About the Intercultural cities concept

The 2011 annual report of the International Migration Organisation reveals that the economic downturn has not significantly affected global migration flows. IOM points out that migration is one of the ways in which the exchange of talent, services, skills and a diversity of experience is achieved. Yet migration remains politically sensitive and governments face the difficult task of dispelling the misunderstandings surrounding it.

The political sensitivity of diversity hinders the emergence of effective national integration policies which take into account the mistakes of the past. In Europe however, the levels of migration and diversity are such that we cannot afford to improvise for much longer. According to Eurostat, there were 47.3 million foreign-born residents in the EU in 2010 (9.4% of the total population), with 6.5% of the EU population being foreign nationals.

The demographic and economic benefits of migration are clearly established. In the UK, for instance, foreigners draw less on welfare support than natives. Immigrants accounted for almost a third of GDP growth in the United States of America between 2000 and 2007 and received much less in welfare benefits compared to the taxes they paid.

Research shows that enterprises with diverse staff are more innovative, and that diverse teams are better in solving problems if diversity is endorsed and embraced, that productivity and wages are higher in regions and cities with a more diverse population. Diaspora entrepreneurship fosters economic development both in host countries and in countries of origin and immigration increases foreign trade

However, diversity can also have high social costs of in terms of decrease of cohesion, trust and security if public authorities fail to communicate properly about the reality of migration, develop a social pedagogy of diversity and put in place policies which effectively minimise the threats and maximise the benefits of diversity.

The Council of Europe a pan-European Human rights and democracy watchdog, states clearly that diversity is a resource necessary for the advancement of societies, and that the expression of ones cultural identity is a fundamental right. It has enshrined these principles in various international conventions and other legal instruments. It raises awareness of the resurgence of intolerance and discrimination in Europe towards people of different ethnic, linguistic or religious background and holds states responsible for applying the European Convention on Human Rights and ensuring individual freedom and equality before the law. A recent report by eminent European personalities written for the Council of Europe1 points out that identities are a voluntary matter for the individual concerned, and that no one should be forced to choose or accept one primary identity to the exclusion of others. It argues that European societies need to embrace diversity, and build a pluralistic identity if it is to avoid increasing conflicts, violence and exclusion which will tarnish its own core values. It urges states to correct misleading information and stereotypes about migration, and to give their citizens a more realistic picture of the situation of migrants and of Europes current and future needs in the field of migration.

In order to encourage the development of public policies able to address positively the challenge of diversity, the Council of Europe has developed, with the support of the European Commission, the concept of Intercultural integration. This concept is being implemented by 21 cities from across the continent2, within the framework of the Intercultural cities programme.3

The Intercultural cities concept is based the assumption that social exclusion has, at least partly, cultural causes. Exclusion begins with the refusal to accept the other the person from another social background, language, religion, ethnicity, as a carrier of equal human dignity and give him or her equal access to economic, social and political institutions. Cultural

Council of Europe, Report of the Group of Eminent Persons Combining Diversity and Freedom in 21s century Europe, http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2615 2 Amsterdam South East (the Netherlands), Berlin Neuklln (Germany), Botkyrka (Sweden), Copenhagen (Denmark), Geneva (Sitzerland), Dublin (Ireland), Izhevsk (Russian Federation), Lisbon (Portugal), Limassol (Cyprus), London Lewisham (UK), Lublin (Poland), Lyon (France), Melitopol (Ukraine), Neuchtel (Switzerland), Oslo(Norway), Patras (Greece), Pcs (Hungary), Reggio Emilia (Italy), San Sebastian (Spain), Subotica (Serbia), Tilburg (the Netherlands) 3 www.coe.int/interculturalcities

exclusion transforms into discrimination in the labour market and the workplace, in education, in the neighbourhoods, in public space, in the institutions of power. To address exclusion successfully, it is not enough to proclaim formal equality, it is crucial to deal with its cultural roots and a frame of mind which treats the other as untrustworthy or inferior. In the early days of 20th century migration emphasis was put on the labour-market integration of migrant workers, who were not granted political or cultural rights. Later on, and in some countries more than in others, the role of cultural blending was overemphasised, with assimilation being the prerequisite for access to citizenship. Guest-worker and assimilation policies worked for the first generation migrants but became increasingly problematic for subsequent generations who demanded full citizenship, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, as well as the respect of their (composite) cultural identity. Multiculturalism made significant progress in this respect, recognising also that migrants had the right to maintain and transmit their identity of origin. However, it understood identity in a static, simplistic way, making little allowance for the evolution and hybridisation of cultures, and ignoring the need to foster a pluralistic community identity and cohesion. Often, it reinforced the marginalisation of migrant cultures, exacerbated poverty and exclusion through spatial and social segregation. In its extreme forms, multiculturalism emphasises difference to the detriment of common values, empowers cultural purists and gatekeepers and fosters conflicts and disintegration of the social fabric.

The Intercultural integration approach builds upon the achievements of these earlier diversity management approaches and addresses their shortcomings. It fosters a strategic vision of diversity as an asset, and the adoption of joint-up strategies harnessing efforts across administrative silos and a partnership between public authorities, civil society and media. Urban intercultural strategies rest on three pillars: honest communication about the realities of migration and diversity and continuous public debate; diversification of public bodies at all levels, in public space and institutions; cultural competence of organisations, including the ability to deal constructively with cultural conflict.

The intercultural city cannot function without a clear framework of values and rights based on the European principles and standards of democracy and human rights. Its actors have a strong understanding of the imperatives of a rights-based approach to diversity management, fight resolutely any form of discrimination are refuse cultural relativism.

The Intercultural cities adopt governance models that are people-centred, flexible and crossdepartmental, emphasising openness, negotiation and debate. In relations with civil society the centre of gravity is not with ethnic community representatives who are often advocates of cultural purity, but with the expression of plural voices in each community? Public funding gives priority to cross-cultural activities of non-for profit organisations that emphasise common principles and objectives rather than sectarian interests.

Intercultural governance often requires the creation of specialised mediation institutions to manage cultural conflict by using trained mediators.

In the public realm, cities identify key public spaces (formal and informal) and invest in the redesign, animation and maintenance to raise levels of usage and interaction by all ethnic groups as well as across ages and social strata. Those involved in urban planning have a strong cultural awareness which helps them develop a better understanding of how different groups use space and incorporate into planning and design guidelines.

In housing, programmes Intercultural cities seek to promote mixing, de-segregation, intercultural contacts and interaction through special activities and events. They also give ethnic groups confidence and information enabling them to consider taking housing opportunities outside traditional enclaves.

An affective urban intercultural strategy requires a committed leadership but also an intimate understanding of the complexities of diversity which can be found only in culturally diverse political and administrative structures. Opening up of the political system and public service for minorities and empowering intercultural innovators and bridge-builders, is a fundamental condition for a genuine intercultural approach.

Intercultural cities is not simply a network but a learning community with carefully designed processes and a set of tools to help a wide range of urban actors understand the complexity of issues, make changes in the design and implementation of policies and assess progress. It is also a political community of cities which believe that diversity is their future and refuse the politics of fear.

The Intercultural cities programme provides expert and peer support to cities which chose to learn how to better manage diversity and benefit from the diversity advantage. It offers a solid methodology and a set of analytical and learning tools to help re-shape city policies and services, equipping cities for the century of diversity.