After the escalation of the conflict in Syria in 2011, 4.8 million Syrians have fled to the neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. In addition, 6.6 million people are internally displaced in Syria. Moreover, around 1 million of these people have requested an asylum to Europe. Currently, more than 2.7 million Syrians reside in Turkey while this number is 1 million for Lebanon, over 638 thousand for Jordan, and 650 thousand for 28 member states of EU including Norway and Switzerland. Besides, registered Syrians in Egypt and Iraq reached almost 365 thousand (Syrian Refugees.eu; Bartolomeo, 2016).
In 2015, the number of registered Syrian refugees in Europe has significantly increased 242% reaching 492.610 people (Syrian Refugees.eu, 2016) with the escalation in the number of arrivals to Europe in 2015 through Greece and Italy, especially through Turkey. On 19 March 2016, Turkey and the European Union (EU) have agreed on the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU based on “one-for-one” rule that aims to regulate the irregular migration influx and create a safe and legal entrance for migrants who need international protection (EU Commission, 2016).
In order to assist Greece and Italy on massive refugee arrivals, in September 2015 the Justice and Home Affairs Council decided to relocate 160,000 people to other member states to share the burden of these two countries (Bartolomeo, 2016). The aim of the relocation is to divide the workload of the refugees’ asylum application process and economic burden (high expenditures) on providing basic needs of the refugees. With the relocation system asylum seekers will be relocated to another member states and have their asylum application processed in the residing country and if granted, they would receive the right to reside in that country.
Although the arrivals from Greece have been significantly decreased after the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU, the relocation and resettlement schemes are falling behind the time schedule. Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos has touched upon the decrease in the number of arrivals and commented on the next steps. He stated that “as the number of arrivals in Greece have gone down, the absolute onus now lies on significantly increasing and speeding up relocations” (EU Commission, 2016).
Graph 1: Arrivals to Greece and Italy
Source: Bartolomeo, 2016.
Graph 1 shows that there is a significant decrease in arrivals from Greece after the implementation of the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU. The number of arrivals within a month dropped from 6,337 to 1,211. However, during this period there has been a slight increase in Italy. The main reason for this increase might be seasonal reasons and shift towards Italy due to strengthened coastal controls in the Aegean Sea. Greece has been the major route for migrants since the start of the migration influx to Europe. During 19 January-19 April 2016 period, 84.3% of the migrants used Greece. It is also interesting to see that the numbers started to fall in 19 February, a month before the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU where the number of arrivals significantly decreased from 33,339 to 6,337 (Bartolomeo, 2016).
It could be mentioned that Turkey and the EU have successfully blocked Greece for illegal passes and it is expected that this attempt will contribute to the prevention of human trafficking in Greece and create safe and legal passage for new arrivals. However, we cannot make the same evaluation for the process of relocation and resettlement process. (EU Commission, 2016).
Table 1: Relocation of Migrants from Greece and Italy to the Other EU Member Countries (Until 14 June 2016)
Source: European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/ 2016.
While 23 member states pledge to relocate a certain number of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy, in practice, only few member states are actively receiving refugees matching with their pledged numbers. At this point, in terms of numbers most generous countries are France, Finland, Portugal and Netherlands that received 75% of the total relocation number. Moreover, comparing the ratio of commitment numbers and actual relocation numbers, Finland, Portugal and Slovenia have the highest ratios. Table 1 shows that the member states are failing to fulfill their commitments to the European Council on relocations. As of 14 June 2016, only 2280 people (2.15%) have been relocated to other member states, which is just a slim fraction of commitment number. According to the time schedule, 160,000 people need to be relocated within 24 months (September 2015 – September 2017). This means 4.400 people per month need to be relocated one of the member states in order to catch up with the time schedule (Bartolomeo, 2016). Until now, 44.000 people should have been relocated to another member states. However, currently, this number is only 5% (2280) of this target. These numbers show that there is a low level of cooperation between member states and indicates that under the current speed of relocation, it is hard to imagine that 160,000 people will be relocated to the other member states until September 2017.
Table 2: Resettlement Under the “20 July 2015” and “Turkey-EU 1:1 Agreement” (Until 10 June 2016)
| Member countries | Pledges made under the 20 July 2015 Scheme | Resettlements from Third Countries (under the 20 July Scheme) till 10 June 2016 | Resettlements of Syrians from Turkey (under the 1:1 EU-TUR Agreement) 04/04/2016 – 10/06/2016 |
| Austria | 1900 | 1453 | – |
| Belgium | 1100 | 327 | – |
| Bulgaria | 50 | – | – |
| Croatia | 150 | – | – |
| Cyprus | 69 | – | – |
| Czech Republic | 400 | 52 | – |
| Denmark | 1000 | 481 | – |
| Estonia | 20 | – | – |
| Finland | 293 | 156 | 11 |
| France | 2375 | 221 | – |
| Germany | 1600 | – | 157 |
| Greece | 354 | – | – |
| Hungary | – | – | – |
| Iceland | 50 | 48 | – |
| Ireland | 520 | 273 | – |
| Italy | 1989 | 267 | 10 |
| Latvia | 50 | – | – |
| Liechtenstein | 20 | 20 | – |
| Lithuania | 70 | – | 5 |
| Luxemburg | 30 | – | 27 |
| Malta | 14 | – | – |
| Netherlands | 1000 | 312 | 52 |
| Norway | 3500 | 797 | – |
| Poland | 900 | – | – |
| Portugal | 191 | – | 7 |
| Romania | 80 | – | – |
| Slovakia | 100 | – | – |
| Slovenia | 20 | – | – |
| Spain | 1449 | – | – |
| Sweden | 491 | – | 242 |
| Switzerland | 519 | 519 | – |
| United Kingdom | 2200 | 1864 | – |
| Total | 22504 | 6790 | 511 |
| % of resettled | 32,4 |
Source: European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/ 2016.
Under the resettlement plan on 20 July 2015, 27 member states have agreed to resettle 22,054 people who obviously need for international protection from the Middle East, the North of Africa and the Horn of Africa (Bartolomeo, 2016). In addition, Turkey and the EU have agreed on the exchange of refugees based on the “one in-one out” rule which means that all refugees arriving Greece through Turkey illegally will be sent back to Turkey if their asylum requests are rejected. In return, for each returned refugee, the EU countries will permanently accept one Syrian who lives in refugee camps in Turkey (EU Commission, 2016).
Latest reports indicate that since the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU was initiated, 511 people have been resettled in various member states. Sweden and Germany are the most generous countries to accept 399 people (78%) of the total resettlement number. So far under the Turkey-EU 1:1 agreement, only 8 member states have accepted Syrian refugees from Turkey. As for return numbers since 20 March 2016, 462 irregular migrants including 31 Syrians who did not apply for asylum have returned to Turkey (EU Commission, 2016).
Comparing with relocation process, resettlement process has been much more efficient since only 2.15% of asylum seekers have been relocated, while this figure for resettlement is 32.4%. Member states like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom with different range have fulfilled most part of their resettlement pledges under the 20 July 2015 scheme. On the other hand, the member states such as Poland, Spain, Czech Republic, France, Germany and Slovakia so far failed to catch up with their pledges under 20 July 2015 Scheme. Resettlement schedule is set for two years from July 2015-July 2017 and according to this plan, each month 938 people need to be resettled among the member states. As of 10 June 2016, 7301 people have been resettled in a combination of 20 July 2015 scheme and the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU, which equals to 608 people per month. This is 330 people lower but functioning much faster than the relocation scheme (EU Commission, 2016).
One of the major obstacles in the transfer process is high bureaucratic regulations of the member countries, especially the security background controls. These controls are deemed necessary but the current process causes delays in the transfer process. At this point, the European Commission has put a 2-month limit on the security background controls and recommended to reduce the response time for relocation to be reduced to 2 weeks for relocation. Moreover, it was advised to use additional security controls only if it seems necessary. (European Commission, 2016).
In addition, the number of member states is opposing the Commission’s distribution plan where countries have different views and stance. For example, some member states are asking certain adjustments in the plan like France and Germany while others like Poland, Spain, Czech Republic, and Slovakia are opposing the quota system at all (Robert et.al, 2016). Therefore, the member states positions to the quota system is also an important factor affecting the relocation and resettlement process.
Within the distribution system which is created by the Commission in order to distribute the asylum seekers among 28 member states, there are various factors that have different weights on identifying the commitment numbers. In the calculation index, population size is measured as 40%, economic growth 40%, unemployment 10% and previous engagement with asylum seekers weights 10%. However, not every member states are happy with this distribution system (Robert et.al, 2016).
For instance, France and Germany do not oppose to Commission’s plan but ask for a correction in the quota system. France is asking to add the refugees who already arrived in France into consideration within the assigned number to France. In addition, French officials are asking for more proportional distribution scheme. The Secretary of State for European Affairs, Harlem Desir expressed that only a couple of member states are receiving 70% of the refugees (Robert et.al, 2016). As for Germany, the demand is same with France. Under the relocation scheme, Germany supposed to receive 27536 refugees from Greece and Italy that equals to 25% of the total (106.000) relocation number (Robert et.al, 2016).
Member states like Spain, Czech Republic, and Slovakia are against the distribution plan while Poland will accept only Christians. On the other hand, Bulgaria is unhappy for not being included in the relocation and resettlement plan alongside with Greece and Italy while Romanian officials declare that they support the distribution plan. Spain joins the group of countries that are not satisfied with the calculation index of distribution. For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jose Manuel García-Margallo stated that the distribution plan needs to be “proportionate, fair and realistic” (Robert et.al, 2016).
Czech Republic’s major disagreement regarding the quota is the Commission’s decision on making it mandatory and arguing that the countries need to choose how much they are willing to contribute to the plan. Czech officials want countries to decide the number and the method of support on migration crisis. Therefore, they are arguing that providing assistance to countries in the region would be a better solution rather than the distribution plan. In line with their arguments, Czech Prime Minister, Bohuslav Sobotka announced that Czech Republic will provide 100 million CZK annually to countries in the region starting from 2017 (Robert et.al, 2016).
Slovakia, like some other member states, prefers the voluntary approach rather than quota system and supports the idea of assisting the countries in the region rather than accepting migrants. Moreover, Slovakian officials think that even if they agree on the distribution plan, 80%-90% of the migrants will leave the country to settle in other Western European countries. In addition, Slovakia has the toughest asylum application procedure in the EU where last year 331 people applied for asylum and only 14 of these applicants were accepted. Poland is another member state that supports the idea of the voluntary approach. However, unlike others, Polish Prime Minister, Ewa Kopacz mentioned that Poland will accept only Christian Syrians. This statement has been criticized by a number of NGOs and urged Polish government to accept asylum seekers without any religious pre-condition (Robert et.al, 2016).
Comparing with Greece and Italy, Bulgaria is quite slim. Nevertheless, it is one of the directions which migrants use to reach Western European countries. Not having included in the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU that is based on one-for-one rule and the distribution plan of European Commission, Bulgaria feels that it is neglected by the actors during the process. Besides, the EU Commission has signed 1302 people quota for Bulgaria under the relocation scheme. Therefore, Bulgaria is reluctant to support the distribution scheme in its current structure (Robert et.al, 2016).
Although Romania could become an alternative route for migrants to reach Europe through Black Sea, Romania has been supporting the Commission’s plan and welcoming migrants. In one of its interviews, Romania’s Prime Minister, Victor Ponta declared that “we have to understand that those people are coming in search of a better life because they are afraid in their own countries. We have to find public policies for integrating the majority of them”. Contrary to many member states, Romania does not think that raising a wall against migration influx could contribute to the solution of migration crises and argues that enhancing the efforts in migration policies would provide better outcomes (Robert et.al, 2016).
Graph 2: Relocation Process from Greece: Pledge, Registration and Acceptance
| Member countries | Pledges made under the 20 July 2015 Scheme | Resettlements from Third Countries (under the 20 July Scheme) till 10 June 2016 | Resettlements of Syrians from Turkey (under the 1:1 EU-TUR Agreement) 04/04/2016 – 10/06/2016 |
| Austria | 1900 | 1453 | – |
| Belgium | 1100 | 327 | – |
| Bulgaria | 50 | – | – |
| Croatia | 150 | – | – |
| Cyprus | 69 | – | – |
| Czech Republic | 400 | 52 | – |
| Denmark | 1000 | 481 | – |
| Estonia | 20 | – | – |
| Finland | 293 | 156 | 11 |
| France | 2375 | 221 | – |
| Germany | 1600 | – | 157 |
| Greece | 354 | – | – |
| Hungary | – | – | – |
| Iceland | 50 | 48 | – |
| Ireland | 520 | 273 | – |
| Italy | 1989 | 267 | 10 |
| Latvia | 50 | – | – |
| Liechtenstein | 20 | 20 | – |
| Lithuania | 70 | – | 5 |
| Luxemburg | 30 | – | 27 |
| Malta | 14 | – | – |
| Netherlands | 1000 | 312 | 52 |
| Norway | 3500 | 797 | – |
| Poland | 900 | – | – |
| Portugal | 191 | – | 7 |
| Romania | 80 | – | – |
| Slovakia | 100 | – | – |
| Slovenia | 20 | – | – |
| Spain | 1449 | – | – |
| Sweden | 491 | – | 242 |
| Switzerland | 519 | 519 | – |
| United Kingdom | 2200 | 1864 | – |
| Total | 22504 | 6790 | 511 |
| % of resettled | 32,4 |
Source: European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/ 2016.
The speed of the application registration is increasing much faster than the member states replies and the total number of acceptances. Graph 2 shows that the registration and request sending processes are significantly accelerating while the procedure of acceptance is falling behind to catch up with the request numbers. It could be seen in graph 2 that there is a significant gap between the number of registered applications, pledges and the total number of acceptances. The different opinions on distribution scheme and bureaucracy have been making it difficult to speed up the process of acceptance. Therefore, the member states need to speed up their bureaucratic procedures to reduce the response time to 2-week target. Especially the countries that are reluctant to fulfill their commitment numbers need to put more effort on easing their acceptance process.
Nevertheless, there are a number of programs that aim to accelerate the transfer time like Greece mass pre-register initiation. In order to boost the registration process to a new level, Greek Asylum service, UNHCR and EASO are working together to initiate a mass pre-registration program which will register 35.000 people in its first phase in a few months. The program aims to increase the capacity of registration process in three phases to improve the identification efforts of migrants in Greece. It is expected that this program will increase the process of identifying the people who really need international protection.
In conclusion, it could be emphasized that the refugee agreement between Turkey and the EU is effectively decreasing the arrivals through Greece. However relocation and resettlement processes are slower than planned. In order to speed up the response time to relocation requests, the member states need to make additional efforts to shorten the transfer time. In addition, a cooperation inside the EU on relocation of the refugees from Greece and Italy needs to be strengthened. Therefore, all member states need to increase their relocation and resettlement pledge numbers and ease their acceptance procedures.
References
Syrian Refugees (2016). Syrian Refugees A Snapshot of the Crisis in the Middle East and Europe. Syrianrefugees.eu. http://syrianrefugees.eu/
http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/migrant-crisis/focus-on-syrians/ Bartolemeo, 2016.
MPC (2016). Focus on Syrians. Migration Policy Centre, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University. http://www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/migrant-crisis/focus-on-syrians/
Bartolomeo, A.D. (2016). EU Migration Crisis Actions with a focus on the EU-Turkey Agreement. Migration Policy Centre, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/40925/RSCAS_MPC_2016_04.pdf?sequence=1
EU Commission (2016). EU and Turkey agree European response to refugee crisis. EU Commission news. http://ec.europa.eu/news/2016/03/20160319_en.htm
EU Commission (2016). Relocation and Resettlement: Increased efforts on resettlement and relocation must be sustained. European Commission – Press release Database. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2178_en.htm
EU Commission (2016). Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council Fourth Report On Relocation and Resettlement.http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160615/4th_report_on_relocation_and_resettlement_annex_1_en.pdf
EU Commission (2016). Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council Fourth Report On Relocation and Resettlement.http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160615/4th_report_on_relocation_and_resettlement_annex_2_en.pdf
EU Commission (2016). Managing the Refugee Crisis: Commission reports on progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement. European Commission – Press release Database. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2181_en.htm
EU Commission (2016). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council Third Report on Relocation and Resettlement. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160518/communication_third_report_on_relocation_and_resettlement_en.pdf
Robert A. et.al. (2016). Many EU countries say “no” to immigration quotas. Euractiv.com. http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/many-eu-countries-say-no-to-immigration-quotas/
EU Commission (2016). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council Fourth Report on Relocation and Resettlement. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160615/4th_report_on_relocation_and_resettlement_en.pdf
Note: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the Institute’s editorial policy.