 |
European Reintegration Networking |
|
|
|
||
|
European Reintegration Networking |
|
|
|
||
Summary, December 2002.
Finnish League for Human Rights
Unioninkatu 45 B 41
00170 Helsinki
tel. +358 9 4155 2500
fax +358 9 4155 2520
info@ihmisoikeusliitto.fi
http://www.ihmisoikeusliitto.fi
Verfasser/in: Anniina Lavikainen, Perttu Salmenhaara
The population of Finland at the end of 2001 was approximately 5, 2 million, of which 99 000 were foreign citizens (1,8 percent of the population).
Immigration of foreigners is a fairly new phenomena in Finland. The amount of immigrants with foreign citizenship rose rapidly in the 1990s. The number of foreign citizens living in Finland was between 15 000 and 20 000 people from 1976 to 1990 (Tilastokeskus 2001, 2001), in 2001 there were 99 000 foreign citizens.
These are still the smallest percentages in comparison with any other EU member state. Immigration policy has been very strict in Finland, and even though it is to be loosened in the near future, there are no signs of a less strict refugee policy (sisäasiainministeriö 2001.)
Finland took the first refugees after the World War II, from Chile, between 1973 and 1977. Finland has had a governmental annual refugee quota from 1986, when the annual amount was 100 refugees. In the 1990´s, the quota was between 500 and 700. In addition, there was an extra quota for refugees from the area of the former Yugoslavia. The quota has been filled in practice only in 1996. (Valtioneuvoston… 2002, työministeriö 2002.)
Most new refugee statuses have been admitted in 1992-1993; some 6000 people asylum seekers received a residence permit during these two years. After 1993, the amount of new refugees has been between 1000 to 1500 annually. (Työministeriö 2002.) In addition, in the spring of 1999, some 1000 Albanians from Kosovo were received, on the grounds of “need for temporary protection”. Altogether, of the 23 100 asylum applications between 1990-2001, some 7900 received a positive decision.
The largest refugee groups in 2002 were Somalis (3600 persons), Iraqis (3100), and Iranians (2100). In Table 4, one can also see the length of residence for each nationality.
Asylum seekers stay in reception centres until their application is processed. Average time for the processing is around one year (Streng 2002). During the process, asylum seekers take part in preparatory training in the reception centres. Minors are also allowed to go to school.
Those who are in Finland based on a need for temporary protection, such as the Kosovo Albanians, take part in preparatory education that helps them to re-integrate in their home country. There also exists an accelerated processing (30 days) for applications that are “manifestly unfounded”. In this case, the deportation is executed within 8 days of the verdict.
Following a recent change in the Act on Integration (HE 25/2001), Finland seeks to ensure that all people with a refugee status may return to their home country at will, and receive economic support for their return. The subsidy is supplied by the municipality where the refugee lives. This remigration support is available for refugees who obtain a permanent residence permit, (status A) and those, whose residence is based on the need for temporary protection (status B) (työministeriö 2000).
Remigration support is given primarily to a refugee or asylum seeker, who returns to his or her country of origin. The conditions for the support include that remigration is free-willed, security of the return (based on UNHCR´s monthly evaluation of the situation in different countries), proper travelling documents, a specific home address in the country of return, and a clear judicial situation in Finland (no unfinished court cases).
Remigration support includes reasonable travel costs, moving costs, support for settlement in the target country, and an escort for a disabled (vajaakuntoinen) person. (ibid.)
A remigrant who receives return support, does not have to move back permanently, but can move back temporarily for a maximum time of two years. After this time, permanent residence permit is no longer valid.
According to statistics, the remigration of refugees and asylum seekers has been quite small in comparison with the overall amount of refugees in Finland. However, when writing this, we had no comparable information from other EU countries. Between 1983 and 2001, Finland received some 20 000 refugees, whereas at the same time, only 263 registered return migrations took place.
Affairs dealing with refugees and integration measures are the responsibility of the labour administration and municipalities, as stated in Act on Integration and Reception of Asylum Seekers (kotouttamislaki) In practice however, the areas of responsibility are to some extent unclear.
The key players in governmental organizations concerning the immigrant issues are the Ministry of Labour, the Regional Employment and Economic Development Centres, the National Board of Education, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Interior and the Directorate of Immigration.
There are 14 reception centres in different parts of Finland. The reception centres receive asylum seekers that arrive in Finland. It is their responsibility to provide all necessary facilities during the time the asylum seekers spend in reception centres. The time spent in reception centres depends on how long it takes the authorities to handle the asylum seeker’s application.
Finland has an Ombudsman for Ethnic Minorities (vähemmistövaltuutettu). A victim of discrimination can, for example, claim his/her case through the Ombudsman. His/her main tasks are to negotiate, advise, raise public discussions and produce surveys. The Ombudsman is independent but in organizational terms he is under the Ministry of Labour.
NGO´s that are active in refugee work in Finland, include for example The Refugee Advice Centre (Pakolaisneuvonta), The Finnish Refugee Council (Suomen Pakolaisapu), The Finnish Red Cross, The Centre for the Victims of Torture (Kidutettujen kuntoutuskeskus), The Crisis Prevention Centre for Foreigners (Ulkomaalaisten kriisikeskus), and Immigrant’s Support in Finland (Maahanmuutajien tuki ry). There are also many cultural and friendship associations
The Regional Office of IOM [International Organisation for Migration] in Helsinki supports the governments of the Baltic and Nordic States in meeting the operational challenges of migration management through:
assistance to migrants on their way to new homes and lives,
assisted voluntary return for irregular migrants, including counselling to individual asylum seekers and refugees,
training of officials and administrative capacity building for national institutions,
aid to migrants in distress,
research related to migration management and other services for migrants.
The activities of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) are the most important factor in the field of return programmes for refugees in Finland. IOM has had several voluntary return programmes for refugees, in cooperation with governmental bodies, reception centres, local police, and NGOs. The work of the IOM is project- oriented, but help individual returnees as well. In Finland, IOM has organized the following voluntary return programmes:
DRITA II (Comprehensive Support Programme for the Return and Reintegration of Kosovo Albanians in Finland, 2000) and DRITA III (Return and Occupational Reintegration of Kosovo Albanian Refugees from Finland, 2001)
RAFIN III (Information, Counselling, Return and Reinsertion Assistance for Asylum Seekers Currently Residing in Finland)
IOM-RQA (Return of Qualified Afghans Programme, 2002 - ongoing).
Assistance for the return and reintegration of unsuccessful asylum seekers from Finland (2000, on-going movement assistance only)
More information on the innovative projects of IOM Helsinki can be found from their website, http://www.iom.fi, and from http://www.reintegration.net/finnland/index.htm
In addition to these IOM programmes, there are both completed and ongoing voluntary return programmes financed by European refugee Find (ERF) through the Ministry of Labour.
The development cooperation department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a central role in the remigration and development cooperation projects arranged by Finnish organisations. The most central NGO actor during the last years has been International Organisation for Migration, and its Scandinavian & Baltic Office in Helsinki. In addition, IOM has, in cooperation with the authorities, executed the unavoidable deportations in a more humane way. However, deportation is still always a coersive measure.
The motives for remigration projects and development cooperation that affect the countries of return, are mostly determined by the Finnish development cooperation policy, which very much stresses the empowerment of local actors as an objective. Therefore many of the projects have focused on mapping the field of local actors, and on developing cooperation and networking between them, as well as supporting them in various ways. From the perspective of migrants, the question concerns:
building and maintaining a functioning and safe physical infrastructure (such as water, plumming, minesweeping)
supporting the conditions and networking of local social support organisations (existing local NGOs, new NGOs, cooperation between authorities and NGOs)
supporting educational infrastructure (professional skills of education staff)
the conditions for employment (support for new small enterprises).
The planning of projects which affect the countries of return, is often carried out in cooperation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, authorities in the country of return, and NGOs from Finland, as well as from the country of return. As a truly trans-national organisation, IOM has been able to use its existing international network of local offices, using them as central points for networking in the country of return. The Red Cross has also a similar kind of structure, and it is able to efficiently use its´ international network in carrying out its aid programmes.
The projects have often received funding from the Finnish development cooperation budget, and/or from European Union or European Refugee Fund. In many projects, mostly in Bosnia, Finland has been one of several participating foreign country.
The contact with enterprises in the projects have been self-made, meaning that in order to support the employment of remigrants, they have been given small grants for starting up businesses. A good example is the Zgijm handiwork store in Mitrovica, Bosnia. In one project, a Finnish company offered its expertise in water and sanitation education in Bosnia.
According to our interview in the IOM office in Helsinki, in the case of individual remigrants there is no follow-up system or practice whatsoever. For these reasons, we can not present much helpful information on the possible obstacles or failures which occurred in the remigration processes. However, in chapter five we introduce some positive preconditions for successful return migration.
The IOM Helsinki office gave us the following examples of good practices:
Employing the return migrant in the country of return. This is important in terms of re-integration.
Preparatory measures. The building of projects is made easier when the numbers and needs of returnees has been surveyed.
Cooperation between IOM-Helsinki and the local IOM office in the country or area of return. Finding an NGO partner in the country of return is important as well.
Creating networks around the return migrant, consisting of different kinds of organisations.
Temporary return migration, which seeks to advance the re-building process such as the Return of Qualified Afghans. In Africa, a new project is starting, which takes a step further: it engages the potential of highly educated refugees without physical return migration.
In the DRITA-project, several recommendations or good practices were found (based on Keskinen 1999). Firstly, refugees who are planning to re-migrate should receive proper information concerning the conditions in the country of return, from several different sources. Secondly, those who returned to Kosovo were very interested in the life and conditions of those who still were in Finland. Refugees form transnational communities, which makes it important to support the flow of information both ways, from the country of return to the refugee host country (Finland in this case), and vice versa. This supports the social, psychological, and even economical well-being and life management of both those in the country of return, and those in the host country.
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) published its’ latest report on Finland on the 23rd of July 2002. It mentioned two special concerns, of which the one that is relevant here, concerned the asylum application system. Report of ECRI (2002) speaks for itself (boldings and italics added):
[…] ECRI notes that serious concerns have been voiced as to whether the Aliens Act as amended is in compliance with the requirements of an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, concerns have been expressed that the safe country of origin concept has in practice led to "group decisions" being taken on asylum applications rather than individual decisions based on the specific circumstances and experiences of each asylum seeker. […] It has also been commented that four out of five asylum applications are now submitted to the accelerated procedure […] Generally, it has been commented that the new system represents a weakening of the rights and position of asylum seekers in Finland. […] As regards the amendments as such, ECRI stresses the need to ensure that the right of asylum seekers to lodge an appeal against a negative decision on their application before removal from the country, and to remain in the country pending the outcome of the appeal, should be respected in both legislation and practice. Furthermore, ECRI stresses […] the principle that each asylum application should be judged on an individual basis and not on the basis of assumptions about the situation of groups of persons in a given country. This is particularly pertinent in relation to the situation of Roma/Gypsies, given the well-documented cases of racism and violence suffered by members of the Roma/Gypsy community in a number of European countries.
In December 2002, the Nordic Head of the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) expressed his concern on the wide use of the concept of “safe country of origin”, and on the nature and scope of the use of accelerated asylum decisions in Finland (in Helsingin sanomat, 16 December 2002). His special concern was, that according to the Government’s Proposal in December 2002 for the New Aliens’ Act, these policies are to be made permanent.
Common European rules should be negotiated on proper conduct in these situations, and what rights asylum seekers have. The interests of the administration may, in this case, contrast with the interests of the individuals seeking asylum. From our perspective, the protection of law should be a priority, even when this may lead to other problems, such as possible cheating etc. In addition, these types of situations would be helpful in supporting the integration of the Roma in their home countries, which would also follow the policy of the government in Finland.
At present, the return migration of refugees and asylum seekers from Finland is often organised in cooperation with municipalities, reception centers, and IOM Helsinki. In the municipalities, the responsible officers are social workers, who are not specialized. The action is based mostly on limited projects and on a group level. The special measures developed and used in projects are not available for individual returnees.
This policy may be lacking because return migration from Finland has so far been very rare. However, if these things would clearly be stated and financed, it would be possible to construct a comprehensive, individual system, and via networking, a new, mores specialized division of labour. The latter would mean in practice, that the work now done by social workers in municipalities would be externalized to specialized bodies such as the International Organisation for Migration, and Crisis prevention Centre for Foreigners. In this situation, the individual background, education and other individual factors could be better taken into consideration.
Finally, the crucial question seems to be, does the responsibility of the host countries reach people whose asylum application is pending, and should their possible return migration be assisted. Moreover, the question is not only about responsibility, but also about more comprehensive administration of migration patterns. The bottom line is, that according to international human rights conventions, the protection of law should be equal for all people, even when this might lead to other problems.
We feel that the outcomes reached at the Re-integration meeting in Bonn are satisfactory, and that they constitute a good stepping stone for the future efforts and initiatives in the field of re-integration.
For sources, statistics and the complete Finnish country report, please see http://www.reintegration.net/finnland/index.htm.
| website sponsored by:
European Union, Church of Sweden Aid, Uppsala, Zentralstelle für Arbeitsvermittlung (ZAV), Frankfurt/M. |
| website administered by: AGEF gGmbH, Berlin, info@agef.de , www.reintegration.net, www.agef.net |