perspective noiembrie2012.pdf


©o6umzzr'q lzn 2 (Pefspecthe poGxhce

The Roma Inclusion: the Romanian and
European programmatic frameworks
Abstract: +n the present aRicte f wilt present an analysis of the programmatic documents, both Romanian
and European. with relevance to the public policiesfor the Rama inciuslon in the cast decades. The Roma
inclusion has become a motto of the politicians, butfew were made towards Q rent Investment in this
respect. In Romania. the Roma exclusion was combatted as result of the European Union's pressures in the
pre-accession period. as paR of the potiticalcrheria. As welt, } wiliapproach Q series clf concerns, existent
in the both Roma and non-Roma civil society, as regards the national legg! and policyjrameworksjor the
improvement of Roma situation +n Romania

Keywords: Roma inclusion, Romanian and EU strategy, public policies

Introduction
Even during the communist dictatorship period, the Roma re-

presented an invisible population as regards their presence in the
public policies. Subjects of forced assimilation policy and of the
forced sedentarisation policy of the nomad Roma, by the commu-
nist regime, the Roma were denied the right to use the maternal
language in public, media and administration, or to affirm their eth-
nical identityl the existence of the Roma ethnics was noted in the
public speeches in the globalizing phrase ,,an(i other co/ahab/ring
natianalitles

With the democratic changes of the
1989 Revolution, like other ethnic repre-
sentatives. Roma have continued the
associative movement with the aim of
identity affirmation, which has started af-
ter the <K Roma slavery abolishment }, in

1 856, efforts coagulated between the two World Wars, but brutally
interrupted during the WWll.

n the two past decades, the Roma minority in Romania has
faced a deterioration of their socio-ecoomic status. the decrease
of their living standard and, consequently, with an increased popu-
lation facing the risk of social exclusion. And this was possible in a
period when a series of public policy measures have been approa-
ched, especially in the field of education and public health, with
visible results. Even so. the situation of this most excluded social
category - the Roma - is still facing the most diverse challenges
discrimination, social exclusion, poverty and marginalisation.

The soc/a/ /nc/us/on is a concept is derived by the we/fare state
paradigm and promoted by the European Union istitutions by its
social policies and legislation I its enforcement ensures the access

julian Stoian
drd SNSPA
(iulianstoian@consultant.cam)



:Between !ttcalsion a?tf%c£ilsion

to equality of chances and the access to the needed resources, to all citizens of the Eu-
ropean Union in the situation of poverty and social exclusion, including for Roma. Thus,
the mainstreaming of the social inclusion into all public policies of all guvernmental and
European strategies, are expected to ensure the full participation to the social, economic,
cultural life of the society, as well as to ensure a living standart and wealth at least at the
level of the European average values. To what extent these goals have been approached
and implemented, which were the decision makers's approaches, how they were imple-
mented, what moblised the process and which was the role of the Roma civil society,
there are questions we try to answer in the present paper.

The main goal of this research is to analyse the public policy framework for the Integra-
tion of Roma minority in Romania. in the last two decades, as well as to improve the policy
makers' awareness and knowledge on how to cope with specific issues when drafting
policies towards Roma inclusion.

The current research has as an aim the analysis of the main programmatic documents
in relation with the Roma inclusion in Romania, as well as the major theoretical models.
The used methods were analysis of secondary data and content analysis.

The topic of this research is circumscribed to the 'golden momentum ' represented by
the launch of the European Framework of the National Strategies for Roma Inclusion, as
well as the recently adopted national strategy for the improvement of Roma conditions
in Romania. In the absence of an independent assessment of the Romania's policy fra-
mework for the improvement of Roma situation, as well as the lack of critical reflections
on this topic, the author considers this desk research of importance to provide the policy
makers with an overview on this matter.

We will try to answer to this question, through the Group theory perspective. as most of
the public policies for Roma inclusion in Romania are to be considered as a result of the
advocacy efforts of various groups, among the most important are the Roma civil society.
As well, elements of the Po/ff/ca/ system theo/y and the e//fe theory will be approached in
the current chapter.

According to the Group Theo/y, the group efforts are those that are generating the
policy formulation. Various groups should be taken into account when it comes to policies
for Roma inclusion, among which: the Roma civil society. thQ Roma political organisati-
ons, local and central public administration representatives, mainstream civil society, and
international organisations.

Since 1990, a number of Roma intelectuals and community leaders have started to
coagulate forms of groups on the ethnicity criteria. Tens of non-governmental organisa-
tions emerged, got specialized, fusionned or dissolved, many coalitions were created,
dissolved and then reshaped, in an attempt to organize around them most of the Roma
population in Romania, with limited success though. There are a wide variety of causes:
from the lack of civic education of the population rooted in the communist period, to the
lack of leadership skills of some of the 'self-proclamed ' leaders. Their diversity in interests
and affffudes have generated, today, one of the most diverse forms of Roma representa-
tion, often in a polarized manner: civic vs. political organizations, human rights activists
vs. community based service providers, donnors vs. grantees etc.

There are pros and cons on this type of diversity, both in relation with the access to
the decision makers. Some are claiming that the diversity of interests and attitudes is not
effective, when it comes to speak "the same language" with the decision makers, and



ttotem6rie 20]2 (Perspective poCitice

setting up a policy agenda. This is possible because of the high competition among the
Roma organisations, not only on sources for funding, which lead to better services and
more success. alongside with the public acknowledgement of their work, but also on the
access to the decision makers. Often. the decision makers used these apparent tensions
between the Roma NGOs to justify their inaction or ta propose false solutions, supported
by some of the NGOs and generate conflict Such situations have affected to a certain
point the Roma NGOs' capacity to express their views to the decision makers.

And here there are is the //m/faf/on of fhe g/oup theo/y, that does not take into account
the institutions. stakeholders and ideas that influence the policy formulation. Which led
us to take into account the po//f/ca/ system theory, that would help us to have a better
understanding the policy initiation phase.

From the po//f/ca/ system theo/y perspecf/ve, the public policies for Roma inclusions
followed the model. generally speaking: the demands. the input and the support of the
social stakeholders were "processed" by the political system, leading to governmental
decisions, laws and decisions. The policy cycle often Ignored the essential feedback com-
ponent, the eva/uafion phase. in the policy making process.

However, in the dynamic environment of the NGO sector described above. there was
a constant liaison that narrowed the debate and imposed, in fact, the policy agenda for
Roma: the international organisations. In the '90s, the Council of Europe was constantly
motivated ' the Romanian authorities to adopt and enforce human rights related legisla-
tion, while starting with '99, the European Union was more efficient in imposing objecti-
ves to meet to the Romanian authorities, in the field of protection of minorities. human
rights and rule of law (the so called po/if/ca/ crfferla), as part of the negotiations for the
Romania's accession to the European Union.

This fact led to the current situation, when strategies, laws and decisions are adopted
without any corrections as regards the outputs of the implemented policies. The lack of
funding in the last 1 0-1 2 years of the governmental strategy for the improvement of Roma
situation represents the type of situation that feed the vicious circle of Roma exclusion.

The catalyst role of the European Commission, that used the Roma NGOs inputs as
primary source for information in its annual reports on the progress of Romania.on its
way to the accession to the EU. and recommended year after year, policy and legislative
recommendations for the improvement of this framework. cannot be neglected. More. in
the pre-accession period, most of the active Roma NGOs were constantly invited by the
Romanian authorities to take part in consultations. to share from their pilot projects and
best practices of the work at the grassroots. Numerous Roma activists have called upon
that the political system take into account their demands and convert them into more
efficient public policies.

In this entire struggle. it is the voice of the Roma elite that constantly promoted on the
public agenda their policy solutions. From the E/ffe rhea/y perspecffve, it is important to
note that not the masses or the coordinated actions of the Roma communities have led
to the policy formulation, but rather of an voiced elite, that had the ability and means to
influence the government and its agenda.



(Between IncEiision and%c&isiotl

What t)-pe ofpolicieslor Rama inclusion ?
Liberal or Conservative?
It is difficult to answer to such a questions, because of the multifaceted approaches

adopted by the decision makers. At large, in the last two decades. the public policies
adopted towards Roma inclusion were to be considered more //herb/ - in favour of social
change, through equality than consewat/ve -- favourable to a slow social change or
maintaining the status quo.

Liberal measures. such as affirmative actions for Roma in educaffon or stimulating
their access to the hea/fh care, were adopted with the goal of correcting the social in-
justice, historically rooted, through a greater equality, while the lack of measures and/or
financial investment in the field of boas/ng could be categorized more as conservative
policies. Thus, we may consider that it is a mixed approaches that carracterises the public
policies for Roma.

Some authors (Anderson; 1 993:1 8) argues the disappearance of the liberal-conserva-
tive distinction. while other (Lowe; 1 964:72) considers the old distinction between liberals
and conservatives no longer is valid. as they both promote and restrict change, using the
government and resources. and the only distinction is to be found in the group of suppor-
ters they identify with.

Distributive or Redistributive?
Most of the Roma minority is to be considered by the governmental representatives

as beneficiaries of the social services and social benefits. However. in the absence of
statistical data, it is difficult to measure which percentage of the population is benefiting.
actually of those public financial resources.

This represents, in fact, an important issue for the policy makers, but also a source of con-
flict between those in favour of shKting the income or wealth allocation among categories of
population and those who oppose to these redistributive policies. The most recent example
of a conflict situation generated by this dilemma has started two years ago. when the go-
vemment, willing to cut off the public spendings as response to the global financial crisis. has
adopted mega/afo/y policy measures that dramatically limited the access to social services and
social benefits for large social categories. Among the most affected poor population was the
Roma minority, with a result in deepening their poverty and exclusion cyde.

Material or Symbolic?
When discussing the type of benefits allocated, few policies with impact on Roma

population can be classified as marerva/, while most of them can be classified as symho-
/lc. Thus, there is often promoted the paradigm of breaking the circle of poverty simply
through education. On long therm, the policy makers consider that investing in human
resources most of the Roma beneficiaries will aquire both knowledge and skills and be-
come self-sustainable. But does this single policy have a material influence on people
affected by severe poverty, living in rural areas, without any possibility of finding a job and
surviving with the state's social or children benetlts? This is an example of how a policy
does not allocate tangible advantages. On the other hand, we may examine an example
of recent material policy: the anti-crisis response measures have affected the welfare
programs and benefits were cut-off, many poor Roma being affected by these measures



note?Tt6tte 2012 Perspective po&tice

T le tatiottai strateg)far tile improvelttent ofRonta situatiolt in
Romania (2001-2011)) ' '

In the pre-accession period of Romania, the European Union. in its annual assessment
of Romania's fulfillment the political criteria, it was constantly and repetedely highlighted
the need of solving the problems of discrimination and exclusion of Roma. If until 2000 the
nternational and private donnors' community and the Roma and non-Roma NGOs were
n the position of "replacing" the public authorities as regards the access to education and
health of the Roma, starting with 2000, the signs send by the European Commission to
the Romanian government were translated into the need to technical assistance in view
of drafting public policies to target the Roma ethnics facing the systemic problems of ex-
clusion in Education, Health, Employment and Housing.

in 2001 , with pre-accession technical and financial assistance through the first EU
Phare programme (R0 9803.01 .Improvement of Roma Situation in Romania":), the Ro-
manian government has adopted, as main objective, the Strategy with the same name,
for the period 2001-2010, by Governmental Decision no. 430/25 april 20113. A second
goal of this technical assistance programme was to test the public policies measures of
the Plan of Actions of the Strategy, through the so-called Padr7ership Fund for fhe Roma,
of 900.000 EUR, in which there were financed 40 projects. implemented by local public
administration and NGOs.

The Stragety was the main policy document in Romania that proposed to approach
the issue of Roma exclusion through a General Plan of Measures of public policies for 4
years term. The Strategy was composed by 1 0 sectoral fields: Education, Health, Social
Security, Economy, Housing, Child Protection. Culture and Denominations, Communica-
tion and Civic Participation, Administration and Community Development, together with
two cross-cutting objectives - anti-discrimination and anti-poverty.

The progress of the implementation of the strategy was constantly monitored, annualy,
by the European Commission's reports on the progress of Romania on its way towards
EU accession. Even though. technically speaking, the po//f/ca/ crifeHa for accession (de-
mocracy, rule of law and human and minority rights) was considered as being fulfilled,
since the beginning of negotiations for accession, there were reccurrent refferals to the
need of acceleration of the improvement of Roma situation, which indicate a slowness
and inefficacity of the measures the government have implemented in this respect.

In 2006. for instance, one year before the Romania's accession to the European Uni-
on, the European Commission has noted in its monitoring report'+:

( in the field of protection of minorities, only limited progress can be reported. (...)
Social inclusion of the Roma minority remains a structural problem. Overall living conditi-
ons are still inadequate. Employment measures should be further developed and imple-
mented. Adequate resources for Roma strategies and policies are not always ensured,
especially at the local level. The Romanian authorities do not yet demonstrate at all levels
that a zero-tolerance policy on racism against Roma is applied. (...) The institutional
framework for the implementation of the national strategy for Roma is not yet sufficiently
effective and it tends to diminish the capacity decision- making capacity of the National
Agency for Roma and representatives of the Roma population to participate effectively in
decision-making in relevant areas. Romania's preparations in this area should be stepped
up immediately and continued after accession



/6 :Between Inc&ision and%cfmion

Until 2007. the Romanian Government has benefited from a series of programmes of
technical and financial assistance throught the Phare programme, with the aim of Roma
Inclusion, and the National Strategy for the Improvement of Roma Situation Pina Tn 2007
even though adopted in 2001 and generous in its measures of the national action plan, it
was not adequatly budgeted, its funding being rooted on the European funding.

The legal and programmatic frameworks relevant for the Roma inclusion was (and stir
is) covered, mainly, by the following documents

. The National Strategy for the Improvement of Roma Situation in Romania (Gover-
mental Decision no. 430/2001 with all subsequent modifications);

National Plan Anti-Poverty and Promotion of the Social Inclusion for the period 2002-
2012 (G.O. 829/2002);

Joint Inclusion Memorandum 2005-201 0;
National Plan for Development 2007-201 3;
National Action Plans of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015:
National Strategic Framwork of Reference 2007-201 3;

' Operational Sectoral Programme Z)eve/opmenf of Human Resources 2007-201 3;
. Romanian Government's Strategy for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizens belon-

ging to the Roma minority, for the period 2012-2020 (G.D. no. 1 221/2011 ).

fhe I)facade afRoma Inclltsion 200S-2QiS
In February 2005, at the initiative of the philantropist George Soros. the Wand Bank

and Open Society Instituto have launched the international initiative Decade of Roma
/nc/uslon 2005-2075. To this initiative responded the heads of goverments from Bulgaria,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Montenegro. Romania. Serbia, Slovakia and Hun-
gary. who agreed to ensure the annual presidency of the Decade, by rotation. Afterwards,
other three countries joined the Decade, as members - Albania, Bosnia-Hertegovina and
Spain, while Slovenia is still observer.

Thus, in February 2005, the above mentionned states were invited to launch the Deca-
de of Roma /nc/union and they signed a statements. according to which their governments
took responsibility to work towards elimination of discrimination and diminishing the gap
between the Roma and the rest of societies. as identified in the National Action Plans
adopted afterwards, by each participating country. As well, they proclamed the period
2005-2015 as being "the Decade of Roma Inclusion" and assumed to support the full
participation and the involvement of the Roma communities in meeting the Decade's ob-
jectives and to demonstrate the progress by measuring the results and the dissemination
of the expertise in the implementation of the measures of public policies for Roma. Within
the regular International Steering Committees of the Decade there are organised talks on
the progress of the implementation.

In 201 1 . the Roma Civic Alliance of Romania -- the non-govermental organisation res-
ponsible to monitor the implementation of the assumed plans of the Romanian Govern-
men\, reports' tha\ Kat the mid-temp of the Decade, the Nationa! Action Plans of Romarlia
were not adopted, nor budgeted, consequently they are not implemented, while other
participating countries to this international initiative have revised them, as a result of im-
plementation of the measures for public policies assumed)b



noiem67te 2012 eerspectiw poCitice

The European Frattlework o.I lite Nations! Strategies
for Roltta Inctusiolt

Following the violences and abuses towards Roma living in Italy, starting with 2007
and the waves of colective deportations of the Romanian Roma from France, of the Hun-
garian and Slovak extremists' campaigns towards the Roma, the European Union has
launched on the public agenda a series of high level meetings with the representatives
of the Member States goverments, in view of promoting the policies for Roma inclusion.

Thus, in December 2007, for the first time, the European Council has recognised the
fact that the Roma are facing a specific situation of exclusion in the European Union,
while in the its winter Council's conclusions the European leaders have called upon to the
Member States and the Union to make use of all means available for the improvement of
Roma situation.

In September 2008, the European Commission has organized the first EC/ Roma Sumo/f,
in Brussels, during the French presidency of the Council of the European Union, with the
aim of promoting a strong committment to solve the concrete problems and create a better
undrestanding of the Roma situation in Europe. The event gathered over 400 representati-
ves of the EU institutions, national governments and Roma civil society and benefitted from
high level representation - the president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Duran
Barroso, the vicepresident of the Commission Jacques Barrot and the responsible of the
portofolio Justice and Home Affairs, commissionaire Danuta HObner in the field of Regional
Development, the Employment and Social Affairs Commissionaire. Mr. Vladimir $pidla. and
the Education, Training, Culture and Sport commissionaire J6n Fogel

Following this event, in April 2009, in Prague, during the Czech Presidency of the
EU, the Commission has launched the EU P/afHorm for Roma /nc/us/on, gathering im-
portant stakeholders, such as European institutions, national goverments, international
organisations, Roma Ngos, as well as Roma and non-Roma experts. Conducted by the
participants, the Platform represents a process of drafting strategic recommendations for
the decision makers, in view of an efficient mainstreaming of the Roma issues into the
European and national policies.

Following the Platform's meetings, the Czech presidency of the EU has addopted and
proposed to the Member States and to the Commission the 70 Common Bas/c Pdnc/p/es
to be followed when drafting the efficient policies for Roma inclusion

. Non-discriminatory, pragmatic and constructive policies,
To target explicitly, but not exclusively the Roma,
To have an inter-cultural approach,
The policies' goal to be the Roma inclusion into the mainstream society,
To create awareness on the gender dimension,
Transfer of policies based on results,

' Using the community tools,
To involve the local authorities as well as those at the regional level.
To involve civil society
To ensure the active participation of Roma.

One year later. in April 2010, at the Second EU Summit for Roma, in Cordoba, Spain
the EU presidency troika Spain-Belgium-Hungary has adopted a joint statement while
highlighting the joint efforts to mainstream the Roma issues into all relevant policies, an



Beth)nett lltc&isio)t Qtd'ifMCtt&S{O?l

action plan for the European Platform for Roma Inclusion, and it has advocated for an
efficient use of structural funds in this respect.

Among the concrete results of the summit are the adoption of two documents of public
po\\des: Communication of the Commission on the economic and social integration of
Roma in Europe COM(2010) 133' and a Report on the implementation of the EU tools and
policies for the Roma inclusion for the period 2008-2010' .

In May 2011, in the European Council conclusions', the Member States were invited,
among other, ta improve the economic and social situation of the Roma through an inte-
grated approach, in the field of education, health. employment and housing, taking into
account the 10 Common Basic Principle of Roma Inclusion {...}, to prepare. update or
develop national strategies for Roma inclusion by the end of 2011 {. . .} in the context of
Europe 2020 Sfrafegy.As well, the Commission was Invited to ensure fhe good pracf/ces
and contribute to the debate on the financial tools of the EU and their effective use {. . .},
to monitor the implementation of the 43/2000 Directirve and to assess the success of the
policies for Roma inclusion in the Member States, compliant with their approaches with
the existing mechanism framework of tho Open Method of Coordination.

The Summer European Council, June 201 1 , called upon, in its conclusions'o "for the ra-
pid implementation of the Council's conclusions of 19 May 2011 on the EU framework for
national Roma integration strategies up to 2020", in particular as regards the preparation,
updating or development of Member States' national Roma inclusion strategies, or inte-
grated sets of policy measures within their broader social inclusion policies for improving
the situation of the Roma. by the end of 2011

As regards the last of the Commission's demands, the Romanian Government has ad-
opted, in December 2011 , a new strategy for the improvement of Roma situation, through
the Governmental Decision 1221 of 14 December 2011

The Rilntanian Governntettt's strategy: fat the ittclltsian og
Romaniatt citi=elts belonging to tile'Rama tuinority, 2812-2020

Following the European Commission's efforts to promote on the public agenda the
need of a political commitment of the Member States towards the Roma social inclusion,
the Romanian Government has adopted, on December 14, 2011 . through a governmental
decision no. 1221/2011 - the Romanian Government's Strategy for the inclusion of the
Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority, for the period 2012-2020'!

In the preambule of the Strategy is stated that "fhe Roman/an Government's po//cy for
the social inclusion is founded on a pro-active approach, having as goa! the increase of
the general living standard of the population and the stimulation of the incomes generated
by labour, through facilitation of the employment and promotion of the inclusive policies,
addressed ta afl vulnerable groups: Roma minority, disabled people, women, children
living in the street, youth under the age of 18 leaving the foster care, elderly people'.
As well, according to the newly adopted strategy, the approach of the public policies for
inclusion is focused on measures of the social field: education. employment, health care,
housing and small infrastructure, culture and social infrastructure (child protection, justice
and public security. administration and community development).

Adopted on the spot, on urgent procedure, the current strategy proposes "to ensure a
continuity of the measures of the Romanian Government's strategy for the improvement



ttoiem6fie 2012 eerspectise pofitice /9

of the Roma situation, pe/fod 2007-2070". Ignoring the pure declarative statement of it.
the new strategy was adopted with no assessment of the previous one, as regards its
impact in the society.

Thus, one of the major critiques of the Roma and non-Roma non-governmental organi-
zations on the newly adopted strategy was related to the absence of an impact analysis,
as well as the lack of a baseline study, aimed at ensuring the fact that the progress of this
new strategy and its associated proposed indicators could be measured. In the first pha-
se, of the elaboration of the strategy, the plans of action were elaborated in a disparate
manner, by each line ministry. without any synergy between the proposed public policies
and, more importantly, without being correlated with a real budget. perspective

As regards the funding of the plan of measures, the newly adopted strategy is based,
n most of the cases, on "structural funds". in a phase when the negotiations for the new

financial programming for the EU's Cohesion Funds were not started and when the Eu-
ropean Commission has suspended the disbursement of the payments for the European
Social Fund in Romania as a response of the irregularities discovered in its audit report.
This practical situation is aimed to put at risk the diminishing the budget allocations for
various Operational Programmes in the next financial exercise of the EU funding in Ro-
mania. Since most of the policy measures proposed in the plans of actions of the newly
adopted Strategy are "budgeted ' only by mentioning the source of funding "through struc-
tural funds', and taking into account the status of the implementation of those European
funding programs in the financial exercise 2007-2013. it is predictable to what extent
those policies will be implemented and will produce a real impact at the level of the Roma
beneficiaries and, ultimately. in the society at large

These key remarks of the civil society representatives, on the assessment of the text
of the strategy for Roma inclusion adopted in December 2011. have been reasserted by
the European Commission representatives on the occasion of a consultation with the all
relevant stakeholders in the civil society and the central public administration, on March

The deadline for the first assessment and a review of the plan of actions is schedu-
led for the end of 2013. By that time, the Romanian Govemment. provided that it is fully
engaged, has the possibility to carry out a baseline study - a real needs assessment, in
view of making the strategy more compatible with the European Commission's requests.
This lack of a snapshot as regards the real need of investing in public policies having be-
neficiaries the Roma at risk of social exclusion, has also a snow ball effect, when it comes
to fulfill the goals assumed by the Romanian Government in the Europe 2020 Strategy
(april 2011) - to reduce the population exposed at risk to poverty or social inclusion by
580.000 ; 70% of the employment rate, early school drop-out 11,3% -, as well as the
indicators within the Strategy. These targets for public policies are adopted, disparately.
without any correlation with the targets in the National Development Plan of Romania.
generating an 'inflation ' of plan of measures, strategies and sets of indicators difhcult to
meet or implement, as there is no basic needs assessment, at the level of 2011/2012.

I 'i. 201 2

Conclusions

In Romania, in the last two decades, the public policies for the Roma social inclusion
were adopted mostly with the recommendation of the international organisations, mainly



20 (Betweett !ltcClfsiol\ and(&qc£usion

the European Union, as well as with support from the Roma civil society. rather than an
intemalised identified need of the policy makers.

The adopted public policies were implemented and revised without a correlation with
the needs assessement. without the impact measurement, or any correlation with the
demograpic trends nor statistics as regards the Roma populations

Despite some policy measures in the fields of Education, Health, Employment, Ho-
using and Anti-discrimination. before the adoption of the first governmental strategy for
the improvement of Roma situation 2001-2010, these were inadequately budegeted nor
evaluated as regards their impact. Even though some policy measures have impacted
the Roma communities, especially in the lleld of access to education and health care.
the existing approaches weren't mainstreamed, while the funding was mostly ensured
through the European funding programmes. with limited sustainability. There are a series
of pilot projects funded in the last two decades, but few were transfered at the national
level. replicated and transformed into public policies, such as the cases of Roma health
mediators system and the School mediators for Roma communities.

The Action Plans of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015 and its measures as-
sumed by Romanian within this international initiative, were never implemented, being
adopted only on paper. The National Action Plans of the Decade were frequently over-
lapping on the plans of measures of the Strategy for the improvment of Roma situation
2001-201 0. strategy that was not properly budgeted nor assessd.

Starting with 2007. with the Romania's accession to the European Union. the Roma
inclusion issues dissapeared from the Romanian political agenda, in the absence of the
pressure ' of meeting the accession criteria of the European Union.

In the last 6 years, <( the Roma issues w, even though promoted on the public European
agenda, frequently in negative media campaigns, and related to the collective expulsions
of the Roma from Italy and France, they were promoted on the European institutions and
brough on the Member States' table.

The newly adopted strategy for the improvement of Roma situation (2011), should
be implemented in a different manner than the previous one. particularly as regards the
adequate budgetary allocation of the assumed measures. A baseline study is crucial for
the success of the new strategy, as the institutios responsible with its implementation will
not able to measure its progress ; an indepth analysis. in a large consultation with the
Roma civil society is essential for the success of the implementation of the strategy. There
is a need for sustainable efforts on behalf of the Romanian Government to harmonise the
existing policy measures. in view of adopting an integrating approach of the Roma issues
into the inclusive policies and the funding programmes associated to them.

I Beneficiar alProiectului"Constructia ;i tmplementarea unuiprogram doctoralinovator interdisciplinar
cu privire la problematica romilor" coflnantat de UE prin FondulSocial Europeans ProgramulOperationa
Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane zoo7-20a3.
2 Detailed information at: www.rroma.ro
3 HG no. 43o/zoz\ Off\dal Gazette of Romania, na. 252 Of x6 May 200a.
4 Cam\s\a Europeans. zoom. Rapoa d€ monttorizare a stadiului preg&t+ri+ Rom&niei ii Buigariei pentru
statute/ de membru Uf. (Comunicare a Comisiei Europene)



noiem6fte 2012 ?erspective poGttice 2]

5 Decade Watch. Results of the zoom survey. Available at: www.romadecade.org
6 Decade Watch Romania Report zola; Mid Term Evaluation of the Decade of Roma Inclusion
Available at: http://www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/Decades%20Watch%2020io/Decade%20
Watch%zoRomania%zoReport%zozoto%20EN .pdf
7 Communication on the social and economic integration of Roma in Europe. COCA {zolo)l33
8 Progress Report on the implementation of the EU instruments and policiesjor Roma inclusion zoom-zazo
(Commission Staff Working Document), SEC(zola)4oo
g Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/u/suo/stio658.enn.pdf
zo Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/u/stop/stoooz3.enn.pdf
zz Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?u ri=CELEX;5zouDCoi73:en:NOT
xz Romanian Government's Strategyjor the inclusion ajthe Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma
minority, jor the period 2012-2020, Official Gazette of Romania, Part 1, no. 6 of 4 January 20i2

Bibliography

Anderson. James E. x994. Pu&//c Po/f(ymakfng. .4n /ntroduct/on. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Lowe, Theodore J. tg64. American Business. Public Policy, Case Studies, and PoliticaITheory. World
Po/itl'cs. XVI(July): 667-7i5
John. Peter. i998. Analysing Pu611c Policy. London: Continuum.
Dunn. William N. zoo8. Public PolicyAna{)ufs; '4n /ntroduct/on. New Jersey: Pearson Education