THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM - CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Keynote address at the Danish Red Cross Conference: Danmark og den Globale Flyktingkrisen Karolina Lindholm Billing, Deputy Regional Representative of UNHCR in Northern Europe Copenhagen, 10 March 2014

It is a pleasure for me to be with you here today, at this conference devoted to a subject which is so relevant to all of us, and even more so to all of the individual refugees affected, and I thank the Red Cross for inviting UNHCR to give a key note address on the challenges and opportunities within the common European asylum system today. I will start by saying that my references to the common European asylum system should not be understood as restricted to the scope of the legal obligations under the EU asylum Directives, which Denmark has opted out from, but understood to encompass European States’ implementation of the common international and European standards and values, including those of international solidarity and burden sharing. As noted in the conference program, over 50 million people are forcibly displaced around the world today, more than at any other time since World War II. The Middle East and North Africa regions are confronted with the consequences of one of the most dramatic humanitarian situations of our times, as a result of the Syrian conflict. The ever growing levels of displacement by conflict and persecution have resulted in unprecedented numbers of persons seeking international protection in Europe. At the same time, we must remember that, for example, since the start of the conflict in Syria, around 217,000 Syrians have sought asylum in 38 European countries, excluding Turkey. This represents just around 6% of the total number of Syrians who have fled their country (some 3.8 million refugee and an additional 7.6 million IDPs). Similar or even lower numbers are also true for other large scale displacement situations.  This extremely challenging daily reality for millions of women, men, girls and boys who have been forced to flee in search of international protection is also materializing into a number of challenges relating to European countries’ ability to provide the protection needed. We find these in the areas of access to protection, the quality of protection, and in regard to the attainment of durable solutions. In regard to access, we are witnessing a staggering upsurge in dangerous crossings in the Mediterranean. Over the course of 2014, close to 219,000 refugees and migrants took to the sea in search of safety and a better life in Europe. The previous year, that number was just over 60,000 people. Tragically, with the upsurge in crossings came an increase in deaths at sea. Over 3,500 people are believed to have lost their lives or gone missing at sea in the Mediterranean in 2014. By comparison, approximately 600 died on the Mediterranean sea in 2013. And these are

only informed estimates. We fear many more may have perished in their attempts to reach safety. This year, the trend seems set to continue. Undeterred by the winter, or the well-known risks, some 7,500 refugees and migrants arrived in Italy in January and February alone, and 370 people are dead or missing. Behind these numbers are individuals, like you and me and our children, who are desperate to find protection and a new life, free from fear. Their desperation, and consequently the exploitative human smuggling we are seeing on the Mediterranean, is the direct result of the continuation of conflicts and human rights violations in countries of origin, deterioration in the quality of protection being offered in the extremely pressured and stretched first countries of asylum, and the lack of legal entry channels to Europe. The possibilities to access Europe legally today to exercise your right to asylum are very limited, which forces persons in search of international protection to pay scrupulous smugglers incredible sums of money to get a place on a dingy across the Mediterranean. I will now show a short video that was produced in early December last year, which illustrates the human beings behind the numbers. Malta: Refugees Dying at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdwJCQyojQ

Europe's

Doorstep:

The next overarching challenge relates to the quality of protection offered. While European countries have committed to sharing the responsibility of providing protection in accordance with well-established European and international standards, we see a very divergent application of the legal and normative frameworks, leading to an asylum system a la carte in Europe, as our Director for the Europe Bureau expressed it during his statement at the recent UNHCR Standing Committee meeting. For example, recognition rates in the EU for Afghan asylum-seekers vary from 1% to 100% and for Eritreans between 27% and 100% according to Eurostat. In addition to divergent applications of the same legal standards, the uneven quality of the legal, social and economic components of the protection systems and status fuel onward irregular movements, feed the “human smuggling industry” in Europe and create huge discrepancies in terms of distribution of asylum-seekers and refugees, illustrated by the fact that Germany and Sweden receive 46% of all applications in the EU+ countries. Turning now to the third challenge – solutions – we see that refugees who have been granted international protection in European countries are not always able to attain a durable solution in the form of local integration, due to the lack of or ineffective integration programmes and support, hostile and xenophobic environments and limited family reunification possibilities, to name a few of the reasons. Differences in the quality of protection offered to groups with similar asylum claims have an impact on solutions and fuels onward movements. For example, if a Syrian in one European country is granted refugee status with all the associated rights under international and European law, including a durable residence permit, while a Syrian with the same background is granted subsidiary protection with a short-term residence permit and no right to invite her family members to reunify in another European country, this is likely to have

an impact on the respective refugees’ ability to focus on integration. As we saw in the video, our longing to be with our family members is so strong, so being torn apart from them can eat you up from the inside and make it impossible for you to focus on learning a new language, culture and searching for a job. This was one of the findings in a study that the UNHCR Regional Representation for Northern Europe recently conducted on Refugee Integration Capacities in Sweden, as part of a European project. It is this strong longing, this strong drive to be with our families that lies behind many of the dangerous crossings we see on the Mediterranean, when people cannot reunify through legal and established procedures. In addition, clear and functioning return policies for persons not in need of protection are not always in place, which raises questions about the credibility of the asylum systems.  These challenges can be turned into an opportunity for European State to be innovative and demonstrate, through concrete actions, that Europe is a continent founded on values of democracy, human rights and international solidarity, and that the States are in practice committed to implementing the international and European standards in a consistent and uniform manner. But, for any common system or relationship to function, all of the parties involved have to assume, and not shift their share of the responsibility. While there are no quick fixes or solutions, there are, in UNHCR’s view, a number of concrete, doable measures that European states can take in order to address the challenges. And while all States cannot be expected to do everything, every State can do something, and thereby contribute to a collective comprehensive response. UNHCR’s Central Mediterranean Sea Initiative (CMSI), launched following the Lampedusa tragedy in 2013, contains proposals on how European States can address these challenges, through the establishment of a predictable search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean, first-line reception, profiling and referral mechanisms and access to protection and durable solutions. The CMSI moreover provides some suggestions on cooperation with third countries outside the European Union, such as looking into root causes of displacement and improved responses in countries of first asylum or transit. Last week, the High Commissioner also proposed to the leadership of the EU a set of proposals, building on the CMSI, which were aimed at strengthening rescue-at-sea, improving reception conditions, organizing intra-EU solidarity and improving return policies for people not in need of international protection. The first proposal relates to rescue at sea, where UNHCR recommends the European Union to mount a credible search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean or fund Italy to resume one, and to implement a number of complementary measures, including strengthened law enforcement against criminal smuggling and trafficking networks. UNHCR also believes that States should consider the establishment of schemes to compensate shipping companies for the losses they may incur while upholding the long-standing tradition, and obligation, of rescue at sea. As the situation is now, some private companies have started to re-route their voyages to

avoid areas frequented by refugee and migrant boats, and are becoming more reluctant to reveal their positions at sea. The second group of proposals relate to intra-EU solidarity. As all indicators suggest that the current pressures will continue in 2015, it is of utmost importance to provide targeted support to the countries facing the largest arrivals, namely Italy and Greece but also others at the EU external border which may come under pressure such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary and Malta. EASO support plans and European Commission funding are crucial components in this regard. UNHCR is also calling for a full implementation of the Dublin III Regulation. Today, Member States are not fully implementing the hierarchy of criteria provided by Dublin III, including the clauses relating to family reunification, unaccompanied minors and the discretionary clauses. We are suggesting a proactive and efficient use of the enhanced articles 8 to 11 of the Dublin III Regulation for unaccompanied children and family members, and the dependency clause in article 16. UNHCR is also proposing a proactive and flexible use of the discretionary clauses, in particular article 17 (2) of the Dublin III Regulation. This article provides for the possibility for the Member State in which the application for international protection is made to “request another Member State to take charge of an applicant in order to bring together any family relations on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations, even where that Member State is not responsible […]”. Member States could utilize this provision to agree on a pilot arrangement that could include providing applicants with visas by the agreed Member State to enter and apply for international protection there, in cases where their application for international protection is considered as “manifestly founded” or “likely to be well-founded,” such as applicants from Syria or other country with comparably high protection rate. Fast and correct processing of Dublin III cases would represent an incentive for asylum-seekers to cooperate in identification procedures and could prevent them from resorting to irregular means to reunite with family members and communities in other Member States. Using the letter and spirit of articles 33 and 36 of the Dublin Regulation, UNHCR also believes it is timely to establish a pilot relocation programme, initially targeting Syrians rescued at sea and disembarked in Greece and Italy, drawing on the positive and negative lessons learned from the implementation of the EUREMA projects in Malta. The third group of proposals relate to external solidarity with countries of transit and first asylum. This could include processing support, to determine who is in need of international protection and who is not, and programmes aimed at differentiated solutions, of which resettlement would likely be one. In line with the Justice and Home Affairs Council Conclusions of 10 October 2014, UNHCR is calling on EU Member States to expand their resettlement programmes to “credible” numbers that can make a difference in any refugee context, both for the country of asylum that is hosting large numbers, as well as for the individuals who are thinking of embarking on dangerous journeys, thereby offering real alternatives.

On the topic of legal ways of entering European countries to enjoy asylum, UNHCR continues to urge European States to intensify their efforts to increase opportunities for other forms of admission, so that people in need of international protection can reach safety in Europe without having to resort to smugglers and dangerous irregular movements. Such programmes could include: Humanitarian admission, which is similar to resettlement, and is an expedited process providing protection in a third country for refugees with urgent needs. Humanitarian admission may be used for specific categories of refugees, such as vulnerable persons, extended family members, or individuals with medical needs. Community-based private sponsorship programmes, which tap into private resources to enable refugees to be resettled with the support of private citizens with a legal entity, NGOs, or other interested groups such as local authorities or faith-based groups, are another option. Private sponsorship can also enable refugees to reunite with extended family members who may not otherwise qualify under family reunification criteria. Medical evacuation of refugees with urgent medical needs on resettlement or humanitarian admission programmes, along with their families who are a key source of support, is a third option. Humanitarian visas, providing persons in need of international protection who are already in a country other than the country of origin, with a means of accessing a third country for purposes of applying for asylum, are yet another option. Persons of concern may travel to a third country on a humanitarian visa and may have their status converted to asylum-seeker or refugee upon arrival. UNHCR is also recommending an enhancement of family reunification programmes to admit relatives of those already residing in a third country through accessible and efficient procedures; this could include, for example, facilitated access to embassies, visa waivers, issuance of humanitarian visas, or assistance with documentation. Academic scholarships, providing a mechanism for refugee students who would like to study or who have had their studies interrupted, to continue their education can also be explored.

While only political solutions to the conflicts can stop people from fleeing and make it possible for refugees to return, there are concrete ways in which the challenges described can be addressed, and the insurmountable human suffering we are witnessing at the moment, prevented and alleviated. This requires political leadership and will and the engagement of civil society, diaspora communities, and other stakeholders. I am therefore so moved to see the intense engagement expressed by all of you - more than 500 participants – at this conference. I thank you for your engagement from the bottom of my heart, because it makes a difference, in the lives of the people who have been forced to flee in search of safety and a future. Thank you.