A Synthesis Of Civil Societys Reports On The Implementation Of National Roma Integration Strategies In The European Union

Download or read book A Synthesis of Civil Society’s Reports on the Implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies in the European Union written by Marek Hojsík and published by . This book was released on 2018 with total page pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Across EU Member States, there is a diversity of approaches to Roma inclusion policies and programmes. The main dilemmas concern the tension between mainstream and Roma-targeted approaches and grasping Roma inclusion through a rights-based approach or addressing socio-economic disadvantage. These different approaches have a significant impact on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Roma inclusion policies. Central governments influence Roma inclusion mainstreaming by providing local governments with accessible financial and technical support, as well as legal provisions regulating their competences and statutory duties (the enforcement of which is crucial). At the local level, whether or not Roma inclusion is implemented largely depends on the will of local governments and political leadership. The findings of the RCM country reports show that the EU Framework has brought progress and a real added value in terms of formulating policy objectives with respect to Roma inclusion policies in some Member States. Nonetheless, across the EU, NRIS implementation seems random and at times contingent upon the political priorities of national governments, specific line ministries or political parties in power, as well as external pressure from the EC. Moreover, the findings of the RCM country reports indicate that certain Member States fail to integrate citizens from other EU countries, including Roma, resident on their respective territories: they exclude EU-mobile persons from accessing public services, social assistance and integration in the labour market, thus effectively preventing them from exercising their right to free movement. This contributes to fuelling anti-Roma sentiments. In terms of funding, in many Member States (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, but also in Greece or Italy), Roma inclusion policies rely on ESIF funding. Participation by Roma and pro-Roma civil society in shaping Roma integration-related policies, a crucial pillar of inclusive policy-making, through the ESIF mechanisms is noteworthy. Whilst the linkage to the ESIF gives the EC a stronger mandate to intervene into national programmes, problems regarding policy continuity and vulnerability are not insignificant. As for civil society funding, state budgets (at times associated with acceptance of certain ambiguous values and strategic dependency on public authorities) and EU funding make up the majority of sources of income for Roma and pro-Roma civil society organisations The EU Framework requires Member States to set up administrative structures for coordinating NRIS development and implementation, and communication with the EC. The former role in terms of the actual capacity to coordinate or at least effectively participate in domestic Roma inclusion policies varies significantly from country to country. The latter role in relation to communication with the EC tends to be fulfilled by national Roma contact points (NRCPs), established in all Member States and characterised by a diversity of institutional placements ranging from strong (Prime Minister’s office and/or government presidency, key ministries), medium strong (equality bodies) to weak (institutions with a relatively weak mandate and inadequate resources). Although National Roma Platforms, promoted by the EC as participatory venues modelling the European Roma Platform mechanism, are valued for their political and symbolic potential, these instruments are too young to be assessed. There is a diversity of approaches to formal recognition, which depends on whether or not the legislature in a given country conceptualises ‘ethnic’ or ‘national’ minorities. Some Member States recognize Roma as a distinct social and/or ethnic group (including with respect to the Roma Holocaust) insofar as they recognize other national and/or ethnic minorities. There, formal recognition has been important for symbolic reasons, as well as in terms of unambiguous legal protection from discrimination. Nonetheless, representing the interests of Roma by way of formal recognition does not automatically translate into having elected Roma representatives at the European, national, regional or local level. And vice versa: the presence of Roma in governments alone does not guarantee the interests of Roma being represented (this also applies to those Member States that guarantee parliamentarian representation to recognised ethnic minorities). Additionally, where Roma have been included into the electoral lists of mainstream political parties, they have seldom succeeded in getting elected. Across the EU, low political participation by a sizeable number of Roma remains a problem, partially attributable marginalisation and/or alienation from public, social and political life. Despite the ongoing political underrepresentation of Roma at the central level, the past few years have seen the numbers of Roma candidates running in local elections and elected as municipal councillors or mayors increase. While data on Roma and other ethnic and racial equality data has been generated by the adoption of the EU antidiscrimination directives and the NRIS framework, there remains a stubborn dearth of ethnically disaggregated data in most countries. States tend to view ethnic data collection as a violation of data protection legislation, whereas civil society organisations often argue for gathering anonymized ethnic data to devise effective measures to tackle discrimination and segregation. As for the issue of intersectional or multiple inequality, Roma women, youth and children are the most developed categories. Additionally, civil society and scholars have recently articulated the specific needs and experiences of migrant Roma. Even though several NRISs acknowledge the relevance of gender in intra-group relations in Roma communities and also in the nexus between Roma and non-Roma, this dimension is much more modest in NRIS implementation, if it appears at all.