1. Human Rights-Based Approach to Roma Inclusion
Jan Jařab
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Regional Representative for Europe

2. WHY IS THIS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE
WHY IS THIS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE? Starting from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Art. 1 (all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights)
Art. 15 (right to nationality)
Art. 23 (right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment)
Art. 25 (right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services)
Art. 26 (right to education)
Art. 29 (duties to the community)

3. Challenges to enjoyment of human rights by Roma in Europe – and relevant instruments of international human rights law
1. PROTECTION FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (CERD)
Racial discrimination in employment, housing, education, health care, social services and criminal justice system
Lack of protection from racially motivated violence, hate speech
2. ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS (ICESCR)
Social exclusion, lack of access to employment, housing, education
3. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)
Lack of personal identity documents (in some countries)
Problems with citizenship/nationality
4. RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (CRC) – child poverty, transmission
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION OF WOMEN (CEDAW) – double discrimination

4. CERD concluding observations on EU Member States concerning Roma
1. HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, LACK OF ACCESS TO JOBS: Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia
2. GHETTO-LIKE CONDITIONS OR SEGREGATION IN HOUSING: Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia
3. SEGREGATION IN SCHOOLS OR OVER-REPRESENTATION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
4. STEREOTYPICAL PRESENTATION IN MEDIA, PUBLIC HOSTILITY: Czech Republic, Italy, Slovakia
5. ILL-TREATMENT BY POLICE: Italy
6. LACK OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES: Slovakia
7. SPECIFIC PROBLEMS OF TRAVELERS: Belgium, France, Ireland

5. Sedentary or migrant Roma vs. Travelers
1. DIFFERENT ISSUES
Central and Eastern European Roma: mainly sedentary, problems of rural or urban segregation, rural-urban migration (Spain, Slovakia), increasingly international migration
Travelers (gens de voyage, Gitanes): large part maintain and identify with itinerant lifestyle, issue of spaces for caravans etc.
2. RISKS OF “AMALGAMATION”
Italy: labeling all Roma as “nomads” with pejorative overtones
France: launching repressive policy against CEE Roma following an incident involving French gens de voyage in Grenoble
Belgium: dealing with Roma issue as purely one of immigration and asylum, forgetting needs of domestic Gitanes

6. Policies dealing with Roma (1)
NON-SPECIFIC PRO-SOCIAL POLICIES: Policy seeks to actively improve the socio-economic situation of the Roma as “poor” rather than as Roma, through measures which are not culturally sensitive (e.g., assimilation policies in many former Communist countries).
NON-SPECIFIC, LAISSEZ-FAIRE: No special policy attention to Roma (e.g., various post-Communist countries in the 1990s, Italy in the 1990s): „Roma should not be a special case“, „there is no discrimination“. Behind the façade of non-distinguishing, discrimination flourishes and gap between Roma and rest of society grows.
SPECIFIC, REPRESSIVE: Usually a reaction to social problems accumulating during laissez-faire periods. Punitive discourse, security measures (surveillance), evictions to more marginal locations etc. Increasingly dominant – municipal authorities in CEE, Italy, France.

7. Policies dealing with Roma (2)
4. MINORITY IDENTITY POLICIES: Often combined with laissez-faire approach – “Roma policy” reduced to support of decorative folkloric events and/or symbolic appointments, with no specific attention to Roma in mainstream policies
5. SPECIFIC, SOCIALLY ACTIVIST BUT SEPARATE: Improving life in segregated settlements through better housing (e.g., Spain in early 1990s); state- or EU-funded employment or educational projects creating a parallel job “market”; educational projects maintaining a parallel educational system etc.
6. SPECIFIC, BUT AIMING FOR THE MAINSTREAM: Culturally sensitive and non-discriminative policies addressed explicitly (but not always exclusively) to the Roma, with the aim or providing them access to mainstream jobs, education and housing.

8. Key dilemma: Inclusive policies or repressive ones?
This is not only an issue of whether one particular repressive measure (e.g., the collective expulsions from France, the evictions in Italy, the returns of Kosovo Roma from Germany) is legal or acceptable. If we focus on this aspect, the authorities can always backtrack a bit, while leaving the generall repressive character of their policy in place. There is a serious risk of falling into this trap – and end up discussing the “acceptable” parameters of walls and evictions and „proper“ ways to carry out deportations and crackdowns.
This is above all an issue of a choice between a repressive approach which views the Roma (or migrants) as a security problem and perpetuates the vicious circle of evictions, expulsions etc., which have for centuries been the cause or marginalisation, and an inclusive one which aims to provide the Roma with real equal access to their rights and responsibilities.

9. A growing gap between EU level and realities on the ground
EU level: PROGRESS OF INCLUSIVE POLICIES:
Decade of Roma Inclusion
EURoma Network on use of Structural Funds
EU Platform for Roma Inclusion, Common Basic Principles (2009)
EU Framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies (April 2011)
National and local level: “REGRESSION” TO REPRESSIVE POLICIES (evictions, expulsions)
Local reaction to increased marginalization of Roma due to backlash of post-Communist economic transformation (thus causing of further marginalization – vicious circle)
International reaction to Roma migration

10. Challenges for implementation of inclusive policies
Resistance on part of the majority population (competition for resources, perception of the Roma as “undeserving poor”)
Systemic obstacles (disincentives to employment and education) Lack of political support on national Government level (low priority)
Lack of horizontal coordination between Government departments, lack of influence of “Roma policy” structures
Lack of vertical coordination, little involvement of local/municipal authorities (or open opposition, actively anti-Roma policies)
Lack of involvement of civil society partners (Roma NGOs) and/or lack of capacity on their part
Hostility between local civil society actors and local authorities, competition/hostility between Roma NGOs themselves

11. What is NOT an inclusive policy
“Activation” through punitive benefit reduction (work must pay, but reducing benefits without providing real employment opportunities risks pushing Roma deeper into absolute poverty)
“Activation” through low-level pseudo-jobs without contracts and without perspective of further growth
Creation of a parallel job market funded only through temporary (often EU-financed) projects
Well-funded training courses which draw young people out of ordinary education and produce “qualifications” of dubious value, not recognized on job market
Placement on open job market without sufficient initial training (e.g., presentation skills) and without follow-up and supervision

12. Role of OHCHR
Promote continued relevance of international human rights standards (in the new post-Lisbon Treaty set-up) and the consistency of external and internal policies of the EU, its Member States and other countries in the region
Promote recommendations of international human rights instruments - Treaty Bodies (e.g., Reader on Concluding Observations of CERD), Special Procedures, Universal Period Review (UPR)
Contribute, in cooperation with EU institutions and civil society, to the development of expertise on various “pathways” of inclusive policies towards the Roma in different situations (urban, rural, autochthonous, migrant, itinerant), in line with Human Rights-Based Approach

13. Human Rights-Based Approach in practice
Human Rights-Based Approach emphasizes the full involvement of all stakeholders (e.g., Roma themselves – and not just NGO leaders), consultation, active participation, empowerment
OHCHR is prepared to provide technical assistance to EU Member States in their development and implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies
Experience with Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) in development policies is relevant in this context, e.g., HRBA in budgeting and monitoring outcomes
First pilot: Training on HRBA in budgeting, Ostrava, Czech Republic, on 6 and 7 June, as preparation for “Program of Inclusion – Ostrava 2011” (to be funded from ERDF and ESF)

14. Recommendations for States (and EU)
REJECT FALSE CHOICE BETWEEN IDEALISM AND PRAGMATISM: Be idealistic in aims, pragmatic in methods.
PROMOTE GOOD PRACTICES AND REJECT NIHILISM: study/develop evidence-based policies, don’t repeat known errors.
WORK WITH ROMA on three levels – Roma (inter)national NGOs, local Roma NGOs, individuals.
WORK WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES, not against them, providing access to know-how and (EU) financial resources.
PROMOTE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL COORDINATION. (e.g., create executive agency with own budget + coordination structure between ministries)
DENOUNCE ANTI-GYPSYISM, enforce non-discrimination.
PROMOTE ROMA ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP.