Policy Recommendations

Photo: Jamie Wiseman

Below are the Policy Recommendations resulting from THE PROMISED LAND project.  These recommendations are also included in the project e-book, available at this link, which gives a fuller account of the project as a whole.

1.    Underlying structural causes

1.   The principle of solidarity

In our work across a range of EU countries (and Turkey), the project partners were made very aware of the conflicting attitudes and policies being adopted towards refugees and asylum seekers in various Member States and Accession Countries.  Article 80 of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty asserts a legally binding principle of solidarity whereby all possible measures should be taken by Member States in order to have an equal share of responsibilities concerning asylum. This law is being blatantly disregarded by all Member States.

We recommend:

• That European institutions including the Commission should exercise more pressure to end the breach of this condition and assert the harmonisation of asylum and refugee legislation across the EU.  This needs to include a common understanding and definition of which Third Countries should be regarded as “safe”. 

• That the Commission initiate a redistribution of funds to help some Member States cope with incoming people seeking international protection while upholding European standards.

• That the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission re-assess the efficacy of Dublin 3, recognising that the obligation of asylum seekers to register in the first safe country where they arrive places Southern European countries (Greece, Italy and more recently Spain) at a gross disadvantage in relation to the proposed equal dispersal of migrants through the Member States.  

b.  Rights of Refugees and Migrants

During the visits we undertook to a broad range of organisations dealing with Refugees and Migrants across Europe and in Turkey, we became aware of a wide range of legal frameworks within which these organisations and the communities they serve are compelled to operate.  In particular, we became aware of disparities over the right to work and / or to access education, and the impact of these disparities on both the migrants themselves and on host societies.  Many countries limit or entirely curtail the right to work and education for refugees or asylum seekers, or restrict the kind of access asylum seekers can have to the labour market. For instance, they may not be allowed to be self-employed, they may be restricted to shortage list occupations or certain sectors, or can only be employed subject to a labour market test or survey. This means that although asylum seekers have the right to work after 9 months in most EU member states, in practice the likelihood of them being able to exercise this right is much reduced. Some countries do not allow access to the labour market even after the set time-period, if the delay in the process is attributed to the asylum seekers; this is the case in the UK for instance.

The lack of labour market integration of refugees and asylum seekers may force them to seek employment in unregulated, dangerous, degrading and exploitative conditions, which in turn can expose them to other risks including that of sexual and gender based violence or human trafficking, and interfere with a wider range of human rights. This is not only costly for the individuals but also for their host societies who have to provide benefits and support. Instead, having the right to work and being integrated in the labour market as soon as possible is advantageous for host societies and refugees and asylum seekers.

It is important that refugees have the right to work and to be educated or trained.  Being in employment enhances their dignity and self-respect. Work and education can give hope, satisfaction and can re-establish their sense of self-worth. Employment and education also important in terms of integration, as the workplace offers important opportunities for positive socialising and exchanges with host populations.  With income and independence comes greater financial self-sufficiency.  The approach taken in Germany offers a positive example of best practice that should be adopted across Europe.

We therefore recommend:

• That the EU encourages Member States to grant access to their labour markets and education systems to asylum seekers at the earliest possible opportunity, so encouraging integration and self-worth, and avoiding social dependency. 

• That Member States reduce the barriers to the employment, self-employment and education of refugees and asylum seekers by encouraging faster asylum decisions, supporting the transition of asylum seekers from the asylum system to proactive and bespoke integration services, providing greater resources for integration, particularly in relation to language (including technical language) and supporting access to the labour market (covering cultural education and adjustment, the search for employment and work experience, CV and application writing, support for entrepreneurship, recognition of previous qualifications and relevant training). 

• That Member States support intercultural awareness training for Governmental and NGO staff dealing with migrants and refugees, with a particular stress on the specific cultural nuances that will allow them to offer a positive welcome and encourage participation in the host society.

• That all Member States put effective anti-discrimination legislation in place, ensure its enforcement and monitor its impact.  

c. The question of air transport

During the perceived crisis of 2015-16, much emphasis was placed on the role of people-smugglers who charged exorbitant fees to people fleeing conflict zones, placing them in unsafe and overcrowded boats, which led to many drownings and other tragedies.  There was little discussion as to why refugees should have needed to pay huge sums to such people for such an unsafe passage, when cheap air fares into Europe are readily available from countries like Turkey and Morocco.  

Our discussions with refugees and NGOs revealed that a key factor here is European Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001, which requires an airline that lets someone on a plane without proper entry documents for the destination EU country to pay the passenger’s repatriation costs if they’re turned away. The “financial penalties do not apply to cases where the non-EU national is seeking international protection”—in other words, if the person is a refugee or asylum seeker.  This means that the task of evaluating refugee and asylum claims, supposedly reserved only for governments or the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, is in practice transferred to  airlines’ gate agents. Understandably unprepared for the role, most airlines have simply opted to deny boarding to all passengers without proper entry documents.

“It is this directive that is the reason for so many refugees drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.” (Prof. Hans Rosling)

We recommend:

• That the EU work closely with the aviation industry to repeal this directive, and to find an humanitarian solution to the question of assessing refugee and asylum status.  

2.  The immediate situation

a.  The EU-Turkey deal

The partners in THE PROMISED LAND project were able to visit and observe a range of organisations engaged with refugees and asylum seekers in several EU countries, as well as Turkey. The numbers of Syrians currently in Turkey as a direct result of the 18 March 2016 EU-Turkey Summit Agreement - also known as EU-Turkey deal - is very high and growing. This Agreement established that for every Syrian retransferred to Turkey from Greece, one other Syrian would be resettled from Turkey to the EU, in what is referred to as the “one for one” approach. Additionally, the agreement requires that all irregular migrants and asylum seekers arriving to the Greek shores from Turkey be returned without any opportunity or guarantee of protection and assessment of status.

In Turkey, a geographic limitation on the ratification of the 1951 Geneva Convention only allows for Europeans to be considered as refugees, while the category of Temporary Protection Status is applied to Syrians today.

Our discussions with local actors suggest that the Agreement goes against international and European law in the following ways:

• First, breaching the internationally recognised duty of non-refoulement by sending back Syrians and other nationals without taking into consideration their individual claims to asylum and requests of protection, which constitutes a human rights violation.

• Second, Turkey’s Temporary Protection Status, coupled with the practical conditions for Syrians that result from the limited resources made available by the EU in the deal, make it unsuitable as a “safe third country”. 

• The final main legal issue is the EU prohibition of collective expulsion of foreigners as stated in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We therefore recommend:

• That EU institutions and Member States assess asylum applications on an individual basis, considering the individual voice and agency of Syrian refugees, immediately shifting from a “one for one” approach that discriminates on the basis of the country of origin and disregards individual needs and circumstances.

• That the EU should uphold its fundamental values and legal standards, which forbid the collective expulsion of foreigners and ensure access to rights, justice, and individual evaluation for all asylum seekers.

• That the asylum policy narrative should be reframed around humanitarian principles. That the success of the deal is currently being measured solely in terms of reduced numbers of asylum seekers arriving at European borders is incompatible with legal and moral obligations to ensure refugees are afforded international protection. This “success” hides deeper structural issues that leave Syrian refugees in harsh conditions, in Turkey and other countries like Lebanon and Jordan, struggling to meet their basic needs.  We note the inherent contradiction of our commending good practice in a range of European contexts while so many are excluded from Europe.  

We also note the existence of similar arrangements in relation to Libya and Sudan, including the special fund relating to displaced persons in Sudan, and the Memoranda of Understanding made by the EU and the Government of Italy with Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA).  These arrangements may be effective in terms of limiting the flow of migrants to Europe, but they do so by empowering the militias on which these unstable regimes are dependent; which have a record of involvement in human trafficking, and which have a vested interest in managing migrant flows so as to secure maximum funding from the EU.  We call upon the EU to recognise the moral untenability and political unsustainability of these policies.

b.  EU engagement with NGOs in Turkey

The partners were fortunate to observe the work of various NGOs operating in Turkey, which provide basic needs, education, training and cultural work to assist refugees in making the challenging adjustments required in their new living spaces, as well as providing essential intercultural dialogue work between new citizens and host populations.  

It was made clear to us that these NGOs are not currently operating on a sustainable basis, as they are dependent on competitive EU funding streams, which set such organisations in competition with one another, together with funding from an increasingly unstable and inhumane US administration.  While we were in Turkey, in January 2018, the US withheld $65 million in pledged funding to a U.N. agency that serves more than 5 million Palestinian refugees, suggesting the likelihood of further such cuts to humanitarian programmes in the Middle East.  

The lack of sustainable resourcing for NGOs working with refugees in Turkey is a huge barrier to their successful resettlement and to their human rights.  

We therefore recommend:

• That the EU commit to funding key NGOs in Turkey at a sustainable level for at least 10 years, adopting a forward-looking, long term view of refugee policy.

3.   The role of Culture

THE PROMISED LAND project was set up in response to the September 2016 VOICES OF CULTURE report on THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN PROMOTING INCLUSION IN THE CONTEXT OF MIGRATION.  A member of our Steering Committee also presented this report to the OMC group on the same theme.  The OMC group reported in March 2017.  Our project has used these reports to frame much of its work, and supports the recommendations contained therein.  

In particular, we wish to emphasise that Culture and the Arts should not be seen solely (or even mainly) as instrumental in enabling the adjustment of new citizens to a European environment.  More significant is the role of Culture in fostering interaction and dialogue with wider European society, and in shifting the dominant narrative so as to enable a more harmonised interaction between new citizens and host communities. 

In particular we recommend that the EU and Member States seek to support cultural work that:

• shifts the discourse surrounding refugees from a “burden” (or, even worse a “threat”) to an “asset”.  There is a clear need to deconstruct the myth according to which “for every one incoming person, there is one job less”. Evidence shows that, in the long-term, the integration of refugees can be an invaluable benefit for the host societies and economies, with clear trends of GDP growth, and enormous potential especially for some ageing European populations.  The xenophobic language of “hoards” and “swamping”, and the use of racist imagery has to be resisted within the Cultural sphere.

• resists narratives of victimhood and of individual heroism in relation to refugees.  The discourse needs to move away from neoliberal celebrations of resilient individuals and representations of suffering that allow audiences to feel positive about their own sympathetic stance, and towards work that identifies the structural issues that implicate host societies in the perceived crisis.  

• undermines the myth of a racially determined European identity, which is resurgent in many Member States at the present time.  In order to facilitate a more humanitarian agenda in the reception of refugees, in line with the founding principles of the EU and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, there needs to be a reframing of popular discourse to embrace diversity and difference as the essence of European values and identities.  

• places the agency of refugees themselves at the centre of artistic practice, enabling their voices to be heard in public discourse and offering them a clear route to the active citizenship that is always central to successful processes of re-settlement.  This emphasis also facilitates genuine dialogue between cultural actors from refugee and host society backgrounds, with the accompanying creative dynamic, offering a microcosm for wider processes of democratic participation.  When working on intercultural dialogue and inclusion, people with a migration or refugee background should be involved from the very start of any policy, action, plan or project in the cultural sector, as well as in reception and integration policies.  

• supports a trans-disciplinary, trans-sectoral and transnational approach. When working on intercultural dialogue and inclusion, the artistic and cultural sectors should work together with institutions, organisations and individuals from the social and educational sectors, as well as with experts from other fields of action or reflection (anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, museums and libraries).  This would guarantee the maximum efficacy and strength of actions implemented.

• strengthens and builds on existing networks. In order to be stronger and gain from work already undertaken by others, people and organisations from the cultural sector should refer to the many existing European and national networks and institutions who work efficiently in the field (Culture Action Europe, the Tandem Alumni Network and the Bosch Alumni Network supported by European Cultural Foundation and Bosch Stiftung, some branches of IETM, ICOM, the Goethe Institut in Germany and all over Europe etc.).  Support should be prioritised for projects that adopt a networked approach, so as to ensure the most effective use of resources.

4.  Monitoring and Evaluation

As stated in the VOICES OF CULTURE report: “Evaluation of projects dealing with the inclusion of migrants and refugees is particularly important because in this context, more than in other cases, what is a stake is the future that we are shaping together for our societies. Evaluation of projects dealing with refugees and migrants should not only focus on the impact, results, outputs and products, but especially on the process through which these projects are implemented.”

Our experiences in THE PROMISED LAND project serve to underline the importance of new approaches to the Monitoring and Evaluation of cultural projects around refugees and migrants, and around the promotion of intercultural dialogue more generally.  Funding bodies (particularly at European level) need to recognise the dynamic and fluid nature of cross-cultural work in arts and education, and to understand that rigid adherence to pre-determined project structures and detailed budgets submitted at the application stage is detrimental to the progressive and dynamic potential of such projects.  

We recommend:

• That EU and other funders seek to broaden and deepen the evaluation of cultural projects, moving beyond a narrow concentration on budgetary precision and quantitative results, to embrace qualitative assessment of societal impact, cultural development and the furtherance of humanitarian agendas.

• That EU and other funders work with actors from the cultural and educational sectors to develop more flexible and realistic evaluation tools that privilege a qualitative approach as outlined above.