EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO CAMPUS PROGRAMME
Mariela Baeva
Former Member of the European Parliament,
Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee
EU Migration Insights 2017
As a general reference to important international dates in December linked to EU Migration Insights 2017 as the topic for discussion:
*18 December is observed annually as ‘International Migrants Day’.
*Human Rights Day is celebrated on 10 December.
One of the majorhumanitarian challenges of our day, of our generationproves to be the unprecedented global movement of people. The trend continues to grow globally, although the number of people, attempting to reach Europe, has slowed in recent months. Yet, images of people landing on the shores of Europe are deeply ingrained in our minds.
Whether categorised as refugees or migrants, their displacement is driven primarily by international conflict.
Note: We may point out other displacement reasons, too, such as economic or related to climate change.
In my remarks today I cannot cover all dimensions of the issue,but I plan to proceed with some current EU data and the integration of migrants via appropriate public policies engaging different stakeholders at a national level. I’ll approach migration from the perspective of identity and populism through referring to two surveys. I’ll briefly comment on the reform of the Dublin system, the EU return policy and shall provide general topic conclusions.
We may say that the peak of the humanitarian refugee crisis is behind us. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM)has recently reportedthat as of theend of October, a total of 149,159 immigrants has entered Europe across the Mediterranean Sea this year, with Italy having received the most migrants. All of the immigration statistics, however,indicatelower numbers compared to last year or the year before.
Migration was one of the main issues debated during the October summit of the European Union (EU). It was underlined that the journey of people on the move left those who survived crossing the Mediterranean Sea particularly vulnerable to trafficking.
Human trafficking is the fastest growing crime nowadays, generating $150 billion in illegal profits each year.
The debate on quotas, too, continues to be in the spotlight.
As you are well aware, the refugee crisis has placed particular strains on frontier states such as Greece and Italy. According to the most recent dataof the European Commission (EC)in September, 29,144 people only were relocated from Greece and Italy to other EU Member States (MSs) over the course of two years. Thatled to an uneven level of support from other MSs, with Germany and Sweden taking large numbers of refugees.
Example: Germany alone registered 722000 first-time applications for asylum last year, with Syria remaining by far the leading country of origin for asylum seekers, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq, and regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa.
Note:Migration emerged as a contentious political issue in Germany following the refugee crisis, when 1.2 million migrants entered the country in 2015-16. The backlash against Merkel’s decision to keep open Germany’s borders has resulted in a far-right party, the anti-refugee AfD, entering the German parliament for the first time in more than 50 years (source: The Guardian).
Integration policies
Some of us believe that all people, regardless of whether they feature in a migration or refugee statistic, have the potential to be contributors to society.
Those who arrived in Europe and fled from their countries in conflict are likely to stay until at least their home countries prove safe to return. How to help them settle in the host EU countries and integrate them?
At EU level, integration remains a national competency. But it needs to be supported by appropriate public policies.
Let me shed light on the important, positive approaches at a national level, starting with the legislative move. Example:
*adoption of the first ever law on integration in Germany.
Next, national humanitarian initiatives or exceeding of the quota agreed at the EU level in July 2015. Examples:
*Austria started implementing a third Humanitarian Admission Programme for 400 Syrian refugees for the period 2016-2017;
*Irish Refugee Protection Programme includes the admission of more than 1000 resettled Syrian refugees from Lebanon by the end of 2017;
*Belgium has doubled its quota, pledging the admission of 550 refugees in 2017, adding the number to that of the previous years;
*Sweden has increased the number of available resettlement places from 1900 to 5000 per year.
As migrants have different educational backgrounds, socioeconomic profiles, family characteristics, etc., not a single integration programme fits the needs of all. So, targeted integration pathways have started to be developed. Examples:
*Language training in the Czech Republic and Finland is designed as a more personalized training option.
*Finland has designed a smart phone application to guide the newly arrived migrants to the right services. Similar platforms have recently been developed in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, etc.
Getting migrants as quickly as possible into employment is one of the main objectives of most integration schemes. They are of compulsory nature. Example:
*Under the guiding principle of “work from day one”, the Danish government has made a series of amendments to its Integration Act with a view to facilitate the labour market integration of newly-arrived family migrants, for example.
Governments are strengthening, too, health care services. Example:
*Sweden has increased access to mental health care services for traumatised migrants, asylum seekers and new arrivals.
Implementing effective integration policy responses requires coordination among different levels of government, service providers and civil society groups. Examples:
*In Austria, the three ministries of European, Foreign Affairs and integration; of the Interior and of Employment have developed a joint strategy for language courses.
*The Czech Republic has set up a network of 12 regional integration support centres to coordinate the efforts of local authorities, NGOs, etc., to provide information, advice and to develop integration projects co-funded by the European Social Fund.
A more coordinated approach for the use of EU funds to support national integration measures has been recommended in the 2016 EU Action Plan on Integration. Besides the Czech Republic, another example is stemming from Sweden:
*Sweden has invested significant funds to increase the availability of bridging programmes that enable migrants with foreign credentials in law, medicine, teaching, pharmaceuticals, etc., to complete the training required to practice their occupation in Sweden.
Theimpact on public financesas the refugee crisis unfolded is as follows for some MSs:
*Germany projected an additional 0.5 per cent of GDP per year of public spending in 2016 and 2017 to meet initial needs of the newly arrived migrants and to integrate them into the labour market;
*Austria’s extra resources amounted to 0.3% of GDP in 2016 and those of Sweden to0.9% of GDP in 2016.
Note: In the short run the additional public spending may act as a demand stimulus. One of the latest editions of the OECD Economic Outlookhas estimated that in 2016 and 2017, the additional spending to provide support on refugees could boost aggregate demand in the European economy by about 0.1-0.2% of GDP.
Other steps have also been taken. Examples:
*recognition of professional qualifications;
Note: By contrast, Poland, for example, imposed stricter language requirements for the recognition of medical qualifications completed in a language other than Polish.
*measures to combat discrimination and educate about diversity, introduced in most MSs;
*access to citizenship has been eased. Examples:
**Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Spain require an assessment of country knowledge through an integration test for citizenship applicants.
In most countries, upfront support measures are not yet widely available. Examples of countries with such measures:
*In Sweden, the “Swedish from day one” scheme provides funds for orientation courses in Swedish culture and society. Some of the funds are directed to folk high schools to organize civic integration training for asylum seekers and refugees in reception centres, with good prospects of being allowed to stay and settle in Sweden.
*Early skill assessments enable a better profiling of asylum seekers and can improve labour market matching and inform relocation decisions. In addition to Germany, where upfront skills assessments are provided through the “Early Intervention” programme, anchored in legislation, Denmark, too, takes steps to ensure systematic identification and recognition of refugees’ competences and qualifications.
Note: How does it work in concrete terms? During the asylum process, asylum seekers are already interviewed about their educational background and, if asylum is granted, the information is shared with the municipality of their settlement.
Social partners and employers are becoming increasingly involved in integration measures. Examples:
*In Austria, the public employment service, NGOs, sector councils and employers gather labour market information and promote matching via career guidance and work placement.
*An Italian pathways programme, too, provides financial support to employers to develop internship programmes for refugees.
*In Sweden, larger private sector employers, who take in at least 100 refugees, receive tailored support and package solutions from the public employment service according to the “100 Club” initiative.
Civil society,too, is taking an active role in the integration process. The support of citizens and local communities is crucial from a social cohesion perspective. Examples:
*France is proposing an annual EUR 1 500 per refugee to any charity with the capacity to find housing for 50 refugees or more.
*In Portugal, civil society organizations have established a National Platform to support the relocation of refugees in municipalities.
*In Luxembourg, the Red Cross operates in the context of the integration of refugees with guide and support in the reception centres. Individual integration plans are developed by social workers.
Participation in settling refugees remains voluntary for municipalities in some MSs, but is encouraged through financial incentives or through considering market conditions. Examples:
*In Luxembourg, a temporary programme is valid for subsidizing the rents paid by refugees, relocated in different municipalities.
*Some countries – Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, etc. – consider employment-related aspects, such as the skills profile and labour market conditions, to disperse migrants across the country.
Migration, identity, populism
Concerns over migration and identity are central to European politics. They are considered a driver ofpublic support for populist attitudes.
The London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, has recently executed a multi-faceted survey ( designed to probe the attitudes in the EU towards the perceived effects of migration, the refugee crisis and how it has been managedsince 2015. The specific issue of Islam in European societies, which is being targeted by populist movements and generates concerns amid terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists, is also in the focus of the survey. The following main conclusions are available:
• Clear majorities of the public statethat migration has had a negative effect on theircountry and reject the view that immigration has enriched the country’s cultural life.
•A majority of the public statesthat migration has made crime situation worse and has put a strain on thewelfare state.
•However, a plurality of the public rejects the view that migrants have taken jobs fromnative citizens.
As a piece of information: Thesame surveyexamined, too, the support for refugee quotas across the EU, as well as compared attitudes to differentgroups of migrants. Some conclusions are as follows:
• Half of the public (49%) support a quota system;a majority of European citizens approves a common European migration policy, while 27% say that member states should beable to decide how many refugees to accept and 24% say that they should not have to accept any.
As to the explored attitudes to Islam, the survey presented respondents with a series of statementsand included some proposals advocated by radical-right parties, in an effort to measurethe degree of latent support for Islamophobic sentiments.Concern over the role of Islam in society in Europe is significant and more widespread amongthe public.
• 73% of the public support banning Islamic dress that covers the face in public.
•56%support halting all further migration into Europe frommainly Muslim states.
•over half of the public (55%)say European and Islamic ways of life are irreconcilable.
Having referred to the views expressed in the survey, I need to say, however, that there are significantsocio-demographic differences between those who hold such views. Citizensaged over 60 and with a lower level of education are notably more likely to express them.
At least, two general conclusions:
*Populistmovementswill continue to find resonance among the public when they seek to amplify such concerns into a broader opposition towards the EU. So, in my view, wide-ranging strategies will be necessary to engage moreauthoritarian-mindedvoters and to re-frame debates about migration in such a way as to reduce perceptionsof a cultural or identity threat.
*Over the longer term, the leadershipof the EU institutions, civil society and business will need to invest efforts and goodwill in attempting to change attitudes. A source of optimism, however, is stemming from the EU’s advantages compared tothose of other parts of the globe – not only that some of the EU MSs economies are amongthe most competitive in the world, butthey also enjoy some of the most equalsocieties. The challenge for the EU is to utilize these strengths and to build on the historicachievements of integration. Prioritizing flexibility over dogma is the first stage ofa long process.
Another survey ( this time produced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), based in Vienna,was published this October.Itwas launched in October 2015. It included 10,527 people. It focuses on the experiences of Muslim refugees and their children born in EU MSs.
The survey reveals that the percentage of Muslims facing discrimination because of their religion has increased from 10% to 17% over the last 5 years.Only 12%, however, of those feeling discriminated against reported the incident.
Therefore, FRA suggests the introduction of effective sanctions for violations of anti-discrimination laws, as provided in the Equality Directive, stipulating that “every incident of discrimination hampers inclusion and risks alienating individuals, with perilous consequences”.
Other findings of the survey:
*76% of Muslims feel strongly attached to the country they live in. Yet, this sense of integration does not prevent discrimination.
*Despite experiencing discrimination and harassment, the survey results show that the vast majority of Muslims in the EU trust in democratic institutions.
Proposed reform of the Dublin system
As you are well aware, the MSs have long remained divided on the refugee policy. At the end of September, the European Commission proposed a new scheme to resettle at least 50,000 refugees – from Africa, the Middle East and Turkey – in Europe over the next two years, while speeding up the return of 1.5 million undocumented migrants and not eligible for asylum. 16 MSs have so far offered places to meet the EC's announced goal.
It was not so long ago when the advocate general of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled that in some cases EU countries in which asylum seekers first lodge their refugee claims are responsible for examining those applications, and not necessarily those EU countries through which asylum seekers first enter the EU. As you may know, this provision is regulated by the Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that initially the first country of entry is responsible for dealing with their requests.
The Dublin system, which refers to application for international protection and which does not work in its current form, let the situation go too far in countries like Greece and Italy, for example.
Therefore, in October, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament (EP) passed a draft report and voiced as one the need for a reform of the Dublin system. The reportwas officially confirmed in the November plenary session of the EP. The text has become the EP’s negotiation position with the European Council, and the latter will need to bring the issue to a qualified majority voting.
The text reads that “each MS has to participate on mandatory premises in order to take its fair share of responsibility for people seeking international protection.”
It also focuses on permanent and automatic relocation mechanism that operates during normal influx of people and in times of higher influx of people.
The appropriate procedures in the first MS of arrival will be to check for family members - about 30% of intra-European movements are estimated to be associated with family reasons - or for “meaningful” links in another MS. The procedure implies that the asylum-seeker would be transferred to the respective MS which would proceed with the asylum assessment.
The security screening is to be executed in the first country of entry, limiting the option for an asylum applicant with a low or zero chance to be relocated
Countries with less experience in receiving asylum seekers will be supported by the European Asylum Support Office for a 3-year transition period..
All the costs during the Dublin procedure will be covered by the EU budget, and not the MS budget.
There is a proposal in the text for limiting the access to the EU funds for MSs refusing to comply with the proposed new scheme.
Note: In September, the CJEU ruledthat Hungary and Slovakia had no legal grounds to reject the EU's refugee relocation programme of 2015.
As a piece of information: In October, the European Parliament also approved the setting-up of acommon electronic system –the entry-exit system (EES)for the Schengen Area, aiming to set up a database where third-country travellers are to be recorded.
The new system affects all non-EU citizens who enter the Schengen area as tourists or for business. Upon entry, the fingerprints of four fingers and a biometric photo will be stored. The plan is part of the “Smart Borders Package” presented by the Commission in April 2016.
Referring to the Schengen area, let me briefly mention thatthe German government extended passport controls along some of its national borders, the German-Austrian border, for ex., for another six months starting this November. The authorities motivated the continued controls with "a considerable amount of illegal migration" and the “heightened security situation in Europe following several attacks in recent years.”