Peter Jorna - pjorna@xs4all.nl – Consultancy Social Inclusion, Roma & Sinti Issues, March 2015 page 1/1

Dutch Approach redefined? The Netherlands close to finish process of reshuffling Roma & Sinti policies

The (re)design of the Dutch framework of Roma & Sinti related policies will be coming to a close after five years of reshuffling and pilots. A period in which grass roots organisations disappeared while new ones continue to pop up, familiar institutes closed down and other ones commissioned with new tasks and budgets. The current picture reveals new stakeholders relating these policies, such as the Netherlands Centre for Social Development Movisie, the Verwey Jonker research Institute and a brand new Advisory Committee Participation and Emancipation Sinti and Roma.

In 2009, the ministry for Integration initiated this enduring process, by ruling out existing Roma and Sinti tasks from the then existing structure as carried out by the FORUM institute for multicultural affairs (1994-2014). These specific tasks were transferred to a governmentally organised flagship-to-be, the Netherlands Institute Sinti and Roma, an experiment which was short lived (2010-2012). Since then, the ministry of Welfare -responsible for the post-War Compensation Fund installed in 2000- subsequently consulted Sinti and Roma key persons carefully, trying to be sensitive on lessons learned, bottle necks and future plans. And, of course, taking the Dutch Approach into account, as elaborated by other departments . Since 2011, the ministry of Safety and Justice takes the lead in a tough Dutch Approach towards Roma with a program called the ‘Combat of Roma child exploitation (by Roma)’, serving also as national input to the EU Framework Social Inclusion of Roma Communities (2010-2020). Pilots were implemented on municipal level (2011-2013), with a focus on those Roma having settled in during the seventies of the 20th century and still facing multi-problems (approximately 3.000 Roma in ten municipalities). In 2014 the government decided to disseminate and mainstream these local experiments nationally. To this end, 1.5 million Euro is allocated for three years (2014-2016). Institutions and municipalities dealing with Roma multi problem families have been invited to come up with proposals. Issues here are school dropout, early marriage and criminality, and – now more than ever - dialogue and participation with the population concerned. Meanwhile a restart is foreseen of the Compensation Fund, to be implemented this time by an Advisory Committee Participation and Emancipation, in which five Sinti and Roma will take seat, assisted by a secretariat-light. Its main function is to advise the minister of Welfare on projects, which time frame depends on the flow of the budget (a remaining sum of 4.5 million Euro) and the quality of the initiatives submitted. In the aims and fields agreed upon lies its strength: the way forward on education, employment, (social) environment, anti-discrimination, advocacy, mediation and culture. Finally, the Dutch government commissioned two mainstream institutes to include Sinti and Roma issues. Their working budgets are kept separately from the above mentioned Post-War Compensation Fund and are to be multiplied by fundraising in Europe. With regards to the monitoring for the EU the government transferred the Monitoring Sinti and Roma Inclusion from Movisie to another –scientific- institute linked to the Erasmus University Rotterdam, in order to guarantee independency. The Second Monitor will be developed and carried out soon, as next EC Justice Assessment of Member States is foreseen in 2016. All in all, the framework takes shape all right, but the proof of the ‘pudding’ will be in the eating. Through this large ‘window of opportunities’ also challenges are observable, inside the Advisory Committee and outdoors too. In house there is the target group, that is: its boundaries set. The government opted for a broad definition of the population eligible for project proposals (‘all Dutch Sinti and Roma’) as compared to the restricted one initially held (‘presence in the Netherlands shortly after World War Two’). Not included in this target population are Travellers (approximately 23.000 inhabitants of the country). Will Sinti and Roma be able to deal with the fact that the target /eligible population has been doubled, from 4.500 to approximately 8.000 Roma and Sinti, spread over about fifty municipalities? Also questionable, outside the Commission, is the compatibility of both streams of policies, projects and funds whose origins are perceived by Roma and Sinti as constructive respectively repressive . Finally, some food for thought. Firstly, as long as local authorities continue to approach top down progress will be hard to make. Secondly, a Committee composed by individuals advising one ministry and only on projects, runs the risk of being trapped by clientelism, reproducing previous failures at high costs. Thirdly, the framework designed so far misses a link and key element: a genuine ‘National Platform’ of the main parties at stake: public authorities, civil society organisations including Sinti, Roma and Travellers grass roots. It would be recommendable to the Netherlands to learn from courageous experiences with such consultative structures in Finland and, recently, Germany. Countries which usually inspire us in many aspects.