I will not try to give any definition of what integration and social cohesion are. I only want to stress that both concepts are to be put in the same perspective. Even if first, second and third generation migrants face different types of difficulties, the effectiveness of our policies should be thought over a long term period covering the whole integration path of migrants and their children and grand children. I will neither assess the results of integration policies. I will only approach theses issues from our experience at the King Baudouin Foundation. Our global mission statement is to improve the living conditions of (migrant) people. We act at the Belgian and European levels. In the field of migration, we try to have an impact on the policy making processes by organizing debates; on the other hand we support projects set up by third parties (in this case, migrants) to tackle very concrete problems in the field.
 
That gives us, at King Baudouin Foundation, two main sources of information to reflect upon migration and integration topics: the lessons learned from the numerous debates we have organised during the last four years in Belgium and at the European level; and the lessons that we can learn from the grass roots projects that we support.
 
Today, I would like to restrict myself to six statements about migration and integration challenges: the need for European integration policies; the links between admission and integration; the need for exchanging experiences in the field integration; the central place of education in integration; the need for valuing the role of immigrants in successful integration; and finally integration as “a two-way process”.
 
First point. From the very start, the King Baudouin Foundation was convinced that it couldn’t focus on the integration policies without having an eye on what is happening at the EU level. Sure, in Belgium integration falls under the competences of regional authorities. But without a European framework we would be sailing blindly. Why is this European approach so important ?
 
Mobility of migrant people is a first good reason to think the integration policies at a European level. The Member States will have to transpose the European directives on long term residence and on family reunification into local (national or regional) legislations. Concerning the residence permits, the directive says that Member States have to grant the long term residence permit to migrants that have been legally staying for five years in the country. This permit gives them the right to move to other Member States, for the purpose of working or following a training there. The directive also says that Member States should facilitate integration of those long term residents. In Flanders, the Netherlands, Germany and other Member States this goes along with (sometimes compulsory) language training courses. Now, a question is for example: what about the legally residing third country national who has followed 120 hours of Dutch in Flanders and then moves to Germany for another career? Should he or she start a new introductory programme again ? Whereas he wouldn’t have to in Luxemburg? Currently, Member States develop their own programmes each on their side (if at all they do so). This could create imbalances. That’s why European harmonization is so important. The EU Commission offers opportunities for that.
 
That’s a second good reason for Member States to look and think at the European level. The EU is indeed very active in the field of migration and integration. It has clearly spelled out that no migrant should enter the EU without being offered facilities for getting integrated. That’s why the Commission has set a framework that can really stimulate the national policies. For example, Common Basic Principles for the integration of immigrants (CBP’s) have been adopted by the Council of Ministers in November 2004. These may be quite general, but at the same time this makes them inspirational. That’s why the Commission further elaborated these CBP’s into a Common Programme for integration. And it also proposed to create a European Fund for Integration, in order to finance the Member State actions that would implement this programme. These measures are currently discussed in the European Parliament. Enough reasons for Member States to frame their national policy drafts in the EU context.
 
My second point is strengthening the links between admission and integration policies. The last years, Ireland welcomed a lot of new labour migrants from the new Member States. This has been presented as being part of Irelands booming economy. But today, Ireland faces the consequences of these labour movements and it wakes up while realizing that Dublin is having its Polish neighbourhoods – a new challenge for social cohesion. We better think of it from the start. Every single migration policy needs to be backed up with integration measures. But migration patterns are changing. In Belgium, we officially have a migration stop since 1974. But recent figures show that 85.000 foreigners entered the country in 2004, among whom 45% were third country nationals. We cannot be blind for the migration reality: it is definitely part of our society – it happens even if we say it doesn’t. So let’s face facts and develop a pro-active approach. Migration has its new patterns. Integration should be tailored to those. For example, we know there is and there will ever be family reunification, which is a basic right. Let’s now develop the integration policies that make the application of this basic right successful.
 
Third point. These days, we can measure the consequences and new challenges of the integration policies that we designed some 20 years ago. Since we are to attract or to welcome new migrants, let’s think now of new integration policies while looking at their possible results in 20 years time. That means: let’s learn from past and present experiences. In Belgium, we have two models of first integration: in Flanders, there is the ‘inburgering’ for migrants; and in the French speaking part of Belgium, the social policies don’t make any distinction between the ethnic origins of the people. What can we learn from both experiences ? A learning exchange about those practices can help us formulate new integration designs. This exchange would even be a valuable Belgian contribution to the European debate. First integration programs are indeed new for a number of Member States, while other MS have a longer experience. A European wide assessment of past and current “integration contracts” and “introductory programmes” can be the kick off for new policy designs. But there again: let’s look at expected results over a period of 20 years.
 
Fourth point: one crucial dimension of integration is education. There are of course other integration aspects such as employment, health care, etc. But education leads us to this long term perspective. Everybody knows that the problems we are facing on the integration level in Belgium are those of the second and third generation migrants (Belgian children or grand children of migrants). This is the major lesson that we have to keep in mind while working on the integration of newcomers. Our schools still attract large numbers of newcomers; at the same time they become “coloured schools” with lots of Belgian pupils of foreign extract. Surely our policies try to prevent segregation between the school children. Looking at the results, however, important differences remain between people of foreign origin and Belgians. How to make the system work from here ? It is not only a matter of managing the school and education system. It is also a question of mobilising other resources such as the social environment of education. Over the last three years, King Baudouin Foundation worked out a project ‘Parents and the school’. We supported grass root projects that helped migrant parents to get involved in their childrens education. Especially mothers play an important role in the pupils successful career at school. At the same time we noticed that empowering mothers in this role can also have important emancipatory effects for the mothers themselves.
 
The fifth statement that I want to make is drawn from another KBF initiative. We supported micro projects that were set up by networks of new migrants themselves (often in cooperation with settled organisations in the field of admission and integration). Surely, Belgium has done a lot to help new migrants in their first integration processes. But we noticed that it was sometimes very difficult for new migrants to find their way to these integration instruments. So we wanted to make our contribution to a better link between offer and demand. New migrants networks can be or can develop resourceful bridges between the different parties. Often, they just need to set up micro projects to develop generally unrecognized capacities in this field. As a matter of fact, the integration system set up by the host country could benefit a lot from those migrant social resources. Mobilising them would make integration more effective. For example, migrant members a church choir in Antwerp turned out to be in the best position to mediate between Belgian landlords and migrant tenants in the private housing market.
 
These migrant groups are not made of professionals in the integration industry. And there’s maybe even no need for them to become subsidized “integration professionals”. But their resources (their networks, their communication skills, their authority within migrant communities, etc.) deserve to be mobilised for the sake of successful integration. The groups are flexible – so they are the most accurate expression of changing migration realities. They gather different types of people and different generations - which in itself is a useful source of creating social binds. And they often work on a voluntary basis. No need for the integration industry to overkill them with big amounts of money. Just make them partners in making problems and resources emerge – and make them more structural actors at a later stage, if they wish so and turn out to have the requested skills. Our integration system needs to find a new articulation between small scale support for emerging resources and long term support for structural actions.
 
Sixth statement: integration as a two-way process. There’s no integration policy without working on the perceptions and the questions that hosting populations have about daily migration realities. Their concerns also deserve to be at the core of specific projects. KBF runs / has run two projects that may contribute to this two-way-looks on migration.
 
The first one is “quartiers de vie » (“living quarters”). KBF supports citizen projects aimed at improving the quality of life in local neighbourhoods. Small efforts to solve very concrete neighbourhood problems can bring together migrants and Belgian roots citizens within a joint initiative. These projects can have a very important impact. They foster a feeling of togetherness. Working together on concrete, daily life neighbourhood issues offers a lot of opportunities to go beyond cultural differences.
 
Another project consisted of training migration and integration NGO’s at developing their public communication skills and strategies. There’s a huge gap between those who defend the rights of migrants and the growing number of sceptics – not only the ones who had a bad experience with migrants but also those who have a negative image of migration through the media. Since perception is reality, a productive communication strategy on migration should not only try to convince those who are already convinced. It should start from the questions that sceptics have and connect with their (true or false) concerns.