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 info@pfcmalta.org.

“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: info@enar-eu.orgWeb: 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