Strategic thinking on equality and mobility MIPEX: policy indicators and a joined-up approach to policy evaluation in Europe 27 February 2008 Prague Presentation by Thomas HUDDLESTON Consulting immigrants to improve integration policies: key findings from MIPEXIII and EESC study 28 March Tallinn, ESTONIA Thomas HUDDLESTON, Policy Analyst, MPG

Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration Definition, standards, methodology Findings: Few migrants consulted on policies affecting them daily Strengths in new and old countries of immigration Conclusions Contents

Council of Europe 1992 Convention on the participation of foreigners in public life at the local level (n. 144). Foreign resident advisors in authorities’ committees; Consultative councils with immigrant or mixed membership Convention signed by few, fewer over time, can serve as inspiration for national, European improvements EU cooperation: (CBPs 7 & 9), Handbooks/Website, Commission, EP, CoR, EESC, Forum launch Methodology: desk research, MIPEX, stakeholder questionnaires Definitions

Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration Key findings ● 15 countries at local level (3 not at national: AT, FR, GR) ● 10 at regional ● 11 at national (recent ad hoc in IE...EE?; also DE & IT just legal framework) If exist, often national consultative system Not yet positive trend: Opened (e.g. Lisbon) & closed (Antwerp, Copenhagen), often based on political will & powers. Most not enough powers & independence to serve aim to give immigrants voice ● Oldest & strongest (Benelux, Nordics); ● Weaker & government-led in new immigration countries; ● Absent in Central Europe (renew in EE) Part of ‘best practice’, introduced in comprehensive integration law/strategy National Local

Consultative bodies meeting standards Structural bodies, often based on national system (half) Immigrants freely elected or nomrinated, especially older & local bodies (half) Immigrant representative of at least nationalities or gender, often based on system Immigrants have/share leadership, especially local, older, elected bodies (few) All policies affecting immigrants addressed, not just integration (most) Funds to engage and inform communities, few only strongest bodies, often based on national system of funds Right to initiative from immigrants (most); but response from government (fewer, more common at local)

Huddleston: Benchmarking in immigrant integration Conclusions Are we serious about opening & encouraging meaningful consultation among equal and serious partners? Countries with strong consultative bodies… …grant basic political liberties to all …support immigrant civil society …open voting rights and full citizenship …do more to promote full participation of all residents How to create bodies to inform and improve policy? Structure in law Free election/nomination Right of initiative, response Immigrant leadership Representative criteria Funding to engage and inform communities What else?