Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Housing in Marginalized Communities in Bulgaria – A Community Needs Assessment Findings from qualitative research in six marginalized settlements in North-West Bulgaria The World Bank April 2021 Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Community Needs and Assets ................................................................................................................. 3 A. Economic Capital ................................................................................................................................... 3 B. Human Capital ....................................................................................................................................... 6 C. Social Capital ......................................................................................................................................... 8 D. Political Capital .................................................................................................................................... 10 III. Synthesis ............................................................................................................................................... 12 A. Housing is part of a larger picture of socioeconomic exclusion. ......................................................... 12 B. Social cohesion is the foundation of successful community development. ....................................... 13 C. Distrust between public authorities and marginalized communities hampers policy success. .......... 13 IV. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 16 V. Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 19 VI. Annex .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement I. Introduction While Bulgaria’s housing sector faces numerous challenges that affect large parts of the populations, marginalized communities find themselves in particularly precarious housing situations. The high costs of living, combined with insufficient affordable housing options, push the marginalized to live in deprived neighborhoods where housing is cheaper, but where living conditions are poor, and rates of illegal tenure are high. Given the informal nature of the status of many of the Roma neighborhoods, and the underrepresentation in the census and other official data, local authorities are often unable to monitor changes in populations in these neighborhoods. This has consequences for the government at the national and municipal levels in terms of planning and infrastructure capacity and service provision. Living in such neighborhoods takes on additional dimensions for Bulgaria’s Roma community, who face both higher poverty levels on average, and social exclusion. The Roma population in Bulgaria is currently among the most excluded urban population in the European Union (EU). The concentration of Roma in isolated neighborhoods has increased during the last fifteen years both in urban and rural areas. This leads to limited access to quality public services including water, education, and healthcare. The objective of this assessment is to provide insights into challenges and opportunities related to the improvement of housing and living conditions in marginalized neighborhoods, with an explicit but not exclusive focus on the Roma population. This assessment complements other analysis that was conducted separately and is part of a broader diagnostic of housing and living conditions of marginalized communities in the Northwestern (NW) region of the country.1 Its goal was, specifically, to obtain an in-depth view of community and stakeholder perceptions and to better understand what community-level conditions are relevant for housing and neighborhood improvements - beyond infrastructure needs and individual housing conditions. These conditions can be both needs that point to barriers or assets that signal opportunities. The underlying premise of the Community Assessment is that precarious housing is not exclusively related to household-level constraints that, for instance, can be solved by investments in individual housing units. Rather, housing has an important community dimension, i.e. the prospects for lasting housing improvements are directly and indirectly determined by the access to a range of services, markets, and spaces in a given place. Likewise, shortcomings in the housing sector are likely to be a significant roadblock for progress in other areas of socio-economic development. Consequently, we recognize that sustainable progress in the housing situation of marginalized groups will require an integrated approach that goes beyond assessing uptake and effectiveness of specific housing policies. The assumption is that solving the housing crisis requires tackling barriers on multiple fronts, including areas such as health, education, and employment. This applies particularly to the most vulnerable groups which tend to struggle with multiple overlapping disadvantages and may find themselves trapped in precarious housing situations. The human rights angle is important here as it emphasizes these connections. International human rights law recognizes everyone’s right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing. Adequate housing was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in the 1948 Universal Declaration of 1 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement Human Rights and in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Yet, a key principle of human rights is that they are interdependent, indivisible, and interrelated.2 The right to adequate housing does not just mean that the structure of the house itself must be adequate.3 There must also be sustainable and non-discriminatory access to facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. Further, access to adequate housing can be a precondition for the enjoyment of several human rights, including the rights to work, health, social security, vote, privacy or education. At the same time, the right to adequate housing can be at risk for those being denied other rights, such as the right to education, work or social security. The findings presented in the following are mainly based on qualitative fieldwork, supported by the World Bank, that was conducted in five municipalities in the NW region in Summer 2020. These have been identified as regions requiring the most urgent attention. The qualitative research involved several activities, including (i) on-site visits, (ii) interviews with marginalized and social housing dwellers, (iii) conversations with municipal and non-municipal experts, and (iv) spatial analysis to understand the situation from the local stakeholders’ point of view. Interviews were carried out in three different formats to best capture stakeholders’ viewpoints and included a wide variety of stakeholders. The study involved the participation of 147 marginalized housing dwellers and 51 inhabitants of social housing across the 18 focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted (3 in each settlement) and the 72 in-depth interviews (IDIs). The selection of participants from the marginalized neighborhoods and social housing was carried out intentionally with a focus on the Roma population but also included other ethnic groups living in marginalized settlements. The fieldwork study was also supplemented with 25 key informant interviews (KIIs) that included a mixture of municipal experts and NGO representatives in each location who have been directly or indirectly involved in local housing issues. 2 See: OHCHR 2009 3 The right to adequate housing includes ensuring access to adequate services. For example, there must be access to safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating, lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services. 2 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement II. Community Needs and Assets A. Economic Capital Key message: • Precarious housing and poverty are mutually reinforcing: while poverty is clearly a driver of informality and housing deprivation, precarious housing situations also create barriers to better economic opportunities (by limiting mobility and access to services and markets). While financial means, are evidently a key consideration for housing-related decision, it can be both a driver and a constraint for moving. A common reason for moving or being willing to move is to improve the households’ economic situation, either by improving income opportunities (such as finding a job), or by reducing the costs for living.4 In the FGDs there was wide agreement that in their neighborhoods it was common for people to move, or be willing to move, for economic reasons. There was no difference between Bulgarians and Roma in this respect. At the same time, poverty was also raised as a constraint for moving. Some people felt that they were too poor to move.5 This is an important aspect, since people living in precarious housing may feel trapped in situations of extreme poverty. Many respondents, mostly in social housing, expressed a feeling of “having nowhere else to go�. However, it is important to point out that people’s agency is determined by various other factors that come together, beyond just the lack of financial means. These aspects will be explored in the following. The affordability of rent and utilities is a great concern for participants. While the financial situation of households in low-income neighborhoods may vary significantly, the difficulties of covering the running costs related to housing is a common theme among interviewees. Although in many cases the rent of social housing is substantially below the market rent (less than 50 BGN), for some of the social housing units, higher rents of up to BGN 150 were reported (which is already comparable to the market rent in the corresponding locations). Yet, even where rents are low or not paid at all, utility bills alone appear to represent a serious challenge for most respondents. This applies to residents from both social housing and those in other precarious housing situations.6 In particular, respondents highlighted the high cost for electricity as one of the main burdens on their budgets. The lack of insulation and inefficient heating further contribute to high electricity costs. For social housing residents the constant struggle to cover utility bills creates exceptional distress given that non-payment and the accumulation of arrears can lead to eviction. This came out as a strong source of anxiety among interviewees from social housing. On the other hand, for residents outside social housing failure to pay, say water, does usually not have any immediate consequences; 4 Overall, 15% of respondents indicated they are willing to move for economic reasons (less important than housing conditions). 5 “One in 10 Roma (13 Roma persons) said that they would stay where they live because they are too poor to move. Only 3% of Bulgarians said they were too poor to move.� 6 utility costs are a challenge for 27% of interviewees from social housing 3 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement in the case of electricity, failure to pay the bills leads to having the electricity supply cut, as several examples from the IDIs illustrate. The poorest and most marginalized people often incur additional costs for coping with limited public services, as the example of electricity illustrates. According to accounts from FGDs and IDIs, the cost for electricity tends to be even higher for informal grid connections – a practice that was widely reported by residents and experts.7 Non-compliant dwellings face restrictions in obtaining electricity through a formal contract with the provider, and therefore resort to informal arrangements. These informal connections incur additional investment costs for cables (sometimes several hundred meters long) and the regular payments made through informal agreements with a legally connected neighbor tend to be higher compared to a regular contract with the electricity provider (this practice is referred to as “borrowing electricity�). Public transport is another example where access barriers lead to higher expenses in underserviced settlements. Residents often shared concerns about the lack of reliable public transport as well as the poor conditions of roads in the neighborhood, particularly in Dunavtsi, Vidin, and Montana. Road conditions have direct implications for public transport and alternative private services. Several anecdotes were shared of buses not accessing the neighborhood due to the poor condition of streets. While some reported having to walk long distances despite safety concerns, a woman from the Kosharnik neighborhood in Montana explained that if her children miss the school bus they have to pay for a taxi, because no other public transport option is available. In Vidin, the Nov pat neighborhood is serviced only by private minibuses which reportedly operate irregularly. The limited availability of reliable transport options does not only have implications for the safety and mobility of residents but also has a direct monetary cost attached to it. Residents both inside and outside social housing, are struggling to keep up with the maintenance of their dwellings. Many interviewees mentioned that they were unable to pay for required maintenance and repairs, let alone refurbishments or other housing improvements. When asked for potential sources of financial and non-financial support, the majority of residents outside of social housing stated they cannot rely on any formal or informal support. However, the resources available within the household, are often not sufficient to make necessary and urgent repairs, such as leakages, broken windows, cracks in a wall, and other structural problems affecting the safety of inhabitants.8 While some brought up neighbors and relatives as (potential) sources for help, municipal support for the maintenance of dwellings was not mentioned at all. Social housing residents complained that municipal authorities were not taking care of required maintenance and repairs of the common areas of buildings, such as roofs, corridors, and doors.9 Generally, expectations for support from municipalities were exceptionally low among both groups. The field work revealed a divergence between experts’ and residents’ views on the adequacy of social assistance. The selected low-income neighborhoods are characterized by high unemployment 7 In general, legal connections to electricity seem to be the norm but with variations across settlements. For instance, the town of Vidin stands out as an exception where almost half of the interviewed Roma do not have a legal connection to electricity and rely on informal arrangements, such as “borrowing� from their neighbors. 8 “More than a third of Roma and a fifth of their Bulgarian neighbors fail to cope with the maintenance of their homes.� (p. 64) 9 “Though a commitment for covering maintenance costs is included in social housing contracts, it does not look realistic that this amount could suffice to maintain the dwellings and buildings without additional subsidizing.� (93) 4 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement and a high reliance on social benefits.10 Generally, municipal experts displayed a negative attitude towards social assistance policies. Specifically, experts in Lom, Montana, and Vratsa expressed that social assistance under the various programs was amounting to excessively high cash benefits for some families. This would create disincentives for seeking employment. There was also a strong belief that abuse of social benefits was common. In contrast, residents voiced that social assistance was insufficient for making ends need and covering even the most basic expenses. A World Bank study on labor market exclusion in Bulgaria (Karacsony et al. 2017) shows that, at the national level, the major barriers for labor market inclusion are capabilities barriers11 and scarce employment opportunities. Incentive barriers due to high non-labor income were only identified for one of the three priority groups: relatively educated unemployed youth (ibid.:51). Economic means and opportunities are a "The entrance door was not of good quality and key factor in households’ housing-related broke. They took it to repair it, but they have not decisions. Clearly, there is a strong desire to brought it back yet, so we, the inhabitants, decided make housing improvements among FGD to repair it by ourselves." and IDI participants. Virtually all respondents point to economic barriers as reasons for not (Roma women from Lom, living in social housing) being able to make desired improvements. Due to a lack of means, as well as limited access to credit, most are unable to make property investments (such as buying the social housing units they live in, as some respondents mentioned). Experts in the municipalities of Lom and Oryahovo stressed that cash transfers from abroad have a positive impact on housing conditions in marginalized neighborhoods. While remittances are likely to have a positive economic impact on local communities, they may also amplify existing inequalities. The Covid-19 crisis is further escalating the dire economic situation of marginalized Roma due to their vulnerability to the pandemic and its negative consequences. Available evidence on the impact of the pandemic in Bulgaria show that Roma communities are more exposed to a range of risks associated with poverty and social exclusion.12 The poorest13 are unable to smoothen or compensate a loss of income resulting from sudden unemployment or a decline in remittances from abroad.14 High degrees of unemployment and labor market informality among the Roma imply limited social protection against job and income loss.15 10 The employment profiles of the two interview groups (in social housing and vulnerable housing) are almost identical: in both cases about 40% are without a job; between a quarter and a fifth have full-time contracts; about a quarter in both cases are retired or too old to work. 11 Including low education, lacking work experience, care responsibilities, and health limitations 12 Already in April 2020, OSF warned that the pandemic would have a devastating impact on Roma communities throughout Europe (OSF 2020) 13 At-risk-of poverty rate among the Roma was 86% in Bulgaria 2016 (FRA, EU MIDIS II 2016) 14 See: Bogdanov 2020 15 Roma and people living in rural areas show much higher levels of inactivity. While the overall unemployment rate of Roma is 55%, it is even higher (65%) for young Roma aged 16-24 (36). (European Commission 2020) 5 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement B. Human Capital Key message: • Skills and education are important assets to create pathways for housing and neighborhood improvements. Simultaneously, precarious housing is a detriment for better health and education (particularly evident during the Covid crisis). Both Roma and non-Roma experts cite low levels of education and employment among the Roma as key issues in their neighborhoods. While this was not the focus of this research, the availability of and distance to schools and kindergartens did not come up as a salient issue. However, the selected neighborhoods are characterized by low education levels as well low formal skills and training. These deficits are evident, given that in Bulgaria, educational success is highly determined by socioeconomic background - more than in any other EU country.16 Moreover, there are large differences in education outcomes by language and geographical area, with Roma and rural students lagging far behind.17 Experts in Vratsa, Vidin and Montana belief that improving education is key to improving housing conditions in the marginalized neighborhoods. Non-governmental experts from Lom suggested that effective and meaningful community participation in the policy process requires some level of education and is more challenging with less educated residents. Residential segregation reinforces school segregation with subsequent implications for inequalities in education. In 2016, 83% of Roma in Bulgaria indicated that they live in a neighborhood were all or most residents are of the same ethnic background. This is the highest share among the EU countries included in the survey (FRA, EU MIDIS II 2016). The selected settlements reflect this pattern with high levels of ethnic segregation. At the same time Bulgaria is the country in the EU with one of the highest levels of social school segregation.18 The immense negative consequences of school segregation for marginalized students are well-established (including learning opportunities, aspirations, attitudes toward school or role models) (World Bank 2019:15). The research revealed significant difficulties in understanding bureaucratic procedures and documents among respondents. For both social housing applications and the process of legalizing a dwelling the interviews revealed many misconceptions and widespread misinformation. Respondents were found to have a wide variety of beliefs concerning requirements and necessary documents. Moreover, respondents often do not make a clear distinction between distinct legal situations. Enumerators also noted that many respondents, particularly with lower education levels, do not spell the names of the documents correctly and do not seem fully understand the respective procedures. It should be noted, however, that residents often find themselves in complicated situations of housing informality which involve various legal uncertainties, including issues related to land ownership, building documentation, tax liabilities, connections to utilities, among others. As a consequence, several respondents were not certain about the actual legal status of their homes.19 Those who have 16 Including the school the student attends, the number of years of schooling she gets, and the skills she acquires in the education lifetime (World Bank 2019:12) 17 “Linguistic minority students (Turkish or Roma) lag to the equivalent to three and a half years of schooling in reading, and two years of schooling in math and science.� “Schools contribute to amplify student gaps, even after considering pre-existing educational and socioeconomic differences among students.� (World Bank 2019:14) 18 meaning that students with similar backgrounds tend to go together to secondary education; see: index of School Social Segregation (World Bank 2019:15) 19 Some respondents’ confusion about the legality of their homes was inherited from previous generations or from their spouses. In the majority of clear cases of informality, however, the respondents or their families built the 6 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement made inquiries about these procedures at the municipality, stated that they did not trust or understand the provided explanations. Lack of ICT competencies prevent many Roma from accessing administrative services and browsing information online. Among the Roma respondents almost half indicate not using the internet at all. The most typical reason for not using the internet is not having a connection and or not having the necessary skills. Internet users, who tend to be younger, mention social media as their main use of the internet. Other research has shown that the Roma in Bulgaria face gaps in digital skills, device ownership, and access to a reliable internet connection, compared to the rest of the population.20 During the Covid-19 pandemic the low participation rates in online classes among marginalized students, particularly Roma, are symptomatic of this digital divide. Expert interviews in Sofia21 revealed that for many Roma parents in Sofia enrolling children in kindergartens has become a major challenge since the municipality fully digitized enrollment. They are struggling with the online enrolment process and rely on volunteers to complete their online applications due to lacking digital skills. This illustrates the difficulties for marginalized communities in obtaining equal access to online information and the use of e-government services. The lack of knowledge on how to use a computer, word-processing applications and how to navigate online content are significant barriers according to experts working with the Roma community.22 These deficits exacerbate existing information asymmetries between marginalized communities and more affluent, and educated neighborhoods. The Covid-19 crisis revealed the negative implications of precarious housings situations for education and health. The pandemic restrictions appear to be having disproportionally negative effects on Roma’s access to education, due to difficulties to provide home-schooling in precarious housing situations. Low reported levels of participation in online classes among the Roma have been associated with low levels of digital skills and internet access.23 Moreover, the immediate health impacts are more acute in marginalized communities: overcrowded housing and a lack of access to basic sanitation increases the risk of virus transmission.24 Limited healthcare coverage furthers compounds difficulties in effective prevention and treatment. Hence, the pandemic is an amplifier of existing inequalities related to housing and the access to public services. house themselves without any documentation and have some understanding that this process results in informality and poses risks. 20 World Bank assessment of digital inclusion in Bulgaria: World Bank 2021 [unpublished internal manuscript] 21 See digital report, expert interviews were part of a separate inquiry on digital inclusion and not part of the fieldwork in North-West Bulgaria 22 World Bank 2021 [unpublished internal manuscript] 23 World Bank 2021 [unpublished internal manuscript]; also see: The Guardian, May 11, 2020: “Europe's marginalised Roma people hit hard by coronavirus.� 24 In 2016, 76% of Roma households in Bulgaria were overcrowded, while 62% indicated not having an indoor flushing toilet (FRA, EU MIDIS II 2016) 7 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement C. Social Capital Key message: • Social cohesion and social networks are a key source of resilience that is critical for housing-related decisions and community development more broadly. When asked about the willingness to move, both Roma and Bulgarian respondents indicated that the social environment of their neighborhood is a key consideration. One in four respondents is willing to move because of some undesired characteristics of the neighborhood including the relationships with neighbors. It is a consideration that is almost as important as the household’s dwelling condition which were mentioned by 30 percent of respondents as a reason to move. However, the patterns varied significantly between study locations. Vidin stands out with half of the respondents being willing to move due to neighborhood characteristics.25 Residents mostly obtain and trust information shared through personal interactions with both neighbors and the municipality. Interviewed residents stated that the main information sources to learn about social housing are personal meetings with municipal officials and by word of mouth. There was a strong preference for face-to-face conversations over written and non-personal information such as posters and websites. This illustrates the importance of trusted social networks for obtaining information. Several respondents mentioned that they would consult local persons with certain authority, such as a shopkeeper, to verify or explain information regarding official procedures. In marginalized neighborhoods, communities demonstrated a relatively strong social fabric as opposed to social housing residents. Overall, housing mobility seems to be low among those interviewed: an overwhelming majority of respondents lived in their current place since birth and never experienced moving from one home to another. This is particularly true for interviewees from smaller settlements. Persons living in marginalized housing, had on average spent a markedly high 28 years in their current homes, as opposed to social hosing where interviewees on average spent 12 years. As a result of their long tenure in their current neighborhood, communities were also more inclined to develop close relations with their immediate neighbors. Within marginalized neighborhoods, Roma persons appeared to be more likely than non-Roma persons to maintain close relations and less likely to be distant with their neighbors. Close relations entail meeting often, knowing a lot about each other, having a communal life, and providing mutual support. Social housing residents clearly displayed lower levels of social proximity between neighbors. One of the negative perceptions of social housing that was brought up repeatedly is that of a place of disorder and conflict. Respondents from social housing also stated more often that they had nowhere else to go. Among many respondents, particularly Roma, there is a strong preference for staying in the neighborhood despite discontent with a range of issues related to the neighborhood. When asked if they would seize an opportunity to move to a better house than their current housing, answers were mixed. Of those who answered the question, just under half said they would not move. It should be noted here however, that the vast majority who said they would not move also self-identified as Roma.26 Despite alarming levels of housing deprivation, Roma respondents often state explicitly that 25 Next come Dunavtsi and Oryahovo with approximately 1/3 of interviewed persons being willing to move due to the environment in their neighborhood. 26 The expressed willingness to stay in their current homes, was higher among Roma. 21% of the Roma interviewed stated a willingness to stay, compared to 12% of the non-Roma sample. The reason provided for this was that they 8 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement they like their neighborhood. This is not to say that they were content: at the same time, they identified major problems and expressed desire for a variety of improvements. Yet, they displayed a strong sense of belonging to the place and community. Respondents often said that they felt attached to their home, neighbors, and surroundings or at least that they had become used to them over time. This was confirmed by municipal and non-municipal experts in Lom, Montana, Vidin, and Vratsa (including experts directly working with the Roma communities in these locations). Further, in Lom, Montana, Oryahovo and Vratsa experts point out that those who are willing to move would prefer to stay in the same town. Resident’s perceptions reveal high levels of distrust between Roma and non-Roma residents with prejudice and misinformation being widespread in both groups. All neighborhoods that were part of the study are characterized by high degrees of ethnic and social segregation. Roma respondents often stated that they maintain close relations with their neighbors (more often than non-Roma respondents), including with non-Roma neighbors. Yet, the interviews exhibit general distrust between Roma and non-Roma among both groups. In focus groups non-Roma participants often shared negative believes about Roma but without referring to personal experience and relations with immediate neighbors. Others were reluctant to comment on inter-ethnic relations. These findings are generally in line with other research, including reports of hate speech and violence against Roma.27 While the willingness to move to another place is likely explained by a combination of various factors, the displayed attachment to place and community underlines that social networks and social cohesion are a key dimension of living conditions that may outweigh other material considerations. Good relationships with neighbors and closeness to family members, or the absence thereof, were brought up repeatedly as important issues that are relevant for decisions relating to housing and neighborhood improvements. For those with a desire to move, uncertainty about the social environment elsewhere and fear of resentments or conflict are likely factors that hold them back, and to some degree may explain low housing mobility. An overwhelming majority of interviewed residents prefer housing and neighborhood upgrades in place of moving home altogether. “I like the neighborhood. I have grown up here. Do not like the streets much because when it rains it gets very muddy outside. The reason for this is that not all of the streets in the neighborhood have asphalt. There is no sewerage also. One cannot pass electricity easily because most of the houses are illegal and people do not pay taxes for them.“ (Roma woman from Lom) While these findings underline the centrality of social networks and good relationships within the community, it also became evident that the social environment is fragile and constantly changing. The trends of emigration and demographic change in the selected municipalities are not only economically challenging but also threaten the social fabric of marginalized communities. Some respondents noted that their neighborhoods are so depopulated due to emigration that few neighbors remained and whole compounds have been left basically empty. The importance of mutual support between neighbors was voiced by many, and was reiterated by some that required help during the were used to their homes. While the sample is too small and not representative to generalize, the results seem to indicate that older persons and married persons presumably were more willing to remain in their current homes. 27 See: Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. 2020; Carrera et al. 2019 9 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement onset of the Covid crisis. Hence, social networks become even more relevant where essential public services are lacking, as has been documented for the neighborhoods that were part of this study. D. Political Capital Key message: • Lack of transparency and accountability fuels disengagement of marginalized Roma from formal channels of participation and public support. While awareness and knowledge of government programs is generally low, many respondents, particularly Roma, displayed distrust in official procedures and questioned the fairness of existing programs.28 Respondents repeatedly brought up beliefs of systemic discrimination and exclusion of either Roma (in the case of Roma respondents) or non-Roma (in the case of non-Roma respondents) from certain support programs. Experts in Lom and Vratsa think that there is a general problem with trust in housing assistance programs, especially on the part of the Roma population. Municipal and civil society experts in Lom, Vidin, and Vratsa, believed that Roma residents are afraid of being discriminated if they apply for assistance. This believe was contested by other municipal experts who pointed out that the Roma are actively seeking this help. Almost all experts of Roma origin identified discrimination as a problem. The low trust in public institutions is potentially exacerbated by limited awareness and understanding of formal rules and procedures among residents. Even some of the experts, including those from the municipality, displayed limited knowledge of housing and inclusion policy. Hence, transparency and information dissemination in public institutions seem to be insufficient. Respondents displayed a preference for personal informal meetings with municipal officials over formal procedures. Personal meetings tend to be the preferred way of dealing with institutional issues and are considered the most reliable source of information. Residents of vulnerable housing reported the practice of just dropping-in at a given institution they know to check if somebody can help, usually concerned about the informality, poor condition or total disrepair of their homes. There is a widely held belief that personal contacts to people in power are the most effective way to receiving support or getting requests approved. Some successful applicants are convinced that what changed the odds in their favor was the chance to finally meet the mayor. Requests to meet with the mayor in the context of social housing applications are common but not always successful, especially in the larger settlements (and even more difficult under pandemic restrictions). In some cases, repeated and persistent attempts to meet the mayor were reported. Apart from social housing, municipal assistance for housing improvements is mainly ad-hoc and informal often relying on individual decisions of leadership. In the selected municipalities there are currently no municipal programs specifically aimed at improving the housing conditions of marginalized groups. When asked questions existing form of support, KIs usually refer to ad-hoc decisions made by municipal authorities or shared anecdotes of informal support (such as occasional assistance provided to individuals in need of repair of their home). Social housing residents indicated that they are accustomed to informal arrangements and workarounds, such as extending the lease 28 None of the respondents in vulnerable housing reported a personal experience with receiving any government assistance for improving their housing conditions, such as housing benefits, support for paying rent or other income support related to housing. 10 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement beyond the statutory limit or allowing exceptions from the maximum number of household members.29 29 This process is explicitly described by experts in Vratsa 11 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement III. Synthesis A. Housing is part of a larger picture of socioeconomic exclusion. The insights from the field work illustrate and confirm that housing-related challenges are intricately connected to a broader process of social exclusion. Marginalized neighborhoods that are characterized by high levels of housing deprivation also exhibit large deficits in other dimensions of human and economic development, including high unemployment, low education levels, and poor health outcomes, among others.30 In the study locations, precarious housing was just one among many issues identified by municipal experts. This research shed light on some of the needs that are related to housing but go beyond the financing of infrastructure and housing upgrading. While the lack of economic means is evidently a vital concern for marginalized communities, bottlenecks related to human capital, social cohesion, trust in authorities, and political accountability play an important role as well. Taking these factors into consideration appears to be instrumental to achieve lasting improvements in living and housing conditions. Housing is a key pillar of the social inclusion agenda, given that a safe and adequate home is so central to peoples’ lives. Difficulties in coping with housing-related challenges cause high levels of stress and anxiety, as the interviews with marginalized residents underscored. Moreover, the inability of many residents to cover the regular costs, make basic housing improvements (many lack essential amenities and services), or even to maintain dwellings has negative repercussions for health, employment, and education. Hence, from a rights-perspective, working towards the realization of the right to housing -per Article 31 of the European Social Charter- is also contributing to the realization of other rights, such as the right to protection against poverty and social exclusion (Article 30), the right to protection of health (Article 11), or the right to work (Article 1) and social protection (Article 12). Many of the interviewed residents displayed a sense of powerlessness and loss of agency, given the many barriers they are facing. While infrastructure and services needs vary across settlements, a common characteristic of residents in all study locations is the general lack of agency resulting from complex and challenging circumstances. Among some, this creates a feeling of “not having a choice� or “having nowhere else to go�. This was voiced, in particular, by social housing residents who tend to view social housing as an option of last resort. Experts from Lom and Vratsa echoed this perceived lack of choice among residents in marginalized settlements. Housing-related aspirations expressed during the IDIs and FGDs were generally low, particularly for social housing residents. Respondents found it difficult to express their expectations about changes in their homes and living conditions 5 years from now. The most common answers relate to short- term expectations and relatively small improvements in their current homes. More than a third of 30 For instance, see: World Bank 2017: 94ff.; While the Roma largely live in segregated neighborhoods with inadequate or sub-standard housing and infrastructure, they are also lagging far behind the rest of the population in key indicators of material deprivation, education, employment, and health. 2016, 83% of Roma in Bulgaria indicated that they live in a neighborhood were all or most residents are of the same ethnic background (FRA, EU MIDIS II 2016). 12 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement social housing residents participating in the research acknowledged that they don’t know what will happen when their contract expires (if they get an extension or whether they will have to move somewhere else). Overall, difficulties in planning ahead, naming and prioritizing issues appear to be related to the fact that residents of marginalized housing are overburdened with hardships and challenges that are difficult to separate from each other. As a rich body of research has shown, persistent poverty and exclusion also hampers people’s “capacity to aspire�.31 B. Social cohesion is the foundation of successful community development. Rising territorial inequality and persistent anti-Roma sentiment threaten social cohesion, particularly in lagging regions. It is well-known that tensions and distrust between the Roma and non- Roma population are a major concern for housing policies. For instance, there is widespread public resistance to housing investments targeting the Roma, including cases of violent demonstrations in recent years.32 During the field work ethnic conflicts did also come up as a major concern for marginalized communities. In addition, demographic and urbanization trends further threaten the social fabric in lagging regions, such as Bulgaria’s North-West, given outmigration and economic decline. Some residents were troubled by the changing reality of an ageing and shrinking population. Where these changes materialize fast social networks begin to erode leaving the remaining residents increasingly vulnerable – both economically, and socially. On top of that, the Covid-19 crisis is supercharging these risks. However, within the marginalized neighborhoods that were part of this research we also found that many residents had a pronounced attachment to the local community and were valuing their social networks. This applied particularly to the Roma population. Social housing residents were an exception, given common reports of conflicts and distant relationships with neighbors. From an economic perspective most of the interviewed residents outside of social housing also find themselves in desolate situations and seem to have no choice but to stay. However, they often point to their attachment to the community as a reason for staying. The feeling of having no choice was less dominant in this group. Hence, social networks and sense of community are important parts of the housing equation: they represent key considerations in residents’ housing-related decisions. These findings highlight the importance of social cohesion for people’s (perceived) agency and empowerment. Consequently, social cohesion can be considered a key source of resilience. Tapping into these existing resources seems to be critical to promote lasting change. C. Distrust between public authorities and marginalized communities hampers policy success. Mutual distrust and prejudice between public stakeholders and marginalized communities stand in the way of meaningful collaboration and inclusive housing policies. Among the residents that participated in this research, there was a strong sense of being left on their own to cope with housing issues. The feeling that municipal authorities were disconnected from the realities on the ground was 31 See for instance, the World Bank’s 2013 flagship report on social inclusion: World Bank, 2013. 32 For instance, there are many reported cases of demolitions of Roma houses that have taken place in the context of ant-Roma rallies and where affected households were not provided adequate alternative housing – a practice found to be in violation of the European Social Charter and of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see: Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. 2020; Carrera et al. 2019) 13 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement dominant. Where positive examples of support were shared, these were ad-hoc and often informal, given the lack of targeted programs at the municipal level. Reports of discrimination and a lack of trust in the fairness of procedures underscore the general skepticism vis-à-vis public stakeholders among the Roma population. Likewise, municipal authorities seem to be skeptical about the willingness and ability of marginalized communities to collaborate with government stakeholders in working towards improved housing and living conditions. Overcoming this mutual distrust will be indispensable to devise effective policy. The absence of targeted programmatic support to address housing deprivation in marginalized Roma neighborhoods (apart from social housing) is related to major structural challenges of the implementation of the NRIS. The qualitative findings point to shortcomings related to the transparency of public policies, the dissemination of information, and the involvement of Roma communities in policy processes. Moreover, municipal action plans for Roma integration lack, for a large part, explicit budgeting provisions for the planned activities.33 All of the five municipalities included in the research have developed local action plans for Roma integration, but with significant shortcomings. Action plans and implementation reports lack concrete progress and target indicators on housing and the related objectives and expected contribution to Roma integration remain very vague. Where specific EU funded projects are described, it is often not clear to what extent the investment would have an impact on the housing and living conditions of Roma. Monitoring reports generally lack robust methods and mechanisms34 for collecting information related to outcomes, and are, in some cases, out of date. While municipalities face many barriers related to funding, capacity, and legal frameworks, it is evident that insufficient political will and public resistance often constitute key barriers to improving housing programs for the most vulnerable. The Covid-19 crisis is likely contributing to a deterioration of inter-ethnic tensions and distrust in public institutions among marginalized communities. While the strict national-level restrictions have exacerbated already stark disparities, there are reports of harsh emergency measures specifically targeting Roma neighborhoods without proper justification.35 This increased mistrust in the authorities, as measures of confinement were interpreted by many as discrimination and led to protests and riots (FRA 2020; OSF 2020). As a consequence, many Roma neighborhoods were disconnected from local infrastructure and services and cut off from income and employment opportunities. The lack of essential businesses in marginalized settlements (including supermarkets and pharmacies) threatened food security and the supply of medicines. Dependence on digital information, particularly during the lockdown, seems to be widening the divide in access to essential services, and critically, healthcare.36 Moreover, the spread of misinformation related to the Covid-19 pandemic is likely fueling anti-Roma sentiment (OSF 2020). While general distrust in public institutions is remarkably high among Bulgaria’s Roma population, there are also positive signs for the possibility of successful trust-building and neighborhood 33 This weakness has been raised by the European Court of Auditors and was confirmed by this research. 34 “Administrative Reports� are prepared annually by the public institutions responsible for the implementation and do not involve NGOs. 35 Entire neighborhoods were quarantined, strictly enforced through police and military checkpoints. See: Politico, November 23, 2020: “Coronavirus pushes Bulgaria’s Roma further into the shadows� (https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-pushes-bulgaria-roma-further-into-the-shadows/); and: The New York Times, July 6, 2020: “Europe’s Roma Already Faced Discrimination. The Pandemic Made It Worse.� (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/world/europe/coronavirus-roma-bulgaria.html) 36 World Bank 2021 [unpublished internal manuscript] 14 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement upgrading initiatives at the local level. According to nationally representative data from 2016, the respective shares of Roma that trust the national parliament (14%), the country’s legal system, (22%), or the country’s politicians (14%) are extremely low (FRA, EU MIDIS II 2016). However, trust in the local authorities (in the place of residence) is much higher: 49% of Roma tend to trust, while 36% tend not to trust (ibid.). This may be a potential sign of encouragement. The achievements of successful examples of housing policy initiatives37 seem to confirm that, when there is political will, local governments can, in fact, convene and lead local stakeholders to bring about tangible and sustainable change. 37 See good practice example in the annex, p. 16 15 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement IV. Recommendations The findings of this research point to a set of diverse and sometimes complex needs in the context of housing. In order to be effective in addressing the glaring levels of housing deprivation policies will have to be tailored to real local needs of marginalized communities. Hence, localized, participatory, and integrated approaches are instrumental to adequately address those needs and tackle spatial and social inequalities. This review complements and informs other analytical work that identifies key bottlenecks to improve housing in marginalized neighborhoods. Hence, the following recommendations should be observed in this context acknowledging that they do not cover all relevant aspects related to housing policy and program design. To implement the recommendations, there is an opportunity for the Government, specifically the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (MRDPW), to leverage European Social and Investment Funds (ESIF) and harmonize national strategies with existing EU frameworks. The new EU financial framework 2021-2027 provides significant opportunities to step up financial and technical support for municipalities in North-West Bulgaria. These resources offer diverse funding options for green and inclusive housing and infrastructure investments in combination with related social inclusion measures. Specifically, the socio-economic integration of marginalized communities, such as the Roma, has been included as one of the Specific Objective of the future ESF+. Using these funding opportunities will effectively allow Bulgaria to achieve the housing-related targets under the 2020- 2030 EU Roma Strategic Framework, including to: (a) reduce the gap in housing deprivation by at least one-third; (b) cut the gap in overcrowding by at least one half; and (c) ensure that at least 95 percent of Roma have access to piped water. i. Approach community development from multiple angles The Bank shall work with government counterparts to strengthen complementarity between policies and investments across different sectors and departments. The inclusion of marginalized groups is often hampered by intricate structural issues that require concerted efforts in various domains and are difficult to meaningfully address through focused short-term interventions. As this assessment has shown, the barriers communities face in relation to housing improvements are multifaceted and often intertwined. Hence, a long-term perspective is needed that approaches community development in an integrated manner and from multiple angles. For instance, economic opportunities and human capital are closely related to the prospects of neighborhood upgrading. Therefore, infrastructure investments will be most effective when complemented and aligned with efforts to improve ALMPs, social protection, health care, and/or education. For instance, critically, programs to improve digital literacy and access to the internet can have a positive effect on the uptake of housing programs (and economic opportunities more generally). ii. Promote more localized approaches The Bank shall seek opportunities to work more closely with local government and other local stakeholders to improve housing and living conditions for marginalized groups. Municipalities have a key role to play in leading local community development initiatives targeting marginalized 16 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement communities. Municipal governments need to step up efforts to channel investments into neighborhood upgrading programs that address the deficits and unequal access to essential services and infrastructure, particularly in rural areas and in Roma neighborhoods.38 The Bank may support municipalities in developing funding strategies and making better use of EU funds. Regional and local government should be considered key for catalyzing ongoing reforms, given political volatility at the national level. Moreover, engagement of communities and key stakeholders outside government is critical to ensure ownership and address potential public resistance. This can only be effectively achieved through localized approaches that build on local expertise and are tailored to community needs. iii. Systematically involve local communities The Bank shall support local governments in establishing new and strengthening existing mechanisms to involve local residents and CSOs. The disconnect between social housing programs and community needs underscores the importance of doing more to actively engage marginalized communities, particularly Roma residents and Roma organizations. Reaching out to invite their feedback and participation throughout the entire project cycle (e.g. through participatory planning and budgeting) is a key factor of successful initiatives (see good practice example in the Annex) and the only way to give visibility to the voices of the marginalized. A lesson learned to ensure long-term success of the project is the importance of needs and affordability assessments in affected neighborhoods. The experience from past engagement around Roma inclusion shows that meaningful CE with marginalized groups requires measures that also address demand-side participation barriers. Finding ways build trust, awareness, and capacity – beyond conventional out-of-the-box communication approaches – will be critical for the success of inclusive CE. Programs designed by or in collaboration with local NGOs have generally been more in touch with beneficiaries’ needs. Moreover, NGO-led programs and interventions also tend to place greater emphasis on “soft activities� in the context of infrastructure investments. Further, the new reality of the COVID-19 pandemic requires additional efforts and innovative tools to ensure that marginalized groups are effectively reached. A recent review39 of COVID-19 Fast Track Facility projects confirms that, due to the pandemic restrictions, task teams and counterparts are facing additional challenges to implement meaningful stakeholder engagement. In addition to project-specific engagement, municipal governments may work with civil society partners to enable a continuous dialogue between citizens and authorities. This requires capacity building as well as new engagement formats for broader and more active participation in community development (such as citizen engagement platforms, civil society advisory committees). Genuine community engagement will not only foster ownership of the agenda but, critically, is a precondition for trust-building activities that overcome frictions between ethnic groups, and between communities 38 including tap water, sewage, electricity, broadband internet, adequate roads and street lighting, waste collection, and public transport 39 The review found significant shortcomings related to: the identification and inclusion of marginalized groups; accessible disclosure of project information; representative GRMs equipped to handle gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEA/H) related complaints; and specific budget allocations to implement stakeholder engagement activities. (https://bankinformationcenter.cdn.prismic.io/bankinformationcenter/32ce6c34-d167-40ba-ba80- 78c28bdcfd78_SEP+Analysis+Report.pdf) 17 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement and service providers. Municipalities may establish local stakeholder platforms that co-design and implement upgrading programs in marginalized neighborhoods. 18 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement V. Bibliography Bogdanov, G. 2020. The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on poverty and social exclusion in Bulgaria, ESPN Flash Report 2020/34, European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Brussels: European Commission. Carrera, Sergio et al. 2019. “Scaling up Roma inclusion strategies. Truth, reconciliation and justice for addressing antigypsyism.� Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. 2020. Country visit report, CommDH(2020)8, https://rm.coe.int/report-on-the-visit-to-bulgaria-from-25-to-29-november-2019-by-dunja- m/16809cde16 European Commission. 2020a. Country Report Bulgaria 2020. SWD(2020) 501 final. European Commission. 2020b. EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020 – 2030. COM(2020) 620 final. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_20_1813/IP_20_1813_EN. pdf European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2020. Implications of COVID-19 pandemic on Roma and Travellers communities. Country: Bulgaria. Date: 15 June 2020. URL: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/bg_report_-_covid-19_impact_on_roma_en.pdf Karacsony, Sandor et al. 2017. “Portraits of Labor Market Exclusion 2.0. Country Policy Paper for Bulgaria.� Washington, DC.: the World Bank. URL: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29631 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2009. The Right to Adequate Housing. Fact Sheet No. 21, rev. 1. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf Open Society Foundations (OSF). 2020. “Roma in the COVID-19 crisis. An early warning from six EU Member States.� World Bank. 2013. „Inclusion Matters. The Foundation for Shared Prosperity. New Frontiers of Social Policy.“ Washington, D.C.: World Bank. URL: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16195 World Bank. 2014. “Handbook for improving the living conditions of Roma.� Washington, D.C. : World Bank. URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/426791468030548664/Handbook-for-improving-the- living-conditions-of-Roma World Bank. 2016. “Cities in ECA: A shifting story of growth and decline.� Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 2017. “Housing Sector Assessment.� Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 2019. “A Policy Agenda to Boost Human Capital in Bulgaria.� Washington, D.C.: World Bank. URL: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/32305 World Bank. 2020. Supporting the Implementation of Residential Heating Measures in Bulgaria’s National Air Quality Improvement Program and National Air Pollution Control Program. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. URL: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34145 World Bank. 2021. Digital inclusion of Roma communities in Bulgaria DRAFT. [Internal Manuscript] 19 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement VI. Annex Good Practice Example: Neighborhood Upgrading in the Municipality of Kavarna The town of Kavarna serves as a good example for addressing the difficult housing situation of vulnerable communities. It combined political will of the municipal government with an active engagement of the local community. Between 2004 and 2014 the local government made a series of neighborhood upgrading investments that had a lasting impact on residents’ housing conditions and access to essential infrastructure. However, the initiative was not exclusively focused on housing and infrastructure and included activities in other policy domains. Part of its success was certainly the integrated approach to tackling the multi-faceted nature of challenges faced by the community. The ‘Hadji Dimitar’ quarter used to be one of the most marginalized neighborhoods in Kavarna. Most of Kavarna’s Roma population lives in the Hadji Dimitar, which is located on the outskirts of the town. In the past, the neighborhood had no sewage system, no street lighting and no paved streets; the existing water system had not been upgraded for nearly three decades; and many of the residents lived in precarious housing. Champions within local government and collaboration between key local stakeholders were enabling factors explaining the success of this initiative. In 2003, the newly elected mayor appointed three persons from the local Roma community in the local administration. With active participation of elected Roma representatives in the Municipal Council, and through public consultations with the local Roma community, the authorities identified community needs and secured support for wide range of activities in the areas of housing and infrastructure, education, employment, healthcare, as well as political participation. While the policy initiative tackled a broad range of issues beyond housing, an important component was the mobilizations of municipal and EU funding to upgrade and construct public infrastructure. • Water pipes were replaced, a sewerage system and playgrounds were built, sidewalks were fixed, streets were asphalted, street lighting was installed, waste containers and recycling bins were placed around the quarter, and the local school and kindergarten were renovated. • Non-compliant dwellings in good condition were legalized and a strict control was applied to prevent the building of illegal houses. Additionally, 57 Roma households who could afford to build their own house but did not have the right to do so were granted a right for construction. • In 2007, a two-story office building was converted into a dormitory with using municipal funding. Ten of the poorest Roma families were accommodated there. • In 2008, the Kavarna Municipality secured EU funding of over 11 mln BGN (5.5 mln euros) and used part of it to finance the removal of the illegal garbage dump next to the “Hadji Dimitar� quarter and for the land re-cultivation. The land was included in the urban development plan and part of it was converted into plots for residential construction given to 310 families (more than a third of which are Roma). The initiatives had a lasting positive impact on housing conditions and housing informality. In 2015, there were no illegal dwellings in the Hadji Dimitar neighborhood reported to the municipality. The Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD) examined the social and economic impact of the public 20 Bulgaria Roma Housing Community Needs Assessement investments made in Hadji Dimitar and found that the municipality was successful in raising key housing indicators - significantly above the national average for the Roma. For instance, 92 percent of Roma in Kavarna now have access to indoor piped water as compared to 61% of Roma nationally. 21