Refugee Migration in Europe National and Regional Strategies Alessandra Faggian Gran Sasso Science Institute, L Aquila (Italy) e-mail: alessandra.faggian@gssi.it Brussels, October 10 th 2018 Session on Refugee Migration Promoted by EWRC University, European Regional Science Association (Leader) and Regional Studies Association. 1
Why refugee crisis? In 2015, the OECD countries, especially European, have seen a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers The OECD report International Migrant Outlook 2016 reports that the number of asylum seekers was unprecedented since World War II (p. 28) Although, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notes, statistics on asylum seekers and refugees suffers from many limitations (incompletness, delays in recording, double counting), the UNHCR data show a clear pattern 2
Why refugee crisis? Peak in 2015 of around 1.65 million (double 2014) OECD, 2016a 3
Why refugee crisis? The peak was due mainly to: 1. New smuggling routes, e.g. western Balkan route (great migration from January to September 2015) https://gatesofvienna.net/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/traffickingmap.gif 4
2. The deterioration of security in Syria (especially), Iraq and Lybia. In 2015 Syrian citizens made up 24% of the total applications of asylum seekers (3 times the number of 2014 and 6 times that of 2013) (OECD, 2016) 5
The phases of migrant reception The refugee crisis represented a shock to the European system, which in many aspects was not ready to deal with it As with any shock, there are two phases in trying to cope with the crisis: I. A short term phase ( emergency ), whose goal is to provide the migrants with the necessary conditions to survive II. A long term phase ( integration ), whose goal is for the migrants to fulfil their potential in the new hosting country without relying on assistance 6
A. The emergency phase: SUPRANATIONAL In the emergency phase the priorities were: Saving lives (especially at sea) Fighting smuggling networks Resettling refugees (especially from Syria) from the country of first entrance to other hosting countries (Dublin regulation was under strain in 2015 Italy & Greece) This first phase required the coordination of all the European countries (SUPRANATIONAL LEVEL). On May 13 th 2015 the European Commission presented the European Agenda for Migration based on 4 principles: 1. Strengthening borders management; 2. Reducing incentives for irregular immigration; 3. Building strong policy for common asylum policy; 4. Establishing new policy for legal migration. 7
The emergency phase: NATIONAL However, most of the activities in the emergency phase fall under the responsibility of the NATIONAL governments Although on 14 th and 22 nd September 2015 the EU agreed on resettling 20000 and 140000 asylum seekers and pay 6000 per relocated person, by May 2016 only 1500 people were relocated from Italy and Greece In March 2016 the agreement with Turkey relieved Greece from some pressure, but the Common Asylum Policy is still weak Although it has been recognised that once a country has been responsible for 150% of its fair share (calculated 50% on population and 50% on average GDP) corrective allocation mechanisms should take place, the implementation is always not without controversies with different countries voicing different opinions... 8
When hosting countries are facing a large inflow of immigrants (and especially humanitarian immigrants), the first question is: where to place them? The evidence points to the fact that, without an active intervention by governments, most migrants would settle in urban areas (Brezzi et al. 2010; Proietti and Veneri, 2017; UNESCO, 2016) and/or tend to clusters in sort of enclaves, often in disadvantage areas (OECD, 2006) Most countries have attempted to avoid this concentration by implementing active dispersal policies In the UK, for instance, where the flow of refugees is certainly not a new phenomenon, the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was set up in 1999 to disperse asylum seekers around the UK (Phillimore nd Goodson, 2006) Similar dispersal policies are in place in other countries: e.g. Sweden, Italy... 9
In 2016, on average there were a little bit more asylum seekers in rural areas (27%) than natives (23%), although with great variation within the European countries (e.g. Latvia and the UK have a higher percentage of asylum seekers in cities) Proietti and Veneri, 2017 (p. 15) 10
Dispersal policies Most of the dispersal policies are based on the availability of housing (vacancies) Allocation is on a no choice basis (involuntary dispersal, Phillips 2006) This has created, in some countries an unusual situation with high presence of refugees in more peripheral areas... Faggian and Öner (2017) finds, in the case of Sweden, that this leads to very high outmigration rates of resettled refugees from rural to urban areas within two years of resettlement Faggian and Öner (2017) 11
B. The integration phase: where the LOCAL matters! Once the initial emergency is handled with, it is clear that what really matters is the integration of the new immigrants into their hosting country This is the most tricky part and for different reasons: A debate is still open (in academic and policy circles) on what we really mean by integration For integration the local level of governance is pivotal. This resulted in a variety of good examples and common practices of integration at local level around Europe, but still lack of a common framework However, some lessons have been generally learnt... 12
What do we mean by integration? As Phillips (2006) well points out although the term integration is widely used in political discourse and policy statements in housing..., it is ambiguous with multiple meanings that are often poorly defined (p. 540) She also highlights the different interpretations of integration among European countries which manifest in different levels of state control in the process of migrant settlement Some countries designed policies to minimise cultural differences, while others adopted a more multi-cultural approach geared at inclusivity 13
What do we mean by integration? Ager and Strang (2008) propose a very comprehensive conceptual framework to define (and assess) integration Housing is only ONE of the dimensions, though it was the one many countries focused initially! 14
Multigovernance and the local level... It is now clear that the local level is paramount for an effective integration of humanitarian migrants and in fact the OECD (2006) points out that: many governments have increased co-operation between different levels of governanceand actors in order to respond to asylum seekers and refugees in a faster and more efficient way However, the problems associated with multi-level governance are well-known. Scholten (2012) takes the example of migrant integration policy in the Netherlands as a clear example of an intractable policy controversy, where the national goals not always coincide with the local ones. Very specific local circumstances and events might push the local agenda in a direction not always identical to the national agenda. 15
Why is the local level important? The local level is important for many reasons. Among them: a) Integration policies tend to be more decentralised, making the local level Deals more with the initial responsible for them (OECD, 2006). RECEPTION (immediate However, needs, the distribution of spending between Generally provides support for different levels is housing, often still asylum unclear process...) and depends on where people stand in the INTEGRATION of recognised asylum process (OECD, 2017) refugees (education, health, labour market...) OECD (2017), Migration Policy Debates (p. 2) 16
However, the percentage of subnational level government spending varies greatly among different countries... Housing is generally more centralised The fiscal impact of migration in local areas tends to be negative (at least initially) because of the higher take-up of social services by immigrants (OECD, 2016a, p. 110) OECD (2017), Migration Policy Debates 17
Why is the local level important? b) While plenty of empirical studies find little to no negative effect (or even positive, see Peri 2015) on the labour market at national level (e.g. Longhi et al 2006, 2010), the negative effects are often felt at the local level by certain communities (often more disadvantaged to start with cheap housing, but no jobs...) c) It is becoming increasingly clear that policies to integrate migrants need to be tailor-made and the local level is better equipped to identify the specific needs of the migrants hosted in their communities (no one-fits-all solution) 18
What is still missing for effective integration? The focus on housing was justified when the crisis hit, because that was the immediate need to address However, because the initial dispersal policies were solely based on housing vacancies and not migrants skills, labour market integration was challenging Without labour market integration people become dependent on social welfare (and a burden for both communities and nations) and this triggers a negative perception of refugees (and eventually populism...) if the individual perception is based only on local impact 19
Humanitarian migrants human capital The missing ingredient was a systematic assessment of the human capital of asylum seekers and refugees It is wrong to assume these people have no or low skills In fact, they are not representative of the country of origin, but a selfselected sample normally with higher income and higher educational levels. This issue of positive self-selection was clearly stated in the OECD 2016 Report Making Integration Work : Humanitarian migrants are not a random selection of the population in their countries of origin. Their journeys are often costly, so incomers who arrive through the asylum channel are seldom among the poorest. They also tend to be more highly skilled then the general population back home (OECD, 2016b, p. 30) 20
There seems to be a clear North- South divide in Europe in terms of qualifications of migrants. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Sweden have relatively more highly educated migrants than natives in all regions. On the other side, Spain, Greece, Italy and partly Germany have mostly more educated native-born (OECD, 2018) OECD, 2018 Working together for local integration of migrants and refugees 21
What do we still miss? Where most (if not all) European countries are lagging behind is in mapping the skills, education and competences of migrants (in other words, their human capital!) The mapping and validation of these skills by the government should: 1. Be included explicitly in the national dispersal policies to ensure a better matching between demand and supply of labour; 2. Help with the discrimination faced by humanitarian migrants with local employers often dismissing almost completely their qualifications and/or work experience (Damos de Matos and Liebig, 2014) 22
1. Migrant human capital & dispersal policies The Nordic countries were the first to realise that the missing ingredient in their dispersal policies was a better consideration of migrants skills In Denmark, Norway and Sweden a recent shift approach to early competences mapping is evident (Karlsdóttir et al., 2017, p. 13) Åslund and Rooth (2007) find that local labour market conditions are a crucial determinant of long-term integration. Hence, employment prospects should be factored into dispersal policies (OECD, 2016b) Unfortunately, in most European countries targeted dispersal strategies based on humanitarian migrants skills and their prospects of entering the local labour market are relatively rare (OECD, 2016b, p. 23) Among the European countries only Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Estonia and Portugal have started incorporating some employment-related elements into their dispersal policies 23
2. Migrant human capital & discrimination by local employers As for the discrimination faced by humanitarian migrants by employers in the communities where they are placed, some examples of good practice at local level are emerging The Nordregio study From migrants to workers published in December 2016 reports on six case studies in the Nordic regions where practices for job placement and job matching at the local level were implemented 24
Good practices at local level include things such as: Apprenticeships and internships for refugees in the public sector to provide work experience and serve as an example to other employers in the private sector (Jämtland, Sweden) The existence of a local integration coordinator who holds individual talks with all the refugees about their background and their future job opportunities (Herøy, Norway) Talent Tampere network to promote the matching of local employers and humanitarian migrants skills, with a focus on mechanical engineering and automation (Tampere, Finland) 25
Some final thoughts... The refugee crisis was a real challenge for the European countries The initial response to this challenge, and lack of coordination among countries, led many people to believe that the governments did not have the capacity to manage migration effectively (see electoral results...) However, big strides forward have been taken and many lessons have been learnt After the initial emergency phase, when immediate needs were the focus, now most countries are moving towards a more comprehensive plan for long-term integration 26
Some final thoughts... The Nordic countries are leading the way in most aspects of migrant integration, but also the other countries are following suit Aside from provide housing, now it has become clear that labour market integration is the key for a long-term success of migrants in their hosting countries In this respect a better assessment (and validation) of migrants human capital (education, skills and competencies) is the next necessary step for an effective labour market matching With immigration now slowing down, this might be a good time to think more about long-term integration, which might also help peripheral areas with depopulation ecc... 27
Thank you! alessandra.faggian@gssi.it 28
References 1/2 Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of refugee studies, 21(2), 166-191 Åslund, Olof & Rooth, Dan-Olof. (2003). Do When and Where Matter? Initial Labor Market Conditions and Immigrant Earnings. Economic Journal. 177 Faggian, A. and Öner, Ö. (2017). Location choices of refugees in the hosting country The Swedish Case. Paper presented at the 150th Anniversary of the Hungarian Statistical Office Conference, Pecs, Hungary, October 2017 Lewis, E., & Peri, G. (2015). Immigration and the Economy of Cities and Regions. In Handbook of regional and urban economics, 5, 625-685 Longhi, S., Nijkamp, P., & Poot, J. (2010). Meta-analyses of labour-market impacts of immigration: key conclusions and policy implications.environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 819-833. Longhi, S., Nijkamp, P., & Poot, J. (2006). The impact of immigration on the employment of natives in regional labour markets: A meta-analysis,, ISER WorkingPaperSeries, 2006:10, ISER, Colchester Karlsdóttir, A., Sigurjónsdóttir, H. R., Ström Hildestrand, Å., & Cuadrado, A. (2017). Policies and measures for speeding up labour market integration of refugees in the Nordic region: A knowledge overview. NordregioWorkingPaper, 2017: 8 Nordregio, (2016). From migrants to workers. Immigration and integration at the local level in the Nordic countries. Nordic Centre for Spatial Development Policy Brief, 5. http://www.nordregio.se/publications/publications-2016/from-migrants-to-workers-immigration-and-integration-at-the-local-level-in-the-nordic-countries/ OECD (2018a), Working Together for Local Integration of Migrants and Refugees, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085350-en 29
References 2/2 OECD (2018b), Working Together for Local Integration of Migrants and Refugees in Gothenburg, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/sweden/working-together-forlocal-integration-of-migrants-and-refugees-in-gothenburg-9789264299603-en.htm OECD (2017). Who bears the cost of integrating refugees? Migration Policy debate N. 13 http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/migration-policy-debates-13.pdf OECD (2016a). Making integration work, refugees and others in need of protection, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://lft.ee/admin/upload/files/oecd%20integratsioon.pdf OECD (2016b). International Migration Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/migration/international-migration-outlook-1999124x.htm Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L., (2006). Problem or opportunity? Asylum seekers, refugees, employment and social exclusion in deprived urban areas. Urban Studies, 43 (10), 1715-1736 Phillips, D. (2006). Moving towards integration: the housing of asylum seekers and refugees in Britain. Housing Studies, 21(4), 539-553 Proietti, P. and Veneri, P. (2017) The location of hosted asylum seekers in OECD Regions and Cities. Paper presented at the 31st session of the OECD Working Party on Territorial Indicators, May 2017, Paris. Scholten, P. W. (2013). Agenda dynamics and the multi-level governance of intractable policy controversies: The case of migrant integration policies in the Netherlands.Policy Sciences, 46(3), 217-236. UNESCO (2016). Cities welcoming refugees and migrant. Enhancing effective urban governance in an age of migration, UNESCO Publishing, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002465/246558e.pdf 30