interpreted differently. When violence happens in countries where the narrative doesn't fit, then it's attributed towards inequality. We've seen over a decade of directive strategies plans, and yet, basically, we have the same headline as ever.
There is no clear clarification of what's happening here. What we see is a strategy, a budget, and legislation, basically an agenda, which won't put an end to violence, but it will lead to lots of social problems. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Three minutes. So, I really hope the rest of, will stay to two minutes. So from renew, I don't see anyone from this year. So renew, Lucia Yar, please, the floor is yours.
Lucia Yar
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you to AG and to Fra for really great and comprehensive data that you are presenting to us. And I have to react to my colleague that was speaking before me, citing some kind of ideological framework while we are getting 100 over 100,000 interviews as a base. My colleague, this is science. This is how we are basing politics in this house, on science, on numbers. If 95% of perpetrators are men, it makes sense.
If 83% of fathers are also the perpetrators, it's not that 17% is forbid or of women is forgotten. We're still talking about the men here, and the numbers are coming together. I am surprised you didn't mention the usual far right notion that it's the immigrant issue usually, and thank you very much for underlining our guests that one in five women are experiencing the violence in their close relationship. This is the number we have to remember. I have two questions.
One is regarding the underreporting and implementation gaps here because we hear that only 14 percent of victims of sexual or physical violence contact the police, and the numbers are varying. And me being a corporator for the revision of victims' rights directive, we are very much trying to upgrade this, for example, through third party or online reporting. But, clearly, there is still a major gap on this. So my question here will be, what do you see as the main practical barriers that prevent victims from trusting the system and from coming forward? And it is a fact, and for years, it has been a fact, and thank you also for underlining that part, that, of course, in places where the data are collected better or where the democracies are set in a liberal manner, of course, women are going to report it in more numbers.
That's a fact. Also, addressing my colleague. Second question is regarding.
Very fast, please.
Lucia Yar
Very fast constant bay based definition in reporting because the survey confirms that the scale of sexual violence across the EU is big, but also showing that reporting remains very low and uneven. So based on the data, do you see any identifications that the countries with the constant-based definition of rape have higher reporting rates or different patterns of disclosure? I was checking the data. It seems so. So what does this tell us about the practical impact of legal definition and about the added value or limits of EU action in this area, because this is a very big debate here in the parliament.
Lina Gálvez
Indeed. Anna Sollenberger from the Greens. Please have a pleasure of two minutes.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you, and thank you both for being here. I want to start with addressing the case of Colleen Fernandez, who is a German actress, and who suffered from online violence. Her ex husband created folk pro fake profiles of her on the Internet over the course of the last years, and he spread deepfake adult videos. And she spoke out about it last week. And we see more and more often that violence against women is also taking place online.
And I think the case of Fernandez shows us how technology can be used to inflict very real harm on women. And I can imagine that if online violence was really captured in this survey, the numbers would be much higher. So I wondered, I know it's still difficult with data gaps, but if you will include this in the next surveys. Look, for example, at AI generated deepfakes or so called notify apps. Then another question. The data shows that we still have a long way to go, and you even state that there has been no meaningful decline in the rates of violence in the last decade.
So I wondered, how do you explain we've heard some explanations, but how do you explain the lack of decline? Why are we stagnating? And then another question. The numbers are very clear about a third that has experienced sexual physical violence. And what also shocked me is that, as you have explained, women are afraid to speak up.
Half of the women do not speak up. And you state that one of the priorities should be combating intimate partner violence, when implementing the violence against women directive. But how to focus on intimate partner violence if we know that half of the women do not speak up? How can we address this? And those were my questions, and I want to end by saying this: that calling this research ideological or biased is definitely problematic because you are the European Institute for Gender Equality, the agency for fundamental rights.
And if we start to doubt your research, we will get lost, and we will all fall victim to this information. So, again, I want to stress my appreciation for the work you do, and know that we will definitely use these facts, figures, and your recommendations to improve our work.
Europe.
Carolina Morace
Millions of women face physical, psychological, and economic violence. The data is clear on this. We know that the consequences of this are devastating. If you question the existence of this phenomenon, then you're sending out a clear message, which is that women shouldn't be believed. That's a position that you would expect to see in a patriarchal society.
Data show that there's been limited progress compared with the previous inquiry. So what do you think are the main shortcomings in prevention and support systems? Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
That's it. And I would like to also make a question. I will do it in Spanish. It.
Seems that in the main figures, there hasn't been much of a change. Now this has been much broader, and I'd like to thank you for that. It's much broader and more granular than the previous study, and gives us more information, which is welcome. But the structural problems are far from being solved, and are actually worsening in some areas. We're seeing backsliding and questioning of equality.
And as you've seen, this is something that happens here as well in the European Parliament. There are people who question structural inequalities that affect women or identify it with migrants or try to use gender-based violence as a way to get through other policies that had nothing to do with equality. Can you see or quantify the impact of these figures? Can you see the impact of this narrative on these dreadful figures and the money that's being used by some of these movements to deny gender equality? Thank you.
You have six minutes. Three each, if possible. 4.
Speaker 52
Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, members of the committee. So I will start addressing some of the questions, and replies. First of all, thank you all for engaging with the results of the UGBB survey and taking a closer look at them. I will just state that, from a methodological point of view, this has been a sound data collection.
We have had a close cooperation and, of course, Eurostat coordinating the data collection and validating the results guarantees that these are indeed robust findings. So we have over 100,000 women responses to the questionnaire after cleaning the data, after validating, after eliminating nonresponses. So these are answers that have been validated that have made it into the final sample. So from this point of view, we think we have covered women's experiences across the entire European Union. When it comes to reasons for not reporting, you have some of you have indicated them, as well, and you can find them in the report.
So indeed, shame has not yet, unfortunately, switched sides. So we can see the same reasons. Women not being believed, fearing consequences for their lives, police not doing anything or not believing victims. So these are all barriers to women coming forward and trusting the system. So the more we talk about what happens, the more we make space for women, to say what happens to them.
So, again, a lot of them told about what happened, about their experience the first time in the context of the survey. To me, this was mind-blowing, and it was quite astonishing. So it's clear that this is where the shift has to come. And it's not, so it's not about why women do not report. It's not the blame.
It's not on the women for not coming forward. It's on the entire society to believe women and to make steps and put policies in place that support women coming forward, but also ending, first of all, the violence that happens to them. I'm almost at three minutes. Maybe I'll let Sami tackle some of the questions related to sexual violence and rape.
Speaker 50
K. Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you for your questions. So I think, like, on the question of why there has been no decline in the rates, I think this is something that we will be able to analyze further in the future surveys, but we also know that there has been an increase in awareness across the EU, in different member states, over the past years, and this has probably also had its impact on the rates that women report in the survey.
And, but at the same time, we've also had new forms of violence emerging, like different forms of online abuse that then increased the rates. In terms of the underreporting and how to address underreporting, I think something that the report recommends is the gender sensitive training of professionals. Also, the third party reporting that was already mentioned to make it easier for women to report, but also both ensuring that we can speed up the procedures of the justice system and inform women what the justice system can do to them. Because many women also feel that, they don't report because they don't see what it would bring them. They think that, it would take too long.
The it would, they want to leave the situation behind. So, for this, the victim support services can also have a central role. And from other research, we know that many women also report their experiences to the police after being encouraged to do so by the victim support services that also then can assist women through this procedure. In terms of the experiences of men and women, we also collected data in 2019 in the FRAS fundamental rights survey on women and men's experiences of violence. This showed very clearly the differences between the violence experienced by women and men, namely women experiencing violence more in the domestic setting and at home, which, as I said before, puts women at a disadvantage when reporting violence because often there are no witnesses, and they it's more difficult to report.
In terms of the survey, as my colleague already underlined, this survey was implemented by Frauen Eager, but also the National Statistical Authority. So the organizations that are responsible for the quality of official statistics across the EU. So I think this was a key feature for ensuring the quality of this survey. And, still on the question of women and men as victims, also, what we saw from the fundamental rights survey is that also for the violence experienced by men, most often, the perpetrators were men. Also, men suffer from the violence perpetrated by men, in addition to women.
And then with a consent based definition, the an intimate partner violence, how to address it in the context of the violence against women directive. In the violence against women directive, there's an article on awareness raising measures that member states should carry out, especially with respect to the consent based definition of rape. And, so this is very, very important to pay attention to and to take full advantage of when implementing the violence against women directive because the consent based definition of rape and having a clear understanding of it, across the EU member states is important as we saw from the results.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming here. Thank you, very much, for presenting us this very important survey. And most of all, thank you very much for the work you do every day and the institute and the agency because it's essential for us.
As some of the members have insisted, we want to take our decision, our political decision, with the best possible evidence. We are not anti-science, but the opposite here. So we really want the data. We really want knowledge. We really want good information in order to combat misinformation and to take the best possible.
So, it is real time to commit more as possible to end up this violence, and we really need to make sure that this is taken seriously. Otherwise, yeah, we will see this backlash more and more. So, thank you. Thank you very much. And now we are really on time.
And thank you, the interpreters, the members, the rest of the people who've been here.
Thank you for being here, for sticking through the morning session.
Again, to 30. So, thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.