Roma Strategy to create crisis map

In most countries of Europe, there are prejudices against Roma. Still, your report does not focus on discrimination, but on the economic and social causes of Roma’s exclusion. The same problems impact much wider social groups. Are you concerned that the strategy does not appropriately focus on the desired objective?

Research suggests that the exclusion of Roma is not only driven by their ethnicity, but by the interplay of others;which is primarily based on economic factors. The same applies to the educational perspectives of Roma children: ethnic segregation is still a widespread issue, but despite this illegitimate practice, the widest gap is not between Roma and non-Roma children, but between children of working parents and those of economically inactive families.
One of the basic principles of the report about the EU strategy aimed at the social inclusion of Roma, is that the individual policy areas should make a distinction between general social and economic problems; and ethnic issues. Matters of education, employment, health care and housing affecting Roma, should be dealt within general, mainstream policy planning; and only those issues should be handled in the context of ethnicity that are related to racial discrimination, culture and identity.

Could you mention specific examples?

In Hungary, for example, only about one-third of the people living in poverty, are Roma; and only about one-third of Roma live in deep poverty. This also implies that the strategy is much more efficient and equitable, if it defines its target group, not according to ethnic origin, but to social and economic characteristics.
I would like to emphasise that we are not talking about the combat against poverty in general, only in terms of income. What we are talking about, is a special form of poverty, the poverty of uneducated social groups, excluded from transitional economies, concentrated in rural areas; and in the vicinity of cities as well as in urban districts.

A key idea in your report is the emphasis on aspects of exclusion that do not exist in statistical terms. In other words, in certain regions where they are no longer receiving EU funds, and largely considered developed. There are still micro regions with economic disadvantages who are in need of support. How do you think this dilemma should be resolved?

In fact, disparities within regions are often much higher than between regions. Since most of the developments are allocated to regional centres, polarization among micro regions, is also increasing, which only widens the already significant gap between the centre and the periphery. Disadvantaged micro regions do not have sufficient funds of their own, to apply for the theoretically available resources, or to perform the administration necessary for support management. Therefore, in the race for EU and budgetary resources, they start at an disadvantage state, that can never be made-up later. Hence, I think these areas should be removed, from a competition that offers no chance for them; and complex, intensive programs matching their individual needs, should be worked-out, in order to prevent the further widening of the gap.
All this is related to what seems to be the most important initiative in my report, which is supported by the Hungarian Presidency: a pan-European “crisis map” should be created, which would survey and identify the crisis areas which are most affected by poverty; and social exclusion according to common and comparable indicators all over Europe.  Like the availability of jobs, distance from the city centre, the rate of unemployment, quality of public services, environmental conditions, level of infrastructure, income and educational level of the population, operation of transport infrastructure and the measure of social tensions.

There are still tough bargaining to be made, among member states about regional supports. Do you think there is a danger that the above proposal will get diluted at the level of the Council?

My report formulates quite a few initiatives, which are aimed for a better and more efficient utilisation of the already available resources, of the EU and the national budgets.  Neither have reached the target group so far, nor have they made the desired impact, or perhaps they could not even be drawn out. So in this regard, there is no direct competition among member states. On the other hand, it is in the interest of every member state to help their disadvantaged micro regions to catch up as efficiently as possible, since these “stuck” areas block the development of the entire economy and society. If the situation remains un solved in the long term, it may paralyse the budget, and could cause unpredictable tensions.

What do you think could ensure the creation of a good workable European framework of action?

I consider it essential that the Commission should take responsibility for the supervision, coordination, control and assessment of the strategy; and that it should constantly assess the action plans of member states, who are implementing the plans. It should express an opinion in the preliminary stage already. Furthermore, it is very important to define clearly the priority areas, and objectives as well as the related national minimum values. It is also important that the Commission should report annually to the European Parliament and the Council on the progress of the strategy, and formulate recommendations on any change that may become necessary.
Candidate members and potential candidates, especially countries in the West Balkans, should also be allowed to join the strategy right from the beginning.

The strategy affects many policy areas where mainly member states have a competence. These include education and job creation. How can member states be encouraged to make the right decisions?

Informally several member states supported the idea, that results accomplished in strategic objectives, should be connected directly to resource appropriations. For example, by the implementation of a subsequent “reward” mechanism, paid from a performance reserve. The unused portion of the cohesion budget could then be used to create a performance reserve.
Such “follow-up” mechanism, could on the one hand, contribute to eliminating the disputed practice where large net contributing member states become interested in not utilising the targeted resources, due to refunds in the future. On the other hand, this reserve could provide an important resource and significant encouragement for the start of programs that would implement the strategic objectives in the most efficient manner.