Ten EU Roma Platforms Later and Still No Results
05 December 2016
Yet another year, yet another Roma Platform, and still we are seeing slow progress in terms of any meaningful, concrete outcomes from these meetings.
On 29 and 30 November, I attended the launch of the 10th European Roma Platform in Brussels. The main aim of the Platform is to present a high level forum bringing various stakeholders from the grassroots, local and national, and European level to the discussion table. My experiences this year however, showed me that once again this was not strictly the case.
According to the European Commission, the Platform is a place for "an exchange of good practice and experience between the EU countries in the sphere of inclusion of the Roma, to provide analytical support and stimulate co-operation between all parties concerned by Roma issues, including organisations representing the Roma, in the context of an integrated European Platform". This definition does not exclude, but rather stresses, dialogue between stakeholders on the actual implementation of the commitments of the national government concerning the Roma integration within the European Union.
This year the trending conference topic was the “Accountability of all stakeholders”. Despite the ambitious title, the conference did not fulfil its purpose in creating a productive discussion on accountability i.e. responsibilities and roles of the main stakeholders for the implementation of the Roma integration framework. The quality of dialogue scored way below expectations for many of the civil society representatives. The Platform has shown clear signs of failure for several reasons:
- The conference did not allow for broader consultation with Roma civil society prior to, or during the Platform. The topic and agenda were only communicated to the Romani and pro-Romani NGOs a few days prior to the actual event taking place, and their participation was limited to only 40 organisations, an insufficient number to allow representatives from across 28 Member States to articulate their concerns and bring their “positive examples”. The number of seats restricted the participation of the number of potential Romani voices in the platform and gave space only to selected individuals, with only 1 participant per organization.
- An important item of the agenda was the launch of the results of the EU MIDIS II survey on Roma inclusion by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) which was presented at the start of the Platform by the FRA Director Michael O‘Flaherty. According to the results, 80% of the Roma in the 9 selected countries now live below the poverty line, one in three has no access to water or sanitation, and when questioned - only 40% of Roma had the perception that they had experienced discrimination. O’Flaherty mentioned that discrimination against Romani individuals is obviously considerably higher, the results can be justified by the lack of the awareness many Roma have of their own rights. O’Flaherty called the “results shocking” and claimed the results of the survey are illustrative of the lack of progress concerning Roma inclusion and the persistent discrimination of Roma across member States. It is important to mention that the results of the survey were not given specific importance in the agenda and therefore, a discussion did not follow the presentation of the results. A number of participants expressed disappointment in the lack of space for dialogue on this issue, as well as the general feeling that there was a lack of space for communication with national authorities.
- The Platform had poor participation from the representatives of national authorities, and often their contribution lacked substantive argumentation. Midway to reaching the 2020 goals for Roma integration, national authorities still show very little interest in meeting with Roma civil society organisations, or if present most of them fail to provide adequate assessment of the situation or any commitment with concrete systematic measures envisaged to tackle the social exclusion of Roma. Most of the country representatives failed to deliver any substantial information concerning the progress on implementation of the Roma integration Strategies.
In particular, the Hungarian minister said his government was “seeing progress” in Romani education, claiming implementation of effective measures to improve the education of Romani pupils. As I pointed to the minister, he and his government had failed to adequately address the country’s lack of implementation of desegregation measures concerning almost of half of Romani children, and neglected the infringement procedures currently initiated against the state for discrimination in education towards Roma in education.
Neither his Greek nor Bulgarian counterparts provided a better assessment of the situation in their respective countries, or proposed possible measures to tackle social exclusion of Roma. It is important to mention the worrisome situation of the Bulgarian Roma who often live in constant fear of evictions, and are often the target of hate speech and hate crimes. There have been a number of systemic demolitions of Roma neighborhoods in major cities with large compact Roma population such as Stara Zagora, Varna, Bourgas and Varna. There is a lack of provision of any adequate alternative housing in many of these cases. Additionally, cases like the violent anti-Roma protests in Radnevo leading to Roma being forced to leave their houses for fear of ethnic cleansing, and the failure of the state to protect them makes the need for an open discussion concerning the accountability of the state crucial. The main argument of the Greek representative was a lack of funding and the financial crisis in the country.
The Romanian authorities focused on integration measures in education, as well as tackling issues of provision of alternatives for children in state care (suggesting Romani children account for large numbers of those) as good practice. This was despite the provision of adequate alternatives for children in state institutions being challenged by NGO representatives, defining those measures as leading to high number of cases of child abuses according to independent research.
- The agenda did not cover any of the burning questions which I went there to discuss. Issues of persistent school segregation, forced evictions, hate crimes, or increases in violence against Roma in Member States were not adequately discussed. Nor were many of the major thematic issues covered by National Roma Integration Strategies (i.e. education, housing, employment, health, anti-discrimination). The forum almost completely failed to provide for a dialogue between the National Governments, Roma civil society representatives and the Commission. Instead, it focused on an exchange of vagueries, positive examples of integration, achievements, and brainstorming of “the way forward”. For many Romani and non-Romani participants, the topic of mutual accountability failed in its objectives to assess the situation in Member States. It did not deliver positive outcomes or a concrete dialogue on accountability of member states, vis-à-vis the Romani integration strategies leading to increasing transparency of spending of EU funds, and implementation of measures leading to actual change in the lives in Romani communities across Member States. Many of the participants, including myself, felt that real dialogue was not being achieved and their role as stakeholders had been minimized. A number of civil society organisations mentioned the diminishing of the role of the NGO as a valuable partner in the process with state authorities and international bodies. Similarly, the parallel event initiated by Brussels-based civil society prior to the platform, pointed out the lack of space for Romani and pro-Romani NGOs to intervene in regards to implementation of Romani inclusion actions on an international and national level.
During the Platform, the lack of financial support for watchdog organisations was pointed out as another acute problem which raised concerns for many in civil society. Organisations suggested that there is a need for assessment: monitoring the process of implementation for the strategies and the spending of the funds for Roma integration. Violeta Naydenova, panelist and policy analyst at the Open Society European Policy Institute summarised the view of the civil society organisations. According to her:
“…there is shared view that there is achievement in visibility and participation of the Romani youth, and contribution of Romani women, in the feminist agenda concerning the national policies and the EU. Some organisations see the need for improvement of the Roma platform in the future [particularly] when it comes to follow up between Roma platform events, what is the outcome of, how we can build on them, and what role Roma and civil society can play”.
In response, an important message was the need to look at more data, since the data produced so far doesn’t always show accurate results. Commissioner Jourova said she’s committed to the Roma portfolio, calling for more transparency in regards to spending of EU money. She mentioned the creation of an audit entity to look at the spending of EU funds in member states.
The European Roma Platform still does not deliver in terms of moving the Roma inclusion agenda forward. This isn’t a new revelation, it has been the shared opinion of many organisations working in the field since the launching of the Decade of Roma Inclusion in 2005. The Platform itself has an important role to play if it actually creates a space for constructive dialogue between local, national and EU level stakeholders. So far, the value of the Platform seems only to deliver in term of keeping political discourse around Roma inclusion alive in Brussels and allowing an opportunity for networking amongst the participants. However, it is continuously failing to deliver in terms of content. Furthermore, the perception that Romani civil society is being denied a space to participate in dialogue is more concerning. The silencing of Romani voices cannot be tolerated at high level meetings involving international governments, NGOs and stakeholders. ERRC President Ðorđe Jovanović succinctly describes a scenario which, for him, cast doubt on the sincerity of European decision-makers’ convictions in furthering Roma Inclusion:
“In 2014, I attended the EU Roma Summit in Brussels organised by the European Commission. Esma Redžepova, a very popular Balkan Romani singer, was there as the UN Ambassador for Refugees in Macedonia. She was given only 3 minutes to speak by the moderator, while Romanian President Traian Basescu was given the position of a key speaker. The same president who that very year had been punished by courts for hate speech when he claimed that Roma do not want to work and prefer to make a living from stealing”.
During this year’s edition of the Roma Platform saga, nothing so controversial occurred, but they have still failed to provide basic but vital consultations amongst stakeholders on crucial issues such as evictions, segregation in education and anti-Gypsyism. The need to encourage thematic discussion concerning the major issues in education, health, housing, employment and anti-discrimination, and the goals of the Roma Integration Strategies to actually tackle the exclusion of the Roma people remains.
From a civil society perspective, there remains the need to remind ourselves, national governments and the European Commission of their, and our, commitment and accountability towards some 12 million Roma who are suffering the daily consequences of continent-wide exclusion. It is important to remember that Roma inclusion is not simply a meeting in Brussels, nor ten meetings for that matter. It is a challenge which must be met on various fronts and concerns the destiny of actual people, most of which are living in deep poverty due to institutional and historical discrimination. It seems to me that ‘accountability’ is an admirable focus, and should remain on the agenda for constant evaluation. However, to ensure that we continue to hold governments accountable for the implementation of Roma inclusion, we have to be vigilant and speak out against meaningless exercises in box-ticking, or meetings which substitute genuine progress for political posturing. As we pass the midway mark in many National Roma Integration Strategies, we appear to be well on the way to failure in 2020. Clearly we as civil society organisations, need to continue doing our homework in highlighting the shortcomings and the realities of the situation as it unfolds, or risk another wasted opportunity at next year’s EU Roma Platform.
