the impact of migration and the refugee crisis on social protection systems

1. the impact of migration and the refugee crisis on social protection systems Eurodiaconia

2. Our Experience • Churches and social organisations active at local/regional and national level • Engaged in reception and short term humanitarian assistance as well as mid to long term inclusion and integration activities • Working with document and undocumented migrants, refugees and asylum seekers • Able to share concrete feedback from Germany, Serbia, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Slovakia, Spain and France • This is not a new subject for us at EU level – already in 2013 we held a joint event with PICUM on Inclusion and Exclusion and in 2014 published a report on access to social and health services for migrants in Europe. Eurodiaconia

3. Experience • Not a new area of work for our members either but the scale and speed of arrivals has been the change with the result: • Unpreparedness – communities, ngos and local authorities, governments and public administration (and EU) • Lack of funds to provide the services needed immediately • No real planning and a lack of co-ordination • Public authorities abdicating responsibility to NGO’s – lack of accountability and partnership • Positive – where there were existing partnerships they have been used to set up new services • Once a commitment has been made to set up services and an economic commitment made by a public administration it has been respected (Italy) • Strong initial public support – but will it last? Eurodiaconia

4. Initial actions • Reception services • Food • Shelter • Assistance with registrations • Adaptation/counselling • Connecting to local communities What else is needed immediately? • Find ways for migrants to use their skills and abilities immediately to aid integration • Language courses Eurodiaconia

5. Initial concerns • Concerns • Fundamental rights and humanitarian standards being disregarded • Reduction of quality standards for social services • Misunderstanding of what is and is not allowed • Officious bureaucracy of public administration (toilets!!) • Lack of appropriate infrastructure to even start the reception process (internet, equipment, people (Greece). • No funding available upfront – retrospective funding puts huge constraints on local organisations • Need to upgrade some facilities for them to be usable for the influx of people who have come and are still to come • Long delays for any type of juridical/administrative decision (Germany) – affects access to social and health benefits/schools/housing/work • Accessibility of health care • No attempts really at psycho-social counselling • Dignity of peoples’ lives being used as a political weapon Eurodiaconia

6. Medium to long term actions • Addressing xenophobia and racism • Working as mediators between authorities and people • Providing advocacy, legal advice and representation • Literacy and language courses • Vocational training • Assisting with accessing the labour market (migrants bring net benefit in the long term and pay for pensions we could not afford (Italy)) • Provision of healthcare to those excluded due to status • Secure housing • Integrated packages of social services – example from Hungary • Accommodation, training as child care assistants, achievement of qualification, six month paid employment to get experience , language lessons, social network – funded by ESF Eurodiaconia

7. What is needed? • Financial resources • Speedier access to targeted support thanks to quicker processing of demands • Increase in social infrastructure (housing, education, community facilities, health care) • Training for staff/volunteers to work with new groups and to ensure they are well equipped in a highly pressured situation/avoid burn out • Maintenance of existing quality standards • Access to health care • Employment policies to ensure migrants/refugees and asylum seekers do not end up in low paying, low skilled jobs by default • Agreement and implementation of basic social standards in the European Union regardless of origin/legal status Eurodiaconia

8. What is needed (2) • Increase accountability of Member states as to their social assistance • Minimization of ‘competition’ between people requiring social assistance • Policies to support those whose applications for international protection are turned down • Political reflection as to whether or not Member States already experiencing pressure on their social protection systems can absorb increased pressure and still maintain/reach adequacy of income • Encourage social spending for all people in the AGS/CSRs 2016 and onwards Eurodiaconia

9. Funding issues • Lack of start up and retrospective funding • Some lack of clarity as to what is eligible and what is not • No long term funding (yet) - reception funding can be restricted (e.g. Italy, 6 months) • ESF funding is time bound – need sustainable programmes/longer periods • EU has to step in where national governments will not (e.g. Denmark) • The time it takes to access EU funds • The complexity of applying for AMIF or ESF funds • The need to have large scale projects rather than exploratory funds to co-ordinate, build capacity and provide immediate aid – we need ‘start up’ or ‘seed’ funding • Ongoing training for NGO’s to access EU funds • Timely information on what funds can be used (N.B. recent guide on ESF, FEAD and AIMF very helpful). Eurodiaconia

10. Proposals • Use of left over ESF funds from 2007 – 2013 – proposal from Germany • ‘start up’ fund for NGO’s etc. to be able to provide quality services immediately • Capacity building funds for the providers of services – short term and long term • Funds for the co-ordination of actions • Funds for the upgrading of buildings and facilities Eurodiaconia

11. What the EU can do • Gathering data (migrants participation in the labour market and/or other social inclusion programmes • Support the speeding up of targeted ESF/FEAD programmes • Targeted vocational training programmes and work on recognition of qualifications • Set up information hubs for Member States/NGO’s/migrants on what is available and what is possible re support • Straightforward information on funding possibilities and assistance to apply – it is in everyone’s interest. Eurodiaconia

12. What the eu can do • Encourage investment in social infrastructure (use of EFSI or other funds?) • Challenge MS on unhelpful rhetoric • Engage with civil society/faith communities to have partnerships in addressing the situation • Set up a ‘starter’ fund and providing funding up front to NGO’s • Ensure consistency in social standards and rights • Challenge MS who do not allow public spending on some groups/avoid criminalisation of NGO’s • Work on anti-discrimination/xenophobia and anti-racism Eurodiaconia

13. Long term implications • Positive • Diverse societies and potential reversal of demographic (aging) trends • Increased workforce to be net contributors to social protection and pension schemes • Potential workers in sectors that are traditionally lacking in staff • Negative • More pressure on universal and targeted social benefits • More pressure on housing and other social infrastructure • Risk of poverty already high, may well get higher and people become trapped in low paying jobs • Focus on one group at the expense of others? • Without reform and investment social infrastructure could struggle in some member states. Eurodiaconia