Planning Reception in Gioiosa Marea: a Sicilian village waiting for an "Alien Invasion"

(1)

Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere

Laurea Magistrale in Scienze per la Pace: Trasformazione

dei Conflitti e Cooperazione allo sviluppo

Tesi di Laurea

PLANNING RECEPTION IN GIOIOSA MAREA: A SICILIAN

VILLAGE WAITING FOR AN “ALIEN INVASION”

Relatore

Prof. Marcello Mollica

Candidata

Anna Carteri

(2)

Acknowledgements

I want to say thanks…

to my professor, Marcello Mollica, for his patience, his support and his fundamental role as advisor during the entire research,

to Ignazio Spanò, who has given proof of really caring about his citizens, for his availability and for some pleasant talks in and before his office,

to Davide, the one who “never works”, for the chats and his gift of making everyone laugh out loud,

to Giuliana, the most unique woman I know, for her strength, her determination and her big heart, but also for having me introduced to wonderful young women, who, I hope, will find what they were looking for,

to Mrs. Basilia, for the exquisite meals and the warm evenings in her kitchen,

to all my interviewees, the Councillors, the bar owners, the Youth Council, for their availability and to the whole community of Gioiosa Marea, for their kindness,

(3)

Abstract

Italy has been experiencing for some years now a “migrant emergency”, with hundreds of thousands of people approaching illegally its shores. This led to an unsustainable situation, with too many deaths on the Mediterranean route that must be contrasted through the right policies. Policies involving a well-working international cooperation, preventing desperate people to undertake such perilous journeys hoping for a better future. But these are mid- and long-term solutions, which have to be supported in the short-term by interventions on the current Italian reception system characterized by too many inefficiencies. These inefficiencies led to degradation and social exclusion of the migrants and often, as a consequence, to harsh confrontations with the local population.

Keeping in mind this short-term perspective, what I want to investigate through my research, is how such incidents can be prevented. In this context the local administration should play a fundamental role in addressing potential friction points between the citizens and the migrants.

(4)

A

INTRODUCTION

“Voglio rappresentare un'accoglienza ribelle. L'immigrazione è il risultato di un'ingiustizia, siamo noi che vendiamo armi, sempre noi che saccheggiamo quei territori.”1_{(Marrazzo, 2017) These are the words of the mayor of Riace}2_{, who has}

turned something everyone saw as a burden, into the main resource keeping his little village in Calabria alive. His example of integration has made him become part of Fortune’s 50 most influential people in the world. Now many other villages suffering from a gradual depopulation have followed its example and could re-flourish thanks to the migrants’3_{contribution. While 20 migrants are perceived as}

an invasion, a threat in some villages, in these cases the presence of foreigners sometimes numbering even more than 1/3 of the local population is seen as an enrichment, in a cultural, but even a financial way. Thanks to them many abandoned houses of the historical town centre have become inhabited again, artisan shops have opened (also producing goods from the migrants’ countries of origin, like colourful cloths from Nigeria), agriculture, as well as the production of traditional local products has taken on new life, while new classes have been formed in school and Turismo Solidale4_{has brought in many tourists from all over} the world to study this perfect integration, as happened in Camini5_(Moretti,

2017).

All this was possible through the SPRAR6_{but also especially through the concrete}

commitment of the local administration to make integration work. So, what I want to investigate is the role of the local administration in addressing reception7_{. How}

1_{I want to represent a rebel reception. Immigration is the result of an injustice, it’s us selling guns,}

always us plundering those territories. (my translation)

2_{Village in the Province of Reggio Calabria (Calabria).}

3_{I will use the term “migrant” referring mainly to irregular migrants defined as “people who enter}

a country, usually in search of employment, without the necessary documents and permits” (UNESCO, 2017).

4_{Literally: Solidarity tourism. Living with the local community observing its rhythms.} 5_{Village in the Province of Reggio Calabria (Calabria).}

6_{System of protection for asylum seekers and refugees (see page 9).}

7_{I could not find a definition of “reception” properly referring to migration, but I found the}

definition of “reception conditions” meaning “the full set of measures that Member States grant to applicants in accordance with [the] Directive [2013/33/EU] and of “material reception conditions” meaning "the reception conditions that include housing, food and clothing provided in

(7)

II

should they act in order to prevent the barricades against the migrants that the news often report? In my view a fundamental point is to address prejudice, which is substantially a consequence of ignorance, more than a real resistance based on discrimination. In this context, the role of the media in filtering and manipulating information is undisputed, but also the tendency of people to keep the negative things mind, rather than the positive ones. Talking about media I specially refer to television, as it covers all the age range. Another important contribution to increasing peoples prejudice is in my view the political propaganda created by some politicians. This depends on the fact that people want to be “looked after”, especially in the South of Italy, where “Rome”8_{is given the blame for everything.}

There is a feeling of unjust treatment and abandonment that can only be increased through foreigners coming from abroad “being served and revered”9_{. How much}

this aspect concretely influences the citizens’ opinions is also what I want to find out. Considering this, the role of the decision makers on a local level seems fundamental to me in leading people to a better understanding. I will focus on second level reception as it is the moment when first contact between the migrants and the local population occurs. That’s when encounter can turn into confrontation. To prevent this, the local administration has to prove itself capable of identifying vulnerabilities in order to address them. Knowing what the population’s worries are should form the basis of an information and preparation process, which should lead to openness to accept and integrate, instead of total closure. I talk about openness to, rather than of actual acceptance and integration, because I think this latter can be possible only through knowledge of “the other”, a process that needs time.

Hence, what I want to investigate through my case study in Gioiosa Marea (Me) is, what the main concerns of the population are and which efforts the local administration has made or intends to make in preparation of the opening of the SPRAR they adhered to at the end of August 201710_.

kind, or as financial allowances or in vouchers, or a combination of the three, and a daily expenses allowance” (European Commission, 2013).

8_{People in Italy often speak of “Rome” meaning the State and the Institutions.}

9_{Taken from the interview with the Priest of Gioiosa Marea done on December 12}th_{, 2017.} 10_{Gioiosa Marea Town Council’s decision n. 125 of August 31}st_{, 2017.}

(8)

III

The first chapter will be an introduction into immigration in Italy. It starts with an overview of the migratory fluxes and the immigration policies in Italy from the 60s onwards, period in which Italy, from a country of emigration, turned for the first time into a country of immigration. I will show how, for long time, immigration was regulated without policies and that irregular immigration has only been faced as an emergency situation. This condition continues today and leads to a reception program not capable of facing the present scenario. Thus, the second part of the chapter will outline the reception system, and the path a migrant undertakes once he arrives in Italy through the “Central Mediterranean Route”11_{. This section will}

also focus on unaccompanied minors in the specific Sicilian context. I have introduced this part in order to better understand the subject of my preliminary fieldwork in Montagnareale. To conclude the chapter I will direct my discussion on the importance of diasporas and also of giving the right framework in addressing the issue.

In the second chapter I will present my preliminary work in Montagnareale, a small village in the mountains, 11 km from Gioiosa Marea12_{, where I conducted my main}

field work. I wanted to include this part in my dissertation as soon as I heard about the episode affecting a community hosting six unaccompanied minor girls that had to close, leading some of them even to run away and end up in the sex trade. My aim was, specifically in relation to the thesis, to find out, what people there, having already experienced reception, thought about it and what the main problems were. This was important in order to understand the role of prejudice, in preparation also of my fieldwork in Gioiosa Marea.

The third chapter is about my case study in Gioiosa Marea. It starts by outlining the history of the village and its demography. After a brief introduction to the voting trends I will then go on with the fieldwork. I will begin with the methodology and the major problems I encountered in collecting data, in order to go on with the caveats I had set in choosing my interviewees. The most considerable part of

11_{This definition is taken from the UNHCR report “Desperate Journeys”. The Central}

Mediterranean Route refers to migrants’ arrivals to Italy (mainly to Sicily) departing from Libya, Tunisia and Algeria (UNHCR, 2017).

12_{Gioiosa Marea is a village of about 7.000 inhabitants in the Province of Messina (Sicily), on the}

(9)

IV

the chapter is made up of the interviews, divided and analysed by category. I have two main categories, composed of the public opinion, namely the population bringing up concerns, and the other side of the coin, namely the local administration, who should address those concerns. These categories are divided in sub-categories and will be addressed separately in order to see similarities and differences. I will conclude with final remarks on what had emerged during the case study and with some recommendations for further studies

(10)

1

CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING RECEPTION

I want to start my dissertation by giving an insight into how immigration evolved historically, by analysing the migratory fluxes and the connected legislation. I will then focus on the present with its statistics. This first section will be important in order to understand the current situation that has to be faced through the right policies. I will then go on to focus on the reception system, as it represents the basis of my research. Lastly I will discuss diaspora and the importance of giving the right framework to the subject of immigration. With this section I want to set a starting point in order to conceptualize the subject, overcome some prejudice and help to see reception from another perspective. The change of perspective is fundamental in my opinion and has to pass through the local administration and the cooperatives, to reach the population. Because a successful integration also depends on them.

1.1 IMMIGRATION AND ITS POLICIES IN ITALY

Immigration in Italy is quite a recent phenomenon, as it has previously been a country of emigration towards the new world, or towards Northern Europe. The first important migratory fluxes started at the end of the 60s, and concerned migrants from the Maghreb (especially Tunisia) coming to Sicily to work. So, this kind of migration was due to the geographical proximity. Indeed, the newly arrived immigrants settled primarily on the western coast and worked as fishermen, in agriculture, in the construction industry or in the manufacturing sector. They were mainly low-skilled workers who had 3-months tourist visas, so at the expiry they went back to Tunisia for renewal. The majority of the North African workers were illegally employed and were subject to exploitation, receiving a very low salary. This led to tensions with the local population, who feared the gradual normalization of those working conditions. Hence, in 1972 there was a riot in

(11)

2

Mazara del Vallo13_{and an anti-foreigner committee was formed to remove the}

Arabs, who were “dangerously disturbing Public Order”. Tunisians were subject to accusations such as starting brawls in taverns, bringing illness and stealing jobs from the local people (Einaudi, 2007).

In the mid-70s a well-structured flux of domestic workers coming from Mauritius and the Philippines began, thereby opening the oriental migratory route. They entered Italy with a tourist visa and afterwards turned it into a work visa. This kind of immigration did not cause much trouble as the migrants had accommodation and their living conditions were not degraded. At the same time a migratory flux also involved workers covering the unwanted jobs from the secondary sector. In fact Egyptians began to work in the car industry, Turks and Algerians in the construction industry. Those workers were accused of lowering the wages and of having a role as substitutes and competitors, rather than of complementarity. From this point on, a continuous migratory flux from various countries and involving all different sectors of life affected the Italian Peninsula. This condition was interrupted at the end of the 80s with the fall of the Berlin wall and substantial arrivals from Eastern Europe. That is when immigration was addressed for the first time as a political matter. This was determined also by the increase in irregular migration14_{concerning Italy (Einaudi, 2007).}

Until 1989 immigration had been governed without politics, as it was seen as a problem of financial and labour policies. The restrictiveness towards this phenomenon was especially due to bureaucracy. The only law concerning the subject was the law 264/1949 which stated equality between Italians and foreign workers, specifying, however, the priority of Italian workers for employment. Only when assured that no Italian worker was available, a migrant could be employed. So, migrants had ultimately only a complementary function. This situation became

13_{City in the Province of Trapani (Sicily).}

14_{“Movement that takes place outside the regulatory norms of the sending, transit and receiving}

countries. There is no clear or universally accepted definition of irregular migration. From the perspective of destination countries it is entry, stay or work in a country without the necessary authorization or documents required under immigration regulations. From the perspective of the sending country, the irregularity is for example seen in cases in which a person crosses an international boundary without a valid passport or travel document or does not fulfil the administrative requirements for leaving the country.” (IOM, 2011)

(12)

3

unsustainable as illegal immigration continued to rise. In 1978 there was the first

sanatoria15_{, which legalized the migrants irregularly present on the territory. It}

was followed by another one in ’82 and in ’86. In 1986 a law also was issued. The Foschi Act intended to manage the presence of the foreigners on the territory, but did not concern the regulation of the fluxes. Only in 1990 did the Martelli legislation state the necessity to plan the annual access flows for non-EU citizens. This was followed also by an integration process concerning labour and accommodation. In fact it was only the Dini decree of 1995 that made the Martelli act become effective (Einaudi, 2007).

Immigration had been treated as an emergency condition until 1998, when the Turco-Napolitano legislation introduced a new Testo Unico sull’Immigrazione16

which replaced the fascist regulation of 1931. The law required equality of fundamental human rights, the strengthening of integration policies, the setting of an upper limit on migratory fluxes, a residence permit for those seeking employment, the institution of the CPTs (centri di permanenza temporanea)17_for

the irregulars to be expelled, and severe sanctions towards human traffickers (Einaudi, 2007).

Only one year later there was a political shift from a left towards a centre-right government and in 2002 the 14th_{legislation issued an updated Testo Unico,}

through the Bossi-Fini legislation. The aim was to link the presence of the migrant on the territory with the possession of a job contract. The length of the residence permit depended on the length of the job agreement. With the so-called Contratto

di Lavoro18_{the employer certified the living conditions of the employee and} assumed possible repatriation costs. Moreover, penalties against irregulars became more severe, but the regulation became stricter more on a theoretical basis, than in practice. The outcome of the Bossi-Fini law was to connect immigration more and more with a security problem (Einaudi, 2007).

15_{Regularization.}

16_{Regulation on immigration.} 17_{Temporary reception centres.} 18_{Work contract.}

(13)

4

This situation was prolonged with Berlusconi’s Pacchetto Sicurezza19_{of 2008,}

which also increased the reasons that could determine the expulsion of the migrant (Grigion, 2009). It also introduces the Accordo di Integrazione20_{and the}

Permesso di Soggiorno a Punti21_{(Paggi, 2008). Looking at the present situation,}

this connection persists and continues to be exploited by political leaders. The propaganda is based on the security issue determined by the arrival of the migrants, with a supposed rise in crime and violence. The Pacchetto Sicurezza, together with the Trattato di amicizia, partenariato e cooperazione22_{drawn up}

with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, then Lybian leader, aimed to contrast irregular migration by intensifying border controls and repatriation (Camera dei Deputati, 2008). With the Arab Spring of 2011, involving Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, and the killing of Gaddafi, the fluxes became unstoppable. From an average of about 25.000 arrivals a year, in 2011 the migratory wave brought in 63.000 people, 45% of whome coming from Tunisia (Papavero, 2015). This peak was exceeded only in conjunction with the rise of the Islamic State in 2014 and the war in Syria, as becomes evident in the following figure showing the migratory trend from 2011 to 2016.

Fig. 1: Sea arrivals in Italy from 2011 to 1016 (Pagellapolitica.it, 2017)

19_{Security Package.} 20_{Integration Agreement.}

21_{Residence permit based on a point-system.} 22_{Friendship, partnership and cooperation treaty.}

(14)

5

Looking at the main countries of origin of the migrants, we can determine a peak of Syrian refugees in 2014, and a substantial drop in the following years23_{, while}

there has been a significant increase concerning migrants from West Africa in the last few years (ISMU, 2017).

Fig 2: Countries of origin of the migrants through time (ISMU, 2017)

Despite the “migrant emergency”, the Testo Unico sull’Immigrazione has not undergone significant variations. Only lately was it updated through the Minniti decree of April 2017 (Casella, 2017), which introduced among other things the simplification of the identification procedures and the effectiveness of the expulsion and repatriation procedures. Moreover it determines the strengthening of the diplomatic network on the African continent with an increase in the expenditure and the provision of Italian Armed Forces to enhance security (Altalex, 2017).

1.1.1 Immigration in 2017: statistics

2017 started out as another challenging year looking at irregular migration. In the first six months the arrivals exceeded even the arrivals of 2016, which reached in total 181.436, until a substantial drop in July, following the much debated

23_{Most Syrians take the Balkan Route. Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency,}

registered about 710.000 refugees in 2015, while in 2016, there were only about 2.700 (Mediendienst-Integration, 2017). The drop can be linked to the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016 (European Commission, 2016). 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000

Nigeria Eritrea GuineaCôte d'IvoireGambiaSenegal Mali SudanBangladeshSomalia …Syrian Arab Rep.

(15)

6

agreement with Libya. The deal is accused of supporting the inhuman treatment of the migrants passing through Libya to get to Italy in order to stop the migratory flux. In fact it worked and in July 2017 arrivals dropped by more than 50%. The following figure taken from the website of the Department of the Interior shows the migratory trend over the months compared to 2016.

Fig. 3: Comparison of sea arrivals between 2016/2017/2018 (data of January 12th_{, 2018)} (Dipartimento per le Libertà Civili e l’Immigrazione, 2018)

Looking at the major nationalities taking the Central Mediterranean Route and arriving in Italy, we can easily see that the main countries of origin are not those affected by apparent war and the IS, as we have heard in the news for a long time.

Fig. 4: Migrants by country of origin (data of December 31st_{, 2017)} (Dipartimento per le Libertà Civili e l’Immigrazione, 2018)

(16)

7

Even if not reported in the news and affected by apparent war, the main countries of origin of the migrants arriving to Italy face severe issues and rank very low in the Human Development Index classification. The main accusations like “they are not escaping war”, “they are only economic migrants, but the situation in Italy is not better”, fit only partly. People think of the IS and think of Syria, but often forget that there are also other terroristic organizations affiliated, like Boko Haram, which make many countries unsafe. Moreover there are many interethnic conflicts which no one knows or cares about, but which nevertheless affect millions of people, causing not only violence but, as a consequence, also famines. The situation is much more complex than many can imagine.

In Nigeria, the lack of accountability for human rights because of abuses by government forces and non-state armed groups, including Boko Haram and cattle herdsmen, created an atmosphere of insecurity. Moreover, old tensions and agitation for the independent state of Biafra in the southeast and renewed Niger Delta militancy were met with violent military crackdowns (HRW, 2017). The living conditions are very precarious. At present there are 1.57 million IDPs24_{and 2.56}

million are food insecure (WFP, 2017), with peaks of 5.2 million in lean season (WFP, 2017), also as a consequence of socio-political instability.

Guinea faces major socio-economic and political challenges despite an abundance

of natural resources. Poverty and malnutrition rates are very high, especially in rural areas. The Ebola outbreak of 2014 affected already vulnerable communities and continues to have an adverse economic impact.

On average, 55 percent of the Guinean population lives below the poverty line. 17.5 percent of the population is food insecure. That means around 1.9 million people. There are deeply embedded social and ethnic tensions. Given Guinea's unstable political history, with frequent coups d'état, the relationship between the military and the civilian government is a matter of substantial political sensitivity.

24_{"Persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes}

or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized state border." (Commission on Human Rights, 1998)

(17)

8

Socio-political instability in neighboring countries has also had an impact on Guinea, hosting around 4,800 Ivorian refugees in the Forest region (WFP, 2017).

Cote d’Ivoire is a middle-income country whose Government has set ambitious

development goals for 2020. It is emerging from a decade of civil and political unrest that caused major displacements, internally and into neighboring countries. The sustained political and economic stability of the last 5 years have encouraged investments, as well as the return of over 250,000 Ivorian refugees and internally displaced people to their areas of origin. However, social cohesion is fragile in areas of return and displacement, and inter-communal conflicts are a risk. In addition, primary school enrolment, attendance rates and the quality of education are low (WFP, 2017).

Bangladesh still faces high poverty levels and under-nutrition rates, aggravated by

frequent natural disasters and a high population density. The prevalence of child marriage, adolescent pregnancies and under nutrition in mothers and adolescent girls contributes to the intergenerational cycle of under-nutrition. The prevalence of stunting in children under the age of 5 years continues to pose a major challenge, with 5.5 million children (36 percent) stunted and a global acute under nutrition rate of 14 percent (2014 DHS). Despite considerable progress in school enrolment, an estimated 3.3 million out of 20 million primary school aged children remain out of school (WFP, 2017).

1.2 “EMBRACING” MIGRANTS: THE RECEPTION SYSTEM IN ITALY

The Italian system of migrant reception is based on two levels. The first concerns the arrival at the harbour with first aid, identification and the beginning of the procedures for the asylum application, with people gathered in centres for primary reception; while the second level covers the integration of the asylum seekers in the territory (Colombo, 2017).

(18)

9

In this context we should discuss the conception of the SPRAR. SPRAR is an acronym standing for Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati25_and

covers the second level of migrants’ reception.

The following figure depicts what a migrant can expect once he has reached the shore.

Fig. 5: The Italian reception path (Colombo, 2017)

As we can see there is an ordinary path and an extraordinary one, which became more and more usual to follow as the arrivals rose significantly and the system became more and more complex to be managed. That’s why the CAS (Centro di

Accoglienza Straordinario)26_{was introduced in 2014 with a circolare}27_{of the}

Department of the Interior - and then became law in 2015 with the legislative decree n. 142/15 (Galli, 2017) - to give a shelter to the migrants waiting for the

25_{System for the protection of refugees.} 26_{Extraordinary Reception Centre.} 27_{Administrative Order.}

(19)

10

formalization of the procedure for of asylum application, as the compiling of the application needs time. The migrants need psychological and linguistic support to process and explain their personal narrative backing up their request. Many applications have to be reviewed and that means that much time will pass before getting any answer. In the meantime those migrants are sent by the prefect to various towns to be hosted in structures guaranteeing them a place to stay. So, the CAS is a kind of hybrid between first and second level reception. Migrants are sent there as soon as they arrive at the harbours without even having made any request for protection, because there is no place in the first reception centres. But in fact, almost all migrants apply for some kind of protection sooner or later and as they are put in contact with the local population, sharing the same public spaces, integration has to start. This is important also because procedures are protracted, and the SPRAR net is still too limited to accommodate all asylum seekers and refugees applying. So, this extraordinary and temporary solution to host the migrants, has by now become ordinary and has therefore to be regulated just like the SPRAR. And just as the SPRAR, those centres (mainly big ones, even if apartments can also be used) are spread over the territory, making cultures clash, arousing hostility, because the migrants arrive in large numbers, often without any notice.

This sentiment and how it could be prevented is what I want to investigate and that is why the thesis will focus on the issues concerning the arrival of the migrants in the territory. But at first I want to start by giving an overview of how integration was conceived by the immigration policies, so what is the theory behind the practice.

1.2.1 First level reception

I want to give just an overview on the topic of first level reception, as my research goes beyond the arrival at the harbour, which is an extraordinary situation, but rather investigates and analyses the integration perspective with regard to the local population, so considering the situation as soon as the migrants get stabilized, more or less, within the territory.

(20)

11

As soon as the migrants approach the Italian coast, they are gathered in so called hotspots where they get first aid and are subject to health screening, are identified and they can make a request for international protection. Within 48 hours they should be transferred to first reception centres where they stay until they find an accommodation in second level reception, namely the SPRAR, but as already mentioned, this step is often skipped and the migrants are brought directly into a CAS (Colombo, 2017).

In the rare case of no application for international protection being made or some other serious situation persists, the migrant is put into a CPR (Centri di Permanenza

e Rimpatrio)28_{, waiting to be repatriated.}

1.2.2 Waiting to being accepted

“Lo straniero, al quale sia impedito nel suo paese l’effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche garantite dalla Costituzione italiana, ha diritto d’asilo nel territorio della Repubblica, secondo le condizioni stabilite dalla legge.”29_{(art. 10, comma 3 of the Italian Constitution)}

As discussed above, it is necessary to apply for some kind of protection to be eligible for integration. There are different types of protection which can be addressed, such as international protection, which includes the statuses of refugee and subsidiary protection, or humanitarian protection.

The status of refugee is defined according to the Geneva Convention signed on

the 28th_{of July 1951, and applies to a person who,}

“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such

28_{Centre for Detention and Repatriation.}

29_{The foreigner, whose effective exercise of democratic freedoms guaranteed by Italian}

Constitution is denied, has the right of asylum in the territory of the Republic, with regard to the conditions issued by law. (my translation)

(21)

12

fear, is unwilling to return to it.” (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Geneva 1951, art. 1, comma 2)

While subsidiary protection is defined by the Directive 2004/83/EC and is recognised to third country nationals or stateless persons who do not qualify as refugees but who have well-founded reasons to believe that, if returning to their countries of origin, or in case of stateless persons, if returning to the country of habitual residence, they would run the actual risk of undergoing serious damage and are thus unable or unwilling, owing to such risk, to avail themselves of the protection of that country. International protection guarantees several rights in the whole EU and lasts 5 years. In case international protection is denied, the territorial commission for the recognition of International Protection can decide arbitrarily, because of severe humanitarian conditions in the country of origin of the applicant, to grant humanitarian protection. This kind of protection is valid only in the country granting the protection and is not recognized by other EU countries. It lasts 2 years (IntegrazioneMigranti, 2015). In fact, the probability of getting protection depends on the country.

(22)

13

The table by EUROSTAT concerning the 2nd_{quarter of 2017 shows the decisions}

taken by European countries on the asylum applications registered. In red I have highlighted Germany and Italy as representatives of large countries granting a significant percentage of International and humanitarian protection, as well as Switzerland, a small country being very generous with humanitarian protection; while in blue I wanted to highlight two large countries, namely France and the United Kingdom being more restrictive. As we can see data differs very much according to the number of applications, the type of protection granted (refugee status, subsidiary or humanitarian protection), and the number of requests being rejected. Given that also the country of origin of the applicants differs considerably - in Germany most applications come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (BAMF, 2017), while in Italy the main countries of origin of the asylum seekers are Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan (Commissione Nazionale per il Diritto di Asilo, 2017) -, we can see that in absolute numbers the country evaluating the most applications positively is Germany, while the countries being more prone to grant humanitarian protection in relative numbers are Switzerland and Italy.

Moreover, according to Dublin III,

“where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence […], that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.” (Regulation No 604/2013, art. 13, comma 1)

In fact, Italy, Greece, Spain, but also Hungary are the countries most exposed to these migratory fluxes and thus to the asylum applications. So, the migrant is not free to decide in which country to make the application and that is why some of them try to escape as soon as they reach the shore, before being trapped in the system of reception. But most of them are intercepted and enter the ordinary procedures to get their right to stay in Europe in the State of first arrival. As bureaucracy is slow and the examination of the applications are many and take their time, meanwhile the migrants have to be hosted. That is when asylum seekers and refugees, and since March 2017 also unaccompanied minors, can

(23)

14

enter the SPRAR and, waiting for their request to be accepted, begin their integration path. The system is conceived as the best way for an integration at 360 degrees. It provides the migrants with accommodation and the necessary food, products for personal care, kitchen tools (they are encouraged to cook for themselves), products for cleaning the house (which they should do themselves), clothing, credit for their cellphone, a free pass for public transport and pocket money of 2.5030_{euro a day. Moreover, after this first, “superficial” integration in}

the territory, the system tries to create deeper roots by establishing relationships with the local population and the social system. Successful social integration is the hardest thing to achieve and happens through language courses, access to education, sports, cultural events, occupation, and access to the legal and the health system (Colombo, 2017). That is when they begin to enter the routine of that particular reality and when they meet and engage in some kind of relations with the inhabitants. It is therefore important that the professionals running the SPRAR project follow the migrants through this path especially with a role as mediators between the newly arrived migrants and the local population. A well-conceived project will try to create opportunities for meeting and being together through various events and activities.

An interesting idea was experimented in Castell’Umberto31_{(ME) by the volunteers}

of the Coordinamento senza frontiere32_{, who wanted to overcome the strong}

opposition of the local population to the arrival of 50 migrants in a CAS, through providing an opportunity to get to know each other. That was the aim of the event promoted every Sunday called Aggiungi un posto a tavola33_{. The activity implied}

that every family would “invite” a migrant to their home to have lunch together. After initial hostility, the local population began to appreciate the cultural exchange, also being curious about their guests’ traditional food. In many cases they grew fond of each other, but the organizers pointed out that it was important not to build too tight bonds, because the situation of the migrants remains precarious and they can be transferred from one moment to the next. Creating

30_{The amount varies in the different countries (Euronews, 2015).} 31_{Village of about 3000 inhabitants, 22 km far away from Gioiosa Marea.} 32_{Coordination without frontiers, an association of about 50 volunteers.} 33_{Literal translation: Add a place at the table.}

(24)

15

too deep relationships could imply a trauma especially for the more vulnerable migrant who might have to leave after some time. That is why the “guests” had to rotate. So, getting to know the stranger was shown to be a good starting point for countering prejudice and hatred. The same thing happened with another activity proposed by the volunteers. This time the aim was to show how useful the migrants could be, not, of course, in a merely utilitarian and egoistic way. Within the group of migrants there was a Nigerian English teacher. English courses were offered to the population, who could thereby understand that an exchange might be possible.34

All this was possible in this case through the volunteers of the association

Coordinamento senza frontiere, e team of about 50 well-trained professionals, but

usually those who should make integration work are the staff of the cooperatives, which implement a well-defined project.

1.2.3 Institution and implementation of the SPRAR and the CAS: the Prefect, Municipalities and Cooperatives

The SPRAR was first instituted in accordance with article 32 Iaw n. 189/2002, subsequent to a protocol agreement stipulated by the Department of the Interior, the ANCI (Associazione Nazionale Comuni Italiani)35_{and the UNHCR in order to}

rationalize the reception of the migrants(Osservatoriomigranti, nd).

In 2014 migration became a substantial problem with a total of 170.000 people having arrived on the Italian coast by the end of the year. Compulsory quotas have been attributed to the regions based on their access to the FNPSA (Fondo

Nazionale per le Politiche e i Servizi di Asilo)36_{. On July 10}th_{2014, with the Piano}

nazionale per fronteggiare il flusso straordinario di cittadini extracomunitari: adulti, famiglie e minori stranieri non accompagnati37_{, the criteria of distribution}

were signed by Government, Regions and Local Administrations (SPRAR, 2017).

34_{Entry from my diary on November 2}nd_,_2017. 35_{National association of Italian municipalities.} 36_{National Fund for Asylum Policies and Services.}

37_{National Plan to face the extraordinary flux of non-EU citizens: adults, families and}

(25)

16

Depending on the number of arrivals two paths can be followed by the prefect. An emergency situation could demand a direct agreement between the prefect and a private individual or organization to institute a CAS, which has to guarantee given standards, as specified in the circolare of March 19th_{2014, while the ordinary path,}

the SPRAR, follows two steps: At first there is an application on a voluntary basis by the municipalities and then a call for proposal follows to choose the cooperative with the best project to be implemented. The funds flow from the Department of the Interior to the cooperative running the projects through the Domanda di

contributo relativa alla ripartizione delle risorse iscritte nel fondo nazionale per le politiche e i servizi dell’asilo38_{, to be signed by the mayor of the municipality.}

The numbers of Integration projects were not very promising, as in 2016 only about 1.000 municipalities out of 7.978 (total of Italian municipalities) participated in the SPRAR with a capacity for 26.012 migrants, including 23.399 ordinary refugees and asylum seekers, 2.039 unaccompanied minors and 574 people with disabilities and mental disorders (SPRAR, 2017). These numbers have to be analysed relative to the total number of arrivals in 2016, which reached 181.436 migrants (Dipartimento per le Libertà Civili e l’Immigrazione, 2017). That means that more than 80% of the migrants were hosted elsewhere (CAS and first level reception). The situation remained more or less unchanged even in the first semester of 2017, but showed an important increase of participation in the SPRAR, as the municipalities involved in the network by July 2017 were already 3.231, with a capacity for about 35.000 people (ANCI et al., 2017). The following figure shows the regional distribution of the municipalities participating to the SPRAR. The yellow column contains the number of municipalities divided per Region hosting a SPRAR project, while the blue shows the total of municipalities of the Region. The last column, the green, shows the impact of the municipalities hosting the SPRAR on the total number of municipalities, always relative to their Region.

38_{Application of Contribution concerning the allocation of resources of the National Fund for}

(26)

17 Fig. 8: Municipalities hosting SPRAR projects by Region (ANCI et al., 2017)

So, there is a positive trend concerning more and more municipalities joining the SPRAR network. This happens for one main reason, namely to prevent the institution of a CAS. While with the CAS the prefect can decide arbitrarily how many people have to be moved to the municipality, the SPRAR gives guidelines on the proportion of migrants to be hosted to a given population. The Clausola di

salvaguardia39_{set by a Ministerial guideline of October 11}th_{2016, by specifying}

the number of migrants that have to be hosted in a given municipality (of course they can decide also to host more), also states that in the presence of a SPRAR, no CAS can be instituted.

(27)

18 Fig. 7: The guiding principles of the safeguard clause (SPRAR, 2017)

For municipalities with less than 2.000 inhabitants a minimum of 6 migrants should be accepted through the SPRAR. This is a fixed number, as is that set for metropolitan areas, whose quota is of 2 migrants every 1.000 inhabitants. A different calculation has to be made for municipalities with more than 2.000 inhabitants. In this case the quota is set based on the access to the FNPSA. This makes the number of migrants to be hosted uncertain.

When the proportion is disregarded, and refugees arrive in large numbers, this is likely to be perceived as an “invasion”, and opposed by the local population. That is what happened in Castell’Umberto, where in one night the Prefect sent 50 migrants into a former hotel transformed into a CAS. Even the mayor of the village was only informed of the arrival the same night and the population was confronted overnight with the presence of 50 foreigners. This situation led to huge protests. A more careful distribution could help to overcome the feeling of “invasion” by the local population, but to achieve this a wider participation by the Italian municipalities in the SPRAR network is necessary. Moreover, a preparatory phase would guarantee a better understanding of the system and also of the migratory phenomenon and the migrants themselves.

(28)

19

1.2.4 Unaccompanied minors in Sicily

I want to discuss briefly the subject of unaccompanied minors, as my preliminary fieldwork concerns precisely this issue. As already mentioned above, since March 2017 unaccompanied minors are also covered by the SPRAR, but an alternative second level reception can be guaranteed through a community. These communities can be either conceived specifically for unaccompanied minors, or communities for Italian minors can be converted. This is made possible in Sicily by the regional law 513/2016 which states that

“the housing communities for minors that want to host MSNA40_{have to}

make a request to be registered as Strutture di accoglienza di secondo

livello per MSNA41_{. [...] The minimum contribution pro die pro capite} foreseen for the reception of unaccompanied minors amounts to 45 Euro.” (513/2016, art. 3)

In the circolare n. 2 2016 it is also specified:

“The definition of a daily rate equivalent to the national transfer has the objective to maintain an adequate reception system, but at the same time to overcome the present impasse in the municipalities, which would show less resistance to starting administrative and accounting procedures for reclaiming the sums scheduled on a national level. [...]

If the institution registered as “housing community for minors” decides to continue taking unaccompanied minors, it has to request by February 2017 the change of category from ‘housing community for minors’ into ‘second level facilities’. It will not be possible to host Italian minors at the same time as third-country minors.”

Then the regional law was extended for another year through the law 524/2017 of March 2nd_.

“The deadline fixed by the presidential decree of the Sicily Region n. 513 of 18/01/2016 for the adaptation to the regional standards for second level

40_{Minori stranieri non accompagnati, unaccompanied minors.} 41_{Second level reception facilities for unaccompanied minors.}

(29)

20

Reception facility for unaccompanied minors is extended for one year from the publication of the present decree on the Official Gazette of the Sicily Region.”

By now Sicily is the region which hosts the most unaccompanied minors. According to the Report Mensile Minori Stranieri Non Accompagnati (MSNA) In Italia42_of

November 30th_{2017, Sicily is hosting 8.116 minors (about 44% of the total),}

compared to the second region, Calabria, which hosts 1.516, out of a total of 18.508 present on the entire national territory. That is why a well-structured legislation which defines jurisdiction, obligations of the local administrations and of the cooperatives becomes very important.

Moreover, according to the Dublin Regulation, the priority specially when speaking about unaccompanied minors is the reuniting with family members or relatives living in another Member State. This State has the obligation to take responsibility for examining the application of the unaccompanied child. The Member State where the minor makes the asylum application has to request the other country to take responsibility for the examination within three months from the submission of the application. That country must answer within two months after receiving the request. A failed answer means consensus. The transfer has to take place within six months from the acceptance of responsibility (ENGI, 2013).

1.2.5 Second level reception in practice

Taking stock, the integration path, as it is conceived in theory, offers great opportunities to those who enter it. But, in fact the SPRAR covers only a small percentage of the migrants applying for international, subsidiary or humanitarian protection and leaves out the most consistent part of those arriving to Italy mainly through the central Mediterranean route. The majority are therefore concentrated into large facilities, namely the CAS (according to the OXFAM REPORT of November 2017, in March the SPRAR hosted 23.682 migrants, while the CAS hosted 136.477) and are unlikely to have access to the services which

(30)

21

should be guaranteed. The “emergency” situation with its huge numbers is being exploited to justify lower quality. But this does not only happen in the CAS.

The community for unaccompanied minors I visited in Francavilla (Me), and which surely is not the only one of its kind, lacked the basic facilities that should be guaranteed: No heating (as also in the CAS in Castell’Umberto), only a few winter-clothes, the shower heads missing (they use only the pipe). Moreover they not attend any courses, and no activities are organized. There is little opportunity for meeting with the local population as the facility is quite far from the town centre. So there are basically none of the conditions for integration. In fact this situation will eventually lead to exclusion.

Another problem is the interest of the cooperatives in keeping as many people as possible in their facility. So I had to listen to statements such as “we need the girl to stay here, not to go to Germany to her brother, because otherwise we have to close, if no other minors arrive”. Another one said: “If they want to run away, let them”, as if it was not her problem. No such argument should be made ever, especially when speaking about unaccompanied minors. The priority should always be their best interest.

In fact, the big problem for these projects, to be a community, a SPRAR or a CAS, is actually their implementation by the different cooperatives. That is why in some cases integration works, and in some other cases discrimination and segregation persist. This being the case, getting to know the other is a big step forward in overcoming prejudice, and creating opportunities of exchange - cultural, but even from a socially useful point of view – is fundamental in transforming a confrontation into a meeting.

1.3 BEYOND PREJUDICE: DIASPORA AS A RESOURCE

The term diaspora originally defines the spread of people of a specific group from the land of origin to one or various places all over the world. The best known is, of course, that of the Jews. Nowadays the term is also used to describe the more or

(31)

22

less institutionalized relationships created between groups of migrants based on mutuality and remittances to their country of origin (Ceschi, nd).

For a long time migration has been seen as a burden, from an economic as well as a cultural/religious point of view. The migrants who work are blamed for working at low cost, the ones who arrive and don’t work are accused of living at the expense of the Italian citizens. From a cultural and religious point of view people feel threatened. People fear that “their” culture/religion could overwhelm “ours”, like granting them freedom would mean losing ours. But this state of mind could be dictated more by personal cultural and religious uncertainty, than by a real threat. That is why, getting to know the other better is important to overcome this deep concern. Hence, also integration should be rethought in order to allow a change in perspective and to consider the migrant, not a burden anymore, but even a resource.

Looking back in history, diasporas have long been a resource for the hosting countries. Empires that have accommodated Jewish, Armenian, Chinese and Indian diasporas have been able to benefit from their role as economically indispensable middlemen minorities in Europe, the Ottoman and Safavid Persian Middle East, in Malaysia and Indonesia, and in British East Africa, respectively. Nowadays, the transnational networks of diasporas operate as facilitators of technological innovation and economic growth, either for their countries of origin, or also for their hostland as well. This point of view could certainly be accepted if applied to the more qualified immigrants, namely engineers, entrepreneurs etc., but it can hardly be considered valid if speaking about poor immigrants. In fact, the latter kind of immigration has contributed substantially to the invigoration of derelict parts of urban spaces (Tölölyan, 2013). But not only, it can also contribute to the repopulation of entire towns, as it happened in Riace (see page I), where the significant presence of migrants and their entrepreneurship made it possible to balance the emigration of the inhabitants, granting the town’s survival. Moreover, poor and unskilled migrants compensate rather than substitute the labour force. Let’s think of agricultural workers or of the caretakers from Eastern Europe (but now also from other parts of the world). From an economic point of

(32)

23

view they are surely a resource, but not only always focusing on that aspect, also from a cultural perspective they can be an enrichment. It was precisely the coming together of so many different people with different backgrounds and different cultures which made America flourish more than any other country in the 20th

century.

1.4 FINAL REMARKS

This first chapter aimed to give an insight into how immigration is regulated and how reception is conceived in Italy. There is a strong link between reception and integration on a theoretical basis but this link has to be strengthened also and particularly on the practical level. The last section of the chapter aimed to set a new framework to make this happen. As integration is based on a daily experience on the territory, involving therefore especially the local population, it is essential to lay the foundations for a positive interaction. What is necessary for this to occur is what I want to investigate through my fieldwork. I will therefore try to find out what the major problems and fears towards reception are from the local population’s perspective, in order to find out how or even if they were addressed by the local administration. All this may eventually be seen as a prototype when planning reception, giving some recommendations on the preliminary work that should be done.

(33)

24

CHAPTER 2 MONTAGNAREALE - A PRELIMINARY WORK

2.1 WHY THE FIELDWORK IN MONTAGNAREALE?

My interest towards Montagnareale came the first day I arrived in Gioiosa Marea and got to know Giuliana. She told me what happened to her and the facility for unaccompanied minors she had run in Montagnareale and ever since I have wanted to understand why six girls were sent away by the mayor of the municipality. Which problems had or could they have caused to make a decision like this to be taken? Who didn’t want them? For which reasons? But more than anything, how much could prejudice influence such a decision and especially how could something like that be prevented?

So, my fieldwork in Montagnareale started out as a testing ground to prepare for the real research happening in Gioiosa Marea. I had to investigate the issues the inhabitants had encountered with the arrival of the migrants, and the prejudices they had. This preliminary work would serve as a comparison and would facilitate the research in Gioiosa.

2.2 THE STORY OF VILLA SMILE

The building is situated in Contrada Granaio of Montagnareale, a municipality of about 1800 inhabitants on 310 m above sea level in the Nebrodi43_{region and was}

built in 2012 in order to host minors having problems with justice. The project was conceived and run by the cooperative Raggio di sole44_{and the building hosting the}

community was financed by three socially engaged brothers. After 4 years the costs had become too high and the community had to close. In my case study in Montagnareale I got to know that the inhabitants considered those minors having

43_{Mountain Range in the North-East of Sicily.} 44_{Ray of sunshine.}

(34)

25

problems with justice as a problem, and as likely to cause trouble. Those fears were the opposite of the majority’s feelings about the six girls being hosted in the same centre in the summer of 2017.

Villa Smile started out as a centre for Italian minors with relational, social and family difficulties. The founder was Giuliana Scaffidi, a psychologist, expert in parent-child and child-parent relationships, who, after an analysis of the many cases pendent at the juvenile court and with explicit support of the president of the juvenile court, decided to open the centre. In April the mayor, Anna Sidoti participated to the inauguration of Villa Smile and in response to a journalist’s question if, based on the regulation which allows this kind of facility within a year to change the intended use hosting also non-accompanied foreign minors, this possibility could be taken into account, she stated:

“Io non lo escludo ovviamente perchè penso che Montagnareale, così come credo che riconosco nella comunità di Montagnareale una capacità di darsi agli altri che sicuramente potrebbe consentirci anche di fare questo. Ovviamente sono delle tematiche molto particolari che vanno affrontate nei momenti giusti, anche con I giusti modi e con il modo per poter anche veicolare un messaggio. Credo non ci sia nulla in contrario e penso che la mia cittadinanza potrebbe accettare anche una cosa di questo tipo. Stante che comunque quando arriva una scelta politica che indirizza in una certa direzione comunque si aiuta qualcuno a vivere meglio, ovviamente siamo pronti a fare anche questo.”45

(From the youTube video: Inaugurazione della comunità alloggio "Villa Smile" a Montagnareale)

In fact Villa Smile was not taken into consideration as a possibility to host their minors by the different municipalities. They preferred to put them in centres they

45_{I clearly don’t exclude it because I identify in the community of Montagnareale the ability to}

commit to others, which could surely allow us to make this. Obviously these are very particular subjects which have to be faced at the right time, with the right manners and also with the right manner to transmit the message. I think that there are no objections and I think that my community could accept also something like that, if there is also a political choice in addressing the topic. It helps someone to live better, we are obviously ready to make this happen. (my translation)

(35)

26

already knew and especially to keep them in their own territory, also to diminish the costs they would have to meet.

So, from May on, many requests came from the prefectures of Messina, Catania and Palermo asking for the availability of Villa Smile to host unaccompanied minors, as there had been substantial arrivals at that time. The first applications concerned minors in the age from 8 to 13 years, just the age the Italian minors should have been as the centre was conceived. The mayor was informed but she rejected reception.

It was June when the prefecture of Catania asked Giuliana’s willingness to open up for them for minors aged 14 to 17, so, a different age from the ones refused by the mayor. As soon as she said “yes” and communicated the availability of hosting 12 minors ordinarily and 15 in emergency, the prefect announced the arrival of migrants at the harbour of Catania on the 18th_{of June. She had to be there to pick}

up six of the minors. They were all girls coming from Nigeria, except one, Aminata, who was Senegalese.

After overcoming the linguistic barrier initially through an operator of the centre speaking English, all the professionals, but especially Giuliana established a trusting relationship with more or less all of them. This wasn’t simple as we are speaking of girls with an extremely fragile psyche, who had suffered poverty and violence, before and during their journey to Italy. They had escaped from desperate living conditions in their home country and had undertaken an uncertain path when they decided to leave. Having no money, they had to make do to reach Libya and once they arrived there they had to endure sexual abuse and tortures. Some of them still have the scars that prove it. This background explained much of their behaviour, sometimes being shy, sometimes being aggressive, some more and some less. Everything had to be taught anew. The minors were re-educated in almost every sphere of daily life: alimentation, hygiene and behaviour. Moreover, as the language was seen as a pivot of the integration process, a volunteer who spoke English very well came to teach them Italian twice a week and in not too much time they began not only to speak but also to write some Italian.

(36)

27

The aim was to make the girls integrate as soon as possible in the Italian reality, for them, not to feel excluded. That is when Giuliana sent them to the town’s pool, but only after informing and asking the permission of who was managing the pool. It was this first act which captured my curiosity. Have six girls, being legally on the Italian territory to be “permitted” to enter a public place? No one would ever even think to ask for permission to go to the pool. Why should there be a difference? Considering the fact that migrants are not criminals and therefor are not detained in prison, how could it be even thinkable to prevent them from doing anything everyone else does? Only even raising this kind of issue made it clear that many consider them different from “us”. In addition to that, the fact that it was specified, once the managers of the pool had already said “yes”, that “those girls are black”, revealed a mental bias which classifies the migrants, distinguishing between black and white. Some differences cannot be camouflaged, and especially then, they become a problem.

Anyway, according to Giuliana and one of the girls I had the pleasure at getting to know and to speak to, Aminata, the meeting with the local population and the other teenagers was joyful and the girls did not feel rejected by anyone. But this event would later be cited by the mayor of Montagnareale as a moment of friction which had heated claims by the population. This episode had also been debated during my fieldwork.

However, what emerged from the interviews will be discussed in the next section. Here, let’s go back to the legislation on the reception system. When speaking about communities for unaccompanied minors (not of the SPRAR) it is the Social Services Office that has to take charge of the minors in order to assign them a tutor and to allow the issue of the social security number which guarantees health assistance. This did not happen and moreover no funds were allocated. This inefficiency was possible because of a complex bureaucracy and the not transparent process that led the migrants being under the jurisdiction of the Prefecture of Catania to be assigned to a centre located in the Province of Messina. This ambiguity was exploited by the mayor, who could “legally” deny accommodation to those minors.

(37)

28

For some time the centre continued to be operative thanks to private funds, in particular from Giuliana, and the willingness of some citizens to help out through guaranteeing the necessary food etc. During the whole existence of Villa Smile the owners of the building covered the costs of the various services, such as electricity, gas and water. Water, which had to be guaranteed through a private source, as the municipality stopped the distribution to the building because of a leak needing to be repaired.

At the end of August the centre had to close and the girls were transferred. Three of them ran away, Giuliana knows of two of them where they are now. One is in Turin, another in Cosenza and they are working as prostitutes. Another one is now in a centre for pregnant women, she was already pregnant when she arrived at Villa Smile. Aminata and Precious are in a community for unaccompanied minors in Francavilla (Me), but they cannot go to school.

2.3 THE FIELDWORK IN MONTAGNAREALE

My fieldwork in Montagnareale took three days in which I managed to collect about 25 interviews, most of them with ordinary people. The only member of the authorities available for interview was the representative of the opposition in the local administration.

The preparation to the fieldwork started some days before my arrival, with many attempts to get to speak to the mayor, Anna Sidoti. I began by calling the town hall’s phone number. The mayor wasn’t in her office and the second time I called I got the number of her cellphone. They told me that there was no problem, I could call her directly. That is what I did and I immediately got a response. I explained that my research was about reception in the Nebrodi region and that I would like to speak to her as they have had some experience of that kind. As soon as I asked for a meeting she told me that she could not speak, to call her later. This I did, but she would not answer anymore. The day after, I called the town hall again where they told me again to try on the cellphone. I called her 11 times that day, but without success. So, the third day I tried again at the town hall and the woman at