Roma policies in Italy: Good Practices for Housing

National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy EU INCLUSIVE Data transfer and exchange of good practices regarding the inclusion of Roma population between Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy 181 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy 182 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy Description of the project Project’s Identification Data: Project Title: EU INCLUSIVE – data transfer and exchange of good experiences regarding the inclusion of Roma population between Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain Identification Project Number: POSDRU/98/6.4/S/63841 Priority Axis 6: Promoting Social Inclusion Major Field of Intervention 6.4: Transnational initiatives for an inclusive labor market The project is implemented during the period between September 2010 and September 2012. Total Project value is lei 9,337,116.25. “EU INCLUSIVE – data transfer and exchange of good experiences regarding the inclusion of Roma population between Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and Spain”, is a joint transnational project, implemented in Romania by the Soros Foundation in partnership with the Open Society Institute – Sofia of Bulgaria, Fundación Secretariado Gitano of Spain and Fondazione Casa della Carità Angelo Abriani from Italy. The objective of the project is to develop cooperation practices in the field of Roma inclusion in order to promote their inclusion in the European labor market and employment increased capacity among organizations dealing with Roma integration from Romania, Spain, Italy and Bulgaria by means of mutual transfer of comparative data and local experiences. The project aims to carry out a diagnosis of the situation of the Roma integration on the labor market in all the 4 European countries and to transform the sociological information thus obtained in order to elaborate public policies with national and transnational application. We plan to: • develop a transnational long-term partnership between countries and organizations that work in Roma social inclusion field; • create an accurate comparative baseline database on Roma inclusion and employment in each of the 4 partner States with relevant information concerning Roma migrants; 183 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy • analyze and use the recent European history of the Roma inclusion initiatives and to raise their presence on the labor market, with reference also to Roma migrants; • identify and promote successful practices identified in each of the partner countries and to increase the relevance of the public policies in the field of Roma inclusion by valorization of such experiences. Partners: Soros Foundation (Romania) (www.soros.ro) – our mission is to promote models for the development of a society based on freedom, responsibility and respect for diversity. Starting with 2003, we have implemented frame programmes intended to social inclusion, among which the “Decade of Roma Inclusion” Programme and the Integrated Community Development Programme, and we also carried out many sociological researches on the situation of Roma population in Romania, an important one being “Roma Inclusion Barometer”, as well as community development projects such as “My Roma Neighbor” Project and “The Nearly Center (Centrul de Aproape) - Rural Area and Social Economy in Romania (RURES)” Project. Open Society Institute-Sofia, Bulgaria (www.osi.bg) – is a nonprofit nongovernmental organization founded in 1990, which has the mission: to promote, develop and support the values, attitudes and practices of an open society in Bulgaria; it is proposing public policies and debates on crucial issues for Bulgaria. Fundación Secretariado Gitano, Spain (www.gitanos.org) – is a cross-cultural social non-profit organization that provides Roma community development services throughout Spain and at the European level. It started its activity in the ’60 and was set up as foundation in 2001. The Fundación Secretariado Gitano mission aims the full evolution of the Roma community based on respect and support of their cultural identity. FSG is carrying activities beyond Spain borders, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania. Fondazione Casa della Carità Angelo Abriani, Italy (www.casadellacarita.org) - is a non-profit foundation, with social and cultural purposes. It was created in 2002 with the mission to create opportunities for the inclusion of any people living in conditions of social and cultural marginalization: homeless, migrants, asylum, Roma people, supporting their access to rights, services, opportunities and resources. 184 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy PART TWO Good Practices for the Social and Economic Inclusion of Romas in Italy Starting from a multidimensional and synergistic127 approach, the research group investigated different components of social inclusion by taking into account the distinctive features of the Italian context, characterized mainly by the presence of the so-called “camps”. Our exploration of good practices starts, and not accidentally, right here, with the most debated dimension of housing continuing to explore all the components contributing, in our opinion, to the definition of the Italian approach to the concept of inclusion. 1. Good Practices for Housing Sergio Bontempelli 1.1. Preamble: Italy, “the country of camps” In October 2000, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) published a detailed file on the conditions of Roma and Sinti in Italy128. The text sounded like a serious j’accuse against the national policies on the matter. Italy was defined as “the country of camps” — expression that was set as headline for the file and that subsequently started to be commonly used by activists and researchers — and was accused of the creation, through the nomad camps, of a real institutionalized segregation against Roma and Sinti populations. Twelve years after that publication, Italy continued to be “the country of camps”. According to a recent survey carried out by the Commission on Human Rights of the Senate, there are almost 40,000 Roma and Sinti, that is a forth of the entire Roma population present in the country 129 , living in such locations (equipped either legally and spontaneously or illegally). The data of the EUInclusive study presents an even more dramatic framework: 65% of respondents declared that they were living in camps on the outskirts of cities, a third of them in unauthorized ones. See chapter 1, Analysis of the National Situation. European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), 2000, Il Paese dei Campi. La segregazione razziale dei Rom in Italia, supplement to «Carta», No 12; original edition: European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), 2000, Campland. Racial Segregation of Roma in Italy, European Roma Rights Centre, Budapest, Country Report Series, No 9. 129 Senate of the Republic, Extraordinary Commission for the protection and promotion of human rights, 2011, Final report of the survey on the status of Roma, Sinti and Travellers in Italy, Rome, p. 48. 127 128 252 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy Also, according to the report of the OSCE delegation to the Commission on Human Rights of the Senate “the authorized camps (...), that add to an unlimited number of reception centres, remain the only way that authorities use to address the housing situation of Roma and Sinti”130. Among the public policies that were adopted targeting these minorities, the one that seems to prevail over the others is the one that ERRC defined, in the file, as the “nomadic theory”131: the idea is that these populations would be nomad, hostile to sedentary life and, therefore, in need of specific housing forms characterized as precarious and transitional. The “Roma = nomad” equation was repeatedly denied both by the direct stakeholders (the requests of Roma organisations in our country are always addressed to overcoming the camps), and by the most commented studies on this subject concerned 132. The very definition of “nomad” appears to be equally problematic, being subject to various semantic deviations (from the neutral meaning of “non-sedentary, mobile” to definitions assessing the contemptuous features such as “pre-modern, morons”. The alleged “nomadic feature” of Romas is characterized, in this sense, by an “inaccurate stereotype” useful to stigmatize these populations and not to describe, in a realistic manner, their cultural features 133. Should it be true — as OSCE denounces — that the segregation in the nomad camps is fed by national policies, then it is also true that the housing status of Roma and Sinti originates in a range of factors for which not only the public administrations’ actions may be blamed. Data from the EU-Inclusive research presents a framework of widespread social discrimination: thus, for example, only 19% of the respondents declared they work legally; only 7% of the total sample declared they have a permanent job. In turn, the housing exclusion has as an effect on social exclusion, for living in a camp makes finding a job much more Republic Senate, 2011, op. cit., pp. 42-43. The italics belong to us. See ERRC, 2000, op. cit., p. 10. The literature on this topic is very rich. To confine ourselves only to the best-known titles: Brunello P., 1996, edited by, L”urbanistica del disprezzo. Campi Rom e società italiana, Roma, Manifestolibri; Monasta L., 2008, I pregiudizi contro gli zingari spiegati al mio cane, BFS, Pisa; OsservAzione, 2006, Cittadinanze imperfette. Rapporto sulla discriminazione razziale di Rom e Sinti in Italia, Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Edizioni Spartaco; Cefisi L., 2011, Bambini ladri. Tutta la verità sulla vita dei piccoli Rom, tra degrado e indifferenza, Rome, Newton Comptonr. In 2008, a survey promoted by Sole 24 Ore showed that 75% of Roma were living in the same place for more than four years: so, where did the name of nomad come from? (see Ludovico M., Ancora un tentato rapimento. Cosa fanno gli zingari. La ricerca: il 12% vive di espedienti, 3 su 4 stanziali, in «Il Sole 24 Ore», 21 May 2008). 133 The concept of “inaccurate stereotype”, initially used by Claudio Povolo, was used by Benedetto Fassanelli in his work on the anti-gypsy gangs from the Republic of Venice. «the Figura de cingano [that is gypsy, appendix to the document] was defined starting from a series of evocative and inaccurate features tracing a criminal profile just as inaccurate, outlined by a set of information, but which left open the possible images that this outline may evoke» (Fassanelli B., 2011, Vite al bando. Storie di cingari nella Terraferma Veneta alla fine del Cinquecento, Rome, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, p. 154). This is a concept meant to describe the criminal policies (and rhetoric) of the modern era and that may be applied, with some caution, to present realities. The image of an “inaccurate” stereotype depicts, however, very well the notion — like that of “nomad” — little defined within its framework, but with a strong evocative feature. 130 131 132 253 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy difficult. The explicit discrimination suffered by Romas on the housing market134, and difficult access to public residential buildings or to other forms of social housing are factors that lead to — if not in fact create — at least the feeding of forms of housing exclusion. For a while, “nomad camps” have been recognized as sites for the perpetuation of social marginality: not reception centres, but real “ghettos”. For a long time, international organisations for human rights required the overcoming of this form of housing segregation, even if in different nuances, this seems a general wish, at least among the activists and the realities of the civil society. Many local governments have begun experiments aiming to “overcome the camps” that deserve a detailed analysis. 1.2. From camps to “micro-sites” One of the main forms of “overcoming” the nomad camps started spontaneously within communities. Starting in the eighties, many families, especially Italian Sinti, moved away from the big camps, purchasing private land — generally for agricultural purposes — where they have set up small housing units, consisting of trailers or prefabricated houses designed for an extended family135. Thus, upon Roma’s own initiative, the so-called “micro-site” were born: they are small self-organized “camps” where the phenomenon of forced cohabitation of families and groups specific of mega camps does not exist136. The clear refusal of many private owners to rent houses to Roma people is a common phenomenon in Italy, documented also by numerous empirical studies. Only to give an example, in a recent publication edited by Cittalia, we may read — regarding the public policies on rental support — «there is the problem referring to the prejudices of house owners that in many cases do not allow Roma families to have access to houses. When they however manage to gain access to such houses, they remain exposed to the so-called “discriminatory charge”, that is to an increase of rental prices that does not apply to the citizens» [Ministry of Labour and Social Policies — National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI) — Cittalia, 2010, Le politiche di integrazione urbana e la marginalità. Il caso dei Rom e Sinti in Italia, Rome, pp. 56-57]. In a study from 2009 carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, we can read, among other things: «this kind of discrimination appears to be routine» (EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2009, The situation of Roma EU citizens moving to and settling in other EU Member States. Comparative Report, Vienna, p. 47). 135 The «settlement on agricultural land», wrote recently Roberto Rota, «corresponds to a self-developed strategy of the Sinti, according to which each extended family would settle on an agricultural land that is its own — bought at a low price — and would live on this land with temporary structures such as mobile homes or trailers. This corresponds to the housing preferences of the stakeholders, but there are some related issues such as the lack of utilities and of the connections to utilities» (Rota R., 2011, Segni e disegni della marginalità: il caso dei Rom. Verso una progettazione architettonica nei territori dell”esclusione, paper presented during the 16th Conference of SIU, “Living in Italy. Territories, economies and inequalities”, Turin, 24-26 March 2011, page 3, at http://siu.bedita.net/download/rota-pdf — last accessed on 15.4.2012). To our knowledge, there are no specific studies on the spontaneous settlement in micro-sites. For a general framework, see Berini C., 2005, Note all”entrata in vigore del Testo Unico 380. Sinti e Rom italiani, un habitat possibile, Mantova, at http://www2.provincia.mantova.it/sociale/osservatorio/sintierom/legislazione/ ita6.htm — last accessed on 17.4.2012. 136 Here the idea of “micro-sites” proposed by Antonio Tosi is referred to: «Here, the term micro-site means small settlements designed for a family; usually, the term indicates small-sized residential sites set up by the local governments, but it can also indicate small spontaneous sites on the territories owned or (rarely) rented by families that saw a recent development as an autonomous, alternative solution to the camp» (Tosi A., 2009, Housing, settlement: a possible integration, in Ambrosini M. and Tosi A., edited by Favelas di Lombardia. La seconda indagine sugli insediamenti Rom e Sinti, Lombardy region — Regional Observer for integration and multi-ethnicity, Milan, ISMU, pp. 201-233:211). 134 254 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy Spontaneously started, especially in Northern Italy, this phenomenon met with a series of obstacles after the entry into force (in 2005) of the Consolidated Text for constructions that prohibited even the mere placing of trailers on an agricultural land137. Many Sinti thus found themselves forced to answer for the abuse in constructions offence for trying to deal, with their own resources, with their own housing marginality. In the last few years, several local governments decided to support individual Roma and Sinti communities, initiating forms of public support for the construction of micro-sites. Thus, for example, at Guastalla, in the Reggio Emilia province, the City Council promoted in 2005, together with a Sinti community the “Sucar Plaza” project. This involves a camp hosting six families, on a land owned by the City Council, with a surface of almost 4,000 square metres, divided into six lots (one for each family). On each lot, there is a prefabricated house of 60 square metres as well as a garden area of 240 square metres. The total cost of the project is of almost 336,000 €138: a very small figure, equivalent to almost 56,000 € for each housing unit. In Modena 139 a comprehensive programme of development of micro-sites was promoted between 2003 and 2007 to overcome the nomad camps on Baccelliera Street, inhabited mainly by Italian Sinti that accommodated up to 127 persons. The camp was demolished in December 2007 and in its place appeared — in different parts of the city — thirteen micro-sites. The lands remain under the ownership of the City Council: each resident obtains from the City Council an “administrative concession”, which gives the City Council rights to manage the site at its sole discretion and to revoke the concession140. In this case, the intervention seems to have incurred relatively low costs: the first three micro-sites built on Baccelliera Street cost 675,000 €, slightly exceeding 110,000 for each family141. According to the Consolidated Text of the legal provisions and regulations regarding the constructions, see the Decree of the President of the Republic No 380 of 6 June 2001, published in the ordinary supplement No 239/L of the Official Journal — the general series — No 245 of 20 October 2001. In Article 3, the new standards classify as “new building interventions” that need construction permit, all the forms of «urban transformation of the territory that does not enter the categories defined under the previous letters». According to letter e) of the same article, new building intervention is also considered the «installation of loose constructions, even prefabricated, and any type of structures such as trailers, camper, mobile houses, boats that are used for housing, work environments or as warehouses, storage facilities and similar that do not satisfy simply temporary requirements». See on this topic Berini C., 2005, op. cit. 138 See Enwereuzor U.C. e Di Pasquale L., edited by, 2009, Italy RAXEN National Focal Point. Thematic Study. Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers, p. 41, which may be downloaded from the following website: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/RAXEN-Roma%20Housing-Italy_enr.pdf — last accessed on 20.4.2012. 139 The following information is taken from Bia G., 2009, Spazi paralleli. Innovazione nelle politiche abitative per Rom e Sinti in Italia, Licence paper, University of Politechnics of Milan, Faculty of Architecture and Society — Architecture courses, academic year 2008-2009 (coordinator prof. Antonio Tosi), pp. 132-139. With regard to the experience in Modena, see also: Zincone G., 2010, L”emergenza integrazione di Rom e Sinti. Una proposta interpretativa e alcune buone pratiche, Fieri, Torino, p. 5; Republic Senate, Extraordinary Commission for the protection and promotion of human rights, 2011, op. cit., p. 59. 140 Within the micro-sites, explains Giulia Bia, «each resident concludes with the City Council a sort of “administrative concession” renewed annually, that stipulates the obligation of education for the children of those who have obtained the concession, while the families are responsible with arranging and maintaining the site (…). The temporary housing of other persons is not allowed without an explicit permit issued by the government that carries out all the regular controls and that reserves the right to discontinue the concession at any time» (Bia G., 2009, op. cit., p. 136). 141 Ibidem, p. 133. 137 255 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy In Reggio Emilia the City Council promoted the “Dal campo alla città” project142 (from the countryside to the city), completed with the creation of micro-sites for Sintis. The project allowed for the creation of an experimental area, allocated to a family; the land, measuring almost 400 square metres, remained under the ownership of the City Council, following the Modena model analysed above. The family placed their own trailer The project was financed by the Ministry of Interior with United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (Unrra) funds, involving a higher cost compared to the ones analysed above: 126,900€ for an extended family143. The Autonomous Province of Trento introduced the micro-sites (called “community residential sites”) in its own legislation in 2009144. The identified lands have sizes to fit the needs of individual extended families: allocation is based on the family ability to pay for the utilities and on the involvement of at least 50% of its members in the acceptance of training courses and job offers. However, the real peculiarity of the law of Trento is given by the restrictive criteria provided for the identification of those having this right: according to Article 4 paragraph 2 of the provincial law, housing units may be allocated only to the families having lived in Trentino for at least ten years. In addition, according to paragraph 4, the allocation is possible provided that “at least two members of the family clan work either as employees or as self-employed or have a retirement pension or a pension for seniority in work”. As we can see, these are conditions that very much restrict the spectrum of possibilities for the beneficiaries, actually excluding many foreigners. The “micro-sites” policy has many strong points but it also has many limits. A positive element is represented by the low costs incurred by governments: this involves the equipment of small lots of land, with few structures (toilets, connection to utilities, prefabricated products, etc.); interventions allow to find relatively decent reception forms with costs that do not exceed 120-130,000€ per family. Confronted with this big advantage, such policies may arouse many perplexities. The risk is, first of all, represented by the reproduction of forms of housing marginality: even if very different from the “nomad camps”, these microsites risk to still constitute forms of “inferior housing” with lands instead of houses, trailers or caravans instead of buildings, located at the outskirts of the city instead The following information is taken from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers — Office for the Promotion of Equal Treatment and the Repression of Discrimination on grounds of Race and Ethnic Origin (UNAR), 2012, National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers Communities. Application of the Communication No 173/2011 of the European Commission, Rome, p. 91, available on the following website: http://www.cooperazioneintegrazione.gov.it/media/6633/strategia_italiana_Rom.pdf — last accessed on 5.4.2012). 143 See Reggio Emilia City Council, the Press Office, Micro-site project — Start of the social insertion process on Felesino Street, Reggio Emilia, 27 February 2009, available at: http://www.municipio.re.it/UfficioStampa/ comunicatistampa.nsf/PESIdDoc/ 304A3E3F1AD19BFFC125756E0036405A/$file/Microarea%20-%20Famiglia %20in%20strada%20Felesino%20_27.02.09_pdf — last accessed on 3.4.2012. 144 In the Autonomous Province of Trento, Provincial Law No 12 of 29.10.2009, “Measures to favour the integration of the groups of Sinti and Roma residents in the Province of Trento”, published in the Official Journal of Trentino-Alto Adige region, No 46, 10 November 2009. See particularly Article 4, «Features of community residential sites and their allocation». For the Trento experience see also the Presidency of the Council of Ministers — Office for the Promotion of Equal Treatment and the Repression of Discrimination on grounds of Race and Ethnic Origin, 2012, National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers Communities. Application of the European Commission communication No 173/2011, Rome, Annex IV, «Good Practices», p. 13, available at: http://www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/22/ 0251_ALLEGATO_BUONE_PRASSI_STRATEGIA_ITALIANA_ROM_PER_MESSA_ON_LINE.pdf — last accessed on 2.4.2012. 142 256 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy of a full housing insertion in the urban or rural areas. The restrictive criteria for the management and allocation of sites, provided by certain laws and local regulations risk to produce — even if in a much more attenuated form — typical ways of supervision and control for many “nomad camps”. There is no doubt that the solution of micro-sites arose from the independent initiative of Sintis and the fact is that at present several associations representative of the group ask government to continue with this kind of solutions. The involvement and implication of other stakeholders is always the “best pathway” to identify the best practices for social insertion: reason why the situations in which the solution of micro-sites is explicitly requested by specific communities, is no doubt a pathway to follow (clearly with the appropriate corrections and evolution of the society). However, it is also obvious that a policy of this type is inappropriate for other groups: if we think of the Roma in Abruzzo that have always lived in houses or of many Roma from the former Yugoslavia or Romania that in their own countries had a home in the real sense of the word. In fact, a real policy regarding the housing insertion of Roma and Sinti must be based on diversified solutions, each one adapted to its own background. As Nicola Solimano wrote, “the distance from the “camp” model means first of all the continuation of a plural strategy. No unilateral indication can come from the “Roma culture”: if we consider the heterogeneity of the Roma world and the multitude of pathways and projects that are being developed within this world, we must consider that any formula complies with applicable principles and none can be generalized”145. Within this framework, the policies on micro-sites may represent the “solution”, but only one of the pathways to follow. 1.3. If a “nomad camp” becomes a neighbourhood: Roma “villages” from Tuscany Similar in certain aspects to the micro-site policy is also the Tuscan experience of the Roma villages set up around the second half of the nineties and in the early 2000s, especially due to the approval of Regional Law 2/2000. The “village” is, according to the terminology adopted by the Tuscan government146, a Roma or Sinti camp — generally small-sized, sometimes slightly larger than a micro-site — where housing is built with materials and techniques that allow for great savings (loose masonry, minimal houses, modular housing, wooden “cottages” etc.). As we will shortly see, many “villages” in Tuscany have been built on the site where nomad camps were located, this type of “stopovers” became small “Roma districts”. 145 Solimano NR., 2009, Houses, cottages, barracks and trailers, in Vitale T., edited by, Politiche possibili. Abitare la città con i Rom e i Sinti, Carocci, Rome, pp. 255-265:263. 146 In other territorial contexts, the concept of “village” refers more or less explicitly to the idea of authorised camp, based on the traditional model of the “nomad camps”. Thus, for example, see the case of Rome, where large camps designed to be developed, in several stages, outside the inhabited urban centre are called “Solidarity Villages”. 257 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy A first experiment was realised in 1998 in Florence, on del Guarlone Street147. Promoted with the purpose of overcoming the degrading situation and the serious housing exclusion in the historical camp “Poderaccio”, the project allowed for the development of a residential area with six small self-built homes. The first pioneer intervention148 was followed by the most ambitious ones, the “del Poderaccio villages”, still in Florence. On del Poderaccio Street, there were two big camps counting 400 persons in total: from the second half of the nineties, the City Council and the region have embarked on a course of action aiming to “overcome” the two camps (the Guarlone experience, as we have seen, was meant to be a step forward in this direction). At first, the idea was to demolish the barracks and to build instead a “Roma district” with real brick houses. Subsequently, a transitory intervention was chosen: while waiting for the transfer of the families in the settlements that were considered more appropriate (the ERP houses, social buildings, rentaloriented etc.) it was decided to establish two “villages” with wooden houses. The manufacturer would guarantee the modules for ten years and they would deteriorate as the families were gaining access to different types of solutions. Thus, instead of the camps for nomads, two settlements with “houses” have been developed; the “camp” was replaced with a “village” and instead of barracks, there were small wooden houses149. A similar experience was accomplished in Pisa, where — within the larger programme that we will referred to further on — it was decided to establish a “Roma village” in place of the historical “nomad camp” in the city, Coltano. The barracks and the containers have been demolished to accommodate 17 housing units, built with a loose masonry system: with expanded polystyrene and concretefilled elements integrated with panel-planks in synthetic material and reinforced concrete for the ceilings150. For the history of “del Guarlone village” see: Tosi Cambini S., 2006, Innovative experiences for housing Roma and Sinti. Houses, cottages, barracks and trailers, in Michelucci Foundation — ARCI Tuscany, Atlante dell”alloggio sociale e dell”accoglienza in Toscana, Michelucci Foundation, Florence, pp. 205-259 (particularly pp. 237-238); Michelucci Foundation — Tuscany region (General Directorate for Citizen Rights and Social Cohesion), 2010, Gli insediamenti Rom e Sinti in Toscana, Florence, page 14; Michelucci Foundation, 2008, Una casa per i Rom a Firenze. Origini e sviluppo del progetto, Paper, Florence, at http://www.michelucci.it/ node/39 — last accessed on 15.2.2012. 148 «In the eyes of whoever undertook to set it up», writes Sabrina Tosi Cambini reliving the memory, the «success of the “Roma village” seemed at that time able to carve a niche into the wall of prejudice and to finally show an approach that was easy to reproduce to deal with aspects related to nomad camps, whose implosion had been foreseen by many of us» (Tosi Cambini S., 2006, op.cit., p. 238). «Del Guarlone village», adds Giulia Bia, «had as an important consequence the removal of taboos according to which the “cultural housing” of Roma had to be constituted by trailers and shacks. Since that moment, the insertion of Roma families through ERP classification started to grow in numbers. Almost sixty families are presently in houses belonging to the city of Florence.» (Bia G., 2009, op. cit., p. 85). 149 The most critical elements of the intervention, which, according to Michelucci Foundation, produced a strong lack of homogeneity between the initial objectives and their concrete accomplishment, are left out because they are not related to the subject. According to the Research Institute of Florence, the development of “villages” was dictated by urgency. See for this purpose the Michelucci Foundation — The region of Tuscany (General Directorate for Citizen Rights and Social Cohesion), 2010, Gli insediamenti Rom e Sinti in Toscana, cit., p. 16. 150 See the Michelucci Foundation, 2010, Il villaggio Rom a Coltano — Pisa, Florence, at: http:// www.michelucci.it/node/38 (last accessed on 7.3.2012). 147 258 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy As in the case of micro-sites, the “villages” also allow for the development of relatively low cost and decent housing solutions151. The main limit of such experiments continues to be the localization of the settlements: the “nomad camps” in Tuscany, as elsewhere, rose in remote areas, far away from inhabited centres, without services, often completely isolated152. Their building aiming to replace the “villages”, without any doubt, improves the street conditions of the Roma population, but it risks perpetrating the spatial and urban marginality. 1.4. Housing insertion in “real” houses: “Città Sottili” in Pisa Much more ambitious and complex are the projects envisaging the overcoming of the camps towards an insertion in houses in the real sense of the word. Among the first interventions in this direction, we mention the “Città Sottili” programme in Pisa, started in 2002 and concluded at the end of 2009153. Promoted in the application of Regional Law 2/2000 — the same law that gave the impulse for “village” establishment — the programme envisaged the gradual demolition of all the camps (authorised or not authorised) by finding an appropriate housing solution for all Roma present in the territory. The main novelty of the project consisted in this “universal” ambition: (the initial intentions have not been accomplished), the interventions had to address the entire Roma population, In Pisa, for example, in order to build the 17 housing units of the Coltano village, an expenditure of almost 750,000 € was envisaged initially: almost 45,000 € for each “cottage” (Venturini C., Fallisce la ditta che costruiva le case ai Rom, in «Il Tirreno», Pisa, online edition, 20 June 2009, http://iltirreno.gelocal.it/pisa/ cronaca/2009/06/20/news/fallisce-la-ditta-che-costruiva-le-case-ai-Rom-1.1720341, last accessed on 3.2.2012). Should we consider the final cost of about one million € (according to article A million € for 17 housing units, in «La Nazione», reported from Pisa, 27 October 2010), the expenditure for each module was of around 59,000 €. These are extremely low figures when compared to the market prices of new constructions. 152 With regards to the “Roma village” Coltano, in Pisa, the Michelucci Foundation outlines that «localized choices (…) are not the best conditions to favour the difficult process of urban and social insertion of Roma (proximity to the cities, territorial services, proximity to schools etc.)» (The Michelucci Foundation, 2010, Il villaggio Rom a Coltano, cit.). 153 With regard to the Città Sottili [loose cities] programme there is a vast literature. See: The social and health region of Pisa, Technical Secretary Office Conference of Mayors, 2002, Città Sottili. programme of the city of Pisa involving the Roma community on the territory: to the Service Conference. Program-document, Pisa, at http://www.cittasottili.africainsieme.net (last accessed on 23.3.2012); cabinet member Macaluso C., 2003, The Roma issue. Introductive report of the Local Council. Pisa, session of 7 November, at http:// zonapisana.it/sdspisa/download?file_id=606 (last accessed on 23.3.2012); Health society in Pisa region, 2007, Città Sottili. programme of the city of Pisa with the Roma involving the Roma community on the territory 2002-2007. programme synthesis, Pisa, may be downloaded from the website: http:// africainsieme.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/sottili6.pdf (last accessed on 23.3.2012); Unknown A., Pisa: policies and feasible locations for Roma and Sinti, in Vitale T., edited by, Politiche possibili, cit., pp. 174-180; The Michelucci Foundation — The Region of Tuscany (General Directorate of Citizen Rights and Social Cohesion), 2010, Gli insediamenti Rom e Sinti in Toscana, cit.; Cirucci A., 2011, “The man that comes from another land is a potential murderer” (I. Kant). The image of Roma and Sinti through the analysis of the local press of Pisa. University of Pisa, Academic Master level I in «Intercultural and interreligious conflict management», academic year 2010-2011 (academic coordinator Sergio Bontempelli). The programme was subject to surveys carried out by international organisations; see particularly: EU Fundamental Rights Agency, 2010, La situazione dei cittadini comunitari Rom che circolano e soggiornano in altri Stati membri dell”UE, Luxembourg, p. 79, that may be downloaded from the following website http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/ roma/roma_enr.htm# (last accessed on 23.3.2012); Enwereuzor U.C. and Di Pasquale L., edited by, 2009, Italy RAXEN National Focal Point, cit., pp. 39-41. For a quick look on Città Sottili programme and on the Roma in Pisa, we allowed ourselves to refer to an article of ours: Bontempelli S., 2006, La tribù dei gagè. Comunità Rom e politiche di accoglienza a Pisa (1988-2005), in «Studi Emigrazione/Migration Studies», XLIII, No 164. 151 259 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy without distinction between residents and non-residents, citizens with legal or illegal right of residence, living in legal or “illegal” camps154. The programme developed in several stages. In a first stage, in order to identify the beneficiaries, a widespread census of the Roma population began: conducted by the social services without the presence of the police and therefore without police related issues, this census allowed for the identification of the families, of individuals or of small settlements that were unknown before. During a second stage, a round table was set up with the Prefecture and the local Questura in order to define pathways leading to the regulation of the situation of foreign Roma lacking a residence permit. Finally, the operational stage started with the closing down of the camps and the insertion into houses. For the housing inclusion, several solutions were envisaged, according to the specific needs of each group, individual or family155. Thus, for the ones that did not meet the requirements, the submission of an application for ERP housing was necessary. In other cases, the possibility of purchasing or of purchasing under a loan agreement was made available for the City Council for buildings owned by public institutions to be rented to Roma. The government had previously identified some ruins in the territory, most of them owned by the State, which could be subject to a self-directed recovery interventions. The types of houses also had to be diversified according to one’s needs: flats in blocks of flats, housing of a sole family, cheese dairies, but also “Roma villages” after the Tuscan model and equipped micro-sites. The set of actions required a long period of implementation: think how much time would be necessary for the purchase under a loan agreement of houses from public institutions, for which a complex negotiation with these institutions would be necessary. However, since the beginning of the program, the local government had regular press campaigns that on one hand did not recognize the idea of the housing insertion for Roma156, and on the other hand, illustrated the existence of the “nomad camps” as a result of the failure of the project157. The «It is a matter of ensuring», explains the advisor on social policies of the City Council, Carlo Macaluso, during a session of the Local Council, «an appropriate housing situation to all families historically present on our territory and at the same time of acting in order to remove all the elements that prevent their full integration» (Macaluso C., 2003, La questione Rom, cit., p. 27. The italics belong to us). 155 See Social and health region in Pisa, Technical Secretary Office Conference of Mayors, 2002, Le città sottili, cit., pp. 25-26. 156 Thus, for example, in May 2004 the local press attributed great importance to the collection of signatures from the inhabitants of the Porta a Mare neighbourhood, where four families from the Coltano camp were about to be placed; few months later, in Forcoli village, newspapers wrote about the protests of inhabitants against allocating housing to Roma families (see Bontempelli S., 2006, La tribù dei gagé, cit, p. 965). Even more stunning is the campaign against the construction of the “Roma village” in Coltano: a local newspaper wrote that the polystyrene and concrete housing are «highly-priced colonial houses», implying that the City Council reserves such privileges to Roma instead of offering them to the “inhabitants of Pisa” (Venturini C., Per i Rom 17 case coloniche griffate, «Il Tirreno», report from Pisa, 15 May 2008). 157 «The nomad camp is still there», would write, for example, a journalist in January 2005, «between Aurelia and the Pisa- Livorno highway. A purulent “wound” for whoever passes by, but particularly for whoever lives there. There are projects to eliminate it and also there is money….». There followed a description of the degrading conditions of the camp, a brief synthesis of the “Città Sottili” program. An ambitious project was planned, even though it was practically unaccomplishable (see Redazionale, Nessuno vuole i nomadi di Coltano, e il ghetto rimane, «Il Tirreno», Tuscany page, 12 January 2005). Few months afterwards, a long report of the newspaper «La Nazione» would denounce again the degrade conditions from Coltano, explaining: «Still no sign of the constructions envisaged» (Natoli L., Una discarica al posto delle case, «La Nazione», report from Pisa, 23 March 2006). 154 260 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy City Council responded to these press campaigns by accelerating the camp demolition process, announcing, sometimes long time before, the closure of the settlements in order to prove efficiency and celerity158. This strong acceleration deeply modified the objectives of the program: the hypothesis of diversified housing and of a gradual insertion was abandoned. Compared to the complex degree of the initial project, this was modified due to emergency procedures envisaging the quick demolition of all the camps in the city. Thus, after abandoning the actions most difficult to achieve, the housing insertion continued by resorting almost exclusively to the private market: cooperatives and associations responsible with assisting the Roma would rent housing directly from owners — using funds allocated by USL — and would sub-let it to Roma families. These were asked to participate to the payment of the rent until they would gain full autonomy. In June 2007, almost 80% of the hosted families appeared to be inserted on the private market159: and as most of the Roma were unemployed or did not have an income when the programme started 160, public institutions had to sustain a big part of the costs related to the rent161. Families have been supported by social workers, responsible, among other, with assisting the families in the search of a job: but the labour insertion was placed after the actions considered more urgent, such as the mediation of the conflicts with the neighbours (in order to avoid protests, signature collecting and subsequent press campaigns). The outcome of Città Sottili was strongly conditioned by the need to restrict and reduce to silence the “discontent” of public opinion. Therefore, five years after the programme application, almost all Roma families hosted were under the care of public institutions. The situation was no longer sustainable in economic terms and the new local government — generally hostile to large reception programs, more sensitive to the safety rhetoric and to cost reduction — had an easy role in criticizing the program. Finally, Città Sottili was closed and ceased to be operative on 1 January 2010. 158 For example, in the local press of 9 August 2006, the Government would announce the closure of the historical camp from Coltano. During the press conference, the local authorities would declare emphatically that they «were celebrating the demolition of the shameful camp» (see Redazionale, Demolita la baraccopoli, «Il Tirreno», report from Pisa, 9 August 2006). Actually, only the construction work of the village were closed: the “cottages” would be delivered at the beginning of September 2010, four years after the announcement. 159 healthcare Society for the Region of Pisa, 2007, Le Città Sottili, cit., pp. 18 and 19. 160 As it emerged from the “census” within the Città Sottili project, one of the most critical situations in the Coltano camp is that of 135 adults, only 12 had a job, five of whom on the black market (see Social and health Region of Pisa, Technical Secretariat Office Conference of Mayors, 2002, Le città sottili, cit., p. 13). 161 As the Michelucci Foundation observes, «the decision to operate exclusively (for the Florentine project) or preponderantly (for the Pisa project) on the private housing market (…) an important critical aspect of the projects: aside from the other costs of the supporting and “accompanying” phase, there remains, for many families involved, the difficulty to achieve and preserve an economic autonomy that would allow them to support the costs of the rent on the market.» (Michelucci Foundation — the Region of Tuscany, 2010, Gli insediamenti Rom e Sinti in Toscana, cit., p. 17). 261 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy 1.5. Overcoming urgent situations: housing insertion in Bologna Chronologically, a second significant experience regarding the insertion in “conventional” housing was the one in Bologna, started in 2007 with the adoption, by the City Council, of the “Action plan for overcoming urgent reception structures”162. In this case, the housing insertion project does not address the entire Roma population in the city, but only a well-defined segment, although fairly consistent in terms of numbers: the families — all of non-Italian nationality — hosted in some reception structures already active on the territory. In order to have a clearer picture, it would be appropriate to talk briefly of the policies applied in the past in the city with regard to Romas. In Bologna, as in other parts of the country, the foreign Roma came in two important migration flows: the first during the nineties involving refugees from the former Yugoslavia, the second — during the next decade - largely from Romania. “In both cases”, explains Cris Tomesani, “we have witnessed a similar type of settlement: entire families settled in the peripheral regions of the city, on the bank of Reno river, building shelters using recovered materials and dedicating themselves to black market labour”163. During their first arrival, the Slavic Roma were received in “refugee camps”, two of which (one in the Trebbo locality governed by the Castel Maggiore City Council and the other on Pianazze, governed by the Sasso Marconi City Council) were more active in 2007164. The reception of the Romanian Roma was, on the other hand, the product of a tortuous pathway, full of conflicts and public debates: the barracks and settlements on Lungo Reno have been subject to numerous evacuations and police interventions even since the early 2000s. As a result of these interventions, in October 2002, Romas — together with the local activists from the Social Forum and from several associations — decided to occupy an abandoned building, owned by the railway company, the so-called “ex Ferrhotel” on Casarini Street165. This building was occupied for nearly three years, giving rise to a long controversy with regard to the right to have a house: finally, in March 2005, Ferrhotel was evacuated and many Romas living there were introduced into a temporary reception structure, the former guest house, “Villa Salus”. For the general framework of the Bologna experience, see: Bia G., 2009, Spazi paralleli, cit., pp. 120-131; Tomesani C., 2009, Bologna: Roma migrations and housing insertions, in Vitale T., edited by, op. cit., pp. 190198; Presidency of the Council of Ministers — Office for the Promotion of Equal Treatment and the Repression of Discrimination on Grounds of Race and Ethnic Origin, 2012, National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma., cit., Allegato IV, cit., p. 15; Bernard S., 2007, L”immigrazione in Italia: un”indagine sulle politiche emergenziali, in «Storicamente», No 3, at http://www.storicamente.org/05_studi_ricerche/03bernard.htm (last accessed on 23.3.2012). For the action plan launched by the City Council aiming to transgress the reception structures, see also Tomesani C., 2008, Action plan to transgress emergency reception structures and guidelines for intergration pathways, slide PPT, on the website of the City Council of Bologna, http://www.comune.bologna.it/ECCAR/ images/documenti/materiali/C_Tomesani_Bologna.pdf — last accessed on 7.4.2012. With regard to the occupation of the former Ferrhotel, which was at the root of everything, see Scalo Internazionale Migranti and Bologna Social Forum, 2003, Bologna — A proposito dello Scalo Internazionale Migranti, document, Bologna, now at http://www.meltingpot.org/articolo939.html — last accessed on 23.3.2012. 163 Tomesani C., 2009, Bologna: migrazioni Rom e inserimenti abitativi, cit., p. 192. 164 Ibidem. 165 See Scalo Internazionale Migranti e Bologna Social Forum, 2003, op. cit. 162 262 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy The evacuation of Ferrhotel was carried out under a series of harsh disputes: of the 350 Romanian present in the structure, 100 were excluded from any alternative solution because they did not have residence papers and they had to return to the “illegal” camps on Lungo Reno 166. The moving of families from Ferrhotel to Villa Salus was done in police buses, with a massive presence of police prepared against street riots, in a climate that was strongly contested by associations 167. During the same period, the Cofferati Reunion started the campaign against the so-called “windscreen washers”, promoting a long series of evacuations against the Romas living in the Lungo Reno area168. In the case of the city of Bologna, reception policies have been strongly conditioned by the concern for safety and public order. In this case, the rhetoric of “safety” had an influence on beneficiaries, excluding from the interventions many illegal Roma or Roma living in “illegal” camps (that subsequently have been subject to numerous evacuations). The episodes in the following years prove also numerous successes of the policies on transgressing the camps. As mentioned, in 2007 the City Council launched the “Action plan to transgress the emergency reception structures”, disposing the gradual closure of four camps: the two camps for refugees set up in the nineties (Trebbio and Pianazze), the structure from Villa Salus for the Romanian Roma from Ferrhotel and “Gandhi social residence on Piratino Street”, a camp equipped with 16 containers, initially designed for a Pakistani group and then for the Romanian Roma from the S. Caterina camp169. To favour the release pathways of these structures, the City Council identified on the private market a corresponding number of flats for rent: then the houses were made available for Romas through sub-letting agreements. Beneficiary families were requested to pay the equivalent of at least 50% of the rent due to the owner and, in any case, not less than 300 € per month. The sub-letting agreements were concluded for a period of four years, at the end of which the family was obliged to enter a new agreement directly with the owner, without benefiting from contributions from the City Council. As it can be seen, this situation is not much different from the one in Pisa. However, while in the case of the Tuscan city the appeal to the private market See Bologna — Trasferiti gli occupanti dello Scalo Migranti, news from 11 March 2005, available on the following website: http://www.meltingpot.org/articolo4956.html — last accessed on 2.2.2012. 167 See the summary of the day in the daily newspaper L”Unità: Carugati A., The quiet exodus from Ferrhotel. Transferred to Villa Salus 170 Romanians, 21 applicants for asylum hosted in other structures, in «L”Unità», 11 March 2005. For the entire story regarding Ferrhotel, there is a film made by Elisa Mereghetti and Valerio Monteventi: “Endless column”. Odyssey of the Romanian Roma from Craiova to Bologna, from 2002 until 2008, produced by Ethnos — Vag61 — OcchioVago — Creativi di Craiova, 2008, duration 80". 168 Answering to the questions addressed by Forza Italia to the Local Council in October 2005, the mayor of Bologna at that time, Sergio Cofferati, claimed that “the foreign windshield washers” (many of them Romanian Roma) were too many and they represented a serious issue for the public safety. The beginning of the campaign against the so-called “windshield washers” coincided with the intensification of evacuations from Lungo Reno, and had a great resonance in the national press (see, for example, Varesi V., Cofferati contro i lavavetri, «La Repubblica», 11 October 2005; Monti V., Cofferati: più controlli sui lavavetri, «Il Corriere della Sera», 11 October 2005). 169 For the following information, refer particularly to Tomesani C., 2009, Bologna: migrazioni Rom e inserimenti abitativi, cit. 166 263 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy represented a weak element, in the case of Bologna the same operation guaranteed the substantial success of the project. Obviously, there were families that “failed” and left these reception pathways due to their not being able to bear the costs: however, in one way or another, these families succeeded in finding a decent place to live (for example, access to ERP housing), in other cases they returned to the country of origin, declaring their migration route to be unsuccessful170. Overall, it seems that the mechanism functioned: many Roma managed to preserve their homes, obtaining a progressive autonomy. The difference in outcomes between Pisa and Bologna projects is due, mainly, to the different social conditions at the start: if under the Leaning Tower, almost all the inhabitants of the “nomad camps” were unemployed or without an income, in case of the city of Bologna almost all had an employment even if often without appropriate contracts. Even if exploited and underpaid, they were, however, able to contribute to the payment of the rent. The main limit of the Bologna project is related to those who “remained behind”: Roma that did not live in reception structures continued to be subject to evacuations, typical for a lot of the camp overcoming experiences, a subject matter that deserves to be dealt with. 1.6. Reception for whom? Rhetoric of limit and the “effect of calling” Who would be guaranteed reception? Is it possible to overcome the camps by promoting housing insertions for all Roma and Sinti present on the Italian territory? Do the City Councils have enough resources to begin this type of investigations? The issue of costs of inclusion policies is always on the agenda of the local and national debates: even more intensely in a historical moment as the present one, when the dramatic economic crisis adds to the massive reductions of the funds transferred from the State to local authorities. Having limited resources available, governments establish the standard for the quantitative limits of their own inclusion interventions, both in terms of the funds available and — especially — in terms of the number of families that the insertion projects were designed for. It is a physiological mechanism: each action of the administration, however vast, must have limits. Less obvious is the public rhetoric accompanying these operations. It often happens that before an inclusion intervention — development of a micro-site, beginning a housing insertion project, setting up a village or an equipped land — the local institution declares to have “done its share” and to have “completed its tasks” and that it could not do more. Therefore, it is said, all 170 See on this matter Bia G., 2009, op. cit., p. 128. 264 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy Roma “in excess” — the ones that did not benefit from the inclusion interventions, or the ones that came on the territory after the beginning of such interventions — must be treated with the common expulsion mechanisms: evacuation, removal, forced repatriations etc.171. Thus, however paradoxical it would appear, even the beginning of the integration policies — often innovative and courageous — legitimate new evacuation cycles in the “illegal” camps. In a sort of “vicious cycle”, the need to transgress the logic of the camps and evacuations generates the opposite effect: the multiplication of police interventions and the subsequent spread on the territory of unauthorized camps. We are often under the impression that this double and contradictory movement — on one hand the habitation inclusion interventions, on the other hand the evacuations — are dictated by the need to “reassure” public opinion. In front of the discontent raised by the local daily newspapers or by “citizen committees” with regard to the inclusion policies, the administrators seem more concerned with guaranteeing the exemplary character and, with what we might call, the uniqueness of the promoted interventions; it is thus clarified that that specific insertion project was necessary — and at the same time — to silence the protests — it is promised that it is the last one and that anyway they will be careful so that the number of Roma may not increase. As if often happens, in practice, collective representations are conditioned and guided. The appeal to expulsion instruments, after the beginning of opposite experiences, generates a lack of confidence quite spread with regard to social inclusion policies, that are perceived as being useless, expensive and nonproductive. On the other hand, it generates a sort of fatalism that sees in the daily routine of the evacuations (and of the camps) an option with no alternatives. During the last years, this “fatalism” seems to have condensed in a certain public rhetoric widespread both among the centre-right and centre-left parties. Thus, for example, the idea was put forward that the housing policies addressed to Roma and Sinti have a cost which, in any case, has to be limited in time. The presence of Romas on the territory is perceived as a problem that must be limited to “sustainable” numbers (Roma cannot be “too many”). At times inclusive policies are seen as “attraction factors” that could determine new (and unsustainable) migration flows. For this reason, several governments establish “maximum numbers” for tolerable presences (the so-called “fixed numbers”), disposing evacuations and removals for all Roma “in excess”. Emblematic, from this standpoint, is the case of the city of Pisa. After having promoted a programme addressed – as seen – to all Roma, the government immediately changed the course of action: the interventions were limited only to the families that had been identified through the initial “census”, while for the other families traditional expulsion instruments were re-activated. Among the governors of the Tuscan city there appeared to be the “effect of calling” theory, 171 For these mechanisms, see Bontempelli S., 2007, Sul razzismo “democratico”, in «Guerre e Pace», No 144. 265 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy according to which each reception intervention aims to attract new unstoppable Roma flows “called” by the mirage of an “easy to get” home172: the Romanian Roma migration was construed as an effect of the “generous” policies activated by the City Council with regard to the Balkan Roma173. The “effect of calling” theory is shared by the mayors and local governors who made it appear also in the official documents of ANCI174. This is, in exchange, a simple theory that even if containing certain real aspects, it disregards the complexity of migration phenomena. The extensive literature on the real causes of these phenomena175 proves that the flows are generated by a wide enough range of factors: the forms of policy regulation of migrations — the more or less “generosity” regarding the reception, as well as all the standards on access and residence — represent only an element among many others whose consequences are not at all linear (it is not certain for the policies on openness and reception to generate new flows, as the most restrictive choices do not necessarily represent a prevention element of subsequent arrivals 176). 172 On this topic, see Sergio Bontempelli, 2006, op. cit.; Africa Insieme Association of Pisa, 2006, Vite di scarto. Marginalità sociale e marginalità abitativa dei migranti a Pisa, file, Pisa, at http:// africainsieme.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/anast_dossier06.pdf, pp. 21-22 — last accessed on 21.3.2012; OsservAzione, 2006, Cittadinanze imperfette, cit., p. 22. 173 Thus, for example, on 12 May 2004 the Mayor Paolo Fontanelli would write in the local press: «There are 500 on our territory and for some time now the City Council believes it will not be possible to receive other nomads. We have reached a saturation level. The cup is brimming: another drop may be too much. This is the last drop, the extra drop was the arrival of around fifty Romanian nomads that occupied the former house of the custodian of Arno de la Riglione river after having settled in their camp, for a while, under delle Bocchette bridge. A presence that risks disrupting the government”s plan». For the Mayor, the arrival of those Roma was due also to the actions of associations that would have stimulated migration flows: «These associations do not realize that this is not the way in which this problem should be handled. We must understand our limits and we have reached for some time now our saturation limit. The problem must be controlled while the associations showed a substantial lack of responsibility» (Parlato G., Con i nomadi si rischia l”ingestibilità. Il Sindaco: basta, non possiamo più accogliere altre persone, «Il Tirreno», report from Pisa, 12 May 2004). 174 In their opinion on the “national inclusion strategy” the City Councils” association explains, for example, that «the activation of a good level of services has a “calling effect” polarizing the presence on a certain territory, ending up by making it no longer sustainable». ANCI (National Association of Italian City Councils), 2012 National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers Communities. Application of the Communication No 173/2011 of the European Commission. Opinion, prot. No 13 W/LP/UI/CO bs-12, Rome, p. 1. Thanks to the local advisor from Pisa, Sandro Modafferi, for sending us this documents whose existence we ignored of. 175 The studies regarding migration are so numerous that it is impossible to provide a detailed framework. See: Ambrosini M., 2005, Sociologia delle migrazioni, Il Mulino, Bologna, particularly chapter II, pp. 33-52; Zanfrini L., 2004, Sociologia delle migrazioni, Laterza, Bari-Rome, particularly chapter III, pp. 69-101; Macioti M.I., Pugliese E., 2003, L”esperienza migratoria. Immigrati e rifugiati in Italia, Bari-Roma, Laterza, particularly chapter I, pp. 3-21; Ambrosini M., 2010, Richiesti e respinti. L”immigrazione italiana, come e perché, Milano, Il Saggiatore; Harris NR., 2000, I nuovi intoccabili. Perché abbiamo bisogno degli immigrati, Milano, Il Saggiatore; Stalker P., 2003, L”immigrazione, Rome, Carocci, particularly chapter II, pp. 25-46; Pollini G., Scidà G., 2002, Sociologia delle migrazioni e della società multietnica, Milan, Franco Angeli, particularly the 1 st part, pp. 13-182; Cotesta V., 1999, Sociologia dei conflitti etnici. Razzismo, immigrazione e società multiculturale, Bari-Roma, Laterza. 176 The sociological literature is rich in examples of «counter-intentional» or «perverse» effects of the public regulation. It was often noted how restrictive policies in immigration may lead to the increase of the input flows instead of reducing it. See: Ambrosini M., 2005, op. cit., pp. 47-52; Chiuri M.C., Coniglio NR., Ferri G., 2007, L”esercito degli invisibili. Aspetti economici dell”immigrazione clandestina, Bologna, Il Mulino, particularly pp. 102-105. 266 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy 1.7. Reception policies and scarce resources The rhetoric of “limit” and the fears of a “calling effect” lead in fact to orientations already spread during the construction of the “nomad camps”. Between the second half of the eighties and the early nineties, while the local governments started to set up the first “equipped areas” for Roma reception, many mayors have established “fixed numbers” and started new evacuations for the families that were not offered a place in the authorized settlements 177. Ever since, the choice to set up “stopover camps” has always been accompanied by a removal policy: the “camps” and the “evacuations” became an inseparable couple of local policies. Its transgression does not mean that we have to follow the same pathways and reproduce the same mechanisms as then. Therefore it is good to ask ourselves questions also with regard to the way of approaching the topic, even if decisively, of the limits of the available resources: how can local institutions promote the social integration and housing insertion for all Roma and Sinti present on the respective territories, if the financing is missing? For this critical issue it is good to consider the two reflection elements that often during public debates remain in the shade. The first one is related to the actual costs of the repressive policies: as proved by a fairly vast reading, even though only just beginning178, both the perseverance of the “nomad camps” and the repeated evacuation cycles require huge amounts of money from public institutions. A series of surveys carried out by journalists or by specialised researchers showed, for example, that a single evacuation intervention in a big city may cost between 15 and 20,000 €179. On the other hand, according to The essays already collected in the historical volume edited by Piero Brunello (Brunello P., 1996, op. cit.) documents numerous cases of this kind. Thus, for example, in Bologna — after the arrival of the refugees from the former Yugoslavia, in the early nineties — the City Council was trying to remove the Roma that were not recognized as refugees, pushing them towards nearby localities (ibidem, p. 100). The City Council of Milan — among the first City Councils to have set up “stopover camps” for Roma — expressed, on several occasions, its wish to reduce the number of the Roma to “tolerable” numbers: in the spring of 1993, Vicepresident Intiglietta claimed that the city could not receive more than 800 Roma; later on, Mayor Formentini protested, claiming that «Milan cannot become a casbah (sic), taking care of 2,000 Roma who at present were on its territory» (ibidem, p. 201). At the beginning of 1996 the City Council of Padua, that two years before had prepared three small camps for Roma in order to “transgress” the camp on Ticino Street, was disposing the voluntary repatriation of the families installed irregularly on a stretch of land on Annibale Street in Bassano (ibidem, p. 231). In 1990 the City Council of Florence, while allocating funds for the rehabilitation of the camps on Poderaccio Street, disposed a “closed number” and ordered the removal of 300 Roma living on Poderaccio but considered to be irregular or “in excess” (ibidem, p. 127). 178 For a brief review of the literature, we refer to Bontempelli S., 2011 The country of evacuations (and camps). Local policies for Roma and Sinti populations in Italy, in Lunaria, edited by, Cronache di ordinario razzismo. Secondo libro bianco sul razzismo in Italia, Rome, Edizioni dell’Asino, pp. 45-53. 179 According to the data officially provided by the City Council of Milan, the government should have used almost 5,400,000 € for 250 evacuations during January 2007 and April 2010: each intervention costs around 21,000 €. According to 21 Luglio Association of Rome, an evacuation costs between 15 and 20,000 €. Things do not seem much different in smaller contexts: according to the data provided by the City Council of Pisa, the elimination of irregular camps costs between 10 and 18,000 € for each operation. It is important to remember that at present, there are no certain criteria for the cost lines to be included in budgets: these numbers must be considered as a guideline, not as certain and uncontroversial data. For this information, see Bontempelli S., 2011, op. cit., pp. 46-47. 177 267 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy recent studies, the City Council of Rome spends, for each family hosted on the camps and “villages” in the “Nomad Plan” more than 2,500 € monthly180. The second reflection element is the purpose of inclusive policies. They are perceived only as a cost: it is forgotten that their purpose is to make the beneficiary families autonomous. Based on an initial investigation, on a larger or smaller scale, reception policies allow for a significant reduction of the expenses borne by public institutions: each family removed from a “nomad camp”, released from the irregular settlements, inserted into a home and autonomous in terms of income, ceases to be an expense and transforms into resource for the community (if we think of taxes and contributions of INPS that are paid for each employee with legal forms). Obviously, not all the interventions have the expected results and do not always succeed in obtaining the full autonomy of the families: however, social integration has always been a safe way to reduce the dependency of the assistance intervention and therefore, to reduce the expenses that public administrations incur. If we read it this way, the issue of reduced resources may be approached in ways that differ from the ones followed until now. Regarding the reproduction — often physiological — of housing marginality conditions, the invocation of “fixed numbers” and “maximum thresholds”, of tolerable presences, the complaint of the “calling effect” of the reception policies, the obstacles raised behind the “insurmountable limits” risk to feed a perverse spiral of evacuations and social exclusion. Such behaviours are the expression of a “reassuring” approach in terms of public opinion181, but they do not contribute to an efficient governance of complex phenomena. The experiences of the last twenty years suggest a more pragmatic approach — and less ideological — on grounds of quantitative limits of an action. When launching the housing insertion programme, instead of setting insurmountable balances among the ones included (the ones benefiting from the reception interventions) and the ones excluded, maybe it is more efficient to imagine forms of turnover, or alternation of the beneficiaries. Thus, when a family inserted in a project becomes autonomous in terms of income, within the same project another family may be included, one that was until then excluded, in a potential continuous (and virtuous) cycle. The social integration programme must be considered as prolonged actions in time, addressed to different beneficiaries that alternate: the rhetoric of example According to the declaration of Carlo Stasolla, researcher within the 21 Luglio Association, for each Roma hosted in a village, the City Council pays a monthly amount of 500 € (according to Camaioni M., 2011, Roma, un prezzo salato, in «Popoli. Mensile dei gesuiti», No 2). On the other hand, according to a recent survey carried out in the camps in the capital, almost 70% of the Roma families comprise five or more persons (see Rome, the Capital – cabinet members for the promotion of social services and health, 2010, A new plan for Rome, the Capital — work instrument for benchmarking and proposals, a publication of the City Council of Rome at: http://www.retesociale.it/pdf/piano-regolatore-sociale-2010/piano-regolatore-socialedocumento-di-sintesi-aggiornato-25-octombrie.pdf, p. 140, last accessed on 25.3.2012. In most cases the City Council spends more than 2,500 € per month for each family. 181 «Migratory policies», writes Laura Zanfrini, «have generally an intention of ensuring, that is they aim to provide, at least, the appearance of keeping under control the migratory pressure perceived — and instrumentally represented — as unstoppable, proposing incorporation pathways for the newcomers in order to support the expectations of the citizens and guaranteeing a privileged access to resources and social opportunities. Called to govern a phenomenon which to a great extent exceeds their field and their incidence capacity, the political elites have often only a symbolical function to play that confirms the authority of citizens, “owners of the State”, to establish who has the right to be a part of it» (Zanfrini L., 2004, op. cit., p. 134). we believe that these remarks referring to the migratory policies in European states also apply in our case. 180 268 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy and uniqueness, so typical for many local projects risks to limit the intervention efficiency, to reiterate problems that need to be overcome. In order to correctly apply this approach different forms of reception need to be activated: besides the long term housing insertion (allocation of housing, micro-sites etc.), it is necessary to set up emergency reception structures in order to guarantee with low cost a form of assistance for the most urgent situations. This is the direction taken by a recent proposal formulated by Casa della Carità to the City Council of Milan: to build a “reception lung”, that is a group of structures designed to host families under great housing privations, waiting for them to be inserted in larger inclusion programmes182. Interestingly, this standpoint seems to have also been at the origin of the reasoning started by the City Council of Bologna. After the elimination of the reception structures, a project was drafted, with funds from Unrra for the restoration of “Gandhi” residency on Piratino Street (one of the reception places “emptied” by the Action Plan)183. The goal was to create a temporary structure for all the families waiting to be included in insertion programs. A last experience worth mentioning is the one of the so-called “control rooms” set up by the Region of Tuscany. On 16 February 2011, the regional council approved a motion denouncing that the “uselessness of the evacuation practices that (…) merely transfer in other territories the same problems while aggravating the safety, hygiene and health conditions of the persons who experience them”. Considering these observations, the council involved the meeting in drafting a plan — accompanied by the necessary resources — in order to avoid forced removal and to find an alternative solution, even temporary and provisional, together with the affected City Councils184. After the approval of the motion, the regional cabinet members of the social policies set up the “control room”, a permanent consultation table with the local institutions responsible for solving the most critical situations without resorting to repressive actions185. As can be seen, these are experiences undergoing experiments, but which however indicate possible ways to prevent the occurrence of forced evacuations or removals. 182 See Casa della Carità, For a new housing plan, press release, Milan, 15 November 2011, http:// www.casadellacarita.org/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/154 — last accessed on 5.3.2012. 183 See the conclusive part of the argument of Tomesani C., 2009, Bologna: migrazioni Rom e inserimenti abitativi, cit. 184 See Region of Tuscany — the Regional Council: Monica Sgherri, Vittorio Bugli, Marta Gazzarri and Pieraldo Ciucchi, motion No 171 of 17 February 2011, regarding the drafting of a plan to overcome the current danger and degradation conditions that Roma men, women and children, residents on the territory of Tuscany, experience. See http://prcgruppotoscana.it/AreaRiservata/atti-approvati-in-consiglio/mozioni/n-171. For the respective debate within the Regional Council, see Region of Tuscany — Council Documents Legislation IX — Complete reports, Session No. 32/P of 16.2.2011, Florence 2011, p.17 — both links last accessed on 3.5.2012). 185 Lacking regulatory authority on the subject, the Region could not prevent the autonomous initiatives form the City Councils: thus, after the setting up of the «control room», on the territory of Tuscany, other evacuations took place. An important example is the case of the City Council of Pisa that on 10 August 2011 removed by force 88 persons 30 of whom minor children without offering them any alternative. «I am surprised and concerned», wrote the a member of the regional cabinet, Mr.Allocca commenting the evacuation, «by a choice that risks to ruin a pathway (…) based on the collaboration between institutions in order to search for solutions for this phenomenon» (see Taverniti F., Sgombero campo Rom Cisanello, Allocca: “Scelta che ci sorprende e preoccupa”, press release, 12 August 2011, from the website of the Region of Tuscany, http://toscana-notizie.it/blog/2011/ 0 8/1 2 / s g o m b e r o - c a m p o - R o m - c i s a n e l l o - a l l o c c a - % E 2 % 8 0 % 9 C s c e l t a - c h e - c i - s o r p r e n d e - e preoccupa%E2%80%9D/, last accessed on 23,03.2012). This refers to the evacuations in Tuscany, in the summer of 2011; see also: Chiari C., Ferragosto di sgomberi in Toscana, «Il Manifesto», 13 August 2011. 269 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy 1.8. Triboniano Street, Milan: from emergency to project In Milan, the recent experiences regarding the evacuation of camps and housing insertion have been experimented within a particular context of the socalled “nomad emergency”. Let us go into details186. On 21 May 2008, the Berlusconi government issued a decree declaring the “State of Emergency” with regard to the “nomad” camps (sic) in Campania, Lombardy and Lazio187. With three orders of the Civil Protection, the government dictated dispositions of the application of emergency interventions 188 . Subsequently, through successive decrees, the State of Emergency was prolonged until 31 December 2011189. Based on these measures (subsequent to the illegitimate declarations of the State Council190), for 2009 a special fund for delegated safety initiatives was allocated by the Ministry of the Interior. The City Council of Milan was allocated around 13 million€ for a “re-qualification programme, safety implementation and the release of the areas designed for the nomad camps, social integration of the respective population and elimination of certain areas”191. Known as the “Maroni Plan”, the project provided for the rehabilitation of some legal stopover camps, “social interventions” within the main settlements as well as the closure of four camps: Bonfadini Street, Negrotto Street, Novara Street and Triboniano Street. With regards to Triboniano Street, the housing insertion interventions192 were entrusted to Casa della Carità Foundation, an association with a long-term experience with Roma, that was already active for some time on Triboniano with specific projects and insertion pathways. When the action was started, the camp was inhabited by 105 families namely 600 persons in total, mostly Romanian. The first step was to identify and activate a customized and shared project to exit the camp: each family was informed about the prospect of receiving an economic contribution for an assisted return to Romania193, or for the beginning of an insertion course in Italy. Casa della Carità would have handled all the families that were choosing the second alternative. We synthetically summarise here a few arguments developed in our previous article: see Bontempelli S., 2011, op. cit., pp. 45-53. 187 DPCM 21 May 2008, The declaration of the state of emergency with regard to settlements of nomad communities in the territories of Campania, Lazio and Lombardy regions (OJ No 122, 26.5.2008). 188 OPCM 30 May 2008, No 3676 for Lazio; OPCM 30 May 2008, No 3677 for Lombardy; OPCM 30 May 2008, No. 3678 for Campania. 189 DPCM 28 May 2009, The extension of the emergency state until 31 December 2011 for the accomplishment of the initiatives with regard to settlements of nomad communities in the territories of the Campania, Lazio and Lombardy regions; and DPCM 17 December 2010, The extension of the emergency state for the accomplishment of the initiatives with regard to settlements of nomad communities in the territories of the Campania, Lazio, Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto regions. With regard to the extension of the “State of Emergency” and its consequences, see important remarks of Hermanin C., Emergenza Rom, la disuguaglianza dei poteri speciali, in «La Stampa», 8 February 2011. 190 According to the State Council, Decision No 6050 of 16 November 2011, The state of emergency with regard to settlements of nomad communities in the territories of the Campania, Lazio and Lombardy regions. 191 Directive of 19.11.2009, Commissioner for Nomads’ Emergency in Lombardy (Prot 9b1/200900398). 192 The information and data that follow have been provided to us directly by the workers from Casa della Carità. 193 “The contribution for repatriation” — an amount of 13,000 € for each family — represented in fact one of the weakest points of the entire project. Many Roma benefited from this incentive, they returned to Romania and then went back to Italy. Today they live in illegal camps. 186 270 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy For each family an integrated project was drafted, that is to say a project not limited only to the allocation of a home: a special attention was given to the insertion on the labour market, a necessary condition for achieving economic autonomy. Some actions referring to labour preceded the entry into homes: 35 labour scholarships have been activated using the fund provided for the Maroni Plan in order to insure an income and a first insertion of the frailest persons. The project had a major success, especially concerning housing: of 52 families that chose the insertion in Italy (refusing thus the economic contribution to return to their country of origin), 20 have obtained an ALER home through sublease agreements with Casa della Carità and CEAS (Ambrosian Solidarity Centre); 8 have obtained a popular home through the insertion on lists; 18 have rented a house on the private market, 5 have benefited from apartments designed for temporary housing by associations and one bought a house with a thirty year mortgage. W ith regards to labour insertion, there is no available definitive data regarding the outcome of the project: it was a success — there have been persons that found a job, that have become fully autonomous compared to the projects — but some critical elements have also emerged. The economic crisis determined the failure of a series of insertions promoted through the labour scholarships or even the loss of a steady job by family fathers. This determined the extension of the orientation and support course with great expenses incurred by the public institutions and Casa della Carità Foundation. The fact remains that a strong “multidimensional” character describes the experiment on Triboniano Street: besides housing allocations, actions were taken for the social insertion and for finding jobs. These actions were promoted with funding from the so-called “Maroni Plan”: and maybe this is the most innovative aspect of the project. As we could see, that plan represented a part of a much larger national policy, approached as an emergency problem of public order194. Casa della Carità used the Maroni Plan, reverting from several points of view its signification: the funds intended for “emergency situations” were used for solutions on long term and for long-term projects of social inclusion. From this standpoint, the Triboniano experience proves that it is possible to carry out inclusive policies at local level even within a global context where different orientations prevail. See: Amnesty International, 2011, “Tolleranza zero verso i Rom”. Sgomberi forzati e discriminazione contro i Rom a Milano, Rome, available online on the website of Amnesty at the following address: http://www.amnesty.it/ flex/cm/pages/ServeAt tachment.php/L/IT/D/9%252F4%252F3%252FD.af9a67c2e4830a671803/P/ BLOB%3AID%3D5321 (accessed on 25.3.2012). 194 271 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy 1.9. “Building a home with one’s own two hands”: self-directed recovery between polemics and projects In order to conclude this short “list” of good practices we must mention also the interventions of self-directed recovery of abandoned buildings, done by Romas and Sintis rather than within local housing insertion programs. The most famous project known also in the reference literature195, is no doubt the “Dado” [Dice] of Settimo Torinese in the province of Turin, which we will present in detail in another chapter of this volume196. The novelty of the experience, later copied by the Terra del Fuoco Association may be resumed with the slogan “building a home with one”s own two hands”. Dado appeared to carry out an inclusion process through the self-directed recovery of an abandoned building placed for free under the control of the City Council of Settimo Torinese. In the first stage, Roma families carried out the restructuring and readaptation of the buildings. After the completion of works, families moved into the structure, paying a modest rent. “Dado” is however a temporary home, and the activities of the project aim at the autonomy of the respective families. The goal is to achieve a large turnover between beneficiaries: each time a family gains autonomy, another family coming from legal or “illegal” camps of the Turin province replaces it. The Settimo Torinese experience allowed, among others, the reduction of costs incurred by the public institution; the Terra del Fuoco Association calculated that only the costs for the economic rehabilitation were of 37%, while the costs for the annual management of the building do not exceed 10,000 €197. The “Home is also labour” project launched by the City Council of Messina198 also aims at self-directed recovery, the outcome of a complex history related to the historical camp of the nomads in the city: “Fatima village” of San Raineri Street, inhabited by almost 80 Roma coming from the former Yugoslavia. At the beginning of 2010, because of the approval of a large urbanisation project involving the area, the local government decided to close the “Fatima village”. On 2 February, at five o’clock in the morning, several patrols of the city police rushed in the camp and started the identification of those present: according to witnesses 199, the inhabitants were divided into “legal” and “illegal”; the imminent evacuation was announced, together with the announcement of the expulsion of all Romas without residence permits. See: De Salvatore A. and Riboni S., 2009, Settimo Torinese: the self-building and self-directed recovery processes as instruments of social inclusion, in Vitale T., edited by, op. cit., pp. 244-248; Bia G., 2009, op. cit., pp. 140-151; Presidency of the Council of Ministers — Office for the Promotion of Equal Treatment and the Repression of Discrimination on Grounds of Race and Ethnic Origin, (UNAR), 2009, National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers Communities, cit., p. 89; Presidency of the Council of Ministers — Office for the Promotion of Equal Treatment and the Repression of Discrimination on Grounds of Race and Ethnic Origin, 2009, National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Travellers Communities, cit., Annex IV, «Good practices», cit., p. 15; Ministry of Labour and Social Policies — ANCI — Cittalia, 2010, op. cit., pp. 6971; Zincone G., 2010, op. cit., p. 5. 196 See chapter “Good Practices for (and with) Roma Immigrants”. 197 This data has been provided by the association”s employees. 198 Cafeo T., Rom dello stretto, in «Centonove», settimanale messinese di politica, cultura, economia, n. 15, 4 Maggio 2012. Si veda anche l’ampia documentazione disponibile al sito del circolo ARCI “Sankara”: http:/ /arcisankara.blogspot.it/search?q=Rom (ultimo accesso in data 02-03-2012). 199 See Redazionale, Emergenza Rom a Messina, 9 February 2010, on the website of CESV in Messina, http:/ /www.cesvmessina.it/index.php/news/219-emergenzarommessina (last accessed on 2.3.2012). 195 272 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy A few days later, on 9 February, a few associations — among which ARCI, Caritas Diocesana, Comunità di Sant’Egidio, local organizations of Romas and of the immigrants — launched an appeal to the institutions in order to suspend the evacuation and to find housing solutions for all the inhabitants of the camp200. At a first glance, it seems that the appeal did not have a positive outcome: on the contrary, on 6 April 2010, the Port Authority issued a formal evacuation order that was communicated through the municipal police201. Roma families, assisted by associations, decided to address the TAR judge in Catania, who, even if he rejected the appeal, ordered to the authorities to proceed gradually, guaranteeing solutions at least for the families with children202. After a few months of complex negotiations between the government, associations and Roma families, the situations seemed be unblocked between the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011203: the Municipal Council decided to ask for a financing from the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies for a large project for the self-directed recovery of the abandoned buildings 204. On its part, the Ministry allocated around 190 million € within the “National programme 2010 – the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion”205. The project provides for placing the families from the Fatima village in new homes made available by the City Council, rehabilitated by the Romas themselves. They would be guaranteed support from the technicians of the City Council as well as voluntary assistance from professionals sent by Order of Architects, Civil Engineering and Geodesy. In order to favour the self-directed recovery and self-directed construction process, professional training activities are also provided for Romas. 200 Ibidem. See Redazionale, Messina, Rom presentano ricorso al Tar contro lo sgombero, «Redattore Sociale», 21 April 2010, http://www.redattoresociale.it/DettaglioNotizie.aspx?idNews=303054 (last accessed on 2.3.2012); see also the vast reconstruction ex-post of the entire episode in Cordaro C., 2011, Evitato lo sgombero forzato a Messina, si lavora ora per la sistemazione provvisoria di tutte le famiglie Rom, «Arcireport», weekly newspaper of national ARCI, No 13, p. 10. 202 «Considering that the appeal is not for the moment accompanied by enough elements of motivation, due to the lack of valid concession measures of the public areas — as written in the Decision of the Chamber of Council of TAR Catania of 12 May 2010 —; the obligation to continue, gradually, is entrusted to governments, taking into account the particularly important interests of the appeal (if and to the extent minor children may be involved in the evacuation operations)» (Order TAR Catania, 12 May 2010, quoted in Redazionale, Il Tar: “No forced evacuation in Messina camp. Everything needs to be done gradually”, «Redattore Sociale», 18 May 2010, available at: http://www.redattoresociale.it/DettaglioNotizie.aspx?idNews=306882, last accessed on 5.3.2012). 203 See a brief reconstruction, Cordaro C., 2011, op. cit. 204 See the City Council of Messina, the Municipal Reunion, Decision No 1135/10 din 15.12.2010, Public notice introducing experimental projects within the initiatives of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion — Ministry of Labour and Social Policies — Participation request. Regarding the decision, see the news from the local daily newspaper, particularly: Bellantoni A., Allocate 190,00 € for the “reconstruction of Roma settlements” in «Infomessina», online daily newspaper, 15 December 2010, available at: http://www.infomessina.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14536: ilcomune-esita-un-progetto-sperimentale-di-lotta-alla-poverta&catid=40:news&Itemid=2 (last accessed on 3.4.2012); Redazionale, L”amministrazione comunale dice “sì” ad un progetto in favore dei Rom presenti nel territorio comunale, in «Tempo Stretto», online daily newspaper in Messina and province, 15 December http://www.tempostretto.it/news/l%E2%80%99amministrazione-comunale-dice2010, %E2%80%9Cs%C3%AC%E2%80%9D-ad-un-progetto-favore-dei-Rom-presenti-nel-territorio-comu — last accessed on 3.4.2012. 205 See Bellantoni A., op. cit. 201 273 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy Considering these premises — completely different as one can see, from the ones existing a few months earlier — the City Council decided a new evacuation of the camp, in April 2011. This time this is a definitive intervention because after 22 years the historical camp, “Fatima village”, ceases to exist on 1 April 2011206. The evacuation method, in the middle of the night and without any notice gave rise to criticism from the voluntary associations that assisted the Roma since the beginning. Reading it differently, the episode has without any doubt innovative results207. For all Romas a provisional solution was identified. For the families having a residence permits and for the families with minor children the beginning of a self-directed recovery and self-directed construction project is considered: meanwhile, these families were transferred into provisional reception structures, prepared by the local authority208. All the other families were pushed towards temporary homes, managed by Caritas Diocesana, within a project financed by the region209. During the months that followed, the self-directed recovery project, which was supposed to end with the insertion of the families in the buildings that they had rehabilitated themselves, actually began. If Settimo Torinese and Messina, there have been cooperations with the local institutions, it is interesting to note that the self-directed recovery often appears in the requests and applications addressed by Romas and Sintis in different Italian cities. It is, for example, also the case of the Romanian Roma from the camp on Centocelle Street in Rome evacuated in November 2011, with no alternative solution envisaged. The families participated, together with Italian and homeless foreigners to the occupation of the former Heineken factory, on dei Gordiani Street. Again evacuated from that structure, assisted by the “Popica Onlus” Association, they submitted a self-directed recovery project for a public procurement notice, but failed to obtain funding210. 206 See Redazionale, Dopo 22 anni sgomberato il campo nomadi di Messina, in «Infomessina», online daily newspaper, 1 April 2011, may be consulted on the newspaper”s website at the following address: http:// www.infomessina.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16751:dopo-22-anni-sgomberatoil-campo-nomadi-di-messina&catid=40:news&Itemid=2 — last accessed on 4.2012. 207 «Regarding the disasters of Lampedusa or the Roma evacuations in Rome and Milan», write Giulia Zuccotti and Tonino Cafeo, the day after the evacuation «the pathway made this result exemplary. During the last twelve months, the City Council of Messina did not avoid discussing with anti-racist and voluntary associations in civil society. However, this information should not make us turn our heads from the contradictions that resulted from it. (…). Certain details regarding the course of events are very disappointing. Old persons and children were woken up in the cold by flashlights and by the noise of electricity generators, families were discriminated — or at least they felt that way — in terms of house allocation (…). A final balance of the “Roma Exodus” operation is not yet possible. When assessing the positive and the negative aspects of what has been done so far, important questions arise. Will the methods and auto-construction terms be complied with? Will the minor children be provided with the appropriate instruments (starting with school buses) so that the results of the school integration process carried out so far would not be lost?» (Zuccotti G. and Cafeo T., 2011 Campo Rom. Siamo alla svolta tanto attesa?, in «Nuovo Soldo», blog from Messina 3.5.2012). 208 For this purpose, the City Council provides five flats for urgent housing and a school that is no longer in use. See ibidem. 209 See Cafeo T., op. cit. 210 See Popica Onlus, 2011, Il percorso con la comunità Rom e romnì dell”ex insediamento di Strada di Centocelle, Rome, it may be found on the website of Popica Onlus at the following address: http:// www.popica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19:il-percorso-con-la-comunita-Rom-eromni-dellex-insediamento-di-strada-di-centocelle-&catid=7:progetto-Rom&Itemid=8; Popica Onlus, 2011, Metropoliz. La città meticcia nella metropoli, Rome, http://www.popica.org/images/stories/metropoliz.pdf — both last accessed on 03.04.2012. 274 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy In Pisa, through an open letter addressed to the Mayor of the city, the Romanian Roma coming from five unauthorized camps requested, as early as 2008, “for the mayor to stop the evacuations and for a solution to be found as agreed between both parties, in order for them to live normally like other Italians. There are ways to accomplish this and those are not the evacuations (such as the self-directed recovery of the abandoned buildings)”211. During the previous year, in Viareggio a group of Romanian Roma occupied an abandoned building, owned by ENEL, asking the City Council to start the self-directed recovery project of the building212. As one can see from the last two cases, these are often general proposals, without a project and concrete references: however, they show how self-directed recovery is a solution often suggested by the Roma and Sinti groups. It is undoubtedly a pathway worth exploring and experimenting, favouring as much as possible the participation of the direct stakeholders. 1.10. Conclusion The list of “good practices” that we have proposed is far from being exhaustive. The experiments analysed are far from representing “recipes”: each one having its own limits, nobody being immune to problems, sometimes even crucial ones. We could not indicate, at the end of this little “survey”, a “perfect” experiment with a guaranteed success, one or more pathways to follow or to be repeated anywhere else. “Good practices” initiated at local level have, in fact, suffered because of the global climate characterizing the Italian policies regarding Romas and Sintis. The concern for the so-called “safety”, the widespread identification of the “Roma issue” as a matter of public order, the fear of triggering conflicts with voters have all placed a curb on the action of governments: the initial goals of the projects often ended up being distorted, sometimes even reversed. Some cases led to acceptable results, even if sometimes below expectations; however, for other cases, the political climate doomed projects to failure, even when innovative and ambitious. The cases of successful project are thus rare and not immune from critics. The analysis of “good practices” is grim: on one side, a national political climate characterized by a strong hostility towards Roma and Sinti, on the other hand, the local backgrounds able to host, to guarantee rights and services, to build virtuous pathways. The framework is much more complex and the local 211 See December 2008, letter of Romanian Roma addressed to the city, on the website of Africa Insieme Association: http://africainsieme.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/decembrie-2008-la-lettera-dei-Rom-rumenialla-citta/ (last accessed on 2.2.2012). For the background of the letter, see Prosperi A., Quel Natale nelle baracche, «La Repubblica», 24 December 2008, p. 27. 212 See Andreucci M., Viareggio: venti famiglie di Rom romeni per l”autorecupero, in «Romano Lil», electronic edition edited by Opera Nomadi, 14 September 2007, at: http://romanolil.blog.tiscali.it/2007/09/14/ viareggio_20_famiglie_di_Rom_romeni_per_l_autorecupero _1799761-shtml/?doing_wp_cron — last accessed on 3.4.2012. 275 National Report on Good Practices for the Social and Labour Inclusion of Roma People in Italy level often suffers from a hostile climate and widespread prejudices; also, in case of City Councils, “populist” approaches often prevail, an easy way towards consensus that prevents a real governance of this phenomenon. Still, the cases analysed here have a fundamental importance, as they manage to break a consolidated scheme; like a ritual, in the relationship between the Public Administration and the Roma. As Tommaso Vitale and Loris Caruso213 fairly pointed out, ever since the establishment of the first “nomad camps” in the eighties, the behaviour of local institutions regarding Roma complied with the consolidated guidelines: the setting up of camps, the spatial and urban segregation of Roma and Sinti minorities, the reiterated use of homogeneous and nondifferentiated categories (“nomad”, “gypsies”), the refusal of any form of negotiation with the Roma, the cyclical appeal to the evacuation instrument, the deployment of demagogic behaviours towards public opinion. This scheme determined, both in case of the policy makers and of the administrative personnel, a fatalist and simplified approach, imposing the idea that “this is how things are and there is nothing we can do”. In the cases analysed here, despite their obvious limits, it was shown that things can be done differently. The demystification of consolidated opinions is allowed. For example, it is not true that the costs for reception and housing insertion cannot be borne: many projects described have been implemented with resources otherwise modest, definitely inferior to the costs of the evacuations or to the expenses related to camp maintenance. It is not necessarily true that reception means arousing nervousness among residents, among the “common citizens” and voters: as some cases analysed here illustrate; virtuous pathways may be set up that may be understood and accepted by the public opinion. What is important is not to provide the “ideal recipe” but to synthesize the pathways followed so far, to open new ones, to present different scenarios, to propose original pathways. Maybe this is the best contribution that may be brought to the administrators and policy makers. 213 See Vitale T., Caruso L., 2009, Conclusions. Case arguments: innovation dynamics of local policies regarding Roma and Sinti, in Vitale T., coord., op. cit., p. 265-288. 276