2023 Progress Report on Support to Prešov, Košice and Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Regions on Improving the Integration of Marginalized Roma Communities Slovakia Catching-up Regions Initiative IV October 2023 1 © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: +1-202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: +1-202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. 2 Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................. 7 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Objective ........................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Context ............................................................................................................................................. 10 3. Component activity areas and progress for this reporting period ........................................................ 18 3.1. Strengthening integrated support to inclusion of MRC ................................................................... 18 a) Supporting project preparation and implementation: ............................................................. 18 b) Supporting the review or update of Local Development Plans (LDP)....................................... 22 c) Establishing a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework ............................................................. 25 d) Sharing lessons on the design of integrated investment calls to address integration of MRC. 25 3.2. Support the conceptualization and design of soft investments intended to complement infrastructure investments. .................................................................................................................... 27 a) Engagement with key national role players to explore the expansion of soft investments and activities: ............................................................................................................................................. 27 b) Support to municipalities in designing soft measures: ............................................................. 28 c) Use of innovative participatory approaches and instruments: ................................................ 28 3.3. Support regional authorities and municipalities in activities that address access to land and adequate shelter. .................................................................................................................................... 29 a) Support to municipalities in conceptualizing and preparing projects to meet Roma shelter needs. .................................................................................................................................................. 29 4. Key takeaways and opportunities for scaling-up. .................................................................................. 30 5. Priorities for the next implementation support period ......................................................................... 32 Annex A – Project documentation checklist ............................................................................................. 33 Annex B – Lessons and recommendations on the design of integrated investment calls to address the integration of Marginalized Roma communities in Slovakia. ................................................................... 55 Annex C – Handbook and Toolkit for using Participatory Scenarios Process for effective municipal planning in Slovakia. ................................................................................................................................................... 90 3 List of Figures Figure 1: MRC concentration on the outside of a village/town - example Krivany in PSK. ........................ 12 Figure 2: MRC concentration on the edge of a village – example Ostrovany in PSK. ................................. 13 Figure 3: "Roma Streets" in Jelšava marked in blue in BBSK. ..................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Value of submitted projects by type – PSK. ................................................................................. 19 Figure 5: Project status per municipality - PSK ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 6: Status of projects per municipality – BBSK .................................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Sectoral distribution of projects across all KSK municipalities .................................................... 21 Figure 8: Project status per municipality in KSK ......................................................................................... 22 Figure 9: Four key steps in a Participatory Scenario Process...................................................................... 23 4 Acronyms 3D Desegregation, Deghettoization, De-stigmatization BBSK Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region (Banskobystrický samosprávny kraj) CURI Catching-up Regions Initiative ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds ESF European Social Fund ESF+ European Social Fund Plus EU European Union GIS Geographic Information System ICT Information and Communications Technology ITI Integrated Territorial Investment ITS Integrated Territorial Strategy IROP Integrated Regional Operational Programme KSK Košice Self-Governing Region (Košický samosprávny kraj) LDP Local Development Plan LG Local Government MIRDI Ministry of Investments, Regional Development and Informatization of the Slovak Republic MRC Marginalized Roma Communities MOPS Local Civil Patrols (Miestna občianska poriadková služba) MOI Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic OP Operational Programme OP HR Operational Programme Human Resources OP HR PA6 Operational Programme Human Resource Priority Axis 6 OP EPA Operational Programme Effective Public Administration PHSR Program rozvoja obce, Plán hospodárskeho a sociálneho rozvoja obce PIU Project Implementation Unit PSK Prešov Self-governing Region (Prešovský samosprávny kraj) RA Regional Administrations = Self-governing Regions RDA Regional Development Agency RDP Rural Development Programme 5 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by a World Bank team comprised of Yondela Silimela, Samuel Arbe, Simona Mészárosová, Valerie Morrica, Václav Hochmuth and Reos Partners1. The report reflects progress made with implementation of Slovakia Catching-up Regions Initiative (CuRI) IV component on Improving the integration of Marginalized Roma Communities under the supervision of Christoph Pusch, Practice Manager, World Bank and with the support of the World Bank CuRI project team including Ellen Hamilton, Lead Urban Specialist, Vladimír Benč, Urban Specialist, Grzegorz Aleksander Wolszczak, Urban Development Specialist and Veronika Zimanova, consultant. The team would like to thank the Prešov Self-Governing Region (PSK), Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region (BBSK) and Košice Self-Governing Region (KSK) for their support to the project. In particular, the team expresses thanks to Tadeáš Gavala, Matúš Goč, Jana Szidorová, Drahoslava Gmitrová from PSK; Janka Pálková, Milan Vaňo, Lenka Bírešová and Kornélia Kubizniaková from BBSK; and Karolína Bortáková, Maroš Kováč, Jaroslav Mačo and Veronika Nudliová from KSK who provided valuable inputs to the report. The team would also like to thank Commissioners Corina Crețu and Elisa Ferreira for continuous support to the Catching-up Regions Initiative, Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for Investments, Regional Development and Informatization Veronika Remišová, and the President of the Prešov Self-Governing Region, Milan Majerský, President of the Košice Self-Governing Region, Rastislav Trnka, President of the Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region, Ondrej Lunter and the former president Ján Lunter for their invaluable support, as well as the European Commission’s teams from Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy and Directorate- General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion for their outstanding engagement and support, especially Emma Toledano Laredo, Erich Unterwurzacher, Pascal Boijmans, Andreas von Busch, Bianka Valkovičová, Eva Wenigová, Andrej Mikyška, Kamila Trojanová, Katarína Prokopič and Václav Štěrba. The team is also indebted to all CuRI counterparts for the support offered and the excellent collaboration throughout, and their passion for developing the three participating self-governing regions, their institutions and providing better living conditions for marginalized communities, especially: • Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Informatization of the Slovak Republic – Peter Balík, Dominika Forgáčová, Karol Schmuck, Ján Stano, Ľubica Hamárová, and Ladislav Šimko. • Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic – Adela Danišková, Juraj Gmiterko, Matej Mikuška, and Jozef Roško. • Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Roma Communities – Ján Hero, Juraj Kuruc, Marek Chomanič, Adriana Ďatková, Tibor Škrabský, Eduard Čonka and Marianna Hudáková. The collaboration would not have been possible without the enthusiastic engagement of the mayors of the 14 pilot municipalities: Rastislav Popuša, René Dancák, Ľubica Pankievičová, Zdena Jurčíková, Dušan Vilenik, Andrej Kurimský, Milan Timko, Ján Šejirman, Milan Kolesár, Attila Agócs, Jarmila Gordanová, Marián Dzurik, Peter Dirda, Gabriela Gáborová, Marek Čižmár, Ján Slovák and members of the respective local assemblies and working groups established in each municipality. The team would also like to thank peer reviewers, Carli Venter and Annely Madeleen Koudstaal for their inputs and guidance. The report was compiled in October 2023 and covers the period December 2022 to September 2023. 1 Reos Partners is a service provider to the World Bank supporting measures to deepen Roma consultation and inclusion in municipal strategy formulation and project implementation. 6 1. Executive Summary This report provides an overview of activities and outputs on the continuous support provided under Slovakia Catching-up Regions Initiative IV (CuRI IV) between December 2022 and September 2023 to the three participating regions of Prešov Self-Governing Region (PSK) and its six pilot2 municipalities, Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region (BBSK) and three pilot municipalities3 and Košice Self-Governing Region (KSK) and five pilot municipalities4. This work was undertaken under the component “Integration of Marginalized Roma Communities” under CuRI IV and is a continuation of activities which started as part of CuRI II in 2019. Consistently with the CuRI philosophy, support under this component takes a pragmatic approach in supporting regional authorities and municipalities to plan, prepare and implement projects aimed at reducing the development gap between Roma and non-Roma and improving integration and inclusion of Marginalized Roma Communities (MRC). The Project Team works closely with regional counterparts, provides hands-on support to municipalities and maintains open communication channels with national authorities to highlight lessons from practical implementation, address systemic challenges and share global best-practices that are grounded in Slovak experience. During this reporting period, the focus was on supporting municipalities to finalize preparation and submission of projects and ensure implementation of approved projects. Across the three regions and fourteen municipalities, projects to the value of €21.15 million were approved (largely by Ministry of Interior), of these €11.91 million were under implementation, with the balance due to commence within the next 2-3 months. The investments are largely infrastructure, explicitly but not exclusively aimed at Roma communities and neighborhoods. Infrastructure projects include kindergartens, elementary schools, community centers, removal of illegal landfills and waste management infrastructure such as waste collection yards, housing, provision of water and sanitation, roads, sidewalks, and public lighting. Non-infrastructure projects include local civil patrols known as MOPS and technical assistance for project preparation. The leveraged investment to these municipalities (3 towns and 11 villages) has benefitted ± 53,600 people living in these municipalities, of these, ±22,400 are of Roma background. While investments were targeted at improving living conditions of Roma communities, the estimated 31,200 non-Roma living in these municipalities also benefited as investments are not exclusively in Roma settlements. While municipalities experienced some difficulties with preparing projects and delays with approvals, especially statutory and procurement control, this reporting period has been characterized by strong collaboration amongst CuRI partners resulting in improved project implementation. All approved projects have to be finalized by the end of December 2023 in order to be fully compliant with the conditions of the 2014-2020 programing period of European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The Project Team is in constant contact with regional authorities and municipalities to support early problem identification and resolution. In parallel to supporting infrastructure implementation, the Project Team also focused on strengthening foundations for sustained change through making knowledge tools more available to municipalities and agencies beyond CuRI. As part of this, the World Bank has been working with two municipalities to pilot an approach to stronger stakeholder engagement in municipal-wide and project / issue specific planning, with a particular focus on Roma participation and engagement. The results of this have been codified into 2 Čičava, Dlhé Stráže, Krivany, Ostrovany, Varadka, and Varhaňovce 3 Fiľakovo, Jeľšava and Šumiac 4 Jasov, Vítkovce, Vtáčkovce, Trebišov and Dobšiná 7 a Handbook and Toolkit that can be used by other municipalities and agencies at a national level to enable stronger stakeholder engagement. Additionally, the Bank team supported review of technical documents prepared by municipalities and provided strategic and technical input to improve the technical rigor, relevance of prepared projects and incorporation of local and global best practices. Considering limited municipal capacity, project preparation checklists and guidelines have been developed and will be shared with municipalities and the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Roma communities (hereafter “Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary”), who is the national contact point charged with the responsibility and resources for Roma integration in the 2021-2027 programing period valued at €907 mil. Some of the key program and policy design processes that CuRI contributed to include: i) design of integrated investment “calls”; ii) design of National Development Teams being established to supplement municipal capacity in 2021-2027; iii) input into municipal handbook for indicators for equality, inclusion and participation of Roma; and iv) criteria for selection of pilot municipalities. The Project Documentation Checklist is attached as Annex A to this report while the Participatory Scenarios Process Handbook and Toolkit are attached as Annex C. A set of recommendations (further detailed in Annexure B of this report) is proposed in relation to the design of integrated calls for the 2021-2027 programming period of Cohesion funds. The recommendations are as follows: i) consideration could be given to preparing integrated calls that “bundle” eligible activities together. This would enable municipalities to sequence preparation and implementation in a technically logical manner. ii) infrastructure “calls” could be better complemented by soft measures by automatically linking such investments without requiring the submission of additional applications for needed supportive soft measures. iii) local development plans which are recognized as necessary and foundational documents for municipalities to access ESIF and ERDF resources should be further strengthened to pay specific attention to measures aimed at improving access to services, inclusion and integration of marginalized Roma communities. Investments (hard and soft) to be undertaken should flow from these documents, underpinned by clear needs assessment and strategies to meet identified needs. iv) timely resolution of land tenure by both central and subnational governments needs to be prioritized as it is an enabler for investment. v) Roma integration needs to be considered as an all-of-government responsibility and thus requires close coordination between the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary with other authorities managing other EU and national funds. vi) all municipalities with significant Roma communities and included in the Atlas need to be eligible to participate in complex/ integrated calls. vii) enabling continuity of projects across programing periods is a priority to maintain momentum and bring about sustained impact. Despite strong progress, some intractable challenges will require concerted effort to be addressed in the new programming period to ensure that investments result in tangible development outcomes. The three main ones are: i) fast tracking all initiatives to settle and secure land in these municipalities and settlements. Many projects were delayed due to unresolved land issues ranging from unregistered 8 cadaster, unresolved ownership and obtaining timeous permission from the Slovak Land Fund (SLF). ii) small municipalities with low administrative capacity struggle with project preparation. The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) assisted with preparation of funding applications but the production of technical documents and securing necessary statutory approvals is a municipal function and municipalities were not always able to prepare these on time and to sufficient levels of quality. There also appears to be shortage of built-environment professionals (engineers, architects, etc.) on the market. iii) the non-sequenced issuance of calls puts additional and unnecessary strain on the already limited municipal capacity and adversely impacts their ability to program related investments and sequence their implementation. As a result, there are instances where the implementation of an approved project cannot commence as the logical flow of construction management requires another prior investment. For instance, sidewalks implementation being delayed until a sanitation call is issued, and funds are secured. The reconsideration of the design of calls to prioritize meeting municipal needs and reducing administrative hurdles requires focused attention. 9 2. Introduction 2.1. Objective The objective of the MRC integration component is to support the 3 regional authorities, Prešov Self- Governing Region (PSK), Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region (BBSK) and Košice Self-Governing Region (KSK) to build their capacity to assist municipalities in implementing measures to improve the integration of MRCs. This would be achieved by working with pilot municipalities (14 in total) in the compilation of Local Development Plans (PHSR in Slovak), which embed MRC integration into the core business of the municipality, identification of needs, development of strategies to address the needs and identification and prioritization of investments to meet the needs. In previous phases of Catching up Regions Initiative (CuRI II-III) support focused on the development of LDPs and preparation of investment intents. In this phase however, focus had shifted to supporting implementation of prepared projects. As per previous phases, the World Bank team continued to work closely with national ministries and agencies to ensure that lessons from CuRI inform the design of national programs and investment calls in the 2021- 2027 programing period of the Cohesion Policy Funds. 2.2. Context Segregated settlements are characterized by poor living environments, limited access to services, low education outcomes and high long-term unemployment levels. This type of physical, social and economic exclusion contributes significantly to social and economic deprivation of Roma across all three regions, but also retards the regions’ competitiveness as it under-utilizes a sizeable part of its human capacity. Unless addressed, this uneven development will have severe long-term impacts for local economies, especially as in some municipalities, Roma are already in the majority - 53 out of 664 municipalities in PSK, 57 out of 516 in BBSK and 48 out of 440 in KSK. As such, responding to the Roma inclusion challenge is not only a social justice issue, but increasingly, an economic competitiveness issue. PSK hosts 127,061 people with Roma background living in 224 municipalities, according to the Atlas of Roma Communities of the Slovak Republic 2019 (Atlas 2019). The region has 664 municipalities (towns and villages) with a total population of 825,328 (2019). Roma population represents approximately 15.3 % of the region’s population making it home to the second largest Roma population of all Slovak regions. The number of Roma living in ethnically homogeneous urban units accounts for 111,811 people. This equates to 88% of total Roma being segregated from the majority population. According to data in the 2019 Atlas, only 15,250 Roma inhabitants (12%) live in integrated environments within the Prešov Region. According to the Atlas 2019, Banská Bystrica region (BBSK) is home to 82,389 people with Roma background living in 210 municipalities. BBSK has a total number of 516 municipalities with a total population of 643,102 inhabitants (2020). Roma population represents approximately 12.8% of the region’s population. The region has the third largest Roma population of all Slovak regions. 62,432 Roma live in ethnically homogeneous urban units. This equates to 75.8% of total Roma population in BBSK being segregated from the majority population. Out of this number, 7,214 live in concentrations that are located outside of village while 11,158 live in concentrations at the outskirt of the village and 44,060 live in concentrations within villages. Only 19,957 live in integrated environments in BBSK municipalities. 10 Košice region (KSK) hosts 132,546 people with Roma background living in the 224 municipalities, according to the Atlas 2019. KSK has a total number of 440 municipalities with a total population of 801,460 (2019). Roma population represents approximately 16.5% of the region’s population, making KSK home to the largest Roma population of all Slovak regions. The number of Roma living in ethnically homogeneous urban units accounts for 118,948 people, which equates to 89.7% of total Roma population in KSK being segregated from the majority population. Out of this number, 19,073 live in “out of the village” concentrations; 62,105 live in concentrations on the outskirts of the village and 37,770 live in concentration within the village. Only 13,598 Roma live in integrated areas in KSK municipalities. Since 2004, the Slovak Atlas of Roma Communities has been monitoring the territorial distribution and living conditions of Roma inhabitants in municipalities where Roma are located in ethnically homogeneous urban units, the so-called concentrations. There have been 3 Atlases produced to date, 2004, 2013 and 2019. The 2019 Atlas monitors municipalities where the Roma live in segregated neighborhoods and constitute at least 30% of the total population of the municipality. In 2020 a report based on the 2019 Atlas5 was published, which provides more details on MRC concentrations, outlining the typology of concentrations that the Atlas is based on and providing information on how the methodology for data gathering on these concentrations was created.6 According to authors of this report, there are several types of spatial segregation: concentrations outside the municipality (formerly called segregated settlements), concentrations on the outskirts/at the edge of a municipality, concentrations within the municipality and spatially integrated living. Concentration outside the municipality is considered a locality at a certain distance from the continuous development of the respective village/ town, mostly separated by a buffer such as undeveloped land, railway tracks, rivers/streams, road, etc. See Figure 1 depicting an example of a segregated settlement in Krivany. The distances of the concentrations from their respective municipality were recorded as the shortest approximate distance between the last building of the municipality and the first building of the concentration. According to Atlas 2019, there are 56,000 Roma living in these types of concentrations in Slovakia. 5 Original Atlas 2019 represent only data, while 2020 publication Atlas of Roma Communities provides descriptions and interpretations of the data from 2019. 6 Atlas of Roma Communities (2020). Ravasz, Á., Kovács Ľ., Markovič F., VEDA, ISBN 978-80-224-1874-4 11 Figure 1: MRC concentration on the outside of a village/town - example Krivany in PSK. If the houses of the main part of the municipality naturally follow smoothly to the edge of the municipality, where a Roma settlement is located (i.e., immediately adjacent to each other), the concentration was defined as a concentration on the edge or margins of a village. Ostrovany, depicted in Figure 2 below, is an example of a spatial typology where the MRC settlement is on the edge of the municipality. The Atlas 2019 estimates that 151,000 Roma live in settlements on the margins/edge of a village, and these make up 18% of Roma concentrations in the country. 12 Figure 2: MRC concentration on the edge of a village – example Ostrovany in PSK. Concentrations within the municipality, are often referred to as “Roma streets”, “Roma apartment buildings”, “Roma neighbourhoods”. These typically have more than 30 inhabitants and are perceived through their Roma ethnicity. Spatially however they are still a part of the municipality's uninterrupted urban fabric and development. Jelšava, depicted inFigure 3 has such a spatial form. An estimated 92,000 Roma live in these neighborhoods across Slovakia and this type of concentration makes up 46% of all Roma concentrations). 13 Figure 3: "Roma Streets" in Jelšava marked in blue in BBSK. Spatially integrated housing is considered as Roma dwellings located within the municipality among the dwellings of other inhabitants, without any symbolic or spatial separation between Roma and non-Roma inhabitants, or without the concentration of these dwellings within a specific area of the municipality.7 Fiľakovo is a good example of municipality with spatially integrated homes of its Roma population. According to Atlas 2019, 117,000 Roma live in fully integrated neighborhoods (37% of all Roma concentrations in Slovakia are categorized as settlements inside the village). While most visible, spatial segregation is not the only type of segregation experienced by MRC. Roma generally fare far worse than non-Roma in indicators such as education, health, economic participation and general living conditions. Housing is one of the areas where the differences between majority and people from MRC are the most apparent. Besides the spatial segregation, MRC settlements also tend not to have tenure security with only 54% of households8 in these settlements having a legally settled relationship to the property that they occupy9. This figure is even higher in more spatially segregated settlements, with only 46% households having clear tenure relations to the land they occupy. The houses are also often of poor quality and unsuitable for living10. 7 Atlas of Roma Communities (2020). Ravasz, Á., Kovács Ľ., Markovič F., VEDA, ISBN 978-80-224-1874-4 88 Atlas 2019 estimates that only 41% of Roma residents own the land on which their homes are built. 9 EU SILC MRC (2020). 10 Ibid. 14 Another major problem MRC are facing is overcrowding and multi-generational living. The level of overcrowding in the houses of MRC is 88%11 with an average of 3 people per 1 room in comparison with 30% of overcrowding of non-Roma population, averaging 1 person per room.12 The overcrowding is even more pronounced in village communities with 8.6 people on average per dwelling.13 Overcrowding contributes to multiple socio-economic challenges, such faster spread of infectious diseases, impact on children’s ability to do homework, etc. The worst levels of overcrowding were generally recorded in non- standard houses, such as shacks.14 One of many such examples of spatial segregation but also insufficient quality of housing is Vítkovce, one of the CuRI municipalities. In Vítkovce, out of 57 dwellings MRC live in, only 15 are brick certified houses fulfilling the conditions for living and are uncertified and do not meet minimum requirements for quality and decent standard of living. This has an impact on health conditions, hygiene and overcrowding.15 Similar situation is in Vtáčkovce, where the level of overcrowding of houses is significantly higher among MRC than other inhabitants of the municipality.16 These two municipalities are by no means an exception. Quality of services – in addition to spatial segregation and quality of housing, MRC settlements are also often under-served with engineering and social infrastructure. According to the latest Atlas, 4% of MRC living in spatially segregated areas still don’t have a paved road leading to the main part of the municipality.17 Additionally, around 5% of MRC have public transportation stops further than 2km from their homes, which complicates the accessibility.18 Despite some improvements in this area, access to water and sanitation19 is still limited or non-existent for over a ¼ of people living in MRC households. The higher the level of spatial segregation, the higher this ratio gets with households relying on external sources of water such as wells, external water dispensers, streams or getting water from relatives. Furthermore, around 35% of people in MRC settlements live in households without a functional shower, bathtub, or flushing toilet. This figure is as much as 42% in spatially segregated settlements. The Atlas 2019 highlights the stark disparities in access to services between Roma and non-Roma and indicates that while 93% of non-Roma are connected to public water supply and 83% connected to sewerage systems, only 64% and 40% of Roma have access to similar service standards. Access to water and sanitation are not only basic rights but have far reaching socio-economic impacts such as significantly limiting access to personal hygiene, contributing to the spread of infectious diseases and results in negative impacts on social and work life and impedes integration in schools. In addition to limited finances, Roma settlements are especially prone to unresolved land tenure which hinders service provision. Utility companies are unable to provide services to plots with unresolved tenure resulting in many settlements being technically able to access services (i.e., there is a network in place and service to the boundary of the plot) but unable to draw such service (i.e., due to unresolved 11 In line with the definition of EUROSTAT 12 EU SILC MRC (2020). 13 Atlas of Roma Communities (2020). Ravasz, Á., Kovács Ľ., Markovič F., VEDA, ISBN 978-80-224-1874-4 14 EU SILC MRC (2020). 15 LDP Vítkovce 16 LDP Vtáčkovce 17 Atlas of Roma Communities (2020). Ravasz, Á., Kovács Ľ., Markovič F., VEDA, ISBN 978-80-224-1874-4 18 Ibid. 19 “When comparing the municipalities present in all three Atlases, 49% of the population used public water supply in 2004, 57% in 2013 and 64% in 2019”. A similar trend can be observed in the use of public sewerage – 20% in 2004, 30% in 2013 and 37% in 2019. Source: Atlas of Roma Communities (2020). Ravasz, Á., Kovács Ľ., Markovič F. 15 tenure or illegal construction, the house cannot be connected to the service). In addition to the National Land Project by the Office of the Plenipotentiary, CuRI municipalities have been working on this with Slovak Land Fund (SLF) and Urbariat20 to secure leases or permits to enable provision of services to Roma settlements. Examples include Dlhé Stráže which recently resolved a land and regulatory approval issue that had stymied a sanitation project for over 20 years. The municipality is currently constructing a wastewater treatment plant that will enable Roma and non-Roma households to connect to a sewerage system. Some municipalities have circumvented this challenge by constructing the water and sanitation systems themselves, connecting Roma homes, then handing over the completed systems to water and sanitation enterprises such as East Slovak Water Company for operations. While this workaround solves the immediate challenge, it does not address the underlying challenge, nor does it offer long-term solutions that would enable Roma to also improve their shelter. Education - the level of kindergarten and pre-school facility attendance by Roma kids is significantly lower (32%) compared to non-Roma kids (87%). Among the main reasons cited for this are: preference for caretaking by a family member at home (64%), waiting list (10% - indicating insufficient capacities of kindergartens), other unspecified reasons (10%), fear of leaving child in an unknown environment (5%) or that the facility is not within a reasonable reachable distance (3%)21. Lack of access to or poor quality of kindergarten care has a negative impact on Early Childhood Education (ECD), such as developing mental and social capacities of children and influencing the chances for better performance of children at higher levels of education. Additionally, good kindergarten care improves female labor participation and family members benefit from intergenerational transfer of positive impacts on the future of children.22 Although the situation regarding physical accessibility of kindergartens is improving in the recent years (85% of MRC concentrations have reasonable access to kindergarten), accessibility of primary schools is more worrisome. First level primary schools (1st-4th grade) is available to around 77% of concentrations whereas only 57% of them have access to second level of primary schools (5 th-9th grade) with situation being the worst in spatially segregated out-of-municipality concentrations (only 39% accessibility).23 Employment - access to employment of MRC is often hindered by several factors from individual circumstances (such as taking care for family members, bad living conditions) to societal influences (lack of job opportunities in the region, discrimination in labor market. Employment levels between MRC and non-Roma vary significantly, with only 33% of economically active MRC being employed vs 92% non- Roma. Moreover, MRC often work in sectors that are sensitive to changes in the economic cycle (such as construction or service), so they are vulnerable to job losses.24 High and long-term unemployment of MRC is an issue in all CuRI municipalities. National level-strategy to address Roma inclusion and integration. In 2021 a new Strategy of Equality, Inclusion, and Participation of Roma up to 203025 was adopted by the Slovak government, drawing on the eight years of experience from the adoption of the previous 20 Urbariat is an association of forest landowners who often “own” land or plots that Roma settlements are located. 21 EU SILC MRC (2020). 22 Ibid. 23 Atlas of Roma Communities (2020). Ravasz, Á., Kovács Ľ., Markovič F., VEDA, ISBN 978-80-224-1874-4 24 EU SILC MRC (2020). 25 https://www.romovia.vlada.gov.sk/strategie/strategy-of-equality-inclusion-and-participation-of-roma-until- 2030/?csrt=218872056746310071 16 Strategy and considers the evolution of the situation with MRC in Slovakia in the past years. This new Strategy addresses 5 key areas: i) education; ii) employment; iii) health; iv) housing; and v) fight against racism and promotion of participation. To aid implementation, several Action Plans have been prepared by the Office of the Plenipotentiary. These mirror the 5 key areas, elaborating the priorities of the new Strategy into further detail and creating a “to-do” list for governmental bodies regarding the integration of MRC. The Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary is the governmental institution which proposes, coordinates and controls activities aimed at solving the problems of the Roma minority and, after approval by the Government of the Slovak Republic, implements systemic solutions to achieve the non-discrimination and equal status of citizens belonging to the Roma minority in society. In 2021, the office was moved from the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic to the competence under the Government Office of the Slovak Republic and is also responsible for the programming of the 2021-2027 Cohesion policy funds in relation to inclusion of MRC. 17 3. Component activity areas and progress for this reporting period For this reporting period, work under this component focused on: 1. Strengthening integrated support to inclusion of Marginalized Roma Communities through continued support to Regional Authorities and 14 pilot municipalities to strengthen their capacity, especially with (a) project preparation and implementation; (b) supporting the review or update of local development plans; (c) establishing a monitoring and evaluation framework; and (d) lessons and recommendations on the design of integrated investment calls to address MRC integration. 2. Support the conceptualization and design of soft investments intended to support hard investments through (a)engagement with key national role players to explore the expansion of soft investments that could be incorporated into the design of Programme Slovakia 2021- 2027 to complement hard investments; (b) support to municipalities in designing soft measures to complement infrastructure investments currently under implementation; and (c) the use of innovative approaches and instruments such Systems Thinking and Participatory Systems Process and to advance gains made in MRC integration and improving living conditions. 3. Support regional authorities and municipalities in activities that address access to land and adequate shelter (a) support to municipalities in conceptualizing and preparing projects to meet Roma shelter needs; (b) ongoing engagement with the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary on the National Land Program. Consistently with the philosophy of CuRI, the team sought to offer pragmatic and hands-on support to assist in the resolution of challenges encountered by municipalities and regional authorities. 3.1. Strengthening integrated support to inclusion of MRC a) Supporting project preparation and implementation: PREŠOV SELF-GOVERNING REGION (PSK) Activities: Since the start of this reporting period, the 6 pilot municipalities of Dlhé Stráže, Varhaňovce, Čičava, Krivany, Ostrovany and Varadka have prepared and submitted 31 projects valued at €10.48million to Ministry of Interior (MoI). The projects covered many sectors including water and sanitation (32%), roads and sidewalks (16%), kindergartens (12%), leap housing (12%)26, solid waste management infrastructure (waste stands, waste collection yards and clearance of illegal landfills) (10%), community centers (9%) and MOPS/civil patrols (9%).27 The intensity of planned investments 26 Leap housing is a system of different types of housing accompanied by a different intensity of field social work. Families get assistance in different steps, from basic housing with intensive social support and training in topics such as family financial management, care and maintenance of flats and common areas - to higher levels with less intensive social support. The long-term goal is to enable households to "become independent" and enter the open housing market, whether by finding a commercial rental apartment or building their own family house. 27 MOPS/ Civil Patrols are public order guards, typically deployed in municipalities with Roma communities. They provide social assistance, including accompanying children to school, for a regular wage. 18 varied across municipalities driven by the extent of needs and level of preparedness. For instance, just under 19% of the projects (in value) were in Varadka, which is one of the smallest municipalities with 204 inhabitants but a very active mayor with signs of good collaboration within the municipal assembly, broadly supporting of the Roma integration agenda. The largest share of projects (33.4%) was in Varhaňovce, which is home to 1,438 people. The municipality shows signs of good leadership and strong administrative and technical expertise. The project team worked with the PSK regional authority and municipalities to provide strategic and technical support on project documents prepared by municipalities or their consultants and liaised with MoI to resolve bottlenecks with project review and approval. Triggered investments: As at September 2023, 31 projects, valued at €10.48 million had been submitted to the Ministry of Interior (MoI). All 31 submitted projects have been approved. The distribution of submitted and approved projects is depicted in Figure 4 below. Figure 4: Value of submitted projects by type – PSK. Of the approved projects, 16 projects valued at €7.98 million are under implementation. These include i) 5 soft projects (local civil patrols – all municipalities except Varadka); ii) 11 infrastructure projects (Ostrovany: kindergarten and waste collection yard, Varhaňovce: water and sanitation and waste collection yard, Varadka: Leap housing and elimination of illegal landfill, Krivany: waste collection yard, community centre and roads, sidewalks and parking, and Čičava: Sanitation) A total of 8 projects valued at €1.07 million have been completed, these include: Varhaňovce – clearing an illegal landfill, Ostrovany – extending sanitation network and roads and sidewalks, Varadka - roads and sidewalks, waste management and Krivany - sidewalk and illegal landfill elimination and Čičava – sanitation project. 19 Figure 5 below shows the project status by value per municipality. It is worth noting that Dlhé Stráže only had 1 project (construction of wastewater treatment plant) whereas a Ostrovany and Krivany implemented as much as 5 and 6 projects each, respectively. Figure 5: Project status per municipality - PSK BANSKÁ BYSTRICA SELF-GOVERNING REGION Activities: The Team collaborated with BBSK to support the 3 pilot municipalities of Šumiac, Fiľakovo and Jelšava to continue preparing projects for consideration by MoI and resolve challenges with approval and implementation. Triggered investments: Municipalities prepared and submitted investment projects valued at €3.22 mil, of these, 7 projects valued at € 1.63 million were approved. Of the 7 approved projects, there are 4 under implementation valued at € 1.30mil. 1 project valued at € 297 111 is completed These are detailed further in Figure 6: below. 20 Figure 6: Status of projects per municipality – BBSK In addition to MoI, municipalities also submitted applications to IROP for technical assistance for project preparation. Four pre-project preparations applications to the value of €77,933 were approved for Fiľakovo and Jelšava. KOŠICE SELF-GOVERNING REGION Activities: The project team continued support to KSK and the 5 pilot municipalities of Vítkovce, Vtáčkovce, Jasov, Trebišov and Dobšiná. Trebišov and Dobšiná are the last municipalities to join CuRI and as such, progress in project preparation and implementation is slowest in these. The sectoral distribution of projects across all municipalities is depicted in Figure 7. Figure 7: Sectoral distribution of projects across all KSK municipalities SUBMITTED PROJECTS Civil patrols 6% Kindergartens 21% Roads & Sidewalks 55% Waste 18% 21 Triggered investments: 8 projects valued at €9.03 million were submitted to and approved by MoI. At the time of this report, projects valued at €2.6million are under implementation (see Figure 8), which is a significant increase from €0.74million 3 months prior. One of the single largest projects in the whole portfolio, the Jasov elimination of illegal landfill project was corrected after the public procurement. The MoI has issued the decision based on the public procurement control and decided to issue a 10% correction for the project. The local assembly has decided to continue with the project and cover the 10% correction from the municipal resources. Figure 8: Project status per municipality in KSK In addition to submissions to MoI for project implementation, municipalities also prepared and submitted 7 projects valued at € 1.2 mil to IROP for project preparation funding. Of these, and 5 (5 in Trebišov and one each in Jasov and Vtáčkovce) to the value of € 0,9million were approved and are currently under implementation. As part of this support, the Bank consolidated experiences and lessons from CuRI into a series of slide decks as well as a report titled “Lessons and recommendations on the design of integrated investments in Slovakia”. The lessons contained in the report were shared widely with CuRI partners, notable the Office of the Plenipotentiary, with a view to informing the design of the 2021-2029 programing period. b) Supporting the review or update of Local Development Plans (LDP) The Slovak Constitution (Article 64 of chapter 4) places the municipal government at the centre of territorial self-governance. In addition, Act 503/2001 on the promotion of regional development defines development as permanent growth of the economic and social potential of an area to increase its competitiveness and improve residents’ quality of life. Its amendment, Act 539/2008 , places an obligation on municipalities to draw up a program that defines how the development objectives contemplated in Act 503/2001 will be achieved. This program is referred to as the Program hospodárskeho a sociálneho rozvoja obce (PHSR) and/or Program rozvoja obce (PRO), referred to as 22 Local Development Plans (LDP) in this document. LDPs are designed to be medium-term development plans that align to national and regional priorities as well as to the municipality’s own spatial plans. These are obligatory for each municipality, prepared for a period of 5-7 years (aligned to programming periods), identifying the priorities of municipality’s development and targeted strategies. The existence of an approved LDP with a clear investment program/ action plan, is a prerequisite for accessing Cohesion policy funds.28 In this reporting period, Trebišov started revision of its Local Development Plan and benefitted from Bank’s support to deepen Roma consultation through an innovative tool, the Transformative Scenarios Process (TSP). Through the TSP, the municipality was supported to undertake a stakeholder mapping exercise, highlighting key stakeholders that are central to the development of the municipality. This built on various surveys and stakeholder mobilisation initiatives that were spearheaded by KSK regional authority focused at enhancing Roma participation in the development the settlement (Mankov) and the municipality as a whole. Figure 9 below depicts the steps followed developing scenarios in Trebišov. Figure 9: Four key steps in a Participatory Scenario Process At the time of compiling this report, the municipality had established the scenarios team, inclusive of Roma from the settlement. The scenarios team was a diverse group (in terms of expertise, age, gender, and ethnicity) of 24 stakeholders who shared their experiences and understanding of the municipality. To create the scenarios, several members of the group engaged in one-on-one interviews to share their perspectives, and the group then came together for two in-person workshops of two days each. The intention of the process was not only to understand an evolving context so as to adapt to it, but also to discover ways to transform the situation and influence the direction of the future. The generated 28 New Perspectives on Integration of Marginalized Roma Communities in Prešov Region through local development. World Bank. December 2020 23 scenarios are stories about what could happen over the coming years based on the current realities and the dynamics around key certainties and uncertainties. They are not forecasts or predictions of what will happen. Neither are they visions, preferences, or recommendations of what should happen. These scenarios are anchored in the current situation of Trebišov. They offer four different stories of how the future could play out. They aim to be relevant, challenging, credible, and clear. They are stories that are at the edge of what the group could imagine to be plausible, pushing the imaginations of participants. The process and results aim to support an open and constructive reflection on the challenges and opportunities faced by Trebišov. The scenarios process stimulated dialogue and action of diverse stakeholders in Trebišov. Such dialogue often began with considering, for each scenario: “If this scenario occurred, what would it mean for us?” and “If this scenario occurred, what could we do? What options would we have?” Secondly, looking at the set of scenarios, participants were encouraged to consider “Given these multiple possible futures, what shall we do?” Table 1 below shows the generated scenarios. These were considered as input into the Local Development Plan, which was still being formulated by the municipality when this report was being compiled. Table 1: Comparative elements of generated scenarios. WE ALL TAKE ACTION ONLY THE STATE TAKES ONLY THE PEOPLE TAKE NO ONE TAKES ACTION ACTION ACTION Mentality - Entrepreneurial -Systems are unfair and I and - A good future requires - I can’t do anything - Inclusive people like me are not being making sure that everyone is to improve the -Mutual understanding treated justly cared for situation. and support - I must try to get what I can - Solidarity - Nothing will change - The state must fix things - We can do for ourselves if the state doesn’t take action The State - Expert-led -Highly engaged in trying to - Heavy bureaucracy and -Obstructive, - Uses evidence-based make improvements large amounts of red tape providing challenges, decision making - Little or no local investment rather than support - Invests in social - Inadequate resourcing of inclusion, economic basics such as infrastructure wellbeing, and meeting and education basic needs. Scenario An active state, whose An active state aims to invest In the absence of state The people of Summary support is welcomed by in many key areas of life to support, the people of Trebišov experience the people, invests in develop Eastern Slovakia. Trebišov work together to an ongoing inability basic infrastructure for However, driven by feelings of create a warm and dynamic to effectively shift or all, and in supporting division and injustice, the city, where most people can address the social and economic people of Trebišov resist get by and feel included, challenges of the inclusion and actions by the state that don’t even though there are many municipality. This, entrepreneurship. As a directly benefit them. Further, problems and gaps. coupled with an result, people are the abundance provided by obstructive state has thriving, and conditions the state drives inaction led to feelings of are continuously among the people. Conditions powerlessness and improving. improve slowly and unevenly. hopelessness. As a result, conditions in Trebišov are continuously deteriorating. 24 Throughout the implementation of CuRI, the Bank has been advocating for the importance of strengthening the discipline of local-level integrated planning that is linked to resources. In Slovakia, LDP or PHSR in Slovak, are obligatory plans to be developed by each municipality. The Bank’s support to the pilot municipalities has been to ensure that these plans focus on the integration and inclusion of Roma as part of municipal-wide planning and supporting municipalities to access funds to ensure implementation of identified projects, especially those aimed at closing the development gaps between Roma and non-Roma. Lessons from CuRI municipalities were shared with CuRI partners and to advance these spill overs, the Bank facilitated discussions between MIRDI (who have the legal mandate to compile and update PSHR methodological guides) and the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary (who have the mandate to advance Roma integration) to consider updates to the current (2016) LDP methodological guide. During the reporting period, the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary issued a draft methodological toolkit for indicators for MRC integration. The Bank provided comments to this, drawing from a multi-disciplinary team with experience in Slovakia and beyond. As part of its support to the pilot municipalities, the Bank developed as series of checklists to assist municipalities evaluate the technical rigour and completeness of project documents. These are attached as Annex A hereto. c) Establishing a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework The team has started the development of a system of monitoring the progress of the integration of MRC in the CuRI localities. This support entails development of a set of indicators that can not only be quantified in terms of the CuRI-14 municipalities, but also present an opportunity for use in other municipalities that are part of the Atlas 2019. The indicators will be first deployed in the CuRI municipalities and can later be used in the wider context of MRC in Slovakia. The objective is to construct an Index of Local Development in CuRI municipalities and to provide an observational baseline for these localities. This will be further enriched with additional data via field research. The bulk of the baseline data should be generated via existing, available databases, most notably the Atlas 2019 research series. Data from the Atlas 2019 will be supplemented from other data sources to enable, as much as possible, disaggregation to municipal level. A draft of the framework and index will be presented to regions and the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary on completion, to discuss, amongst others, the framework and indicators proposed for constructing the index. After these consultations, first the baseline database will be created for the year 2018/19 (the Atlas 2019 year). Later, fieldwork will be used to collect more current data and will be used to monitor trends. The CuRI municipalities will be used as a pilot to validate the indicators and further refinements. d) Sharing lessons on the design of integrated investment calls to address integration of MRC. Drawing on CuRI II and III experience, desktop research and interviews with mayors (CuRI and non-CuRI) who have attempted to implement integrated approaches to addressing Roma exclusion since 2004, 25 the team compiled a report which seeks to extract key recommendations for the design of the 2021- 2027 programs. 1. Close coordination with other authorities managing the funds for improved integration of MRC. While the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary will command significant Cohesion fund resources targeted at MRC integration in this programing period, on their own, these are inadequate, and more resources (cohesion and national funds) are with different ministries. The Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary, as the entity responsible for ensuring implementation of the MRC inclusion strategy could play a coordinating role to ensure the complementarity of other funds managed by these ministries. This coordination could focus on the design, content and timing of these investments to optimize an “all of government” response to MRC inclusion. 2. Rather than uncoordinated investment “calls” by the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary, consideration should be given to preparing integrated calls that “bundle” eligible activities. For instance, a basic municipal infrastructure call could include water, sanitation, roads, sidewalks, public lighting, etc. under one call. Another call could be for social infrastructure such as kindergarten, elementary schools, playgrounds, etc. These calls could remain open for the duration of the programing period, thus enabling municipalities to apply as their investment pipelines mature. Such re-design would enable municipalities to plan and sequence their applications and implementation in response to their needs, rather than in response to a central administrative decision on when calls are open or closed. The indication from the Office of the Roma plenipotentiary is that they will attempt to integrate as many types of project activities into an integrated call as possible. This will lead to significantly lower administrative burden to be put on municipalities. 3. Infrastructure “calls” could be better complemented by soft measures/ investments. Hard and soft interventions should be aligned so that they are mutually supportive and logically complement and reinforce each other. If this requires the revision of the Programme Slovakia, the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary should attempt to introduce these amendments to the Programme. For example: 3.1.1.when building a community center, the municipality can apply for community center employees and resources to train them, 3.1.2.for the construction and reconstruction of shelter, i.e., housing projects, the municipality can apply for support in the form of community work and housing assistants, 3.1.3.in waste disposal, the municipality can apply for community work and environmental education for its citizens. 3. Investment needs to be preceded by an integrated municipal plan. The LDP is the basic strategic and development document for each municipality. It therefore needs to be well articulated, compiled in a participatory manner (with an explicit focus on enabling MRC participation in the planning process, identification of needs and participation in implementation) with a clear focus on closing development gaps between Roma and non-Roma. If a municipality has a dated plan or one that does not meet these minimum requirements, it is advisable to have it updated prior to 26 applying for investment funds. It is recommended that the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary updates the LDP methodological guide to include a focus on Roma inclusion and integration. Further, municipalities could be supported by the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary to prepare LDPs that meet these requirements. 4. Prioritizing land settlement by both central and subnational governments. Unresolved tenure, which is especially rife in Roma settlements, impedes project implementation and absorption of funds. While there has been focus on this in the 2014-2020 programing period, this was not sufficiently resourced and therefore did not significantly fast-track land settlement. OPRC could bolster its capacity to drive the National Land Program, improve collaboration with other stakeholders, such as Slovak Land Fund, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and use modern cadastre management tools. 5. All municipalities with significant Roma communities and included in the Atlas need to be eligible to participate in complex / integrated calls. It is appreciated that there are insufficient resources to meet all needs, however, precluding some municipalities with significant Roma communities from participating could discourage them from attempting to address Roma inclusion. The decision to allocate resources could be made considering i) the quality and strength of inclusion agenda as expressed in the LDP, ii) quality of investment pipeline, iii) maturity of projects (shovel- readiness); iv) extent of need/ deprivation. 6. Enabling continuity of projects across programing periods. Some municipalities have valid LDPs that meet the requirements mentioned above with investment pipelines that were not fully realized in the previous programing period. In preparing the complex call, care should be taken to ensure that these projects can be continued with and completed. This continuity is also necessary for soft investments that were financed in previous periods, especially where there is demonstrable value and impact of these, such as MOPs, teaching assistants and field social workers. A detailed report is attached as Annex B hereto. 3.2. Support the conceptualization and design of soft investments intended to complement infrastructure investments. a) Engagement with key national role players to explore the expansion of soft investments and activities: Soft investments in the 2014-2020 programing period were designed into two categories, demand- driven and supply-led. They spanned a number of sectors such as education (mentoring and tutoring, kindergarten assistants, etc.), health, civil services (such as MOPS, community centers, housing assistants.) However, municipalities often lack important soft services. Key observations from CuRI municipalities in relation to preparation and implementation of soft investments include i) that where these exist, they are not always linked to demand but respond to available resources, ii) the menu of eligible investments is limited with insufficient attention and resources to areas such as Early Childhood Development; iii) these investments are not always timed with or linked to 27 infrastructure investments; iv) low training and skill levels of some employees; and v) limited collaboration with NGOs, especially those with Roma focus. In response to these, the Team made recommendations for consideration during the design of soft investments for 2021-2027. These included i) resource and partnerships with NGOs for continued professional development of deployed capacity – such as field social-workers and kindergarten assistants who are often high-school graduates, etc.); ii) expand eligibility to include culture, heritage and sports, especially where community centers have been constructed; iii) work with NGOs to scale- up existing successful interventions such as Omama by Cesta von association.29 b) Support to municipalities in designing soft measures: The Team has maintained on-going contact with municipalities on required soft investments to complement infrastructure investment. These include housing assistants in Varadka, waste management awareness building in all municipalities that have invested in solid waste management. However, all municipalities indicated their ability to provide this capacity with existing resources and would monitor the situation once infrastructure has been completed and operational. c) Use of innovative participatory approaches and instruments: In the interest of advancing improved project sustainability and impact and increasing Roma participation, the Team is undertaking pilot participatory planning processes in 2 municipalities in Košice, Trebišov and Jasov. Both processes bring together MRC and majority populations to undertake a shared planning exercise as input into the LDP for Trebišov and resolving a common challenge in Jasov. In Trebišov, a group of stakeholders was being brought together for a facilitated Participatory Scenarios Process (PSP) to develop a set of scenarios of possible futures for the municipality and then to use these to inform the LDP process. In Jasov, a group of stakeholders will be brought together for a Collaborative Innovation Process (CIP) which aims to develop and implement solutions to “keep Jasov clean”, to ensure sustainability of gains from the removal of the illegal dumps, but also for other municipal waste management improvements. In Trebišov, the PSP Scenarios Team was made up of 24 knowledgeable and engaged stakeholders in the municipality of Trebišov, including residents of Mankov, the Roma settlement. To create the scenarios, the Scenarios Team engaged in one-on-one interviews to share their perspectives, then came together for two in-person workshops of two days each. The PSP process applied is an approach whereby a group of diverse actors work together collaboratively to create scenarios for the future of a situation that they themselves are a part of. The intention of such a process is not only to understand an evolving context to adapt to it, but also to discover ways to jointly transform the situation and influence the direction of the future. In a complex context like the future of a municipality, scenario development can be helpful to lift the gaze beyond the current reality and to broaden perspectives beyond the most probable, hoped for, or feared trajectory. Scenarios can help to ground hopes in the challenges of reality, and to speak openly about the challenges or fears, without losing hope. Further, the task of developing multiple narratives about the future allows for exploring the full space of future potential, without requiring agreement and without committing to specific positions. Scenarios enable people to deal with the reality that – although we cannot predict or control the future – we can work with and influence it. In 29 https://cestavon.sk/program-omama/ 28 Trebišov, these scenarios served to stimulate dialogue and action of diverse stakeholders and the municipality is incorporating these into the Local Development Plan currently being formulated. From this process, a PSP methodology and Toolkit were compiled and are attached as Annex C. These will be shared with CuRI municipalities, Regional Authorities and the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary for further dissemination and application. 3.3. Support regional authorities and municipalities in activities that address access to land and adequate shelter. a) Support to municipalities in conceptualizing and preparing projects to meet Roma shelter needs. Čičava (PSK) – as part of this project, the Team has been supporting the municipality in identifying suitable land for housing and conceptualizing a project to regenerate current poor-quality housing in the settlement. As part of land identification, the Team, in consultation with the municipality, identified available land that could be used for housing. This included municipal owned land, privately owned land whose ownership is not too fragmented and where, according to the mayor, landowners are willing to sell to the municipality. During this process, the Team kept in close contact with the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary to assess alignment with 3D principles.30 Due to immediate unavailability of well-located land, the municipality opted for in-situ upgrading of poor housing stock in the settlement. As part of this, the municipality, using its own resources, prepared a conceptual redevelopment plan for the existing container homes in the settlement. Bank guidance and supported included i) increasing beneficiary consultation by sharing amongst others the Handbook on Improving Living Conditions of Roma,31 ii) rightsizing of housing units to reduce overcrowding and multi-generational homes, iii) design to optimize energy efficiency. The municipality subsequently submitted an application to IROP for project preparation and is advancing the project concept. In parallel to this, the municipality is working closely with the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary to settle plots in the municipality. This will contribute to tenure security, especially for Roma. Varadka (PSK) – the municipality is progressing well with housing construction and is scheduled to complete construction before December 2023 Jasov (KSK) – As with Čičava, the Bank team has been engaging the municipality to support the evolution of a more comprehensive approach to housing. This includes assessment of available and well-located land and upgrading of existing informal settlement. The municipality prepared a concept plan for development of housing on municipal-owned land and have applied for and received IROP funding to advance this to preparation of project documents (such as designs, statutory approvals, etc.). In parallel, the removal of the illegal landfill will enable remediation of the site and possible in- situ upgrading of shacks that are currently on the site. 30 Desegregation, Deghettoization, De-stigmatization 31 https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/03/18/improving-living-conditions-for-marginalized-roma 29 The Team has maintained contact with Plenipotentiary team currently working on the National Land Program with a view to using the CuRI municipalities as pilots to fast-track land settlement. This work is still unfolding. 4. Key takeaways and opportunities for scaling-up. Limited sub-national capacity has been raised as a recurring issue throughout the implementation of this component under CuRI. The pilot municipalities which are home to significant Roma populations are also characterized by very low municipal administrative capacity. Most do not have in-house technical capacity to conceptualize, prepare and oversee project implementation. Even where this capacity exists, it is often limited to one person who is expected to preside over projects that transcend disciplines. It is generally accepted that municipalities outsource technical aspects of project design, preparation of funding applications and construction supervision. However, in the absence of core capacity and competencies, municipalities are often unable to assess the quality of services they receive from external service providers or intervene to address challenges where these emerge. As part of this support, the Bank consolidated a team of engineers from different disciplines such as architecture, water and sanitation, etc. to work with both the regional authorities and municipalities . A key part of this support was providing technical and strategic guidance to regional authorities and municipalities in preparing LDPs and assessing the project documents being prepared on their behalf by consultant firms. For LDPs, the team supported Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) that were supporting the review of municipal LDPs and prepared a series of checklists for different stages of project preparation and shared these with the municipalities and regions. These are attached as Annex A hereto. This approach demonstrated amongst others, how leveraging regional capacity within RDAs and developing simple support tools like checklists, could be used to supplement municipal capacity. The CuRI team further consulted with the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary and shared lessons from CuRI on how such technical capacity could be scaled up to support the 60 municipalities the Office intends supporting in the 2021-2027 programing period. Roma participation in local level governance is generally very poor and needs to be prioritized more strongly. Ranging from participation in strategy formulation through to project design and implementation, most Roma communities have very little agency and participatory processes and tools, although existing in theory, are largely underdeveloped and not very effective. During this reporting period, the Team has been piloting the use of Participatory Scenarios Process as an approach to deepen multi-stakeholder involvement. The results of the pilot will be documented into a Handbook and Toolkit for finalization during the next reporting period. Lessons from CuRI clearly demonstrate the importance of integrated fiscal instruments that are aligned to participatory local development plans. LDPs, although sometimes weak and not fully participatory and inclusive, present an important platform to support integrated planning and implementation at municipal level. However, one of the observed deficiencies of current LDPs is that they often do not mention MRC integration nor highlight inequitable access to services. Further iterations of the LDP methodological guide (developed by MIRRI) could pay specific attention to how MRC integration and inclusion could be elaborated and strengthened in LDPs. Current methodological guidelines already require municipalities to have LDPs that address economic and social development dimensions and more importantly, these guidelines set these documents out as pre-requisites for municipalities to access ERDF, ESF+ and other national funds. This system could be further enhanced by ensuring that financial support (calls) to 30 municipalities is also integrated to make it easy for municipalities to access these resources in a manner and sequence that aligns to municipal needs and project design and implementation cycles. Slovakia has had multiple attempts at anchoring a comprehensive/ integrated/ complex32 approach to addressing Roma integration. During the 2007-2013 programming period, Slovakia introduced the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) as a strategic document for ESIF-funded projects, emphasizing the "comprehensive approach" for marginalized Roma communities. This approach aimed to link multiple projects into a unified strategy for development, focusing on interconnected activities and community participation. Despite its prominence, the NSRF also allowed for individual projects, creating a mixed approach. Resource allocation was supported by Local Strategies for a Comprehensive Approach (LSCA) implemented in 150 municipalities, with incentives for project approval and enhanced coordination. In the 2014-2020 programming period, the Partnership Agreement (PA SR) carried forward the concept of comprehensiveness but employed the term "integrated approach" more frequently. The Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Roma Integration also emphasized comprehensiveness as a key principle, focusing on collaboration among various stakeholders to drive holistic change. Initiatives like the Catching Up Regions Initiative (CuRI) aimed to enhance MRC integration by supporting municipalities with development plans, technical reviews, and navigation of funding opportunities. This period highlighted the importance of municipal involvement in fostering integration. As of the 2021-2027 programming period, Slovakia continues to seek a comprehensive approach to address the challenges faced by Roma communities. The Programme Slovakia 2021-2027 (P SK) emphasizes a multidisciplinary and integrated approach, acknowledging the need to involve municipalities and address the lack of preparedness observed in previous programming periods. The Strategy for Equality, Inclusion, and Participation of Roma by 2030 further underlines the goal of eliminating inequalities and discrimination against Roma communities in various priority areas. A recurring theme from interviews with mayors (including from non-CuRI municipalities) who have attempted to implement “complex”/ integrated investments is the difficulty and complex regulatory and administrative processes associated with accessing funds. Recommendations aimed at addressing these concerns that could improve absorption of funds and well as realize sustainable development outcomes include: 1. consideration could be given to preparing integrated calls that “bundle” eligible activities together. This would enable municipalities to sequence preparation and implementation in a technically logical manner. 2. infrastructure “calls” could be better complemented by soft measures by automatically linking such investments without requiring the submission of additional applications for supportive soft measures. 3. local development plans which are recognized as necessary and foundational documents for municipalities to access ESIF and ERDF resources should be further strengthened to pay specific attention to measures aimed at improving access to services, inclusion and integration of marginalized Roma communities. Investments (hard and soft) to be undertaken should flow from these documents, underpinned by clear needs assessment and strategies to meet identified needs. 32 These terms are often used interchangeably to refer to an approach aimed at integrating efforts across different sectors, involving various stakeholders, and empowering municipalities to drive change. 31 4. timely resolution of land tenure by both central and subnational governments needs to be prioritized as it is an enabler for investment. 5. Roma integration needs to be considered as an all-of-government responsibility and thus requires close coordination between the Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary with other authorities managing other EU and national funds. 6. all municipalities with significant Roma communities and included in the Atlas need to be eligible to participate in complex/ integrated calls. 7. enabling continuity of projects across programing periods is a priority to maintain momentum and bring about sustained impact. 5. Priorities for the next implementation support period Implementation support to the regions and municipalities will remain the priority. As the majority of investment are being implemented the support in this regard will be crucial to keep the December 2023 deadline. The Team will maintain contact with key role players and provide troubleshooting support to address any emerging challenges. Moreover, to support approached and initiatives that improve participation of Roma communities in local governance processes, in the KSK, continuous support will be dedicated to one of the last CURI joint municipalities – Trebišov – where LDP elaboration is ongoing. Similarly, in Jasov, the team is working with a focus on supporting collaborative innovation and behavioral changes to enhance sustainability of investments such as in waste management. Monitoring and evaluation will be high on the agenda. The Bank is supporting the regions by developing a M&E Framework aligned with National Roma Integration Strategy based on the 3 Atlases. The M&E Framework is intended to aid the Regional Authorities’ capacity to continually monitor progress, review strategies and resource allocation to municipalities and where necessary lobby for the requisite changes. Peer to peer learning will be facilitated with other Member States and municipalities that have made demonstratable progress in improving MRC integration. This will be financed through TAIEX. 32 Annex A – Project documentation checklist Slovakia Catching-up Regions Initiative IV PROJECT DOCUMENTATION CHECKLISTS July 2023 33 Background The checklist serves as an index of directions which can help municipal officals in the creation process of construction documents in various stages from preparatory works to the documentation for construction implementation. It contains recommendations (mainly in the preparatory phase) resulting from the experience gained during the implementation of projects in the previous phases of CuRI. 01. Preparatory work (before starting work on project documentation) The process of preparatory work must start before the process of designing the construction documents. The cooperation of an architect or professional designer is not needed in this stage (but should be very helpful, as it may bring some additional experience to the process). Thorough preparation will help speed up the design work and can prevent some problems during the construction. The preparatory work should consider the following: i) Local program - what exactly should be the content of the project documentation (type of building, expected capacities and space requirements, storeys). ii) Designation of plots for construction - exact definition of the plots on which the building is to be located. - plots must be owned by the investor or secured by a long-term lease agreement with all other owners. - check possible encumbrances limiting the use of the plot on the title deed- easily accessible through the state-owned cadaster portal https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk/ - do not forget about the parcels through which the utility network connections will be led to the building. - note that the consent of the owner is also required for these and ensure that the parcels are part of the zoning procedure. iii) Assessment of compliance with spatial planning documentation - assessment of the proposed function with the Spatial Plan of the municipality (if drawn up) - function of the planned building, size of the building (floor area, floor plan, development of the plot, etc.) - control of restrictions defined in the Spatial Plan of the municipality (protected areas, floodplains, protective zones, etc.) - in the event that there is no agreement with the Spatial Plan, it is necessary to update the Spatial Plan using the Amendments and Supplements to the Spatial Plan of the municipality (the process takes at approximately 4-6 months) - if there is a Spatial Plan of the zone, it can replace the zoning procedure (the regulations given by the ÚP-Z must be observed) - in the case of larger linear constructions (larger constructions of utility networks, bypasses of municipalities), conformity with the Regional Plan of the region is also assessed. iv) Determination of utility network connection points - to ask the managers of the networks with which construction is being considered (electricity, water, canal, gas, telecommunications) for a statement on the planned intention with an assessment of the capacity of the existing networks and determination of connection points to IS. - also consider traffic access - in the case of Class 1-3 road the approval of the road administrator is required to connect to the network (in the case of 1st class roads, it is the Slovak Road Administration, for 2nd and 3rd class roads, it is the self-governing region) v) Geodetic orientation of the construction site - elevational and geodesic orientation of the land of the planned construction, including the marking of the boundaries of the parcels. - if possible, including the focus of utility networks. - the situation developed on the basis of such a focus serves as a basis for laying out the building by the geodetic surveyor at the start of construction work. vi) Other research works - in case of unfavorable conditions, it is also advisable to process other survey works. - geological survey (for example, in the case of landslides) - hydrogeological survey, etc. vii) Elaboration of the study - to verify the intention and simplify work at higher levels of PD, it is possible to process an architectural / urban planning study. The study will help determine at least partially the architectural, layout, functional, material and color solution of the building. All elements of the technical equipment will also be determined in basic features so that it is clear what and to what extent will be projected. - consult the study with the relevant state authorities (for example, the Office of Public Health) viii) Environmental impact assessment process - check whether the building is not subject to the environmental impact assessment process - according to Appendix no. 8 to Act No. 24/2006 Coll. - based on the assessment of the building's intention, the assessment is carried out in the process of Mandatory assessment or Investigation procedure - it is advisable to prepare it before starting work on the project documentation for the zoning decision. ix) Eligibility of costs - if the project is an attachment to the application for NFP, adapt the content of the documentation and its breakdown to the conditions of the application - for example, separate parts of the building that are necessary for its operation, but will not be subsidized (for example, kitchens in kindergartens in the current conditions of the application for a subsidy from the Renewal Plan) as separate objects and to budget them separately. 02. Development of documentation for the zoning decision - in the case of a simple building (defined in the Construction Act in § 39a, paragraph 4, paragraph 5 and in § 139b, paragraphs 1 to 3.), it is possible to merge the zoning and construction proceedings into one proceeding. - plan the structure of the building in advance - the division must remain unchanged from the zoning decision to the approval of the building (unless there is a change in the approved documentation by Change before the construction is completed) An example of how to divide the project documentation – divide individual parts of the PD into separate construction objects: See Appendix 1 for documentation content - the situation of the building must include all plots on which the building is situated as well as all building objects including utility networks as well as the height of the building and possible distances from neighboring buildings. - the scope and form of the documentation should be consulted in advance with the relevant building office. - part of the construction should also include other modifications on the resolved parcels - landscaping, green and garden modifications and minor architecture (fencing, benches, playground, etc. depending on the nature of the construction). 03. Development of documentation for a building permit The mandatory content of both types of documentation is defined by the Edict nr. 432/2002. The list includes the recommendation of dividing the construction documents to enhance the project clarity and helps to easily deal with the possible changes in the later steps of designing process. Note: Starting from April 2024, there is a change in the preparation of project documentation based on the new Construction law nr. 201/2022 and related edicts. Updated methodological instructions for the creation of the construction documents and their form suitable for the upcoming electronic system should be available in August 2023. - the project for a building permit must include comments that arose from the process of obtaining a decision on the location of the building. - it is possible to develop it in the details of the implementation project, but it is necessary to take into account possible changes that result from the process of obtaining a building permit. - the budget is not a mandatory part of the PD for a building permit, its definitive form can only be drawn up on the basis of the Construction Project - in addition to the solution of the construction part of the building and utility networks (external and internal), the documentation must contain: - Static assessment of the building. - The fire safety solution of the building. - Project energy evaluation of the building (the building must meet the minimum criteria of energy demand valid at the time of the procedure). - the situation of the building must include all plots on which the building is situated as well as all building objects including utility networks as well as the height setting of the building. See Appendix 2 for documentation content 04. Development of documentation for construction implementation This type of documentation serves as the primary document for construction process. It includes the detailed construction budget – a mandatory attachment to the application for a non-refundable financial contribution and at the same time serves as the main basis for the selection of the construction contractor. - it is optimal to process it only after the building permit has been issued, so that all comments resulting from the process of issuing the building permit can be incorporated into it. - the scope of the documentation is not fixed - adapt to the nature and complexity of the construction, or to the conditions of the NFP application. - the division into construction objects from territorial and construction procedures must remain. - content of the documentation, see Appendix 3 (however, the actual scope is a matter of agreement between the investor and the designer, it is not required by the decree or STN). Appendix 1: Content of the proposal for the issuance of a zoning decision and the attached documentation according to § 3 of the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic no. 453/2000 Coll. (to § 35 of the Building Act) a proposal for the issuance of a zoning decision, which the proponent submits to the building office 1. Text part with data a) name, surname (first name) and address (domicile) of the petitioner, b) the subject of a zoning decision with a brief description of the territory and the way it has been used so far, c) a list of all known participants in territorial proceedings, d) types and parcel numbers of plots of land according to the real estate cadastre with an indication of ownership and other rights to which the zoning decision applies, parcel numbers of neighboring plots of land and neighboring buildings, e) if it is a proposal to issue a decision on the location of the building and on the use of the territory, the consent of the owner of the land, if the proposer does not have ownership or other rights to the land and the proposed measure cannot expropriate the land, f) data on the fulfillment of the conditions determined by the concerned authorities, if they were obtained before the submission of the proposal. g) In the proposal for the issuance of a zoning decision on the location of a linear structure or, in justified cases, also a particularly extensive structure and a structure with a large number of participants in the procedure, a description of the ongoing borders of the territory and data according to paragraph 1 letter c) and d) are not mentioned. 2. Appendices to the proposal for the issuance of a zoning decision a) a situation drawing of the current state of the territory based on a cadastral map, including parcel numbers, with a drawing of the subject of the zoning decision and its location, indicating the links (effects) to the surrounding area, if the location of a linear structure or a particularly extensive structure with a large number of participants in the procedure is proposed, as well as a map base in scale 1 :10,000 to 1:50,000 with the definition of the boundaries of the territory that is the subject of the decision and wider relations (effects) with the surroundings, a situational drawing and a map base are attached in two copies, b) documentation for a zoning decision in two copies drawn up by an authorized person, in the case of simple and minor constructions or their changes, documentation drawn up by a person with relevant professional education will suffice, c) decisions, opinions, statements, consents, assessments or other measures of the authorities concerned, d) the final opinion on the assessment of the impact of the construction or activity on the environment or the decision from the investigation procedure, if it was issued according to Act. no. 24/2006 Coll. as amended, e) documents on negotiations with participants in the territorial proceedings, if they took place before the submission of the proposal. According to the location, type, extent and expected effects of the construction, two copies of the documentation are attached to the proposal, the textual and graphic parts of which must be sufficiently clear in particular. a) data on the compliance of the proposal with the spatial planning documentation, if it was approved, b) urban integration of the building into the territory, which the plot or part of it is to be designated as a construction site, c) the proposed location of the building on the land with the marking of its distance from the borders of the land and from neighboring buildings, including height markings (usually on a scale of 1:5,000), if the location of a linear building or a particularly extensive building with a large number of participants is proposed, the documents are sufficient mentioned in point 2 a d) architectural solution of the building, its material distribution, appearance and floor plan arrangement, e) data on the basic construction and construction solution of the building in relation to the basic requirements of the building, f) data on the building's requirements for energy and water supply, wastewater drainage, transport connections including parking, waste disposal and the proposal for the building's connection to the area's transport equipment and the existing networks and technical equipment of the area, g) data on operation or production, including the basic technical parameters of the proposed technologies and equipment, data on types, categories and amounts of waste, (Proclamation No. 365/2015 Coll., which establishes the categorization of waste and publishes the Waste Catalog as amended), which will arise e.g., and operation or production and a proposal for how to deal with them (except for municipal waste), h) data on the impact of construction, operation or production on the environment, public health and fire protection, including a proposal for measures to eliminate or minimize negative effects and a proposal for the establishment of a protective zone, i) affected protection zones or protected areas, affected conservation areas or conservation zones, j) proposal for the protection of the building against harmful influences and effects, including data on the suitability of geological, engineering-geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area, including data on suitability in terms of requirements for limiting radiation from radon and other natural radio nuclides, k) data on construction requirements from the point of view of civil protection, l) modifications of undeveloped land areas and areas that will be greened, m) scope and layout of the construction site. n) If it is a building in which a nuclear facility is to be installed, the approval of the Office of Nuclear Supervision of the Slovak Republic granted on the basis of an assessment of the safety documentation according to a special regulation shall be attached to the proposal for the issuance of a zoning decision. Appendix 2: The content and scope of the building project attached to the application for a building permit according to § 9 of the Decree of the MŽPSR no. 453/2000 Coll. (to § 58 of the Construction Act) the project documentation of the building (building project), which the builder submits to the construction procedure, contains, depending on the type and purpose of the building, in particular: a) an accompanying report with additional data on the construction, if the basic data specified in the application for construction fees are not sufficient permit, with information on compliance with the conditions of the decision on the location of the building, if it was issued, or on compliance with the conditions of the approved spatial plan of the zone, if a territorial decision is not required, with information on the results of the surveys and measurements carried out. b) a summary technical report, from which they must be sufficiently clear and address at minimum the following: i. the proposed urban, architectural and construction engineering solution of the building, its structural parts and the use of suitable construction products in connection with the fulfillment of the basic requirements for buildings (§ 43d of the Act) and compliance with general technical requirements for construction, including general technical requirements for buildings used by persons with limited mobility and orientation, ii. fire safety solution according to special regulations, iii. requirements for energy and water supply, sewage disposal, transport (including parking), waste disposal and solutions for connecting the building to existing networks and technical equipment, iv. data on above ground and underground structures on the construction site (including networks and technical equipment) and existing protection zones, v. in the case of constructions with operational, production or technical equipment, data on this equipment, on the concept of storage, internal transport solutions and areas for operation, maintenance and repairs, or claims for trial operation after construction completion, vi. data on the fulfillment of the conditions determined by the concerned authorities and organizations according to special regulations, if they were obtained before submitting the application, vii. layout of the construction site and measures to ensure safety and health protection at work, if construction work is carried out under extraordinary conditions, viii. the method of ensuring safety and health protection at work and the safety of technical equipment during construction and future operation. c) the overall situation of the building (construction plan) usually on a scale of 1:200 to 1:500 with markings depicting the following: i. boundaries of plots of land and their parcel numbers according to the real estate cadastre, including neighboring plots of land and existing buildings on them, ii. underground networks and technical equipment facilities, iii. design of connections for transport and technical equipment of the territory, iv. protective belts, v. if it is a linear construction, the drawing of its route in the map base at a scale of 1:10,000 or 1:50,000, other drawings according to the purpose and complexity of the construction. d) staking out drawings or the necessary geometric parameters marked in the construction plan of simple constructions, e) construction drawings of the building, which show the current and proposed state, especially floor plans, sections and views (generally at a scale of 1:100) containing individual types of structures and parts of the building (e.g. foundations, supporting structures, staircases, exterior cladding, roof structures, chimneys), position and height arrangement of the building and all its premises with precise designation of functional purpose, schematic designation of internal distributions and installations (e.g. health and technical including fire water supply, high-current, low-current, gas, hot water), technical equipment (e.g. boiler rooms and elevators), adjustments and solutions prescribed on special security of buildings from the point of view of civil protection, fire protection and from the point of view of meeting the basic requirements for buildings, f) static assessment of the building, which demonstrates the mechanical resistance and stability of the supporting structure, g) a design for the modification of the building's surroundings (exterior) and a design for the protection of greenery during construction, h) if it concerns buildings with operational, production or technical equipment, construction drawings that contain the spatial location of machines and equipment, including the solution of internal communications, i) in the case of constructions with special requirements for implementation, the construction organization project, if the data provided in the summary technical report are not sufficient. j) If the builder applies for a building permit gradually for individual buildings of the group, the project documentation of the first building must contain the overall situation (construction plan) of the entire group of buildings, including the equipment of the construction site. The overall situation of the building and construction drawings, especially floor plans, sections, views are presented in a version that guarantees the permanence of the print. In the case of simple constructions and temporary constructions of construction site facilities, the scope and content of the project documentation may be appropriately limited in individual cases after negotiation with the building authority. Appendix 3: Recommended detailed content and scope of individual parts of the implementation project, the project has the following parts A. Accompanying message B. Summary technical report C. The overall situation of the building (stopping plan) D. Construction coordination drawing E. Documentation of construction objects (construction part) F. Construction organization project G. Documentation of operational files H. Total construction costs I. Documents Parts A, B, C and F are prepared only if a project for a building permit has not been prepared separately, i.e. if the implementation project is also used for the purpose of the construction procedure. In these cases, the implementation project must also contain all the requirements specified in Annex no. 2. A. Accompanying message 1. Identification data 2. Basic data characterizing the construction and operation (use) of the completed building 3. Overview of the starting materials 4. Division of the building into operating files and building objects 5. Physical and temporal links of the building to the surroundings and related investments 6. Overview of operators (users) 7. Construction period in months 8. Construction start and completion date 9. Data on the possible gradual commissioning (use) of parts of the building, or on the possible premature operation (use) of parts of the building 10. Trial operation and its duration in relation to the completion and approval of the building 11. Total construction costs B. Summary technical report 1. Characteristics of the construction area 1.1. Evaluation of the location and condition of the construction site, data on existing objects, operations, distribution systems and equipment (ground, above ground, underground), existing greenery, protective zones, claims for taking agricultural land and forest land, protected areas, objects and stands. 1.2. Conducted surveys and their consequences for the design of the building. In the case of reconstructions, modernizations and expansions of existing buildings or their parts, evaluation of their condition, and in the case of restoration of objects of cultural monuments, also evaluation of their condition from an artistic-historical point of view. 1.3. Map and geodetic materials used, detection, alignment and verification of underground lines, reference to geodetic documentation. 1.4. Preparation for construction, i.e. - release of land and buildings, - temporary use of buildings during construction, - the method of carrying out the demolitions and the location of the landfill, - scope and method of disposal of stands (replanting, felling, utilization), issuance of consent for disposal and specified conditions, - provision of protective zones, protected objects and stands during the construction period, - relocation of underground and above-ground lines, traffic routes, or flows, - ensuring the operation of existing parts of buildings during the construction period, as long as they are affected by the implementation of the construction, while maintaining their full or limited operation, measures in the event that interruption of operation is necessary, - other temporarily restrictive or safety measures during the preparation of the construction site and during construction (blasting, blocking of traffic, restrictions on the supply of energy, etc.), - special use of communications. 2. Urbanistic, architectural and construction-technical solution of the building 2.1 Justification of urban, architectural, artistic and the construction and technical solution of the building, its location, the conditions for monument care and nature protection, and care for the environment. Basic data on the proposed building systems or constructions. Modification of areas and spaces, small architecture, fencing, small greenery. Barrier-free adaptations for the movement of persons with limited mobility and orientation. 2.2 Data on technical or production equipment and production technology - main production activity, - a brief description of the production technology (additional important data on the technological equipment will be provided separately as necessary), - the concept of storage of raw materials, materials and products, - possibilities of intensification and expansion of production, - volume composition and composition of raw materials, materials and waste substances, - the principles of the technical construction solution in relation to operational parameters and maintenance requirements, - method of securing consumables and energy. 2.3 Transportation solution, connections to the transportation system, garages and parking lots, number of parking spaces and transportation technical equipment. 2.4 Economic evaluation of the construction - method and sources of financing, - production economic efficiency, - summary economic assessment and its conclusions, - changes compared to the construction plan of public works (if the plan was drawn up). 2.5 Environmental care - the impact of the operation (use) of the completed building on the environment, resources, species, properties, quantities of harmful substances, - method of disposal, utilization and removal of waste substances and energy - method of disposal or limitation of risk impacts on the environment. - environment arising from the operation (use) of the completed building, - solution to protect the building against traffic noise, or from other sources, - construction, spatial, indoor climate and acoustic solution, - noise protection solution from operating equipment, - daylighting data, artificial lighting solutions, - other negative impacts affecting the building within the existing environment and the solution to protect against them, - the results of the negotiation of the ecological plan according to Act no. 24/2006 Coll. in the valid version as long as it was being developed. 2.6 Taking care of the safety of work and technical equipment. - sources of threats to the health and safety of workers, - method of limiting risk impacts, - safety zones and escape routes, - the type of environment in individual rooms and spaces, - protection of workers and the working environment against the effects of harmful substances, - specification of markings, symbols and signals to ensure safety and health protection at work, - technical equipment and areas for operation, maintenance and repairs, - storage and handling of dangerous substances, - key and security system solution, - occupational health and safety plan. 2.7 Fire protection of the building - technical solution of the construction and operation of the completed building from the point of view of fire protection (including water sources and external fire hydrants, fire stations, etc.), - characteristics of objects and operations from fire protection department, - method of providing water for firefighting, - requirements for subsequent cooperation of individual devices. 2.8 Solutions for anti-corrosion protection of underground and above-ground structures or lines and protection against stray currents. 2.9 Ensuring television reception. Solution for TV signal transmission when using industrial TV. 2.10 Determination of protective zones. 2.11. Coordination measure in the case of simultaneous implementation of another construction in the area or near the building. 2.12. Civil protection equipment and its dual-purpose use. 2.13. The method of meeting the requirements for construction resulting from the conditions of the zoning decision. 3. Data on the technological part of the construction 3.1 Data on production technology - projected capacity, annual time fund (data supplementing point 2.2), - a description of the overall technological process of production according to the flow of material, with clarification of the functional links of the respective operating sets, basic requirements for auxiliary operations, - material handling concept, - the concept of a technological process management system solution, - maintenance of material assets (security concept), - requirements for technological continuity of machines and equipment. 3.2 Organizational security of the operation (use) of the completed building - organization of operation and number of workers, - shift. 3.3 Material balance of raw materials, material and waste materials, their composition. 4. Earthworks The main principles of height adjustment of the construction site with a balance of earthworks and deliveries with the determination of the place of mining (excavation) and landfills (landfills), data on topsoil and soil management, data determining the suitability of land for embankments in relation to their purpose. 5. Underground water Drainage system, possibly use, runoff quantities, description of the technical solution (if applicable). 6. Sewerage a) sewerage (drainage) system, b) characteristics of the basin and buildings, c) overall daily quantity/wastewater (sewage, rainwater, industrial, etc.), d) characteristic of flow unevenness (max. daily and max. and min. hourly quantity), e) overall yearly quantity of wastewater (sewage, rainy, f) industrial etc.), g) characteristics of the recipient, h) wastewater treatment requirements and recipient capacity, i) another way of draining surface water, j) description of the technical solution, including the management system. 7. Water supply a) source and supply system, pressure ratios, b) total daily consumption and its course, c) annual consumption, d) storage areas, e) requirements for water treatment, f) ensuring quantity and pressure for fire protection, g) description of the technical solution, including the management system. 8. Heat and fuels a) calculated hourly heat consumption, b) calculated annual heat consumption (of which winter), c) maximum day consumption, d) current coefficients of all energy equipment, including technologies, e) heat source, heating media parameters, f) type and provision of fuel, calculated, hourly and annual fuel consumption (of which winter), g) description of the technical solution, measurement and regulation, h) energy assessment for buildings. 9. Electricity distribution a) feeders distribution, voltage system, b) degree of importance of electricity supply, c) total installed power, d) type and method of grounding, earth resistance, e) current coefficients, f) maximum current input for consumption, g) annual energy consumption, h) method of measuring consumption, i) power factor compensation method, j) protection against short circuit, overload and dangerous touch voltage, k) alternative sources, their purpose and method of connection, l) type of environment m) description of the technical solution. 10. Other energy (solar, technical gases, etc.) a) data on energy sources and parameters, b) purpose of use and balance of consumption, c) balance of own energy production, d) description of the technical solution. 11. Public and outdoor lighting a) system, types and intensity of lighting, b) feeders distribution, voltage system, control method, c) grounding and protection against dangerous contact, d) energy consumption balance, e) masts and other placement of lamps, f) reflectors and other special (festive) lighting, connection and control, annual energy consumption, g) description of the technical solution. 12. Low current distributions a) types and devices, distribution system, b) connection to sources and control, c) description of the technical solution. 13. Structured and other cable distributions (if applicable) a) purpose, types of lines and equipment, distribution system, b) description of the technical solution. 14. Requirements for subsequent cooperation of machines and equipment (not only technological). 15. The method of meeting the requirements for construction resulting from the conditions of the zoning decision. C. The overall situation of the building (stopping plan) especially contains: - processed topography and elevation map of the building area and its immediate surroundings, including the land cadastre and the introduction of the height and coordinate system, - location and height marking of all existing buildings or their parts, i.e., including underground utility networks and other covered facilities according to data provided and verified by their owners or managers and including street names and other named spaces, - marking of protective zones and safety distances, - marking of the perimeter of the building and the temporary perimeter of the construction site outside the territory of the building, - designation of areas of land taken from agricultural land and forest land, with a distinction between permanent and temporary acquisition, - -marking of demolitions and canceled underground or above-ground engineering networks, or cutting down of tall greenery, - positional and height designation of the proposed construction, including its connection to existing structures, any underground or overhead distribution networks, transport routes, possibly streams and newly proposed greenery, indicating the basic dimensions determining the location and size of the proposed construction in relation to the marking network, - designation of the probes of the geological survey. The overall situation of the building is usually made on a scale of 1:500, exceptionally on a scale of 1:1,000. For special cases of large-scale constructions and for large-scale linear constructions, a scale corresponding to the nature of these constructions is used, as a rule 1:2,000 or 1:5,000. Note: The graphic processing of the overall situation of the construction must be carried out in a manner corresponding to the relevant STN and must enable a clear distinction between the drawing of the proposed construction and the drawing of the existing state and from the designation of other data that are part of the project. D. Construction coordination drawings a) Coordination drawing of external engineering networks and distributions It emphasizes the expression of the relations of the proposed construction and especially engineering networks, possibly external technological and other distributions to the resulting development of the territory and the relations between engineering networks or any other distributions to each other. It characterizes the way utility networks cross each other and with other, especially engineering objects, including the necessary protections. It clarifies the dimensional and positional, possibly also the height marking data. It is processed on a scale identical to the overall situation of the building, into which it is usually projected by printing. In the case of constructions with a simple technical solution, the details of coordination relationships are expressed directly in the overall situation of the construction. b) Coordination drawings of internal structures, devices and distributions Constructions, devices and distributions are marked in the floor plans and sections of the architectural solution for the purpose of checking and coordinating their spatial location. E. Documentation of construction objects (Building part) Common principles of drafting technical reports, drawings and calculations of construction objects. a) Technical report It describes in detail all changes and deviations of the implementation project of the relevant construction object compared to the project for the building permit. If necessary, it contains a notice to request permission to change the structure before its completion. It states results of additional surveys and calculations, justifies the technical, structural, or layout solution. It establishes, where appropriate, special conditions for the execution of work, assembly or for technological procedures. The report also includes descriptions of protective coatings (especially for technical equipment of buildings), further special requirements for the operation and operation of equipment and facilities, descriptions of unusual and non-standard equipment; references to used technical standards and catalog documentation; description of the artistic and color design of the interior (description of the method of finishing surfaces, tiles, selected color shades, etc.). It contains a draft of measures for carrying out work with special danger and data and information on safety and health protection at work, which must be respected during the construction of the construction object. b) Calculations They are prepared in accordance with the relevant technical standards and are attached as documents in duplicate. c) Drawings They are processed on a scale according to the relevant technical standards. In case of possible reduction of the drawing, readability conditions must be observed. Drawings of details (details) show unusual or shaped complex constructions (elements) for which the designer imposes special requirements and which must be taken into account during implementation; however, they do not contain details of the contractor's documentation. The legends supplement the drawings only to the necessary extent with data that could not be expressed graphically. E1 Land construction object 1. Architectural and construction solutions 1.1 Technical report - object purpose, purpose units, capacity, built-up area, built-up area, - architectural, artistic and functional solution, - orientation to the cardinal points, daylighting, glare, - description of the technical solution, data on construction-physical properties of the outer shell, or other decisive constructions according to the purpose, modification of surfaces, type of windows and doors, interior equipment, key and security system solutions, modifications resulting from general technical requirements on the buildings used persons with limited ability to move and orient. 2. Concrete structures 2.1 Technical report It is processed according to common principles 2.2 Detailed static calculation It determines the shape and dimensions of the structure and its individual parts, including foundations for machines and equipment. 2.3 Drawings of reinforcement and shape (except prefabs) in scale 1:50 or 1:25. 2.4 A drawing of the composition of the prefabricated structures (usually on a scale of 1:100) with characteristic sections and marking the cavities that will be used for the installations. 3. Metal, wooden and other structures 3.1 Technical report It is processed according to common principles. 3.2 Detailed static calculation 3.3 Drawings - clear drawings (usually on a scale of 1:100) determine with the help of views, floor plans and sections the composition and function of the structure and its connection to other parts of the building and to technological equipment, - anchoring drawings determine the position and method of anchoring the structure. 3.4 Material statement according to individual cross-sections 4. Sanitary installation, internal piping and fire water supply 4.1 Technical report It indicates based on the balance of water consumption, hot water and utility water and gas, amount of sewage, operating conditions (pressure, speed, annual and peak consumption) and conditions of connection to external networks. 4.2 Drawings (to the scale of construction drawings) - situations with marking of connections, dispositions of machines and equipment of a non- technological nature, - wiring diagrams, - -layout (on a scale of 1:100 or 1:50) with marking and layout dimensioning of the pipeline, including equipment and other elements (the layout is drawn in floor plans and sections necessary to achieve complete compliance and connection within the entire construction. 4.3 Lists of machines and equipment. 5. Heating 5.1 Technical report It states on the basis of the heat consumption balance with the indication of the medium, it justifies the choice of the heating system and the preparation of hot and domestic water. For objects of technical equipment (boiler stations, heat exchanger stations), the technical report also contains - balance of heat consumption, - fuel consumption balance, - dimensioning of machinery, - dimensioning of chimneys, possibly other calculations (fly ash, etc.), - management system solution, 9. Lightning rods 9.1 Technical report 9.2 Drawings - diagram of connecting interceptors to the grounding system and connections, ground workers, - layout drawing of interceptors on the roofs, possibly network. 9.3 List of devices It is processed only for complex devices. 10. Management system - measurement and regulation (boiler plants, heat exchanger stations, air handling equipment, etc.) It is processed according to point 2 of part G 11. Maintenance of tangible assets is processed according to point 6 of part G. 12. Interiors and internal equipment (They are valued separately according to point 4 tariff). 12.1 Technical report The principles of the proposed functional, architectural and artistic solution are presented. 12.2 Drawings - floor plans (usually on a scale of 1:100 or 1:50) with markings of interior modifications, -sections and views of exposed parts of the interiors, - designation of construction modifications. 12.3 List of devices. 13. Other devices (cooling system, security devices, fire alarm system, stable fire extinguisher, active anti-corrosion protection of underground equipment, etc.). 13.1 Technical report It is processed according to common principles. 13.2 Drawings They are processed appropriately for the purpose. 13.3 List of machines and equipment. Notes: - requirements for technological continuity and subsequent cooperation, listed in part B. - Summary technical report, are addressed in individual parts of the project, - technical reports of individual parts of the project contain requirements for comprehensive testing. E2 Engineering objects Bridges, tunnels, hydrotechnical and hydropower facilities, communications (vehicles for pedestrians, operating areas, parking lots), surface facilities (territory preparation, landscaping, public greenery, playgrounds), engineering networks (water supply, sewage, gas pipeline, heat distribution, collectors), external high-current distributions, public lighting, external signaling distributions, other engineering objects. 1. Construction-technical solution (except external lighting, high-current and signaling distributions) 1.1 Technical report - description of the engineering object and auxiliary equipment, - evaluation of survey results, - description of the functional and technical solution, - equipment requirements, - regulation of the regime of surface and underground waters, protection against them, - a description of the connection to existing utility networks, - data on processed technical calculations and their results, - special requirements for the progress of construction works and for the operation and maintenance of equipment, - -characteristics and description of the technical solution of the object, from the point of view of care for the environment and from the point of view of safety and health protection at work, solution of civil protection, - description of the corrosion protection solution. 1.2 Detailed static and other calculations and additional hydrotechnical calculations 1.3 Drawings They are developed on the basis of detailed measurements of the terrain at the location of routes and objects - clear situation (to a reasonable extent), - a staking drawing with the marking of the connection to the points of the staking network, - longitudinal profile with marking of all intersections, - sample and characteristic cross-sections on a scale of usually 1:100, - excavation drawings and demolition work and delivery of materials, - drawings of culverts, retaining walls, footbridges, underpasses, etc., - drawings of complex crossings, connections and branches of roads and tunnels of long-distance lines, - clear drawings of objects, their floor plans, sections and views (usually on a scale of 1:100 or 1:50), including drawings of the foundation of the substructure, supporting structures, the composition of prefabricated structures, laying drawings and detail drawings, - traffic signs, - circuit diagram of the active or common protection device. 1.4 Measurement report (list of machines and equipment). 2. Outdoor lighting and power distribution 2.1 Technical report It is processed according to common principles and also contains the results of calculations of short-circuit currents, grounding, voltage drop, lighting intensity. 2.2 Drawings - single-pole electrical wiring diagram, - a single-pole or multi-pole diagram with an indication of the type and type of equipment, describing the method of power supply, fuse, measurement and protection, - scheme and description of the method of management, operation, solution of binding, blocking and other special requirements, with marking of the location of devices of various devices, - indication of lighting intensity, - layout of equipment with distribution drawing high current, - situational drawings of dimensioned routes of cable distributions, layout drawing of objects and routes, sample cross-sections of excavations and laying of cables, drawings of transitions and crossings, - earthing system drawings, - disposition location of lamps, masts and appliances with indication of type and performance. 2.3 List of devices. 3. External signaling distributions 3.1 Technical report It is processed according to common principles. 3.2 Drawings - common scheme of all external notification distributions, - situational and layout drawings of objects and routes, sample cross-sections of excavations and cable laying, drawings of transitions and crossings, cabinets and structures for cable hangers. 3.3 List of devices List of cables with indication of length 4. Active or joint protection against corrosion 4.1 Technical report It is processed according to common principles. It contains a description and solution method. 4.2 Drawings Disposition of stored devices with marking of individual components of active protection, scheme of the protection system. 4.3 List of machines and equipment. E3 Machine and construction dispositions are prepared as a supplement to the disposition of machines and equipment (part G, point 1.1.2) in cases where it is not possible to express in this disposition in the necessary details the conformity of the technological part with the construction part and their continuity. E4 Costs for the construction part They are processed according to the customer's requirements. F. Construction organization project G. Documentation of operational files (technological part) The technical reports of the individual parts of the implementation projects describe the changes and deviations of the implementation project compared to the project for the building permit, especially in relation to the binding conditions of the building permit. H. Total construction costs - technological part (according to individual PS) - construction part (according to individual SOs), - other costs (expert estimate). The costs of PS and SO will be determined by evaluating the measurement report and technical specifications. In the event of the builder's requirements, the construction costs will be processed according to the breakdowns listed below. Preparatory work checklist LEGEND Necessary to undertake/ assess Maybe necessary depending on the type of proposed construction Services of a qualified architect or engineer required 1. Local program - what exactly should be the content of the project documentation (type of building, expected capacities and space requirements, number of floors) 2. Designation of plots for construction - exact definition of the plots on which the building is to be located - plots must be owned by the investor, or secured by a long-term lease agreement with all other owners - check possible encumbrances limiting the use of the plot on the title deed – easily accessible through the state owned cadaster portal https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk/ - the consent of the owner of the parcels through which the utility network connections will be led to the building is also required and the parcels are part of the zoning procedure. 3. Assessment of compliance with spatial planning documentation - assessment of the proposed function with the Land-use Plan of the municipality (if existing) - function of the planned building, size of the building (floor area, floor plan, development of the plot, etc.) - control of restrictions defined in the Spatial Plan of the municipality (protected areas, floodplains, protective zones, etc.) - in the case of larger linear constructions (larger constructions of utility networks, road bypasses of municipalities etc.), conformity with the Regional Land-use Plan is also assessed 4. Update of the local Land-use Plan - in case that there is no agreement with the Spatial Plan, it is necessary to update the Spatial Plan using the Amendments and Supplements to the Spatial Plan of the municipality (the process takes at least approximately 4-6 months) 5. Determination of technical network connection points - ask the companies owning the networks of technical infrastructure considered necessary for the proposed building (electricity, water, canal, gas, telecommunications) for a statement on the planned intention with an assessment of the capacity of the existing networks and determination of connection points to their networks - access road - in the case of roads of 1st to 3rd class, the approval of the road administrator is required to connect to the communication (in the case of 1st class roads, it is the Slovak Road Administration Company, for 2nd and 3rd class roads, it is the self-governing region) 6. Geodetic survey of the proposed construction site - elevational and geodesic survey of the land of the planned construction, including the marking of the boundaries of the parcels - the technical infrastructure networks running through the site 7. Other surveys - in case of unfavorable conditions, it is also advisable to process other survey works: geological survey (for example, in the case of landslides), hydrogeological survey, etc. 8. Elaboration of the study - to verify the intention and simplify work at higher levels of PD, it is possible to process an architectural / urban planning study. The study will help determine at least partially the architectural, layout, functional, material and color solution of the building. All elements of the technical equipment will also be determined in basic features so that it is clear what and to what extent will be projected - consult the study with the relevant state authorities (for example, the Office of Public Health) 9. Environmental impact assessment process - check whether the building is not subject to the environmental impact assessment process - according to Appendix no. 8 to Slovak law act nr.24/2006. - based on the assessment of the building's intention, the assessment is carried out in the process of Mandatory assessment or Investigation procedure 10. Eligibility of costs - if the project is an attachment to the application for NFP, adapt the content of the documentation and its breakdown to the conditions of the application - for example, separate parts of the building that are necessary for its operation, but will not be subsidized (for example, kitchens in kindergartens in the current conditions of the application for a subsidy from the Renewal Plan) as separate objects and to budget them separately Annex B – Lessons and recommendations on the design of integrated investment calls to address the integration of Marginalized Roma communities in Slovakia. Slovakia Catching-up Regions Initiative LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DESIGN OF INTEGRATED INVESTMENT CALLS TO ADDRESS THE INTEGRATION OF MARGINALISED ROMA COMMUNITIES IN SLOVAKIA July 2023 © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: +1-202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: +1-202-522- 2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Acknowledgements This report was prepared by a core team comprised of Yondela Silimela, Miroslav Pollák and Samuel Arbe. The data collection and interviews with mayors were conducted by Miroslav Pollák. The work was undertaken under the supervision of Christoph Pusch, Practice Manager, World Bank and with the support of the World Bank CuRI project team including Ellen Hamilton, Lead Urban Specialist, Vladimír Benč, Urban Specialist, Grzegorz Aleksander Wolszczak, Urban Development Specialist and Veronika Zimanova, consultant. The team would like to thank the Prešov Self-governing Region (PSK), the Banská Bystrica Self-governing Region (BBSK), and the Košice Self-governing Region (KSK) for their support to the preparation of the report. This report also benefited from the inputs of mayors of Ostrovany, Varhaňovce, Vtáčkovce, Vaľkovňa, Šírovce and Luník IX. The team would also like to thank Commissioners Corina Crețu and Elisa Ferreira for continuous support to the Catching-up Regions Initiative, Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for Investments, Regional Development and Informatization Veronika Remišová, and the President of the Prešov Self- Governing Region, Milan Majerský, President of the Košice Self-Governing Region, Rastislav Trnka, President of the Banská Bystrica Self-Governing Region, Ondrej Lunter and the former president Ján Lunter for their invaluable support, as well as the European Commission’s team for their outstanding engagement and support, especially Emma Toledano Laredo, Erich Unterwurzacher, Pascal Boijmans, Andreas von Busch, Bianka Valkovičová, Eva Wenigová, Andrej Mikyška, Kamila Trojanová, Katarína Prokopič and Václav Štěrba. The report was compiled in September 2023 and covers the period of three programming periods of EU funds between 2004 – 2006, 2007 – 2013 and 2014 - 2020. Table of Contents List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 60 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 61 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 65 2. DEFINITION AND EXPERIENCES WITH COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH IN SLOVAKIA ............... 65 2.1. Definition ................................................................................................................. 65 2.2. Overview of “comprehensive approaches” in Slovakia ............................................... 66 2.3. Evolution in national strategies and implementation of comprehensive approach ...... 67 2.4. 2007-2013 Programing Period ................................................................................... 68 2.5. 2014-2020 Programing Period ................................................................................... 69 2.6. 2021-2027 Programing Period of the Cohesion Funds ................................................ 73 3. Experiences of selected municipalities that have participated in comprehensive approach between 2007 and 2020.................................................................................................................... 75 3.1. Profile of sampled municipalities .............................................................................. 75 3.2. Brief summary of municipalities' experience with the implementation of projects financed by the EU Structural Funds and with the application of a comprehensive approach. .............. 84 4. Lessons from the previous programming periods and recommendations for 2021-2027 ..... 85 4.1. Considerations of the CURI III Annual Conference in Košice ....................................... 86 4.2. Recommendations for the 2021-2027 programing period of the Cohesion funds ........ 86 4.3. Proposals for criteria/principles for a comprehensive approach ................................. 88 List of Acronyms CuRI – Catching-Up Regions Initiative CSO – Civil Society Organization EC- European Commission EDA – Economic Development Agency ERDF – European Reconstruction and Development Fund EU – European Union ESF – European Social Fund ESF+ - European Social Fund Plus ESIF – European Structural and Investment Funds FBO – Faith Based Organization GDP – Gross Domestic Product LDA – Local Development Agency LDP – Local Development Plan LED – Local Economy Development LSCA - Local Strategies for a Comprehensive Approach MOI – Ministry of Interior MOLSAF – Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs And Family MRC – Marginalized Roma Communities NP – National project NP CC – National project Community Centers NP FSW – National project Field Social Work NP SLS – National Project Support to Land Settlement NSRF - National strategic reference framework OP – Operational Programme OPRC – Office of the Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities PA SR - Partnership Agreement of the Slovak Republic for 2014-2020 PSK – Prešov Self-Governing Region RDA – Regional Development Agency RDP – Regional Development Programme SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals SE – Social Economy/ Enterprise SME – Small and Medium Enterprise WB – The World Bank EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this report is to examine in a selected way, the application of the so-called complex approach in the implementation of projects for the purpose of strengthening the integration of Marginalized Roma Communities (MRC). The report examines the position of the comprehensive approach in the strategic documents of the last two programming periods and verifies their implementation in a sample of six municipalities. Based on this, the report offers a number of recommendations for the programming period 2021-2027 of the Cohesion funds. The report further analyzes the previous attempts for complex approach to integration of marginalized Roma communities with support of investments from the EU Funds. The Slovak Republic is currently closing third and launching fourth programming period since being a member of the European Union. Since 2004 there has been multiple attempts to address the challenges related to closing the development gap between Roma and non-Roma populations at the local and regional level. The report discusses the evolution of comprehensive approaches in Slovakia with a focus on improving the situation of marginalized Roma communities (MRC) after 1989. Initially referred to as Roma Communities, these communities faced discrimination, segregation, and social exclusion across various aspects of life such as labor, education, health, housing, and more. Recognizing the limitations of addressing individual areas, the concept of a comprehensive approach emerged, aiming to integrate solutions across different dimensions and involve various stakeholders including government, civil society, educational institutions, and Roma communities themselves. However, the application of this approach has been inconsistent due to challenges at both national and local levels, affecting the efficiency and transparency of project implementation. During the 2007-2013 programming period, Slovakia introduced the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) as a strategic document for ESIF-funded projects, emphasizing the "comprehensive approach" for marginalized Roma communities. This approach aimed to link multiple projects into a unified strategy for development, focusing on interconnected activities and community participation. Despite its prominence, the NSRF also allowed for individual projects, creating a mixed approach. Resource allocation was supported by Local Strategies for a Comprehensive Approach (LSCA) implemented in 150 municipalities, with incentives for project approval and enhanced coordination. In the 2014-2020 programming period, the Partnership Agreement (PA SR) carried forward the concept of comprehensiveness but employed the term "integrated approach" more frequently. The Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Roma Integration also emphasized comprehensiveness as a key principle, focusing on collaboration among various stakeholders to drive holistic change. Initiatives like the Catching Up Regions Initiative (CuRI) aimed to enhance MRC integration by supporting municipalities with development plans, technical reviews, and navigation of funding opportunities. This period highlighted the importance of municipal involvement in fostering integration. As of the 2021-2027 programming period, Slovakia continues to seek a comprehensive approach to address the challenges faced by Roma communities. The Programme Slovakia 2021-2027 (P SK) emphasizes a multidisciplinary and integrated approach, acknowledging the need to involve municipalities and address the lack of preparedness observed in previous programming periods. The Strategy for Equality, Inclusion, and Participation of Roma by 2030 further underlines the goal of eliminating inequalities and discrimination against Roma communities in various priority areas. Slovakia's evolution of comprehensive approaches to address challenges faced by marginalized Roma communities spans multiple programming periods. While the terminology may vary, the focus remains on integrating efforts across different sectors, involving various stakeholders, and empowering municipalities to drive change. The country continues to refine its strategies to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to Roma integration and social equality. The investments for integration of marginalized communities have been highly dependent on EU funding. Therefor the report offers the view on the previous attempts for complexity in tackling all aspect of integration including education, housing, employment and health. This has been analyzed on the sample of 6 municipalities (Ostrovany, Varhaňovce, Vtáčkovce, Vaľkovňa, Širkovce and Lunik IX in Košice), that had participated in one of the previous funding systems, such as Local Strategies for a Comprehensive Approach, Take Away packages or Catching-up Regions Initiative (CuRI). Since 2019, as a joint initiative of the Ministry of Investments, Regional Development and Informatization, European Commission and the World Bank, CuRI has attempted to offer and alternative view on how complexity can be assured within given design and rules of 2014 – 2020 programming period. The focus was put on strategic planning and simplified access of the municipalities to funding opportunities. The simplification of the funding was assured by preparation of an integrated call for proposals issued by the Ministry of Interior as intermediary body under Operational Programme Human Resources. This approach was offered for replication in the 2021 -2027 period. The report identifies key hypotheses of why the complex approaches have not been successful in the past: Municipalities frequently fail to align project implementation with strategic Local Development Plans (known as PHSR in Slovak), with more seasoned mayors displaying a more strategic approach compared to those in their first political cycle. Conversely, novice mayors often pursue projects only based on available calls for proposals. Project calls for proposals issued by the managing authorities and intermediary bodies trigger reflexive responses in municipalities, resulting in a trend of applying when a call is advertised. This phenomenon is prevalent across Slovakia's regions and is observed among the majority of mayors. Municipalities have not effectively resolved challenges related to MRC integration, even after participating in prior project programs aimed at enhancing MRC population quality and integration into the majority society. This means that the previous attempts have not brought the tangible results in integration that would be still present in the municipalities. Municipalities encounter a range of obstacles, including excessive administration, bureaucratic complexity, changing rules of funding, high financial obligations, protracted evaluation processes, delayed payments, intricate procurement procedures, and communication hurdles with managing authorities. These obstacles demotivate the municipalities to be more active in applying for funds for integration. Uncertainty in the funding rules put municipalities also financial risks as they have to face financial corrections. Issues experienced during the 2014-2020 programming period encompass inadequate call for proposals designs, competition among programs, a lack of coordination, and mismatches between project demand and supply. The calls for proposals have often mismatched the actual need in the municipalities. Very slow and rigid system of the EU Funds implementation have prevented the managing authorities Operational to be more flexible modification of the calls. The programs have often competed with each other and (e.g., Priority Axis 6 of the OP Human Resources vs Integrated Regional ROP). Strict application of 3D (desegregation, de-stigmatization and deghettoization) has also hampered more significant progress in the absorption of funds for MRC. The report outlines also a set of key recommendations that can be taken into account in the process of designing the new programming period calls for proposals and can positively influence the management system of the new EU funds. Among the key recommendations are: 1. Strategic integration should be prioritized, with municipalities incorporating the comprehensive approach into Local Development Plans (LDPs) and involving MRC representatives. A unified methodology from Office of the Plenipotentiary should guide eligible municipalities in this approach. 2. Land settlement should be prioritized to expedite MRC fund absorption. Clear land rights enable municipalities to secure necessary permissions for infrastructure projects. 3. Design a comprehensive call with a wide array of eligible activities, enabling municipalities to plan investments according to actual needs. Calls should be coordinated across managing authorities and ministries. 4. Office of the Plenipotentiary should collaborate closely with other authorities managing MRC funds to ensure comprehensive integration. Ensuring project continuity between programming periods, especially in supporting professions (e.g., assistants, community center workers or Local Civil Patrols), is essential. 5. Complex projects and complex calls for project should be designed to include both infrastructure and soft measures, synergizing their impacts. 6. Eligibility for the complex call for proposals should not be determined by municipality size, but rather by the presence of MRC inhabitants and inclusion in the Atlas of Roma Communities. 7. Bureaucracy and administration should be streamlined throughout the process of implementing EU funds-financed projects. 8. Consider implementing the comprehensive approach alongside other project types, like open calls and national projects (e.g., allow for submission of multi-fund projects combining ESF+ and ERDF resources). 9. Implement mechanisms to encourage municipalities to address challenging but vital MRC projects instead of exclusively pursuing profitable ventures (i.e., prioritize projects that address urgent needs of a community). 10. Explore legislative changes, such as land expropriation for public interest land settlement, to address integration-related issues. 11. Evaluate project proposals based on expertise, collaboration with stakeholders, cost- effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and adherence to legal norms. The findings and recommendations underscore the significance of strategic planning, coordination, inclusivity, and flexibility in addressing integration and development challenges in municipalities, particularly for marginalized and Roma communities. By acting upon these recommendations, municipalities and managing authorities can work together to enhance project effectiveness, efficiency, and comprehensiveness, leading to positive impacts on local communities and integration efforts. 1. INTRODUCTION This report explores Slovakia’s previous attempts at adopting a comprehensive approach33 to addressing the plight of Marginalized Roma Communities with a view to extracting key lessons to inform the design of interventions, national programs and financing calls in the 2021-2027 programing period of the Cohesion policy funds. In this instance, “comprehensive approach” refers to the design of national projects and demand-driven projects, and considers investments that were deemed eligible, how financial support packages were designed to support both hard and soft investments. Finally, the report explores the approach from a local government perspective with a view to highlighting key design interventions that could improve future iterations of comprehensive approaches. The report examines the concept of comprehensive approach34 in the context of its application in the implementation of programs and associated investments aimed at promoting the integration of Marginalized Roma Communities (MRC). The report simultaneously documents the successes and failures of previous comprehensive approaches viewed from the perspective of six municipalities that have participated in both approaches, i.e., belonged to both group of 150 municipalities under Local Strategies for a Comprehensive Approach (LSCA) and/or “Take Away” Package. The experience from the previous programming periods will be used to glean lessons and make recommendations for setting up the comprehensive approach in the 2021-2027 period by the Office of the Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities (OPRC). The Office of the Roma Plenipotentiary will play decisive role in management of EU Funds for integration of MRC as they will function as an Intermediary Body under Programme Slovakia in 2021-2027. 2. DEFINITION AND EXPERIENCES WITH COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH IN SLOVAKIA 2.1. Definition The term 'comprehensive approach' has no established universally accepted definition in the context of integration of MRCs. The National Strategic Reference Framework for the 2007-2013 programming document refers to a "comprehensive approach", the Partnership Agreement Slovak Republic (PA-SR) document for 2014-2020 uses the term "integrated approach" and the most recent Program Slovakia (PA Slovakia) document for 2021-2027 uses the term "integrated comprehensive approach". The adjectives integrated and comprehensive in the naming of the newly labelled approach for 2021-2027 represent a symbolic combination of the best practice from the previous two programming periods in the field of MRC integration. 33 The term comprehensive approach is often used interchangeably with the term “complex approach.” 34 Comprehensiveness as defined in Box 1 of this report. Box 1: Definition of 'comprehensive approach' in relation to integration of MRC used for the purpose of this report: Comprehensive approach to integration of MRC represents the set of measures addressing all known problems of the community in several areas of the life, implemented simultaneously, while these measures lead to solutions that are logically interlinked and implemented in a way that is effective and sustainable. For purposes of this report, “comprehensive” also considers the design of financing instruments, often referred to as “calls”, and the extent to which these are designed to enable a comprehensive response to interrelated challenges. Historically, comprehensive approach has been interpreted or expressed through the design of demand driven projects35 and national projects36. Demand-driven projects represent bottom-up approach where municipalities submit their project to open calls for proposals. National projects on the other hand are usually centrally and implemented managed by central government bodies. At the national level, the word “comprehensiveness” appears in most (if not all) strategic development documents. This report takes note of the main ones, which determined the rules and conditions for the entire programming period in the field of the MRC from 2007 to 2027. These documents are very important as they set the measures and activities that ensure the integration of Roma. 2.2. Overview of “comprehensive approaches” in Slovakia After 1989, many projects were carried out to address the poor situation in Roma Communities (MRC), especially in socially disadvantaged communities living in segregated settlements. These communities later began to be referred to by the collective name of Marginalized Roma Communities (MRC). The untenable situation impacted practically all areas of life of the members of these communities and resulted in discrimination, segregation and social exclusion. Worsening wellbeing impacted areas such as labor, education, health, housing, financial self-sufficiency, access to information, security, cultural realization, etc. There is general consensus on the need for a comprehensive approach, yet there is no official definition of such. Different interpretations result in misunderstanding and inconsistent application of holistic approaches. Practice has shown that addressing only one of the above-mentioned areas is not sufficient in itself and that such efforts, however well-intentioned and implemented, cannot ensure the overall improvement of the lives of MRCs. Complex challenges require integrated solutions, albeit with sectoral targeting. In contemplating solutions, the various dimensions of not only the symptoms, but the causes need to be understood and addressed. This requires an all-of-government approach as well as the involvement of other players such as civil society organizations (CSOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), educational institutions and most importantly, the Roma communities themselves. However, previous experience in 35 Demand-driven projects are implemented on the basis of project submission into the open call for project submission under ESIF. The applicant prepares and submits an application for a non-refundable financial support exclusively on the basis of the issued call. 36 National projects are centrally managed and mostly implemented by the government bodies. In case of MRC related projects, the implementing body is usually the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic for Roma Communities. Slovakia shows that the assistance provided to municipalities and CSOs through approved projects financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) did not always work comprehensively or efficiently. Calls often provided support to a limited category of eligible investments without addressing the full extent of challenges faced by municipalities. Since 2005 in Slovakia, the design of programs and projects has referred to comprehensive or complex approach, however, as the report seeks to demonstrate, this has been inconsistently understood and applied. These inconsistencies vary from the definition of investments that are deemed as eligible and more importantly, to how fiscal instruments (ERDF and ESF) have been designed. These have not always been structured in a manner that enables the realization of comprehensive and integrated outcomes. 2.3. Evolution in national strategies and implementation of comprehensive approach Since the Decade of Roma Inclusion in 2005-2015, all state strategic documents have four areas in common: education, employment, housing and health. Accordingly, all efforts to improve the lives of the MRC population had to include measures in all four areas. The underpinning logic for this is premised on the interrelated nature of challenges and solutions – for example, access to education improves access to the labor market, access to the labor market and perspective of income improves opportunities for decent shelter, decent shelter creates conditions for healthier living conditions and a healthier person, living in good conditions is more likely to continue with education or skilling with aim to get better job and consequently better shelter. This creates a virtuous cycle (see Figure 1) wherein if one part of this cycle is broken the entire cycle becomes dysfunctional, and the impact of interventions is minimized. Figure 1: Interrelated nature of key intervention areas Education Employment Health Housing The next section of the report describes the different versions of the comprehensive approach in previous and current programming periods: 2007-2013, 2014-2020 and 2021-2027 and highlights key the lessons from them. In exploring these, for each programing period, the report highlights key policy objectives, reflects on the design of national and demand-driven projects – especially investments that were deemed eligible and how financial resources were organized. 2.4. 2007-2013 Programing Period The National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013 was the basic strategic document for the implementation of projects financed from the ESIF during this period. The document makes reference to “comprehensiveness” at least 70 times and most often in relation to MRC. Other areas are tourism, education, and service provision, especially health. Its noteworthy that the "comprehensive approach (integration of projects from several operational programmes)" is stated as a criterion for the application of the first horizontal priority of the National Strategic Reference Framework - marginalized Roma communities37. This is explicit acknowledgement in the NSRF of the importance of a comprehensive and interconnected approach to development. Box 238: Description of comprehensive approach within NSRF: "...it is necessary to increase the effectiveness of Structural Funds interventions in addressing the problems of marginalized Roma communities through a comprehensive approach that will link several activities or projects into an overall strategy for the development of a specific locality so that their implementation builds on each other and contributes to the long-term development of the marginalized Roma community in the given locality. In a comprehensive approach, emphasis is placed on the interconnectedness of activities and on the active participation of the local community in the implementation of the project. The use of comprehensiveness in addressing the problems of marginalized Roma communities is a necessity as it will ensure a systemic solution to the problems in marginalized Roma communities and enable long-term strategic planning and management of community development and positive change. Considering the scope and complexity of the application of the comprehensive approach, assistance will be available to the identified areas/micro-regions interested in the comprehensive approach in the elaboration of the local Roma community development strategy, as well as in the preparation of project activities within the strategy, so as to ensure complementarity in terms of content, time and overall synergy effect. The comprehensive approach will be applied in particular in areas with a significant concentration of marginalized Roma communities.” While the comprehensive approach featured strongly in the NSRF, it was not the only supported approach. The document also provided for the implementation of individual demand-driven projects that were seen as complementary to the Comprehensive Approach39. As such, the Comprehensive Approach did not exclude other forms of project implementation. The NSRF set out requirements to support the implementation of a comprehensive approach of MRC-targeted projects (see Box 3 below). Box 3: Further explanation of the comprehensive approach as described in NSRF 40 "In order to make the solution more complex and to ensure better coordination, especially at the regional level, in 2006 the Office of the Government Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities commissioned the elaboration of Regional Concepts for the Development of Roma Communities in areas with a high concentration of 37 NSRF p. 86 38 Appendix 11 of the NSRF: Support of activities related to marginalized groups (including marginalized Roma communities) from operational programs within the NSRR 2007-2013 39 NSRF p. 87 40 NSRF p. 111 - 112 marginalized groups (Košice, Prešov, Banská Bystrica regions). They involved broad partnerships and were also consulted and accepted at the level of the VUC. The proposed tools for ensuring impact and coordination are: - a comprehensive approach in addressing the problems of the MRC, which is applied in the following Operational Programmes (OPs): the Regional OP, the Employment and Social Inclusion OP, the Education OP, the Environment OP, the Competitiveness and Economic Growth OP and the Health OP; - Individual projects (demand-driven), which can be applied in all OPs. The comprehensive approach will be addressed as follows: - Submission of LSCA by the municipality or micro-region (following the content of the regional concepts of socio-economic inclusion of the MRC, which were initiated by the OPRC in 2006 in the case of the Prešov, Košice and Banská Bystrica regions and require the involvement of a broad partnership i n the locality) - Evaluation and approval of local comprehensive approach strategies. - preparation of projects within the framework of approved local comprehensive approach strategies - approval and implementation of projects under the OP - ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the fulfilment of the objectives of the local strategies through individual projects - an evaluation of the contribution of complex projects to the achievement of the objective of the horizontal priority." Resource allocation in support of comprehensive approach 2007-2013 During the same period (2007-2013), NSFR implementation was enabled through the introduction of Local Strategies for a Comprehensive Approach (LSCA) which was implemented in 150 participating municipalities. This was an initiative of the Office of the Plenipotentiary for Roma Affairs (hereafter as the Plenipotentiary) which was part of the government office at that time. The LSCA had to be developed in line with the municipality's existing Programme for Economic and Social Development (PHSR) or Local Development Plan (LDP). The LSCA had to have at least two “comprehensive” projects41 (one hard – infrastructure project and one soft – human capital project, e.g., education) per municipality which could be directed to six operational programmes. Following the approval of the LSCA support,42 Plenipotentiary selected 150 municipalities who could submit other individual projects to the various demand-driven calls under different OPs. Municipalities with approved LSCAs were incentivized - some calls were set up with favorable terms for LSCA applicants, while in other calls, municipalities with approved LSCAs were given extra points as an additional advantage in the official evaluation of projects. However, there was guaranteed allocation or project approval for LSCA applicants. 2.5. 2014-2020 Programing Period Partnership Agreement of the Slovak Republic - 2014-2020 (PA SR) 41 Regional OP, Employment and Social Inclusion OP, Education OP, Competitiveness and Economic Growth OP, Health OP and the Environment OP 42 The approval was within the competence of the Office of the Plenipotentiary PA SR was the highest strategic document for the implementation of projects financed from the ESIF at the national level for the programming period 2014 - 2020. In this sense, it was a continuation of the NSRF document. The term “comprehensiveness” appears about 60 times in the document, but mainly in connection with other social areas and not exclusively with the MRC. It is used in relation to the education system, public procurement, transport solutions, public administration reform and health care provision. In the context of the MRC, the word 'integrated' appears to have replaced term 'comprehensive'. Nevertheless, there is an obvious effort to entrench a comprehensive approach to the integration of MRC. Box 4: Partnership Agreement Chapter 3 "Integrated Approach to ESIF Supported Territorial Development, or a Summary of Integrated Approaches to Territorial Development Based on the Content of the Programmes"43 "Where appropriate, an integrated approach to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups most at risk of discrimination or social exclusion, with particular reference to marginalized groups, people with disabilities, the long-term unemployed and young people out of employment, education or training"44we find that "in the Slovak Republic, an integrated approach to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups most at risk of discrimination or social exclusion will be implemented for the target group of the MRC. In line with the principle of 'specific but not exclusive targeting', activities will be supported to target Roma (in particular the MRC), while not excluding others in a similar socio-economic situation. In the conditions of the Slovak Republic, segregated and segregated Roma communities are the most affected by poverty, whose spatial dispersion is identified in the Atlas of Roma Communities." "The integrated approach will be implemented at the level of the Slovak Republic mainly within the framework of the Human Resources Operational Programme through the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The interlinking and interaction of these measures shows that the combination of one measure with another creates the preconditions for the fulfilment of the objectives of these measures, e.g.: - if the proportion of Roma households with access to housing and utilities is increased, it can be assumed that this will simultaneously increase the hygiene standard and improve the quality of health of the target group, or - promoting and improving access to quality inclusive education increases the labor market participation rate of the target group, - by investing in networks of functional community centers, they will create a prerequisite for the implementation of targeted programmes and activities aimed at promoting community development, active participation of the MRC population and sensitization activities. The aim of the simultaneous intervention of the European Structural Funds and the main types of activities listed in Table 21 is to achieve greater integration of segregated and segregated Roma communities into society, also in relation to the implementation of the priorities of the Slovak Strategy for Roma Integration until 2020." The PA SR contains a focus on the Strategy for Roma Integration in Slovakia until 2020 (pages 281-284). The PA-SR reinforces the importance and role of sub-national governments in attempts to integrate MRC. The document states "In the context of the inclusion of the MRC, the geographical areas will be identified at the level of territorial self-governments. The eligible territories will be the territorial self-governments 43 Partnership agreement p. 280 44 PD SR p. 280 included in the Atlas of Roma Communities showing a certain degree of segregation index.”45. For this targeting, the document highlights the importance of both the Atlas of Roma Communities and the segregation index. To give effect to this local government focus, the strategy provided for the identification of 150 municipalities to participate in the established “take away”46 package which was the backbone for complex approach in the implementation of Roma integration during the preceding period. Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Roma Integration until 2014- 2020 The Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Roma Integration until 2014- 2020 was adopted by the Government of the Slovak Republic in January 2012. The importance of a comprehensive approach is outlined in several places, for example: “The strategy underlines the importance of perceiving social inclusion in all its dimensions, which is a prerequisite for the success of the policy of inclusion of the Roma population. This objective can only be achieved with the participation of all stakeholders: the state, higher territorial units, local authorities, NGOs, churches, the media, academic institutions, the non-Roma majority population and the Roma themselves."47 In the Strategy, comprehensiveness is one of the grounding principles of the whole Strategy. In addition, the comprehensive approach is mentioned in tandem with the integrated approach and the document also highlights the need for inter-governmental collaboration across different levels of government. The document states: "For the successful fulfilment of the objectives of the strategy, it is necessary to require a comprehensive and integrated approach in the implementation of measures in all priority areas of social and economic integration of the Roma population and the need for a coordinated and systematic approach at the local, regional and national level. The principle is based on the need to concentrate efforts and resources to ensure the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the chosen social intervention."48 Operationalization The “Take Away” package consisted of four national projects (NP): i. NP Community centers in cities and towns with the presence of MRC- Phase I, ii. NP Assistance in settlement of land in municipalities with the presence of MRC I., iii. NP Support for pre-primary education of children from MRC I., and iv. NP Field social work and field work in municipalities with the presence of MRC. Box 5: The text of the OP HR describes the “Take Away” Packages as follows 49: 45 PA SR p. 281 46 Take-away package - represents a combination of inclusive programs in the form of provision of field social work and community services, support of pre-primary education, provision of support in the area of land settlement and support of social determinants of health. 47 Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Roma Integration until 2020, p. 4-5 48 Ibid, p. 12 49 OP Human resources. “… selected programs financed through priority axis 5 (ESF) will be primarily implemented by national projects in order to ensure a uniformly coordinated procedure. It is a program of field social work, community centers, a program to support the education of children in early childhood and a program of assistance in the settlement of land in municipalities with the presence of MRC and projects to prevent the spread of the pandemic, such as COVID-19 and the elimination of its consequences. The implementer of the national projects will be the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic/ Office of the Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities, which, in addition to the actual implementation of projects in the field, will guarantee the interconnectedness of individual interventions and the quality of their performance in the field. Another area, as part of the Take away package focused on the program of health education and prevention in municipalities with the presence of MRC, will also be implemented as a priority by a national project through the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic. All programs included in the Take away package must meet the approved segregation index band methodology. Performance of the mentioned programs in the municipalities with the highest rate of segregation index50 (150 municipalities) will be implemented automatically, based on eligibility, not competition”. Interventions implemented by national projects could also be implemented through demand-oriented projects. Other interventions within priority axis 5 such as mentoring, tutoring, provision of scholarships, local citizen patrols, housing assistants, etc. were implemented through demand-oriented projects in eligible territories, i.e., municipalities from Atlas 2013 and its subsequent versions within the entire Slovak Republic (except for the Bratislava self-governing region). Funding of the programs was ensured for the entire program period to enable continuous implementation in the field and, consequently, the quality of their performance. To ease the application processes and reduce the administrative burden on applicants such as municipalities, regional authorities and NGOs, simplified forms of reporting expenses would be applied, in particular, use of a standard scale of unit expenses or lump sums (to determine project costs and allocate resources accordingly). This easing would be achieved by amongst others, providing municipalities with "pre-prepared products", the implementation of which would not require any additional investments from the municipality, so their implementation would be extended to municipalities that are not ready for the implementation of individual demand-oriented projects. Another initiative aimed at supporting comprehensive/ integrated approach is the Catching-up Regions Initiative (CuRI). This is an initiative of the European Commission, implemented in partnership with the World Bank aimed at supporting the "catching-up" of “lagging” regions. The partner of CuRI at national level is the Ministry of Investment, Regional Development and Informatization (MIRDI), which is responsible for coordination of activities at the national level in cooperation with the central government bodies. The aim of the CuRI initiative is to define, through Action Plans in all three regions of Banská 50 The information in the Atlas of Roma Communities 2013, converted into numerical values, makes it possible to create a simplified index that arranges municipalities in order from the highest degree of backwardness and segregation to the lowest degree of backwardness and segregation. The index is based on the assumption that the degree of underdevelopment is relatively accurately reflected in the residential structure. Namely, the larger the average household size in the settlement, the worse the socio- economic situation of the families. (OP HR text) Bystrica, Prešov and Kosice, the obstacles and opportunities for the development of the regions including action-measures, to promote increased performance in the regions, sufficient growth, job creation and to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of national and European Commission funds. The World Bank is actively involved as a technical partner in support of implementation of CuRI. It provides expert teams of local and foreign experts to address planning, investment preparation and implementation obstacles. These teams prepare and develop model solutions in collaboration with the concerned entities, trying to apply a comprehensive approach on the ground. One of the components of focuses on improving the integration of MRC and is implemented in 14 pilot municipalities51. The focus has been on strengthening municipal local development plans (LDP) with a view to foregrounding the integration of MRC as well as supporting municipalities in conceptualizing, preparing and implementing integrated projects intended to improve the municipality as a whole but with an explicit (not exclusive) focus on integration of MRC. CuRI has supported both the regions as well as local governments in the area of better integration of the MRC. The initiative helped to develop a support system, where municipalities received assistance in the preparation of high-quality Local Development Plans, technical reviews of project documentation, guidance and navigation through various calls for proposals and assistance in communication with central government bodies. One of the tangible outcomes of the initiatives was the complex call for proposals issued by the intermediary body for OP HR represented by the MoI. This was a first complex call covering multiple activities at the same time, such as roads, sidewalks, kindergartens, community center, local civil patrols, waste yards, waste stands, illegal landfill elimination and access to water and satiation . CuRI experiences from supporting municipalities were communicated to MoI with recommendations on how the investment calls could better respond to challenges faced by municipalities. Some of the changes attributable to CuRI include expanding the list of eligible activities to include investments in public lighting to be eligible along the entire constructed sections of roads and sidewalks as well as easing application conditions for municipalities. These were some of the factors contributing to the low absorption of MRC funds. 2.6. 2021-2027 Programing Period of the Cohesion Funds In the programming period 2021-2027 of the Cohesion funds, a comprehensive approach is being sought to help municipalities better respond to Roma communities in their areas of jurisdiction or the problems of coexistence between Roma and non-Roma. Also in this period, the primary objective is the MRC integration and inclusion as stated in the PA SR as well as in Programme Slovakia. The design of the comprehensive approach for the period up to 2027 is still open and the term "integrated comprehensive approach" mentioned in the Program Slovakia is currently being elaborated. The coordinator for the implementation of these projects in practice will be the OPRC. It is for this reason that the OPRC is setting up its own intermediary body under the managing authority for Program Slovakia. 51 PSK – Krivany, Varadka, Ostrovany, Čičava, Dlhé Stráže, Varhaňovce. BBSK - Jelšava, Fiľakovo and Šumiac. KSK - Vítkovce, Vtáčkovce, Jasov, Dobšiná and Trebišov (the last two were added approximately 20 months before the end of the programing period) Programme Slovakia 2021 -2027 (P SK) P SK is a strategic programming document for the implementation of projects financed by the European Structural Funds for the period 2021-2027. Like its predecessors, the document52 has several references to integration/ comprehensive. These are predominantly in methodological and procedural descriptions of the implementation of selected measures in the field of transport, development of territorial units, social and advisory services, education system, childcare, etc. The P SK states right at its outset that "A multidisciplinary and integrated approach is needed to ensure the socio-economic integration of the MRC."53 For the specific objective of Promoting the socio-economic integration of marginalized communities, such as Roma of the above-mentioned (Priority 4P6 Active inclusion of Roma communities), the first main problem identified is "the absence of a comprehensive approach to addressing the socio- economic situation of the population in localities with the presence of the MRC"54. Among the recommendations for this specific objective, it is stated that "In order to improve living conditions, an integrated comprehensive approach will need to be promoted, in which it is essential to focus on whole settlement communities to promote mutual learning, desegregation and community cohesion." 55 Box 6: Quotation from the P SK, 'Priority 4P6 Active inclusion of Roma communities', specific objective (j) 'Promoting the socio-economic integration of marginalized communities, such as Roma': "This specific objective will support comprehensive solutions to the challenges and problems faced by marginalized Roma communities. Support will be aimed at improving the socio-economic situation of the inhabitants of the MRC as well as supporting the improvement of the life of the entire Roma population." From the list of the types of programme’s activities: "To ensure an integrated comprehensive approach with a focus on improving living conditions and with an emphasis on the nature of the needs and specific problems of the localities identified in the Atlas of the RK 2019" In making a case for a comprehensive approach, the P SK acknowledges the importance of municipal capacity as a success factor, it states: “Interventions from previous programming periods have had limited positive impact as many municipalities were not sufficiently prepared for them”. These experiences, as well as the recommendations of the external evaluation56 of priority axis 5 and priority axis 6 of the OP Human Resources, point to the need for an integrated comprehensive approach ensured by a combination 52 The Slovakia 2021 - 2027 Programme was approved by Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic No. 426 on 28 June 2022. In the following we will quote from the "Material from the meeting of the Government of the Slovak Republic" at https://rokovania.gov.sk/RVL/Material/27416/1. 53 Ibid. at p. 20 54 Ibid. at p. 38 55 Ibid. at p. 39 56 Evaluation of OP HR, https://www.employment.gov.sk/sk/esf/programove-obdobie-2014-2020/monitorovanie- hodnotenie/hodnotenia-op-lz/ of ESF and ERDF investments and quality professional services (helping professions such as field social workers, etc.). These have so far been implemented through separate national projects and coordinated by different government entities. In addition to helping professions, OPRC has indicated their intention to create, deploy and manage "development teams" with technical expertise to support selected municipalities. Their task will be “to contribute to the solution of adverse situations at the level of the whole settlement community, affecting both the minority and the majority, through the combined investments of the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and ERDF, coordinated interventions in areas such as employment, education, equal opportunities, social affairs and others, which will be prioritized on the basis of comprehensive community development plans." 57These development teams are intended to assist municipalities prepare LDPs, conceptualize projects and support the preparation of project applications to various calls. The envisaged development teams draw lessons CuRI. The Bank mobilized local and international experts to support the regions and municipalities with strategic and technical guidance and support during the course of CuRI II to CuRI IV. Support under P SK will, amongst others entail i) integrated calls to be published in the last quarter of 2023, ii) deployment of development teams to support 60 municipalities, iii) scraping of a co-financing requirement (previously 5%) from municipalities implementing MRC-targeted investments. MRC strategy 2030 The Strategy for Equality, Inclusion and Participation of Roma by 2030 was adopted by the Government of the Slovak Republic in 2021. It covers five priority areas – employment; education; health; housing and non-discrimination and suppression of anti-Roma racism. The overall objective of the Strategy is to modify the public policies to ensure equality and inclusion of Roma in society.58 3. Experiences of selected municipalities that have participated in comprehensive approach between 2007 and 2020. 3.1. Profile of sampled municipalities Drawing from experiences of municipalities that participated in previous comprehensive approaches, it is clear that past approaches have not been fully effective, as there has not been a sustained solution to the problems of the MRC in many of these municipalities. The examples listed below illustrate the experiences of different municipalities after the state-organized comprehensive approaches on the ground. The sampled municipalities were selected considering the following criteria: 1. Municipalities must be in the catching up regions of BBSK, PSK or KSK. 2. Municipalities drawn from different districts within these 3 above-mentioned regions. 57 Ibid pp. 219-220 58 Strategy for Equality, Inclusion and Participation of Roma by 2030, https://www.romovia.vlada.gov.sk/site/assets/files/1526/strategy_of_equality_inclusion_and_participation_of_ro ma_until_2030.pdf?csrt=5055885607061186590 3. Municipalities must have experience with at least one infrastructure and one soft projects. 4. Municipalities must have valid Local Development Plan. 5. Municipalities must be part of the Atlas of the Roma Communities. Six different municipalities from different districts of Slovakia were selected (See Table 2 below). Three of the 6 selected municipalities were also part of the CuRI. Table 2: Profile of selected municipalities Municipality District Region Participation Participation Participation The in LSCA in “Take in CuRI mayor is away” Roma Ostrovany Sabinov Prešov Yes Yes Yes Yes Varhaňovce Prešov Prešov Yes Yes Yes No Vtáčkovce Košice - Košice Yes Yes Yes Yes surrounding Širkovce Rimavská Banská Yes Yes No No Sobota Bystrica Vaľkovňa Brezno Banská Yes Yes No No Bystrica Luník IX (Košice Košice 2 Košice Yes Yes No Yes city district) The following text describes the situation in the selected municipalities based on interviews and in- person discussions with the mayors. This information has been supplemented and verified by further interviews with either local residents or experienced experts in Roma integration. Ostrovany The municipality has approximately 1,800 inhabitants, of whom about 1,200 are Roma. Four out of nine municipal council members are Roma59. The municipality has limited administrative capacity, only 3 people are responsible for strategy formulation, preparation and implementation of projects. Experience with project implementation: Table 3: Value of investments in Ostrovany in the programming period 2007-2013 Operational Programme Approved value of Contracted value of Spent value of the projects within the LSCA project projects after (€) from LSCA (€) completion of the LSCA project (€) Regional OP 4.1 1 457 625,85 0,00 0,00 Regional OP 2.1 266 000,00 240 441,96 240 112,06 OP Employment and 51 452,64 51 452,64 51 452,64 Social Inclusion 2.1 NP KC 59 The numbers represent the council composition before the October 2022 municipal elections. OP Employment and 50 617,90 116 834,72 116 834,72 Social Inclusion 2.1 NP FSW Total 1 825 696,39 408 729,32 408 399,42 Table 4: Take away packages implemented in Ostrovany in the programming period 2014-2020 NP Field Social Work (NP NP Community Centers NP PRIM NP Support to Land FSW) (NP CC) Settlement (NP SLS) In implementation In implementation In implementation In implementation Table 5: Investment projects submitted to the Ministry of the Interior (MOI) in Ostrovany in the programming period 2014-2020 Project name Project implementation status Settlement of property-law relations to land with the presence of the MRC Contract concluded by simple land adjustment procedures Improving access to drinking water and sewage disposal Contract concluded Construction and reconstruction of local roads and pavements in the Contract concluded municipality of Ostrovany Ostrovany - water dispensing points Contract concluded Box 7: Municipal needs as identified by the mayor 1. Completion of the kindergarten project 2. Expansion of the primary school from 260 to 320 pupils 3. Completion of the land settlement processes 4. Further expansion of the sanitation 5. Further expansion of the sidewalks and roads Varhaňovce The municipality has approximately 1,400 inhabitants, of which 80% are Roma. Three out of nine municipal council members are Roma60. There are 3 full time employees in the municipal office and 1 municipal services coordinator. Table 6: Value of investments in Varhaňovce in the programming period 2007 - 2013 Operational Programme Approved value of Contracted value of Spent value of the projects within the LSCA project projects after (€) from LSCA (€) completion of the LSCA project (€) ROP 1.1 359 489,50 0,00 0,00 ROP 2.1 3 230 000,00 131 223,71 125 980,43 60 The numbers represent the council composition before the October 2022 municipal elections. ROP 4.1c 280 250,00 112 985,41 112 097,40 OP ZaSI 2.1 NP 352 260,00 83 287,54 17 494,25 OP ZaSI 2.1 NP 0,00 15 769,81 14 427,59 OP ZaSI 2.1 NP KC 0,00 16 721,82 16 721,82 OP KaHR 1.1 214 200,00 0,00 0,00 TOTAL 4 436 199,50 359 988,29 286 721,49 Table 7: Take away projects in Varhaňovce in the programming period 2014 - 2020. NP Field Social Work NP Community Centers NP PRIM NP Support to Land (NP FSW) (NP CC) Settlement (NP SLS) In implementation In implementation In implementation In implementation through the NGO Table 8: Investment projects submitted to MOI - Varhaňovce Project name Project implementation status Settlement of land in the MRK settlement of Varhaňovce - Horná osada Contract concluded Remediation of illegal landfills in the village of Varhaňovce Contract concluded Collection yard Varhaňovce Contract concluded Completion of infrastructure in the village of Varhaňovce - II. stage Contract concluded Construction of stands and rehabilitation of illegally placed waste in the Contract concluded village of Varhaňovce Expanding the capacity of the kindergarten Varhaňovce Contract concluded Completion of the water supply system in the village of Varhaňovce Contract concluded Completion of infrastructure in the village of Varhaňovce Contract concluded Box 8: Municipal needs as identified by the mayor 1. Increase of the capacity of the primary school and eliminate double shifts. Complete the canteen, school club and the gym 2. Increase of the capacity of the kindergarten 3. To build a pastoral center for the activities of the Roma Mission 4. Revitalize the Upper Settlement to make its environment more decent. 5. Enlarge the football field, add locker rooms. This will support the activities of the fresh Physical Education Club Vtáčkovce The municipality has 1,267 inhabitants, of which 92% are Roma. Six out of nine municipal council members are Roma61. There are 2 employees in the municipal office. 61 The numbers represent the council composition before the October 2022 municipal elections. Experience with project implementation: Table 9: Value of investments in Vtáčkovce in the programming period 2007 - 2013 Operational Programme Approved value of Contracted value of Spent value of the projects within the LSCA project projects after (€) from LSCA (€) completion of the LSCA project (€) ROP 2.1 552 378,64 0,00 0,00 ROP 4.1 107 886,12 0,00 0,00 OP ZaSI 2.1 NP 134 110,55 0,00 0,00 TOTAL 794 375,31 0,00 0,00 Table 10: Take away projects in Vtáčkovce in the programming period 2014 - 2020. NP Field Social Work (NP NP Community Centers NP PRIM NP Support to Land FSW) (NP CC) Settlement (NP SLS) In implementation Discontinued Discontinued In implementation Table 10: Investment projects submitted to MOI - Vtáčkovce Project name Project implementation status Vtáčkovce - settlement of property-law relations to Contract concluded land with the presence of MRK, the procedure of SPU Box 9: Municipal needs as identified by the mayor 1. Completion of the land settlement processes. 2. Construction of a kindergarten, community center, primary school, house of mourning. 3. Construction and reconstruction of roads, sidewalks, public lightning, camera system and water and sanitation system. 4. Construction of a collection yard 5. Construction of a playground 6. Sustain the helping professions - MOPS, teaching assistants, FSWs and in the future community workers, 7. Increase the number of municipal staff by at least one (now there are two, which is too few). Vtáčkovce is included in the DOMov project (self-help construction of family houses) which provides the support to 7 families in Vtáčkovce. The plots for the construction of houses for these 7 families has already been selected. Vaľkovňa There are 418 inhabitants in the municipality, of which 75% are Roma. Three out of five municipal council members are Roma62. The municipality has 1 part-time employee and 1 part-time worker (economist). Experience in project implementation: Table 11: Value of investments in Vaľkovňa in the programming period 2007 - 2013 Operational Programme Approved value of Contracted value of Spent value of the projects within the LSCA project projects after (€) from LSCA (€) completion of the LSCA project (€) ROP 2.1 372 400,00 0,00 0,00 OP ZaSI 2.1 NP 53 935,87 55 464,92 52 109,37 OP 4.1,4.2 377 112,00 0,00 0,00 OP KaHR 1.1 618 180,00 0,00 0,00 TOTAL 1 421 627,87 55 464,92 52 109,37 Table 12: Take away projects in Vaľkovňa in the programming period 2014 - 2020. NP Field Social Work (NP NP Community Centers NP PRIM NP Support to Land FSW) (NP CC) Settlement (NP SLS) In implementation Discontinued In implementation In implementation Table 13: Investment projects submitted to MOI - Vtáčkovce Project name Project implementation status Reconstruction of the building of the Vaľkovňa Contract concluded kindergarten Box 10: Municipal needs as identified by the mayor 1. Reconstruction of the kindergarten and increase of its capacity 2. Installation of a new heating system for the kindergarten, municipal office and social and cultural premises 3. Leap housing project for 10 new flats 4. Reconstruction of the national cultural monument – the Coburg house, which burnt down and served also as rental apartments Širkovce 62 The numbers represent the council composition before the October 2022 municipal elections. A municipality in south-central part of the Slovak Republic near the border with Hungary, where majority of inhabitants speaks Hungarian language. Of the 900 inhabitants, 56% are Roma. The local assembly has seven members of the municipal council, none of them is Roma.63 There is 1 full-time and 3 part-time workers in the municipal office. Experience in project implementation: Table 14: Value of investments in Širkovce in the programming period 2007 - 2013 Operational Programme Approved value of Contracted value of Spent value of the projects within the LSCA project projects after (€) from LSCA (€) completion of the LSCA project (€) ROP 4.1c 716 300,00 417 800,50 386 819,03 ROP 2.1 182 542,50 0,00 0,00 OP 4.1,4.2 395 832,50 0,00 0,00 OP ZaSI 2.2 99 103,39 0,00 0,00 OP ZaSI 2.1 NP TSP 148 960,00 125 692,04 124 847,43 TOTAL 1 542 738,39 543 492,54 511 666,46 Table 15: Take away projects in Širkovce in the programming period 2014 - 2020. NP Field Social Work (NP NP Community Centers NP PRIM NP Support to Land FSW) (NP CC) Settlement (NP SLS) In implementation In implementation In implementation In implementation Table 16: Investment projects submitted to MOI - Širkovce. Project name Project implementation status Širkovce Community Centre Project duly completed Box 11: Needs for the future as described by the mayor: 1. To complete some construction works, e.g. part of the road in front of the social flats (2 x 6 flats). 2. A gym for the primary school. 3. Completion of the sanitation system, or its last part with the connection to the WWTP. The project documentation itself cost the municipality €25,000. 4. Connection of new streets to the sanitation system. 5. Reconstruction of the manor house and improving its surroundings (a park with a lake and a drinking water spring), where the Gomory family used to live. The manor house has already been classified as a national monument. 63 The numbers represent the council composition before the October 2022 municipal elections. Luník IX The largest Roma urban segregated housing estate in Slovakia with a changing population of around 4,000, with Roma making up almost 100% of the population. The municipal council has 7 Roma members. The municipal office employs a total of 8 staff - 4 administrative and 4 technical staff - maintenance workers. The quality of life in this municipality has been deteriorating after the Velver Revolution in 1989. The situation has not improved under any of the post-communist mayors of Lunik IX. The municipality is facing financial challenges due to non-payment and debt of the local government. These problems can be attributed to amongst others the City of Košice's decision to move poor people, mostly Roma, to Luník IX. As a result, the current segregated Roma housing estate was created in an unnatural and artificial way. Additionally, many damaged residential buildings were demolished, and occupants resorted to smaller segregated illegal dwellings, the most famous of which is Mašličkovo. Throughout the last term, the mayor has been aware that the work on the restoration of Luník IX is a long-term work. He started with the reduction of a number of non-payers, which he continues to do, and he is convinced that this is the key to solving housing problems. Box 12: The mayor of Lunik IX Mr. Marcel Šaňa describes the situation in the municipality: "Originally, the municipality owned one residential house without owning the land on which this house stood. Now it owns a total of four together with the land. In the first house, a credit system was set up to pay for water and electricity. The card payments were inspired by a model from the city of Leuven in Belgium. For four years now, the smart remote electricity management system has been in place and is linked to the payment of rent, i.e. electricity is only available after the rent is paid on the 20th of the month. The whole system of cable distribution and consumption meters was financed from several sources like the city, the municipality, the distribution network or the EU funds. The benefit for the people is the entitlement to housing allowance and for the municipality it is the saving of water and the end of non-payment and debts for electricity, water and rent (there is not a single defaulter in the house out of a total of 48 flats). A further 110 dwellings are currently in the process of implementing this credit payment system. " Luník IX is an example of how the situation with the housing, hygiene and health can be gradually improved. Followed by better education and finally access to employment. Luník IX has adopted a comprehensive development programme, but due to its size and complexity (time, financial, human) it is not possible to implement it efficiently, that is to say, not even a major part of it, and certainly not the whole programme. In practice, Luník IX tries to follow a logical step-by-step approach, starting with the housing issue, followed by the education of children and youth. Experience in project implementation: Table 17: Value of investments in Luník IX in the programming period 2007 - 2013 Operational Programme Approved value of Contracted value of Spent value of the projects within the LSCA project projects after (€) from LSCA (€) completion of the LSCA project (€) ROP 1.1 2 296 055,00 0,00 0,00 ROP 2.1 1 425 000,00 183 587,74 180 726,32 ROP 4.1b 0,00 527 981,69 526 262,13 OP ZaSI 2.1 474 107,00 156 066,56 105 759,18 NP FSW OP ZaSI 2.1 0,00 24 111,27 24 111,27 NP CC OP V 3.1 474 823,30 0,00 0,00 OP V 4.1,4.2 3 144 618,75 0,00 0,00 OP KaHR 1.1 280 000,00 0,00 0,00 OP KaHR 1.1 576 800,00 0,00 0,00 OP KaHR 1.1 781 365,20 0,00 0,00 OP KaHR 1.1 725 480,00 0,00 0,00 OP KaHR 1.1 709 100,00 0,00 0,00 TOTAL 10 887 349,25 891 747,26 836 858,90 Table 18: Take away projects in Luník IX in the programming period 2014 - 2020. NP Field Social Work (NP NP Community Centers NP PRIM NP Support to Land FSW) (NP CC) Settlement (NP SLS) In implementation In implementation Discontinued In implementation Table 19: Investment projects submitted to MOI - Širkovce. Project name Project implementation status Leap housing - Luník IX Contract concluded Box 13: The current state of the municipality and its needs for the future as described by the mayor: In addition to the usual procedural and day-to-day challenges, there are occasional fires in apartments due to heating in stoves. The crime rate in Lunik IX is one of the lowest in Košic e also caused by installation of over 50 CCTV cameras. The amount of waste has been significantly reduced in recent years. Municipal needs: 1. To find resources for purchase of remaining city flats – about 250 flats. 2. Build a multifunctional playground. 3. Construct two rest areas and a walkway to them. The playground and the resting zones from Luník IX's own money and the pavement from the special purpose subsidy of the City of Košice. 3.2. Brief summary of municipalities' experience with the implementation of projects financed by the EU Structural Funds and with the application of a comprehensive approach. 1. Municipalities do not implement projects in a targeted and planned manner in accordance with their strategic LDPs. More strategic approach to planning of the projects is more common among more experienced mayors. Most municipalities tend to undertake projects on an ad-hoc basis, according to the opportunities offered by the calls for proposals of the operational programmes under the control of the different ministries- rather than based on expressed needs and a logical sequencing of investments. 2. Municipalities have conditioned reflexes to project calls and are subject to Pavlovian reflexes – “the call is advertised, we go for it, or when they give, we take” – this is recurring refrain from mayors. 3. There has been no comprehensive solution of their problems in relation to integration in the municipalities - this has not happened despite the repeated participation of municipalities in the previous project programmes aimed at improving the quality of the MRC population and strengthening their integration in the majority society. 4. Municipalities face a number of obstacles of their own, but also obstacles from state institutions that participate in the implementation of projects. The biggest obstacles include: - excessive administration, - heavy bureaucracy throughout the project preparation, implementation and evaluation period, - changing rules during project implementation, - high financial obligations for participation in projects, such as co-financing, - the high cost of professional services for project preparation, - lengthy evaluation of submitted projects, - delayed payments during project implementation, - difficult public procurement procedures, - cumbersome, unpredictable and slow communication with the managing authorities of EU funds during - lack of in-house human capacity dedicated to project preparation and implementation on local level, - lack of opportunities to use quick small grants for immediate or urgent solutions, and - central management of EU funds does not allow for logical timing or sequencing of project implementation. In 2014 -2020 programming period, the municipalities faced number of issues in relation to MRC EU Funds. Some of the issues prevailed though out the entire programming period. 1. Design of the calls did not respond to the wide range of municipal needs. Some needed investments were not eligible in either of the programmes. This could have been overcome through more frequent revision of the text of the operational programmes in response to needs expressed by municipalities. 2. Competition and inconsistencies between programmes. For certain type of activities, there were more programmes which could finance the projects. For instance, a kindergarten in a Roma settlement could be financed from MoI (OP HR) or from NRRP. MoI would factor in considerations such as 3D whereas this would not be a consideration for NRRP. These policy inconsistencies weaken the state’s ability to achieve integrated and inclusive development. 3. Lack of coordination and inconsistency in the conditions of various calls. The calls were issued in illogical sequencing and were not coordinated across various managing authorities or programmes. There were separate calls for sanitation for municipalities with more than 2,000 inhabitants. On the other hand, the funds for roads and sidewalks were part of another programme. If a municipality with more than 2,000 inhabitants aspired to lay sanitation under the new road in the same section, it was difficult to coordinate and sequence due fact that the calls were administered by different ministries and issued at different times. 4. Mismatch between demand and supply did not allow municipalities to cover specific needs. For example, there were no funds for playgrounds in the 2014 -2020 period. The upgrade of existing infrastructure was not supported (e.g., school canteens were not eligible as a stand-alone projects). Some needed investments were not eligible unless they were part of a broader investment – even when there was no clear justification. For example, public lighting could only be financed if part of a road and/ or sidewalk construction. So, municipalities that had previously built roads and sidewalks could not apply only for public lighting in the 2014-2020 programing period. 4. Lessons from the previous programming periods and recommendations for 2021- 2027 The report concludes with a set of recommendations that improve the implementation of the comprehensive approach in the 2021-2027 programing period of Cohesion funds. The recommendations are based on lessons learned from past implementation and suggestions drawn from amongst others, municipal leaders and experts who have been involved in the implementation of past projects. The LSCA was spread over a large number of operational programmes, which were not harmonized and had their own rules and conditions. From the original approved plan, only a few of the planned projects were implemented in practice by the municipalities and in some instances, none, as in the case of Vtáčkovce. The initial idea of the LSCA programme could not be realized in full scale given the rules of the operational programmes and the competences of the OPRC. The "take away package" was implemented as a top-down solution for selected list of municipalities. The municipalities were not consulted prior to their selection, as a result, some municipalities withdrew from the process during implementation while some refused to be part of the programme from the very beginning. For municipalities with very complex situation, the take-away package was limited and did not meet expressed needs (e.g., Lomnička). 4.1. Considerations of the CURI III Annual Conference in Košice During the CuRI III Annual Conference in Košice on 14th of June 2022, discussions by a range of stakeholders from across levels of government, state agencies, academics and NGOs, culminated in recommendations for consideration in the design of the 2021-2027 programs. These were: 1. It is necessary to create a mechanism that will prevent municipalities/cities from implementing only profitable and easy to implement projects, the so-called icing on the cake, and not to implement more difficult but necessary projects for the MRC. 2. A mechanism needs to be created so that municipalities/cities that are passive in their MRC integration efforts or do not submit any MRC related projects should be prevented from receiving financial support for other “pet” projects. 3. Legislative changes should be considered to resolve some issues related to integration of the MRC, e.g., ease the possibility of land expropriation in favor of land settlement in the public interest. 4. It is necessary to address the integration of the MRC in the municipality within one comprehensive project and not with a jigsaw of projects as in the previous two programming periods. 5. The incompetence of effective project implementation is on both sides of the main actors: managing authorities of EU funds versus municipalities/cities. Municipalities/cities fail in the design and implementation of projects, managing authorities fail in the setting of project calls and in the substantive monitoring of project implementation. 6. It is necessary to substantially reduce administration and bureaucracy in the whole process of implementation of projects financed by EU funds. 7. The application of the comprehensive approach and the implementation of comprehensive projects does not exclude other forms of project calls - open calls, national projects. 4.2. Recommendations for the 2021-2027 programing period of the Cohesion funds 1. Rather than uncoordinated investment “calls” by the OPRC, consideration should be given to preparing integrated/ complex calls that “bundle” eligible activities. For instance, a basic municipal infrastructure call could include water, sanitation, roads, sidewalks, public lighting, etc. under one call. Another call could be for social infrastructure such as kindergarten, elementary schools, playgrounds, etc. These calls could remain open for the duration of the programing period, thus enabling municipalities to apply as their investment pipelines mature. Such re-design would enable municipalities to program and sequence their applications and implementation in response to their needs, rather than in response to a central administrative decision on when calls are open or closed. 2. Infrastructure “calls” could be better complemented by soft measures/ investments. Hard and soft interventions should be aligned so that they are mutually supportive and logically complement and reinforce each other. For example: • when building a community center, the municipality can apply for community center employees and resources to train them, • for the construction and reconstruction of shelter, i.e., housing projects, the municipality can apply for support in the form of community work and housing assistants, • in waste disposal, the municipality can apply for community work and environmental education for its citizens. 3. Investment needs to be preceded by an integrated municipal plan. The LDP is the basic strategic and development document for each municipality. It therefore needs to be well articulated, compiled in a participatory manner (with an explicit focus on enabling MRC participation in the planning process, identification of needs and participation in implementation) with a clear focus on closing development gaps between Roma and non-Roma. If a municipality has a dated plan or one that does not meet these minimum requirements, it is advisable to have it updated prior to applying for investment funds. It is recommended that OPRC updates the LDP methodological guide to include a focus on Roma inclusion and integration. Further, municipalities could be supported to prepare LDPs that meet these requirements. 4. Prioritizing land settlement by both central and subnational governments. Unresolved tenure, which is especially rife in Roma settlements impedes project implementation and absorption of funds. While there has been focus on this in the 2014-2020 programing period, this was not sufficiently resourced and therefore did not significantly fast-track land settlement. OPRC could bolster its capacity to drive the National Land Program, improve collaboration with other stakeholders, such as Slovak Land Fund, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and use modern cadastre management tools. 5. Close coordination with other authorities managing the funds for improved integration of MRC. While the OPRC will command significant Cohesion fund resources targeted at MRC integration in this programing period, on their own, these are inadequate, and more resources (cohesion and national funds) are with different ministries. The OPRC, as entity responsible for ensuring implementation of the MRC inclusion strategy could play a coordinating role to ensure the complementarity of other funds managed by these ministries. This coordination could focus on the design, content and timing of these investments to optimize an “all of government” response to MRC inclusion. 6. All municipalities with significant Roma communities and included in the Atlas to be eligible to participate in complex/ integrated calls. It is appreciated that there are insufficient resources to meet all needs, however, precluding some municipalities with significant Roma communities from participating could discourage them from attempting to address Roma inclusion. The decision to allocate resources could be made considering i) the quality and strength of inclusion agenda as expressed in the LDP, ii) quality of investment pipeline, iii) maturity of projects (shovel- readiness); iv) extent of need/ deprivation. 7. Enabling continuity of projects across programing periods. Some municipalities have valid LDPs that meet the requirements mentioned above with investment pipelines that were not fully realized in the previous programing period. In preparing the complex call, care should be taken to ensure that these projects can be continued with and completed. This continuity is also necessary for soft investments that were financed in previous periods, especially where there is demonstrable value and impact of these, such as MOPs, teaching assistants and field social workers. 4.3. Proposals for criteria/principles for a comprehensive approach The application of these recommendations could be supported by adopting some foundational principles, such as: 1. Openness - the possibility to implement projects in a comprehensive approach is available to every municipality with a share of MRC, 2. Democracy - the choice of activities (and the number of them) that are part of a comprehensive approach, and their focus is at the discretion of the applicant, i.e., not directly predetermined, 3. Expertise - the comprehensiveness of the selected projects of the applicants must carefully assessed in the evaluation process, 4. Continuity - municipalities can apply for support for their complex projects without time limit during the whole programming period. The complex call should be open though out the entire programming period or until the funds are exhausted. 5. Explicit but not exclusive targeting – eligible investments for calls targeted at Roma should not exclude non-Roma but explicitly target Roma. This will help alleviate some tension in municipalities where citizens and municipal assemblies object to Roma only investments. This principle is also key for ensuring inclusive growth. 6. Active participation of the Roma – from preparation of strategic plans to identification and implementation of physical and soft investments. Strong Roma participation will contribute to the quality and efficacy of selected interventions. Further guidelines for applicants of projects applying the complex call: 1. Justification - the applicant must demonstrate the usefulness and legitimacy for the implementation of the complex project and its consistency with the approved strategic document of the municipality (PHSR/ LDP) 2. Uniqueness - the applicant's submitted project must be original and tailored to the given municipality with targeted assistance for the specific MRC community in the municipality and strengthening the coexistence between the majority and the minority, 3. Cost-effectiveness - project activities must be cost-effectively set up so that they build on each other in a logical time and content sense, while the overall budget is minimized and is necessary and justified, 4. Collaboration - the applicant's submitted plan has a well thought out collaboration with stakeholder groups, especially with local citizens from the MRC background, 5. Efficiency - the applicant's projects must be efficient in every aspect: time, energy, financial resources, human capacity, environmental impact, 6. Expertise - the applicant must be able to justify the professional requirements placed on a complex project, starting with the overall expertise of the project design, 7. Sustainability - the applicant's submission for a comprehensive project, including all its activities, must have a well thought out continuation, longevity and long-term impact on the local community, so it must not be some purposeful one-off activity for pleasure. In addition to the above principles, it goes without saying that all constitutional and legal norms, including human rights, non-discrimination, gender equality, equality of opportunity, solidarity and mutual aid, are respected during the preparation and implementation of complex projects in the municipality. Annex C – Handbook and Toolkit for using Participatory Scenarios Process for effective municipal planning in Slovakia. Handbook Toolkit