Migrants brought to Malta from Italy and Greece under an EU agreement received misleading information about the relocation scheme, while Maltese agencies were not sufficiently prepared for the arrivals, a new report has concluded.
Research by Maltese NGOs Integra, Aditus and the Jesuit Refugee Service found that the experiences of migrants who participated in the scheme were marked by “feelings of betrayed expectations” due to the discrepancy between how relocation was presented and the realities they found in Malta.
“Without clarity as to information-delivery responsibilities in Greece and Italy, it can only be concluded that the system was characterised by a mixture of disorganisation, lack of coordination, deficiencies in information provision, and more particularly a lack of sensitivity towards the experiences of refugees and the journeys they were forced to make,” the NGOs said.
Between 2016 and 2017, Malta received 110 Eritrean, Syrian and Iraqi migrants from Italy and Greece under an EU relocation scheme, intended to address the disproportionate challenges faced by those two countries, and to bolster efforts at solidarity in the field of asylum.
The NGOs’ research was based on interviews with 16 of the migrants who participated in the programme, and was intended to understand how the participants perceived and made sense of their experience, in order to provide feedback for any future relocation.
Promo videos and half-truths
From the interviews, researchers said, it emerged that relocation had been presented as a more attractive alternative to remaining in Greece or Italy, and as “a way out of their extremely difficult present and future circumstances”.
A series of promotional videos was used to encourage participation, with the slogan: “Choose Relocation: safe and legal!”
Researchers questioned whether participants had been told the reality of living conditions in Maltese open centres, the fact that Malta did not grant family reunification rights to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, or that their asylum applications could be rejected on the same grounds for which they had been accepted for relocation.
In Malta, migrants said they were “shocked” by the low quality of conditions at the open centres, and “upset” by the institutional attitude adopted towards them.
“Far from welcoming them, it seems like Malta’s reception services engendered a further sense of isolation and abandonment,” researchers said.
“They lacked the immediate support – financial, information and basic material – that was needed for them to find their feet in their new environment.”
Maltese agencies, the researchers said, did not seem to be sufficiently informed of the particular needs of the new arrivals, and this despite the fact that (unlike with other migrant arrivals), the long period of waiting before relocation could have been used to make preparations.
“Preliminary care-plans should be in place prior to the refugees’ arrival, service providers should be informed of the make-up of different families and individuals, including specific needs particularly related to vulnerability in order to coordinate appropriate support structures,” the researchers said.