Charter reporting sanahuja final


Published on

Published in: Career, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The Integrating Cities Charter identifies the duties and responsibilities of European cities to provide equal opportunities for all residents, to integrate migrants, and to embrace the diversity of their populations.
  • Launched in 2010 in London, signed by 17 cities there
  • - Since 2010, 10 more cities have signed, now total 27 signatories, the charter is available in 12 European languages - 2 signing today: Brussels, Toulouse - Others committed to sign: Paris, Strasbourg, Lublin, Bergen…
  • 4 areas of city government responsibility: cities as policy makers, service providers, employers and buyers of goods and services 11 commitments on diversity and non-discrimination Beyond the symbolic commitments – signatory cities make also a commitment to report implementation of the charter commitments
  • Presentation of findings from Charter monitoring Report entitled: cities and migrants - Published in April 2013 Highlights city trends on migrant integration Reports on implementation of Charter by signatory cities Produced by the EUROCITIES working group migration & integration
  • Methodology: Based on evidence collected through integrating cities charter reporting survey which ran for one year from October 2011 to 2012 self-assessment and some quantitative indicators Includes responses from 21 cities on migration trends, policy developments and selected indicators ( - if question is asked – brno and vienna not yet IC signatories but they were included in report as members of WG migration)
  • Shift from separate, dedicated services to comprehensive approach to social inclusion, participation and equal opportunities In report you will find a list of strategies and policies in place in a number of cities Priority areas: although they vary from city to city, anti-discrimination, education and language acquisition were highlighted as priority areas in a number of cities. Other areas of focus include employment, intra-EU migrants, refugee reception, etc. Influencing factors for local policies include: demographic change, economic situation, national policy and discourse. Another important trend reported is intra-EU mobility between urban areas. Although not officially considered ‘migrants’, EU citizens exercising right to free movement often pose similar integration challenges to cities as so-called ‘third country nationals’ and there is a trend in responding cities towards and increase in this type of migration
  • Outcome indicators that demonstrate the intersections between the Integrating Cities Charter, European Indicators on Immigrant Integration, Europe 2020 headline indicators and Intercultural Cities index (examples: activity rate, early school leaving, definition of migrant, foreign-born population…) Difficult part of reporting as we relied on availability of data and its comparability which proved to be a challenge Example, each municipality has own definition of ‘migrant’. For example, in Barcelona we collect statistics on holders of foreign nationality, including EU citizens while in cities such as Munich, data is collected on nationals born to at least one foreign parent In spite of difficulties, we think this exercise is unique as we are trying to desegregate national and EU statistics at local level (all data has been provided by the cities themselves) – the working group will continue collecting and refining this data which is available as annex of the report (online) The table illustrates the percentage of foreign-born population in 22 European cities
  • All cities feel they meet or move towards charter commitments in their role as policy makers Trends: Migrant integration and equal opportunities becoming core elements of city-wide strategies beyond social inclusion (for example Ghent’s city strategy for 2020 has social inclusion and diversity as one of its pillars) Wide-reaching anti-discrimination strategies and awareness raising campaigns (e.g. Copenhagen diversity charter) Some form of consultation with migrant populations Increasing elected representatives from migrant background – for example 28% Oslo, 13% in Munich Some monitor their policy implementation/benchmark
  • All cities meet or are on their way to meeting commitments in this area Trends and good practice example: Cities work on opening up mainstream services such as education, employment, health and others through mediators and language support services. Many also train their front-line staff who deliver these services Some cities offer language tuition services that go beyond national requirements (for example Riga offers Latvian language courses free of charge) Some cities monitor access to services and run satisfaction surveys (for example Manchester has organised a series of consultations on services for migrants and developed mechanisms to identify and address gaps) Challenges: Budget cuts affect cities’ ability to deliver quality service Language services most affected with demand exceeding supply – some national and regional governments (example Flanders) restrict access to language tuition Some countries restrict access to services for migrants according to legal status Difficulty where responsibility is shared between local governments, external service providers and other government levels (e.g. employment, education…)
  • In particular reflecting cities population in municipality staff still a challenge for many cities. Trends identified: Staff diversity targets; Diversity competences as assessment criteria in recruitment and promotion Anonymous recruitment procedures Dedicated recruitment campaigns targeting migrants preventing discrimination within municipalities: job satisfaction surveys, Internal ombudspersons, awareness raising campaigns and trainings within the municipality Training in professional language for migrants on the job Example: Helsinki Human Resources Positive Action plan adopted in 2011 has mandatory and voluntary measures to address diversity
  • Applying principles of diversity and equality in procurement and promoting a diverse supplier base are seen as biggest challenges among all Charter commitments. More experience in green procurement than in aiming at diversity and equality goals Notwithstanding, there is some promising trends and good practices: Use of anti-discrimination clauses in municipal tenders, e.g. Ghent, Malmo Certification and labels for businesses (partly also as precondition for doing business with the city), e.g. London, Nantes Cooperation with businesses and their associations to raise awareness Good practice example: The Hague works with external partners such as trade associations, school boards, etc – to encourage diversity in boards and associations
  • Signatory cities have extensively used the charter to inspire and assess their own migrant integration practices and policies For example, Tampere included the charter as an appendix in the 2010 city integration strategy The charter has provided framework for signatory cities to improve collaboration and mutual learning For example, the ImpleMentoring project co-financed by the European Integration Fund (you will hear more about it tomorrow) Cities have used charter to showcase their work within their cities and to citizens, NGOs and others Genoa presented the charter to the national network of italian municipalities (ANCI)
  • Charter reporting sanahuja final

    1. 1. Findings from the Integrating Cities Report Ramon Sanahuja i Vélez, Barcelona Chair of EUROCITIES Working Group Migration & Integration
    2. 2. The Integrating Cities Charter
    3. 3. Integrating Cities Charter Launched in London 2010
    4. 4. 27 signatory cities + 12 languages: CAT, DE, DK, EN, ES, FR, FI, IT, LV, NL, NO, SE
    5. 5.  4 areas of city government responsibility:  Cities as policy-makers  Cities as service providers  Cities as employers  Cities as buyers of goods and services  11 commitments on diversity and non-discrimination  Commitment to report
    6. 6. April 2013
    7. 7.  Monitoring survey, 23 responding cities:  Self-assessment  Quantitative indicators
    8. 8. Local policy developments  comprehensive approach to migrant integration  priorities:  Anti-discrimination  Education  Language acquisition  external influencing factors:  Demographic change  Economic situation  National developments
    9. 9. Integrating cities indicators Outcome indicators (EU2020 headline indicators, European indicators on immigrant integration, Intercultural cities index)
    10. 10. How do cities see themselves with regards to Charter commitments?
    11. 11. Communicating commitment to equal opportunities for everyone living in the city Ensuring equal access and non-discrimination across all policies Facilitating engagement from migrants in policy-making and removing barriers to participation Cities as policy makers
    12. 12. Cities as service providers Supporting equal access to services for migrants Ensuring that migrant’s needs are understood and met by service providers
    13. 13. Cities as employers Reflecting the city’s diversity in the composition of the city’s workforce across all staffing levels Ensuring that all staff experience fair and equal treatment by managers and colleagues Ensuring that staff understand and respect diversity and equality issues
    14. 14. Cities as buyers of goods and services Applying principles of equality and diversity in procurement and tendering Promoting principles of equality and diversity among its contractors Promoting the development of a diverse supplier-base
    15. 15. Use of Integrating Cities Charter  inspire and assess policies and strategies  building capacity  branding and showcasing