err roma rights - errc.org · roma rights | 2013 3 national roma integration strategies: what next?...

Roma RightsJournal of the european roma rights Centre

NatioNal Roma iNtegRatioN stRategies: what Next?2013

Challenging DisCrimination promoting equality

EUROPEAN ROMA RIGHTS CENTRE

The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is an international public interest law organisation working to combat anti-Romani racism and human rights abuse of Roma. The approach of the ERRC involves strategic litigation, international advocacy, research and policy development and training of Romani activists. The ERRC has consultative status with the Council of Europe, as well as with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The ERRC has been the recipient of numerous awards for its efforts to advance human rights respect of Roma: The 2013 PL Foundation Freedom Prize; the 2012 Stockholm Human Rights Award, awarded jointly to the ERRC and Tho-mas Hammarberg; in 2010, the Silver Rose Award of SOLIDAR; in 2009, the Justice Prize of the Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation; in 2007, the Max van der Stoel Award given by the High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Dutch Foreign Ministry; and in 2001, the Geuzenpenning Award (the Geuzen medal of honour) by Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet of the Netherlands;

Board of Directors Robert Kushen – (USA - Chair of the Board) | Dan Pavel Doghi (Romania) | James A. Goldston (USA) | Maria Virginia Bras Gomes (Portugal) | Jeno Kaltenbach (Hungary) I Abigail Smith, ERRC Treasurer (USA)

Executive Director Dezideriu Gergely

Staff Adam Weiss (Legal Director) | Andrea Jamrik (Financial Officer) | Andrea Colak (Lawyer) | Anna Orsós (Pro-grammes Assistant) | Anca Sandescu (Human Rights Trainer) | Ailsa Spindler (Director of Organisational Devel-opment) | Crina Morteanu (Legal Trainee) | Csilla Kacsó (Legal Administration Officer) | Darya Alekseeva (Law-yer) | Dóra Eke (Programmes Assistant) | Dzavit Berisha (Publications Officer) | Djordje Jovanovic (Research Coordinator) | Hajnalka Németh (Office Coordinator) | Hajnal Vernes (Financial Director) | Judit Gellér (Lawyer) | Julianna Oros (Financial Officer) | Kieran O’Reilly (Research Officer) | Marek Szilvasi (Research and Advocacy Officer) | Marcello Cassanelli (Legal Fellow) | Marianne Powell (Communications Officer) | Michal Zalesak (Legal Fellow) | Sinan Gökcen (Information Officer) | Stephan Müller (Programmes Director) | Stefan Luca (Lawyer) | Tefik Mahmut (Legal Trainee)

Consultants Anna Daróczi (Hungary) | Tomáš Sivák (Slovakia) | Mustafa Asanovski (Macedonia) | Atanas Zahariev (Bulgaria) | Marek Baláž (Slovakia) | Manon Fillonneau (France) | Hacer Foggo (Turkey) | Vladimir Kondur (Ukraine) | Rosalia Mangiacavallo (Italy) | Marija Manic (Serbia) | Robert Matei (Romania) | Július Mika (Czech Republic) | Markus Pape (Czech Republic) | Tatjana Peric (Serbia) | Corina Ajder (Moldova) | Erika Bodor (France) | Victoria Vasey (Senior Consultant) | Tara Bedard (Senior Consultant)

Recent Interns Jonathan Moore (USA) | Katarina Medlova (Slovakia) | Giorgi Maruashvili (Georgia) | Cristina Marian (Moldova) | Dominik Hávor (Austria) | Ana Ruiz (Spain) | Snezana Dimic (Serbia) | Veronika Czutor (Hungary) | Yanina Fyudr (Ukraine) | Erika Bodor (France) | Radosav Besic (Serbia) | Alexandra Drimal (USA) | Camille Allamel (USA) | Zoe Billington (USA) | Manuel Spornberger (Austria)

The ERRC was founded by Mr Ferenc Ko szeg.

MAJOR SPONSORS OF THE ERRC

Swedish International Development Agency | Open Society Institute | The Sigrid Rausing Trust | Microsoft Hungary (special licence status)


errC rom

a rights | national roma integration strategies: W

hat neXt?2013

editor-in-chief: dezideRiu geRgelyguest editor: dR maRtiN Kovatseditor team: KieRaN o’Reilly aNd maReK szilvasilanguage editor: maRiaNNe powelllayout: dzavit BeRisha

© december 2013 european Roma Rights Centre issn 1417-1503. the opinions expressed in authored pieces are not necessarily those of the european roma rights Centre. the contents of this journal may be reproduced or disseminated on condition that the source is mentioned and that reproduction and dissemination is free of charge and for non-commercial purposes. all other uses of the contents require the express written consent of the errC. the errC requests that three cop-ies of any reproduction be sent to the editors.

Roma Rights is published in Budapest, hungary, by the european roma rights Centre.

address: 1074 Budapest, madách tér 4, hungaryoffice tel: +36 1 413 2200office Fax: +36 1 413 2201e-mail: [email protected]

Cover photo: © european Roma Rights Centre – Discussion of national strategies during hungarian presidency of eu, Budapest, hungary 2011.

Design: anikó székffyprinted by: molnár és Faragó Bt., Budapest, hungary

suppoRt the eRRC

the european roma rights Centre is dependent upon the generosity of individual donors for its continued existence. please join in enabling its future with a contribution. gifts of all sizes are welcome and can be made via paypal on the errC website (www.errc.org, click on the Donate button at the top right of the home page) or bank transfer to the errC account:

Bank name: Budapest BaNKBank address: BáthoRi utCa 1, 1054 huNgaRyBank account holder: euRopeaN Roma Rights CeNtReusD bank account number: 99p00-422686(usD iBan: hu21-10103173-40268600-00000998)eur bank account number: 30p00-402686(eur iBan: hu21-10103173-40268600-00000998)sWift (or BiC) code: BudahuhB

Table of Contents

introductionForeword dr Martin Kovats 3

notebooK What Future for the EU Framework? What Prospects for Roma Inclusion? bernard rorke 5Empowerment and the European Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

thomas Acton, Andrew ryder and iulius rostas 11ERPC’s Assessment of National Roma Integration Strategies: 2012 Report and Recent

Developments carolina Fernández díez and belén Sánchez-rubio 15National Roma Integration Strategy: Do Good Intentions Fail? Joanna Kostka 23Streamlining the Decade of Roma Inclusion and the EU Framework Aleksandra bojadjieva 31Roma Women’s Voices and Silences on Unjust Power Regimes eniko Vincze 35Fighting Discrimination and Promoting Equality in the Context of the Roma Inclusion

Policies in Europe dezideriu Gergely 45

cASe reViewS Horváth and Kiss v Hungary - The Misdiagnosis Case Judit Gellér 53Sulukule: Renovation or Destruction? Hilal Küey 57

booK reViewSKatharine Quarmby - No Place to Call Home - Inside the Real Lives of Gypsies and

Travellers, One World, London, 2013 reviewed by Marianne Powell 61

Some EU Roma-Focused Documents and Events1:

2013• European Parliament Resolution of 12 December

2013ontheprogressmadeintheimplementationof theNationalRomaIntegrationStrategies

• CouncilRecommendationoneffectiveRoma inte-grationmeasures in theMember States on 5De-cember2013

• European Commission Communication of 26 June2013 on Steps forward in implementing NationalRomaIntegrationStrategies

• EighthEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBrus-selson27thJune2013.

2012• European Commission Communication of 21 May

2012onNationalRomaIntegrationStrategies:afirststepintheimplementationof theEUFramework

• ExtraordinaryMeetingof theEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBrusselson22ndMarch2012

2011• SixthEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBrus-

selson17-18thNovember2011• FifthEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBuda-

pestonApril7-8th2011• European Commission Communication of 5 April

2011:AnEUFrameworkforNationalRomaIntegra-tionStrategiesupto2020

• EuropeanParliamentresolutionof 9March2011ontheEUstrategyonRomainclusion

2010• FourthEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBrus-

selson13thDecember2010

• ThirdEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBrus-selson17thJune2010

• Council Conclusion of 27 May 2010 on advancingRomainclusion

• European Commission Communication of 7 April2010on the social andeconomic integrationof theRomainEurope

• SecondEURomaSummitheldinCórdobaon8-9thApril2010

• EuropeanCommissionStaff WorkingDocumentof 7 April 2010 - Roma in Europe: The Implementa-tionof EuropeanUnionInstrumentsandPoliciesforRomaInclusion-ProgressReport2008-2010

• European Parliament Resolution of 25March 2010onthesecondEuropeanRomasummit

2009• Second EU Platform for Roma Inclusion held in

Brusselson28thSeptember2009• CouncilConclusionof 28May2009ontheinclusion

of Roma• FirstEUPlatformforRomaInclusionheldinBrus-

selson24thApril2009• EuropeanParliamentresolutionof 11March2009on

thesocialsituationof theRomaandtheir improvedaccesstothelabourmarketintheEU

2008• First EU Roma Summit held in Brussels on 16th

September2008• EuropeanCommissionStaff WorkingDocumentof

2July2008onCommunity instrumentsandpoliciesforRomainclusion

2007• EuropeanParliamentResolutiononaEuropeanStrat-

egyontheRoma(B6-055/2007)

1 Source:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/index_en.htm.

Roma RighTS | 2013 3

NaTioNal Roma iNTEgRaTioN STRaTEgiES: WhaT NExT?

Foreword

d r M A r t i n K o V At S 1

Therewasacertaininevitabilityaboutthearrivalof theEU’sRoma integration framework in 2011. Since the eastwardenlargement of theUnion took place, pressure had beenmountingfromRomaorganisationsandactivistsforanEURomapolicy.Morepractically,thefactthatsomanyRomapeoplehadbecomeEUcitizensbroughtintotheUnionthepolitics of Roma in accession states.The struggle againstpovertyanddiscriminationandforculturalrecognitionandethnicstatusisnowanintegralpartof Europe’spolitics.Eu-ropeanintegrationhashelpedtoaddafurtherdimensiontothepoliticsof Roma:migrationwithin theEU.FollowingtheItalian‘NomadEmergency’,thedestructionof campsinFrancemeantthatRomawouldinevitablybecomeanitemontheEU’sagenda.Atthesametime,theFrameworkfol-lowsthefamiliarapproachof requiringMemberStates tosetouttheircommitmentsonRomainwriting.

TheFrameworkhasbeencriticisedforits‘weakness’andaccusedof beingunlikelytohavemucheffect.However,itwillcertainlybeinfluential.Itrequiresall28EUstatestoproduce strategies toguidenational and localpolicy andpractice.Targetedattentionandresourcesaimtomakea‘tangible difference’ to the lives of disadvantaged Romapeople.Whatwill certainly happen is thatRomawill besubjectedtobroaderandmoredetailedexamination,mon-itoring and evaluation than ever before. Farmore infor-mationwillbeproducedandmadepublicaboutRoma–abouthowmanyof themthereare,wheretheylive,whattheywant or need, howmuchmoney is being spent onthemandsoon.Moreinformationmeansmoreperspec-tivesandopinions.TheRomadiscourseisgrowing.

The essays in this series exemplify the diversity of theRomadiscourse.Allof themdiscusstheEURomaframe-work,butfromdifferentperspectives–national,thematicorinstitutional.JoannaKostkaexaminesthePolishnation-alstrategyandquestionswhathasbeenlearnedfrompre-viousRomaintegrationinitiatives.ThomasActon,AndrewRyderandIuliusRostascallforgreatersupporttobegiven

for grass roots Roma involvement in projects and pro-grammes,whileEnikoVinczearguestheneedforgreaterconsideration to be given to the role of Roma women.Belén Sánchez-Rubio andCarolina Fernández Díez pro-videanoverviewof theEuropeanRomaPolicyCoalition’sassessmentof nationalRomastrategies,whiletherelation-shipbetweentheRomaDecadeandtheEU’sRomaframe-workisdiscussedbyAleksandraBojadjieva.BernardRorkecriticallyanalysestheoverallapproachof theFrameworkandquestionshowmuchprogress canbemadewithoutmore effective action to counter discriminatory attitudesandpractices,whiletheimportanceof placingthestruggleagainstdiscrimination at theheartof Roma initiatives isemphasisedbyDezideriuGergely.

Toagreateror lesser extent, eachof theessays touchesupontwothemeswhichareemergingasfocalpointsforassessmentof RomapoliciesasawholeandtheEUframe-work in particular. First, there is the domination of thesocialpolicyparadigmmobilisedto tacklemanifestationsof inequality,poverty,segregationandothersocialoreco-nomic ‘problems’.While acknowledging theneed foref-fective interventions, thiswayof framing the issues alsoappearstoplacetheprimaryresponsibilityfor‘integration’ondisadvantagedRomapeoplethemselves.Whileperson-alchoicecanneverbeentirelydisregarded, systemicandstructural factorsalsoneedtobeproperly taken intoac-countif policygoals,nomatterhowvaguelydefined,aretobemet.ThisrequirestheRomadiscoursetobeunderstoodinrelationtowiderpolitical,economic,socialandculturalcontexts and trends, enablingRomapeople, identity andpolicytobeseenasanintegralpartof contemporarylocal,nationalandEuropeanpoliticsandsociety.

Theother important theme addressedby these essays istherelativelylimitedroleRomapeoplehaveplayedinthedevelopment of policy initiatives nominally designed tohelp them. How Roma people and their representativescan assert their interests in the design, implementation,

1 DrMartinKovatshasbeenstudyingtheRomapoliticalphenomenonfortwentyyears.HehasheldresearchfellowshipsattheUniversityof BirminghamandCorvinusUniversityandtaughtattheUniversityof London.Since2010hehasbeenaspecialadvisortotheEUCommissionerforEmployment,SocialAffairsandInclusion.

EURopEaN Roma RighTS CENTRE | WWW.ERRC.oRg4

iNTRoDUCTioN

monitoringandevaluationof ‘Romapolicy’isanessentialchallengefornascentRomaactivism.HowRomarespondtothischallengedependsnotonlyonwhatopportunitiesforengagementareprovidedbyelites,butalsoonthequal-ityandcoherenceof Romainterestrepresentation,politi-calrelationshipsandideologicalperspectives.

BythetimetheEUframeworkcomestoanendin2020notallRomapeopleintheEUwillenjoyequalityof opportu-nity,decentlivingconditionsorsocialandmaterialsecurity;norwillprejudiceanddiscriminationhavebeeneliminated.Ratherthanbeingthe’solution’,theFrameworkispartof aprocessof socialandpoliticalchangethatofferstheoppor-tunitytocreatebetter,fairersocieties.Eachof theseessaysdiscussestheimportanceof localandnationalcontextsintermsof goodlaws,policiesandpractices.

Forboth legal andpolitical reasons theEU’s role is thatof amotivatorandsupporterof goodnationalandlocalactions.TheEUisnotagovernmentoraserviceprovider,and its lawshave tobe adopted and appliedbynationalauthorities.TheEUframeworkisamechanismtoenablenationalauthoritiestotakeappropriateactiontoimprovethelivingconditionsandlifechancesof theirowncitizens

orof residentsforwhomtheyhavelegalandpoliticalre-sponsibility.StatesshouldalsoensurethattheirownlawsareenforcedandthatRomapeoplearenotdiscriminatedagainst,eitherdirectlyorindirectly.Politically,theFrame-workrecognisesthatthepowertomeaningfullychangethecircumstancesof disadvantagedRomapeople lieswithinthestatesandsocietieswheretheylive.Argumentsaboutanti-racismandsocialcohesionhavetobewoninthecom-munitiesandinstitutionswhicharepartof Romapeople’slivesandonwhichmanydependforservicesandsupport.

The EU Roma Framework shows just how importantRomaissueshavebecomeinEuropeanpoliticalagendas.Itwill ensure thatmore resources are directed towardsRomaandthatmoreinitiativeswillbetaken.Theemerg-ing international publicdebate aboutRoma is a uniqueopportunity for European states and societies to learnaboutRoma,totalkaboutRomaandtofindwaystotran-scendthenegativelegaciesof thepastandestablishnon-discriminating, equalopportunity societieswhereRomapeoplecanprosper.Therecanbemanywaystoachievethisgoal,butastheseessaysshow,itiscrucialtowintheargumentnotonlyattheEuropeaninstitutionallevel,butineachseparateEuropeansociety.



What Future for the EU Framework? What prospects for Roma inclusion?

b e r n A r d r o r K e 1

Two years after the European Commission adopted the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) up to 2020 to “make a tangible difference to Roma people’s lives,” 2 there is little cause for optimism: progress remains negligible and discrimination pervasive; hate speech and anti-Roma violence continues unabated; and in many countries Roma exclusion has become even more pronounced. In a climate of rising intolerance and deepening poverty, the NRIS fall way short of what’s required to make the kind of tangible difference that’s needed by 2020. The European Commission has stepped up to the challenge; member states need to quit the foot-dragging and deliver on Roma inclusion, and meet their obligations to guarantee equality, justice, and security for all citizens regardless of their ethnicity.

theEURomaFramework,andmakingsmartuseof EUfundingtosupporteffectivepoliciesineducation,employ-ment,health,andhousing.TheEuropeanCommissionhasdemonstrateditspoliticalwilltomakeadifference;it’snowtimeformemberstatestodolikewise.

Twoyearsonfromthesubmissionof theRomastrategies,Redingdeclaredthat“themomentof truthhascome.If memberstatesareseriousaboutRomainclusiontheyneedtodelivermorethanpaper.”

Themessagetomemberstateswasunequivocal-effectivesocial inclusionmustbeaccompaniedbyrigorous imple-mentationof antidiscriminationlegislationandrespectforfundamentalhumanrights.

Thatmuchmoreneedstobedonewasmadeabundantlyclear by the recently published Civil SocietyMonitoringReportsonprogresswithnationalstrategies.Themonitor-ing,conductedbycivilsocietycoalitionsandsupportedbytheDecadeof RomaInclusionSecretariatandtheOpenSocietyFoundations, covered sixEUmember states andtwoaccessioncountries.5

OnJune26th2013theEuropeanUnionsentthestrongestpos-siblesignalthatsocialinclusionandequaltreatmentof Romamustbeapriorityfortheentirecontinent.Itannouncedanewsetof measuresfocusedonendingwidespreaddisparitiesineducation, employment,health, andhousing, and calledonmemberstatestodevotemoremoneytoRomaintegration.3

EuropeanCommissionVicePresidentVivianeRedingstatedthat if memberstatesareserioustheyneed“tomoveupagear”intheireffortsonRomaintegration,andfollowupwithconcrete action.TheCommission’s progress report on theNational Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) was coupledwitharecommendationaddressedtoEUcountriesspellingoutwhat needs to be done inmember states for effectiveRoma integration. The recommendation providesmemberstateswithanopportunitytostepupandunanimouslyrenewtheircommitmenttotheEUFramework’sboldambitiontomakeadifferencetothelivesof millionsof Romacitizens.4

Thebigquestion iswhether this latest“EURomapack-age”willmakethatdifference.Theanswerlieswithmem-ber states, for progress on Roma inclusion depends ongovernmentsfullyavailingof theopportunitiesofferedby

1 BernardRorkeworkedfor15yearswithOpenSocietyFoundationsonRomaissues.HecurrentlyteachesRomaRightsatCentralEuropeanUniversityinBudapest.

2 CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommit-teeof theRegions,AnEUFrameworkforNationalRomaIntegrationStrategiesupto2020,Brussels,5.4.2011,COM(2011)173final,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs/com_2011_173_en.pdf.

3 EuropaPressRelease,Roma: Commission calls on Member States to step up efforts on integration,Reference:IP/13/607,26June2013,availableat:http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-607_en.htm.

4 EuropeanCommissionBrussels,CommunicationfromTheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommitteeof theRegions: Steps forward in implementing National Roma Integration Strategies.26.6.2013Com(2013)454Final,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/com_2013_454_en.pdf.

5 Decadeof RomaInclusionSecretariatFoundation, Civil Society Monitoring on the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategies and Decade Action Plans in 2012: SUMMARY REPORT,(Budapest),availableat:http://www.romadecade.org/civilsocietymonitoring.


Findings From the Civil Society monitoring Reports

Thereportsarerichindetail,judiciousintoneandcontainawealthof sectorandcountry-specificpolicyrecommen-dationsaboutwhatittakestomakeadifferencetothelivesof deprived and excludedRoma citizens.While nationalcontextsvaryandprogressisuneven,acrossmostof thecountriessurveyedcommonthemesincluded:

● Achild-centredapproachismissingfromthestrategies–beyondthesphereof education,itseemsthatformanymemberstates,thebasicnotionthatallpoliciesimpactonchildren’swell-beinganddevelopmenthasyettosinkin;

● Failuretoaddressthelackof reliablebaselinedisaggregat-eddatanecessaryfor“robustmonitoringmechanisms”;

● Pooruseof EUfundsforRomainclusion;● Nostepstakentomainstreamgenderequityacrosstheprioritypolicyareas;

● Nosystemicmovestoendschoolsegregation;● Whatismorealarming,especiallyintermsof combat-ingdiscrimination and racism, is evidenceof stagna-tionandregressinmanycountries;

ThE RighTS aND WEll-bEiNg oF RomaNi ChilDREN:

The European Commission was clear that to break thecycleof exclusion,NRISmustprioritise rightsandwell-beingof Romanichildrenandyoungpeople.Thedemo-graphicsspelloutthenecessity:35.7%of Romaareunder15comparedto15.7%of theEUpopulationoverall.Theaverageageis25amongRoma,comparedwith40acrosstheEU.AndUNICEFexplicatedthereality:

“RomachildreninallcountriesacrossEuroperemainatriskof systematicviolationof theirrights.Thisisreflected in severe poverty andmarginalisation, dis-criminationandthedenialof equalaccesstoservicesandof equalopportunities.”6

The Civil Society Monitoring Reports confirm anewUNICEF’sobservationthat“policiesarerarely‘inthebest

interests’of theRomachildandthevoicesof Romachil-drenandyoungpeopleareoftennottakenintoaccount.”

Beyond the sphere of education, it seems that, formanymember states, the basic notion that all policies impactchildren’s well-being and development has yet to sink in.As regards thepriorityareaof housingand its impactonchildrenandyoungpeople,theBulgarianreportprovidesavividdescriptionof theenvironmentforthousandsof chil-dreninsegregatedRomaneighbourhoods,whichlackbasicinfrastructureandservices,schoolsandkindergartens,play-groundsandrecreationareas,andaccesstopublictransport.

“In the largest andpoorestRomaneighbourhood in thewesternBulgariantownof Dupnitsa,around90%of thedwellingshaveneitherabathnoraninsidetoilet.Around40%of thepeopledonothavetheirownbed,householdsarecrowdedandafifthof dwellingsdonothavelegalac-cess to water and electricity.” Across Bulgaria, in termsof extending basic services to Roma neighbourhoods,progressinthefirstyearof theFrameworkwasdescribedbysurveyrespondentsas“negligible.”7

In theCzechRepublicacombinationof massivesell-offsof municipalhousingstock,rentderegulation,andrisingin-debtednesshasforcedmanyfamiliesfromregularhousingintohostel-typeaccommodation.Thishasbecomealucra-tivebusiness,sustainedbythepaymentof housingsubsidies.

Asthemonitoringreportstates,“overcrowdedandneglect-ed,withsharedsanitaryfacilities,hostelsarethoroughlyun-suitableasawayof providingstablehomesforfamilieswithchildren.”Whilesomemunicipalitiestrytoassistemergencycases,othershaveopenlydeclaredtheirintentionto“exporttheirlocalintegrationproblemtoothermunicipalities,”andblockanydevelopmentthatmightbenefitlocalRoma.8

In Slovakia, a number of municipalities classified settle-mentsaswastedumpsandcarriedoutforcedevictionsanddemolitions of settlements on ‘environmental grounds,’often without providing alternative accommodation tofamilieswithsmallchildren.

6 UNICEF,UNICEF and Roma Children,availableat:http://www.romachildren.com/?page_id=437.

7 Civil Society Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy and Decade Action Plan in 2012 in BULGARIA,availableat:http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9270_file4_bg_civil-society-monitoring-report_en.pdf.

8 Civil Society Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy and Decade Action Plan in 2012 in CZECH REPUBLIC, avail-ableat:http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9270_file6_cr_civil-society-monitoring-report_en.pdf.

NoTEbook



In Romania the most remarkable developments onhousing policy in 2012 seemed to be forced evictionsand‘resettlement’of Romafamiliesinremotelocationsfarfromcitycentres,oftenwithoutbasicamenities.IncasesdocumentedbyERRCandAmnestyInternational,familieswithyoungchildrenhavebeenforciblyevictedin breach of international law, and relocated towastedumps, abandoned toxic industrial sites, and remotefenced-inpatchesof agriculturalland.

This is a mere snapshot from four country reports onhousingpoliciesforRomain2012.Butjustpausetoimag-inetheimpactforcedevictions,squalid livingconditions,malnutrition,andlackof basicsanitationhasonthelong-term‘well-beinganddevelopment’of Europe’syoungestandmostvulnerablecitizens.Addtothatthefindingsof thereportsonhealth,employmentandeducation,andit’sclear that forRoma children and young people, theEU2020Agenda for inclusive growthmust seemutterly re-moteandremovedfromreality.

RobUST moNiToRiNg mEChaNiSmS:

Forgovernments toprovide substantive annualprogressreporting, there is a clear need for what the EuropeanCommissioncalls‘robustmonitoringmechanisms’.Therearesignsof progressinSpainandHungaryandanexpec-tationthatsuchmechanismswillbeinplaceinthesetwocountriesbytheendof thisyear.

AsfortheotherfourMemberStatessurveyed,theselec-tionof quotesfromthemonitoringreportsshouldpromptadegreeof concern:

ROMANIA:“TheNRISdoesnotmeetthestand-ardrequirements forgovernmentstrategies,policyproblems are not clearly articulated, there are toomanydirections for action, there are no clear pri-orities, no clear operational objectives, envisagedoutcomes are lacking, responsibilities are diffuse,very limited resources andmechanisms to allocatefundslacking.Asaconsequence,barringacompleteoverhaulof theNRIS, it isdoubtfulwhetherany-thing resembling a robustmonitoring and evalua-tionmechanismcouldseethelightof day.”

SLOVAKIA:“Thereisnoevidenceof intenttocreatearobustmechanismformonitoringandevaluationof policyimplementation.”

CZECH REPUBLIC: “Currentprogress reportingonRomainclusionisneithersystematicnorindepend-entfrompolitical interference.It isessentialthattherevisedNRISbebasedonasolidmonitoringandeval-uationsystemthatcanassessthe impactof targetedinterventions andmainstream policies on the Romapopulation, andallows for regional and local impactassessmentof pilotprojects.”

BULGARIA: “There isnoclarity in theNRIScon-cerning proposed monitoring methods and mecha-nisms.Reportsarepreparedwithoutanymethodologyforevaluation, lackconcrete indicators, andhavenomechanisms to collect information related to out-comesandimpactsof policiesandprojects.”

STRUCTURal REqUiREmENTS aND USE oF EU FUNDS

In terms of structural requirements, the Commission’sownassessmentof theNRISin2012identifiedinadequateand inefficientuseof EUfundsforsocial inclusionasamajor problem. The Commission also urged MemberStates toensure that theNationalContactPoints, as thebodies responsible for coordinating implementation of NRIS,shouldhavetheresourcesandmandatecommensu-ratewithsuchatask.

TheCivilSocietyMonitoringreportsthatbodiesresponsi-bleforthecoordinationof Romainclusionlacktheneces-sarycompetencesandauthorityinmanycountries(seeCZ,RO,SK,ES),andtheyareplacedunderministriesthatarenot dealingwith social issues but security (seeBG, SK).Anotherissueof concernisthatRomaparticipationislim-itedtoformalpartnershipsthatexcludewidercivilsocietyinvolvement,suchasisthecaseinHungarywiththeNa-tionalRomaMinoritySelf-Governmentwhichisledbyamemberof therulingparty.9

Asfortheuseof EUfunds,theMonitoringReportscon-firmthatin5of the6MemberStatessurveyed:

9 Civil Society Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy and Decade Action Plan in 2012 in HUNGARY, availableat:http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9270_file8_hu_civil-society-monitoring-report_en.pdf.


● ThecapacitytoabsorbandmanageEUfundsremainsweak;

● Insystemic terms, the impactonRomacommunitiesremainsnegligible;

● RomaNGOsandRomainclusionprojectscontinuetohavelimitedaccesstoEUfunds;

● Theallocationof EUfundsthroughbureaucratic,com-petitiveproceduresistotallyunsuitedtotacklingsocialex-clusion–needs-basedcriterianeedtotakeprecedencetoguidedisbursementof fundstocombatpovertyandpro-moteinclusionof themostdisadvantagedcommunities.

TheEuropeanCommissionisactivelypromotingbettertargeting of EU funds to support Roma integration inthenext financialprogrammingperiod2014-2020.Thisincludestheproposalforaspecificinvestmentpriority-touseatleast20%of ESFresourcesforsocialinclusionto be devoted to the integration of marginalised com-munities,suchasRomaandensuringarequirementthatanappropriateRomainclusionstrategyisinplace,whereEUfundsarespentforthispurpose.10

Whenitcomestoanintegratedapproachtomakeefficientuseof EUfundsforRomainclusion,thefollowingquotesfromthemonitoringreportsgivesomeideaof theenor-mityof thetaskahead:

CZECH REPUBLIC: “Theprospects for an inte-grated approach are limitedby theunstablepoliticalenvironmentandthehighlychaoticprocessof short-termdecision-making.”

ROMANIA:“FarfromheedingtheEuropeanCom-mission’spromptingtopromoteeffectivemeasuresthatwouldallowforreallocationof availableEUfunds inlinewiththeprioritiesidentifiedintheNRIS,theRo-manianGovernment’spoorabsorptioncapacityfurtherweakenedin2012.Thisresultedinseriousblockagesintheadministrationof operationalprogrammes,whichhasseverelyaffectedmostbeneficiariesof EUfunds,includingprojectsfocusedonRomainclusion.”

aNTi-DiSCRimiNaTioN

TheRacialEqualityDirective(RED)mayhavebeentrans-posedintodomesticlegislationacrosstheUnion,butsince

theadoptionof theFramework,therehasbeennolet-upinhatespeech,orpracticesof directandindirectdiscrimi-nationagainstRoma,includingschoolsegregation.Oneof themost alarming findings in themonitoring reports, intermsof combatingdiscriminationandracism,isevidenceof stagnationandregressamongcertainMemberStates.

It isclearfromthereportsthat,asfarasRomaarecon-cerned,theRaceDirectivehashadlittle impact,anddis-criminationandsegregationcontinuevirtuallyunabated.

Itremainsthecasethatstrategiesneedtoberevisedtore-flectanunambiguousrecognitionof theinterdependenceof inclusionandanti-discriminationas aprerequisite formeaningfulintegration.Towardsthisend,themonitoringreportsagainemphasisethat:

● TheEuropeanUnionmustprevailuponMemberStatesto ensure effective and comprehensive implementationandenforcementof thelegislationagainstdiscrimination.

● National governments need to screen their national,regionalandlocaladministrativeregulationsandprac-tices,inordertoidentifyandrepealanydiscriminatoryandsegregatingmeasures.

● Allpublicserviceprovidersneedtoreviewtheirpro-cedures and practices to end direct and deliberateformsof discrimination.Inaddition,allpublicbod-iesandserviceprovidersshouldreviewtheirwaysof workingtoensurethatRomadonotexperienceindi-rectandsometimesunintendeddiscriminatorytreat-mentduetoinstitutionalracism.

● EUinstitutionsmustworkwithMemberStatestocoor-dinateandscaleupexistingeffortstoworkwithlocalau-thorities,educationalinstitutions,andcivilsocietypartnersonawarenessraisingcampaignstodispelanti-Romapreju-diceandnegativeattitudes;empowerRomatoknowtheirrightsandsupportinter-culturaldialogueandcooperation.

The Commission’s assessment

TheCommission’sassessmentlargelyconcurredwiththecivilsocietyfindings.ThislatestCommunicationandpro-posalforaCouncilRecommendationmarkarobustwake-upcalltomemberstatesontheneedtomovefromvagueintent toconcrete implementation, andaclear insistence

10 EuropeanCommission,Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States,Brussels,26.6.2013,COM(2013)460final,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/com_2013_460_en.pdf.

NoTEbook



thatsocialinclusionmustbeunderpinnedbyeffectiveanti-discriminationlegislationand“specificmeasurestoensureequaltreatmentanduniversalrights.”

In specific policy areas, the Commission has called onmemberstatesto:

● Enforce immediately school desegregation and endtheinappropriateplacementof Romapupilsinspecialneedsschools;

● Eliminatethebarriersto(re)enteringthelabourmarket;● Ensureequaltreatmentandimprovedaccesstopreven-tion,basic,emergency,andspecialisedhealthcareservices;

● End spatial segregation and facilitate local integratedhousingprogramspayingparticularattentiontopublicutilityandsocialserviceinfrastructure.

With regards to “horizontal policymeasures,” theCom-mission calls onmember states to screen their national,regional,andlocaladministrativeregulationsandpracticesinordertoidentifyandrepealanydiscriminatoryandseg-regatingmeasures.Furthermore,policiestofightsegrega-tion shouldbe accompaniedby appropriate training andpublicinformationprogramsaddressedtolocalcivilserv-ants,civilsocietyrepresentatives,andRomathemselves.

The Communication gets explicit on earlier calls togovernments to “get convincing” on combating dis-crimination.Itcallsonmemberstatestotakeadequatemeasurestofightracism,stigmatisation,andanti-Romarhetoric in society; to promote the benefits of Romaintegration,sensitisepublicawarenessof culturaldiver-sity; and raise awareness amongRomaof their rights,duties,andpossibilitiestoseekredress.11

Conclusion

ThislatestCommunicationiseloquenttestamenttothepoliti-calwillatalllevelswithintheEuropeanCommissiontoen-surethatRomainclusionremainsapolicypriorityforEuropeinatimeof prolongedcrisis.Howevertherealtestof political

willlieswiththeprimarydutybearers:thememberstates.TheCommission’ssenseof urgencyiswelcomeandwell-founded,foracrossthememberstatesit’shardtoreconcileeventsonthegroundwithintegrationstrategiesonpaper.

Sincethesubmissionof thestrategiestwoyearsago,acrosstheEuropeanUnion,Romahavebeenshot,stabbedandbeateninracistassaults,homeshavebeenfirebombed,andneighbourhoodshavecomeunderattackbymobsof far-righthoodlums,orbeenbesiegedbyuniformedparamili-tarygroupsalignedtoneo-Nazipoliticalparties.12

TheNRIShavedone little tostemtheconstant tiradeof anti-Romahatespeech.InHungary,ZsoltBayer’santi-Ro-madiatribeinJanuary2013wasremarkablenotonlyforitsvenom,butforthefailureof hisfriendsingovernmenttocondemnhate-speechinthepublicsphere.Bayer,oneof themainorganisersof thepro-governmentPeaceMarches, afoundingmemberof Fidesz,andalong-timeconfidanteof PrimeMinisterViktorOrbánwroteinanationaldailythat

“asignificantpartof theRomaisunfitforcoexistence…Theyarenotfittoliveamongpeople.TheseRomaareanimals,andtheybehavelikeanimals…Theseanimalsshouldn’tbeallowedtoexist.Innoway.Thatneedstobesolved-immediatelyandregardlessof themethod.”

Viviane Reding promptly condemned the remarks asunacceptable: “The European Union has no room forracism,hatespeechoranyotherformsof intolerance.”Unfortunately there seems tobeplentyof room in theUnionforhatespeechwhenitcomestoRomaandBayeris far fromalone.13ThomasHammarbergdescribed theemergenceof aclimateof intoleranceagainstRomaasashiftfrom‘traditional’prejudiceto“outrightracistat-titudes,preachedbymarginalyetincreasinglyvisiblepo-litical groups and left largely unchecked bymainstreamsociety”. What is especially troubling about the widerphenomenonof anti-Romaviolenceinrecentyearsistheindifferenceandambivalenceof themajoritytowardsthevictims.Worsestill,actsof violenceoftenpromptopensupportfromsectionsof thewiderpublicforthosewho

11 EuropeanCommission,Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States,Brussels,26.6.2013,COM(2013)460final,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/com_2013_460_en.pdf.

12 BernardRorke,“Romainclusionin2012:norespiteinprejudice”,Open Democracy,(11January2013),availableat:http://www.opendemocracy.net/bernard-rorke/roma-inclusion-in-2012-no-respite-in-prejudice-0.

13 BernardRorke,“Hateiswheretheheartis:TimeforEuropetoconfrontanti-Gypsyism”,Open Democracy, (2May2013),availableat:http://www.opendemocracy.net/bernard-rorke/hate-is-where-heart-is-time-for-europe-to-confront-anti-gypsyism.


NoTEbook

wouldmeteoutroughandready“justice”andinflictcol-lectivepunishmentonRoma.14

Itisclearthatalaissez-faireapproachtothepoliticsof hatejustwillnotdo.If thepoliticsof hateseemstobeintheas-cendantandRomamostofteninthefiringline,a‘businessasusual’approachisnotjustethicallybankruptbutpoliti-callyreckless.Thetimehascometocounteranti-Gypsyismwiththekindof broad-basedcivicandpoliticalsolidaritythat’sneededtomakeadifference.

A first stepwould be for the EuropeanUnion to of-ficiallyrecogniseanti-Gypsyismasa long-standinganddeeply rooted form of European prejudice. The livedrealityinvillages,townsandcitieswhereRomafacein-timidationandotherformsof verydirectand indirectdiscriminationeverydaymayseemauniverseawayfromresolutionspassedinBrusselsandStrasbourg.Butthiswouldbejustthefirststep,forwhenitcomestocom-batingthewords,deedsandinstitutionalpracticesthatdenigrateanddehumaniseourRomafellowcitizens,itisthepracticalimpactthatwillcount.

Official recognition of anti-Gypsyism would involvea series of positive and practical steps for the Euro-peanCommission,EuropeanParliament,andMemberStates. Within the context of the EU Framework forRoma Integration there is aneed for a concerteddriveto work with local authorities, law enforcement agen-cies,educationalinstitutions,andcivilsocietypartnerstolaunchpublicawareness-raisingcampaigns,andsupport

community-basedinitiativestodispelanti-Romapreju-diceandfosterinter-culturaldialogue.

Membersof theEuropeanParliamentwouldneedtoworkmoreassiduouslywiththeirpoliticalpartiesback intheirhomecountriestofightprejudice,cultivatemajoritysup-portforRomainclusionpolicies,combathatecrimeandprovideeffectiveredressagainstinstitutionalracism.

ThereisaveryrealprospectthattheEuropeof 2020couldcompriseincreasinglyclosedsocietiesandilliberaldemoc-racieswhere inequality andpoverty thriveunabated, andRomaandothervisibleminoritiescontinuetobedenigrat-edandhumiliatedasscapegoatsandpariahs.

However theFrameworkhintsatanotherpossibility:avi-able prospect of forward-looking and fully inclusive soci-eties that foster a senseof commonbelonging, cohesion,andmutual respect among all citizens regardless of theirethnicity.On the foothillsof Bohemia,or thehinterlandsof north-easternHungary this remainsa remoteprospectfor far too many excluded, threatened and impoverishedpeople.Forpreciselythisreason,anddespiteallthecaveats,theFrameworkneedsthesupportof allwhoarecommittedtodeepeningdemocracy.Whilethere isnodoubtthattheEuropeanCommissioncoulddomore,theCommissionisentirelycorrectinitsinsistencethattheprimaryresponsibil-itylieswithnationalgovernments.Itistimeforresponsibledemocratswhohavebeenelectedto leadtodoso, ‘moveupagear’tofulfiltheirprimaryresponsibilitytowardstheircitizens,anddeliveronequality,justice,andsocialinclusion.

14 BernardRorke,“KillingTime:TheLethalForceof Anti-RomaRacism”,Open Society Voices,18July2012,availableat:http://www.opensociety-foundations.org/voices/killing-time-lethal-force-anti-roma-racism.



Empowerment and the European Framework for National Roma integration Strategies

t H o M A S A c t o n , 1 A n d r e w r y d e r 2 A n d i u l i u S r o S tA S 3

Roma communities are acknowledged to be one of themostexcludedgroupsinEurope,andasVaclavHavelnot-ed,alitmustestof governmentalbodies’commitmentstohumanrights.4Romacommunitieshavebeenamongstthemostprominentvictimsof bothpovertyandxenophobiainEurope.FilcakandSkobla5rightlyadoptthemetaphorof the“canaryinthemineshaft”,todescribeRomaashar-bingers of future dangers. Roma have experienced acuteformsof marginalisation, inCentralandEasternEuropeduringthetransitionperiodtoamarketeconomysincetheearly90s.Suchexclusioncouldbecomethenormforevergreaternumbersof peoplefromallkindsof socialandeth-nicstrata,asthenegativeeffectsof thefinancialcrisisgainpace across Europe. Acute marginalisation disempowerstheexcluded,leadingtocopingstrategieswhichfalloutsideof collectivepoliticalaction.However,callsforempower-ment are becoming prominent through the demands of RomacivilsocietyandtheEuropeanUnionFrameworkforNationalRomaIntegrationStrategies(hereafterreferredtoastheRomaFramework).TheRomaFrameworkisbasedonOpenMethodCoordinationandinvolvesmemberstatesdevising National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS).Thiscanbedescribedasadeliberativeframework,andtheEuropeanCommissionhasstressedtheimportanceof on-goingdialogueandpartnershipsbetweengovernmentsand

Romagroups intheRomaFramework.TheCommissionhasalsostatedthatresultingstrategiesshouldbe“designed,implementedandmonitoredincloseco-operationandcon-tinuousdialoguewithRomacivilsocietyandregionalandlocalauthorities”.6However,attempts toachieveempow-erment are being frustrated by “NGOisation”, wherebycommunity groups become distant from the grass rootsbecauseof excessivebureaucracyordonor-drivenagendas.Inaddition,tokenisticorhierarchalformsof dialoguebe-tweencentresof powerandRomacommunitiesarestiflingempowerment.Keyquestionsareemerging:Howcanem-powermentbeachievedforRomacommunities?HowcanRomacivil societybe revitalised?What roleshouldGov-ernmentandtheEuropeanUniontake?

The above questions are tied to, and in part depend-enton,howsocietychoosestoreconstituteitself inthewakeof thefinancialcrisis.Europeappears tobeatacrossroadsandanewdebatehasbeensparkedastothedirectionof,andidealsuponwhich,theEUshouldbepredicated.Amongst the proponents of an alternativestrategyhasbeenHabermas,whohasbeenalarmedbythelackof deliberationsurroundingtheresponsetothefinancialcrisis.Instead,Habermas7callsforgreaterde-liberativedemocracy inEurope,which, he argues,will

1 ThomasActonOBEisacampaignerfortherightsof Gypsies,RomaandTravellers.HeisalsoSecretaryof theBrentwoodGypsySupportGroupandPatronof theRomaSupportGroup.ThomaslecturedattheUniversityof Greenwichforover30years,andwasProfessorof RomanyStudiesandiscurrentlyVisitingProfessorattheCorvinusUniversityBudapestandSeniorResearchFellowatBuckinghamshireNewUniversity.

2 AndrewRyderisaFellowatBristolUniversity,AssociateFellowattheThirdSectorResearchCentreattheUniversityof BirminghamandaVisi-tingProfessorattheCorvinusUniversity,Budapest.PriortothishewasPolicyOfficerrespectivelytotheIrishTravellerMovementinBritainandtheGypsyandTravellerLawReformCoalition,andresearcherfortheAllPartyParliamentaryGroupforTravellerLawReform.

3 IuliusRostasisaRomanianRomadoctoralcandidateatBabesBolyaiUniversityof Cluj,Romania,freelanceresearcherandVisitingLecturerattheCorvinusUniversityBudapest.PreviouslyhehadrolesattheOpenSocietyInstituteandtheEuropeanRomaRightsCentreandhasbeenanexpertconsultantfortheGovernmentof Romania(DepartmentfortheProtectionof NationalMinorities).Iuliushaspublishedseveralarticlesoneducationalpolicies,RomamovementandRomaniidentity.HehaseditedabookfortheCEUPress:Tenyearsafter:Ahistoryof RomaschooldesegregationinCentralandEasternEurope(2012).

4 Kamm,H.,“HavelcallstheGypsies‘litmustest’”,New York Times,10December1993.

5 Filcak,R.andSkobla,D.“SocialSolidarity,HumanRightsandRoma:UnequalAccesstoBasicResourcesinReinventingSocialSolidarityAcrossEurope”,inReinventing social solidarity across Europe ,ed.M.Ellison(Bristol:PolicyPress,2012),227-50.

6 EuropeanCommission,Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020,5April2011,9,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/discrimination/docs/com_2011_173_en.pdf.

7 Habermas,J.“GermanyandtheEuro-Crisis”,The Nation,9June2010,availableat:http://www.thenation.com/article/germany-and-euro-crisis#.


NoTEbook

enablebettercoordinationinotherpolicyfields,along-sidenewegalitarian economic approaches.Craig et al8arguethatsupra-collectiveactioncouldcounter“socialdumping”andcreateasystemgovernedbyprinciplesof socialjusticebasedonequalityandsolidaritybutwhichalsounderstandsandvalueshumanrights.9Theseidealscanbearticulatedintheconceptof “aSocialEurope”which incorporates a vision of society based on soli-darity, equality, social justice, internationalism and theviewthateconomicwealthshouldbefairlydistributed,without excluding or discriminating against groups orindividuals.10 It is a visionof EuropewhichwouldbeconducivetotheRomaFrameworkand indeedbolsterand create stronger interpretations of this frameworkthanthosethathaveappearedtodate.

Deliberationcentreduponformsof inclusivecommunitydevelopment is needed tomobilise themarginalised andlegitimate thepoliticsof a“SocialEurope”withapplica-tion to theRoma issue; for since it is the case that sym-pathyandsupportcannotbeconstructedbyoutsiders,theRomathemselveswillneedtowinover“heartsandminds”.Freire’scriticalpedagogy11maygiveusinsightsastohow,through deliberation and reflection, communities canachieveaformof criticalconsciousnessandgrassrootsmo-bilisation.Darder12followsupbysuggestinginclusivecom-munity development is inherently “deliberative” and canprovidespaceforreflection,critique,challengeandactionbetweendifferentsocialfactions.Theeffectivenessof theinvolvementof Roma,GypsyandTravellercommunities,astheproverbial“canaries inthemineshaft”, isacrucialtestof theviabilityof theconstructionof “SocialEurope”.However, as noted, present low levels of formal Romacommunityorganisationandweaklinksof theexistingad-vocacynetworks to actualRoma communities, combinedwithahierarchicalapproachtotheRomabygovernmentbodies,weakenallattemptsinEuropeansocietytomobilisemarginalisedpeople.Thisstateof affairsmightbereversed,however, by inclusive forms of community developmentwhich aspire to amore interventionist and redistributive

visionof society andEurope, especially if policymakersactuallyrespondconstructivelytotheseaspirations.

Resource limitations, theneedperceivedbygovernmentsforquicksolutions,anddonor-drivenagendashavelimitedsuch formsof developmentamongstRomacivil society.Ata service level, agrowingnumberof Romamediatorpositions are being created by governmental bodies andservice providers; these can provide useful bridges be-tweenRomacommunitiesandinstitutionsbutoftenfocuson instrumentalefficiencyrather thanonempowerment.Cornwall13 argues that activists need greatermanoeuvra-bilitythanmediatorstoattempttransformativeempower-mentwhichwillenablepeopletomaketheirowndecisionsandtakecollectiveaction.Whethersavedfromwithinthecommunity,ornegotiated fromexternal funders, the tai-loredandflexible resourcesdonotseemtobe there forempoweringRomacommunityorganisationsonanythinglikethescalethatcouldradicallytransformtheirmargin-alisation.Inanidealworldif morecommunityorganiserscouldbefundedandallowedtoworkinthemannerout-lined,thatwouldplayavaluableroleinprovidingthecom-munitypartnerswhichtheEUhasrightfullyrecognisedasnecessarytohelpshapeinstitutionalchangeatthelocal,na-tionalandtransnationallevel.However,toreturntopointsmadeearlierabouttheneedforneweconomicandsocialinitiativesmorecloselyalignedtotheprinciplesof socialjustice,dialogueandpartnership, togetherwithresourcesandopportunities for transformative change, need tobeavailableandachievable;otherwisedialoguewillmerelyde-scendinto“verbalism”andrhetoricwhichcannotsustaingenuine community mobilisation. The European Unionhasnotedtheintransigenceof EUmemberstatesontheRomaquestionandthedangersandchallengesthatinertiaandxenophobiaholdforEurope,andhassoughttoshapenewpolicy agendas amongstmember states through theRomaFramework.Yetasoutlinedthisinitiativeisinpartdependent on a vibrantRoma civil society, a rolewhichposespressingandimmediatechallengesforRomacom-munities,governments,andtheEU.

8 Craig,G.,Burchardt,T.andGordon,D.Social Justice and Public Policy: Seeking Fairness in Diverse Societies.(Bristol:PolicyPress,2008).

9 Rawls,J.B.A Theory of Justice.(Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPress,1971).

10 Ségol,B.“Whither Europe? Looking ahead to the future of Social Europe”, speechdeliveredbytheGeneralSecretaryof theEuropeanTradeUnionConfederationmeeting,Stockholm,25-28May2012,availableat:http://www.etuc.org/a/9893.

11 Freire,P.Pedagogy of the Oppressed(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1972).

12 Darder,A.Reinventing Paulo Freire, A Pedagogy of Love,(Boulder,COandOxford:WestviewPress,2002).

13 Cornwall,A.,“Unpacking‘Participation’:Models,MeaningsandPractice”,inCommunity Development Journal, Vol.43(3)(2008),269-83.



However, whilst there are high expectations in declaredEuropeanRomapolicyandtheframework,atleastinthe-ory, forRoma to organise themselves and to participatein thedemocraticprocess andpolicymaking, authoritiesignorethehistoricalpastandlackof suchtraditionsamongRomacommunities.Withfewexceptions,inthepastRomahadnomodelsof organisingandexpressingtheirinterestinsocietyinasimilarmannertoothergroups.Asavulner-able group, that faced severe exclusion throughout theirhistory, Roma developed specific survival strategies andpractices,oftenbasedon intenseformsof socialcapital,adaptedtothecontextinwhichtheylived.Thus,expectingRomatobeablequicklytodeveloprepresentativeinstitu-tionssimilartothoseof othergroupsinsocietymaybenotonlyunrealisticandethnocentricbutalsoindicatesalackof knowledgeandunderstandingof theRomasituation.Ensuring representation throughdemocraticmeansof adeeplymarginalisedcommunitynotwellversedinpoliticalorganisationpresentsseriouschallenges.

However,mobilization and empowerment are objectivesworthsetting-deliberationontheRomaFrameworkandthenationalstrategieswillallowRomanotonlytopartici-pate,andfacilitatetrustformation,butalsotocommuni-catetheirpreferences(andethnicity) tothewiderpublic.Deliberationandpubliccommunicationinfluencetheper-ceptionof Romaatindividualandgrouplevelswithregardtowhotheyare,whattheirrelationsarewithwidersociety,andtheircapabilities.Thedeliberationonpolicyoptionsisnotonlyabouttheaimsbutalsoaboutthemeansastohowtoachievethoseaims.If thereisimpositionandnotaggre-gationof interestsinsocietythendesignedsolutionswillnotproduce sustainable effects. In this endeavourRomacivilsocietymayhaveakeyroletoplay.

Someonenotveryfamiliarwiththesituationof RomainEuropemightaskwhyitshouldbetheNGOsthatrepre-sentRoma,andnototherinstitutions.Thisisavalidques-tionastherepresentationfunctionof theNGOsisnotaprimary function.They are not subject to regular publicscrutiny, and their leaders are not elected by those whotheyclaimtospeakonbehalf of.Therepresentativeweak-nessof Romacivilsocietyisreflectedinrecentcomments

byGheorghe,14whohasstated:“MostRomaorganisationsstilloperateas‘sects’ratherthan‘churches’,sincetheyarenotyetpartof abroadermassmovement”.

Inaddition,asNGOsdonothaveaconstituency,fromademocraticpointof viewitcouldbearguedthattheylacklegitimacy.Whilethesepointsmakesenseintermsof the-oryof democracy,therearestillsomeaspectstoconsiderbefore denying that Roma NGOs should play any roleinpolicymaking. If NGOsarenotperfect interfacesof communicationbetweenRomacommunities and centresof power,howcanwiderRomainvolvementindecision-makingprocessesbeachieved?Arethereanyalternatives?

Despitethedeficienciesof Romacivilsocietythealterna-tives to RomaNGOs are limited. Roma political partieshavebeenunsuccessfulinattractingRomavotersandplay-ing a role in the political arena inmostEuropean states,andRoma representation innationalparliaments and theEuropeanParliamentisslight,tosaytheleast.15Thus,theonlypartners left forpolicymakersareRomaNGOs.Ir-respectiveof theobjections about their formal represen-tativestatus,NGOsaretheonlyinstitutionsdevelopedbyRomathatmightclaimtorepresentthevoiceof theRomaortohavethepotentialonedaytodoso.SofartheNGOshaveprovided thebestplatforms forRomaactivists, andhavemanagedtopreparesomefor institutionalandpoli-ticalpower.ItshouldalsobenotedthattheNGOsectorhasplayedasignificantroleinenablingGypsy,RomaandTravellerwomen toplay a greater role in articulating theaspirationsof their communities, adevelopment thathasgeneratedpositiveresultsbuthasalsochallengedatraditio-nallymale-dominatedculture.16Thesearethemainreasonswhypolicymakers should take into account these voicesandshouldinvitethemtothenegotiationswhendesigninganddecidingpolicies towardsRoma.However, there is aneedforalong-termprogrammetotransformNGOsintograssroots-basedandknowledgeablepartnersforlocalandnationalgovernmentsandinternationalorganizations.Thisprocessof transformation is verymuch tied and integraltotheprogressmadeintheRomaFramework.Inertiaandverbalismwillsapnotjustthelegitimacyof theframeworkbutalsothevitalityandrelevanceof Romacivilsociety.

14 Gheorghe,N.withPulay,G.(2011)‘Choicestobemadeandpricestobepaid:PotentialrolesandconsequencesinRomaactivismandpolicy.InFrom Victimhood to Citizenship: The Path of Roma Integration, edsGheorge,NandPulay,G,(Budapest:KossuthPress,2013).

15 McGarry,Aidan,Who Speaks for Roma?: Political Representation of a Transnational Minority Community (NewYork:Continuum,2010).

16 Bíró,A.,“The Price of Roma integration”,speechdeliveredat‘ThePriceof RomaIntegration’,conferenceheldatSnagov,Romania,22September2011.



ERpC’s assessment of National Roma integration Strategies: 2012 Report and Recent Developments

c A r o l i n A F e r n á n d e z d í e z A n d b e l é n S á n c H e z - r u b i o 1 F o r t H e e r P c

Under thenewEuropeanFramework forNationalRomaIntegrationStrategies(NRIS),EuropeanUnion(EU)Mem-berStates(MS)wererequiredtosubmitstrategiesonRomainclusiontotheEuropeanCommission(EC)bytheendof December2011.AllMSrespondedtothecallandsubmit-tedtheirrespectiveNRISinlate2011orearly2012.TheECassessedtheNRISthemselvesinMay2012initsCommuni-cationNational Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the imple-mentation of the EU Framework,2andtheirimplementationinJune2013,intheCommunicationSteps forward in Implementing National Roma Integration StrategiesaccompanyingaProposalof RecommendationfromtheEuropeanCouncil.3

TheEC intended to take into account contributions fromcivil society in its evaluation of theNRIS. In this context,theEuropeanRomaPolicyCoalition(ERPC),consistingof Romaandpro-RomaorganisationsatEUlevel,4engagedwithvariouscivilsocietyorganisationsinearly2012toobtaintheirassessment of the NRIS, and compiled these assessmentsinitsMarch2012reportAnalysis of National Roma Integration Strategies.5TheERPCsharedtheoutcomeof thesurveyandthedeskscreeningassessmentswiththeEUinstitutionsandallotherinterestedstakeholdersasacontributiontowardim-provingtheNRISandmonitoringprogressmadebymeasur-ingoutcomeinimplementingtheNRISinthefourkeyprior-ityareasof health,housing,employmentandeducation.

Inafirststep, theERPCcarriedoutdeskscreeningas-sessmentsof theNRISsubmittedbythegovernmentsof Austria, Bulgaria,Denmark, Finland, France,Germany,Hungary,Italy,Latvia,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Ro-mania,Slovakia,Slovenia,SpainandWales,aswellastheCzechRepublic’sRomaIntegrationConceptfor2010to2013.ThereportthattheERPCpublishedinMarch2012highlighted themain analysesof the survey results andthedeskscreeningsof theNRIS.6

Ina secondstep, theERPCgathered theviewsof RomaandTravellerorganisationsandcivilsocietyontheprocessesthatledtothedesignof theNRISinthedifferentMS.Inparticular,theERPCundertookasurveytoassesswhethertheconsultationof civilsocietyandRomaandTravelleror-ganisationswasappropriateandwhetheranti-discriminationissueswerebeingtakenseriously intheNRIS.Thesurveywasdisseminatedelectronicallytoawideaudiencethrough-outtheEUandbeyondandwascompletedbyover300per-sons,themajoritycomingfromthecivilsocietysector.

The resulting report isdivided into threemainparts.Thefirstisbasedonananalysisof therespectiveNRISbyERPCreviewers, highlightingkey issues in theNRIS including areviewof budgetallocationsinNRIS,coordinationmecha-nismsinimplementingNRISandindicatorsandmonitoring

1 CarolinaFernandezistheHeadof theInternationalDepartmentof theFundaciónSecretariadoGitano(FSG).BelénSánchez-RubioistheDirectorof InternationalProgrammesalsoattheFundaciónSecretariadoGitano.Seewww.gitanos.org.BothhavebeenworkingattheFSGanddealingwithRomaissuesforover13years,mainlyinemployment,socialinclusionissuesandtheuseof StructuralFundsforRomainclusion.TheFundaciónSecretariadoGitanoisamemberof theERPCandhasdraftedthearticleasrotatingchairof theERPC.

2 EuropeanCommission,National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework, 0availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0226:en:NOT.

3 EuropeanCommission,Steps forward in Implementing National Roma Integration Strategies,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/dis-crimination/news/130626_en.htm.

4 TheERPCiscomposedof AmnestyInternational,theEuropeanNetworkAgainstRacism,theEuropeanRomaGrassrootsOrganisationsNetwork,theEuropeanRomaInformationOffice,theEuropeanRomaRightsCentre,theFundaciónSecretariadoGitano,theOpenSocietyInstitute,MinorityRightsGroupInternational,PolicyCentreforRomaandMinorities,andtheRomaEducationFund.Additionalinformationavailableat:http://romapolicy.eu/.

5 ERPC,Analysis of National Roma Integration Strategies,availableat: http://romapolicy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-ERPC-Analy-sis-21-03-12_FINAL.pdf.

6 Atthetimeof thesurvey(4-31January2012),only21MShadsubmittedtheirNRIStotheEC.MSthathadnotyetsubmittedanNRISincludedBelgium,Italy,Lithuania,Spain,UKandSweden.Someof theNRISreportssubmittedtotheECduringthesurveyperiodweredraftversions(e.g.Bulgaria,FranceandPortugal).Itisinterestingtonotethat10percentof respondentswereunawareof whethertheirgovernmenthadsubmittedanNRISornot,includingine.g.Bulgaria,Germany,Ireland,Poland,RomaniaandSpain.


NoTEbook

issues.Thesecondpartdrawsontheresultsof asurveyin-volvingvariousstakeholders;itsmainobjectiveistoprovideanoverviewandanalysisof stakeholders’perspectivesontheNRIS, stakeholders’ participation and anti-discrimina-tion.Thethirdpartreflectsonthelessonslearntandoffersrecommendationstonationalgovernmentswithaviewtoimprovingprocessesindeveloping,implementingandmon-itoringNRISandenhancingRomaparticipation.

Thepresentarticlebeginsbydescribingsomeof thekeystakeholder survey results before analysing themain les-sonslearnedandtherecommendationsthatemergedfromthe report, and concluding with the ERPC’s assessmentof thestateof playof NRISoneyearonandthedegreetowhichcivilsocietywastakenintoaccount intheEC’sanalysisof theimplementationof theNRIS.

Stakeholders’ participation in the design of the NRiS

AsidentifiedintheECCommunication,theNRISshould“bedesigned,implementedandmonitoredinclosecoop-erationandcontinuousdialoguewithRomacivilsociety,regionalandlocalauthorities”.7TheERPCthereforede-velopedandpublisheda16-questionsurveyattheendof 2011withtheaimof obtainingtheviewsof RomaandcivilsocietyorganisationsontheNRIS.Thesurvey’saimwastoassess:a)whethertheconsultationof stakehold-ers, in particular civil society and Roma organisations,was appropriate and b) whether anti-discrimination is-sueswere taken seriously in theNRIS.The surveywasdisseminated electronically to awide audience through-outtheEUandbeyondbyrelyingonthemailinglistsof ERPCmembersandaffiliates.Respondentswereinvitedtoparticipate intheERPCsurveyduringthemonthof January2012.Thesurveywascompletedby326persons,90 of whom provided substantial, detailed responses.Themajorityof theserespondentsrepresentedRoma(orTraveller)NGOs(37)andpro-RomaNGOs(16).Asub-stantialnumberof answersalsocamefromhumanrightsNGOs(15)andacademicinstitutions,universitiesorre-searchinstitutes(5).Otherresponsescamefromavarietyof stakeholders, including equality bodies, internationalorganisations, regional/local authorities, foundations,andfaith-basedandanti-racistorganisations.

52percentof therespondentsreportedthatsomeformof stakeholder participation took place in the design of theNRIS;31percentsaidthatNRISweredesignedwith-outtheparticipationof stakeholders.17percentdidnotknow if their government allowed stakeholderparticipa-tion.Overall, it seems that participationwas allowed bygovernments at a minimum level. However, since therewereamoderatenumberof respondentsthatwereunabletoanswerthisquestion,itcouldbepossiblethatthepar-ticipationratewashigherorlowerthanthatreported.

ThoseMSwheregreaterstakeholderparticipationwasre-ported includedPortugal,SlovakiaandSpain.Respond-ents from Portugal, Slovakia and Spain unanimouslyagreedthat theirgovernmentdesignedtheNRIS inco-operationwith stakeholders. Although not all respond-ents knew about it, themajority of the respondents inBulgaria(60percent),Ireland(66percent)andRomania(58 per cent) also reported stakeholders’ participation.RespondentsinGermany,HungaryandtheNetherlandsweredividedintheiranswers:50percentreportedstake-holderparticipationand50percent reported that suchparticipationwas not allowed by their government.Al-though these findings are inconclusive, one can arguethatwhilesomeconsultationprobablytookplace,notallstakeholderswereinvolved.Lackof stakeholderpartici-pationwasreportedbyallrespondentsinFranceandthemajorityof therespondentsintheUK(78percent).

14percentof respondentsreportedthatcivilsocietytookpartindecision-makingprocessesontheNRISinBulgaria,CzechRepublic,Finland,Italy,Portugal,Romania,Spain,andSlovakia.10percentof respondents fromBelgium,Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal and Slovakia also re-portedthatacontinuousdialoguebetweendecisionmak-ersandcivilsocietyandrelevantbodiestookplacewithintheirnationalcontexts.Civilsocietyreported(27percent)thattheywereconsultedontheNRISthroughstakeholdermeetingsinBelgium,Bulgaria,Finland,Hungary,Ireland,Portugal,Romania,Slovakia,SpainandtheUK.

Furthermore, 33 per cent of respondents reported thatwritten feedback on draft documents was accepted as ameansof stakeholderexchangeontheNRISinBelgium,Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary,Ireland,Malta,Portugal,Romania,Spain,SlovakiaandSlov-

7 EC(2012)An EU Framework for NRIS up to 2020,9.



enia.Beyondthis,anationalconferencewashostedintheNetherlandsandinFinlandfivehearingswereorganisedindifferentregionswhichwereopentotheRomapopulationandtocivilservantsworkinginthesocialsector.

main lessons learnt

Severalvaluablelessonscanbedrawnfromthedeskscreen-inganalysesof theNRISaswellastheanalysisof thestake-holdersurveyontheNRIS.Amongothers,keyissueshigh-lighted in the assessmentof theNRIS include theuseof prior researchandexperience to informtheNRIS,budgetallocationsintheNRIS,coordinationmechanismsinimple-mentingtheNRIS,theadoptionof ahuman-rightsapproachasabasisfortheNRIS,Romaparticipationinthedifferentphasesof projects,andindicatorsandmonitoringissues.

a. Recognising the starting point and learning from past experience

PriorresearchonRomaservedasabasis indevisingtheNRIS for Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia,Spain,andWales.Therewasnospecificmentionof priorresearch in the NRIS for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,Germany, Netherlands, and Portugal. Nonetheless, Bul-garia,CzechRepublic,Finland,France,Hungary,Poland,SloveniaandSpain,forinstance,refertotheirpreviousex-periencewithRomaintegrationstrategiesandwithspecificmeasurestargetingRoma,suchastheDecadeof RomaIn-clusion,involvementintheEURomaNetworkandbuild-ingonexperiencesfrompreviousstrategies.

WhenitcomestousingtheTenCommonBasicPrinciples(CBP)onRomaInclusionasabaseline intheNRIS,Bul-garia,France,HungaryandSlovakiamentiontheCBPs,butthereissomequestionastowhethertheCBPsaresufficient-lyreflectedintheoverallNRIS.NeithertheCzechConceptnortheDutchandWelshNRISmakeexplicitreferencetotheCBPsforRomaInclusion.TheCzechConceptnonethe-lesscomplieswithalltheprinciples(withtheexceptionof Principle7)andtheDutchandWelshNRISappeartobeinspiredfromtheCBPs.ThePolishNRISalsoreflectsmostof theprincipleswithoutmentioningthem.Denmark,Fin-land,Latvia,PortugalandSpainmentionedtheCBPs,whicharesufficientlyreflectedintheoverallNRIS.

Itdoesnotappearasif research,referencetotheCBPs,orpreviousRomaintegrationstrategieswereusedasabasis

for the development of theNRIS inGermany, Austria,RomaniaandSlovenia.

b. Setting realistic targets

Theobjectives fordefiningambitious, targetedandrealisticgoalswithinadefinedtimelinevariedfromoneNRIStothenext.Overall,theBulgarian,DutchandSloveneNRISdonotgivetheimpressionof beingrealisticandfeasible.Onthecon-trary,theDanish,Finnish,French,Latvian,Portuguese,Slova-kianandSpanishNRISgivetheimpressionof beingrealisticandfeasible.TheHungarianNRISgives the impressionof beingrealisticandfeasible,butwithanumberof limitations.

The impactof theeconomiccrisiswillpotentially affectthefeasibilityof theNRISinmostmemberstates.

Overall,manyof theNRIS failed toprovideanadequatedescriptionof thecurrentsituationwithregardtotheRoma.TheNRISthemselves,aswellastheActionPlans,revealedalackof awarenessand/orintentiononthepartof nationalgovernmentstotacklecrucialissuesforintegratingRomaineachof thefourpriorityareasdefinedbytheEC.

The inadequate identificationof theproblems in settingambitious,targetedandrealisticgoalsaffectedtheformula-tionof strategicgoalsandconcretemeasureswithvaryingeffectsfromoneNRIStothenext.Therewereoftendefi-cienciesbecause1)datawereminimal;2)systemicfactorsfor social exclusionof Roma, such as segregated educa-tion,hadnotbeen identified;and3) therewasa lackof analysisof thegoodandbadpracticesinRomainclusionprogrammesfrompreviousyears.

c. Establishing clear responsibilities and coordination mechanisms for implementation

Overall,theimplementationcoordinationmechanismsfore-seenintheNRISdonotseemadequate.Outof 18NRISsub-mittedwhenthedeskscreeningstookplace,onlysix–namelyFinland,France,Latvia,Portugal,SlovakiaandSpain–includecoordinationmechanismsthatareconsideredadequate.Somedo not evenmention theirNationalContact Point and/oritsmandateintheirNRIS,suchastheCzechRepublic,Den-mark,Germany,Latvia,theNetherlandsandWales.

A further problem, common to severalNRIS (e.g. Aus-tria,Italy,PortugalandWales),isthatoftennoindication


isgivenastohowtheimplementationisensured,andnotenough information is availablewith regard to the com-municationchannelsbetweenbothhorizontalandverticalactors.Inseveralcases,suchas theItalianandSlovenianNRIS, the lackof a clear descriptionof thedivisionof tasksalsomakesitdifficulttoassesswhethertheforeseencoordinationmechanism isadequate.Moreover,mostof theNRISdonotindicatehowtheirimplementationwillbeensuredattheregionalandlocallevelsandwhoisrespon-sibleforimplementationontheground.

The mismatch between the measures proposed in theNRISandtheactualpoliticalwillisaconcernthathasbeenraised inseveral assessments; forexample in thecaseof theCzechRepublicwheretheCouncilforRomaMinorityAffairshasaveryweakmandate.Also,inthecaseof LatviaandPoland,certainactivitiesandprojectsarementionedbutthereisnorealresponsibilityovertheirimplementationandRomacommunitiesarenotinvolvedatallincoordina-tion.Finally,theHungariancasehasbeenhighlightedforthefactthatrecentpoliticalandlegaldevelopmentsinthatcountrydonotreflecttheequalityagendaof theNRIS.

d. Allocating adequate budget to the NRIS

It is important thatdedicated fundingbemade availableforenablingtheimplementationof measuresdescribedintheNRISand theActionPlans.Funding for thisvaried,however,fromoneNRIStothenext.

Themajority of NRIS do not allocate budgets. ThosewhichdoincludeDenmark(from2012-2016,atotalof 20millionDanishKroner,around2.7millionEuro),Fin-land (3million Euro tomunicipalities), Poland (annualallocationuptoPLN10million,around2.5millionEurofor education and PLN 700,000, around 175,000 Eurofor textbooks for Roma students – additional amountsarenotspecified),PortugalandWales(amountsnotspec-ified). InsomeNRIS, informationonbudgetallocationwasincomplete(Romania)orwasnotprovided(Austria,Germany,SlovakiaandSlovenia).

Budgetallocationvaried fromoneNRIS toanother.How-ever,inmostNRISthebudgetwillbeallocatedthroughdif-ferentprocesses,withtheexceptionof FinlandandPolandwhere itwillbedistributedonly according tonational callsforproposals.Thebudgetlineallocationisalsoplacedwithincoreministries(Slovenia),governmentwithoutspecification

(DenmarkandPortugal)andtospecificgovernmentalfunds(Wales).Budgetallocationof EUfundingisnotsufficientlyused.AbudgetfortheNRISisonlyallocatedasEUfundingintheDanishandPortugueseNRIS.

Noneof theNRISindicatetheamountandthepercent-ageof theNRIStobecoveredbyEUfunding.Mostof theNRISdonot foresee facilitating access toEU fund-ing.OnlytheDanish(throughtheDanishStructuralFundProgrammes2007-2013),French(byprivilegingtheuseof theEuropeanSocialFundforthedisseminationof goodpracticesandinnovativeprogrammes),Latvian(bybuild-ingcapacitiesof RomaNGOsandfocusingonaccessingfunds)andSpanish(byfosteringtheuseof andraisingtheamountof theERDFdedicatedtoRoma,etc.)NRIShaveaprocesstofacilitateaccesstoEUfunding.

e. Planning adequate accountability and monitoring mechanisms

ThereareindicationsonhowtheNRISwillbeimplementedinDenmark,Finland,Latvia,Portugal,SlovakiaandSpain.Some indicationsexist forSlovakiaandSlovenia,but theyarerathervague.InSpain,theNRISusestheprinciplesof goodgovernanceasindicatorsformonitoringimplementa-tion: openness, participation, responsibility, efficiency andcoherence.Incontrast,Portugalhasquantitativeindicators,whichenableeffectivemonitoringof progress.

In turn, there are indicationsonhow theNRISwillbemonitoredinFinland,PolandandSloveniaandthereisareportingsystemfortheNRISinFinland,Hungary,Po-land,Portugal,Slovakia,SloveniaandSpain.Inaddition,thereareindicationsof whoisresponsibleforreportingontheprogressof theNRISinPoland,Portugal,Slova-kia,Slovenia,andSpain.MonitoringmethodsmentionedintheFrenchNRISconcernonlythemonitoringof theaccesstorightsof personsinsituationsof povertyandexclusion,irrespectiveof ethnicorigin.

ThereportingsystemsintheBulgarianandPolishNRISre-mainproblematic,andthereisnoreportingsystemsetupin France,Germany,Netherlands orWales. There are noindicationsonwhowillberesponsibleforreportingontheprogressof theNRISintheCzechRepublicandRomania.

f. Adopting a human rights-based approach as the basis of the NRIS: anti-discrimination and the fight against anti-Gypsyism, gen-der equality, Roma empowerment and migration issues

NoTEbook



Regardingtherecommendationtofollowahuman-rightsapproach, including in particular gender equality, non-discrimination,desegregation,combatinganti-GypsyismandpromotingproactiveapproachestoRomainclusion,MSfocusedondifferentaspectsineachNRIS.

TheERPCstakeholders’surveyunfortunatelyrevealsthelackof emphasisplacedon suchmeasures in theNRIS,withamajorityof respondentsreportingthattherewasnomentionof anti-discriminationandthefightagainstanti-Gypsyismat all in theNRIS,or that somemeasures areplannedbuttheyareinsufficient.Humanrightsissueswerealsooftenneglectedinthediscussionsduringtheprepara-torydraftingphaseof theNRIS.

In Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia andSlovenia some targetedanti-discrimination measures areproposedbutareinsufficient,whileinGermanytheNRISdoesnotcontainany targetedanti-discriminationmeasures. InFrance andWales, theNRIS include anti-discrimination measures only in relation to particularthemes,butnot inallareasof theNRIS.Anti-discrimi-nationmeasuresareforeseenineachkeyarea,andgobe-yondthesetotargetanti-discriminationingeneral,onlyinFinland,LatviaandSpain.InDenmark,theNRIStargetsanti-discriminationingeneral.

TheNRIS in Austria, Denmark, France,Germany, theNetherlands, Portugal and Slovenia do not targetanti-Gypsyism.SomemeasuresareplannedintheBulgarianand PolishNRIS to target anti-Gypsyism, but are per-ceivedas insufficient,while theRomanianNRIS isper-ceivedasminimalist intermsof combatinganti-Gypsy-ism.IntheFinnishNRIS,thefightagainstanti-Gypsyismrepresentsoneof theobjectives,yetnospecificmeasuresreferring to anti-Gypsyism are foreseen. There are nomeasures targeting anti-Gypsyism in theLatvianNRIS,althoughmostof the anti-discriminationmeasures alsotargetanti-Romasentiments.ThemeasuresfromSlova-kia,althoughinsufficient,areagoodstartingpoint.OnlytheSpanishNRIS is considered tohave included suffi-cientmeasurestotackleanti-Gypsyism.

Therearenomeasurestoaddressgender equalityintheBulgarian, German, Latvian, Dutch, and Welsh NRIS.WhiletheGermanNRISrecognisesthatwomenandgirlsexperiencemultiplediscrimination,itneverthelessfailstospecifically target gender equality. Similarly, there are no

specificmeasuresintheFinnishNRIStoaddressgenderequality relative to specific areas, but gender equality isviewedasacross-cuttingissuethroughouttheNRIS.TheCzechConcept,aswellastheFrench,RomanianandSlov-enianNRIS,envisagesgenderequality in relation topar-ticularthemes,butnotinallareasof thesubmittedNRIS.Some measures are planned in the Danish, Hungarian,PolishandSlovakNRIStotargetgenderequality,buttheseareinsufficient.Onamorepositivenote,sufficientmeas-uresareenvisagedwithin thefourareas to targetgenderequalityinSpain.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatinPortu-galandSpaintheNRISalsoenvisagespecificmeasurestoaddressmultiplediscriminationof Romawomen.

TheBulgarian,Finnish,Hungarian,Latvian,Portuguese,Romanian,SlovakandWelshNRISfailtoaddresstheis-sueof migrationatall.TheAustrianNRISreferstoAus-tria’sNationalIntegrationPlan,whichispartlydedicatedtothefightagainstdiscriminationof immigrantsandmi-norities.Migration-relatedmeasuresarealsoenvisagedintheDanish,French,andDutchNRIS,butonlyinrelationtoaparticularpriorityarea,notinallareasof theNRIS.OnlyinSpaindoestheNRISaddresstheissueof migra-tion: here sufficient measures are envisaged within thefourkeyareasandbeyondtotargetfundamentalrightsof migrantRomaingeneral.

TheCzechConceptandtheFrenchandSlovenianNRISdonotaddresstheissueof empowermentatallandthereis little mention of empowering Roma in the BulgarianNRIS.SomemeasuresareplannedintheDanish,German,Dutch,andRomanianNRIStotargettheissueof empow-erment,but they are insufficient.Differentmeasures areforeseenintheFinnish,Latvian,SlovakandWelshNRIStocontributetotheempowermentof theRomaminority.Thisisevenindicatedasamainobjectiveof theFinnishNRIS.Nevertheless,itisdifficulttoassessif themeasuresareorwillbesufficient,asthereisnoinformationaboutcapacities, inparticularatlocal level.InthePolishNRIS,empowerment-relatedmeasuresareenvisagedonly inre-lation to a particular area. In the PortugueseNRIS em-powermentismainlypromotedwithintheareaof genderequalitybutalsobypromotingcitizenshipeducation.

ItisinterestingtonotethattheHungarianNRISgoesbe-yondconsultationandspecificallymentionsthatsocialin-clusionmustinvolvethe“empowermentof thoselivinginpovertyandtheRomacommunityinordertoenablethem


NoTEbook

toshapesociety”.TheSpanishNRISenvisagessufficientmeasureswithin the fourkeyareasandbeyond to targetRomaempowermentingeneral.

g. Ensuring Roma participation in the drafting process and imple-mentation

FindingsfromtheERPCstakeholders’surveysuggestthatinmostMS,someformof participationhastakenplace.However,theNRISconsultationprocesseswereoftennotaccessible to all stakeholders or evenRoma civil society.Whenconsultationdidtakeplace,itseemedtohaveverylittle impact,ornoneatall,ontheNRISinthevastma-jorityof cases.Moreover,alargemajorityof respondentsacrossMSdescribedthedraftingprocessof theNRISaslackingtransparency.Inmostcasesstakeholders’participa-tion,inparticulartheinvolvementof Roma,isstillunclearwithregardtoimplementationof theNRIS.

Conclusions: the state of play one year on and ERpC recommendations

State of play one year on

Romainclusionwillcontinuetofacechallengesaslongaslittleisdonetocombatthedeep-seatedanti-Gypsyismanddiscriminatory tendencies prevalent in European socie-ties,andtoinvestinpositive,explicitmeasurestopromoteRoma inclusion in employment, education, housing andhealthcarewithaviewto improvingtheirsocio-econom-ic conditions and reducingexistinggapswith themajor-itypopulation.Discrepancies in treatment are evident indifferent areas such as housing, education, employment,healthcare, political participation and freedomof move-ment.Furthermore,thereseemstobelittlepoliticalcom-mitmentatnationallevelstostopsuchashamefulrealityinEurope.AswewitnessincreasingharassmentandviolenceagainstRomainvariousMS,andconsideringfurtherten-sionsandanti-Romasentimentduetotheeconomiccrisis,itisurgenttoaddressanti-Gypsyism.

OnJune26 theEC launchedaprogress reportonRomaintegration,takingstockof howMSareimplementingtheirrespectiveNRIS.TheEC’smain conclusion is that insuf-ficientprogresshasbeenmadeandanotherpushforRomaintegration isneeded.CommissionersVivianeReding andLászlóAndorhavesentawake-upcalltoMStomakethem

reiteratetheircommitmenttoRomainclusion.Thisassess-mentof nationalprogresshasbeenreinforcedbythepres-entationof aRecommendationtoMS,tobeadoptedbytheEUCouncil.IndeedthisproposalforaCouncilRecommen-dationsendsastrongmessagetonationalgovernmentsthattheNRISneedtobeproperlyimplementedinordertomakeapositivedifferenceontheground.

FortunatelytheECseemstohavefinallymadeaclearlinkbe-tweensocialinclusion,discrimination,racismandRomapar-ticipation.However,alotstillneedstobedone,especiallyatnationalandlocallevels.AshighlightedbytheECandmanyotherrelevantstakeholders,overallfinancingisstillinadequatefortheimplementationof theNRIS,specificallyregardingtheuseof StructuralFunds,while coordinationmechanisms atnational,regionalandlocallevelhavenotbeenproperlyimple-mentedasameanstoassureeffectiveandefficientpublicpoli-ciesfortacklinginequalityanddiscriminationof RomainMS.

DespitethefactthattheEC’scurrentstandpointcanbecon-sideredastepforwardforRomainclusion,itstangibleimpactremainstobeseen:whetheritwillmeanarealnewimpetustotheEUframework,sinceasof todaytheNRISarefarfrommakingapositivechangeinthedailylivesof Roma.Infact,there are indications that the situationof manyRomahasbeenworseningsincetheadoptionof theEUFrameworkof NRIS,astheyare increasinglyaffectedbothbydiscrimina-tionandracistattacksandbytheeconomiccrisis.ItisurgentthatMSbecomepoliticallydeterminedtofaceforoncetheinequalityanddiscriminationsufferedbymanyRomainEu-rope.Infact,bothfinancialandtechnicaltoolsareavailabletodo so;what ismissing is thewill tobring together theeffortsof variousactorsonthegroundandworktowardsachievingtangibleresultsandsocialchange.

ERPC recommendations

CivilsocietyhasrepeatedlycalledontheECandMStoac-tivelypursuesocialinclusionandanti-discriminationmeas-ures.TheERPCrecommends that theneed toeliminateanti-Gypsyism should constitute the core around whichNRISarebuilt.Althougheliminatingthegapsrelatedtoin-come,healthandeducationareimportant,therewillbenoprogressunlesstheeliminationof anti-Gypsyismismadeakeypriorityof theNRIS.

Infact,intheEC’sreportMShavereceivedbadmarkspartic-ularlyinrelationtothefightagainstdiscrimination.Countries



liketheCzechRepublic,HungaryandSlovakia,forinstance,aresingledoutforcontinuingandpervasiveschoolsegrega-tion.Theassessmentconfirmstheurgencyof pressingMStoimmediatelyimplementEuropeananti-discriminationlawinpractice.Wherenecessary,theECshouldtriggerinfringementprocedurestoensurecompliance.

TheEC should follow closely the reactionof MS to itsprogressreportandtheproposedCouncilRecommenda-tion, focusing on quantitative and qualitative indicatorsthatprovideinformationabouttheprogressmadeinthefour key areas of education, employment, housing andhealth;intermsof Romaparticipationinthedesign,im-plementation,monitoringandevaluationof theNRIS;inequal treatment; and in the fight against discrimination.IndicatorsforgenuineRomaparticipationandempower-mentaswellasfortheadvancementof anti-discriminationmeasuresshouldbeintroducedandfollowedup.

MSshouldadopttheproposedCouncilRecommendationandclearlyshowtheirpoliticaldeterminationtoserveallEU residents, including Roma, on an equal basis. Romamustbeconsideredfullcitizensthatdeservetheirgovern-mentstofulfiltheirrights,justlikeanybodyelse.

ThedifferentNRISshowthatthereareclearandworryingdifferencesinthepoliticalwilltoaddressdiscriminationandanti-Gypsyismandtoamendnationalpoliciesinordertoen-ablegreaterparticipationof Romainallcollectiveareasof society.Strategiestocombatanti-GypsyismatEuropeanandnationallevelthatgobeyondtheFrameworkof theNRISshouldbedeveloped.First,thereshouldbeastrongcom-mitmenttotakeurgentmeasuresagainsttheworryingandwidespreadracism,violenceandharassmentthatRomaface,suchasspeakingoutonmonitoringracistviolenceandhatespeechincidents,developinginstrumentstocombatracismandsupportingtheECandMSinthe implementationof theseinstruments.Possibleinstrumentsinclude:

● Acrisisprotocoltorespondadequatelytomanifesta-tionsof anti-Gypsyism,suchashatespeechandinter-ethnicclashes;

● Stepstoaddresstheweaknessesof theFrameworkDe-cisiononCombatingRacismandXenophobia inEUlegislationbyproviding an accuratedefinitionof thetypes of racist and xenophobic activities and behav-iourswhich it seeks to target, including responses to

public figuresand representativesof state authoritieswhoengageinracistandxenophobicactivitiesandbe-haviours,andexpresslyaddressingracistviolencetar-getingvulnerablegroupssuchasRoma;

● Strengthening themonitoring of the implementationof theEqualitydirectivesandtheFrameworkDecisiononcombatingracismandxenophobiaandreactingtoviolationsof EUlegislationappropriately.

Moreover, ongoing efforts are needed from govern-ments to improve implementationof theNRIS in thefourkeypriorityareasof health,housing,employmentand education.TheERPCmade suggestions to tacklethe lack of capacity and experience in implementingtheNRIS.Furthermore,a strongerandmoreeffectiveRomaparticipationintheimplementationof theNRISisneeded.Itwasthereforeproposedtoprovidetechni-calassistancetotheimplementersandtoensurethatasufficient number of Roma representatives form partof theimplementationteams.

Governments should set up clearer indicators aswell asbettermonitoring instruments tomeasureandassess theprogressmade.Experiencetodateshowsthatthereport-ingprocessisoftenreducedtoreportsthatlackmethod-ology for evaluation, as well as concrete indicators andmechanismsforcollectinginformationrelatedtotheout-comesof integrationpolicies.Consequently, theECandMS should clearly establish a strongmonitoring and re-portingprocessfortheNRIS.Updates inannualreportsbyeachinstitutionengagedintheprocessof implementingtheNRISdonotconstituteasufficientreportingmecha-nism.Morethoughtandqualitativemethodologyisneededforassessingprogressandreflectionastowhetherannualreports are sufficient. Importantly, governments shouldmaketheNRISevolveonayearlybasisaccordingtoles-sonslearntfromthemonitoringmechanisms.

CleardetailsonthefundingforRoma-relatedmeasuresareneeded,delineatingEUandnationalfunding.Additionally,MSshouldbemorecommittedtousingEUfinancial in-strumentsforRomainclusion(e.g.StructuralFunds).Asisevidentfromthereport,somegoodpracticeshaveemergedin this initial stageof implementationof theNRIS.It isimportant tosetupeffectivemeansof exchanginggoodpractices,andtheERPCrecommendsthatpeerreviewingmechanismsbesetupbetweenMS.



National Roma integration Strategy: Do good intentions Fail?

J o A n n A K o S t K A 1

Europe continues to face tremendous difficulties in al-leviating the socio-economic marginalisation of its larg-estminority, theRoma.2This highly diverse diaspora of people,oneof theoldestsurvivingminoritiesontheoldcontinent,strugglesagainstdeep-seatedprejudice,racismandpoverty.Foroveradecadenow,theEuropeanUnion(EU)hasexertedpressureonitsmemberstatesto“changethesituationof theirmarginalisedpopulation”dispensingawiderangeof legal,policyandfinancialinstrumentsinhopesof persuadingreluctantgovernmentstoacceptre-sponsibility for integration,communitydevelopmentandsocialcohesion.Foravarietyof reasonsEUinitiativesandmeasures have essentially failed to generate suitable andsustainablesuccess.Asaconsequence in2011theEuro-peanCommissionlaunchedthe“EUFrameworkforNa-tionalRomaIntegrationStrategies(2013-2020)”,callingonmemberstatestoprepareandreviseNationalIntegrationStrategies,inanefforttogeneratetangibleimprovementsin the livingconditionsof theRoma,whichcontinue toresemblethoseof sub-SaharanAfrica.3

InresponsetotheEuropeancall,thePolishgovernmentproposed to continue its Roma-integration activities un-dertaken since 2001within the framework of the “PilotProgramme for the Roma Communities in MalopolskaRegion 2001-2003” and the “NationalRoma IntegrationStrategyfortheyears2004-2013”.Itstatedthatthe2014-2020 strategy will be fashioned on existing models andpractices,andwilladheretotheprioritiesoutlinedinthe

EuropeanFramework. In a countrymarkedby transientreformsanddeep-cuttingpolitical imbroglios,opting forcontinuitycouldbetakenforasteadfastpoliticalcommit-menttotheneedsof Poland’smostmarginalisedminor-ity.4However,theminusculeimpactof pastmeasuresandthelargelyineffectiveimplementationmethodologiesdra-matically undermine the choices andmotivations of theauthorities.Itseemsthatinsteadof commitmenttosocio-economic reforms and inter-cultural dialogue, thePolishstate has settled for fragmented, one-off interventions,driven by a political interest to demonstrate compliancewithEUframeworksandrecommendations.

Thisarticlepresentsananalysisof Polishexperiences indesigningand implementing theNationalRoma Integra-tionStrategyfortheyears2004-2013(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“Programme”).Closescrutinyof theProgrammeisimperativeasitconstitutesoneof themainpillarsof Polishintegrationpoliciesandformsa‘prototype’fortheupcom-ingstrategyfor2014-2020,whichapartfromsmalltechni-caladjustmentstothemodus operandihasremainedbasicallythesame.Theanalysisisalsotimelyasthereismountingevidencethatmanyproblemsidentifiedintheearly2000shave not been fully resolved, and there is a danger thatsimilar mistakes are being replicated. The article arguesthat themain shortcomingsof theProgramme are rootedinthedown-playingof strategicdimensionsof exclusion,and a failure to conceptualise integration of Roma as aprocess requiring changes in institutional settings and in

1 JoannaKostkaisaPhDcandidateworkingonEuropeancohesionpolicyanditsimpactuponsocio-economicinclusionof Europeanminoritygroups.Currentlysheconductsresearchontheutilisationof EuropeanUnionregulationsandfundingmechanismsinthedesignandimplemen-tationof Roma-integrationstrategiesinoldandnewmemberstates.

2 ‘Roma’isapolitical term usedasanumbrellanameforallmembersof theRomaniethniccommunity(suchasRoma,Sinti,Kale,Gypsies,Romani-chels,Boyash,Ashkali,Egyptians,Yenish,Dom,LomandTravellers).ItsusageinpoliticalandsometimesacademicdiscoursedemonstratesastrongtendencytotreattheextremelyethnicallydiverseRomanicommunityorcommunitiesasalargelyhomogenousgroup,overshadowingthevariousappellationspreferredbytheindividualgroupsandsubgroups(suchasSinti,Kale,Rudari,Boyash,andTravellers).Iamawarethatfromanethnographicpointof view,theRomanicommunityisextremelydiverseandallRomanigroups,subgroupsandmetagroupshavetheirownethnicandculturalfeatures(seeActonandGheorghe2001,MarushiakovaandPopov2001).ThusinthisarticleImakeeveryeffortnottoover-rideorunderminedeep-cuttingdifferences.

3 The2003UNDPreportRoma integration is key in an enlarged EUfirstmadethatcomparison,10yearslaterthesituationhasremainedbasicallyunalteredandinfactthereismountingevidencethatithasevendeteriorated(seethe2012reportThe Situation of the Roma Minority in Selected New Member states of the European Union,EuropeanLiberalForum)

4 Theprognosticsectionof NationalRomaIntegrationStrategy2003-2013definedRomaasthe“onlyethnicminorityatriskof socialexclusion”(NRIS2003:4)


NoTEbook

theattitudesof boththemajorityandtheminoritypopula-tion.TheProgramme’s narrowfocusontheimmediateneedsof (oftenrandomlyselected)groupsandcommunities,al-thougheffectiveindeliveringpracticalandappreciatedaid,has failed to recognise a need for wider pro-integrationreforms and inmany instances (perhaps unintentionally)onlyexacerbatesdivisionsbetweenthecommunities,thusunderminingthelegitimacyof publicprovisions.

Roma in poland – brief overview

Polandhasoneof thesmallestproportionsof nationalandethnicminoritiesintheEuropeanUnion.5Accord-ingtotheresultsof theNationalCensusin2002around4,500,000peopleinPoland(1.23%)declaredotherthanPolish nationality. Within this number only 12,731Polish citizens declared that they belong to theRomaethnicminority.Althoughnon-governmentalorganisa-tions claim that the real number ismuchhigher, theirestimatesrarelysurpass50,000.ThismeansthatRomaconstituteatmostaround0.03%of theentirepopula-tionof Poland,anumbertoosmalltoattractsubstantialpoliticalattention.AlthoughsmallinnumbertheRomapopulationishighlydiverse:thefourmainRomaethnic‘sub-groups’-thePolishRoma,CarpathianRoma(Ber-girtkaRoma)KelderiansandLowerians-arecharacter-isedbyprofoundhistorical,socialandeconomicdiffer-ences.6Thisdiversityleadstoconsiderablevarietyinthepolicyneeds,aspirationsandpoliticalcapacitiesof eachcommunity.However,becauseof alonghistoryof ex-clusion from political activism and limited interactionbetween Roma and non-Roma communities, many of thedivisions, internal tensionsand idiosyncraticneedsgo unnoticed by outside observers (including policymakersandacademics).Moreover,thelackof compre-hensivestudiesonthesituationof Roma,compoundedbytheweaklobbyingpowerof Romaleaders,allowsforanoverly-simplifiedandessentialistpictureof themi-norities’ livingconditions,moreoftenthannot limitedtonegativeassessmentsof personalattainments,adapt-abilityandhermeticculture.

Asaresult,therealityof ‘Roma’peopledoesnotnecessar-ilydeterminethepoliticalperceptionsof Romaorthecon-tentof publicpoliciessupposedlyaimedatRomainclusionorempowerment(Kovats2013).Instead,Romaareoftenexpected to complywithmeasures that respond to verylimited and static interpretations of their interests (Ver-meersch2002).AlthoughtheEUwasinstrumentalinre-definingPolishRomaasanethnicgroup,increasinglysup-portedbyaminorityrightsframeworkandsupranationalfundingforsocialinclusion,thepromotionof Roma“dif-ference”over“equality”dramaticallyreducedthepotentialforsocietalsolidarityanddisconnectedRomapeoplefromthewiderpoliticalarena.Theperpetualabsenceof Romacivilsocietyinpoliticallifeandthedecision-makingappa-ratushasgivenriseto“crisis-management”interventions,characterisedby low-cost investments (i.e. infrastructuralrepairs, individual scholarships and training programs)deliveredby individual public agencies reluctant to formpartnershipswiththecommunities,NGOsorevenotherpublicactors.Treatingmembersof theRomapopulationaspassivebeneficiariesof stateaidhasonlyreinforcedde-pendencypatterns,missinganopportunitytopromoteem-powermentandtoengenderasenseof sharedownership.

Socio-economic standing

GiventhatithassuchasmallandwidelydispersedRomapopulation,Polandhas rarely encountered internationalcriticism or “shaming tactics”. Although in 2005 theEuropean Commission against Racism and Intolerance(ECRI)criticisedPoland for lax investigationandpros-ecutionof violentattacksonRoma,7thesocio-economicaspectsof Romaexclusioncontinue tobe largelyover-looked.Thisomissionislargelyaresultof reluctanceorinabilitytocollectcomprehensiveandreliabledataonthesocio-economic situation of the Romaminority, a fail-ure that gravely obfuscates the scale and scope of ex-periencedproblems.NeverthelessresearchconductedbyinternationalorganisationsindicatesthatRomafacepro-founddifficulties ineachof themainpolicyareas (em-ployment, housing, education and health) and struggle

5 Visegrad.info“RomaminorityinVisegradcountries”,(2010)availableat:www.visegrad.info/minorities-social-exclusion-roma-minority/factsheet/roma-minority-in-visegrad-countries.html.

6 Foradetailedhistoricalaccountof PolishRoma,includingtheirtragicpersecutionandexterminationduringWorldWarIIseeMroz,L.Od Cyga-now do Romow. Z Indii do Unii Europejskiej(WydawnictwoDiG,StowarzyszenieRomwowPolsce–RomskiInstytutHistoryczny:Warszawa,2007).

7 Theescalationof anti-Romadisturbancetookplaceinearly1990inKielceandMlawa,townswithsignificantRomapopulations.Althoughopenviolencehassincesubsided,Romarightsadvocatesregularlypointoutthefailureof thestatetoadequatelyprosecuteviolentactscommittedagainstRoma.



against widespread discrimination.8 The limited social-economic gains that theRoma community experiencedundercommunismwereswiftlyreversedbythetransitionfromcommandtomarketeconomies.The introductionof feverishneo-liberalpolicieshas severely constrainedtheabilityof PolishRomatocopewithchangebydepriv-ingthemof incomeandformalemployment.9AstudybytheFundamentalRightsAgencyfoundextensiveimpov-erishment and structural unemployment among Romacommunities, showing that unemployment ranges from45%to70%,withsomecommunitiesexperiencingeven100%.Rampantprivatisationof socialhousing andde-clining security of tenure have led to the accumulationof debt,forcibleevictionsandhomelessness.Thelivingconditionsof manyRoma,alreadycharacterisedbypoorqualityand/orsegregatedhousing,havecontinuedtode-teriorate. It is estimated thatmore than 60%of Romalive in substandard conditions.The gap betweenRomaeducationalattainmentandthenationalaverageremainsenormousandshowssignsof widening.Despiteasteadyrise in thenumberof Romapupilscompletingprimaryschool (according to the Ministry of Labour 70% of Romachildren attend elementary school), theperform-ance of Roma children is still disappointing and drop-out rates continue to be extremely high.10 Instances of segregationandplacementof Romachildrenin“specialschools”,althoughnotascommonasintheneighbouringstates,continuetothwartRomaeducationalattainmentsandsubsequenteconomicsuccessinadulthood.Moreo-vermorethan80%of Romachildrenhavenoaccesstopre-school education or to any after-school or culturalactivities,whileNGOsclaimthatmorethan50%gotoschoolhungry.Finally,incomparisonwiththenon-Romapopulation,Romacommunitiessufferfrompoorerhealthand unhealthy living conditions, which translate intoshorter lifeexpectancyandhigherriskof fataldiseases.These persistent inequalities across the socio-economicspherethreatentoleadtotheescalationof conflictswith

themajorityandtheconsolidationof whatAndrzejMir-gacalled“anunderclassof citizens”.11

Despite acknowledging thatRomaare theonlyminority inPolandatriskof dramaticsocio-economicexclusionthatre-quiresconsiderableinvestment,thepoliticalelitesrefrainfromnationwidedebatesonpovertyandsocialcohesion.Instead,Roma-exclusion issues remain largely confined to debatesaboutculturalvaluesandperceiveddifficultiesinharmonis-ing elementsof Roma culturewithmainstreamvalues andpractices.12 The opinion expressed by Sławomir Łodziński,a sociologist atWarsawUniversity, that “the principle areaof conflict is culture”, echoes throughmost governmentaldeliberationsonthe“RomaQuestion”.Roma-ledorganisa-tionsthemselvesarepronetoconcentrateonculturalaspects,pointingtoa“lackof understandingof Romacustoms”andwidespreadfearof coerciveassimilationamongRomacom-munities.13Althoughsomecentralelementsof Romaculturemightdeviatefromconsolidatedmainstreamexpectations,fo-cusingexclusivelyonsuchdifferencesobscuresexistingcom-monalitiesanddowngradestheroleof social,economicandpoliticalcomplexities inperpetuatingexclusionandpoverty.Instead,Romaexclusionisframedasaproductof individualchoices and cultural dogmas rather than a consequenceof problemspartiallyrelatedtothedeclineinthequalityandac-cessibilityof publicservices.Itisconceptualisedintermsof “distance”orseparationfromacoreof societywhichconsistsof peoplewhoare integrated into thesetsof relationshipsandinstitutionsthatareconsidered“normal”.Suchconcep-tionsareatthecoreof governmentalactionplans,andargu-ablyconstituteanimplicityetpowerfulobstacletomeaningfulintegrationandalleviationof poverty.

government Support

InaccordancewithnationallawandinternationalguidelinessignedbytheRepublicof Poland,theRomacommunityis

8 SeeEuropeanUnion(EU)AgencyforFundamentalRights(FRA)andUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgram(UNDP),2012The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States: Survey Results at a Glance.

9 Mostaffectedwerethecommunitiesof CarpathianRomalivinginsouthernPoland.Employedasunskilledlabourinthestate-runindustrialcomplexes,theywerethefirsttolosetheirjobsasaresultof hastyprivatisationandmassclosures.

10 In2006theAssociationof Romaclaimedthathalf of allRomachildrenwerenotenrolledinschools,inpartbecausetheyandtheirfamiliesfearedcoerciveassimilation.

11 Mirga,A.andGheorghe,N.The Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy Paper,(ProjectonEthnicRelations:Princeton,1997).

12 Ministryof theInteriorandAdministrationProgramme for the Roma Community in Poland,(2003)4.

13 StowarzyszenieRomowwPolsce,Tradycyjna kultura Romow,availableat: www.stowarzyszenie.romowie.net/index.php/czytnik-artykulow/items/101.html.


NoTEbook

recognised as an ethnicminority,with full access to legalprotectionand state aid.14As a resultof theworkof theTeamforNationalMinorities,inMarch2000workbeganonthepreparationof apilotgovernmentprogrammefortheRomacommunityintheMalopolskaprovincefortheyears2001-2003.TheprogrammewasdevelopedbytheMinistryof InternalAffairsandAdministration(MIAA)incoopera-tionwithotherministries,aswellastheRegionalPlenipo-tentiaries forRoma Issues and local authorities.Consulta-tionswereheldwithselectedRoma-lednon-governmentalorganisations as well as the leaders of self-governments.Although the implementation of the programmewas se-verelylimitedbecauseof inadequatefundingfromthestatebudget,itreceivedapositiveassessmentfromtheEurope-anCommission15andfromtheCommissionerforHumanRights - a rather surprisingdevelopment given the incon-gruencebetweentheprogramme’sscope(limitedtoafewcommunitiesresidinginoneregion)andthecircumstancesof theRomapopulationingeneral.16

Thepilotprogramme’smainprioritywastoachieve“fullpar-ticipationof RomafromtheMalopolska17regionincivicandsociallife”aswellastobridgethegapbetweenRomaandtherestof societyinallmajorpolicyareas,includingeduca-tion,employment,healthandhousing.Giventheabsenceof comprehensiveevaluationof theprogramme’soutputsandoutcomes, it isdifficult toassesshow influential itactuallywas. One initiative that received some analytical attentionwastheintroductionof Romateachingassistants,inanef-forttoeliminatesegregationof childreninso-called“Romaclasses”,andtoprovidelanguagesupportandmediationbe-tweenschoolsandfamilies.Despitenumeroussetbacks,theinitiativewasconsideredas“neededandgenerallyeffective”bybothpublicauthoritiesandRomaNGOs.18Asaresult,in2005thepositionof “Romateachingassistant”wasrecog-nisedasanofficialjobcategory,subsidisedbytheMinistryof EducationandSports.However,thedirectimpactof suchassistanceontheparticipationandperformanceof Romani

childrenremainsunclear.Infact,thedrop-outrate(especiallyamonggirls)hasnotbeenreduced,andinsomeregionsithasactuallyincreased.19Althoughtheprogrammelackedindica-torsandbenchmarkswithwhichtoassessitsachievements,theauthoritiesadvertiseditas“goodpractice”andusedthelessonstheyclaimedtohavelearnedfromitasablueprintforthepreparationandimplementationof anationwide,multi-annualprogramme:theNationalRomaIntegrationStrategyfortheyears2004-2013.

TheadoptedProgramme constitutedpartof apolicyof equalopportunitiesaimingto“equalisedisparitiesbetweenethnicminoritiesandtherestof Polishpopulation”.Internalisingtheobjectivesof thepilotprogrammediscussedabove, itwasenvisionedas anaffirmativeaction initiative,promot-ingsocialintegration,withparticularattentiontoeconom-ic, care-providing andeducational functions. It stated that“because of the extreme levels of exclusion and widelyspread discrimination experienced by Romani communi-ties,targetedprogrammesforRomaareseenasanecessarytransitionstep tofullmainstreaming”.Themainprioritiescoveredeightpolicyareas:education,employment,health,housing, security, civic participation, culture and inter-cul-turallearning.Thethematicareas,however,wereunevenlyrepresented,bothwithrespecttothenumberof theco-fi-nancedprojectsandtotheirvalues.Themajorityof theco-financedprojects(64%)werecarriedoutintheareaof edu-cation,followedbyculture(13%),housing(10%)andhealth(3%).Initiativespertainingtoemploymentconstitutedonly2%whilelessthen1%wasallocatedtosecurityand4%tointer-culturalactivities.Despitesuchincongruities20anditsacutelyunderdevelopedanti-discriminationdimension, theProgramme compliedwithgeneralEUrecommendationsandvouchedtopromoteinnovativeplansinclosecooperationwithself-governmentsandRomaNGOs.

Theactivitiesimplementedaspartof theProgrammewerefinanced from the specific statebudgetary allowance for

14 ThePolishConstitutionsanctionslegalprotectionof nationalandethnicminoritiesandstatescommitmentsinthisfield(ChapterIIArticle33,section1-2,2005).

15 EuropeanCommission,Regular Report on Poland’s Progress Towards Accession,COM(2002)700final,31.

16 Atthetimeof thepilotprogrammenoothercomprehensiveprogrammewastargetedatRoma-inclusion.

17 ThechoicetoimplementthepilotprogrammeinMalopołskawasdictatedbythesizeandlevelof impoverishmentof theRomapopulationresid-inginthisregion.

18 Rozycka,M.“Zawód-asystentedukacjiromskiej”Stowarzyszenie Asystentow Edukacji Romskiej,availableat:www.romowie.info/post/-zawod--asystent-edukacji-romskiej/88.

19 StowarzyszenieRomowwPolsce,Projekt badawczy na temat poznawczego i jezykowego funckjonowania dzieci romskich w polskim systemie edukacji,(UniversytetJagielonski,2011).



theintegrationof theRomacommunity.Theannualallo-cationamountedtoPLN10million(approx.EU2.5mil-lion–whichalsocoverededucationaltasks,whoseimple-mentationwastheProgramme’smainpriority).Moreover,asumof PLN700thousand(approx.EUR175thousand)fromthestatebudgetmanagedbytheMinistryof Nation-alEducationandSportswasspentannuallyontextbooksandotherschoolsuppliesforRomastudents.TheMinistryalsogranted funds for scholarships forgiftedRomastu-dents(since2011–availableatalllevelsof education).Theimplementationof other thematic projectswas financedfromtheresourcesof self-governmentsandmunicipalau-thorities.All together, theProgramme realised4,793 initia-tives,of which66%wereundertakenandco-financedbytheself-governments. Inaneffort tostrengthen thesus-tainabilityof providedinitiativestheProgramme wasgrant-ed support from theEuropeanSocialFund for theHu-manCapitalOperational Programme (sub-measure 1.3.1Projects for the Roma Community – contest projects).Theallocationforthe“Romacomponent”for2007-2013amountstoEUR22million.Thiscomponenthasbeende-signedascomplementarytothegovernmentalProgramme.By2011,50projectco-financingagreementshadbeenun-dersignedasaresultof contestsorganisedaspartof sub-measure1.3.1;thetotalvalueof theprojectsamountstoPLN39million (nearlyEUR10million).Problemswithinter-programme coordination and inadequate capacitiesof implementers slowed down the absorption rate andconsequentialredirectionof EUfundingtoothertargets.

programme Review

In 2011 a reviewof theProgrammewas commissionedbytheMinistryof InternalAffairsandAdministration,toevaluate theundertakenactivitiesandtheirachieve-mentsintheeightmainpriorityareas.Thereviewdiag-nosedtheeffectivenessof implementationprocessandproposed a list of recommendations concerning thecontinuationof theProgramme in the years 2014-2020.Overall, the report delivered a rather “lukewarm” as-sessment,praisingtheunprecedentedinterestshownby

theauthoritiesinRomaissuesbutpointingoutseveralseriousstructuralpitfalls.Itstressedthatoverly-bureau-cratictop-downmanagement,theabsenceof innovativeapproaches toexclusionand the limitedcapacitiesandexpertise of major stakeholders severely curtailed notonly the efficiencyof the implementationprocessbutalsotherelevanceandsustainabilityof introducedinter-ventions.Thereportpointedoutthat“avitalopportuni-tytobuildinter-culturalpartnershipandstimulatelocalownershipof theProgrammewasrelinquished”infavourof the “monopolisation” of the Programme by an im-perviousgroupof Romaleadersandself-governmentsoftenfarremovedfromthecommunitiesandthemosturgentissues.21Asoneprojectmanagerexpounded:

“The design of the Programme overlooked the existing patterns of privilege and the uneven distribution of resources among Roma communities, NGOs, and local authorities. In many in-stances the Roma leaders became the ‘puppets’ of the government agencies, which favoured tokenistic forms of local consultation over less comfortable discussions with street-level groups repre-senting the full diversity of community interests. The funding op-portunities were often hijacked by ‘established’ organisations and better off communities, leaving out those in the direst need”.22

The Programme’s objective to engage with interrelatedproblems through multiple sectors were deemed to beoverlyambitiousandnotclearlyspecified.Infactthestra-tegicdimensionwas judged tobe lessconcreteandex-plicitatthelowestlevelsof theadministrativehierarchy.Thereportillustratedthattheimplementerseschewedin-itiativeswhichcouldpromotesystemicchange,infavourof practicaltasksandactivities.Infact,whenquestioned,theoverwhelmingmajorityof theprojectmanagerswereunabletodelineateprogrammegoalsorexplainhow, inthelongrun,theirprojectswouldcontributetointegra-tionandcohesivedevelopment.23Thispitfallresultedinthepredominationof miscellaneous,“one-off ”projectswhichrarelyfitted insideagivengoal-axisandhad lim-itedbearingontheenvisionedpath towards integrationandmainstreaming. Talking about infrastructural initia-tives,TheProvincialOfficeconvincinglyarguedthatthe

20 Accordingthe2002censusthegravestissuesaffectingRomacommunitieswereinadequatehousingconditionsandwidespreadlong-termun-employment.Thusitisrathersurprisingthatculturalactivities(composedlargelyof festivalsandentertainment)surpassedtheothertwofields.

21 EvaluationReport,7–9.

22 ZwiazekRomowPolskichwSzczecinku,(2013).

23 Aresultof thesurveyconductedamongself-governments,localauthoritiesandNGOs,intheframeworkof theEvaluationReport(2011).


NoTEbook

lack of a strategic dimension in the proposed projectsstemmedfrominadequatetechnicalcapacities,confusionovercommongoalsandhighlyequivocalregulations:

“The Programme’s regulations failed to introduce any requirements for demonstrating projects’ impacts and envisioned outcomes. This substantially weakened the motivation of managers to develop stra-tegic, sustainable methodologies. They simply chose kinds of activ-ity they were already competent in or used to, without considering the overall Programme’s purpose. Because many of them lacked experience in tackling complex issues and were not provided with any technical assistance they remained frugal in their conceptions and opted for simple, feasible tasks – roof repairs, replacement of windows, etc. – none of which added to or complemented existing state interventions and development policies”.24

Thepredominanceof suchundertakings(outof 20projects,19providedone-off repair assistancewhile onedeliveredimprovements to thesewersystem)wasalsoattributed tothereluctanceof self-governmentstoincludetheneedsof Romacommunitiesintheirwiderpoliticalagendas.Ahighlevelof prejudiceandinabilitytowinsupportof thenon-RomamajorityfortheProgrammemeantthattherewaslittleinterest indesigningand implementingelaborate inclusionprojectswhichwouldbringtwocommunitiestogether.Thefearof losingthesupportof theelectorate,compoundedbydwindlingresourcesandlimitedpressurefromabove,effec-tivelypushedRomaissuesaside.ThefactthattheProgramme’sfundingwastargetedsolelyatRoma,onlyexacerbatedtheinclination“todonothing”or“dotheminimum”.There-portidentifiedthatsuch“exclusive”targetinghadbecomeasourceof conflictbetweenRomaandnon-Romaespeciallyinareaswherethetwocommunitieslivedincloseproxim-ityundersimilarconditions.Asonefrustratedmayorputit:

“I cannot simply provide assistance and money to one group while excluding another ... here everybody is dealing with similar prob-lems and lives in similar conditions ...favouritism simply does more harm than good ... it deepens mistrust and creates unnecessary con-flict... the provisions we receive offer little flexibility and prevent us from creating larger-scale programs which would benefit everybody...this is not equal treatment - this is perpetuation of difference”.25

Despitetheseproblems,thereportindicatedthatthemajor-ityof theProgramme’sactivities(93.3%)wereimplemented

bytheself governments.Althoughthegrowingengagementof public authoritieswas considered a “generally positivedevelopment”, thecharacterand impactof their commit-ments appearedhighlyunsatisfactory.The report revealedthatanacutelackof knowledgeabouttheRomapopulation,compoundedbydisinclinationtoconsultwiththecommu-nities,ledtothecreationof irrelevantmeasures,guidedbytheaspirationsof theself-governmentsratherthanbytheactualneedsof thecitizens.MostRomasurveyrespondentsdeclaredthattheprojectsexecutedfortheRomacommuni-tieswerenotdiscussedwiththem.Althoughtheauthoritiesinsistedthatsuchconsultationsdidtakeplace,theevaluationrevealed that theywere undertaken in an ad-hocmanner,withouttheengagementof theentirecommunity.Through-outtherunningof theProgrammenotasinglepublicmeet-ingwasorganised,atwhichRomaandnon-Romainterestedinfundingopportunitiescouldhavemet,learnedaboutthepossibilities and discussed possibilities for collaboration.Furthermore, the consequencesof poororganisation andweaklinkswithlocalauthoritiesandNGOswereevidentinaccessingfundingearmarkedforimplementingemploymentand cultural activities.More than 45% of available fundswerenotutilised,whileimplementedhealthandtrainingac-tivitiesattractedlessthan5%of theintendedparticipants.

Thesombrefindingof thereportwasthattheProgramme’sfundshavepaidlittleattentiontoinstitutionalbarrierstointegrationandhavefailedtoaddresstheimperativeneedforinter-culturaldialogue.AlthoughPolishequalitypolicyenvisions integrationasaprocess thatnecessitatesstruc-turalchangesandawareness-raisingamongmainstreamso-ciety(aboutissuesconcerningminoritiesincludingwomen,peoplewithdisabilities,andnationalandethnicminorities)theProgrammefailedonbothcounts.Exceptfortheinitia-tivesconcernedwithRomateachingassistants, structuraldimensionsof exclusionwerelargelyignoredinsideotherpolicy areas (i.e. themajorityof initiativesoffered“one-off ” training programmes in different fields, targetedalmost exclusively atRoma).Moreover, less than 1%of availablefundswereusedtofinanceinitiativeswhichaimedto disseminate information and knowledge about Romahistory,culture,andtraditions.Surprisinglyevenfewerre-sourceswere devoted to research and project-facilitatinginteractionbetweentheRomaandnon-Romapopulations.Oneof thecommunityleadersbitterlystated:

24 InterviewwithProvincialOfficeinMalopolska(2013).

25 InterviewconductedduringtheconferenceMayorsforRomaInclusionheldinSkalica,Slovakia2011.



“Of course, providing Romani children with books and notebooks is important but without changing the curriculum to include aspects of Romani culture and its contribution to Polish history, proper integration is just a dream. The ‘helping hand’ projects only impose a new culture of dependency, and totally underline the hostility and ignorance of mainstream society towards the Roma. What good are training projects when it is a common practice to reject job ap-plicants based on their belonging to a certain ethnic group? I am not saying that Roma are without their faults, but in order to prompt integration the majority needs to change as well”.26

Thereportconcludedthatfurtherprogressrequirescloserlinksbetweenprojectsaimingtoimprovethequalityof lifeforRoma communities andwider socio-economic inclu-sionpolicies.Itstatedthatthiscouldbeachievedthroughincreasing inter-departmental cooperation and the shareof theRoma representatives in theprocessof planning,implementation and evaluation of projects designed byself-governments and non-Roma NGOs. To ensure theeffectivenessof thispartnershipalleffortsshouldbegov-ernedbycommitmenttosharedobjectivesandclear tar-gets informed by an overarching strategic vision and bytransparency of operations, and strategic interests beinggivenpriorityoverlocalorsectionalinterests.

What will the future bring?

Theunveilingof thenewRomainclusionstrategyunfortu-nately suggests that an isolationist andnarrowaffirmativeparadigmisstillatthecoreof theanticipatedactionplans.ThenewProgrammeremainsbasicallyunchangedwithonlyafewadjustments-mostlyminorproceduralandfundingupdates.Ornamentedwithambitiousgoalsandobjectives,itneithersetsouta real time-framenorpresentsconcreteindicatorsandbenchmarks.Althougheducationisstill theengineof theintegrationpolicy,thenewProgrammedoesnotenvisionanyinnovativeortrulyintegrativereforms(i.e.curriculumchange,introductionof Polishasasecondlan-guage,pedagogicaltrainingetc.),insteaditbasksinpreviousachievements and largely downplays identified shortcom-ings.PerhapsthemostproblematicissueisthefactthattheProgramme’saccountof theRomaquandarydoesnotappeartobebasedon any substantive scientific field researchor

quantitativeassessmentof thesituationontheground.Al-though annual reports providedby theProvincialOfficeshavebeen incorporated, theyrarelycontaindatadisaggre-gatedbyethnicity.Inspiteof theCommission’sassurancethat “theDirective on Protection of PersonalData doesnot forbidcollectionof anonymousstatisticaldata,whichshouldbesufficientforeffectivemonitoringandevaluation”theProgrammecontinuestohidebehindthenationallegis-lation27andbasesitsassessmentspredominatelyonad-hocconsultations with Roma NGOs and problematic censusdata collected in2002and2011.Thus, in thewordsof aRomaleaderfromtheWielkopolskaregion,

“The sad part is that the authorities continue to lack knowledge about who the Roma are, what they do and how they live. There are no country-wide surveys, no qualitative case studies and no assessments of living conditions. The research that actually has been conducted rarely informs policies, and it has not been taken up by the designers of the current Programme. Even more prob-lematic is that fact that Roma culture is consistently viewed as static, hermetic and unchangeable. Thus we are viewed in the same way as we were fifty years ago”.28

TheProgrammeisvirtuallysilentabouttheneedforpartner-shipandinter-culturaldialogue.Assuch,itdoesnotprovideanytoolsforgeneratingcollaborationbetweenpublicinsti-tutionsandNGOsandcommunities.Italsodoesnotenvi-sionanytechnicalsupportforimpoverishedmunicipalitiesandcontinuestotreatRomaNGOsaspassivebeneficiariesandnot as potential engines of empowerment and socialdialogue.Itmustbestatedhowever,thatthusfarRomalead-ersandRoma-ledorganisationshavenotmadesubstantiveefforts to work together and/or engage in dialogue withthemajoritypopulation.Working in isolationnotonlydi-minishestheireffortsto improvethesituation insidetheircommunities,butalsoremovesthemfrompolitical,culturalandsocialdebates.TheabovedynamicsonlyperpetuatethemainchallengesfacingRomaintegrationprogrammes:thereluctanceof local authorities to incorporateRoma issuesinto their political agenda and the lack of interaction be-tweenRomaandnon-Romasocieties.

Finally,theProgrammefailstopresentconcreteanti-discrim-ination measures, especially in the fields of employment,

26 InterviewconductedduringRomaDayConferenceorganisedinPoznan2013.

27 Polish Legal Act of 29 August 1997: on the Protection of Personal Data Journal of Laws of 2002 No. 101,item926.

28 Interviewconductedduringtheconferenceof MayorsforRomaInclusionheldinSkalica,Slovakia2011.


NoTEbook

educationandhealth,whereconsistentinequalityandlackof accesshavebeenwelldocumented.Thestubbornpromotionof conventional trainingwithoutprovisionof initiatives totacklediscriminationlacksanytrueprospectsof addressingoneof thegreatestproblemsfacingthemajorityof Romacommunities.Inaclimateof growinganti-Gypsyismandatimeof economicuncertainty,ignoringcenturies-longpreju-diceanddeeplyingrainedstereotypesjeopardisestheeffec-tiveness and sustainability of proposed programmes. Aid-styleprojects,notcomplimentedbystructuralchangesandfruitful inter-culturaldebate,runahighriskof intensifyinganalreadyconflictedandmistrustfulenvironment.Topro-moteanypositivechangetheProgrammeshouldbesensitivetothechargeof favouringonegroupoveranother,ratherthanbenefitingsocietiesasawhole.Thechallengehereistoavoidthecreationof separatepoliciesandadministrativestructures

forRomaminorities,withoutlosingtheaffirmativeaspectof theprogramme.TheProgrammeneedstorejectthesimplis-ticconceptionof Romacultureandprovideaforumforadebatewhere commonalities rather than differences couldbediscussedandcelebrated.Spendingmoneyonquickandpractical improvements is definitely tempting, but whenundertakenoutside thepoliticalarenawithoutstructureddialogues, it runs the risk of deepening ethnic divisionandfortifyingantagonisticattitudesnotonlytowardstheRoma,butalsotoallotherminoritygroupswhodonotfitthe“Polishmodelof citizenship”.The Programme couldbeinstrumental inovercomingdomesticdivisions, andgen-erate adequate conditions for social cohesion, providingthatitrecognisestheparamountneedtoaddressstructuraldiscrimination and acknowledge thebenefitsof workingtogetherforthebenefitof all.



Streamlining the Decade of Roma inclusion and the EU Framework1

On2ndFebruary2005,ninePrimeMinistersof CentralandEasternEuropeancountries(includingSerbiaandMontene-gro,whichlaterdividedintotwocountries)pledgedthattheirgovernmentswouldworktowardeliminatingdiscriminationand closing the unacceptable gaps betweenRoma and therestof society.Theydeclaredtheyears2005–2015tobetheDecadeof RomaInclusion(the“RomaDecade”)andcom-mitted tosupporting the fullparticipationand involvementof nationalRomacommunitiesinachievingtheDecade’sob-jectivesanddemonstratingprogressbymeasuringoutcomesandreviewingexperiencesintheimplementationof “DecadeActionPlans”.Theydecidedonthepriorityareasof educa-tion,employment,healthandhousing,mainstreamingnon-discrimination,povertyreductionandgenderequality.

TheDecadeisa landmarkinitiativefocusingonRomain-clusion and promoting dialogue between Roma, govern-ments and international actors. It has encouraged and as-sistedparticipating governments to developActionPlans,andinspiredtheEuropeanUnionFrameworkonNationalRoma Integration Strategies (NRIS) up to 2020 (the EUFramework).TheDecadehasestablishedusefulstructuresandpractices,andachievedsubstantiveresultsprimarily intheareaof education.ItistheleadinginitiativeinengagingRomainthepublicpolicydebatesaffectingthem.Italsolaiddownbasicstandardsof cooperationonRomaissues,atthesametimeremainingflexibleandopentointerestedgovern-mentsandinternationalpartners.Since2005,participationhasrisen,withfourmorecountries,twoobservingcountriesandanumberof internationalorganisations.

TheEUFrameworkdrawsinspirationfromandfocusesonthesamepolicyareasastheDecade:education,employment,healthandhousing.Itmentionsgenderequality,butonlyinpassingwithinareferencetothe10CommonBasicPrinciplesonRomaInclusion.ItisrelatedtotheinitiativeEurope 2020 A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth,designedinter aliatocombatpoverty,anddrawsontheRaceEqualityDirec-tive (RED)as the foundational legal instrumentprohibiting

discrimination.Moreover,theEUFrameworksetssomespe-cificbasicobjectivesinallpriorityareas.

Inorder toencouragemeaningful efforts for integrationof Roma, the EU Framework requires all EUMemberStates to develop National Roma Integration Strategies– a requirement similar to theDecade’sNationalActionPlans.Furthermore,theEUFrameworkstipulatesamoni-toring system. The Roma Decade throughout the yearshasalsoadvanced itsownmonitoringsystem,fromsim-ply presenting developments and challenges by govern-ments, Roma civil society and the international partnersattheInternationalSteeringCommitteemeetings,towardsmore structured written reporting by governments andsupport for civil society evidence-basedmonitoring andreporting.BoththeEUFrameworkandtheRomaDecadehaveestablishedsimplecoordinatingstructuresatnationalandinternationallevel.GovernmentsdesignateaNation-alContactPoint in thecaseof theEUFramework,oraNationalDecadeCoordinatorinthecaseof theDecade,to interfacewith the international initiative and to coor-dinate national efforts to implement their official Romainclusion/integration policies. At international level, theEUFramework ismanagedbyaunit at theDirectorate-General (DG) for Justiceof theEuropeanCommission,whichtakestheleadwithintheEuropeanCommissiononRomaissues,atleastwithrespecttoMemberStates.TheRomaDecade ismanaged internationally by theDecadeSecretariat–asmallnon-profitentitysupportedprimarilybytheOpenSocietyFoundationsandwithafairlylimitedmandate to facilitatedialogueandprovide technical sup-port.Boththeinitiativesorganiseregularmeetings–inthecaseof theEUFrameworkthesearethemeetingsof theNationalContactPointsandtheEURomaPlatform,andinthecaseof theRomaDecadetheyaretheInternationalSteeringCommitteemeetingsandthematicevents.

BesidesthefacilitiesofferedbytheRomaDecade,whicharesimilarlyofferedbytheEUFramework,thereareother

1 Decadeof RomaInclusionSecretariatFoundationisthemainfacilitationbodyof theDecadeof RomaInclusionresponsibleforsupportingtheDecadePresidency,coordinatingamongDecadepartners,engagingRomacivilsociety,bringingnewmemberstotheDecade,assistingnationalDecadeplanning,providingtechnicalandexpertadvice,buildingknowledgemanagementsystem,ensuringflowof informationwithinandfromtheDecade.


NoTEbook

facilitiesofferedonlybytheEU.Forinstance,theEUpro-videssignificantfinancialsupportfortheimplementationof theofficialpoliciesof thegovernmentsforRomainclu-sion/integration.TheRomaDecadelacksitsownfundingmechanism.Governmentsareexpected toallocate fundsfor the implementationof theirpoliciesonRoma inclu-sion,withpossible support by international partners, in-cludingtheEU.AnotherfacilityofferedbytheEUisthepossibilitytocorrelateorevenmainstreamRomaintegra-tionwithinotherpoliciesand institutionswithintheEU,suchasthoseexistingintheareasof anti-discrimination/equality, education, employment and youth, tonamebutafew.Theopenmethodof coordinationhasbeenmen-tioned as another facility of the EU Framework. Thismeans peer exchange, support, and review among gov-ernments; it is also theway inwhich theRomaDecadeworks, andmany believe that theDecadehas been verysuccessfulinthisrespect.Asacreationof treaty,theEUhasnumerousinstrumentsandinstitutionstoenforceEUrulesbeyondthenationalenforcementmechanisms,whichisnot thecasewith theRomaDecade.Forexample, theRaceEqualityDirectivecreatesalegallybindingmandateonMemberStatestoenactandenforceanti-discriminationlaw.Moreover,enlargementcountriesareexpectedtoaligntheir lawswith theREDas a conditionof membership,andmosthavetakenstepstodoso.

TheRomaDecadeinspiredtheEUFramework,whichin-corporatedmanyfeaturesof theDecadeintotheEUlegaland bureaucratic structure. Does the Decade now offeranythingaboveandbeyondtheEUFramework?Isthereunnecessaryduplicationinthetwoprocesses?

Forthepastyear,theRomaDecadepartnershavebeenaddressingthesequestionsinconsideringwhetherornottoextendtheDecadebeyond2015.Amulti-stakeholderworkinggrouphasengagedinextensiveconsultationsatnationalandinternationallevelwithalltherelevantRomainclusionactorstoinformthisdecision.ThisprocessledtotheconclusionthattheRomaDecadeshouldcontinue,in close harmonywith theEUFramework, in order tostreamline efforts onRoma inclusion/integration.As aresult,anewDeclarationontheRomaDecadehasbeenformulatedandisintheprocessof beingadoptedbytheparticipatinggovernments.

The first, and probably the most important area wheretheEUFramework can learn from theRomaDecade is

theexperiencegainedwithintheworkonRomainclusion.Throughout the yearsRomaDecadepartners havebeenworking on Roma inclusion, trying various approaches,failing and succeeding and learning along theway. TheyhaveworkedoutmeaningfulwaystosupportRomainclu-sion.Significantresultshavebeenachievedintheareaof education,where,withtheRomaEducationFund’sfinan-cial,technical,coordinatingandpolicysupport,anumberof programmes have been developed and implemented,including pre-school inclusion, drop-out prevention,scholarship support for secondary school and universitystudents,andprogramsforRomaassistants,mediatorsandmentors in all levelsof education, etc.There are similarsuccessstories intheotherpriorityareasaswell,suchasthe Roma health mediators programme, an integral ap-proachtohousing,ororganisingsecondarygoodscollec-tors tosecure their labourrights.RomaDecadepartnersare unequivocal that thework on those successful prac-tices should continue; that they should be institutional-isedhopefullywiththesupportprovidedthroughtheEUFrameworkandEUfunds.Potentiallysuccessfulpracticesbuilding on the knowledge gained throughout the yearsshouldcontinuetobeidentifiedandpilotedbytheRomainclusionpartnersaswasthepracticewithintheDecade.

Inthefuture,theDecademightfocusonspecificobjectiveswithinthepriorityareasthathavethebestpotentialtofeedinto theEUFrameworkobjectives.For example, since theEU sets as an objective in the area of education comple-tionbyallRomanichildrenof primaryeducation,theRomaDecademightconsiderfocusingattentiononearlychildhoodeducation,pre-schooleducationorpreventionof earlyschoolleavingthroughthematicworkshopsandotheractivitiesthatwouldsignificantlycontributetotheEUFrameworkobjec-tive.Orintheareaof health,wheretheEUFrameworkfo-cusesonaccesstohealthcare,theRomaDecademightfocusoncommunity-basedhealthcareandmethodstoincreasethenumberof Romahealthworkers,includingRomamediators.

In thiscontext it is important tohighlight the role thattheRomaEducationFundhasplayedinadvancingRomainclusionintheareaof education.Asaprivatefounda-tion operating relatively independently of bureaucraticandpoliticalconstraints,REFhasproventobeextremelybeneficial,supportingthedevelopmentandimplementa-tionof innovativeprogrammes.Itwouldbevaluabletoreplicate this institution forotherpriority areas, subjectof coursetotheavailabilityof funds.



Onesuccessfulelementof theRomaDecadedifficult toreplicateintheEUFrameworkisthemeaningfulinvolve-mentof Romainthewholepolicycycleof Romainclusiononlocalnationalandinternationallevels.Romaparticipa-tionhasbeensupportedwithintheRomaDecadethroughfundingprovidedby theOpen SocietyFoundations, andtheactiveengagementof theSecretariatincapacitybuild-ing,coordinationandnetworking, facilitationof dialoguebetweenRomacivilsocietyanddecision-makersandcontri-butiontoinformationsharing.Beyondthewell-establishedpractice of participation of Roma in all Decade-relatedeventsatinternationallevel,aswellasplanning,implement-ingandmonitoringRomainclusionpoliciesandmeasuresat national and local level, themost recent initiatives of Roma civil society monitoring and Roma Decade FocalPoints2arethemselveshighlybeneficialtoRomaparticipa-tionandtotheimprovementof Romainclusionpolicy.Atthe same time, theEUFrameworkoffers theEURomaPlatformwhereRomarepresentativeshavesomeopportu-nitytocontributetotheRomaintegrationdiscourse.How-ever,thismechanismoffersonlylimitedopportunitiesforcivil-society-government dialogue on policy developmentandimplementation.TheRomaDecadeoffersamorero-bustplatformfortheexchangeof information,goodprac-ticesandpolicydevelopment,comparedtotheEUFrame-workanditsPlatform,whichislimitedinitsfrequencyandpossibilitiesfordeeperdiscussions.TheDecadeof RomaInclusion has established a practice of focused thematicdiscussions inareas suchas: funding,monitoringand re-porting, hate speech, anti-discrimination legislation, civilregistration,andendingeducational segregation, tonamebutafew.Itengagesawiderangeof Romainclusion/inte-grationactors,includinggovernmentalexpertsanddirectlyinvolvedpublicofficials, aswell asRomaandnon-Romacivil society and international organisations. Of course,thereisalonglistof specificissuesthatwouldbenefitfromfocuseddiscussionsandexchangeinthefuture.

Another very important point frequently highlighted asa feature of the Roma Decade that can contribute andshould be related to the EU Framework is the involve-mentof non-EUcountriesinRomainclusion/integrationprocesseswithintheEU.TheRomaDecadeacceptsonanequal footingEUmember states andenlargement coun-triesandhascooperatedwiththeEUenlargementstruc-turesof theEuropeanCommissioninanefforttobring

enlargementcountriesclosertotheEUFramework.More-over,theEuropeanCommissionhasclearlyrecognisedthecapacityof theDecade in this respectandwould like tosee it continue towork activelywith enlargement coun-tries,asDGJusticedealslargelywithmemberstates,andtheDirectorate-GeneralforEnlargementaddressesmanyissues apart fromRoma inclusion/integration,TheDec-adeisabletobringtothetablealltherelevantcountriesfor Roma inclusion/integration, including EU MemberStates,EUenlargement andneighbouring countries, andallrelevantplayers,includinggovernment,civilsocietyandinternationalorganisations.

Thefundingof Romainclusion/integrationeffortsisanad-ditionalaspectthatisrelevantforboththeEUFrameworkandtheRomaDecade.TheRomaDecadehaslimiteddedi-catedfundingopportunities–thereisonlytheDecadeTrustFundtowhichparticipatinggovernmentsandtheOpenSo-cietyFoundationshavecontributedarelativelysmallamountof funding to organise thematic events within the RomaDecade.Fundingof theimplementationof Romainclusion/integrationpoliciesatnationallevelistheresponsibilityof theparticipatinggovernments.EUfunds(structuralfundsandInstrumentforpre-AccessionAssistance)areavailabletosupportimplementationof DecadeActionPlansandEUNationalRomaIntegrationStrategies,shouldgovernmentsdecidetomakeuseof thosefunds.Thereisnoearmarkedfundingfortheimplementationof theNRIS.Somearguethat there is a lack of funding opportunities; others criti-ciseinsufficientcapacitieswithinimplementingagenciestoabsorbavailablefunding,oroverlyburdensomeconditionsforabsorbingsuchfunding.Mostwouldagreethattoolit-tleavailablefundingisbeingusedeffectivelytoaddresstheprioritiesof theDecadeandtheEUFramework.Therefore,fundingof theimplementationof theRomainclusionpoli-ciesisachallengefrommanyaspects.

TheRomaEducationFund and theMaking theMostof EUfunds forRoma (MtM)Programme,each inspiredbytheDecadeof RomaInclusion,offerusefullessonsaboutefficientandeffectivefundingof Romainclusion/integra-tion.Theexperienceof theRomaEducationFundshowsthathavingadedicatedfundmanagedrelativelyindepend-entlyandfreefrompoliticalconstraintscanhelpensurethatdonor funds achieve real impact. TheMtM uses capacitybuildingandprovisionof technicalsupporttogovernments

2 MoreinformationabouttheRomacivilsocietymonitoringandDecadeFocalPointscanbefoundontheRomaDecadewebsite,availableat:www.romadecade.org.


NoTEbook

and civil society to help the absorption of EU funds forRomainclusion/integration.TheRomaDecadeandtheEUFrameworkneedtoworkcloselytodevelopsimilarstrate-giesaimingattacklingthechallengestothefundingof theimplementationof Romainclusion.

If theDecadeistocontinuetocoexistwiththeEUframe-work,thetwoinitiativesneedtominimiseduplicationof requirementsandefforts.There isnoneedtohaveDec-ade Action Plans alongside National Roma IntegrationStrategies: all states, whether EUmember states or not,shouldbeencouragedtodevelopNationalRomaIntegra-tionStrategiesconsistentwiththeEUFramework(whichwouldalsobeconsistentwiththeDecadeapproach).Allstates,whetherEUmember statesornot, shouldhaveasinglegovernmentcontactpoint to interactwith theEUandtheDecadebureaucraciesonRomaissues,andhope-fully, tocoordinateat thenational levelRoma inclusion/integrationeffortsacrossnationalgovernmentstructures.All states should also report regularly on the implemen-tation of Roma inclusion/integration using a commonreporting template that can be accepted by theEU andDecade.Similarly,civilsocietyorganisationsreportingin-dependently on inclusion/integration should follow thesametemplate.HarmonisationshouldnotbelimitedtotheDecadeandEUframework,butshouldalsobeextendedtoall international initiatives forRoma inclusion, includ-ingthoseof theCouncilof EuropeandtheOrganisationforSecurityandCo-operationinEurope.Harmonisationshouldalsoincludeeliminatingmeetingsandconferences

onthesubjectof Romainclusion/integration,tothegreat-estextentpossible.TheDecadeSecretariat,theEuropeanCommission,Councilof Europe,OSCE,WorldBankandinterestedUNagenciesshouldmakeanefforttocreateajointtwo-yearscheduleof meetingsandconferences,andtocollaborateontheirorganisationwheneverpossible.

TheEUFrameworkhas raisedefforts for the inclusionof Romatoahigherlevel,buthasnotreducedtheneedtocon-tinueandadvancetheRomaDecade.Rather,astrongneedfor close cooperation between the two initiatives has beenidentifiedinordertoliftuptheexistingexperiencesandprac-ticesof theRomaDecadeandtomakethebestuseof thefacilitiesprovidedbytheEUFramework.Themainissuestobeaddressedwithinthestreamliningeffortsbetweenthetwoinitiativesaretheneedstoreplicatethebestpracticesof theRomaDecadeinthepriorityareas,toamplifyalreadyestab-lishedpracticesundertheDecadeof Romaparticipationinthepolicydialogue, touse theexperienceand information-sharingpioneeredbytheRomaDecade,tousethecoverageof theRomaDecadeoutside theEU, towork together inaddressing the challenges and improving the situationwithregardtothefundingof theimplementationof Romainclu-sion/integrationpoliciesandtoharmonisestructuralprocess-esandrequirementsinordertoavoidduplicationandfacilitateparticipationbygovernments.TheDecadeSecretariatandtheEuropeanCommissionareactivelyengagedineffortstoad-dressthechallengesthathavebeenidentifiedandtoachievefruitfulcooperationbeneficial forbothsides, for theRomainclusion/integrationpartners,andaboveallfortheRoma.



Roma Women’s Voices and Silences on Unjust power Regimes1

e n i K o V i n c z e 2

introduction: paper overview

Mypaperaimstoofferageneralideaof how“Romawom-en” were constructed as political subject by political andpolicy discourses in the context of theEuropeanUnion,withspecialreferencetotheexampleof Romania.3Intermsof empiricalmaterial,theanalysisisbasedonmyresearchconductedonRomawomen’saccesstoreproductivehealthrights interpreted as a phenomenon of social exclusion,4as an issue shaped by politically and ideologically drivenpolicies5andasamatterof everydaynegotiationsbetween“culture”and“rights”orof thesociallifeof rightsinthecontextof particularpower regimes.6But it also reliesonmyrecentinvestigationsaboutRomamarginalisation,7andmoreoveronexperiencesgainedfromactivistwork.

The paper observes that during two decades after 1990,thepolitical andpolicydiscoursespredominantly framed“Romawomen”inthedichotomyof genderversusculture.Asaresponsetothemainstream/male-streamethno-cul-tural Roma politics they were (self)conceived as womenentitled to universal (women’s) human rights struggling,

through their gendered positions, against the anti-Romaracism of the majority population and for a dignifyingRomaidentity.Morerecently,inthecontextof thecurrentbroadertrendsof EUpoliciesregardingRoma,onemayobserve that the “nation-builder”Romapolitics is shad-owedbyasocialagendainformedbyinclusionpolicy.Butthelatterisnotaddressingclassrelationsandthemultipledispossessionof Roma(instead, it treatssocialexclusionwithanapproachthatplacespoorRomainbetweenindi-vidual failures andvulnerablegroups), and treats “Romawomen”(andRomaaltogether)asapotentiallabourforceusefulforthemarketeconomy.Parallelwiththis,nowadaysonemayobserveaprocesssustainedbothbythestateandinstitutionalisedcivilsociety,whichde-politicisespoverty,pretendingthatthehugesocialproblemsencounteredbyabigpartof thepopulationareakindof accidentoraretheoutcomesof individualfailuresof adaptingtothemarketeconomyandmightbebesthandledwithaproject-basedapproach.Despitethesetrends,therearesignsintheRo-manianpublicspherethatshowthepoliticalpotentialof Romawomen.Thepapertalksaboutthisinthecontextof therelationshipbetweenRomaandnon-Romafeminists,

1 Paperpresentedatthe20thInternationalConferenceof EuropeanistsorganizedbytheCouncilforEuropeanStudies,Amsterdam,25-27June2013:Crises and contingency: states of (in)stability Panel:Romani activism, challenged democracies, contentious politics.

2 EnikoVinczeisprofessorof socio-culturalanthropologyandfeminismatBabes-BolyaiUniversity,Cluj,Romania.Sheconductedresearch,publishedandhasbeeninvolvedintoactivismonRomaniwomen,aswellasonschooling,labourandhousingintermsof policiesandeverydayexperiencesrelatedtomarginalized(Roma)communities.CurrentlysheiscoordinatingtheresearchSpatialisation and racialisation of Social Exclusion(www.sparex-ro.eu),supportedbyagrantof theRomanianNationalAuthorityforScientificResearch,CNCS–UEFISCDI,projectnumberPN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0354.

3 AdescriptiveoverviewonRomawomen’sactivismrespondingtohumanrightsviolationsisofferedbyIssuenumber4of theRoma Rightsquarter-lypublishedbytheEuropeanRomaRightsCentrein2006,entitledRomani Women’s Rights Movemen,tthat,amongothers,presentssnapshotsontheissuefrom16countries.Inthesameyear,tworesearchersfromRomaniapublishedtheirresultsaboutthestatusof RomaniwomeninRomania(SurduandSurdu,2006).AfewyearsearlierOSCEreportedonRomawomen’saccesstopublichealthcare.

4 Magyari-Vincze,Social Exclusion at the Crossroads of Gender, Ethnicity and Class. A View through Romani Women’s Reproductive Health,(Cluj-Napoca:EFES,2006).

5 Magyari-Vincze,“PublicPoliciesasVehiclesof SocialExclusion:theCaseof RomaniWomen’sAccesstoReproductiveHealthinRomania”,inGender Politics in Post-Communist Eurasia(MichiganStateUniversityPres,2009)87-119.

6 Vincze,Enikő“Culture,rightsandmoralentitlement”,inNeviSaraKaliRoma Women’s Journal,Issuenr.2,(2010)9-29.

7 Spatialization and racialization of exclusion. The social and cultural formation of ’Gypsy ghettos’ in Romania in a European context(2011-2014),supportedbytheprogrammeIDEIof theRomanianNationalResearchPlan,availableat:www.sparex-ro.eu;Faces and Causes of Marginalisation of the Roma in Local Set-tings: Hungary – Romania – Serbia,ajointinitiativeof theUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammemeBratislavaRegionalCenter,theRomaInitiativesOfficeandtheMakingtheMostof EUFundsforRomaprogrammeof theOpenSocietyFoundations,andtheCentralEuropeanUniversity/CenterforPolicyStudies,researchcarriedoutbytheResearchCentreforEconomicandRegionalStudies,HungarianAcademyof Sciences,DesiréFoundati-onfromCluj,Romania,andBelgradeUniversity,Serbia(October2012-June2014),availableat:http://www.desire-ro.eu/?attachment_id=531.


NoTEbook

andbothof theneed to fill in theclassgap inwomen’smovement and to build connections between structuralandpoliticalintersectionality.

Inafirststepthepaperdescribeshowboththeethno-culturaland socio-economic paradigmof EuropeanRomapolitics,fordifferentreasons,practicedagender-neutrality,whichac-tuallyfunctionedasgenderblindness.Infrontof this,femaleactivistsvoicingRomawomen’sexperienceshadandhavetofightwithamajorchallenge:turningtabooorsilencedissuesintorespectedandrelevanttopicsof theRomamovement.

Initssecondchapter,thepaperrecallsthefirstmomentsof Romawomen’srepresentationandparticipationontheEuropeanpolicyagenda,observingthemajorideasaroundwhichtheywerearticulated,aswellas thebeginningsof healthmediationcreated inRomania.The latterempow-eredRomawomenfromlocalcommunitiestoincreasetheaccessof theirdisadvantagedfellowstopublichealthcare.Thethirdchapterof thepapernoticeshowthecurrentEuro-peanframeworkforRomapoliciesisframingRomawomen’sissuesinthelanguageof economicargumentsforRomainclu-sion.Inaddition,ithighlightstheproposalsof somefemaleactivistsfromRomaniabywhichtheyintendedtoparticipateontherevisionof theNationalRomaInclusionStrategy.

Last,butnotleast,inthefourthchapterIamgoingtoscru-tinisesomeof theparticularitiesof howRomawomenareaffectedby advancedmarginalityorby living inmultiplydeprivedterritories,observingthat this issue isneglectedbycurrentpoliticsandpolicymeasures.

Inthefifthchapter,bymakinguseof someideasdevelopedintheRomaparticipationliterature,andinfeministintersec-tionalitytheories,thepaperformulatesadiagnosisaboutthecausesandmanifestationsof thecurrentde-politicisationof socio-economicaspectsof Romamarginalisation.

Finally, initsconclusions,myanalysispresentsanargumentonthe(potential)transformationof Romawomen(activists)intopoliticalactorsandontheneedforre-politicisingpov-erty intersectedwith other (gendered and racialised) formsof marginalisation.Inthismatter,myanalyticalframeisalsobasedontheapproacheswithinanthropologyof policy,ac-cordingtowhichpoliciesarenotneutralinstrumentsforsolv-ingproblems,butareformsof powerthat“organisesociety

andstructurethewayspeopleperceivethemselvesandtheiropportunities” and arehaving a contribution “to empowersomepeopleandsilenceothers”.8 In thissenseoneshouldidentifyandchallenge–bothinresearchandsocialactivism–thepoliticalconvictionsunderlyingparticularpoliciesthataddressmarginalisedRoma(women)ortheabsenceof otherpolicies rooted inspecificviewsabout thecausesandrem-edies of (intersectional) marginalisation. By this, ultimatelyhe/shemightcontributetoaRomapoliticsaddressinghow–whileshapingandsustainingeachother–classism,racismandsexismcreateandmaintainsocio-economicandculturalsystemsthatdispossesspoorRomaof opportunitystructurestocontroltheirmeansof living,bodiesorrepresentation.

gender-neutral or gender-blind Roma politics in Europe

Thepost-communisthistoryof Romanipoliticsismarked,amongotherways,byadivisionbetweentheethno-culturaland the socialparadigmdefinedandusedbydifferent in-dividualsandgroupsatlocal,nationalandEuropeanlevel.Nowadays this division is becomingmore andmore ten-sioned,asfollowersof ethno-culturalismareblamingsocio-economicallyorientedactivistsforthefailuresof socialin-clusionpolicies.Theyassertthatdespitethemeasurestakeninthepasttwentyyearsundertheheadingof inclusion,todaythemajorityof ethnicRomacontinuetoliveinpovertyandthemajoritypopulation ismoreandmoreready toblameRomaforundeservinglyreceivingtoomuch“socialassist-ance”.Ethno-culturallyorientedelitesinsistthatinsteadof victimisingdiscourseandpracticedemandingredistribution,andof claimsforuniversalhumanrights,oneshouldbetterfocus on cultural recognition, assuming accountability forone’sowndestiny,andacquiringrespectanddignity.

It isknownthatat least since the1970sethnicpoliticshasinformedtheeffortsof Romanation-building,which–intheabsenceof an“ownnation-state”–aimedatcreatingasenseof ethnicsolidarityandpridebasedonRomanilanguageandonthesetof traditionsframedunderRomanipen,whilede-mandingtherecognitionof culturalandlinguisticrights.Ontheotherhand,envisagedundertheumbrellaof socialEu-ropeandof claimingsocio-economicrights,thesociallyori-entedpoliticsfocusedpeople’sattentiononexclusion,margin-alisationandpoverty.Ethnicdiscriminationandracismwere

8 Shore,CrisandWrite,Susan(Eds.),Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power(NewYork:Routledge,1997).



moreorlessemphasisedbybothtypesof politics;however–dependingonthepoliticalideologiesinwhichtheygotframed–theywerestressedtodifferentdegrees.

Forquitealongtime,genderawarenessdidnotcharacteriseRomapoliticsinanyof itsforms.Inthecontextof ethno-culturalparadigmsRomniwereconceivedasnaturallybear-ingtheroleof reproducingandnurturingthe‘nation’(neam,naţiune)bothinabiologicalandculturalsense,butwerenotrecognised as political subjects. The socio-economic par-adigmwasnobetter either in termsof addressingRomawomen’s status in the community or in broader society:their particular needs and interests and experienceswereshadowedbytheseeminglygender-neutraleffectsof pov-ertyandsocialexclusiononRomacommunities.Onemaysay that fora longperiodof time,Romawomen’spublicvoicesweresilencedundertheshadeof “Culture”/identitypoliticsor“Society”/socialinclusionpolicies,blindtowardsinternaldivisionsandtowardsgenderedandracialisedclasshierarchiesbetweenRomaandnon-Roma.

Ironically, for example inRomania,Romawomen’s statuswithin their own communities was addressed first by the(otherwise patriarchal) mainstream public discourse in afalsefeminist tone,whichwasseeminglydeeplyconcernedabout their subordination to community norms regard-ing earlymarriage and childbirth.This was and remains a challenge that nowadays Roma feminists are faced with:protecting women’s and children’s rights within their own communities while deconstructing the way in which such mainstream positions are reproducing con-victions according to which Roma are an inferior race performing pre-modern/primitive practices of life.9

The appearance of Romani women around the European policy-making table

The Europenisation trend towards Roma started at thebeginningof the1990s.Theconceptof Roma/Gypsyas

a “European” issuewas formally acknowledged in1993,when a Resolution of the Council of Europe declaredGypsiestobe“atrueEuropeanminority”,asfarastheywereidentifiedinalmosteveryEuropeancountry,totalingapopulationof 7to9million,oreven12millionaccord-ingtootherestimations.Laterduringthe1990s“theRomaproblem”wasaboutbeingassociatedwithEastEuropeancountries,amongstthem,mostimportantly,withRomaniawhoseaccessiontotheEuropeanUnionwasconditioned,amongotherways,by“findingasolutiontothisissue”.

The rights basedRoma discourse started to explore thegender dimension of racial discrimination and Romaniwomen’ssituationattheendof the1990s,whentheSpe-cialistGrouponRoma/Gypsiesof theCouncilof Europedecidedatits7thmeetinginStrasbourg(29-30March1999)torequestaconsultanttoprepareanintroductoryreportonThe Situation of Roma/Gypsy Women in Europe.The re-port framed the problem in terms of how Romni are experiencing the conflicts between traditional culture and modern society, and between acting for cultural rights on behalf of their groups and women’s rights as universal human rights.Around this time, theNet-workWomenProgrammeof theOpenSociety Institutestarted to also show interest towardsRomawomen andlaunched the Roma Women’s Initiative programme. Asa result, some youngwomen activists endedupworkingwithin international women’s agencies, others were get-tingpositionswithininternationalwomen’snetworkswhilekeepingtheirlocalinstitutionalaffiliations,andyetothersenteredintonationalRomaorganisationswhilealsobeinginvolved in gender-related programmes or even separateNGOsdealingwithwomen-specificissues.10

Altogether,onemayconcludethatduringthosetimesRoma women’s voice in the public sphere was mediated by in-ternational or European organisations supporting the creation of different forms of Roma women’s represen-tation.Outof these,inRomaniatheinstitution of health mediation(initiatedasearlyas1993)provedtobethemost

9 Biţu,NicoletaandMorteanu,Crina,The Case of Early Marriages within Roma Communities in Romania: Are the Rights of the Child Negotiable? (Bucharest:RomaniCRISS,2010).

10 FragmentsfromtheRoundtable discussion: Romani women and civic activismcriticallyrevealpastmomentsof women’sorganizing,butalsoplansforthefuture(see:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX-llnSAL4I).TheeventtookplaceattheconferenceRoma women for equal opportunitiesorganizedinTimisoara,Romania,between30June–2July2011withintheprojectEquality through difference.Roma women’s access to the labor market,withtheparticipationof LetiţiaMark(AFT,Timişoara);CrinaMorteanu(ERSTEFoundation,Bucharest);CarmenGheorghe(E-Romnia,Bucharest);RosemaryKosticCisnerosandMontserratSanchezAroca(DromKotarMestipen,Barcelona);TeodoraKrumova(CenterAmalipe,VelikoTurnovo,Bulgaria);SebihanaSkenderovska(NationalRomaCentrum,Kumanovo,Republicof Macedonia);ViolettaZentai(CEUCPSBudapestHungary)andothers.


NoTEbook

successfuloneatgrassrootslevel.11Thiswasduetothefactthatitsimultaneouslyaimedtoimprovetheaccessof margin-alisedRomatopublichealthcareandtargetedRomaniwom-en’sempowerment.TheRomahealthmediator,conceivedasapublicpositionforwomen,wastryingtoputintopracticetheidealof balancing between mothering as a traditional role highly respected within Romani communities and taking care of the relationship between Roma groups/families and larger local communities which they be-longed to.Atthesametimehealthmediatorsweresupposedto tackleoneof themostsensitive issuesof anethnicmi-norityfacedwithracialdiscrimination.Theyhadtofigureouthow Romni might make use of their reproductive rights without becoming victims of racist fertility control and without being blamed by their own families/commu-nities for not fulfilling the sacred duties they were sup-posed to have in terms of childbirth.

Forms of gender awareness in current Roma inclusion policies

TheshiftfromdefiningRomaasa“trans-nationalEuropeanminority” toconceiving themasa“Europeansocialprob-lem”washappeningat theturnof thecentury,and itwasconsecratedforgoodwiththelaunch,in2011,of theEuro-peanframeworkforRomainclusionstrategies.Thelatterhadagreat role insituating issuesof Romapovertyandsocialexclusion in between the responsibilities of the EuropeanUnion and theMember States, and it aimed at raising theawarenessof allstakeholdersaboutthegapsbetweenRomaandthenon-Romapopulationinalldomainsof life.Despitetheseachievements,thisframeworkstrategypushedthere-alitiesof humanrightsviolations,ethnicdiscriminationandracismtothebackgroundof Romapolicies,andleftnoroomforrecognitionpoliticsorforaddressingtherelationshipbe-tweenthisandsocialinclusionpolicies.ItdefinedargumentsforRomainclusionintermsof theeconomicbenefitsthatthismightbringtoEuropeansocietiesasawhole,statingthat:

“Addressing the situation of Roma in terms of employment, poverty and education will contribute to progress towards Europe 2020 employment, social inclusion and education targets”.12

This strategy makes some explicit references to Roma women,butwithin thesamediscursive frame.Theyare mentioned in the context of the reduced employment and the increased school abandonment rates among Roma, and also in the context of problematic access to quality health care, but the promotion of gender equality is not conceptualised here in terms of wom-en’s rights or social justice and multiple discrimina-tion is not addressed either.

AsfarastheRomanianNationalStrategyfortheSocialInclusionof Romaisconcerned,itconsideredthe“gen-derdimension”of theaddressedproblemsnotunderthetargetedfoursectorialchapters,butamongstthetenbasicprinciples assumedby thispolicydocument.Under the“principleof equalopportunitiesandgenderawareness”,theStrategydeclares:

“theGovernment Strategy for Romaminority inclu-sionenvisagesthecentralroleof womenwhoplayanimportantrolewithintheirfamiliesandminority,alsobyincreasingtheirlevelof educationandqualification,aswellastheiremploymentrate,byinvolvingthemintheeducationof childrenandotheractivitiesthaten-suretheincreaseof welfarelevelof families,familyco-hesionandthedevelopmentof futuregenerations.”13

Approached inMay2012by theEuropeanCommissionto revise its strategy of a document that did notmakereferences toRomawomenor to thegenderdimensionof Roma marginalisation, the Romanian government,through its National Agency for Roma, collected someproposals for revision from civil society organisationsby the end of May 2013. The proposals coming fromwomen’s groups focused on violence against womenandhealth issues. Regarding the latter, proposals high-lighted the dramatic situation of Roma women in terms of life expectancy(atthe60yearsof age,itis13yearslowerthanthelifeexpectancyof non-Romawomen,anditisoneyearlowerthanthelifeexpectancyof Romamen),orintermsof maternal mortality rate(0.62%incase of Roma, compared to 0.04% in case of majoritywomen). Besides their causes entrenched in community

11 Evaluationsof thisinitiativearetobefoundinSchaaf,(2005);Wamsiedel,VinczeandIonescu(2012).

12 EuropeanCommission,An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020, 4.

13 Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizens belonging to Roma Minority, for the period 2012 – 2020,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_romania_strategy_en.pdf.



normsregardinggenderrelationsandwomen’sbodyandsexuality,theseproblemsarerootedinthestructuraldis-advantagesthatRomawomenarefacedwith,suchasthelackof healthinsuranceandthediscriminatorypracticesof healthcareproviders.Connected toviolence,activistsmentioned that the phenomenon of violence against Roma women is still invisible in Romania.However,somesmall-scalequalitativeresearchandinformalobser-vationsmadeatgrassroots levelduringactivistworkof-feredusalarminghintsabouthowRoma women, under conditions of poverty and marginalisation, become victims of trafficking, prostitution and physical vio-lence.Consequently,theyproposedtheelaborationof asystemof identifying such cases, offering special assist-ance to victims, running educational programmes andcampaigns,andmostimportantlyintroducing an inter-sectional approach towards policies preventing and eliminating violence against women.

lack of adequate policy responses to prob-lems of marginalised Roma (women)

The current economic crisis and the ways in which theRomanian state continues to impose austerity measuresfor“solving”it,reinforcebothsocialinequalitiesresultingfrompost-communisteconomicrestructuringandcurrentneoliberalregimes,andmanifestationsof racismandpop-ulismdirectedagainstimpoverishedRoma.

If onelookstothemapof Romania,he/shemayobservethatmany compactRoma communities live in rural areaswhereeconomicactivityisreducedtosubsistenceeconomy;orinsmalltownswhereworkdisappearedduetothecol-lapseof industriesonwhich,before1990,theirurbanisationwasbased;orinpoorneighbourhoodsof bigcitiesthatareusuallylocatedinpollutedenvironments,andsociallyisolat-edandculturallystigmatisedurbanareas.Theformationof suchvicinitiesistheresultof manifoldmechanisms,includ-ingpoliciesof localdevelopmentthatcreatespatialdivisions

withinthelocalitiestryingtoexcludeandtomakeinvisibletheirunwantedandscapegoatedelements,suchasimpover-ishedRoma.Theinhabitantsof suchspacesareaffectedbymultiple(includinghousing)deprivations,haveaccessonlytoprecarious informal labouror tounderpaid jobs in theformaleconomy,havelowexpectanciesandreducedfinan-cialpossibilitiesregardingschoolparticipation,and,gener-allyspeaking,areendangeredbyvarious insecurities(fromthelackof identityandpropertydocuments,throughtothelackof healthinsurance,tothedifficultiesof survivalfromonedaytoanother).14Inadditiontothis,theyareblamedforbeingpoor,orforbeingsociallyassistedinanundeservingmanner, andmost importantly, forbeing the inferior racewhichlikeslivingundersuchconditionsandwhichshouldbeseparatedfromthemajoritypopulationinschools,jobs,and residential areas.Roma women are pushed to the margins by the whole socio-economic system as mem-bers of their dispossessed class and under these condi-tions of severe poverty are making tremendous efforts to fulfil the household and motherhood-related duties allocated to them by a domestic patriarchal regime. These private and public socio-economic orders even-tually exhaust their bodies and endanger their lives (as statistics on Roma women’s life expectancy shows). Si-multaneously, their sexuality is expropriated from two directions: on the one side they are viewed as bearing the obligation for the biological reproduction of their own ethnic group, and on the other hand they become targets of racist fertility control and undignifying dis-courses according to which they give birth to children with less value than majority mother’s children (as practices of sterilisation or discourses on Roma and non-Roma fertility demonstrate).

Furthermore,if advancedmarginality15characterisedbythemultitudeof dispossessionsmentionedabovehappens inasociallyandspatiallysegregatedandghettoisedareathatmakesimpossibletheaccessof inhabitantstoanyformof socialandlegalprotection,intimeitmightproduceinter-nalmechanismsof exploitation.16Thosepeoplewho,under

14 Causesandaspectsof thespatialisationandracialisationof Romaexclusionarerevealedbymyrecentinvestigationsbasedonfieldworkconductedinfivebigcities(availableat:www.sparex-ro.eu),andin5smallcitiesand20villages(availableat:http://www.desire-ro.eu/?cat=6)inRomania.

15 IamusingthistermafterWaquant(2008),describingthenewformof socialexclusionandexpulsioninneoliberalregimes,whichdoesnotstemfromeconomiccrisesorunderdevelopment,butisrathertheresultof economicrestructuringanditsunequaleconomiceffectsonthelowestfactionof workersandsubordinatedethniccategories.Thespecificadvancedurbanmarginalitythatemergesinfull-blownandglobalneoliberaleconomicandpoliticcontexthastobedistinguishedfromformerformsof urbanpoverty,whichhasbeenacharacteristicfeatureof earlierstagesof capitalismand,wemayadd,of latesocialisminRomania.

16 Inthiscontext,theEuropeanRomaRightsCenterdocumentedinafewcountriesthesensitiveissueof traffickinginRomaniCommunities(ERRC2011).


NoTEbook

these conditions, have access to any source of “welfare”(suchaselectricity,orrunningwater,orrelationswithau-thorities, or connections with humanitarian aid-distribu-tors)might dominate themost vulnerable individuals of thegroupbycreatingcirclesof redistributivedependencybetweenthemselvesandthelatter.Exploitationhappeninginsuchencapsulatedspacesreproducedintimetakesdiffer-entforms:financial(asitisinthecaseof usury);material(asinthecaseof sellingthescarcegoodstothoseinneedonahigherpricethantheyactuallycost);sexual(asisthecasewithwomen’s forcedprostitution);human (as in thecaseof childrensentforbegging);economic(asisthecasewithforcedlabour).These are instances when the dis-empowerment of marginalised women is multiplied and (re)produced by the interaction between several forms of subordination.Andthisisthestateof affairs,whichwould necessitate complex intersectional interven-tionssustainedduringlongperiodsof time,includingtheempowermentof rights-holders, territorial desegregation,theassuranceof adequateandaffordablehousing,creationof jobopportunities,orbrieflyput,acomplexhuman,so-cial and infrastructuraldevelopmentprogrammewith thespecialassistanceof themostvulnerable.

But unfortunately the Romanian state was not willing and/or capable to elaborate and implement intersec-tional policies which could have acted on severe cases of social inequality and marginalisation produced at the juncture of class oppression, patriarchy and racism as intersecting forms of social and cultural domina-tion.Eventuallyitistobeobservedthatduringtimeswhenpublicpoliciesarefocusingoncuttingwelfarebudgets,andwhenthestateispreoccupiedwithjustifyingwhyitshouldsupportthe‘freemarket’andtheprivatisationof allspheresof life,andwhyitshouldstopbeingaforceof developmentandwelfare,itismorethanidealistictobelievethatitwillactinsucharolewithregardstoRomainclusionpolicies.

The ongoing de-politicisation of socio-eco-nomic (Roma) issues

Insteadof fulfilling itssocialrole,particularlyduringthepast fiveyears theRomanianstatehas tried to transpose

its inclusionandhuman rights relatedaccountabilities tocivilsocietyorganisations.Itpretendedthatthehugesocialproblemsthatabigpartof thepopulationisfacedwithareakindof accidentoraretheoutcomesof individualfail-uresof adaptingtothemarketeconomyandmightbebesthandledwithaproject-basedapproach.Moreover,itcon-tributed to thede-politicisationof Romamarginalisationandanti-Romaracism,andtransformedthese issues intoseeminglypoliticallyneutralpolicymatters.Manyscholarsobservethatthisisamoregeneraltrendcharacterisingthefieldof EuropeanRomapoliticsandpolicies.VanBaar,forexample,statesthatnowadays“primarypoliticalproblemstendtoberemovedfromthedomainof politicaldiscourseandreformulatedinthe‘objective’and‘neutral’ languageof expertise,policy-makingandscience”.17

Intheirturn,mainlysincetheEuropeanstructuralfundsbe-cameavailableinthiscountry,theRomanianRomaorganisa-tionsseemedtobereadytotransformthemselvesintoserv-iceprovidersandtocompetewitheachotheronthemarketof European-fundedprojects.Butobviously,theseorganisa-tionscouldnotsolvethestructuralproblemsfacedbymar-ginalisedRomacommunities,suchassocio-spatialsegrega-tion,lackof adequateandaffordablehousing,lackof decentjobsthatmightassuresteppingoutof poverty,oreliminat-inginstitutionalobstaclesof participationinsocietallifeandtheunderlyinganti-Gypsyracism.Insteadtheyareatriskof being transformed into bureaucraticmachineries reportingtargetgroupindicatorsandsustainingthemselvesfinancially,amongothers trying to survive the shortcomings resultingfromtheinadequatenationalmanagementof theEU-funds-relatedoperational programmemes.Enforcedby the typesof projectcalls,NGOswereofferingaseriesof vocationalcoursesundertheconditionsof alabormarketthatdoesnotdemand labor force, they started running social economyprogrammesintheabsenceof alawforsocialeconomy,ortheyfocusedonfacilitatingschoolparticipationof individualchildrenwithouthavingcontrolontheinstitutionalmecha-nismscausingschoolabandonmentandmistrustintheedu-cationalsystem.Eventually,thesecivilsocietyorganisationslosttheircredibilityinfrontof Romacommunitiesthattheyweresupposedserving,whilethecreationof newgrassrootsorganisationsbecamealmostimpossible.The NGOisation of the Roma movement18 and the financialisation of

17 vanBaar,Huub,The European Roma. Minority Representation, Memory, and the Limits of Transnational Governmentality,(Amsterdam:2011)13.

18 Rostas,Iulius“TheRomaniMovementinRomania:Institutionalizationand(De)mobilization”,InRomani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization and the Neoliberal Order,edsNadorSigonaandNidhiTreghan.(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2009)159-185;Sigona,NandoandNidhiTrehan(Eds.)Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization and the Neoliberal Order,(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2009).



these NGOs structurally greatly reduced the potential of institutionalised civil society to sustain solidarity, and through it, to put political pressure on the state in terms of respecting human rights (including socio-economic rights) through appropriate development programmes, or pressure the state to act responsibly before (Roma) marginalisation becoming a mass phenomenon.

Undertheseconditions,onemayexpectthatthestructur-allyinducedmarginalisationof Romawillcontinueinter-sectingwiththeproductionof newnarrativesof belongingand redefining theboundariesof the ‘nation’by thepo-liticalelites.19Consequently,Roma women will not only continue to suffer the effects of economic marginali-sation and be placed in the category of undeserving citizens alongside with Roma men, but – due to their reproductive and maternal roles – they will be per-ceived and controlled more and more strongly as sym-bols of ethno-cultural boundaries and embodiments of racialised differences. Despite theirparticularexpe-riencesof oppression,thoughexperiencingintersectionaldiscrimination forexampledue todeportations/repatria-tionsfromWestEuropeancountriesand/orduetoforcedevictions happening within Romanian localities, Romaniwomenusuallyperceiveorvoice theirproblems inmoreethnicandsocial,andlessingenderterms.Furthermore,Romawomen, at local level, seemready to join activismorganisedaroundethno-socialmatters, anddonot reallyexpectsolidarityfrommainstreamwomen’sorganisations.Ontheotherhandthe latter,forexamplewhileaddress-ing the issueof violenceagainstwomen,defineviolenceintheframeworkof reducingdifferencesbetweenwom-en andmen to sexualdifference, and arenot concernedwith the particular effects onRomawomen of the vio-lencesufferedbythemasmembersof communitiesstig-matisedduetotheirethnicbackgroundorwiththembe-comingvictimsof violentphysicalattacksorof racisthatespeech.20Moreover,formsof violenceenduredbyRomawomenwithin theirowncommunities (among themdo-mesticviolenceandtrafficking)areconsideredbythemas“natural”elementsof theirlife,oraseventsaroundwhichtheyshouldremainsilentforseveralreasons.Underthesecircumstances,Roma women’s voices on unjust power

regimes with many faces have reduced chances to be heard and eventually to be transformed into political factors of policy-making and social change. Butevenif theyarenotvisible/hearableforalargepublicandtheydonotaddressthestructuralissuesof theethno-culturallyorsociallyorientedpolitics,this does not mean that they do not act as powerful women solving “small issues” of everyday life (from childcare under precarious con-ditions, through providing income for the family, to emotionally managing situations of forced evictions).

Conclusions: the political potential of Roma women’s activism

Parallel with phenomena highlighted above, it is also to be observed that while the socio-economic aspects of Roma marginalisation are more and more de-politicised (transformed, at best, into public policy issueswithout ad-dressingthemajorsystemiccausesof massimpoverishmentandmarginalisation), there are signs in Romanian public life that Roma women activists –whilebuildingsolidaritywithnon-Romawomenand/orwithanti-racistactions– are becoming more and more political.This politicisation seems to be happening exactly around their experiences as women, but it has the potential to evolve towards re-framing ‘Roma women’ as political subjects in an inter-sectional way. Ontheotherhand,mattersembracedbyacurrent radicalnon-Romafeministagenda (violenceagainstwomen,rape,maternity,birth,orwomen’ssexuality)framedbytheprincipleof “thepersonal ispolitical”arebecomingmoreandmoreinclusivetowardsRomawomen’sexperiences.

Hopefully,duetotheirknowledgeandsensibilitytowardsRoma socio-economic marginalisation, Roma feministshave the potential to centre attentionon social inequali-ties andby this to enrich the radicalnon-Roma feministagendafocusinginitsturnon‘femininity’.Afterthatpoint,or simultaneously,Roma feminists might become im-portant participants of re-politicising poverty, social inequality and marginalisation, including the re-po-liticisation of understanding racism as a cultural sys-tem justifying and maintaining the social divisions of

19 Sigona,NandoandNidhiTrehan(Eds.)Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization and the Neoliberal Order,(NewYork:Pal-graveMacmillan,2009).

20 Icouldobservethisdiscrepancyinthewayinwhichatthe2012HumanDimensionImplementationMeetingof OSCE-ODIHR(Warsaw,24September–5October2012)thediscussionswithinaworkingsessiondedicatedtoRoma/Sintiwomenraninparallelwiththoseof theworkingsessionontheequalityof opportunitybetweenwomenandmen,andonpreventingviolenceagainstwomen.


NoTEbook

classes. Bydoing this, theymight also fill the class-gapidentifiedintheEuropeananti-discriminationpoliciesbyseveral scholars: “social class is themost prominent ex-ample of a social category that is strongly connected toinequalities, yet not currently included in the Europeanequalityagenda”;21“intersectionalityinthecaseof Romaniwomen ismostoftenconceptualised in termsof genderand race/ethnicity.… [but] poverty and social exclusionintensifythelevelof discriminationexperiencedbyRom-aniwomen.[Thatiswhy]whileclassmayormaynotbeagroundfordiscriminationinlegalterms,itisimportanttounderstandhowit interrelateswithotherfacetsof socialidentityandthus,itsroleinintersectionaldiscrimination”22

Startingfromtheviewaccordingtowhich“socialdivisionshave organisational, intersubjective, experiential and rep-resentational forms”23mypaperdemonstratedthatRomawomen’s experiences of social divisions and intersectingdisadvantages are perceived by themselves in a situatedmanner: sometimes, in some situations or in the contextof some relationships they express their needs in termsof gender,othertimestheymostlyemphasisetheirsocio-economicstatus,butsometimestheymakeexplicitthefactthat they are having particular, feminineways of dealingwithpovertyorparticularproblemsof womenarisingfromtheirsocialmarginalityandfromtheirconfrontationwithracism.Thisprovesthatsocialdivisionsarenotreducibleto each other. Despite this, because categories of race,classandgenderareintertwinedandmutuallyconstitutive,

we have to give centrality to questions like how race is ‘gendered’ and how gender is ‘racialised’, and how both are linked to the continuities and transformations of social class, but all these need to be addressed “in particular locations and contexts”.24

AsfarasthepoliticalintersectionalityassumedbyRomawomen feminist is concerned, that should address sex-ism,racismandclassexploitation,butalsohomophobiabyacknowledgingtherealitiesof structural intersection-ality (the distinction between political and structural in-tersectionality belongs to Crenshaw).25 Moreover, as aconclusion,Icouldaddthatinstitutionalised forms of Roma women’s representation (that are more or less assuming intersectional politics or policies) have the chance to resonate with the experiential or structural forms of intersectionality if – while formulating po-litical and policy demands – they are able to assure the participation of multiple Roma women voices in this process.Or,differentlyput, if theyarecapableof providingRoma(women)withthepowertocontroltheirmeans of production, reproduction and representation.Butobviously, this effort in itself wouldnotbeenoughfor generating systemic change: for this they need alli-ancesacrossgender,andacrossdifferentsocialandethnicgroupsthatcouldgeneratepoliticalactionenforcingna-tionaland international stakeholders to reallyactonbe-half of thesociallyandeconomicallydispossessedclassesof present-dayEuropeansocieties.

21 Verloo,Mieke“MultipleInequalities,IntersectionalityandtheEuropeanUnion”.InEuropean Journal of Women’s Studies(Vol.13(3):2006),211–228.

22 Kóczé,Angéla,MissingIntersectionality.Race/Ethnicity,Gender,andClassinCurrent Research and Policies on Romani Women in Europe,(Budapest:CenterforPolicyResearch,2009).

23 Yuval-Davis,Nira,“IntersectionalityandFeministPolitics”.InEuropean Journal of Women’s Studies.(Vol.13(3):2006)193-209.

24 Yuval-Davis,Nira,“IntersectionalityandFeministPolitics”.InEuropean Journal of Women’s Studies.(Vol.13(3):2006)200.

25 Crenshaw,KimberléWilliams“MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,andViolenceagainstWomenof Color”,inThe Public Nature of Private Violence,edsMarthaAlbertsonFinemanandRixanneMykitiuk(NewYork:Routledge,1994)93–118.

Cited bibliography

Crenshaw,KimberléWilliams(1994)“MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,andViolenceagainstWom-enof Color”.InThe Public Nature of Private Violence,edsMarthaAlbertsonFinemanandRixanneMykitiuk.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.93–118.

vanBaar,Huub(2011)The European Roma. Minority Representation, Memory, and the Limits of Transnational Governmentality.Amsterdam.

Biţu,NicoletaandCrinaMorteanu(2010)The Case of Early Marriages within Roma Communities in Romania: Are the Rights of the Child Negotiable? Bucharest:RomaniCRISS.



*** (2003)Breaking the Barriers – Report on Romani women and access to public health care. OSCE,TheEuropeanMonitoringCentreonRacismandXenophobia,andCouncilof Europe.

***(2011)Breaking the Silence. A Report by the European Roma Rights Centre and People in Need. Trafficking in Romani Communities.Budapest:ERRC.

Kóczé,Angéla(2009)Missing Intersectionality. Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Class in Current Research and Policies on Romani Women in Europe.Budapest:CenterforPolicyResearch.

Magyari-Vincze, (2006)Social Exclusion at the Crossroads of Gender, Ethnicity and Class. A View through Romani Women’s Reproductive Health.

Cluj-Napoca:EFES. (2009)“PublicPoliciesasVehiclesof SocialExclusion:theCaseof RomaniWomen’sAccesstoReproductiveHealth

inRomania”.InGender Politics in Post-Communist Eurasia.MichiganStateUniversityPress.Pp.87-119.Rostas,Iulius(2009)“TheRomaniMovementinRomania:Institutionalizationand(De)mobilization”.InRomani Politics

in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization and the Neoliberal Order,edsNadorSigonaandNidhiTreghan.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.Pp.159-185.

Schaaf,Marta:Mediating Romani Health. Policy and Programme Opportunities,NewYork:OpenSocietyInstitute,NetworkPublicHealthProgramme,2005.

Shore,CrisandSusanWriteEds.(1997)Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power.NewYork:Routledge.Sigona,NandoandNidhiTrehanEds.(2009)Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization and the

Neoliberal Order.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.Surdu,LauraandMihaiSurduCoords.(2006)Broadening the Agenda. The Status of Romani Women in Romania.NewYork:

OpenSocietyInstitute.Verloo,Mieke(2006)“MultipleInequalities,IntersectionalityandtheEuropeanUnion”.InInEuropeanJournalof Wom-

en’sStudies.Vol.13(3):211–228.Vincze,Enikő(2010)“Culture,rightsandmoralentitlement”.InNeviSaraKali.RomaWomen’sJournal.Issuenr.2,2010:9-29.Wamsiedel,Marius,EnikőVinczeandIustinaIonescu(2012)Roma Health. Perspective of actors involved in the health system – doc-

tors, health mediators and patients.Bucharest:RomaniCriss.Waquant,Loïs(2008)Urban Outcasts. A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality.Oxford:PolityPress.Yuval-Davis,Nira(2006)“IntersectionalityandFeministPolitics”.InEuropeanJournalof Women’sStudies.Vol.13(3):193-209.



Fighting Discrimination and promoting Equality in the Context of the Roma inclusion policies in Europe

d e z i d e r i u G e r G e ly 1

Discriminationonthegroundsof race,colourorethnicityisoutlawedbyinternationalandEuropeanlawasaviola-tion of human rights.The case-lawof international hu-manrightsbodies,suchastheEuropeanCourtof HumanRights,outlinesthatStateshaveanobligationtoprevent,sanctionandremedydiscrimination.

The spectrum of Roma rights violations in Europe

TheEuropeanCommissionstatedthatmanyof theesti-mated10-12millionRoma inEurope faceprejudice, in-tolerance,discriminationandsocialexclusionintheirdailylives, being marginalised and living in very poor socio-economicconditions.2TheCouncilof Europe’sCommis-sioner forHuman Rights underlined that discriminationandotherhumanrightsabusesagainstRomahavebecomesevereandthatnoEuropeangovernmentcanclaimafullysuccessful record in protecting the human rights of themembersof theseminorities.3

Research and monitoring carried out by the EuropeanRoma Rights Centre shows that segregation of Romanichildrenintoseparateand/orsubstandardeducationcon-tinuestobethemostwidespreadviolationwithrespecttothe right to education. Residential segregation accompa-niedbyhazardouslivingconditionsforRomaandforcedevictions without alternative accommodation are evenmoreevidentinmanyEuropeancountries.Discriminationremainsoneof themajorbarrierstohealthcareandso-cialassistanceforRomainmanyEuropeanstates.Insomecases,thesocialexclusionof Romaisexacerbatedbythelackof documentsthatleadstodenialof accesstobasic

rights.Racistorstigmatisinganti-Romarhetorichasbeenontherise inbothpublicandpoliticaldiscourse, includ-ing accusations thatRoma as ethnic groups are engagedincriminalbehaviour.Reportsof violencetargetingRomaacrossEuropehavebecomemorefrequentinrecentyears,often in thecontextof racistspeechagainstRoma.Vio-lenceagainstRomaremainsaseriousproblemnotonlybe-cause itharmstheRomadirectlyaffectedby theattacks,but alsobecauseRoma as an ethnic group are impactedby the lackof an effective responsebyState authorities.Thefreedomof movementof goods,services,capitalandpeoplearefundamentalprinciplesof theEuropeanUnion.However, Roma have repeatedly been treated differentlyfromnon-Romaintheexerciseof thisfreedom.Romaniwomen and children are negatively affected by multipleformsof discrimination.Theirvulnerabilitytodiscrimina-tiononarangeof groundsincludingethnicity,sexandageleavesmanyindeepsocialexclusionandpoverty,victimsof serioushumanrightsabuse.4

The obligation on states to go beyond princi-ples and take action against discrimination

In the context of discrimination, states must fulfil theobligations laid down by international human rights lawandtheyareliableif thoselegalobligationsarebreached.Furthermore, States not only need to complywith non-discriminationprinciplesassuch,butalsoneedtoensurethattheseprinciplesareimplementedinpractice.Inotherwords,Statesarerequiredtoactagainstdiscrimination,ontheonehandbyensuringprotectionagainstandbypre-ventingit,andontheotherhandbyeliminatingitandrem-edyingitwhereitdoesoccur.

1 DezideriuGergelyistheExecutiveDirectorof theERRC.

2 CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommit-teeof theRegions,2011,An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0173:en:NOT.

3 Councilof Europe,ThomasHammarberg,Human rights of Roma and Travellers in Europe, 2012,availableat:http://www.coe.int/t/commissio-ner/source/prems/prems79611_GBR_CouvHumanRightsOfRoma_WEB.pdf.

4 EuropeanRomaRightsCentre”NewCountryProfilesonRomafromERRC”,availableat:http://www.errc.org/article/new-country-profi-les-on-roma-from-errc/4171.


NoTEbook

Therefore we can argue that fighting discrimination isbasicallymorethanthepassivetolerationof basicrightsbytheState:fightingdiscriminationrequiresacomplexarrayof effective,targetedandmeasurableactionsinlawand practice that translate into promoting equality bypreventing, punishing and remedying the infringementof rightsandcreatingequalopportunitiesforthosedis-proportionately affected by discrimination. Such com-plexarraysof measurescanemergethroughtheformula-tionandadoptionof appropriatepolicies.Internationalorganisations such as theUN, theOSCE, theCouncilof EuropeandrecentlytheEuropeanUnionhavecalleduponMember states to adopt and implement nationalstrategieswith aview to combatingdiscrimination andensuringequalaccessforRomacommunitiestoemploy-ment,education,housingandhealthcare.

Itishoweverimportanttomentionthatwhiletherightto non-discrimination is recognised and guaranteed bylaw and is therefore an entitlement; any policywill re-mainutterlydependentonthepoliticalwillof stateac-torsatnational,regionalorlocallevel.PolicyframeworksonRomasocialinclusioncanconstituteinstrumentsforadvancinghumanrightsbutonlyaslongastheirbasisisdefined and implemented as such.Without addressingthe rootcausesof thespectrumof Romarightsviola-tionsandidentifyingconcrete,measurableandeffectiveactionstoredressdiscriminationandtopromoteequal-ity,complementingprohibitiveanti-discriminationlegis-lation,thesepolicieswillremainelusive.

human rights bodies and international or-ganisations calling for rights-based policies to fight discrimination against Roma and promote equality

Several international human rights bodies have acknowl-edgedtheextentof discriminationfacedbyRomacommu-nitiesandurgedStatestotacklethesituationandtoredressdiscriminationthrough law,policyandpractice.Someof theirinitiativesarelistedbelow.

ECRi general policy Recommendation on com-bating racism and intolerance against Roma

InMarch1998theCouncilof Europe’sEuropeanCom-missionagainstRacismandIntolerance(ECRI)adopteditsGeneralPolicyRecommendationno.3oncombatingracismandintoleranceagainstRoma.TheRecommenda-tionwasadoptedinviewof theCommissions’recogni-tion thatRomasuffer throughoutEuropefrompersist-ent prejudices that lead to discrimination against theminmany fieldsof life, and that suchdiscrimination is amajorfactorintheprocessof socialexclusionaffectingmanyRoma.Romaarealsovictimsof deeply-rootedrac-ism, and are targeted by sometimes violent demonstra-tionsof racismandintolerance.5ECRIrecommendedanumberof legislativemeasuresintendedtocounterrac-ismanddiscrimination.Secondly,ECRItargetedthejus-ticesystem,outliningmeasuresaimedtoensurelegalaidforRoma;investigateandprosecuteviolationsof rights;provide training schemes for stakeholders in the justicesystemaswellasthepolice;developconfidence-buildingmeasuresrelatedtoRomaandtothegeneralpopulation;ensureaccesstocitizenshipandfreemovementof Roma;andtacklemultiplediscriminationfacedbyRomawomen,and thephenomenonof segregation in education.Notleast,ECRIbroughtup avery important aspectof theissuebyrecommendingmeasuresfortheempowermentof RomacommunitiesandRomacivilsociety.6

CERD general Recommendation 27 on dis-crimination against Roma

In August 2000, the United Nation’s Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) adoptedits General Recommendation XXVII on discriminationagainstRoma.7This recommendationprovides formeas-uresof ageneralnatureaswellasspecificmeasuresforpro-tectionagainstracialviolence,measuresinthefieldof edu-cation, living conditions, employment, health, media andmeasuresconcerningparticipationinpubliclife.Thegen-eralrecommendationconstitutestoagreatextentatoolfor

5 ECRIGeneral Policy Recommendation N° 3:Combating racism and intolerance against Roma/Gypsies,(Strasbourg,6March1998)availableat:http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/GPR/EN/Recommendation_N3/Recommendation_3_en.asp#TopOfPage.

6 Ibid.

7 TheCommitteeontheEliminationof RacialDiscrimination,General Recommendation XXVII on Discrimination against Roma,availableat:http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/11f3d6d130ab8e09c125694a0054932b.



thedevelopmentof amore comprehensive and effectiveframeworkpolicybyStateswithrespecttothefundamentalrightsof Roma.Indeed,the Committee recommended that States parties to the Convention8should adopt and implement national strate-gies and programmesandexpressdeterminedpoliticalwillandmoralleadership,withaviewtoimprovingthesituationof RomaandensuringtheirprotectionagainstdiscriminationbyStatebodies,aswellasbyanypersonororganisation.9

The oSCE action plan on improving the situation of Roma and Sinti

InDecember2003,theOrganisationforSecurityandCo-operationinEurope(OSCE)MinisterialCouncilendorsedthe Action Plan on Improving the Situation of RomaandSinti10withintheOSCEarea.11TheActionPlan isacomprehensivepolicydocumentthatundertakeseffectivemeasuresinordertoeradicatediscriminationagainstRomaandtobringaboutequality.Itaddresseskeyareasandrec-ommendsactionbyparticipatingStatesincombatingrac-ismandanti-discrimination,andensuringequalaccessandopportunities forRoma andSinti in the areasof educa-tion,employment,housingandhealthservices,enhancingRoma participation in public life, and assisting Roma incrisisandpost-crisissituations.12

TheChapteroncombatingracismanddiscriminationof theOSCEActionPlanincludesthespecificrecommenda-tiontoParticipatingStatesto“develop comprehensive national strategies or action plans to improve the situation of Roma and Sinti, which include specific measures to tackle discrimination in all fields of life”.InspiredtoalargeextentbytheUNCERDRecommendation27ondiscriminationagainstRoma,theOSCEActionplanoutlineslegislativemeasuresdesignedto combat discrimination as well as specific measuressuchasensuringthatthere isnoimpunityforperpetra-torsof discriminatoryorviolent actsby takingprompt

andeffectiveinvestigativeandpunitiveaction;facilitatingaccessto justiceforRomathroughlegalaid;promotingawarenessamonglaw-enforcementinstitutionsregardingthesituationof Roma;developingtrainingprogrammestopreventexcessiveuseof forceandtoenhanceaware-nessof andrespectforhumanrights;developingpoliciestoimproverelationsbetweenRomacommunitiesandthepolice and to increase trust and confidence in the po-liceamongRoma;developingpoliciesandprocedurestoensureaneffectivepoliceresponsetoraciallymotivatedviolence againstRoma; considering in allmeasures andprogramsmultiplediscriminationfacedbyRomawomen;assessing the gap between international policing stand-ardsandexistingnationalpractices inconsultationwithnational police forces, NGOs and representatives of Roma communities; and elaborating policy statements,codesof conduct,practicalguidancemanualsandtrain-ing programmes. Another set of actions refer tomassmedia and includes information and awareness-raisingcampaignstocounterprejudicesandnegativestereotypesof Roma; and encouraging themedia to show positiveaspectsandpresentabalancedportrayalof Romalife,torefrainfromstereotypingRomaandSintipeopleandtoavoidincitingtensionbetweendifferentethnicgroups.

Council of Europe’s Committee of ministers recommendation on policies for Roma

In February 2008 the Committee of Ministers of theCouncilof Europeadoptedoneof themostcomprehen-sive recommendations regarding addressing the humanrights challenges faced byRoma communities through-outEurope.TheRecommendation2008/513 refersspe-cificallytopoliciesforRomaand/orTravellersinEuropeandstartsfromthepremisethatdiscriminationandsocialexclusioncanbeovercomemosteffectivelybycompre-hensive, coherent and proactive policies targeting both

8 TheUnitedNationsInternationalConventionontheEliminationof AllFormsof RacialDiscrimination(ICERD).

9 CERD General Recommendation XXVII,1.Measuresof aGeneralNature,point2.

10 OSCE,Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area,adoptedbythePermanentCouncilinitsDecisionNo.566on27November2003,availableat:http://www.osce.org/odihr/17554.

11 OSCEcomprises57participatingStatesthatspantheglobe,encompassingthreecontinents-NorthAmerica,EuropeandAsia.

12 OSCE,Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area,adoptedbythePermanentCouncilinitsDecisionNo.566on27November2003,availableat: http://www.osce.org/odihr/17554.

13 Councilof EuropeCommitteeof Ministers,Recommendation (2008)5 on policies for Roma and/or Travellers in Europe,availableat:https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1253509&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383.


Roma and the majority, which ensure integration andparticipationof RomaandTravellers in the societies inwhichtheylive,andrespectfortheiridentity.Inlinewiththe recommendation, Governments of member statesshould adopt coherent, comprehensive and adequately resourced national and regional strategies with short-and long-term action plans, targets and indicators for implementing policies that address legal and/or social discrimination against Roma and enforce the principle of equality and monitor and publish regular evaluation reports on the state of the implementation and impact of strategies and policies to improve the situation of Roma and/or Travellers.14Therecommendationnotonlyreferstodifferenttypeof approachesandmeasuresbutprovidestomemberstatesguidanceastothenecessarylegislativeframeworks15andparticularlythestepsandprocessestoadoptandimple-menteffectivestatepolicies.16

ECRi general policy Recommendation on combating anti-gypsyismInJune2011,theEuropeanCommissionagainstRacismand Intolerance (ECRI) adopted the first internationaldocument to acknowledge and combat anti-GypsyismanddiscriminationagainstRoma.ThisistheECRIGen-eral Policy Recommendation no.13.17 ECRI refers toanti-Gypsyismasaspecificformof racism,anideologyfoundedonracialsuperiority,aformof dehumanisationandinstitutionalracismnurturedbyhistoricaldiscrimina-tion,whichisexpressed,amongotherthings,byviolence,hate speech, exploitation, stigmatisation and the mostblatantkindof discrimination.18

Withaviewtoeffectivelycombatinganti-Gypsyism,ECRIaddressesthegovernmentsof memberstateswithasetof

17points,mostof themcontainingconcretesub-measures.Among these points, ECRI refers to adopting a nationalplanasacomprehensivemultidisciplinaryapproachtoissuesconcerningRomaandinvolvingthematalllevels,enhanc-ingmutualtrustbetweenRomaandpublicauthoritiesandintroducingmeasuresinthefieldof education,employment,housingandhealth.ECRIalsoreferstomeasuresaimedatcombating racistviolence andcrimes againstRoma, com-batingmanifestationsof anti-GypsyismlikelytocomefromthePolice,combatinganti-Gypsyismexpressedinthemediaandcombatinganti-Gypsyisminaccesstopublicservices.

ECRI alsooutlines three specific recommendations forGovernments.Forexample,inordertobetterassesstheproblemswith theaimof combating themmoreeffec-tivelyandtoadaptpoliciestobeundertaken,ECRIrec-ommends thatMember states collect statistical data onRoma, in particular in the fields of education, employ-ment,housingandhealth,whileensuringrespectfortheprinciplesof confidentiality,voluntaryself-identificationandinformedconsent.Inlinewiththeprinciplesof theAdditional Protocol to theConvention onCybercrime,ECRIencouragesMemberstatestosetamonitoringsys-temof expressionsof anti-Gypsyismontheinternetandtoensureeffectiveprosecution.Equallyimportant,ECRIrecommendsMember states to condemnall publicdis-coursewhichpublicly incitesdirector indirectdiscrimi-nation,hatredorviolenceagainstRoma.19

The European Union’s Framework for Nation-al Roma integration Strategies up to 2020

RecentlyithasbeenrecognisedthatEuropeaninstitutionsandEUcountrieshaveajointresponsibilitytoimprovethesocial

14 Ibid.

15 Anti-discriminationstandards,alegaldutyonpublicauthoritiestopromoteequalityandnon-discrimination,racialmotivationasanaggravatingcircumstanceinprosecutingcriminaloffencesetc.

16 Forexamplewithregardto developing a strategy on Roma toconsiderthefollowingkeyaspectsthatareexplainedindetail: 1.Establishingneeds;2.Developingacoherentandco-ordinatedstrategy;4.Riskmanagement;5.Continuousmonitoringandevaluationand6.Funding.Relatedtotheadoption of the strategytoconsider1.Legislativeframeworkand2.Publicisingthestrategyandawarenessraising.Intermsof Implementing the strategy to consider: 1.Implementationmechanism;2.Positiveaction;3.Mediatorsorassistants;4.Guidanceof andtrainingforperformance,andeffectivecomplaintsproceduresareusefultoolsforsecuringinstitutionalchangeand6.Mainstreaming.InrelationtoMonitoring and evaluating the implementation of the strategy toconsider1.Monitoringguidelines;2.Publicationof monitoringreportsand3.Evaluation.

17 ECRIGeneral Policy Recommendation no.13 on Combating anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination against Roma,availableat:http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/mo-nitoring/ecri/activities/GPR/EN/Recommendation_N13/e-RPG%2013%20-%20A4.pdf.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

NoTEbook



inclusionandintegrationof Romabyusingseveralinstrumentsandpoliciesforwhichtheyareresponsible20andithasbeenequallyacknowledgedthatinspiteof someprogressachievedintheMemberstatesoverthepastyears,littlehaschangedinthesituationof mostRoma.ThereforetheEuropeanCom-missionproposedanEUFrameworkforNationalRomaIn-tegrationStrategieswhichwaslaterendorsedatpoliticallevelbytheEUandMemberstates.21WiththisEUFramework,theCommissionencouragedMemberstates,inproportiontothesizeof theRomapopulationlivingintheirterritories,toadoptortodevelopacomprehensiveapproachtoRomaintegration,tacklingtheissuesof accesstoeducation,employment,healthcareandhousing.22It is importanttonotethattheendorse-mentof theFrameworkbyEUHeadsof StatesandGov-ernmentswasanimportantpoliticalsteptowardsaddressingRomainclusion23butitisequallyimportanttostatethatfurtherstepsarenecessarytoensureprogress.

TheEUFrameworkencouragedMemberstatestoensurethatallRomachildrencompleteatleastprimaryschool;tocuttheemploymentgapbetweenRomaandtherestof thepopulation;toreducethegapinhealthstatusbetweentheRomaandtherestof thepopulationandtoclosethegapbetweentheproportionof Romawithaccesstohousingand to public utilities (such aswater, electricity and gas)comparedtotherestof thepopulation.24

Withaview tocombatingdiscriminationandadopting rel-evantmeasures,theEUFrameworkstatedthatMemberstatesshouldensure thatallRomachildrenhaveaccess toqualityeducationandarenotsubject todiscriminationorsegrega-tion;thatMemberstatesshouldgrantRomapeoplefullaccessinanon-discriminatorywaytovocationaltraining,tothejobmarketandtomeansof self-employment;thatMemberstatesshouldprovideaccesstoqualityhealthcareatasimilarlevel

andunderthesameconditionstotheRomaastotherestof thepopulationandthatMemberstatesshouldpromotenon-discriminatoryaccesstohousing,includingsocialhousing.25

What is the missing element in the EU framework for Roma inclusion?

ThebasisfortheEuropeanCommissionmakingacaseforasocialandeconomicimperativetoimprovethesituationof Romaliesinthedegreeof prejudice,intolerance,dis-criminationand social exclusion thatRomacommunitiesarefacedwithinEurope,complementedwithmarginalisa-tionandpoorsocio-economicconditions.26Itisfromthisspecificstartingpoint,aswellasfromtheacknowledgmentthatvirtuallynoprogresshasyetbeenseen,thattheEu-ropeanCommissionhasutteredaclarioncalltoMemberstatestoaddressthesocialexclusionof Roma.

If weconsidertheobjectivesof theEUframeworkitisclearthatnon-discriminatoryaccesstoeducation,non-discrimina-toryaccesstothejobmarket,equalaccesstohealthcareandequalaccesstohousingareallguaranteedbynationalconsti-tutionsandrelevantnationallegislationintheEuropeanUn-ion’sMemberstates.Discriminationonthebasisof raceorethnicityinaccesstoeducation,employment,healthcareandhousingisprohibitedatnationallevelbyanti-discriminationframeworksadoptedinlinewiththeEURaceDirective.

Thus one can argue that Roma communities in Europeare already officially protected from discrimination andit isonly amatterof these communities exercising theirown rights rather thanof ensuringothers’ rights. Is thisthecase?CanonethenarguethattheEUframeworkhasanymissingelementsinaddressingRomainclusion?If we

20 EuropeanCommission–Justice - Tacklingdiscrimination, EU and Roma; a Joint Responsibility,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discri-mination/roma/index_en.htm.


22 Ibid.

23 EuropeanCommission,National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework,availableat: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/roma_nat_integration_strat_en.pdf.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.



NoTEbook

takeacloserlookatotherinternationalrecommendationsonthesametopic,theencouragementstomemberstatestotacklediscriminationandthesocialexclusionof Romawillneverthelesspointoutthedifference.

Firstof all,Memberstatesshouldpromotegenuinedialogue,consultationorotherappropriatewaystoimproverelationsbetweenRomacommunitiesandtherestof thepopulationatlocallevelwithaviewtopromotingtoleranceandover-comingprejudiceandnegativestereotypingonbothsides;toenhancemutualtrustbetweenRomaandcentral,regionalandlocalpublicauthorities;todevelopmeasuresthatraiseawarenessof thechallengesfacedbyRomaamongstateau-thoritiesaswellasthewiderpublic;tocounterprejudiceandnegativestereotypes;andtoencourageappropriatearrange-mentsforcommunicationanddialoguebetweenthepoliceandRomacommunitiesandcivilsocietywithaviewtopre-venting conflictsbasedon racialprejudice and combatingactsof raciallymotivatedviolence.27

Secondly,Memberstatesshoulddeveloppoliciesandpro-cedurestoensureaneffectiveresponsetoraciallymotivatedviolenceagainstRoma;toensurethesecurityandintegrityof Roma,byadoptingmeasuresforpreventingraciallymoti-vatedactsof violenceagainstthem;toensurepromptactionbythepolice,theprosecutorsandthejudiciaryininvestigat-ingandpunishingsuchacts;toassessthegapbetweeninter-nationalstandardsonpoliceandexistingnationalpracticesin consultationwithpolice forces,NGOsand representa-tivesof Romacommunities;andtoelaborateinpartnershipwith international organisations and Roma NGOs policystatements,codesof conductandtrainingprogrammesforlawenforcementinstitutionsandthejudiciary.28

Thirdly,Memberstatesshouldadoptmeasures toeliminatehatespeechandincitementtodiscriminationinthemedia,en-couragingawarenessamongmediaprofessionalswithaviewtocounteringprejudicesandnegativestereotypesof Roma;toencouragethemediatoshowpositiveaspectsandpresentabalancedportrayalof Roma,refrainingfromstereotyping,andtoavoidincitingtensionbetweenvariousethnicgroups.Allpublicdiscoursewhichincitesdirectorindirectdiscrimina-tion,hatredorviolenceagainstRomashouldbecondemned.29

Fourthly, in areas such as employment, healthcare, hous-ing and educationMember states shoulddesignmeasuresaimedataddressingtherootcausesof structuraldiscrimi-nationfacedbyRomacommunitiesandmeasuresaimedateliminatingandpreventingsuchpractices.Totakeeducationandhousingasexamples,Memberstatesshouldtakeurgentmeasures to put an end to the segregation which Romachildrenaresubjected toat school; abolish theplacingof Romachildren in special schools; anddevelopand imple-ment comprehensive school desegregation programs andfacilitateRoma children’s access tomainstreameducation.Memberstatesshouldtakemeasurestopreventandcombatstereotypes,prejudiceandharassmentexperiencedbyRomachildren in schools, alsobymakingparentsof non-Romachildren awareof it andby training teaching staff for in-tercultural education; includeRomahistory andculture ineducationaltexts;considermeasurestopromotetheRomanilanguageanditsteaching;developandimplementanti-rac-istcurriculaforschools;payspecialattentiontoprovidingRomagirlswithequalopportunitiesineducation;andelimi-nate financial and administrative obstacles to Roma chil-dren’saccesstoeducation.Intheareaof housing,Memberstates should takemeasures thatcombatde factoor forcedsegregationinrespectof housingandensurethatRomaarenotevictedwithoutnoticeandwithoutopportunityforre-housing indecent accommodation.Member states shouldput in place mechanisms and institutional procedures toclarifypropertyrights,resolvequestionsof ownershipandregularisethe legalstatusof Romalivingincircumstancesof unsettled legality andpromote coexistence andmutualunderstandingbetweenpersons fromdifferent cultures inneighbourhoodsinwhichRomaandnon-Romalive.30

When all these aspects are taken into consideration, it ishardly surprising that human rights organisations andRomarightsorganisationsconsiderthattheEUFrameworkforRomainclusionfallsfarshortof fullytacklingthechal-lengesof Romaexclusion,whichare intimately linked towidespreadhostility anddiscrimination against theRomapeople.31TheFrameworkrecognisedtheneedtofightdis-criminationagainstRomaandtoensuretheirequalaccesstoallfundamentalrights,butitfailedtospecifymeasuresto combat discrimination, intimidation, anti-Gypsyism,

27 ECRIGeneral Policy Reccomendation no. 3 and no. 13,UNCERDRecommendation no. 27,OSCEAction Plan on Roma and Sinti.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 TheEuropeanRomaPolicyCoalition(ERPC),EU Framework Weak on Discrimination against Roma,availableat:http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=3824.



hatespeechorviolenceagainstRoma.Inthisrespect,theFrameworkwasfarfromfulfillingeventheEuropeanPar-liament’srecommendationontheverysamesubject.32

implementing national Roma integration strategies in EU member states

In2012theEuropeanRomaRightsCentrelookedspecificallyathowMemberstateshavearticulatedastrongcommitmenttonon-discrimination,awareness-raisingtotackleprejudice,discriminationandthefightagainstanti-Gypsyism.Non-dis-criminationwasindicatedasagoverningprincipleof someof thenationalstrategies.However,theanti-discriminationmeasures reported in relation to education, employment,health,andhousingwereweak,andlackinginsubstanceandcoherence.Thestrategiesenvisagedimprovementsintheseareaswithoutofferingaclearplantoeffectivelycombatra-cialorethnicdiscrimination.Mostof thestrategiesdidnotincludeacompletesectiondedicatedtoanti-discriminationissues, apart from fourMember states (Belgium, Finland,SloveniaandSweden).Outof 27strategiesonlysix(thoseof Poland,Portugal,Romania,Spain,Sweden,theUKand,tosomeextentGermany)acknowledgedthat thesituationof Romaintheircountryisahistoricalconsequenceof long-lastingdiscrimination.OnlyHungaryandSlovakiaincludeddataabouttheextentof discriminationagainstRoma.Othercountriesdidnotprovideanydataondiscrimination,ordidnotexplicitlymentionthatRomainthecountryhavebeenorarecurrentlysubjectedtodiscrimination.

The strategies of Belgium, France, Denmark, Estonia,Greece,Hungary,Luxemburg,theNetherlands,Portugal,Romania,SloveniaandNorthernIrelandfailedtomakeanyreferencetointernationalhumanrightsinstruments(UnitedNations,Councilof Europe,OSCE),whicharerelevanttoensuretheprotectionof civil,economic,so-cialandculturalrights.Mostof thestrategiesdidnotex-plicitly refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of theEuropeanUnion;thiswasmissinginthetextsof thestrategiesfromBelgium,Bulgaria,Estonia,France,Den-mark,Greece,Hungary,Lithuania,Luxemburg,theNeth-erlands,Poland,Romania,SloveniaandtheUK.

Violence and anti-gypsyism

Violence againstRomawasonlymentioned in the strate-giesof eightMemberstates(Bulgaria,theCzechRepublic,FinlandGermany,Hungary,Italy,PolandandSweden).Hatespeech andhate crime againstRomawasmentionedonlyintheFinnish,German,Italian,SwedishandUKstrategies.Thephenomenonof anti-GypsyismwasonlyindicatedonadescriptivebasisinthestrategiessubmittedbyItaly,Finland,SlovakiaandSweden,andasaformof racisminthestrategysubmittedbytheCzechRepublic.Onlythestrategysubmit-tedbySpainhadaclearreferencetotacklingdiscriminationagainstRomaandanti-Gypsyism,inlinewithinternationalhumanrightsinstrumentsandrecommendations.

multiple discrimination and rights of Romani women

Onlythestrategiesof Austria,Belgium,theCzechRepub-lic,Finland,Portugal,Spain,SlovakiaandSwedenusedtheconceptsof direct,indirectandmultiplediscriminationinrelation toRoma.Hungary’s strategymentionedmultiplediscriminationinthecontextof Romaniwomen.Thestrat-egiesof Estonia,France,Germany,Ireland,Lithuania,theNetherlands,Poland,NorthernIreland,Latvia,LuxemburgandtheUKfailedtotakeintoconsiderationtherightsof Romaniwomenatall.TheRomanianstrategyincludedasagoverningprincipleequalopportunitiesandgenderaware-ness,but itwasnot substantiatedasaclear,cross-cuttingissueapplicabletoalltheareasaddressedbythestrategy.

Role of the equality bodies and financial tools

Only the strategies of 11Members states (Bulgaria,Ger-many, France, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Spain, Slovenia,NorthernIreland,SlovakiaandtheUK)includedreferencestoequalitybodiesorotherrelevanthumanrightsbodies,butinmostcasestheirrolewasnotsubstantiatedinconnectionwiththeimplementationprocessof thestrategies.Ingen-eral,detailsof financialresourcesforimplementinganti-dis-criminationmeasuresweremissinginthenationalstrategies.

32 EuropeanParliamentResolutionof 9March2011 On the EU Strategy on Roma Inclusion,availableat:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get-Doc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-0092.


NoTEbook

Steps forward in implementing Roma inte-gration strategies

TheEuropeanCommission’s 2012progress report quitebriefly outlined that Member states should ensure thatanti-discrimination legislation is effectively enforced intheir territories and that they should fightdiscriminationconvincingly.33In2013whileassessingtheMemberstatesnationalRomaintegrationstrategies,theEuropeanCom-mission came to the conclusion34 that despite the com-mitments made by the Member states and the anti-dis-criminationlegislation,racismtowardsanddiscriminationagainstRoma continuedwithmanifestations such as thesegregationof Romachildrenineducationaswellaslessfavourableaccesstohealth,policeprotectionandhousingcomparedtothemajoritypopulation.35

TheEuropeanCommissionacknowledgedthatwithoutsys-temicmeasures to fight discrimination and racism towardsRoma,theimplementationof thenationalRomaintegrationstrategiescannotyieldtheexpectedresults.FurthermoretheCommissionunderlinedthat“tostepupthefightagainstdis-crimination,itisalsonecessarytoraiseawarenessaboutrights,dutiesandopportunitiesamongRomathemselves…andtheMember statesmust domore to combat stereotyping anddealwithracistorotherwisestigmatisinglanguageorbehav-iourthatmayconstituteincitementtodiscriminationagainstRoma”.36Comparingtheconclusionsof the2012and2013assessments,itisquiteclearthattheCommissionhasdecidedtoshiftitsdiscoursetoamuchstrongeremphasisontacklingdiscriminationbeyondtheenforcementof thelaw.

instead of a conclusion

TheEuropeanCommissionisveryrighttounderlinethatin the absence of systemicmeasures to fight discrimi-nationtheimplementationprocessof nationalstrategies

will achieve no results. As stated before, without ad-dressingtherootcausesof thespectrumof Romarightsviolations and identifying concrete, measurable and ef-fective actions to redress discrimination and promoteequality these policies will remain elusive. But it is theCommission’s role to hold theMember states account-ableinthisregard.Ontheotherhand,theCommissionitself needstoevaluatetheEUFrameworkobjectivesandproposedmeasureswithaviewtoadaptingandrespond-ingtoexistingrealitiesontheground.ThefactthatthisyeartheCommissionputforwardaRecommendationfortheCouncilof theEUoneffectivemeasuresforRomaintegrationwithamuchstrongeranti-discriminationap-proachistobewelcomed.Itremainstobeseenwhether,and inwhatform, theCouncilwillendorse this furtherpolitical document and howMember states will adjusttheirnationalstrategiesinresponse.

Nevertheless,thereisonecrucialelementthatmustnotbe ignoredwhentalkingaboutMemberstates’commit-ments toaddressingdiscriminationandsocial exclusionof Roma. Any strategy, programme or action plan de-signed to improve the Roma situation will require anexpressionof determinedpoliticalwillandleadershipatalllevels.TherealityshowsusthatwhenspeakingaboutRomaintegrationinEuropewearefarfromtranslatingcommitmentsfromtheEuropeanleveltothelocallevel.Thekeyforsuccessisatthelocalandregionallevel.Thereliestheneedforgenuinedialogue,toimproverelations,toovercomingprejudice,toenhancemutualtrust,toputanendtosegregationatschool,toforcedevictionsandtospatialsegregation…andthelistgoesonandon.Therelies theneed forRoma tobe involved, tobe consultedandtoparticipatefullyintheprocessonanequalfootingwiththeauthoritiesandtherestof thepublic.Thereliestheneedforsupport,trustandfullengagement.Allthesearestilla“workinprogress”thatneedstobecomereality.Itispossiblebutgenuinewillisneeded.

33 CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCom-mitteeof theRegions,National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0226:en:NOT.

34 CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommit-teeof theRegions,Steps forward in Implementing National Roma Integration Strategies,June2013,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013DC0454:en:NOT.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.



horváth and kiss v hungary - The misdiagnosis Case

J u d i t G e l l é r 1

Sincethe1970s,scientificresearchhasshownthattheprac-tice of misdiagnosis and consequent transfer of Romanichildrenintospecialschoolshasbeenusedasatooltoseg-regateRomanichildren fromnon-Romani studentsand tokeepthemawayfrommainstreamschools.Thispracticewasaresponsetothequicklygrowingnumberof Romanichil-dren of primary school age.2 The transferwas legitimisedbypsychological andeducational arguments.Moreover theconcept of ‘familial disability’was developed, arguing thatsocio-economicdeprivationof Romacreatesspecialneedsfallingwithinthedefinitionof mentaldisabilityandservingas a ground for transfer to special schools. In addition, inHungaryuntil20043IQscoresonmildmentaldisabilitydidnotcomplywithWHOstandards.RomachildrenwithIQscoresbetween70and86wereregularlyplacedintospecialschools–eventhoughsincethelate1970sHungaryhasad-heredtotheWorldHealthOrganisation’sstandards,whichsettheupperlimitof mildmentalretardationatanIQof 70.4

In line with this practice, the two Romani applicants intheHorvath and Kiss casewerevictimsof misdiagnosisandsubsequentlyplacedinspecialschooldespitetheirsoundmentalability.Asaresultof themisdiagnosis,theycouldnotaccessmainstreameducation.Instead,theywereedu-catedinasegregatedremedialschoolcreatedforchildrenwithmentaldisabilities.Theireducationfollowedalowercurriculum than inmainstreamschools,preventing themformaccessingsecondaryschoolswheretheycouldhaveacquired a baccalaureate. This subsequently limited theirfutureopportunitiesinhighereducation.

Theapplicantsexhausteddomesticremedieswithoutsecur-ingredressforthesystematicnatureof theproblem.Inits

judgment, the Supreme Court found that the HungarianState failed to create an appropriateprofessionalprotocolwhich considers the special situation of Romani childrenandalleviatesthesystemicerrorsof thediagnosticsystem;asaresulttheapplicants’humanrightsmayhavebeenvio-latedbytheState.However,theSupremeCourtfoundthatithadnocompetencetodecideonthemeritsof thecasewithregard to theviolationof substantiverights. Itpointed totheEuropeanCourtof HumanRights(ECtHR)asaforumthathasthecompetencetojudgethismatterandprovideef-fectiveremedytotheapplicantswithregardtothepotentialviolationof theirfundamentalrightsduetothesystematicerrorsof theexistingdiagnosticsystem.ThissuggestionbyadomesticcourtthattheapplicantsseekjusticeintheEC-tHRsuggestsseriousfailings in theHungarian legalordertocomplywiththeprincipleof subsidiarity:humanrightsissuesshouldberesolvedatthedomesticlevelif possible,withrecoursetotheEuropeanlevelbeingexceptional.

The application to the ECthR and arguments of the applicants

In2011,theapplicantssubmittedanapplicationtotheEC-tHR,askingtheCourttoestablishthattheirmisdiagnosesandconsequenteducationintheremedialschoolamount-edtoprimarilydirect,oralternativelyindirect,discrimina-tionunderArticle2of ProtocolNo.1.(righttoeducation)read in conjunctionwithArticle 14 (non-discrimination)of theEuropeanConventiononHumanRights.

The applicants claimed that Roma were uniquely bur-denedbythefailuresof thetestingandplacementsystem,

1 JuditGellér,Lawyer.SheholdsaBAdegreeinPublicAdministrationfromtheCorvinusUniversityof BudapestandaMasterof LawfromtheEotvosLorandUniversityBudapest.ShestudiedinternationallawattheLawFacultyof Universityof Leuven,Belgiumandcompletedatrainee-shipattheEuropeanCourtof HumanRights.ShejoinedtheERRCinNovember2007.

2 G.Havas,I.Kemény,andI.Liskó,Cigány gyerekek az általános iskolában, OktatáskutatóIntézet,ÚjMandátum,(Budapest,2002).

3 In2004,BálintMagyar,Ministerof EducationwrotetoExpertPanelstourgethemtostoptransferringchildrenwithscoresaboveIQ70tospecialschools.

4 AccordingtoDSM-IVclassification,IQ71-84isclassifiedunderthecodeV62.89asBorderlineintellectualfunctioning,whereasundercode317isMildMentalretardation,goingfrom50-55toapproximately70.SeeDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV(Washington,DC:AmericanPsychiatricAssociation.2000).


thatRomachildrenwereputataparticulardisadvantagebecause of the culturally-biased and knowledge-basedplacementtests,andthattheirsociallyandculturallydis-advantagedbackgroundresultingfromtheirethnicitywasnottakenintoaccountwhenassessingtheresults.Inaddi-tiontotheinadequatetestsusedandthenon-compliancewith WHO standards, the applicants claimed that thewholetestingprocesswasflawedasthetestswerenotsuf-ficientlyindividualised(§91-93).5

argument of the government

InitsargumenttheGovernmentdeniedthattheapplicantshadbeentreatedlessfavourablythannon-Romainacom-parable,sociallyandeconomicallydeprivedsituation.TheGovernmentalsoassertedthatinasmuchastheapplicantshadbeentreateddifferently,thedifferenttreatmenthadanobjectiveandreasonablejustification(§94).TheGovern-mentarguedthatthetestswerenotbiasedandapplicantsweretestedwithacomplexmethod,notwithasingletestor process (§ 95). Relying on expert opinions, theGov-ernmentclaimedthatthesocio-culturalbackgroundof thechildrenhadbeendecisiveforthementaldevelopmentof thechild.TheGovernmentclaimedthatasaconsequence,thedisproportionate representationof Romachildren inspecialeducationwasduetotheirdisproportionaterepre-sentationamongthoselivinginsocialandeconomicdepri-vationandthereforetheyweredeprivedof “thebeneficialeffectsof modernisationon thementaldevelopmentof thechildren”(§96).TheGovernmentfurtherarguedthatthetestingof theapplicants’abilitieshadbeensufficientlyindividualised (§ 97) and that procedural safeguards hadbeeninplaceunderHungarianlaw.TheGovernmentdidnotdisputethefactthatintheapplicants’casethesepro-ceduralrequirementshadnotbeenrespected,asthishadalready been established by domestic courts (§ 98). TheGovernmentalsoemphasisedthatthetestingwasnotcar-riedoutformedicalpurposesbuttoassesslearningabili-ties,andsothetestingdidnotconstituteamedicaldiag-nosisof mildmentalretardationasdefinedbytheWorldHealthOrganisation(WHO)(§100).

Judgment

BasedonECtHRcase law, treatingpersonsdifferently inacomparablesituationwithoutanobjectiveandreasonablejus-tificationamountstodiscrimination;howeverarticle14doesnotprohibitStatesfromtreatinggroupsdifferentlyinordertocorrectfactualinequalities,andinfactundercertaincircum-stancesthefailuretodosomayitself amounttodiscrimina-tionandaviolationof Article14.AccordingtotheCourtthepracticeof misdiagnosisresultinginsegregationamountedtoindirectdiscriminationinrelationtotheapplicants.

In its assessment the Court reinforced its position thatdiscriminationonaccountof aperson’sethnicoriginisaformof racial discrimination that requires from the au-thoritiesspecialvigilanceandavigorousreaction.Italsonotedthat there isnoobjective justificationforracedis-crimination.Itheldthat“nodifferenceintreatmentwhichisbasedonexclusivelyortoadecisiveextentonaperson’sethnicityororiginiscapableof beingobjectivelyjustifiedinacontemporarydemocraticsocietybuiltontheprincipleof pluralismandrespectfordifferentcultures”(§101).

TheCourt referred to thevulnerablepositionof Roma,whohavehistoricallysufferedfromexclusion,andthere-forerequirespecialconsiderationtobegiventotheirdif-ferentneed(§102).WhenitcomestoArticle2of ProtocolNo.1.(therighttoeducation),Statesarenotonlyrequiredto refrain from interference but required to implementpositivemeasures.Inparticular,inlinewithjudgmentde-liveredinthecaseof Orsus and Others v Croatia,6theECtHRemphasisedtheneedforpositivemeasuresinthecontextof the right toeducation,whenacertaingroup, suchasRoma,hashistoricallysufferedfromdiscriminationinthefieldof education(§103-104).TheCourtalsoemphasisedthelonghistoryacrossEuropeof theinappropriateplace-mentof Romachildrenintospecialschools(§115).

Applying these principles to the case, theCourt foundthatthemisplacementof Romanichildrenconstitutesanindirectdiscrimination and therefore a violationof Ar-ticle2of ProtocolNo.1.inconjunctionwithArticle14.

5 Thesefailureshadbeenestablishedbythedomesticcourts.

6 EuropeanCourtof HumanRights,Orsus and Others v Croatia,no.15766/03.

CaSE REViEWS



Since theapplicantsdidnotclaimdamagesas theyhadalreadyreceiveddamagesinthedomesticproceedingstheCourt ordered theHungarian State to pay 4,500Eurosjointlyfortheapplicants’costs.

Comments

This is not the first time that theECtHRhas found thatthemisdiagnosisof Romanichildrenandtheirsubsequentsegregation intospecial schoolsamount todiscrimination.Already, in2007,theGrandChamberof theCourtintheD.H. and Others v the Czech Republiccaseestablishedthatsuchapracticeamountstoindirectdiscrimination.Sixyearslaterthatjudgmentisstillwaitingforadequateimplementation.

InHorvath and Kiss theCourt clarified anddeveloped itspositioninrelationtomisdiagnosis.Moreover,itwentfur-therconcerningthepositiveobligationsonStatestorem-edypastandcurrentdiscrimination.Regrettably,however,it did not depart from its main approach elaborated inD.H.;inparticular,itrefusedtofinddirectdiscrimination.Alarmingly, on closer examination, it appears to requireproof of intent for finding direct discrimination. Thus,theCourtfoundindirectdiscriminationdespitetheargu-mentspresentedbytheapplicantsthat,unlikeinD.H.,inthiscasetherewasnogeneralpolicyormeasurewhichwasapparentlyneutral:sincethe1970sitwaswelldocumentedandwidely-knownamongexpertsinHungarythatthetestswerenotneutralbutbiasedagainstRoma.Theapplicantsalso reliedon theEURacialEqualityDirective (CouncilDirective 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000, ‘RED’), claim-ing that they suffered direct discrimination as that termisdefinedinEUlegislation(and,byanalogy,asitshouldbedefinedunderArticle14).Theapplicantsarguedthat,unlike under theCourt’s jurisprudence, under RED andHungarianlaw,therecanbenojustificationfordirecteth-nicity-baseddiscriminationinpubliceducation,exceptforthepurposesof positiveaction.Inaddition,theyinvokedthecaselawof theCourtof Justiceof theEuropeanUn-ion(CJEU)whichhascondemnedasdirectdiscrimination

situationsinwhichaformallyneutralcriterioninfactaf-fectsonegrouponly.7TheCourt summarily refused thisargument.Itdidnotacceptthatif apracticeonlyaffectedRomanichildren–asdidmisdiagnosis–thenitoughttohaveconstituteddirectdiscrimination,becausesuchprac-ticecouldnotbeethnicallyneutral(§110).

ItisequallyunfortunatethattheCourtsidesteppedtheal-leged violation resulting from structural problems withbiased testingbydeclaring thecomplaint about thispoint–whichwasinherentlylinkedtotherestof thecomplaint–inadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies(§87).SimilarlytoD.H., it leftitwithintheState’smarginof ap-preciationtodecidewhethertomaintainaspecialeducationsystemandwhethertopreserveasystemof testingchildren.

The Court nonetheless reaffirmed several importantprinciples,whileindicatingitswillingnesstofinddiscrim-inationinrelationtothesegregatededucationof disabledchildrenaswell:

● Firstof all,althoughtheCourtdoesnotdefineores-tablish segregation per se, it clearly stated that the ar-rangementsof specialschoolsinHungaryconstitutedasegregatedsetting,wherethemorebasiccurriculumwas followedand“where [thechildren]were isolatedfrompupilsfromthewiderpopulation”(§127).

● Secondly,whenanalysingtheguaranteesstemmingfromthepositiveobligationsof theStatesthejudgmentgoesfurtherthaninOrsus and Others v Croatia,andexplicitlydefines the substance of thepositiveobligation that therespondentStatemustfulfil.WhileinOrsustheCourtcalledforputtinginplace“safeguards”,8inHorvath and KisstheCourtexplicitlyimposedanobligationonstatestointroducepositivemeasurestocombatdiscriminationinpubliceducation:Stateshave“specificpositiveobliga-tionstoavoidtheperpetuationof pastdiscriminationordiscriminativepractices(…)”(§116)andmust“undoahistoryof racialsegregationinspecialschools”(§127).

● Thirdly,theCourtelaboratedontheState’snarrowermargin of appreciation and stricter scrutiny when

7 See:Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen,CaseC-267/06,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0267:EN:HTML.ThecaseconcernedaGermanlawthatpermittedlifepartnershiptosamesexcouples,butsamesexcouplescannotmarry.MrMarukosurvivedhislifepartnerwhohadbeenmakingpaymentsintoanoccupationalpensionfund.Heappliedforasurvivor’spensionfromthefundbutwasrefused.InapreliminaryreferralproceduretheECJruledthattheFrameworkEmploymentDirectiveappliedtohiscase.Italsoruledthatinrelationtoasurvivor’spensionpaidoutof anoccupationalpensionfund,lifepartnershipbetweenpersonsof thesamesexwasacomparablesituationtothatof spouses.

8 EuropeanCourtof HumanRights,Orsus and Others v Croatia,no.15766/03§183.


consideringfundamentalrightsof vulnerablegroupsandtooknoteof anothervulnerableandhistoricallydiscriminatedgroup:the ‘mentallydisabled’.Byreit-eratingitsfindingsinthecaseof Alajos Kiss v Hungary9 (§42and44),theCourtsuggestedthat,asithasdonewithRoma, it is ready to introduce specificpositiveobligationsincasesof othervulnerablegroupssuchasintellectuallydisabledchildren.

The judgmentdemonstrates that theECtHR iswilling totakeamore robustapproach to thesegregationof Roma

children.ThisrepresentsanevolutioninthecaselawsinceD.H.,althougheventhatearlierjudgmentisstillawaitingim-plementationsixyearslater.Clearlythetimehascomeforcasessuchasthistoberesolvedatthedomesticlevel.ItisawelcomedevelopmentthatnationaljudgesnowhaveaclearindicationfromtheECtHRastowhatstandardsof scrutinyarerequired.ItisunfortunatethattheECtHRdidnotseizetheopportunitytoexpanditsnotionof directdiscrimina-tion.Theexistenceof differentstandardsunderEUlawandtheECHRwill however become apparent over time andlikelyleadtoamoreflexibleunderstandingof thisconcept.

9 EuropeanCourtof HumanRights,Alajos Kiss v Hungary,no.38832/06,§42,44.

CaSE REViEWS



Sulukule: Renovation or Destruction?

H i l A l K ü e y 1

Sulukulewasthesettingof thefirstof manyurbanrenova-tionprojectsinTurkey.Theprojectwascarriedoutwithsolittlerespectforthelawingeneralandtherightsof thoseconcernedinparticularthatnogoodresultcouldevercomeoutof it.LawNo.5366enablingnewlanddevelopmentin-vestments inneighbourhoods rich inhistoricheritagewaspassedin2005.ItistitledtheLaw on Renovation, Conservation and Active Use of Dilapidated Immovables with Historical and Cul-tural Wealth.As the name itself suggests, the ostensible aim of the law was to conserve historical heritage and culture while renovating old buildings.

We won a number of court cases on the Sulukule reno-vation. Despite this, there is not the slightest trace of history or Roma culture in Sulukule, Istanbul, which has been a Roma neighbourhood since Byzantine times. Followingthepassageof LawNo.5366theCouncilof MinistersissuedDecreeNo.2006/1029,dated04.04.2006declaringtheNeslişahSultanandHaticeSultanneighbour-hoods (i.e.Sulukule) in theFatihDistrictof Istanbulasa“RenovationZone”.Alltheparcelsintherenovationzone

weresubjecttoa“swiftexpropriation”underanotherCoun-cilof MinistersDecreeNo.2006/11296,dated19.10.2006.This “swift expropriation” (Article 27 of the Law on Expropriations), a practice to be resorted to only in emergency cases and war, enabled the Municipality to seize the plots and initiate the renovation project. Demolitionworkstartedintheneighbourhoodwhilelegalactionswereunderwayagainsttheproject.

On behalf of my clients, the Association for PromotingRomaCultureandSolidarityinSulukule,andthreepersonswhohadbeenlivingtheirinthehousetheyinheritedfromtheirgrandparents,IstartedthelegalactionattheIstanbulAdministrativeCourtforastayof executionof decisionNo.20,dated02.11.2007of theRegionalBoard for theCon-servation of Cultural and Natural Wealth in RenovationZonesinIstanbul.Theeffectof thedecisionwastoendorsethePreliminaryPlansfortherenovationproject.Webasedourclaimontheviolationof internationalconventions,theTurkishConstitutionandtheLawonExpropriations.2Ourcase for a stayof executionwas rejectedby the courton

1 HilalKüeyisalawyerandmemberof İzmirBarAssociation.

2 InternationalconventionssignedbytheRepublicof Turkeyusedforthejustificationof ourcase:

• UNESCOOperationalGuidelines/ICOMOS–InternationalCouncilof MonumentsandSites(RenovationzonesshouldbemanagedincompliancewiththecriteriaindicatedintheGuidelines)

• MaltaConvention–Conservationof archaeologicalheritage• GranadaConvention–Conservationof theArchitecturalHeritage• ParisConvention–Protectionof CulturalandNaturalHeritage• ViennaMemorandum-Theprincipleof seekingtheendorsementof allinterestedparties• VeniceCharter–Protectionof culturaldiversity• NaraDocumentof Authenticity–Acknowledgmentof thelegitimacyof theculturalvaluesof allparties.(Theprincipleof “thecultural

heritageof eachistheculturalheritageof all”.)• CharterontheBuiltVernacularHeritage-Respecttobepaidtovernacularbuildings,groupsandsettlements,andtheirculturalvaluesand

traditionalcharacterwhilecarryingoutcontemporarywork.• WashingtonCharter(ontheConservationof HistoricTownsandUrbanAreas)–Avoidingrigidityinimplementationsfortheconservation

inahistorictownorurbanarea.• ConventionfortheSafeguardingof IntangibleCulturalHeritage• ECHRArticle8ontherightof respectforone’sprivateandfamilylifeandone’shome,Article14onprohibitionof discrimination,Additio-

nalProtocol1,Article1.

Nationallegislationtakenasthebasisof ourcase:

• Constitution,Article35:Righttoproperty.• ViolationbytheLawNo.5366of Articles20,21,and25of theTurkishConstitution:privatelife,immunityof residence,equalitybeforelaw,

andrighttoproperty.• TurkishLawNo.5366• TurkishLawonConfiscation(confiscationwithoutanypublicbenefit)• TurkishLawNo.2863onProtectionof CulturalandNaturalWealth.


thegroundsthatthetworequirementstostayexecutionof thedecisionwerenotmet:firstlythecourtfoundtherewasnoexplicitviolationof thelaw;andsecondly,theimpugnedmeasurewasnotdifficultorimpossibletoremedy.InNovember2009,twoyearsafterthecasestartedandjustafter thedemolitionof the last house in theneighbour-hood,thecourtorderedapanelof expertstocarryoutasurveyandinspectioninordertoassessthemeritsof ourcase.In the Report of the Panel of Experts submitted to the court in October 2010theynotedthatthedevelop-mentplanforIstanbulhadbeenannulled,andthereforenodevelopmentplan couldpossiblybe implemented inSu-lukule,whichwassituatedinthehistoricalpeninsula.Fur-thermore,thereportstated that no “public benefit” was served by the project we were challenging in our case.Basedonthisreport,werequestedthattheCourtissueastay of execution, but this request was rejected. InsteadtheCourtsentthecaseoncemoretoapanelof expertstobeassessedonthebasisof LawNo.5366.However, it is settled law that if there is no development plan in a region, there can be no development project and no construction work can be undertaken. The Council of State’s rulings for similar cases are all to this effect. The second report prepared by the panel of experts submitted to the court in September 2011 also stated that the project in question was not in compliance with the purpose of Law No. 5366 and that there was no “public benefit”. The aspects of the project which were found to be contrary to Law No. 5366 in the Pan-el of Experts Report are as follows: ● The protection belt for the historic city walls estab-lished in linewithUNESCOcriteriawaschangedbytheproject inquestionandtheareaunderprotectionwasreducedbysome50%.

● There were discrepancies in the preliminary plan intermsof theexistingnetworkof streetsandthestruc-tureof theblocksof building;theoriginalshapeof theblocksof buildings in theareaandthestreetpatternfortheneighbourhoodwerenotadequatelypreserved.

● The Vegetable Garden allocated for public use wascompletelyeliminatedintheplan,blocksof buildingswereplannedinitsplaceandtheareawasopenedtoconstructionwork;theroadswerewidenedresultinginachangeinthecharacteristicsof thestreets.

● Nogreenareasorparkswereenvisagedintheprojectexceptwithinthecentralpartof theblocksof buildings.

● Permission to build new three to four storey unitswhichwouldnotbenotinharmonywiththestreetpat-ternandtheexistingregisteredbuildings’orwiththemaximumheightlevelsandproportionsof theexistingregisteredbuildingshadbeenintroduced.

Upon receipt of this report I filed a new application tothecourtforastayof executionwhichwasagainrejected.

Followingthestatementof theMunicipality’sattorneytotheeffectthattheywereworkingonsomerevisionsintheprojectdesignanddrawings,thecasewasagainsenttothepanelof experts.Thiswasinviolationof aclearruleof law:decisions as to whether or not there is a violation of law in a given case should be taken on the basis of the date of the legal action. The Court therefore acted unlawfully in placing undue emphasis on what had happened after the case was lodged.

The third expert report submitted in March 2012 again stated that none of the infractions identified in September 2011 had been corrected; that, on the con-trary, these unlawful acts were already underway and that there was again no “public benefit” sought by the Project. It was this third expert report that led the Is-tanbul Fourth Administrative Court to annul all of the legal acts which formed the basis for the implementa-tion of the Project: verdicts No. 2009/758 E. 2012/783, dated 26.4.2012 and No. 2009/719 E. 2012/789, dated 27.4.2012 respectively. In other words, the Court ac-knowledged the unlawful nature of the Project four years after we filed the case.

Inaccordancewithbasisrule-of-lawprinciples,theCourtrulingshouldhavebeenobeyed,theconstructionworkinthesubjectareastoppedandanewprojectpreparedinlinewiththereasonswhichtheCourthadbaseditsdecisionof annulment.ThisisalsowhattheAdministrativeProceed-ingsLawinstructsshouldbedone.

Howeverthe Municipality of Fatih did not abide by the Court ruling. Theyoncemorestartedtoimplementthe sameprojectwith a few revisions in the streetplansonly.WeopenedanotherlegalcaseagainstthisprojectandthecaseisstillbeingconsideredbytheEighthAdministra-tiveCourtof Istanbul.Consideringthefactthatthefirst

CaSE REViEWS



casecontinuedforfouryears,weanticipateitwillbealongtimebeforetheCourtmakesarulingonthiscase.

Themunicipalityhasadoptedacleverandfrustratingwayof evading implementation of the Court’s judgments.Theymakeminorchangesintheexistingplansinordertopresenttheplanasanewproject,althoughinactualfactit is thesameprojectwhichhasalreadybeenrejectedbythecourt.Theyalsocarryoutcertainformalitieswhicharemadetoappearasstepstakeninlinewithanewdecision.TheCourt’sunwillingnesstoacceptourdemandsforastayof executiononlyencourages-albeitunintentionally-suchmethodsof evadingthelaw.

Wehadtwo legaloptions inrelationto therefusalof theMunicipalityof Fatihtoabidebythecourtrulingannullingtheprojectandweresortedtobothof them.First,wefiledacomplaintwiththePublicProsecutor’sOfficeof Istanbulin July 2012 against theMayor of Fatih.However, underTurkishlaw,inordertostartalegalactionagainsttheMayor,theInteriorMinistry’spermissionmustbesecured.InMay2013IreceivedanoticefromtheInteriorMinistryinform-ingmethattheMinistryrefusedtogivesuchpermission.In response we filed an appeal with the Council of State for the annulment of the Interior Ministry’s decision to withhold the permission for starting any legal proceed-ing against the Mayor. Our appeal is now waiting for a decision from the Council of State.

Thesecondoptionwastostarta legal action for dam-agesunderArticle28/4of LawonAdministrativePro-ceedings citing theMunicipality’s failure to comply withtheCourtruling.WestartedthelegalactioninJune2013,atwhichtimewealsorequestedlegalaidtobeprovidedtothecomplainants.TheIstanbul Administrative Courts accepted our legal aid requests in rulings dated July 2013.Thecaseisstillbeingconsideredonthemerits.Asthecourtfeesonlegalactionsfordamagesareexcessivelyhigh inTurkey, it ishard to imaginehowwecouldhaveopenedsuchcasesonbehalf of myclientsif ourdemandforlegalaidhadbeenrejected.

Fatih Municipality and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism appealed to the Council of State against the ruling of the Fourth Administrative Court of Istan-bul for the annulment of the Project and demanded a stay of execution to this end. The Council of State re-jected their demand for a stay of execution in August

2013.However, in themeantime theconstructionworkswerealreadyfinishedandthenewowners,fewof whomareRoma,alreadymovedtothesenewbuildings-buildingsbuiltonthebasisof aprojectwhichhasbeenruledunlaw-fulbytheCourt.

This happened despite our legal achievements, i.e. thecourtrulingsinourfavour!

Theconstructionworkstartedin2010anditisnowclearthat the pace of serving justice lags behind the pace of construction.OurcasefiledwiththeEuropeanCourtof HumanRights(ECtHR)is,unusually,beingconsideredsi-multaneouslywithourcasegoingoninTurkey.Regretfully,theECtHR rejected our request for an interimmeasureunderRule39of theRulesof Courtof theECtHR.Thiswasnotunexpected:theCourtnormallyonlygrantssuchmeasures in casewhere there is a risk of death, tortureor inhuman or degrading treatment. However the storyof Sulukulefullyillustrates,tomymind,whyrequestsforinterimmeasuresshouldalsobeacceptedincasesrelatedtothedestructionof awholeneighbourhoodwitharichculturalheritageanditssubsequentreconstruction.Theseactionsentailviolationsof Article1(righttoproperty)of theAdditionalProtocol to theEuropeanConventiononHumanRights (ECHR),Article 8 (protection of privateandfamilylife)andProtocol12(prohibitionof discrimina-tion).Onlyonrareoccasionshaveinterimmeasuresbeengivenby theECtHR to stop such evictions anddemoli-tions(notablyinYordanova and Others v. Bulgaria,alsoinvolv-ingtheevictionof aRomacommunity).

Theauthoritiesareawareof thepotentialthatapplicantswillaskforandcourtswillgrantrequestsforastayof execu-tion.It was for this reason that in Article 6/9 of Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disas-ter Risk it is made clear that “… no stay of execution ruling can be made by the courts in such legal cases.”Deprivingpotentialapplicantsof aneffectiveremedyinthiswayisacauseforconcern,asTurkeyclaimstobeacountrywheretheruleof lawprevails.Theseparationof powersisasine qua nonof aStatebasedontheruleof law-aprinciplewhich preconditions the separate and independent natureof allthreepowers-thelegislature,executive,andjudiciary.

However the greed for more unearned revenues to begained from urban transformation projects is such thatevenviolationsof theConstitutionaretolerated,because


anycourtrulingforastayof execution,nomatterhowrarethishappens,mustgivewaytothatgreed.

Inorder topreventanymisunderstanding, Ihave toun-derlinethatSulukulewasdeclaredarenovationzoneunderLawNo.5366anditisthisLawthatappliestoSulukule.As theprohibitionon staysof execution is stipulated inLaw 6306 dated 2012, it does not apply to the Sulukulecase. Law no.5366 is applicable only for protected areaswithhistoricalheritage,whereasLawNo.6406applies toallareasinTurkeywiththeexceptionof protectedhistori-calheritageareas.LawNo.6406governstheidentificationof riskyareas,demolitionof buildingsinsuchareas,andimplementationof projects.

Thereisnodoubtthatit isthedutyof agovernmenttoprovide its citizens with adequate means to live in safebuildings.HoweverArticle3/7of LawNo.6306 arouses suspicion that the underlying purpose is not just miti-gating risk. The Article in question reads as follows: “Any building located within the boundaries of the areas identified to be within the scope of this Law but does not fall in the definition of risky buildings, shall be subjected to the provisions of this Law if and when deemed necessary by the Ministry for the integ-rity of the implementation of the Law.”

Inotherwords,evenif abuildingisnotconsideredriskyatall,itcanbedemolishedunderthislawif theMinistryof En-vironmentandUrbanPlanningdecidesthatitconstitutesanobstacletotheimplementationof atransformationproject.

AsoursubjectmatterhereisSulukule,Iwillnotgointodetailsasregardstheprovisionsof Lawno.6306whicharenotcompliantwiththebasicprinciplesof law.However,keepinginmindthattheprojectimplementedinSulukuledidnotaimfor“transformation”butfor“eradication”,thetwoarticlesmentionedabove(6/9and3/7)highlightthescaleof violationsof legalrightsthatwemayseeinTurkeyinthenearfuture.Inthelightof thewaytransformationprojectswereimplementedinSulukule,Tarlabaşı,andFen-er/Balat,withoutseekingtheinhabitants’viewsandwithtotaldisregardof the inhabitants’preferences,theextent

of thepotentialthreatsfacedbythedisadvantagedgroupsisallthemoreworrying.

All these practices entail violations of not only Article35of theTurkishConstitution(guaranteeingtherighttoproperty),butalsoArticles8and14of theECHR;Article1of AdditionalProtocol1totheECHR;Article2of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,prohibitingdiscriminationonthebasisof,inter alia,“raceandcolour”,andArticle17of thesameCovenantprohib-iting“arbitraryorunlawfulinterferencewith[individuals’]privacy,family,homeorcorrespondence”;andArticle11of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights,guaranteeing“adequatehousing”.

It is important that practices in connection with urbantransformationshouldabidebyGeneralCommentNo.23of UNHumanRightsCommittee(1994)whichestablishesthat“theexistenceof anethnic,religiousorlinguisticminor-ityinagivenStatepartydoesnotdependuponadecisionbythatStatepartybutrequirestobeestablishedbyobjec-tivecriteria.”GeneralComment No 4of theCommittee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)alsoprovideslegalprotectionagainstforcedevictionsandguar-anteestherighttoproperty.ThatGeneralComment,aswellasGeneral Comment No.17arealsobeingviolated.

Thevitalissuehereisnotonlytherighttoproperty.TheUNHumanRightsCommittee,inaresolutiondated2012,clearlyestablishesthatademolishedhouse,regardlessof whether or not it is the lawful property of the resident,shouldbeconsideredtheindividual’s“home”if heorsheisattachedtotheplacewithlong-standingemotional,so-cialandhistoricalconnections;andfurthermorethatdem-olitionof suchabuildingconstitutesaninterferencewithhumanrights.(Naidenova v. Bulgaria / 2012).

Lookingat theoutcomesofarof this longprocess, fol-lowingadizzyingvarietyof achievementsatthecourts,Iwouldliketoendthisarticlebyquotingthewordsof aSu-lukulechild:“Isawthedeadbodyof myneighbourhood.”Isn’t it ironic that the name of Law No. 5366 says its purpose is to “keep alive” our heritage?

CaSE REViEWS



book Review

katharine quarmby - No place to Call home - inside the Real lives of gypsies and Travellers,one World, london, 2013

InOctober2011atravellersettlementinthesouthof Eng-landwas forciblyevictedbypoliceandbailiffs.Manyof theresidentshadalreadyleft,knowingtheycouldnotstayonthesite.Thosewhoremained,alongwithotheractivistsandsupporters,wereforcedoff thelandinaviolentclashatthesite,calledDaleFarm.

KatharineQuarmbyspentsevenyearsresearchingthisbook,andthecareandattentionshehastakenshowsthrough.ShetakestheDaleFarmevictionasastartingpoint,coveringtheeventsindetails.Throughthislens,sheexaminesthelonghis-toryorGypsy,RomaandTravellersintheUK.ShespeakstothemainplayersintheDaleFarmdrama;thefamilies,theac-tivists,thelocalcommunityandothers.Thisbroadapproachprovidesanin-depthpictureof whathappened.It’sacom-plexsituation,andthewriterworkshardtouncoverthedetailbehind theheadlines, including thedifficult and sometimesuncomfortablerelationshipsbetweenthoseinvolved.

Quarmbyisawriter,journalistandfilm-makerspecialisinginsocialaffairs,education,foreignaffairsandpolitics,withaninvestigativeandcampaigningedge.Shehaspreviouslywrittenonhatecrimeagainstdisabledpeople.Thebook,therefore,presentsabalanced,journalisticview.Althoughit is clear that Quarmby formed strong bonds with thefamiliesof DaleFarm,sheallowsustomakeupourownmind,anddoesn’tshyawayfromdescribingthecomplexdynamicsof lifeforEnglishGypsiesandIrishTravellersintheUK.(Thebookfocusesmorestronglyonthesepopu-lationsthanonothercommunities,suchasrecently-arrivedmigrantRomafromacrossEurope.)

AlthoughthebookfocusesverystronglyontheUK,it’sveryeasytoseeechoesof evictionsinothercountries.Travellers

trieddesperatelytofindalegalsolution,butwereunsuccess-ful.Achange ingovernmentatacrucialmomentmadeitevenharder.Followingonfromtheeviction,manyof thefamilies areworseoff, facingmentalhealthproblemsandlivinginworseconditions.(Quarmbyhascontinuedtore-portontheirfatefortheGuardian,amongothers.)

Thebookendswithapleafortoleranceforthenewwavesof migrantRomafromotherpartsof Europe–theUKcanchoosetomakespaceforthosefleeingintoleranceandpersecution inotherpartsof theworld, just as it alwayshas,saysQuarmby.Thebookchoosestoendsonapositivenote,withasnapshotof oneof theDaleFarmfamiliesatachurchceremonyforconfirmation.Despitethedifficul-tiesof theevictionandlifethatfollowedthefamilyremaintogether,batteredbutunbroken.

Quarmbysetsoutahopefor the future in thevery firstpages of the book, recognising the difficult history be-tweenGypsies,Travellersandthesettledpopulation.

“Pitting local settledpeople againstnomadicpeople(whoarealsooftenlocaltoo)benefitsnobody.Bothof thesidesinthisconflicthaveinheritedalegacyof bitterness,contempt,andeven insomecaseshatredbetweeneachother.Butwedonothavetobeboundand constrained by that common past.We need tofindawaytotalktoeachotherandtomovebeyondourhistoricaldifferences.”

NoPlacetoCallHomeisagrippingportraitof acommu-nityfacingextremelydifficultcircumstances.It’swell-writ-tenandaccessible.It’sessentialreadingforthosewhoworkonRomarights,butit’salsoanexcellentbooktogivetoafriendwhowantstounderstandmoreaboutthehistoryof Gypsies,RomaandTravellersintheUK(andbeyond.)

This book was reviewed by Marianne Powell

Roma RightsJournal of the european roma rights Centre

NatioNal Roma iNtegRatioN stRategies: what Next?2013


EUROPEAN ROMA RIGHTS CENTRE

The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) is an international public interest law organisation working to combat anti-Romani racism and human rights abuse of Roma. The approach of the ERRC involves strategic litigation, international advocacy, research and policy development and training of Romani activists. The ERRC has consultative status with the Council of Europe, as well as with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The ERRC has been the recipient of numerous awards for its efforts to advance human rights respect of Roma: The 2013 PL Foundation Freedom Prize; the 2012 Stockholm Human Rights Award, awarded jointly to the ERRC and Tho-mas Hammarberg; in 2010, the Silver Rose Award of SOLIDAR; in 2009, the Justice Prize of the Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation; in 2007, the Max van der Stoel Award given by the High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Dutch Foreign Ministry; and in 2001, the Geuzenpenning Award (the Geuzen medal of honour) by Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet of the Netherlands;

Board of Directors Robert Kushen – (USA - Chair of the Board) | Dan Pavel Doghi (Romania) | James A. Goldston (USA) | Maria Virginia Bras Gomes (Portugal) | Jeno Kaltenbach (Hungary) I Abigail Smith, ERRC Treasurer (USA)

Executive Director Dezideriu Gergely

Staff Adam Weiss (Legal Director) | Andrea Jamrik (Financial Officer) | Andrea Colak (Lawyer) | Anna Orsós (Pro-grammes Assistant) | Anca Sandescu (Human Rights Trainer) | Ailsa Spindler (Director of Organisational Devel-opment) | Crina Morteanu (Legal Trainee) | Csilla Kacsó (Legal Administration Officer) | Darya Alekseeva (Law-yer) | Dóra Eke (Programmes Assistant) | Dzavit Berisha (Publications Officer) | Djordje Jovanovic (Research Coordinator) | Hajnalka Németh (Office Coordinator) | Hajnal Vernes (Financial Director) | Judit Gellér (Lawyer) | Julianna Oros (Financial Officer) | Kieran O’Reilly (Research Officer) | Marek Szilvasi (Research and Advocacy Officer) | Marcello Cassanelli (Legal Fellow) | Marianne Powell (Communications Officer) | Michal Zalesak (Legal Fellow) | Sinan Gökcen (Information Officer) | Stephan Müller (Programmes Director) | Stefan Luca (Lawyer) | Tefik Mahmut (Legal Trainee)

Consultants Anna Daróczi (Hungary) | Tomáš Sivák (Slovakia) | Mustafa Asanovski (Macedonia) | Atanas Zahariev (Bulgaria) | Marek Baláž (Slovakia) | Manon Fillonneau (France) | Hacer Foggo (Turkey) | Vladimir Kondur (Ukraine) | Rosalia Mangiacavallo (Italy) | Marija Manic (Serbia) | Robert Matei (Romania) | Július Mika (Czech Republic) | Markus Pape (Czech Republic) | Tatjana Peric (Serbia) | Corina Ajder (Moldova) | Erika Bodor (France) | Victoria Vasey (Senior Consultant) | Tara Bedard (Senior Consultant)

Recent Interns Jonathan Moore (USA) | Katarina Medlova (Slovakia) | Giorgi Maruashvili (Georgia) | Cristina Marian (Moldova) | Dominik Hávor (Austria) | Ana Ruiz (Spain) | Snezana Dimic (Serbia) | Veronika Czutor (Hungary) | Yanina Fyudr (Ukraine) | Erika Bodor (France) | Radosav Besic (Serbia) | Alexandra Drimal (USA) | Camille Allamel (USA) | Zoe Billington (USA) | Manuel Spornberger (Austria)

The ERRC was founded by Mr Ferenc Ko szeg.

MAJOR SPONSORS OF THE ERRC

Swedish International Development Agency | Open Society Institute | The Sigrid Rausing Trust | Microsoft Hungary (special licence status)


errC rom

a rights | national roma integration strategies: W

hat neXt?2013