CAHROM (2019)16
14 February 2019
AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON ROMA AND TRAVELLER ISSUES (CAHROM)
__________
MAPPING OF ROMA AND TRAVELLER COMMUNITIES:
A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON EUROPEAN PRACTICES
Document prepared by Dr Zora Popova[1] for the Council of Europe
and submitted on 18 December 2018[2]
__________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Page 2
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS Page 4
GENERAL COMMENTS Page 4
TIMELINE OF MAPPING Page 5
LEADING PERSPECTIVE OF MAPPING Page 5
FOCUS AND PURPOSE Page 6
WHO INITIATED THE DATA GATHERING? Page 7
WHO COMPLETED THE RESEARCH? Page 8
WHO FUNDED THE RESEARCH? Page 9
METHODOLOGY Page 9
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Page 11
LIST OF EXAMINED DOCUMENTS Page 12
LIST OF COUNTRY ABBREVIATIONS Page 16
ADDENDUM: DR ZORA POPOVA’S POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ON MAPPING PRACTICES Page 16
INTRODUCTION
Roma have been present in Europe for centuries, but their communities have never become fully integrated in any European societies. The history of the largest European minority has been, and still is to a certain extent, one of exclusion, marginalisation, and discrimination. Acknowledging the need to undertake a structured and synchronised approach to address the complexity of disadvantages faced by Roma communities and individuals at large, at the beginning of the 21st century, international organisations and national governments started developing policies and measures to tackle the problem.
Roma inclusion however, turned out to be a significant challenge for policy and decision makers. Listed among the major shortfalls of Roma-related policies and programmes is the lack of a clear definition of who should be considered an addressee of support in addition to the lack of reliable statistical data about the size of the respective target group.[3]
As an umbrella concept, the politically correct and policy-friendly Roma[4] allows for interpretations and hence results in an increasing lack of coherence between political discourse, not only at international level, but also within states and societies. Although Roma is a puzzled space of identities, languages, religions, cultures, occupations, eduational or income levels; by default Roma are reffered to as vulnerable. Taking the socio-economic disadvantages as markers for the ethnic profile not only impedes the development of an overall comprenesive policy but also impedes measures that would address the specific needs of the different Roma groups, some of which might be well-integrated into mainstream societies.
Roma is also a target group of unknown size due to the fact that in most European countries, collection of ethnically disaggregated data is prohibited for a number of reasons[5]. Estimates also vary due to the fact that many Roma prefer not to disclose their ethnic identity. Mistrust in institutions and/or fear of discrimination and negative attitudes are only some of the reasons for staying ‘under the radar’. The lack of precise data about the communities impedes not only policy planning but also the allocation of adequate funds, resources and targeted support. The visualisation of the Council of Europe’s[6] minimum and maximum estimates, alongside the officially reported number of Roma in EU countries, suggests that working with averages is only possible if minimum and maximum estimates are relatively close. Considering the case of Romania, for example, it is arguable whether the measures developed for 600,000 people can adequately address the needs of 1,800,000 or of 2,500,000 respectively.
Source: Council of Europe
In this context, mapping of Roma in Europe can be seen as an important tool for acquiring data and better understanding the needs of the targeted communities and hence for the planning of policies and resources. At the same time, it is a challenge for authorities to identify an efficient approach and to increase the level of trust in institutions.
The comparative analysis of the European experience in mapping of Roma communities is an overview based on information and documents provided by CAHROM member States. It does not result from fieldwork, interviews with stakeholders and primary sources. Therefore, among the limitations of the findings is that the analysis considers only the top-down perspective and is focused on the structural aspects of mapping (methodology, resources, actors involved, aims and objectives) rather than on the cognitive and contextual perspectives (such as the grass-root individual and collective views on the process).
Nevertheless, examining the ‘technicalities’, the analysis will also reflect on the underlying challenges which are, to a larger extent, contextual and closely connected with majority-minority relations. Among these are the questions of ‘what is the purpose of mapping?’, ‘how mapping can contribute to improving the situation of Roma?’, ‘how is the data treated?’, etc.
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
28 member States of the Council of Europe have been covered:
AL, BA, BG, CH, DE, EE, ES, FR, GE, GR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, MD, ME, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SK, SR, SE, UA, UK[7].
The current analysis aimed to cover as many European countries as possible, despite the fact that some information provided by the different CAHROM member States was not of the same weight. While some of the states indicated a list of documents relevant to the research and submitted information through disseminated questionnaires designed for the purposes of the study, other countries could be covered only through already available visual materials (maps). At the same time, although providing structured answers, the data presented in the questionnaires differed in the richness of the details.
Although these discrepancies prevent a full and comprehensive analysis of the situation, the imbalance clearly indicates the gaps that need to be filled in thorough further research.
Out of the 28 member States covered:
· 21 provided information (in differing quantities/qualities) on their experience with mapping (AL, BA, BG, EE, GE, GR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MD, ME, PL, PT, RO, RS, SK, SR, SE, UK)
· 1 country aims to conduct mapping in the near future, while at present there are some regional-based attempts being made (UA)
· 3 countries have mapped Roma communities ‘by proxy’ – focusing on housing, locations and sites (legal and/or slums) where Roma reside and not on the people themselves (CH, ES, FR)
· 3 countries have never conducted mapping (DE, NO, LU)
GENERAL COMMENTS
Comparing the countries’ practices, it becomes instantly obvious that the approaches adopted by states differ significantly. No additional data was available to examine why priority would be given to a geographical, social or socio-economic approach. Such information could only be obtained through interviews and further research.
Documents provided by the CAHROM member States differed greatly. This revealed that the number of documents containing Roma-focused information is very limited, while information about Roma is dispersed among numerous policy documents. As it was indicated, monitoring data has to be extracted from a variety of reports, texts and administrative documents developed at different policy levels and for different purposes.
The documents that were examined during the research process contained focused information on a range of issues, such as:
· Compact Roma settlements
· Segregated, poor settlements (slums) with concentration of Roma; Roma sites
· Mobile residences and mobile residence sites
· Living conditions in these settlements
· Vulnerable groups and their characteristics
· Ethnic/Social-economic profiling
· Targeted research beyond the general census
The full list of documents is provided at the end of the paper. It is not referenced academically since almost all of the titles were taken from the questionnaires submitted to CAHROM.
TIMELINE OF MAPPING
Examining the intensity and regularity of the mapping practices in Europe, and placing them on a timeline, it become instantly visible that between 1991 and 2001 only Spain conducted any research with a Roma related focus, which was in fact on housing issues. (In 2007, this data was updated).
Between 2001 and 2013, 6 more countries gathered data on Roma (UA through a census only). Research was conducted on issues of specific country interest.
Not surprisingly, most of the mapping exercises have been conducted after 2013 and are already being conducted on a regular basis, or at least intended to be regular. Despite the lack of documented evidence, the trend can easily be associated with the developments at international level and the targeted efforts towards the synchronisation of efforts for integration of Roma communities in Europe.
With respect to the planned updates of the collected information, the CAHROM member States reported the following:
· 7 states have no planned updates: IT, LV, ME, RO, PL, PT, SR
· 3 states have updated information in 2018
· 3 states have planned to update information by 2020 (SK, UA, CH)
· 5 states update information regularly:
- ES – no fixed period
- CH – every 5 years (next one due 2020)
- GR – planned to run every 3 years after 2016
- HU – annual updates based on specific indicators (2014-2016 – series of research have been conducted)
- FR – twice per year updates on the number of people living in the camps
LEADING PERSPECTIVE OF MAPPING
Despite the research on Roma being conducted by different States, following different nationally-determined policy purposes, the dominant leading perspectives can be reduced to two distinct categories (in different interplay/balance), suggesting that most States, if not all, are concerned with the general issues of:
· Socio-economic status of Roma and Roma communities
· Geographical location and size of Roma communities
The examined documents and data do not provide enough detail to establish why one of the two perspectives would be selected as more dominant by some states and why other states would try to keep them in balance. The answer to this question would require further in-depth research.
FOCUS AND PURPOSE
Comparing states that have prioritised the geographical component, (CH, ES, FR, GR, SK, SR, PT), the major concern appears to be placed on the living standards and infrastructure. From this group, Portugal shows a slightly different interest by looking into the composition and the dynamics of the Roma population on its territory. The focus on the quality of the physical environment suggests that the purpose of the mapping is to identify and address developmental issues. However, it is important to note that infrastructural projects are not always established to provide support to Roma communities and to the improvement of their living standards but to facilitate forced urbanisation and evictions.
The mapping performed by the second group of states draws attention to vulnerability issues although these issues can also be specific to the state concerned (HU, IT, LV, ME, PL, RO, SE). The purpose of mapping here can be identified as taking aim at adequate planning of social support and better access to services. Interesting to note is that ME takes priority in the protection of children and gender issues in its Roma mapping, while Sweden examines the vulnerability of Roma in respect to their rights, non-discrimination and access to services. At the same time, the only country interested in the educational aspects of vulnerability is Poland, which pays attention to mapping of locations where there is a higher than average percentage of Roma children being placed in special educational institutions.
Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate the different weighting given to the thematic foci (Fig. 1) and to the purposes (Fig. 2) of the analysed mapping exercises. Figure 2 provides a higher number than the number of countries examined under this section (15) due to the multi-purpose perspective of the conducted mapping (as indicated by the states or as revealed based on the parameters of the mapping).
Figure 1: Focus of mapping
Figure 2: Purpose of mapping
WHO INITIATED THE DATA GATHERING?
The analysis revealed that the main drivers behind mapping initiatives in most cases, (14/16 states), are the national government (10), public offices (1) and other public structures responsible for Roma related issues. In 6 cases, when the national government was not a single player but had teamed up with another actor, both were considered (ES, GR, HU, ME, SK, SE) – hence the higher overall number than the total of the countries examined.
It is interesting to note that only in Italy mapping was initiated at the level of the local authorities. However, the information collected during the research is not sufficient to draw any conclusions as to why there is a possible passiveness among local authorities in the other states or more activism in Italy.
Another finding relates to the socio-economic/power status of the actors as a factor in taking the lead in the mapping process. While international actors appear to be of higher importance to the smaller states and those in need of financial support, the established democracies with well-functioning economies also empower the civil sector players (Roma Associations in both France and Switzerland) to push for data collection and analysis of the situation of Roma with the assumed purpose of contributing to its improvement.
Figure 3: Initiators of Mapping
WHO COMPLETED THE RESEARCH?
With respect to the real data collection, the type and number of actors involved here is diverse. In this category there are also single and team players. Although some of the governments who initiate the research retain their involvement in the implementation process, it seems that the general approach is that the actual work is outsourced to the local level authorities and institutions (BG, PL, RS, SE) or to public offices responsible for Roma inclusion (GR, RO). Some governments however have fully transferred the tasks of data gathering and analysis to the national level public structures responsible for Roma issues (HU, IT,[8] ME, SK, UA), some of which also obtain international support. Only in three countries professional business/consultant services have been used for the data collection (CH, ES, and LV). In only 5 out of the 16 cases examined, representatives from academia have taken part in the mapping. The examined materials have not revealed whether in the other cases professional expert services have been used (e.g. on individual contractual basis) or research has been completed by respective staff members.
Figure 4: Implementing actors
WHO FUNDED THE RESEARCH?
In terms of funding, mapping of Roma communities can be seen as predominantly of interest to national governments (10/16) although in 7/16 cases, initiatives have been supported by international funds. In only 2 cases (HU and SK) the cost of the research has been shared between governments and international donors. Cases of privately funding mapping are found in Switzerland and France, where civil society organisations have secured funds for their initiatives.
METHODOLOGY
While a summary of the countries’ approaches to data collection and analysis is presented at the end of the document, this section presents some analytical findings from a comparative perspective.
· Approaches & Instruments
The analysis revealed that there is no preferred or dominant methodology/approach for data collection on Roma and their ‘mapping’. Different countries have used different tools and instruments that have been found useful with respect to the leading perspective of their research – sociological, geographical or combined. As mentioned above, the leading perspective is almost never exclusive but rather more dominant than the other.
Methods have also been selected with respect to the focus of the research activities. Alongside the two dominant lines – socio-economic vulnerability and quality of physical infrastructure – the following specific topics are noted:
· Focus on children and on gender-sensitive issues (Montenegro)
· Focus on human rights and non-discrimination (Sweden)
· Focus on education/segregation (Poland)
Qualitative, quantitative as well as mixed research methods have been applied.
Data has been collected through surveys, questionnaires, interviews, records, report documents and through regular or specific monitoring activities.
Starting point for most of the country-based research has been national censuses.
New technologies are almost disregarded in the process of data collection, however most countries use online tools to visualise their findings. Only Bulgaria has developed a technological system for monitoring the implementation of the NRIS through the launching of an online tool to collect information from all relevant stakeholders throughout the country at both national and regional levels:
The most challenging issue in the data gathering process is how to obtain first-source information, which is hindered by challenges such as a lack of trust in institutions, illiteracy, segregation, etc. Some countries used key informants such as stakeholders, NGOs, relevant officials from social services, local level authorities, etc. (ES, RP, SK, LV). Mediators have proven to be very efficient in supporting public authorities during the data gathering process.
Other actors involved in data collection activities include experts, academics, NGOs and professionals (sociological agencies). Surprisingly, there is low involvement of local level public officials and of social /healthcare workers and educators, who are in a direct contact with Roma communities and individuals.
The analysis revealed that to collect reliable data, interdisciplinary research needs to be conducted. Only through the intersection of data from different sources, can a comprehensive picture of the situation be outlined.
Among the most important issues is therefore the identification of a comprehensive set of indicators that would serve the purposes of the research. Examples for the development and use of such comprehensive sets are Bulgaria’s online tool and the multiple indicator cluster survey of Montenegro.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
At this stage of the comparative analysis of the mapping practices in Europe, several key points could be outlined:
· There is no unified approach to ‘mapping’ of Roma in Europe – each state has conducted it for its own specific policy goals but never with a purely ethnographic purpose.
· The focus falls predominantly on socio-economic vulnerability and on quality of physical infrastructure (of specific locations).
· Not much attention has been paid to the mapping of issues related to the fields of education, discrimination, access to justice, access to media, rights or gender issues.
· When focus is on vulnerability, the purpose is usually defined as ‘provision of targeted/better social support’; when it is on the physical infrastructure – the purpose can be identified as ‘developmental planning’.
· Geographical mapping of Roma communities per se is not justified and opens the door for security challenges if the information is communicated publicly.
· Mapping of needs (with size of target group) should be considered a priority rather than mapping of people (and their needs).
· Approaches to mapping depend on the purpose of the research and its goals.
· The purpose of mapping needs to be clearly defined and communicated – both for the actors involved in the mapping process and for the ‘mapped’ stakeholders. Process must be transparent and trusted; people need to be aware of the reason for the study and why they need to reveal their identities and problems. Stakeholders must feel safe.
· The purpose of mapping guides the development/selection of indicators (also – intersections of specific indicators can provide information about the size of Roma communities).
· When a set of indicators is elaborated, mapping can use data from school registries, social services registries, healthcare registries, etc. – these data-providers have been largely ignored and never used in their entirety (for intersection of data).
· Local authorities are key players in mapping since they have a direct access/information about Roma communities and people in need of support – not involved efficiently in the process.
· Collected data must be considered and treated as sensitive information – to avoid security challenges.
· Trust in institutions is crucial for success with data collection and mapping.
LIST OF EXAMINED DOCUMENTS
Country Code |
Year |
Document |
2013 2018 |
Developing of Integrated Measures for Integration of the Most Marginalized Communities among Ethnic Minorities with a Focus on the Roma Online database for indicator-based monitoring of the implementation of NRIS |
|
FR |
2017 ** |
Places of anchor and needs of the inhabitants of mobile residences – national analysis of regional policies ** Set of documents; Regular monitoring of the number of people in the camps/slums |
CH |
2015 |
Swiss Travellers and territorial management (Gens du voyage et aménagement du territoire) |
GR |
2008 2016/17 |
Mapping and classification of Roma settlements and camps Second mapping of settlements and camps |
HU |
2014/16* |
Set of documents: Labour Force Survey, Household and living conditions survey, European health interview survey, PIACC (2016), Census data |
IT |
2015 |
The First National Survey on Settlements |
LV |
2015 |
Roma in Latvia (*preliminary info on % Roma per region) |
ME |
2013 |
Montenegro MICS and Montenegro Roma settlements MICS (Multiple indicator cluster survey) |
PL |
2014 |
The location of areas of intervention |
PT |
2014 |
National Study on Roma Communities |
RO |
2005 |
Roma Social Mapping |
SK |
2013 |
Atlas of Roma communities in Slovakia 2013 (updated) |
SP |
2015 |
Study-map on housing and the Roma population |
SR |
2014 |
Mapping substandard Roma settlements in Geographic Information System (2002: Roma settlements, living conditions and opportunities for Roma integration in Serbia) |
SE |
2014 |
Situation analysis of obstacles and possibilities for the rights of geo-situation of vulnerable people and Roma |
UA |
2001 |
All-Ukrainian population census |
LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND SOURCES USED BY STATES
INSTRUMENTS |
SOURCES |
|
BG |
Sociological approach Roma identified through cross-cutting indicators |
Central database Data provided to the system directly by LA (municipalities) |
CH |
Polls, surveys among owners & managers of sites (cantons/ municipalities/ individuals) on infrastructure, management, financial aspects; verification of findings with Travellers |
Appointed experts (data gathering & analysis) |
ES |
Not a Roma housing census! Identification of: 1/ segregated settlements and pockets of sub-standard housing 2/ of habitat conditions in places where Roma resides 3/ changes vs 2007 • Assessment of living conditions quality - 15 dimensions/variables • Quantitative methodology (main): questionnaire sheets filled in by groups of informers (observation and/or direct consultations) • Qualitative methodology: to obtain information to supplement the quantitative info – Roma views on living conditions and impact of interventions |
Survey collected data about municipalities (administrative units) with over 5,000 inhabitants rather than population nuclei. Smaller locations were included if with significant Roma population Informants: social organisations, professional networks, Roma associations and community representatives, social workers and teachers, neighbourhood associations, Roma individuals |
FR |
Observation of slums (2 per year) |
Territorial services report to central government |
GR |
Questionnaire: demography, spatial and urban issues, on education, employment, and health. |
Carried out by the Special Secretariat on Roma Social Inclusion with the cooperation of municipalities. |
HU |
• Census data, samples of national surveys; question of ethnicity introduced in standard surveys (e.g. 2014 European Health Interview Survey (EHIS)) – developed indicators/monitoring systems • Methodology for estimation of Roma population (Statistical Office) • Methodology of segregation mapping - the exact place and the demographic characteristics of the segregated/poorest settlements |
Centrally coordinated efforts |
INSTRUMENTS |
SOURCES |
||
IT |
Consistent monitoring of data focus on cities and sites where Sinti and Roma live Online questionnaire |
Data provided by municipalities (82% percentage of replies - 606 out of 738 Municipalities included in the sample) |
|
LV |
Mixed research methods: feasibility study, analysis of documents and statistical data, qualitative research, sampling survey 5 focus groups in larger cities, in-depth semi structured interviews with public officials, social service workers, NGOs |
Data gathered directly from stakeholders (365 Roma from different towns and dwellings surveyed) and from various officials working with them (197 interviews) – various sources |
|
PL |
No figures, only localities with need for additional interventions |
Data gathered based on LA and NGO info |
|
ME |
• Multiple indicator cluster survey (MICS): stratified, two stage cluster sample design: national and Roma settlements • Sample Coverage in Roma Settlements & Fieldwork • Listing of selected (based on criteria) households divided in clusters for data collection • Four sets of questionnaires were used in the two surveys: 1) a household questionnaire 2) a women’s questionnaire 3) a men’s questionnaire 4) an under- 5s’ questionnaire, carried out on mothers/caretakers of children under 5 in household. |
Focus: situation of children and women and men at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and for the three regions of Montenegro Data gathered directly from stakeholders |
|
PT |
Interdisciplinary view & mixed methodology: qualitative and quantitative; questionnaire; interviews, documentary analysis, Delphi method, etc. |
To perceive the composition and dynamics of the Roma population in the national territory |
|
INSTRUMENTS |
SOURCES |
|||
RO |
• National level survey - no interest in figures but in 1/ typologies of poverty/ wellbeing; 2/ locating Roma communities (by type of poverty) 3/Prioritizing social problems • Estimates on self-identification as Roma to indicate the relation between survey and census data. • Participatory research • Training of data collection staff • NB! PROROMA survey information is highly marked by the ideologies of Roma elites and of LA. |
• Local key informants (KI) • National Agency for Roma (NAR) and local level representatives • Support from communities sought • Survey form to be filled by 3 people with a min 1 representative from administration/services/ etc and min 1 from Roma community |
||
RS |
· Analysis of individual Roma settlements · Analysis of existing documents on individual settlements · Polls · Questionnaire for each settlement |
Special research team was formed which had local research teams in all environments |
||
SK |
Questionnaire-based survey broken down by problem areas - interviews with informants (officials) verified by Roma NGOs, databases, statistics, etc. - PART A – focus on regional issues - PART B – on settlements Due to worsening social climate and in order to avoid possible identification of groups of citizens (Roma) only selected data was included in the publication to avoid potential risks |
Data collection – 1 year, team of trained researchers 1,070 municipalities and cities, selected based on specific criteria |
||
SE |
· In-depth interviews · Qualitative data on the obstacles and opportunities to access of Roma to their rights (employment, education, housing, health, social care and security) |
Information provided by Roma and public servants from local authorities in five municipalities |
||
LIST OF COUNTRY ABBREVIATIONS
AL Albania
BA Bosnia and Herzegovina
BG Bulgaria
CH Switzerland
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EE Estonia
ES Spain
FR France
GE Germany
GR Greece
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IT Italy
LT Lithuania
LU Luxemburg
LV Latvia
MD Republic of Moldova
ME Montenegro
MK North Macedonia
NO Norway
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
RS Serbia
SK Slovak Republic
SE Sweden
UA Ukraine
UK United Kingdom
SEPARATE ADDENDUM (AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TO THE CAHROM SECRETARIAT)
DR ZORA POPOVA’S POWERPOINT PRESENTATION “MAPPING” PRACTICES IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE[9]
[1] Dr Zora Popova is Senior Analyst for the European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI). ECMI has a “participant” in CAHROM. As consultant for the Council of Europe, she produced this paper which was financed through the Council of Europe’s budget allocated to the Project “Protecting national minorities, including Roma, and minority languages in Ukraine” under the Council of Europe Action Plan for Ukraine 2018-2021 and as a follow-up of a preliminary presentation made by Dr Popova at the 16th CAHROM plenary meeting.
[2] The present version dated 14 February 2019 takes into consideration the modification of the official name of one member state of the Council of Europe.
[3] Popova, Z. (2015) 'Roma' Policy Making: Key Challenges and Possible Solutions, ECMI Issue Brief #34, https://www.ecmi.de/uploads/tx_lfpubdb/Brief_34.pdf
[4] The term “Roma and Travellers” is used at the Council of Europe to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term “Gens du voyage”, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. The present is an explanatory footnote, not a definition of Roma and/or Travellers.
The European Parliament / European Council however approach ‘Roma’ as an ‘umbrella term including also other groups of people who share more or less similar cultural characteristics and a history of persistent marginalisation in European societies, such as the Sinti, Travellers, Kalé etc.
The European Commission is aware that the extension of the term "Roma" to all these groups is contentious, and it has no intention to "assimilate" the members of these other groups to the Roma themselves in cultural terms. Nonetheless, it considers the use of "Roma" as an umbrella term practical and justifiable within the context of a policy document which is dealing above all with issues of social exclusion and discrimination, not with specific issues of cultural identity’ - European Commission, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, Roma in Europe: The Implementation of European Union Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion – Progress Report 2008-2010, Brussels,7.4.2010, SEC(2010) 400 final; note 6.
[5] Clark, Colin (1998) “Counting Backwards: the Roma ‘Numbers Game’ in Central and Eastern Europe.” Radical Statistics (69):35-46; Guy, Will (1998) “Ways of looking at Roma: The Case of Czechoslovakia”, Pp. 13-68 in Gypsies. An Interdisciplinary Reader, ed. Tong, D., New York, London: Garland.
[6] According to the Council of Europe estimates http://hub.coe.int/web/coe-portal/roma; Council of Council of Europe, Estimates on Roma population in European countries, Data available at
[7] The list of abbreviations provided at the end of the document.
[8] In the case of Italy, it is the local government.
[9] This PowerPoint includes (proxy) mapping of Roma and/orTraveller communities in several Council of Europe’s member states and was presented by Dr Zora Popova at a Seminar on “Sharing experiences on mapping Roma communities between various regions of Ukraine and other member states of the Council of Europe” held in Kyiv on 27-28 November 2018.