Strasbourg, 26 May 2015 CAHROM (2015)14

AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON ROMA ISSUES(CAHROM)

9th CAHROM meeting, Strasbourg, 27-29 May 2015Working document for agenda items VII and VIII (28 May 2015)

COMMENTS ON THE SECRETARY GENERAL’S DOCUMENT SG/INF (2015)16REVUPDATING THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AGENDA ON ROMA INCLUSION (2015-2019)1,

INCLUDING THE PROPOSAL TO CREATE A “EUROPEAN ROMA INSTITUTE” (ERI)2

AND ON THE BUREAU PROPOSAL TO REINTRODUCE “ROMA AND TRAVELLERS”3

IN THETITLE OF CAHROM AND COE ROMA-RELATED DOCUMENTS

Comments received from… page01. ESTONIA 0202. NORWAY 0203. NETHERLANDS 0304. SWITZERLAND* 0405. SPAIN 0506 BELGIUM* 0907. LITHUANIA 0908. GERMANY 1009. LUXEMBOURG* 1210. MONTENEGRO 1311. PORTUGAL 1412. AUSTRIA 1413. HUNGARY 1614. ARMENIA 1715. POLAND 1816. LATVIA 2117. ITALY 2118. SLOVENIA 2719. SLOVAK REPUBLIC 3120. FINLAND 32

* Contributions submitted in French.

1 See this document on the CAHROM restricted website : https://cs.coe.int/team20/cahrom/9th%20CAHROM%20Plenary%20meeting/Forms/All%20documents.aspx 2 See revised concept paper on teh creation of a European RomaInstitute –doc CAHROM (2015)11.3 See the CAHROM Bureau proposal to modify the name of the CAHROM and the explicative footnote for Roma.

CAHROM (2015)14

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ESTONIA (17 & 20/04/2015 + 19/05/2015)

Please find Estonia’s answers to the questions about the CoE agenda on Roma inclusion for 2015-2019 and to the initiative to establish a “European Roma Institute”.

1. We think that the Strasbourg Declaration is a valid guidance for national and European action on Roma inclusion. Takcling anti-Roma prejudice must be continued, and it is natural that changing will take a long time. We are not aware about any fundamentally new approach for Roma inclusion.

2. The role of Council of Europe in terms of Roma inclusion is described adequately. In my view the organisation provides all the services one can expect from international political organisation.

3. All the mentioned priorities are relevant. We are especially interested in innovative models for local-level solutions.

4. At European level, we think that the action lines envisaged are relevant. Still, without denying the importance of the role of ERI, with an eye to the budget of the Council of Europe which faces major budgetary constraints relating to zero nominal growth, Estonia does not support undertaking any additional financial commitments including the initiative to establish a European Roma Institute.

5. These two action lines, promoting gender equality and children’s rights, are fully relevant.6. Estonian Roma community is very small (according to Population Register, as of 1. May

2015 there were 626 Roma living in Estonia) and dispersed, thus probaby our local governments will not participate in the programmes ROMED2 and ROMACT. At European level both may be useful.

7. All the accompanying measures are fully relevant.

Mall SaulSenior SpecialistDepartment of Cultural DiversityEstonian Ministry of Culture

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM NORWAY (06/05/2015 & 19/05/205)

Norway is positive to a further elaboration of the proposal to establish a “European Roma Institute”, provided that this is done in close cooperation and understanding with the Roma community, their organisations and relevant institutions, included the ERTF.

Norway would also like to point out that a new institution like the proposed ERI must avoid overlapping with existing institutions.

Terminology

Referring to the letter from the Bureau regarding the proposal to reintroduce “Travellers” alongside “Roma” in CoE documents, Norway has no objections to the suggestion of the term “travellers” being reintroduced.

Short background:

2

CAHROM (2015)14

Norway has 5 national minorities, among them two of Indian origin: The romanifolk/tatere (romani people/taters) and rom (sigøyner) (Roma (Gypsy)).

These groups see themselves as two different groups. According to the principle of self-identification, the two groups are each given the status of a national minority in Norway and are covered by the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities.

The history in Norway of these two national minorities also differs. But the two national minorities both suffer from discrimination, anti-Gypsyism and living conditions inferior to those of the majority. The activities of the CAHROM are thus important to both national minorities.

In addition, the Norwegian romanifolket/tatere are in general not comfortable with the term Roma. They may find the term travellers more including. Some of the romanifolk/tatere also refer to themselves as reisende or vandri (travellers or wanders, ramblers) because they previously led a nomadic life in Norway, living from trade and handicraft.

Kristina Strædet GitmarkSpecialist DirectorMinistry of Local Government and ModernisationDepartment of Sami and Minority Affairs

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE NETHERLANDS (07/05/2015 & 18/05/2015)

First of all I want to express my appreciation for the effort of the SG to develop an upgrading of the agenda on Roma inclusion. I consider it as a midterm review.

Generally speaking I can support the agenda and especially the choice for the three priorities.

The first priority to combat anti-Gypsyism and discrimination I can subscribe, except the European Roma Institute. I will come back to that later. We know that discrimination against minorities, whether they are ethnic minorities or people with a physical or mental handicap is widespread and difficult to combat. Roma are unfortunately no exception. I subscribe what the SG is writing about awareness among politicians, judges and prosecutors, the whole chain of government and judicial professionals. In the Netherlands there exists an extensive network of anti-discrimination bureaus. Everybody with a complaint about discrimination has access to such a bureau. These bureaus are designed to assist people who feel discriminated. In the Dutch integrated approach of complex families with a Roma background families and individuals are assisted if necessary with their contacts with the anti-discrimination bureaus. These bureaus have the authority to contact the police and the prosecutor if there is a case to make it legal. But every citizen can contact the police when he or she feels discriminated. In my opinion this kind of assistance on local level is additional to international and national scale activities on this matter or maybe more productive.

The second and third priorities are supported. It is my conviction that the solution for the problems Roma are facing has to be found in the local approach. On the local level concrete problems of families can be solved, problems like poverty, debt, bad houses, school attendance, poor health, participation of children in petty crime, early marriages, etc. The Alliance can play an important role in collecting and in disseminating ways and means for approaches on local level. Because there are many different municipalities in different countries in different parts of Europe there is no “one fits all” approach. There must be examples of local policy - I mean structural policy - available for

3

CAHROM (2015)14

exchange. The Netherlands are willing to share its integrated approach with other countries and municipalities throughout Europe.

I am not in favour of the establishment of the European Roma Institute for several reasons, i.e.:1. The ERI is too abstract and too far away from the real problems of Roma people on the

grass roots.2. It is a development at the top, far away in Strasbourg or Brussels, and it does not contribute

to the solution of the problems Roma people are facing on the local level, in the villages and city neighbourhoods.

3. There are already many Roma organisations on the European level. Is there no existing organisation which can play the role of ERI?

4. The ERI can be a precedent for other groups also wanting such a kind of Institute.

Cor de VosCAHROM expert on behalf of the Netherlands

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SWITZERLAND (11/05/2015 & 20/05/2015)

La Suisse a substantiellement une position favorable à la création d’un Institut européen des Roms (IER) et est prête à s’engager constructivement dans les débats autour de la création de cet Institut. Nous sommes également convaincus que cet Institut ne pourra pas œuvrer pour joindre ces buts sans la participation, l’accord et le soutien de tous les acteurs clés.

Cela-dit plusieurs questions restent à notre avis ouvertes. Ci-après une liste de nos questions/remarques à ce sujet :

D’abord une question de principe : l’IER doit faire la jonction entre Roms et non-Roms, c’est-à-dire qu’il s’adresse à la fois aux deux catégories de population. D’après le document qui nous est soumis, l’IER est sensé collecter des données sur les Roms, leur histoire, culture, etc. afin de les diffuser sous forme de produits divers (livres, films, internet, etc.) à la fois auprès de la population rom (dans le but de renforcer l’estime de soi) et non rom (dans le but de susciter le respect à l’égard des Roms et lutter contre les stéréotypes et les préjugés). Mais, les stéréotypes et la méfiance ne sont pas uniquement le fait des non-Roms à l’égard des Roms. Le contraire est aussi vrai. L’intégration des Roms passe donc par une double acceptation : l’acceptation des Roms par les non-Roms et celle des non-Roms par les Roms. L’IER devrait donc servir d’interface en vue d’un dialogue entre les deux groupes afin de lutter contre les préjugés réciproques. A cet égard, le document qui nous est soumis est plutôt à sens unique alors qu’il devrait œuvrer en vue d’une approche à double sens.

La création de l’IER: pourquoi l’Alliance est-elle formée des 3 organisations ERCF, Romedia et Romano ButiQ ? Pourquoi ces trois-là précisément ? L’Alliance peut-elle s’élargir à d’autres organisations ? Est-ce uniquement pour le lancement de l’IER ou l’Alliance est-elle appelée à jouer un rôle spécifique plus tard ? Dans ce cas, lequel ? Sans un processus d’inclusion de tous les acteurs clés, l’IER risque de perdre sa capacité de mobilisation et sa légitimité à représenter le « monde rom ».

Nature de l’IER : si nous avons bien compris l’IER sera une sorte de « pooling-center », un « clearing-house », voire un incubateur, pour des idées et initiatives. La question de la mise en œuvre n’est cependant pas claire. Jusqu’où ira le rôle de l’IER à cet égard ?

Activités : il n’est pas clair si l’IER aura un rôle opérationnel dans la mise en œuvre de programmes et projets. Par exemple, le paragraphe 20 est plutôt ambigu. Que sont ces « initiatives isolées et de petite envergure » que l’IER est censé identifier et classer en 4

4

CAHROM (2015)14

grandes sections ? Et quid de plus grandes initiatives qui ne sont pas isolées ni de petite envergure ?

Qui conclura les partenariats prévus au paragraphe 21, l’IER ou les organisations chargées de la mise en œuvre ? Autrement dit, qui est responsable financièrement, juridiquement, politiquement d’un projet ?

Comment l’IER compte procéder concrètement pour faire aboutir les actions décrites dans le paragraphe 22 ?

Enfin, dernier point : quel sera le rôle des Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe au sein du futur institut au-delà de leur contribution financière lors de la phase de démarrage ?

Terminologie

1. Au sujet de la modification du nom du CAHROM, à savoir l’utilisation des termes « Roms et Gens du voyage » dans le titre français, la Suisse soutient cette proposition comme un premier pas, dans la mesure où elle permet de refléter la réalité des travaux actuellement menés par le CAHROM. En effet, un groupe thématique du CAHROM est actif sur les questions relatives aux Gens du voyage. A la suite d’une visite thématique en Belgique en 2013, il a notamment établi un rapport au sujet des aires d’accueil et autres questions qui sont liées au mode de vie (semi) nomade.

La Suisse tient néanmoins à relever que la dénomination de «Roms et Gens du voyage » ne permet pas de couvrir toutes les situations sur son territoire. C’est ainsi que les Yéniches de Suisse, qui sont une minorité autochtone et se distinguent des Roms, sont devenus pour la plupart sédentaires et ne souhaitent pas être désignés comme « Gens du voyage » car cela ne correspond qu’à une partie de leur culture.

La Suisse estime en outre que, davantage que par un changement de nom, la protection et la promotion des droits des « Roms et des Gens du voyage » devrait idéalement passer par la création de deux groupes d’experts distincts auprès du Conseil de l’Europe. Dans les différents pays d’Europe, les Roms sont en majorité sédentaires. Les difficultés qu’ils rencontrent ne sont pas liées au mode de vie (semi) nomade comme celles que connaissent les « Gens du voyage ». Le traitement dans la même enceinte de problématiques différentes comporte un risque de discrimination. La Suisse constate que l’établissement de deux groupes d’experts distincts permettrait d'accorder aux groupes (semi) nomades plus de place et d'importance à l’ordre du jour que c’est actuellement le cas.

2. Au sujet de la nouvelle note de bas de page, la Suisse salue l’ajout de la mention des Yéniches. Cela va dans le sens des efforts faits actuellement en Suisse pour différencier les différents groupes et les nommer officiellement selon le nom qu’ils se donnent et avec lequel ils souhaitent se voir désignés.

Sophie Heegaard-Schroeter Département fédéral des affaires étrangèresDirection du droit international publicSection des droits de l'homme et du droit international humanitaire

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SPAIN (12/05/2015)

Spanish position towards the creation of the European Roma Institute (ERI)

5

CAHROM (2015)14

As a first approach to this initiative, it shall be remarked that the principles underpinning the ERI concept and its aims, goals and objectives are fully in line with the Roma policies that have been implemented in Spain in the past decades. In particular, the Spanish National Strategy for the Social Inclusion of the Roma in Spain 2012-2020, that was adopted by the Council of Ministers the 2nd March 2012, includes, apart from the four key areas of action, (education, employment, health and housing), complementary lines of action in the areas of non-discrimination and fostering and promotion of the Roma culture that are fully in line with the goals and general idea behind the creation of the ERI. Namely, within these lines of action we must highlight the following:

Non-discrimination and promotion of equal treatment

•Elaboration of information and awareness materials that address reducing and eradicating the discrimination suffered by Roma.

Fostering and promotion of culture

•Fostering of institutional and social recognition of the value of Roma culture and its contribution to the common cultural sphere, as well as its outstanding features.•Recognition, study and diffusion of the Roma language as the mother tongue of the Roma population.•Institutional support for the Institute of Roma Culture and the diffusion of its activities of depicting and diffusing Roma history and cultural heritage.

The creation of this Institute would be directly linked to the aforementioned lines of action, that lie on the understanding that institutional support should be given to these type of measures through which Roma culture would be fostered and the knowledge about it widely spread.

In this sense, the idea of ERI as a valuable tool for achieving the eradication of stereotypes and prejudices against the Roma, and as a promotor of the relevance of the Roma culture as part of the common European culture as a whole, gathering and disseminating initiatives and promoting activities related to the Roma culture, is welcome.

The emphasis given to the participation of Roma themselves, as a key idea of this project, is also welcome. In this sense, participation of the Roma has been understood as essential in Spain not only at the state level but also by the regions and local authorities, with representative and advisory bodies created at all levels of public administrations, in particular the Roma State Council, that was established in 2005, with the precedent of an inter-ministerial committee in Roma issues which was also composed by various Roma associations.

As for the Roma Culture Institute Foundation4, which would be the Spanish most similar counterpart of this ERI, it was created in 2007 to comply with a proposition of law unanimously approved by the Congress of Deputies on September 27, 2005 urging the Government to promote the culture, history, identity and language of the Roma people.

The Roma Culture Institute Foundation is a public foundation, attached to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport, with the following objectives: the development and promotion of the Roma history, culture and language, the dissemination of knowledge of the latter and its recognition through studies, research and publications.

4 http://www.institutoculturagitana.es/

6

CAHROM (2015)14

The Roma Culture Institute Foundation has its headquarters in Madrid and among its aims are the following: proposing actions aimed at achieving harmonious coexistence among different groups and cultures that compose the Spanish society; developing and promoting Roma culture and language in all its manifestations; establishing mechanisms and strategies that effectively contribute to the preservation and development of the cultural heritage of the Roma community. It has a Board of Patrons, under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. It has ex officio patrons, including representatives of several ministries, (i.e. Public Administrations, Foreign Affairs and Cooperation; Health, Social Services and Equality, etc.), and also representatives of the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) and the Roma State Council of the Roma, represented by its Second Vice President,(elected among Roma Associations). It is also open to the Autonomous Communities if they decide to join the Foundation. There are also elected Patrons that should be representatives of cultural institutions and professionals recognized for their knowledge and expertise in Roma issues. The Board of Patrons elected a director of the Institute in its first meeting. The Sub-Directorate General for Social Programs, as member of the CAHROM, in order to produce this report, and taking into account the attribution of competences in the areas of action that would be covered by the ERI, has asked for the opinion of other departments, that have also been consulted in previous stages of the negotiation about the ERI, namely, the Secretary of State of Culture,( through the Sub-Directorate General for the Promotion of Cultural Industries and Patronage), from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, ( which also asked for the opinion of the Roma Culture Institute Foundation), and the Sub-Directorate General for Equal Treatment and Non Discrimination, ( Institute for Women and Equal Opportunities, Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality). This report compiles these opinions.

In this regard, the Secretary of State of Culture, from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports understands that the participation of the Secretary of State of Culture in the development of this new European institute should be articulated through cooperation agreements with similar European institutions and, particularly in Spain, with the Roma Culture Institute Foundation, for the development of projects and activities of shared interest and in the budgetary framework of these institutions.

As for the Roma Culture Institute Foundation, they believe it is a highly positive initiative, and they make some appreciations:1. The structure of a Barvalipe academy and the Pakiv board, along with an executive director with a working team, is welcome, and it poses some similarities with the structure of the Spanish Roma Culture Institute Foundation. However, the Roma Culture Institute Foundation believes there should be a higher level of involvement in these bodies of the European Institutions. This should not undermine the independence of the Institute, but it is important that the Institute is perceived as a project of the European institutions and not as a Roma association. In Spain the format chosen was of a Public Foundation of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports and seeing its results, they consider it as a success. Speaking about Roma culture also implies speaking about the European culture, thus, it is very important to guarantee that ERI is not perceived as something besides or apart from the European culture policy.2. As for the location, the Roma Culture Institute believes that the best options would be Brussels or Strasbourg, in order to achieve a real European dimension, serving the rest of locations suggested in the proposals, or other future ones, as satellites or secondary headquarters, once the ERI has been stablished. But the focus should be given to establishing the main location.3. They consider that the initial budget is very small. Ways to increase it should be pursued.

7

CAHROM (2015)14

4. Objectives, functions and priorities are correct, but the Roma Culture Institute suggests adding as a priority the need to explain that Europe also owes a lot to Roma (disseminating, for instance the fact that many authors and artists have been inspired by the Roma, even though not being Roma themselves, and a higher emphasis should be given to European Roma Culture Routes).

The Sub-directorate general for Equal Treatment and Non Discrimination suggest adding new working tools, namely supporting or financing leadership training courses for young Roma, with the aim to increase their participation in leading or intermediate positions in political parties, trade unions, associations, etc. Also university scholarships and grants for Roma for studying abroad.

As for the Sub-directorate for Social Programs, and addressing specific aspects of the revised concept of the ERI, we believe it would be very important to ensure that the Council of Europe, as international intergovernmental organisation composed by member States, founder of the ERI, and with a significant financial contribution to this initiative, is represented in the governance structure of the ERI, with representatives in the board. We believe that autonomy is a valuable principle, but the Council of Europe should retain a degree of responsibility and control over an initiative promoted and funded by the organisation, with an aim, for example, of ensuring coherence and synergies with CoE policies, ensuring the accountability and to avoid overlapping and ensuring efficiency. In this sense, it is not clearly defined in the document how the participation of the CoE would be articulated, (as it is stated in page 5) if, according to footnote 13, the presence of CoE in the board is not ensured or optional or it isn´t fixed during how may time it would be ensured.

As for the efficiency of this initiative, we believe it would be very important to avoid any overlapping with current existing initiatives under the Council of Europe, namely, the functions of ECRI, with also include Roma issues, the functions of the CAHROM itself, or the attributions of the CoE´s Directorate General Democracy, as regards cultural activities, taking into account, as highlighted in the opinion of the Spanish Roma Culture Institute, that Roma Culture is part of the European Culture, and taking also into account that an adequate balance should be found between mainstream and targeted policies and initiatives.

The ERI should also pursue cooperation with other initiatives and organisations working in the same fields, specially the European Commission and its EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies.

It should also be ensured that the ERI represents sufficiently the diverse reality of the Roma culture among Europe, with an adequate territorial balance, ensuring also a well-defined and transparent method of selection of the members of the Barvalipe Academy and the Board.

The possible role and participation in the functioning of the ERI of any member state that could join this initiative should also be further developed in any further revision of this concept, an aspect that remain in some way not sufficiently clear in the current proposal.

Finally, we must highlight the willingness of the government of Spain to participate in the constructive dialogue about the creation of the ERI.

Rocío Ariño SerranoHead of Area of ProgramsDeputy Directorate for Social ProgramsD.G. for services to Family and ChildrenMinistry of Health, Social Services and Equality

8

CAHROM (2015)14

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM BELGIUM (18/05/2015)

Commentaire conjoint des trois membres du CAHROM pour la Belgique sur la note conceptuelle relative à la création d’un Institut européen des Roms

Le commentaire suivant a été développé en concertation entre les trois experts désignés pour représenter la Belgique au CAHROM. La Belgique prend acte de l’initiative de la création d’un Institut européen des Roms pour lutter contre les préjugés et la discrimination par le biais d’une meilleure connaissance de l’art, de la culture et de l’histoire roms.

La poursuite du projet nécessiterait toutefois plus de clarté sur les rôles respectifs d’ERI et d’ERCF. Par ailleurs, nous espérons que l’investissement du Conseil de l’Europe dans ce projet se fera en parallèle avec les activités que le CdE développe déjà et qui offre un soutien indispensable au niveau local (par exemple ROMED et ROMACT). Nous espérons que ces activités continueront à être financées à niveau égal ou supérieur et feront l’objet d’un engagement à long terme de la part du Conseil de l’Europe.

Par ailleurs, vu la triple mission de cet Institut, nous accueillerons avec grand intérêt les résultats de l’évaluation de ses activités après le démarrage du projet.

Enfin, nous notons que la dénomination de cet institut est provisoire et accueillerions positivement une dénomination faisant référence aux « Roms et Gens du voyage » comme cela est envisagé pour la dénomination actuelle du CAHROM.

Daphné Costes Ahmed Akhim Beverly BernardPolicy Advisor Directeur Coordinator Roma pilot-projectAgency of Home Affairs Centre de Médiation PPS Social Integration, Flanders des Gens du Voyage anti-Poverty Policy,

et des Roms en Wallonie Social Economy and Federal Urban Policy (federal level)

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM LITHUANIA (19/05/2015)

In my opinion nothing has changed since the adoption of the Strasbourg Declaration concerning approaches and solutions for Roma inclusion. The paper “Updating the Council of Europe‘s agenda on Roma inclusion (2016-2019)” is very clearly structured with precisely defined role of CoE and main priorities. Concerning the role of CoE in terms of Roma inclusion I do not have any additional comment from my side; moreover I think that identified priorities are very relevant, especially problems of Roma women and access to justice.

I endorse the establishment of ERI and hope it would have important role in combating anti-Gypsyism and popularizing Roma culture. The only questions that I have: will it implement projects in the countries with small Roma population or like other OSF initiatives will concentrate on countries with big Roma population? Maybe I will have the chance to address this question during CAHROM meeting.

Gražina Sluško

9

CAHROM (2015)14

Responsible for Roma issuesDivision of national minority issuesMinistry of culture of the Republic of Lithuania

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM GERMANY (19/05/2015)

Germany very much welcomes and supports the commitment of the Council of Europe’s SG to improve the integration of Roma people into our societies and to fight any kind of discrimination against them. Therefore Germany already agrees in a lot of fields with the assessments and targets of the SG and would like to comment the strategic document as follows:

The role of the CoEWith the CoE, the EU and the OSCE there are three European institutions that deal extensively with the challenges that Roma people face today.

It should be in the very own interest of these institutions - as well as it is in the very interest of the Roma-communities and the different Member States - that these bodies coordinate their work effectively so that synergies can be created and a duplication of work can be avoided.

Germany would therefore like to underline the importance of establishing an institutionalized and in-depth cooperation between the CoE, the EU and the OSCE on Roma issues, by acknowledging of course the different mandates that these institutions have. A first session of such a dialogue on a working level should be dedicated to an analysis of the different aquis in order to find relevant intersections.

Improving the situation of Roma in their countries of originIt is one of the CoE’s main targets to improve the situation of Roma people in their countries of origin. However, a respective commitment - indicating the special responsibility of the CoE in this field - is not explicitely part of the SG’s strategic document and should therefore being added as a special emphasis.

Improving the access of Roma to justiceThe sentence in item (1) (Improving the access of Roma to justice) ”Protection at national level would imply remedies enabling anti-discrimination bodies and human rights institutions (…) to take an active role in persuing discrimination cases at national level.” needs further clarification. Depending on this clarification the word “would” might be replaced by “might”.

“European Roma Institute”Germany is pleased that the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies invited the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) to provide any comments on the aforementioned proposal and would like to submit the following statement:

ProcessThe process of establishing a possible European Roma Institute has so far been extremely lacking in transparency.

The first informal consultations with the Member States were scheduled for 22 May 2014, to indicate possible interest and support and possibly sign a partial agreement. The concept was briefly presented at the CAHROM meeting held shortly before these consultations (14–16 May 2014).

10

CAHROM (2015)14

Despite requests from the member states, the project idea was not discussed by the CAHROM, which again is the Council of Europe’s main advisory body on Roma issues.

At the meeting on 22 May 2014, Member States were asking for information about other Roma initiatives by the EU and Council of Europe, in order to avoid duplicating efforts. This information was not provided to Member States until about six months later, one day before the next meeting of the Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) (on 17 November 2014).

A revised concept for the ERI was presented at the GR-SOC meeting on 17 November 2014. This concept had been briefly described in an oral presentation at the CAHROM session on 28–31 October 2014, only two weeks before the GR-SOC meeting. Despite repeated requests, the Member States received no written information, but only a few days later, the ambassadors were supposed to give their approval for setting up such an institute. At the GR-SOC meeting, it was clear that numerous questions still needed answering and that no decision on founding the institute could be made at that time.

About two weeks before the most recent GR-SOC meeting on 31 March 2015, the member states received the current document on the creation of a “European Roma Institute”. Once again, this document was not supposed to be subject to a substantive review. Instead, approval for establishing the institute was to be given on 31 March 2015 without further discussion. Once again, no discussion in the CAHROM was planned, but was nonetheless requested by the Member States during the GR-SOC meeting.

Unresolved issuesGermany would be interested in discussing the following open questions in particular at the upcoming CAHROM meeting:

The budget for the ERI project is currently planned at € 600,000 per year. Will this amount be sufficient to pay all staff and travel costs and, if necessary, rent, as well as the costs for the activities listed in no. 25 of the revised concept paper on the creation of a “European Roma Institute” (CAHROM (2015)11)? How many staff do the initiators believe will be necessary for this project? What would be the ERI’s role in practical terms with regard to the three core functions (nos. 5–7)? What added value would the ERI provide here, for example regarding dialogue in schools and as a creative hub?

The European Commission (DG Justice) declared during the CAHROM-session in May 2014 her belief that the ERI’s “top-down” approach would not be effective, especially since it does not see Europe as having a uniform Roma culture. For this reason, the Commission believes that programmes for integrating Roma should start “bottom up” in the individual member states. What is the initiators’ response to this argument? Will the European Commission act as a co-founder nonetheless?

Third parties have criticized the lack of qualified experts associated with the proposed ERI. Is this criticism justified?

ProspectsGermany welcomes the open and transparent discussion on the aforementioned topic that will originate from the upcoming CAHROM-meeting in Strasbourg. Its position on the current CoE-/OSF-proposal will especially depend on the ability of the project to serve Roma communities on the ground and to bring a true added value in a pluralistic European Roma culture.

11

CAHROM (2015)14

Apart from the aforementioned questions, the name “European Roma Institute” suggests that experts (professors, etc.) will be engaged in original research. However, according to the current project proposal, this is not the case.

Dr. Michael Schwarz, LL.M.Federal Ministry of the InteriorDivision M II 4 - National Minorities and Regional Languages in GermanyEuropean Policy on Minorities

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM LUXEMBOURG (19/05/2015)

Commentaires du Luxembourg relatifs à l’ »Actualisation du programme du Conseil de l’Europe en matière d’intégration des Roms» (document SG/Inf 2015) 16 rev ainsi que par rapport à la création d’un « Institut européen des Roms (document CAHROM (2015) 11 FR

Le document SG/Inf(2015) 16 rev relatif à l’ »Actualisation du programme du Conseil de l’Europe en matière d’intégration des Roms » vient d’être soumis pour avis aux membres du CAHROM. Voici quelques premiers commentaires du Luxembourg sur ces deux documents.

En ce qui concerne la première priorité « combattre les préjugés, la discrimination et les crimes contre les Roms », 1ère ligne d’action du programme d’action actualisé, la version anglaise du texte diffère de la version française. Il nous importe de recevoir davantage d’explications quant au rôle et missions y décrit pour les organes de lutte contre la discrimination /institutions des droits de l’homme sur un plan national.

Dans le contexte de la 1ère priorité, le document annonce la création d’un « Institut européen des Roms ». Un document séparé CAHROM (2015) 11 FR renseigne davantage sur cet institut.

Rappelons que le Luxembourg mène une politique générale d'intégration pour toutes les personnes non - luxembourgeoises régulièrement installées sur son territoire. La politique nationale y compris la stratégie nationale d’intégration des Roms s’enracine dans une approche holistique des différents motifs de discriminations y compris les situations de discriminations multiples ainsi que la promotion de la diversité et des plus-values générées par le vivre ensemble de personnes de nationalités, d’ethnies et de cultures différentes. Dans ce contexte, la création d’un service ou d’une institution ou une mise en évidence sous une forme ou une autre d’une ethnie ou d’un groupe de personnes particuliers ne sont pas concevables.

Une analyse plus détaillée du projet s’est fait sous les deux seuls angles de vues qui sont d’un côté le mandat du CAHROM et de l’autre la plus-value du projet pour la promotion des droits de l’homme sur un plan « pan-européen».

L’IER entend s’établir en tant que institution indépendante. Le projet mentionne que le Conseil de l’Europe en serait non seulement un des membres fondateurs mais qu’il participerait également à la désignation de membre(s) de son instance statutaire. Dans ce contexte il faut se demander dans quelle mesure des liens de cette qualité n’interfèrent pas d’un côté avec les principes d’organisation du Conseil de l’Europe en tant qu’institution internationale et de l’autre côté avec l’indépendance recherchée pour le futur IER?

Dans l’approche du Conseil de l’Europe, le terme de « Roms » constitue un terme fédérateur pour des groupes de personnes et de cultures différentes. Cette définition trouve sa transcription dans un

12

CAHROM (2015)14

des 6 principes sous-jacents à la création de la nouvelle institution. Il y a lieu de requérir davantage d’informations sur les moyens escomptés pour en garantir sa réalisation. La question englobe tant la représentation de ces groupes dans l’organisation interne de l’IER que ses actions prioritaires (quotas quant aux mandats à pourvoir dans les organes statutaires, délibérations, quorums/ minorités de blocage, priorisation des projets,…).

Plus précisément encore, comme les problèmes d’intégration et de participation socio-politiques des personnes « Roms » requièrent avant tout des réponses sur un plan local, le Luxembourg s’interroge dans quelle mesure et sous quelle forme le futur IER entend y répondre.

Le projet demande un cofinancement dans le chef du Conseil de l’Europe de quelques 200.000 Euros/an avec un engagement formel pour une durée de 5 ans. La répartition des moyens entre frais structurels (frais de fonctionnement et frais de personnels) et activités/projets semble nettement pendre du côté des frais structurels (cf. paragraphe 25). Il est indispensable que le promoteur présente au préalable un plan de financement expliquant l’affectation concrète des fonds publics brigués, les engagements pris pour la mise en place de projets (supplémentaires) et qu’il précise les moyens envisagés pour pérenniser l’institut et l’activité « IER » au-delà de la phase de démarrage.

Au stade actuel, Le Luxembourg manque d’un argumentaire lui permettant de valider le projet de création d’un Institut européen des Roms.

Enfin le Luxembourg accueille favorablement et soutien l’engagement annoncé par le Conseil de l’Europe sous le point « mesures d’accompagnement proposées » pour « renforcer et institutionnaliser la coopération avec d’autres institutions internationales » dont en particulier l’Union Européenne. Un dialogue soutenu et continu entre ces deux institutions constitue un moyen de choix permettant d’un côté d’évaluer les avancées réalisées et de l’autre, cibler davantage encore les priorités stratégiques futures des deux organisations. Partant une coordination renforcée sera également une plus-value non négligeable pour les politiques des Etats Membres et des communautés Roms.

Malou KapgenConseiller de direction 1ère classeLe Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de LuxembourgMinistère de la Famille, de l’Intégration et à la Grande Région

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM MONTENEGRO (19/05/2015)

In capacity of CAHROM member from Montenegro, I support the proposal for establishment “European Roma Institute”.

If the new title for the CAHROM – Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma and Traveller Issues is in the goal that wide diversity of the groups will be covered – than this is acceptable, but joint consensus of all CAHROM members should be achieved.

Tatjana Radulović AndjelićSenior AdviserMinistry for Human and Minority Rights

13

CAHROM (2015)14

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PORTUGAL (19/05/2015)

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Bunjes, the Roma team and the CoE for the presented initiatives and intentions which represent not only a step forward in what comes to Roma issues in Europe, but also reflect a CoE’s wise and key moment of evaluation of what has been done in this matter so far.

Regarding the first priority (item 1), it should be paid attention to not duplicate/collide with the work done by the equality bodies and existing structures within each Member State already assuming the role of following up/manage discrimination cases. In this sense, I have some reservations regarding the practical effect/added value implied.

From the description of the institute in the attached document, as an “independent” organisation, we might expect it should come from the need or desire of Roma people. How can it be independent if it is coming from the CoE and there is no evidence of a common, wide and strong need from European Roma for such an organisation? It is rather difficult to react on such a vague description of an “independent” institute created on the scope of the CoE, and I think I will maintain most of mine and other CAHROM members’ reactions in the last meeting. It is not possible to see yet the substantial added value of the ERI regarding other organisations. Nevertheless, one more organisation could be very welcomed, especially when it addresses cultural issues.

Furthermore, regarding item 2, discrimination laws assume different dispositions in each Member State and have specific reporting procedures. I am not very sure of the range of this initiative, namely going beyond simple sensitization campaigns.

In what comes to the second priority, I totally agree with the established issues of interest and I particularly consider the gender equality and empowerment of Romani women a very important and crosscutting subject.

Concerning third priority, although ROMED and ROMACT are important tools to work at the local level, CoE should invest in the creation of clear and measurable objectives of those programmes and the creation of strong monitoring and assessment tools to evaluate the impact of those programs effectively in the field.

Carlos NobreCoordinator of the Support Office for Roma Communities (GACI)ACM - High Commission for Migrations

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM AUSTRIA (19/05/2015)

Following the request to send my comments and my opinion in my own capacity of a specialist on Roma inclusion concerning the European Roma Institute (ERI) I want to mention the following concerning the last ERI-concept paper:

1. I was surprised about the process (different versions of a concept, no transparency concerning main issues, resources concerning financing ERI, time table, etc.)

2. To the chapter “European Context”: I do not agree that Romani people do not possess an international institutional framework for preserving and developing a positive self-image

14

CAHROM (2015)14

that can be set against negative stereotyping and prejudice and ERI would fill this gap. I do not share that there is a lack of a positive self-image (see DOSTA-examples with the message “we are proud to be Roma). I am not the meaning that there is a lack of Roma-culture and I am not the meaning, that the long history of Roma is not well known on different levels (of course every time we could do more).

3. To the “Principles Underpinning the ERI Concept”: I could not see/find the diversity and plurality of Romani identities and culture in the proposed ERI-structure. There is more Romani leadership as expected, but it happens on the ground by Roma opinion leaders, on local levels, on the level of artists and so on.

4. To “The Unique Role of ERI”: In my opinion it is not so important to have an institution with a long term sustainability – for me is most important to target a well-educated Roma population, because this is the best key to get integrated.

5. To “Three Core Functions”: Concerning the mentioned creative hub by ERI-support the exchange of existing and creative new ideas across cultural borders etc. and the will of ERI to promote Romani contributions to European culture etc. In my opinion this would a core activity of artists agencies which exists also on international base (international artist agencies) and under private law in a business environment. And I guess to fulfil such activities is neither a competence of the Council of Europe nor a matter of Council of Europe cooperation with a private institute like ERI. The will of ERI to be a communicator and public educator to disseminate a positive image about Romani people forget that Roma inclusion needs cooperation of all Roma – without changes within the Roma communities in respect of education etc., the progress will be a small one.

6. “Main working Tools”: referring to para. 5, concerning the better suit of private art agencies and there is no doubt that Roma themselves would be able to do this entrepreneurship. Also I have to mention that many national and international bodies have collected materials and made studies concerning Romani history, languages and so on at very professional level – therefor I cannot see the need ERI should do this additionally.

7. To “Establishing the European Roma Institute”: It is very much unusual that only in the very last minute the member states got informed that Council of Europe should be included into the ERI, finance ERI, give ERI on request date and I am not sure that is legally possible. Why the member states of the Council of Europe did not get earlier information on the role of European Roma Cultural Foundation, Romedia Foundation, Romano ButiQ, Secretariat and their outstanding influence on the staff?

8. To “Key Activities After Establishment”: I come back to my opinion, that the cultural and historical affairs could better be done by the private sector of national or international art-agencies and concerning Roma History directly by the professional research of universities/historians in cooperation with Roma on local levels. I do not see an alternative settings and my personal opinion on the ERI concept is a very critical one.

Christa AchleitnerFederal ChancelleryDepartment for National Minority Affairs

15

CAHROM (2015)14

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM HUNGARY (19/05/2015)

EUROPEAN ROMA INSTITUTE (ERI)

General comments Hungary has a basically positive opinion on this initiative, but a number of questions

should be clarified before making a final decision. We welcome the decision of the GR SOC and starting discussion within the CAHROM.

We would like to highlight to the fact that solution of the situation of Roma can be achieved only by integrated (complex) measures. The ERI is partially able to contribute to it, namely by supporting culture and changing the attitude towards Roma. We suggest clarifying this idea in Section 1 of the concept note.

We agree with the suggestion of Secretary General Jagland on examination of the issue of ERI in the context of the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019).

Concrete proposals: the clarification of the most important issues

1. Definition of the tasks of the ERIThe most important issue is to precisely define the tasks of the ERI and to separate them to other similar activities or if it is necessary to find appropriate links. We suggest assigning some concrete initiatives which could be permanent activities of the ERI. (in a new chapter after Section 8 titled ‘Main working tools’ of the concept note).

In definition of tasks it is important to consider that many Member States have already Roma cultural centres or initiatives aiming to support Roma culture. The activities of ERI can only be added ones to these national initiatives. We suggest indicating this in Section 4.

The national and local specificities in the implementation of the activities should also be fully taken into account. Roma in terms of their cultural and social situation is a quite heterogeneous community, therefore in order to improve their living conditions, including combatting stereotypes and anti-Gypsism, effective solutions can be found if and only if the national circumstances – as well as specific situations of local communities – are taken into account. Conflicts between Roma and non-Roma are formed locally, thus it is requiring further elaboration on how a European Institute can contribute to resolve it.

2. Measuring the effectivenessWe suggest defining what kinds of results are expected from the ERI as well as how we are going to measure the success (or failure) of this initiative. We support that ERI prepares regular reports on its activities to the Cahrom (Section11) and in the same Section we propose to mention that CAHROM members have the opportunity to discuss new initiatives planned by the ERI.

3. BudgetFinancing of the operation and permanent activities of the ERI is also a high priority issue. Setting-up such an Institute only makes sense if we can ensure sustainability already in the beginning of its operation. Uncertainty of start-up financing cause risks to the success and credibility of the project.

According to Section 25 referring to the first five years annual budget € 600,000/year would be needed. This amount could finance the operation and the minimum level of activities. Our

16

CAHROM (2015)14

question: what kinds of activities are mentioned here, which activities were taken into account in the calculations?

4. Role of the participating countries Role of the countries intending to be involved in the ERI should be clarified . It is equally important to clarify the role of the host country. Our proposal is to delegate one member to the highest decision-making body by each country participating in the ERI. Furthermore we suggest setting-up the Secretariat in one of the countries having a large Roma population and it would be worth to consider using already existing CoE structures.

THE ROMA STRATEGY FOR 2015-2019 The „Strasbourg Declaration” adopted in 2010 serves an adequate and valid basis for

the new Roma Strategy of the Council of Europe. The indicated standpoints in the new strategy are still valid for Hungary.

Basically we agree with the described role of the Council of Europe. We consider that the primary mission of the Council of Europe is to support Member State efforts. The initiatives of CoE have to be adapted to specific conditions in each Member State in order to avoid possible overlaps and increase added value.

The three selected priorities and the proposed new initiatives are acceptable for Hungary. However, we would like to emphasize that fighting against discrimination and hate crimes are important parts of Roma inclusion, but this approach in itself does not result in solving difficulties of the Roma.

We agree with the importance of the approach laid down in the document that closer cooperation is needed with other international organisations, particularly with the European Union.

We are expecting information on new initiatives: most precisely about their professional content, the nature of activities carried out, who takes part in the preparatory process, the expected date of starting such activities etc. In case of new initiatives the review and evaluation as well as the assessment whether the linkage of existing ones is strongly recommended.

Melinda HorvathHead of DepartmentDepartment of Strategic Planning and AdministrationState Secretariat for Social InclusionMinistry of Human Resources

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ARMENIA (19/05/2015)

The Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) has great experience on Roma regarded issues. I have great respect towards the knowledge you own and the work you have done during many years.

Anyway, I am ethnographer, and my two remarks are explicitly in the stream of my profession and the methodology I possess.

European Roma Institute

17

CAHROM (2015)14

You are rightly pointing on the main problems, which Roma population of Europe currently has – “education, housing, employment and health – and the effective protection against discrimination.”5

One of the ways of the overcoming that reality you are suggesting the creation of European Roma Institute “with the mission of increasing the self-esteem of Roma and decreasing negative prejudice of the majority towards the Roma by means of arts, culture, history, and media”6. At the same time there is no information, no suggestions if/how ERI is going to solve the hard issues of housing, education, employment, “human trafficking within Roma communities with a focus on prostitution and street children,” “early and/or forced marriage.”7 You are rightly stressing on the importance of understanding the “root causes that stand in the way of meaningful progress,”8 but the ERI seems to be an institution for Roma elite/intellectuals only.9 I am not sure, that the improvement of the process of the creation of the positive image – by the help of Roma intellectuals – of Roma people will simultaneously bring to the radical changes in the condition of ordinary Roma’s. That is why may be there is a need to highlight one more function for the ERI, which will include also the better understanding of Roma inter-community issues and suggesting the ways of their improvement, indicating the ways for Roma’s better involvement into the European greater community.

TerminologyWhat do I mean? You are very right suggesting the use of the terms “Roma and Travellers” in the English title of CAHROM.10 In the same document you are mentioning, that “CAHROM covers in its work issues that address both the situation of sedentary and (semi) nomadic populations.” Therefore, I think that there is a need to view the problems, which have the Roma people exactly from that point of view, which is how to change the semi nomadic way of life/culture/production of a group to the settled way of life. If we/you are formulating the question in this way, then other methodology is coming on the foreground. That is – the methodology used to solve the issue in other similar cases, which, hopefully, is more elaborated and at least there might be some other suggestions for solutions too.

Dr. Harutyun MARUTYANSocial/Cultural Anthropologist,Leading Researcher, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, National Academy of Sciences of Armenia

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM POLAND (20/05/2015)

Note concerning European Roma Institute

The idea of establishment of the European Roma Institute (ERI) was officially presented during 8th European Platform for Roma Inclusion in Brussels in April 2014 by G. Soros – special meeting guest, in the presence of, among others, the EC commissioners: EC President J. Barroso, Commissioner V. Reding, Commissioner L. Andor and representatives of the Council of Europe.

The subject of ERI was addressed at the meeting of the Committee of Experts for Roma Issues of the Council of Europe (CAHROM) in May and November 2014 where it raised many controversies. CAHROM members drew attention to lack of information concerning principles of its operation, 5 Information Document SG/Inf (2015) 16 rev. Updating the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019), p. 2.6 9th CAHROM meeting. Working document for agenda item VIII (28 May 2015), p. 2.7 9th CAHROM meeting. Draft annotated agenda, p. 6, IX.8 9th CAHROM meeting. Working document for agenda item VIII (28 May 2015), p. 2.9 Ibid, p. 4, “Main working tools.”10 CAHROM Bureau proposal to modify the name of the CAHROM and the explicative footnote for “Roma”, p. 1.

18

CAHROM (2015)14

scope of activities and differences between its potential activities and e.g. activities of Scientific Committee of the European Academic Network on Romani Studies. Representatives of the Council of Europe emphasized that appointment of ERI shall be subject to approval by member States of CoE and funding will rely on an agreement between CoE and states willing to participate in budgeting of ERI (the so-called partial agreement). CoE consulted with ambassadors of member States, but the consultations did not result in revealing details of the institution functioning as well.

Owing to the lack of satisfactory effects of activities of the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) - affiliated since 2004 at Council of Europe and financed by this institution - since mid-2015 the Council of Europe has ended funding ERTF declaring possible continuation of cooperation in the scope of substantive issues.

Consultation document prepared by CoE dated 29.10.2014: Towards the creation of "European Roma Institute" presents this initiative as a proposal of a platform of Romani intellectuals and in a very general way indicates proposed principles of its operation. Substantiation for appointment of ERI is the lack of the progress in the improvement in the situation of Romani people in Europe, lasting discrimination and negative stereotypes, mutual lack of knowledge and trust, as well as the fact that Roma are deprived of an appropriate international forum for discussing and sharing creative impulses about identity issues.

The document envisages that ERI will be an independent organization focused on increasing the self - esteem of Roma, on eliminating prejudices towards Romani people among majority societies through art, culture, history and media. CoE indicates that proposal of ERI is compatible with strategic assumptions of the so-called Strasburg Declaration of CE General Secretary of 2010 and is to promote True cooperation between Romani and non-Romani in Europe.

Indicated principles of ERI operation (structure, management and membership): respect for Romani people’s dignity and identity, consideration of diversity of Romani people culture and its identity, Romani leadership of Institute with support and cooperation of non - Romani for breaking the stereotypes of Romani people being unworthy irresponsible or incapable, involvement and contribution of Romani associations and individuals independence of operation from political institutions, though open to a partner cooperation with them, the highest quality of standards of reference to art and culture.

The document indicates that previous activities for the benefit of Romani people were related mainly to the improvement of their socio - economic situation and purpose of functioning of ERI is work on reasons of this situation defined as: anti Romani prejudice and low self-esteem

Tasks: exchange between countries of the ideas and existing materials popularizing Romani people history, especially events related to World War II and promotion of knowledge about contribution to the European culture, promotion of a positive image and knowledge about Romani people by the public institutions, schools and media, advisory activities for international institutions.

Tools: public events, exhibitions, documentaries, photographic exhibitions popularizing positive image, small grants system for young, talented Romani people, online education concerning history, language, expert network, facilitations in exchange of knowledge and materials, establishing prizes for the purpose of popularization of exceptional accomplishments in different domains, named after prominent Romany people (among others, Papusza).

Activity areas: art, culture, media and knowledge - ERI shall establish cooperation with important culture institutions and mainstream mass media.

19

CAHROM (2015)14

Budget: Open Society Institute, Council of Europe and others partners shall finance the Institute with the amount of EUR 600,000 annually for the first 5 years.

Position of the Polish party:1. Previous ERTF activity was not effective; this institution is completely unrecognizable

among Polish Romani people (as well as among Romani people in other countries), which results in the need of changing authorized partner representing voice of Romani people at the supranational level.

2. Previous information regarding ERI did not specify clearly participation principles (principles of Romani people representation), which may create subsequent disputes in Romani people community.

3. Description indicates the character of "Institute of culture" on the international level, which raises doubts as to the effectiveness of the institute, especially in the context of the very bad economic situation of Romani people in many countries.

4. Another challenge is a huge cultural diversity of Romani groups, e.g.: the number of Romani dialects in Europe is estimated for ca. 60; no standard language script gives rise to doubts which (whether all) dialects shall be promoted, with which script, etc.).

5. The Polish party shall not participate in financing of ERI, however, it is open to substantive cooperation.

Polish proposal:It seems more important to create Romani people "think-tank", which would be of expert character, strengthening effectiveness of operating in almost all European countries of strategies of social integration of Romani people, which would at the same time become a platform of effective collaboration between Council of Europe and the European Commission. It should be noted that both institutions intensively work on cooperation formula, among others, to avoid charge of duplicating activity.

1. During CAHROM meetings a clear conflict was noticed between Romani supporters of maintenance of ERTF and supporters of appointment of ERI – It seems that regardless of purposes of appointment of ERI its operation will result in another tension in the Romani environment.

2. Documents and information presented so far use excessively "psychologising" purposes ("improving self-esteem"), which weakens the grounds for appointment of ERI, presenting, as the main cause of bad situation of Romani people in Europe, discrimination on the part of the majority. Wrong diagnosis and "blaming" solely the majority of a society suggests that of ERI shall not be a true partner for public institutions supporting their actions aiming at improving the situation of Romani people.

3. Polish party suggests putting greater emphasis on desired "think-tank" improving effectiveness of national integration strategies, which shall enable more effective cooperation between CoE and the European Commission – both institutions are still looking for formula of effective cooperation, which is now extremely important for them to, among others, avoid accusation of activity duplicating.

Agnieszka GajewskaChief SpecialistDepartment of Denominations and National and Ethnic MinoritiesMinistry of Administration and Digitization

20

CAHROM (2015)14

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM LATVIA (20/05/2015)

We have examined the Updating the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019) (SG-INF (2015)16rev) and Revised Concept on the creation of a European Roma Institute, and here are our few comments and questions.

Comments and proposals on the Updating the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019)

Latvian CAHROM expert believes that EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 could be mentioned in the updated agenda as a significant background in the process of co-operation between CoE and EU, because the implementation of this framework at the national level is highly relevant for EU members States.

In the Latvian expert’s view it is important to indicate the particular role of CoE in supporting and developing new initiatives, which are proposed in the framework of updated CoE agenda on Roma inclusion. What kind of support CoE will provide to implement these initiatives?

Comments and questions related to establishing a European Roma Institute

The European Roma Institute should represent all variety of Roma sub-groups living in Europe taking into account Roma culture diversity in every member State. How the European Roma Institute will represent the diversity of Roma culture in Europe?

How Roma organisations at the national level will be able to participate and use this institute to represent their cultural and linguistic heritage?

Do the international Roma organisations support an idea to establish the European Roma Institute? What is their point of view?

Who will provide financing for the functioning of the European Roma Institute after five years?

Deniss KretalovsSenior Desk OfficerDivision for Society Integration and Development of Civil SocietyMinistry of Culture

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ITALY (20/05/2015)

I have been really glad and honoured to go through the new Strategic priorities submitted to the Committee of Ministers from the Secretary General Jagland on the Roma agenda of the Council of Europe.

The new proposed efforts presented into the updated agenda on Roma inclusion of the Council of Europe for the period 2015-2019, offers relevant opportunities for a more effective European coordinated commitment for Roma inclusion, tackling prejudice and anti-Gypsyism.

Going through the text, my opinion regarding the specific questions you mentioned are the following:

21

CAHROM (2015)14

I think that the Strasbourg Declaration of 2010 is still a valid guidance for national and European action on Roma inclusion, even though it could be important from a strategic standpoint to underline from the first pages the peculiarity of action of the Declaration covering the Roma issues of the 47 member States, each of them with different policies and set of problems. This is a unique common opportunity of exchanging views within the framework of the Council of Europe.

Along the above lines, mention is made of the long experience of resolutions, recommendations and case-law but it should better be explained the wider territory covered by the Member states. This consideration is due to the fact that, after the 2010 Declaration, the commitment of the European Commission regarding the Roma inclusion for its 28 Member States has offered new legal instruments as EC Comm. No. 173 of 2011 and the recommendation of December 2013, new administrative, human and economic instruments, a coordinated approach among EC general Directions and remarkable funding opportunities into the new programming period of structural funds and with various budget lines.

For the same reason, at page 3 (second to last paragraph), it could be inappropriate to underestimate the role of the European Union. On the contrary, it could be more strategic to stress the need of closer cooperation with the new existing EC instruments - nowadays useful also considering the European neighbourhood enlargement policy.

22

CAHROM (2015)14

These three priorities are relevant and crucial for the implementation of the Roma situation in Europe.

1. Anti-Gypsyism should be dealt with as a cross-cutting issue and multifaceted approach of any national strategy, and its inclusion as the first priority of the agenda can guarantee a concrete and at the same symbolic impact. It is mentioned the role of the “No hate speech” campaign, but it could be effective to mention that on social networks the anti-Gypsyism is growing up faster and faster and that we should enhance our weak legal instruments and our international cooperation agreements with Web providers for tackling this dangerous and increasing form of racism, determined by anonymity and feelings of non-responsibility. Again, on anti-Gypsyism no words are mentioning on the role of media in the emphasis, distortion or manipulation of news for the creation of anti-Roma feelings. At the same time, no words are regarding the role of politics and hate speech on the political debates, while the Council of Europe could do a lot in terms of sensitization of the political class in strict cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly;

2. The second priority “innovative models for inclusive policies for the most vulnerable” is also crucial, but it is sometimes not completely clear what we can consider as innovative models. There are mentioned the two lines of action on gender and children’s rights, but it could be useful to clarify the innovating elements of the proposals, for example with some word regarding the development of methodologies of interventions deduced by recommendations, working on the contexts with an integrated approach (families, parents, local institutions as schools and vocational training, housing and health care, advocacy, awareness raising campaigns);

3. Regarding the third priority, I totally agree with the argument. I would just mention that local, regional and also national authorities should integrate polices as well as funding opportunities (for example in the case of EC structural funds, integrating ESF and ERDF with national budgets), at the same time with an inter-institutional horizontal and vertical cooperation. Moreover, it is often mentioned the inclusion of Roma communities with local development strategies, without any

23

CAHROM (2015)14

reference to the mainstream opportunities. It does seem that any politics should be targeted and addressed only to Roma with an exclusive approach, while it is widely demonstrated that the involvement of Roma in the mainstreaming politics and the joined involvement of vulnerable non Roma citizens, with an area-based development approach, is fruitful for a non-segregating politics of inclusion and for the prevention of anti-Gypsyism. On this point, the experience of ROMED and ROMACT should be supported or reinforced by a strong technical capacity building of local authorities and associations in the field of project management for local development.

The missionRegarding the opinion on the European Roma Institute, there are different aspects that could be considered. First of all, the interesting proposal offers promising support in the improvement of the general positive image of Roma. There seems to be a noble and relevant mission into the European Roma Institute: the mission of increasing the self-esteem of Roma and decreasing the negative prejudice of the majority towards the Roma by means of arts, culture, history and media. In the majority of European countries this aim should urgently become a reality because the generalized hate or suspicion, prejudice and stereotypes against Roma are widespread in all social classes, and are destroying at the roots all our political and administrative efforts of social inclusion.

The proposal could be of a great interest, but at the same time it could bring forward questions and doubts regarding an actual effectiveness with regard to the main goal.

The important contribution offered by relevant artists, musicians and intellectuals with a Roma background is full of examples in the European history. They have been part, and are part, of the society, full citizens of a society that discriminate their brothers and sisters without the same talent. Unfortunately, anti-Gypsyism is still alive and cannot be eliminated by the respect for prominent Roma women and man. In other terms, who gains the respect thanks to his/her talent cannot change the general negative opinion of Roma, but at the limit he/she could be a good will ambassador for a better knowledge of Roma richness.

Unfortunately, the collaboration of very good Roma testimonial shows that the initial positive impact in the long run is not sustainable, due to the complex and concrete social frictions among Roma and non Roma in the social context.

Having said that, I am pretty confident that a huge amount of these ambassadors could result in a critical mass for a real change of perception towards Roma.

GovernanceWithin the structure, the Alliance should be the ERI Guarantor of the scientific and cultural correctness of products and activities, made up of prominent Organisations and Roma intellectuals, artists and musicians. Many others people would or wish to participate and could contribute to this new path of the ERI, but the mechanism of selection could result in a difficult implementation and too much related to the willingness of the founding members that while doing their utmost could not involve since the very beginning the many intellectuals and artists who could play a vital role. I am thinking in particular of those who have never been involved politically or under similar activities.

24

CAHROM (2015)14

In addition, should the governance not be involving also those who are familiar with anthropological research and social communication, we risk arbitrary and equivocal constructions of fixed cultural paradigms, that could reinvent readings and folk stereotypes of the complex Roma universe, in line with the stereotypical generalizations used by non-Roma. This “reification of cultural differences” could affect also the ERI’s management (as any cultural movement ideologically oriented towards the creation of new identities). It could risk influencing ERI’s politics of objectification of the individual creative expressions of culture, arbitrarily linking them to an ethnic background: the result could be the creation of false fixed objects representing the Roma culture. It is a normal process of “thingification” of social relations that unconsciously create stereotypes and cultural paradigms. It is a cultural dynamic widely usual in the racist speeches but also in the anti-racist ideologies and in the ethnic movements; for this reason, it is important to avoid it since the kick-off of any cultural or social organisation oriented by the inclination towards the ethnicization. The risk is to reproduce stereotyped visions of Roma cultural values, while in the purpose to the contrary they should serve to overcome those historical stereotypes.

Furthermore, attention should be paid to the differing levels and workstream between human rights advocacy and cultural and artistic promotion. A good activist can make bad cultural promotion, and vice-versa.”

Finally, the management of the European Institute should be featured by economic sustainability. The planned budget does not seem to be adequate if compared to the array of activities proposed so far. The economic resources risk to be completely absorbed by the functioning of the Institute. That amount suffices for a very good two-week national campaign of communication in any of the Western European country.

Think and act locallyA cultural Institute, possibly at either a national or local levels, can provide support and result in a focal point for all those activities aimed at displaying a new image of Roma. Needless to say, a European Institute can give a great help too, but given its role and relevance there should be a focus on its impact on local and grass-root level realities. Indeed, it is at a local level where the image and the misperceptions about Roma people are more developed and reproduced. For this reason, any positive message and active form of sensitization for a new image of Roma should be designed and applied at a local level – if we want to achieve meaningful results.

A European Roma Institute could do it, only if built with an impact and specific workings at the national and local levels. In order to build effective communication strategies adapted to the different contexts, I would like to recall the Dosta campaign impact locally. Plus, it is what Member States and associations do when they implement their national and local awareness raising campaigns on, by focusing on specific targets and problems. For example, also the new campaign launched by the European Commission in eight countries earlier this month, with a budget of over two million Euros, will work at a local level, with the direct involvement of the National Focal Points for Roma inclusion, local authorities, associations, media networks, etc.. Indeed, this is a strategy that any communication company knows designing campaigns thinking and acting at a local level, also for general topics.

Against this background, the working tools foreseen by the information document are interesting and potentially effective (public events, exhibitions, fellowships, etc.) but tools can be effective or ineffective, positive or negative; it depends on how they are adapted to the various methodologies of communication and their content - and we are talking about cultural contents which sometimes rely too much on ideology.

25

CAHROM (2015)14

Culture and identityThe document under reference speaks about appreciation and recognition of identity and culture. Cultures as personal identities are multiple, magmatic, opaque, the result of the contexts and the meetings and clashes with which they redefine themselves constantly. It might sound a bit utopian to reset and limit the boundaries to define it. Therefore it is important to understand what the European Institute can do and can become: A conservation centre or a place of cultural production? Obviously, I think of a place of cultural production, even if the document speaks of preserving traditions, which, in general in every cultural context, are built in the future by looking at the past.

On the other side, it is interesting the proposed activity of mapping ideas, materials, and events working in the interest of affirmation of Romani culture and identity also if some doubt regards the outcome. It is also very interesting the partnership with mainstream arts and cultural organizations and the agreements between mainstream and Romani media. Strong partnerships with non-Roma big cultural and musical events and public happenings could be fruitful (i.e. Babel Med; La notte della Taranta; Korkyralis; Glastonbury or Sziget Festival etc.). If the ERI is helpful to showcase the positive contributions of Roma culture towards European culture, this will be a good result.

However, the question remains pending with regard to the ERI presence and role vis-à-vis the thousands of initiatives that, either on a spontaneous basis or as an institutional response to anti-Gypsyism are carried out at local and national levels in the various Member States. Given the role played by State authorities in taking up relevant initiatives, the ERI can only foresee a supporting role.

All in all the most important doubt refers to cultural recognition. In other words, intellectuals, and many Roma artists and musicians have a public legitimate role in the culture they make and the art they produce, not in their Roma sense of belonging, but for the cultural value of their artistic production. Reducing their cultural production to a sense of ethnicity is likely to flatten the creativity within the confines of the ethnic-cultural enclave, besides symbolically re-thinking of the boundaries and limits that the artistic production per se is in a position to set aside. Within these socio-cultural dynamics is really dangerous and counterproductive to find the false purity of traditions that individual creativities are constantly reworking by different economic, social and cultural contexts.

I consider relevant all these proposals. I would also suggest the fostering cooperation among the CAHROM group of experts of the Council of Europe, local authorities and academia.

Through the European Academic Network on Romani Studies, but also with a direct collaboration with the most relevant scholars on Roma issues, new surveys, studies, and fieldwork results could be shared with institutions, in order to consider applied research in the local development context.

Another useful aspect related to the new migration flow of Roma from Eastern to Western countries could be the improvement of decentralized cooperation programmes, involving municipalities of origin and of destination. Exchange of views on the problems and opportunities faced by the Roma communities, could be tested by municipalities in the Council of Europe premises, in order to plan

26

CAHROM (2015)14

common initiatives in both countries /municipalities for a more effective process of social inclusion and local development.

Pietro Vulpiani National Office against Racial Discrimination (UNAR)

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SLOVENIA (22/05/2015)

Opinion on Secretary General’s document “Updating the Council of Europe’s agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019)” including on the issue of establishment of European Roma Institute

First, we would like to commend Secretary General for preparing a comprehensive document on Roma inclusion, which gives a broad overview of measures and activities performed and carried out by the Council of Europe. We carefully read the document, also bearing in mind questions, raised by the Secretariat. Below please find our comments and proposals.

Ad 1)We find “Strasbourg Declaration” of 2010 still a valid guidance for national and European action on Roma inclusion, as well as challenges and priorities listed in it. As regards fundamentally new challenges for Roma inclusion, we believe that challenges remain more or less the same in their nature; moreover we could say that in some cases challenges are even bigger in scope. Regarding new approaches to address these challenges we cannot offer no real new proposals or solutions, however our experiences show that policy implementation should be based on a multi-sectoral approach and its impact systematically monitored and evaluated. What is also of crucial importance is, in our opinion, promotion of the dialogue between all relevant partners and Roma in various relevant sectors on national and, even more importantly, at local level. Finally, what should be emphasized as well is active participation of Roma at all levels. What we mean by saying that, is their active role, performed by relevant Roma representatives, in drafting, developing, implementing and monitoring of the implementation of relevant policies and measures for their inclusion and integration, but not only that. Activation and empowerment of Roma in general, their sensibilisation and raising awareness about the importance and meaning of their inclusion and integration in society are of even greater importance. Consequently this means more field work, more workshops but also more intensified work of Roma organisations in member states. All efforts and measures cannot be imposed only by member states and its national or local authorities, even when they are prepared and drafted in close cooperation with Roma representatives. More vital is that all Roma, who are being targeted by these measures, can and do identify with the process and the outcome and internalize the purpose of those measures. Otherwise success and effectiveness of measures can be and are sometimes questioned.

Ad 2)We see the role of the Council of Europe correctly described: on one hand it serves as a guidance and expertise for the member states, and on the other hand it monitors, through its monitoring mechanisms, implementation of member states’ obligations under relevant CoE conventions and gives recommendations to member states on how to improve their policies and measures. What we would propose is more cooperation with the European Union, since efforts of both international organizations have many common goals as regards Roma inclusion.

27

CAHROM (2015)14

Ad 3)We believe that proposed priorities are, in view of the CoE work, all relevant. However, priorities at national level in member states might differ from it. In Slovenia, for example, we defined the following six priorities in our National Programme of Measures for Roma for the period 2010-2015: - Improving the living conditions of the Roma community and arranging Roma settlements in an

orderly manner- Improving the educational structure of Roma community members and increasing attendance of

Roma children in pre-school educational programmes and compulsory educational programmes, as well as increasing the inclusion of young and adult Roma in further educational processes in compliance with the principle of life-long learning

- Increasing employment and decreasing unemployment rates of members of the Roma community

- Improving healthcare for members of the Roma community, in particular of women and children

- Preserving and developing cultural, informational and editing activities of the Roma community, and endeavouring to preserve and develop different variations of the Roma language

- Raising awareness of the majority population of the existence, culture, customs and traditions of the Roma community, and raising awareness of the minority population on their rights and obligations as citizens of the Republic of Slovenia

Of course, we agree, that priorities set by the CoE are relevant, in particular in relation to the first group of issues raised under the Non-discrimination and citizenship title described in Strasbourg Declaration, however we would also propose to give more focus also to the second title Social inclusion and under that to the priorities listed there. What we would most welcome is activities directed at finding new solutions or innovative approaches, as you described. However, from our experiences, as mentioned in one of the paragraphs above, it is really important to focus more on activation of all Roma, not only their representatives, on the presence of Roma organisations in the field and on activities aimed at fostering the dialogue and cooperation among relevant services at national and local level.

Ad 4)Regarding first priority, fighting against anti-Gypsyism and activities described under it, we would, from our experiences propose more focus on awareness-raising activities. Slovenia joined awareness-raising campaign “Dosta! Go beyond prejudice, discover the Roma” in autumn 2008. The campaign activities were coordinated by the Government Office for National Minorities in cooperation with the Council of Europe Information Office in Slovenia. Between 2008 and 2010 several activities were carried out, among others:- Translation and adaptation of the materials of the Dosta! Campaign, already prepared by the

CoE (information leaflets, toolkit, CDs with a Roma adaptation of the EU anthem, posters and a television spot) and its wide distribution;

- Numerous activities (roundtables, debates, workshops, seminars) were organised by different government bodies and non-governmental organisations, aiming to overcome prejudice and promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance;

- In November 2009, the Dosta! campaign entered primary schools – a letter was sent to all principals (signed by the Minister of Education and Sport and the Director of the Government Office for National Minorities) inviting them to include in their regular work activities the objectives of the campaign, all these with the aim of reducing prejudice and eliminating stereotypes among young people.

- In August 2010 primary and secondary schools received similar letter as mentioned above, together with a DVD, on which there were copies of several roundtables on the issue of

28

CAHROM (2015)14

discrimination and a 32 minutes long documentary movie “Dreams of black-and-white rainbow”.

- In 2009, the famous Slovenian musicians Murat&Jose, who sing about how important it is to respect diversity, became ambassadors of the campaign. In this capacity they participated in campaign events, in particular those addressing young people.

- Particularly active in a campaign were members of the Roma community, who organised a great number of events on the issue of how to reduce intolerance towards the Roma community.

On the basis of the experiences gained during the campaign, specific measures and activities aimed at preventing discrimination and eliminating prejudice and stereotypes concerning Roma were included in the National Programme of Measures for Roma of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for the Period 2010-2015. However, due to the limited financial resources campaign activities were not able to continue beyond 2010.

While improving access of Roma to justice and improving mechanism for the reporting of the hate crimes to authorities are certainly very relevant issues in particular in certain member states, we would prefer more focus but also financial support for implementation to be given to the activities aimed at awareness rising. We found experiences during Dosta campaign very useful, but unfortunately due to the lack of financial as well as human resources Slovenia could not continue with activities within its scope.

Regarding the European Roma Institute (ERI) and its possible establishment, Slovenia has several questions, which so far remained unanswered. Before going in to the issue, we would like to stress that Slovenia strongly supports all incentives, activities and efforts directed at improvement of the situation of Roma, promotion and respect of the rights of Roma and their inclusion in the society. In this respect we do not object to the establishment of ERI, on the contrary, we believe that the idea and the mission to increase the self-esteem of Roma and reducing the negative prejudice of the majority towards Roma are of crucial importance. Yet, we have several strong reservations concerning the concrete proposal regarding the establishment of this entity.

First, we carefully read all documents and information sent so far by the CoE on the issue and consequently prepared a detailed list of issues that for us remain open, which was then sent to our Permanent Representation to the CoE. Some of these issues were raised at the GR-SOC meeting, while others were raised by other member states. Furthermore, we thoroughly read the letter sent to all CAHROM members by Professor Yaron Matras, and we must say we agree mainly with everything written in it, since all doubts and reservations related to the topic are well grounded. Besides those, mentioned in professor’s Matras letter we would like to draw attention to the following dilemmas:

- Issue of establishing ERI under the national legislation;

- Unresolved issues of financial support to the ERI: ERI is supposed to be founded by OSF, CoE and so-called Alliance for the ERI. We have certain concerns regarding the latter, since Alliance is still in the process of setting up and it is to be composed of Roma organisations and individuals who have publicly demonstrated their commitment towards the initiative of ERI. In this regard our main concern relates to possible financial contribution of the Alliance, since Roma organisations always struggle for financial resources and are usually very limited in this regard. Strong financial construction is in our opinion of crucial importance for good and quality work, effectiveness and efficiency of the ERI;

29

CAHROM (2015)14

- We have certain doubts regarding the governance structure and its secretariat – it seems big in scope. This is then also connected to the financial issues. According to the concept paper, ERI would have quite some important tasks to carry out. We are not objecting its goals, since we agree that efforts and activities in the area of fight against discrimination, prejudice and stereotypes is necessary, but questioning means and ways of its implementation. From our experience in the area of awareness raising activities, several financial and human resources should be devoted to it. And financial resources as presented now would most likely suffice only for operational costs of the secretariat and maybe some small range activities, which we do not see as the main purpose of ERI;

- We would appreciate to hear what CoE expects from ERI, where would be the added value and what would the form of the cooperation between the CoE and ERI be. From our point of view, the three core functions described to be performed by ERI could be carried out by ERI independently of CoE. In our opinion the current structure of CoE and bodies established under it, including CAHROM, already offer a very productive exchange of information between member states and Roma and other organisations, as well as provides an in-depth knowledge from a particular area of interest of a particular member states which can be gained through its thematic visits. ERI as an independent institution could be linked to CoE through regular participation at CAHROM meetings or through active participation at a wider Roma platform currently under discussion. In context of all this, we would appreciate all information relating to the relationship between CoE and ERI.

Finally, in our opinion Committee of Ministers and beforehand GR-SOC are to be the ones to first adopt the decision on the establishment of the ERI and only after its approval it should be included in the CoE official document on updating the CoE agenda on Roma inclusion. As far as we are informed, no such decision has been made yet regarding ERI (in fact GR-SOC invited CAHROM to provide any comments it may have and decided to resume consideration of the proposal at a forthcoming meeting), as regards the Secretary General’s document “Updating the Council of Europe’s agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019)” CM agreed to resume consideration of this document at one of their forthcoming meetings, at the latest in June 2015 and asked CAHROM for an opinion. In our opinion the adoption of the Secretary General’s document “Updating the Council of Europe’s agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019)” with clear indication, as it is written now, to establish ERI before the decision on it is officially adopted by CM, would indirectly indicate and prejudice the decision on the establishment of ERI. We would therefore welcome the decision to postpone the inclusion of the establishment of ERI in the Secretary General’s document until decision on it is officially adopted.

Ad 5)We strongly support the second priority aimed at demonstrating innovative models for inclusive policies for the most vulnerable, among which CoE focuses on gender equality and empowerment for Romani women and making children’s rights accessible to Romani families. However, we miss some concrete proposals on how these aims are to be implemented. We would, in this regard, recommend activities directed directly to Roma, through workshops, and presence in the field. And beforehand, maybe exchange of knowledge and expertise between member states on an operational level.

Ad 6)We find the third priority also very relevant and fully support it, since implementation at local level is crucial. We agree with the proposal of stepping up activities of ROMED and ROMACT also as regards their visibility and availability to the relevant public.

30

CAHROM (2015)14

Ad 7)All proposed accompanying measures are most welcome and we support them.

We hope you will find all our comments and proposals well-intentioned, since they are written in good faith to provide a constructive dialogue.Stanko Baluh, M. A.Director of the Office for National MinoritiesGovernment of the Republic of Slovenia

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC (24/05/2015)

Slovak expert of CAHROM Committee´s comments:

1) On the SG/INF (2015)16rev “Updating the Council of Europe’s agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019)”

Five years after the adoption of the Strasbourg Declaration Updating the Council of Europe's agenda on Roma Inclusion (2015-2019) is a very good and a welcome moment for the evaluation of the efforts of the Council of Europe in the process of inclusion of Roma in Europe while also setting a milestone for the processes of this institution for finding new approaches for next period.

The proposed document in its three priorities divided into several lines concisely covers current challenges of Roma Inclusion across the Europe. Just I would have comments regarding to the first priority: Tackle anti-Roma prejudice, discrimination and crimes (anti-Gypsyism) to the line number (3) in the sense that I agree with the idea of creating a European Roma Institute (ERI) with the mission of increasing the self-esteem of Roma and reducing negative prejudice of the majority towards Roma by means of arts, culture, history and media as one of important priority. I would add that language as well. But I would like to have a comment to the ERI, Which I will do under the point 2) on the proposal to set up a "European Roma Institute.

2) On the proposal to set up a “European Roma Institute” (ERI)

The idea to establish an international institute that will frame the development of Roma studies of Roma nationality with a population of 12 million in Europe, which have their own history, typical cultural elements, artwork, language development is very timely and desirable. Despite the fact that this is a significant number of one ethnic group that lives in several countries, but the majority live in marginalized communities. Much smaller ethnic or national entities in the various state groupings, thus they form the majority community have their scientific institutes to promote, develop and strengthen its own pride and self-esteem. This is missing by the Roma in Europe. Therefore, I support the idea of the Council of Europe to create a European Roma institute. However, structural integration and geographical location of ERI is very important from the perspective of the general, social, political and professional acceptance that it should be the prestigious institution for building and maintaining positive own awareness of Roma and respect of non-Roma to the history, cultural and artistic values of the Roma. I recommend and propose, how a person who grew up in the Roma settlement, that ERI would be created on the campus of one of the prestigious universities, where Romology already had taken root (Paris, Budapest, Bucharest, Manchester, Graz, Prague, Nitra...). It should be evaluated. At the same time that ERI would became an institution of the Council of Europe (e.g. As the European Center for Modern Languages - Graz ECML) supported by other institutions and to pursue those objectives, as has been set out in document CAHROM (2015) 11 "Creation of a European Roma institute".

31

CAHROM (2015)14

3) On the terminology issue “Roma and Travellers”

I have no objections to renew with the practice to use the terms "Roma and Travellers".

Ján HeroDirector of Department of Conceptions, Analysis and Regional CoordinationPlenipotentiary Office of Slovak Government for Roma CommunityMinistry of Interior

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FINLAND (26/05/2015)

Finland's Comments on the Secretary General's Document SG/INF (2015) 16 REV Updating the council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion (2015-2019) and ERI proposal

Proposal to create a “European Roma Institute”

Finland expresses our appreciation for giving an opportunity by the Committee of Ministers to comment on the initiative concerning the initiative to create a European Roma Institute - ERI.

Before commenting the revised concept paper on the issue I would like to make general remarks concerning the procedure relating to the proposal in question. As it is publicly known the proposal started as direct high level discussions with/between OSI/ Georg Soros, head of states/ministers and high level officials of international organizations. It was only after that when the proposal was lowered to experts and other stakeholders relating the Roma issues for the further analysis and exchanging views, including discussing and consulting with Roma communities at different levels. Consequently the Roma at the community level have in many cases taken the proposal as a top down -approach despite of the positive characters the proposal entails. In other words: The approach and source of initiative has been more in the center of discussions rather that the content.

From the member State’s expert’s point of view there has not been enough time and adequate information to process and analyze the altered proposals for example before the GR-SOC-meetings. I believe that some of the criticism could have been avoided by reversing the procedure and including the Roma to the process at the earlier stage. The Strasbourg Declaration on Roma points out a genuine and effective participation of Roma as a precondition for successful measures.

Main comments and concerns by Finland- Having a platform for cultural, artistic and intellectual discussions in form of an

independent institute is naturally a welcomed idea. The idea is not new yet the proposal is a new attempt to come up with such a European wide institute. ( It is not to say that different kinds of cultural institutions would not already exist in various scopes and forms).

- However, the link to the CoE core functions still remains unclear. The idea of the ERI does stretch the mandate and core functions of CoE as human rights body quite far. The relationship between core ideas and activities of the CoE and the nature of ERI needs balanced.

- CoE’s involvement consequently means that the creation and concrete functioning of the ERI needs to be in line with CoE standards on transparency, good governance, etc.

- According to article 11 “As one of the founders, the Council of Europe will be linked to ERI mainly in four ways (…) The Council of Europe will upon request assist ERI in its

32

CAHROM (2015)14

fundraising efforts.” Finland finds is quite difficult to reason that the limited human resources of the CoE is invested to the fundraising activities of the independent institution.

Main working toolsIt is a fact that despite of all the effort by number of stakeholders the human rights situation and discrimination against Roma prevails. The core idea of the ERI is to tackle the discrimination against the Roma by bettering the self-esteem of the Roma and promoting Roma culture and arts. The methods are explained in the revised concept papers. It seems like the concept of ERI is a mixture of Think Tank and cultural arena.

FI recognizes the need for cultural, artistic and intellectual promotion of Roma. However there is also a risk to fall into another stereotype - even positive one - by highlighting the cultural and artistic skills as only skills of the Roma possess.

The list of tools and methods is rather wide. Given the scope of the budget it is not very likely to carry out the whole range of activities effectively.

Finland’s main comments concerns the establishment of ERI- The relative narrowness of the “Alliance” as one of the founders in terms of

representation is a concern. In order to create truly an institution which could be shared by number of different Roma communities and stakeholders the basis of legitimation needs to be widened.

- Finland is also concern about the geographical coverage if the ERI founders in terms of the participating NGOs and possibly the individuals (who could be identify for example in the appendix for the sake of transparency)

- Finland welcomes the open inclusive nature of the membership of the ERI as it is described to be open to all groups, organizations and individuals

- The governance structure of the Barvalipe Academy and Pakiv -Board is unclear and seems to be self-legitimized. If Council of Europe is involved, the administration, governance and decision making needs to be set up differently.

Budget- The 600,000 € is quite limited in relation to staff and activities described in concept

paper. Further adjustment may be needed. - The last paragraph deals with the informal consultations which have taken place in

2014. Finland is missing more elaborated description of the consultation as it was CAHROM’s request in previous discussion concerning the ERI in 2015.

ConclusionFinland does not oppose the proposal. Finland is not prepared under the current circumstances, to fund the proposal with voluntary contributions.

Updating the Council of Europe Agenda on Roma Inclusion (2015-2019)

Finland would like to express its appreciation to the Secretary General for coming up with the updated agenda on Roma inclusion 2015-2019 following the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma (2010).

The present state of realization of the human rights of the Roma in Europe is alarming despite of the number and variety of actions taken by various stakeholders. It is in this context Finland likes to

33

CAHROM (2015)14

congratulate the Secretary General for identifying the main priorities of the Council of Europe agenda on Roma inclusion:

I Fight against anti-Gypsyism- tackle anti-Roma prejudices, discrimination and crime- improving access of Roma to justice- Improving mechanism for the reporting of hate crimes

II Strengthen local level implementation

III Improving situation of most vulnerable: Roma women, children and youth

Finland supports the set-up of the priorities which are justified and reasoned.

Finland’s basic principles for advancing the inclusion of the Roma are participation and effective influence of the planning, implementing, evaluating and monitoring of the Roma themselves on the actions that aim to improve their situation. An essential prerequisite for acting thus is strengthening the capacity and competence of Roma organizations and communities, as well collaboration with the authorities. For Finland, it has been important to strengthen the cooperation between Roma organizations with governmental and non-governmental organizations. Thirdly, the advancement the rights of the Roma women and girls along with the children and youth is a priority to Finland.

Finland / Committee’s gender Rapporteur is particularity pleased with the priority concerning the improvement situation of most vulnerable: Roma women, children and youth. The gender dimension of the agenda is important to identify as a tool and precondition for realization of the human rights of all Roma. The specific focus on Roma women (and children and youth) marks a new emphasis in Council of Europe activities concerning the Roma.

The updated agenda does not refer in detail how the human and financial resources are allocated to the chosen priorities and activities. Finland would like to propose that the Council of Europe would take the leading role in mainstreaming the advancement of the rights of the Roma women and children to the all CoE programs and activities on gender and children. The mainstreaming the of human rights of the Roma women and children remains difficult at the member state level and in the institutions dealing with the gender issues in general. In ideal situation the Council of Europe could lead the way by combining its expertize on gender and on Roma in all its actions.

The third priority concerns Strengthening local level implementation of the Roma inclusion. Finland would like to remind that the local level actions are often targeted to the countries and areas of considerable Roma populations. In some cases there might be several activities going on at the same places and areas whereas some countries and member states are not targeted at all.

Finland reminds that is important to target attention, activities and funding possibilities also to the countries with smaller Roma population such as Baltic or Nordic states.

Finland highlights the need to cooperate with other non-governmental institutions despite of their differences in mandate, functions and geographical scope. As the resources are more and more limited is important to avoid duplication.

Finland is concerned how the dialogue with civil society is realized in future. Finland supports the continuation of the partnership agreement with ERTF. The cooperation with ERTF and CoE could, for example, to be developed further to serve better the needs of both parties.

34

CAHROM (2015)14

CAHROM bureau proposal to modify the name of CAHROM and Explicative footnote for Roma

Finland fully supports the CAHROM bureau proposal.

Sarita Friman-KorpelaMinisterial AdviserMinistry of Social Affairs and HealthAdvisory Board on Roma Affairs

35