Child protection as a foreign aid priority for… Romania
material based on Mirela Oprea’s interview published on www.euractiv.ro
There are many viable answers to the question which expertise, recent transition experience could be shared by Romania to other countries in the region: anti-corruption, integrity, judicial system reform, the reform of key institutions during the negotiation stages with the European Union. We almost forgot about one major theme of the ’90s: orphanages, children’s rights, the reform of this system.
A few years ago, the Romanian Centre for European Policies gave a press material with the following title: “How corrupt is Romania? It is so corrupt that it is now giving anti-corruption lessons to other countries.” It is a title that remains feasible, and the fight against corruption in Romania has become a model to the whole region and to Europe. But it is not the sole example when it comes to recent transition experience and external assistance which Romania, as a new assistance donor for development, can offer. The reform of the child protection system has been a very difficult one. Where does Romania stand now?
In 1989, Romania started from a very low level. We were considered one of the countries exposing the most sadistic behaviour in the world towards children and this is not even an overstatement. We appeared on all television channels across the world because of the children living in Ceausescu’s orphanages. We had a very bad reputation due to the 100.000 children — the official numbers are still not clear nowadays, according to some estimations we could even speak of 200.000 children — that were treated in a beast-like manner. We received development assistance on behalf of the United States, France, the Netherlands, Sweden in order to develop the child protection reform and solve this issue of institutionalized children. And, indeed, in 1997 a major reform in the area of child protection started with support from eternal donors, including the European Union.
Romania is currently in a situation in which there are around 20.000 children left in the institutions, half of which are living in classic institutions, the so-called ‘orphanages’, and approx. 10.000 children in family-type homes that host a maximum of 10–12 children. Many people say this is a great success following a very difficult process from which us, as a country, have had a lot to learn and, due to which we have developed great expertise. Others are not as enthusiastic and claim that Romania still has a lot left to do when it comes to institutionalized children. And this is, in my opinion, a very healthy debate which does not eliminate the possibility of Romania offering technical assistance to other countries with the aim of reforming other child protection systems.
In Ukraine there are currently over 120.000 institutionalised children and their authorities are searching for solutions in order to start the deinstitutionalization process. The institutionalisation of children- of which 98% are not orphans, but come from very poor families- is a political aspect: we give the burden to a multitude of state institutions, employees, public funds, clientèle and so on. There is also corruption in the child protection system of these countries. Our expertise would be welcome in Ukraine and in other countries in the region: we would be expected with open arms.
Why should child protection be a priority? Because we have this exclusivity: Romania is the first ones in the region who underwent very painful reforms, including from a political point of view. For international donors, the reform in the child protection system has been extremely important. Few people know that, in the case of Romania, child protection was a theme in the negotiation agenda for its accession not only to the EU, but also to NATO. It was a process that favored the development of massive expertise and I believe that no other country in the region has greater legitimacy than Romania. That is why I believe that the reform of child protection systems could be an aspect of national pride: starting from how much we had to learn and where we got, we can help others, without this meaning that there is nothing subject to further improvement in our own country.
In terms of the possibilities we have at our disposal for this transfer of expertise, the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAE) has created a mobility fund for experts. And there can be a bit of disappointment that this fund is not solicited at its maximum capacity. I would recommend a bit of patience, as such processes require time, there are instruments that need to be understood. At the same time, relations of collaboration need to be built. And these equally require time. The Black Sea NGO Forum is extremely useful in this sense, as it provides very good opportunities for setting up new contacts. The projects in our field are very cheap: great results can be seen for very little money. If it were for us to have a bit more funding, the effects, including those at policy level, would be visible. The projects in this domain are a lot cheaper, if Romania would work more on this aspect. It would gain a lot of visibility on this topic — whilst bearing in mind that there are a lot more things to improve at the national level.
There is a crucial difference between the new and the old donors: we do not believe that we know everything better — rather, on the co-development area, of learning together, we endured a national trauma and we did the following things. And I believe this type of approach would position us very well. Moreover, child protection is a so-called ‘non-sensitive issue’. Every state leader in the region can agree that the wellbeing of children is important and that children represent the future of all countries. This is very valuable in a region like ours, with a lot of disrupted or even ongoing conflicts — a reason why people do not easily trust each other. It is also an instrument for building regional cooperation — at ChildPact meetings there are some country representatives that are currently or have previously been at war until very recently and they sit at the same table and work on common projects together. For us these are small victories, but I believe that in the regional cooperation domain, for instance, the first aces should start from this sort of topics, ‘non-sensitive’, on which we can reach agreement without much difficulty.
The Romanian authorities have been disconnected from reality and no longer exert international pressure, and as such they deny the existence of poverty at the local level. We, Romania and Bulgaria, are a bridge to the Black Sea for the European Union, which needs a ‘non sensitive issue’ and, from the discussions with European experts, I have learned that they very much appreciate this idea and are encouraging us. The question is how to materialize this support. It would be great if for instance MAE would afford increased attention to this field. We can see that the Polish have re-branded themselves — they are the great democracy exporters- they were the promoters after which other countries have aligned and are now building brands for their own countries. When it comes to Georgia, for instance, Poland is the most visible donor of all new EU member states. We have proposed the idea of building, according to the Polish model, a European Endowment for Children — with a Trust Fund where we would invite multiple donors to join us so we can start building together.
