National Roma integration strategies – which are supposed to guide and secure the process of Roma inclusion within European Union (EU) countries – have been duly submitted and diplomatically praised by the European Commission.
They are what they are, and can always be improved. Proposals have already been voiced about the need to review the strategies with a stronger role for civil society in mind.
At this point, taking more time to improve the strategies would be wrong.
The strategies are official documents submitted by governments, making them accountable for progress on Roma inclusion. “Getting serious” about Roma inclusion is related both to political will and capacities.
The work of international organizations involved in Roma inclusion and pressure from the European Commission helped to increase the political commitment on the part of national governments – adoption of the strategies is proof of their commitment.
Unlike twenty years ago, the question is not “Shall we be doing anything in regards Roma inclusion?” but rather “What to do and how to produce results?”
The strategies are a minor step in that direction. They are the starting point of a long process of implementing the strategies. The European Commission’s recent Communication on Roma issues is explicit about that (or at least as explicit as it can be):
“Member States… need stronger efforts to live up to their responsibilities, by adopting more concrete measures, explicit targets for measurable deliverables, clearly earmarked funding at national level and a sound national monitoring and evaluation system.”
But the European Commissions’s plea must not be interpreted as a call to revise the strategies. The real shortcomings are not related to strategies, but to implementation, most notably:
- The lack of a clear set of implementation mechanisms and sound monitoring and evaluation frameworks; and
- Significant gaps in local stakeholders’ capacity for getting things done.
The strategies need to be matched with a clear implementation infrastructure that produces results. Such infrastructure should include
- National action plans
- Local action plans
- Local-level projects and initiatives that contribute to the overall goals of the strategies.
The funding should be not just earmarked at the national level – rather, it should be linked to the needs and local initiatives within specific areas and communities. National funding should be seen as a total of the resources needed to carry out the initiatives at the local level – where real life and real exclusion take place.
This is the ABC of results-based planning and if we (governments, civil society, the European Commission, international organizations) are serious about results, we should be pressing for exactly that.
The same applies to monitoring and evaluation systems, which should cover three levels:
- The strategies – they should be evaluated from the perspective of the aggregate outcomes a few years from now. That is the task delegated to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), to be realized though regular surveys similar to the recent 2011 regional UNDP/FRA/World Bank survey that built on a UNDP pilot from 2004.
- National and local action plans – need a monitoring and evaluation system more closely linked to the plans’ targets and milestones.
- Projects and initiatives – monitoring the outputs and outcomes of individual projects and their efficiency in terms of cost.
Too complicated? Actually not at all if we keep the simple logic: the strategic goals belong to the strategies; the more specific targets (that should lead to achieving the goals) and the milestones (the specific stages on the way of achieving the targets) belong to the plans; the targets and the milestones are accomplished through individual interventions. The implementation, budgeting and evaluation should be built bottom-up (at least ideally).
It is important to bear in mind that none of these – national plans, local plans, individual projects – would be sufficient on their own for achieving the goals governments committed to in their strategies. Unless all three are in place, the strategies will share the same fate as the many other documents that preceded them. And all three need to be linked to the system of regional development planning in each country. Only then will the issue of Roma inclusion become visible for administrative and budgetary processes.
Such implementation infrastructure will not emerge automatically after adoption of the strategies. The assumption that they will automatically be translated into practical action at the local level is a myth.
If we are serious about addressing the challenge of Roma inclusion within one generation, national, regional and local governments should be deliberately supported to localize their national strategies, put in place (and in operation) their implementation structures and integrate them into the national regional development mechanisms.
See: Europe’s biggest societal problem – The plight of Europe’s Roma, featured in the Economist.
Would that be sufficient? No. Even if implementation infrastructure is in place, it is does not ensure a successful outcome, given shortcomings to get the job done. Both at national and local levels, people face difficulties with results-based thinking (clearly defined goals, and knowledge of possible approaches, resources and time needed).
Whatever the reason—decades of a central planning culture, the emergence of a “project industry,” in which absorption and delivery are more important than making a real difference in peoples’ lives—the capacity shortcomings need to be addressed.
Supporting local partners with change in their communities, and getting things done is as important for the success of Roma inclusion as establishing the implementation infrastructure behind the strategies. This would also give real meaning to ownership of the process by the Roma themselves, that both Roma and non-Roma would like to see.
The freshly adopted strategies are important. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks and regular data collection on the status of Roma are important as well. But even more important is the implementation infrastructure and the capacities of the people on the ground to do the job of inclusion. Without them, we won’t have much to monitor and evaluate.
Coming back to the issue of the strategies and their relevance – there is one good proxy indicator in that matter: whether the strategies have a supportive infrastructure in place, and if support is provided to local partners to implement projects and initiatives. If yes, then the strategy drafting process has accomplished its mission.
Do you agree? How do we ensure that the strategies make a difference in people’s lives?
The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States
Development and transition: Opportunities for Roma inclusion