“It is now time to take up the challenge of jointly managing migration, with the right balance between solidarity and responsibility”. It is also time to restore “trust among Member States”. It was with these words that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Wednesday 23 September, tabled a series of long-awaited proposals on asylum and migration.
The objective is to end the impasse in the European asylum reform launched in 2016, an impasse crystallised by the fire in the Moria camp, which was “a brutal reminder”, the President said.
This 2016 reform had poisoned the discussions between the EU27, before failing, at the end of 2018, following many meetings and summits, because of a deadlock on the concept of compulsory relocation in times of crisis. The new Pact must therefore make it possible to avoid reliving those battles.
The Commission reiterated on Wednesday that the migration situation in 2020 has nothing to do with that of 2015 and 2016, when almost 2 million people came to Europe. The overwhelming majority of them then needed protection. Today this is no longer the case: of the 140,000 people who will arrive illegally in 2019, two-thirds are not entitled to asylum and are to be sent back, said Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson.
The new Pact should therefore reflect this situation and place as much emphasis on returns as on the solidarity response in times of migratory pressure.
From this 2016 ‘Asylum Package’, two texts have been withdrawn and replaced, in particular by a new regulation on asylum and migration management replacing the highly controversial Dublin Regulation (a regulation which defines the State responsible for an asylum application), as well as new legislation on the Eurodac database (the European system for comparing fingerprints) which will become a “super” database containing all asylum or return decisions taken in the Member States.
The Commission has already warned that it wants a rapid agreement on this regulation on asylum and migration management. “End of 2020” is the deadline given to legislators to reach agreement at the political level.
What does the Commission actually propose?
Better control of who comes in
In order to better control irregular arrivals, as well as to better identify which persons are entitled or not entitled to asylum, the Commission proposes among the new regulations: – a new pre-identification procedure at the external borders; – identification or pre-screening will be compulsory for all persons arriving illegally: health, security and fingerprinting checks will have to be carried out quickly, within a maximum of 5 days; – the authorities at the external frontiers will then have to decide, on the basis of an initial assessment, whether the person concerned should go through the normal asylum procedure (if there is a good chance of him or her receiving protection) or a more accelerated border procedure, if he or she comes from a country with a low recognition rate (where less than 20% of replies are positive); – for those with little chance of being granted asylum, the procedure should not exceed 12 weeks and only one level of appeal will be allowed.
A fundamental rights monitoring mechanism will be built into this new procedure to ensure that there are no refoulements.
As such, the NGO Oxfam has already reacted and said it “probably expects a replica of the hotspots” and centres such as the one in Moria. The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament have denounced the same scenario. “This new pact doesn’t change anything. On the contrary, it institutionalises shame. It will prevent neither new tragedies nor the continuation of shameful camps on our borders”, reacted Frenchman Damien Carême.
The “Dublin” criteria refined
In these so-called “normal” situations, with manageable arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers, there is no solidarity from other Member States. However, it should now be possible, with a new design of the Dublin system, to allocate asylum applications more easily between Member States. Indeed, the Commission provides in its new Regulation on asylum management and migration that family criteria count as much as the first country of entry principle.
For example, if a person arriving in Italy can prove that he or she has a sister in Germany or another Member State, that Member State will automatically be responsible for processing the application.
Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, France) does not believe it will change the lives of countries in the South, which will have to “set up an accelerated asylum procedure at the border, which will not change anything for first entry states, which will still have to deal with the majority of asylum seekers”.
For the “returns” component, in case irregular arrivals should be sent back, the Commission intends to build on existing readmission agreements (the EU currently has 24) and intends to start using the new visa legislation that entered into force in February, which allows the EU to tighten its visa policy. An EU returns coordinator will also be appointed.
However, the Commission is not proposing any new resources here in addition to those it has already earmarked for the new European Border and Coast Guard Agency (whose budget was cut in July) and reiterates that the revision of the 2018 Returns Directive must be completed. It is currently under review by the European Parliament.
A new compulsory solidarity mechanism
It is obviously on the very sensitive issue of the solidarity response in times of crisis that the Commission was expected, because this is the point upon which all of the discussions have stalled since 2016.
The Commission envisages three scenarios and will in each case give Member States the choice between relocation or return or even other aid. Aid will in any case be compulsory and the three scenarios envisaged are: rescue operations at sea, situations of pressure or risk of pressure and, finally, a major crisis scenario (migration, pandemic, earthquakes).
For rescue at sea, the Commission will identify possible needs at the beginning of the year with the Member States on the basis of a distribution key (GDP and population size). Member States will be asked to say at that time whether they are prepared to relocate, return or help set up reception centres. Once these commitments have been given to the Commission, they will be binding when the situation arises and the Commission could take an implementing act to force the movement.
For situations in which there is pressure, they will be able to contribute in the same way and will be able to use the predefined pool for rescues at sea.
In the event of an acute crisis, only relocation or returns will be given as an option.
It is the Commission that will assess each time whether to activate this solidarity mechanism and put in place the predefined means.
Return assistance will be carried out as offers for sponsorships for repatriation. Member States who want to help in this way will have 8 months to do so (4 months in times of acute crisis) or will have to allow in irregular migrants and continue the return procedure on their own soil.
What will the Commission do if it realises that relocation offers are too low? “They will be asked to review their obligations” with a correction mechanism, explained one source.
An implementing act will be taken to revise the shares and the Member State might then have to take part of a relocation quota, but the Commission has assured that it would always be possible to opt out and take an additional number of persons to be returned.
Is this the return of the quota war? The very word ‘allocation formula’ should awaken bad memories, in any case.
What does not change compared to the ‘Asylum Package’?
The Commission supports the provisional political agreements already reached on the Qualifications Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive. “These proposals should be adopted as soon as possible”. The regulation to establish a fully-fledged European Asylum Agency is another essential element that remains on the table, as does the proposal for a framework EU regulation on resettlement and humanitarian admission.
What about non-Member States?
There is not much for non-Member States in the Pact other than the promise of new tailor-made partnerships and continued action to improve life on the ground and avoid smugglers. These partnerships could open up legal avenues to come and work or study. In any case, the Commission will table a new programme for the resettlement of refugees in non-Member States to help programmes in cities, schools or even churches.
Link to all the proposals: http://bit.ly/2G0g1Vl (Original version by Solenn Paulic)