Key outcomes EMN Conference Finland October 2019 final

1

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FROM TAMPERE 20 TO TAMPERE 2.0

Helsinki 24 & 25 October 2019

EMN Finland, Odysseus network, EPC

Summary report

WELCOME SESSION

Maria Ohisalo, Minister of the Interior for Finland

Maria Ohisalo noted that the conference marked an important milestone in the EU's asylum and

migration policy and the EMN has made important contributions to stronger evidence‐based policy‐

making. The peak migratory flows of 2015 and 2016 taught the EU valuable lessons, and the focus

should remain on the following areas: well‐coordinated and ambitious actions of the agencies;

strengthened common approach of the EU regarding the external dimensions; better‐managed

migration in close cooperation with third countries and through capacity‐building in anti‐smuggling

and border management; fair treatment of third‐country nationals; and a reform of the Common

European Asylum System (CEAS).

2

Paavo Lipponen, Former Prime Minister of Finland during the 1999 EU Presidency

Paavo Lipponen recalled that it was at the Tampere summit in 1999 that the EU's Justice and Home

Affairs area was given a concrete framework. Since then, the challenges have increased substantially

against the background of rising terrorism and the mass influx in 2015 and 2016. It is time for the EU

to make progress in addressing these challenges. At the same time, it isalso important to highlight

the achievements, for example related to successful integration of refugees in Germany. Securing

the EU's external borders is another urgent task, as well as fostering cooperation with Africa and the

Middle East to tackle root causes of migration, organised crime and trafficking in human beings.

Inequality is leading to conflict all around the world, risking a return to a non‐democratic past.

Filippo Grandi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Filippo Grandi pointed out that the crisis years of 2015/16 tested the EU's common values in a

manner that was not conceivable at the time of the Tampere Conclusions. However, much of the

3

vision that shaped the European Union's common policies then, remain valid today, entailing an

effective management of migration flows that prevents trafficking in human beings and exploitation.

By pursuing this vision in the past 20 years, the European Union has shown how a regional approach

to refugee protection can work. It has also laid the groundwork for the UN Global Compact and the

Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM). Filippo Grandi further outlined five key

directions for future EU action: 1) adoption of a truly global approach that addresses the root

causes; ensuring solidarity‐ and burden‐sharing mechanisms with refugee‐hosting countries;

increasing resettlement efforts; enhancement of intra‐EU solidarity; allocation of the majority of

resources of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) towards asylum systems and

integration efforts; eradication of statelessness in the long‐term.

Antonio Vitorino, Director General, International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

Antonio Vitorino remarked that this conference was very timely as the EU was slowly emerging from

the crisis of 2015/16 and it was now important to reflect on the lessons learnt, particularly in light of

the new European Parliament and Commission. At the same time, it should be recognised that

common legislation is just one tool for ensuring effective migration management and has to be

complemented with adequate operational capacity and resources. In his keynote address Antonio

Vitorino recognised that the concepts agreed on in Tampere (e.g. solidarity) have different meanings

to different Member States. With this in mind, it is crucial to re‐build trust between Member States.

The speaker then made the following suggestions to the EU leadership: to make more efforts to

establish common standards; to be prepared for the next crisis; to ensure adequate funding; and to

ensure flexibility of policies as the drivers affecting mobility are evolving constantly.

4

Michael Spindelegger, Director General, International Centre for Migration Policy Development

Michael Spindelegger urged the EU to take advantage of the momentum that comes with the start

of a new Commission; fundamental changes are needed in the EU's migration policies and now is the

right time. He further pointed to 70 measures developed by ICMPD that should be taken, such as:

determining the common goals of Member States; implementing a rules‐based approach, inter alia

to increase effective returns; implementing pilot projects to attract more skilled workers to the EU;

ensuring more systematic involvement of the private sector.

INTRODUCTORY PLENARY

Session I: Financial Framework

Hanne Beirens (Director, Migration Policy Institute Europe)

Iris Goldner‐Lang (Jean‐Monnet Professor of EU Law, University of Zagreb)

Ari Valila, (DG Home E1)

Willemijn Tiekstra, (Ministry of Justice and Security of the Netherlands)

Main points of the session

Iris Goldner Lang noted that discussions on the financial framework of the CEAS were delicate, particularly as negotiations on the upcoming Multi‐annual Financial Framework were currently underway. The EU budget remained too modest to cover actual needs and EU financial contributions to Member States should be calculated fairly to implement EU solidarity and to adequately reflect the needs of the most affected Member States. A more comprehensive reporting about the funding of migration, asylum and border control measures outside the EU was also needed.

5

The discussion mainly focused on the following:

‐ EU funding should be earmarked for actions that promote solidarity and joint actions, as well

as long‐term integration;

‐ Although the scope of migration‐related funds should be maintained, there was a need for a

flexible budget to respond to migration challenges in an efficient manner;

‐ It would be important to have an overview of national spending on asylum and migration to

be able to better determine where EU funds could be spent most effectively.

Session II: EU agencies

Evangelia Tsourdi (Assistant Professor, Maastricht University)

Nina Gregori (Executive Director, EASO)

Berndt Körner (Deputy Executive Director, Frontex)

Despina Chatzimanoli (Senior Legal Expert, European Banking Authority)


Evangelia Tsourdi recalled that the remit of EU agencies has grown substantially in the past year. In the case of EASO and Frontex, two broad trends can be observed. Firstly, an operational expansion of mandates which has led to patterns of joint implementation, with own staff and experts deployed by these agencies involved in fields such as border control, return and the processing of asylum claims. Secondly, the expansion of their mandate to include functions that go far beyond support, including operational support, or administrative cooperation.


6

‐ The substantial expansion of EASO and Frontex in recent years in terms of their operational

capacity and extended mandates has made them an indirect facilitator of intra‐EU solidarity;

this is currently more palatable politically than other measures of solidarity, such as

relocation;

‐ Increased mandates may result in more EU‐level involvement in Member States, which has

to be carefully considered in light of primary and secondary EU law;

‐ Particularly in the asylum context, there is a need for clearer rules and a binding use of

common tools and good practices across Member States;

‐ Increased mandates have to go hand in hand with increased accountability mechanisms.

WORKSHOP: FAIR TREATMENT OF THIRD‐COUNTRY NATIONALS

Session I – Legal migration

Kees Groenendijk (Centre for Migration Law, Radbound University)

Laura Corrado (Head of Unit, Legal migration, DG Home)

Ave Lauren (National Coordinator, EMN Estonia)

Mireille Paquet (Associate Professor, Concordia University, Canada

Main points of the session:

Kees Groenendijk observed that the implementation of the seven Directives in the field of legal migration had been a long process and progress made in Member States in this regard differed significantly. The Commission has helped to stimulate their transposition and implementation

7

primarily through soft tools and less through legal means via infringement procedures. In terms of suggestions for the future, the EU should respect the basic principles related to legal migration adopted in Tampere; these have been explicitly quoted by the European Court of Justice in more than 60 judgement. Lastly, intra‐EU mobility should be stimulated as much as possible and should not be limited to the highly‐skilled but also to low‐and medium skilled workers, as there was a high demand for these workers across the EU.

The discussion mainly focused on the following points:

‐ Although the EU legislative framework in the area of legal migration has developed

substantially since Tampere and has had many positive effects, implementation takes a long

time and varies significantly across Member States;

‐ More efforts should be placed into finding more opportunities for persons in need of

protection to enter the EU through a legal pathway. A few pilot projects have been set up by

the Commission in this regard; examples from Canada could also provide useful guidance.

Third countries could not be expected to cooperate on matters such as border management

and return without offering incentives related to legal pathways;

‐ The focus should be on effective implementation of existing directives instead of adopting

new legislation in the legal migration field, although a directive targeting start‐ups and

entrepreneurs could bring added‐value;

‐ It has to be kept in mind that irregular migration is often a consequence of legal migration,

for example in the case of third‐country nationals who overstay their visa. Hence, these two

areas should not be in silos.

Session II – Integration

Tapio Luoma, Archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland

Ilke Adam, Research Professor, Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Daniel Thym, Chair of Public, European and International Law, University of Konstanz

Ali Sayed Razawi, Director General and Chief Imam, Scottish Ahlul Bayt Societ

Thomas Huddleston, Research Director, Migration Policy Group

Toersten Mority, General Secretary, Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe

8

Kristina Stenman, Mayor of Pietarsaari and former Director, Migration Department, Ministry of the

Economy for Finland


Ilke Adams and Daniel Thym remarked that 20 years ago, the EU found itself in a rather different context for immigrant integration. In the current political climate, it is crucial that the Commission continues to ensure that Member States implement EU legislation correctly and do not undo the approximation of rights achieved over the past 20 years. The recent focus of the Commission has been to mainstream integration across all policy sectors and levels, and it should be reassessed whether policies should be reconfigured to take account of new challenges and difficulties in increasingly diverse societies. Although many relevant policy areas, such as housing, are beyond legislative reach for the Commission, support can be provided by ear‐marking sufficient funds for projects which effectively benefit immigrants.


‐ Immigrants should be involved in the formulation of integration policies as much as possible

and their concerns taken seriously;

‐ Participation of local communities is also crucial; the burden of integration should not only

be placed on the immigrant;

‐ There was a need to gain a better understanding of the integration needs of recently‐arrived

immigrants and those that have lived in the Member State for many years. The longer a

migrant lived in a country, the less the integration challenges were migrant‐specific;

‐ Although the EU competences were limited in the field of migration, support through

funding and soft tools was very important and should be continued;

‐ Much more has to be done to address institutional racism, for example by investing in the

implementation of current antidiscrimination legislation through the support of National

Action Plans against Racism.

WORKSHOP: PARTNERSHIP WITH THIRD COUNTRIES

SESSION I ‐ Migration and Development

9

Chair: Mohamed Yahya, Africa Regional Programme Coordinator for UNDP

Introduction: Vincent Chetail, Professor of International Law and Director of the Global Migration

Centre, Graduate Institute Geneva

Panellists: Dessislava Choumelova, Head of Unit ‘Demography, Migration and Governance’, JRC;

Michele Amedeo, Head of the Centre of Thematic Expertise on Migration, DG NEAR; Gibril Faal,

Visiting Professor in Practice, Institute of Global Affairs, London School of Economics; Kristiina

Kumpula, RCRC EU Office Co‐ordination Group Chair, General Secretary of Red Cross Finland


Vincent Chetail recognised that the migration and development nexus is controversial and at the complex junction between two conflicting paradigms: the control of migration and the positive contribution of migration both in the countries of origin and destination. He identified three main challenges: cooperation between parties with different interests, policy coherence (recognising the existence of conflicting mandates) and the relevance and efficiency of EU policy due to the complex interaction of migration and development. He proposed four main ideas: (1) prioritising poverty reduction as the central objective of development policy; (2) balancing the root‐causes approach with the positive contribution of migration to the development of both countries of destination and origin; (3) designing and implementing development assistance and migration partnership with third countries in due respect for international law and (4) improving the policy coherence of the EU policy on migration and development. The discussion mainly focused on the following points:

‐ The need for policy coherence (reconciling the objectives of the comprehensive approach,

mainstreaming migration in development cooperation, the share commitment of countries

of origin, transit and destination to the SDGs);

‐ Accepting the complexity and ambiguity of the migration and development nexus and

avoiding to simplifying (including the multiplicity of migration drivers);

‐ The need to ‘normalise’ the narrative on migration, demonstrating the migration dividend;

‐ The need to build comprehensive partnerships since pure conditionality does not work. In

other words, partnerships cannot only be based on conditions set up by the EU but be

multifaceted and recognise converging, diverging interests as well as the needs for some

trade‐offs;

‐ The need to implement existing migration policies (such as the Valetta Action Plan) rather

than developing new policies;

‐ The links between research and policymaking (different opinions with regards their

collaboration and stress on the independence of academia)

10

SESSION II ‐ Global Approach and Partnership Framework

Chair: Ola Henrikson, Director of the Regional Office for the EU, Norway and Switzerland, IOM

Introduction: Elspeth Guild, Jean Monnet Professor, Queen Mary University of London and Radboud

University.

Panellists: Giulio Di Blasi, Member of the Cabinet, High Representative of the Union for Foreign

Affairs and Security Policy; Amina Bouayach, President, Moroccan National Human Rights Council;

Inmaculada Vazquez, Representative to the EU and NATO, Médecins sans Frontières; Achilles

Skordas, Professor of International Law, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and

International Law.


Elspeth Guild focused her introduction on five key points: (1) the way migration has been

incorporated in EU external policies; (2) the fact that migrants are also citizens of other countries

and the way they are treated can undermine relations with their countries of origin; (3) the

reputation of the EU as an international actor; (4) the EU commitment to the rule of law, human

rights and democracy ; (5) the links with the EU migration policy and other existing free movement

regimes.


‐ The issue of policy coherence and coordination and the need to integrate the internal and external dimension of migration;

‐ The global dimension of migration and the role of the EU as well as the Global Compact on Migration;

‐ The issue of overpromising and underdelivering in the field of legal migration; ‐ Violence and difficulties on the ground aggravated by containment policies (migrants

detained in Libya); ‐ The need to widen the research perspective beyond Europe (involving African researchers).

The rapporteur of the workshop, Jens Vedsted‐Hansen, Professor of EU Migration and Asylum Law,

University of Aarhus pointed out a common concern in both sessions: The assumption that migration

11

is a problem to be stopped whereas it is a phenomenon to be managed as well as three proactive

measures: the impact of remittances and role of diaspora in development; the impact of partnership

with third countries on international relations; and the respect of emerging sub‐regional free

movement regimes.

WORKSHOP: MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION FLOWS

SESSION I – Schengen and borders

Chair: Mikko Puumalainen, Deputy Chancellor of Justice, Office of the Chancellor of Justice of Finland

(replacing Philippe Debruycker).

Introduction: Marie De Somer, Head of the Migration and Diversity Programme, European Policy

Centre.

Panellists: Oliver Seiffarth, Acting Head of Unit ‘Border management and Schengen’, DG Home;

Tanja Fajon, Member of the European Parliament (S&D); Hugo Brady, Advisor for Justice and Home

Affairs, Cabinet of Donald Tusk


M. De Somer introduced the session focussing on three different set of ideas: (1) Improving Rules on

Internal border controls in the Schengen borders codes; (2) The use of police checks in border

regions; (3) Making Schengen conditional on cooperation and good governance in the CEAS.


‐ The emotion linked to migration as well as border controls;

‐ The question of conditionality between Schengen and Dublin;

‐ The Schengen Reform and its possible outcomes;

12

‐ The relations with Western Balkan countries with regards Schengen.

SESSION II – READMISSION AND RETURN

Chair: Dan Rotenberg, Deputy Head of Unit ‘Irregular Migration and Return Policy’,DG Home,

European Commission

Introduction: Tamás Molnár, Legal Research Officer on Asylum, Migration and Borders, FRA

Panellists: Elise Muir, Head of the Institute for European Law, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Jean‐

Pierre Cassarino, Senior Research Fellow, College of Europe, Warsaw; Maria Gavouchidou, Senior

Coordinating Officer, European Centre for Returns, European Border and Coast Guard Agency; Sergo

Mananashvili, Senior Advisor, ICMPD.


Tamás Molnár considered that the two major challenges of the EU return policies are the difficulties

and obstacles encountered by the Member States within their own countries in successfully

enforcing return decisions (internal dimension), and the cooperation with countries of origin to

enable actual removals, e.g. in identifying, re‐documenting and readmitting their own nationals

(external dimension). He proposed different sets of measures to address them: (1) legislative

measures such as strengthening fundamental rights safeguards; (2) further strengthening the EU‐

wide dimension of return‐related measures


‐ The cap on procedural access to appeal in the proposal for a recast Return Directive and the

legal problems this may entail;

‐ The need to link readmission to geostrategic issues;

‐ The issue of measuring the effectiveness of return;

‐ The need to involve countries of origins in the reintegration process.

13

WORKSHOP: COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM

SESSION I – ASYLUM POLICY

Lyra Jakuleviciene, Professor of International and EU Law, Mykolas Romeris University

Catherina Woollard, ECRE

Sophie Magennis, UNHCR

Dennis Khakzad, German Federal Ministry of the Interior


Lyra Jakulevičienė noted that notwithstanding all important legislative and institutional challenges

of the past 20 years, many challenges remained to make the CEAS more efficient, stable and

harmonised. The EU inter alia faced the following challenges: first, the CEAS is suffering from a lack

of common implementation of legislation and differing national practices, ultimately leading to

secondary movements. Second, there was a gridlock which could only be solved by an open

discussion and agreement on the fundamental policy principles. Third, there was a need to achieve a

fairer balance between incentives and restrictions for asylum seekers. To address these challenges, it

may have to be acknowledged that in the current political context, it is easier to share money than

people. At the moment, the EU was not prepared for another contingency.


‐ A European refugee protection concept should be discussed, whereby the protection status

granted in one Member State is recognised by other Member States and allows free

movement of recognised refugees;

‐ The motivations of asylum seekers behind choosing to apply in one Member State over

another should be studied more carefully to efficiently address secondary movements;

‐ The ‘safe country of origin’ concept should be revised or reconsidered, as third countries

consider this as responsibility‐shifting instead of responsibility‐sharing;

14

‐ International and European cooperation is key to all mentioned challenges; these cannot be

addressed sufficiently at the national level.

SESSION II – DUBLIN AND SOLIDARITY

Francesco Maiani, Associate Professor of European Law at the University of Lausanne

Henrik Nielsen, Head of Asylum Unit, DG Home

Vladimir Simonak, Permanent Representation of the Slovak Republic

Ralf Lesser, Federal Ministry of the Interior of Germany


Francesco Maiani noted that responsibility allocation is a key component of the CEAS and there is

general consensus that the current system did not function in an effective manner. One important

component of improving the system is to win the trust and cooperation of the asylum applicants,

particularly in the framework of the Dublin. Positive incentives have to be found which provide an

element of choice for the applicants. A big paradox of the Dublin system is that it has led to an

increase in secondary movements. At the same time, policy‐makers have to consider the trade‐offs

implicit in the choice of responsibility‐allocation model. In particular, it should be kept in mind that

loading responsibility‐allocation with further functions (solidarity, externalisation, migration

management) comes at a high cost in terms of efficiency, swiftness, cost‐effectiveness.

The discussion mainly focused on the following issues:

‐ the Dublin system needed substantial revisions and should provide Member States with a

certain level of predictability which allowed them to organise their systems and ensure

sufficient and adequate resources;

‐ The responsibility allocation system should take the concerns and needs, particularly family

links, into account. At the same time, a balanced system between 'humanity vs. order' will

have to be ensured;

‐ Part of the solution to Dublin lies in tackling irregular migration, to ensure there is space in

the system for those who are in legitimate need of protection.

15

FINAL PLENARY

Henrik Nielsen, speaking on behalf of the Director‐General of DG Home, European Commission

Henrik Nielsen/ COM stressed that it should always be kept in mind that migration policies relate to

human beings. Since Tampere, as former Commissioner Vitorino indicated, the area of JHA has

grown and gained in importance. The main challenges the EU faced in recent years were not

predictable at that time. Nevertheless, there have been important achievements such as the

Schengen acquis, and the development and successful work of the agencies. 2015 was a pivotal year

but the system survived the crisis and lessons can be drawn, such as that it is only through unity that

we can deal with this kind of crisis. Looking forward, a comprehensive approach is crucial as well as

the unity among Member States and among EU institutions.

16

Tanja Fajon, speaking on behalf of the Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home

Affairs, EP

Tanja Fajon voiced concern that the proper functioning of the Schengen area could continue to be

compromised due to the lack in progress made with regard to the Dublin reform. As migration is a

very politicised topic, it is difficult for politicians to find solutions based on sound evidence and to be

courageous. The Tampere principles are still relevant today in reminding us of our roots and

providing a strategic vision.

Demetri Papademetriou, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Co‐Founder and President Emeritus, Migration

Policy Institute

Demetri Papademetriou found that since Tampere, a lot of progress has been made. Now it is

important to bring along the public to make lasting progress and pass from rhetoric to action as well

as to be pragmatic. Trust must be restored at different levels (among EU institutions, among

Member States, across Ministries and DGs, with the public, and with external partners). Populism

will remain a challenge, so policy‐makers will have to re‐think their strategy.

17

Mari Kiviniemi, Managing Director of the Finnish Commerce Federation, former Deputy Secretary‐

General of OECD and former Prime Minister of Finland

Mari Kiviniemi considered that progress in migration management remains abstract with conflicting

messages. Hence, it is important to rebuild trust in EU policies and institutions. There is a need to

ensure that conversations about migration is based on facts and to inform the EU public about

asylum and migration. It is essential to spell out the potential benefits of migration more clearly,

wherein the media plays a big role.

Jean‐Louis De Brouwer, Director of the European Affairs Programme, Egmont Institute

Jean‐Louis De Brouwer closed the session reassessing that the Tampere milestones are still relevant.

The conference also highlighted that it is crucial to approach migration without emotion, that the

implementation of existing policies must take precedence over new policies, that the public needs to

be taken back to figures and facts so that their perceptions could come closer to reality, and that

managing mistrust is also crucial with regards the partnership with third countries, as well as limiting

violence against migrants. He ended by quoting a French adage: La confiance ne se décrète pas, elle

se construit.

Documents

Key outcomes EMN Conference Finland October 2019 final