Background Image
Previous Page  44 / 113 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 44 / 113 Next Page
Page Background

44

Î

Î

However, it is worth noting that

the number of OPs or the fact that there are only

national OPs or national and regional OPs is not necessarily directly related to the

importance given to Roma inclusion or to the scope of the actions foreseen, but to

aspects such as the administrative structure (i.e. level of decentralisation) and the

strategy

selected by the countries. While some countries opt for diversification, others

prefer to concentrate all actions related to Roma inclusion (addressing several areas)

into a limited number of OPs (one or a limited number).

This is for example the case of

Romania

and

Slovakia

, which for simplification reasons

decided to include the most relevant actions addressing Roma inclusion covered by different

OPs in the previous programming period into one single OP in the current one. A sharp

reduction in the number of OPs is also carried out by other countries by grouping several

ones (at regional or national level) into a single one. For example, the

Hungarian

Territorial

and Settlement Development OP

is the follow-up to regional operational programmes

and the

Czech

Integrated Regional OP

to the seven regional operational programmes and

partially to the

Integrated OP

.

Î

Î

Similarly to the 2007-2013 programming period,

Roma inclusion is generally

considered, even in the countries with high percentages of Roma population, in

mainstream Operational Programmes

, instead of developing a specific Operational

Programme (or part of it) targeting Roma. This is perceived as a way of promoting the

mainstreaming of Roma issues in different areas. The impact of the concentration or

diversification of initiatives, and of considering Roma inclusion in mainstream OPs,

remains to be seen.

Î

Î

As it will be analysed in more detail in the coming chapters,

countries use a wide

variety of options to address Roma inclusion in terms of scope, funds, approaches,

thematic objectives and investment priorities and fields of intervention

. Despite the

differences, a number of general trends can be identified (some of them similar to the

ones in the 2007-2013 period).