Despite flaws in the EU Roma Framework, writes Bernard Rorke in this European Policies Initiative brief, there is a shared commitment among governments, civil society and others that there is no place for a business-as-usual approach to Roma inclusion.
The European Commission’s EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies by 2020, was greeted with a combination of criticism and calls for more open dialogue from civil society and human rights groups following its launch in Budapest on April 8.
Much of the criticism is constructive and insightful, and Commission officials need to understand that vibrant democratic dialogue is essential to the success of the Framework and view robust criticism as an integral part of, rather than an attack on, the process.
Without a doubt, the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies by 2020 is the most forthright and detailed expression of intent from the European Commission on the issue of Roma inclusion to date.
The Commission’s request that all member states develop and implement targeted strategies, and devote sufficient resources to promote integration in 4 priority areas of health, housing, education and employment takes it cue directly from the Decade of Roma Inclusion and may signal the moment when Roma integration has moved from the margins to the mainstream of policy concerns in a wider Europe.
The prospect of a robust monitoring mechanism, with annual reporting on progress, to ensure that strategies will be implemented, and money directed towards Roma integration reaches its final beneficiaries is most welcome.
While it is true that national governments bear primary responsibility for the rights and well-being of all of their citizens, the European Commission cannot afford to be disinterested in how EU member states spend EU monies. When reports surface in the New York Times about how one Slovak ministry in the former government siphoned off €600,000 earmarked for Roma education and gave it to two soccer teams, it must be ceded that the time is right for closer monitoring, more rigorous impact evaluation, and a less timorous brand of intervention from Brussels.
The Commission recently confirmed in the Task Force report that "member states do not properly use EU money for the purpose of effective social and economic integration of Roma." It noted that a lack of know-how and capacity to absorb EU funds is compounded by weak inclusion strategies and bottlenecks at national regional and local levels. The declared intent in the Communication to ‘surmount capacity issues’, and work with Member States to change operational programmes in order to address new needs, simplify delivery and speed up the implementation of priorities is to be lauded.
The enlargement component that embraces the aspirant countries of south-eastern Europe, holds the prospect that in contrast to earlier waves of EU enlargement, the issue of Roma rights and inclusion might actually matter, and that Copenhagen Criteria will count when it comes to new countries joining the European Union.
So far, so good, so positive - so what could the matter be with the Commission’s Framework that aims ’to make a difference by 2020’?
RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA
First, there was a wide sense of disappointment that the Framework fell so far short of the recommendations contained in the Report to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs[1] and subsequently endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament Resolution on March 8, 2011.
The Resolution called on the Commission to link social inclusion priorities to a clear set of objectives that included protection of citizens against discrimination in all fields of life; promotion of social dialogue between Roma and non-Roma to combat racism and xenophobia; and for the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, to ensure full implementation of relevant legislation and appropriate sanctions against racially motivated crimes. This link is missing.
The Communication lacks adequate strategic intent to address what Commissioner Reding herself described as the "openly discriminatory and partly inflammatory" rhetoric coming from prominent politicians in Member States, and the fact that such statements are made with seeming impunity. In addition to addressing social and economic marginalization the Framework must address the challenge of growing intolerance, discrimination and prejudice against Roma. Otherwise there is a danger that this strategy will come undone and if progress gets derailed by prejudice, instead of the Roadmap for Roma inclusion demanded by the Parliament, the Framework could be a road to nowhere.
If Member States are to reach the overall targets for the Europe 2020 strategy, and if the Framework is to live up to its billing ‘10 years to make a difference’ then the Commission needs to signal to all states that nothing less than a zero-tolerance approach will suffice when it comes to anti-Gypsyism and all forms of discrimination against Roma. There is a clear need for explicit goals to combat discrimination and anti-Gypsyism in national Roma integration strategies to ensure that prejudice does not derail progress.
CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND PARTICIPATION
In an address to the Roma Platform meeting in Budapest, Zeljko Jovanovic, Director of the Open Society Roma Initiatives, summed up the discontent expressed by dozens of organizations drawn from 16 countries, when he stated that “The Framework offers no guarantees to ensure national strategies will be developed in close consultation with Roma civil society. Civil society is ready to play an active role in the policy-making process; we only ask the European Commission to engage with us.”
There is, it must be acknowledged, welcome mention of Roma participation and consultation in the Communication. But what is missing is a clear vision of how the Commission intends to meet its own general principles, minimum standards and duties according to the treaties, when it comes to consultation and participation of Roma.[2]In other policy spheres the Commission asserts that “the quality of EU policy depends on ensuring wide participation throughout the policy chain—from conception to implementation”.
The Communication states that the European Platform for Roma Inclusion ‘is a useful forum for debate and concerted actions of all relevant stakeholders’, and that the Commission is committed to playing a stronger role in the Platform. It posits that a ‘strengthened Platform’ will provide the Commission with feedback on the results of efforts on the ground ‘through the voice of civil society’.
The Commission could make greater use of the mechanisms of the Decade of Roma Inclusion. The work of the Platform could be greatly enhanced by embracing the Decade. The Commission could utilize its convening power, draw extensively from lessons learned since 2005, and step up its own active participation within the Decade. The Decade can serve to complement and bolster the EU Framework and function as a mechanism to coordinate the development of National Roma Integration Strategies. In promoting Roma integration beyond the borders of the EU, the Decade could prove to be a valuable asset as both member states and the governments of accession countries participate on an equal footing within the Decade. From mid-2011, the Decade presidencies will be held by the aspirant countries of the Western Balkans. By embracing the Decade, the Commission can use its structures and unique array of partners, which includes UN agencies, international organizations, civil society and participating governments to sustain the necessary momentum to ensure that this EU Framework will make a difference by 2020.
A Framework requires an explicit commitment to a timeline for scheduled and structured broad-based consultations with all relevant stakeholders between now and 2020. Roma communities and representatives must be accorded the opportunity for participation in shaping the policies and initiatives that directly impact on their lives.
The message from Roma civil society groups was that the time has past when Roma can simply be viewed as an undifferentiated, passive and dependent population. And if this brand of paternalism persists and permeates the development of National Roma Integration Strategies they are doomed to fail.
There is a need for the Commission to take a lead to promoting substantive Roma participation in this process and to do all within its remit to ensure that Member States embrace the idea that active citizenship is fundamental to social inclusion, and includes all of the citizenry regardless of their ethnicity.
CRISIS MAP
The European Parliament resolution drew attention to the geography of social exclusion and the concentration of disadvantage within underdeveloped micro-regions. MEP Livia Jaroka warned of increasing polarization as much of this exclusion remains "invisible" to European statisticians, commission officials, and policy makers. The resolution called for a Europe-wide crisis map, to identify and survey those micro-regions where communities are hardest hit.
But, as the parliamentary resolution asserted, this is not just mapping for the sake of mapping. Once identified, targeted, emergency comprehensive interventions should be devised to assist the most marginalized and deprived communities. A crisis map must include impoverished urban districts, and towns as well as isolated rural communities in the micro-regions, and reflect that deprivation is not uniform in its manifestations but rather multi-faceted and complex.
Experience has shown that an exclusively territorial approach will simply not suffice when it comes to Roma inclusion. Territorial approaches must include key elements of ‘explicit but not exclusive targeting’ that addresses the specific needs of the communities. There must be firm and explicit conditionality that any funds allocated must align with the 10 Common Basic Principles, and both in terms of stated objectives and concrete outcomes actively promote integration and not, as has been the case in the past, entrench segregation and inequality.
COMBATING THE MULTIPLE DISCRIMINATION FACED BY ROMANI WOMEN
Substantive proposals concerning the principle of gender equity and effective measures to address the multiple discrimination faced by Romani women are absent from the Communication. The importance of ’explicit but not exclusive targeting’ of Romani women in National Roma Integration cannot be overstated: first as a legitimate affirmative action in its own right; and second for the wider, long-term impact on the community and wider societal cohesion.
As primary carers for their children and most often the mediators between family, state institutions and service providers, the active engagement of Romani women in community development and policy implementation is a prerequisite for successful interventions in areas such as child protection, education, and health care. As the Commission’s own Ethnic Minority and Roma women in Europe states: "Investing in Roma women … lays the foundations for a longer-term and effective inclusion of future Roma generations." The ommission of gender equity is quite simply baffling.
EDUCATION
With regards to access to education, the Communication was criticized for lack of ambition and failing to go beyond calling on states to ‘ensure that every child completes primary school’ and a cursory mention of pre-school and early childhood interventions.
By contrast, the European Commission’s communication on February 17, 2011 on early childhood education and care (ECEC) was far more explicit in highlighting the key role that ECEC can play in overcoming the educational disadvantage faced by Roma children. It stated that ‘although their needs are greater, participation rates of Roma children in ECEC are significantly lower than for the native (sic!) population, and expanding these opportunities is a key policy challenge across the EU.’ Meeting this challenge must be at the forefront of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies. Given the limited coverage of early development services in many countries for children 0-3 years, and number of years it takes to meet ‘key policy challenges’ there is a grave danger that thousands of children will be passed over without direct intervention.
The Commission should insist that Member States, as a minimum should set targets to ensure that all children, including Roma, have access to two years of quality pre-school; that the percentage of Roma children completing primary school is the same as the percentage of majority children, with an aim to meeting the EU 2020 goal for school completion for Roma and non-Roma children. Concise targets and firm indicators need to be in place so that Member States ensure that all Roma children have access to quality education, and measures taken to reduce the gap in secondary school completion rates. While the Communication mentions that Romani children and young people should not be subjected to discrimination, or schooled in segregated settings, what’s lacking is a firm statement calling on Member States to desist from the practices of misdiagnosing Roma children as ‘mentally handicapped’ and sending them to special schools in defiance of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that such practices are discriminatory and unlawful.
CONCLUSION
Recent events in Hungary involving uniformed far-right paramilitaries have served to highlight that the challenge facing a European Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies is stark. There are two possible scenarios for Europe 2020:
There is the viable prospect of forward-looking and fully inclusive societies that foster a sense of common belonging, cohesion and mutual respect among all citizens regardless of their ethnicity.
There is another possible future for Europe: One of illiberal democracies and increasingly closed societies where Roma are denigrated and humiliated as scapegoats and pariahs.
Whatever the caveats, whatever the criticisms concerning the Framework, there is a shared commitment from civil society, governments, international organizations and the European Union that, as President Barosso declared at the first EU Roma Summit, when it comes to the Roma issue "there is no place for a laissez-faire or business-as-usual approach."
Continued exclusion is not only ethically repugnant but also economically stupid: it impoverishes and humiliates Romani men, women, and children every day. Continued exclusion carries a hefty cost for society: as the economists remind us, it’s costly in terms of human capital needlessly squandered. But there is another cost: continued exclusion and anti-Gypsyism degrades the quality and moral standing of Europe’s democracies and corrupts the sense of citizenship as something that binds us together as equals.
Bernard Rorke is Director of International Research and Advocacy for the Open Society Roma Initiatives.
This article was first published by the European Policieis Initiative.
Source: http://eupi.osi.bg/fce/001/0070/files/RomaPolicyinEU_EuPIPolicyBrief31_May2011.pdf
[1]Reporton the EU strategy on Roma inclusion(2010/2276(INI))Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home AffairsRapporteur: Lívia JárókaRapporteur for the opinion (*) : Kinga Göncz, Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
[2]Through wide consultation, “the Commission ensures that its proposals are technically viable, practically workable and based on a bottom up approach… improving the quality of the policy outcome and enhancing the involvement of interested parties and the public at large.” The Commission should ensure adequate consultation opportunities for those affected by the policies in question and those involved in the implementation. Further, where formal or structured consultations do not exist for wider constituencies and specific target groups, including ethnic minorities, the Commission should consider how best toensure that “all interests are being taken into account through other forms of consultation”.
Printable version
Email