Infrastructures of social integration and refugee settlement in Athens

A different effect of the location of Sites in Eleonas, Schisto, Skaramangas and Lavrio on segregation is evident, as has been expected (Map 3). The dissimilarity index increases by an extra 4.8% (i.e., from 0.5256 to 0.5500) when persons from the Middle East contained in Sites are included in the estimations. The increase in the values of the dissimilarity index for ethnicities from the Middle East due to their containment in Sites is more than twice the increase reported for ESTIA beneficiaries. The dissimilarity index also increases by an extra 2.7%, (i.e., from 0.5075 tο 0.5211) when persons from the Greater Middle East contained in Sites are included in the estimations. The increase in the values of the dissimilarity index for ethnicities from the Greater Middle East due to their containment in Sites is almost five times the increase reported for ESTIA beneficiaries.

Changes in the dissimilarity index are close to zero and negative for all other ethnicities. The values of the centralization indices reflect the peripheral location of the majority of Sites (see Map 3) Table 4 shows a significant decrease in the values of the absolute and the relative centralisation index concerning, firstly, ethnicities from the Middle East (cf Syrians) who were transferred from the country borderlands to the most distant locations and, secondly, ethnicities for the Greater Middle East (cf Afghanis).

Map 3: Spatial positioning and ethnic composition of Temporary Reception Facilities in Attica in January 2018

Source: UNHCR, 2018

Fragmentation, infrastructure inadequaces and abeyance management

From the focus group with the different actors involved in the management of the reception infrastructure, a critical assessment of ESTIA emerges, emphasising the fact that actually it was not an integration programme, although it opens channels for integration and contributes to the creation of networks that could support it. The reduction in the potential for inclusion started with the funding itself, since it did not allow for integration actions. There was also a lack of centralised programme design and corresponding financial resources. Consequently, the programmes were adapted to the limited financial opportunities at European and national level. Funding possibilities depended on the type of actors. International organisations had greater access to funding, while public bodies encountered various obstacles.

The specific actions conformed to a managerial spirit, as can be seen from the way in which Structures were opened and their capacity fluctuated, without planning, as a result of political negotiations, both at European, national and local levels (Map 1). The managerial logic was reinforced on the one hand by the residual culture of managing social problems and the explored gaps in the Greek social protection system that was dismantled by austerity policies, and on the other hand, by the deterrent nature of the European Union’s refugee policy (Kourachanis, 2019). A particular issue has been the decentralisation of services without resources to local government and the increasing bureaucratisation of procedures for asylum seekers to access financial assistance and services (Stratigaki, 2022).

In the focus groups with local authorities and NGOs, there was a confusion about the targeting of interventions: the goal of autonomy was presented as more appropriate in the current circumstances, while the goal of integration was presented as difficult. The ambiguity surrounding the broader reception system and the precariousness created by the way specific policies are implemented (when to move from one programme to another, by when they are entitled to what, etc.) place the population targeted in an unresolved situation (Arapoglou and Gounis, 2017; Papatzani et al, 2022). This pendulum situation is a deterrent to an incentive to stay in a place, and more generally a deterrent to those processes that would help people plan their lives.

A very important and structural problem found with ESTIA is that great insecurity arises for beneficiaries at the point of recognition of refugee status. The paradox here is that individuals become more vulnerable from the moment of recognition, since the framework that supports them stops, without having had time to develop mechanisms of self-determination. Another important problem for the integration processes was that the priority in the programme was given to vulnerable cases whose self-determination becomes protracted because they are in great need of support. In addition, the economic recovery and expectations of income from short-term rentals have reduced the available stock of apartments to accommodate asylum seekers and refugees.

Infrastructure creation and expansion: continuities and discontinuities

The operation of shelters within the urban fabric and the clustering around them of, among others, health, education and employment services by NGOs and local government bodies has nevertheless created a legacy of integration strategies that could concern not only migrants but also a wider population in a precarious living situation.

The last source used in this analysis was created between September and December 2020 [3] and maps the network of services linked to the needs of migrants. Through an extensive online survey, 546 services provided by 47 organisations were recorded. Interviews, using a questionnaire, with each agency that was still operating led to verification of the 335 services provided by 23 agencies (Table 3). Training and support (in general) are the most important services and this analysis revealed a significant variation in the internal functioning of the organisations, some providing their services at the stakeholder accommodation while others have a reception area. The latter leads to an increase in the mobility of migrants and vulnerable groups in general in specific neighbourhoods of the city, regardless of their place of residence, further feeding the bottom-up formation of infrastructure and networks.

Table 3: Distribution of registered services by specialisation

Source: Recherche sur Internet et entretiens dans le cadre du programme Inclusive cities

The location of the organisations counted (map 4) confirms that the ESTIA project has created, in central areas, a support network, primarily through the spatial clustering of the implementing organisations. This network can be seen as complementary to the creation of common infrastructures of solidarity organisations from below, although these were often governed by different authorities and after 2019 were systematically destroyed by police actions (Tsavdaroglou & Lalenis, 2022).

Map 4 illustrates the network of services, linked to the functions and needs of the accommodation units, which has been developed in order to meet UNHCR’s priorities for urban accommodation. The establishment of NGOs and humanitarian organisations was crucial to the formation and expansion of this network mainly within beneficiary host neighbourhoods. Smaller charities and solidarity organisations were also established in these areas to provide their services as well. As can be expected, mainly for reasons of proximity to stakeholders, the location of organisations offering their services in specialised individual units (light green spaces) – i.e. having some kind of reception area for stakeholders – largely defines this network. In most cases, in the same central areas, we also find the headquarters of organisations (dark green) that offer their services directly within the accommodation units. The existence of the same model and their choice to locate in these areas, although their location is not related to their best functioning, further highlights the importance of being part of this network. Finally, it is noteworthy, firstly, that this network was mainly based on charities and private actors due to the limited capacities of public actors and lack of funding and, secondly, that social facilities were developed in urban arrival neighbourhoods rather than near camps (where basic services were also provided incidentally by humanitarian organisations within the facilities).

Map 4: Network of services linked to the accommodation programs in Athens

Source: Recherche sur Internet et entretiens dans le cadre du programme Inclusive cities

The creation of reception classes also seems to have strengthened local rallying and solidarity actions. The school community often took on a role of supporting the whole family (parents receiving solidarity from other parents on various issues) as well as a role of inclusion within a community. For this reason, many beneficiaries of the programme chose to remain in the area they were in after leaving the programme.

Another element that emerged from the focus groups with stakeholders is that the inclusionary dimension of ESTIA was also linked to the local political economy especially in the conditions of the economic crisis (renting of vacant houses and buildings, employment of young people, etc.). The long-term nature of such programmes creates various ferment at the level of society and institutions with issues of coexistence.

Municipalities have for the first time entered the process of providing housing services to asylum seekers. In this way they gained a lot of experience and created a network of synergies and cooperation with other services, other institutions and other municipalities. Particularly in the Municipality of Athens, special coordination units were created and innovative collaborations with international actors on both reception and integration issues were developed (Stratigaki, 2022). Moreover, on the occasion of the management of the refugee issue by various institutions and actors, a knowledge around housing policies of different levels was developed which potentially applies to other populations in need.

The findings presented point out that the creation of the accommodation structures and their connection with social infrastructures in the urban fabric contributed to the production of knowledge about the process of inclusion which, however, took place in a community of actors outside the core of the central state, which was unable to exploit it.

Independent living programmes such as ESTIA and HELIOS have been an opportunity to create a culture and a legacy that can be helpful in the wider debate on integration in the city. A debate that forces us to think materially and symbolically about movement and settlement, autonomy and solidarity. But this discussion was rudely interrupted by the termination of the above programmes, the tourism upgrading strategies without inclusiveness provisions, the camp-like arrangement of Reception and Identification Centres, the camps in the hinterland, and the recently established Closed Controlled Structures (Parsanoglou, 2022). In a way, the inactivation of the memory of solidarity and the cancellation of the lessons of integration from the aforementioned programmes contributes to the ‘normalisation’ of camping (Kreichauf 2018) promoted by policies from 2019 onwards. It also exacerbates the risks of polarisation in areas of vertical segregation with the potential operation of dual markets, on the one hand high yields for tourist rentals and gentrified housing and on the other informal rentals of poor quality stock for marginalised groups (Arapoglou & Spyrellis forthcoming).

[1] ΕΛΚΕ Πανεπιστημίου Κρήτης: Project code 10735. Title: ‘Inclusive cities- infrastructures of social integration and refugee settlement’. The project is part of the Centre for Research and Studies in the Humanities, Social and Educational Sciences of the University of Crete.

[2] We would like to thank the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Greece for making the data (snapshots) of the ESTIA project available to the University of Crete.

[3] The online research, interviews and data verification took place in the context of Stavros Aronis internship at the National Centre for Social Research.