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