Tal
Nordic Refugee Seminar 5 februari 2009
Tobias Billström, Migrationsminister

Tal på engelska av Tobias Billström vid "Nordic Refugee Seminar"

Öppningstal av Migrationsminister Tobias Billström vid "Nordic Refugee Seminar", Lund 5 Februari 2009.

I thank the organisers of this Seminar for inviting me to make an introductory address to you. I do appreciate this opportunity, especially since it brings me back to my Alma Mata of Lund University. Research in this field is very important for me as Minister, to enable me to draw the right conclusions of experiences until now and to identify the real challenges of the future. I will not try to compete with you and your academic competence, but restrict myself to some reflections about the challenges we have to meet together in the EU, in co-operation with other countries and the international community at large.

First let me remind you of the Swedish perspective. My country joined the EU in 1995. These were early days on the road to a common asylum system. But the basis was already there. All Member States had ratified the UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. These instruments are not the result of EU but their significance for EU developments is decisive.

There were some misgivings in Sweden, among concerned NGO´s and some political parties, that the membership might have a negative impact on Swedish refugee policy, slowly lowering Swedish standards and introducing control measures counter-productive to refugee protection. The position of government and parliament was that this would not happen. Instead, other states lagging behind would successively adopt higher standards.

A new migration policy was adopted by Parliament in December 1996. The policy was characterised by a comprehensive approach, and consisting of refugee, immigration, integration and return policies as well as including foreign, security, trade and development co-operation policies.

Among the principles for the migration policy was an active migration policy in the EU. It was established as a fact, that conditions over time were diminishing for European countries to have a migration policy different from other European states, regardless of the EU. Therefore it was not enough just to foresee future limitations for Swedish policy makers. More fundamentally, EU was a chance to reach more of Swedish goals in the migration field than would ever have been possible for a small country as Sweden on its own. Consequently, Sweden should take its starting point in already existing guiding principles in the EU and contribute to their development to a common policy. A higher degree of responsibility sharing among Member States was among the issues listed on the Swedish agenda for the EU, as well as the comprehensive approach on interrelated policy areas. Thus, to make use of the opportunities in the migration and asylum field coming with the membership in the EU became one of the key ambitions. To enhance harmonisation of EU migration and asylum policies continues to be one of the main goals for Swedish migration policy.

I had not been Migration Minister for long before I had to learn some hard facts about imbalances existing between EU Member States in the migration and asylum field. During 2006 the security situation in Iraq worsened. Sweden became the no. 1 destination country for Iraqi asylum-seekers in Europe with about half of all Iraqi applications for asylum. The proportion remained high during both 2007 and 2008.

We did not hesitate to give international protection. But it raised concern of the long time sustainability of our asylum system if the situation remained for a longer time. The Swedish people has proved over the years to be consistent in its support to give protection to those in need. Furthermore, contrary to the situation in other countries, Swedish governments regardless of their political colour, are used to a certain degree of criticism for being too restrictive in granting protection. But that attitude might change if Swedes start to think our country has to take more responsibility than other countries in the EU.

One reason for imbalances such as the Iraqi asylum-seekers in the EU recent years is that there are still significant differences between national legislations in terms of asylum procedures, recognition rates and reception conditions. Not least from our own experiences, I strongly believe in the necessity of establishing a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) for the EU. It should of course be based on a full and inclusive application of the Refugee Convention and other relevant treaties. Such a system is necessary in order to maintain the long-term sustainability of the asylum system and to promote solidarity within the EU.

Today it is also pressing to improve measures to combat illegal immigration and people smuggling. The number of people entering EU countries illegally in the purpose to improve their living standard is too high to be neglected, though the downturn of national economies temporarily might reduce the problem. But considering the fact that the majority of the asylum-seekers in EU Member States are smuggled into the EU, this is a complex issue to deal with. Measures must be implemented in such a way that they do not undermine the possibility to apply for asylum and the respect for fundamental human rights in the asylum procedure.

The credibility and sustainability of the common European asylum policy depends partly on the maintenance of access to a fair and efficient asylum system. Solutions to identify those in need of international protection in mixed flows is essential and should be developed. Different possibilities to have access to the EU asylum procedure should be further examined. There are ideas how to achieve that aim, such as the issuing of asylum visas and processing of asylum applications outside EU territory.

EU also should make an effort to further explore different solidarity instruments for sharing responsibilities with Member States under particular migratory pressure. The Dublin System is useful to avoid "refugees in orbit" and will be a corner stone in a future CEAS as it clearly allocates responsibility for the examination of asylum applications. But it is not in itself a mechanism for sharing responsibilities evenly. Furthermore, in most cases all facts that would be relevant according to the Dublin System are simply not known and the responsibility stays with the country where the asylum-seekers made the application.

There is also a financial aspect on how responsibility is shared among Member States. Financial systems should therefore be improved with the aim to increase responsibility sharing.

In order to establish a CEAS the existing legal instruments must be evaluated making sure convergence in asylum decision-making between Member States. These findings, together with the practice from the European Court of Justice, are important in the future work of further improving the CEAS. In addition, practical cooperation in the asylum area between the Member States is essential for the implementation of the existing legal instruments. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) will have an active role in promoting and fulfilling this work.

The question how persons in need of international protection can reach the European Union in order to seek asylum is likely to remain crucial. In my opinion, it is in this perspective necessary to examine different possible solutions that might secure access to the European asylum system. One instrument that needs to be further explored is access to protection through resettlement schemes. Sweden has a long experience of resettlement and I see many advantages in having more EU countries establishing a system for a refugee quota.

Even if the EU succeeds in providing access, the credibility of the common asylum policy also depends on how the EU manages to promote refugee protection and durable solutions in third countries for those who do not have possibilities to leave their regions of origin. In terms of showing solidarity with third countries by strengthening their protection capacity, the Regional Protection Programmes play an important role and I would like them to be used more frequently. UNHCR has been given a global mandate to provide protection and assistance to refugees. Overall strategies regarding the external dimension should be developed within the EU. Close cooperation with the UNHCR is, in my opinion, an essential part of such an effort. Capacity building programs in third-countries should also be developed to ensure access to asylum in hosting countries and third countries, especially those neighbouring the EU.

An efficient asylum system requires humane, fast and fair decision making aiming at identifying those who need protection. For such a system to maintain its credibility it is crucial that those not in need of protection are removed. There are still considerable shortcomings, in Sweden as well as in other EU countries. In my opinion it is necessary to make progress in this field. States will have to ensure that illegal immigrants return home, with due regard for the law and for the dignity of the persons involved, and giving preference to voluntary return.

These are my visions and ideas for developments in the migration field for the next few years. A Common European Asylum System is important in order to ensure that responsibilities are shared more evenly. But it is ultimately about fundamental human values. In a more long term perspective, and given the changing nature of migration, the process of assessing the instruments constituting the CEAS has to be considered. It is for example essential that the criteria for international protection reflects the actual protection needs.

Another future challenge for the EU is migration flows due to climate changes and different instruments might be needed to tackle these possible situations. In Swedish legislation already since 1997, environmental disaster can constitute a ground for protection in Sweden. However, this is not applicable to situations arising from climate changes taking place slowly. This is definitely one of many important fields for researchers to play an important role for discussions on how to meet challenges in the future.

A Common European Asylum System will not come easy but it is a necessity. Individual countries can not meet the global challenges alone.

Thank your for your attention. I wish you all an interesting Seminar these two days in Lund.