action 4.1/10 – “networking at the local level between european...

Action 4.1/10 ‘Creation of network for cooperation at local level between EU member states” takes place in the framework of the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals, 2010 Annual Program and is

funded by European 75% and national 25% funds

Final Report

Action 4.1/10 –

“Networking at the Local Level

Between European Union Member States”

1



2

Table of Contents

1. Preface ..............................................................................................3

2. Local Immigration Councils (LICs) .........................................................4

3. Good Practices..................................................................................11

3.1 Transnational Workshops ................................................................13

3.1.1 Athens Workshop .......................................................................13

3.1.2 Barcelona Workshop ...................................................................18

3.1.3 Brussels Workshop .....................................................................22

3.2 Regional Workshops in Greece .........................................................25

4. Conclusions of the 1st Research regarding the value of the operation of

Local Immigration Councils in Greece.............................................................29

5. Conclusions......................................................................................58



3

1. Preface

If immigration -along with demographics- is one of the most

important social reasons for the transformation of the type and nature of

modern post-industrial societies, the social integration of immigrants and

their participation in the political life must be a top priority for political

planning and action by governments, regions and cities. It is certain that

the causes of migratory flows will multiply in the future. According to all

projections, the number of immigrants will do the same.

The European Union (EU) member states with a tradition of

immigration from the early post-war decades, have gradually developed,

albeit to varying degrees, coherent migration and social inclusion policies,

which, however, are contested by the new wave of immigration. At the

same time, at EU level, despite the growing importance of integration

policies in ensuring social cohesion, such issues are addressed through non-

binding procedures, as Member States still retain sole responsibility of

policy making in this area. In this perspective, processes with focus on the

exchange of good practices and the mobilization of all stakeholders are of

particular importance, as they allow us to consider the possibility to transfer

successful examples between states or regions, and encourage the

development of broader cooperation and networking for the integration of

third country nationals.

In this context, this Final Report illustrates the key findings from the

implementation of the Action (4.1/10) “Networking at local level between

EU Member States” Annual Programme of the European Fund for the

Integration of Third Country Nationals (EIF) of the 2010 Annual Work

Programme of the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country

Nationals. The purpose of the action was to strengthen further the Local

Immigration Councils (LICs) through networking activities and the exchange

of experiences, best practices and information. This target was sought

through a series of interrelated actions which included: the establishment of



4

an online communication platform, the organisation of the three

transnational workshops (in Athens, Barcelona and Brussels) and thirteen

workshops in Greece and the preparation of the Final Report. The Final

Report delivers the key findings as they came up during the implementation

of the action, also putting forward issues for further reflection, while it

proposes specific actions to improve the existing framework in certain policy

areas (e.g. employment, access to health care, housing).

2. Local Immigration Councils (LICs)

A significant number of immigrants live in European countries,

without however enjoying full social and political rights. This can be

considered as a problem regarding democratic procedures, especially taking

into account that most experts agree that immigration as a phenomenon of

human flows and movements will continue. This fact makes it imperative to

seek solutions that will reconcile the particularities of each host society with

the immigration phenomenon. There is a general feeling that granting the

right to vote to immigrants as well as an acclimatisation policy are sufficient

and effective measures to promote the participation of immigrants in

politics.

The establishment of Local Immigration Councils (LICs) is part of this

exact framework of encouraging the participation of immigrants in the

processes of policy making. The “Local Immigration Council” is a

consultative body of the Municipality, providing a forum between the

elected representatives and third country nationals. The LIC is a tool for

political participation, representation and defence of the interests of all

foreign residents at local level. In order for the LIC to function properly, it

has to be on a constant communication with the local elected

representatives and the foreign residents. In the absence of LIC, the

dialogue between local elected representatives and foreign residents is

possibly rare and informal, especially if immigrants do not have the right to

vote or to get elected at local level.



5

The Council of Europe with a 1992 resolution (ETS 144) recommends

the foundation of Local Immigration Councils on the municipal level. Up

until now, not all member states have signed the Convention on the

Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level. However, Local

Immigration Councils have been created in several countries such as

Germany, Luxembourg, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom,

Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Switzerland.

The “Local Immigration Council of Barcelona”, which was founded in

1997 and is constituted by 16 members, is a characteristic case. It

functions as a consultative body with the participation of the Office of the

District of Barcelona and its members are the members- volunteers of

immigration associations, social actors, municipal political groups and

observers. During the past years, the work of the “Local Immigration

Council of Barcelona” has been intense: it produced documents, it

organised workshops and discussion sessions such as the “Intercultural

Meeting” and more recently the “Day of the Immigrants” and it offered

recommendations to several local action plans etc.

The “Lausanne Foreigners Consultative Body”, which included 42

representatives of immigrants associations, political parties and

organisations relevant to the inclusion of immigrants, is a similar institution.

This consultative body continued to enrich the meaning of vertical

integration of immigrant populations that is supported by the Lausanne

authorities. Even though they have no political rights, immigrants have

access through the Consultative Body to the political discussions of the

municipality. There is no doubt about the positive impact of the Body on the

feeling of common responsibility, interculturalism, mutual respect and

tolerance that characterize the population of Lausanne.

Most of the existing Local Immigration Councils set their goals with

several degrees of details. The general goals include: (a) integration and

encouragement of the participation of foreign residents in the local public



6

life and (b) improvement or harmonisation between foreign residents and

other members of the community. The accuracy and clarity of the targets

allow the evaluation and the operation of LICs’ activities, as well as their

adaptation to the changing conditions.

The Local Immigration Councils develop different types of activities.

Apart from their consulting role, in regard with the expression of views on a

municipal level and recommendations about subjects of special interest, the

LICs also deploy other local political, social and cultural activities. The Local

Immigration Councils must give priority to the local political activities and

limit their involvement with other types of activities that can be fulfilled by

other actors, such as associations. Their consulting role must be available

to all subjects relevant to the operation of the municipality. It is essential to

check and evaluate the activities and to inform all citizens of the community

about their outcomes.

Basically, the members of the LICs are its actors. They are chosen

with criteria such as their citizenship and their role in the body (that

represents a community, the town council etc.). Given the fact that the

main target of the LICs is the political participation of foreigners, they

develop different formulas in order to give a voice to all foreigner residents.

However, the choice “one member for each community” does not constitute

a solution in all cases. A person is not necessarily a representative of its

ethnical community. When there is a choice between personal interest and

the interest of their ethnic group, representatives may go for the first.

Therefore, it is recommended that the selection criteria are flexible and the

membership is open and differentiated with grass root elections. A structure

base on equal representation and balance between men and women must

be promoted, along with the according training for the members.

The initiative of the foundation of a Local Immigration Council can be

taken by the members of Municipal Councils in cooperation with the foreign

residents and their associations. In some countries, national or regional



7

legislation may promote the foundation of such bodies, or even make them

mandatory. Moreover, the LICs can have several resources in order to

function: human resources, administrative, economic and communicational

tools. Some LICs coordinate themselves and are represented by a

peripheral body that can provide support in their activities and also acts as

an intermediary between LCBFRs and regional or national governments. In

different cases, despite the presence of an LIC, local elected representatives

do not consult it or do so only after already deciding on matters. Hence, in

order to optimise the usefulness of the LIC, their role as a consultative body

must be placed on an institutional basis, with certain rights and obligations

of its members and its associates. It is, therefore, essential that it is

officially recognised, on one hand that the LIC acts as a consulting body

with its own initiative and with the responsibility to respond to requests and

on the other hand, the duty of the City Council to consult with the LIC. The

Local Immigrants Council must be provided with all the necessary resources

that will allow it to function in a sustainable way.

The Local Immigration Councils may face limitations in two main

subjects: the representativeness and their advisory role. Some foreigners’

communities do not get represented despite all efforts. It is important to

mention that the main goal of LICs is to increase the political participation

of foreigners in the local public life. The creation and the operation of a

Local Immigration Council must be supported by the genuine political will

on the behalf of the City Council.

The Local Immigration Councils may therefore operate in different

forms. It is without doubt a simple and flexible tool that can be adapted in

the specific situation of each municipality or town. It must not be perceived

as an effort to offer pseudo- voting rights or representative election. The

LICs remain active in countries in which political rights are granted to

foreign residents. The LICs can serve as a starting point for the placement

of local democracy on a daily basis action. They offer a true chance to all

foreign and indigenous residents to political participation and to increase



8

their ability for political action, especially in multicultural cities and

Municipalities. Their consulting role with the right to initiate a procedure

and respond to a request is the core of the way LICs function. Placed in an

institutional position, LICs prepare the territory for the dialogue between

elected representatives and citizens and they encourage the immediate

participation of all citizens for the better operation of the Municipality.

In Greece, on the 24th of March 2010 the law No 3838 “Current

provisions for Greek citizenship and political participation expatriates and

lawfully residing immigrants and other settings” was passed. It was a

decisive move of the government to give to immigrants the right to vote at

the local and municipal level and the possibility to express themselves at

the political dialogue and to participate as elected representatives at the

Local Government. On the 7th of June 2010 the law No 3852 “New

architecture of the Regional Administration - Programme Kallikratis”1 was

issued. In the article 78, the creation of Local Immigration Councils is

mentioned. Concretely:

1. In every Municipality with the decision of the City Council a

Local Immigration Council is founded and it operates as a consultative

body for the Municipality in order to increase the integration of

immigrants in the local community. The Local Immigration Councils have

five (5) up to eleven (11) members that are appointed by each City

Council. The appointed members are City Councilors, representatives of

1 In the municipal and prefectural elections of November 7, 2010 in spite of the Law 3838/2010 which regulated the issue of citizenship of foreigners, the Supreme Administrative Court (Fourth Division) ruled that the law is unconstitutional (Articles 1, 4, 21, 25 and 108) in the first instance depriving 12,762 immigrants and expatriates that voted in the elections on November 7 of this political right. This decision, if adopted by the Assembly of the State Council, which referred the matter due importance, excludes immigrants to participate in next elections and it causes serious problems for municipalities where the electoral outcome of the recent elections is marginal and controversial. Moreover, the judgment emphasizes that only Greek citizens have the right to vote and stand as candidates in provincial and municipal elections.



9

immigrants associations, if the seat of the association is placed within

the administrative jurisdiction of the Municipality in question, or elected

representatives of the immigrant community that permanently live at

the Municipality according to the terms that are provided by relevant

regulation issued by the City Council, as well as representatives of social

actors that operate within the Municipality in regard with the problems

of immigrants. With the same decision of the City Council the President

of the Local Immigration Council is appointed, among its members that

are also City Councilors. In the above mentioned councils it is

mandatory that if elected foreign City Councilors are members. The

participation in the Local Immigration Councils is honorary and unpaid.

2. The work of the Local Immigration Councils is to recording and

investigate the problems faced by immigrants residing within the

municipality about their integration in the local community, their

communication with the government or municipality authorities, to

submit recommendation to the City council for the development of local

actions that promote the smooth social integration of immigrants and in

general to solve the problems that immigrants face, especially through

the organisation of advisory services of the municipal services, as well

as the organisation in collaboration with the hosting Municipality of

events to increase awareness and enhance the social cohesion of the

local population.

The Local Immigration Councils are a real support for the social and

political cohesion of the cities that are becoming increasingly multicultural;

They contribute to the peaceful coexistence of people of different

nationalities. It is a fact that the level of political participation of immigrants

at the local level varies in each Municipality, Region or country. However, in

several countries, the LICs have contributed to the acquisition of citizenship

of immigrant populations, and in particular to create a field of cooperation

and dialogue between foreigners and natives. Therefore, the LICs can serve



10

as a component of local democracy and to strengthen social cohesion and

development.



11

3. Good Practices

A method, technique, process or activity is characterized as a good

practice when it is considered more effective in achieving a result in

comparison with any other equivalent method, technique, process or

activity. Good practice can also be defined as the most effective way to

implement an activity. Within the European Union and after the introduction

from 2000 onwards of soft governance tools (such as the OMC) the element

of learning and exchanging good practices between Member States has a

special role and importance in the context of the European strategy for

social inclusion, since these policies remain within the exclusive competence

of the Member States. The transfer of ideas, policies and examples of good

practice in general is also a familiar element in social policy (and not only).

However, after adopting the OMC the exchange of good practices and

experiences now takes place in a more "structured" manner. At the same

time, the adoption of the OMC emphasized the element of participation of

all stakeholders, a factor which unfortunately has not given particular

results in countries that lack a culture of dialogue like Greece. At European

Union level, particular emphasis has been given lately on social

experimentation to highlight examples of good practices that have been

successfully applied at the micro-level and the subsequent examination

their appliance to a wider (regional or national) level. The concept of social

experimentation, which comes from the French tradition, has now been

adopted at the European level, while underlining relevant examples is

encouraged mainly through PROGRESS. Within the context of the EU

strategy for the new decade, now known as "Europe 2020", the concept of

social experimentation seems to acquire extra value.

Despite the growing importance and interest for the exchange of

good practices some points should be noted:



12

√ The first point is about the definition of the elements that are included in

a practice, policy, activity marked as a good practice, its duration, the

number of beneficiaries and the cost.

√ The second point is about the necessity to evaluate the good practice

before diffusing each example, as in many cases the term "good" is

identified with "innovative".

√ Finally, the third element relates to the need of understanding the

restrictions (administrative, bureaucratic, political, others) during the

transfer of good practices.

In the following sections, the main conclusions from the transnational

workshops and the regional seminars, which have been implemented under

the Action, are presented. Also, reference is made to good practices from

other countries due to the fact that, in Greece, this is a fledgling institution

and therefore there has not been enough time to properly evaluate and

highlight good practices. However, through the dialogue that developed

within both transnational and regional workshops important issues have

emerged for further investigation, which are presented as well in the

following paragraphs.



13

3.1 Transnational Workshops

3.1.1 Athens Workshop

The first (starting) Transnational Workshop was held on Friday, May

25 2012 in Athens. The launch of the first part was made by Mrs. Feder

(representative of Eurocities) with the presentation of the organization and

the possibilities of collaboration and networking at the European level. The

Charter of Cities, created by Eurocities, affirms the commitment of the

network for immigrant integration facilitating the participation of migrants

themselves in decision-making and tackling obstacles for their participation.

This commitment, as noted, is not only political, but also it is a commitment

of implementation, to the extent that participating cities are obliged to

report on policy developments and their results.

The presentation of the MIXITIES programme provided an

opportunity for attendees to understand how transnational cooperation

translates into concrete results. The intervention ended with the

presentation of the programme ImpleMentoring which places special

emphasis on creating a support network between national and local

governments, Local Immigration Councils and other agencies.



14

The ImpleMentoring Programme

It is an 18-month program funded by the European Integration Fund. Its aim is to

provide assistance to cities with counseling programs, taking into account the

specificities of each city to which they are addressed. The partnership consists of

the Eurocities and 14 other cities, including Athens. These actions include four

counseling programs with the following topics: a) enhancing public awareness on

migration (manual), b) the management of diversity in public administration and

services, c) encouraging and increasing participation in neighborhoods (manual)

and d) strengthening the political participation of immigrants through local

consultative bodies (manual). The manner in which actions are implemented is as

follows: 4 to 5 cities with experience will undertake the role of mentor. At the same

time, a "road map" for cities with the participation of the government and other

stakeholders will be developed, while a process for monitoring the implementation

of the "road map" is predicted.

Mr. Hashi (Local Immigration Council Tampere) initially described the

operation of the Local Immigration Council of Tampere.

Key Objectives of Local Immigration Council of Tampere

- Monitoring cities’ integration programs and formulating proposals to enhance the

services for immigrants

- Highlighting the needs of immigrants in order to design the appropriate policies

- Underlining and evaluating the language and religion related obstacles or any

other during the integration process

- Suggesting solutions to tackle obstacles in the access to labor market

- Encouraging dialogue between immigrants and the Finnish population

- Organising actions and events to combat racism, such as the Immigrant Day

- Participating in the decision making about immigrants



15

A central feature of his speech was the emphasis on the need to

understand migration as a two-way process. In this context, he underlined

the importance of cooperation between the third sector and the national

authorities to promote integration issues by presenting specific examples

drawn from the Finnish experience.

The importance of cooperation and networking

The Example of the Advisory Board for Ethnic Relations

The Advisory Board for Ethnic Relations is under the auspices of the Ministry of

Labour of Finland with which there is close cooperation, as well as with the Ministry

of Interior. Thus, through the local level a connection with the central level of

power is generated and through that a connection with networks of other European

countries. Through the operation of the Advisory Board the image of immigrants is

promoted within the society in which they live but also within the political parties

and the organisations in which they are active on the local, regional or national

level. Therefore, partly the effort of the Advisory Board is to disseminate

information about immigrants and to promote procedures that affect them. The

basic idea is to work together, not just locally but also with the Ministry in order to

find the best practices that may come from other parts of Finland or elsewhere with

the ultimate goal to strengthen integration.

Abdulkadir Hashi, Tampere Local Immigration Council

Mr. Esteve (Barcelona Local Immigration Council) pointed out that, in

the case of Spain, the challenge lies on the enhancement of social cohesion

and not anymore on actions related to the initial reception of immigrants,

since that aspect has been regulated with specific policies during the

previous years.

Mr. Esteve also presented three examples of actions/ programmes/

practices that have contributed to the integration of immigrants and they

are related to the healthcare system, the voluntary repatriation and the

combat against the spreading of rumours which have a negative impact on



16

social cohesion. He completed his speech after highlighting the importance

of the creation of a broad support network of cooperation which will

encourage the participation of stakeholders in the design and

implementation of policies/ programmes/ actions for the integration of

immigrants.

The Law against rumours

This example is the most emblematic practice of the Municipality of Barcelona and

it constitutes a world- wide acknowledged model. This example is about rumours

and whispers: “The law against rumours”. That is, there are on the everyday

chatting level several misconceptions, such as that immigrants do not pay taxes for

the companies they own, or that they own illegal stores etc. that function at the

expense of common welfare. As a result natives tend to think that they have both

rights and obligations, while immigrants have only obligations. However, the

Municipality in order to offer support and economic assistance does not take into

account the origin of each person. On the street level, citizens do not necessarily

think that way and that is how racism spreads. Therefore, a project has been

designed, in the framework of which several volunteers have been trained –

volunteers against rumours- in order to combat prejudices and whispers in

everyday life: on the street, in schools, in shops etc. Trainees contradict these fake

stereotypes and bring forward examples and statistics of immigrant use of the

healthcare system.

Miguel Esteve, Barcelona Local Immigration Council

During the second part of the workshop, representatives of LICs

operating in Greece had the opportunity to talk about their experiences and

raise issues for debate. Mrs. Ioannou (Ministry of Interior/ General

Secretariat of Population and Social Cohesion) mentioned the importance of

the exchange of good practices between EU Member States. She noted that

policies on the integration of immigrants fall in the exclusive competence of

Member States and thus they are approached on the European level only

through soft tools such as the Open Method of Coordination.



17

The interventions on the part of representatives of LICs were focused

on a plethora of issues, reflecting different degrees of development of LICs

and different challenges faced by local communities. Despite these

differences, all participants agreed agreed on the importance of the Toolkit

for the establishment of LICs (produced in the framework of the project

“Provision of Technical Support to LICs” also funded by the Ministry of

Interior and the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country

Nationals).

Mr Kavouridis (Penteli LIC) focused on the lack of resources, while

Mrs. Hatzidimitriou (Agios Dimitrios LIC) spoke about the importance of the

information, planning and action office, operating alongside the Immigration

Office in her area. Participants had the opportunity to learn all about the

initiatives undertaken in the city of Agios Dimitrios in relation to the

integration of immigrants, as well as the initiatives by the LIC of Patras

through the intervention of Mrs. Andrikopoulou- Rouvali. A heated debate

followed regarding the recent events in the city of Patras. Mr Kinioua

(Athens LIC and president of NGO Asante) focused on the positive

contribution LICs can have in relation to the image immigrants want to

have in the Greek society. Mr Makrynos (Korydallos LIC) focused on the

need to have reliable data, especially at central level, regarding the number

of LICs currently operating in Greece. He also acknowledged that we need

to take into account that it is a new institution in Greece.



18

3.1.2 Barcelona Workshop

The 2nd Transnational Workshop was held on Friday 8th of May 2012

in Barcelona. Mr. Theodoros Fouskas set the basis of the discussion, also

providing information regarding the operating framework of LICs in Greece.

The launch of the first part was made by Mr. Miquel Esteve (Director for

Immigration issues in the Municipality of Barcelona). Immigration is

perceived as an issue with many facets, but not as a problem. Moreover,

this is a matter which concerns Barcelona and Catalonia, and it was faced

intensively during the past decade. This led the Municipality of Barcelona

firstly to create reception policies and then to implement integration

policies. Mr. Esteve stated that this is a policy which now all parties

embrace, wishing that a similar agreement on a single policy will emerge in

Greece as well. Despite the fact that lately -due to the crisis- there is a

tendency in Spain to use the issues of migration for other reasons, there is

an effort to avoid that.

Mr. Kalaitzakis (LIC Piraeus) asked for more information regarding

the election of representatives of the Barcelona LIC and funding. Through

interventions the differences between the two countries about the

institution of LICs were made clear and more specifically on planning

strategies for immigrants, budget and funding. Mrs. Andrikopoulou (LIC

Patras) posed some questions regarding the budget of the Barcelona LIC.

Mr. Esteve explained that 1/3 of the funding comes from the state and the

local government of Catalonia and 2/3 from municipality resources. Also,

Mr. Ramon Sanahuja (Director for Immigration Issues and Multiculturalism)

mentioned that the Barcelona Local Immigration Council participates in the

EUROCITIES network, just like the Municipality of Athens but cooperates

with other networks (Intercultural Cities/ Council of Europe) only about

intercultural matters. Then, Mr. Ramon Sanahuja stressed that the relevant

services within the Municipality are provided by different departments. Mrs.

Núria Pàmies (Technician, Networking and Reception Monitoring) reported

on the importance of the "network for the welcoming of immigrants in



19

Barcelona". The reception and assistance of immigrants is offered through

the cooperation of a network of 150 agencies and services that provide day

care and accompanying of immigrants in the city of Barcelona, in order to

create places to give information and guidance and to cover the basic needs

of individuals and families of immigrants in the city. The network includes

the service of attention of immigrants, foreigners and refugees (SAIER).

Mr. Makrynos (Korydallos LIC) observed not only the distance

between Athens and Barcelona but also the huge difference between the

immigration policy of a large city and an entire country like Greece. In the

Athens workshop, it was clear that while in the rest of Europe, immigrants’

integration is a mature case, in Athens it is still a very recent development.

He noted that LICs in Greece operate in the sense of a committee; in

essence they are committees, not consultative boards and that is why they

do not have resources, personnel and equipment. The main questions

concerned the way in which the Barcelona LIC has branched out in the

autonomous regions, the extent to which it is networked and finally the

extent the intercultural model has been accepted.

Mr. Gkougkoustamos (Trikala LIC) gave a more political tinge to the

discussion. He noted that while the central government of Spain has begun

to gradually decentralize immigration policies and controls, in Greece those

policies remain vague both at the level of power and organisation. He also

expressed his questions as to the absence of a common European policy.

The Spanish specialists agreed on their part that immigration flows are

initially a European Union policy matter, but at the same time the EU has

been unable to control them, agreeing that its policy should be

strengthened.

Mr. Topaloudis (Didimotiho LIC) stressed on his part the intense

problem faced by the Municipality because of the illegal immigrants. The

questions he raised were related to illegal immigrants and the cost of health

care of undocumented migrants. Mr. Esteve explained that for them there is



20

no distinction between immigrants (that is with or without documents) and

that 99% of immigrants are registered. Regarding the second part of the

question Mr. Esteve replied that the Government of Catalonia is responsible

to pay the cost. Mr. Bavas (Halandri LIC), Mr. Krikris (Nea Smyrmi LIC) and

Mr. Koleventis (Argos LIC) have expressed their concern about the wide

range of issues faced by local communities but also the differences in the

culture between the two countries on the issue of immigration.

Mrs. Syrri and Mr. Eleftheriadis (Thessaloniki LIC) asked about the

training of municipal employees in Barcelona. Mr. Esteve answered that this

was something that did not happen from one day to another, it was “a

sprint but marathon”. The second question was about immigrant

associations, namely the empowerment of immigrant communities, as most

immigrants are afraid, they do not feel trust and for various reasons, they

do not usually have strong associations and communities, so it is difficult

for the Municipality to work with them. Mr. Esteve explained that basically

this was a marathon process too.

Mrs. Fatima Ahmed (Ibn Batuta Socio-cultural Association, LIC

member) intervened as a member of an organisation with a long history of

cooperation with the Barcelona Local Immigration Council. She pointed out

that the fact that there are immigrants with better access to services and

associations/ N.G.O.s with better organisation should not be ignored.

However, this is something that requires hard work, as she knows well

because of her long (30 years) participation in such organisations.

Mr. Chaftouras (Volos LIC) stressed out that LICs in Greece are only

for permanently residing and legal immigrants. Permanent and legal

immigrants in Greece face serious problems and some of them are obliged

to finally leave the country. The legal framework for immigrants in Greece

is unjust. LICs are only consultative bodies whereas, to his point of view,

they should have some executive role as well.



21

Finally, Mrs. Mercè Gonzalez (Secretary of the Barcelona LIC) in her

presentation outlined the operation of the "Local Immigration Council of

Barcelona". It is a consultative committee set up by the City of Barcelona in

1997 together with immigrant organizations which at that time were

characterized by a higher degree of organisation. The LIC is chaired by the

Mayor; however immigrant organizations, unions and all political parties of

the City Council are represented. These members participate in the General

Assembly. Everyday issues are faced by the Standing Committee of the

Council which includes 10 representatives of immigrant organizations and

two members from the municipality. Occasional working groups are created

over specific matters. As immigrants do not have the right to vote, the

Council gives them the opportunity to have their voices heard.



22

3.1.3 Brussels Workshop

The 3rd Transnational Workshop was held on Thursday, June 28th 2012 in

Brussels. The launch of the first part was made by Mrs. Ana Feder

(EUROCITIES) with a brief introduction on the institution and the

programmes implemented by it. Then, she presented the various tools

available at the European level (fora and financial funds) and she completed

her speech with a reference to the discussion regarding the simplification of

the legal framework from 2014 onwards through the unification of several

European funds.

Mr. Makrynos (Korydallos LIC) mentioned the difficulty for medium or

small sized municipalities to participate to EUROCITIES, to the extent that it

is a network for big cities, also expressing his queries about the ways in

which EUROCITIES can contribute on the one hand to the national effort to

network all LICs of medium- small sized municipalities and on the other

hand to the use of financial instruments and other tools. In response, Mrs.

Feder stated that smaller municipalities can participate as associated

members, as well as in the implementation of programmes. Additionally,

she proposed as an alternative the cooperation of smaller municipalities

with larger municipalities. Regarding the participation in networks, it is a

decision taken by each municipality depending on what it considers it

matches its needs, but an initial informal participation could develop into a

formal full-scale one.

Mrs. Chilli (Ioannina LIC) in her intervention asked for the position of

EUROCITIES regarding the competencies of Local Immigration Councils and

the possibilities of intervention on the basis of relevant experience. Mrs.

Feder pointed out that even though LICs are not members of EUROCITIES,

she believes that it is important to find a delicate optimum balance between

having some connection with authorities but also maintaining their

independence. She also referred to the intervention of LIC to areas beyond



23

integration, which however present some interest and impact on the lives of

immigrants.

Mr. Chaftouras (Volos SEM) expressed the opinion that even

EUROCITIES as a tool does not fully comprehend how serious the problem

with immigrants is in Greece. Therefore, it can not make the appropriate

suggestions and give proper guidance on this big issue faced by Greece.

Mrs. Feder noted that the purpose of EUROCITIES is to bring together

different cities and their representatives, so that through discussion they

can find solutions to similar problems.

Mrs. Vaiou (Trikala LIC) and Mrs. Chalivelakis (Egaleo LIC)

considering that the two municipalities have the same problems, addressed

a common question, whether it is possible to create a "joint-venture"

municipalities scheme to meet the threshold of 250K but Mrs. Feder

reiterated once again that EUROCITIES only refers to metropolitan

municipalities.

In the second part, Mr. Emmanuel Dardoufas (Committee of the

Regions) referred to the role of the Committee of the Regions, in which case

beyond its formal role to represent local and regional authorities, it also has

an informal one related to the creation of a forum for matters of political or

non-political current events associated with the evolution of the European

Union.

Mrs. Sotiriadou (Kordelio -Evosmos/ Thessaloniki LIC) reported that

besides the problems with immigrants there are also problems with

repatriated refugees. Mr. Dardoufas noted that on the European political

level, integration can be put in the broader context of social cohesion, as

actions are parallel but the tools are not always identical- opening a

discussion on how to combine and better coordinate policies. Mrs.

Adamopoulou (Haidari LIC) asked the Committee of the Regions can

connect and cooperate with the Local Immigration Councils. Mr. Dardoufas

replied that this is a matter for further consultation but that it is also



24

interesting. Mr. Chaftouras (Volos LIC) in his intervention said that there

should be a single institutional representation so that their views can be

heard in a concentrated manner. Mrs. Tsili (Ioannina LIC) wondered

whether because of the power balance there is a risk that on the

representation level some important issues may not be heard due to other

reasons. Mr. Dardoufas noted that members are not bound to follow

instructions and no minority issues regarding any topic have fallen to his

attention. Finally, Mrs. Pexara (Kavala LIC) noted that the members of LICs

encounter too many problems to the extent that participation in them is not

viewed positively by other fellow citizens.

During the meeting closure, Mrs. Feder pointed out that immigration

and immigrants should be faced in a positive way, seeking out common

solutions to common problems, while Mr. Dardoufas completed referring to

LICs as a big challenge, as a bridge to the local community. Regardless of

the interventions and measures to be taken at the European level, Mr.

Dardoufas stressed the importance of the local level.



25

3.2 Regional Workshops in Greece

The main purpose in conducting regional workshops was to activate

the network and to promote mechanisms for mutual learning from members

of Local Immigration Councils regarding common issues that arise during

this first phase of the institution. The original design was based on the

assumption that the LICs are already activated and operating at least

during the past twelve months and therefore there is the necessary

experience so that several councils can engage in an informal but

systematic communication.

The Regional Workshops aimed to mobilize all the stakeholders who

have engaged in the issue of the participation of immigrant communities in

public life and in the expression of their members freed of the many formal

obstacles and practical difficulties. The assessment of the project team was,

from the outset, that the strengthening of Local Immigration Councils will

work to leverage the integration process of immigrant groups at the local

level. Also the network will become a mechanism to upgrade the institution

and its intervention in individual communities.

In addition, through the regional workshops it was sought to tackle

difficulties and problems faced by LICs during the first phase of operation.

On the sidelines of the Regional Workshops, the support action of the

institution that was implemented the previous year was continued by the

same corporate structure. In this context, the use of the e-learning platform

and documentation that is useful for the initial stages of setting up and

operating the LIC was reinforced.

Regional Workshops were designed to highlight the common issues

concerning the operation of LICs and the intervention planned by them in

individual communities. Moreover, they were oriented in highlighting the



26

European experience in relevant institutions in order to enrich the

knowledge of executives and shareholders involved in LICs.

Regional Workshops were organized in 13 cities across the country.

Athens: 13/6/2012

At the Athens meeting, there was pluralistic participation both from members of

immigrant communities and associations and representatives of municipalities of

Attica.

Thessalonica: 8/6/2012

The turnout was satisfying but the participation of the attendees was even more

impressive. The majority was well aware of the institution of Local Immigration

Councils so there was no reason for an extensive preliminary briefing.

Patras: 11/6/2012

The conclusions of the discussion that took place were very useful for the

objectives of the project. The suggestions made can be incorporated into policy

proposals and certainly in the Action Plan of the network whilst they could feed a

central Action Plan for other LICs in Greece, where the institution is at a similar

stage of development.

Nafplion: 12/6/2012

The meeting of Nafplion had satisfactory participation with particular involvement

of immigrants associations.

Kozani: 19/6/2012

In this meeting, the importance of employment was highlighted as a mechanism

for integration and it was noted that members of the LICs are oriented in a

broader effort to mobilize social partners.



27

Trikala: 20/6/2012

The meeting was attended by LICs representatives and/ or representatives of

Municipalities of Trikaia, Pyli, Farkadona, Kalambaka, Kileler and Palama. In the

Municipality of Trikaia, the LIC has shown sufficient activity and the actions are

rather intense. The Municipality of Trikaia declared itself available to build a local

network for LICs whose center will be Trikala.

Chalκis: 21/6/2012

The workshop highlighted the connection between the programs of the

municipalities involved and the Local Immigration Councils.

Crete: 14/6/2012

In the Rethymnon workshop, there was a vivid participation from representatives

of LICs and/ or municipal authorities from Acharnon, Heraklion, Rethymnon,

Chania, Kissavou, Platania, Hersonissos, Ierapetra, representatives of immigrants

associations and the head professor of the Laboratory for Intercultural Education

and Action of the Technological Educational Institute of Crete.

Chios: 22/6/2012

Chios is one of the municipalities where LICs do not operate. The meeting was

attended by representatives of immigrants, a spokesman for the Greek Red

Cross, a social worker and an employee of the Municipality authorized to inform

the City Council at its next session in order to proceed with the establishment of

the Local Immigration Council.

Rhodes: 19/6/2012

In the Rhodes workshop, representatives from the Office of the Municipality of

Rhodes responsible for foreigners were present, who also hold the support of the

Local Immigration Council, as well as a representative from an immigrants

association.



28

Corfu: 6/6/2012

The participants were very well aware of the institution of Local Immigration

Councils and they were particularly interested in the degree of its development in

other areas of Greece.

Ioannina: 7/6/2012

The participants were well aware of the LICs, their purpose, role, organizational

issues and mission since they all came from municipalities where the institution

has progressed at a satisfactory pace.

Kavala: 22/6/2012

The turnout was very good. The meeting was held under the auspices of the

Municipality of Kavala, who offered for this purpose the hall of the Municipal

Council. The Mayor of Kavala attended the meeting in person and made extensive

comments on various issues related to immigration policy, the smooth integration

of immigrants in the municipality of Kavala and the reinforcement of the

institution of the Local Immigration Councils.

Emphasizing on the benefits of the interconnection between institutions and

the individuals who staff them has already shown results and it is expected

to further consolidate in the near future, the value of networking and

horizontal communication at the regional and national level, while it will

highlight new practices for mutual learning and it will ultimately strengthen

the institution of Local Immigration Councils and its effectiveness in local

communities in order to promote the goal of the integration of members of

immigrant communities.



4. Conclusions of the 1st Research regarding the

Added Value from the Operation of the Local

Immigration Councils in Greece

A semi-structured questionnaire was designed in the framework of

the project in order to assess the functioning of Local Immigration Councils

of the Municipalities of Greece. In the following paragraphs we present the

basic findings.

Participating (Greek) Municipalities

Twenty-seven questionnaires were completed (representative, non-

statistical sample) by an equal number of representatives from the

following municipalities: St. Dimitrios, Athens, Egaleo, Maroussi, Argos-

Mycenae, Volos, Galatsi Didimotiho Dionysus Doxato Evrotas, Zografou,

29



30

Heraklion (Crete), Thessaloniki, Ioannina, Kastoria, Kavala, Kordelio-

Evosmos, Korydallos, Milos, New Smyrna, Patras, Piraeus, Rethymnon,

Trikala, Haidari, Halandri.

Regarding the participants’ age, [12 people] were male and 56% [15

people] female. The highest percentage, 48% [13 people] were aged 40-50

years old, 26% [7 people] were aged 30-40 years old, 19% [5 people] were

aged 50-60 years old and 7% [2 people] were less than 30 years old.

Concerning the educational level, 37% [10 people] had received

tertiary education while 33% [9 people] had secondary education

qualification. 26% [7 people] had a graduate degree and 4% [1 person]

had received only compulsory education.

As far as their employment is concerned, the majority of respondents

22% [6 people] were public or municipal officials. 18% [5 people] were

involved in the educational system as teachers, foreign language teachers,

etc.). Then, 2% [2 people] worked as lawyers and 2% [2 people] as social

workers. The remaining respondents 1% [per 9 people] had various

occupations (agriculturist, businessman, electrician, doctor, private sector

employee, retired banking employee, hygienist, sales employee, tax

consultant).

Moreover, regarding the status of the respondents in their

municipality, 52% [14 people] were city counselors in their municipality,

26% [7 people] were deputy mayors, while 15% [4 people] were municipal

employees. Finally, 7% [2 people] had other positions.

Operation of Local Immigration Council



Regarding the establishment of Local Immigration Councils, the vast

majority of municipalities 96% [27 municipalities] have established an LIC

within their jurisdiction. Only in 1% [1 municipality] a LIC has not been

created yet, but its establishment is expected in the very near future.

Position held within the LIC

The majority of the respondents 56% [15 people] is President of their

respective LIC, 19% [5 people] are members, while 7% [2 people] are Vice

Presidents. Finally, 11% hold various positions in LICs and 7% are alternate

members.

Reason of Engagement

31



The reasons behind the participation for the majority, 52% [14

people], is directly related to their position and duties as leaders and

members of the City Council on issues of immigration and integration in the

municipality. 26% [7 people] were interested in civic participation while

15% [4 people] stated several reasons for their participation (e.g. interest

in immigration issues in the country and the municipality). Finally, 4% [1

person] participated in the LIC as a result of their academic or research

experience in immigration issues, while 3% [1 person] participated as an

activist or NGO member dealing with immigrants.

Duration of LIC operation

37% [10 municipalities] have been operating Local Immigration

Council for more than 12 months, while 22% [6 municipalities] for more

than 6 months. Also, 11% [3 municipalities] established the LIC 12 months

32



ago while another 11% [3 municipalities] founded the SEM 6 months ago.

In 8% [2 municipalities] the LIC has been operating less than 12 months

and 4% [1 municipality] for a period of less than 6 months.

Total Local Immigration Council Members per Municipality

The questionnaires (N= 27) showed that the number of members

(regular, alternate, associate) of LICs varies from 17 to 9. In particular: 11

Agios Dimitrios, 26 Athens, 9 Egaleo, 11 Maroussi, 7 Argos-Mycenae, 11

Volos, 11 Galatsi, 9 Didimotiho, 9 Dionysus, 7 Doxato, 9 Eurotas, 17

Zografou, 13 Heraklion (Crete), 12 Thessaloniki, 9 Ioannina, 11 Kavala, 7

Kastoria, 9 Kordelio- Evosmos, 11 Korydallos, 9 Milos, 7 New Smyrna, 16

Patras, 8 Piraeus, 7 Rethymnon, 9 Trikala, 9 Haidari, 9 Halandri.

33



Alternate Members of Local Immigration Councils

As far as alternate members of LICs are concerned, 37% [10

municipalities] are representatives of immigrant communities. 22% [6

municipalities] are members of non-governmental organisations, activists

for immigrant issues, 15% [4 municipalities] have another capacity (e.g.

members of the city council, representatives of local community

organisations, etc.), 11% [3 municipalities] they are Greek citizens and

another 11% [3 municipalities] are third country nationals. Finally, 4% [1

municipality] are academics and researchers on immigration issues.

34



Regarding the participation of women our research showed the

following: 10 municipalities replied that there are 2 women per LIC (37%),

6 municipalities replied there are 4 women/ LIC (22%), 3 municipalities

replied there are 5 women/ LIC (11%). Also, 3 municipalities said there are

3 women/ LIC (11%), 2 municipalities replied there are 6 women/ LIC

(7%). Equally, 2 municipalities replied there is 1 woman/ LIC (7%). Finally,

1 municipality replied there are 9 women/ SEM (4%).

35

Action 4.1/10 ‘Creation of network for cooperation at local level between EU member states” takes place in the framework of the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals, 2010 Annual Program and is funded by European 75% and national 25% funds

36

Total Immigrant Nationalities Involved in LIC per Municipality (1)

Action 4.1/10 ‘Creation of network for cooperation at local level between EU member states” takes place in the framework of the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals, 2010 Annual Program and is funded by European 75% and national 25% funds

37

Action 4.1/10 ‘Creation of network for cooperation at local level between EU member states” takes place in the framework of the European Fund for the Integration of third country nationals, 2010 Annual Program and is funded by

European 75% and national 25% funds

The chart "Total Immigrant Nationalities Involved in LIC per Municipality

(1)" shows in a clear way the quantitative and qualitative diversity of immigrant

populations that coexist within the local communities in Greece and within LICs.

Total Immigrant Nationalities Involved in LIC per Municipality (2)

The chart "Total Immigrant Nationalities Involved in LIC per Municipality

(2)" shows that in LICs the main immigrant group involved is immigrants from

Albania (29%). Members from various other nationalities include: (22%) i.e.

Sudan, Moldova, Georgia, Lebanon, etc. Immigrants from Pakistan (13%),

Ukraine (9%), Egypt (7%), Syria (6%), Nigeria (4%), Afghanistan (4%), India

(2%), Bangladesh (2%), Poland (1%) and the Philippines (1%).

In the LICs of the responding municipalities, 100% [27 municipalities],

there are no members foreign City Councils.

38



Representation of all Immigrating Nationalities within the Municipality

An important finding relates to the fact that in the majority of

municipalities 74% [20 municipalities] not all immigration nationalities living and

working in their limits are represented in the LIC. On the contrary, in just about

26% [7 municipalities] of them all immigrants of a municipality are represented

in them.

In most cases, 78% [21 municipalities], it was found that there is a

regulation for the function of the LIC, while for 22% [6 municipalities] it has not

yet been approved. Moreover, it was observed that in 63% [17 municipalities]

there is not an annual action plan of the LIC, whereas only in 37% [10

municipalities] there is one.

Concerning the knowledge of the number of legal immigrants residing in

the municipality there was a slight deviation [4%] in respondents' answers: 52%

[14 municipalities] did not know all the legal immigrant population in the area,

39



while 48% [13 municipalities] replied they knew the number of legal immigrants

living in the limits of the municipality. This finding relates to the recording

problems of immigrant populations in Greece.

Knowledge of the Number of Immigrants with Voting Right in the Municipality

At the same time, for the majority 59% [16 municipalities] the number of

immigrants with voting right within the municipality was unknown. In contrast,

only 41% [11 municipalities] knew or kept a record with the total number of

immigrants with voting rights within their geographical boundaries.

40



Records of Immigrants Associations and Communities within the Municipality

An essential problem that came up is the extent at which there is a record

of immigrants’ associations and communities in the municipality, which is

directly related to the representation of all immigrants in the LIC of each

municipality/ region. The majority of the municipalities 44% [12 municipalities]

do not keep a record of immigrants’ associations and communities, whilst 37%

[10 municipalities] have one. Also, for 19% 5 [municipalities] there were no

immigrants’ associations and communities within their limits. The fact there are

no records kept highlights the problem of communication between local

authorities and immigrant communities but also of the effective representation

and participation of immigrants in collective institutions (Fouskas, 2010,

Fouskas, 2012).

41



Invitation to Immigrants Associations and Communities during the Establishment

of LICs

During the establishment of LICs in most municipalities 81% [22

municipalities] immigrants’ associations were invited, while for 15% [5

municipalities] there was no invitation either because there were no associations

and immigrants’ organisations in the municipality, or because they did not

respond to the invitation.

Elected Representatives of Immigrants

42



It is also very important to note that immigrants who participated in the

process of the formation and further operation of the LIC were not elected

representatives of immigrant communities. In the majority of cases, 56% [15

municipalities] they were not elected immigrants’ representatives, 44% [12

municipalities] were elected representatives. It is observed that often the

municipality invited immigrants’ representatives of associations of any

nationality within its limits. However, an international study finds serious

problems of representation and participation of immigrants in their associations

(Fouskas, 2010, Fouskas, 2012, Gropas and Triandafyllidou, 2005).

Cross-checking Process regarding Representation

This observation is linked to the inability of municipalities to verify the

representativeness of immigrants’ representatives. Regarding this verification, in

48% [13 municipalities] representatives had not been elected, in 18% [5

municipalities] representatives of municipalities asked if immigrants were

elected members of associations, and in just 15% [4 municipalities] the

municipalities authorities asked for the official results of the last elections of

each immigrant community. For 15% [4 municipalities] respondents did not

know how the representativeness of immigrants’ representatives was verified,

while 4% [1 municipality] chose another way (the status of the association was

asked and minutes of elections).

43



Representativeness of the Members of LIC

Regarding the representativeness of immigrants’ representatives- members of LIC 18% reported that they were selected based on the fact that they were already elected to the immigrants’ association/ community, 15% [4 municipalities] after general elections of every community within the municipality, 11% [3 municipalities] have proposed representatives on a consensus basis from each association/ community and 11% [3 municipalities] combined the above procedures.

30% [8 municipalities] replied they chose another way of selecting immigrants’ representatives for LIC, such as their placement by the Board of each immigrants’ association, or with other criteria of the municipality, or pressure on the behalf of City Counselors towards immigrants etc. Finally, 4% [1 municipality] did not specify how the immigrants’ representatives- members of LIC where selected.

Ensuring Immigrants’ Participation

44

According to the responses from the questionnaires regarding the

mobilization of immigrants during the process of electing representatives in the

LIC, 41% [11 municipalities] reported that the municipality informed immigrant

residents, 26% [7 municipalities] reported that the municipality informed the

delegates of immigrants’ associations, 3% [1 municipality] reported that

immigrants were informed on their own, 4% [1 municipality] chose another way,

e.g. by informing members of LICs. Finally, 26% [7 municipalities] did not

specify how they ensured the widest possible participation of immigrants in the

process of electing representatives for the LIC.



45



Ensuring the Transparency of the Elections for Immigrants’ Representatives

0; 0%3; 11%

1; 4%

2; 7% 1; 4%1; 4%

Πως διασφαλίστηκε η διαφάνεια της εκλογικής διαδι

Εκπρόσωποι του Δήμοι βοήθησαν στην καταμέτρηση των ψήφωνΕκπρόσωποι του Δήμου συνέβαλαν στη διοργάνωση της ψηφοφορίαςΕκπρόσωποι του Δήμου ήταν παρόντεςΚαμία ενέργεια από πλευράς Δήμου‐οι μετανάστες διεξήγαγαν μόνοι τους τη διαδικασίαΕκπρόσωποι της Πρεσβείας της χώρας των μεταναστών ήταν παρόντες

From the answers received it was not evident how each municipality

ensured the transparency of the electoral process for the LIC. 70% [19

municipalities] did not explain how this process was checked. Only 11% [3

municipalities] reported that a representative of the municipality contributed to

the organization of the elections. 7% [2 municipalities] explained that there was

no action from the part of the municipality and that immigrants themselves

conducted the elections for representatives to the LIC. 4% [1 municipality]

reported that municipal representatives were present during the procedure. 4%

[1 municipality] reported that representatives of the embassy or consulate of the

country of immigrants were present during the elections. Finally, 4% [1

municipality] chose another way, e.g. random representation.

46



Selection of City Councilors and members of NGO- Representatives to the LIC

Members of LICs who were also City Councilors and NGO representatives

were chosen by 37% [10 municipalities] based on their engagement with issues

of immigration, 19% [5 municipalities] they were selected because they were

elected and responsible for immigration issues in the City Council, 22% [6

municipalities] were chosen based on other criteria, for example unanimously by

the City Council etc. Finally, 22% [6 municipalities] did not specify how they

chose their councilors and representatives of NGOs as members of the LIC.

Regarding the provision of the required logistics for the LIC by each

municipality, 78% [21 municipalities] responded positively, although as stated

there are shortcomings, 15% responded that it has not received any logistical

structure from the municipality for the work of the LIC. Finally, 7% [2

municipalities] did not specify whether they received equipment for the

operation of the LIC from the municipality.

Regarding the disclosure of their actions LICs, in a combination of options

for the 27 municipalities, 21% [15 municipalities] of them usually inform

stakeholders and the local community via electronic mail (email), through the

local media 21% [15 municipalities] and by phone 20% [14 municipalities]. Also,

16% [11 municipalities] publishes their actions by posting on the bulletin board

of the municipality, 11% [8 municipalities] through posters, while 7% [5

47



municipalities] in other ways, e.g. through the website of the municipality.

Finally, 4% [3 municipalities] are not able to explain the way in which they

communicate their actions.

As far as the question when is the LIC open is concerned, the

questionnaires showed that 41% [11 municipalities] are functioning on a daily

basis, 22% [6 municipalities] only during the LIC’s meetings, 11% reported that

it works in other situations e.g. when a relevant issue for the municipality occurs

and finally, 26% [7 municipalities] are not able to explain when is the LIC open.

Resources of the LIC

Regarding the resources of the LICs, 63% [17 municipalities] do not

receive any funds from the municipality, only 22% [6 municipalities] reported

that the LIC is supported by the municipality, while 15% [4 municipalities] could

not specify whether LICs receive financial support from the municipality or not.

48



Meeting of the LIC

Regarding the frequency of meetings of the LIC in each municipality, for

the majority, 41% [11 municipalities], meetings are held monthly, 22% [6

cities] municipalities arrange meetings once every three months, in about 18%

[5 municipalities] the LIC meets in other occasions e.g. in exceptional cases,

when necessary or once every 2 or 6 months. In a single case, 4% [1

municipality] the LIC met more frequently than monthly, i.e. twice a month.

Finally, in 15% [4 municipalities] it was not possible to determine the frequency

of meetings of the LIC.

For the vast majority 96% [26 municipalities], during the meetings of the

LIC minutes are held. Only in about 4% [1 municipality] it was not possible to

clarify whether the meetings are recorded in the form of minutes.

49



Cooperation with other Factors

Regarding the existing networking and cooperation between LICs, in a

combination of options for the 27 municipalities, the majority, 18% [8

municipalities] collaborates with the Ministry of Interior, 16% [7 municipalities]

with the Region and at another 16% [7 municipalities] with non-governmental

organizations (NGOs). Only 14% [6 municipalities] collaborates with the LICs of

other municipalities, 9% [4 municipalities] cooperates with political parties, 7%

[3 municipalities] do not join forces with anyone, while another 7% [3

municipalities] with other agencies e.g. KEK, academic institutions, professional

associations, etc. 2% [1 municipality] are in collaboration with institutions from

abroad and finally, 11% [5 municipalities] did not specify.

50



Benefits from the Networking with other LICs

The views of respondents about the expected benefit from networking

with other LICs, authorities, NGOs etc. (Greek and foreign) are particularly

interesting. In a combination of options for the 27 municipalities, 25% (21

choices) would like to exchange experiences on immigration issues. Also, 25%

(21 choices) will seek through networking with other agencies possible ways to

fund the LIC. 23% [19 options] placed 3rd the improvement of the function of

the LIC, 20% [17 options] placed 4th the development of actions- positions. For

5% [4 choices] the expected benefits were varied such as raising awareness

about useful information that can help immigrants, several agencies,

municipalities and services or a combination of all options. Finally, 2% [2] could

not determine the benefits of networking.

51



Perception regarding the LIC

Regarding the importance of the institution of LIC, the vast majority of

respondents- 70% [19 people] responded that it is necessary. It is particularly

interesting for the further development of the institution and its assessment that

26% [7 people] saw the institution as "forced" upon them as its establishment

was mandatory under Article 78 of Law 3852/2010 "New Architecture of

Government and decentralized Administration- Program Kallikrates”. Also, for a

4% [1 person] could not give a positive or negative evaluation of the institution.

52



Evaluation of the Operation of the LIC and its Members so far

Out of all 27 municipalities/ LICs (a) regarding the evaluation of the LIC

operation so far the majority- 37% [15 municipalities] chose to grade it with 5,

(b) regarding the adequacy of City Counselors who are members of the LIC

respondents 18% [5 municipalities] chose average grades, (c) regarding the

adequacy of NGO representatives who are members of the LIC, the majority of

respondents 52% [14 municipalities] graded them with 5 and finally, (d)

regarding the adequacy of representatives of immigrants who are members of

the LIC 26% [7 municipalities] graded them with 7.

53



Immigrant’s Participation to the Political Life of the Municipality

For the majority, 89% [24 people], immigrant residents of municipalities

should participate in the political life of the municipality, only 7% [2 people]

opposed to immigrants’ participation, while 4% [1 person] did not specify

whether immigrants should be involved in politics or not.

Immigrants’ Right to Vote

As far as the question whether immigrants should be entitled to vote at

the local level, the vast majority of respondents 89% [24 people] responded

positively, 7% [2 people] opposed it while 4% [1 person] did not specify

whether they should be allowed to vote.

54



Actions Promoted by LICs

The questionnaires showed that, within a combination of options, 19% [13

municipalities]- the LICs promoted immigrant participation in local public life,

19% [13 municipalities]- the LICs dealt with combating all forms of racism and

xenophobia, 18% [12 municipalities] of LICs helped for the improvement and

harmonization of relations between natives and immigrants, 16% [11

municipalities] of LICs elaborated proposals on local policies, 11% [7

municipalities] established the LIC as the solely adequate body regarding

immigrant issues, 8% [5 municipalities] launched a request to exempt

immigrants from the fee for stamps for obtaining residence permit. Finally, 9%

[6 municipalities] did not specify the actions taken by LIC.

55



LICs Actions so far

Moreover, within a combination of options, 18% [13 municipalities] states

the LIC promoted the organization of courses of Greek language, 16% [11

municipalities] the LIC helped organizing cultural events, 7% [5 municipalities]

the LIC helped organizing intercultural mediation service, 4% [3 municipalities]

the LIC facilitated the exercise of religious rights, 23% [16 municipalities] the

LIC encouraged dialogue between stakeholders on migration issues, 6% [4

municipalities] the LIC helped to the distribution of multilingual information

guides (regarding labor, social, political and legal rights of immigrants), 7% [5

municipalities] the LIC functions as a permanent office that assists foreigners

(regardless of legal status), 11% [8 municipalities] the LIC encouraged the

participation in municipal elections and voter registration in the municipality,

Finally, 8% [6 municipalities] did not specify any actions since the establishment

of the LIC.

Evaluation of Issues regarding Immigrant Integration

56

In all 27 municipalities/ LICs, issues of labour and employment 41% [11

municipalities], fight against undeclared work 56% [15 municipalities], access to

health services, access to education 57% [16 municipalities] and the fight

against violence, racism and xenophobia 52% [14 municipalities] were judged

by representatives of LICs as extremely important for the integration of

immigrants in the Greek society. On the contrary the coexistence of cultures

(religion, customs and traditions), integration policies in general and

entrepreneurship were generally considered as of moderate importance.



57



58

5. Conclusions

This report highlights the key points and outlines the main conclusions

arising from the implementation of the Action 4.1/10 “Networking at the Local

Level between European Union Member States” of the Annual Programme of the

European Integration Fund for the Third Country Nationals (EIF). The purpose of

the action –as stated in the preface of this report- was to further strengthen the

institution of the Local Immigration Councils (LICs) through activities/ events for

networking and exchange of experiences, information and good practices. This

target has been pursued through a series of interconnected actions including:

the operation of an electronic communication platform, the organisation of three

transnational workshops and thirteen regional workshops in Greece and the

preparation of the Final Report.

In the following paragraphs, a brief reference to the key points that

emerged through individual actions and mainly -but not only- through the

organisation of the transnational workshops and the regional seminars is made

as well as issues that need further discussion and should be the subject of future

reflection by all stakeholders in activities related to the integration of immigrants

into local communities are pointed out.

In terms of general observations- conclusions regarding the enhancement

of integration policies for immigrants the following were underlined:

√ The importance and necessity of collaboration between all stakeholders

involved in the design, formulation and implementation of relevant policies

√ The importance of finding the "delicate balance" between the LICs

cooperation with local authorities, while maintaining their independence

√ The necessity of perceiving immigration as a two-way process

√ The importance of seeking common solutions without neglecting local

particularities and prescribing the easy use of "Procrustean Solutions"



59

√ The importance of the involvement of LICs also regarding issues of the

local community which are not directly related to the integration of

immigrants and which have nevertheless an important impact on the lives

of immigrants, thereby facilitating their integration in public life

√ The importance of understanding the European framework and the

possibilities offered because of it (either for funding or through activities or

even through the participation in relevant networks).

The representatives of LICs operating in Greece through their

interventions pointed out the following issues:

- Lack of resources- Standalone budget

The anemic intervention of the institution in the life of local communities is

usually justified due to the lack of resources and separate budget. Lack of

resources is not sufficient however to justify the limited activity by some LICs in

Greece. At the same time, a significant number of successful activities have

been implemented under the current institutional framework and with extremely

limited financial means, as a consequence of the ongoing economic crisis. In this

context, it is understood that an autonomous budget in municipal financial plans

would solve some of difficulties and practical weaknesses.

- Administrative weaknesses and bureaucracy

The difficulties regarding the administrative and scientific support of the

interventions planned by LICs are occasionally covered whilst municipalities do

not have the capacity to exclusively employ personnel for the needs of the

Council. The possibility of permanent full-time staff could provide a solution to

this problem, but this does not seem feasible at this juncture. Moreover, the

existence of permanent staff and the necessary administrative structures would

ensure institutional memory and continuity strengthening the institution and

releasing its function from the personal vision of its participants.



60

- Practical weaknesses regarding the participation of members of

immigrants groups

Although seemingly as minor issues, operating and meetings hours of LICs

emerged as a point of friction and intense reflection regarding the practical

issues related to the function of the institution (see questionnaire). Working

conditions of most immigrant populations result to the inability of a critical part

of them to participate and ultimately to exclude them. Therefore, an adjustment

of the operating framework to the facts of the populations that are directly

affected is required.

- Weaknesses regarding the representativeness of immigrant communities

During the workshops but also through the analysis of the questionnaire the

need to establish common criteria for representation of individual groups was

made clear. This should not lead to the conclusion that there should be common

procedures. Apart from the practical impossibility, the optimum is to implement

efficient processes tailored to local data and the individual characteristics of

immigrant communities.

- Unwillingness to establish and support the operation of LICs

An important and common finding was that there is significant delay in

activating the institution in conjunction with an increased degradation of its

operation. In many cases, municipal authorities did not surround the institution

with the necessary trust and they did not pursue its actual operation. Without

having the ability to explore the causes of these lags, as a general remark, the

need to create a bond of confidence comes forward and the promotion of

arguments in order to yield reciprocal benefits from activation of LIC. The goal of

social cohesion at the community level is achieved by joint efforts of all the

individual groups and that is the direction in which all the relevant factors have

to work.

- Multilevel networking



61

The need to establish constant communication bridges to transfer paradigms,

practices and solutions at every level, between LICs emerged once again as a

matter of great importance and gravity. Networking can regard both neighboring

LICs but also the interaction at national and European level. Based on the

analysis of the replies given to the questionnaire, LICs’ members wish to

enhance learning and transfer of best practices as well as to strengthen ties with

other organisations (in other words, not to restrict networking only among LICs).

To support this goal and the implementation of a permanent mechanism for

mutual learning resources but more importantly political will and support from

the local authorities themselves are required.

Furthermore, through the launch of the network and the transnational

workshops and regional meetings, the opportunity to highlight important issues

concerning both the actual operation of LICs (primary valuation of their function

and presentation of ways to improve them), as and well as to stress out policy

areas that play a key role in the integration of immigrants into local communities

and which were assessed as crucial by the participants (see previous section-

analysis questionnaire) was given. In this context, the policies regarding labour

market integration -as expected- were also pointed out as crucial for the

integration of immigrants. This element was underlined not only by the

representatives of LICs operating in Greece, but also by representatives of LICs

of other Member States participating in the project’s activities, especially

through the presentation of concrete examples. In the case of Greece, the

implementation of policies for the integration of immigrants into the labour

market acquires additional interest and importance given the high proportion of

undeclared work, which largely concerns the immigrant population. In this area,

Greece has the opportunity to draw from the rich experience of other European

countries who are already implementing policies to ensure a smooth transition of

immigrants (especially focusing on unskilled immigrants) from undeclared to

regular employment. EPEKSA has also implemented a relative project, funded by

the European Commission and the PROGRESS programme, during which good

practices from several European countries were presented, whilst they have also

been documented in a report prepared by the partners of the programme.



62

Additionally, the present crisis put forward in an even more urgent way the need

to design policies for labour market integration of vulnerable groups.

Policies related to immigrant legalization processes through which

immigrants participation in the community is strengthened and encouraged have

emerged to be equally important. This is a debate that has extensively

preoccupied the Greek society over the past two years. Also due to the fact that

second generation immigrants now live in Greece it is understood that these

issues cannot be further delayed.

The third point of intervention is associated with immigrants’ access to

services (health, education etc.). Series of researches has already found the

wide inequalities in access to services between Greeks and immigrants, thus

making important the implementation of actions.

The fourth point of intervention is about actions to combat racism and

xenophobia. These issues have not been addressed in a systematic manner,

attracting interest mainly in the context of elections, but without -even during

those periods- the presentation of thoroughly processed proposals. During the

implementation of this project, participants had the opportunity to learn about

an exciting activity that takes place in Barcelona and whose core is the fight

against racism and xenophobia. It is an action that could be applied also in

Greece. To the extent that the crisis creates strong feelings of insecurity which in

return translate in some cases to racist outbursts, planning and implementing

actions to combat racism and xenophobia should be an important part of policies

that seek to integrate immigrants in Greek society.

Issues related to the exercise of religious beliefs were considered as of

medium severity. However, the reluctance, if not the embarrassment, even the

negative feelings of parts of the Greek society against efforts to build a mosque

in Athens, a debate that has been going on over several decades, cannot be

overlooked.



63

In summary, this report has attempted to outline the main conclusions of

the Action. Having codified the key issues faced by the LICs during this first year

of operation and having highlighted the key themes that are central to the

integration of immigrants, we will hopefully contribute to the reinforcement of

the network and the focused exchange of good practices in order to further

strengthen the integration of immigrants into Greek society.

action 4.1/10 – “networking at the local level between european...

Documents