Here to stay:Finding a sustainable
alternative housing strategy for asylum seekers and refugees in Greece
Over
60,000 refugees and asylum seekers are currently stranded in Greece as a result
of the closed northern border with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM), the building of fences, and the introduction of the EU-Turkey deal in
March 2016. Prior a transit country, as of April 2017, approximately 34,000
people were living in official and informal sites in mainland Greece and 13,000
on the islands. Due to the restrictions of the EU-Turkey deal, camps in in the islands
are operating at 150% capacity, a situation prolonged from poor capacity to
deal with the sheer volume of applications. (UNHCR, 2017)
To support the management of the refugee crisis in Greece, the European Commission approved an 80 million EUR programme, run by UNHCR, to provide 20,000 additional reception places for asylum seekers and relocation candidates in Greece and to support the establishment of some 7,000 places in the hotspot areas. (ECHO, 2016) In April 2017, approximately 15,000 asylum seekers eligible for relocation were living in UNHCR funded alternative accommodation, such as apartments and hotels. While the EU pledged a total of 66,400 asylum seekers to be relocated from Greece to EU member states until September 2017, as of today only 17% have been resettled. This has important implications for the accommodation scheme, which was established on the premise that as people relocated, empty units would be re-filled with people from the camps.
As the country is struggling with the sheer volume of application, causing delays in the process which might take up to a year to reach completion, asylum seekers continue to live in the 45 camps around mainland Greece. (UNHCR, 2017) While the situation in camps has substantially improved in the past years, conditions as reported by various local and international NGOs, volunteers and occupants, remain substandard. (Action aid et al., 2016) Despite efforts from the Greek government to improve reception conditions, the government’s capacity to provide basic services to the refugees is limited as it faces an extreme domestic economic crisis with 25% unemployment rates and more than 2.5 million of its own citizens living under the poverty line. The lack of existing domestic infrastructure on social housing and refugee accommodation reveals a shelter gap in need.
This
policy paper contributes to the Greek debate over alternative accommodation by
evaluating existing housing schemes to understand what organisational and
institutional factors inhibit or facilitate the provision of such alternative
shelter. Drawing from best practices in the country and abroad and considering
the relative affordability and availability of private housing in the country,
it will make recommendations for a strategy to scale up housing in vacant
apartments equally distributed by municipality. It should be noted that at the
time of writing this policy paper, the UNHCR funded accommodation in private
apartments was deemed to be a success and was extended for 2017. In April 2017,
Minister for Migration Policy Giannis Mouzalas announced the government’s
commitment to close 22 of the 45 camps currently operating in Greece and
transfer asylum seekers to private apartments through the extension of the
UNHCR scheme. (Naftemporiki, 2017) With additional funds guaranteed from the
EU, the UNHCR committed to find another 20,000 places until by the end of 2018.
The
structure of the policy is as follows: section 2 describes the methodology,
section 3 gives a background of the reception system and camp living in Greece,
section 4 evaluates existing housing strategies in Greece and abroad through
selected case studies; section 5 analyses the Greek housing market, section 6
highlights key lessons learned and section 7 concludes and makes
recommendations for a longer term housing strategy for asylum seekers.
This
policy paper synthesizes information gathered through an analysis of the
current housing opportunities for asylum seekers in Greece. Data was collected
through a variety of sources, such as the UNHCR, the Ministry of Migration, the
Municipality of Athens and the Hellenic Statistical Authority. Information on
existing housing projects in Greece and Athens was collected through face-to-face
and phone interviews with stakeholders from relevant organisations and desk
research. A couple of site visits were also conducted to refugee camps in the
Attika region, namely Elaionas and Elliniko.
Recognised
as a tool in many social science studies, a case study research method was
selected as an appropriate tool to examine housing strategies at the micro
level and provide better insights into the detailed behaviours of the subjects
of interest, i.e. asylum seekers, local population and relevant stakeholders
from NGOs and local government. This study investigates a selection of 6 case
studies representing different alternative accommodation schemes and evaluates
their strengths and weaknesses. A SWOT analysis is employed to evaluate the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the proposed policy
recommendation.
A total of four
interviews were undertaken. The following organisational representatives were
interviewed as part of the case study research:
Limitations of
research
This
study was limited by the lack of household data, background and relocation
prospects of beneficiaries of the alternative accommodation projects. Due to
the restricted access to the internal database of the UNHCR Accommodation for
Relocation project, the analysis could not include exact figures of accommodation
in hotels, apartments, or host families per municipality or region, nor could
it include a spatial distribution of the housing. Last but not least, there are several
disadvantages in using a case study approach, most importantly that though
useful as an exploratory tool, depending on the variation between the cases
selected, a systematic analysis may be limited. Furthermore, it is difficult to
reach a generalising conclusion (Zainal, 2007).
Long
criticised as inadequate, not least since the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ruling of the ECtHR, the large-scale
arrivals of refugees put further pressure on the Greek Reception System. (Human
Rights Watch, 2016)
In
response to the refugee crisis, in April 2016, law 4375/2016 created a single
Ministry of Migration Policy and provided the legal basis for the establishment
of different accommodation facilities. (Law 4375/2016) To address the
accommodation needs of the thousands of refugees stranded in Greece following
the closure of borders, the Hellenic army, with the help of EU funds, created a
number of temporary camps. The National Centre for Social Solidarity (EKKA) is
the authority for the management of the official reception system and also
responsible for the placement of applicants to reception facilities. While
demand for accommodation increased 264% between 2015 and 2016, reception places
under EKKA only increased 49%. (Greek Council for Refugees, 2017)
While other countries in Western Europe make use of
their social housing agencies and properties to house refugees and asylum
seekers, Greece has no public-rented housing, neither at the central nor at the
local government level. Until 2012, the public sector Workers Housing Organisation
(WHO or in Greek, OEK) would offer a few dwellings for poor workers and
families and was the main state housing policy instrument of the country.
(European Parliament, 1996) It was abolished under measures of “structural
reforms” resulting from the memorandum signed by the Greek Parliament. (Law
4046/12)
As
a result, since the beginning of the refugee crisis, the UNHCR, NGOs and
civil society organisations stepped in through various ways to close this
shelter gap. The various housing projects will be discussed in detail in
section 4.
The
majority of asylum seekers, approximately 47,000, are living in official and
informal sites, state-run facilities, NGO accommodation or have self-settled in
mainland Greece and the islands. (UNHCR, 2017) A map indicating capacity and
occupancy of sites can be found in the Appendix. There are currently 45 refugee camps around
Greece and while some like Elaionas in the Attika region have upgraded into
container type accommodation, others like Chersos in Northern Greece still have
tent accommodation. A survey carried out by the RRDB from camps around Athens, squats
and communities found that 80% of their respondents were unsatisfied with their
living conditions. (Refugee Rights Data Project [RRDP], 2017) With reports of
women feeling unsafe, dirty toilets and roofs that leak, there is significant
evidence that the right to dignity in shelter does not meet required standards.[1] The
poor capacity of the camps to provide adequate living conditions is exacerbated
during extreme weather conditions such as harsh winters and blistering hot
summers. While situations vary greatly between camps, the pressures on family
dynamics, the substandard conditions and the temporary nature of camp living
all strengthen the argument for providing alternative accommodation.
Inevitably,
the housing conditions of refugees and asylum seekers play an important role in
their sense of security and belonging, and affect their access to healthcare,
education and employment (Phillips,
2004). Moreover, housing conditions are likely to have an impact on community
relations and integration prospects of refugees. International and voluntary
organisations, the EU and recently the government have recognised the
importance of a policy driven approach for refugees’ accommodation. In October
2016, a coalition of national and international NGOs called for a move to
longer-term arrangements for accommodation that will allow people to “live in
dignity, have greater control over their lives, positively engage with the host
community and contribute to the local economy. (Action aid et al., 2016)
To
identify strategies that can overcome the challenges faced by local government,
NGOs and civil society in providing alternative shelter for asylum seekers and
refugees in Greece, it is useful to provide a description of the current
accommodation schemes in place. The following section is separated into two
parts: first it provides an analysis of the various types of alternative
accommodation of the UNHCR project and second, it highlights innovative housing
initiatives from Greece and abroad that can provide inspiration for
stakeholders involved in such projects.
UNHCR is the leading agency in charge of refugee accommodation outside the camp with the Accommodation for Relocation project. To achieve the goal of finding 20,000 reception places for asylum seekers eligible for relocation, UNHCR funds its partners to find reception places through various types of accommodation, such as hotels, apartments and host families. UNHCR partners include several local NGOs, such as Praksis, Solidarity Now, Iliaktida, and currently three municipalities, Athens, Thessaloniki and Livadia. As of April 2107, the UNHCR has 18,058 places through its Accommodation Scheme with an overall occupancy rate of 80%. (UNHCR 2017) 64% of those places are in apartments, 17% in hotels, 14% in buildings or sites, 4% are places for unaccompanied minors and 1% are in host families. To monitor the accommodation for relocation scheme and facilitate communication between the partners, UNHCR has established an internal database collecting information on type of accommodation, location and beneficiaries’ characteristics. A report updating the targets for places found is published weekly, an example can be found in the Appendix. Ordered from most commonly used to least, the following section analyses selected case studies of accommodation for asylum seekers in Greece and evaluates strengths and weaknesses of each case.
How does it work?
As
part of the UNHCR Accommodation for Relocation Projects, partners find places
in apartments through the private market. As of April 2017, there are 11,699
places for beneficiaries in 1,876 apartments around Greece. The Municipality of Athens, through the
Athens Development and Destination Management Agency (ADDMA) took on the
implementation of the accommodation scheme to rent 200 apartments to refugees,
a number that was extended to 280. Providing up to 6 tenants per apartments,
rent per apartment is not to exceed 400 euros. Vacant apartments are found in
collaboration with local boroughs with care to ensure the social cohesion of
the city. While the majority of the apartments are found in the centre (6th
borough), where there is greater supply of cheap properties, places are
scattered around the various boroughs of the municipality. As the boroughs of
the municipality are all relatively close to the centre and have good public
transport links, beneficiaries have good access to services.
The
scheme by the Municipality operates under a triplet management and each
apartment has a caseworker, an interpreter and an apartment manager, hired
exclusively for the purposes of this project and paid by EU funds. The apartment
manager finds the apartments, takes care of the bills but is also there to
monitor the transition of the families in the buildings. A municipality
official highlighted an example where the apartment manager was able to
successfully smooth the concerns of neighbours who did not want refugees living
in their building.
Pros and Cons
The
biggest strength of the private apartment scheme is that it offers a solution
for accommodation with a high degree of social mix between refugees and locals.
In addition, money pours into to the local economy, not only through rents and
electricity bills, but also as beneficiaries are given cash cards for food and
hygiene products that they spend on local stores and supermarkets. Moreover,
the implementation of the programme enhanced the administrative capacity of the
Municipality and the acquired know-how can have positive effects for future
projects.
However,
while the great degree of support beneficiaries receive ensures the smooth
transition of their living situation, it is also not sustainable in the
long-run as it is dependent on external funding that is set for one year. There
are also questions regarding whether other Municipalities in the country could
easily replicate such a scheme. While the Municipality of Athens benefits from
assigning the management of the scheme to the ADDMA, which is private and has
greater degree of autonomy and flexibility, other Municipalities do not have
such agencies. Moreover, the Municipality of Athens has the advantage of being
geographically small and having good transport links, something that ensures a
good access to services for beneficiaries.
How does it work?
Accommodation
in hotels for asylum seekers is acquired either through a direct lease from
UNHCR or through providing hotel vouchers to programme participants. As of
March 2017, there were 2,990 places for beneficiaries, in 39 hotels around
Greece. A positive example of hotel accommodation is the seaside Hotel Rovies
in Evia, which hosted 88 asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Eritrea and other
countries. Matched with a willing hotelier, the owner of Hotel Rovies also took
it upon himself to create a welcoming and learning environment for the refugees
that were hosted in his hotel. Language, swimming and theatre classes were
available and there was an effort to engage with the locals. For example,
during the Ramadan of June 2016, refugees provided Syrian food to local
residents and refugee children decorated a school in the local village. (Al
Arabiya, 2016) Though Hotel Rovies is an inspiring example of hotel
accommodation for refugees, not all hoteliers or communities were equally
accepting and willing to go the extra mile.
Pros’ and Cons’
A
benefit of accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels is that it is substantial
upgrade in living conditions from camps.
At the same time, leasing entire hotel structures has the advantage of
being able to house high numbers of asylum seekers. During the harsh winter of
2016, UNHCR leased hotels proved to be a great escape for refugees living in
poorly winterised camps. Moreover hotel living can maintain a sense of
community and avoid the isolation that might result from apartment living.
However,
there are also several weaknesses in hotel accommodation, most notably that it
presents a temporary solution, due to the higher cost and the expected tensions
with hotel-owners and locals as the tourist season takes off. At the same time,
hotel living does not allow refugees to regain normality in their lives. One of
the main issues mentioned by refugees and NGO workers on sites is a lack of
kitchen facilities for refugees to cook. Mostly single women and children,
hotel living undoes the normal family dynamics, as often the number of children
exceeds the number of mothers.[2] Separated
from their husbands and subject to the dining schedule set up by catering service
women lose a lot of decision making and responsibility.
How does it work?
As
part of the UNHCR Accommodation for Relocation scheme, the NGO Solidarity Now
implements an innovative hospitality programme “Home for Hope” where asylum
seekers eligible for relocation are hosted by Greek families in Athens and
Thessaloniki. Solidarity’s “Home for
Hope” initiative has benefited 800 asylum seekers, 600 of which had been hosted
in Athens. With integration being on everyone’s mind, Solidarity Now advocates
that hosting can present an opportunity to create bonds between locals and
refugees and fight xenophobia by defeating stereotypes in an exhibition of
“solidarity in action”. The Home for Hope initiative pays hosts 75 euros per
person and the stay of refugees does not exceed three months. Solidarity Now also
implements a cash transfer project for the beneficiaries of its accommodation scheme.
Faced
with preconceived ideas of different cultural and gender norms, language and
religion, Solidarity Now launched an award winning awareness campaign to touch
Greek homes and find willing hosts. The campaign included TV and radio spots
transmitted as “social action” messages from local channels, advertisements in
print and online media, posters in the Athens metro and bus stations, a social
media campaign and even a big building installation on Panepistimiou, a major
Athens Street.
Pros’ and Cons’
The
biggest strength of the hosting initiative in that it ensures the highest
social mix between asylum seekers and locals, leading the way to integration.
At the same time, the prepaid card system boosts self-dignity and empowers
decision-making among the beneficiaries, contributing to the smooth
co-habitation in Greek homes. The short length of stay of “Home for Home” makes
it more likely that Greek citizens will be willing to open their homes.
However,
the low cost of the programme is based on solidarity and though many Greek
citizens have been willing to offer a home for asylum seekers, it is difficult
to get many participants. Moreover, while the short length of stay attracts a
greater number of hosts and can benefit asylum seekers who already know their
relocation date, it does not offer a longer-term solution.
How does it work?
In
addition to apartments, hotels and hosting UNHCR is also setting up alternative
accommodation sites for relocation and non-relocation candidates. An
interesting example is the refurbishment of the out of use Agia Eleni orphanage
in Ioannina in Northern Greece that will host approximately 500 asylum seekers
currently living in hotels and camps in the area. The building complex is built
inside a fenced area of approximately 40 acres, opposite the Ioannina airport.
The site has 21 buildings and it used to be an orphanage for vulnerable
children. The complex was operational up to 2005, after which the buildings were
left vacant. Owned by the state, once agreements were finalised between the
local Municipality and Ministry of Interior, the site offered a unique
opportunity to explore the establishment of an innovative housing project.
UNHCR
issued a call for proposals to refurbish the site, construction began in late
2016 and first refugee families are expected to move in May 2017. Until the
refurbishment is complete 50 dwellings have been set up around the site to host
approximately 250 asylum seekers. The proposed refurbishment of the site will
include accommodation facilities, with separate accommodation for people with
disabilities, a kiosk, a communal kitchen and dining space, a sports facilities
and even a theatre among others. (UNHCR, 2016) Low down buildings, with common
space inside and outside in nature for children to play and residents to
socialise, the complex presents an interesting case study of the design of a
suburban complex.
Pros and cons
One
of the main strengths of this housing project is that the structure will be a
more permanent solution that will be put to social use after the asylum seekers
are relocated to other countries or more permanent accommodation. The various
communal spaces emphasize interaction between residents, while the location in
nature allows children to play in a safe environment. Though residents will not
have their own kitchen, the communal kitchen can possibly be used by families
together or interchangeably at decided times.
However,
the isolated location of the complex and the lack of interaction between
refugees and locals might lead to a perceived ghettoization of the site. For
this reason it is important to accompany each settlement with concrete actions
to increase social mix between locals and asylum seekers.
By
the end of the pilot year, the UNHCR Accommodation for Relocation scheme was
deemed to be a success and with additional funds guaranteed from the EU, it committed
to find another 20,000 places until by the end of 2018. However, as relocation
lagged and NGOs, state and non-state actors competed for housing in the
country, several issues regarding the scheme were brought to the
forefront. Some of the issues with the
UNHCR scheme that came up from interviews with stakeholders and research from
opinion articles and media platforms were that:
a) the eligibility for relocation criteria sometimes
distorted the asylum process,
b) the vulnerability definition led to the systematic
exclusion of certain groups such as young single men
c) the lack of transparency when it came to the
selection of beneficiaries created tensions between asylum seekers, UNHCR and
NGOs
d) the cost of the scheme coupled with the delays in
relocation of candidates render it not sustainable in the long term.
In
the beginning, the eligibility for relocation criteria led to the exclusion of
certain ethnic groups, such as Iraqis. At the same time, it created incentives
for asylum seekers to apply for relocation, instead of family reunification.
However, as the programme was implemented, the eligibility criteria became more
inclusive and flexible; officially called “accommodation for relocation” it
also included beneficiaries under family reunification, Afghans and vulnerable
asylum seekers.
The
UNHCR is responsible for identifying refugees eligible for the relocation programme,
carrying out an assessment against its own vulnerability criteria. Resettlement
officers select and interview those to be suitable for resettlement, ho are
then referred to be part of the scheme. Though vulnerability as defined by
UNHCR includes all asylum seekers and refugees, for the purposes of this
programme there was a further separation of asylum seekers based on their
degree of vulnerability, i.e. single women with children. As families were the
main beneficiaries of the accommodation scheme, certain groups such as single
men were systematically excluded from the opportunity of being in alternative
housing. This created tensions, as male migrants were more likely to seek
housing alone from the private market, ending up in the streets, vacant
dwellings or overpriced rough accommodations in the Greek cities.
UNHCR
partners had no role in the selection of beneficiaries for the programme, which
created tensions between asylum seekers, partners and the UNHCR. Often the
selection of beneficiaries from camps would lead to a proliferation of rumours
and conflict would ensue within communities. Moreover, as the UNHCR pushed on
to meet its promises of emptying certain refugee camps and meet its targets,
partners would struggle to accommodate the beneficiaries.
Last
but not least, though the cost per person of providing housing for asylum
seekers outside of camps is lower than accommodation in refugee camps, it is a
still a project with substantial costs. Beyond rent, bills and cash cards, the
EU funded programme supports caseworkers, interpreters and apartment managers.
Though the funding was extended until 2018, relocation still does not meet the
required targets and as the situation prolongs there is a need to find
alternative sources of funding that could maintain such as scheme in the long
run.
Beyond
official state-run facilities, NGOs and the UNHCR Accommodation for Relocation
scheme, unknown figures of undocumented migrants live outside of camps or
official accommodation sites, such as in squats, the streets or apartments
around the city. According to UNHCR assessments, some 2,600 migrants live in
squats in Athens and other cities and another 1,100 in city parks or squares.
(Kathimerini, 2017) Civil society has shown tremendous innovation and
solidarity in helping refugees live with dignity and find a sustainable solution
that could work for all. The following section highlights two examples of
housing projects that are based on the principles of community engagement, the
Citi Plaza squat in Athens and Finding Places, a collaborative project using
technology to engage citizens in finding urban housing for refugees in Hamburg.
How does it work?
City
plaza is a self-organised housing project for homeless refugees in the centre
of Athens that accommodates 400 people. (Squire, 2016) City Plaza is a 7-floor
abandoned hotel that had been unused for 7 years until it was squatted by
activists and refugees in late April 2016. Based on principles of
self-organisation and autonomy it depends entirely on political and monetary
support from within Greece and abroad. It was occupied by activists of the
Solidarity Initiative to the Economic and Political Refugees, a coalition of
anti racist and leftist groups and individuals, following the introduction of
the EU Turkey deal. Amongst the residents
are 22 single parent families and people from disabilities, of various
nationalities such as Afghans, Kurds, Syrians, Palestinians, Iranians, Iraqis,
Pakistanis and others. Each family lives in a separate room and they are all
provided with three meals a day and hygiene products. Based on principles of
self-organisation, residents, activists and volunteers form into working groups
for cleaning, cooking, security, logistics, education, childcare, medical care,
media work and reception among others.
Pros and cons
Unlike
the UNHCR accommodation scheme, people at the City Plaza, are not selected on
the basis of nationality or vulnerability status. People accommodated on site
were not chosen according to whether they qualified for relocation and the grounds
for seeking asylum were not scrutinised. With effort placed on ensuring a mix
of nationalities, gender balance and combination of religious beliefs, City
Plaza placed value in the solidarity exhibited for diversity and inclusion.
Furthermore, self-organised management of the accommodation, from
decision-making to actual maintenance, proved to be an effective strategy for
community building. At the same time, clear rules of engagement fostered
respect and further enhanced the feeling of community, paramount for refugees
fleeing war.
However,
City Plaza is difficult to scale up and even more difficult to be replicated as
a model by Government agencies. Selecting asylum seekers based on the
established criteria of eligibility for relocation, or vulnerability presents a
certain transparency to the system, which City Plaza does not. Nonetheless,
considering the many abandoned buildings in Athens and other cities around
Greece, there are opportunities to learn lessons to foster collective living
similar to City Plaza.
How does it work?
In
2015, the city of Hamburg was projected to accept 80,000 refugees by the end of
the year and was faced with the challenge of providing decentralised
accommodation for asylum seekers that would also lead to successful
integration. (Noyman, 2016) Finding
Places is a collaborative project run by the CityScience Lab at Hafencity
University and the city of Hamburg in partnership with MIT aiming to find
suitable areas for 20,000 places for asylum seekers. By using an array of
technological tools (e.g. computer vision, 3D projection mapping) GIS data is
used to create LEGO-tized 3D representations of existing urban areas in
Hamburg. (Games for Cities, 2017) Capable of running real-time simulations that
can show the impact of adding, removing or moving urban services, Finding
places provides analog-digital interface that encourages non-expert
participation in “prototyping urban interventions”. Hamburg citizens are
invited to participate in workshops and search for suitable areas for refugee
housing. These workshops are held in cooperation with refugees coordinating
staff and the Senate Chancellery of the City of Hamburg. (Finding Places, 2017)
Participants are then able to discuss suitable areas in their district and can
develop proposals that are then passed on to the city together with comments
and the recommendations for the number of places to be created. Following the
public discussion of the results, the respective district offices inform citizens
and district councils about the specific development proposals for the
suggested areas.
Pros and cons
Finding
places is an inspiring example of the use of technology in finding innovative
solutions for housing. The use of LEGOS to map prospective developments enables
anyone to participate in the building of models and is a great tool for
community engagement bringing together interested citizens, experts and
professional to work together using a common language. The collaborative nature
of the project creates a transparency in the decision making process, valuing
the input of citizens.
However,
in reality after 34 workshops with about 400 citizens and a process that cost
several hundred thousand euros, Finding Places was only able to find six areas
that could be developed equalling to about 750 places for refugees. (Woldin,
2016) There were also criticisms, that
members of citizens’ initiatives from districts that voted against such
developments were excluded from the workshops.
There
is no one size fits all in accommodating refugees in cities. Each city works
with its own housing stock, culture and social and political infrastructure.
However, the Greek housing market presents a unique opportunity as an “outlier”
of the European markets. As seen in graph 1, during the period 2010-2015, the
Greek house prices displayed the greater decline among OECD countries. While
nominal house prices saw on average an 8% increase across OECD countries,
nominal house prices in Greece dropped by 34%. (OECD, 2016)
Graph 1. % Change in
Nominal House Price Index.
Not
only are housing prices low and relatively affordable, there is also a big
availability of vacant properties. Approximately 35% of dwellings in the
country are vacant. (ELSTAT, Census 2011) Only 5% of the vacant dwellings do
not have a bathroom in the property, indicating that they though some might
need refurbishment, they are suitable for habitation. As seen in table 1, this
percentage is more or less the same for every region in the country. This
distribution suggests that it would be possible to offer decentralised housing
for asylum seekers across mainland Greece.
Table 1. % of vacant dwellings across Greek Regions,
2011
The
relative affordability and availability of private property in Greece presents
an opportunity for the rental market. The decreased demand for housing brought
on by the recession; coupled with the oversupply of vacant properties, present
an opportunity for urban accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers. On the
one hand the costs for housing will be low and on the other hand, the increased
demand can have significant positive impact on the housing market and provide
much needed income for Greek homeowners as Greece has one of the highest
percentages of home ownership in Europe. Over 70% of Greeks own their house,
while less than a quarter rent. (ELSTAT, Census 2011)
Looking back
at the various accommodation types analysed and looking at the Greek housing
market, we can infer some policy implications that will be paramount for
crucial for developing a housing strategy that can be mutually beneficial for
all stakeholders involved such as asylum seekers, local populations, and state
and non-state actors.
Drawing from the best of each case presented and
taking into account the lessons learned, this study proposes a scaling up of small scale housing in
vacant apartments equally distributed by Municipality.
A SWOT analysis is employed to assess the strengths
and weaknesses of the internal characteristics of the suggested strategy and
the opportunities and limitations presented by external factors.
For the implementation of the housing strategy a
number of recommendations are given along four themes: a) the Municipalities’
leading role, b) the rational distribution of asylum seekers, c) the role of
community engagement, d) the important of social mix for integration.
Leading role of the
municipalities in housing refugees and asylum seekers
Rational distribution
of refugees across municipalities
Community engagement
Integration &
Social interaction
Refugee
and asylum seekers site map in Greece
Weekly
accommodation & relocation update public report
[1] Only 54% reported that they had their own bed to sleep on, while
substantial majorities reported they did not have access to hot water to shower
with nor a secure lock in their lodgings.
[2] A hotel in Giannena run by Solidarity Now
hosted 25 women and 70 children.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more