Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Strategic thinking on equality and mobility MIPEX: policy indicators and a joined-up approach to policy evaluation in Europe • 27 February 2008 • Prague Presentation by Thomas HUDDLESTON Consulting immigrants to improve integration policies: key findings from MIPEXIII and EESC study • 28 March • Tallinn, ESTONIA Thomas HUDDLESTON, Policy Analyst, MPG
Contents • Definition, standards, methodology • Findings: Few migrants consulted on policies affecting them daily • Strengths in new and old countries of immigration • Conclusions
Definitions • Council of Europe 1992 Convention on the participation of foreigners in public life at the local level (n. 144). • Foreign resident advisors in authorities’ committees; • Consultative councils with immigrant or mixed membership • Convention signed by few, fewer over time, can serve as inspiration for national, European improvements • EU cooperation: (CBPs 7 & 9), Handbooks/Website, • Commission, EP, CoR, EESC, Forum launch • Methodology: desk research, MIPEX, stakeholder questionnaires
Key findings www.mipex.eu National ● 15 countries at local level (3 not at national: AT, FR, GR) ● 10 at regional ● 11 at national (recent ad hoc in IE...EE?; also DE & IT just legal framework) If exist, often national consultative system Not yet positive trend: Opened (e.g. Lisbon) & closed (Antwerp, Copenhagen), often based on political will & powers. Most not enough powers & independence to serve aim to give immigrants voice ● Oldest & strongest (Benelux, Nordics); ● Weaker & government-led in new immigration countries; ● Absent in Central Europe (renew in EE) Part of ‘best practice’, introduced in comprehensive integration law/strategy Local
Consultative bodies meeting standards Structural bodies, often based on national system (half) Immigrants freely elected or nomrinated, especially older & local bodies (half) Immigrant representative of at least nationalities or gender, often based on system Immigrants have/share leadership, especially local, older, elected bodies (few) All policies affecting immigrants addressed, not just integration (most) Funds to engage and inform communities, few only strongest bodies, often based on national system of funds Right to initiative from immigrants (most); but response from government (fewer, more common at local)
Conclusions • Are we serious about opening & encouraging meaningful consultation among equal and serious partners? • Countries with strong consultative bodies… • …grant basic political liberties to all • …support immigrant civil society • …open voting rights and full citizenship • …do more to promote full participation of all residents • How to create bodies to inform and improve policy? • Structure in law • Free election/nomination • Right of initiative, response • Immigrant leadership • Representative criteria • Funding to engage and inform communities • What else?