| Description |
The EU has had its greatest effects on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) through the stable legal framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The 2013 Reception Conditions and
2011 Qualification Directives build on the standards set by the 1951 Geneva
Convention and aim for its full and effective implementation. As presented in
the MPG paper “Lost in transition? The European standards behind refugee
integration”, they guarantee a series of standards that shape the integration
process, starting from the reception phase until full legal, socio-economic and
socio-cultural integration allows refugees to realise their full potential to contribute to society.
On 13 July 2016, a set of proposals was presented to reform these standards,
including to replace the Qualification Directive with a Regulation and to
amend the Reception Conditions Directive.1
The social consequences of these
proposals are serious. Since BIPs today are fleeing many protracted conflicts
that take on average 25 years to resolve2
, our societies will have to live with
the consequences of these proposals for years—if not generations—to come.
These proposals largely represent a missed opportunity and a potentially major risk for integration. The minor improvements on reception and qualification standards would only marginally improve the situation on the ground in
most Member States. Moreover, several of the recast’s proposals would actually delay and undermine the integration process for asylum-seekers and BIPs
by reducing support for potentially large numbers and removing some possibilities for more favourable conditions for integration. Unlike the 1 st and
2nd generation of the CEAS, which consolidated the most common national
practices in EU law, several of these proposals are modelled on hasty and
politicised recent restrictions in only a few Member States. These restrictions
have not yet been demonstrated to be justified, proportionate or effective for
improving integration outcomes.
Overall, national governments and civil society agreed that better implementation of the current Reception and Qualification Directives would have
greater effects on integration, without jeopardising the effectiveness of other
proposed reforms to the CEAS. Particularly as the Commission’s 2016 asylum
proposals were drafted more hastily than previous EU asylum and immigration proposals, these two proposals would need to be revised or seriously
amended by Council and Parliament in order to make integration the top
priority of this recast and avoid a de facto race-to-the-bottom where Member
States are further demanding integration but not effectively supporting BIPs,
Member States and the local, social and civil society actors that make integration a reality.
|