|
Core Areas
Following on extensive data gathering and analysis, three core areas were distinguish-ed for the purposes of the integrated analysis:
|
 |
While each of these areas constitutes a distinct set of needs requiring consideration in its own right, the core areas are listed in order of priority. Further, as will become apparent from the findings of the focus groups, the core areas are closely linked, such that the comparative disadvantage of Romani internally displaced persons (IDPs) and returnees, for example, manifests itself in high unemployment and non-realization of various civil rights. Finally, although the need for attention to the position of Romani women and girls is clear, the issues pertaining to the female Romani population in particular manifest themselves in the same core areas affecting the Romani population in general.
|
Whereas Sida’s Country Strategy for Serbia and Montenegro was taken into account in the designation of core areas for this study, the complex and multi-faceted nature of Roms’ marginalization leaves other areas which would also benefit from attention on the part of domestic and international actors. Prominent among these areas are education, health, housing, and political participation. |
 |
CORE AREA 1 : MIGRATION
Ethnic cleansing of Roms from Kosovo began following the NATO air campaign of 1999 and the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops from the province. Thus, whereas before the Romani population of Kosovo numbered approximately 150 000 before the NATO air campaign, data provided by UNMIK in 2003 indicates the number of Roms left in the province to be under 40 000. Of the estimated 700 000 refugees in Serbia and Montenegro, as many as 50 000 are Roms from Kosovo. According to the Republic of Serbia’s 2002 Draft Strategy for the Integration and Empowerment of the Roma, lacking is a clear picture of the wishes of Romani IDPs in Serbia with respect to their future place of residence (i.e., return to Kosovo vs. integration in Serbia). Clear, however, is that more than half lack citizenship documents, a birth certificate, or official IDP identification.
Of the approximately 20 000 Roms, Ashkali and Egyptians (RAE) in Montenegro, as many of 6 600 are from Kosovo, with the December 1999 census of IDPs conducted by the Montenegrin Bureau for Displaced Persons finding 5 840 Roms and 917 Egyptians from Kosovo resident in the Republic of Montenegro. The highest concentrations of Roms displaced from Kosovo is in Montenegro’s larger cities: Podgorica, Nikšić, Bar and Berane.
Well over half (70.5%) of RAE from Kosovo in Montenegro report knowing that their property in Kosovo has been destroyed, such that they have literally nothing to return to. Accordingly, approximately three quarters of the immigrant RAE population in Montenegro has either applied for Union citizenship or plans to do so. On the other hand, the fact that nearly half the RAE population in Montenegro does not speak Serbian poses a significant barrier their integration into the broader Montenegrin society. Moreover, a study carried out in October 2003 by the Institute for Strategic Research and Prognoses indicates that over 92% of all Romani households in Montenegro cannot cover their basic food needs and that 74.7% have no running water in their homes.
Similar to the problems faced by Romani IDPs are those which Romani asylum seekers encounter upon returning from Western Europe. As of July 2003, Serbia and Montenegro had signed bilateral readmission treaties with 11 countries, stipulating conditions for the return of citizens whose asylum applications have been denied. While there are no precise figures on the number of returnees to date or on the ethnic composition of the returnee population, it is estimated that more then 150 000 persons will be returned to Serbia and Montenegro in accordance with readmission agreements.
back to the top
|
CORE AREA 2 : EMPLOYMENT
Observing that IDP and Romani populations constitute the country’s most vulnerable groups, the Poverty Reducation Strategy Paper (PRSP) for Serbia also notes that Roms are not adequately covered by existing analyses of poverty in the Republic. Whereas official unemployment in the Republic of Serbia was approximately 30% in 2003, the PRSP for Serbia published the same year estimates unemployment within the Romani population of Serbia at twice that figure. Moreover, according to the 2002 census, the number of employed Romani women (3 996) was less than 25% the number of employed Romani men (14 712). The Draft Strategy for the Integration and Empowerment of the Roma further points out that there exists no comprehensive approach for integrating Roms in the labour market.
A study of 593 Romani settlements conducted under the auspices of the Ethnicity Research Centre found an unemployment rate of 68.4%, with 57% of heads of family permanently registered with the National Employment Service. At the same time, only 18.6% of settlement inhabitants were employed on an ongoing basis. The primary means of livelihood of settlement inhabitants are shown in the table below.
Main income sources of inhabitants of Romani settlements in Serbia
| Income source |
% |
Income source |
% |
| No answer |
0.4 |
Humanitarian aid |
4.7 |
| Regular employment |
18.4 |
Various trades |
3.2 |
| Social welfare/child allowance |
18.3 |
Agriculture |
1.7 |
| Seasonal employment |
18.2 |
Support from relatives and friends |
1.0 |
| Trading/black market |
9.5 |
Begging |
0.6 |
| Selling waste |
9.1 |
Don’t know |
1.9 |
| Pension |
5.6 |
Other |
7.4 |
| TOTAL |
100 |
Source: Božidar Jakšić and Goran Bašić, Romani Settlements, Living Conditions and Possibilities of Integration of the Roma in Serbia (Belgrade: Ethnicity Research Center, 2002)
|
In much the same way as its Serbian counterpart, the PRSP for Montenegro observes that the RAE population constitutes the most vulnerable category in the country (Oxfam GB 2003a: 46). According to the UNDP-commissioned Household Survey of Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptians, Refugees and IDPs in Montenegro, unemployment within the RAE population is 43.3%, as compared with 17% in the mainstream population. More troubling still is that only 10.8% of the RAE sample population reported having worked in the week preceding the survey, with 50.9% of the nominally employed working as scavengers and physical labourers.
back to the top
|
CORE AREA 3 : CIVIL RIGHTS
Although the Serbian Law on Protection of Rights and Liberties of National Minorities does not provide a list of national minorities covered by the Law, Roms receive explicit mention in the section on affirmative action, which describes legal acts and other measures necessary to improve the position of the Romani population of Serbia (Article 4). Research conducted by the Minority Rights Center, however, suggests that the situation of Serbia’s Romani population has not improved since the fall of the Milošević regime. Moreover, the Draft Strategy for the Integration and Empowerment of the Roma notes that skinhead violence appears to be on the increase in Serbia’s larger cities but has not been adequately addressed.
According to the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), Roms in Serbia and Montenegro tend not to report violations of their rights, whether committed by private persons or public officials. Further, even when notified of violations by private persons against Roms, the police often fail to take appropriate action: While in 2003 ERRC, the Minority Rights Center, and the Humanitarian Law Center filed criminal complaints in connection with instances of intolerance and attacks against Roms recorded in Belgrade, Leskovac, Novi Sad, and Zaječar, it appears that none of these complaints have resulted in official investigations. To date, only four attacks on Roms in Serbia have been prosecuted for racial motivation, with the perpetrators given relatively lenient sentences for their actions. In Montenegro, on the other hand, ERRC has made note of repeated conflicts between Roms from Kosovo and members of the mainstream population in Tivat.
Official information about police violence against Roms does not exist, but reports of specialized NGOs indicate that police are more likely to abuse Roms than persons belonging to other ethnic groups. As is the case with violations of their rights by private persons, Roms do not often report instances of police brutality to authorities, with the rarity with which Roms press charges apparently stemming sometimes from lack of awareness of their rights, other times from fear of reprisal on the part of the accused. This combination of tendencies risks creating a vicious circle in which lack of awareness and constant suspicion of rights violations reinforce one another.
Apparently more frequent if less dramatic than violent attacks on Roms by non-Roms are instances of administrative discrimination (e.g., in allocating social assistance). Also reported are workplace discrimination and discrimination in access to education.
back to the top
|
|
