It's official: Malta bears the biggest burden of illegal immigration in the EU, in relation to its means.
The island tops the charts across the board in a new study that analyses the costs incurred by member states, relative to their capacity and financial resources, to deal with asylum applications and the hosting of illegal immigrants.
The 200-page report, commissioned by the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, recommends a substantial increase in funding or financial compensation for hard-hit countries.
In 2007, it cost Malta the equivalent of 0.26 per cent of its GDP to deal with the immigration problem, the highest spending across the EU on a proportional basis, the study found.
This was compounded by the fact that the island has the "lowest capacity" to deal with the problem, based on its economy, population size and population density.
"The total costs in 2007 varied significantly among the member states. They ranged between less than a thousandth of a per cent of a member state's GDP and 0.26 per cent of the GDP, with Malta spending a GDP share more than a thousand times larger than Portugal," the study says.
"The circumstances of the two countries (Malta and Portugal) differ significantly, with Malta facing over six times more asylum applications than Portugal while at the same time having a GDP 30 times smaller."
Malta is seen as bearing a pressure by far out of proportion to its capacity to deal with it.
In the rankings the island was followed by Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Poland. On the other hand, Luxembourg and the Baltic countries face low pressures, while Ireland and Denmark appear to be receiving a "fair" share of asylum seekers relative to their capacity.
The report points out that one of the major costs faced by Malta is the detention of asylum seekers until their application is processed. Amounting to an annual €7,000 per asylum seeker arriving on the island, this expense is only second to the UK's.
The study also analyses the various attempts made by the EU to alleviate the burden on countries such as Malta. It concludes that little or no impact has been made on the island, even by the recent pilot project launched by the European Commission that seeks to relocate asylum seekers in other member states willing to take them in.
"There have been some ad-hoc examples of responsibility-sharing, such as France offering to take a limited number of recognised refugees from Malta in 2009 and the Netherlands doing the same in 2006," the report points out.
"There are however strong arguments that these measures are more symbolic than anything else, as they have had a negligible impact on the costs and the overall pressures experiences by Malta."
The same criticism was aimed at the Frontex patrols off the Maltese sea borders, which have so far not proven their worth.
"In theory, Frontex operations can ease the burden of some member states like Malta, although there are also suggestions that Frontex operations in the Mediterranean could have the opposite effect, by actually increasing the pull factor of Malta or Italy as reception countries."
The report says that in order to make a significant impact, particularly on over-burdened member states such as Malta, funding or financial compensation need to increase notably.
"For example, an increase of nearly €1 billion would result in some changes, but countries under particular pressures such as Malta would still carry disproportionate costs."
The study also recommends that the burden sharing proposal, which has been strongly advocated by Malta and Italy, be looked into.
"The costs and benefits of various options for physical distribution of asylum seekers may need to be assessed," the study concludes.
The report's recommendations will now be discussed by MEPs.