Local Migrant Integration Policies and Their Structural Mechanisms

Marie Jelínková (ed.) Local Migrant Integration Policies and Their Structural Mechanisms KAROLINUM Local Migrant Integration Policies and Their Structural Mechanisms A Comparative Study of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany and Belgium Marie Jelínková (ed.) Reviewers: Yany Leontiyevy, PhD. Petry Ezzedine, PhD. This monograph is one of the outcomes of the project Successful Migrant Integration in Regions, financed by the Erasmus + program, key action 2: Strategic Partnerships. The contents of this monograph do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Published by Charles University Karolinum Press Prague 2023 Copy-edited by Anna Magdalena Bartoňová and Simona Heriban Kalíková Cover and graphic designby Jan Šerých Typesetting by Karolinum Press First English edition This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. © Karolinum Press, 2023 © Zuzana Bargerová, Corinne Huybers, Marie Jelínková, Hangwen Maierhofer, Zuzana Števulová, Eva Čech Valentová, Katsiaryna Viadziorchyk ISBN 978-80-246-4195-9 (pdf) https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959 Charles University Karolinum Press www.karolinum.cz [email protected] Table of Contents List of Abbreviations 9 List of Figures 11 Introduction 12 1. Focus of the Monograph and Methodology 15 1.1 Terminology and definition of key concepts 18 2. Integration Challenges in the Light of Different Approaches to the Inclusion of Migrants 23 2.1 Integration objectives and general policy setting 23 2.2 Migrant integration policies at the European level: a brief overview 24 3. Legislative Setting and Strategic Grounding of Migrant Integration Policies in the Czech Republic 28 3.1 Statistical data 28 3.2 Migrant integration strategies at national, regional and local levels 32 National integration framework 32 The concept of migrant integration in strategic documents and key shifts in their emphasis 34 Local aspects of the national approach 35 Strategic documents concerning the integration of migrants in regions and municipalities of the Czech Republic 38 3.3 Institutional framework and competencies of key actors including municipalities 40 3.4 Setting the initial legislative conditions and goals of migrant integration 47 3.5 Financing: funding mechanisms and grants schemes 50 3.6 Conclusion 52 4. Legislative Setting and Strategic Grounding of Migrant Integration Policies in Slovakia 56 4.1 Statistical data 56 Gender perspective 65 Regional distribution of foreigners in Slovakia 65 4.2 Migrant integration strategies at national, regional and local levels 67 National integration framework 67 Local strategies 72 Further opportunities 74 4.3 Legislative conditions and integration goals 76 The Act on Municipal Establishment 76 The Act on Self-Governing Higher Territorial Units 77 The Act on Residence of Foreigners 77 Other acts 78 4.4 Institutional framework and competences of key stakeholders, including municipalities 79 4.5 Funding mechanisms and grants schemes 82 National level finances and funding for local government integration activities 82 Local level funding possibilities for integration initiatives 83 Proposed solutions for the future 85 4.6 Conclusion 86 5. Migrant Integration Policies in Flanders (Belgium) 89 5.1 Statistical information 89 Historical context 89 National level (Belgium) 90 Regional level (Flanders) 91 Municipal level (city of Mechelen) 92 5.2 Integration at the national and regional levels 92 National level 92 Regional level 94 5.3 Integration at the municipal level 97 5.4 Mechelen: from a categorical to an inclusive approach 99 5.5 Conclusion 103 6. Migrant Integration Policies in Bavaria (Germany) 105 6.1 Statistical information 105 6.2 Integration on the federal level 106 6.3 Integration on the state and municipal levels 109 6.4 Historical insight and prerequisites for the emergence of the integration and migration councils 112 6.5 Integration and migration councils in Bavaria 115 6.6 AGABY and the Bavarian integration and migration councils 117 6.7 Conclusion 119 7. Inspiring Practices to Share 122 7.1 Manual on Local Integration of Migrants in the Czech Republic (the Czech Republic) 123 7.2 How to engage municipalities with no experience in migrant integration (Slovakia) 124 7.3 Integration and migration councils in Bavaria (Germany) 127 7.4 Mechelen’s journey towards becoming an inclusive city (Flanders, Belgium) 127 8. Challenges, Opportunities and Practical Recommendations from the Countries Studied 131 8.1 Identified challenges and opportunities 132 8.2 Shared recommendations 135 8.3 Conclusion 136 About the Authors 138 Participating Organisations 141 9 List of Abbreviations AGABY Working Committee of the Integration Councils of Bavaria / Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Ausländer-, Migrantenund Integrationsbeiräte Bayerns AMIF Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund BAMF Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Germany) / Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge BBFP Bureau of Border and Foreign Police (Slovakia) / Úrad hraničnej acudzineckej polície Prezídia Policajného zboru BZI Federal Immigration and Integration Council (Germany) / Bundeszuwanderungsund Integrationsrat CDU Christian Democratic Union of Germany / Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands COLSaF Centre of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic / Ústredia práce, sociálnych vecí arodiny Slovenskej republiky CSU Christian Social Union in Bavaria / Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern CGRS Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (Belgium) / Commissaris-generaal voor de Vluchtelingen en de Staatlozen CVEK Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and Culture (Slovakia) / Centrum pre výskum etnicity akultúry CZ Czech Republic DAMP Department of Asylum and Migration Policy of the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic / Odbor azylové amigrační politiky Ministerstva vnitra České republiky DVZ Immigration Department, Federal Public Services Home Affairs (Belgium) / The Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken, Federale Overheidsdienst Binnenlandse Zaken EEA European Economic area EMN European migration network ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund EU European Union HR Human resources HRL Human Rights League / Liga za ľudské práva 16 vakia, Germany and Belgium. Although national and local integration policies and the composition of the migrant flows in these countries differ, the ways that local institutions approach the migrant integration present major challenges in each of these countries. Even though many local authorities are aware of the importance of migrant inclusion into local communities and the need to establish functional integration measures and mechanisms, they often lack the tools, expertise and resources to work effectively with migrants. The primary objective of this monograph is to build abetter understanding of the potential for transferring integration approaches between the four SMIR partner countries. The need for this monograph is based on the project partners’ recognition that best practices from one country cannot be systematically developed or transferred to other environments without adeeper understanding of the local context. It is necessary to understand how integration approaches are anchored within legislation and public policy in the given country, by what mechanisms integration policies are financed, which entities are responsible for this agenda at the national level, how the legislation enshrines the competencies and obligations of local and regional authorities (or federal states) and how migrants are represented at the local level. The information gathered in this monograph is intended not only to educate the project partners, but also to encourage cooperation with the local authorities within the participating countries. It is designed to provide municipalities with guidance and the opportunity to better envisage what they can expect from national authorities when implementing local integration measures, which topics or sectors they should prioritize in their integration policies, how they might shape policy at local level or how to gain abetter overview of possible sources of funding. The books’sfocus on the various local integration policies and practices in the four selected countries necessitates anumber of simplifications. These stem, for example, from the fact that the monograph works with methodological nationalism and the logic of nation states (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002) and does not sufficiently emphasise the processes of inclusion and exclusion that can affect other key variables, such as transnational ties (see Charmillot and Dahinden 2022). Similarly, the authors are aware of the fact that, to achieve successful coexistence of newly arrived migrants and previously settled populations, there is much more at stake than can be captured in national descriptions of local policy settings. Indeed, social cohesion, mutual respect, shared experiences and an overall sense of reciprocity can only be achieved on the basis 17 of awhole range of mechanisms, some very subtle (such as feelings of acceptance),that cannot easily be incorporated into the description of acountry’sintegration initiatives and policies. These mechanisms can, nevertheless, often be captured within micro studies or very specific accounts of local practices. Thus, while this monograph does not aspire to present any deep insight into these mechanisms, it does not wholly ignore them: many of them are reflected, for example, in the descriptions of inspiring case studies in chapter 7. The most pertinent example among those is the description of Mechelen’stransformation, which must, as the description points out, be understood in its broader context and not “merely” through the lens of local policy settings. Similarly, it is worth bearing in mind that apparently similar measures adopted at local level can yield varied results depending on whether they emphasise aspects that divide or unite society, e.g. social ties or cultural differences (cf. Glick Schiller and Çağlar 2016). These differences arise in the implementation of particular types of policies and measures and are not easily captured when describing local practice. This publication was compiled shortly before the war broke out in Ukraine and describes developments only up to the beginning of 2022. It does not, therefore,containany data on the numbers of Ukrainians who have fled to the countries described since the war began, nor any information about how those countries have adapted to the presence of the newly arrived Ukrainians (especially women and children). It does, nevertheless, point out: how prepared the countries described were, in particular as concerns local integration policy; what they might build on; and areas in whichthey could draw inspiration from one another. Themethodologyused includes acomprehensive literature review, especially with regard to the development of integration policies towards migrants at the EU level and in the individual participating countries. The content of the monograph was drawn up on the basis of discussions between the partner organizations and after the partner organizations had been given the opportunity to learn more about the situation and needs of migrants and local institutions in the participating countries. The chapters that present country profiles follow apredetermined structure established by the researchers to ensure comparability and relevance to the project. Each of these chapters presents case studies using available quantitative data, an analysis of legal and strategic documents, interviews with local politicians, and the authors’ own practical experience. 18 1.1 Terminology and definition of key concepts In the following chapters, we work with many concepts that are specific to the area of migrant integration. As arule, we explain these directly within the individual texts. However, for abetter understanding we also define some key terms at the outset, as their use may differ in the four countries compared. This concerns in particular the termsmigrantand integration.In the chapters that describe the situation in aparticular country, we always use that country’sterminology. In the other chapters, we highlight terms that might be subject to different perceptions where we consider these relevant. The four studied countries all make use of similar terminology to describe their migrant populations; however, the term migrant is used differently in the national statistics of these four countries. In this respect, there is asignificant similarity between the Czech and Slovak Republics, which is not surprising given their shared history, and some similarity exists between the usage in Germany and Belgium. Czech official documents use the expression foreigner (in Czech: cizinec). As in English, the term is derived from the word foreign (in Czech: cizí). Scholars and civil society stakeholders usually prefer to use the term migrant rather than foreigner. Although the difference between who uses the term migrant and who uses the term foreigner is usually apparent, there is sometimes an overlap. In general, neither of these terms is perceived as problematic. This monograph uses the term migrant when describing migrant integration policies in the Czech Republic, but maintains the more official term foreigner when citing official documents or statistics. Czech statistics only contain information about migrants who do not have Czech citizenship. Once migrants acquire Czech citizenship, they are no longer included in statistics on migrants. It is thus impossible to trace Czech citizens of migrant origin in the official statistics. This complicates the evaluation of integration policies from a long-term perspective. Slovak laws and strategic documents mainly use the term foreigner (in Slovak: cudzinec). Scholars and civil society stakeholders use the terms foreigner and migrant interchangeably, but very often also use the term third country national, which most accurately expresses the legal status of a foreigner. Slovak statistics primarily contain information about migrants who do not have Slovak citizenship. As in the Czech Republic, once migrants acquire Slovak citizenship they are then dropped from all migration data. In official data, it is then impossible to trace Slovak citizens based on their migratory origin. 19 In its statistics, Germany uses the term inhabitant with migration background (in German: die Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund), which it defines as follows: “aperson has amigration background if he/she or at least one of his/her parents was not born with German citizenship”. As aresult, “all those who immigrated to what is now the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949, as well as all foreigners born in Germany and all Germans born in Germany with at least one parent who immigrated after 1949 or was born as aforeigner in Germany” are also classified as inhabitants with migration background1. Nevertheless, the attribution of a“migration origin” solely on the basis of the nationality of the individual or of one of his/her parents does not adequately reflect the social reality (e.g. because of so-called patchwork families and single-parent households). Experts suggest avoiding the term migration background if possible, in favour of more specific terms. This publication uses the term people with migration history in the German chapter. The Belgian/Flemish statistics distinguish between aperson of foreign origin (or of migration background) (in Flemish: personen van buitenlandse herkomst) and aforeigner (or aforeign national). Aperson of foreign origin is aperson lawfully residing in Belgium for along period of time, who did not possess Belgian citizenship at birth or at least one of whose parents did not possess Belgian citizenship at birth. Aforeigner (or aforeign national) is defined as aperson who does not have Belgian citizenship (anon-Belgian citizen). The data we present in the following chapters is as comparable as possible. However, in some cases, identically defined categories are not available. In these cases, we state which of the above-mentioned definitions is used. We find it useful to approach the concept of integration (or migrant integration) and its content in the four countries studied. It nevertheless remains true that the term integration is itself ambiguous and takes on avariety of different meanings in different contexts. The term integration (or migrant integration) is commonly used in the Czech Republic. Although it does not have negative connotations, many Czechs unfortunately perceive it as meaning assimilation. Although Czech integration policies in practice place much greater emphasis on the process of adaptation on the part of migrants, official documents view integration as atwo-way process. Some scholars prefer to use the 1 For more, see: Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) “Migration und Integration”, available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoel kerung/Migration -Integration/_inhalt.html. 20 term inclusion; however, this usually relates to integration in the context of school education. Similarly, in Slovakia state institutions and other key actors broadly use the term integration (sometimes inclusion or adaptation in academic circles) in strategic and research documents. In the past, there were tendencies to incorporate the term assimilation into the official Slovak integration strategy, since this would more accurately express the state authorities’ attitude towards migration and the lack of willingness to adapt society to migrants’ needs as they strive for better participation. Several academic voices also raised views similar to those heard in Germany (see below) regarding the overlap between integration and assimilation. However, the Integration Policyof theSlovakRepublic (2014) currently in force uses only the term integration and provides definitions of that term from various perspectives (target group, integration policy goals and principles). The definition of integration used by the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees2 emphasizes migrants’ involvement in German society. This is still, however, primarily associated with migrants and their descendants adapting and conforming to acertain “norm”. This perception of integration has received significant criticism in the last few years and repeated calls have been made to replace the term integration with inclusion or other terms that emphasize participation, equal opportunities and equal access. In Flanders3, Belgium, integration is understood as “adynamic and interactive process by which individuals, groups, communities and organizations constructively relate to each other and cope with migration and its consequences in society, each in the context of enforcing the rights and obligations of ademocratic constitutional state”4. The current Flemish integration policy (2021) is an inclusive policy focused on so2 The definition is as follows: “Integration is along-term process. Its aim is to include in society all people who live permanently and legally in Germany. Immigrants should be able to participate fully and equally in all areas of society. It is their duty to learn German and to know, to respect and abide by the constitution and other laws”. Source: The Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community. For more, see: https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/community -and-integration/integration/integration-node.html. 3 We use the Flemish (rather than the Belgian national) definition here because integration policy is the responsibility of the individual Belgian regions. 4 The definition is copied from the Flemish Integration Decree (Vlaams Integratiedecreet from 7-6-2016), available at: https://codex.vlaanderen.be/Portals/Codex/documenten/1023121 .html#H1061524. For changes since March 2022, see https://www.agii.be/nieuws/wijziging -vlaams-inburgeringsdecreet-wat-verandert. 21 ciety as awhole, paying special attention when necessary to persons of foreign origin or persons legally residing in Belgium (unfortunately, as of 1 January 2022, the Flemish integration policy is no longer intended to apply to foreigners without residence permits). Cities and municipalities implement the integration policy in various areas, mainly through general measures. Specific measures are only implemented when necessary. Similarly, we must recall that the phrase “migrant integration” has become problematic in many countries because, rather than seeking to achieve maximally beneficial coexistence of those newly arrived with previously settled populations, many so-called “integration measures” have become instruments for immigration control. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, whose practices are described in this monograph most extensively, this has so far happened only sporadically, but afew such examples are starting to emerge. For example, when the Czech Republic introduced mandatory adaptation and integration courses in 2020 (which are currently the only “integration obligation” for migrants to the country), the measure was cast in avery positive light (both by the state and certain NGOs). This made it very difficult to open up any discussion about the measure’smany possible negative impacts and to draw attention to the fact that those impacts are not only factual (e.g. in the Czech context, the high integration course fees) but also structural, since in introducing this measure the state laid the foundations for asystem in which integration measures can also serve as instruments for the exclusion of migrants, if they fail, or are unable, to meet the set criteria. Bibliography Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Caponio, Tiziana, and Maren Borkert, eds. 2010. The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking. IMISCOE Reports. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. 4. ed., rev.Updated, [Nachdr.]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Charmillot, Emmanuel, and Janine Dahinden. 2022. ‘Mobilities, Locality and PlaceMaking: Understanding Categories of (Non-)Membership in aPeripheral Valley’. Mobilities 17 (3): 366–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2021.1971054. Dekker, Rianne, Henrik Emilsson, Bernhard Krieger, and Peter Scholten. 2015. ‘ALocal Dimension of Integration Policies? AComparative Study of Berlin, Malmö, and Rotterdam’. International Migration Review 49 (3): 633–58. https://doi.org/10.1111 /imre.12133. 22 Glick Schiller, Nina, and Ayse Çağlar. 2016. ‘Displacement, Emplacement and Migrant Newcomers: Rethinking Urban Sociabilities within Multiscalar Power’. Identities 23 (1): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2015.1016520. Gregurović, Snježana, and Drago Župarić-Iljić. 2018. ‘Comparing the Incomparable? Migrant Integration Policies and Perplexities of Comparison’. International Migration 56 (3): 105–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12435. Jelínková, Marie, and Ondřej Valenta. 2022. ‘Pojetí integrace migrantů vČR perspektivou analýzy podpory stanovených priorit’ / ‘Migration Integration in the Czech Republic: An Analysis of the Priorities the Country Has Set and Its Support for Them’. Czech Sociological Review 58 (1): 71–98. https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2022.008. Penninx, Rinus. 2009. ‘Decentralising Integration Policies’. Policy Network Paper. Scholten, Peter. 2013. ‘The Multilevel Governance of Migrant Integration: AMultilevel Governance Perspective on Dutch Migrant Integration Policies’. In The Discourses and Politics of Migration in Europe, edited by Umut Korkut, Gregg Bucken-Knapp, Aidan McGarry, Jonas Hinnfors, and Helen Drake, 151–69. Europe in Transition: The NYU European Studies Series. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https:// doi.org/10.1057/9781137310903_9. Scholten, Peter, and Rinus Penninx. 2016. ‘The Multilevel Governance of Migration and Integration’. In Integration Processes and Policies in Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors, edited by Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas and Rinus Penninx, 91–108. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21674-4_6. Van Breugel, Ilona, and Peter Scholten. 2020. ‘Governance by Proxy: AComparative Policy Analysis of the Mainstreaming of Immigrant Integration Governance’. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 22 (3): 207–25. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13876988.2019.1619973. Wimmer, Andreas, and Nina Glick Schiller. 2002. ‘Methodological Nationalism and beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences’. Global Networks 2 (4): 301–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0374.00043. https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.1 23 2. Integration Challenges in the Light of Different Approaches to the Inclusion of Migrants Marie Jelínková 2.1 Integration objectives and general policy setting There is awell-established literature analysing the integration of migrants as aprocess that evolves over time and across generations. However, this process may not be linear or identical for everyone across different areas of integration. On the one hand, migrants are confronted with anew reality in which they need to learn how the host society works and find ways to become part of it. On the other hand, this can only be possible if the receiving communities and governments are genuinely willing to accept the newcomers, which in practice requires that they provide migrants with support, orientation, information and mutual respect (cf. Gallagher 2018). Integration is along, reciprocal, dialogical process of negotiating attitudes and rules of social coexistence between all involved, not only the migrants themselves. Local institutional conditions, legislation governing migrants’ access to citizenship and local residents’ attitudes toward migrants all play crucial roles. The consequences of ignoring the need for integration or of bad practice in integration are devastating. Across the world, we see evidence of failed integration in large refugee camps, ghettos and gated communities and these places are merely the tip of the iceberg. Insufficient integration policies lead to social tensions, prevent migrants from equal participation in society and fail to exploit the potential that migration brings to both host countries and their new inhabitants. Several studies (e.g. Anjum, McVittie, aMcKinlay 2018) have also shown that failed integration processes lead to further and deeper marginalization of migrants, which in turn affects their quality of life and their ability to participate in society. Furthermore, there is awide range of positive arguments to support 24 migrant integration into host societies. Some of those arguments are anchored in legislation (e.g. non-discrimination), while others are economic in nature. Much of the literature on how integration outcomes improve over time points out that migrants can access greater economic opportunities once they become part of the host society. Moreover, migration contributes to local development. Demographic arguments should also be taken into account: UN studies have shown that populations will decline over the next 50 years in virtually all European countries. Unless they admit vast numbers of migrants, the EU countries will have to significantly reduce their social and pension programmes (UN 2001). Last but not least, safety must also be considered: failure to integrate migrants into society presents risks not only to the host society but also to migrants’ livelihoods and social interactions. Therefore, in this monograph we do not ask whether or why integration should be pursued, but how it can best be achieved. 2.2 Migrant integration policies at the European level: a brief overview Although migration policy is now part and parcel of several European policies, the EU’sinvolvement in the integration of migrants remains relatively weak (Geddes aScholten 2015). EU integration policies have long remained substantially limited, based on the implicit assumption that as long as migrants hold the same legal status and there are adequate tools to combat discrimination, integration can and should be implemented within social development policy by the individual Member States (Garcés-Mascareñas aPenninx 2016). Nevertheless, with the growing coherence and harmonisation of European policies, the integration of migrants has come to the fore at the European level. Although migrant integration policies remain the responsibility of Member States, the EU seeks to harmonise and share certain standards in this area through “softer” non-binding methods of integration management. This includes coordination, research, exchange of good practice and significant financial support (for more see Bertossi 2011) French assimilation, Dutch and British multiculturalism. These various softer governance mechanisms are not binding for Member States but can provide them with a forum for knowledge exchange and development. Migrant integration is also influenced by anti-discrimination legislation and legislation that affects participation 25 in society. Furthermore, the European Commission has set up significant funding through programmes such as the European Integration Fund, the European Refugee Fund and subsequently theAsylum, Migration and Integration Fund to support the integration of migrants. In addition, asophisticated infrastructure of organisations has emerged, contributing to the dialogue between EU-supported research and EU-level policy. This includes think tanks, such as the Migration Policy Group (MPG) and the Migration Policy Institute Europe (MPI) as well as state-run intelligence-gathering networks, such as the European Migration Network (EMN) and the EU Urban Agenda: Partnership on Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees. Despite these successes, the European Union’sapproach raises anumber of major questions, both as regards its common migration policy and persistent gaps between integration policies and their implementation, e.g. many restrictions on migrants’ fundamental rights (Carrera aMerlino 2009). In 2003 the foundations of the framework for the integration of migrants were laid at the European level. The framework highlights the reciprocity of migrants’ and host countries’ rights and obligations. The Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy, which were adopted in 2004, reflect achange in the direction of European integration policies (Geddes aScholten 2015). The Principles state that “integration is adynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States” (Council of the European Union 2004, 19). However, given the growing emphasis on newly arrived migrants’ obligations at the level of Member States, such reciprocity is far from evident in the integration process. The Principles further offer insight into what is expected of migrants: “respect for the basic values of the European Union”, which on the other hand comes with “full respect for the immigrants’ and their descendants’ own language and culture” (Council of the European Union 2004, 20). Thus, the common principles set out aframework within which integration should take place, but they do not specify whether and to what extent Member States should be involved in implementing such integration. The third and fourth basic principles focus on employment, emphasising migrants’ individual responsibility for socio-economic integration, as well as for gaining abasic knowledge of the language, history, and institutions of the host society. Over time, acivic integration policy based on these two principles has become atool for controlling migration, enabling Member States to restrict entry or residence rights for unskilled or less desirable migrants. The fifth principle then targets host countries, emphasizing non-discrim- 32 5,020 2,626 2,346 1,877 1,837 1,621 1,495 1,936 2,036 2,514 10,016 4,925 5,536 6,440 5,260 4,456 4,214 6,138 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Chart 2 Acquisition of Czech citizenship between 2004 and 2021 Source: Czech Statistical Office 2021 have received Czech citizenship. Chart 2 shows that the trend in the number of citizenships granted clearly does not correspond to trends in the number of newly arrived migrants or the number of permanent residences granted, and that the number of acquired citizenships is very low (around 5,000 persons per year). The presented data thus document that theoretical completion of integration, at least in terms of data regarding the granted citizenships in the Czech Republic, is achieved by very few migrants. 3.2 Migrant integration strategies at national, regional and local levels National integration framework The Principles of Policy for the Integration of Foreign Nationalsin the Territory of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the Principles), adopted in 1999, is ageneral document that defines the key principles of the Czech integration policy. From today’spoint of view, the Principles were conceived quite generously and are “pro-foreign” (Pořízek 2018). Ayear later, the Government produced its first strategic material following from these Principles, entitled The Concept for the Integration of Foreigners in the Czech Republic (hereinafter the Concept), which specified the general principles 33 in the form of objectives, necessary measures, and tasks for the individual ministries affected by the agenda. In later years (2006, 2011 and 2016) the Concept was revised: the latest version is The Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners – In Mutual Respect4 from 2016. In 2022, no new Concept is currently being prepared, although, from the point of view of periodicity, afurther revision is due. As for other key documents, the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the MOI), as the country’sintegration coordinator (and in acertain area also administrator), submits aReport on Migration and Integration of Foreigners in The Czech Republic each year to the Government for approval. This report is supposed to present an evaluation of how the Concept has been implemented during the previous year. Following this, the government annually approves tasks and resources for individual ministries in its Procedure for The Implementation of the Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners (hereinafter the Procedure) for the following year. The Procedure thus sets out an annual, national action plan for the integration of migrants, including specific objectives and the necessary financial support. The Concept’sprimary target group consists of migrants from third countries who have been legally residing in the Czech Republic for along time. Since 2011, integration measures have also partially included citizens of other Member States of the European Union, although major restrictions for this group were only removed in 2020. The expansion of the Concept’starget group continued in 2016 to include holders of international protection, partly due to the then-emergent situation connected with the mass inflow of migrants to the EU. Given that there has been no substantial increase in the number of people granted international protection in the Czech Republic, and that the Ministry of the Interior implements specific integration programmes for applicants and recognized holders of international protection, this change was merely cosmetic. From the institutional point of view, the integration of migrants (primarily citizens of non-EU countries) was, from 1999, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior; five years later, the agenda was transferred to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs5; it was once 4 Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic of 18 January, 2016, no. 26 on the Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners – In Mutual Respect and on the Procedure for the Implementation of the Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners in 2016; more on the website of the Ministry of the Interior: http://www.mvcr.cz/migrace/clanek/integrace -cizincu.aspx?q=Y2hudW09Mg%3d%3d. 5 By Government Resolution No. 1252/2003, the transfer took place on 1 January 2004. 34 again returned to the Ministry of the Interior in 2008. In contrast, the integration of persons granted international protection has always been under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior (Chmelíčková et al. 2018). The shifts in the agenda initiated critical discussion at the time, and even today, the representatives of civil society express disagreement (Čerychová et al. 2020) with the fact that the integration of migrants falls under the Ministry of the Interior, which has ageneral tendency to emphasize security-focused approaches. The concept of migrant integration in strategic documents and key shifts in their emphasis What appears to be more important than which Ministry is responsible for the integration agenda, however, is the extent to which the Concept has changed in concept: there has been aclear departure from the ambitious emphasis on the rights and freedoms of settled migrants seen in the original Concept (Pořízek 2018). Similarly, the original idea of mainstreaming integration, which was supposed to be done whilst taking into account the impacts of accepted public policies on migrants, has gradually been abandoned. This approach should have been supported by the fact that relevant ministries were to develop their own integration policies focused on legislative, organizational, methodological, and practical aspects of the Concept’simplementation in practice. However, this vision was never fulfilled. The 2006 Concept placed greater emphasis on the social integration of migrants and defined what it referred to as priority areas of integration and key preconditions for migrant integration, which were primarily focused on individuals (Concept, 2006). Acareful reading of the subsequent Concepts (2006, 2011, & 2016) reveals that requirements for newcomers were given increasing weight while, conversely, the emphasis on integration mainstreaming gradually disappeared from the documents. The priority areas related to the requirements for migrants (knowledge of the Czech language, economic self-sufficiency, orientation in society and information, and mutual relations between foreigners and the majority society) have become agenerally accepted standard set by the Concepts in the Czech Republic. Only narrowly defined specific tasks for relevant ministries concerned have remained of the original ideas about sectoral integration strategies. For most ministries, the integration of migrants is not an important issue: failure to fulfil those set tasks is not uncommon, and there is sometimes acomplete lack of follow-up infor- 35 mation on whether and how the tasks have been completed, or whether they have been completely abandoned (cf. Pořízek 2018). Leaving aside the task of appointing adepartmental integration coordinator to seven ministries6, the tasks given to other ministries remain few and the Ministry of the Interior’sexpectations of those ministries remain low, with the partial exception of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. It must however be said that, at least on arhetorical level, the Concept views the notion of migrant integration as atwo-way process into which both migrants and the majority society enter. The role and involvement of the country of origin in the integration process, which we will consider later and which is referred to in EU documents, has not as yet been reflected in the Czech concept (Jelínková and Valenta 2022). Local aspects of the national approach The fact that local institutions, especially local governments, need to participate in integration was already evident in the 1999 Principles, which emphasized the role of local governments when creating and implementing the concept and policy of the migrant integration (Principle 11). The Concept from 2006 then directly referred to The Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union, citing from it that the integration process takes place primarily at the local level (Concept, 2006, p. 8). However, despite an attempt to set up so-called District Advisory Bodies for the Integration of Foreigners, which were closed down in 2002 during areform of the country’spublic administration and legal territorial division, the role of territorial self-government was emphasized in strategic documents without any more visible overlap in practice. Changes were only made in the following Concept (2011), which, albeit briefly, mentions the active role to be played by local or regional self-governments, but when it comes to local integration focuses on the role to be played by Centres for the Support of the Integration of Foreigners (hereinafter Centres). These Centres were built from European resources in all 14 regions of the Czech Republic between 2009 and 2019. According to the Concept from 2011, the Centres were to become: (a) information centres, (b) implementers and initiators of integration 6 The Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Regional Development, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Culture. 36 measures, and (c) together with other integration actors, an effective partner to the regions in the creation of regional strategies. Establishing these Centres in each of the 14 regions of the Czech Republic can certainly be considered amajor milestone in support of local integration. Together with NGOs in the regions, the Centres perform anumber of important roles, especially in the provision of services ranging from language courses to legal or social counselling. However, in the broader sense, although the original document (see Concept, 2006) set the goal of involving each region and its municipalities, this has not yet happened, either in terms of the activities implemented, or in terms of the topic of migrant integration being considered more generally in local conceptual documents (for afew exceptions, see below). Beyond the goals set in the 2006 Concept, the 2011 Concept briefly discussed the potential for local governments to cooperate in shaping integration policy, and clearly expressed the intention to anchor the cooperation of regions and municipalities in the implementation of the state integration policy in the Czech legislation (ibid.). Nevertheless, with the exception of the capital city of Prague and to some extent the South Moravian Region, these visions remained unfulfilled and were subsequently abandoned without any apparent reflection. So far, the latest Concept (2016) makes frequent mention of the role of the Centres in individual regions and their supporting role, of the importance of the MOI grant programme for municipalities, and of the importance of NGOs and their project-based support. The local (or regional) integration of migrants is described on amuch more general level and leaves out the former vision of the legal anchoring of integration activities without explanation. Moreover, the previously anticipated creation of local integration strategies associated with the regional Centres, which was originally closely detailed (Concept, 2006) and later more loosely outlined (Concept, 2011) is left entirely to the local governments in the latest version of the Concept (2016). It is newly associated with agrant programme run by the Ministry of the Interior, which can provide “impetus and support for the creation of municipalities’ own integration strategies” (Concept, 2016, p. 30). It is also evident that the latest Concept has given up on the previously envisioned role to be played by regional (or local) governments. The Concept (2011, p. 10) earlier acknowledged the absence of any regional integration policy, especially with regard to alack of scope for migrant integration coordinators in the individual regions, where such coordinators exist at all, and their insufficient skills. However, the latest 37 Concept (2016) does not address this issue and does not outline any tasks involving work with regional or municipal authorities. In terms of local integration, the subsequent Procedures (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021) only mention tasks such as supporting and developing of Centres, supporting the grant programme for municipalities, supporting the work of NGOs (again through grant programmes) and research projects focused on possible segregation and the possible negative impacts of mutual coexistence (see e.g. Procedure, 2016, p. 38). The fundamental shift is that the Concept (2016) views the Centres as the primary local integration tool and makes almost no mention of cooperation with regional governments (or municipalities). We should emphasize that in pointing out these shifts we make no criticism of the Centres’ work; in accordance with their mission and in cooperation with local NGOs, they perform anumber of necessary service tasks. However, it should be noted that the Concept (2016) essentially abandons the previous goal of astrategic approach at the regional and local level, as only two Centres fall under regional authorities: in the capital city of Prague, the Centre operates as acommunity interest company established by the region; in the South Moravian Region, the Centre js directly managed by the regional authority. In these two regions agreater emphasis on mainstreaming migrant integration is evident, as well as asignificantly more conceptual grasp of the topic in relevant regional strategic documents. The other 16 Centres (14 established by the Refugee Facilities Administration, which is acontributory organization of the Ministry of the Interior, and 2 established by NGOs) have organized avariety of meetings, but cannot directly intervene in regional conceptual documents or participate in the regions’ management of their agendas. The following section is briefly devoted to local level conceptual materials in the Czech Republic and demonstrates that closer connection between the Centres and the relevant regional authorities leads to the latter gaining asignificantly more strategic grasp of the topic. It is no coincidence that this is most visible in the two regions (the Capital City of Prague and the South Moravian Region), where there was already partial interest in the agenda at the time when the Regional Centres were first established. 38 Strategic documents concerning the integration of migrants in regions and municipalities of the Czech Republic There are to date still relatively few conceptual materials that address migrant integration at the local level; these are essentially limited to documents from the two previously-mentioned regions: Prague and the South Moravian Region. In some other regions, the topic of migrant integration is touched upon marginally in conceptual documents related to security and, more recently, education (this applies especially to regional School Inclusivity Concepts). Documents of various kinds drawn up by regional capitals are another exception: several address the specific situation of migrants in the given area. Valentová (2018, 16) notes in this regard that “In the absence of local integration strategies, it has often happened that local governments became active only after urgent reasons arose on their respective territories to change the situation between the local, majority society and foreigners”. However, local governments’ specific, targeted initiatives are rarely supported by subsequent, longterm, conceptual activities. Prague is the most advanced city in the Czech Republic, both in terms of its migrant integration activities and as far as strategic materials are concerned. It began work on its first local integration strategy in 2012. In 2014, The Concept for the Integration of Foreigners in the Capital City of Prague7 was created, followed by two-year action plans for its implementation.8 Thanks to these strategic documents, the development of the integration agenda within Prague is constantly monitored, experts meet regularly, funds are allocated to NGOs for integration projects, and integration-specific roles have been established within Prague City Hall (Valentová 2018). It is worth noting that Prague’smeasures in the field of integration are, in principle, supported by the city’spolitical representation and that although integration is not perceived as amajor priority, it is an established agenda that has long been undisputed by the city’smanagement. Although Prague is only very gradually mainstreaming its integration agenda at the institutional level, it is necessary to appreciate how 7 The full text of Prague’sConcept for the Integration of Foreigners is available on the integration portal of the Capital City, Prague: https://www.praha.eu/public/1e/ad/85/2181317_660642 _Koncepce_HMP_pro_oblast_integrace_cizincu.pdf. 8 The Action plan relating to the Concept for the Integration of Foreigners in the Capital City, Prague for 2020-2021 is available here: https://metropolevsech.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06 /Ak%C4%8Dn%C3%AD-pl%C3%A1n-Koncepce-hl.-m.-Prahy-pro-oblast-integrace-cizinc %C5%AF-na-roky-2020-2021.pdf. 39 clear avision the city’sofficials have established for its future direction in this agenda, as well as its cooperation with various actors, and the city officials’ willingness to critically reflect on their own work. The second of the more active regions, the South Moravian Region, is not currently (2021) developing its own independent concept for migrant integration, but the topic is gradually being mainstreamed into its existing documents9. In particular, both the Human Resources Development Strategy of the South Moravian Region 2016–2025 and The Short-term Implementation Plans of the Human Resources Development Strategy of the South Moravian Region10 pay substantial attention to integration, setting out the region’spriorities in this area and specific steps that will lead to their implementation. The strategy is primarily focused on migrants from third countries, but also reflects the needs of migrants from EU countries. In addition, these regional documents make an attempt to share contexts with the documents of the regional city of Brno, where the first Strategy for the Integration of Foreigners in the City of Brno 2020–202611 was adopted in 2020. Besides noting the favourable quality of the Brno strategy’scontent, it is necessary to appreciate the participatory, creative process by which it was drawn up, which is relatively non-standard in the Czech environment and enabled the city to involve anumber of actors who had previously not been involved. Closer cooperation between the South Moravian Region and the city of Brno seems promising, both in terms of the topics it will gradually open up and in terms of stabilizing the agenda (in the form of shared collaborators, joint projects, etc.). Among the remaining Czech regions, the Liberec Region stands out. The topic of migrants began to appear in regional conceptual materials here in around 2019, thanks to active efforts on the part of the regional coordinator. His work was supported by the Liberec Region’sparticipation in the Cities and Inclusive Strategies project12, which, among other 9 An example is the joint strategic document of the South Moravian Region and the statutory city of Brno for the implementation of apolicy to support competitiveness, entitled the Regional Innovation Strategy of the South Moravian Region 2014–2020, which focuses on support for highly qualified migrants. Even in this region, mainstreaming the integration of migrants is asignificant challenge, however, the authorities are gradually moving towards this goal. 10 Both documents are available here: https://www.kr-jihomoravsky.cz/Default.aspx?ID=291054 &TypeID=2&origin=mobile. 11 Available at: https://socialnipece.brno.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/MMB-Strategie -integrace-cizincu%CC%8A-ve-me%CC%8Cste%CC%8C-Brne%CC%8C_FINAL-2.pdf. 12 Three regions participated in this project after being approached by the implementers: the Capital City of Prague, the South Moravian Region and the Liberec Region. For more on this project see: https://www.esfcr.cz/projekty-opz/-/asset_publisher/ODuZumtPTtTa/content /mesta-a-inkluzivni-strategie?inheritRedirect=false. 40 things, aimed to take the integration of migrants into account in the participating regions’ conceptual materials. As for other municipalities besides Prague and Brno, these do not have any separate documents dealing with migrants, even in the larger cities. Where local strategies mention migrants at all, it is mostly in descriptive sections and most often in documents related to security and social services. The number of municipal documents that outline or recommend specific activities focused on migrants can be counted on two hands. One example is ameasure supporting integration courses and other services for migrants in The Community Plan for the Development of Social and Related Services in the City of Pardubice for the Period of 2017–202013. Such documents are almost always created in response to higher numbers of migrants in the related cities and to associated challenges. For the sake of completeness, let us add that the grasp of the topic in conceptual documents on the integration of migrants only partially reflects the current reality in Czech municipalities and that the list of activities that municipalities implement in the field of integration is, in fact, slightly more optimistic (see below). 3.3 Institutional framework and competencies of key actors including municipalities In the Czech Republic, The Ministry of the Interior is responsible for coordinating national policy on migrant integration. It is responsible for creating anational integration policy in the form of the above-mentioned Concept for the Integration of Foreigners in the Czech Republic and for coordinating the activities of entities involved in implementing those policies. The specific integration-related tasks assigned to public administrative bodies result from the Concept and, as mentioned above, the tasks of individual bodies are determined each year by the Procedure for The Implementation of the Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners. The Procedure proposes specific measures by which the relevant departments responsible for the implementation of integration policies are to support the successful integration of migrants in the Czech Republic during the year, along with the relevant financial resources. The Ministry of the Interior is thus, in the Czech Republic, afactually and legally decisive body acting in the integration of migrants. It was 13 Available at: https://pardubice.eu/komunitni-planovani. 41 entrusted with acoordinating role in the preparation and implementation of the Concept, and its role is also legally established. Based on the adopted government resolutions, the MOI is obliged to engage in the field of integration and to implement the principles of the Concept. Čerychová et al. (2020) emphasized that the MOI is therefore endowed not only with the role of implementer, but also with conceptual and analytical powers. There is much debate in the Czech Republic about the suitability of the MOI fulfilling this primarily non-executive, coordinating role in relation to the integration of migrants (ibid.). As Veselý points out (2013), in the Czech Republic, as in many other Central European countries, the accountability of national authorities is controversially low. This, combined with asetting in which the migration agenda lacks any primary administrator and the MOI views its role as primarily one of coordination, means that other relevant ministries, as we will see elsewhere, do not pay much or any attention to the topic of integration. It can thus be assumed that (a) the combination of relatively low accountability in public policies, (b) the lack of interest from anumber of ministries which lack the necessary pressure or incentive to implement policies, and (c) the low visibility and seemingly trouble-free nature of the majority of foreign migrants in the Czech Republic, combine to limit the development of acomplex integration strategy in the Czech Republic. The Department of Asylum and Migration Policy of the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter DAMP) exercises powers as defined by The Ministry of the Interior in the field of international protection, refugees, entry and residence, and Schengen cooperation, as well as the Concept and the State Integration Programme (an integration programme for recognised asylum seekers). The DAMP14 is thus responsible for implementing particular activities in the field of integration, such as training programmes for Centre and NGO employees and activities designed to raise awareness among migrants and the general public. In addition to its integration policy agenda, the DAMP also has awide range of competencies in relation to migration, which make it akey creator and implementer of migration policies in the Czech Republic (Valentová 2018). The DAMP is also the so-called National Contact Point of the European Migration Network, which collects and analyses information, and which 14 The Ministry of the Interior also set up an immigration portal (www.imigracniportal.cz) and an information line for migrants; together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is in charge of pre-departure measures, i.e. information intended for migrants who plan to remain in the Czech Republic for longer periods. 48 duration is 4 hours, the time used for language interpretation and video instruction mean that the real contact time is only 1 hour 40 minutes), price (CZK 1,500), and availability. For completeness, let us point out that the conditions for obtaining permanent residence require, among other things, that the applicant pass aCzech language exam. The required level of language knowledge for this purpose was raised from A1 to A2 in 2021. This proposal provoked some discussion among the professional public, especially with regard to the extremely limited availability of Czech language courses at A2 level in many regions of the Czech Republic, and the fact that the number of people passing the A1 level exam for permanent residence had been declining for along time even though the number of migrants who could apply for permanent residence was growing (Davydov 2019). Looking further at the conditions for acquiring Czech citizenship, those interested must, among other things, pass aCzech language exam at B1 level and an exam on Czech life and institutions27. Since 2010, these exams have been standardized. However, the law on citizenship (Act No. 186/2013 Sb., on Citizenship of the Czech Republic) also contains other provisions which, for example, require that the applicant’sresidence during the three-year period prior to their application did not burden the welfare system, and that the applicant prove his/her integration into Czech society, especially in terms of family, work and social integration. This last provision concerning proof of integration into Czech society is often interpreted very rigidly by the Ministry of the Interior. This, according to legal experts (cf. Körbl 2019), may be one of the primary reasons for the low number of citizenships granted, together with the fact that there is no legal right to citizenship even when all the conditions are met (see Section 12 of the Act). It should be noted that political involvement is akey element in migrants’ integration. Only EU citizens have the right to vote in the Czech Republic, and this only applies to municipal elections. Permanently settled migrants from outside the EU do not have this right in the Czech Republic, unlike in neighbouring Slovakia. The resulting impossibility for migrants to influence politics even at the local level (often after decades of residence) not only leads to their lesser interest in what is happening in the municipalities, but also results in alack of motivation 27 These conditions are regulated by Act No. 186/2013 Sb., On Citizenship of the Czech Republic and on Amendments of selected other laws (The Czech Citizenship Act). 49 for municipal politicians to take migrants and their needs into account in their election programmes. To summarize, as far as the legal anchoring of migrant integration in the Czech Republic is concerned, the only explicit measure is the requirement, since 2021, for migrants to complete ashort, paid adaptation and integration course. However, there is abroader legislative framework that fundamentally shapes the integration agenda, which consists mainly of the aforementioned Aliens Act, the Asylum Act, employment laws, and awhole range of laws that regulate the conditions of access to social security, health insurance and care, housing or education in general terms, together with other laws that touch on the subject (e.g. the Anti-Discrimination Act). If we look at the legislation concerning local governments, there are no provisions that establish general or specific conditions for municipalities’ and regions’ treatment of migrants.28 However, it is possible to rely on the provisions of Section 4 of Act No. 500/2004 Sb., Administrative Procedure Code, which stipulates that the public administration is aservice to the public, and that its executors have a duty to treat the individuals concerned with courtesy and, if possible, satisfy their needs. In abroader sense, it is in many cases also possible to apply the somewhat vague, but widely discussed, principle of good administration (see e.g. Section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Code), which is often interpreted as defining levels of responsibility, openness and helpfulness in public administration (Černín 2006). Both from the legal point of view and otherwise, then, the migrant integration agenda remains relatively fragmented; this is related to the cross-sectional nature of this topic, the lack of any broad “umbrella” and the partial extension of the topic to areas other than those where migrants are the primary target group. 28 As we have noted elsewhere, the extent to which individual Czech regions address the migrant integration agenda in practice varies. Some regions (Prague, South Moravian Region) work on the migrant integration agenda through their regional conceptual materials. The role of regional governments is more closely examined by Čerychová et al. (2020), who summarise that regional authorities largely play arole in the integration of foreigners through their involvement in coordinating and enforcing policies in social services, education, health, employment, culture and security. 50 3.5 Financing: funding mechanisms and grants schemes Given that the integration of migrants in the Czech Republic is primarily financed through project financing from European funds (Jelínková and Valenta 2022), arelatively detailed analysis of funding sources can be made. In this respect, the Czech Republic has aunique Database of Integration Projects29 at its disposal, which collects data from all available sources on projects supported in the field of migrant integration in the Czech Republic since 2010. In their study, Doomernik and Bruquetas-Callejo (2016) point out that integration measures in Central and Eastern Europe stem more from the availability of EU funds (e.g. the Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF), ESF) than from any real social or political demand. The results of the DIP show that this is no different in the case of the Czech Republic. Most of the funds (65%) come from the EU, and less than athird from domestic, national sources. Funds spent by regional and municipal governments are marginal (2%), which reflects the absence of any substantial national mechanisms directing integration funding to the local level. Table 1 Financial volumes of integration projects in the Czech Republic by type of provider (2010–2019) Type of financial support provider Share of total expenditure European and international level * 65.8 % Providers at the domestic, national level 30.6 % Regional and municipal self-governments 2.0 % Private foundations 1.6 % Total 100.0 % Source: Jelínková, Valenta, 2022 according to the Database of Integration Projects * The amount includes a mandatory contribution from the state budget, which is about 33% of this amount. The significant share of European resources must of course be seen in the perspective of the Czech Republic contributing to the EU budget. Available data (Nguyenová and Kropáček 2020), however, show that the Czech Republic as awhole receives twice as much from EU funds as it spends. It remains questionable to what extent the Czech Republic 29 More details about DIP can be found at: https://www.migrace.com/cs/regularizace/mesta-a -inkluzivni-strategie/databaze. 51 would financially support the integration of migrants if the EU were not to prioritize this topic. Recently, there has been afairly significant change in how the regional Centres for the Support of the Integration of Foreigners (see above) are financed: since the summer of 2020, these are now partly financed from the Czech Republic’sstate budget. Nevertheless, all other integration activities, especially those implemented by NGOs, schools and municipalities, remain dependent on project funding. The only exception is funding for social service providers. Despite anumber of truly successful and extensive projects implemented in the Czech Republic in the past, current trends (2021) point to the difficulties of project financing for continuity in these activities. Although the above-mentioned volume of finance (2%) that local governments allocate to topics related to migrant integration is small, there has been agradual increase in this area. Some regions (i.e. Prague and the South Moravian Region) contribute to integration services for EU citizens that cannot be supported by the AMIF fund (which exclusively supports the integration of migrants from countries outside the EU and from which the operation of the regional Centres is funded), or allocate grants for integration initiatives (e.g. Prague funded such initiatives in 2020 to atotal of CZK 4,000,000). In the case of small municipalities, many provide small contributions towards small-scale integration activities of various kinds (e.g. co-organizing social events). In the Czech Republic, there is very little mention of the fact that within the budgetary rules for regions and municipalities, some available funding goes to local governments as adirect result of the fact that migrants live and work in the given regions and municipalities. Experience shows that many municipalities become interested in migrants residing within their territories for aslightly curious reason: the obligation to pay for municipal waste is imposed on all residents of the municipality, including any migrant who holds permanent residence, along-term visa or long-term residence, or who has been granted international protection. Citizens of other EU Member States who hold permanent residence or certificates of temporary residence in the Czech Republic for residence longer than 3 months are also considered inhabitants of the given municipality. Fees for municipal waste in the Czech Republic are paid either directly by natural persons or by legal entities (e.g. housing unit owners’ associations). The municipalities thus become interested in their resident migrants when they are liable to pay such fees directly and are either unaware of their obligation or ignore it. 52 Other topics that municipalities most often raise in connection with migrants’ residence within their territory is migrant children’saccess to kindergartens and primary schools, especially when local capacity is full. Furthermore, the availability of housing (or rent price increases in the area) and health care becomes relevant when the number of migrants living locally increases. Topics related to the presence of migrants are therefore mostly framed by municipalities’ and local entities’ negative experiences, which, however, often stem from their initial unpreparedness to integrate or to address incoming migration, population growth and their new inhabitants’ specific needs. However, given that the vast majority of migrants are also resident within municipalities, their presence is reflected positively in those municipalities’ budgets (and in regional budgets), especially in revenues from shared taxes, whose allocation significantly reflects both the population size and the incomes of resident individuals (and legal entities) in the given territory30. However, this positive influence that migrants have on municipalities’ (and regions’) budgets remains completely unspoken in the Czech Republic, even though very good estimates have been made in several studies (e.g. Valenta, 2019, for the Association for Integration and Migration) of how much migrants contribute to their local municipal budgets. 3.6 Conclusion Given how little attention the Czech state pays to migrant integration, the number of projects and activities implemented by civil society and schools is very encouraging. More and more actors are becoming involved in this topic, including some institutions within the state administration. Know-how has been accumulated, anumber of practical materials have been created, cooperation with the academic sector is being developed, and grassroots activity is evident, especially in the largest cities. The state has made an attempt to grasp the agenda conceptually and there is evident effort to support activities in the regions through the established regional Centres. Nevertheless, anumber of defined visions have been abandoned without explanation and the tasks set out in conceptual planning are often not completed. At the local level there has only been avery gradual increase in the number of munici30 See Act No. 243/2000 Sb., on Budgetary Allocation of Certain Tax Revenues to Territorial Self-governing Units and Certain State Funds. 53 palities making active efforts towards the integration of migrants; most activities are reactive and often associated with aspecific actor or tied to aspecific time-limited project. With the exception of Prague and the South Moravian Region, the integration-related activities undertaken by regional (and most municipal) authorities are still primarily the result of the will and perseverance of specific individuals, or arise in response to potential problems. In most regions, the agenda has not yet become amainstream part of local policies, and municipalities are often unsure how to approach migrants. Where they do decide to address the topic, they face alack of personnel and administrative capacity. Bibliography Baršová, Andrea. 2010. ‘Country Report: Czech Republic’. EDUO Citizenship Observatory. https://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/6334c0c7298d6b396d213ccd19be5999 /educo_country_report_cz.pdf. Černín, Karel. 2006. ‘Principy Dobré Správy Definované Veřejným Ochráncem Práv’. In Principy Dobré Správy. Sborník Příspěvků Přednesených Na Pracovní Konferenci, 11–20. Veřejný ochránce práv. https://www.ochrance.cz/uploads-import/Publikace /Principy_d_spravy_konference.pdf. Čerychová, Pavla, Simona Kalíková, Eva Valentová, and Filip Pospíšil. 2020. Analýza Situace vOblasti Integrace Migrantů sDůrazem Na Její Regionální aLokální Rovinu. Praha: Sdružení pro integraci amigraci. Chmelíčková, Nataša, Helena Dluhošová, Monika Pham, and Petr Novák. 2018. ‘Právní Úprava Integrace vČeské Republice aZákladní Reflexe Bezpečnostních Aspektů Integrace’. AUC IURIDICA 2018 (2): 31–47. https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2018.4. CVVM. 2020. ‘Vztah České Veřejnosti kNárodnostním Skupinám Žijícím vČR – Březen 2020’. Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění. https://cvvm.soc.cas.cz/cz/tiskove -zpravy/ostatni/vztahy-a-zivotni-postoje/5203-vztah-ceske-verejnosti-k-narodnostnim -skupinam-zijicim-v-cr-brezen-2020. Czech Statistical Office. 2022. ‘Foreigners in the Czech Republic 2021’. Czech Statistical Office. https://www.czso.cz/csu/cizinci/number-of-foreigners-data#rok. Davydov, Filip. 2019. ‘Zkouška zČeského Jazyka pro Trvalý Pobyt (Statistický Přehled)’. Bulletin Slovo 21 2019 (4). https://epale.ec.europa.eu/cs/resource-centre/content /zkouska-z-ceskeho-jazyka-pro-trvaly-pobyt-statisticky-prehled. Doomernik, Jeroen, and María Bruquetas-Callejo. 2016. ‘National Immigration and Integration Policies in Europe Since 1973’. In Integration Processes and Policies in Europe: Contexts, Levels and Actors, edited by Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas and Rinus Penninx, 57–76. IMISCOE Research Series. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21674-4_4. Freidingerová, Tereza. 2014. Vietnamci vČesku ave světě: migrační aadaptační tendence. Vydání první. Ediční řada Studie, 111. svazek. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON). Hradečná, Pavla, Marie Jelínková, Petra Ezzeddine, and Hana Havelková. 2016. Ženy na vedlejší koleji(?): gender, migrace astárnutí. 54 Jelínková, Marie. 2019. ‘ARefugee Crisis Without Refugees: Policy and Media Discourse on Refugees in the Czech Republic and Its Implications’. Central European Journal of Public Policy 13 (1): 33–45. https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2019-0003. Jelínková, Marie, and Ondřej Valenta. 2022. ‘Pojetí integrace migrantů vČR perspektivou analýzy podpory stanovených priorit’ / ‘Migration Integration in the Czech Republic: An Analysis of the Priorities the Country Has Set and Its Support for Them’. Czech Sociological Review 58 (1): 71–98. https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2022.008. Körbl, Hugo. 2019. ‘ONabytí Českého Občanství Jeho Udělením’. Epravo.Cz, 2019. https://www.epravo.cz/top/clanky/o-nabyti-ceskeho-obcanstvi-jeho-udelenim-109602 .html. Krejčí, Jindřich, and Yana Leontiyeva. 2012. Cesty kdatům: zdroje amanagement sociálněvědních dat vČeské republice. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON) ; Sociologický ústav AV ČR. Nguyenová, Kuni, and Jiří Kropáček. 2020. ‘Jedni Platí, Druzí Čerpají. Podívejte Se Na Evropské Penězovody aPříjemce Dotací’. Aktuálně.Cz, 2020. https://zpravy.aktualne .cz/ekonomika/promeny-ceskych-regionu/temp-prehled-evropskych-fondu /r~f1b0dd86d70811eab115ac1f6b220ee8/. Pořízek, Pavel. 2018. ‘„Lesk aBída“ Integrace Cizinců Pohledem Vládních Koncepcí Integrace Cizinců (sVyužitím Kazuistik zPraxe Veřejného Ochránce Práv)’. AUC IURIDICA 2018 (2): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2018.5. Richterová, natálie. 2018. ‘Formování aPovaha Vztahů Mezi Neziskovými Organizacemi aStátem Případová Studie Meta, o.p.s.’ Praha: Fakulta humanitních studií, Univerzita Karlova. https://dspace.cuni.cz/handle/20.500.11956/101650. Valentová, Eva, ed. 2018. ‘Integrace Cizinců vČesku zPohledu Nevládních Organizací’. Konsorcium nevládních organizací pracujících smigranty vČR. https://www .migracnikonsorcium.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Integrace-z-pohledu-NNO _produkt-%C4%8D.-2_EU.pdf. Veselý, Arnošt. 2013. ‘Accountability in Central and Eastern Europe: Concept and Reality’. International Review of Administrative Sciences 79 (2): 310–30. https://doi.org /10.1177/0020852313477762. Legal and strategical sources South Moravian Region. 2016. Strategy for Human Resources Development of the South Moravian Region 2016-2025. Available at: https://www.kr-jihomoravsky.cz/Default .aspx?ID=291054&TypeID=2 South Moravian Region. 2016. Short-term implementation plans of the Strategy of Human Resources Development of the South Moravian Region. Available at: https://www.krjihomoravsky.cz/Default.aspx?ID=291054&TypeID=2 Municipality of the Capital City of Moravia. 2018. Prague for the integration of foreigners in the period from October 2016 to December 2018”. Available at: https:// metropolevsech.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Aktualizovan%C3%A1-Koncepce -HMP-pro-oblast-integrace-cizinc%C5%AF.pdf. City of Brno. 2020. Strategy for the Integration of Foreigners in the City of Brno 2020–2026. Available at: https://socialnipece.brno.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/09 /MMB-Strategie-integrace-cizincu%CC%8A-ve-me%CC%8Cste%CC%8C-Brne% CC%8C_FINAL-2.pdf. City of Pardubice. 2018. “Community planning of social services in Pardubice. Available at: https://www.pardubice.eu/urad/radnice/odbory-magistratu/odbor-socialnich-veci /komunitni-planovani/akcni-plany-na-obdobi-od-1-1-2018-do-31-12-2018/?file=40011 &page=4454821&do=download. 55 Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. 1999. “Principles of the Concept for Integration in the Territory of the Czech Republic”. –––. 2000. “Concept for the Integration of Foreigners. –––. 2006. “Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners”. –––. 2011. “Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners – Coexistence.” –––. 2016. “Updated Concept for the Integration of Foreigners – In Mutual Respect.” Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the Residence of Foreigners on the Territory of the Czech Republic. Act No. 500/2004 Coll., Administrative Code Act No. 186/2013 Coll., on the Citizenship of the Czech Republic and on amendments to certain acts. Act No. 176/2019 Coll., amending Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the Residence of Foreigners in the Territory of the Czech Republic https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.3 56 4. Legislative Setting and Strategic Grounding of Migrant Integration Policies in Slovakia Zuzana Bargerová 4.1 Statistical data After the Velvet Revolution in 1989, the transformation of the social system immensely impacted the development of international migration in Czechoslovakia. The “fall of the Iron Curtain”, the opening of borders and the accompanying political and economic changes had marked consequences for migration processes in Central Europe, as did the subsequent split of Czechoslovakia and the formation of the Slovak Republic on 1 January 1993 (Divinský 2007; Drbohlav 2010). Over the 28 years that have passed since the establishment of the Slovak Republic, the number of foreigners in Slovakia has risen steadily. Other trends are also evident: immigration legislation has tightened up, the state administration has professionalized its implementation of migration policy and the country has made its first attempts at strategic approaches to migration regulation and the integration of foreigners. Chart 3 shows the gradual increase in the number of resident foreigners since Slovakia’saccession to the EU in 2004. While the share of foreigners with legal residence in Slovakia did not exceed 1% of the total population of the Slovak Republic between 2002 and 2008, this share exceeded 2% for the first time after 2018 and at the time of writing this monograph it exceeds 3% (Table 2). With such low numbers of foreigners, Slovakia has long had one of the lowest shares of migration among the EU member states (Eurostat 2021). Numbers of “forced” migrants – asylum seekers or refugees granted asylum or subsidiary protection – have been lower than numbers of “voluntary migrants” in Slovakia for more than 10 years, as Chart 4 shows. It may also be striking that the number of asylum seekers in Slovakia fell to record 57 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Foreigners total Third country nationals EU/EEA citizens 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Chart 3 Increase in voluntary immigration to Slovakia (including EEA citizens) between 2004 and 2021 Source: Bureau of Border and Foreign Police of the Presidium of the Police Force (hereinafter Bureau of Border and Foreign Police) (2021), data as of 31. 12. 2021 64 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Total Men Women 20042004200420042000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Chart 7 Numbers of citizenships of the Slovak Republic granted between 2000 and 2021 Source: Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic (2021) 65 Gender perspective There are no available statistics on the number of migrant women. The Slovak Migration Office’sstatistics only record female asylum seekers, recognised refugees and subsidiary protection holders, which represent apartial share of all women migrants. The statistics of the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police do not differentiate between men and women in relation to types of residence or purposes of stay. It is clear from Eurostat statistics that male immigration outweighs female immigration in Slovakia, (Eurostat 2018). Despite the fact that equality, prevention of discrimination and the protection of vulnerable groups of foreigners, including women, are all principles found in the Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic, relatively little attention is currently paid to migrant women in Slovakia (MLSAF 2014). Regional distribution of foreigners in Slovakia Most foreigners in the Slovak Republic live in the Bratislava region (Chart 8); relatively large numbers have also settled in the Trnava, Košice and Nitra regions. This regional distribution can be explained by the development of the automotive industry in the cities of Nitra, Bratislava and Trnava and the resulting high demand for manpower by alarge number of subcontracting companies. According to data from the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police, equal numbers of Ukrainians, (the most numerous third-country nationality among Slovak residents) live in western Slovakia as in eastern Slovakia, close to the Ukrainian border. The second largest group of third-country nationals consists of Serbs. Most Serbian migrant workers live in western Slovakia, especially in the Bratislava region, where they largely work in the automotive industry and for related companies (MLSAF 2014). As of 31 December 2020, atotal of 51,000 foreigners lived in the Bratislava Region, of which 33,497 were third-country nationals. The number of third-country nationals has quadrupled over the last 10 years (COLSAF 2022; MI SR 2010). The situation in the Slovak capital Bratislava is, for obvious reasons (geographical location, employment opportunities), significantly different from the rest of Slovakia. At the end of 2020, 40,237 foreigners 66 Chart 8 Distribution of foreigners across Slovak regions in 2021 Source: Bureau of Border and Foreign Police (2021) 3. Nitra (12%) 1. Bratislava (33%) 2. Trnava (13%) 8. Banska Bystrica (6%) 7. Trenčín (7%) 6. Prešov (8%) 5. Žilina (9%) 4. Košice (12%) lived in the city of Bratislava.2 Ayear later, on 31. 12. 2021, there were already 41,952 foreigners in total registered with valid residence permits, of whom 20,829 held temporary residence (third country nationals) and 21,121 permanent residence (EU and third country nationals). At that time there were just over 167,000 foreigners legally resident in Slovakia, which means that those living in Bratislava accounted for about 26% of all foreigners in the Slovak Republic and about 7% of the total population in Bratislava. Many of these foreigners live in Bratislava I(Old Town) district, where they comprise close to 18% of the total population, or in Bratislava III district, where foreigners make up some 12% of the population. In terms of the absolute number, the district with the largest number of resident foreigners (8,376) is Bratislava II3. To illustrate, in Tables 3 and 4 we present overviews of the numbers of third country nationals and EU citizens whose Slovak resident permits are registered within the city of Bratislava. 2 The Bureau of Border and Foreign Police provided data on the number of foreigners. 3 The data on the population of Bratislava as of 31. 12. 2021 and 31. 12. 2021 were provided by the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police. 67 Table 3 Overview of numbers of valid Slovak residence permits held by third country nationals within the city of Bratislava on 31. 12. 2021 by type of residence permit and city district Bratislava city district Temporary residence Permanent residence Tolerated stay Total Bratislava II. 5,248 2 014 0 7,262 Bratislava III. 5,021 2 155 0 7,176 Bratislava IV. 4,254 1 462 0 5,716 Bratislava I. 3,031 1 658 0 4,689 Bratislava V. 3,275 1 074 2 4,351 Total 20,829 8,363 2 29,194 Source: Statistics from the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police Table 4 Overview of numbers of valid Slovak permanent residence permits held by EU nationals within the city of Bratislava on 31. 12. 2021 by city district Bratislava city district EU nationals residence Bratislava I. 3,249 Bratislava II. 3,128 Bratislava IV. 2,307 Bratislava III. 2,155 Bratislava V. 1,919 Total 12,758 Source: Statistics from the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police 4.2 Migrant integration strategies at national, regional and local levels In this section, we offer an overview of existing strategic documents and their historical development. National integration framework The term “integration of foreigners” has been used by the Slovak state authorities in official documents as well as by non-governmental organizations approximately since the Slovak Republic’saccession to the 68 EU in 2004. At that time, European Social Fund resources were used to finance the first projects mapping foreign migration in Slovakia and supporting the integration of foreigners. Integration of foreigners was also acommon topic of discussion in expert forums. The Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic, which is addressed in the next section of this chapter, defines the term “integration” more precisely. Slovak integration policy is formally composed of both national strategic documents and instruments to support their implementation – national legal norms that overlap with European law and its legal institutes. It also includes other tools, such as measures and documents adopted at the local authority level, but these are as yet relatively few. Below we offer abrief historical excursion into the development of these integration policies in Slovakia. After the partition of Czechoslovakia, the first national strategic document, which was also the last for many years to regulate basic principles in the field of migration policy, was entitled Principles of Migration Policy of the Slovak Republic and adopted in 19934. In the spirit of the time, this document called on foreigners to “submit to the sovereign power of the Slovak Republic” and “respect its legal order”, and made no mention of the importance of integration. The need to adopt amore modern strategic document became evident only in 2005, after Slovakia had joined the EU, when the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter the “Ministry of Interior”) adopted the first Concept for Migration Policy in the Slovak Republic5. This document marginally addressed the integration of foreigners and was the first step towards aseparate integration strategy. In 2007, the government instructed the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Interior and the Deputy Prime Minister to adopt “effective measures to safeguard the tasks associated with creating conditions for the integration of migrants into society and, on that basis, to create legal, legislative and financial conditions and to transfer certain competencies from the state administration to local governments and non-governmental organizations”. In 2009 the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter “Ministry of Labour”) adopted anew autonomous document on the integration of foreigners: The Concept for Foreigner Integration in the Slovak Republic (MLSAF 2009). Awide range of stakeholders participated in its elaboration: ministries, local government 4 These Principles were adopted by Government Decree No. 846/1993 Coll. 5 This Concept was adopted by Government Resolution No. 11/2005 Coll. 69 representatives, academics, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), non-governmental organizations working with migrants and representatives of migrant communities in Slovakia. Like the Czech Concept for the Integration of Foreigners from 2005, the Slovak Concept referred to the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union of 2005 and called for support for integration policies and measures, especially at the local level, and for immigrants to participate in the democratic process. After the parliamentary elections in June 2010, the representation in the National Council of the Slovak Republic changed as the new government was formed by right-wing parties. This contributed to arelatively radical shift in the national approach to foreign migration in the Slovak Republic. Section 4.2 Internal Order and Security of the Programme Statement of the Government of the Slovak Republic 2010–2014 states that the government of the Slovak Republic will improve mechanisms of migration and integration management, emphasizing the harmonization of procedures and policies in these areas. The government’sprogramme statement sounded very beneficial and progressive as far as migrants are concerned (SBA 2014). The second version of the country’sintegration strategy, the Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Integration Policy”), has been in force in Slovakia since 20146. This document from the Ministry of Labour was/is amodern strategic document that was meant to implement measures needed to ensure foreigners integrated into Slovak society through concrete and detailed action plans (MLSAF 2017). The Integration policy emphasized, among other things, the integration of foreigners at the regional and local levels, the employment of foreigners, their participation in the health and social security system, equal access to education, language proficiency and support for obtaining adequate housing (HRL 2020). It called for the involvement of higher territorial units (regions) as managers of the implementation of individual measures and reiterated that the integration of foreigners should take place via abottom-up approach at the local level. It is not easy to assess whether the goals of the Integration Policy are being met – at least internally – after seven years of its existence, as there has been no evaluation of its achievements and the last monitoring of its implementation took place in 2017. Government Resolution No. 405/2018 of 5 September 2018 abolished the requirement for individual 6 This Concept was adopted by Government Decree No. 45/2014 Coll. 70 ministers to submit reports to the Ministry of Labour on the implementation of specific objectives and measures resulting from the Slovak Integration Policy for the relevant calendar year. It also abolished the requirement for the Minister of Labour to submit asummary report on the implementation of the Integration Policy to the government. This means that the implementation of the goals and measures of the Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic has not been monitored since 2018 (MLSAF 2018) and, in turn, that this implementation is in fact not taking place. As the Slovak branch of the IOM stated in its Annual Report on Migration and Asylum for 2018, regular evaluation of the quality of annual monitoring and current (2021) challenges and problems in the Slovak labour market have indicated that the Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic is in need of acomprehensive update. The IOM also stated that there was (author’snote: in the past) some cooperation between the state, local authorities and associations working in the field of integration of foreigners at meetings organised by the Ministry of Labour and by the Expert Interdepartmental Commission on Labour Migration and Integration of Foreigners (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission on Labour migration”)7. Representatives of all local authorities, the Association of Towns and Communities of Slovakia and the Union of Towns and Cities of Slovakia8 were invited to the meetings of the Commission on Labour Migration. In January 2018, the Ministry of Labour called on local governments to increase their involvement and initiatives in the field of integration (EMN 2020). The last mapped activity of the Ministry of Labour in this area took place in 2019, when – to encourage better integration of foreigners – the ministry began work on updating the Integration policy, though it only focused on one area, namely labour market integration. The only positive signal at the level of local authorities is the Strategy for Labour Mobility of Foreigners in the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Labour Mobility Strategy”) from 2018, which introduced some new measures to support foreigners specifically in labour market integration. The Labour Mobility Strategy, like the Integration Policy, emphasizes the involvement of authorities and organizations at the regional and local levels. Its main measures include: – Developing local integration strategies as an important tool for maintaining social cohesion and preventing conflicts, segregation, and 7 In Slovak: Medzirezortná expertná komisia pre oblasť pracovnej migrácie aintegrácie cudzincov (MEKOMIC). 8 http://www.unia-miest.eu/EN/index.asp 71 ghettoization, within the framework of the update of the Slovak Integration Policy. – Creating conditions for the implementation of the Integration Policy at regional and local levels. – Supporting cooperation between non-profit organisations and public administration. – Making more effective use of existing financial instruments to support the development of rental housing. The strategy directly addresses municipalities and cities and encourages them to make more effective use of contributions from the State Housing Development Fund. – Creating alocal platform for regional social dialogue at the municipal level, which would facilitate information exchange between various institutions, especially between town halls, foreign police departments, labour offices, regional branches of the social and health insurance companies, district offices, tax offices, larger employers, personnel agencies, educational institutions, etc. At the same time, the Ministry of Labour adopted the Action Plan for Migration Policies within the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic for 2018–2020. Its content was very brief and addressed the integration of foreigners in section 2.3. It called for integration mainstreaming (taking into account the specifics of the legal status of women, minors, people with disabilities, foreigners granted international protection and senior migrants) to be applied when preparing and drafting legislation and policies, taking into account the impact such measures have on migrant integration (MLSAF 2017). The Action Plan further states in its introduction that: “Because the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic is working on two broad activities, which are: a) the ‘Strategy for Labour Mobility of Foreigners in the Slovak Republic’; b) updating the ‘Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic’, it does not state other measures in the submitted draft Action Plan for Migration Policies within the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic for 2018–2020. All key measures from the point of view of the Ministry of Labour’ssubstantive competences are already, or will be, covered in the two aforementioned materials.” As mentioned above, the Ministry of Labour stopped implementing any integration policy activities in approximately 2018. It is not clear who is responsible for its inaction in this respect and for its failure to carry out the tasks to which it had previously committed. The change of the Minister of Labour after the 2020 elections has not led to any change or 72 progress in this area, on the contrary it seems that the topic of foreigner integration is no longer considered important (Meššová 2021). In Slovakia, the process of recognizing and formulating policies related to growing numbers of incoming migrants has previously taken place at the national level and is partly already taking place at the local level. Nevertheless, there is currently (2021) no systematic support for the integration of foreigners in practice. The integration of foreigners into society takes place uncontrollably, individually, as aresult of various objective and subjective factors. Integration takes place through legal instruments regulating its sub-areas (e.g. social security laws, residence laws, laws governing access to education or health care, etc.), at the will of foreigners and their surroundings, ad hoc through integration activities organised by various intergovernmental and non-governmental entities, or through the activities of certain foreign communities. In conclusion, it can be stated that the integration of foreigners has not been akey priority for the Slovak governments of the last 10 years. Although some progress was made between 2009 and 2014, this was followed by a slowdown and a subsequent decline in the initiatives implemented by the Ministry of Labour. However, with the recognition of the need to transfer certain key processes to local authorities, anew era of bottom-up integration began five years ago and we describe this positive turn in greater detail in the next subchapter. Local strategies Slovak legislation does not explicitly regulate the competences or obligations of higher territorial administrative units or municipalities relating to the integration of foreigners. Despite this and despite the relatively low numbers of foreigners living in Slovakia (compared to other countries in the SMIR project), some legal instruments supporting the integration of foreigners are already available. Municipalities that have recognized their foreign communities (in the legal definition of their inhabitants) can decide whether and how they will facilitate their integration. This situation mirrors the fact that even at the national level, no strategic vision is currently (2021) being implemented and there are no mechanisms to support such implementation. The turning point in the bottom-up approach to integration came with aproject initiated in 2014 by the Association of Towns and Com- 73 munities of Slovakia9 entitled “Capacity building at the local government level in the field of integration policy” (hereinafter referred to as the “BUK Project”).10 The BUK project opened up discussions at the municipality level on how to improve the quality of life and integration of third-country nationals, who are often long-term residents of cities and municipalities, through the creation of independent public policies. However, the city of Bratislava, which has the highest share of foreigners of all cities in Slovakia, has not yet been involved in this process and has no strategy so far. The BUK project trained elected representatives and employees from 28 municipalities11 and involved seven cities: Banská Bystrica, Prievidza, Svidník, Michalovce, Dolný Kubín, Snina and Senec in an intensive pilot scheme to develop local inclusion strategies for third-country nationals. Seven original strategies were developed within the project and more than five (planned) measures were proposed, adopted, incorporated, and put into practice. Some of these measures were implemented during the project: initial meetings between city representatives and representatives of third-country national communities to map their needs and the potential contributions of the project, building up amulticultural environment, intercultural education and informal language learning with the support of third-country nationals. Despite avery negative discourse on the topic of refugees, which was consciously and purposefully used as an argument against the BUK Project (“the pilot cities are future gateways for refugees in Slovakia”) and which resulted in two cities failing to adopt their integration strategies, the elaborated public policies were successfully implemented in the five other cities. In the cities of Banská Bystrica, Prievidza, Svidník, Michalovce and Dolný Kubín, local strategies for the integration of third-country nationals were adopted or the city councils noted that the proposed measures had come into force. In Svidník, one of the points of the Action Plan was to incorporate the issue of integration into the city’sfuture Programme of Economic and Social Development (hereinafter “PESD”). In Dolný Kubín, 9 In Slovak: Združenie miest aobcí Slovenska (ZMOS) 10 More information on the BUK project is available at: http://cvek.sk/buk-budovanie-kapacit- -na-urovni-miestnej-samospravy-v-oblasti-integracnej-politiky-2/. 11 The towns involved were: Svidník, Michalovce, Košice, Prešov, Humenné, Senec, Poprad, Vranov Nad Topľou, Hanušovce Nad Topľou, Žilina, Zvolen, Žiar Nad Hronom, Dolný Kubín, Snina, Prievidza, Ružomberok, Liptovský Mikuláš, Banská Bystrica, Považská Bystrica, Trnava, Trenčín, Leopoldov, Hlohovec, Sereď, Modrý Kameň, Brezno, Handlová, Bánovce nad Bebravou. 80 Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, the Steering Committee for Migration and Integration (an advisory body to the Minister of Interior), the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police of the Presidium of the Police Force and the Department of Citizenship. The Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic is aspecialised department of the Ministry of Interior for matters relating to asylum and the integration of asylum seekers and foreigners who have been granted subsidiary protection. It is primarily involved in the development of asylum policy, but also contributes to the development of integration and migration policy. The Bureau of Border and Foreign Police of the Presidium of the Police Force is tasked with border control and matters relating to foreigners’ residence rights in the Slovak Republic. It is also involved in the creation of strategic documents, including the Act on Residence of Foreigners and all its amendments. The Foreign Police Department and the Directorate of Border and Foreigner Police, which are subordinated to the Bureau of Border and Foreign Police, make decisions related to applications for residence, the revocation of residence permits and related appeals. In practice, in their proceedings they often assess the degree to which individual foreigners are integrated or the social ties foreigners have established. The Department of Citizenship, within the Internal Administration Section of the Ministry of Interior, is affiliated to the Department of Administration, Citizenship and Registry. It oversees, assesses and decides on applications for Slovak citizenship and thus, in asense assesses the extent to which individual foreigners are integrated into society to inform their decision as to whether to grant them citizenship. Since the Act on Residence of Foreigners does not use the term “integration” or “inclusion”, in legal terms this department is concerned with assessing the given foreigner’sindependence, economic benefit and contribution to Slovakia. Until 2018, other central state authorities, such as the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic, the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic or the Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic (in charge of industry) also had duties related to integration policy. In 2018, however, Government Resolution No. 405/2018 abolished the requirement for individual ministers to submit reports to the Ministry of Labour on the implementation of specific objectives and measures resulting from the Slovak Integration Policy for the 81 relevant calendar year. It also abolished the requirement for the Minister of Labour to submit asummary report on the implementation of the Integration Policy to the government. At the time of writing this chapter, we were unable to obtain any new information on the anticipated update to the Slovak Integration Policy. It seems that although anew Minister of Labour took office after the 2020 elections, foreigners’ integration in the Slovak Republic has still not become apriority for the Ministry of Labour or other ministries. Higher territorial units or self-governing regions are the highest self-governing territorial units in Slovakia. There are eight such self-governing regions in Slovakia.18 In 2014, the self-governing regions were directly invited to develop the national Integration Policy into regional action plans suited to their regional conditions. Nevertheless, this task was left out of the 2017 document (MLSAF 2017). Non-governmental organisations are special key players not only in the field of integration of foreigners, but also in the process of creating integration policy. For many years, some of the state’stasks in the field of integration of foreigners have been entrusted to them. In addition to “field work”, they engage in advocacy (commenting on laws relating to foreigners’ integration). The best-known NGOs involved in integration in Slovakia are the Human Rights League, the Centre for the Research of Ethnicity and Culture, Marginal, the Slovak Humanitarian Council, Mareena and the Milan Šimečka Foundation. The International Organization for Migration is aseparate agency of the United Nations in Slovakia. On the basis of an agreement with the Government of Slovakia, it deals with various areas of migration: from securing voluntary returns to organizing various integration initiatives and operating the IOM Migration Information Centre. For years, IOM has been involved in organising expert meetings and commenting on strategic documents and laws relating to integration. It is also amember of the Expert Interdepartmental Commission on Labour Migration and Integration of Foreigners and the Steering Committee on Migration and Integration (whereas NGOs were excluded from both platforms after 2015). Municipalities can, within the framework of their competences and strategic documents, assist the process of integration of foreigners living in their territories (for more information on municipalities’ specific tools see subsection 4.2 Migrant integration strategies at national, regional and 18 For more, see Act No. 302/2001 Coll. on self-governing higher territorial units. 82 local levels). Despite the fact that some municipalities have seen sharp increases in the number of labour migrants (Mikušovič 2017) and that there is aneed to address their integration (not to mention their specific needs), it seems that integration has been addressed more in municipalities that have received training, assistance or advice from NGOs (or interest groups). 4.5 Funding mechanisms and grants schemes From the point of view of Slovak local governments, aneed for separate grant schemes is newly emerging. As the recommendations provided in the KapaCITY project handbook “How to integrate in amunicipality” (KapaCITY 2020), in order for local governments to address the integration of foreigners, they need public funds to build their capacity or to take into account the needs that will arise from the provision of services to residents. National level finances and funding for local government integration activities Measures to support the integration of third-country nationals financed from the AMIF are largely implemented at the national level. However, according to the wording of the AMIF national program, 2014 marked aturning point: the BUK pilot project shifted integration substantially to the regional and local level, with asignificant knock-on effect requiring further financial support (MI SR 2020). The opportunity to finance alocal integration project from AMIF has not yet been taken up by local governments, probably due to alack of professional capacity for project implementation. Based on the experience gained through the KapaCITY project, the KapaCITY consortium of NGOs is currently (2021) calling for local governments to be supported in implementing local integration measures through funding for integration policy measures from the state budget, as well as on aproject basis from the AMIF and European Social Fund plus (ESF+) national programmes for 2021–2027. The KapaCITY recommendations also advocate maintaining the current European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and AMIF set-up, in which the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic co-finances the necessary 25% from its own budget. 83 Currently (2021), local governments have the opportunity to use financial resources from several mainly foreign sources (such as EEA and Norway Grants, the Active citizens fund and the AMIF). The door is open for municipalities to benefit from these financial resources, but it is difficult for them to map the current situation, their needs and the needs of their resident foreigners. The document National Priorities for the Development of Social Services for the period 2021–2030, drawn up by the Ministry of Labour, sets out National Priorities (“NP”) through which it regulates the development of social services. Although this document does not consider foreigners or other minorities as its target group, it opens up space for their inclusion. This is done mainly through NP1, which focuses on the transition from institutional to community-based care and support with the aim of ensuring the availability of diverse social services of acommunity character in accordance with the needs of the social services’ target groups (MLSAF 2021). According to experts, it is not possible to fulfil NP1 without implementing anational campaign to promote equal opportunities for people at risk of social exclusion (for whatever reason and on whatever basis). As such, NP1 should apply to all social services target groups and their sectors, including the crisis intervention sector, especially for the homeless and marginalized communities and in particular for the development of comprehensive (residential and counselling) crisis intervention services for victims of domestic violence. This gives some scope for considering the possible use of this tool for the target group of foreigners. Local level funding possibilities for integration initiatives Targeted integration activities in Slovakia are largely financed from foreign resources, but Slovak municipalities are open to various possibilities. To make municipal funds available for integration projects, local authorities could use Act No. 583/2004 Coll. on budget regulations for territorial self-government. Municipalities’ own funding schemes are already open to activities aimed at foreigner integration, but not all municipalities perceive such activities as apriority and the relevant applicants may not be sufficiently institutionalised to be able to apply for these grants in practice. In principle, every municipality could provide financial resources for public benefit activities. If non-profit organizations active in foreigner integration operate in their territory and the local government has not forgotten (or directly excluded) the need to 84 support the integration of foreigners living in their territory, this possibility could become areality.19 The adviser to the Mayor of Bratislava, Bruno Konečný, expressed the view that tools for financing the integration of foreigners already exist at the municipal level. When municipalities are aware of the existence of these tools, they can use them. However, he added that “the state of funding for social services is deplorable, so if by any chance finances are available, they are prioritized elsewhere”.20 Participatory city budgets also allow for funding to be granted for projects supporting foreigners’ integration, but in practice this happens rather sporadically. To illustrate this, we present three initiatives implemented in the past. – Multi-kulti Dimitrovka: a project in the Bratislava-Nové Mesto district (2015)21 The Bratislava-Nové Mesto district has the largest Asian minority in Slovakia. This project, adopted in 2015 and implemented in 2016, focused on breaking down language barriers. Thanks to the project, Vietnamese children learned Vietnamese, while their parents learned Slovak. The project was initially not selected for participatory budget funding, but thanks to the organisers’ persistence, financial support was eventually secured from both the Bratislava self-governing region and the city district. – Language café: aproject in the city of Trnava (2017)22 The “Language Café” project enabled people of all ages to improve their language skills for free in apleasant environment with free refreshments. It was aimed at two groups of residents: those who wanted to improve their command of foreign languages (English, Spanish, Japanese) and foreigners living in Trnava who needed to practice their Slovak. The project also included three cultural days (Spanish Fiesta, English Halloween and Slovak Christmas), which introduced the general public to the culture and language of aparticular country. 19 Based on an interview withBarbara Gindlová andBruno Konečný, the adviser of the Mayor of Bratislava, 26. 3. 2021. 20 Based on an interview with Bruno Konečný, 26. 3. 2021. 21 More information on the Multi-kulti Dimitrovka project is available in Slovak at: https:// pr.banm.sk/liferay/multi-kulti-dimitrovka. 22 More information on the Language café project in Slovak: https://1url.cz/fK9bE. 85 – People from Another Land and Travellers’ Soirées: projects at the Evanjelické gymnázium Banská Bystrica (2018)23 These projects did not directly involve foreigners, but they educated and sensitized young people on the topics of migration and diversity. The “People from Another Land” project focused on migration issues. The “Travellers’ Soirée” project responded to young people’sexpressions of hatred and xenophobia towards people from other countries, especially third countries, and to unfounded prejudices against people of different skin colours, countries, or continents, offering presentations on France, China, and Indonesia by experienced travellers. Students had the opportunity to experience amini street-food festival at which they could taste food from these countries and to take amini-course in calligraphy. Proposed solutions for the future When redistributing public revenues from income tax, the tax revenue of aparticular municipality is determined, according to Government Regulation (No.668/2004), by the following factors: the number of inhabitants with permanent residence in the municipality, the altitude of the centre of the municipality, the size of the municipality, the number of pupils (children) at elementary art schools and school facilities run by the municipality and the number of permanent residents in the municipality aged 62 and above. Many municipalities therefore make permanent residence in their territory acondition for access to services (including day nurseries, kindergartens, parking, etc.). The final publication issued as part of the KapaCITY project identifies potential for change in this regard. It recommends that the legislator consider taking into account in this redistribution calculation both the number of foreigners with permanent residence and the number of foreigners with temporary residence who live in the municipality. This would ensure abetter direct link between the taxes paid by foreigners with temporary residence in Slovakia, the revenue for the municipality that provides them with public services, and the resources that the municipality can invest in integration measures.24 23 Further information about the projects People from Another Land and Travellers‘ Soirées is available in Slovak at: https://bbonline.sk/studenti-evg-su-proti-rychlej-a-lacnej-mode-podporuju-upcyklaciu-a-swapovanie-oblecenia/. 24 Source: KapaCITY – Ten Recommendations for Central State Migration and Integration Policy (Desatoro odporúčaní pre centrálnu štátnu migračnú aintegračnú politiku). 86 4.6 Conclusion As we have seen, there is arange of successful local-level activities and projects ongoing in Slovakia, but these are primarily project-based activities. Only ahandful of Slovak municipalities pay close attention to the topic of coexistence with migrants, and even in those that do, it is difficult to ensure the required continuity in their integration measures. This situation substantially reflects the approach taken to this topic at national level, where there are several policy documents in place, but the mechanisms for their implementation are extremely weak or do not work. Even in the existing national strategies, only occasional, passing reference is made to the involvement of higher territorial units; in practice, these units do not pay much attention to this topic. The current idea that migrants will integrate into Slovak society in part of their own accord and in part via abottom upapproach driven from the local level, appears not to work. But perhaps this is aphase that we have also seen in many other countries which, after years of partial projects and activities, have gradually developed comprehensive local integration policies. However, these policies progress in Slovakia, the civil sector will remain crucial in developing migrant integration initiatives, both at national and local level. Bibliography BBFP. 2022. ‘Štatistický Prehľad Legálnej aNelegálnej Migrácie vSlovenskej Republike Za Rok 2021 (Statistical Overview of Legal and Illegal Migration in the Slovak Republic in 2021)’. Bureau of Border and Foreign Police of the Slovak Republic. https://www.minv.sk/swift_data/source/policia/hranicna_a_cudzinecka_policia /rocenky/rok_2021/2021-rocenka-UHCP-SK.pdf. COLSAF. 2022. ‘Zamestnávanie Cudzincov Na Území Slovenskej Republiky Za Rok 2021 (Employment of Foreigners on the Territory of the Slovak Republic in 2021)’. Central Office of Labour Social Affairs and Family. https://www.upsvr.gov.sk/statistiky /zamestnavanie-cudzincov-statistiky/zamestnavanie-cudzincov-na-uzemi-slovenskej -republiky-za-rok-2021.html?page_id=1060278. Divinský, Boris. 2007. Labor Market-Migration Nexus in Slovakia: Time to Act in aComprehensive Way. Bratislava: International Organization for Migration. Drbohlav, Dušan, ed. 2010. Migrace a(i)migranti vČesku: Kdo jsme, odkud přicházíme, kam jdeme? Vyd. 1. Ediční řada Studie 66. Praha: Sociologické Nakl. (SLON). EMN. 2020. ‘Výročná Správa oMigrácii aAzyle Za Rok 2019 (Annual Report on Migration and Asylum 2019)’. European Migration Network Slovakia. https://emn.sk/ sk/publikacie/vyrocne-spravy-emn-o-migracii-a-azyle/item/563-vyrocna-sprava -o-migracii-a-azyle-za-rok-2019.html. 87 Eurostat. 2018. ‘Immigrants by Sex’. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ statistics-explained/images/d/d9/Immigrants_by_sex%2C_2018_%28%25_of_all_ immigrants%29.png. ———. 2021. ‘Migration and Migrant Population Statistics’. https://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_ statistics. HRL. 2020. ‘Analysis of the Situation and Recommendations Setting up Asylum, Migration and Integration Policy in the Slovak Republic’. Human Rights League. www.hrl.sk/sk/o-nas/aktuality/vydali-sme-analyzu-azylovej-migracnej-a-integracnej -politiky-sr. KapaCITY. 2020. ‘ZCudzincov Domáci: Ako Na Integráciu vSamospráve (From Foreigners to Locals: How to Integrate in Local Government)’. https://www .nadaciamilanasimecku.sk/files/dokumenty/kapacity_prirucka.pdf. Meššová, Barbora. 2021. ‘Integrácia Na Slovensku Nemá Svojho Pána (Integration in Slovakia Has No Master)’. Liga Za Ľudské Práva/Human Rights League, 28 February 2021. https://www.hrl.sk/sk/o-nas/aktuality/barbora-messova-integracia-na-slovensku -nema-svojho-pana. MI SR. 2010. ‘Štatistický Prehľad Legálnej aNelegálnej Migrácie Za I. Polrok 2010 – SK (Statistical Overview of Legal and Illegal Migration in the First Half of 2010)’. Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic. https://www.minv.sk/?Rok_2010. ———. 2020. ‘NÁRODNÝ PROGRAM AMIF (AMIF National Program)’. Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic. https://www.minv.sk/swift_data/source/mvsr_a_eu /simons/nove/NP_AMIF_6.1_sk.pdf. MIPEX. 2020. ‘Mipex 2019 Slovakia, The Migrant Integration Policy Index’. Migration Policy Group. https://www.mipex.eu/slovakia. MLSAF. 2009. ‘Koncepcia Integrácie Cudzincov vSlovenskej Republike (The Concept of Integration of Foreigners in the Slovak Republic)’. Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. https://www.employment.gov.sk/files/slovensky /ministerstvo/integracia-cudzincov/dokumenty/koncepcia-integracie-cudzincov -v-slovenskej-republike.pdf. ———. 2014. ‘Integračná Politika Slovenskej Republiky’. Ministry of Labour, Social Affars and Family of the Slovak Republic. https://www.employment.gov.sk/files/slovensky /uvod/informacie-cudzinci/integracna-politika.pdf. ———. 2017. ‘Akčný Plán Integračnej Politiky Slovenskej Republiky vPodmienkach Ministerstva Práce, Sociálnych Vecí aRodiny Slovenskej Republiky Na Roky 2017 – 2018 (Action Plan of the Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic in the Domain of the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic for 2017 – 2018)’. Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. https:// www.employment.gov.sk/files/slovensky/ministerstvo/integracia-cudzincov /dokumenty/akcny-plan-integracnej-politiky-slovenskej-republiky-podmienkachministerstva-prace-socialnych-veci-rodiny-slovenskej-republiky-roky-2017-2018.pdf. ———. 2018. ‘Resolution 405/2018, Súhrnná Správa oStave Plnenia Cieľov aOpatrení Integračnej Politiky Slovenskej Republiky Za Rok 2017 (Summary Report on the Status of Implementation of the Objectives and Measures of the Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic in 2017)’. Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. https://rokovania.gov.sk/RVL/Resolution/17244/3. ———. 2021. ‘Národné Priority Rozvoja Sociálnych Služieb Na Roky 2021-2030 (National Priorities for the Development of Social Services for the Period 2021-203)’. Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. https://www.employment. gov.sk/files/slovensky/rodina-socialna-pomoc/socialne-sluzby/nprss-fin.pdf. 88 PEDS. 2015. ‘Program Hospodárskeho aSociálneho Rozvoja 2016-2022 (Programme for Economic and Social Development 2016-2022)’. Košice region. https://web.vucke.sk /sk/uradna-tabula/rozvoj-regionu/program-hosp-socialneho-rozvoja/dokumenty -publikacie/. SBA. 2014. ‘Analysis of the Existing Policy and Measures in Employment Area and Third Country Nationals’ Business on the Territory of Slovak Republik’. Slovak Business Agency. Legal sources Act No. 369/1990 Coll. on Municipal Establishment as amended Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on State Citizenship of the Slovak Republic as amended Act No. 302/2001 Coll. on Self-Governing Higher Territorial Units as amended Act No. 5/2004 Coll. on Employment Services as amended Act No. 583/2004 Coll. on Budget Regulations of the Territorial Self-Government as amended Act No. 448/2008 Coll. on Social Services as amended and supplemented by Act No. 455/1991 Coll. on Trade Licensing as amended Act No. 538/2009 Coll. on Support for Regional Development as amended Act No. 404/2011 Coll. on Residence of Foreigners as amended Government Decree No. 846/1993 Coll. on the Principles of Migration Policy of the Slovak Republic Government Decree No. 668/2004 Coll. on the Distribution of Tax Revenue from Territorial Self-Governing regions Government Decree No. 45/2014 Coll. Integration Policy of the Slovak Republic Government Resolution No. 11/2005 Coll. Concept for Migration Policy in the Slovak Republic https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.4 89 5. Migrant Integration Policies in Flanders (Belgium) Corinne Huybers 5.1 Statistical information In this chapter, we examine relevant facts and figures regarding ethnic and cultural diversity in Belgium at all levels: national, regional (Flanders) and municipal (Mechelen). Historical context After World War II, migration to Belgium was mainly driven by demand for workers in the (coal) mining sector. To fill that demand, Belgium signed an agreement with Italy (1946). However, after amining disaster (1956) in which many Italian miners died, the Italian government decided to stop emigration to Belgium. The Belgian government then began to recruit new workers based on bilateral agreements with Spain (1956), Greece (1957) and later with countries outside of Europe: Morocco (1964), Turkey (1964), Tunisia (1969), Algeria (1970) and Yugoslavia (1970). Meanwhile, Europe was developing free movement. Rights to internal mobility applied from 1958 within the Benelux countries and from 1968 among the six member states of the European Communities. An economic crisis in the 1970s, however, led to high unemployment rates in Belgium. After the oil crisis, the Belgian government decided to stop immigration completely. From the mid-1980s onwards, migration rates increased again, but this time the inflow mainly consisted of family members of migrants who were already settled in Belgium, i.e. family reunification (Statistiek Vlaanderen 2018). 96 youth or sports associations, residential care centres, local service centres or neighbourhood centres. The local authorities (i.e. the municipalities) are responsible for the coordination of this fourth pillar, in close cooperation with the integration agencies responsible for the other three pillars. Before participating in this integration programme, each newcomer/ migrant (anyone born abroad, with legal status, who is over 18 years of age) must sign an integration contract (Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering b.r.). There are two kinds of contracts: one for people who are obliged to take part in the course and asecond for people who are entitled to take part in it. By signing the contract, individuals commit to attend the Dutch language lessons provided within the programme (they must complete at least levels A1 & A2) and the Social Orientation course (they must attend at least 80% (compulsory trajectory) / 50% (voluntary trajectory) of these lessons). The Social Orientation course takes 60 hours, is provided in the individual’smother tongue or acontact language, and covers all aspects of life in Belgium (education, work, housing, health…). Client orientated civic integration programme as from 2022 Civic integration contract PROGRAMME COUNSELLING Follow-up - Support - Life career guidance Social orientation (MO) Learning Dutch Pathway to employment Participation programme Information about living and working in Belgium Dutch level A2 Tailor-made guidance towards a suitable job Buddy project, work placement in an organization, voluntary work, alternative expand social network Passing the standard test MO Passing the standard test NT2 Register with VDAB/Actiris 2 months after signing integration contract 40 hours participation Integration certificate Dutch level B1 (compulsory integrator) Plate 2 Client oriented civic integration programme (Flanders) as from 2022 Source: Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering, 2022, https://www.integratie-inburgering.be/nl/inburgeringstraject 97 An administrative fine may be imposed for failure to comply with the obligation to participate in the course (from 50 to 5,000 euros), or if the individual has voluntarily signed the integration contract and then unlawfully and prematurely terminates the training (maximum 150 euros). For several decades, this integration programme was provided free of charge; as of January 1, 2022, newcomers (both those who are obliged to attend and those who choose to do so) must pay afee (of at least 360 euros) (Vlaamse Regering 2020). Other changes (ibid.) include anew requirement for each participant to sign adeclaration at the beginning of the programme, endorsing their essential rights and duties. Further, every participant with job prospects is obliged to register with the Flemish employment service. At the end, those who pass acitizenship test are given an integration certificate. This certificate is an important condition for becoming aBelgian citizen or renting social housing. For minors, integration does not take place via the integration programme, but via the school system. 5.3 Integration at the municipal level Within their own boundaries, Flemish cities and towns are in charge of managing local integration policy. This means that, within the limits of the subsidiarity principle, they are responsible for the elaboration, guidance, coordination and implementation of an inclusive local integration policy. Attention to diversity must be embedded in all city departments and in external services, institutions and organisations, all of which are responsible for taking into account new needs and requirements resulting from increasing diversity by adapting their HR policy, increasing their accessibility, giving people asay, and bringing people into contact with each other. This diversity policy will only bear fruit if everyone – citizens, facilities, associations and authorities in all policy areas, in all sectors and at all levels of the population – take responsibility. This approach is described as inclusive. The local authorities coordinate relevant stakeholders in their city or municipality and involve the target groups and their organisations in the implementation of the inclusive policy. All policy domains (national, regional, local) come together on alocal level, which is where innovative solutions across these domains are created. 98 Since 2016, seven Flemish sectoral subsidies,15 including integration subsidies, have been integrated into an additional allocation within the Municipal Fund (with the exception of the municipalities with facilities). This means that, since 2016, all sectoral subsidies have been merged and the municipality no longer has to account for them sector by sector. This reform is part of the process of administrative simplification, giving local authorities more freedom to use Flemish resources locally. Thus, local administrative departments who are eligible for this grant can decide for themselves whether they use the resources for local integration policies within their multi-year strategic plans and budgets. In 2016, 57 (out of 300) Flemish cities and municipalities had an integration service and received the integration subsidy. This subsidy is granted based on two criteria: where at least 1,000 inhabitants have amigration background (for the smaller municipalities) or where more than 10% of inhabitants have amigration background. These criteria date from 2013 and have not changed since the subsidy was integrated into the Municipal Fund. In 2022, at least two thirds of Flemish cities and municipalities were eligible to receive funding according to these criteria, but the regional budget is limited and no new municipality has been accepted for subsidy since 2013. In 2022 the Flemish government launched a new 3-year funding programme, called ‘Plan Living Together’ that consists of 7 objectives with 24 actions to support cities and municipalities in promoting living together. All cities and municipalities in the Flemish Region with more than 7,500 inhabitants of non-EU-15 origin can apply for this grant. In addition to the Municipal Fund, there are many additional (supralocal) subsidies and financing options available to strengthen integration policy and make integration easier and more effective at the local level (Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering 2019). These grants are often project-based. The integration agenda is embedded to various degrees within the structure of the municipality. In some municipalities there is aseparate integration service (ranging from aone-man/woman-service to an entire team, subdepartment or department); in others it is mainstreamed at the strategic level. Many (often) smaller municipalities in Flanders, however, do not have adedicated integration service. They have local integration 15 Namely: local cultural policy, local youth policy, local sports policy, flanking education policy, combating child poverty, development and integration. 99 strategies, set out within the Flemish framework, and often assign one civil servant to implement them, on top of other tasks. By consequence, they do not have any active integration policy or strategy or, where they do, this is low on their priority list. Key stakeholders in local integration include the Flemish Association of Cities and Municipalities (VVSG)16 – an advocate, knowledge contributor and network organisation for the local authorities – and the above-mentioned Flemish Agency for Integration,17 which supports local authorities in their local integration and diversity policies. Financed by Flemish municipalities and cities’ membership fees, the Flemish Association of Cities and Municipalities works alongside others on integration and defends local authorities’ interests at the Flemish level. Financed by the Flemish government, the Flemish Agency for Integration works in 3 areas: supporting local authorities and organisations in the implementation of their integration policies, providing integration and civic participation services, and directing newcomers to providers of Dutch language lessons. 5.4 Mechelen: from a categorical to an inclusive approach Fifteen years ago, Mechelen had avery bad reputation. Polarisation was high and over 30% of the city’sinhabitants voted for the far right. The city had one of the highest crime rates in the country, middle class families were leaving the city and deprivation was high. Nowadays, Mechelen is hailed as one of Flanders’ flagship cities and 76% of Mechelaars are proud to live in Mechelen (Vlaanderen 2020a). Local inhabitants’ appreciation for the city’sintegration policy is one of the highest in the country. The overall culture has changed, people are becoming more open to each other, and 42% of people in Mechelen have apositive attitude towards diversity (Vlaanderen 2020b). How did Mechelen manage to make this radical change in just 15 years? 16 Vereniging van Vlaamse Steden en Gemeenten vzw. For more information see: https://www .vvsg.be/kennisitem/vvsg/integratiebeleid 17 Vlaams Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering. For more information see: https://www .integratie-inburgering.be/ 100 First, the city started to invest in urban renovation and renewal projects in green areas, parks, open spaces, outdoor playgrounds18 and sports infrastructure, with the aim of creating social mix in the public domain. Second, to increase the objective and subjective feeling of safety, the city installed alarge number of street cameras and invested in strengthening the capacity of the local police force,19 front-line workers and those involved in outreach: street patrols, social workers, community guards, etc. These personnel keep their eyes and ears open and can respond quickly and preventively where and when necessary. Thirdly, the city decided to work on an inclusive policy. Thus for the past decade, policy attention has been increasingly directed towards diversity, upward social mobility and equal opportunities. Mechelen’ssuccess in these areas has been described repeatedly (Wieland 2018; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2018; Whybrow 2018; Mcdonald-Gibson 2016; INCLUCITIES 2020; World Mayor 2017). The city established its integration service in 1998, and by 2000 it had transformed it into adiversity service working on themes such as equal opportunities, integration, senior citizens, disability, gender, racism and interpreting. The integration service was co-financed by the Flemish government (two thirds) and the city of Mechelen (one third). The objectives and priorities (policy action plan) were set out in acooperation agreement between Mechelen and the Flemish government. This agreement has been renewed every three years. The Flemish government provided this specific integration funding (between 170,000 and 180,000 euros per year) until 2019. In 2016, this specific funding was integrated into the municipal fund (see above) for administrative simplicity. As aresult, local authorities are no longer obliged to account annually for the use of these resources. Until 2013, Mechelen’sdiversity service, embedded within the Department of Society’sWelfare sub-department, consisted of ateam of nine employees, each working on aspecific topic/target group. After the 2013 budget reform, the Department of Society was reorganized, in part as aresult of the 2013 budget declaration on diversity: “Instead of apowerless individual service that is often positioned outside the organisation, diversity policy is horizontally embedded throughout the organisation 18 Every household should have an outdoor playground within either 500 or 800 m², according to the city regulations. 19 Police recruitment is actually afederal (national) matter, but Mechelen decided to invest in local recruitment campaigns with the aim of diversifying the local police department. 101 with anetwork of competent officials in key departments. There will be aspecial focus on effectively channelling diversity in our city towards traditional youth work.”20 After acity-wide survey, the College of Mayor and Aldermen/-women established six strategic/transversal goals in 2013: Mechelen wants to be an inclusive, child-friendly, participative, customer-friendly, smart, shopping city. This means that attention to these themes must be embedded in all policy sectors and in various city services and external services, organisations and institutions. The ‘Inclusive City’ strategic programme manager, in cooperation with the diversity project coordinator, is mandated to work cross-departmentally and horizontally on this theme within the city.21 As aresult, the diversity service was closed at the end of 2013. Instead, a programme manager was appointed for each strategic goal (inclusive, child-friendly, participative, customer-friendly, smart, shopping). He/she coordinates and oversees (directs) the particular strategic goal within the town hall (including regular activities, ongoing projects, new developments/projects, etc.), and ensures that all services, departments and sub-departments operate within the vision, the agreed framework and the (policy) priorities and contribute towards reaching the inclusive policy objectives. The programme manager is apoint of contact, apartner for discussion and acoach within (and outside) the organisation for the implementation of the particular strategic goal. The strategic programme manager for the ‘Inclusive City’ works citywide. Through the city’slong-term strategic plan, this officer convinces the other departments to incorporate the ‘Inclusive City’ organisational goals into their regular policies. This is not an easy task because he/she has to lead from anon-hierarchical position. That is why the support, commitment and mandate from the political and managerial leadership is crucial. Originally, the six programme managers were scattered across various departments, but this changed in July 2016 when the six strategic goals were embedded into the Strategy & Development Department. The head of the Strategy & Development Department watches over the effective implementation of inclusive policy and liaises with the management team. At the political level, the theme remains the responsibility of the authorized alderman, who is amember of the political board, the 20 Internal policy document regarding evaluation of the diversity policy and future approach 2013-2018, Mechelen. 21 Internal policy document regarding the vision on strategic programme management, 12.03.2014, Mechelen. 102 college of mayors and aldermen. The alderman is responsible for the diversity and equal opportunities agenda and, in that capacity, holds final political authority.22 Another important body is the Steering Committee, composed of administrative, political and management representatives. The committee is the strategic programme manager’sinstrument in managing, monitoring and coordinating the ‘Inclusive City’ programme. It monitors the progress of projects/initiatives that contribute to the objectives of the programme within the different departments and subdepartments. Politically, the Alderman for Diversity and Equal Opportunities has the final say, but since several policy areas are involved, the aldermen decide among themselves under which authority aparticular initiative/project is to be handled. With regard to the practical implementation of the inclusive policy, each strategic programme manager works substantively with a‘source’ department. For the ‘Inclusive City’ programme, this is the Living Together Department and its Social Policy Sub-Department. Mechelen’stransversal inclusive policy translates into projects that go beyond traditional policy domains and involve inter-departmental cooperation across the city hall, with the aim of mainstreaming diversity (mindset, attitude, language). Such projects include e.g. an internal learning trajectory on polarisation and hate speech and how to respond adequately as alocal government, as well as cooperation between the communication, prevention, diversity, youth, and culture departments. All this naturally requires adedicated budget. As the ‘Inclusive City’ is atransversal strategic goal, including areas such as diversity, integration and equal opportunities, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact amount dedicated to integration work and migrant/refugee services, projects and initiatives. The city invests roughly 360,000 euros per year in realising the objectives of the ‘Inclusive City’ programme (50% from the Flemish government and 50% from the city of Mechelen). In addition, the city of Mechelen regularly applies for European project subsidies to create the required experimental space to tackle local integration and diversity challenges. 22 Gabriella De Francesco, for the period 2019–2024. 103 5.5 Conclusion We conclude with areminder that, in the Flemish context, towns are responsible for managing the local integration agenda within their territory and for planning, leading, coordinating and implementing inclusive local integration policies. The city of Mechelen serves as an excellent example of how well thought-out, long-term and targeted inclusive policies can play amajor part in transforming acity and improving quality of life for its residents. The pathway Mechelen took to achieve this transformation is described in greater detail in chapter 7. It is nevertheless important to note, when taking an overall view of local integration policy in Flanders, that despite their clear responsibility for this agenda and relatively easy access to resources to support it (when certain conditions are met), many(smaller)Flemish towns (and they are rather numerous) are not currently buildingeffectiveintegration policiesbecause they are lacking capacity or/and resources.Due to the lack of these essential conditions, these municipalities often lack along-term vision.The coexistence of population groups with different experiences of migration thus often leads to the creation of partially parallel societies, with all the associated negative (in particular social) consequences. It should thus be emphasised that Mechelen serves as agood example of aFlanders success story, but that it is far from representative. Bibliography Adam, Ilke, Marco Martiniello, and Andrea Rea. 2018. ‘Regional Divergence in the Integration Policy in Belgium. One Country, Three Integration Programmes, One Citizenship Law’. In Governing Diversity. Migrant Integration and Multiculturalism in North America and Europe. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles. Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering. 2019. ‘Financiering van Een Inclusief Lokaal Integratiebeleid’. https://www.integratie-inburgering.be/sites/default/files/atoms /files/20190321_overzicht_financieringsmogelijkheden.pdf. ———. 2020. ‘Rapport Nationaliteit En Herkomst in Mechelen’. Agentschap Integratie en Inburgering. ———. b.r. ‘Voel Je Thuis in Vlaanderen’. https://integratie-inburgering.be/sites/default /files/atoms/files/brochure-voel-je-thuis-in-vlaanderen.pdf. Bertelsmann Stiftung, dir. 2018. Bart Somers Discusses His Strategy for Navigating Cultural Diversity. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/media-center /media/mid/bart-somers-about-his-strategie. DeMorgen. 2020. ‘Erkenning Minderhedenforum Niet Verlengd, Nieuwe Aanvraag Kan Als Instelling Visie Wijzigt’, 5 March 2020. https://www.demorgen.be/politiek 104 /erkenning-minderhedenforum-niet-verlengd-nieuwe-aanvraag-kan-als-instelling-visie -wijzigt~b8777fd5/. Federal Public Service. 2022. ‘Asylum and Migration’. https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en /policy/policy-areas/striving-global-solidarity/asylum. INCLUCITIES. 2020. ‘We Might Not Share the Past but We Share the Future of This City!’ Inclucities.Eu, 2020. https://inclucities.eu/media-events/news/8-news/35 -interview-gabriella-de-francesco-city-of-mechelen. Mcdonald-Gibson, Charlotte. 2016. ‘Where Refugees Can Come Home’. The New York Times, 3 December 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/opinion/sunday/where -refugees-can-come-home.html. Statbel. 2022. ‘Diversiteit Naar Herkomst in België’. Statbel – het Belgische statistiekbureau. https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/bevolking/herkomst. Statistiek Vlaanderen. 2018. ‘Vlaamse Migratieen Integratiemonitor’. D/2018/3241/138, Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur. https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/27487. ———. 2022a. ‘Bevolking Naar Nationaliteit’. Statistiek Vlaanderen. https://www .statistiekvlaanderen.be/en/population-by-nationality-0. ———. 2022b. ‘Samenleven in Diversiteit in Cijfers’. Statistiek Vlaanderen. https://www .statistiekvlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/docs/VMIM-samenvatting-sid-monitor.pdf. ———. 2022c. ‘Internationale Bescherming’. Statistiek Vlaanderen. https://www .statistiekvlaanderen.be/internationale-bescherming. Vlaamse Regering. 2020. ‘VR 2020 1707 DOC.0868/1’. VR 2020 1707 DOC.0868 /1.https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/39387. Vlaanderen. 2013. ‘Decreet Betreffende Het Vlaamse IntegratieEn Inburgeringsbeleid’. https://codex.vlaanderen.be/zoeken/document.aspx?DID=1023121¶m =inhoud&AID=1165619. ———. 2019. ‘Beleidsnota 2019-2024. Gelijke Kansen, Integratie En Inburgering’. https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/32225. ———. 2020a. ‘Fierheid over de Gemeente (Wonen En Woonomgeving)’. GemeenteStadsmonitor Vlaanderen. https://gemeente-stadsmonitor.vlaanderen.be/indicators /fierheid-over-de-gemeente-0. ———. 2020b. ‘Houding Tegenover Diversiteit (Samenleven)’. https://gemeentestadsmonitor.vlaanderen.be/indicators/houding-tegenover-diversiteit-0. Whybrow, Martin. 2018. ‘The Belgian City That Embraces Diversity’. Https:// Smartercommunities.Media/, 14 February 2018. https://smartercommunities.media /belgian-city-embraces-diversity/. Wieland, Ulrike. 2018. ‘Learning from the World: Liz Mohn in the Good Practice City of Mechelen’. Bertelsmann Stiftung, 15 May 2018. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de /en/our-projects/living-diversity/project-news/learning-from-the-world-liz-mohn-in -the-good-practice-city-of-mechelen. World Mayor. 2017. ‘Bart Somers’. World Mayor, The 2016 Project. http://www .worldmayor.com/contest_2016/profile-mechelen-mayor.html. https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.5 105 6. Migrant Integration Policies in Bavaria (Germany) Katsiaryna Viadziorchyk1 6.1 Statistical information According to the Federal Office of Statistics there were 21.9 million people with astatistically attributed “migration background”2 in Germany in 2020 (Destatis 2020). That is 26.7% of the total population, which means that one in four people living in Germany has a“migration background” – 29.1% of the population in western Germany and 8.2% of the population in eastern Germany (Destatis 2020). Foreigners, i.e. individuals who do not have German citizenship, made up 11.4 million of this group. Migration from EU countries constitutes 42.8 % of the overall migration flow into Germany and afurther 26.6% of migrants originate from other countries on the European continent. The remaining 30.6% of migrants come from non-European countries (Destatis 2021). In the 2019 statistical microcensus, approximately 2.6 million people stated that they had come to Germany as repatriates or late repatriates (“Aussiedler” or “Spätaussiedler”) (Oswald 2019). (Late) repatriates are Germans within the meaning of the Basic law (Grundgesetz) 3 (hereinafter referred to as German Constitution) and Federal Law on Refugees and Exiles who lived as persons of German ancestry in Eastern Europe and remained there after 1945. Most of them arrived in Germany between the 1960s and 1990s from the successor states of the former Soviet Union 1 With the assistance of Hangwen Maierhofer, who participated in the research and data collection for the purposes of this chapter. Chapter conclusion: Marie Jelínková, Réka Lörincz 2 “Aperson has amigration background if they or at least one of their parents was not born with German citizenship”, for more details see: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft -Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Migration-Integration/Glossar/migrationshintergrund.html. 3 The whole text of the German Constitution is available at: https://www.bundestag.de/gg. 112 Special funding options are created at the federal, state and municipal levels that are designated for projects and measures related to integration, inclusion and participation of migrants, or specifically to refugees, women migrants or youth with migration histories.13 Some of these funds go directly to municipalities and relevant local administrative bodies. One good example of such support for municipalities at the state level is the integration guides (Integrationslotsinnen) initiative.14 These guides work in municipalities to coordinate integration networks locally, support voluntary initiatives and assist migrants in their orientation. Unfortunately, the frequent uncertainty that comes with the project financing system inhibits the continuity of their work and results in such roles often not being established long-term. The same uncertainty is also afeature of the project funding relied on by many civil society organisations that contribute greatly to the integration process. 6.4 Historical insight and prerequisites for the emergence of the integration and migration Councils In order to understand how integration and migration policies have developed, along with migrants’ self-organisation and emancipation in Germany, it is important to take acloser look at their history. Germany is now an established immigration country; more than a quarter of its population consists of people with migration backgrounds. Although migration to and within Germany was present even before World War II, the rhetoric, perception and development of integration and migration policies in the country have primarily been shaped by the flow of migration between the 1950s and the 1990s. In 1955, West Germany made its first bilateral recruitment agreements with Italy, via which it actively recruited so-called “guest workers” (Gastarbeiter*innen) to work in the industrial sector to supplement the existing workforce: West Germany was experiencing an “economic miracle” (Wirtschaftswunder) and also needed to rebuild after the damage done during the war. Further bilateral recruitment agreements followed 13 Examples of projects offered by the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior, for Sport and Integration, the ministry responsible for integration in Bavaria, are available at: https://www .innenministerium.bayern.de/mui/integrationspolitik/integration_frauen/index.php. 14 For detailed information on integration guides in Bavaria see: https://www.stmi.bayern.de /mui/integrationspolitik/integrationslotsen/index.php. 113 with Spain, Greece, Turkey, Morocco, South Korea, Portugal, Tunisia and Yugoslavia in 1968 (Rietig aMüller 2016). Parallel to this development, East Germany also began recruiting foreign contract workers (Vertragarbeiter*innen). Officially, these “foreign workers” who came to the German Democratic Republic from the 1960s onwards were “friends” arriving to receive training in order to then help rebuild their homelands, which were allied Communist countries (Rabenschlag 2016) . The first such agreement was signed with Poland in 1963, followed by agreements with Hungary, Algeria, Cuba, Mozambique, Vietnam, Angola, Mongolia, China and North Korea (ibid.). In both cases, these “guest workers” and “foreign contract workers” were not given long-term residence rights; their migration was based on aworkforce rotation principle (Rotationsprinzip), whereby migrants would come to the industrial centres of Europe to work for afew years before returning to their countries of origin with the money saved and skills acquired, making room in turn for new workers to do the same (Rabenschlag 2016). West Germany stopped recruiting such “guest workers” in 1973. After the German unification in 1990, the federal government tried to dissolve the ongoing intergovernmental agreements on contract workers that East Germany had and sent “contract workers” back to their homelands. During the recruitment decades, hundreds of thousands of migrants came to both parts of Germany; many of them left again, but many also stayed, some brought their families, and others started their families here. These foreign workers were not seen as an equal part of the society, whose integration was amatter to be facilitated. The absence of any integration or inclusion measures for them led to aneglectful approach towards their well-being. They often had to endure very precarious working conditions, lower remuneration for their work in comparison with the locals, and xenophobic and hostile attacks.15 This historical phase was very important and relevant to the further development and the appearance of numerous migrant self-organisations and associations, migrants’ participation in trade unions, protests and demonstrations, and the establishment of the first Integration and Migration Councils (Ausländer-, Migranten und Integrationsbeiräte) in response to migrants’ lack of rights, participation possibilities and representation opportunities as well as their discriminatory experiences. 15 For more information see: https://www.dw.com/en/25-years-after-rostock-lichtenhagen-dont -dwell-on-the-pastlearn-from-it/a-40155429 . 114 From the mid-1980s, Integration and Migration Councils (Ausländer-, Migranten und Integrationsbeiräte, hereinafter IMCs) were actively established in response to the increasing number of foreign residents living permanently or at least for longer periods in Germany without any form of representation. Meanwhile, municipalities began to realise the need for more contact and exchange with the migrant communities in their districts. Integration and Migration Councils provided aplatform through which social, political and legal integration, participation in local decision-making processes and connections between the migrant communities and the local society could be promoted. IMCs thus became the first form of political participation for migrants at the local level and played an essential role in formulating political appeals to shape Germany as acountry of immigration from the very beginning (Nergiz 2019). The IMCs also gave migrants living in Germany the opportunity to vote: migrants have both active and passive voting rights within the IMCs, which remedy/redress their otherwise non-existent votingrights. At present, only German citizens can vote and be elected at all levels of government in Germany; citizens of EU countries can vote and be elected at the municipal level after being resident in aGerman municipality for at least three months. Non-EU citizens are excluded from voting at all levels. Although some German states extendedlocal-level voting rights to migrants in 1989, these regulations were withdrawn in 1990 by the Constitutional Court (Pedroza 2019, 114).16 Therefore,Germany’sexample is seen as “arelevant negative case” of how to approach migrants’ political rights because of its failed implementation of this necessary political step (Pedroza 2019, 114). This means that, even now, the IMCs are the only means through which non-EU nationals are able to exert ademocratically legitimised influence on politics (Wilmes 2018). The IMCs, however, cannot and should not replace the municipal right to vote, which both the IMCs themselves and their umbrella organisations have been calling for since their establishment. Today, Germany has 9.5 million residents (Destatis 2020) who cannot participate in any elections because they are neither German citizens nor citizens of other EU member states. This means that their political participation options are limited to informal participation opportunities (for example: civic engagement, protests, demonstrations, volunteering) and participation in the IMCs. 16 For details see: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Beschluss vom 12. Dezember 1991, https://www .wahlrecht.de/wahlpruefung/19911212.htm. 115 Integration and Migration Councils, however, are not the only form of migrant self-organisation. Germany has an estimated 12,400 to 14,300 migrant organisations (Schu 2020). These migrant organisations can be divided into three main groups according to their self-image: 1) multifunctional, participation-oriented organisations, 2) organisations that focus on and promote culture, and 3) organisations that represent the interests of various groups or of all migrants. Migrant organisations almost never work in isolation, but are integrated into diverse networks, where the IMCs and their umbrella organisations play an essential bridging function in connecting them on the local and state level, respectively. 6.5 Integration and migration councils in Bavaria Many different factors contribute towards the successful integration of migrants in their municipalities of residence. One of the most important of these is the active involvement and participation of people with migration backgrounds in shaping local integration processes. One of the most tried and tested instruments for this is afunctioning Integration and Migration Council. Although the formation and establishment of IMCs Germany-wide started actively in the mid-1980s, the idea of representative bodies for migrants at the municipal level had already appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The first IMC election in Bavaria took place in Nuremberg in 1973 (Gross 2017, 67) and so the IMCs have supported integration policies in numerous districts and cities in Bavaria (and other federal states) since the 1970s. At the municipal level, IMCs offer migrants opportunities to participate politically. This is extremely important because: – In ademocratic society, integration requires everyone’sparticipation. – People with migration backgrounds can only integrate successfully if they are taken seriously as actors and are involved in decision-making processes. – Migration experience, linguistic and cultural resources and access to ethnic networks are indispensable for successful integration work. – The practical implementation of integration policy takes place locally, in the municipalities: the places where people live and where their children attend school or childcare facilities. These places are instrumental in how well and how quickly migrants become fully part of the society (AGABY 2012). 116 There are no specific legal requirements in the municipal code of the Free State of Bavaria17 for the establishment of IMCs as there are in other federal states (such as in Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate). Municipalities in Bavaria are thus not required to establish such councils. More and more cities and municipalities in Bavaria are, nevertheless, now showing interest in migrants’ political participation and in the establishment of IMCs. The vast majority of the Bavarian Integration and Migration Councils’ members are elected directly by avote among the migrants resident in agiven municipality, although some IMCs are appointed by their city councils. This usually happens with newly established IMCs and, as arule, these then aim to change to adirect vote for the following term. Despite their differences, the majority of the Bavarian IMCs have one thing in common: they are democratically legitimised bodies that represent the interests of the population with amigration history in the given city or adistrict. Rather than representing the specific interests of asingle nationality, they focus on questions that are relevant to all migrants and for successful coexistence in the local society as awhole. Due to their multinational, multifaith and multicultural composition, they work as models for solving the conflicts that might appear in adiverse society. The IMCs are able deal with all issues that arise within the municipality and advise the city council accordingly. However, their main focus is on matters related to the design of local integration policies. As the establishment of IMCs is not compulsory in Bavaria, there are no concrete legal requirements as to their form and function. The success and effectiveness of the IMCs’ work, however, hinges upon whether their initiatives, recommendations and projects are noticed by politicians, authorities and the general public. An Integration and Migration Council thus needs certain rights such as: – the right to submit applications and speak in the city council; – the right to information from the public authorities as early as possible on topics and processes that fall within the IMC’sarea of responsibility; – the right to submit opinions to the city council; – the right to financial, human and material resources (to an extent agreed in consultation with the city council and administration) (AGABY 2014). 17 In German: Gemeindeordnung für den Freistaat Bayern. 117 These rights, along with the IMC’s duties, its election procedure, the size of its board, allocation of seats, etc., are usually set out in their statutes (Satzung) (AGABY 2014). Since IMCs usually only have an advisory function and no voting rights of their own in the municipal councils, it is up to the political decision-makers whether or not they implement the IMCs’ recommendations. Close cooperation with the local municipal politicians is thus of critical importance. This is made possible, for example, by enabling members of the city council to attend meetings of the Integration and Migration Councils (in some cases they also have voting rights there) and, vice versa, inviting migrant representatives to attend meetings of political groups and relevant thematic working groups within the municipal council. Studies show that the IMCs give migrants and people with amigration histories better access to resources in the municipality, provide intercultural exchange and intercultural opening, contribute to peaceful coexistence and serve as an empowerment platform for migrants in their political engagement (Wilmes 2018). Integration and Migration Councils have become an indispensable element on the local level that brings the interests of the population with amigration history into the local political decision-making process. Despite everything, they cannot and should not compensate fully for the lack of political participation opportunities offered to third country nationals. 6.6 AGABY and the Bavarian integration and migration councils Founded in 1993, AGABY18 is the umbrella organisation for the municipal democratically elected Integration and Migration Councils in Bavaria. It supports and coordinates the work of the local IMCs and represents the interests of migrants in Bavaria as ademocratically legitimised, non-partisan, cross-ethnic and cross-national migrant organization at the state level. As of April 2021, AGABY had 31 members,19 which are Integration and Migration Councils located in five districts 18 AGABY is an abbreviation for Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Ausländer-, Migranten und Integrationsbeiräte Bayerns 19 AGABY’smap of the Bavarian Integration and Migration Councils is available at: https:// www.agaby.de/ueber-uns/unsere-mitglieder. 118 and twenty-six cities of Bavaria. Its members are present in all large and almost all medium-sized cities in Bavaria.20 As an umbrella organisation, AGABY represents Integration and Migration Councils and people with migration backgrounds at the state level. It advises the Bavarian state government, ministries, democratic political parties and parliamentary fractions on issues of migration and integration. It informs them about the challenges and discrepancies in the Bavarian integration policy and makes society as awhole aware of the integration hurdles faced by people with amigration histories. AGABY further works with and for its members, passes practical experience onto them and strengthens networking and exchange between the IMCs. AGABY supports and accompanies the establishment of new IMCs and advises municipalities on the design of participatory integration policy and on the necessary steps for founding, establishing or restructuring their IMC and on framework conditions for the successful work of municipal councils. Furthermore, AGABY does public relations work and represents the IMCs in numerous organisations and committees at the state level. AGABY has been afounding member of the Federal Immigration and Integration Council (BZI)21, the umbrella organisation of the Integration and Migration Councils at the federal level, since 1997. Through its project work, AGABY offers the IMCs opportunities for professionalization and empowerment. Until now, AGABY’swork, and its funding, has been exclusively project-based. AGABY’sdemands include institutional recognition and financial support for the IMCs from the Bavarian State Government, as well as the obligatory establishment of IMCs in all municipalities in which the amount of people with migration histories exceeds e.g. 5,000 and the development of afull legislative framework for the IMCs. AGABY’sorganisational structure includes an intercultural and multilingual team that works on the projects and puts the organisation’sstrategic vision into practice. It also includes ademocratically elected board of seven members, which defines the organisation’spolitical vision and strategy in close cooperation with the executive team and managers. The AGABY board is elected by its general assembly, which is the organisation’s supreme body and consists of delegates sent by each of the 20 For further details, see also: „Handbuch erfolgreich arbeiten im Integrationsbeirat“, AGABY, (2014), available at: http://handbuch.agaby.de/6-agaby/61-struktur-und-aufgaben. 21 BZI (Bundeszuwanderungsund Integrationsrat): https://bzi-bundesintegrationsrat.de /bzi-zur-neuen-beraterin-des-auswaertigen-amtes/. 119 Bavarian IMCs. The general assembly elects the AGABY board from among its voting delegates for aperiod of three years. The seven board members must belong to at least five different Bavarian IMCs. The chairperson and two deputies represent AGABY externally. Board and team meetings regularly take place in the AGABY offices in Nuremberg or online. 6.7 Conclusion Integration and Migration Councils were set up to secure the participation of immigrants on the local level. Although their role at the local level has proved extremely valuable and beneficial in practice, municipalities are still not obliged to establish them unless the relevant Federal State has adopted relevant legislative measures. Most Migration and Integration Councils therefore still struggle to obtain sustainable funding and, in some cases, respect for their role at the local level, which remains substantially dependent on the attitudes of local politicians. In the longterm, the expansion of these Councils and their links with the Bavarian and Federal Government can be seen as major successes. In conclusion, if we look beyond the current workings of the Integration and Migration Councils in Bavaria, it is important to recall that the implementation of integration policies is, in Germany, the responsibility of the Federal States and that it can thus (with both positive and negative implications) take avariety of different forms. Bibliography AGABY. 2012. Ausländerund Integrationsbeiräte in Bayern. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Ausländer-, Migrantenund Integrationsbeiräte Bayerns, AGABY. https://www.agaby .de/fileadmin/redaktion/Publikationen/Broschuere_2012/empa_Handreichung2012_ web.pdf. ———. 2014. AGABY Online Handbuch: Erfolgreich Arbeiten im Integrationsbeirat. http:// handbuch.agaby.de/3-aufgaben-und-themen/index.php?id=1. Altunordu, Volkan. 2020. „Nürnberg wächst immer weiter – aber nur dank Zuwanderung”, 22. červenec 2020. https://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg /nurnberg-wachst-immer-weiter-aber-nur-dank-zuwanderung1.10280233#:~:text=Demnach%20haben%20251.744%20N%C3%BCrnberger,%20 also,6%20Prozent)%20deutsche%20Staatsb%C3%BCrger%20sind. BMI. 2020. „Migration: Nettozuwanderung nach Deutschland weiter zurückgegangen”. Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat. 120 Butterwegge, Carolin. 2007. „Neue Zuwanderungsund Integrationspolitik seit 2005”. Bundescentrum für politishe Bildung, 20. červenec 2007. https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft /migration/dossier-migration-ALT/56340/neue-migrationspolitik. Destatis. 2020. „Bevölkerung: Migration und Integration”. Destatis, Statistiche Bundesamt. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung /Migration-Integration/_inhalt.html. ———. 2021. „Ausländische Bevölkerung nach Geschlecht und ausgewählten Staatsangehörigkeiten”. Destatis, Statistiche Bundesamt. https://www.destatis.de /DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Migration-Integration/Tabellen /auslaendische-bevoelkerung-geschlecht.html. Fincke, Gunilla. 2012. „Integration im föderalen System: Bund, Länder und die Rolle der Kommunen”. Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration (SVR). https://www.stiftung-mercator.de/content/uploads/2020/12/SVR_ Jahresgutachten_2012_Integration_im_foederalen_System.pdf. Gesemann, Frank, aRoland Roth. 2014. Integration ist (auch) Ländersache! Schritte zur politischen Inklusion von Migrantinnen und Migranten in den Bundesländern. FriedrichEbert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/dialog/10528-version -20140317.pdf. Gross, Torsten, ed. 2017. Engagierte Migranten: Teilhabe in der Bürgergesellschaft. Engagement und Partizipation in Theorie und Praxis. Schwalbach/Ts: Wochenschau Verlag. Hanewinkel, Vera. 2019. „Migrationspolitik – Juni 2019”. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 8. červenec 2019. https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/flucht /monatsrueckblick/293647/migrationspolitik-juni-2019. Herbert, Ulrich, aJakob Schönhagen. 2020. „Vor dem 5. September. Die ‚Flüchtlingskrise‘ 2015 im historischen Kontext”. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 17. červenec 2020. https://www.bpb.de/apuz/312832/vor-dem-5-september-die-fluechtlingskrise-2015 -im-historischen-kontext. Hirsch, Benjamin. 2020. „Vorintegration: Mit neuem Ansatz will Deutschland zum Einwanderungsland warden”. Focus Online, 3. březen 2020. https://www.focus.de /perspektiven/gesellschaft-gestalten/aktionsplan-integration-vorintegration-mit-neuem -ansatz-will-deutschland-zum-einwanderungsland-werden_id_11726164.html. Karsch, Margaret. 2017. „Die Integrationsgesetze der Bundesländer: Umsetzung entscheidend”. Der Sachverständigenrat für Integration und Migration, 17. říjen 2017. https://www.svr-migration.de/presse/presse-forschung/integrationsgesetze/. Mittler, Dietrich, aWolfgang Wittl. 2019. „Eine deftige juristische Watschn”. Süddeutsche Zietung, 3. prosinec 2019. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/bayern -integrationsgesetz-verfassungsgerichtshof-urteil-csu-1.4707653. München.de. 2020. „Wirtschaftsstandort München – Zahlen und Fakten”. https:// stadt.muenchen.de/infos/kennzahlen.html#:~:text=Mit%2027,6%20%25%20hat%20 M%C3%BCnchen,einer%20vielf%C3%A4ltigen%20und%20toleranten%20Metropole. Nergiz, Deniz. 2019. „Festschrift ‚20 Jahre Bundeszuwanderungsund Integrationsrat (BZI)´”. Bundesministerium des Innern, Bundesamt für Migration and Flüchtige. https://bzi-bundesintegrationsrat.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BZI-2019_ festschrift-final-edit.pdf. Oswald, Bernd. 2019. „#Faktenfuchs: Wer Migrationshintergrund hat und wer nicht”. BR24, 27. červenec 2019. https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/faktenfuchswer-migrationshintergrund-hat-und-wer-nicht,RX9SeRr. 121 Pedroza, Luicy. 2019. Citizenship beyond nationality: immigrants’ right to vote across the world. 1st edition. Democracy, citizenship, and constitutionalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Rabenschlag, Ann-Judith. 2016. „Arbeiten im Bruderland. Arbeitsmigranten in der DDR und ihr Zusammenleben mit der deutschen Bevölkerung”. Bundescentrum für politishe Bildung, 15. září 2016. https://www.bpb.de/geschichte/zeitgeschichte/ deutschlandarchiv/233678/arbeitsmigranten-in-der-ddr. Rietig, Victoria, aAndreas Müller. 2016. „The New Reality: Germany Adapts to Its Role as aMajor Migrant Magnet”. MPI: Migration Policy Institute. https://www. migrationpolicy.org/article/new-reality-germany-adapts-its-role-major-migrant-magnet. Schu, Cornelia. 2020. „Vielfältig engagiert – breit vernetzt – partiell eingebunden? Migrantenorganisationen als gestaltende Kraft in der Gesellschaft”. Forschungsbereich beim Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration (SVR). https://www.svr-migration.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/SVR-FB_Studie_ Migrantenorganisationen-in-Deutschland.pdf. Wilmes, Bernhard. 2018. „Politische Partizipation von Migrantinnen und Migranten”. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 14. květen 2018. https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/ migration/dossier-migration/247685/politische-partizipation. https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.6 128 one of distrust in politics, and faith in the (local) government crumbled. Things had to change, and they did. The City Council and the Mayor radically changed their approach and based the city’spolicies on three pillars: security, city renewal, and inclusion. Investments were made in favour of prevention and safety: strengthening the police force, installing cameras and streetlamps, pursuing urban renovation and renewal projects, investing in first-line workers, creating more green public spaces, public playgrounds, and so on. The key strength, however, is the city’sinclusive vision. This vision consists of: – afirm anti-discrimination policy (e.g. the city has alocal contact point where citizens can file reports or complaints with regard to racism & discrimination7, Mechelen is amember of the European Coalition of Cities Against Racism (ECCAR) network8 and has a ten-point action plan against racism9); – astrong focus on accessibility and social mix at different levels (neighbourhood, school, sport club …); – apositive (counter) narrative where diversity is regarded as an added value. “Mechelen is an inclusive society in which differences are acknowledged, tolerated and respected, but not without limits. We propose legislation and core values that are non-negotiable. Mechelen sees value in this diversity. We have adiversity mindset, drawing on the wealth of difference to discover what binds people together. The spirit of coexistence is key.”10 In Mechelen, the saying goes: “We are all from Mechelen”, meaning that the citizens might not share acommon past, but they share their city’sfuture. The city works to create aclimate in which it is generally accepted that diversity is part of society. Every resident of Mechelen is duty-bound to integrate in the new and superor hyperdiverse Mechelen of the 21st century. The city takes acritical and open view of traditions, practices and structures and calls them into question. It does not avoid sensitive issues, but encourages dialogue and debate. Every resident of Mechelen has acomplex identity: there is no need for anyone to choose between being Muslim, being Flemish, being from Mechelen, speaking Spanish, or being gay. The city’spolicy encourages 7 For further details see: https://www.mechelen.be/tegenracisme/racisme-melden. 8 For further details see: European Coalition of Cities Against Racism, https://www.eccar.info /en/mechelen. 9 For further details see: https://www.mechelen.be/tegenracisme. 10 Working on Diversity: The Vision and Mission of the City of Mechelen, 2008 129 every resident to be proud of who they are, of their complex identity. People have freedom of choice when it comes to expressing certain aspects of that complex identity. The city aims to create adiversity-friendly environment in which the full complexity of those identities can be explored. Mechelen is not made up of 136 different communities. Mechelen has one community containing almost 90,000 individuals, each with acomplex identity. The diversity in Mechelen has gradually changed in character. Until the 1990s, two large groups lived in the city: native Mechelaars and Moroccans. Today, Mechelen is amulticoloured mixture and internal diversity is also increasing within its various sub-communities. The stereotypes are less and less reflective of the reality of “the migrants”. Target group policies (acategorical approach) thus lost touch with reality, and lost their value and legitimacy. The City Council of Mechelen has therefore developed areverse strategy since 2013. Instead of defining differences and excluding people based on differences, efforts are made to strengthen shared identity. That is the core of urbanity: all of us together in diversity. The principle is being an inclusive city, which means stressing mainstreaming as much as possible. Diversity in all its forms is given aprominent place in the city’scommunication and identity experience. All policy areas, city services and partners must support this inclusive approach. However, the city of Mechelen is also aware that inclusive policy must go hand in hand with more specific policy and acknowledges the need for some carefully chosen exclusive (categorical) measures. One of the principles behind diversity is that everyone plays apart in shaping society and that everyone must be given the opportunity to participate actively in that society. It makes sense to have apartly categorical approach, to counter disadvantage and exclusion and give certain target groups greater opportunities to participate. Strategic programme management at the city level further supports acoordinated and consistent approach and strategy within aclear, shared vision on integration and diversity. The development of cross-cutting networks and greater insight on crossovers between different policy areas and policy objectives make integration policy more efficient and effective (challenges, opportunities and cooperative partners are detected easily) and as such, the city’sinitiatives have more impact. 130 Bibliography Henderson, Donna Henderson, Andrea Pavlickova, and Leo Lewis. 2016. ‘Scalability and Transferability of Good Practices in Europe: What Does It Take?’ International Journal of Integrated Care 16 (6): 191. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2739. Kadlečíková, Jana. 2018. ‘Cudzinci vBratislave’. Centrum pre výskum etnicity akultúry. https://www.hrl.sk/assets/files/obsah/154-Integracia-cudzincov-v-Bratislave.pdf. Neuropea & HRL. 2020. ‘Ako Komunikovať Témy Migrácie aIntegrácie Cudzincov Na Regionálnej Úrovni, Príručka Pre Samosprávy (How to Communicate on Migration and Integration of Foreigners at Regional Level, aGuide for Local Governments)’. Neuropea, s.r.o., KapaCity project. https://www.hrl.sk/userfiles/files/1010-Strategia_ HRL_final_krat.pdf. Virkkala, Seija, and Kristiina Niemi, eds. 2006. ‘Peripheral Localities and Innovation Policies: Learning from Good Practices between the Nordic Countries’. Chydenius Institute – Kokkola University Consortium, University of Akureyri Research Institute, NIFUSTEP, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), University of Southern Denmark, Nordregio. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:707103/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Wilmes, Bernhard. 2018. ‘Politische Partizipation von Migrantinnen Und Migranten’. Bundeszentrale Für Politische Bildung, 14 May 2018. https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft /migration/dossier-migration/247685/politische-partizipation. https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.7 131 8. Challenges, Opportunities and Practical Recommendations from the Countries Studied Marie Jelínková Integration policies in Europe diverge and converge in different aspects (Avcı 2006), and this is also true in the case of our four focus countries: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany and Belgium.1 Nevertheless, these four countries share anumber of similar challenges and opportunities. In the first part of this chapter, we thus focus on the challenges that the authors of the previous chapters currently (2021) perceive as critical in their countries, with the caveat that some challenges are specific to particular country situations and others cut across the experiences of multiple countries. In the second part, we introduce shared recommendations, which stem mainly from the experiences of the authors and their organisations. This chapter is based on correspondence and interviews with civil society representatives, academia, migrant associations and municipalities. In our debates on the integration policies adopted in each country, we have touched on which approaches are more and less successful, and we have to some extent sought answers as to why this is the case. Understanding why aparticular practice works well (or does not work) is crucial for assessing its possible transferability. It is clear that approaches to migrant integration are substantially linked to the conception of other public policies and indeed to the values anchoring public policies in the given country. For example, many practices related to migrant integration in Belgium stem from the country’semphasis on the participative approach, i.e. talking with residents rather than talking about them. Although the 1 In Belgium integration is aregional, rather than national, competence, so references to Belgium in the text refer to the regional level. 132 Czech Republic and Slovakia have begun to emphasise participation at the local level in recent years, political and administrative institutions still take avery ambivalent attitude towards the participation of the general public and other actors in decision-making (cf. Mička 2016). This is not to say that the participative approach is necessarily widespread in all Belgian municipalities, but rather that acountry’sexperience with participatory policies, along with its social and political traditions, shapes the necessary breeding ground for the promotion of particular policies or policy tools. Also, this does not imply that Czech and Slovak cities should abandon the idea of involving migrants in public decision-making. However, it does mean that it may be more difficult to enforce such mechanisms in these countries, and that it might be worth considering other options that are more compatible with the traditions and contexts of the countries concerned. Similarly, the Integration and Migration Councils in Bavaria have become established bodies that German local politicians mostly accept despite anumber of practical challenges. However, their existence is conditional (among many other circumstances) on the fact that migrants need to be involved in local affairs and that it is good for local communities to take their voices into account. Without this pre-understanding, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce such measures. Nevertheless, even inspiring practices that are not easy to transfer may serve as desirable visions, or such practices can be transferred once the necessary conditions are met in aparticular setting. Let us add that while we have tried to achieve as balanced aview as possible with regard to what is working well and what is not in the area of migrant integration, the selection of specific challenges and opportunities described here may in part naturally reflect the work experience and individual perspectives of the authors. 8.1 Identified challenges and opportunities The different contexts do not change the fact that many of the challenges and opportunities in the field of integration policies remain the same. Turning now to the challenges and opportunities on which the representatives of the studied countries agreed at anational level, the following were mentioned in particular: – Clear and effective distribution of legislative competencies and administrative tasks to different actors at the federal, state and local gov- 133 ernment levels. Afailure to distribute competencies clearly can lead to parallel and overlapping responsibilities, which make it difficult to bundle integration policy measures effectively or may result in alack of ownership of the necessary measures and their implementation. – Regularly updated strategic documents, with sufficient mechanisms to ensure and monitor their implementation and with due attention to impact measurement. – Availability of data and good data handling to enable evaluation of the policies and measures implemented, or lack thereof. – Recognition and promotion of the importance of migrant and civil society participation in decision-making processes for the successful shaping of integration policy. Despite the agreement on these key points of setting afunctional integration policy at the national level, what the representatives of each country view as the key aspects within these points differs. For the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the key issue at the moment (2021) is the implementation and evaluation of policies and acceptance of the integration agenda by the state bodies responsible for it. In the context of Slovakia, the formal and administrative anchoring of the integration agenda is still akey focus point. In particular, it was mentioned that the meaning of the term “successful integration” remains rather blurred and needs to be clarified (e.g. through unified and codified criteria for Slovak language learning and the knowledge of Slovak values, life and institutions necessary for obtaining Slovak citizenship). In contrast, as far as Germany is concerned, the current (2021) priority is the need for the integration paradigm to shift away from apurely administrative and paternalistic approach to dealing with migrants to an integration policy that engages migrants and their organisations as actors and subjects in shaping integration processes. In Belgium, the key challenge currently (2021) lies in making other policy domains (housing, work, education, youth, culture, sports...) accountable for integration. This means that other domains should also provide budget/resources and formulate objectives with regard to migrants. To this end, atransversal integration policy needs to be implemented across different policy areas. It is certainly worth noting that there are far greater similarities between the opportunities and challenges identified at the national (or perhaps general) level in the countries studied than between those identified at the regional and local levels. In terms of regional and local policies, all four countries emphasised acurrent lack of motivation within regional governments and (many) 134 municipalities to address the issue of migrant integration. Nevertheless, this lack is different in each particular context. The only similarities are between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both of which highlighted the need for both regions and municipalities to become more involved in integration, and to involve local actors (including universities and employers) to afar greater extent. This involves opening up the topic of migrant integration with individual municipalities, which often avoid the topic since international migration is often perceived as anegatively polarising issue, and migrants’ contribution to society is not emphasised. From the German perspective, on the other hand, municipalities are already integrally involved; nevertheless, without systematic support in terms of resources from the federal states and constant exchange with local migrant communities, municipalities’ participation in integration policies risks being marginal and unsuccessful. From the Belgian perspective, there is apressing need for regional governments to take across-cutting approach on specific topics (e.g. the intersection of LGBTQI issues & migration, language policy & multilingualism). Furthermore, there are significant challenges to the local integration of migrants in all four countries studied that are not intrinsic to the national, regional or local level. Two such challenges in particular have been identified as key obstacles to successful integration. The first of these concerns the rhetoric towards migrants and/or the rhetoric on migration in general: fear-mongering, promotion of hate speech, polarisation and us versus them rhetoric. This gives rise to the need for responses that do not fuel polarisation, which is far from easy, particularly in view of the recent flood of fake news. The second widely mentioned shared issue related to migrant integration is the political participation of migrants and/or citizens of foreign origin/with migration backgrounds. In this respect, civil society actors in the Czech Republic and Germany have long been trying in vain to secure the right to vote in local elections for foreigners from non-EU countries who hold permanent residence. In both countries, this is akey right that migrants are not granted, which often results in them not being apopulation of interest to local politicians. In Slovakia and Belgium, migrants with permanent residence have the right to vote locally. Despite this, in Slovakia, permanently resident migrants are still not apopulation addressed by politicians (which, apart from the negative rhetoric about migration, may also be due to their low numbers). In Belgium, low levels of political engagement among Belgians with migrant backgrounds remain an important issue. 135 8.2 Shared recommendations Just as there are differences and similarities between the four countries described in terms of the challenges they face, there are also differences and similarities in terms of the recommendations to be made. The key common recommendation is that migrant integration needs systematic support at national, regional and local levels. This support should include not only astrategic grasp and functional implementation mechanisms, as mentioned above, but also stable financial support complemented by administrative and structural support for the agenda at various levels of government. Furthermore, this recommendation concerns the provision of mechanisms/tools to enable migrants to participate in decision-making processes so that their well-identified specific needs are reflected in the measures taken. The shared recommendations then also relate to migrant integration governance. In this area, aparticular need for the following measures was voiced: – sufficient administrative capacity to deal with the migrant integration agenda (mainly at the local level); – support to strengthen migrant associations; – consideration and recognition of the role played by local and national governments; – consideration of new, specific or intersectional topics related to integration in (local) policies (e.g. integration of migrants in rural areas); – regular meetings of local networks/committees etc. dealing with the topic, which should not be only informative but should also contribute to addressing emerging challenges through concrete proposals (e.g. aiming to shape local policies); – involvement of migrants, migrants’ self-organisations and other migrant groups in discussions about local integration measures and/or in drafting integration strategies or related documents; – from agovernance perspective, consideration of integration at astrategic level (e.g. mayor’s bureau), especially as the topic is highly transversal – accountability/ownership at both political and administrative levels for integration agenda/policy. The following set of recommendations relates to the practicalities of dealing with the migrant integration agenda at the local authority level. These measures call for: 136 – time, trust and patience in the process of establishing mutual coexistence and adaptation; – administrative workers to be taught greater intercultural sensitivity as akey to understanding migrants’ situations; – apersonal approach and space to meet and communicate; – investment in people and organisations on the ground; – impact monitoring that is not merely quantitative – personal stories often provide the clearest picture of the change achieved; – invisible processes to be made visible. This involves substantially increasing communication on avariety of topics related to migrant integration (within the authorities and outside the authorities, among the community, towards migrants, etc.). Let us conclude this chapter by adding that the recommendations mentioned here naturally respond to the challenges described above, addressing for example migrants’ political rights, political and civic participation, and responses to negative rhetoric towards migration. 8.3 Conclusion One of this publication’saims was to outline the local integration policy setting in the four selected countries. In describing the hierarchical structures of national anchoring and the roles played by regions and by local authorities, we set out to understand the policy setting and approaches taken to migrants in each of the focus countries. We have also pointed out each country’sstrengths along with the individual and shared weaknesses of the policies described. Comparisons of public policies tend to be very useful, but it is almost impossible when making them to avoid simplification and various blind spots (Wenzelburger and Jensen 2022). We hope that this publication will serve as aspringboard for further explorations of questions the scope of this publication did not provide room for, or which we touched on only briefly. These might explore, among other things, why integration policies and measures are set as they are; on what basis the given country judges integration success and what data (if any) it works with to do so; what the impacts of the setting and implementation of these policies are for migrants’ everyday lives; and adeeper understanding of how countries behave towards specific groups of migrants, such as Ukrainian refugees. 137 Bibliography Avcı, Gamze. 2006. ‘Comparing Integration Policies and Outcomes: Turks in the Netherlands and Germany’. Turkish Studies 7 (1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080 /14683840500520592. Mička, Pavel, ed. 2016. ‘Analýza Občanské Participace vČR’. http://www.paktparticipace .cz/dokumenty/analyza. Wenzelburger, Georg, and Carsten Jensen. 2022. ‘Comparative Public Policy Analysis: Shortcomings, Pitfalls, and Avenues for the Future’. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63 (2): 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00390-x. https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024641959.8