Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
Implementation of the
Action Plan on Improving the
Situation of Roma and Sinti
Within the OSCE Area
Renewed Commitments,
Continued Challenges
Status Report 2013
Implementation of the
Action Plan on Improving the
Situation of Roma and Sinti
Within the OSCE Area
Renewed Commitments,
Continued Challenges
Status Report 2013
ODIHRPublished by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Ul. Miodowa 10 00-251 Warsaw Poland www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2013 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of ODIHR as the source. ISBN 978-92-9234-876-2 Designed by Nona Reuter Cover photo by Stephane Mahe/Reuters/Forum Printed in Poland by Garmond
Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms 5 Foreword 7 Executive Summary 9 Part I : Introduction 15 Part II: Implementation of the Action Plan 19 1. For Roma, with Roma: Comprehensive Roma strategies 19 2. Combating Racism and Discrimination 24 3. Housing and Living Conditions 27 4. Health Care 33 5. Unemployment and Economic Problems 38 6. Improving Access to Education 43 7. Enhancing Participation in Public and Political Life 51 8. Post-Crisis Situations 54 Part III: The OSCE’s Role in Implementing the Action Plan 59 Appendices 67 Appendix I The Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE 68 Appendix II Timeline of Roma and Sinti Issues in ODIHR 79 Appendix III Participating States and Institutional Memberships 82 Appendix IV ODIHR’s Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues Events and Activities, 2008 to 2013 83 Appendix V Responses to ODIHR’s Questionnaire from OSCE Participating States 85 Appendix VI FRA Statistics on Roma 87
Abbreviations and Acronyms ECHR European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ECRI European Commission against Racism and Intolerance ECtHR European Court of Human Rights ERRC European Roma Rights Centre EU European Union ERDF European Regional Development Funds ESF European Social Fund (European Union) FRA EU Fundamental Rights Agency HCNM OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities HDIM Human Dimension Implementation Meeting IDP Internally Displaced Person ODIHR OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe OMIK OSCE Mission in Kosovo SPMU OSCE Strategic Police Matters Unit UNDP United Nations Development Program UNHCR United Nations Refugee Agency Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 5
Foreword
S ince its adoption in 2003, the Action Plan on Im-
proving the Situation of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE
Area has provided the blueprint for OSCE participating
has to be better monitoring and evaluation of the out-
comes generated in order to ensure these funds are be-
ing put to the most effective use possible. As for specific
States, institutions and field missions in addressing the areas of focus, ensuring that Roma children are guaran-
marginalization, discrimination and, sometimes, hostil- teed an equal opportunity to gain a quality education
ity and violence that Roma communities and individuals and combatting the multiple forms of discrimination
face. This report, published ten years after the Action faced by Roma women and girls will not only greatly
Plan’s adoption, is the second such effort to review and boost economic, social and political opportunities for
assess the progress made in following that blueprint. individual Roma, but also the integration of Roma com-
As with the first Status Report, published in 2008, munities in general.
the purpose of this report is to highlight what has been For Nicolae Gheorghe, a prominent human rights
achieved, where challenges persist in realizing the ob- activist and former ODIHR Adviser on Roma and Sinti
jectives contained in the Action Plan, and why this is the issues, battling the discrimination faced by Roma and
case. In doing this, it draws upon the responses by OSCE promoting policies to provide them with equal opportu-
participating States to an ODIHR questionnaire. The re- nities was a life’s work. His death in August of this year
sponse to the questionnaire this time was significant- was a great loss for both the Roma community and for
ly greater, both in the number of countries responding the OSCE family. Gheorge was the main architect of the
and the amount of information provided, than for the OSCE Action Plan, and it is my hope that this Status
first report, providing a fuller picture of the initiatives Report is worthy of his memory, and helps further the
by participating States to improve the situation of Roma cause for which he so tirelessly worked.
and Sinti.
This information has been supplemented by data pro- Ambassador Janez Lenarčič
vided by European Union Member States in documents Director, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
submitted to the European Commission in relation to and Human Rights (ODIHR)
the Framework for National Roma Integration Strat-
egies, by information gathered by ODIHR from other
sources, including OSCE field offices and institutions,
as well as by information submitted by civil society
organizations.
As you will read in the following pages, although a
number of actors have become more involved in the
elaboration and implementation of policies targeted at
improving their situation, Roma and Sinti in the OSCE
area continue to face critical problems. These problems
— and the efforts by participating States to address
them — are an important focus of Status Report. Just as,
and perhaps more important, are the priority areas and
recommendations identified in relation to them. There
are recommendations for combatting hate crimes and
discrimination against Roma and Sinti, improving hous-
ing, ensuring their access to adequate health care and
enhancing their participation in public and political life.
In particular, while there has been a significant in-
crease in funding targeted to improve the situation of
Roma and Sinti in the OSCE area, it is clear that there
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 7Executive Summary
F or nearly two decades the OSCE Office for Demo-
cratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has
been tasked with assisting participating States in meet-
local level action plans and implementing initiatives. In
addition, more funding for Roma and Sinti programmes
has been made available, especially by the European
ing their human-dimension commitments related to Union (EU) through its assistance programmes for im-
Roma and Sinti communities. The OSCE Action Plan on plementing integration strategies and action plans for
Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the its Member States or for countries aspiring to EU acces-
OSCE Area, adopted in 2003, has formed the foundation sion. The adoption of the Framework for National Roma
for the Office’s work in helping States implement these Integration Strategies by the European Council in 2011
commitments. was the most recent step in the process of strengthening
The 2003 Action Plan is a comprehensive policy doc- the EU agenda on Roma.
ument, addressing key areas and recommending action Despite this example of visible progress, the assess-
by participating States, in areas such as combating rac- ment also identifies negative trends that are deepening
ism and anti-discrimination, ensuring equal access and the gaps between the situation of Roma and Sinti and
opportunities for Roma and Sinti in the area of educa- general populations, especially in the areas of housing,
tion, employment, housing and health services, enhanc- employment and access to social services.
ing Roma participation in public life, and assisting Roma This overall context has been influenced most of all by
in crisis and post-crises situations. Further, it underlines the effects resulting from two significant events — EU
that Roma and Sinti women should be systematically enlargement and the global financial crisis — both of
mainstreamed in all relevant Roma policies and be able which have had a major impact on the situation of Roma
to participate on equal basis with men. and Sinti.
In 2008 ODIHR produced its first comprehensive as- Triggered by the 2007 enlargement of the EU, changes
sessment of the implementation of the Action Plan with to Roma and Sinti policy throughout Europe have tak-
its first Status Report, which led to the adoption of two en place during this reporting period. The global finan-
further Ministerial Council Decisions recognizing the cial crisis and its economic fallout have exacerbated the
need to enhance efforts in this area. The first, adopted in difficult situation of Roma and Sinti communities, with
Helsinki in 2008, emphasizes the need to ensure equal heightened economic insecurity within majority popu-
access to education, including early education, for Roma lations exacerbating xenophobia, including anti-Roma
and Sinti children. Adopted in Athens in 2009, the sec- sentiment.
ond urges participating States to strengthen their ef- Fleeing discrimination and poverty at home and seek-
forts in promoting tolerance and combating prejudices ing security and new economic and social opportunities
against Roma and Sinti, in order to prevent their social abroad, Roma and Sinti have joined those migrating, for
exclusion and marginalization. the most part, from the new EU Member States to older
Coming on the tenth anniversary of the adoption of ones. This Roma and Sinti migration has further stirred
the Action Plan, this second Status Report analyses de- up anti-Roma feelings and prejudices in a number of
velopments over the last five years to provide an assess- participating States, fuelling the mobilization of popu-
ment of the progress by participating States in imple- list parties and extreme-right movements against them.
menting Action Plan commitments. This assessment is Underscoring the importance of this periodic review,
particularly important against a backdrop of dramatic ODIHR received 41 responses to the questionnaire
changes in the overall context in which Roma policy it sent to participating States, and many of the replies
implementation takes place since the release of the first contain a great deal of information. Some participating
report. States provided complete data about all the programmes
The assessment of events during this review period and projects undertaken, including annual expendi-
clearly shows that Roma and Sinti policies have become tures. In addition, ODIHR has made use of information
standardized in many OSCE participating States. In- provided by EU Member States in the documents sub-
creasingly, local authorities are engaged in developing mitted to the European Commission as part of the EU
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 9Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies in and civil society continue to insist on data collection
2011. While these documents define the goals and ob- and baseline studies as a key to ensuring effective policy
jectives of each country’s future Roma Strategies, they design, evaluation and monitoring, and measurement of
also include information about recently implemented progress. As the collection of ethnically disaggregated
policy measures. data runs against general policy in many participating
While the data provided by the participating States in States, the data made available or cited by governments
these two manners represent the primary source for the are often fragmentary and difficult to aggregate and
review and assessment presented here, they have been compare.
supplemented with information gathered by ODIHR Measuring implementation is difficult due to a contin-
from other sources or provided by OSCE field offices ued absence of robust monitoring and evaluation mech-
or other OSCE institutions. The questionnaire was also anisms. While most participating States monitor spend-
distributed to civil society organizations, seven of which ing or programme beneficiaries, they do not collect data
replied. to assess programme outcomes. There are very few in-
This report follows the structure of the first, with dependent studies, state audits or reports that monitor
some modifications. Part I elaborates on the context and assess the outcomes of Roma integration measures.
and new developments in the area of Roma policy and During the last five years, a significant number of par-
implementation since 2008, with special attention to the ticipating States have stepped up their activities, includ-
consolidation of EU Roma programmes. Part II, the core ing introducing new policies and measures to improve
of the report, provides thorough analysis of the situation the situation of Roma and Sinti. There are now more
in the review period, based largely on data from partici- policies, institutions and financial instruments available
pating States’ replies to the ODIHR questionnaire. Each to tackle the broad range of problems facing many Roma
thematic chapter starts with an analysis of continuing and Sinti populations. The level of funding, as well as
challenges and emerging trends, followed by a presen- the structures of programmes and prioritization of goals
tation of action by participating States and of priority and projects, vary from country to country. Increased
areas and recommendations. Part III elaborates on the funding does not necessarily translate into better re-
OSCE’s role in implementation of the Action Plan and sults, with the lack of monitoring mechanisms men-
reviews ODIHR’s activities in this area. The report as- tioned above making it difficult sometimes to determine
sesses implementation of each area of the Action Plan what the results have been.
using the categories of positive change, visible progress, The responses to the ODIHR questionnaire revealed
breakthrough, no change and negative trend. While there that local authorities are key structures in the imple-
are examples where visible progress has been achieved, mentation of Roma policy measures. In some areas, such
none of the improvements during the review period as education and housing, they are the main agents for
amounted to a breakthrough. implementation. At the same time, however, some local
authorities have resisted implementing national policy,
For Roma, with Roma: comprensive Roma strategies and national governments and civil society have had, in
some cases, to work to overcome local obstacles, wheth-
The first Status Report detected serious problems with er the result of lack of interest in or active opposition to
regard to effective implementation, funding mech- assisting Roma communities.
anisms, political will and measurement of progress.
During the period under review in this report, partici- Combating racism and discrimination
pating States achieved a stage at which Roma policy is
becoming standardized, filters down to the local level, Legislation and law enforcement
and is generally better funded. The increased EU fund- In the replies to the ODIHR questionnaire, participating
ing for implementation of Roma strategies and action States reported extensively on anti-discrimination leg-
plans, especially in new EU member States or countries islation adopted or amended during the review period,
aiming at EU accession, represents a significant develop- as well as on the work of existing or newly-established
ment, and constitutes visible progress. anti-discrimination and equality bodies. As in the 2008
During the review period, there has been no change report these legislative improvements continue to con-
in the quality of data about Roma and Sinti gathered stitute a positive change.
by the participating States. International organizations
10 Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE AreaHate crimes and incidents against Roma and Sinti, Addressing socio-economic issues
Roma and police
Despite these positive changes, the review period has Housing and living conditions
been dominated by negative trends, including a disturb- A positive change is evident in this area for the current
ing number of hate crimes against Roma, the use of ex- review period, both in terms of reporting on housing
tremist anti-Roma rhetoric, and continuing reports of initiatives and on the funding made available for im-
police ill-treatment. proving the housing conditions of Roma. Some coun-
The underlying root causes that fuel these develop- tries have achieved visible progress in this regard. At
ments are twofold. On the one hand, EU enlargement, the same time, the housing situation for Roma in many
coupled with Roma marginalization, have led many participating States continues to be characterized by a
Roma individuals and families to seek better condi- lack of secure tenure and access to basic infrastructure,
tions and opportunities elsewhere through migration, discrimination in social-housing schemes, residential
sometimes generating negative reactions in destination segregation, high vulnerability to forced eviction, and
countries or areas. At the same time, ongoing economic conditions that pose health risks.
difficulties in many OSCE participating States already Only a few countries have mapped the spatially sepa-
noted have sometimes led to the scapegoating of Roma rate settlements of marginalized communities or identi-
by disaffected segments of majority populations. In fied the number of so-called informal settlements lack-
their replies to the questionnaire, only a few participat- ing adequate infrastructure. This may also be hampering
ing States reported on hate crimes in which the victims the implementation of national policy commitments.
were specifically Roma. With regard to forced evictions, these typically lead to
Far-right political parties in some participating States even worse living conditions, perpetuating the vulnera-
have also scapegoated Roma in difficult economic con- bility and marginalization of Roma communities. Some
ditions to promote or capitalize on anti-Roma sentiment major steps need to be taken with regard to regularizing
among majority communities. These parties — and, in the status of many Roma settlements that are current-
some instances, mainstream parties as well — have used ly illegal. This is an often-repeated recommendation on
anti-Roma rhetoric, including that of “Gypsy criminali- which there has been insufficient action.
ty”. These same negative stereotypes of Roma also per- Improving this situation may also require sufficient
sist in some media. funding and subsidization policies for social housing for
A number of the governmental responses to the ques- some time into the future. Social housing legislation for
tionnaire provided information on police activities and vulnerable groups, to establish long-term support mech-
projects initiated and implemented to improve the pro- anisms to alter their living conditions, is a prerequisite.
tection for Roma communities. At the same time, civ-
il society groups have reported a significant number Health care
of cases where police in participating States have used In spite of the increase in the number of projects and
excessive force or ill-treated Roma, particularly in the programmes in this area, no change has been achieved in
course of evictions or in conducting stop-and-search reversing the negative health trends in Roma communi-
actions in informal settlements. Practices such as exten- ties. Concern remains about instances of discrimination
sive racial profiling, denial of rights to Roma following in access to health services and dire health conditions,
arrest or while in custody, police failure to respond ef- especially for Roma immigrants.
fectively to aid Roma victims of crime, including racist Expanding Roma health mediator programmes is the
violence, combined with a lack of means and knowledge most widespread and effective way of improving the
by Roma to gain redress continued also to be challenges health status of Roma and Sinti, and the broad appli-
during this reporting period. A factor that continues to cation of this approach and the institutionalization of
hinder efforts in this area is the tensions that have often these programmes in several participating States con-
existed between Roma and the police caused, in part, by stitutes visible progress. Roma health mediators, the
a lack of mutual understanding and mistrust, along with majority of whom are women, have become an import-
low representation of Roma and Sinti on police forces. ant community resource working to facilitate access to
health care services among Roma.
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 11Illiteracy, low education levels, marginalization, pov- to reduce, in a significant way, the level of unemploy-
erty and social exclusion continue, however, to result in ment among this population.
poor health outcomes for Roma. Discrimination and a
lack of personal identification, including birth certifi- Improving access to education
cates, make it particularly difficult for Roma to access
health services. The provision of equitable, universal ac- From a policy perspective, education for Roma has,
cess to health care services — regardless of the ability compared to other areas, received a great deal of atten-
to pay — should be a priority in order to reduce health tion from international organizations and national gov-
inequities among disadvantaged communities. ernments. All of this indicates visible progress in making
Roma in some instances, continue to suffer from dis- education a priority in policy to improve the situation of
eases — most commonly tuberculosis — associated with Roma and Sinti in many states.
poor sanitary living conditions. The incidence of such During the review period, governments continued
diseases provides vivid evidence of the hazardous health to employ good practices for promoting the inclusion
conditions many Roma face. of Roma and Sinti in early education. Scholarship pro-
Education, starting from early childhood, is crucial grammes at different levels of education also became a
to addressing and overcoming some of the negative more common practice during the review period, along
practices that continue to affect Roma girls in a num- with affirmative action measures, such as quotas at uni-
ber of Roma communities, such as early marriage and versities for Roma students.
pregnancy. Efforts by Roma women themselves to chal- Key challenges have not yet been overcome, and there
lenge these practices should be especially supported by has been no change in increasing access to quality edu-
governments. cation for Roma and Sinti children. The improper chan-
There needs to be an understanding of the need for neling of Roma and Sinti children into “special” educa-
continuity in health care efforts in order to achieve sus- tion remains a problem in some instances, and residen-
tainable results. Budgetary shortages in this area could tial segregation leads to Roma segregation in schools. A
be offset through the increased use of Structural Funds number of judgments from the European Court of Hu-
in the EU Member States and other support funding in man Rights (ECtHR) during the review period highlight
those countries aiming at EU accession. this challenge.
The children in such schools often receive substan-
Unemployment and economic issues dard education, discouraging them from continuing
Initiatives and efforts undertaken by participating States their schooling, something that might further entrench
to increase employability and provide jobs and income attitudes within Roma communities placing a low value
opportunities to Roma represent a positive change on formal education. The ECtHR judgments should be
during this reporting period. The Roma employment used to guide state reforms in this area.
programmes undertaken by participating States, es- Various forms of Roma mediation programmes have,
pecially through subsidizing health mediator, school to some extent, served the purpose of preventing Roma
mediator and assistant positions, as well as various children from dropping out of school, raising Roma chil-
Roma experts employed in public offices, have contrib- dren’s attendance rates, and contributing to inclusive
uted significantly to this positive change. Systematizing education practices, as well as offering job opportuni-
these programmes and officially recognizing these posi- ties to Roma. In most participating States, a rise in the
tions within public administrations would bolster this percentage of Roma children attending primary school
progress. was reportedly observed after the creation of mediation
When compounded by a lack of skills on the part of programmes, although a rise in school achievement has
many Roma, discriminatory practices on the labour been considered “modest” by independent assessments.
market continue to be a determining factor in Roma The poor educational outcomes of Roma children
employment. In this context, initiatives and efforts un- need to be urgently addressed. Roma children’s educa-
dertaken by participating States to increase employabil- tional progress and achievement should be in the spot-
ity and provide jobs and income opportunities to Roma light for both Roma parents and their children’s teach-
should be considered a positive change. At the same ers. Programmes to promote and ensure the attendance
time, however, it should be noted that these initiatives, by Roma students at all levels of compulsory education
including public works programmes, have been unable should be in place. These could even be strengthened to
12 Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Areaencourage Roma and Sinti children toward academic good governance; and to provide specialized training to
achievement and progress. Roma working in public administration and on minority
councils.
Enhancing participation in public and political life
Crises and post crisis situations
While the level of Roma participation in public and
political life and their representation in elected bodies The developments during the current review period with
is similar to the previous assessment period, a positive regard to Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian communities in
change can be observed in several participating States the post-conflict Western Balkan region indicate signs
where amendments or new legislation have been intro- of visible progress. The region’s governments have adopt-
duced to raise these, especially at the municipal level. ed Roma strategies and action plans and institutional-
Similarly, the establishment of Roma minority councils ized programmes in the areas of health and education.
in some countries as key advisory bodies representing OSCE Missions have been involved in working on those
Roma interests, legitimized through direct Roma vot- strategies and have monitored their implementation.
ing, has been a new development in this period. Roma political representation and participation has
The June 2011 European Council Decision on the been enhanced and security for Roma, Ashkali and
Framework for Roma National Strategies provided a Egyptian communities has improved. Lead-contam-
new impetus. The EU requested the establishment of a inated camps for internally displaced persons (IDPs)
Point of Contact in each Member State for Roma Strat- have been closed and programmes to improve the liv-
egy implementation and, as a result, governments have ing conditions in refugee camps are in place. Across the
not only nominated such representatives, but have also Western Balkans region, long-term solutions for IDPs
established consultation mechanisms or working groups and refugees, especially for those who live in informal
where there previously were none. In some participating settlements are still needed to provide adequate housing
States where these mechanisms had existed, they have solutions for refugees and IDPs.
been strengthened. After more than a decade of displacement, return to
Deficiencies identified in the previous status report their place of origin is no longer an option for many IDPs
continue, as Roma continue to be disadvantaged in po- and refugees. In this regard, more attention needs to be
litical participation, due at least in part to their low lev- paid by participating States to measures to remove the
els of education. Mainstream political parties appeared obstacles to property repossession and to gaining civil
even less interested in launching or promoting Roma registration documents that are negatively impacting
candidates during this review period than in the five the return process. The Zagreb Declaration, to which
years preceding it. participants from the Western Balkan region agreed
Local administrations now often possess the compe- in 2011, needs to be followed up by firm action and en-
tence and public policy instruments to address Roma hanced bilateral co-operation to resolve still-open cases
social problems, sometimes exceeding those of higher of undocumented Roma, Ashkali and Egyptians and re-
levels of government. It is crucial, therefore, that further duce their risk of statelessness.
efforts are made to stimulate the involvement of local
authorities in the Roma inclusion process and Roma rep-
resentatives in local administration.
To that end, concrete efforts by participating States
need to be undertaken to protect and enhance the right
of Roma and Sinti women and men to participate as
voters and candidates in local and national elections; to
address the on-going challenges that render Roma com-
munities especially vulnerable to vote-buying and vote
manipulation; to address the lack of capacity of Roma
elected representatives at the national and local levels
through targeted programmes; to enhance government
consultation mechanisms, allowing for partnerships
with Roma civil society organizations as a measure of
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 13part i
Introduction
Background Aside from Roma and Sinti, there are other minority
groups living within the OSCE area who face many of
T he Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma
and Sinti within the OSCE Area, adopted in Maas-
tricht in 2003, defines key policy areas, particularly in
the same challenges related to discrimination and exclu-
sion, such as Ljuli in Central Asia and the Travellers in
Ireland and the United Kingdom. Based on these com-
combating racism and discrimination; ensuring equal monalities, ODIHR works to support the improvement
access and opportunities for Roma and Sinti in educa- of the situation for these groups as well.
tion, employment, housing and health services; enhanc-
ing public participation; and assisting Roma and Sinti in Methodology
crisis and post-crisis situations.1
ODIHR, through its Contact Point for Roma and Sinti The methodology and structure of this second Status
Issues, is mandated to assist participating States in im- Report follow those of the first report, published in
plementing the Action Plan, to review periodically the 2008, with only a few minor changes in the subchapters
situation of Roma and Sinti, and to recommend action, of the first section.
often in co-operation with other OSCE partners, to im- This report does not attempt to systematically review
prove this situation.2 the situation in particular countries in detail. It does,
This is the second ODIHR Status Report to assess the however, reflect on current developments and trends
implementation of the Action Plan. This report exam- and on the implementation of commitments, providing
ines the progress made, well as challenges and trends examples from participating States.
that have surfaced or intensified during the past five The qualitative categories of breakthrough, visible
years as they affect Roma and Sinti policy and its imple- progress, positive change, no change and negative trends
mentation by the participating States. are utilized for this purpose, as they were in the first re-
Roma and Sinti communities are found throughout port.4 The conclusions of the first Status Report form a
the OSCE region, but predominantly in Central and reference point for this one, and developments over the
South-Eastern Europe. Largely settled, Roma and Sinti last five years are examined to in order to assess the
are one of the largest minorities in Europe. Lacking a progress and achievements made by participating States
territory of their own, these communities nevertheless from that point.
share some common cultural, linguistic and ethnic ties. The thematic structure of this report follows that of
Subject to overwhelming discrimination in all spheres the OSCE Action Plan and, in the areas of education and
of public life, Roma and Sinti have been largely excluded combating discrimination, as underlined in two subse-
from wider society. Such discrimination is widespread, quent OSCE Ministerial Council Decisions related to
and it affects the ability of Roma and Sinti populations Roma and Sinti: “Enhancing OSCE Efforts to Implement
to gain access to social services on equal terms and to the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma
enjoy the same economic opportunities as others, there- and Sinti within the OSCE Area”, 5 adopted in 2008 in
by creating large disparities in comparison with major- Helsinki, and “Enhancing OSCE Efforts to Ensure Roma
ity populations. 3
4 Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of
Roma and Sinti in OSCE Area, Status Report 2008, (Warsaw: OSCE/
1 OSCE Ministerial Council, Decision No. 3/03, “Action Plan on ODIHR, 2008), http://www.osce.org/odihr/33500.
Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti in OSCE Area”, Maas-
5 OSCE Ministerial Council, Decision No. 6/08, “Enhancing OSCE
tricht, 1-2 December 2003, < www.osce.org/odihr/17554>.
Efforts to Implement the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of
2 Ibid., p. 27, par. 129. Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area”, Helsinki, 5 December 2008,
3 See the statistics in Appendix VIII of this report. http://www.osce.org/mc/35488.
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 15and Sinti Sustainable Integration”,6 adopted in 2009 in Western Balkans and Moldova,10 in Belgrade in Febru-
Athens. ary 2013, has also been used in the preparation of this
Like the first, this report draws upon replies from par- assessment.
ticipating States to an ODIHR questionnaire. ODIHR The content of this Status Report also includes in-
received more replies to the questionnaire for this re- formation provided by EU Member States in the doc-
port, with 40 of the 57 OSCE participating States re- uments submitted to the European Commission in re-
sponding (19 of the then 56 participating States provided sponse to the European Council’s request regarding the
substantial input for the first).7 Furthermore, there was Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies.11
significantly greater detail provided about programmes ODIHR has also accessed other relevant sources of in-
and projects in place in many of the replies used for this formation produced during the review period, whether
report. Much of this information has been included in by international organizations, civil society or academia,
the body of this report, to provide a better understand- in reports, surveys or studies.12
ing of the focuses and specific elements of efforts by par- Each Section of Part II of this Status Report starts
ticipating States to implement the Action Plan. with a summary of continuing challenges and emerging
While the data provided by the participating States trends during the period covered, and then an analysis
represents the primary source for the review and assess- of the data provided in participating States’ replies to the
ment presented here, these data have been supplement- questionnaire, supplemented with information from the
ed with information gathered by ODIHR from other other sources listed above. Each chapter concludes with
sources or provided by OSCE field offices or other OSCE priority areas for action and recommendations.
institutions.8 The questionnaire was also distributed to
civil society organizations, seven of which replied.9 Context
Information gathered during a consultation meeting
with civil society representatives and academics focus- Roma and Sinti in the OSCE area continue to face crit-
ing on Roma issues, in Warsaw in May 2013, as well as ical problems. During the last five years, a significant
at a meeting of Roma focal points from OSCE field op- number of actors have stepped up their activities, in-
erations to assess Roma strategy implementation in the cluding searching for better policies and approaches
to improving conditions on the ground, as envisaged
in the 2003 Action Plan. This overall context has been
influenced most of all by the effects resulting from two
significant events — EU enlargement and the global fi-
nancial crisis — both of which have had a major impact
6 OSCE Ministerial Council, Decision No. 8/09, “Enhancing OSCE on the situation of Roma and Sinti.
Efforts to Ensure Roma and Sinti Sustainable Integration”, Athens, 2
December 2009, .
7 Responses were received this time from Albania, Andorra,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 10 Each year, ODIHR holds consultations with Roma Focal Points
Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, the from OSCE field operations. These consultations provide an over-
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Greece, the Holy view of both activities and the status of implementation. As part of
See, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, their tasking, the field operations often produced assessment reports
Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rus- on Roma policies in the subject countries. Likewise, the OSCE High
sia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) and OSCE Strategic
Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Police Matters Unit (SPMU) realized several activities with regard to
8 ODIHR searched governmental websites related to Roma and Roma and Sinti, both separately and jointly with ODIHR.
used field assessment reports, Human Dimension meeting state- 11 EC Communication “An EU Framework for National Roma
ments and reports received from civil society. For example, in 2010, Integration Strategies up to 2020”, European Commission, EUCO
the OSCE Mission to Skopje and Ministry of Labor and Social Policy 23/11 of 23 and 24 June 2011, < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriS-
published the first country specific Status Report on the Implemen- erv/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0173:FIN:EN:PDF>.
tation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and 12 In particular, ODIHR uses data from the EU Fundamental
Sitni in the OSCE Area, . velopment Programme (UNDP) research studies, EU-commissioned
9 ODIHR received replies from following organizations: Amalipe; studies or reports, the European Commission against Racism and
European Centre for Minority Issues; Balkan Sunflowers Kosovo; Intolerance ECRI and the Framework Convention for the Protection
European Roma Rights Center; Hungarian Helsinki Committee; the of National Minorities reports; Open Society Institute /Roma De-
Serbian legal aid organization PRAXIS; and the Kosovo Roma Ash- cade reports; European Court of Human Rights judgments on Roma
kali and Egyptian Documentation Center. cases; civil society reports; academic studies, etc.
16 Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE AreaTriggered by the 2007 enlargement of the EU, changes of the Task Force on Roma19 at the European Commis-
to Roma and Sinti policy throughout Europe have tak- sion; and, finally, through the adoption of the Europe-
en place during this reporting period. The global finan- an Council conclusions on the Framework for National
cial crisis and its economic fallout have exacerbated the Roma Strategies.20
difficult situation of Roma and Sinti communities, with That Framework now commits all EU Member States
heightened economic insecurity within majority popu- to develop targeted policies to systematically tackle the
lations exacerbating xenophobia, including anti-Roma socio-economic exclusion of and discrimination against
sentiment.13 Roma people throughout the EU. The EU is not only
Fleeing discrimination and poverty at home and seek- playing the lead role in creating the normative frame-
ing security and new economic and social opportunities work for Roma policy, but is also becoming the ma-
abroad, Roma and Sinti have joined those migrating, jor donor to Roma programmes, inside the EU, in the
for the most part, from the new EU Member States to pre-accession countries and beyond.
older ones. This Roma and Sinti migration has further The OSCE Action Plan politically binds all 57 par-
stirred up anti-Roma feelings and prejudices in a num- ticipating States, irrespective of whether they are EU
ber of participating States,14 fuelling the mobilization of member states or countries, primarily in the Western
populist parties and extreme-right movements against Balkans, hoping to accede to the EU. The EU Member
them.15 States and the countries of the Western Balkans, how-
These contextual factors resulted in greater attention ever, provide the main focus of review and focus in this
being focused on the situation of Roma and Sinti by in- current report — a result of the fact that most of the
ternational organizations. During the reporting period, initiatives and developments related to Roma and Sin-
the EU has emerged as the main supranational actor ti have occurred in these countries, and that they are
shaping Roma policy.16 home to the majority of Roma and Sinti in the OSCE ar-
EU Roma policy took shape through two unprece- ea.21 Moreover, there are 12 countries with larger Roma
dented awareness-raising Roma Summits (the first in populations taking part in the Decade for Roma Inclu-
2008 in Brussels, followed by another in Cordoba in sion from 2005 to 2015.22
2010); through the adoption of the “10 Common Basic ODIHR recognizes, however, that there are different
Principles on Roma Inclusion”;17 through the estab- contextual issues beyond this space and works generally
lishment of the EU Platform for Roma Inclusion18 and with all participating States to support the better inte-
gration of Roma and Sinti.
13 See for example, joint conference on Roma migration orga-
nized with Fundamental Rights Agency and Council of Europe 9 and
10 November 2009 in Vienna; .
14 Van Baar, Huub “Europe’s Romaphobia: problematization, secu-
ritization, nomadization”, Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 29(2), 2011, p. 204. 19 In September 2010, the European Commission established an
15 Stewart, Michael (ed.), The ‘Gypsy Menace’: Populism and the internal Task Force to assess Member States’ use of EU funding with
new Anti-Gypsy Politics (London: Hurst, 2010); Horia Barbulescu, regard to the social and economic integration of Roma.
“Constructing the Roma People as a Societal Threat: the Roma Ex- 20 EU Framework, op. cit., note 11; see also: European Commission:
pulsion from France”, European Journal of Science and Technology, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
Vo. 8, Supplement 1, pp. 279-289. The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the
16 Vermeersch, Peter, “Reframing the Roma: EU Initiatives and the Committee of the regions: Steps Forward in Implementing National
Politics of Reinterpretation”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Roma Integration Strategies”, 26 June 2013, Brussels, .
17 Under the Czech European Council Presidency in 2009,part ii
Implementation of the Action Plan
1. For Roma, with Roma: Comprehensive Roma or programmes as their main achievement (eight27 list-
strategies ed policy documents of this kind as their sole achieve-
ment); nine28 governments listed progress in education
Availability and use of data as an achievement. These replies illustrate the impor-
tance placed by respondents on the adoption of compre-
Although attention has been drawn to the need for bet- hensive policy documents and attention to education as
ter collection of reliable and comprehensive data, there a priority area. Among those listing achievements, four29
is still a shortage of official data available about Roma participating States indicated progress in four or more
and Sinti populations across the OSCE necessary for areas.
the design of effective policies. There
has been, however, an increase in the
amount of data available at the inter- “4. Each national policy or implementation strategy should: (1) respond to
governmental and civil society levels. the real problems, needs and priorities of Roma and Sinti communities;
In particular, the EU’s Fundamen- (2) be comprehensive; (3) introduce a balanced and sustainable approach to
tal Rights Agency (FRA) is tasked combining human rights goals with social policies; and (4) maximize Roma
ownership of the policies that affect them. At the same time, national policies
with monitoring and supplying data
or implementation strategies should be adapted and implemented according
on Roma and Sinti within Europe.23
to the specific needs of Roma and Sinti populations in particular situations in
FRA is also working on developing participating States. Implementation strategies should also include mechanisms
indicators and methodologies for the to ensure that national policies are implemented at the local level.”
collection of comparable data to en- — OSCE Action Plan, Chapter II
able the measurement of progress in
EU Member States’ policies related to
Roma and Sinti.24 General overview and assessment
The ODIHR questionnaire asked the participating
States to list their major achievements during the review During the current review period, a majority of respond-
period. Twenty-nine25 of the respondents listed specific ing participating States reached a stage at which Roma
achievements, while the remainder did not, even though policy has become standardized; this is trickling down
they provided replies to other questions. Twenty26 listed to the local level, together with significant funding for
the development or adoption of national Roma strategies Roma integration made available by governments and,
especially, by the EU in Member States and those coun-
23 “Communication from the Commission to the European Parlia-
tries hoping to accede. These are signs of visible progress.
ment, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the regions National Roma Integration Strate- At the same time, some key challenges identified in
gies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework”, 21 May the first report remain. The major challenge continues
2012, Brussels, < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. to be the absence of robust monitoring and evaluation
do?uri=COM:2012:0226:FIN:EN:PDF>.
mechanisms to assess the outcomes of implemented
24 “Country thematic studies on the situation of Roma”, EU Fun-
damental Rights Agency website, June 2013, . dits and evaluations to monitor and assess the outcomes
25 Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, 27 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Italy, Moldova, Norway, Slo-
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, vakia, Sweden and Ukraine. On 11 September 2013, the Government
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, of Ukraine adopted the Action Plan to implement the Strategy for
Ukraine and the United Kingdom. the protection and integration of the Roma national minority into
Ukrainian society.
26 Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, 28 Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Montene-
Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine and the Unit- gro, Poland, Serbia and Spain.
ed Kingdom. 29 Belgium, Hungary, Serbia and Spain.
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 19of measures to promote Roma inclusion are also lacking. provided substantial replies to at least some of the ques-
Ensuring the availability of such assessments is key to tions, most provided some data on funding, projects,
the success of the renewed commitments underpinning beneficiaries or outcomes, and 2532 participating States
the recent efforts of the international community and indicated, to various degrees, the amount of funding
participating States. made available for the implementation of Roma strat-
egies. Several governments indicated programmes and
Continuing Challenges and Emerging Trends projects that have been realized or supported without
indicating the level of funding, while others listed lo-
In the majority of participating States, there are state cal-level projects and the funding provided for them. 33
bodies, in various forms and with various competen- Participating States such as Spain, Croatia, Slovenia,
cies, to co-ordinate, directly implement and/or monitor Serbia and Poland provided detailed data on spending
and evaluate Roma policies and measures. Roma and and on outcomes. In several cases, governments provid-
Sinti political representatives, civil society leaders and ed detailed information about particular activities (e.g.,
experts are often part of these bodies or mechanisms Ukraine on health or Romania on employment projects).
at different levels (central, regional and municipal), al- Countries such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, due
though most often with only an advisory role. Some par- to a focus primarily on Traveller communities, indicat-
ticipating States have created co-ordination and adviso- ed their spending on caravan sites or pitches, 34 whereas
ry bodies with a large number of personnel, both Roma other countries (such as Bosnia and Herzegovina) main-
and non-Roma. ly indicated their expenditures on housing for Roma.
The key factor here appears to be whether the policy As already mentioned, the fact that some participat-
implementation targets Roma and, as part of this ap- ing States report only funding devoted to the general
proach, funds are earmarked specifically for this pur- category of disadvantaged or socially excluded persons,
pose, rather than providing funding within a larger, poses a special challenge when it comes to quantifying
inclusive policy framework broadly targeting disadvan- how Roma have benefited or determining how many
taged or socially excluded categories of people, includ- Roma were among the beneficiaries. Hungary follows
ing Roma. Where the latter is the case, funding for Roma this approach.
is not earmarked as such; general measures for these cat- The OSCE Action Plan stresses that “implementation
egories are supported with specific, but mainstreamed, strategies should also include mechanisms to ensure
budgets. Here some governments follow one of the key that national policies are implemented at the local level”
EU Ten Common Basic Principles for Roma Integration (Chapter II Paragraph 4). There was visible progress in
— explicit but not exclusive targeting. 30 In these cases, it this area during the review period, although some key
is hard to estimate what funding has gone towards Roma shortcomings still remain. Responses to the ODIHR
integration and what outcomes have been generated. questionnaire reveal that local authorities are key struc-
The 2008 report concluded that political will is man- tures tasked with implementing Roma policy measures;
ifested, to a large extent, in the level of funding made in fact, in some areas, they are the main agents for im-
available for the implementation of Roma strategies or plementation (such as in education, housing and public
programmes. Implementation was deemed to have suf- works). The bulk of Roma and Sinti programme funds
fered because insufficient funding was provided in a have been directed to local administrations, and local
number of participating States.31 authorities were almost entirely responsible for the im-
The situation changed over the current review period. plementation of minority policies.
Governments have provided more information on pro-
grammes and projects implemented, along with detailed
data on their funding. Of the participating States that 32 Albania, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Slova-
30 Vademecum, “The 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma In- kia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
clusion”, European Commission Roma Portal, ;for more see “What works for Roma inclusion in the EU. ey used by the participating States to implement Roma strategies and
Policies and model approaches”, European Union, 2012, . dom Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation
31 2008 Status Report, op. cit., note 4, p.20. in Europe, received 27 February 2013
20 Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE AreaEfforts in a number of participating States to create Central governments and intergovernmental and civ-
local action plans (initiatives often supported by, civil il society organizations have tried to overcome these
society) also point to the importance attached to that obstacles with initiatives to promote the implemen-
level of governance.35 For example, the Agency for Social tation of social inclusion measures, by offering more
Inclusion in the Czech Republic has been tasked with assistance, including through EU Structural Funds, or
providing assistance to municipalities in drafting and conditioning access to such funding on the adoption of
adopting local action plans.36 Roma experts in munici- proactive Roma policy action plans. The Council of Eu-
pal governments in Hungary, Romania and Serbia have rope39 and the Open Society Institute40 have, for exam-
worked toward the same objective. In Hungary where ple, provided awards for municipalities that implement
some local authorities have opposed the development such measures.
of local equal opportunity actions plans (which include
Roma as a target group) the central government has Action by Participating States
conditioned local receipt of EU Structural Fund mon-
ies on implementation of these plans as an incentive. There has been visible progress with regard to the num-
Thanks to the Roma Minority Self-Government system ber of reported strategies or programmes for Roma and
and an agreement reached between this body and the Sinti integration developed and adopted during the
central government, local Roma representatives have review period. This may be a result of the EU Coun-
had a share in local decision-making regarding policy cil conclusions on the Framework for National Roma
implementation.37 Strategies.
The question is no longer whether local-level imple- Roma integration strategies are, by definition, not set
mentation is relevant to reaching the objectives of the up or designed as “one-size-fits-all” strategies. As al-
national strategies, but whether enough political will is ready noted, some governments implement measures
being generated to ensure the effective implementation to benefit Roma within the framework of broader pol-
of the concrete measures inscribed in local action plans. icies designed to benefit marginalized or disadvan-
There are a number of examples that demonstrate that taged groups.41 The strategy documents submitted to
this is not yet the case. the Commission reveal differences with regard to the
Some local authorities have resisted the implementa- status of policy documents,42 the chosen approaches
tion of proactive policy measures for Roma; this is most (whether targeting Roma only, mainstreaming or, most
often in municipalities run by administrations from far- commonly, combining mainstreaming with targeted
right parties. In EU Member States that are the most measures), the governing concepts (whether involving
common destinations for Roma immigrants and asylum categories of disadvantaged, socially excluded people,
seekers (such as Italy, France, the United Kingdom and including disadvantaged Roma populations, or a Roma
Germany), local authorities have called on central gov-
ernments to introduce measures to restrict the influx
of foreign-born Roma.38 Given current economic con-
ditions, they have cited the budgetary implications of
39 “European Diplomas of the Council of Europe: 26 municipal-
handling their arrival. ities rewarded in 2013”, Council of Europe website, 27 June 2013,
.
the tools for the social inclusion and non-discrimination of Roma in 40 “Mayors Making the Most of EU Funds for Roma Inclusion”,
the EU”, Report for the European Commission Directorate-General Open Society Foundations website, 8 November 2012, .
programme, .
to the need for “national approaches to Roma inclusion that should
36 See “Agency for Social Integration in Roma Localities”, The be tailored to the specific circumstances and needs on the ground,
Office of the Government of the Czech Republic Department for including by adopting or continuing to pursue policies that address
Social Integration in Roma Communities, Prague, 2011, . context”, p. 5.
37 For more information see Section 5 on Housing and Living 42 The main difference is whether such policy is adopted as gov-
Conditions. ernmental decrees or resolutions, or adopted by parliaments. Only
38 For more information see Section 1, subsection on Local-Level Bulgaria, Slovenia and Hungary have managed to pass such docu-
Implementation. ments through Parliament.
Implementation of the Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti Within the OSCE Area 21You can also read
