Social inclusion and equality
Edit
ori
al
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
By Pascale Charhon, ENAR Director
In these times of economic crisis,
vulnerable people, including the
Roma, migrant communities, asylum
seekers and the Muslim community,
are most likely to be deeply affected
by the consequences of the downturn.
What more opportune time therefore
to focus this latest edition of ENARgy
on the theme of “social inclusion and equality”? The articles
in this newsletter analyse social inclusion from an equality
perspective, presenting a range of views from different actors,
including the European Parliament, academics, the European
Anti-Poverty Network and SOLIDAR. The newsletter also
features the experiences of ENAR members in the United Kingdom and
Malta in their engagement with the National Action Plans on social
inclusion and a focus on the specific exclusion that Roma communities
face.
Today’s Europe has undergone profound changes and faces many
challenges against the backdrop of the economic crisis. Poverty and
inequality persist, unemployment rates are rising and the social and
economic inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities remains one
of Europe’s biggest challenges. Exclusion from employment, health,
housing and education continue to undermine the everyday experiences
of millions of ethnic minorities across Europe, including the continuous
and persistent discrimination faced by Roma, Sinti and Travellers,
new migrants, established minorities from immigrant origin and other
minority groups. Not only are minorities more likely to experience
exclusion but experiences of exclusion are often more severe and
extreme. These experiences are already having a profound impact on
the well-being of minorities, which are exacerbated by the economic
downturn.
EU member states have committed to reducing the risk of poverty
and social exclusion in Europe. A key objective of the Lisbon strategy
for growth and jobs is modernising the European social model,
investing in people and combating social exclusion: the Commission’s
“Social Agenda” focuses on providing jobs and equal opportunities
for all and ensuring that the benefits of the EU’s growth and jobs
drive reach everyone in society. Over the years, the EU framework
for social inclusion policies has increasingly taken into account the
need to focus on marginalised people and groups and to guarantee
access for all to basic resources, rights and social services needed for
participation in society.
However, while governments’ recognition of the need for interventions
to enable those most disadvantaged escape social exclusion and
poverty is to be welcomed, they often minimise the contribution of
structural inequalities and discrimination meaning that the social
exclusion of many ethnic and religious minorities is invisible and
unaddressed. Legislation, policy strategies and instruments aiming to
achieve social inclusion will only be successful if they are coherent
with societal realities - growing inequalities, structural discrimination,
erosion of fundamental social rights - and recognise the general trend
across Europe, which sees the need for interventions to enable those
most disadvantaged to escape poverty and social exclusion, but links
between discrimination and structural disadvantage as factors of
continuing social exclusion are not established.
ENAR therefore strongly believes that a new social vision of how best to
advance the well-being of all in our diverse societies must take account
of the needs and experiences of communities across Europe that are
vulnerable to racism and discrimination. Europe’s social inclusion
agenda provides an opportunity to combat the phenomena of poverty
and exclusion, and now is the time to be involved in the process.
Social inclusion and equality
ENARgyJanuary 2009
european network ag
ains
t ra
cism
1 Editorial
2 Perspectives for Social Europe facing financial and economic crises
4 Promoting ethnic equality and the social inclusion process
6 Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty in the EU: A view from the European Parliament
8 An analysis of the new cycle of National Actions Plans 2008-11 from an anti-poverty perspective: Is the social OMC delivering on poverty?
10 ENAR’s experience with the National Action Plan on social inclusion in the United Kingdom
11 ENAR’s experience with the National Action Plan on social inclusion in Malta
12 The social aspects of migration in the 2008-2010 National Action Plans on social inclusion
14 Positive action for the Roma, “most” discriminated community in Europe
27issue
2
Perspectives for Social Europe facing financial and economic crises Conny Reuter, Secretary General and Mathias Maucher, Social Policy Coordinator, SOLIDAR
Europe is being confronted
with a financial and
economic crisis which
will entail important risks
for the economic, social
and territorial cohesion
across Europe as well
as create challenges
for societies offering
inclusion and participation
for all citizens. This holds true in particular for vulnerable and
disadvantaged persons and groups facing discrimination and
exclusion. In a report issued in early February, the Commission
warned about the strongest economic downturn for decades, which
will also entail severe social consequences.
Across Europe governments are concerned with implementing
short- and mid-term measures to stabilise and boost mass
consumption and to maintain jobs (or at least minimise job losses).
Social NGOs and trade unions fear that we are going to lose any
policies aiming to create quality and decent jobs. At the same
time the sustainability of our social protection systems is also at
risk. How do we fund tax reductions, often suggested as a panacea
these days, while raising social expenditure to address the negative
consequences of the crisis?
Let us recall that the neo-liberal, long-popular and dominant
“no-regulation is better regulation” mantra, consisting in the very
rejection of an adequately muscled regulation by national states
and international institutions, is the basic cause for the current
turmoil and serious structural problems of the financial markets.
European Commission answers to support economic recovery
On 26 November 2008 the European Commission proposed
a 200 billion Euro “recovery plan”, urging member states to
spend billions to kick-start Europe’s flagging economies. The
plan proposes higher budget deficits tolerated by the European
Commission above the 3% reference value of the Stability and
Growth Pact, under strict conditions and for a limited period
of time, and a “timely, targeted, temporary and coordinated”
package of measures aimed at boosting the economy through
raising consumer demand and confidence in the financial system.
Further measures include funding large infrastructure projects,
temporary VAT cuts across the whole economy and lowering taxes
on labour, particularly on “labour-intensive” sectors and targeted
to income-earners in lower wage brackets.
The “recovery plan” does not represent a major shift from
prevailing paradigms as all major proposals have been phrased in
line with the Lisbon Strategy, with an explicit attempt to include
them under currently existing policy frameworks. For example,
measures related to employment are framed with references to
the flexicurity and active inclusion agendas, highlighting the need
to put particular emphasis on measures to promote employability,
lifelong learning and rapid reintegration into the labour market.
This approach has been coherent with the main lines of analysis
and “cure” suggested in a Communication of 29 October 2008,
detailing plans of action to help member states combat the global
financial crisis. The Commission called for “reinforced regulation
and supervision”; however, all actions proposed remained at the
level of proposals and encouragement. In terms of the impact of
the crisis on the real economy and employment, the Commission
referred to the Lisbon Strategy without having suggested any
adaptations and by having insisted on the broad application of
the concept of “flexicurity as [a] way of protecting and equipping
people rather than specific jobs”. The Communication only refers
to employment and active labour market policies whereas social
NGOs have, for a long time now, called for policies actively
promoting social inclusion and a Lisbon Strategy based on a
sustainable social and environmental growth and job creation.
In terms of the impact on public finances, the Commission is
concerned about the “long term stability of public finances”
which is an important point for social NGOs. A growing crisis
which creates even more unemployment and social exclusion
needs, in SOLIDAR’s view, a broad range of public policies and a
comprehensive net of social services, funded by income generated
by employment (social contributions) and public funding (based on
taxes). The crises, however, will put strain on both sources.
The final version of the Recovery Plan places a stronger emphasis
on “the most vulnerable” as the Commission package calls
for measures to lessen the impact of the crisis on those more
vulnerable groups. This is in line with a proposal from the Social
Platform made in mid-November 2009 which highlighted the need
to place a greater focus on the social consequences of the crisis.
SOLIDAR deplores the lack of an explicit mention of the need to
refocus investment in social infrastructures and to fight financial
exclusion, as well as the role of civil dialogue in fostering social
inclusion and active inclusion processes.
How to devise strategies and to shape policies towards a social
and green Europe?
SOLIDAR supports the proposals set out by social NGOs for ways
out of the crises as developed in the Social Platform Paper of 19
November 20081. SOLIDAR backs in particular the following calls:
1. No backtracking on social, health and education investments;
1 http://www.socialplatform.org/PolicyStatement.asp?DocID=19906
Social inclusion and equality 27
© SOLIDAR
issue
3
2. Investment in a core set of services to create sustainable
and decent jobs; 3. Implementation of the Commission’s
Recommendation on active inclusion and of anti-discrimination
legislation; 4. Not to divert the European Social Fund away from
social inclusion objectives. In addition, there is a clear need to
tighten financial regulation when reforming the financial market
architecture. Everybody should be guaranteed access to basic banking
services to effectively fight financial exclusion.
SOLIDAR actively and whole-heartedly supports the underlying
rationale and intention of an alliance of social and environmental
NGOs and trade unions aiming to change the paradigm of the post
Lisbon Strategy process - from growth and jobs only to a social and
green Europe!
The European Social Model we want
SOLIDAR advocates for a Europe that builds on fundamental rights
and defends the values of solidarity, justice and equality. For us Social
Europe also mean policies promoting
non-discrimination, fair chances in life,
decent working conditions, full societal
inclusion and participation for all.
Social policy also has to be seen as
an investment, not only as a cost.
Sustainable economic and social
development can only be safeguarded
if sufficient investments are made
in the social infrastructure needed
to promote social inclusion and to strengthen social and territorial
cohesion. Infrastructure here is to be broadly understood as comprising
the institutions and services (e.g. social insurance, training, housing),
qualified personnel, including volunteers, as well as sufficient funding
from collectively financed sources. Only such an infrastructure, a
rights-based approach for individuals and groups, investment in people
to improve their qualification and empower them, as well as measures
supportive of a redistribution of income and wealth can, in SOLIDAR’s
view, prevent from increasing income inequalities, growing poverty
and exclusion (from society and employment), and discriminatory
treatment.
SOLIDAR warns against applying old recipes when reforming main
parameters of the financial market architecture and economic
systems. SOLIDAR recalls the beneficial effects of tested alternative
models of economic activity and different forms of value-based social
entrepreneurship. Organisations of the social economy are successfully
linking economic efficiency with the pursuit of general interest and
the realisation of social policy objectives, in particular labour market
inclusion and participation in society, including for vulnerable and
disadvantaged persons.
A role for Europe to play
Policy priorities in the forthcoming months should therefore not only
focus on the re-establishment of a functioning banking system, but
also on supporting those people and groups immediately affected by
the crisis, based on a refocused Social Agenda adequately addressing
(new) social risks within the EU, given the:
• Nearly one out of 6 European citizens living near or below the
poverty threshold;
• Growing number of unemployed persons, of young adults without
vocational qualification;
• Increasing number of working poor and of persons in precarious
jobs in spite of the creation of 15 million new jobs across Europe
in the last decade;
• High and most probably increasing numbers of undocumented
migrants, mostly women;
• Growing inequalities in life chances and the distribution of income
and wealth;
• Persisting discrimination on grounds of gender, age, disability,
ethnic background and/or race,
sexual orientation, religious
belief or philosophy of life,
both in the labour market
and beyond in all spheres of
society, not least with regard to
accessing services of general
interest.
The EU already has an active,
even pro-active role to play in
ensuring the effective implementation of fundamental (social) rights
as stipulated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, referred to by the
Lisbon Treaty. In fields such as (gender) equality, non-discrimination,
workers’ protection, social services or the integration of migrants, the
potential of these Treaty rules should be exploited. Europe has to set
standards (e.g. in employment and vocational training), requirements
(e.g. in social protection) and regulation (e.g. of services of general
interest) to prevent European citizens, in particular the more
vulnerable, disadvantaged and less mobile amongst them, to lose out
as a result of increased internal market integration and exposure to
influences from trade and financial market policies at European level
or even on a global scale. Policy coordination and convergence can
be fostered by a strengthened Open Method of Coordination in the
field of social protection and social inclusion, building on common
objectives and targets and comprehensively involving social NGOs,
also in the framework of civil dialogue.
SOLIDAR calls for improving social policy settings, promoting effective
social inclusion and investing in social infrastructure as the only way
to keep citizens on a democratic track and prevent them from ceding
to nationalism, protectionism, xenophobia and racism!
“Policy Priorities in the forthcoming months should not only focus on
the re-establishment of a functioning banking system, but also on suPPorting
those PeoPle and grouPs immediately affected by the crisis”
Perspectives for Social Europe facing financial and economic crises Conny Reuter, Secretary General and Mathias Maucher, Social Policy Coordinator, SOLIDAR
Social inclusion and equality27
issue
4 Social inclusion and equality Social inclusion and equality27
Promoting ethnic equality and the social inclusion process
This article examines EU law and policy in the field of social inclu-
sion in order to assess the extent to which the objectives of com-
bating racism and promoting equality have been mainstreamed.
It is based on more detailed analysis found in Mark Bell, “Racism
and Equality in the European Union” (Oxford University Press, Ox-
ford 2008).
In spring 2000, the European Council agreed to pursue a programme
of economic and social reform termed the “Lisbon Strategy”. The
Lisbon Strategy seeks to balance market-based objectives with a
renewed social agenda. Indeed, the core goal is “more and better
jobs and greater social cohesion”.1 The latter objective was given
more precision when the European Council decided at Nice in
December 2000 to establish an Open Method of Coordination
(OMC) process on social inclusion. The basic framework of the
“Social Inclusion Process” originally required member states to
prepare two-year National Action Plans (NAPs), which were then
subject to review by the Commission and Council (through a Joint
Report). This in turn lead to a new round of national reporting and
European-level review.
From invisibility to key objective
The first concrete step in constructing the Social Inclusion Process
was the adoption of the Common Objectives in December 2000.2
The four objectives identified were: to facilitate participation
in employment and access by all to resources, rights, goods
and services; to prevent the risks of exclusion; to help the most
vulnerable; to mobilize all relevant bodies.
In principle, each of these objectives resonates well with promoting
ethnic equality. The first clearly dovetails with the Racial Equality
Directive. Even so, there was no express reference to racial
1 Emphasis added, para 7, European Council, ‘Presidency Conclusions 23 and 24 March 2000’.
2 Objectives in the fight against poverty and social exclusion [2001] OJ C82/4.
discrimination or ethnic minorities in the document explaining
the Common Objectives. There is an oblique reference to “a group
experiencing particular integration problems” under the third
objective (helping the most vulnerable), as well as a passing
mention that member states may develop priority actions for
specific target groups including “minorities”.3 In the same vein, the
first set of Common Indicators contained no indicator addressing
ethnic origin or nationality.4 Whilst several indicators were to be
disaggregated by gender and age, other dimensions to inequality
remained invisible.
Despite this inauspicious start, the first Joint Report (in 2002)
observed that the NAPs did frequently identify “ethnic minorities
and immigrants” as key groups experiencing social exclusion.5
References are scattered throughout the report, but immigrants/
ethnic minorities are most frequently mentioned in connection
with barriers to employment. In contrast, there is very little space
devoted to this issue in the section on housing. The situation of Irish
Travellers is briefly alluded to,6 but there is no mention of Roma.
Unsurprisingly, the report concludes that there are “big gaps” in the
data available, inter alia, in relation to ethnic minorities.7
Building on the evidence from the first round of NAPs, the Council
agreed to revise the Common Objectives in 2002. In part, the
revisions were designed to highlight social exclusion risks linked to
immigration and, to this end, an express reference to “immigrants”
was inserted under the third objective of helping the most
vulnerable.8 This amendment had an impact; the 2004 Joint Report
recorded much more attention in the NAPs to social exclusion
risks linked to immigration/ethnic minorities.9 Nevertheless, most
of the focus continued to be on labour market exclusion, with less
specific information on the situation of ethnic minorities as regards
housing, and almost no discussion in relation to healthcare. Overall,
the 2004 Joint Report remains sceptical on the real impact of the
measures reported by member states: “Although the vulnerability
of immigrants and ethnic minorities to poverty and social exclusion
has been recognised by all member states, in only a few cases
specific targets and objectives have been set out.”10
In the wake of EU enlargement, greater prominence has been given
to the situation of Roma communities. In 2005, a special report was
issued analysing the first set of NAPs from the 10 acceding states.
3 ibid.
4 Council, ‘Report on indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion’ Ref 13509/01 SOC 415,
ECOFIN 310, EDUC 126, SAN 138, 5 November 2001.
5 Commission, ‘Joint report on social inclusion 2002’, 26.
6 ibid 43.
7 ibid 80.
8 Council, ‘Fight against poverty and social exclusion: common objectives for the second round of Na-
tional Action Plans’ Ref 14164/1/02 SOC 508, 25 November 2002.
9 Commission, ‘Joint report on social inclusion 2004’, 34.
10 ibid 102.
Mark Bell, Professor of Law at the Centre for European Law and Integ ration, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
issue
(Continues on page 16)
5Social inclusion and equality27
This recognized that most of these states had relatively small
immigrant populations, but that issues of ethnic inequality arose in
relation to national minorities. Roma were identified as a key target
group, but also Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic States.11
Although subsequent reports have not assigned much attention to
the latter, the Roma are specifically mentioned in the seven “key
policy priorities” found within the 2005 and 2006 Joint Reports.
By 2006, combating ethnic inequalities had consolidated within
the Social Inclusion Process. Even if the various EU level reports
reiterate concerns about shortcomings in the NAPs, this issue had
an established profile as a fairly central endeavour of the process.
This picture was disrupted by the changes to the Social Inclusion
Process consequent upon its streamlining with the health and
social protection OMCs. The Common Objectives were rewritten
in 2006, distinguishing between
several “overarching objectives”
and other objectives specific to
each of the three strands (social
inclusion, social protection, and
health). Strikingly, the reference
in the Common Objectives
to “immigrants” disappeared
altogether, with a reversion to
general expressions such as “equal
opportunities for all” and “fighting all forms of discrimination”.12
Mainstreaming ethnic equality into social inclusion policy
Having considered the evolution of the Social Inclusion Process
and specific evidence of how it has addressed ethnic inequalities,
let us reflect on what this reveals about the extent to which
mainstreaming has already occurred.
• Target groups
Initially, the dominant frame within the Social Inclusion Process
was “immigrants”. This reflected the typical construction of
ethnic inequalities within the then 15 member states. The
groups affected were foreign nationals or those who had
acquired citizenship (and their descendents). More recent
Commission reports have drawn attention to the vagueness
found in NAPs around the relevant target groups: “the language
used to describe these groups can be unclear with member
states frequently referring to ‘immigrants’ to describe all ethnic
minorities - from refugees, to Roma or other people with the
nationality of the country. Little distinction has been made
between groups and at the same time there is little or no
11 Commission, ‘Report on social inclusion in the 10 new member states 2005’, 33.
12 Council, ‘Working together, working better: a new framework for the open coordination of social protec-
tion and inclusion policies in the European Union – Joint Social Protection Committee/Economic Policy
Committee Opinion’, 27 February 2006.
acknowledgement of the diversity within these groups, or indeed
the multiple disadvantage that these people might face (e.g.
older migrants, Romani women etc.).”13
• Data collection
The ambiguity surrounding who is affected by ethnic inequalities
is both caused by and reflected in the lack of data. Shortcomings
in the relevant statistical information are not purely found in
relation to ethnic inequalities; this has been a wider problem
for many aspects of the Social Inclusion Process, especially in
relation to housing and health. It was only following the first
round of NAPs that efforts were made to identify Common
Indicators which could be used as European benchmarks for
measuring social inclusion. One sign of change was the inclusion
of a “commonly agreed national indicator” on immigrant
employment in the 2006 version
of the Common Indicators.14
States report the employment
rate for those born in the
country; those born elsewhere in
the EU; and those born outside
the EU. Yet the indicator chosen
does not reveal the employment
situation of Roma, many of
whom will have been born
within the country in which they reside. Similarly, it is unclear
how Russian-speakers in the Baltic States are treated. In short,
although the lack of data relating to ethnic inequalities has been
consistently recognised as a problem within the process, actions
to address this deficiency remain limited.
• Concept of racism
A preliminary observation is that the term racism is very rarely
used in the documentation surrounding the Social Inclusion
Process. A dichotomy can be identified between approaches
based on “integration” and those based on “combating
discrimination”. In the former, the causes of social exclusion
are predominantly located within the affected persons, such
as insufficient linguistic ability or a way of life divergent from
that of the dominant population. In the latter, social exclusion
is linked to prejudicial treatment of vulnerable groups, such as
forced segregation in schooling or housing. For the most part,
member states have oriented towards integration measures, in
other words, requiring change on the part of vulnerable groups to
address their social exclusion. The 2004 Joint Report commented:
13 Commission, ‘Social inclusion in Europe 2006’, 135.
14 Commission, ‘Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions and health
portfolios’ D(2006), 7 June 2006.
Promoting ethnic equality and the social inclusion processMark Bell, Professor of Law at the Centre for European Law and Integ ration, University of Leicester, United Kingdom
“most of the focus in the naPs continued to be on labour market
exclusion, with less sPecific information on the situation of ethnic minorities as regards housing, and almost no
discussion in relation to healthcare”
issue
Social inclusion and equalitySocial inclusion and equalitySocial inclusion and equalitySocial inclusion and equality6 27
Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty in the EU: A view from the European Parliament Gabriele Zimmer, Member of the European Parliament, GUE/NGL Group
This article primarily refers to the “Report on promoting social
inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the
EU”, drafted under the author’s responsibility in the Employment
and Social Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in
2008. After many discussions with stakeholders, the report was
adopted by a large majority of the European Parliament in Sep-
tember 2008. It formulates an urgent call for immediate action
in the fight for comprehensive social inclusion.
In the European Union more than 78 million people live at risk of
income poverty, among them around 19 million children. Social
discrimination is often linked to
other causes of discrimination, e.g.
race, gender, or disability. European
citizens belonging to a minority
such as Roma, migrants from third
countries and especially asylum
seekers and irregular migrants are
particularly affected. The social living
conditions they face sometimes
bring to mind the devastating
social situation in some developing
countries.
In order to effectively fight the problem of poverty, coordinated
European action is required. European Parliament’s “Report on
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child
poverty, in the EU” (2008/2034(INI)) provides the EU Council and
the European Commission with guiding principles on the way to
a social Europe without poverty. The purpose of the report was
to support the Commission in its first attempt to make the fight
against social exclusion and poverty a common European matter.
The European Parliament is now trying to push this development
forward. Within the principle of subsidiarity common and binding
goals must be established and the measures taken under the
responsibility of the member states must be monitored. The fight
against all forms of social discrimination and for active inclusion
must be embedded in a holistic approach, covering different policy
fields, from employment to integration policies, from legalised
immigration to market regulation.
While representatives of EU institutions and member states at any
given opportunity proudly refer to the unprecedented “European
Social Model”, social reality often speaks another language. A
sizeable part of the Union’s population remains socially excluded.
One in five citizens lives in sub-standard housing. Each day about
1.8 million people seek accommodation in special shelters for the
homeless. Of all people in the EU, 10% live in households where
nobody works, and long-term unemployment is approaching 4%.
31 million workers (or 15%) are earning extremely low wages and
17 million workers (or 8%) experience income poverty despite
employment. The proportion of early school leavers is over 15%
and the digital divide still persists (44% of the EU population lack
any internet or computer skills). Poverty and inequality dispro-
portionately affect women; the average income of women is just
55% that of men. On top of this, women are highly and dispro-
portionately affected by poverty in old age. All in all, the richest
20% of European citizens have an income five times as high as the
remaining 80%. This is the disillusioning reality of the “European
Social Model” that badly needs a real European dimension. The
EU must become more than just an internal market. Freedom of
movement must be complemented by enforceable social rights.
These must stand above the freedoms of the internal market: social
rights must become EU primary law!
Still, in the field of social policy most competences lie within
the responsibilities of the member states. But as the political
contentions around the Working Time Directive, the Temporary
Workers Directive, the Anti-Discrimination Directive or the
recent ECJ judgements in the cases of Viking, Laval, Rüffert and
Luxembourg show, the EU’s direct influence on social reality is
growing. National answers to the challenges of an increasingly
globalised economy, particularly as everybody is focused on the
current crisis of capitalism, are superseded and often regressive. On
the other hand, the nation states are still the actors in European
social policy.
This is why the EU’s main instrument in the fight against poverty
and social exclusion is the Open Method of Coordination (OMC).
Within the OMC, member states agree on a certain number of
common objectives, while the specific methods of implementation
and realisation are left to national policy. In the “Report on
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including
child poverty, in the EU”, the European Parliament supports the
Commission’s attempt to strengthen the social OMC by improving
its visibility and working methods and by strengthening its
interaction with other policies.
In the following, I will present the main elements of the
Parliament’s “Report on promoting social inclusion and combating
poverty, including child poverty, in the EU” as an important
“a dignified life for all imPlies that every citiZen has the fundamental right
to an adequate income and to social and cultural ParticiPation in society”
Gabriele Zimmer MEP
issue
Social inclusion and equality 727
reference document in the fight for social inclusion. It focuses on
six main targets, demanding 1) a more holistic approach to active
inclusion, 2) guaranteeing sufficient incomes to ensure a dignified
life for all, 3) the eradication of child poverty, 4) employment
policies for socially inclusive labour markets, 5) the provision
of quality services and the guarantee of access for vulnerable
and disadvantaged groups, and 6) the improvement of policy
coordination and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.
1. A more holistic approach to active social inclusion
It is crucial to found social inclusion and all elements of the
holistic approach on a fundamental rights based approach. Social
rights must be individually enforceable for every citizen. Member
states must define minimum income schemes and complement
these with a strategic plan for active inclusion policies for the
labour market, better access to
high quality services for all and an
effective anti-discrimination policy.
2. Guaranteeing sufficient income
to ensure a dignified life for all
A dignified life for all implies that
every citizen has the fundamental
right to an adequate income and
to social and cultural participation
in society. Most social assistance
levels in the member states are
below the at-risk-of-poverty line. Thus, income support schemes
throughout Europe (which still do not exist in all European
countries) must be adjusted in terms of their accessibility,
effectiveness, and efficiency. The parliament has called on the
Council “to agree an EU target for minimum income schemes and
contributory replacement income schemes of providing income
support of at least 60% of national median equalised income and,
further, to agree a timetable for achieving this target in all member
states”.
3. Eradicating child poverty: from analysis to targeted policies
and implementation
The report draws special attention to the fact that “children and
young people are citizens and independent holders of rights
as well as being part of a family”. A rights based approach must
focus on the emotional, social, physical, educational and cognitive
needs of the individual child. As a concrete and realistic goal, child
poverty shall be reduced by 50% by the year 2012. Many children,
especially ethnic minorities, immigrants, street children and
children with disabilities need special attention and support.
4. Employment policies for socially inclusive labour markets
Integration in the labour market especially for disadvantaged
groups is a multidimensional process with support before
employment, additional personalized assistance while seeking
employment and supportive measures to stay in employment.
Active labour market policies should promote “good work”, upward
social mobility and provide stepping stones towards regular, gainful
and legally secure employment with adequate social protection.
The report “calls on the member states to agree on minimum wage
legislation as an integral element of active inclusion”.
5. Providing quality services and guaranteeing access for
vulnerable and disadvantaged groups
Not only social security schemes, health services and social
services, but all services of general interest, including network
industries such as transport, telecommunication, energy and other
public utilities or financial services play an important role in active
inclusion. Accessibility and quality
of services support socially excluded
people to re-enter the labour market
and their emancipated participation
in society. The European Parliament
also called on member states to
consider social default tariffs for
vulnerable groups, as well as free
healthcare and education for people
having difficulties of a material
nature.
6. Improving policy coordination and the involvement of all
relevant stakeholders
The report calls for a stronger focus of the OMC on the eradication
of poverty. The European Parliament stresses the “need for a
uniform series of measures at European level”. Active inclusion
must include EU, national, regional and local levels, involving
all relevant actors (social partners, NGOs) and the disadvantaged
people themselves. Clearly formulated targets are to be set and
strictly monitored.
Finally, it is left to the European Commission’s initiative and to
the member states to implement concrete measures for active
inclusion on the way to a “Social Europe” that really deserves to
carry this name. The progressive political forces in the European
Parliament, particularly the GUE/NGL group, will continue to put
pressure on the other political groups in parliament, on the Council
and on the Commission to establish individually enforceable
fundamental social rights for all people in the European Union.
Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty in the EU: A view from the European Parliament Gabriele Zimmer, Member of the European Parliament, GUE/NGL Group
“the fight against all forms of social discrimination and for active
inclusion must be embedded in a holistic aPProach, covering different
Policy fields, from emPloyment to integration Policies, from legalised immigration to market regulation”
issue
Social inclusion and equality Social inclusion and equality278
EAPN in the Social OMC
The European Anti Poverty Network
(www.eapn.eu) is an independent
EU network of NGOs dedicated
to the fight against poverty and
social exclusion at national and
EU level. Established in 1990,
EAPN was a key actor lobbying for
the setting up of the EU’s Social
Open Method of Coordination
(OMC) in 2000 in order to make
progress on reducing poverty and
social exclusion at national and
EU level. The National Action
Plans (NAPs) process linked to
common EU objectives on fighting
poverty and social exclusion seemed to offer national networks an
important instrument to engage in the development of national
inclusion strategies and a mechanism to press together for better
policies and implementation at EU level. However, following the
streamlining of the OMC with the pensions, health and long-term
care pillars in 2005, matched by the narrowing of the overarching
Lisbon Strategy to focus on “growth and jobs”, EAPN has become
increasingly worried about the declining importance and
effectiveness of the NAP. With the deteriorating social situation
resulting from the financial and economic crisis, these concerns
become even more urgent.
In the EAPN stocktaking of progress on the OMC and recommen-
dations for reinforcing it, four key points emerge:
1) Most EAPN networks have benefited from engagement in the
NAPs by getting a higher profile, enabling them to become
legitimate actors in national social inclusion strategies.
2) In most cases the NAP inclusion has helped in the development
of a stronger national strategy for social inclusion, with some
important specific policy gains and key examples where social
NGOs have been institutional partners in an ongoing structured
dialogue.
3) However, the increasing tendency to treat the NAP inclusion as
a report, rather than a plan, has fundamentally undermined its
effectiveness as a dynamic tool for driving forward an effective
social inclusion agenda, based on participative governance.
4) The dominance of the Lisbon “growth and jobs” strategy since
2005 has sidelined the social OMC, with most member states
increasingly hiding behind the defence of subsidiarity, leaving
the process with little teeth or effective implementation.
Last chance before 2010: the new cycle 2008-10
The 2008-10 reports lead up to 2010 marking both the EU year
against poverty and social inclusion and the target date set by the
Lisbon Strategy in 2000 to deliver its pledge to make “a decisive
impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion”.
During 2008, EAPN members continued to engage at national
level and evaluated together the process and findings in the
EAPN report: “Building Security, Giving Hope”, EAPN Assessment
of the National Strategic Reports on Social Protection and Social
Inclusion (2008-10). An overriding concern of EAPN members was
to see whether there were any signs of the OMC responding to the
challenges set above relating to the effectiveness of the OMC.
No significant progress on poverty
Generally, EAPN members agreed with the Commission’s
assessment that little progress has been made on at risk of poverty
levels across the EU since 2000. EAPN members found that even
where improvements were made to general poverty levels, this
was often at the expense of specific target groups, e.g. in Ireland,
where the reduction in the general at risk of poverty levels from
19.7% in 2003 to 17% in 2006 and consistent poverty levels from
8.8% to 6.9% was balanced by significant increases in the levels of
consistent poverty for key groups - the unemployed, the sick and
disabled, families with children, lone parents.
Growth and jobs has not necessarily meant less poverty
Whilst some member states highlighted improvements in growth
and progress on employment rates (before the current economic
crisis), EAPN members confirmed that this has not necessarily
guaranteed a reduction of poverty, ensuring that the benefits of
growth were effectively redistributed. In some cases economic
growth has fuelled increasing inequalities. In Sweden for instance,
although growth has slowed in 2007, unemployment has continued
to increase by 2.4%, especially for young people and migrants
(increasing by 6.2%), with relative poverty increasing along with
disparities of income and wealth.
Loss of overarching strategy on poverty and exclusion
Since 2005, the social OMC has increasingly focused on
thematic priorities as a means for making progress in key areas,
with Child Poverty established as the theme for 2007 and 2008
focused on Active Inclusion. Most member states mirrored the
Commission’s priorities from the 2007 Joint Report (child poverty,
active inclusion), with activation being the big winner, not the
broader approach to active inclusion. Whilst EAPN members have
valued the opportunity to focus on specific themes, this approach
always runs the risk of missing key priorities at national level
and undermining the development of an overarching strategy of
poverty and social exclusion.
Missing themes and groups, particularly migrants
Apart from an insufficient analysis of poverty - causes, trends
and costs, EAPN members note the absence of debate on the
An analysis of the new cycle of National Actions Plans 2008-11 from an anti-poverty perspective: Is the social OMC delivering on poverty?Sian Jones, Policy Coordinator, European Anti-Poverty Network
1
EUROPEAN ANTI POVERTY NETWORK
Voices from the Poverty Line:Jobs and Unemployment in the EU
EAPN publication on jobs and unemployment in the EU
issue
Social inclusion and equality27 9
“aPart from an insufficient analysis of Poverty, eaPn members note the absence of debate on the imPlications of growing inequality and the need to
suPPort universal Public services“
An analysis of the new cycle of National Actions Plans 2008-11 from an anti-poverty perspective: Is the social OMC delivering on poverty?Sian Jones, Policy Coordinator, European Anti-Poverty Network
implications of growing inequality and the need to support universal
public services and establish better redistribution mechanisms.
There was also surprisingly little reference to the economic crisis,
and the impact on the poor - even in the immediate consequences
of rising food, energy and housing prices, unemployment and
increasingly indebted families, through bad lending practices.
Although homelessness received increased attention, there was a
lack of focus on prevention or on increasing the supply of affordable
housing, whilst tackling health inequalities was also worryingly
absent. In terms of missing groups, migrants and ethnic minorities
continued to be given a low profile, particularly undocumented
migrants, asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors.
Child poverty: better approaches but weak implementation
In general, EAPN members noted an increased profile on child
poverty, with an increase in general and specific targets to reduce
child poverty, more specific objectives focusing on supporting
families and development of some better integrated strategies.
However, most approaches still lacked effective universal, multi-
dimensional strategies to tackle child and family poverty: ensuring
adequate family income, as well as access to key services
including affordable quality childcare, housing and education.
Most policies prioritized getting parents into jobs, at any price.
Barriers for specific groups of families were also not sufficiently
recognized - lone parents, ethnic minority and migrant parents,
disabled children and carers. Most approaches lacked ambition on
implementation - with inadequate
budgets and little discussion on
discriminatory access criteria or
regard to children’s rights.
Active inclusion
Active Inclusion is a key priority for
the EU. However, EAPN members
highlight that most member
states continue to pursue limited
activation approaches to boost the employment of specific target
groups often combined with increasingly punitive conditionality,
rather than the proposed integrated approach. Ensuring adequacy
of minimum income is notably absent as is the impact of the
crisis on declining purchasing power. However, some progress has
been made on the development of positive pathway approaches
to support excluded groups into jobs. EAPN members also noted
no major progress on the integration of migrants in terms of
access to rights, resources and services, with the main focus in
the NAPs “driven by labour market needs rather than their wider
social integration” (EAPN BU). Where mentioned, strategies focus
on language skills rather than key obstacles related to residence
status, and multiple barriers faced by undocumented migrants,
asylum seekers, migrant families, children etc.
Participation and governance
EAPN was pleased to note some important progress on governance
in some member states. This usually means an increased
involvement of stakeholders at all stages: in consultation
meetings, invitation to comment on drafts and in some cases to
engage in follow up discussions, implementation and evaluation.
More importantly a number of member states have now embedded
an institutionalised ongoing structural dialogue with NGOs as
partners which are vital good practice examples of governance. For
example, in the UK, a stakeholder group meets four times a year
through the Social Policy Task Force, chaired by EAPN. In Belgium,
civil society stakeholders including NGOs and people experiencing
poverty are now integral partners in the social policy cycle on
poverty and exclusion strategies and delivery. However, there are
worrying signs of stagnation and even decline in other countries.
In most countries, the governance process still falls far short of
being a dynamic action plan based on active participation, with
stakeholders actively involved in every step of the policy cycle and
where their input is actually taken on board.
Conclusion - the way forward for the OMC
The NAP 2008-10 continues to demonstrate the social OMC’s
strengths and weaknesses. The plans remain reports without
ambition. Although the NAPs chart important progress on social
policy on agreed EU priorities, the OMC is still far from using the
NAPs effectively as an instrument to have a significant impact
on poverty and exclusion. Hard
political choices need to be
made. A strengthened OMC
needs strong political backing to
ensure a real impact on national
policy, and to move beyond
the endless excuses about
subsidiarity. Similar limitations
of subsidiarity have not stopped
the EU’s OMC on Education and
Training from establishing EU targets for education and a common
EU qualifications framework, or indeed limited the revised Lisbon
Strategy itself. Moving forward on implementation means agreeing
EU and national targets on poverty and exclusion, transparently
monitored through annual scoreboard mechanisms and
Commission Recommendations. Revitalised governance and NAP
action planning processes will be crucial to engage stakeholders,
providing ownership and raising visibility, and ensuring that
policies really deliver on their objectives. EAPN is counting on the
EU to set out a clear Road Map in 2009 to reassure all stakeholders
that the OMC will become a key player in the fight against poverty
and social inclusion, if the EU is to have a chance of reaching the
goals of 2010 and beyond.
issue
10 Social inclusion and equality Social inclusion and equality27
ENAR’s experience with the National Action Plan on social inclusion in the United KingdomSarah Isal, ENAR Substitute Board member for the United Kingdom
With the prospect of recession hitting most European countries in
the coming years, it is all the more important for non-governmental
organisations and people experiencing poverty to be involved
in social inclusion policy making at EU and national levels. ENAR
has encouraged its national coordinations to engage with their
respective governments to influence the social inclusion agenda.
This is all the more important as
ethnic and religious minorities are
more likely to be affected by poverty
and exclusion.
Whilst all EU member states were
due to publish their National Action
Plan on Social Inclusion 2008-2011,
the level of engagement of civil
society organisations varied depending on the country. The UK
provides an example of good interaction between civil society
and government when producing the National Action Plan. Rather
than engage in isolation to put forward the interests of ethnic and
religious minorities, migrants and refugees, UKREN, ENAR’s national
coordination in the UK, worked with other organisations that had
experience in working with government on those issues, namely
mainstream anti-poverty organisations such as the European
Anti-Poverty Network England or the UK Coalition Against Poverty.
It did so by joining the Social Policy Taskforce (SPTF) in 2008, a
coalition of non-governmental organisations, including anti-poverty
groups and equality organisations, that meet one another and with
relevant government departments regularly to influence social
inclusion policies. The membership of other equality organisations
within SPTF, such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People
(RNIB), Fawcett Society, the Migrants Resource Centre and Leonard
Cheshire Disability, ensures that equality matters are constantly
at the centre of SPTF’s messages and work. It is therefore a really
valuable partnership which is more effective in its influence on
government’s policies as a result.
In particular, last year was spent working on the UK National Action
Plan on Social Inclusion (NAP). The SPTF submitted a Shadow NAP to
the UK Government and helped organise the launch of the NAP, thus
ensuring a significant grassroots presence. UKREN contributed to the
SPTF Shadow Report and made its own submission to government.
Although the UK NAP includes the fight for equality as one of its
priority objectives (alongside the other policy objectives of ensuring
access to quality services, labour market inclusion and ending
child poverty), it is disappointing that equality is not sufficiently
mainstreamed across the other priority objectives, which are all very
relevant to the situation of ethnic and religious minorities, especially
access to quality services, often of poor quality for that group as a
result of institutional discrimination. Our submission had called
for such a mainstreaming. It also asked for better implementation
of anti-discrimination legislation, better data to understand how
poverty and social exclusion affect different vulnerable groups (in
particular in health and the criminal justice system), and highlighted
the need for policy coherence on the part of government in all the
areas covered (i.e. initiatives to improve access to work of migrants
and asylum seekers being cancelled by restrictions imposed on
the same group because of their
immigration status.)
A general criticism of the National
Action Plan is that it consists of a
list of the policies and activities that
have been carried out in the past
by government and a statement of
the current situation, rather than a
forward-looking plan. This is valid for sections reporting on ethnic
minorities and throughout the document. It is therefore difficult to
assess what the government intends to do in the next three years in
order to improve social inclusion.
The next step in the work of UKREN and the SPTF is to monitor the
commitment made by the government in the UK NAP. We intend
to do so partly through our involvement in the European Year for
Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion 2010. The latter presents
us with an opportunity to keep the social inclusion agenda as a
priority of government policy. The SPTF has therefore called on the
Department for Work and Pensions, in charge of implementing the
Year, to ensure proper engagement with civil society organisations
and people experiencing poverty. In particular, we are submitting
a plan to the Department with proposals to implement the Year in
a way that will produce an enduring legacy which enhances the
capacity of the UK to combat poverty and social exclusion. We are
also encouraging the Government to focus specifically on the four
policy priorities outlined in its NAP (access to services, labour market
inclusion, child poverty and equality) to allow for the Year to support
proper implementation of the NAP. We hope that this will provide
the adequate impetus for an action-driven NAP to be reviewed in
2011.
“the uk Provides an examPle of good interaction between civil society and government when Producing the
national action Plan”
issue
11Social inclusion and equality27
ENAR’s experience with the National Action Plan on social inclusion in MaltaJean-Pierre Gauci: People for Change Foundation, ENAR Board member for Malta
The People for Change
Foundation adopts a
broad understanding
of social inclusion as
all those processes,
measures and initiatives
that seek to overcome
the situations and
conditions that cause a
number of groups to be marginalised socially and economically
placing them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the community at large.
We adhere to the belief that building more inclusive societies will
result in sustainable growth and greater social cohesion. In our
view, the National Action Plan for Social Protection and Social
Inclusion (NAP SPSI) is, or should be, a strategic document with
achievable targets that would put in place measures to ensure
inclusion over the short and medium term, with a vision towards
the long term.
Our involvement in the process
leading up to NAP SPSI was
therefore modelled and based
on these underlying principles
and a desire to engage with a
process that seeks to overcome
some of the key challenges to the
inclusion of “irregular immigrants”
in Malta. Amongst the issues that
lead to irregular immigrants being
excluded in Maltese society one
finds prejudice and intolerance, sometimes based on fear and
fuelled by a racist and xenophobic agenda from certain quarters.
The lack of official data collection makes generalisation difficult
and risky. However, research indicates that migrants are more
likely to be in volatile and lower-paid jobs, to lack stable income,
to be discriminated against in various spheres of life, to have a
lower level of academic achievement and to live in housing that
is of a lower standard.
The consultation process leading up to the National Action Plan
involved a focus group meeting on each of the main target groups
which would be addressed in the plan. These included children,
persons with a disability, victims of domestic violence and
“irregular immigrants” amongst others. The discussion at the focus
group meeting on “irregular immigrants” highlighted some of the
main concerns and also put forward a number of concrete recom-
mendations including the need to make better use of the time
migrants spend in detention and the need to provide information
for those starting the integration process. The focus group meeting
for service providers was accompanied by a focus group meeting
for service users. Our participation in the focus group meeting was
further supplemented through a written submission that fed on
our previous work and earlier recommendations.
The draft plan which was presented at the end of the consultation
process, and which was open for further consultation, made
a number of very positive recommendations. It proposed the
creation of an integration handbook for asylum seekers, the
building of a knowledge base on the area, the improvement
of opportunities for language and vocational training whilst in
detention as well as the creation of public awareness to address
racism. It also states that the integration of third country nationals
will be supported by implementing initiatives to increase the
employability of refugees, the use of EU funds to improve the
reception conditions in line with international standards and the
strengthening of the Organisation for the Integration and Welfare
of Asylum Seekers.
Our experience within the process
raised a number of points worth
sharing. Firstly, it showed the need
for greater capacity building for
interested parties on the scope and
potential of the action plans. NGOs
need to make the time and space
to come up with common positions,
concerns and recommendations
and should be given more space to
raise their concerns. There is also a
need for greater awareness of the
actual plan (once this is finalised) and the way the various actors
can contribute to its implementation. We feel that the non-govern-
mental sector should be involved throughout the process including
in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the actions
proposed, based on its expertise and grassroots experience which
can ensure that these initiatives are effective and as close to
the needs and aspirations of the target group as possible. In this
regard, long term engagement and communication between the
various actors in the field should be encouraged and formalised.
In order to be effective in one’s engagement in the process, one
needs to be consistent and persistent, have positions and recom-
mendations based on solid research and an understanding of the
strengths and limitations of the Action Plan and the EU Open
Method of Coordination. Our experience further highlighted a
need for NGOs to work together and for common concerns to be
put forward through a common voice.
For more information about The People for Change Foundation
visit www.pfcmalta.org or e-mail [email protected].
“we feel that the non-governmental sector should be involved throughout
the national action Plan Process including in the Planning,
imPlementation and evaluation of the actions ProPosed, based on its
exPertise and grassroots exPerience”
© Philippe Revelli
issue
12 Social inclusion and equality Social inclusion and equality27
Hugh Frazer, adjunct Professor at the National University of Ireland, MaynoothThis article analyses the social aspects of migration in the NAPs
on social inclusion and concludes that there has been modest
but insufficient progress in this area.
One of the five key challenges that the European Commission and member states have agreed should be addressed as part of the EU’s social inclusion process is to overcome discrimination and increase the integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and immigrants.
1 The other agreed key challenges are to eradicate
child poverty, to make labour markets truly inclusive, to ensure decent housing for everyone and to tackle financial exclusion and overindebtedness.
The two yearly National Action Plans on poverty and social exclusion (NAPs/inclusion) are the key means whereby member states are expected to address these common challenges and to achieve the overall goal of the social inclusion process of making a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by 2010. A new round of NAPs/inclusion was submitted to the Commission in autumn 2008. In preparing their plans member states were explicitly encouraged, when selecting the four key priorities to address in their new reports, to give more attention to the social integration of migrants as well as to active inclusion and child poverty.
2
Modest but insufficient progress or An opportunity missedIn fact the new NAPs/inclusion show only a modest increase in attention being given to the social aspects of migration. While the issue is mentioned more frequently than previously and while a few member states did make steps forward, only a minority (e.g. Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Malta, Portugal, Spain) have
1 The EU’s social inclusion process is one of the three strands of the EU’s Open Method of Coordination
on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (Social OMC). It was established as part of the Lisbon Process
in 2001 with the aim of making a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and social exclusion by
2010.
2 Social Protection Committee, Guidance note for preparing National Strategy Reports on Social Protec-
tion and Social Inclusion 2008-2010, Brussels, 2008.
a specific objective in their NAP/inclusion on the integration of migrants. This compares with access to the labour market and child poverty which were key priorities for the vast majority of member states.
In several cases when migration is selected as an issue it is combined with a focus on other issues such as disability, the situation of the Roma and the integration of other disadvantaged groups. Thus the issue is often not addressed as fully as it could have been. There are, however, a few cases where migration issues are treated fairly extensively when member states are dealing with other issues, notably access to employment, addressing educational disadvantage and combating child and youth poverty.
Lack of a comprehensive and holistic approachWhen member states do prioritise the issue they often take a rather narrow approach. Thus there is much emphasis in the NAPs/inclusion on increasing access to the labour market and overcoming barriers in relation to language and literacy that hinder integration and a certain amount on increasing access to education. However, there is only a limited amount on improving income and living conditions for migrants and on issues like access to health and housing.
Limited data and analysisWhile several NAPs/inclusion provide strong evidence of the higher levels of poverty and social exclusion experienced by many adults and children from a migration background the reports generally suffer from a lack of detailed data and comprehensive analysis about their situations and issues like gender are inadequately addressed. This lack of a deep and holistic understanding of the situation of migrants severely weakens the ability to develop a comprehensive policy response. Lack of targetsEven where member states do prioritise the situation of migrants a key weakness is that in most cases they do not set quantified objectives for the reduction of poverty and social exclusion among migrants. Indeed it is a reflection of the low priority and the poor quality of available data that far fewer targets are set in this area compared to reducing child poverty and increasing access to employment.
Limited coverage of discrimination measuresThere is surprisingly little about the extent to which discrimination and racism are factors affecting the position of migrants whether in terms of access to education, participation in education or access to enabling services. This is also probably closely linked to the lack of emphasis on access to rights.
Some groups are neglectedWhile the situation of migrants in general is at least slightly more widely recognised in the current round of NAPs/inclusion than previously there is very little attention given to some of those groups that face the most severe situations, particularly undocumented
The social aspects of migration in the 2008-2010 National Action Plans on soc ial inclusion
© European Parliament
issue
13Social inclusion and equality27
migrants and asylum seekers. It seems that little attention is given in the NAPs/inclusion to some of the negative poverty and social inclusion consequences of restrictive policies such as limiting the right to work during the time applications for asylum are being processed, or limiting the level of social benefits or access to services for asylum seekers. The extreme situation of undocumented migrants leading to destitution, exploitation and very poor living conditions is largely ignored.
Need to strengthen governanceA key to developing more effective and comprehensive approaches to the social aspects of migration is to ensure that there are arrangements in place first to mainstream the issue in public policy making and to coordinate efforts across policy areas and, secondly, to ensure the active involvement of all relevant actors in the development, implementation and monitoring of policies and programmes. In particular this needs to include migrants themselves and the organisations working with them. Most NAPs/inclusion fail to specify with any detail the extent to which governance arrangements in relation to migration are being strengthened. However there are some interesting developments highlighted in a few cases such as the establishment of the Office of the Minister for Integration in Ireland with a cross-departmental mandate to develop, drive and coordinate integration policy across other government departments, agencies and services.
Some positive policy developmentsMore positively there are many interesting initiatives highlighted in the NAPs/inclusion which can provide the basis for more exchange of learning between member states in future. For instance, several member states, for example Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, emphasise the integration of people from a migrant background in their efforts to increase access to employment. There are several interesting examples of member states (e.g. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, UK) addressing literacy and language barriers to integration. One interesting example is the “Mummy learns German” project in Vienna which allows mothers of a child or children with a migrant background to attend German language courses at the kindergarten or school of their children. There are several interesting examples of initiatives to support the integration of children from a migrant background into the school system such as the effort in Austria to create more educational opportunities for children with a migrant background, the initiative in Greece to promote the integration of Muslim children into the education system, the emphasis on education supports in Ireland, or efforts to increase school attendance in Belgium. There is generally less consideration given to issues of health and social services but the Irish National Intercultural Health Strategy 2007-2012 is one interesting initiative to improve access to health services and to make health services staff more responsive to the situation of migrants.
Conclusions and recommendationsIt is clear from this brief review of how the social dimension of migration has been covered in the NAPs/inclusion that it still remains an underdeveloped part of the EU process. Thus, the 2008-2010 NAPs/inclusion represent a missed opportunity to make a significant step forward on the social aspects of migration. Above all this probably reflects the relatively low level of political attention that is given to the social aspects of migration.
In the future there is a need for more member states to:• make the issue a key political priority;• ensure that better data and more comprehensive analysis on the
poverty and social exclusion risks faced by migrants is available; • develop more comprehensive and holistic strategies;• set clear evidence based targets for reducing poverty and social
exclusion amongst migrants;• strengthen links between social inclusion and anti-discrimination
policies and programmes so that they are mutually reinforcing;• strengthen governance arrangements through: more
mainstreaming of the issue across policy areas; better coordination of policies; improved arrangements for involving migrants and organisations working with them in the policy process; more rigorous monitoring and reporting arrangements.
At EU level one way to strengthen the social inclusion of migrants and ethnic minorities would be to make this issue the topic of a thematic year within
the social inclusion process, just as child poverty was in 2007. At the same time the Social Protection Committee and the European Commission should remind member states that they should give particular attention to the situation of migrant adults and children when they are developing policies and programmes in the areas of child poverty and active inclusion. Likewise, if issues of housing and homelessness are to receive special attention during 2009 as part of the EU process, as seems likely, then it will be very important that the situation of migrants is made an important theme when developing work on this issue. This increased focus on the social aspects of migration then needs to be carried over into the EU Year on Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010. At the same time the European Commission needs to start to rigorously monitor member states’ performance on this issue and clearly identify areas in which improvements are needed.
“the lack of a deeP and holistic understanding of the situation of migrants severely
weakens the ability to develoP a comPrehensive Policy resPonse”
Hugh Frazer, adjunct Professor at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth
The social aspects of migration in the 2008-2010 National Action Plans on soc ial inclusion
issue
14
“roma are the most Prominent Poverty risk grouP. they are
Poorer than other grouPs, more likely to fall into Poverty, and
more likely to remain Poor”
Ivan Ivanov, Executive Director, European Roma Information Offi ce
This article examines the causes for the social exclusion of
the European Roma minority in all fields of life and considers
positive action as a way of bringing change to the current
situation of the Roma in Europe.
The Roma are a unique European minority. They have no historical homeland and reside in almost all European countries. There are more than 14 million Roma in Europe, which makes them the largest minority group in Europe. According to a number of reports, Roma are the most disadvantaged community on the old continent. Different research studies and surveys show that they are also the most unpopular minority. A 2007 “Eurobarometer”, an EU wide survey on the opinion of EU citizens on issues related to diversity, discrimination and anti-racism, shows that more than 77 % of Europeans think that to be Roma in their societies is a disadvantage. The most recent Eurobarometer findings indicate that nearly 30 % of citizens of the 27 EU member states do not want to live next to Roma people. In some countries it reaches 45 % of the interviewed people.
Roma are the most prominent poverty risk group, especially in Central and Eastern European countries. They are poorer than other groups, more likely to fall into poverty, and more likely to remain poor. In some cases poverty rates among the Roma community are ten times higher than among non-Roma. Low education levels and lack of qualifications among Roma lead to disadvantages in the labour market. Roma face many more barriers re-entering employment than other groups and become caught in a vicious circle of impoverishment.
1
Roma are the most discriminated people in the field of education. Racial segregation of Roma children in schools, whether intentionally imposed or resulting from other processes, is a
1 Dena Ringold, Mitchell Orenstain and Erika Willkens, Roma in an expanding Europe - Breaking the
Poverty Circle, 2003.
widespread form of discrimination. Many Roma children attend so-called “Gypsy schools”, inferior-quality schools in which the overwhelming majority of children are Roma. These schools are inferior both in terms of material conditions and of quality of education; school buildings are run-down and ill equipped to provide for quality education, teachers lack basic qualifications, textbooks are out-of-date, and teaching aids are lacking.
2
Roma are also among the most discriminated in employment. The massive and disproportionate exclusion of Roma from employment is an undisputed reality in many European countries. This fact raises a serious human rights concern about the failure of governments to curb racial discrimination in employment as well as to undertake proactive measures to confront disadvantages facing the Roma in the labour market. Research under a joint project of the European Roma Information Office (ERIO), the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and the International Helsinki Federation (IHF), based on structured narrative interviews with 402 working age Roma individuals in 2005 and 2006, revealed that 64 % of working age Roma have experienced discrimination in employment. When asked “how do you know it was because you are Roma?”, an alarming 49 % said that they have been openly told by the employer or someone in the company, and an additional 5 % were told by the labour office.
3
Not only are the Roma the most discriminated against minority in Europe, but in recent years, they have also increasingly become subject to extreme prejudices and violent attacks.
4
The Communication of the European Commission on the implementation of the Race equality Directive 2000/43/EC states that in the period of 2001-2006, the highest number of complaints received by equality bodies and national courts claiming discrimination were filed by Roma.
It is well documented that Roma communities have experienced serious discrimination in all fields of life. Even if all present-day discrimination against Roma could be eliminated, inequality would persist because of the legacy of past discrimination. Achieving substantive equality therefore requires compensatory measures designed to redress the effect of past discrimination as
2 Separate and Equal - Combating discrimination against Roma in education, Public Interest Law Initia-
tive, 2004.
3 The Glass Box - Exclusion of Roma from employment, a report under a joint project of ERRC, ERIO and
IHF.
4 Edwin Rekosh, Separate and Unequal, Public Interest Law Initiative Source Book, 2004.
Positive action for the Roma, “most” dis criminated community in Europe
Sandro Weltin / © Council of Europe
Social inclusion and equality Social inclusion and equality27
issue
15
well as discrimination that continues in the present. Positive action should be used to bring change to the current situation of the RomaEquality is unlikely to be achieved simply by treating everyone in the same way. To achieve substantive equality for Roma, the responsible authorities should make some accommodation for the special needs of this particular group. This includes adjusting employment criteria, enabling Roma to have access to employment and education, as a group historically excluded from these areas of life, additional training to take up job qualifications in a new field. It could involve better access to services by changing the way in which they are delivered, in order to overcome cultural and language barriers which have had the effect of excluding Roma from social services, health care or education provisions.
The new concept of equality, as outlined by Fredman
5, should encompass four
central aims:- To break the cycle of disadvantage
associated with membership of a particular group;- To promote respect for equal dignity and worth of all persons,
redressing stigma, stereotyping, humiliation based on membership of the group;
- To provide positive affirmation of individuals as members of the group;
- To facilitate full participation in society.
Measures to compensate for past discrimination Simply removing formal obstacles to equal treatment would be unlikely to result in equality of outcomes, if measures for the support of persons facing historic discrimination are not adopted.
Any action aiming to ensure the equal treatment of Roma needs to not only address the present situation, but also to seek to remedy the impact of past discrimination. An essential approach
5 Sandra Fredman, “The Future of Equality in Britain”, Equal Opportunities Commission Working Paper
No.5, 2002.
in redressing past discrimination is through positive measures. Contrary to the popular perception that positive measures are illegal or discriminatory, they are, in certain circumstances, actually required by the principle of non-discrimination in order to bring about de facto equality.
Measures to eliminate present discriminationIt is necessary to identify the factors causing discrimination against Roma in order to develop appropriate remedies. In each particular case investigation should be carried out with the involvement of the Roma subjected to discrimination. Such investigation should address direct and indirect discrimination. An awareness raising campaign regarding the availability of anti-discrimination legislation, the existence of equality bodies and their functions is necessary.
Desegregation measures should be taken in all fields in which Roma presently experience segregation, most notably in education and housing. Providing for the equal treatment of Roma in these areas requires targeted measures aimed at breaking the patterns of segregation and bringing about the inclusion of Roma in mainstream society.
6 It is also important that desegregation
measures do not violate the principle of equality and non-discrim-ination by promoting the assimilation of Roma. In order not to
violate the principle of non-discri-mination, positive measures must not themselves lead to segregation and should only be continued until such time as the objectives from which they were developed have been achieved.
Measures to fight future discrimination and inequalitiesA regular assessment of the potential impact of laws and policies on Roma
should take place at the outset and adjusted, if necessary, so as to avoid any negative impact. The consultation and participation of Roma communities in this process is essential.
EU member states need to undertake short, medium, and long-term initiatives to fight against the prevailing climate of anti-Gypsyism. As long as racist prejudices and stereotypes about Roma pervade in public opinion, measures and policies aimed at furthering Roma equality will encounter resistance and failure. States should develop specific anti-racism campaigns designed to replace negative stereotypes about Roma with objective information. These campaigns should inform the public about the manner in which racism and discrimination have affected Roma communities, and highlight the valuable contribution that Roma have made to their societies.
6 EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, Thematic Comment No.3 for a summary of
findings of segregation of Roma in education and housing in many EU countries.
“any action aiming to ensure the equal treatment of roma needs to not only address the Present situation, but also to seek to remedy the imPact of
Past discrimination”
Ivan Ivanov, Executive Director, European Roma Information Office
Positive action for the Roma, “most” dis criminated community in Europe
© Dejan Vekic/OSCE
Social inclusion and equality27
issue
16
Announcements(Continued from page 5)
#200
18 •
ENAR
european network against racism
• ENAR has published its 2007 Shadow Report on racism in Europe, available at www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15294&langue=EN
• ENAR has adopted its 5th General Policy Paper on “Fighting racism and promoting equal rights in education and training”, which is available at www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15287&langue=EN
• ENAR issued its response to a European Commission consultation entitled “Freedom, Security and Justice: What will be the future?”, as well as its position on the proposal for an EU Directive on basic socio-economic rights for third country workers. They are available at www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15288&langue=EN
• ENAR issued its preliminary position on the proposal for an EU directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It is available at www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15288&langue=EN
• ENAR published its Memorandum to the Czech Presidency of the EU, which is available at www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15290&langue=EN
• The next edition of ENARgy will be published in May 2009. Information on previous editions is available at www.enar-eu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15292&langue=EN
43 rue de la Charité , B-1210 Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32-2-229.35.70 , Fax: +32-2-229.35.75E-mail: [email protected]: www.enar-eu.org
Sign up to ENAR’s Mailing List: www.enar-eu.org
ENAR is a network of European NGOs working to combat racism in all EU member states. Its establishment was a major outcome of the 1997 European Year Against Racism. ENAR aims to fight racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, to promote equality of treatment between EU citizens and third country nationals, and to link local/regional/national initiatives with European initiatives. ENAR’s vision is of a world free from racism.
This newsletter was produced with the financial support of the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
Articles published in ENARgy do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ENAR or of the European Commission.
Responsible for publication: Pascale Charhon
Editor: Georgina Siklossy
Translator: Dominique Barbier
Social inclusion and equality 27
“In many cases the emphasis is on the need for immigrants to
adapt, most notably through training and support measures. In
Austria, Italy and Luxembourg, for example, a primary focus is on
providing language courses.”1 A corollary of this outlook is that
few states initially made any link between the Social Inclusion
Process and the implementation of the Racial Equality Directive.
In its 2006 analysis of the NAPs, the Commission noted more
frequent citation of the Directive, but queried “what, if any,
practical impact it is having on the ground”.2 By concentrating
on adaptations by minorities, an analysis based on institutional
racism is neglected.
• Mainstreaming via the OMC
The Social Inclusion Process is arguably a relatively successful
example of mainstreaming ethnic equality. Ethnic minorities
were recognised as a key priority from early in the life of the
process, even if not at its very outset. Despite flaws and
shortcomings, the Joint Reports are woven with references
to issues relating to ethnic inequality. At the same time, the
strongest focus within the Social Inclusion Process has been
on employment as a barrier to social inclusion. This is the field
where most detail emerges in the Joint Reports and the sole
indicator relating to ethnic inequalities concerns employment
rates. Yet it suggests that the process has been less effective
in promoting social inclusion in other fields. A detailed study
in 2004 concluded that “most of the NAPs/Inclusion have not
generally presented coherent and integrated policies in relation
to access to housing for migrants and ethnic minority groups”.3
Taking an overview, the Social Inclusion Process does provide
evidence of mainstreaming ethnic equality. Although this has
not been based on an announced strategy (in contrast to gender
mainstreaming), ethnic inequalities have in practice filtered onto
the policy agenda. The open character of the OMC facilitates
regular redefinition of its goals and instruments. This allowed
“immigrants” to be added to the Common Objectives in 2002,
despite having been omitted in 2000. It is testament to the fluidity
of the OMC that this reference slipped away in 2006. Furthermore,
the major lack of data on ethnic inequalities has been a persistent
obstacle to forging a more elaborate European policy. In the
absence of data, the contours of inequality remain fuzzy and there
is no external benchmark against which to measure the relative
effectiveness of competing policy prescriptions.
15 Commission, ‘Joint report on social inclusion 2004’, 96.
16 Commission, ‘Social inclusion in Europe 2006’, 137.
17 B Edgar, ‘Policy measures to ensure access to decent housing for migrants and ethnic minorities’
(Dundee: Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research, Universities of Dundee/St Andrews, 2004) 76.
17
16
5
issue