The DynamicsofAsylumand Burden-

Sharing– CaseStudies of Malta and

Cyprus

Structure of Discussion:• The Principle of Burden-Sharing: Does it exist in

the EU? How does the EUresponsibilities?

share the asylum

• The EU Perspective

• The National PerspectiveCyprus

: Case of Malta and

• Concluding Remarks

Asylum Burden-Sharing• “Burden-sharing appears to be a fairly self-explanatory term

implying a collaborated, equitable and fair lifting of a heavyload or weight. The burden signifies then something that hasto be dealt with and cannot or should not be ignored.”

The asylum burden-sharing principle originated in the 1951Refugee Convention

The unequal distribution of asylum seekers has always been a central issue for the European states and for the policy makers The EU Member States have the obligation to respect thelegal instruments – to shoulder responsibility and respect theasylum seekers’ rights

•

•

•

Types of Burden-Sharing• Three Burden-Sharing Mechanisms:1. Sharing People – the dispersal of asylum-seekers

2. Sharing Money – providing financial support and boost theefforts of the recipient States

3. Sharing Policy – setting a common set of laws which serve asthe minimum standards for different countries

EU Analysis• The first treaty of the Community; the Treaty of Rome makes

no reference to the immigration of people from outsideEurope

The Treaty of Amsterdam provided a legal basis for EU action to legislate immigration and asylum policies on minimum standards• It also extended the power of the Commission, the European

Parliament and the European Court in this field – to create and coordinate policies

The Treaty of Lisbon has made the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union legally binding –it is likely to result in am empowerment of the rights of asylum-seekers within the EU

•

•

EU Programs:• The Tampere Programme:

• 1999-2004• Set up the European Refugee Fund with an allocated budget of

€216 million

The Hague Programme:•

••

2005-2009

Added dimension – to regulate migratory flows by controlling andsecuring the Union’s external borders – FRONTEX

Extended and augmented the European Refugee Fund•

• The Stockholm Programme:

• 2010-2014• ‘European Asylum support Office’

The National Perspectives –Malta & CyprusAsylum Applications in Malta and Cyprus

‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Cyprus 956 4410 9860 7750 4550 6790 3920 3200 3160 1770 1630

Malta 474 570 1000 1170 1270 1380 2610 2390 140 1860 2060

The size of the problem:• For the period 2007 to 2011, UNHCR has named Malta and

Cyprus as the top two countries receiving on average thehighest numbers of asylum-seekers per 1,000 inhabitants on aglobal scale: Malta ranked first with 20.1 and Cyprus followedwith 17.1 applications per 1,000 people respectively

• Every one migrant in Malta equates to 205 in Germany, 150 inthe UK, 150 in France and 140 in Italy

Calls for asylum burden-sharing• Malta and Cyprus have been very vociferous in campaigning

for burden-sharing measures

• Malta and Cyprus teamed up with Greece and Italy to formthe so-called Quadro Group

• Lobbying for urgent EU action regarding the disproportionate pressures of illegal immigration and asylum seekers and advocated the need to put the burden-sharing principle and the notion of solidarity into effect

Malta and Cyprus have also campaigned on individual levels•

Burden-Sharing with Maltaand Cyprus• Sharing People:

• The system remained on a voluntary basis, thus causing Maltaand Cyprus to keep on demanding more solidarity from theircounterparts

In 2009 Malta managed to introduce a pilot project (EUREMA) for the assistance of intra-EU resettlement of some of its protection seekers

• During the first phase of EUREMA, in 2011, 255 places were pledged for relocation

• In 2012, EUREMA phase 2 secured another 356 places

Directive on Temporary Protection in the Case of Mass Influx - established as a kind of burden-sharing mechanism hasn’t been invoked since its adoption, back in 2001

•

•

Burden-Sharing with Maltaand Cyprus• Sharing Money:

••

Different funds have helped both Malta and Cyprus

Malta and Cyprus both benefit from the ‘Solidarity and MigrationFlows’ programme, which was established in 2007

• This programme incorporates four different funds:••

•

•

External Borders Fund (EBF)

The European Refugee Fund (ERF) European Return FundEuropean Integration Fund

European External Borders Fund :

2007-2013

Year Malta (€) Cyprus (€)

2007 5,653,277.64 2,090,547.00

2008 9,743,356.84 1,982,610.25

2009 12,537,000.00 3,430,406.00

2010 13,032,000.00 2,333,000.00

2011 16,187,000.00 2,898,000.00

2012 23,083,000.00 4,132,000.00

2013 32,499,000.00 5,818,000.00

2014 112,734,634.48 22,684,563.25

Burden-Sharing with Maltaand Cyprus• Sharing Policy:

• As part of the accession negotiations, Malta and Cyprus wereobliged to implement the Schengen acquis as well as the Dublin IIRegulation

• Schengen provisions abolished the internal common checks and transferred to the external borders where they have become stricter “to safeguard internal security and prevent illegal immigration by nationals of States that are not members of the European Communities”• Dublin II Regulation: holds that the first State of entry, is

responsible to ensure that the asylum application and process are administered

These systems have produced additional asylum burden and responsibilities on those states already heavily burdened, by the very fact that they are located at the external borders and have to deal with all the asylum seekers and illegal immigrants approaching the EU through their territories

•

Concluding Remarks:• A substantial increase of asylum applications in Malta and

Cyprus in the year 2004 and onwards

The EU has always been hesitant to promote and agree on the physical relocation of asylum-seekers from one state to another.• There is a reluctance of EU Member States towards the physical

redistribution of asylum-seekers

• On an EU level, there were no ‘sharing-people’ mechanismsimplemented,

The EU is more generous towards providing money to Malta and CyprusEU laws have been a source for the lack of burden-sharing• Sharing-policy - contrary to distributing the problems, policy

harmonization has added extra policy restrictions to both states

•

•

•

Thank You