- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Digital Freedoms
- International Justice
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Dialogue without borders
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- Securing Liberty Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
- League of Young Voters
EU policy initiatives and financial support for Roma integration: Special Report of the European Court of Auditors
Submitted by Roma Network on 12 August 2016
EU policy initiatives and financial support for Roma integration
The European Court of Auditors releases a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of its investments
It’s a great report which is worth a close read. Despite the fact that it seems cumbersome, which to a large extent is due to the overuse of complex acronyms (EU, OP, ERDF, ESF, CF, NRIS, ESIF, NRCP, CBP, CSR, TFEU, etc.) and the legal-political language that the authors of the document haven’t been able to avoid, and in the knowledge that it will unfortunately be difficult for the message it contains to reach the majority of the Roma population across Europe, the Unión Romaní recognises that this is the most serious, rigorous and even self-critical report of the many that we’ve seen to date.
Some snippets of information contained within the 100-page document
In its audit, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) assessed whether the EU policy initiatives and financial support through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) had contributed effectively to Roma integration.
The audit work was carried out at the Commission and in the four Member States which have the largest Roma population (Bulgaria, Spain, Hungary and Romania), and covered the period from 2007 to 2015. The ECA chose these four Member States (Bulgaria, Spain, Hungary and Romania) due to the high number of Roma people who live there and because they had allocated a large amount of funding to regions that might have backed initiatives for Roma integration.
According to our own estimations, around four fifths of the EU’s estimated Roma population live in the following eight Member States:
Czech Republic 250,000
Money received from the EU
In the 2007‐2013 programme period, these four Member States (Bulgaria, Spain, Hungary and Romania) together received 14.1 billion euros of aid for social inclusion measures from the ERDF and ESF. This is 20% of the total amount allocated from the Structural Funds for social inclusion measures in all Member States across the same period. (Pg. 20).
1.5 billion euros were made available to Member States under the investment priority ‘Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma’ for the 2014-2020 programme period.
This was distributed amongst the twelve Member States which together account for 90% of the EU’s estimated Roma population. (Pg. 44).
Hungary 470 million euros
Romania 372 million euros
Czech Republic 200 million euros
Bulgaria 143 million euros
Slovakia 99 million euros
Greece 73 million euros
Italy 71 million euros
Spain 48 million euros
Poland 19 million euros
Belgium 10 million euros
France 8 million euros
Austria 4 million euros
414 million euros allocated under the IP ‘Combating all forms of discrimination and promoting equal opportunities’
Spain 145 million euros
Greece 99 million euros
Portugal 51 million euros
Slovakia 40 million euros
Czech Republic 22 million euros
Poland 19 million euros
Cyprus 14 million euros
Ireland 11 million euros
France 8 million euros
Belgium 4 million euros
The ECA’s analysis showed that the National Roma Integration Strategies of Bulgaria, Hungary and Spain contained no information on the financial allocations available for Roma‑related measures, be it either under the national budget or from the ERDF or ESF OPs co‑financed from the EU budget. (…) The absence of information on the financial means available to tackle the issues related to Roma inclusion makes it difficult to assess whether the Member States’ strategies were realistic from the start. (Pg. 31).
The ECA identified shortcomings in Romania and Spain in terms of assigning responsibility for implementing the NRIS. And more specifically in Spain, the ECA observed that the existing coordinating bodies (such as the Group on Technical Cooperation) were not effective in providing reliable data and coordinating policies, showing a need for better coordination in order to ensure that the NRIS is implemented properly. Both of these examples of poor coordination hampered the collection of reliable data, making it harder to monitor the implementation of the NRIS. (Pg. 32).
Data on ethnicity of participants collected at project level, but not passed on to the Operating Plan (OP) monitoring system
The ECA found that a number of the promoters in all four Member States visited during the audit collected data on the ethnicity of participants, but this data was not passed on to managing authorities or intermediate bodies. This meant that Roma‑related data which was available at project level did not reach the OP monitoring system. For example, this was the case in Spain. The intermediate body of the regional OP for Andalusia was not even aware of which projects had addressed Roma people, although this information was available at project level. This was similar in Hungary. (Pg. 48).
Need for an intercultural approach involving the use of mediators and awareness-raising campaigns
The Common Basic Principles (CBP) describe the need for an intercultural approach involving the use of mediators and awareness‑raising campaigns. Applying this principle is crucial for ensuring the success of projects, especially those concerning housing. A lack of awareness can fatally undermine projects that could otherwise have been successful.
The audit identified a number of shortcomings as regards the NRIS:
- First, the national strategies do not indicate what level of funding is needed to carry out the proposed measures for Roma inclusion. They also do not state the amount of money available for such measures, from the national budget and, through the ERDF and ESF, from the EU budget.
- Second, anti‑discrimination and anti‑gypsyism have not been provided enough attention. None of the NRISs which we assessed made any reference to anti‑gypsyism as a particular form of discrimination. In none of the OPs we examined it was explicitly referred to, and we saw almost no projects dealing specifically with this aspect. Up to now, the Commission has not required Member States to set measurable targets connected with anti‑discrimination. The lack of any such targets leaves scope for institutional discrimination to develop or continue unchecked; this can significantly undermine the effectiveness of Roma integration projects, including those co‑financed from the EU budget.
- Third, the need for active participation by civil society organisations, in particular representatives of the Roma community itself, was not always taken into account in the selected Member States when NRISs were being drafted. Failing to include civil society organisations and the Roma community at every stage of the process risks undermining the effectiveness of policies and projects (Pg. 65).
Monitoring of the implementation of the racial equality directive 2000/43/EC
This is a directive that is fundamental to achieving the eradication of racism and the integration of minorities in the society in which they live. Most EU Member States have already applied the directive in their respective territories, but we must point out that some very influential European countries still haven’t done so: France, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg. This is a disgrace which we denounce and which makes us understand why some of the most shameful attacks are carried out against the Roma population that resides within the walls of those countries.
So what must we do now?
First: Congratulate the ECA on conducting this report.
Second: Persuade the European Commission to adequately evaluate the content of the report and take on board the recommendations made within it.
Third: Ask the European Parliament to become a protagonist and ambassador for the concerns of the Old Continent’s Roma population. To achieve this, we propose that the Deputies:
- Urge the Commission, alongside the governments of Spain, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, to hold days of discussion in their respective countries, whereby the Roma population in each of these countries could participate to demand clarification of the Report’s content and suggest their own initiatives according to the situation in their countries.
- Commit the Commission to introduce legislation regarding the minimum representation that each country’s Roma population must have in the administration of programmes financed by European funds.
- Encourage the Commission to facilitate the creation of a Group of Roma Speakers, democratically elected in the countries that benefit from the distribution of European funds, so that they can express their well-founded views on the programmes carried out throughout Europe.
Juan de Dios Ramírez-Heredia
Lawyer and journalist
President of the Spanish Romani Union
If you want to find out more, you can read the entire REPORT in English by clicking on the following link: