COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical document accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation and its accompanying proposal for a revised Council recommendation on national Roma strategic frameworks for equality, inclusion and participation
Date: 2020-10-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: Roma, access to education, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, health policy, housing, job access, marginalisation, rights of minorities, social integration, social services

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.10.2020  SWD(2020) 530 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analytical document  accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL A Union of Equality:         EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation and its accompanying proposal for a revised Council recommendation on national Roma strategic frameworks for equality, inclusion and participation  {COM(2020) 620 final} - {COM(2020) 621 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................... 2 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6 

POLITICAL, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT ........................................................................ 6 

2.1.  Political, legal and economic context ................................................................ 6 
2.2.  Aligning EU funds and policy ......................................................................... 10 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................. 14 

3.1.  What are the problems? ................................................................................... 14 
3.2.  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 19 

4.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 23 

4.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 23 
4.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 23 
4.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 24 

5. 

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .............................................................................................. 25 

6.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 25 

6.1.  General objectives ........................................................................................... 25 
6.2.  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 25 

7. 

POLICY OPTIONS AND FINAL POLICY CHOICE ....................................................................... 26 

7.1.  Policy options considered for this initiative .................................................... 26 
7.2.  Description  of  the  policy  options  and  their  key  advantages  and 

disadvantages ................................................................................................... 27 

7.3.  Additional  considerations  regarding  the  policy  choice  and  retained 

option ............................................................................................................... 37 

8.  OTHER METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION ............................................................................ 38 

8.1.  Expected Impacts ............................................................................................. 38 
8.2.  Reflecting  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and 
related  needs  of  marginalised  Roma  communities  in  the  post-2020 
initiative ........................................................................................................... 40 
8.3.  Targets and monitoring .................................................................................... 44 

9. 

INTERVENTION LOGIC FOR EX-POST EVALUATION ............................................................. 46 

ANNEX 1: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................... 48 

ANNEX 2. BASELINES FOR EU HEADLINE INDICATORS ................................................................. 60 

ANNEX 3. EU MAINSTREAMING AND FUNDING INITIATIVES ...................................................... 74 

1 

 
 
GLOSSARY 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AI 

CCME 

CEU 

CoE 

COMECE 

CPR 

CRR 

CSRs 

DG 

DG AGRI 

DG CNECT 

DG COMM 

DG EAC 

DG ECFIN 

DG EMPL 

DG ENV 

DG ESTAT 

DG HOME 

DG HR 

DG JRC 

DG JUST 

DG MOVE 

DG NEAR 

Amnesty International  

Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe 

Central European University 

Council of Europe 

Commission  of  the  Bishops’  Conferences  of  the 
European Community 

Common Provisions Regulation 

Centre for Reproductive Rights 

Country Specific Recommendations 

Directorate-General  

DG Agriculture 

DG  Communications  Network,  Content 
Technology 

and 

DG Communication 

DG Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 

DG Economic and Financial Affairs 

DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 

DG Environment 

DG European Statistics 

DG Migration and Home Affairs 

DG Human Resources and Security 

DG Joint Research Centre 

DG Justice and Consumers 

DG Mobility and Transport 

DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 

DG REFORM 

DG for Structural Reform Support 

2 

 
DG REGIO 

DG RTD 

DG SANTE 

DG SG 

DG SJ 

EAPN 

EaSI 

EEAS 

EC 

ECMI 

EEB 

EESC 

EFC 

EFTA 

ENAR 

ENS 

EP 

EPHA 

EPSCO 

DG Regional and Urban Policy 

DG Research and Innovation 

DG Health and Food Safety 

DG Secretariat General 

DG Legal Service 

European Anti-Poverty Network 

Employment and Social Innovation Programme 

European External Action Service 

European Commission 

European Centre for Minority Issues 

European Environmental Bureau 

European Economic and Social Committee 

European Foundation Centre 

European Free Trade Association 

European Network Against Racism 

European Network on Statelessness 

European Parliament 

European Public Health Organisation 

Employment,  Social  Policy,  Health  and  Consumer 
Affairs Council 

EQUINET 

ERDF 

European Network of Equality Bodies 

European Regional Development Fund 

ERGO Network 

European Roma Grassroots Organisations Network 

ERIAC 

ERIO 

ERRC 

ERTF 

ESF 

European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture 

European Roma Information Office 

European Roma Rights Centre 

European Roma and Travellers Forum 

European Social Fund 

3 

 
ESF+ 

European Social Fund Plus 

ESIF/ESI Funds 

European structural and investment funds 

ETUCE 

EU-MIDIS 

EURoma 

FEANTSA 

fn 

FRA 

FSG 

Habitat 

IPA 

ISG 

ISSA 

IRU 

MFF 

NEETs 

NGO(s) 

NRCP(s) 

NRIS 

ODIHR 

OHCHR 

OPC 

OPRE 

OSCE 

OSF 

European Trade Union Committee for Education 

European  Union  Minorities  and  Discrimination 
Survey 

European  network  on  social  inclusion  and  Roma 
under structural funds 

European  Federation 
working with the homeless 

  of  National  Organisation 

Footnote 

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 

Fundación Secretariado Gitano 

Habitat for Humanity 

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 

Inter-service Group (EC internal) 

International Step-by-Step Association 

International Romani Union 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Not in employment, education or training 

Non-governmental organisation(s) 

National Roma contact point(s) 

National  Roma  integration  strategies  and  integrated 
sets of policy measures 

OSCE Offices for Democratic Institutions and Human 
Rights 

United  Nations  Human  Rights  Office  of  the  High 
Commissioner 

Open public consultation 

Operational Platform for Roma Equality 

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe 

Open Society European Policy Institute 

4 

 
Phiren Amenca 

Phiren Amenca International Network 

RAA 

RED 

REDI 

REF 

ternYpe 

UNDP 

UNICEF 

UNSG 

WHO 

Roma Active Albania 

Racial Equality Directive 

Roma Entrepreneurship Development Initiative 

Roma Education Fund 

ternYpe International Roma Youth Network 

United Nations Development Programme 

United Nations Children’s Fund 

United Nations Secretary-General 

World Health Organization 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  document  accompanies  the  EU  Roma  strategic  framework  for  equality,  inclusion 
and  participation  2021-2030  and 
for  a  Council 
Recommendation  on  national  Roma  strategic  frameworks  for  equality,  inclusion  and 
participation - as adopted by the Commission on 6 October 2020.  

the  Commission  proposal 

As  set  out  in  the  roadmap  for  the  initiative1,  no  impact  assessment  was  carried  out. 
Instead,  this  document  serves  to  explain  the  chosen  policy  approach,  the  consultation 
activities carried out and the intervention logic. The expected impacts strongly depend on 
the level of commitment to Roma equality and inclusion that Member States agree to in 
the  Council  recommendation  and  the  national  Roma  strategic  frameworks  put  in  place 
thereafter. The initiative aims to raise commitment by proposing a portfolio of indicators 
with associated measures and targets for Member States to include in their national Roma 
strategic  frameworks  according  to  the  specific  situation  of  their  Roma  communities,  as 
evidenced  by  data  (wherever  available).  Nonetheless,  an  impact  assessment  cannot 
predict the level of ambition to which Member States are willing to commit. In addition, 
besides 
the  general  challenges  of  quantifying  and  monetising  equality,  non-
discrimination and respect for fundamental rights, carrying out an impact assessment in 
the area of Roma equality and inclusion faces serious limitations in terms of ethnic data 
collection in the Member States.  

2.  POLITICAL, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT 

2.1.  Political, legal and economic context 

The  ‘EU  Framework  for  national  Roma  integration  strategies  up  to  2020’  (‘the  (EU) 
Framework’)  –  adopted  by  the  Commission2  on  5  April  2011  is  ending.  Its  main 
objectives  were  to  tackle  the  socio-economic  exclusion  of  Roma3  in  the  EU  and 
enlargement countries by promoting their equal access to education, employment, health 
and  housing4.  The  Framework  invited  Member  States  to  design  national  Roma 
integration strategies and set achievable national goals to meet four EU Roma integration 
goals: 

1. Ensure that all Roma children complete, as a minimum, primary school education. 
2. Cut the employment gap between Roma and the rest of the population. 
3. Reduce the gap in health status between the Roma and the rest of the population. 
4. Close the gap between the share of Roma with access to housing and to public utilities 
(such as water, electricity, and gas) and that of the rest of the population. 

1   This  package  of  Communication  and  proposal  for  a  Council  Recommendation  is  referred  to  as  ‘the 

initiative’ or ‘the (EU) strategic framework’ throughout this document. 

2   COM(2011) 173 final. 
3   The term ‘Roma' is used as an umbrella term to refer to a number of different groups e.g. Roma, Sinti, 
Kale,  Romanichels,  Boyash/Rudari,  Ashkali,  Egyptians,  Yenish,  Eastern  groups  (Dom,  Lom  and 
Abdal).  It  includes  Travellers,  the  populations  designated  under  the  administrative  term  ‘Gens  du 
voyage’ as well as people who identify themselves as Gypsies, Tsiganes or Tziganes without denying 
the specificities within these groups. The term also refers to those perceived as being Roma irrespective 
of their origin. 

4   For  the  enlargement  region  (Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  North  Macedonia,  Kosovo*, 

Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey), a fifth goal, access to civil documentation, was added. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
For the enlargement region, the Framework included the Commission’s commitment to 
help the region to improve the inclusion of Roma under the Instrument for Pre-Accession 
(IPA),  strengthen  the  involvement  of  civil  society,  and  closely  monitor  progress  in  the 
framework of the enlargement process. 

In  2013,  Member  States  adopted  the  Council  Recommendation5  on  effective  Roma 
integration  measures  in  the  Member  States,  reinforcing  the  EU  Framework  and 
constituting 
targeting  Roma.  The 
Recommendation:  

instrument  explicitly 

the  first  EU  soft 

law 

  provided  guidance  to  Member  States  to  make  their  measures  for  Roma  integration 
more  effective  and  strengthen  implementation  of  their  National  Roma  Integration 
Strategies (NRIS); 
recommended  that  Member  States  take  effective  policy  measures  to  ensure  equal 
treatment for Roma, including equal access to education, employment, healthcare and 
housing; indicated specific measures allowing for  each of the four goals — ensuring 
equal access to education, employment, healthcare and housing — to be met; 

 

  set  out  that  these  goals  could  be  achieved  either  through  mainstream  or  targeted 
measures, including specific ones to prevent or compensate for disadvantages, or by a 
combination of both, paying special attention to the gender dimension; 
reinforced the focus on anti-discrimination, referring explicitly to antigypsyism, and 
extended the work on Roma integration to new horizontal and structural areas beyond 
employment, education, health and housing;  

 

  called  on  Member  States  to  combat  all  forms  of  discrimination,  including  multiple 
discrimination,  faced  by  Roma  children  and  women,  and  fight  violence,  including 
domestic  violence,  against  women  and  girls,  trafficking  in  human  beings,  underage 
and  forced  marriages,  and  begging  involving  children,  in  particular  through  the 
enforcement of legislation; and 

  called  on  Member  States  to  communicate  to  the  Commission  on  an  annual  basis, 
starting  from  2016,  the  measures  taken  in  line  with  the  Recommendation  and 
progress achieved in implementing the strategies6. 

The  Western  Balkan  partners  endorsed  the  processes  launched  by  the  2011  EU 
framework  for  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies  and,  with  the  support  of  the 
European  Commission  and  of  the  Regional  Cooperation  Council,  took  part  in  National 
Roma  Integration  Strategies,  annual  reporting  on  its  implementation,  Roma  Country 
Seminars, National Platforms, Roma surveys, and established National Contact Points. In 
doing so, they have gone beyond their initial commitments and have demonstrated their 
capacity to align with requirements initially intended only for EU Member States. 

The  Western  Balkans  partners,  similarly  to  the  EU  Member  States  Semester  process, 
present  annual  Economic  Reform  Programmes  (ERP),  including  reforms  to  boost 
competitiveness  and  improve  conditions  for  inclusive  growth  and  job  creation.  ERPs 
report on social inclusion, poverty reduction and equal opportunities, including Roma.  
Council  Conclusions  of  8 December  20167  asked  the  Commission  ‘to  carry  out  a  mid-
term evaluation of the EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020 
and to propose a post 2020 strategy on Roma integration, and include therein a proposal 

5   EPSCO Council Recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the 

Member States. 

6   The Western Balkan governments and Turkey started their annual reporting as of 2017. 
7   Council Conclusions (EPSCO) of 8 December 2016: Accelerating the Process of Roma Integration. 

7 

 
                                                           
for  a  revision  of  the  Council  Recommendation’.  The  Commission  carried  out  the  mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  Framework,  adopted  in  December  2018  a  report8  on  the 
evaluation  and  published  the  evaluation  Staff  Working  Document9.  The  table  below 
summarises the main findings of the mid-term evaluation. 

Table 1: Summary of the findings of the mid-term evaluation with assessment by evaluation criterion 

Evaluation criterion 

Overall assessment 

Detailed assessment 

RELEVANCE 

Positive with 
limitations 

EFFECTIVENESS 

Limited regarding 
progress towards 
Roma integration 
goals 

Positive regarding 
coordination 

Positive at EU level 

COHERENCE  

&  

Limited at national 
level 

EFFICIENCY 

& 

Limited regarding 
reported and 
monitoring systems 

Four priority areas were and remain key 
Some shortcomings in initial design 
Positive for equity between Roma and non-Roma 
Negative for not targeting specific subgroups among Roma 
Some progress towards the education goal 
No progress towards the employment goal 
Limited progress towards the health goal 
No progress towards the housing goal 
Positive regarding EU-level governance 
Positive at EU and national level in promoting cooperation 
Limited alignment of NRIS and capacity of NRCPs despite 
some improvements 
Coherence between EU framework and several EU policy, 
funding and legal instruments (Europe 2020, ESIF, 
antidiscrimination legislation, enlargement) 

Variable mainstreaming into other policy instruments 
(insufficient, for example, under the European Pillar of Social 
Rights, Youth Guarantee) 

Insufficient mainstreaming into national public policies 
NRIS contributed to fighting discrimination, hate speech and 
hate crime in some MS, while their contribution was minor in 
others. 
National funding allocated to the extent required by co-
financing of ESIF. Limitations in implementation and 
alignment of ESIF with Roma integration goals. 
Reporting developed gradually, focusing on measures rather 
than results. Weaknesses to be addressed. 
Comparable data for several, but not all Member States 
Civil monitoring by coordinated NGO coalitions piloted 
since 2017 

Costs and benefits not conclusively evaluable, quantifiable and attributable. While 
costs are short- to mid-term, the majority of potential benefits are long-term. 

EU ADDED VALUE 

Positive 

Political 
Governance 
Financial 
Limited sustainability requires continued EU engagement 

Assessment categories:     very positive   /   positive      limited       negative      very negative      unsorted 

The  evaluation  demonstrated  that  the  Framework’s  ambition  of  ‘putting  an  end  to  the 
exclusion  of  Roma’  had  not  been  achieved.  The  Commission’s  evaluation  report 
concluded, inter alia, ‘the evaluation has shown that the EU Framework is the beginning 
of  a  process  that,  despite  many  limitations  and  taking  into  account  the  massive  task 
involved, has shown positive results and an initial change in trends’. This clearly showed 
its  EU  added  value,  in  particular  by  placing  Roma  inclusion  high  on  EU  and  national 
agendas  and  mobilising  EU  policy,  legal  and  funding  instruments.  Without  it,  Roma 
inclusion  would  have  received  lower  political  commitment,  less  financial  support  and 
attention at  national levels.  It also  underlined that  ‘while the initial  phase has  achieved 

8   COM(2018) 785 final. 
9   SWD(2018) 480 final. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
some tangible, albeit insufficient results, the evaluation submits that the overall process 
be  strengthened  and  become  better  focused,  with  an  emphasis  on  improved  political 
commitment,  the  introduction  of  specific  measurable  targets  and  rigorous  monitoring, 
and  more  effective  implementation  supported  by  sufficient  funding  and  participatory 
governance systems’.  

Since the finalisation of the evaluation,  the Council, the European Parliament  (EP) and 
EU-level  and  national  civil  society  organisations  have  all  called  on  the  Commission  to 
propose a strengthened EU Roma policy initiative for post-202010. In February 2019, the 
European  Parliament  adopted  a  Resolution11  on  ‘the  need  for  a  strengthened  post-2020 
Strategic EU framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies and stepping up the fight 
against  anti-Gypsyism’.  The  Resolution  calls  on  the  Commission  ‘to  act  on  the  calls 
made  by  Parliament,  the  Council  and  numerous  NGOs  and  experts  and  propose  a 
Strategic EU Framework on National Roma Inclusion Strategies for the post-2020 period 
(…)’.  

In  September  2019,  to  enable  better  and  informed  policy  making,  the  Commission 
adopted  the  2019  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  National  Roma  Integration 
Strategies,  focusing  on  lessons  learnt  from  the  implementation  of  Roma  inclusion 
measures and national strategies12. 

In October 2019, EPSCO13 adopted Council Conclusions on the Economy of Wellbeing14 
inviting the Commission to ‘RENEW the commitment on Roma inclusion by developing 
new  policy  initiatives,  including  the  adoption  of  a  post-2020  European  Framework 
Strategy’15.  Detailed  information  about  the  contributions  from  EU-level,  national  and 
local  civil  society  organisations  is  included  in  Annex  1  summarising  stakeholder 
consultations. 

Reacting  to  these  calls  in  January  2020,  the  Commission  included  a  new  initiative  on 
Roma  equality  and  inclusion  in  the  ‘Strong  Social  Europe  for  Just  Transitions’ 
Communication16  and  its  Work  Programme17  for  2020  and  published  a  roadmap.  The 
adjusted Work Programme for 2020 reconfirmed this initiative18. Additionally beneficial 
for the new initiative is also the context created by the European Green Deal19. With its 
potential to reshape profoundly Europe’s political landscape, governance and economy, it 
requires  environmental,  climate  and  social  transitions,  guided  by  the  goal  of  reducing 
inequalities. 

10   See in particular calls from the Parliament, the Council and civil society organisations.   
11   The  resolution  called  on  the  Commission  ‘to  act  on  the  calls  made  by  Parliament,  the  Council  and 
numerous NGOs and experts and propose a Strategic EU Framework on National Roma’. One should 
note  that  the  EP  Resolution  did  not  ask  for  a  specific  antigypsysim  initiative  but  ‘to  place  the  fight 
against anti-Gypsyism at the heart of the Strategic EU Framework, including by adding a specific anti-
discrimination goal, along with other goals (…)’. 

12   COM(2019) 406 final, SWD(2019) 320 final. 
13   Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council.  
14   The  Council  Conclusions;  which  invite  the  Commission  to  ‘RENEW  the  commitment  on  Roma 
inclusion  by  developing  new  policy  initiatives,  including  the  adoption  of  a  post-2020  European 
Framework Strategy’. 

15   See also the European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 on the implementation of National 
Roma Integration Strategies: combating negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in 
Europe (P9_TA(2020)0229). 

16   COM(2020) 14 final. 
17   COM(2020) 37 final. 
18   COM(2020) 440 final. 
19   COM(2019) 640 final. 

9 

 
                                                           
The  COVID-19  pandemic  demonstrated  the  extreme  exposure  of  excluded  and 
marginalised  Roma  communities  to  both  short-term  negative  health  and  fundamental 
right  impacts  and  mid-term  socio-economic  impacts,  and  the  urgent  need  for  a  more 
efficient and comprehensive policy response with guidance from the European level. The 
use  of  restrictive  measures  in  the  legitimate  aim  of  protecting  public  health  in  some 
Member States reinforced discrimination and violence against marginalised Roma20. The 
spread of fake news, the improper narratives of political figures and ethnicisation of the 
issue in the media, portraying Roma living in settlements or ghettoes as a public threat or 
their use as scapegoats accentuated fear and hate against the Roma21.  

When  it  comes  to  the  EU  legal  framework,  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  prohibits 
discrimination  including  harassment  based  on  racial  or  ethnic  origin22.  The  Charter  of 
fundamental rights of the EU prohibits discrimination on any grounds including on race 
and ethnic origin and ensures the protection of the rights of the child23. In addition, the 
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA obliges Member States to  criminalise hate 
speech  and  hate  crime,  including  against  Roma24,  while  Directive  2012/29/EU 
establishes  minimum  standards  on  the  rights,  support  and  protection  of  victims  of 
crime25,  paying  particular  attention  to  victims  who  have  suffered  from  biased  or 
discrimination-motivated crimes. The Audio-visual Media Services Directive calls upon 
the Member States to ensure that audio-visual media services do not contain incitement 
to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of a group based on 
any of the  grounds  referred to  in  Article 21 of the EU Charter, which include race and 
ethnic origin26. 

2.2.  Aligning EU funds and policy 

The EU’s main instrument of investment in people and implementation of the European 
Pillar of Social Rights, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) shall support, complement 
and  add  value  to  Members  States’  policies  to  ensure  equal  opportunities,  access  to  the 
labour  market,  fair  working  conditions,  social  protection  and  inclusion.  In  particular, 
Principle  1  on  quality  and  inclusive  education,  Principle  3  on  equal  opportunities, 
Principle 4 on active support to employment, Principle 19 on access to adequate housing, 
and Principle 20 on access to essential services should serve as a basis for programming 
both mainstream and targeted measures.  

20   In  a  press  release  of  8  April  2020,  FRA  presented  their  report  Coronavirus  pandemic  in  the  EU: 
Fundamental Rights Implications, which looks at the measures across 27 EU Member States to address 
the  pandemic  during  February  and  March  2020.  The  UN  SG  policy  brief Coronavirus  and  Human 
Rights:  We  are  all  in  this  together   touches  upon  the  hindered  enjoyment  of  human  rights  for 
marginalised communities, revealing underlying structural inequalities; see pp 11, 12. 

21   Roma  and  (pro-)Roma  civil  society  organisations  came  together  and  drew  attention  to  the 
disproportionately  negative  impacts  of  the  coronavirus  outbreak  and  the  security  measures  associated 
with it; for details, see this ERGO report, OSF's brief on warning signs from six countries, and ENAR's 
interactive EU-wide map covering coronavirus negative impact on the fundamental rights of racialized 
groups (Roma included).  

22   Council  Directive  2000/43/EC  of  29  June  2000  implementing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  between 

persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22). 

23   OJ C 303, 14.12.2007, p. 17. 
24   OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. 
25   OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57. 
26   Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  of  14  November  2018  amending  Directive  2010/13/EU  (Audiovisual  Media 
Services  Directive)  (OJ  L  303,  28.11.2018,  pp  69–92).  The  Directive  also  strives  that  Member  States 
ensure  that  media  service  providers  do  not  include  or  promote  discrimination  based  on,  among  others, 
racial or ethnic origin. 

10 

 
                                                           
Support  for  Roma  communities  should  come  under  all  specific  objectives,  with  the 
ultimate  goal  of  inclusion  of  Roma  into  mainstream  education,  the  mainstream  labour 
market,  mainstream  healthcare,  mainstream  housing  and  essential  services  and 
mainstream  society  in  general.  Exclusion  of  Roma  from  the  specific  objectives  would 
constitute  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  ethnic  origin,  forbidden  by  the  Council 
Directive  2000/43/EC27.  The  principle  of  explicit  but  not  exclusive  targeting  requires 
guarantees  that  the  interventions  reach  Roma  but  also  other  marginalised  communities. 
The  aim  of  targeted  programmes  is  to  provide  additional  support  to  promote  effective 
equal access for Roma and other marginalised communities facing similar disadvantages 
to rights and mainstream services. 

The gravity of the individual challenges in each policy area and the interdependence of 
integrated  approach,  combining 
the  problems  calls  for  a  multi-dimensional 
investments  in  employment,  education,  healthcare  and  housing.  Within  these  policy 
areas,  ESF  investments  must  be  coherent  with  other  EU  funds  and  programmes, 
including  ERDF,  EAFRD,  InvestEU,  EaSI  and  the  new  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Facility.  Therefore,  Roma  inclusion  should  be  addressed  through  multiple  specific 
objectives by different funds in an integrated manner.  

Likewise,  outcomes-based  funding  from  the  relevant  facilities  and  any  of  the  available 
resources could  promote and support comprehensive and multi-focal  interventions. The 
latter have a preventative scope, seeking to intervene at the root cause level, involve local 
communities  in  the  co-design  and  co-production  of  projects,  promote  transparency  and 
accountability  for  results  achieved,  as  well  as  innovation  and  collaboration  of  involved 
stakeholders. 

In the case of marginalised groups including Roma, there is  a clear need of  reinforced 
administrative capacity at the local level, including capacity and capability building for 
local  authorities  and  grassroots  civil  society  organisations.  This  point  is  crucial  for 
effective  participative  planning,  ownership,  efficient  and  transparent  management  and 
sustainable implementation. 

2.2.1.  The 2014-2020 programming period 

The  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESI  Funds)  contributed  to  the 
implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) 
up to 202028. To increase the effectiveness of the funds, the Cohesion Policy regulatory 
framework included ex-ante conditionalities. Under the social inclusion objective, one of 
the  conditionalities  required  the  existence  of  a  national  Roma  integration  strategy. 
Generally, tangible and visible Roma inclusion measures  receive support by ESI Funds 
in  the 2014-2020 period responding to  the challenges identified. The  complex needs of 
Roma communities accounted for the promotion of an integrated approach, coordinating 
different  measures  supported  by  several  funding  streams,  such  as  the  European  Social 
Fund  (ESF),  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the  European 
Agricultural Funds for Rural Development (EAFRD) and others.  

The  ESF  played  a  significant  role  in  supporting  the  implementation  of  National  Roma 
Integration  Strategies  during  the  2014-2020  programming  period.  The  negotiations  of 

27   Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between 

persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22). 

28   COM(2011) 173 final. 

11 

 
                                                           
this period’s operational programmes paid particular attention to putting in place the right 
policy  framework  for  Roma  integration  as  well  as  securing  the  clear  correspondence 
between  the  Country  Specific  Recommendations  on  Roma  integration  and  ESF 
programming. The assessment of modifications to ESF operational programmes has also 
considered this.  

The 2014-2020 specific investment priority on Roma integration has allowed 10 Member 
States29, including those with a Country Specific Recommendation on Roma, to program 
more than €1.5 billion for the integration of marginalised communities, including Roma. 
In  addition,  the other ESF investment  priorities on social  inclusion as  well as the other 
thematic  objectives  on  employment  and  education  can  also  be  mobilised  in  favour  of 
Roma.  By  the  end  of  2019,  the  ESF  has  supported  3.9  million  participants  who  were 
migrants,  of  a  foreign  background  or  part  of  a  marginalised  community,  such  as  the 
Roma. 

However,  implementation  on  the  ground  is  lagging  behind,  with  big  gaps  between 
available  allocations  to  these  investment  priorities  and  selected  operations.  Concerning 
evaluation,  an  overarching  issue  highlighted  by  a  recent  study  is  the  lack  of  robust 
evidence on the impact of interventions. A rigorous implementation of a results-focused 
approach might improve investments on Roma inclusion. 

The ERDF financed several important Roma integration areas, such as access to inclusive 
(non-segregated)  early  childhood  education  and  care,  primary  education,  infrastructure 
developments in health and social services, support to regeneration of deprived urban and 
rural  areas,  and  non-segregated  housing  actions.  Overall,  €21.5  billion  ERDF  has  been 
allocated  to  measures  mentioned  above,  which  fall  under  the  growth  objective  in  the 
2014-2020 period.  

The  EAFRD  has  supported  the  basic  services  development  in  rural  areas  and  local 
bottom  up  initiatives  under  LEADER.  In  this  sense,  14  billion  euros  EARD  has  been 
allocated  to  those  measures  under  the  programming  period  2014-2020  under  the 
Common Agricultural Policy. 

Tackling  segregation  in  housing  and  education  is  a  complex  and  critical  issue, 
challenging for both ERDF and ESF measures. Taking into account these challenges, the 
Roma policy objectives and the EU anti-discrimination law provisions, the Commission 
prepared a guidance for Member States on the use of EU Funds in tackling educational 
and spatial segregation. Its aim is to help in designing calls to support building inclusive 
education  and  housing  measures  for  Roma,  and  in  response  to  the  infringement 
procedures launched against Czechia, Hungary, and Slovakia. Member States (Czechia, 
Hungary,  Romania)  receive  support  on  the  implementation  of  the  guidance  note  from 
contracted experts.  

Additionally, the 2014-2020 programming period saw a reinforcement of both the urban 
and  territorial  dimensions  of  the  Cohesion  Policy.  Accordingly,  several  Member  States 
prioritised  addressing  the  needs  of  people  living  in  disadvantaged  micro-regions  or 
segregated  neighbourhoods.  Hungary  and  Slovakia  launched  comprehensive  programs 
for  Roma.  They  targeted  Roma  communities  by  using  territorial  indicators  (e.g.  most 
deprived  micro-regions,  localities  with  high  density  of  Roma  people)  and  introduced 

29   BE, BG, CZ, EL, ES, FR, HU, IT, RO, and SK. 

12 

 
                                                           
complex measures. Romania used a newly introduced tool, i.e. the community-led local 
development, for Roma integration measures. 

The  IPA  II  programme  played  a  significant  role  in  supporting  the  implementation  of 
national Roma integration policies in the Western Balkans and Turkey during the 2014-
2020  period.  The  amount  of  funds  has  significantly  increased  compared  to  IPA  I, 
especially concerning regional projects. IPA financed a broad number of important Roma 
integration areas. Especially important has been the assistance in the fields of education, 
housing, local level and support to CSO. 

2.2.2.  The 2021-2027 programming period 

The  new  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  will  support  investments  and  reforms 
essential  to  a  lasting  recovery  and  foster  economic  and  social  resilience  and  social 
cohesion. In order to receive support, Member States will have to draw up recovery and 
resilience plans addressing the economic and social impacts of the crisis; the digital and 
in  Country  Specific 
green 
Recommendations  under  the  European  Semester.  Support  will  be  provided  in  several 
policy areas  (including those covered by the sectoral  objectives in  this framework)  and 
will take account of the effective inclusion of disadvantaged groups, including Roma. 

relevant  priorities 

transitions  and 

identified 

the 

In  the  Commission  proposals  for  the  2021-2027  Common  Provisions  Regulation 
(“CPR”)  and  ESF+  Regulation,  Article  6(1)  of  the  ESF+  proposal  ensures  that  all 
programmes  shall  promote  equal  opportunities  for  all,  without  discrimination  based  on 
sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation 
throughout  their preparation,  implementation,  monitoring and evaluation.  Paragraph (2) 
of  the  same  article  calls  on  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  support  specific 
targeted actions to promote equality and non-discrimination.  

Specific  objective  (viiia)  under  Article  4(1)  ESF+  refers  to  promoting  the  socio-
economic  integration  of  marginalised  communities,  such  as  the  Roma30.  This  specific 
objective  is  linked  to  the  thematic  enabling  condition  4.3.2  of  a  National  Roma 
Integration Strategy (Annex IV CPR), whose criteria have been identified based on the 
findings  of  the  2018  evaluation  of  the  EU  Framework  and  the  2019  report  on 
implementation at national level. The criteria to be met relate to: a) the need to prevent 
and  eliminate  segregation;  b)  reflecting  diversity  among  Roma  (gender  dimension, 
situation  of  Roma  youth);  c)  arrangements  for  monitoring,  evaluation  and  review  of 
Roma  inclusion  measures,  including  setting  a  baseline,  and  measurable  targets;  d) 
arrangements  for  mainstreaming  at  regional  and  local  level;  and  e)  arrangements  to 
ensure that design, implementation, monitoring and review is in cooperation with Roma 
civil  society  and  other  stakeholders.  Member  States  programming  under  specific 
objective (viiia) will have to ensure compliance with the thematic enabling condition on 
Roma. 

Specific  objective  (viiia)  will  also  count  towards  the  obligatory  thematic  concentration 
for all Member States related to social inclusion, as stated in Article 7(3) ESF+ proposal: 
‘Member  States  shall  allocate  at  least  25%  of  their  ESF+  resources  under  shared 
management  to  the  specific  objectives  for  the  social  inclusion  policy  area  set  out  in 
points  (vii)  to  (xi)  of  Article  4(1),  including  the  promotion  of  the  socio-economic 
integration of third country nationals’. 

30   Agreement in trilogue for splitting SO (viii) of Commission proposal. 

13 

 
                                                           
Moreover, to enhance the link with the European Semester, Article 7(2) ESF+ proposal 
includes an obligation that ‘Member States shall allocate an appropriate amount of their 
ESF+ resources  under shared management  to  address  challenges identified in  relevant 
country-specific recommendations adopted in accordance with Article 121(2) TFEU and 
Article 148(4) TFEU and in the European Semester falling within the scope of the ESF+ 
as set out in Article 4’. 

Therefore,  Member  States  with  challenges  in  the  field  of  Roma  inclusion  within  their 
Annex  D  and  Country  Specific  Recommendations  should  thoroughly  address  these 
through the ESF+. 

Concerning partnership, Article 8(1) of the ESF+ Regulation calls on Member States to 
ensure  adequate  participation  of  social  partners  and  civil  society  organisations  in  the 
delivery of employment, education and social inclusion policies supported by the ESF+ 
strand under shared management.  

Furthermore, according to Article 8(2), an appropriate amount of ESF+ resources under 
shared  management  must  be  allocated  in  each  programme  for  the  capacity  building  of 
social  partners  and  civil  society  organisations.  Therefore,  support  for  the  capacity 
building  of  civil  society  organisations, 
including  those  representing  Roma 
communities, remains a priority. The Code of conduct  on partnership remains in  force 
for  the  preparation  of  the  post-2020  programmes  and  throughout  all  the  stages  of 
implementation. 

The 2021-2027 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance will continue to support reforms 
and alignment with EU requirements at regional and national levels by the  enlargement 
countries. Additional  relevant EU funds, such as the Neighbourhood, Development and 
International Cooperation Instrument, may also be mobilised in the programming period 
2021-2027  to  support  socio-economic  inclusion,  equality  and  participation  of  Roma  in 
the neighbourhood region. 

Lastly, according to the draft CAP Strategic Plan regulation, the CAP specific objective 8 
will  be  dedicated  to  “promote  employment,  growth,  social  inclusion  and  local 
development in rural areas, including bio-economy and sustainable forestry’. 

3.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

3.1.  What are the problems? 

Despite the existence of policy, legal and funding frameworks at national and EU level, 
the marginalisation of Roma persists and many of the estimated 10-12 million Roma in 
Europe31  continue  to  face  inequalities,  socio-economic  exclusion,  antigypsyism32  and 
discrimination in their daily lives33.  

31   Council of Europe estimates were included as an Annex to COM(2011) 173 final; the estimated shares 
of Roma in EU countries range from 10.3% in Bulgaria, 9.1% in Slovakia, 8.3% in Romania, 7.5% in 
Hungary, 2.5% in Greece, 2% in the Czech Republic, 1.6% in Spain to less than 1% in most of the other 
countries (a large number of which living in remote rural territories). As regards the enlargement region, 
the CoE estimates range from 9.59% in North Macedonia, 8.18% in Serbia, 3.83% in Turkey, 3.18% in 
Albania, 2.95% in Montenegro, 1.47% in Kosovo to 1.09% in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Estimates for 
the Eastern Neighbourhood region range from approximately 2.49% in Moldova to less than 0.6% in the 
rest of the region. CoE does not provide any estimates for the Southern Neighbourhood region. 

14 

 
                                                           
There is a risk that the mid- to long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including 
adverse  socio-economic  impacts,  hit  the  most  rights-deprived  and  marginalised  Roma 
communities the hardest, contributing to further inequalities and discrimination34.  

Reducing inequalities and preventing their possible further increase because of the crisis, 
overcoming exclusion and discrimination, and achieving inclusive prosperity and equity 
require long-term commitments.  

Structural  changes  need  time  and  real  impact,  such  as  impact  resulting  from  the  better 
education  of  Roma  children,  which  may  not  become  visible  for  at  least  another 
generation. 

Too  many  Roma  face  extreme  poverty,  unemployment,  sub-standard  education  in 
segregated  schools  and  classes,  inadequate  housing,  poor  health  and  wellbeing.  Social 
exclusion  reinforces  resentment  against  Roma,  making  their  marginalisation  socially 
acceptable  and  bolstering  antigypsyism.  Roma  women,  in  particular,  continue  to  fare 
worse than Roma men and women in the general population in key areas such as health, 
education and employment35. Many Roma also face specific geographical vulnerabilities 
linked to rural remoteness. 

The  Roma  integration  indicators  scoreboard  (2011-2016)36  presents  changes  in  the 
situation  of  Roma  in  nine  EU  Member  States  as  recorded  by  two  surveys  of  the 
Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) carried out in 2011 and in 2016. It uses 18 indicators 
in  four  main  thematic  areas  (education,  housing,  employment  and  health)  and  the 
crosscutting  area of poverty.  For the Western  Balkans, surveys carried out  in  2011 and 
2017  followed  the  FRA  methodology37.  In  addition,  new  survey  data  for  five  Member 

32   Antigypsyism is a historically rooted structural phenomenon, which may appear at institutional, social 
and  interpersonal  level.  As  stated  by  ENAR,  it  is  ‘fuelled  by  deeply  rooted  negative  stereotyping  by 
mainstream  society’.  Despite  the  consensus  on  the  understanding  of  antigypsyism,  the  debate  on  the 
terminology is ongoing. The first official text  to speak of  ‘anti-Gypsyism/Romaphobia’ is considered 
the EP resolution on the situation of Roma in the EU adopted on 28 April 2005 (preamble paras C, R, 
decisions 3, 4, 8, 25). Subsequent resolutions employ the same terminology, e.g. EP resolution on the 
situation of Roma women in the EU adopted on 1 June 2006 (decision 22), EP resolution on a European 
strategy on the Roma adopted on 31 January 2008 (preamble para L, decision 4). For more evidence on 
the  use,  see  Michaël  Guet,  Speech  for  the  Anti-Discrimination  Workshop  under  the  Hungarian 
Presidency of the Decade for Roma Inclusion (Budapest, 16 April 2008) pp 1-4 (‘2008 speech’). The 
Commission  recognises  antigypsyism  and  uses  the  spelling  proposed  by  the  Alliance  against 
Antigypsyism,  while accepting that different  terms  might be appropriate  in national contexts. See the 
Commission’s Conclusions paper on Antigypsyism: increasing its recognition to better understand and 
address its manifestations, November 2017 and Jarmila Lajčáková, Marek Hojsík and Mirjam Karoly, 
Combatting  Antigypsyism,  Expert  report building  on  forward-looking  aspects  of  the  evaluation  of  the 
EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, January 2020.  

33   For detailed data describing the socio-economic situation of Roma, see SWD(2019) 320 and Annex 2 
with national baselines. For trends over time, see SWD(2017) 286 final/2 and SWD(2018) 480 final. 
34   See reports stemming from civil society organisations (fn 21) and from equality bodies alike. Notably, 
Equinet  published  an  online  data  explorer,  an  interactive  tool  giving  access  to  their  coronavirus 
database,  which  documents  national  equality  bodies’  responses  to  the  situation.  The  information, 
constantly  updated,  comprises  actions  taken,  statements  published,  and  complaints  received  in  the 
coronavirus context. 

35   FRA, Roma women in 9 EU Member States, 2019.  
36   SWD(2017) 286 final/2. 
37   For the situation in the Western Balkans enlargement countries, see World Bank analysis, the Regional 

Roma Survey Briefs and the RCC Balkan Barometer. 

15 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
States with a lower share of Roma communities38 confirmed the overall trends in socio-
demographic  situation  and  experiences  of  discrimination  identified  in  the  surveys 
covering Member States with larger Roma population.   

Overall, progress in Roma integration has been limited since the Framework’s adoption 
in  2011,  albeit  with  significant  differences  across  policy  areas  and  countries39.  While 
there  has  been  some  progress  in  education  and  health,  the  employment  and  housing 
conditions recorded no progress.  In education, the progress achieved between 2011 and 
2016  related  to  improvements  in  early  school-leaving,  early  childhood  education  and 
compulsory  schooling40.  However,  the  situation  with  respect  to  segregation  has  further 
deteriorated  and,  based  on  the  Racial  Equality  Directive,  the  Commission  has  initiated 
infringement  procedures  over  the  school  segregation  of  Roma  children  against  three 
countries41.  Roma  poverty  risk  and  self-perceived  health  status  has  improved  between 
2011 and 201642, but medical coverage continues to be limited43. Access to employment 
did not improve in any statistically significant way and the share of young Roma not in 
employment,  education  or  training  has  even  increased44.  The  housing  situation  remains 
difficult45.  Roma  women  and  children  continue  to  be  victims  of  violence,  including 
trafficking in human beings46. 

In  Western  Balkans,  the  regional  Roma  survey  data  of  2011  and  2017  show  that  little 
progress toward Roma inclusion was achieved in the five priority areas identified by the 
Commission:  education,  employment,  health,  housing  and  essential  services,  and 
documentation.  Notably,  data  show  a  substantial  deterioration 
in  labour  force 
participation  and  employment  across  Western  Balkans,  with  a  consequent  lack  of 
progress in narrowing the gaps relative to non-Roma neighbours. 

Discrimination and antigypsyism47 continue to contribute to severe disadvantages in all 
spheres  of  life,  despite  evidence  of  a  reduction  in  Roma’s  discrimination  experiences 
when  accessing  some  service  areas.  Roma  keep  facing  deep-rooted  negative  public 
perceptions  and  prejudice.  In  October  2019,  the  Commission  released  the  most  recent 

38   BE, FR, IE, NL, and SE. The Roma and Travellers Survey was conducted in 2019. Its first results are 
feeding the  national baseline  data  included in  Annex 2. See  FRA (2020),  Roma and Travellers in six 
countries. 

39   SWD(2017)  286  final/2  and  SWD(2018)  480.  Additionally,  the  report  on  the  implementation  of 
national Roma integration strategies includes an assessment of the situation in EU Member States and 
enlargement countries; see COM(2019) 406 final and SWD(2019) 320 final. 

40   The share of early school leavers dropped from 87% to 68%, attendance of early childhood education 
increased  from  47%  to  53%,  while  the  percentage  of  compulsory-schooling-age  children  attending 
education  jumped  from  86%  to  90%;  based  on  SWD(2017)  458  final—  FRA  Roma  integration 
scoreboard. 
41   CZ, SK, and HU. 
42   The rate of poverty risk dropped from 86% to 80% accompanied by  a dramatic increase in the health 

status perceived as (very) good from 55% to 68%. See ibid.  

43   Medical insurance coverage rates recorded no significant changes,  fluctuating from 76% to 74%. See 

ibid. 

44   As an example, 63% of young Roma were NEET (not in education, employment or training) in 2016 as 

opposed to 56% in 2011. Ibid. 

45   For  instance,  the  share  of  people  living  in  households  without  tap  water  reached  30%  in  2016  (i.e. 
remained at roughly the same level as in 2011, that is, 29%). Similarly, no changes occurred in the case 
of those living in households without basic sanitary facilities,  with percentages staying at roughly the 
same level in 2016 (38%) as in 2011 (36%), ibid. 

46   For  example,  COM(2019)  406  final;  SWD(2019)  320  final,  SWD(2018)  473  final,  SWD(2018)  480 
final,  EESC  opinion:  The  situation  of  Roma  women  (Exploratory  opinion  from  the  European 
Parliament) SOC/585-EESC-2018.  

47   See fn 32, fn 57 and section 7.2.2. 

16 

 
                                                           
Eurobarometer  survey  results48  on  the  perception  of  Roma  in  the  general  population, 
following up Eurobarometer surveys in 2012 and 2015. The results reveal that acceptance 
of Roma in different spheres of life has improved. Sixty-four percent of Europeans (10 
percentage  points  more  than  four  years  before)  would  feel  comfortable  working  with  a 
Roma  colleague  and  48%  (nine  percentage  points  more  than  four  years  before)  would 
welcome Roma as the partner of their children. There are however significant differences 
between  the  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  61%  of  the  respondents  feel  that 
discrimination against Roma is widespread in their country, with this ground considered 
as  more  widespread  than  any  other  is.  Only  19%  (albeit  seven  percentage  points  more 
than  in  2012)  of  the  respondents  think  their  country's  efforts  to  integrate  its  Roma 
population are effective.  
Data  from  the  2019  Balkan  Barometer49  issued  by  the  Regional  Cooperation  Council 
reveal that although there is an overall minor, but positive trend since 2017 towards the 
inclusion of Roma into Western Balkan societies, Roma in the Western Balkans remain 
victims of negative socio-economic biases and continue to profit from fewer affirmative 
actions than other minorities in the societies. Approximately 75% of the Western Balkans 
populations respond positively towards working or doing business with Roma while 20% 
would  feel  comfortable  welcoming  Roma  as  a  partner  or  a  partner  of  their  children. 
However, about 66% express a feeling of discomfort when faced with this latter scenario. 

Furthermore,  the  unprecedented  COVID-19  outbreak  came  to  widen  the  longstanding 
exclusion,  poverty  and  discrimination  against  Roma50.  In  response  to  the  crisis,  some 
Member  States51  and  the  enlargement  countries  put  in  place  both  mainstream  and 
targeted  emergency  and  preventive  measures  to  protect  their  population,  including 
marginalised  Roma  communities. However,  several  emergency  measures,  such  as  hand 
washing with warm water, proved a challenge for the 30% of Roma living in households 
with  no  tap  water.  Compliance  with  personal  hygiene  recommendations  was  also 
questionable, as 40% of Roma lack sanitary facilities in their dwellings. In some Member 
States, up to 80% of Roma live in cramped, overcrowded neighbourhoods, which made 
physical  distancing,  a  key  element  of  preventive  public  health  measures,  next  to 
impossible52. In remote rural territories, Roma face even more disadvantages: isolation, 
high concentration of poor people and lack of population diversity, absence of alternative 
solutions in case of unavailability of basic public services, high risk of exploitation and 
abuses. The lack of economic activity locally, the limits in municipality’s own margin of 
manoeuvre  (including  means,  political  will  or  competences),  and  insufficient  public 
transport prevents the population from benefitting from job and education opportunities 
in neighbouring urban centres. 

Additionally,  the  mid-term  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  pandemic  risk  engendering 
further  inequalities  for  the  Roma.  For  instance,  remote  learning  through  digital 
education is most often not accessible and/or affordable for marginalised Roma children, 
lacking  adequate  or  any  IT  equipment,  and/or  internet  connection  or  sometimes,  even 

48   Special Eurobarometer 493: Discrimination in the EU.  
49   2019 RCC Balkan Barometer. The Balkan Barometer has been issued annually since 2016. 
50   See fn 20. 
51   For  further  information  on  the  impact  and  the  measures  or  actions  undertaken  by  Member  States  to 
approach  the  coronavirus  crisis  with  respect  to  Roma  communities,  as  reported  by  National  Roma 
Contact Points and DG JUST’s civil society and partner organisations, see this overview report.  

52   According to data sourced from  FRA’s EU MIDIS II.  On a slightly more general scale, this  informal 
overview  is  a  work-in-progress  compilation  of  links  and  references  with  information  on  how  the 
coronavirus pandemic affected the health and well-being of migrants and members of ethnic minorities.  

17 

 
                                                           
electricity.  Absent  effective  targeted  support  measures,  inequalities  in  education  risk 
further  deepening.  In  addition,  due  to  the  containment  measures,  Roma  women’s 
disproportionate exposure to domestic violence and abuse heightened their vulnerability 
during the health crisis. 

Many  Roma  living  in  segregated  settlements  found  themselves  cut  from  any  source  of 
income  and  formal  or  informal  economic  activity,  leading  to  rising  unemployment  and 
poverty.  The  COVID-19  outbreak  halted  most  business  activities,  which  led  to  income 
and job losses. For the Roma working in Western European Member States in the highly 
insecure  non-formal  sector  (seasonal  jobs,  unregulated  contracts)  and  generally  lacking 
financial  buffers  (i.e.  savings),  the  consequences  were  dire.  The  loss  of  jobs  pushed 
waves  of  Roma  to  return  to  their  (predominantly  Eastern  European)  home  countries. 
Against a background of ineffective access to social protection, many Roma EU mobile 
workers saw themselves deprived of any social or unemployment benefits. Moreover, on 
top  of  the  current  experiences  of  discrimination  across  the  EU,  once  returned  at  home, 
they faced new instances of discrimination, which translated into heightened insecurity, 
online and offline hate comments, and scapegoating53.  
Overall, the difficulties Roma in Europe face can be summarised as follows: 

Rights 

o  Persisting  inequality  and  discrimination  (including  stereotypes,  hate 
speech,  scapegoating  of  Roma,  lack  of  recognition  by  the  majority 
population of such instances of discrimination) 

Equitable (re)distribution 

o  Insufficient  Roma  participation  in  quality  mainstream  (including  distant) 

education 

o  Insufficient  Roma  participation  in  paid,  quality  and  sustainable  (self-) 
employment, with high rates of Roma working in the informal sector  
o  Insufficient Roma access to adequate desegregated housing and essential 

services54  

o  Poor  Roma  health  and  insufficient  Roma  access  to  quality  health  and 

preventive services 

o  Inter-generational transmission of poverty and material deprivation among 

Roma 

o  Insufficient access to financial services 

Representation 

o  Lack of participation of Roma in policy- and decision-making (including 
lack  of  civic  engagement  and  electoral 

political  representation), 
participation 

53   A  collection  of  191  cases  gathered  from  media  and  NGO  reports  between  January  and  April  2020 
evidences violations of fundamental rights of racialized groups (including Roma) by country in a range 
of  key  areas  including  healthcare,  housing,  employment,  racist  violence  and  speech,  as  well  as  racial 
profiling  and  police  brutality.  For  details,  see  ENAR’s  interactive  EU-wide  map  with  related  key 
findings  and  UN  SG’s  policy  brief  (fn  20).  For  more  Roma-specific  evidence,  see  ERGO  report  and 
OSF's brief on warning signs from six countries. 

54   Such as tap water, adequate sanitation, waste collection- and management services, electricity, gas. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
3.2.  What are the problem drivers? 

Roma  exclusion  and  inequality  has  existed  for  centuries,  with  problem  drivers  often 
interrelated,  varying  according  to  specific  country  situations,  depending  on  external 
factors55 and needing comprehensive approaches. Problem drivers and hence the need for 
public  intervention  relate  to  behavioural  biases,  equity  (of  endowments,  process  and 
outcomes)56.  They  are  also  connected  to  governance/regulatory  problems  and  the  inter-
generational  transmission  of  poverty.  More  specifically,  the  problem  drivers  can  be 
grouped as follows: 

Related to behavioural biases 

  Antigypsyism, stereotypes and prejudice among the general public. These can 
be  due  to  a  number  of  co-existing  factors,57  such  as  the  portrayal  of  Roma  in 
education,  political  narratives  and  media,  coupled  with  a  general  lack  of 
knowledge and awareness (of the mutual benefits of Roma equality and inclusion 
and  the  challenges  of  exclusion  and  discrimination,  including  general  ignorance 
about slavery, deprivation of rights, persecution and Holocaust). Rising populism 
in  Europe  (further  exacerbated  in  times  of  crises,  like  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic,  which  saw  an  ethnicisation  of  the  issue  in  the  media)  also  plays  an 
important role58 

  As a result of such narratives and attitudes,  lack  of trust  among Roma towards 
mainstream  institutions  and  non-Roma59,  but  also  lack  of  rights  awareness  and 
underreporting of discrimination and hate crime 

  Stereotypes  and  prejudice  within  Roma  communities  (as  well  as  traditional 

expectations towards Roma women) 

Related to lack of equity60 as driver  

  Territorial  inequalities  related  to  lacking  basic  infrastructures  and  basic  services 

in some rural areas affecting also, but not only, Roma population 

  Specific  obstacles  to  equal  participation  in  education,  such  as  misdiagnosis  and 
misplacement of Roma children in special education or other forms of school and 
class  segregation,  including  unequal  or  no  access  to  online  and/or  distance 
learning 

  Specific  obstacles  to  equal  participation  in  vocational  training  and  employment, 
such  as 
ineffective  outreach  of  employment  services,  discrimination  by 
employers, overrepresentation of Roma  in parallel systems (such as public work 

55   Including the socio-economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. 
56   See Tool no. 14 of the Better Regulation Tool. 
57   For  a  detailed  analysis  on  the  multiple  facets  and  features  of  the  concept  and  phenomenon  of 
antigypsyism, which turn it into a specific form of racism requiring an adequate, distinctive approach, 
different  from  other  forms  of  racism,  see  section  7.2.2  (discussing  one  discarded  policy  option  of 
tackling antigypsyism within a wider EU anti-racism policy).  

58   This  report  points  to  several  instances  of  anti-Roma  rhetoric  employed  to  justify  taking  additional 
restrictive  measures in Roma  communities that did not apply to the rest of the population,  within the 
context  of  measures  to  fight  the  coronavirus  crisis.  For  more  information  on  the  fundamental  rights 
implications, see FRA's Bulletin.  

59   This  was  exacerbated  further  by  the  unequal  access  to  information  during  the  coronavirus  pandemic. 
Physical  segregation,  lack  of  education,  (digital)  illiteracy  and  lack  of  access  to  the  internet  deprived 
many  marginalised  Roma  of  timely  preventive  information  but  also  increased  mistrust  in  the 
authorities, leading to misinterpretation of and protests against confinement measures. 
60   For choice of terminology, see the Tool no. 14 of the Better Regulation Tool, pp 82-90.  

19 

 
                                                           
schemes  not  leading  to  the  formal  labour  market)  or  concentration  of  Roma  in 
socio-economically disadvantaged regions 

  Specific  obstacles  to  equal  access  to  social  protection  services  due  to  the  high 
participation  of  Roma  in  informal  labour  markets  and  limited  access  to  decent 
jobs 

  Specific obstacles to Roma access to healthcare services, such as lack of medical 
insurance,  lack  of  identity  documents,  discrimination  by  health  professionals, 
segregation  in  healthcare  facilities,  health  impacts  of  living  in  segregated  areas, 
overcrowded  housing  (as  proven  by  experience  with  barriers  to  preventive 
measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic),  suffering  from  environmental 
hazards 

  Specific  obstacles  to  Roma  access  to  adequate  housing  and  basic  infrastructure 
(water  supply,  sewage,  road  access,  etc.),  spatial  segregation  with  regard  to  the 
location  of  housing,  discrimination  by  landlords  and  public  authorities,  but  also 
poverty leading to reduced financial means for repair works, renovation, payment 
of bills 

  Specific  obstacles  to  Roma  access  to  financial  services,  with  few  financial 
institutions  trusting  Roma  and  thus  precluding  support  needed  through,  e.g. 
microfinance 

  High share of Roma children living in low work-intensity households 

Related to governance 

  Political commitment to Roma equality and inclusion at national level depends on 

political will of changing governments 

  Lack  of  national  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  goals  against  which  to  monitor, 

measure and evaluate 

  Public 

interventions 

objectives/poorly 
implemented/enforced/out  of  date/lacking  relevance  (for  example,  by  not 
addressing  the  needs  of  EU  mobile  and  migrant  Roma  and  diversity  overall  as 
rendered obvious during the COVID-19 crisis) 

achieve 

failing 

to 

  Lack  of  capacity  of  local,  regional,  national  authorities  to  ensure  outreach  to 
disadvantaged/Roma,  effective  safeguards  and  inclusive  public  services,  lack  of 
capacity and ability to structure and implement projects 

  Lack  of  good  practices  and  working  models  for  inclusion,  which  in  turn 
contributes  to  the  lack  of  political  will  and  imagination  and  lower  levels  of 
investment 

  Lack of rights awareness and civic duties among Roma, as well as lack of mutual 

 

reciprocity in obligations 
Insufficient evidence to monitor the approach of law enforcement when Roma are 
affected as victims (e.g. forced labour, trafficking in human beings, usury, child 
rights, domestic violence) 

  Lack  of  Roma  empowerment,  lack  of  cooperation  and  trust  among  Roma  and 

non-Roma, and among stakeholders of Roma inclusion 

Related to inter-generational transmission of poverty 

  Roma  families  trapped  in  a  cycle  of  poverty  often  have  either  limited  or  no 
resources, no buffers to rely on in times of crises, no means to get out of poverty 
and provide themselves and their children with a better future. Low income and 
lack of basic financial literacy lead to barriers such as the impossibility to cover 
even bare necessities in times of crises, let alone pay for early education and care, 

20 

 
schooling and school material, transportation, housing and utilities such as water 
and  electricity,  and  access  to  finance  and  microfinance  institutions  to  create  or 
support micro or small businesses  

  Lower ‘mental bandwidth’ associated with living in scarcity, which also impedes 

long-term planning ability and hampers resilience 

The chart below summarises the problem drivers and problems this initiative addresses. 

21 

 
 
Chart 1: Problem drivers and problems 

s
r
e
v
i
r
d
m
e
l
b
o
r
P

s
m
e
l
b
o
r
P

Behavioural bias: 
Antigypsyism, discrimination, 
stereotypes and prejudice in the 
majority population. 
Stereotypes and prejudice in 
Roma communities. 

Equity: Specific obstacles to 
equal participation in education 
and employment as well as to 
equal access to health and 
housing. 

Inter-generational transmission 
of poverty 

Governance: changing political 
will and commitment; lack of 
Roma empowerment, trust and 
cooperation; failing public 
interventions etc. 

Persisting inequality 
and discrimination of 
Roma  

Roma 
Insufficient 
participation 
in 
quality  mainstream 
education 

Insufficient 
participation 
employment; 
human capital 

Roma 
paid 
of 

in 
loss 

Dfs 

Sdf 

Fds 

Insufficient Roma 
access to housing and 
essential services 

Roma 
of 
Lack 
participation 
in 
policy  and  decision-
making 

Poverty among Roma 

Poor Roma health and 
insufficient access to 
healthcare 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

4.1.  Legal basis 

Articles  2  and  3(3)  TEU,  Articles  10  and  19(1)  TFEU;  Article  21(1)  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights.  

4.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

Underlying  shared  values,  such  as  equality  and  fundamental  rights,  and  common 
objectives, such as economic prosperity, social cohesion and solidarity between Member 
States,  call  for  a  European  role  in  Roma  equality  and  inclusion  policies.  In  addition, 
transnational mobility of Roma across EU Member States, in the context of freedom of 
movement and of the migration of Roma from third countries, makes Roma inclusion a 
joint EU-level objective. 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  demonstrated  the  extreme  exposure  of  excluded  and 
marginalised Roma communities to both short-term negative health impacts and medium 
term  socio-economic  impacts.  Many  Roma  communities  suffered  disproportionately 
because  of  their  overall  limited  access  to  basic  hygiene  and  sanitary  infrastructure, 
limited  access  to  clean  water  and  healthcare  services,  high  levels  of  economic 
precariousness,  overcrowded  households  and  segregated,  overcrowded  settlements  or 
camps. There is also a clear risk that, because of the mid-term socio-economic impacts of 
the  pandemic,  inequalities  will  further  increase.  Distance  and  digital  education,  for 
instance, is often not  accessible and/or affordable for marginalised Roma children, thus 
aggravating inequalities in education. The lockdown cut many Roma living in segregated 
settlements  from  any  source  of  income  and  (formal  or  informal)  economic  activity, 
leading  to  rising  poverty.  Europe  needs  to  ensure  that  the  most  disadvantaged  do  not 
disproportionately carry the burden of the pandemic and inequalities widen. 

Stopping targeted EU action on Roma inclusion is likely to reduce political commitment 
and focus on Roma inclusion in both the EU Member States and enlargement countries, 
and  lead  to  a  sharp  decrease  in  available  funding.  Stopping  EU  action  is  also  likely  to 
result in less and looser monitoring of the situation of Roma. At present, the effects of the 
EU  Framework  are  unlikely  to  last  after  2020  if  there  is  no  further  EU  guidance, 
monitoring  and  support.  Most  of  the  current  national  policies  and  structures  created 
around the NRIS (NRCPs, systems of coordination, monitoring and reporting, systems of 
consultation  with  civil  society  and  Roma  organisations)  would  stop  or  would  be  less 
functional  and  become  more  symbolic,  if  the  EU  Framework  did  not  continue  after 
202061.  There  is  need  for  increased  efforts  at  national  level  as  well  as  more  time  to 
consolidate  working  structures,  to  align  and  mobilise  further  other  policy,  legal  and 
financial instruments and to monitor better the impact of policies to feed policy learning 
and review. This view was also supported by a majority of the respondents to the public 
consultation62  (almost  60%),  who  believe  that  the  EU  still  has  a  major  role  to  play  in 
supporting national, regional and local authorities as they cannot effectively improve the 
situation of Roma on their own.  

61   SWD(2018) 480 final. 
62   See Annex 1: Stakeholder Consultations. 

23 

 
 
                                                           
It  is  important,  however,  to  take  into  consideration  that  while  all  countries  face 
challenges with guaranteeing inclusion and equality for Roma population, the scale and 
relevance of the challenges is different in two dimensions63: 

  Intensity:  Intensity  refers  to  the  size  and  share  (percentage)  of  the  Roma 
population, but also to the extent to which they suffer a legacy of exclusion and 
discrimination.  Roma  exclusion  tends  to  be  more  intense  in  economically  less 
developed countries with a higher level of poverty among the general population. 
  Specificity: There are specific problem drivers and specific issues that especially 
apply  to  some  countries,  but  not  to  all  (intra-EU  mobility,  migration,  spatial 
segregation, problems with civil documents, etc.). 

Chart 2: Intensity and specificity 

a

f
o
s
n
o
i
s
n
e
m
i
d

o
w
T

e
g
n
e
l
l
a
h
c

'

s
y
r
t
n
u
o
c

High Roma population in size and share 

Intensity 

High levels of discrimination 

High exposure to poverty and exclusion 

Spatial segregation 

Specificity 

EU-mobile and migrant Roma 

etc. 

In  terms  of  policy  responses,  following  the  adoption  of  the  EU  Framework  in  2011, 
Member States either adopted a specific strategy for Roma integration or are using a “set 
of  measures”  inscribing  the  topic  into  mainstream  policies64.  The  preferred  courses  of 
action  differ  also  in  terms  of  balance  between  the  use  of  mainstream  and  targeted 
measures for Roma inclusion, allocation of specific funding, setting of baselines, use of 
national  goals  and  related  indicators  as  well  as  mandate  and  structure  of  the  National 
Roma Contact Points.  

4.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The evaluation of the Framework clearly demonstrated the added value of EU action and 
the need for continuation. In particular, EU action so far has: (i) put Roma inclusion on 
the  political  EU  and  national  agendas;  (ii)  raised  attention  to  Roma  issues  in  countries 
with  smaller  Roma  populations;  (iii)  strengthened  existing  structures  for  Roma 

63   Expert  Report  on  Country  Clustering  prepared  for  the  1  October  2019  workshop  (internal  reflection 
paper; unpublished). The report started from the widely shared agreement that the EU Framework had 
created important policy experiences, implementation structures and institutional awareness and sought 
to “provide a better understanding of the differences between Member States”.  

64   While  the  2011  Communication  call  for  a  strategy  in  all  countries,  the  19  May  2011  EPSCO 
conclusions granted more leeway to Member States. It is here that reference was first made  to ‘sets of 
measures’,  calling  on  Member  States  ‘to  prepare,  update  or  develop  their  national  Roma  inclusion 
strategies,  or  integrated  sets  of  policy  measures  within  their  broader  social  inclusion  policies,  for 
improving the situation of Roma, by the end of 2011, taking into account their specific circumstances 
(…)’. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
integration and contributed to the creation of new ones; (iv) ensured stability through its 
multiannual  character;  (v)  provided  policy  guidance,  monitoring  and  reporting 
frameworks  supporting  greater  accountability  and 
(vi)  provided 
opportunities  for  mutual  exchange  and  cooperation;  (vii)  enabled  —  through  its 
comprehensive  approach  —  Roma  inclusion  to  be  addressed  from  various  policy 
perspectives as well as collaboration between different political and governmental levels; 
and  viii)  ensured 
that  European  Structural  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  support 
implementation  of  the  NRIS.  While  highlighting  this  clear  EU  added  value,  the 
evaluation65  also  identified  weaknesses,  pointing  to  specific  reform  priorities  that 
should guide a reinforced and revised strategic framework. 

transparency; 

‘The evaluation  finds that  without the EU  Framework, Roma issues  would  receive less 
attention in the EU policy agenda. In some countries, NRIS may cease to exist; in others, 
they may become weak, further reducing political  commitment to Roma inclusion. The 
ending of the Framework would result in less and looser monitoring and reporting. Some 
current  national  policies  and  targeted  structures  would  stop  or  turn  less  functional  and 
more symbolic’66. 

With regard to the enlargement region, the evaluation concluded that the objectives of the 
Framework  have  equally  been  promoted  in  the  enlargement  countries  and  finds  that 
enlargement countries should be guided by a future EU Framework; this would allow for 
the use of further guidance and conditionalities during the accession process. 

5.  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

Activities carried out to consult stakeholders for the preparation of the initiative and its 
results are summarised in Annex 1. 

6.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

Taking  into  account  all  of  the  above,  the  Commission  identified  the  following  general 
and specific EU-level objectives in the area of Roma equality, inclusion and participation 
for the EU strategic framework 2021-2030. 

6.1.  General objectives 

To contribute to promoting equality and combatting exclusion of Roma with their active 
involvement. 

6.2. 

Specific objectives  

In  order  to  reach  the  general  objectives,  the  initiative  puts  forward  seven  mutually 
reinforcing specific objectives. These include three  horizontal objectives, linked to the 
three main political  priorities (general  objectives) of the EU Roma strategic framework 
for equality, inclusion and participation:  
  EQUALITY: Fight and prevent antigypsyism and discrimination 
 

INCLUSION: Reduce poverty and exclusion and close the socio-economic gap between 
Roma and the general population 

65   COM(2018) 785 final. 
66   Ibid. 

25 

 
 
                                                           
  PARTICIPATION: Promote participation by empowerment, cooperation and trust 

Four sectoral objectives underline the continued relevance of the four policy areas of the 
framework.  With  regard  to  education,  employment,  healthcare,  housing,  as  well  as 
essential  services,  all  three  horizontal  goals  (ensuring  substantive  equality,  socio-
economic inclusion and participation of Roma) are relevant: 
 
 
 

Increase effective access to quality inclusive mainstream education 
Increase effective access to quality and sustainable employment 
Improve  Roma  health  and  increase  effective  access  to  quality  healthcare  and  social 
services 
Increase effective access to adequate desegregated housing and essential services67 

 

Table 2: Hierarchy of policy objectives 

General 

Specific 

Contribute to promoting 
equality 

  Fight and prevent antigypsyism and discrimination of 

Roma 

  Promote participation by empowerment, cooperation 

and trust  

Contribute to combating 
exclusion of Roma  

  Increase effective access to quality inclusive 

mainstream education 

  Increase effective access to quality and sustainable 

employment 

  Improve Roma health and increase effective access to 

quality healthcare and social services 

  Increase effective access to adequate desegregated 

housing and essential services 

  Reduce poverty and exclusion to close the socio-
economic gap between Roma and non-Roma  

7. 

POLICY OPTIONS AND FINAL POLICY CHOICE 

7.1.  Policy options considered for this initiative 

The  baseline  scenario  considered  was  that  the  EU  Framework  ended  in  2020  and  the 
Commission adopted an identical Framework providing for a continuation of the current 
policy approach for the time after. This option was purely hypothetical, as the adoption 
of an identical EU Framework would ignore the learnings from the evaluation. It would 
have  implied,  inter  alia,  not  addressing  key  findings  such  as  the  need  for  a  reinforced 
approach  regarding  discrimination  and  antigypsyism  and  the  importance  of  addressing 
the diversity within the Roma population. 
The following policy options were considered in more detail:  

  No new EU level initiative (‘do less’) 

67   E.g. tap  water,  adequate  sanitation,  waste  collection  and  management,  environmental  services, 
electricity, gas, access to transport, financial services and digital communications (in line with principle 
20  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights).  An  operational  objective  under  this  sectoral  objective  is 
promoting environmental justice and fighting environmental deprivation (see Annex 2 to COM(2020) 
620 final). 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Option focusing on ‘doing differently’ - Antigypsyism 
  Option focusing on ‘doing differently’ - Anti-poverty 
  Option presenting a reinforced comprehensive policy approach to Roma equality 
inclusion  and  participation  building  on  the  current  EU  Framework  and  the 
evaluation findings (‘do better’) 

  Option  to  renew and strengthen Member States’ commitment to  Roma equality, 
inclusion  and  participation  building  on  the  2013  Council  Recommendation  (‘do 
more’)  

  A combined option (‘do more and better’) 

7.2.  Description of the policy options and their key advantages and disadvantages 

The first step was the examination of the coherence between the thematic focus of each 
option  with  the  specific  objectives  of  the  initiative.  The  table  below  summarises 
coherence  between  policy  content  of  the  policy  options  considered  and  the  specific 
objectives in a simplified manner (√ = coherent; √√ = very coherent; - = not coherent). 
The table considers coherence and not potential effectiveness.  

Only options 5, 6 and 7 had the potential to be strongly coherent with all seven specific 
objectives set out for this initiative.  

Table 3: Potential coherence between areas covered by options and specific objectives 

OPTIONS 

Specific objectives addressed 

HORIZONTAL 
poverty 

participation 

education 

employment 

health 

housing 

SECTORAL 

antigypsyism 
and 
discrimination 
- 

1. No new EU Roma 
initiative 
2. Continuation of 
EUFW for NRIS as it 
is – baseline 
3. Single focus on 
antigypsyism 

4. Single focus on 
poverty 

5. Reinforced 
comprehensive policy 
approach  
6. Stepped up political 
commitment of MS 

7.Combined option 

- 

√√ 

- 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

√ 

- 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

√ 

√√ 

- 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

√√ 

- 

√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

- 

√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

The second step was the detailed consideration of each potential option. 

7.2.1.  No new EU level initiative (‘do less’) 

The EU Framework ends in 2020 and the Commission could have decided not to replace 
it.  Other  key  instruments  would  have  remain  in  place,  such  as  the  Race  Equality 
Directive,  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  the  Framework  Decision  on  combating 
racism  and  xenophobia,  and  the  2013  Council  Recommendation  on  effective  Roma 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
integration in the Member States68. In addition, there would also have been the relevant 
general EU policies (such as the European Semester, anti-trafficking measures, etc.) and 
EU  programmes,  such  as  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  and/or 
their successors, including relevant  specific objectives and enabling conditions  but  also 
instruments  of  international  organisations  such  as  the  Council  of  Europe’s  thematic 
action plan for 2021-2025.  

Without  a  new  initiative  at  EU  level,  however,  there  would  have  been  a  risk  of 
disconnection between general EU policies and programmes, on the one hand, and efforts 
in the area of Roma equality, inclusion and participation, on the other. That would have 
also led to inconsistency between the ESF+ enabling condition for the specific objective 
on  integration  of  marginalised  communities  requiring  the  existence  of  a  national  Roma 
inclusion  strategic  policy  framework  and  the  non-existence  of  a  corresponding  EU 
Framework  in  that  area.  In  addition,  the  2013  Council  Recommendation  might  have 
become less effective, if not revised in order to accommodate for policy learning. Some 
of its elements (such as Commission monitoring based on Member States’ reports) would 
have become dysfunctional or stopped working in the absence of an EU instrument.  

At  national  level,  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies  (NRIS)  or  integrated  sets  of 
policy  measures  within  their  broader  social  inclusion  policies  currently  exist  in  all 
Member  States  (except  Malta)  and  the  enlargement  countries.  However,  many  of  them 
expire  in  2020  as  their  lifespan  followed  that  of  the  EU  Framework.  National  Roma-
specific or  general  laws, policies and funding programmes relevant  for  Roma inclusion 
are  in  place  but  risked  discontinuation.  The  evaluation  confirmed  that  an  EU-level 
initiative was key for political commitment at national level. 

Giving  continuity  to  the  processes  triggered  by  the  2011  EU  Framework  is  in  itself  a 
value, as much of the policies and instruments have resulted in structures, practices and 
monitoring cycles that have incrementally improved over the years. One could mention, 
for example, the reporting tool for Member States or the coordinated civil monitoring at 
EU  level  feeding  the  Commission’s  monitoring,  guidance  and  support  activities  or  the 
respective consultation processes and participation structures at national and EU levels. 
Changing the policy direction and scaling down existing structures and practices would 
have disrupted this incremental process.  

7.2.2.  Option focusing on ‘doing differently’: tackling antigypsyism69  

Instead of a new EU Framework, the Commission could have envisaged a new initiative 
focusing  exclusively  on  antigypsyism,  either  separately  as  considered  during  the 
preparations  of  this  policy  package  in  2018-2019  or  within  the  broader  EU  anti-racism 
initiative70. The scenario would have asked Member States to acknowledge antigypsyism 
as  a  specific  form  of  racism  and  strengthen  non-discrimination  and  the  fight  against 
antigypsyism in  national anti-racism strategies.  Moreover, it could  have asked Member 
States  to  specify  explicitly  which  general  anti-discrimination  measures  or  measures  in 

68   However, the Council asked in its 2016 Council Conclusions for a revision as part of a proposal for a 

post-2020 EU Roma initiative. 

69   For a definition of the concept and choice of terminology, see fn 32. 
70   Favoured by the political momentum engendered by the worldwide “Black Lives Matter” protests, the 
European Parliament adopted on 17 June 2020 a resolution titled  “The anti-racism protests  following 
the death of George Floyd”. Initiated by the Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup, the proposal aimed 
at  strengthening  both  anti-racist  narratives  and  actions,  while  addressing  manifestations  of  structural 
racism in the USA and in Europe, including police brutality. See also the Communication ‘A Union of 
equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025’ (COM(2020) 565 final), 18.9.2020. 

28 

 
                                                           
other  areas  address  antigypsyism  and  how.  Member  States  could  have  been  asked  to 
include specific measures to address both Roma (rights awareness, facilitating access to 
legal  remedy or building  identity) and the  general  public in  their national Roma and/or 
wider  anti-racism  strategies  (e.g.  by  raising  awareness  about  historical  discrimination, 
segregation and persecution). For instance, one could add processes about the recognition 
of  the  persecution  and  extermination  of  Roma  during  1933-1945  and  the  public 
representation of Roma culture, including Truth and Reconciliation processes at national 
level. 

Before  turning  to  the  implications  of  such  a  policy  choice,  the  particular  nature  of  the 
phenomenon of antigypsyism warrants some further conceptual clarifications.  

As explained above71, antigypsyism is a specific form of racism, an ideology founded on 
racial  superiority,  a  form  of  dehumanisation  and  institutional  racism  nurtured  by 
historical  discrimination,  expressed,  among  others,  through  violence,  hate  speech, 
exploitation,  stigmatisation  and  the  most  blatant  kind  of  discrimination72.  Used  in  a 
narrow sense, it refers to anti-Roma attitudes or the expression of negative stereotypes in 
the public sphere or hate speech. In a broader sense, it implies hidden manifestations as 
part  of  a  broad  spectrum  of  discriminatory  expressions  and  practices.  As  stated, 
antigypsyism ‘is not just another type of racial discrimination. It is, at the same time 
similar, different and intertwined with racism’73.  

Indeed,  as  highlighted  by  the  European  Commission  against  Racism  and  Intolerance 
(ECRI),  whose  field  of  action  covers  all  groups  subject  to  racism  in  Europe,  Roma 
constitute their ‘most frequent customer’74. It is when dealing with their situation in any 
given  country  that  ECRI  employs,  almost  exclusively,  words  like  ‘segregation’  and 
‘exclusion’.  This  preoccupying  situation,  fact-based  from  ECRI’s  country-specific 
reports, translates into Roma not enjoying equal  dignity, being discriminated, targets of 
racist violence and facing persistent intolerance.  

The specificities of anti-Roma racism75 could be summarised as follows: 

  The persistence of prejudice: a historically and geographically permanent racism that 

has endured for centuries without waning; 

  The systemisation: a systematic, regular, repetitive racism, to the point where it almost 

seems to indicate a sort of ‘acceptance of that kind of racism’ within society; 

71   See  fn  32.  The  phenomenon  targets  is  directed  towards  Roma,  Sinti,  Travellers,  and  others  who  are 

stigmatised as ‘gypsies’ in the public imagination. 

72   European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), General Policy Recommendation no. 13 

on combatting anti-Gypsyism and discrimination against Roma, adopted on 24 June 2011. 

73   ‘Anti-Gypsyism means the total of resentments focused on Roma, and based on various racist, social or 
other motives. Because of that anti-Gypsyism is part of a social phenomenon that includes stereotypes 
as well as their political instrumentation. The enmity against Roma needs specific images of the Gypsy; 
those  images have been produced and reproduced in all European societies for centuries. Meanwhile, 
the  images  of  the  Gypsy  function  as  fixed  codes  (as  signals  for  a  political  position  that  enables 
definitions of the ‘stranger’ and the ‘native’) – and are easily evoked from both the individual and the 
collective memory at any time. Research on anti-Gypsyism wants to identify these images and indicate 
their functions,’ Valeriu Nicolae cited in M Guet, 2008 speech, p 5. 

74   Speech  delivered  at  the  2008  Warsaw  Conference  by  Isil  Gachet,  Executive  Secretary  of  ECRI,  as 

presented in M. Guet, 2008 speech, p. 5. 

75   As  summarised  in  ECRI’s  General  Policy  Recommendation  no  3  on  the  fight  against  racism  and 
intolerance  against  Roma/Gypsies,  adopted  on  6  March  1998.  The  preamble  of  their  General  Policy 
Recommendation  no.  13  on  combatting  anti-Gypsyism  and  discrimination  against  Roma,  reiterated, 
‘anti-Gypsyism is an especially persistent, violent, recurrent and commonplace form of racism.’ 

29 

 
                                                           
  The violent nature of manifestations of racism towards Roma: a racism commonly put 
in  practice,  facilitated  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  notion  of  impunity  in  the  minds  of 
perpetrators.  For  instance,  racist  statements  or  the  use  of  violence  never  condemned 
by  politicians  at  local  or  state  level,  with  sometimes  the  politicians  being  the 
perpetrators themselves (the scapegoating of Roma and the public statements feeding 
anti-Roma sentiment during the COVID-19 pandemic are the latest  in  a long line of 
such manifestations); 

  The generalisation ‘all Roma are alike’: common to other racialized groups but with 
the  specificity  of  ‘common  punishment’  –  a  crime  committed  by  a  Roma  individual 
leads to the punishment of the entire community; 

  A certain ‘hypocrisy’ when addressing the phenomenon and often a blame put on the 
victims  of  discrimination.  For  example,  the  same  authorities  blaming  Roma  for  not 
sending  their  children  to  school  are  forcibly  evicting  Roma  families  whose  children 
were  attending  school  or  the  situation  where  authorities  support  segregation  or  the 
enrolment in schools for mentally disabled. 

To  effectively  combat  these  phenomena,  analysing  the  features  and  manifestations  of 
racism and intolerance is a necessary step but insufficient. Recognising that antigypsyism 
exists  as  a  specific  form  of  racism  is  the  first  step,  followed  by  naming  it,  widely 
addressing  through  reinforced  focus,  and  lastly,  having  the  support  of  the  Roma 
community.  

In  view  of  its  widespread  nature  and  deep  roots  in  social  and  cultural  attitudes  and 
institutional practice, antigypsyism has caught the attention of the academia as well, with 
significant  work  to  date  on  anti-Roma  racism  and  their  link  to  the  exclusion  and 
marginalisation  mechanisms76.  However,  the  understanding  of  how  contemporary 
forms of antigypsyism differ from earlier ones and the difficulties in challenging them 
have received less attention. Indeed, the acceptance of antigypsyism as almost ‘normal’, 
not requiring any attention is evident in the face of the existing social and political debate 
on  all  forms  of  anti-Semitism,  xenophobia,  Islamophobia,  afro-phobia,  etc.  and  the 
accompanying efforts for advocacy, legal restrictions, education, and more. Even the lack 
of an adequate term to describe the resentment against Roma for many decades attest to 
the so-called ‘reasonable antigypsyism’77.  

In  the  face  of  this  evidence,  researchers  have  begun  to  discuss  about  the  so-called 
‘invisibilisation  of  anti-Roma  racism’.  Reportedly,  this  trend  to  ‘invisibilise’  the 
racializing dimensions of Roma’s marginal living conditions is deemed a feature of the 
‘de-politicisation’ of societal problems facing the Roma78. 

In  view  of  the  considerations  above,  antigypsyism  transpires  as  a  form  of  racism  that 
requires a specific approach, different from other forms of racism, such as in the context 
of  a  policy  covering  social  inclusion  and  discrimination.  This  is  consistent  with  the 

76   See, among others, Aidan McGarry, ‘Romaphobia: The Last Acceptable Form of Racism’ (Zed Books, 
London 2017); Sebijan Fezjula, ‘The Anti-Roma Europe: Modern ways of disciplining the Roma body 
in  urban  spaces’  Rev.  Direito  Práx. Vol  10 no  3 Rio  de  Janeiro July/September  2019  Epub 16 
September 2019; Huub van Baar, Ana Ivasiuc and Regina Kreide (eds), ‘The Securitization of the Roma 
in Europe’ (Palgrave Macmillan 2019). 

77   M. Guet, 2008 speech, p. 4. 
78   Baar, Ivasiuc and Kreide, The Invisibilization of Anti-Roma Racisms in op.cit. The article discusses the 
trend based on examples from Slovakia and the UK, while highlighting the importance of the national 
context with regard to different outcomes and the extent of Roma separation. 

30 

 
                                                           
findings of the 2011-2017 evaluation, whose unequivocal wording did not hint at a shift 
towards an EU initiative focusing exclusively on antigypsyism:  

‘A  clearer  focus  on  fighting  antigypsyism  and  discrimination  should  complement,  not 
replace  the  inclusion  approach.  This  could  both  strengthen  the  enforcement  of  anti-
discrimination  and  hate  crime  legislation  and  increase  effectiveness  of  social  inclusion 
policies.’ 

Instead, the evaluation suggested a strengthened, clearer focus on fighting antigypsyism 
and  discrimination.  This  would  complement  and  not  replace  the  focus  on  social 
inclusion,  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  policies  and  strengthening  the  enforcement  of 
anti-discrimination and hate crime legislation. Taking into account the various features of 
antigypsyism  would  support  Member  States  in  responding  effectively  to  discrimination 
and racism faced by Roma. 

Replacing the social inclusion approach would have led to a loss for mainstream social 
policies at EU and national level of their capacity to compensate for disadvantages Roma 
face.  Being  a  radical  shift  from  current  policy,  it  would  have  disrupted  the  ongoing 
learning processes launched by the EU Framework. The approach also risked reinforcing 
an ethnic conception of Roma inclusion, further fuelling anti-liberal and/or anti-European 
populists  against  Roma  (isolation  of  Roma  as  an  example  of  undeserved  protection  by 
supposedly interfering forces from Brussels). Moreover, strong positions79 from a variety 
of  stakeholders  (civil  society  included)  alerted  on  the  dangers  of  ignoring  the  multiple, 
reissued  calls  for  an  explicit  focus  on  antigypsyism  (together  with  the  focus  on  social 
inclusion  and  fighting  poverty).  Such  dangers  would  outweigh  the  risks  of  focusing 
rather solely on antigypsyism as policy option. Addressing antigypsyism under a possible 
broader  EU  policy  approach  to  racism  could  serve  as  an  important  mainstreaming 
initiative  to  complement  the  EU  strategic  framework’s  focus  on  equality  by  fighting 
antigypsyism  while  contributing  to  the  effectiveness  of  efforts  to  promote  Roma 
inclusion and participation.  

Additionally,  one  should  note  that,  in  light  of  the  experience  with  the  proposal  for  a 
horizontal  Equal  Treatment  Directive  (negotiated  for  over  10  years),  the  adoption  of  a 
new EU law specifically in the field of fighting antigypsyism would not be realistic. The 
EU  has  adopted  a  number  of  binding  legal  instruments  to  ensure  equality  and  non-
discrimination  that  are  crucial  for  fighting  antigypsyism:  the  Racial  Equality  Directive 
and the Framework Decision on combatting Racism and Xenophobia, already transposed 
by  Member  States80.  The  Race  Equality  Directive  already  prohibits  both  direct  and 

79   See the EP resolution on anti-Gypsyism in Europe, resolution on the need for a strengthened post-2020 
initiative (requesting to step up the fight against antigypsyism), and the  Report on fundamental rights 
aspects in Roma integration in the EU: fighting anti-Gypsyism. Additional material supporting a policy 
choice with a strengthened focus on antigypsyism without abandoning the inclusion approach as well as 
the  choice  for  terminology  is  abundant.  See,  among  others,  the  Alliance  against  Antigypsyism,  the 
Council  of  Europe,  the  FRA  paper  on  anti-Gypsyism  as  a  barrier  to  Roma  inclusion,  the  EU  High 
Level  Group  on  combating  racism  and  xenophobia,  the  expert  recommendations  during  the  2019 
Conference on anti-Gypsyism under the previous AT presidency, statements at ministerial level of the 
current DE Presidency, etc. 

80   For instance, since 2019, the High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of 
intolerance has established specific working groups together with national authorities, civil society and 
the  support  of  FRA  and  CEPOL  to  reinforce  the  actions  of  the  Member  States  in  recording  and 
reporting of hate crimes as well as to ensure recognition and criminalisation of bias-motivation by law 
enforcement. Commission’s SWD on Countering racism and xenophobia in the EU: fostering a society 
where pluralism, tolerance and non-discrimination prevail. 

31 

 
                                                           
indirect  discrimination  based  on  ethnicity.  Efforts  should  be  rather  devoted  to 
enforcement  of  the  existing  legislation,  its  correct  application,  guidance  and  training, 
where necessary, and financial support for the effective implementation and enforcement 
of legislation at the national level. It is also of utmost importance to support continuously 
the  work  of  equality  bodies,  including  by  following  up  the  implementation  of  the 
Commission Recommendation on standards for equality bodies81.  

7.2.3.  Option focusing on ‘doing differently’: Anti-poverty  

Instead of a new EU Framework, the Commission could have envisaged a new initiative 
focusing  exclusively  on  combating  poverty.  The  initiative  could  have  promoted  social 
inclusion among disadvantaged groups, with or without specific targeting of Roma. The 
initiative could have asked Member States to address most extreme social exclusion and 
poverty  more  effectively  in  their  national  social  inclusion  strategies  and  to  design 
specific measures for the most disadvantaged. These could have covered the whole life 
cycle  with  enhanced  social  protection,  development  of  human  capacities  and  activation 
for employment programmes.  

Presenting such an initiative would, however, not have been in line with the findings of 
the evaluation which concluded that ‘(…) the lack of a specific non-discrimination goal 
and targeted strategies and action to fight antigypsyism were among the key weaknesses. 
While  discrimination  and  social  exclusion  reinforce  each  other,  any  Roma  can  be 
exposed to discrimination, but not all are socially excluded’82. An initiative not taking a 
rights-based  and  targeted  approach  risked  diluting  policies  for  Roma  into  policies 
targeted at socially excluded people, without any differentiation. It would not have taken 
into  account  their  specific  needs  and  discrimination  experiences  nor  included  explicit 
safeguards  to  ensure  that  mainstream  policies  effectively  reached  out  to  Roma.  Roma 
inclusion would have risked being understood as the exclusion of the poor. A combined 
approach of compensating for socio-economic disadvantages and tackling discrimination 
would have been compromised.  

Stakeholders confirmed this view during the 1 October 2019 workshop, when replies to a 
SLIDO  question  showed  that  90%  of  the  participants  shared  the  view  that  a  new  post-
2020  EU  initiative  should  address  antigypsyism,  discrimination  and  socio-economic 
inclusion  simultaneously.  The  expert  recommendations  made  at  the  Austrian  EU 
Presidency  Conference  on  antigypsyism  held  in  November  2018  expressed  the  same 
view.  Participants  confirmed  therein  that,  to  ensure  effectiveness  of  social  inclusion 
policies, the fight against discrimination and antigypsyism should feature as an additional 
priority area in a future EU Framework. 

7.2.4.  Option  presenting  a  reinforced  comprehensive  policy  approach  to 

Roma equality inclusion and participation (‘do better’) 

The  Commission’s  initiative  has  to  take  into  account  the  key  lessons  learnt  from  the 
evaluation: 

Table 4: Translating evaluation results into reform priorities for more effective strategies 

81   COM(2018) 3850 final. 
82   COM(2018) 785 final. 

32 

 
                                                           
1. Strengthen focus on equality to complement the socio-economic inclusion approach 

The  four  policy  areas  (education,  employment,  health  and  housing)  and  the  integrated  approach  across 
these areas continue to be key for Roma socio-economic inclusion. However, there is need for a clear focus 
on  equality  with  a  specific  objective  on  non-discrimination  and  fighting  antigypsyism.  The  focus  on 
fighting antigypsyism and discrimination should also be a crosscutting priority that complements but does 
not  replace  the  inclusion  approach.  This  joint  focus  should  ensure  that  Roma  have  effective  access  to 
economic and social justice. 

2. Promote participation by empowerment and building cooperation and trust  

Strategies should encourage meaningful Roma participation at all stages of policy-making at local, national 
and EU level, promote political, economic and cultural participation of Roma and a sense of belonging as 
full members of society. Additionally, they should promote empowerment and capacity building of Roma, 
civil  society,  as  well  as  public  authorities,  and  build  cooperation  and  trust  between  stakeholders  and 
between Roma and non-Roma. 

3. Combine effective mainstreaming and Roma targeting  

The  new  EU  strategic  framework  aims  to  combine  effective  mainstreaming  and  targeting.  It  promotes 
inclusive  reform  of  mainstream  policies,  also  under  the  European  Semester,  when  enforcing  the  Racial 
Equality Directive and when negotiating the use of 2021-2027 EU funds. Governments are encouraged to 
follow  a  twin  approach  of  making  mainstream  services  inclusive  and  providing  additional  targeted 
measures. The aim of targeting is to provide additional support to promote effective equal access for Roma 
to  mainstream  rights  and  services.  This  should  be  reflected  in  future  strategies,  which  should  serve  as 
planning instruments for using national and EU funds for Roma-targeted action and inclusive mainstream 
reform.  

4. Reflect diversity among Roma  

Member  States  should  ensure  that  strategies  cover  all  Roma  on  their  territory  and  reflect  the  needs  of 
diverse  groups.  They  should  bear  in  mind  how  different  aspects  of  identities  might  combine  to  increase 
discrimination. They should set qualitative and quantitative objectives addressing diversity in terms of age, 
gender, sexual orientation, disability, mobility and other dimensions in all relevant areas. While inclusion 
measures  should  target  marginalised  Roma,  measures  promoting  participation  should  address  all  Roma, 
and measures fighting antigypsyism should reach out to society. 

5. Ensure a common but flexible approach to national strategies 

The  new  EU  strategic  framework  should  remain  flexible  to  accommodate  country  differences,  while 
increasing  Member  States’  accountability  and  commitment  to  full  implementation  of  the  strategies.  The 
size  and  intensity  of  the  challenges  Roma  face  in  various  Member  States  should  be  reflected  by 
differentiated  objectives,  levels  of  investment,  types  of  policy  solutions  and  EU  level  support  across 
different Member States. 

33 

 
6. Improve target setting, data collection, monitoring and reporting to enable policy learning 

A  common  portfolio  of  indicators  with  accompanying  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  objectives  for  the 
national  level  to  measure  output,  outcome  and  impact  has  the  potential  to  improve  effective  progress 
towards  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation.  The  EU  strategic  framework  proposes  the  use  of 
specific,  measurable,  ambitious  and  realistic  targets,  including  common  EU  headline  targets,  the  latter 
complemented by  nationally  set targets in line  with  specific  challenges based on available data. There is 
need for regular collection of data to feed reporting, monitoring, reinforce transparency and accountability 
and promote policy transfer and learning83. 

In line with the results of the evaluation, the focus of such an initiative would be on the 
areas of education, employment, health and housing as well as on fighting poverty  and 
exclusion,  advancing  non-discrimination  and  the  fight  against  antigypsyism,  including 
through  increasing  Roma  participation.  In  addition,  building  on  the  evaluation,  country 
differences  in  terms  of  the  situation  of  the  Roma  should  be  considered.  A  pragmatic 
proposal for such an initiative could be a ‘common, yet differentiated approach’.  

As  outlined  above84,  all  countries  face  challenges  in  terms  of  equality,  inclusion  and 
participation of Roma, variable in terms of intensity and specificity. Policy responses by 
Member  States  to  a  new  EU  level  initiative  could  therefore  vary.  While  adhering  to 
minimum  commitments,  Member  States  could  be  advised  to  choose  additional  specific 
actions,  in  line  with  the  respective  challenges  that  Roma  face  in  each  country.  The 
Commission  could  thus  propose  a  common  EU  Framework  with  shared  minimum 
commitments, but at the same time different degrees of political commitment according 
to the specific situation of the countries and the respective challenges that Roma face.  

Account taken of these differences, statistically representative quantitative equality data 
collection can support policy design and measurement of progress  in  several  countries, 
while not in others. Similarly, several Member States will opt for using  targeted 2021-
2027  EU  funding  (in  combination  with  mainstream  EU  and  targeted  or  mainstream 
national  funds)  to  support  the  implementation  of  their  strategies,  while  others  will  use 
mainstream EU or national funds85. In countries where Roma make up for a significant 
share  of  the  population,  promoting  their  equality  and  inclusion  has  a  clear  economic 
significance. It justifies the use of EU funds for both Roma targeted action and inclusive 
mainstream  reforms,  the  need  for  data  collection  to  support  policy  design,  monitoring 
and review, and the need for more EU guidance and support. 

In  terms  of  ambition,  two  sub-options  for  such  a  ‘do  better’  initiative  exist,  one  with 
purely qualitative EU-level objectives and another with quantitative (and qualitative) EU-
level  objectives.  In  both  cases,  Member  States  could  be  asked  to  translate  EU-level 
objectives into national objectives: 

83   To conform to a human-rights-based approach to data collection, national authorities are encouraged to 
consult  the  European  handbook  on  equality  data  (2016  revision),  Guidelines  on  improving  the 
collection and use of equality data (2018); and Data collection in the field of ethnicity (2017). Member 
States are encouraged to allocate necessary resources to carry out such data collection and profit from 
the support of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to strengthen their capacities to this end.  

84   See section 4.2 and chart 2 above.  
85   See Annex 3. EU mainstreaming and funding initiatives. 

34 

 
                                                           
7.2.4.1.A new EU Framework presenting a reinforced comprehensive policy 
approach  to  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation  -  setting 
qualitative EU-level objectives  

This sub-option has the disadvantage of setting out qualitative EU-level objectives only, 
similar to the current EU Framework and its four Roma integration goals, which risks not 
being specific and measurable enough to monitor progress.  

7.2.4.2.An initiative presenting a reinforced comprehensive policy approach 
to Roma equality, inclusion and participation - setting out qualitative 
and quantitative EU-level objectives  

This  sub-option  could  set  qualitative  and  quantitative  EU-level  objectives  and  propose 
differentiated national quantitative and qualitative objectives taking into account country 
differences.  To  facilitate  take-up  at  national  level,  a  portfolio  of  quantitative  and 
qualitative  indicators  applicable  to  diverse  country  situations  and  agreed  with  Member 
States  could  complement  it.  This  sub-option  would  provide  for  improved  monitoring, 
reporting and evaluation arrangements. 

7.2.5.  Option  to  renew  and  strengthen  Member  States’  commitment  to 

Roma equality, inclusion and participation (‘do more’)  

Importantly,  both  sub-options  presented  under  7.2.4  would  leave  out  a  critical  issue 
identified  as  weakness  of  the  current  EU  Framework,  namely  the  fragmentation  in 
implementation  due  to  its  voluntary  nature.  The  low  take  up  of  the  Roma  Integration 
Goals included in the 2011 EU Framework was a particular reality across Member States.  

To mitigate this issue, the Commission could decide to present an initiative aiming at a 
higher level of ambition and increased Member States’ commitment to progress further 
and  faster  in  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation.  To  this  end,  the  Commission 
could propose to revise the 2013 Council Recommendation.  

In  terms  of  ambition,  two  sub-options  are  possible,  differentiating  from  the  degree  of 
Member States’ acceptance: 

7.2.5.1.An  initiative  reflecting  policy  learning  from  the  evaluation  and 
aiming  at  a  renewed  Member  States’  commitment  towards  more 
effective  national  measures  through  a  soft-law  instrument  but  not 
endorsing  the  use  of  SMART  qualitative  or  quantitative  targets  and 
indicators  for  monitoring  progress  (similar  to  the  2013  Council 
Recommendation on effective Roma integration) 

The  benefit  of  such  a  soft  law  initiative  includes  a  renewed  and  strengthened 
commitment  by  Member  States  to  improved  national  strategic  frameworks  for  Roma 
equality, 
the  design  and 
implementation of national strategies and its governance structures, such as the National 
Roma  Contact  Points.  However,  it  would  not  address  the  advantages  of  sub-option 
7.2.5.2. 

inclusion  and  participation,  continued  guidance  on 

7.2.5.2.An initiative reflecting the findings of the evaluation and aiming at a 
renewed  Member  States’  commitment  towards  more  effective 
national  measures  through  a  soft-law  instrument  and  endorsing  the 
use of SMART qualitative and/or quantitative objectives towards EU 

35 

 
headline targets via the use of indicators adjustable to diverse country 
situations  

This  sub-option  would  in  addition  mean  a  clear  commitment  from  Member  States  for 
monitoring  progress  towards  national  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  objectives  as  their 
contribution  towards  meeting  EU  level  objectives  and  headline  targets86.  The  political 
commitment  would  thus  be  stronger  than  in  the  2013  Council  Recommendation  on 
effective Roma integration. This would be in line with the findings of the evaluation of 
the  EU  Framework87,  which  stressed  the  importance  of  country-specific  objectives  and 
working towards common goals.  

The  collection  of  data  for  qualitative/process  indicators  is  not  standardised.  However, 
since  2016  Member  States  have  started  reporting  to  the  Commission  on  process 
indicators relevant to the 2013 Council Recommendation’s substantive policy areas. The 
development  of  a  reporting  and  monitoring  system  at  EU  level,  in  addition  to  national 
monitoring  systems  (in  line  with  the  minimum  core  requirements  for  national  strategic 
frameworks)  are  the  pathways  to  achieving  the  common  goals  in  the  seven  specific 
objectives.  Thus,  the  portfolio  of  indicators  developed  in  the  context  of  the  Working 
Party  on  Roma  indicators  and  reporting  coordinated  by  the  FRA  encompasses  both 
criteria. First, it reflects the criterion of setting quantitative outcome indicators. Second, it 
responds to the criterion of developing process indicators by looking at the institutional 
set-up  (compliance  with  the  EU  Framework  for  national  strategic  frameworks), 
proposing types of measures and assessing the quality of the decision-making. 

In light of the EU objectives and headlines targets, the Commission proposal for a draft 
Council Recommendation calls on Member States to include national quantitative and/or 
qualitative  targets  in  their  national  strategic  frameworks,  adapted  to  the  national 
circumstances  and  the  options  related  to  the  collection  of  available  ethnically 
disaggregated (or proxy) equality data. 

‘According  to  the  evaluation,  complementing  the  four  priority  areas  with  a  focus  on 
fighting  discrimination  and  antigypsyism  as  both  a  crosscutting  requirement  and  a 
separate  area  and  specifying  a  portfolio  of  individually  adaptable  Roma  integration 
objectives with accompanying targets and indicators would improve the framework’s 
effectiveness  and  relevance.  Country-specific  targets  could  be  selected  from  a  detailed 
list  of  optional  targets  and  indicators  per  area  (differentiated  targets  in  a  common 
framework). Governments should update their objectives and priorities according to their 
national circumstances based on data’88. 

7.2.6.  A combined option (‘do more and better’) 

Such an initiative would combine two or more of the above options or build on elements 
of  several  of  the  scenarios  above.  Such  an  option  could,  in  particular,  combine  the  ‘do 
better’  with  the  ‘do  more’  options  in  a  comprehensive  and  integrated  approach,  while 

86   Due  to the constraints related to data  collection in various  Member States and thus different baseline 
situations,  the  use  of  SMART  qualitative  and  quantitative  targets  and  indicators  would  apply  to  a 
cluster of countries where such quantitative (either ethnically disaggregated or proxy) equality data is 
available. The aim is to ensure that Member States commit to objectives and indicators that they can 
adjust, based on their own country situations (differentiated targets within a common framework).  

87   COM(2018) 785 final. 
88   Ibid.  

36 

 
 
                                                           
strengthening  the  focus  on  fighting  antigypsyism,  including  a  specific  objective  on 
fighting poverty among  Roma as well as  a specific objective on promoting meaningful 
participation of Roma. A combined option would address the need for close cooperation 
between and comprehensive approaches of all stakeholders. In doing so, it would equip 
all  stakeholders,  including  Roma  themselves,  with  what  they  need  to  achieve  faster 
progress towards Roma equality, inclusion and participation. 

Different  levels  of  political  ambition  of  such  a  combined  initiative  are  possible, 
depending  on  the  EU’s  and  national  commitment  in  terms  of  target  setting.  A 
combination  of  sub-options  7.2.4.2  and  7.2.5.2,  namely,  an  EU  strategic  framework 
initiative  with  qualitative  and  quantitative  EU-level  and  national  objectives,  would  be 
most suited to address the magnitude of the challenges, as it is the most ambitious option.  

Building on the current EU Framework, an ambitious new EU strategic framework would 
send a strong political signal from the Commission and provide a strong EU added value. 
In addition, presenting an ambitious proposal for a revised Council Recommendation for 
national Roma strategic frameworks on equality, inclusion and participation at the same 
time  with  the  EU  strategic  framework  could  ensure  that  Member  States  and  the 
Commission work hand in hand. This would entail a commitment by Member States to 
set  national  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  targets  towards  meeting  the  EU  level 
objectives  and  headline  targets.  A  combined  option  has  the  potential  to  increase 
significantly  coherence  and  effectiveness.  In  particular,  effectiveness  would  be 
strengthened if the Communication sets out EU level objectives and headline targets, and 
the  Recommendation  confirms  Member  States’  commitments  to  include  in  their 
strategies clear national contributions towards these common targets89.  

7.3.  Additional considerations regarding the policy choice and retained option 

The last step consisted of the examination of the coherence between the options and the 
political  support  for  the  post-2020  initiative,  as  expressed  publicly  by  Council,  the 
European Parliament and civil society.  

Key reference documents, such as the EPSCO Council Conclusions of 24 October 2019 
on the Economy of Wellbeing90 or the February 2019 European Parliament Resolution on 
‘the  need  for  a  strengthened  post-2020  Strategic  EU  Framework  for  National  Roma 
Inclusion Strategies and stepping up the fight against anti-Gypsyism’91 were supportive 
of  a  new  initiative.  However,  they  were  not  explicit  about  the  expected  policy 
instruments with which the Commission should deliver the requested initiatives.  

As already set out above, the EPSCO Council Conclusions of 8 December 2016 entitled 
‘Accelerating  the  Process  of  Roma  Integration’  clearly  asked  the  Commission  ‘to 
propose a post 2020 strategy on Roma integration, and include therein a proposal 
for a revision of the Council Recommendation’. Only the combined option (option 7) 
would be fully coherent with this request. 

89   See section 8.3 below. 
90   The  Council  Conclusions invite the  Commission to  ‘RENEW the  commitment on Roma inclusion by 
developing  new  policy  initiatives,  including  the  adoption  of  a  post-2020  European  Framework 
Strategy’. 

91   The  resolution  called  on  the  Commission  ‘to  act  on  the  calls  made  by  Parliament,  the  Council  and 
numerous NGOs and experts and propose a Strategic EU Framework on National Roma.’ One should 
note  that  the  EP  Resolution  did  not  ask  for  a  specific  antigypsysim  initiative  but  ‘to  place  the  fight 
against anti-Gypsyism at the heart of the Strategic EU Framework, including by adding a specific anti-
discrimination goal, along with other goals (…)’. 

37 

 
                                                           
Civil  society’s  views  benefited  of  equal  consideration  (see  Annex  1  setting  out 
consultation  activities  and  results).  In  this  respect,  option  7  again  is  clearly  the  option 
with the potential to accommodate most adequately the majority of views expressed and 
requests  made92.  Additionally,  the  experience  of  the  disproportionately  negative  impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic on Roma communities clearly supports the choice of option 
7, as most adequate to deal with all underlying challenges in a comprehensive way. 

Based on the above, the options discarded were the following: 

  No new EU level initiative (‘do less’) 
  Option focusing on ‘doing differently’: Antigypsyism  
  Option focusing in ‘doing differently’: Anti-poverty 
  Option presenting a reinforced comprehensive policy approach to Roma equality 

inclusion and participation (‘do better’) 

  Option  to  renew  and  strengthen  Member  States  commitment  to  Roma  equality, 

inclusion and participation (‘do more’)  

Consequently, the retained option was the one combining the comprehensive policy 
approach  with  stepped  up  political  commitment  of  Member  States  through  a 
revised soft-law initiative.  

Accordingly, that was  the reason why the  roadmap for the initiative published between 
17 February and 16 March 2020 announced a Communication presenting the post-2020 
EU  strategic  framework  accompanied  by  a  proposal  for  a  revised  Council 
Recommendation as the likely type of initiative.  

8.  OTHER METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION 

8.1. 

 Expected Impacts 

While respecting the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, a detailed assessment 
of the economic, social, fundamental rights and environment impacts was not carried out. 
The main reasons for this decision were as follows: 

  The  expected  impacts  strongly  depend  on  the  level  of  commitment  to  Roma 
equality, inclusion and participation agreed to by the Member States, namely, the 
ambition reflected in the Council Recommendation once adopted and the national 
strategic  frameworks  put  in  place  thereafter.  The  initiative  aims  to  raise 
commitment  by  proposing  a  set  of  specific  objectives  and  a  portfolio  of 
qualitative  and  quantitative  indicators  with  associated  types  of  measures,  which 
are for Member States to include in their national strategic frameworks according 
to 
impact 
assessment cannot predict the level of ambition to which Member States would be 
willing to commit in the end.  
In  addition  to  general  challenges  of  quantifying  and  monetising  equality,  non-
discrimination  and  respect  for  fundamental  rights,  carrying  out  an  impact 
assessment in  the area of Roma equality, inclusion and participation would face 
serious limitations in terms of ethnic data collection in the Member States. 

their  Roma  communities’  specific  situation.  Nevertheless,  an 

 

92   See here, here, and here.  

38 

 
                                                           
However, as the evaluation of the 2011-2020 EU Framework found, the situation of the 
disadvantaged represents a loss of human capital and resources for Europe’s economies. 
It is clear, that the disadvantages faced by the Roma, which the initiative aims to tackle, 
bear an impact on Europe’s economies and societies.  

Indeed, in countries with a higher share of Roma, they represent a growing proportion of 
the  school  age  population  and  the  future  workforce.  Therefore,  achieving  equality, 
inclusion  and  participation  of  Roma  is  not  only  a  joint  responsibility  but  also  an 
opportunity. Roma will benefit in terms of recognition, rights, redistribution of resources, 
better  life  outcomes  and  representation  that  is  more  effective.  Europe’s  economies  and 
aging societies will also see positive impacts.  

Progress in socio-economic inclusion and equality of Roma has the potential to decrease 
labour and skills shortages in times of adverse demographic developments, reduce social 
expenditures  and  be  beneficial  for  the  economy.  The  latter  benefits  will  be  particularly 
visible  in  terms  of  productivity  growth  through  better  education  and  upskilling  of  a 
previously excluded young Roma labour force. This could benefit employers, through an 
increased and better skilled labour pool, in times of shrinking labour supply. It could also 
improve sustainability of pension systems  in  ageing societies thanks  to  upskilled Roma 
participating in the labour market. Progress in equality and inclusion can also have fiscal 
benefits  such  as  increased  contributions  to  national  budgets  (increased  tax  payment, 
social  security,  indirect  taxes,  such  as  VAT  or  excise  tax)  and  affect  the  use  of  public 
goods  and  services  (reduced  take-up  of  social  welfare,  unemployment  or  child  support 
benefits).  

Positive economic and financial consequences of Roma equality and inclusion could  in 
turn foster a climate of greater openness within and less discriminatory attitudes by the 
majority  population.  This  could  have  positive  consequences  for  European  society,  in 
particular with regard to tolerance, respect for minorities and social cohesion. 

The  initiative  has  positive  consequences  for  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights.  It 
reinforces implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Article 
21, which prohibits discrimination on any grounds, including race and ethnic origin. 

the 

to  marginalised  Roma 

initiative  pays  specific  attention 

Finally, 
in 
environmentally  degraded  areas  and  Roma  employees  working  under  less  favourable 
environmental  conditions.  Evidence  consistently  shows  higher  rates  of  illness  and 
mortality among Roma linked to poor housing conditions, higher exposure to air, water 
and  ground  pollution,  poor  diets,  higher  vulnerability  to  food  insecurity’93.  Such  living 
conditions turned dire with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw national 
and local authorities take confinement measures/actions that pushed marginalised Roma 
into further exclusion and segregation94.  

living 

93   EEB/ERGO,  Pushed  to  the  Wastelands:  Environmental  racism  against  Roma  communities  in  Central 

and Eastern Europe, 8 April 2020. 

94   See ENAR’s interactive EU-wide map for a detailed account of such instances touching on racialized 
groups at large. For more Roma-specific evidence, see ERGO report and OSF's brief on warning signs 
from six countries. 

39 

 
                                                           
8.2.  Reflecting  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  related 
needs of marginalised Roma communities in the post-2020 initiative  

From the outbreak of the unprecedented health crisis, the Commission called on Member 
States  to  ensure  protection  of  the  most  exposed  disadvantaged  groups,  insisting  on  the 
increased exposure of Roma communities and the need to deliver safely the much-needed 
support.  

As an immediate response to the crisis, the Commission proposed several instruments of 
potential  support  to  disadvantaged  groups  such  as  Roma.  The  COVID-19  Response 
Investment  Initiative  (CRII)  and  the  COVID-19  Response  Investment  Initiative  Plus 
(CRII+)  enabled  the  rapid  mobilisation  of  available  allocations  under  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived 
(FEAD). The EU Solidarity Fund provided additional assistance of up to €800 million to 
the  worst  affected  countries  in  order  to  alleviate  the  financial  burden  of  the  immediate 
response  measures.  NRCPs  were  encouraged  to  coordinate  with  Managing  Authorities 
the planning and implementation of EU funded emergency and midterm measures. The 
EURoma  transnational  learning  network  of  ESF  managing  authorities  and  NRCPs  also 
launched a survey among its members on the use and planned use of EU funds for Roma-
targeted measures in the COVID-19 context95. 

When it comes to the enlargement countries, the COVID-19 response has been notable in 
the  Western  Balkans  as  well  as  Turkey  including  the  targeting  of  disadvantaged 
communities and the Roma96. For the Western Balkans, the European Commission took 
significant  initiatives  to  support  the  region  to  tackle  the  COVID-19  crisis.  The 
‘Commission Communication on the support to the Western Balkans in tackling COVID-
19 and the post-pandemic recovery’97 secured important financial support to address the 
immediate  health  crisis  and  resulting  humanitarian  needs98.  During  March–May  2020, 
the RCC Roma Integration Action Team coordinated regular meetings with each Western 
Balkan  country,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  NRCPs  and  the  Commission99.  The 
objective  of  the  meetings  was  to  coordinate  the  efforts  of  different  stakeholders,  to 
that 
propose 
disadvantaged  Roma  needs  remain  known  and  are  high  in  the  country  agenda  when 
deciding on the COVID-19 responses. 

targeted  and  mainstream  measures  when  needed  and 

to  ensure 

Beside  the  financial  back-up  and  targeted  assistance,  the  Commission  engaged  in  an 
intensive dialogue with stakeholders100 to assess the impact of the crisis on marginalised 
Roma. The NRCPs, which proved their strong coordination role101, EU-level civil society 
networks102,  and  implementers  of  projects  directly  funded  by  the  Commission  reported 

95   See  the  EURoma  Snapshot  on  initial  measures  adopted  within  ESI  Funds  to  deal  with  the  impact  of 

COVID-19 crisis on marginalised Roma communities. 

96   COM(2020) 315 final.  
97   Ibid. 
98   Western Balkans Regional Cooperation Council actions in support to Roma Communities as response 

to the coronavirus crisis. 

99   The regular meetings were also attended by relevant Ministries, the Commission and EU Delegations, 

CSO and international actors. 

100  In  particular  with  the  NRCPs  and  civil  society  organisations  (including  ERGO,  OSF),  FRA  and 

implementers of directly funded projects. 

101  In several Member States, they took a proactive role with efforts to connect multiple stakeholders and 

monitor local implementation, as highlighted in this overview. 

102  See  recommendations  for  measures  provided  under  ERGO’s  EU  Recovery  Plan  and  OSF's  brief  on 

warning signs from six countries. 

40 

 
                                                           
on immediate and mid-term  priority measures for the current  2014-2020  and the future 
2021-2027 financial programming period and how updated national strategic frameworks 
could  help  mitigate  negative  impacts  of  the  pandemic  in  marginalised  Roma 
communities. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) sent updated information on a regular 
basis.  Subsequent  videoconferences103  and 
input  brought  additional 
information  on  the  situation  in  Member  States  and  short  and  longer-term  measures 
suggested to address it. 

follow-up 

NRCPs  and  civil  society  representatives  drew  attention  to  the  following  emergency 
response  measures  (already  implemented  in  some  Member  States  and  enlargement 
countries): 

  Provide access to clean water;  
  Provide access  to  free health services for all in  need including those without  health 

insurance, targeting physical and mental health;  

  Provide access to sanitation, protective gear and medicines; 
  Provide  access  to  mass  testing  according  to  health  conditions  and  level  of  risk  of 

people living in dense settlements;  

  Provide access to information on virus-spread prevention through different means of 
communication and in Romani language (leaflets, posters, word of mouth, TV, radio, 
social media);  

  Provide access to safe quarantine measures to avoid virus spread including access to 

food and housing meeting conditions for self-isolation;  

  Provide  testing  (without  stigmatisation),  particularly  in  dense  and  challenged 

localities;  

  Provide  facilities,  access  to  Wi-Fi  and  additional  support  to  build  digital  skills  for 

distance education; 

  Strengthen  the  position  of  health  mediators,  education  mediators  and  other  field 

workers, the gatekeepers in Roma communities; 

  Ensure continuity of basic utility services during the pandemic; 
  Subsidise  consumption  costs  for  the  most  disadvantaged  and  those  who  have  lost 

income; 

  Ensure that social welfare is extended to cover informal workers, EU mobile Roma 

who have recently returned;  

  Protect  people  affected  by  temporary  loss  of  income,  informal  entrepreneurs  and 

precarious workers. 

In  addition  to  the  emergency  responses,  mid-  and  long-term  measures  required  to 
eradicate the longer-term socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis,104 as suggested 
by NRCPs and civil society representatives, should fit into the main priority areas: 

  Health: make public health investment including marginalised Roma a top political 
priority,  with  special  funding  to  sustain  sanitation  measures  initiated  during  the 
crisis;  expand  primary  health  coverage;  improve  access  to  all  levels  of  healthcare 
and  preventive  care,  implement  mass  vaccination  programmes;  and  strengthen  the 

103 The  videoconferences  were organised as follows: on 27 April 2020, a videoconference  with OSF and 
ERGO  representatives  with  Vice-President  Jourová  and  Commissioner  Dalli;  on  28  April  2020,  a 
discussion with NRCPs as a dedicated session of the Working Party meeting on post-2020 indicators on 
Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation.  A  follow-up  videoconference  with  civil  society 
representatives took place on 29 May 2020.  

104  For further recommendations on human-rights- compliant response and recovery measures, see this UN 

SG policy brief (fn 20). 

41 

 
                                                           
position  of  Roma  health  mediators through  education  and  provision  of  necessary 
equipment;  monitor  the  quality  of  health  services  including  on  instances  of 
discrimination; 

  Employment: support the utilisation of active labour market policies, social economy 
and social enterprises to absorb and strengthen workplace-related skills of Roma at 
risk of poverty; recognition of workers who are part of non-formal economy (easier 
access  to  legal  status  for  migrant  workers,  if  needed);  accelerate  the  transition  of 
young  people  from  education  to  employment  through  coaching,  mentoring, 
traineeships, business incubators, and dual education; support schemes for businesses 
providing  employment  to  disadvantaged  people,  including  socially  responsible 
public procurement; support financial literacy; 

  Education:  compensate  all  pupils  from  socially  deprived  backgrounds  by 
strengthening social bonds through extracurricular activities such as outdoor school 
(educational)  trips,  school  educational  trips  with  non-Roma  peers,  free  school  club 
access;  strengthen  the  work  of  school  psychologists  and  social  educators; 
compensatory  tutoring  of  all  children  in  need  (including  marginalised  Roma)  by 
community  centres  or  local  NGOs  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  crisis  on  school 
performance; improvement of IT skills for Roma children, teachers and parents from 
marginalised  communities;  provision  of  broadband  access,  adequate  digital 
infrastructure,  teaching  material  and  Roma  education  mediators equipped  for 
distance  learning;  provision  of  distance  learning  premises (with  IT  and  internet 
access)  within 
libraries  or 
community centres; scholarships for Roma to become teachers; 

the  marginalised 

such  as  public 

localities 

 

  Housing and essential services: improve access to water supply and sanitation, make 
a  priority  for  Member  States  to  tackle  overcrowding  and  poor  quality  housing; 
develop and financially support Travellers’ housing needs (halting and family sites); 
Social  and  child  protection:  provide  greater  support  for  the  expansion  of  social 
protection  to  Roma  by  means  of  advisory  services  and  financial  incentives;  ensure 
that  food  aid  distribution  meets  the  needs  and  maintain  actions  post-crisis;  prevent 
the institutionalisation of children; 
Intra-EU mobility for work: improve cooperation on the mobility of EU citizens with 
a specific focus on marginalised people; 
Institutional  reform:  enhance  the  capacity  of  authorities  to  implement  inclusive 
mainstream policies and integrate lessons from the management of emergencies. 

 

 

Additionally,  to  fight  antigypsyism  and  discrimination,  NRCPs  and  civil  society 
organizations  proposed  the  following  measures:  police  and  media  awareness-raising 
training;  investigating  and  sanctioning  police  abuse;  spreading  positive  images  about 
Roma  and  benefits  of  multiculturalism  and  inclusion  in  media;  condemnation  through 
better  legal  investigation  of  anti-Roma  hate  speech105  and  hate  crime;  and  sanctioning 
and  prosecuting  fake  news  spreaders  and  anti-Roma  hate  speech  related  to  COVID-19. 
Moreover,  OSF  proposed  to  make  sure  that  information  imparted  by  the  government 
about  the  pandemic  respects  privacy  rights  and  avoids  an  ethnicised/racialized  view  of 
the  health  crisis.  In  addition,  they  suggested  to  pay  attention  that  the  most  important 
information (such as new legislation and available remedies) is available in Romanes (in 
Member States where primarily Romanes is spoken in Roma communities); and support 
organizations  and 
initiatives  providing  alternative,  well-informed  and  credible 
information and narratives about the Roma.  

105  In some Member States, equality bodies took action to condemn fiercely instances of online anti-Roma 

hate speech perpetuated by public figures by applying a fine. 

42 

 
                                                           
The awareness of the immediate, mid- and long-term challenges raised by unprecedented 
health crisis translated into the need to feed the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic into 
the initiative. The Commission opted for a comprehensive approach, including collection 
of information and sharing of practices to inform policy learning. 

To provide the necessary evidence base, FRA  prepared, at the Commission’s request, a 
thematic  report106  on  the  fundamental  rights  impacts  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on 
Roma.  The  summary  report  evolved  in  a  forward-looking  reflection  on  the  situation  in 
the  context  of  the  Roma  inclusion  policies  implemented  (or  initiated)  in  the  latest 
to  data  collection  constraints  and 
programming  period.  Inevitably  patchy  due 
fragmentation,  it  served  nevertheless  to  inform  the  discussion  on  gaps  revealed  by  the 
pandemic and inspire the quest for better approaches in the future. 

According to the findings of the research, the pandemic experience revealed the need of 
focused  and  concerted  action  in  three  dimensions.  One  is  fighting  discrimination, 
prejudice  and  antigypsyism,  another  is  diminishing  social  inequalities,  with  a  third 
dimension  of  actions  centred  on  genuine  participation  and  promotion  of  Roma 
agency.  
In parallel, discussions continued with NRCPs and civil society107 focusing on how the 
initiative  could  mitigate  the  crisis’  impact  on  marginalised  Roma  communities.  The 
Commission further cooperated with the FRA on the development of a portfolio of Roma 
equality,  inclusion  and  participation  indicators  with  associated  targets  and  types  of 
measures. The portfolio, based on the inputs from the Working Party on Roma indicators 
(with  participation  of  NRCPs  and  Statistical  offices  from  Member  States),  proposed 
measures  that  included  those  emerging  from  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. 

On  a  general  note  and  taking  into  account  the  considerations  above  on  the  expected 
impacts and the lessons of the pandemic, the measures proposed under the strategic EU 
framework rely on solid evidence and policy learning. Sources for reflection ranged from 
the  findings  of  the  evaluation108  of  the  EU  Framework  for  national  Roma  integration 
strategies up to 2020109 to the extensive public and targeted stakeholder consultations110 
and  to  previous  assessments  on  the  implementation  of  national  Roma  integration 
strategies and measures, including reflections on the limited effectiveness of integration 
measures and strategies111. The measures also take into account the conclusions of a 2019 
meta-evaluation of interventions for Roma inclusion, aimed as a consolidated view of the 
outcomes  of  evaluations  of  Roma  inclusion  measures  to  condense  knowledge  on  what 
works, what does not and why with a view to provide guidance for the design of future 

106  ‘Implications  of  COVID-19  on  Roma  and  Traveller  Communities.  Overview  of  evidence  from  15  EU 
Member States’. Thematic report by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, July 2020 (unpublished). 
The  report  is  based  on  research  carried  out  by  FRANet,  the  research  network  of  the  EU  Agency  for 
Fundamental  Rights  in  the  Member  States,  for  the  purpose  of  the  Agency’s  monthly  bulletins  on  the 
impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Additional FRANET research on the impact of the pandemic on 
the Roma and Travellers in 15 EU Member States served to complement this work. The Member States 
are  those  covered  by  the  EU  MIDIS  II  2016  survey  (Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Greece, 
Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain) and five of the countries covered by the 2019 Roma 
and Travellers Survey (Belgium, France, Ireland, Sweden, and the Netherlands), FRA (2020).  

107  The  videoconferences  took  place  on  19  May  2020  (civil  society  organisations)  and  25-26  May  2020 

(NRCPs).  

108  COM(2018) 785 final, SWD(2018) 480 final. 
109  COM(2011) 173. 
110  For a summary of consultations, see Annex 1: Stakeholder Consultations. 
111  COM(2019) 406, SWD(2019) 320, all annual reports. 

43 

 
                                                           
evidence-based  measures112.  Therefore,  the  new  EU  strategic  framework  puts  forward 
evidence-based  measures,  the  best  possible  choice  in  terms  of  improving  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  efforts 
inclusion  and 
participation. 

towards  Roma  equality, 

8.3.  Targets and monitoring 

In  order  to  send  a  clear  political  message  on  the  ambition  needed  to  progress  further 
towards  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation,  and  building  on  the  specific 
objectives, the Commission proposes interrelated EU-level headline targets to be reached 
until 2030 for each of the seven objectives.  
The  suggested  EU  headline  targets  build  on  the  specific  objectives  as  laid  out  in  the 
roadmap  for  the  new  EU  strategic  framework  and  take  into  consideration  relevant 
guidelines113: 

  Targets  should  be  precise  and  concrete,  not  open  to  interpretation,  and 
measurable,  even  in  light  of  data  limitations.  Collaboration  with  the  FRA,  the 
Member  States  and  civil  society  during  the  preparations  of  the  initiative  was 
fundamental  in  this  respect.  The  FRA  chaired  a  working  party  established  to 
discuss  and  agree  on  indicators  and  operational  objectives  for  the  post-2020 
period; 

  Targets  should  be  achievable,  taking  the  latest  available  FRA  survey  data  as 

baseline but also the wider socio-economic context; 

  Targets  should  be  relevant,  namely  linked  to  the  seven  specific  objectives,  and 
the  Sustainable 

line  with 

time  bound,  namely  achievable  by  2030, 
Development Goals for 2030; 

in 

  Targets should be in close alignment with forthcoming initiatives114.  

The EU level headline targets have been expressed as minimum progress to be achieved 
by  2030  towards  closing  the  gap  between  Roma  and  the  general  population,  which 
remains  the  long-term  aim  in  order  to  reach  effective  equality.  At  the  same  time,  the 
baseline  situation  (of  Roma,  as  well  as  of  the  general  population)  is  also  specified 
together  with  the  minimum  progress  to  be  reached  in  each  area  with  respect  to  the 
situation  of  Roma.  The  values  for  general  population  are  provided  for  the  indicators 
where  they  exist.  The  caveats  that  need  to  be  considered  when  analysing  values, 
limitations  in  comparability  between  the  values  for  Roma  and  the  values  for  general 

112  A meta-evaluation of interventions for Roma inclusion (September 2019), aimed as a consolidated view 
of  the  outcomes  of  evaluations  of  Roma  inclusion  measures  to  condense  knowledge  on  what  works, 
what  does  not  and  why  with  a  view  to  provide  guidance  for  the  design  of  future  evidence-based 
measures. 

113  Atkinson, T et al, Social Indicators: The EU and Social Inclusion (2002). There are three main criteria 
for a portfolio of indicators: a) to be balanced across different dimensions; b) to be mutually consistent 
and  of  a  proportionate  weight;  and  c)  to  be  as  transparent  and  accessible  as  possible  to  EU  citizens. 
Individual  indicators,  instead,  should:  a)  capture  the  essence  of  the  problem  and  have  a  clear  and 
accepted  normative  interpretation  (i.e.  agreed  on  by  stakeholders,  experts,  countries,  politics);  b)  be 
robust  and  statistically  validated;  c)  be  responsive  to  policy  interventions  but  not  subject  to 
manipulations;  d)  be  measurable  in  a  sufficiently  comparable  way  across  Member  States  and 
comparable as far as practicable with the standards applied internationally; e) be timely and susceptible 
to revision; and f) not represent a burden on a Member State, enterprise, or the EU’s citizens when it 
comes to its measurement.  

114  At the time of writing, discussions were ongoing for the development of an Action Plan to implement 
the  European  Pillar  on  Social  Rights.  Additionally,  the  targets  were  set  after  consultation  of  the 
Commission  services,  and  already  take  into  account  those  of  the  forthcoming  European  Education 
Area.  

44 

 
                                                           
population  and  reference  to  the  source  of  values  for  general  population  are  covered  in 
Annex 2.  

In  addition,  to  operationalise  monitoring  of  and  reporting  on  the  effectiveness  of  the 
initiative,  operational  objectives  or  subareas  for  action  were  identified  for  some  of  the 
specific objectives  above. For example, promoting  awareness of Roma  history, culture, 
recognition  and  reconciliation  is  considered  as  an  operational  objective  under  fighting 
and  preventing  antigypsyism  and  discrimination,  while  fighting  environmental 
discrimination,  promoting  environmental  justice  is  considered  an  operational  objective 
under  the  specific  objective  of  increasing  effective  Roma  access  to  adequate 
desegregated housing and essential services.  

The portfolio fully takes into account  the fact  that  not  all countries are in a position to 
include quantitative targets in their national strategic frameworks, primarily due to data 
constraints but also to policy choices in terms of mainstream versus targeted policies for 
Roma. They can still set targets in view of the proposed process indicators. 

the  Communication  and  developed  in 
The  portfolio  of  indicators  attached  to 
collaboration with  FRA, civil  society  and the Member States, is  an integral  part of this 
initiative. It will serve as a joint measurement framework for the next 10 years. Its aim is 
to help Member States translate the specific objectives above and the EU headline targets 
associated into operational objectives, and national quantitative and/or qualitative targets, 
taking  into  account  the  different  baseline  situations  in  the  countries  as  well  as  the 
availability  of  ethnically  disaggregated  or  other  equality  data  (differentiated  targets 
within  a  common  framework).  Governments  should  thus  adopt  their  objectives  and 
prioritise according to their national circumstances based on available data115. 

The proposed indicators take due account of indicators used by Eurostat for the general 
population,  including  for  monitoring  of  progress  towards  the  Sustainable  Development 
Goals  and  the  implementation  of  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  other  EU 
indicator  sets,  while  complemented  with  more  Roma-specific  indicators.  Comparability 
with  relevant  Eurostat 
the  extent  given  by  survey 
is  ensured 
methodologies116. 

indicators 

to 

The  indicators  relevant  for  monitoring  together  with  the  baseline  value  against  which 
progress  is  to  be  measured  are  available  in  Annex  2  to  the  EU  Roma  strategic 
framework117.  

In  line  with  the  commitments  made  and  the  specific  national  situations,  countries  are 
invited  to  adopt  national  Roma  strategic  frameworks.  Thereafter,  they  should  monitor 
and  implement  them  appropriately  by  using  the  portfolio  of  indicators  annexed  to  the 
Communication  and  select 
the  draft  Council 
Recommendation.  

from  measures  proposed  by 

Member States are invited to report biannually to the Commission on ongoing and new 
measures, together with information on the progress achieved in each thematic area when 

115  While  Member  States  with  ethnically  disaggregated  (or  proxy)  equality  data  can  set  corresponding 
national targets to express their commitment towards the below EU headline targets, for Member States 
without quantitative equality data process indicators (as set out in Annex 2 to COM(2020) XXX) can 
serve as a guidance. 

116  For  nine  Member  States  (BG,  CZ,  EL,  ES,  HU,  HR,  PT, RO,  SK)  the  2016  EUMIDIS2  data  can  be 
used. For five Member States (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE), data is available from the 2018-2019 Roma and 
Traveller Survey, FRA (2020),  Roma and Travellers in six countries. See  Annex 2 with baseline data 
on EU headline indicators, which covers both data 2016 and 2019 data sets.  

117  Annex 2 to COM(2020) 620 final. 

45 

 
                                                           
implementing  their  respective  national  Roma  strategic  frameworks.  To  increase 
transparency and allow for policy learning, national reports should be made public, while 
national  strategic frameworks and finalised implementation  reports should be discussed 
in national parliaments.  

The  table  below  provides  a  summary  of  the  envisaged  monitoring,  reporting  and 
evaluation cycle: 

Table 5: The EU Roma strategic framework reporting cycles 

Regular 
surveys (FRA) 

Reports from 
NRCPs 

Report on the use 
of EU-funds 

Civil monitoring  

Commission 
monitoring reports 

Data collection: 
2020 
Results: 2021 

Data collection: 
2024 
Results: 2025 

Data collection: 
2028 
Results: 2029 

National 
strategies: 2021 

National 
implementation 
reports: 2023 

National 
implementation 
reports: 2025 
National 
Implementation 
reports: 2027 
National 
Implementation 
reports: 2029 

1st round of national 
civil reports: spring 
2022  
2nd round of 
national civil 
reports: spring 2024 

Commission report on 
strategies: autumn 
2022 
Commission report on 
implementation: 
autumn 2024 

Report on 
milestones of output 
indicators: 2024 

3rd round of civil 
reports: spring 2026  

4th round of civil 
reports: spring 2028  

Commission report 
implementation: 
autumn 2026 
Commission report on 
implementation: 
autumn 2028 

Report on targets of 
output indicators: 
2029 

Evaluations and 
future policy 
proposal 

In-depth evaluation 
of the new EU 
Roma strategic 
framework 

Commission follow 
up proposal: 2030 
Ex-post evaluation 

9. 

INTERVENTION LOGIC FOR EX-POST EVALUATION 

Finally, the intervention logic for ex-post evaluations below was constructed. It takes into 
account the main criteria which of ex-post evaluations should include, i.e. effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added  value.  It  adds  two  additional  criteria, 
namely sustainability and coordination. 

The  intervention  logic  illustrates  that  in  progressing  towards  Roma  equality,  inclusion 
and  participation,  the  new  EU  strategic  framework  does  not  operate  independently  of 
other  legal,  policy  and  financial  instruments  but  mobilises  and  aligns  with  these 
instruments  and  their  concrete  activities  to  reach  its  specific  objectives.  Outputs, 
outcomes  and  impacts  of  the  EU  Roma  strategic  framework  depend  on  the  smooth 
running  of  these  other  instruments  (see  also  Annex  2  to  the  Communication).  The 
intervention logic also acknowledges the influence of commonly shared, and sometimes 
adverse,  external  factors,  including  the  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic on the effectiveness of the initiative.  

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHART 3: THE EU ROMA STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2021-2030- INTERVENTION LOGIC FOR EX-POST EVALUATION 

RATIONALE FOR 
INTERVENTION 
(Needs) 

 

 

Inequalities 
experienced by Roma  
Socio-economic 
exclusion of Roma 

OBJECTIVES 

General: 
Contribute to promoting equality and combating exclusion of Roma with their involvement 
Specific: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

fight and prevent antigypsyism and discrimination 
reduce poverty and social exclusion among Roma 
promote participation by empowerment, building cooperation and trust 
increase effective Roma access to quality inclusive mainstream education 
increase effective Roma access to quality and sustainable employment 
improve Roma health and increase effective Roma access to quality healthcare services 
increase effective Roma access to adequate desegregated housing and essential services   

Effects 

IMPACTS 
 

Reduced inequalities and discrimination 
experienced by Roma 
Sustainably improved socio-economic 
inclusion of Roma; 
Economic, fiscal, and social benefits to 
EU societies 

 

 

Sustainability 

EXTERNAL FACTORS 

 

 
 

 

Socio-economic situation, 
including impacts of pandemic 
Migration pressures 
Domestic political situation — 
nationalist parties and 
discriminatory rhetoric, hate 
speech  
Shift of political priorities 

Effectiveness 

Relevance 

EU added value 

EU/ national/ local interventions for Roma equality, 
inclusion and participation 

INPUTS from the EU strategic framework 

EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation 

 

 

 

providing guidance to MS on the development, design, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of their national 
strategic frameworks 
with EU-level targets accompanied by a portfolio of qualitative 
and quantitative indicators and objectives for the national level to 
choose from in a common but differentiated approach 
common basic principles for Roma equality, inclusion and 
participation and guidance on further horizontal principles 

Member States activities directly triggered by the EU strategic framework 

 

 

 
 

 

Design, implement, monitor and evaluate national strategic frameworks in 
close cooperation with Roma and pro-Roma civil society 
Set baseline, chose indicators and achievable quantitative and/or qualitative 
national objectives 
Strengthen national Roma contact points  
Implement measures in the seven areas of , combating antigypsyism and 
discrimination, combatting poverty, promoting participation, education, 
employment, health housing and essential services  
Allocate sufficient national, EU and other funding 

Enlargement countries activities directly triggered by the EU strategic framework 

The objectives of the EU strategic framework are equally relevant to enlargement 
countries. Their national strategic frameworks should be reviewed accordingly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accompanied by a proposal for a revised Council Recommendation for 
Roma equality, inclusion and participation 

Activities accompanied by: 

Coordination 

Inputs from other EU policies with relevance for Roma equality, 
inclusion and participation, such as 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

Funding provided by EU Funds and financial instruments (ESF+, 
ERDF, REC, Invest EU etc.) 
European Semester (country reports and CSRs) 
Charter of Fundamental Rights 
Implementation of the Pillar of Social Rights (youth guarantee, 
child guarantee etc.)  
Future Action Plan on the Pillar 
Implementation of legislation 
Anti-trafficking policies 
Enlargement and neighbourhood policies 

Coherence 

 

 

Strengthened participation of Roma and pro-Roma civil society in all 
aspects of the policy cycle 
Taking into account the diversity within the Roma and specific needs of 
specific groups (women, children, youth, EU mobile Roma, third country 
nationals and stateless Roma, Roma with disabilities, LBGTI Roma, etc.) 

  Mobilisation and alignment of other legal, policy and financial instruments 

and governance structures 

Member States activities related to other EU policies, such as: 

 
 
 

 

Implementation of CSRs issued in the context of the European Semester 
Implementation of ESIF 2014-2020 and EU Funds 2021-2027 
Compliance with decisions issued in the context of infringement 
procedures  
Implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and its Action Plan 

47 

Efficiency 

OUTCOMES 
 

Reduced antigypsyism and 
discrimination of Roma 
Reduced rates of poverty and social 
exclusion among Roma 
Strengthened Roma participation and 
cooperation between stakeholders 
Increased effective participation of 
Roma in quality inclusive mainstream 
education 
Increased effective participation of 
Roma in quality and sustainable 
employment 
Improved Roma health and access to 
quality healthcare services 
Improved Roma access to adequate 
disaggregated housing and essential 
services 

OUTPUTS (directly related to the EU 
strategic framework) 

National level 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 
EU level 
 
 

Existence of national strategic 
frameworks in all EU Member States and 
enlargement countries 
Existence of strengthened National Roma 
Contact Points in all EU Member States 
and the enlargement countries 
Existence of participatory processes 
Reporting to the Commission 

Meetings of the NRCP network 
Meetings with Roma and pro-Roma civil 
society 
Meetings of a new advisory body 
Organisation of Roma Platforms 
Regular monitoring reports on 
implementation of national strategic 
frameworks 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

1.  Introduction 

This  annex  is  a  synopsis  report  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  activities  undertaken  to 
inform the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation 2021-
2030 adopted by the Commission on 6 October 2020. The aim of this report is to provide 
an overview of consultation activities and their outcome and to inform stakeholders about 
how their contributions were taken into account in the preparation of the initiative. 

2.  Overview of consultation scope and objectives 

Consultations for the initiative did not have to start from scratch. Consultation activities 
complemented  those  already  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  of  the  EU 
Framework118.  The  scope  and  objectives  of  these  additional  consultations  were  aligned 
with  the  remaining  needs  in  terms  of  data  collection,  taking  into  account  the  extensive 
consultations carried out already for the above-mentioned evaluation119. In particular, in 
the context of the evaluation’s consultation strategy, an online open public consultation 
was conducted in the second half of 2017. It included a substantial number of forward-
looking questions, which now fed the preparation of the initiative.  This was justified as 
opinions and views of stakeholders do not change within such a short time span. 

To  further  complement  the  activities  carried  out  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation  of  the 
EU  Framework,  a  range  of  targeted  consultation  activities  were  conducted.  The  key 
thematic aspects covered in the targeted consultations included opinions and advice on: 

  policy options for the new initiative 
  how  to  address  antigypsyism,  Roma  participation  and  the  diversity  of  Roma  in 

the post-2020 EU strategic framework and in national frameworks 

  how to improve monitoring and measurement of progress through indicators and 

objectives 

Stakeholders consulted included those already identified for the evaluation120: 

  National Roma Contact Points (NRCPs) 
  Stakeholders representing national, local, regional and municipal authorities  and 
other public or mixed entities such as social services, housing, health, education 
service providers 

  Representatives  of  non-governmental  and  civil  society  organisations  (EU 
in  Member  States  and 

umbrella  organisations  and  organisations  active 
enlargement countries on national/regional/local levels) 

118  An overview of these activities can be found in the Evaluation of the EU Framework for NRIS up to 
2020, SWD(2018) 480 final, Annex 2. The Commission adopted in December 2018 a Communication 
reporting on the evaluation; see COM(2018) 785 final.  

119  The  evaluation  is  based  on  an  extensive  desk  review  of  secondary  literature,  reports  and  databases, 
interviews  with  stakeholders  in  16  other  EU  Member  States,  interviews  at  EU  level  and  in  three 
enlargement  countries,  an  open  public  consultation,  a  survey  among  non-governmental  organisations, 
2016 survey data from FRA (EU-MIDIS II) and a validation workshop. 

120  While all the stakeholder types targeted were approached, representatives of organisations representing 
business and professional associations did not respond to the OPC. The other stakeholder groups were 
effectively reached through the various types of consultations activities indicated below. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Representatives of international organisations and institutions active in the area of 

Roma integration in EU countries and/or enlargement countries 

  Representatives of research and academic institutions 
  European-level experts with a stated interest in Roma integration issues 
  EU and non-EU citizens, including members of Roma communities 
  Representatives of organisations representing churches and religious communities 
  Representatives of business and professional associations 

The well-established network of NRCPs and regular meetings of EU-level  civil  society 
and  international  organisations121  organised  by  the  Commission  ensured  regular 
exchanges  and  consultation  on  the  above  key  thematic  aspects  throughout  the 
preparations. A new dedicated thematic subgroup of the NRCP network (Working Party 
on Roma indicators and reporting facilitated by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 
FRA) served as additional forum for discussion and decision-making regarding indicators 
and monitoring of progress.  

In addition, the Commission pursued the following main types of consultation activities 
to reach out to the stakeholders listed above. More information about methodology and 
outcomes is provided in the next chapter.  

Open public consultation: 

  an  open  public  consultation  carried  out  between  July  and  October  2017,  which 
the  OPC 

featured  a  substantial  number  of  forward-looking  questions; 
questionnaire and the summary report were translated into all EU languages; 

Targeted  stakeholder  consultations  prior  to  the  1  October  2019  workshop  on  future 
policies for Roma: 

  a  targeted  consultation  of  stakeholders  on  their  views  on  the  findings  of  the 
evaluation of the EU Framework published in December 2018; stakeholders were 
invited to present written comments between February and May 2019; a series of 
bilateral  and  multilateral  meetings  were  held  between  June  and  October  with 
contributing organisations. 

Workshop: 

  a  workshop  with  stakeholders  on  1  October  2019  in  Brussels,  Belgium,  which 
brought  together  130  participants  to  gather  views  on  future  policies  for  Roma 
(policy  options,  measuring  progress, 
fighting  antigypsyism,  promoting 
participation, addressing the diversity among the Roma);  

  workshop follow-up: publication of discussion papers on the themes set out above 
for  the  workshop  on  EUROPA,  providing  the  possibility  for  written  comments 
until 31 October 2019, also for stakeholders that did not have the opportunity to 
attend the workshop; 

Targeted stakeholder consultations after the workshop: 

121  The regular members of this stakeholder group are: EU umbrella non-Roma organisations: AI, Armée 
du  Salut,  CCME,  COMECE,  Eurochild,  EUROCITIES,  ECMI,  Eurodiaconia,  EAPN,  EFC,  ENAR, 
ENS,  EPHA,  FEANTSA,  Habitat,  ISSA,  Salvation  Army.  EU  umbrella  Roma  organisations:  ERTF, 
ERGO  Network,  ERIO,  ERIAC,  EURoma,  ERRC,  TernYpe,  IRU,  OSF,  Phiren  Amenca,  REDI,  and 
REF. International organisations: CoE, OHCHR, ODIHR, UNICEF, WHO. Partners: EFTA, Equinet, 
and FRA. EU institutions: EESC. Academia/Research: CEU. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

 

in  the  context  of  a  contract  with  external  experts  providing  advice  to  the 
Commission,  three  feedback  groups  composed  of  8  to  10  stakeholders  were 
established  to  review  and  contribute  to  the  external  experts’  work  before 
finalisation and delivery of the final reports at the beginning of 2020122;  
the Roma Civil Society Monitor, a pilot project which built Roma civil society’s 
capacity to independently monitor the implementation of (and thus assess gaps in) 
the NRIS; 

  bilateral  and  multilateral  consultation  meetings  with  civil  society  and 
international  organisations  on  individual  and  collective  inputs,  in  addition  to 
regular meetings organised by the Commission; 

  participation of Commission representatives in numerous events and conferences 
organised  by  stakeholders  to  inform,  update  and  seek  further  feedback  for  the 
initiative  (such  as  the  ESF  Committee,  the  Social  Dialogue  Committee,  the 
EESC,  the  EURoma  transnational  learning  network,  civil  society  organisations, 
etc.); 

  organisation of a high-level event in cooperation with the German EU Presidency 
on  12-14  October  2020  in  Heidelberg,  Germany,  to  launch  the  initiative.  The 
event brought together 250 participants representing relevant national authorities 
from  the  EU Member States, enlargement countries, international  organizations, 
EU-, national- and local level NGOs, European Institutions and media; 

Roadmap: 
 

the  publication  of  the  Roadmap  for  the  initiative,  which  allowed  to  gather 
feedback  from  EU-level  and  national  (pro-)Roma  NGOs,  public  authorities, 
researchers and academics, and individual EU citizens. 

In  addition,  a  Commission-internal  Inter-service  Group  (ISG)  was  set  up  for  the 
preparation of the initiative. It was composed of several Commission services123 and met 
on  7  October  2019,  9  December  2019  and  17  June  2020.  The  ISG  was  consulted  in 
writing on 8 April 2020. 

3.  Description of consultation activities and outcomes 

What follows is a short overview of the main types of consultation activities pursued by 
the Commission to reach out to the stakeholders, with a brief description of the process, 
its findings and how it fed the new initiative.  
3.1. Open public consultation (OPC) 

The OPC carried out by the Commission for the evaluation aimed to collect the views of 
stakeholders  on  the  achievement  and  challenges  of  the  EU  Framework  for  National 
Roma  Integration Strategies between 2011 and  2016, in  order to  identify  specific  areas 
that would need prioritising during the remaining implementation period (until 2020). In 
addition,  the  OPC  included  several  forward-looking  questions,  which  fed  into  the 
reflections on the new post-2020 policy initiative.  

122  The reports focused on the question of how to address three specific issues in the post-2020 initiative: 

antigypsyism, Roma participation and the diversity among the Roma in Europe.  

123  DG JUST, DG SJ, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL, DG HR, DG AGRI, DG MOVE, DG ENV, DG RTD, DG 
CNECT,  DG  JRC,  DG  REGIO,  DG  EAC,  DG  SANTE,  DG  HOME,  DG  NEAR,  DG  ESTAT,  DG 
COMM, DG SG, DG REFORM, EEAS, and FRA. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  online  OPC  ran  between  19  July  2017  and  25 October  2017  on  the  website  of  the 
European Commission.  It was open for anyone to participate and translated into all EU 
languages.  Out  of  the  240  responses  received  to  the  survey,  165  replies  came  from 
organisations and 75 from individual citizens. Of the 165 responding organisations, 106 
answered on behalf of an NGO, think tank or an association (EU-level, national, regional 
and  local  non-governmental  organisations  (Roma  and  pro-Roma))  active  in  EU  and/or 
enlargement countries, 44 on behalf of a public administration, and 15 on behalf of other 
organisations  (such  as  equality  bodies).  202  of  the  240  respondents  specified  their 
ethnicity: 91 identified themselves as Roma and 111 as non-Roma. A full report on the 
public  consultation  results  is  published  on  EUROPA  as  well  as  a  summary  report.  In 
addition,  28  position  papers  were  received  as  part  of  the  OPC,  equally  available  as  an 
attachment on EUROPA. 

Noteworthy  preliminary  findings,  which  fed  into  the  design  and  implementation  of  the 
new initiative, include: 

On the causes of exclusion and the policy’s role in addressing them: 

 

 

  an  overwhelming  majority  of  survey  respondents  (between  86  and  95% 
depending  on  the  thematic  area  with  antidiscrimination  receiving  the  highest 
percentage)  agree  on  the  need  for  targeted  public  interventions  in  the  fields  of 
education, employment, healthcare, housing and anti-discrimination; 
the  survey  confirmed  that  discrimination  remains  the  first  cause  of  Roma 
exclusion  (94%  of  respondents),  followed  by  Roma  communities’  lack  of 
participation  in  developing  inclusion  measures,  limited  political  commitment, 
institutional capacity and insufficient funding; 
for a majority of the respondents (almost 60 %), the EU has a major role to play 
in  supporting  national,  regional  and  local  authorities,  because  Member  States 
alone  cannot  work  towards  Roma  inclusion  goals.  EU  funding  programmes  and 
initiatives,  monitoring  included,  are  critical  to  drive  reform  and  secure  political 
commitment at the national level; 
respondents consistently stated that both EU institutions and national authorities 
should work together to develop measures to improve Roma inclusion. They see a 
stronger  role  for  the  EU  than  for  national  authorities  in:  (i)  monitoring  and 
enforcing  European  non-discrimination  and  anti-racism  legislation  and  (ii) 
making access to funding conditional on developing and implementing ambitious 
Roma policies; 

 

  national  authorities  are  expected  to  play  a  bigger  role  in  measures  such  as:  (i) 
community building between Roma and non-Roma; (ii) non-discrimination; (iii) 
training for public officials on how to achieve Roma inclusion; (iv) making Roma 
history and culture part of school curricula; and (v) providing policy guidance to 
authorities; 

  key  challenges  identified  by  the  respondents  include:  (i)  the  insufficient 
incorporation  of  Roma  inclusion  into  other  policies  and  instruments  at  both 
European  and  national  level;  (ii)  rising  discrimination  and  antigypsyism  at  both 
European  and  national  level;  and  (iii)  insufficient  funding  allocated  to  Roma 
inclusion at the national level. 

On the priority areas for action at European and national levels: 

  respondents  identified  access  to  education  as  a  clear  priority  (67 %  at  European 
level  and  76 %  at  national  level),  with  the  following  priorities  coming  next  in 

51 

 
 
 
line: access to employment (49.2%); fighting discrimination (47.9%); addressing 
antigypsyism (40.9%); access to housing and essential services (37.6%); access to 
healthcare  (35.3%);  and  empowerment  and  participation  of  Roma  (social, 
economic, political, cultural) (29.3%). 

3.2. Targeted stakeholder consultations prior to the workshop 

Targeted  consultations  with  stakeholders  across  Member  States  and  enlargement 
countries  took  place  both  before  and  after  the  1  October  2019  workshop  on  future 
policies for Roma.  

The Commission  initiated a targeted consultation of stakeholders on their views on the 
findings  of  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  Framework  published  in  December  2018.  The 
stakeholders  were  invited  to  present  written  comments  from  February  until  May  2019. 
After  careful  analysis  of  the  12  position  papers  received  from  nine  stakeholders  (see 
below),  the  Commission  services  organised  and  hosted  several  bi-  and  multilateral 
meetings feeding into the design of the post-2020 initiative:  

-  Meeting with Eurodiaconia on 28 May 2019, focusing on the topic of EU-mobile 

Roma; 

-  Meeting  with  FEANTSA  on  29  August  2019,  which  added  input  on  how  to 

address EU mobile Roma and the issue of homelessness;  

-  Meeting with EUROCITIES on 29 August 2019, which concluded on the need to 
involve cities in policy-making, setting up a multi-level governance mechanism of 
Roma inclusion, and improving access of cities to funding; 

-  Meeting  with  Alliance  against  Antigypsyism124  on  2  September  2019,  during 
which the need for stronger policy mainstreaming of Roma inclusion policies was 
highlighted, along with concrete antigypsyism measures; 

-  Meeting with Open Society Foundations125 on 5 September 2019 to discuss their 
position paper on future EU Roma policy, which concluded on the need to address 
antigypsyism, intra-Roma diversity and a mainstream approach in policy design; 
-  Annual  meeting  with  civil  society  and  international  partners  on  16  September 
2019, which concluded on the need to ensure a better participation of international 
Roma  networks  to  European  events,  on  a  better  link  between  the  future  Roma 
inclusion  policy  and  EU  funds,  and  to  regulate  the  status  of  nomadic  Roma 
throughout national strategies; 

-  Meeting  with  European  Environmental  Bureau  and  ERGO  Network  on  18 
September 2019 related to the project “Mapping environmental discrimination of 
Roma communities”, which set out the need to include the topic of environmental 
discrimination and racism in the post-2020 policies; 

-  Meeting  with  EUROCHILD  and  International  Social  Security  Association  on  26 
September 2019 on vulnerable Roma children, which concluded on strengthening 
synergies  of  EU  Roma  inclusion  and  the  implementation  of  the  Commission 
recommendation on investment in children126 and the Child Guarantee. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  took  part  in  a  meeting  organised  by  Eurodiaconia  at  the 
European Economic and Social Committee premises on 26 June 2019 on the future of the 

124  ENAR, ERGO Network, and the Central Council for German Sinti and Roma also attended the meeting. 
125  ERIAC, ERRC, REF, and REDI also attended the meeting.   
126  2013/112/EU, Commission Recommendation of 20 February 2013 ‘Investing in children: breaking the 

cycle of disadvantage’ (OJEU L 59/5). 

52 

 
 
                                                           
EU  Roma  Strategy,  which  highlighted  the  need  to  include  the  post-2020  initiative  in 
Council conclusions on ‘economies of wellbeing’; the full report is available here. 

The  reflections  spurred  by  the  above  mentioned  written  contributions,  meetings  and 
events  feeding the initiative were  extensive, allowing only  for a short overview for the 
purpose of this report:  

-  Stakeholders  called  for  an  ambitious  post-2020  strategy,  featuring  concrete  and 
pragmatic  social  inclusion  and  anti-poverty  interventions,  fundamental  rights, 
antidiscrimination  considerations,  and  antigypsyism  as  a  specific  objective  and 
horizontal priority;  

-  Contributors  suggested  that  the  new  initiative  takes  intra-EU  poverty  migration 

(EU-mobile Roma) into account; 

-  According  to  civil  society,  priorities  should  be  a  combined  targeted  and 
mainstream  approach  to  Roma  policies,  higher  coordination,  strengthened  Roma 
and  pro-Roma  civil  society  involvement,  including  Roma  youth,  funding 
mechanisms,  data  and  monitoring,  including  a  mechanism  for  monitoring  and 
reporting on citizenship rights and access to civil documentation; 

-  Other  suggestions  included  taking  into  account  new  phenomena  shaping  social 
policy, such as digitalisation, environmental racism and ecological challenges. 

3.3. Workshop on future policies for Roma  

A workshop on future policies for Roma was organised by the Commission in Brussels 
on 1 October 2019. The workshop brought together 130 participants representing a wide 
range  of  stakeholders,  including  NRCPs  from  the  EU  and  the  enlargement  region, 
Members  of  the  European  Parliament,  representatives  from  civil  society  active  at  the 
European, national and local levels, representatives from international organisations, and 
staff  from  the  European  Commission  services.  Asked  anonymously  about  their  ethnic 
background127, 35% of the participants self-identified as being of Roma origin.  

Divided into four sessions, the workshop gave participants the opportunity to discuss on 
the  following  topics:  policy  options  for  EU  action  and  measuring  progress  in  Roma 
equality  and 
inclusion  post-2020,  fighting  antigypsyism  and  promoting  Roma 
participation  post-2020,  and  addressing  the  diversity  within  the  Roma  population  post-
2020.  To  facilitate  the  discussion,  background  papers  had  been  prepared  in  advance, 
together with a set of questions for the debate. A full report of the workshop is available 
on  EUROPA.  For  those  unable  to  attend  the  workshop,  the  Commission  provided  an 
opportunity  to  submit  written  comments  within  one  month  from  the  event.  The  25 
contributions received are equally available on EUROPA.  

The  workshop’s  starting  point  were  the  evaluation  findings.  It  enabled  participants  to 
provide feedback on the selected themes for discussion. The feedback was given through 
an  open  discussion,  facilitated  by  members  of  the  Commission  and  external  experts. 
Participants were invited to share their views openly at the workshop or to send them in 
writing later.  

Highlights from the four sessions include: 

-  Participants  supported  various  combinations  of  the  six  mutually  exclusive  basic 
options for EU action on Roma equality and inclusion post-2020 presented at the 

127  Via SLIDO. 

53 

 
 
                                                           
workshop128.  However,  there  was  general  support  for  an  ambitious  initiative, 
including  a  Council  recommendation129,  with  a  stronger  focus  on  fighting 
antigypsyism alongside the social inclusion approach;  

-  For measuring progress in the post-2020 initiative, the participants agreed on the 
targets  under  a  common  EU 

set-up  of  differentiated,  country-specific 
Framework130. They also supported the inclusion of new indicators131.  

-  Combatting antigypsyism came across as a desired standalone priority area, to be 
also tackled horizontally within the four main policy areas. As for participation, 
discussions  highlighted  the  importance  of  institutional  accountability  (e.g.  by 
ensuring  access  of  Roma  to  reports  from  NRCPs),  as  well  as  increased  Roma 
participation in public institutions and National Roma Platforms; 

-  On intra-Roma diversity, participants highlighted that the post-2020 EU initiative 
would  bring  strong  added  value  through  focusing  on  Roma  groups  such  as 
women,  youth  and  children,  EU  mobile  Roma,  elderly  people,  LGBTI+  people 
and people with disability, or refugees from Syria and migrants from South and 
Eastern Europe.  

The  online  publication  of  the  background  papers  provided  the  possibility  for  written 
comments by stakeholders that did not have the opportunity to attend the workshop. Until 
the end of October, 25 contributors added input to the reflections on the new post-2020 
initiative as follows: 

-  On policy options for EU action, civil society suggested the adoption of an option 
7  (combination  of  options  3,  5  and  6)  that  would  consist  of  a  new  Council 
Recommendation  on  Roma  inclusion  and  combating  antigypsyism.  Under  a 
strengthened rights-based approach, socio-economic inclusion should go hand in 
hand with combatting racism and discrimination; 

-  On  measuring  progress,  civil  society  called  for  ambitious  targets  and  concrete 
objectives  that  should  undergo  robust  monitoring,  with  a  focus  on  the 
development of targets to measure Member States’ answers to antigypsyism; 
-  On fighting antigypsyism and promoting Roma participation, stakeholders agreed 
that antigypsyism should be at the core of the future initiative and that Roma and 
pro-Roma  civil  society  organisations  should  be  involved  through  meaningful 
consultation processes and engagement in all future policies at all stages, without 
overlooking  intersectional  aspects,  i.e.  prior  exclusion  of  Roma  women  and 
young adults; 

-  On addressing intra-Roma diversity, contributions  suggested that non- or under-
addressed issues be included as crosscutting items under the new initiative, such 
as  gender  equality,  EU-mobile  Roma  (especially  with  respect  to  social  housing, 
education, and employment), and environmental justice. 

128  Option  1:  No  new  EU  initiative,  Option  2:  EU  Framework  is  carried  forward  as  it  is,  Option  3: 
Antigypsyism approach, Option 4: Anti-poverty approach without specific targeting of Roma, Option 5: 
A revised EU Framework, Option 6: Broadened approach on equality and inclusion. 

129  In line with civil society’s approach, who also called for a Council Recommendation under an ‘option 

7’ (see further below). 

130  As  proposed  in  the  Communication  on  the  mid-term  evaluation,  adopted  by  the  Commission  in 

December 2018; see COM(2018) 785 final. 

131  Such  as,  for  example,  residential  segregation,  affordability  of  housing,  mapping  of  evictions, 
homelessness, child rights related indicators, but not child marriage, child and maternal mortality rates, 
participation,  learning  achievements,  type  of  jobs,  the  need  for  a  crosscutting  indicator  on 
environmental justice. 

54 

 
 
                                                           
3.4. Targeted consultation activities after the workshop 

Following  the  workshop,  the  Commission  continued  to  take  part  in  various  events 
relevant  to  the  design  of  the  post-2020  initiative  and  to  organise  stakeholder 
consultations to give every opportunity to provide feedback that would feed into the new 
policy: 

-  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  event  on  Roma  housing132  on  14 
October  2019,  which  highlighted  the  need  to  consider  mobile  Roma  and 
environmental  issues  when  devising  housing  policies,  to  take  desegregation 
measures and the institutionalisation of Roma children; 
Joint  Research  Centre  event  on  ‘Reinforcing  the  evidence  base  on  Roma 
inclusion’ on 18 October 2019, which presented a meta-evaluation of what works 
for Roma inclusion  and concluded on the need to improve the evidence  base for 
the evaluation of Roma inclusion interventions; 

- 

-  Bilateral  meeting  with  the  European  Network  on  Statelessness  on  13  November 
2019, which called on the Commission to incorporate a mechanism for monitoring 
and reporting on citizenship rights  and access to  documentation in the new post-
2020 initiative; 

-  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  event  on  Roma  employment  on  15 
November  2019,  which  included  reflections  on  the  economic  empowerment  of 
Roma and the need to improve their employability; 

-  ERGO Network Annual Public Conference133 on 19 November 2019, which called 
for  targeted  and  mainstream  educational  measures  in  the  post-2020  initiative,  a 
shift of focus on the majority population to dismantle structural barriers of access 
for  Roma,  and  more  efforts  for  real  inclusion  and  increased  investments  in 
inclusive schools; 

-  Event organised by FEANTSA on 19 November 2019 as a follow-up to the report 
on the notion of worker in the context of low-wage and low-hour employment; 
-  Event  of the EURoma  Network on 21-22 November 2019 on the future national 
Roma integration strategies and their linkage to the 2021-2027 ESIF, which called 
for  more  improved  post-2020  NRIS  (in  terms  of  length,  continuity,  scale  and 
resources  of  investments)  and  a  holistic  approach  (targeted  and  mainstream 
measures); 

-  Meeting  with  Eurogroup  for  Animals  on  5  December  2019,  which  included 
reflections  on  how  Member  States’  increased  efforts  to  reduce  poverty  of  the 
Roma in the post-2020 narrative will indirectly affect animal welfare; 

-  Event  organised  by  EEB,  ERGO  Network  and  the  EP  to  launch  the  draft  report 
‘Pushed  to  the  wastelands.  Environmental  racism  against  Roma  communities  in 
Central  and  Eastern  Europe’  on  22  January  2020.  The  discussions  supported  the 
idea  to  include  environmental  issues  affecting  Roma  communities  under  the 
antigypsyism priority134; 

132  Attendees included representatives of employers, employees and civil society.  
133  The event drew together ERGO Network members from the grassroots level, European and enlargement 
countries civil society organisations and other Brussel-based stakeholders, and EU policymakers across 
the institutional spectrum.  

134  Two follow-up online meetings were organised. On 2 April 2020 with EEB and FRA, discussing further 
the topic and the related monitoring challenges, and on 8 April 2020, for the official launch of the final 
report and additional discussions.  

55 

 
 
 
                                                           
-  Meeting  of  the  technical  working  group  of  the  ESF  Committee  on  5-6  February 
2020, which discussed alignment between the post-2020 ESF+ programming and 
the development of the post-2020 initiative; 

-  Meeting with the EEA/Norway Grants Financial Mechanism on 10 February 2020 
for  an  informal  exchange  on  Roma-specific  and  Roma-relevant  indicators  to 
ensure complementarity of efforts; 

-  Consultation  with  civil  society  and  international  partners  on  17  February  2020, 
which  collected  input  based  on  the  expert  paper  on  reinforcing  the  fight  against 
antigypsyism under the post-2020 initiative; 

-  NRCPs meeting of 18-19 February 2020, which gathered Member States’ input on 

the expert reports and indicators and reporting for the post-2020 initiative; 

-  Roma Civil Society Monitor, a three-year pilot project aimed to strengthen Roma 
civil  society’s  involvement  in  the  monitoring  of  national  Roma  integration 
strategies. The project came to end in March 2020 with country-specific reports on 
gaps in implementation of policies for Roma inclusion; 

-  Videoconference  with  NGO  experts  (OSF  and  ERGO)  on  20  April  2020  to  take 
stock of the COVID-19 crisis’ impact on marginalised Roma communities across 
Member  States  and  the  short-,  mid-  and  long-term  measures  to  be  adopted  in 
response; 

-  Event (online) organised by Equinet on 7 May 2020 on policy formation to present 
the Perspective on Roma and Traveller Inclusion: Towards a new EU Framework 
–  Learning  from  the  work  of  equality  bodies.  The  exchanges  on  experiences, 
actions and complaints received by equality bodies across Member States fed the 
reflections135  on how to  integrate the lessons of the pandemic into the post-2020 
initiative; 

-  Several  rounds  of  consultations  with  the  NRCPs,  statistical  offices,  civil  society 
organisations  and  the  FRA  under  their  relaunched  Working  Party  on  Roma 
indicators  and  reporting  (as  of  March  2020)136.  The  aim  was  to  develop 
collaboratively  a  portfolio  of  robust  and  policy-relevant  indicators  to  measure 
progress on Roma equality and inclusion after 2020137.  

-  High-level event (online) under the German EU Presidency on 12 October 2020 in 

Heidelberg, Germany, to launch and discuss the new post-2020 initiative. 

135  Subsequent  to  the  online  event,  the  dedicated  Working  Group  on  policy  formation  provided  further 
substantial input to specific areas, thus feeding the reflections on the development of the initiative.  
136  Active  between  2012  and  2015  to  develop  the  reporting  framework  on  the  2013  Council 
Recommendation, it was relaunched in 2020 at the request of the Commission to address conclusions 
from  the  evaluation  and  support  the  development  of  the  EU  strategic  framework  with  a  portfolio  of 
Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation  indicators  and  associated  objectives,  targets  and  types  of 
measures. 

137  Nineteen Member States participated in the Roma Working Party and provided input to the portfolio of 
indicators,  i.e.  AT,  BE,  BG,  CZ,  CY,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FI,  FR,  HU,  LV,  LT,  LU,  RO,  SI,  and  SK. 
Between November 2019 and April 2020, FRA collected input from the NRCPs and Roma civil society 
on  the  post-2020  framework  of  indicators  on  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation.  Member 
States gave feedback on nine proposed thematic areas and 54 individual outcome indicators discussed 
in the background paper to the NRCP meeting held on 18-19 February 2020, titled “Draft portfolio of 
post-2020  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation  -  thematic  areas,  indicators,  and  possible  types 
(categories) of measures”. The NRCPs submitted their comments by email using a feedback template 
provided  by  the  FRA  in  Excel  format.  The  content  and  structure  of  the  Portfolio  built  on  Specific 
objectives proposed by the Roadmap. In addition, and responding to input by Member States received 
in  the  framework  of  the  Roma  Working  Party,  civil  society,  and  international  organisations  (namely, 
Council of Europe, OSCE-ODIHR) provided their inputs and comments. 

56 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.5. Roadmap of the ‘Initiative setting out the EU post-2020 Roma equality and 

inclusion policy’ 

In  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  the  follow-up  initiative  to  the  EU  Framework,  the 
Commission published the roadmap for an “Initiative setting out the EU post-2020 Roma 
equality and inclusion policy” on the ‘Have Your Say’ platform seeking comments from 
EU  citizens,  EU-level  and  national  NGOs,  public  authorities  as  well  as  academics  and 
researchers. The feedback period was open from 17 February until 16 March 2020.  

Overall,  33  contributors138  provided  input  on  the Commission’s  roadmap,  out  of  which 
13 EU-level NGOs, nine national NGOs, one academic/researcher, one public authority, 
and  nine  EU  individual  citizens  (including  one  Roma).  Additionally,  15  NGOs  and 
researchers  provided  feedback  in  a  single  joint  statement139.  The  Commission  duly 
considered  all  the  feedback  received  within  the  timeframe  for  the  publishing  of 
comments online. Where various website-related issues might have impaired contributors 
to post the comment within the deadline, the Commission accepted input submitted via e-
mail.  

Generally,  contributors  welcomed  that  the  roadmap  was  clear  in  terms  of  problem 
descriptions, objectives and follow-up methods. They found positive the planned stronger 
focus on structural discrimination and antigypsyism. There was an overall support of the 
Commission’s focus on Roma empowerment beyond specific challenges around housing, 
health,  education  and  employment.  Similarly,  the  intention  for  the  new  initiative  to 
present a common indicator framework for Roma equality and inclusion to better monitor 
progress was considered as positive.  

Overall, the feedback to the Roadmap reinforced main elements highlighted in previous 
stakeholders’  contributions.  None  of  the  contributions  received  spoke  out  against  any 
such initiative.  

What  emerged  from  the  written  feedback  as  expectations  of  the  new  EU  post-2020 
initiative refers mainly to the need to include the fight against antigypsyism as standalone 
goal and to develop set more ambitious targets with respect to Roma children and issues 
that regard them, such as school segregation and institutionalisation. While seeking to see 
a  (reinforced)  focus  on  Roma  youth,  access  to  water  and  sanitation,  and  promotion  of 
Roma history and culture, the contributors suggested the inclusion of new goals  and/or 
thematic  areas,  such  as  civil  documentation  and  citizenship  rights,  mental  health,  and 
environmental discrimination.  

Some  opinions  requested  that  the  Commission  designed  the  new  initiative  with  a 
strengthened  rights-based  and  intersectionality  approach,  ensuring  effective  access  to 

138  EU-Level Roma and pro-Roma NGOs: a Joint Statement of 14 NGOs and one research centre, ERGO 
Network,  IRU,  CRR,  REF,  EPHA,  EEB,  ERIAC,  ENS,  ERRC,  and  Lumos  Foundation.  National 
NGOs:  Roma  Advocacy  and  Research  Centre  (SK),  Civil  Rights  Defenders  (SE),  Senior  Corporate 
Silver Spoon Environment and Nature  Association (HU),  Udruga Mladih Roma "Romska Budučnost" 
Rijeka (HR), Federación de Asociaciones Gitanas de Cataluña (ES), Pavee Traveller and Roma Centre 
(IE), Romu Kultūras Centrs Biedrība (LV), ETUCE, Afrikanische Frauenorganisation (AT), Centre For 
Civil And Human Rights Poradna (SK).  Public authority: Gothenburg Municipality.  Academic and/or 
research centres: Corvinus University Budapest. Individual citizens (of whom one Roma) from BE, DE, 
EL, IT, NL, SE, SK, and RO.  

139  Statement by the Alliance against Antigypsyism, Central Council of German Sinti and Roma, Centre for 
Policy  Studies  of  the  CEU,  ENAR,  ERGO  Network,  ERTF,  ERIAC,  ERRC,  FSG,  OSF,  Phiren 
Amenca, RAA, REF, REDI, and ternYpe. 

57 

 
 
                                                           
justice  for  all  Roma  and  addressing  specific  challenges  of  EU  mobile  Roma.  EU  and 
enlargement  Roma  and  non-Roma  umbrella  organisations,  international  organisations, 
EU institutions and enlargement governments highlighted the continued need for the new 
strategic framework to address Roma equality, inclusion, and participation to also guide 
the  EU  enlargement  and  neighbourhood  regions  in  the  context  of  the  enlargement 
process. In addition, some contributors suggested to consider the challenges of the digital 
age  through,  for  example,  enhanced  digital  literacy  to  avoid  further  exclusion  of  the 
Roma.  There  were  also  voices  requesting  that  the  new  initiative  be  of  a  more  binding 
nature,  as  well  as  for  the  establishment  of  an  independent  monitoring  body  to  ensure 
effective implementation. 

4.  Overall results from the consultations 

Across the results of all the consultations, a number of common messages140 relating to 
the  design  and  implementation  of  the  new  post-2020  initiative  on  Roma  equality, 
inclusion and participation stood out.   

First, the view that an EU Framework in this policy area is still necessary to help realise 
positive  changes  related  to  Roma  equality  and  inclusion  across  the  key  policy  areas  at 
national level. Without EU guidance, monitoring and support, effective improvement of 
the  situation  of  the  Roma  is  unlikely  to  occur  across  Member  States  and  enlargement 
countries.  This  view  became  even  stronger  when  the  corona  virus  pandemic  hit 
marginalised  Roma 
inequalities, 
communities  hard, 
discrimination and socio-economic exclusion. 

illustrating  unaddressed 

Second, the majority of stakeholders suggested that the post-2020 initiative should focus 
on  concrete  and  pragmatic  social  inclusion  and  anti-poverty  interventions,  fundamental 
rights,  antidiscrimination,  with  fighting  antigypsyism  as  both  a  horizontal  requirement 
and standalone priority area.  

Additionally, it was suggested that bigger emphasis should be put on participation, child 
protection, the gender equality dimension, diversity within Roma groups, environmental 
justice,  intra-EU  mobility,  non-EU  Roma  citizens,  and  lack  of  identity  cards,  stronger 
monitoring and indicators, as well as arts and culture and the protection of Roma cultural 
heritage.  To  keep  up  with  current  and  future  trends,  stakeholders  also  requested  taking 
into account new phenomena shaping social policy, such as digitalisation and ecological 
challenges. 

The  Commission  addressed  the  majority  of  these  common  views  in  the  EU  Roma 
strategic  framework  for  equality,  inclusion,  and  participation  2021-2030.  Despite  some 
requests  in  this  sense,  the  Commission  did  not  propose  a  Directive  covering  the  fight 
against  antigypsyism.  Adoption  of  new  EU  law  specifically  in  the  field  of  fighting 
antigypsyism was considered as unrealistic. The EU already adopted a number of binding 
legal  instruments  to  ensure equality and non-discrimination that are  crucial for fighting 
antigypsyism: the Racial Equality Directive and the Framework Decision on combatting 
Racism  and  Xenophobia,  which  have  been  transposed  by  Member  States.  The  Racial 
Equality  Directive  already  prohibits  both  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  based  on 
ethnic  origin.  It  was  concluded,  that  in  light  of  the  experience  with  the  proposal  for  a 

140  The  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  generally  demonstrate  a  range  of  common  aspects  and 
shared areas of concern. However, not all stakeholder groups were equally involved. As visible from the 
overview above, the EU-level civil society was the most active contributor, with concrete positions on 
the new initiative.  

58 

 
 
                                                           
horizontal  Equal  Treatment  Directive  (that  has  been  negotiated  for  over  10  years), 
adoption of new EU law specifically in the field of fighting antigypsyism is not realistic. 
Efforts  should  be  rather  devoted  to  enforcement  of  the  existing  legislation,  its  correct 
application,  guidance  and  training,  where  necessary,  and  financial  support  for  the 
effective implementation and enforcement of legislation at the national level. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2. BASELINES FOR EU HEADLINE INDICATORS 

This  Annex presents  the situation of Roma in  14 EU Member States141 as  recorded by 
two FRA surveys in 2016 and in 2019. In 2016, the Second European Union Minorities 
and  Discrimination  Survey  (EU-MIDIS II)  collected  information  on  the  situation  of 
Roma in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia 
and Spain. In 2019, the Roma and Travellers survey (RTS) covered the selected groups 
of Roma and Travellers142 in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden.  

The  surveys  were  all  carried  out  using  a  similar  methodology,  applying  a  multi-stage 
probabilistic  selection  of  respondents  at  all  stages.  Aiming  at  providing  the  results 
representative  for  the  target  population  in  a  given  country,  the  EU-MIDIS  II  applied 
random sampling methodologies in all countries, the Roma and Travellers survey applied 
random and non-random sampling methodologies at the last stage of sampling (selection 
of respondent)143.  

The Annex presents 18 headline indicators that had been developed and populated with 
data by the time of publishing. It also presents average values for the Member States in 
question,  separately  for  the  countries  covered  by  EU-MIDIS  II  and  for  the  countries 
covered  by  the  Roma  and  Travellers  countries.  The  values  for  general  population  are 
provided  for  the  indicators  where  they  exist.  The  caveats  that  need  to  be  considered 
when  analysing  values  as  well  as  limitations  in  comparability  between  the  values  for 
Roma  and  the  values  for  general  population  are  provided  directly  under  the  respective 
table, including also the reference to the source of values for general population.  

All  sample  surveys  are  affected  by  sampling  error,  as  the  interviews  cover  only  a 
fraction  of  the  total  population.  Therefore,  all  results  presented  are  point  estimates 
underlying statistical variation. Small differences of a few percentage points between 
groups of respondents  are to  be interpreted within the range of statistical  variation and 
only  more  substantial  divergence  between  population  groups  should  be  considered  as 
evidence of actual differences. 

Results  based  on  a  small  number  of  responses  are  statistically  less  reliable.  Therefore, 
results based on 20 to 49 unweighted observations in a group total or based on cells with 
less  than  20  unweighted  observations  are  noted  in  parentheses.  Results  based  on  less 
than 20 unweighted observations in a group total are not published (-). 

141  The distribution and density of Roma populations differ across Member States and a random sampling 
method as used in EU-MIDIS II is not always possible. Different data  collection  methods are needed 
for  the  countries  and  groups  not  covered  by  the  EU-MIDIS  II  and  the  Roma  and  Travellers  survey 
(country specific quantitative or qualitative methods). 

142  Only groups covered by the term Roma and Travellers (that were possible to be under research through 
the quantitative probabilistic survey in individual countries) were included in the Roma and Travellers 
Survey. For other groups not covered by the survey, other methodologies will be used for research. 
143  FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) (2020), Roma and Travellers in six countries. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                           
1.  Horizontal objectives 

a.  Fight and prevent antigypsyism and discrimination 

i.  EU headline target: cut the proportion of Roma with experience of 

discrimination by at least half 

Indicator 1: Share of Roma who felt discriminated against because of being Roma in any of the 
areas covered in the survey in the past 12 months* 

Per country  
EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

Roma (%) 
26 
14 
32 
48 
35 
37 
21 
47 
21 
30 

Per country specific 
subgroup 
EU 5 (RTS) 

BE 

FR  

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
SE  Roma and Travellers 

IE 

NL 

Roma/ 
Travellers (%)  
45 
19 
21 

35 

65 
76 
40 
50 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all Roma respondents (EU-MIDIS II: n=7875; RTS: n=3750), weighted results.  
-  The survey asked about discrimination on grounds of Roma background in at least one of the domains of daily life 
asked about in the survey: looking for work, at work, education (self or as parent), health, housing and other public 
or  private  services  (public  administration,  restaurant  or  bar,  public  transport,  shop).  In  EU-MIDIS  II,  the 
discrimination  experience  in  ‘access  to  health  care’  was  asked  only  to  those  who  needed  a  medical  examination 
within the past 12 months.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE) 

ii.  EU headline target: decrease the proportion of general population who 

feel uncomfortable having Roma neighbours by at least a third 

Indicator 2: Share of general population who feel uncomfortable having Roma as their 
neighbour* 

Country 

EU-27 
AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 

General 
population (%) 
46 
34 
41 
55 
16 
53 
47 
44 
56 
64 
22 
52 
52 
33 

Country 

HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 

 General 
population (%) 
57 
46 
59 
67 
31 
47 
34 
31 
42 
47 
42 
30 
41 
54 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all respondents (n=28240), weighted results.  
-  Share of general population feeling (totally) uncomfortable (category 1-3 on a 7-point scale).  
Source:  FRA,  Fundamental  Rights  Survey  2019.  Data  collection  in  cooperation  with  CBS  (NL),  CTIE  (LU)  and 
Statistics Austria (AT). 

61 

 
 
 
b.  Reduce poverty and social exclusion 

i.  EU headline target: cut poverty gap between Roma and general 

population by at least half 

Indicator 3: At-risk-of-poverty rate (below 60% of median equalised income after social 
transfers)* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

80 

86 
58 
96 
98 
93 
75 
n.p. 
70 
87 

16,8 
22,0 
9,6 
18,5 
21,5 
19,3 
12,8 
17,3 
23,5 
12,2 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and 
Travellers 

72 

83 
74 

n.p. 

n.p. 
n.p. 
n.p. 

70 

16,8 
16,4 
16,4 

13,4 

14,9 
13,3 
13,3 

16,4 

* Notes: 
-  n.p.  (not  publishable): Values  for  FR,  IE,  NL,  PT  not  be  published  because  of  high  number  of  missing  answers 

(>40%).  

-  Out of all persons in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n=31793; RTS: n=3306), weighted results.  
-  At-risk-of-poverty are considered to be all persons with an equalised current monthly disposable household income 
below the twelfth of the national at-risk-of-poverty threshold published by Eurostat (for EU-MIDIS II, the referent 
year of at-risk-of-poverty threshold is 2014, while for RTS it is 2018). The equalised disposable income is the total 
income  of  a  household,  after  tax  and  other  deductions,  divided  by  the  number  of  household  members  converted 
into equalised adults; using the so-called modified OECD equivalence scale (1-0.5-0.3). The RTS and EU-MIDIS 
II  questionnaires  are  asking  for  the  net  monthly  household  income  (as  exact  number  or  as  range).  This  deviates 
from the EU-SILC methods of disposable household income measurement.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [ilc_li02] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020. 

ii.  EU headline target: cut poverty gap between Roma children and other 

children by at least half 

Indicator 3.1: Children aged 0-17 at risk of poverty* 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

85 

90 
65 
98 
98 
95 
82 
n.p. 
78 
92 

19,6 
26,6 
11,0 
22,7 
26,8 
19,7 
13,8 
19,0 
32,0 
20,5 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

80 

89 
85 

n.p. 

n.p. 
n.p. 
n.p. 
76 

19,6 
20,1 
20,1 

19,9 

15,8 
13,1 
13,1 
19,3 

* Notes: 
-  n.p.  (not  publishable): Values  for  FR,  IE,  NL,  PT  not  be  published  because  of  high  number  of  missing  answers 

(>40%).  

-  Out of all children aged 0-17 in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n=12290; RTS: n=1181), weighted results.  
-  At-risk-of-poverty are considered to be all persons with an equalised current monthly disposable household income 
below the twelfth of the national at-risk-of-poverty threshold published by Eurostat (for EU-MIDIS II, the referent 
year of at-risk-of-poverty threshold is 2014, while for RTS it is 2018). The equalised disposable income is the total 
income  of  a  household,  after  tax  and  other  deductions, divided by  the  number  of  household  members  converted 
into equalised adults; using the so-called modified OECD equivalence scale (1-0.5-0.3). The RTS and EU-MIDIS 
II  questionnaires  are  asking  for  the  net  monthly  household  income  (as  exact  number  or  as  range).  This  deviates 
from the EU-SILC methods of disposable household income measurement.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [ilc_li02] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020. 

Indicator 4: Share of people living in household in severe material deprivation* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

62 

58 
51 
73 
52 
76 
68 
53 
70 
65 

63 

19,6 
20,9 
2,8 
16,7 
5,4 
8,6 
10,1 
6,0 
16,8 
7,0 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%)  

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

24 

23 
30 

22 

31 
18 
3 
28 

19,6 
5,0 
5,0 

4,7 

4,9 
2,4 
2,4 
1,6 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all persons in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n=33785; RTS: n=11142), weighted results.  
-  Severe material deprivation is defined as the enforced inability to pay for at least four out of nine items: unexpected 
expenses, a one-week annual holiday away from home, a meal involving meat, chicken or fish every second day, 
the  adequate  heating  of  a  dwelling,  durable  goods  like  a  washing  machine,  colour  television,  telephone  or  car, 
being  confronted  with  payment  arrears  (mortgage  or  rent,  utility  bills,  hire  purchase  instalments  or  other  loan 
payments).   

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [ilc_mddd11] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020. 

Indicator 4.1: Children aged 0-17 in severe material deprivation* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

66 

61 
55 
73 
53 
76 
73 
49 
75 
71 

6,5 
19,1 
3,4 
18,6 
6,5 
7,6 
15,2 
5,7 
19,7 
9,0 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

24 

21 
25 

21 

28 
15 
(5) 
28 

6,5 
6,9 
6,9 

5,7 

6,7 
2,3 
2,3 
2,3 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all children aged 0-17 in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n=13072; RTS: n=3529), weighted results.  
-  Severe material deprivation is defined as the enforced inability to pay for at least four out of nine items: unexpected 
expenses, a one-week annual holiday away from home, a meal involving meat, chicken or fish every second day, 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
the  adequate  heating  of  a  dwelling,  durable  goods  like  a  washing  machine,  colour  television,  telephone  or  car, 
being  confronted  with  payment  arrears  (mortgage  or  rent,  utility  bills,  hire  purchase  instalments  or  other  loan 
payments).   

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES,  HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [ilc_mddd11] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020. 

c.  Promote participation through empowerment, cooperation and trust 

i.  EU headline target: double the proportion of Roma who file a report 

when experiencing discrimination 

Indicator 5: Share of people who felt discriminated against (in any area) in the last 12 months 
and reported the last incident of discrimination because of being Roma* 

Country 
EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

Roma (%) 

16 
24 
24 
(8) 
7 
22 
9 
(7) 
15 
24 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%)  

EU 5 (RTS) 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

22 
(31) 
27 

15 

28 
14 
21 
27 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all Roma respondents who felt discriminated against in the past 12 months (EU-MIDIS II: n=2238; RTS: 

n=1551); weighted results.  

-  Question: ‘Last time you felt discriminated against because of your [ROMA BACKGROUND] [in area of life], did 

you report or make a complaint about the incident?’  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE)  

2.  Sectoral policy objectives 

a.  Increase effective Roma access to quality inclusive mainstream education 
i.  EU headline target: cut at least in half the gap in participation in Early 
Childhood Education and Care (3+) between Roma and the general 
population 

Indicator 7: Share of children age 3 up to starting compulsory primary education age who attend 
early childhood education* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 

42 

General population 
(%) 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

58 
24 
21 
86 
25 
71 
34 
28 
27 

92,2 
79,8 
86,7 
50,8 
97,5 
76,3 
92,2 
91,0 
80,5 
77,6 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

55 

- 
65 

26 

64 
- 
- 
89 

92,2 
98,5 
98,5 

100,0 

100,0 
89,4 
89,4 
95,1 

* Notes: 
-  Out  of  all  children  aged between  3  years  and  the  country-specific  starting  age  of  compulsory  primary  education 

- 

(EU-MIDIS II: n=2570; RTS: n=665), weighted results. 
 Different age groups for participation in early childhood education in countries: 3-4 years in UK and NL; 3-5 years 
in  BE,  FR,  IE,  SE,  CZ,  EL,  ES,  HU,  PT,  RO,  SK;  3-6  years  in  BG  and  HR.  (EU-MIDIS  II:  European 
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice  (2015),  The  Structure  of  the  European  Education  Systems  2015/16:  Schematic 
Diagrams.  Eurydice  Facts  and  Figures,  Luxembourg,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union  (Publications 
Office) ; RTS: European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2018). The Structure of the European Education Systems 
2018/19: Schematic Diagrams. Eurydice Facts and Figures. Luxembourg, Publications Office).   

-  Age is calculated on annual basis, hence the figures do not consider earlier or delayed start in primary education of 

an individual child. 

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [educ_uoe_enra21] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 03.09.2020.  

ii.  EU headline target: reduce the gap in completion rate of upper secondary 
education between Roma and the general population by at least one third 

Indicator 8: Share of people aged 20-24 with completed at least upper secondary education* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 

28 

28 
38 
8 
24 
25 
32 
(9) 

66 

83,5 
84,4 
88,3 
94,5 
74,0 
97,3 
86,6 
82,9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RO 
SK 

20 
38 

83,4 
89,9 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%)  

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

26 

- 
(26) 

(12) 

(22) 
- 
(28) 
44 

83,5 
85,6 
85,6 

88,5 

94,1 
82,2 
82,2 
84,6 

* Notes: 
-  EU-MIDIS II: out of all persons in Roma households aged 20-24 (n=2917), weighted results; RTS: out of all Roma 

respondents aged 20-24 (n=426), weighed results. 

-  Survey  question  filled  in  by  respondents  for  all  16-year-olds  in  the  household:  ‘What  is  the  highest  level  of 

education [NAME] has completed?’ 

-  ISCED 2011 classification used. 
Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [edat_lfse_03] 2019 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020  

Indicator 9: Early leavers from education and training, 18-24 years* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

68 

67 
57 
92 
70 
68 
68 
90 
77 
58 

10,2 
13,9 
6,7 
4,1 
17,3 
3,0 
11,8 
10,6 
15,3 
8,3 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%)  

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

62 

(71) 
59 

84 

70 
(88) 
(62) 
30 

* Notes: 

67 

10,2 
8,4 
8,4 

8,2 

5,1 
7,5 
7,5 
6,5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  EU-MIDIS  II:  out  of  all  persons  aged  18-24  in  Roma  households  (n=  4152),  weighted  results;  RTS:  out  of  all 

Roma respondents aged 18-24 (n = 605), 

-  "Early  leavers  from  education  and  training  denotes  the  percentage  of  the  population  aged  18-24  years  having 
attained  at  most  lower  secondary  education  (ISCED  2011  levels  0,  1  or  2)  and  not  being  involved  in  further 
education or training. There are some deviations from the Eurostat definition. Eurostat includes persons who are 
not in education and training (neither formal nor non-formal) in the four weeks preceding the LFS survey. FRA 
asks for “currently attending school or vocational training” and not asking explicitly for non-formal education."  
Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [edat_lfse_14] 2019 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020.  

iii.  EU headline target: work towards eliminating segregation by cutting at 
least in half the proportion of Roma children attending segregated 
primary schools  

Indicator 10: Share of children, 6-15 years old, attending schools where ‘all or most of 
schoolmates are Roma’ as reported by the respondents (selected countries only)* 

Country 
EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

Roma (%) 

44 
58 
29 
46 
31 
40 
60 
14 
28 
60 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all children aged 6-15 in Roma households who are in education (n = 6518), weighted results. 
-  Survey question filled in by respondents for all children aged 6-15 years in education: “Now please think about the 
school [NAME] attends. How many of the schoolmates would you say are Roma: all of them, most of them, some 
or none of them?” 

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK).  

b.  Increase effective Roma access to quality and sustainable employment 

i.  EU headline target: cut at least in half the employment gap between 

Roma and the general population 

Indicator 11: Share of people who self-declared their main activity status as ‘paid work’, 20-64 
years* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 

43 

49 
43 
52 
24 
21 
49 
38 

68 

73,1 
75,0 
80,3 
75,1 
61,2 
71,6 
66,7 
76,1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
RO 
SK 

45 
43 

70,9 
82,1 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%)  

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

38 

38 
50 

37 

15 
22 
55 
47 

73,1 
70,5 
70,5 

68,0 

75,3 
80,1 
80,1 
73,4 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all persons aged 20–64 in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n = 17806; RTS: n = 6491); weighted results.   
-  The  “paid  work  rate”  is  based  on  the  questions:  “Please  look  at  this  card  and  tell  me  which  of  these  categories 
describes  your  current  situation  best?”;  “Did  you  do  any  work  in  the  last  4  weeks  to  earn  some  money?”  The 
General population employment rate is based on the International Labour Organization (ILO) concept: Employed 
population, 20-64 years, consists of those persons who during the reference week did any work for pay or profit for 
at least one hour, or were not working but had jobs from which they were temporarily absent.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [lfsa_ergan] 2019 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020  

ii.  EU headline target: cut the gap in the NEET rate between the Roma and 

the general population by at least half 

Indicator 12: Share of young people with current main activity in neither employment, education 
nor training* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

62 

63 
50 
59 
76 
73 
49 
50 
62 
64 

10,1 
13,7 
5,7 
10,1 
12,5 
10,6 
11,8 
8,0 
14,7 
5,5 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 
NL 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 

41 
30 

61 

70 
36 

69 

10,1 
9,3 
9,3 

12,1 

11,0 
4,3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SE 

Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

17 
30 

4,3 
10,3 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all persons aged 16-24 in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n = 5,670; RTS: n = 2,088), weighted results. 
-  General population: 15-24 years 
-  Comparability between EU-MIDIS II / RTS and the Eurostat NEET rate is restricted due to a different definition 
and age bands. Considering 15-year-olds would show values lower by a few percentage points for those who are 
not in employment, training or education. The Eurostat NEET rate is based on the ILO concept, which refers to 
having  worked  at  least  one  hour  in  the  past  week,  whereas  EU-MIDIS II  /  RTS  asked  about  self-declared  main 
activity. EU-MIDIS II / RTS also did not ask on participation in non-formal education or training.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [edat_lfse_20] 2019 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020.  

iii.  EU headline target: cut at least in half the gender employment gap for 

Roma 

Indicator 13: Gender employment gap – difference in the paid work rate between women and 
men, 20-64 years* 

Country  

Roma 

General population 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU 27 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

Difference 
(% points)   
27 

29 
23 
59 
14 
19 
26 
34 
37 
22 

Women 
(%) 

29 

35 
32 
22 
16 
12 
36 
21 
27 
32 

Men 
(%) 
56 

64 
55 
82 
31 
31 
62 
55 
63 
54 

Difference 
(% points)  

Women 
(%) 

Men 
(%) 

11,7 
8,6 
15,0 
12,4 
20,0 
7,1 
10,5 
7,2 
19,0 
4,7 

67,2 
70,7 
72,7 
69,0 
51,3 
68,1 
61,5 
72,7 
61,3 
79,7 

78,9 
79,3 
87,7 
81,4 
71,3 
75,2 
72,0 
79,9 
80,3 
84,4 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU 27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

Roma / Travellers  

General population 

Difference 
(% points)   
27 

Women 
(%) 

25 

Men 
(%) 
52 

Difference 
(% points)  

Women 
(%) 

Men 
(%) 

(15) 
21 

51 

(31) 
39 

13 

46 
60 

64 

11,7 
8,0 
8,0 

11,9 

67,2 
66,5 
66,5 

78,9 
74,5 
74,5 

62,1 

74,0 

-4 
12 
45 
10 

17 
16 
35 
42 

13 
29 
80 
52 

15,5 
9,3 
9,3 
13,0 

67,6 
75,5 
75,5 
66,9 

83,1 
84,8 
84,8 
79,9 

SE 
* Notes: 
-  Out of all persons aged 20–64 in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n = 17806; RTS: n = 6491), weighted results.   
-  The  “paid  work  rate”  is  based  on  the  questions:  “Please  look  at  this  card  and  tell  me  which  of  these  categories 
describes  your  current  situation  best?”;  “Did  you  do  any  work  in  the  last  4  weeks  to  earn  some  money?”  The 
General population employment rate is based on the International Labour Organization (ILO) concept: Employed 
population, 20-64 years, consists of those persons who during the reference week did any work for pay or profit for 
at least one hour, or were not working but had jobs from which they were temporarily absent.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [lfsa_ergan] 2019 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020  

70 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
c.  Improve Roma health and increase effective Roma effective access to quality 

healthcare and social services 

i.  EU headline target: cut in half the life expectancy gap between Roma 

and non-Roma 

Indicator 14: Difference in life expectancy at birth (general population v. Roma)* 

Country 

BE 
FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Country specific 
subgroup 

EU 5 (RTS) 
Caravan Dweller + Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

Women  
(difference in years) 
10,4 
13,6 

Men  
(difference in years) 
10,2 
14,2 

10,9 

8,2 
n.p. 
8,3 
10,1 

7,9 

8,4 
n.p. 
12,5 
11,6 

* Notes:  
-  Shows the difference in life expectancy at birth between general population and Roma and Travellers estimates for 
2016.  Life  expectancy  estimations  for  Roma  and  Travellers  with  the  orphanhood  method  (Luy,  2009 Estimating 
mortality  differentials  in  developed  populations  from  survey  information  on  maternal  and  paternal  orphanhood’, 
European Demographic Research Papers No. 2009-3, Vienna Institute of Demography).  

-  Country results based on unweighted data.  
-  Because of small sample sizes, Caravan dwellers and Roma in Belgium are merged and the estimates for Roma in 

the Netherlands suppressed (n.p.).  

-  EU 5 weighted for country population size and it excludes NL Roma.  
-  Not available for EU-MIDIS II countries  
Source:  FRA,  RTS  2019  (unweighted  data);  General  population:  Human  Mortality  Database  (data  downloaded:  4 
March 2020) 

d.  Increase effective Roma access to adequate desegregated housing and 

essential services 

i.  EU headline target: reduce the gap in housing deprivation by at least one 

third 

Indicator 16: Share of people living in housing deprivation (living in an apartment too dark, 
leaking roof, no bath/shower, no indoor toilet)* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

61 

70 
33 
50 
33 
69 
63 
70 
83 
61 

17,9 
23,8 
9,7 
16 
18,9 
13,9 
25,7 
32,8 
32,9 
7,1 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

35 

17,9 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

45 
24 

55 

39 
26 
13 
23 

23,3 
23,3 

17,5 

15,3 
17,7 
17,7 
13,2 

* Notes: 
-  Out of persons in Roma households (EU-MIDIS: n = 33785; RTS: n = 11142), weighted results. 
-  Showing proportion of population living in a household with at least one item of housing deprivation (living in an 

apartment too dark, leaking roof, no bath/shower, no indoor toilet).  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [tessi 291] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020.  

ii.  EU headline target: cut the gap in overcrowding by at least half 

Indicator 17: Share of people living in household that does not have the minimum number of 
rooms according to the Eurostat definition of overcrowding* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

78 

76 
83 
92 
64 
85 
88 
63 
76 
84 

17,1 
41,6 
15,7 
2,7 
29,2 
8,2 
39,3 
9,6 
46,3 
15,2 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma / Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

48 

40 
54 

54 

46 
21 
16 
60 

17,1 
5,7 
5,7 

4,7 

20,1 
4,1 
4,1 
35,5 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all persons in Roma households (EU-MIDIS: n = 33648; RTS: n = 11142), weighted results. 
-  Overcrowding rate: A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have 
at  its  disposal  a  minimum  number  of  rooms  equal  to  one  room  for  the  household;  one  room  per  couple  in  the 
household;  one  room  for  each  single  person  aged  18  or  more;  one  room  per  pair  of  single  people  of  the  same 
gender between 12 and 17 years of age; one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not 
included in the previous category; one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [ilc_lvho05a] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 29.05.2020.  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii.  EU headline target: ensure that at least 95% Roma have access to tap 

water 

Indicator 18: Share of people living in households without tap water inside the dwelling (selected 
countries only)* 

Country 

Roma (%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 9 (EU-MIDIS II) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 
BG 
CZ 
EL 
ES 
HR 
HU 
PT 
RO 
SK 

30 

23 
2 
9 
2 
34 
32 
14 
68 
27 

2,3 
8,9 
0,3 
0,2 
0,2 
1,1 
3,4 
0,6 
25,6 
1 

Country 

Country specific 
subgroup 

Roma/ Travellers 
(%) 

General population 
(%) 

EU 5 (RTS) 
EU27 (EUROSTAT) 

BE 

FR 

IE 

NL 

SE 

Caravan Dweller 
Roma 
Travellers (Gens du 
voyage) 
Travellers 
Roma 
Travellers and Sinti 
Roma and Travellers 

8 

32 
5 

14 

10 
(1) 
3 
(0) 

2,3 
0,1 
0,1 

0,3 

0 
0 
0 
n.a. 

* Notes: 
-  Out of all persons in Roma households (EU-MIDIS II: n = 33785; RTS: n = 11142), weighted results.   
-  The general population indicator ilc_mdho05 (EU-SILC 2018) used is a proxy comparator for the absence of tap 
water inside the dwelling. It represents the share of total population having neither a bath, nor a shower, nor indoor 
flushing toilet in their household - EU-SILC survey n.a. not available for Sweden.  

Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016 (BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HR, PT, RO, SK); FRA, RTS 2019 (BE, FR, IE, NL, SE); 
Eurostat Data Explorer [ilc_mdho05] 2018 (General population), downloaded on 04.06.2020.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3. EU MAINSTREAMING AND FUNDING INITIATIVES 

RELEVANT EU POLICY INITIATIVES 
The  European  education  area  (the  Commission’s  flagship  education  and  training  initiative)  aims  to 
provide  quality,  inclusive  education  for  all  by  ensuring  that  everyone  acquires  basic  skills  and 
competences to lead a successful life. It encourages Member States to provide targeted support for the 
inclusion of disadvantaged groups at all levels and in all sectors of education and training, starting with 
access to quality early childhood education and care. Initiatives include ‘Pathway to School success’ to 
combat  under-achievement  and  promote  completion  of  secondary  education,  and  dedicated  action  to 
ensure  student  wellbeing  and  help  teachers  cater  better  for  individuals’  (including  Roma  pupils’) 
learning needs. Besides EU-level action, a renewed cooperation framework (ET 2030) will continue to 
provide Member States with opportunities to share good practice. Under the Erasmus+ programme, the 
Commission  is  co-financing  the  Inclusive  schools:  making  a  difference  for  Roma  children  project 
currently implemented by the Council of Europe144.  

The Commission adopted in September2020 a new Digital education action plan aiming to support the 
digital transition of education and training systems in Europe. It builds on the  first (2018-2020) action 
plan and will have an extended length and scope covering formal education and lifelong learning. The 
new  action  plan  will  address  lessons  learnt  and  implications  of  the  recent  experience  of  online  and 
distance learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The updated action plan will focus on boosting the 
digital  capacity  of  educational  institutions,  including  in  terms  of  connectivity  and  equipment,  and 
developing digital skills and competences for all. This initiative is extremely relevant for Roma, whose 
remote learning experience during the pandemic was one of heightened digital exclusion. 

In line with the overall objectives of the 2019-2027 EU youth strategy (to promote social inclusion and 
eradicate  discrimination),  the  EU  programmes  for  young  people  (e.g. Erasmus+  and  the  European 
Solidarity Corps) aim to improve social inclusion and equality. An inclusion and diversity strategy for 
youth  activities  under  Erasmus+  includes  action  and  support  to  overcome  obstacles  to  participation, 
including those faced by minorities. Inclusiveness is a core goal for the European Solidarity Corps. 

The Commission will continue to support the role of culture and cultural diversity in social cohesion and 
inclusion  under  its  cultural  policy  frameworks  (New  European  Agenda  for  Culture,  European 
framework  for  action  on  cultural  heritage  and  EU  strategy  for  international  cultural  relations)  and  the 
Council’s 2019-2022 Work Plan for Culture. The Creative Europe programme will continue to support 
projects  that  seek  to  remove  barriers,  encourage  the  inclusion  and  cultural  participation  of 
under-represented  and  disadvantaged  groups,  and  contribute  to  social  wellbeing  and  solidarity.  The 
Commission proposal for the 2021-2027 Creative Europe programme prioritises the promotion of social 
resilience and inclusion through culture and cultural heritage. 

The European pillar of social rights aims to foster equal opportunities and access to the labour market, 
fair working conditions, and social protection and inclusion. Implementation of the 20 principles of the 
pillar at EU and Member State level is in line with the commitment made by the European Parliament, 
the Council and the Commission in 2017 and confirmed in the European Council’s 2019-2024 strategic 
agenda.  This  framework  supports  the  implementation  of  the  pillar,  in  particular  principle  3  on  equal 
opportunities, and will contribute to the action plan on its implementation, which the Commission will 
present in early 2021. 

‘Bridge  to  jobs’  —  reinforcing  the  youth  guarantee  extends  outreach  to  a  wider  target  group,  for 
increased  inclusiveness.  Many  young  people,  often  from  disadvantaged  socio-economic  backgrounds 
(e.g. those  with  low  skills,  living  in  rural  or  remote  areas,  from  migrant  backgrounds  or  belonging  to 

144  This  project  involves  support  for  school  staff,  teachers,  students  and  parents  to  make  up  to  31  schools  in  five 

countries more inclusive. It will also support national stakeholders by proposing inclusive policy reform. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
racial and ethnic minorities, in particular Roma) do not have access to quality education and training, or 
face barriers in the transition from school to work. The aim is to make sure that nobody is left behind. 
This will be done by improved, more targeted outreach and awareness-raising, addressing inter alia the 
challenges  of  living  in  rural  or  more  remote  areas.  ‘Bridge  to  jobs’  is  based  on  individualised  action 
plans with more targeted preparation tailored to the young person’s preferences and motivation, barriers 
and disadvantages, including reasons for being unemployed or inactive. 

Ensuring social fairness is a cornerstone of the skills agenda. Having the right skills enables people to 
stay employed and handle job transitions more easily. This requires equal access to additional upskilling 
opportunities,  regardless  of  gender,  racial/ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual 
orientation,  including  for  low-skilled  adults  and  people  with  a  migrant  background.  The  Commission 
proposal for a Council Recommendation on vocational education and training (VET)145 for sustainable 
competitiveness,  social  fairness  and  resilience  calls  for  VET  programmes  to  be  inclusive  vis-à-vis 
vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities, low-skilled adults, racial/ethnic minorities (including 
Roma),  people  with  a  migrant  background  and  people  with  fewer  opportunities  as  a  result  of 
geographical location. 

Roma  children,  like  other  disadvantaged  children,  do  not  have  adequate  access  to  services  that  are 
essential  for  their  wellbeing  and  development,  in  particular  early  childhood  education  and  care, 
education,  healthcare  and  nutrition,  housing  and  cultural/leisure  activities.  The  ‘child  guarantee’ 
initiative  recommends  that  Member  States  ensure  the  affordability,  accessibility  and  availability  of 
inclusive  quality  services  for  children  in  need,  thus  breaking  the  cycle  of  poverty  faced  by  too  many 
Roma children in the EU. 

People  with  disabilities  still  experience  barriers  to  inclusion.  The  overall  purpose  of  the  European 
disability  strategy is to promote a barrier-free Europe where they can enjoy their rights and participate 
fully  in  society  and  the  economy.  The  strategy  also  implements  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of 
Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) at EU level. The Commission is about to launch a new strategy for 
2021-2030, which will build on the results of the current one. It will focus on the implementation of the 
relevant EU acquis and the UNCRPD. Accessibility to services and infrastructure will remain a key goal, 
together  with  a  focus  on  employment  to  give  people  with  disabilities  better  access  to  the  open  labour 
market. Independent living and health will also be among the priorities. 

Migrants and Roma face many similar challenges (and Roma migrants constitute an important group in 
several countries) and more inclusive policies benefit both groups. The Commission will adopt an action 
plan  on  integration  and  inclusion,  and  create  synergies  between  the  action  plan  and  this  strategic 
framework as part of its efforts to make our societies more inclusive.  

Traffickers exploit people’s vulnerabilities, including those of Roma women and children, which may be 
exacerbated by factors such as poverty, discrimination, gender inequality, violence against women, and 
lack  of  access  to  education  and  employment.  The  EU  addresses  trafficking  in  human  beings 
comprehensively in all relevant areas146. One priority is to counter the culture of impunity among users, 
exploiters  and  profiters.  The  Commission  is  working  on  a  new  strategic  approach  towards  the 
eradication  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  as  part  of  the  security  union.  Action  to  eradicate 
people-trafficking  will  be  further  developed  in  upcoming  initiatives  to  tackle  organised  crime,  in 
particular in the Agenda on tackling organised crime, as foreseen in the EU Security Union Strategy147. 

As  announced  in  the  2020-2025  gender  equality  strategy,  the  EU  intends  to  propose  a 

145  COM (2020) 275 final. 
146  Under Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims 

(OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1). 

147  COM(2020) 605 final. 

75 

 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
                                                           
Recommendation  on  the  prevention  of  harmful  practices  such  as  female  genital  mutilation,  forced 
abortion  and  sterilisation,  early  and  forced  marriage,  and  ‘honour-related  violence’.  Some  of  this  will 
also be relevant for Roma women and girls. 

Through the EU Platform of Diversity Charters, the Commission helps companies, public institutions 
and  non-profit  organisations  to  put  diversity,  inclusion  and  solidarity  at  the  heart  of  their  activity. 
Currently, 24 Member States have diversity charters, with over 12,000 signatories representing over 16 
million  employees.  The  signatories  undertake  to  promote  diversity  and  equal  opportunities  in  the 
workplace, regardless of age, disability, gender, race or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, etc. 

The  LGBTI+  equality  strategy  will  set  out  the  Commission’s  policy  objectives  and  key  actions  to 
advance  LGBTI+  equality  in  the  period  up  to  2025.  It  will  take  account  of  the  diversity  of  LGBTI+ 
people  and  pay  particular  attention  to  the  most  disadvantaged  groups.  It  will  take  an  intersectional 
approach, including in relation to ethnic origin, and create synergies with this framework.  

76 

 
 
 
  
RELEVANT EU FUNDING INSTRUMENTS 
EU  funds  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  national  strategies.  Given  the  complex  needs  of  Roma 
communities, an integrated approach that coordinates measures supported by several funding streams 
is  essential.  ESF+  and  ERDF  investments  under  policy  objective 4  will  make  key  contributions to  the 
implementation of the European pillar of social rights in 2021-2027.  
The  ESF+  includes  a  specific  objective  on  promoting  the  socio-economic  integration  of  marginalised 
communities  such  as  the  Roma.  Member  States  can  use  this  objective  to  target  Roma  explicitly, 
i.e. provide  additional  support  to  promote  effective  equal  access  for  Roma  to  rights  and  mainstream 
services. They can also target Roma communities under any other ESF+ specific objectives; this can be 
monitored through the output indicator for ‘minorities including marginalised communities such as the 
Roma’148. Member States  for which investment needs have been identified in the  Annex D of the 2019 Country 
Reports or with serious challenges concerning the socio-economic situation of Roma communities identified in the 
CSRs,  must  follow  a  twin  strategy.  This  implies  making  mainstream  services  inclusive  while  in  parallel 
implementing  targeted  programmes  for  marginalised  Roma  communities.  In  such  Member  States;  the  dedicated 
specific objective must be programmed in order to target Roma explicitly – but not exclusively - through the 
ESF+.  A  thematic  ‘enabling  condition’  requires  Member  States  to  adopt  a  national  Roma  inclusion 
strategic  policy  framework  as  a  pre-condition  for  using  the  funds  to  invest  in  this  objective,  with 
compliance  ensured  throughout  the  period.  ESF+  funded  Roma  inclusion  measures  can  also  be 
implemented  under  social  innovation  objectives.  The  ESF+  will  build  on  the  experiences  and  good 
practices established under the current programming period, for respectively the ESF and the Fund for 
European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD).  
The  ERDF  supports  infrastructure  developments  in  and  access  to  inclusive  (non-segregated)  early 
childhood  education  and  care  and  primary  education,  quality  and  mainstream  employment,  healthcare 
and social services, non-segregated housing and regeneration of deprived urban and rural areas. 
Both  funding  instruments  should  follow  the  requirements  of  the  horizontal  enabling  condition  (on 
effective  implementation  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights)  which  strengthens  the  focus  on  non-
discrimination  in  the  programming  of  EU  funds.  It  requires  that  all  operations  comply  with  non-
discrimination criteria (Article 21), including on the basis of race. 
Member  States  should  ensure  adequate  participation  of  regional  and  local  authorities,  social 
partners,  civil  society  organisations,  and  equality  bodies  throughout  the  preparation, 
implementation  and  evaluation  of  EU  funds  programmes149.  Also,  appropriate  EU  funds  resources 
under  shared  management  must  be  allocated  in  each  programme  for  capacity-building  among  social 
partners  and  civil  society  organisations150  –  support  for  capacity-building  among  civil  society 
organisations, including those representing Roma communities, remains a priority. The code of conduct 
on  partnership  remains  in force for the  preparation  of  the  post-2020  programmes  and  throughout  their 
implementation.  Member  States  should  ensure  the  involvement  of  Roma  in  identifying  needs  and 
developing programmes. 
The  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  produce  programming  documents  reflecting  a  twin 
strategy  of  providing  programmes  targeting  Roma  and  making  mainstream  services inclusive  through 
investment in public education, active labour market policies and public employment services, access to 
social and healthcare services, housing, and urban and territorial development, so that they reach out to 
Roma communities effectively. 
Desegregation in education and housing will remain an important objective of EU-funded operations 
in 2021-2027151. Both the  urban and territorial dimensions of cohesion policy should be reinforced. 
This  could  address  the  needs  of  people  in  disadvantaged  micro-regions  or  segregated  neighbourhoods 
and include the use of territorial instruments, such as integrated urban and territorial development and 

148  Draft ESF+ Regulation, Annex 1, point 1b. 
149  Draft CPR Regulation, Article 6, COM (2018) 375.  
150  Ibid., Article 8(2). 
151  Guidance for Member States on the use of EU funds in tackling educational and spatial segregation should help in 

addressing these challenges. 

77 

 
 
                                                           
community-led local development. 
EU funds should be used to promote transnational learning regarding both policy and funding, such as 
the EURoma network of managing authorities and NRCPs152. The Commission will continue to promote 
socially responsible public procurement that allows public authorities to spend national and EU funds 
to support Roma inclusion, e.g. by providing targeted job and training opportunities. 
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Commission has proposed several instruments to support 
disadvantaged  groups  such  as  the  Roma.  The  coronavirus  response  investment  initiative  (CRII)  and 
CRII+  enabled  the  rapid  mobilisation  of  non-utilised  support  from  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds. Member States were encouraged to develop actions to reach the most vulnerable by 
setting  up  mobile  or  temporary  healthcare  facilities  to  contain  the  spread  of  contamination  and  treat 
patients on the spot, or supporting families experiencing homelessness/housing exclusion, including by 
means of counselling services. 

To  ensure  sustainable,  even,  inclusive  and  fair  recovery  for  all  Member  States,  Next  Generation  EU 
including  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  provides  additional  budget  and  policy  measures. 
Proposals  include  a  €55 billion  top-up  of  the  2014-2020  cohesion  policy  programmes  under  the  new 
REACT-EU  initiative  (for  the  period  to  2022).  This  is  designed  as  a  response  to  the  socio-economic 
impacts of the crisis and includes a new thematic objective, ‘fostering crisis repair in the context of the 
COVID-19 pandemic and preparing a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy’. The 2021-
2027 regulatory framework provides for swift response to future exceptional circumstances. In addition, 
the  ERDF  can  support  important  measures  addressing  the  crisis  needs  of  Roma  communities,  such  as 
distance/online education and training, and better access to healthcare.  

The  EAFRD  provides  funding  opportunities  to  promote  social  inclusion,  poverty  reduction  and 
economic development in rural areas, where many Roma people live. It is also the basis for the bottom-
up  LEADER  programme  to  implement  local  development  action  plans  in  rural  areas;  these  may  also 
include measures aimed at Roma inclusion or realised with Roma involvement. 

The InvestEU integrated programme, to be financed jointly under Next Generation EU and the 2021-
2027  MFF  will  also  contribute  to  socio-economic  resilience  and  strategic  objectives  of  the  Union.  In 
particular, its social investments and skills window could meaningfully contribute to the social inclusion 
and  equality  objectives  of  the  framework.  Thanks  to  the  EU  guarantee,  this  window  will  mobilise 
investments  for  projects  in  areas  such  as  education  and  training,  healthcare,  social  entrepreneurship, 
microfinance  and  social  innovation.  It  will  pioneer  new  public-private  partnership  models  for  impact, 
unlocking  the  potential  of philanthropy  for  social  inclusion.  Innovative  financial  products  will  seek  to 
deliver improved social outcomes, including in the area of migration and Roma inclusion, through new 
business  and  finance  models  for  cross-sectoral  collaboration  between  public  authorities,  social  service 
providers and investors. It will allow blending and combinations with other funds in indirect, direct and 
shared management. 

Member  States  can  request  technical  support  to  design  and  implement  structural  reforms  to  improve 
social inclusion and the integration of minorities. The structural reform support programme (SRSP) 
provides tailor-made expertise on a wide range of policy areas that are relevant for Roma inclusion in the 
labour market and equal access to healthcare, education and social services. The SRSP does not require 
national co-financing. 

The Commission proposal for the 2021-2027 asylum and migration fund identifies and targets non-EU 
nationals that fall in the category of vulnerable groups. Co-financing for actions to support such groups 
comes at an exceptionally high rate (90% instead of the standard 75%). 

152  Network launched in 2007 by Spain’s ESF managing authority. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Under  the  new  ‘citizens,  equality,  rights  and  values’  programme,  the  Commission  will  directly 
support Roma equality, inclusion and participation through dedicated thematic priorities, such as: 

  fighting antigypsyism; 
  raising awareness of Roma history and culture and promoting recognition and reconciliation;  
  fighting discrimination in access to quality mainstream education, employment, healthcare and 

housing; 

  policy-relevant data collection and research on mobility;  
  promoting transnational cooperation on the equality, inclusion and participation of mobile EU 

citizens; and  

  community-building between Roma and non-Roma communities.  

The programme will also support the application and enforcement of the Racial Equality Directive and 
quality data collection. 

The  future  Erasmus  programme  will  feature  enhanced  efforts  to  promote  equity  and  inclusion  by 
facilitating access by participants with fewer opportunities compared to their peers, where this situation 
limits or prevents participation in transnational activities (e.g. due to educational difficulties, economic 
and geographical obstacles, and cultural differences such as belonging to a national or ethnic minority). 
It  will  maintain  support  for  projects  dealing  with  topics  of  relevance  for  Roma  and  other  minorities, 
building on experience from the INSCHOOL project. 
For  the  new  programming  period,  the  Commission  will  develop,  based  on  close  cooperation  with 
stakeholders, the first comprehensive Inclusion and diversity strategy for the Erasmus and European 
Solidarity Corps Programmes. It will set out a multi-faceted approach to making the programme more 
inclusive, including through the introduction of more flexible and accessible formats; support measures 
to help prepare and accompany participants; and financial measures to support those who would find it 
difficult to participate in the programmes. 

The  Commission  proposal  for  the  EU4Health  Programme  includes  a  transversal  dimension  of  health 
inequalities in  all its  objectives  and could  provide  best  practices to  be implemented through  synergies 
developed with the other EU Funds and Programmes. Roma could also benefit from actions that could be 
taken to address the needs of vulnerable groups. 

Horizon Europe, the next research and innovation framework programme, will contribute to creating a 
more  resilient,  inclusive  and  democratic  European  society.  It  will  support  actions  fostering  structural 
change  through  the  implementation  of  gender  equality  and  diversity  plans.  It  also  considers  gender 
equality,  intersecting  with  grounds  of  discrimination  such  as  race,  sexual  orientation  or  disability,  a 
crosscutting priority. 

The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance has largely invested in supporting Roma socio-economic 
inclusion in all enlargement countries through IPA I and IPA II funds. Funds have been already allocated 
for e.g. support to local actions, displacement and return projects, housing, employment and education. 
The 2021-2027 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance will continue to support reforms and alignment 
with EU requirements at regional and national levels. 

79