A lot has been said over the last week about boat arrivals and the threat of push-backs. UNHCR’s position does not need to be repeated – suffice to say that it was imperative that asylum seekers were not forcibly returned to Libya.

Fundamental human rights are neither expendable nor acceptable bargaining chips. Respect for their implementation is in any country’s national interest.

This week we have heard a chorus of support for asylum rights and a human-centred approach, voiced from a range of different perspectives in Maltese society. Among those who have made themselves heard we find not only NGOs, but politicians of all affiliations, journalists, lawyers, social workers, bloggers, academics, students, artists and not least the Church. This diversity bodes well for a broader and less polarised national asylum debate in the future.

However, there are still some perspectives missing from the debate, including as regards concrete solutions.

Firstly, any debate should be based on facts. In Malta the facts available often do not go beyond the number of boat arrivals and statistics from the asylum procedure. A well-informed discussion requires that more comprehensive information is collated:

How many people who arrived as asylum seekers still remain in Malta, and what is their situation?

What are the main gaps in the management of asylum and migration issues and what are the opportunities? What are the costs involved, including in managing detention? What funding support is available for Malta, and how can it best be spent?

How many of those granted protection are working and paying taxes? What is the overall impact on local communities and what is the capacity for ‘mainstream’ integration support in Malta?

Except for a recent integration study done by the Office of the Refugee Commissioner, little has been done to present a comprehensive picture. UNHCR is ready to support further analysis, but it is a task that should be led by the authorities. Media and politicians should also seek clear answers to the right questions.

Secondly, the views of commercial entities in Malta are conspicuously absent. According to UNHCR’s own research, most Maltese who interact with migrants do so in the workplace. What is the perspective of the construction sector? How does the hotel industry in Malta view the situation?

Fundamental human rights are neither expendable nor acceptable bargaining chips

What about the labour and employers’ unions? We do know that there is exploitation – too many people are working precariously without contracts. This is a serious problem that has to be addressed. But there are other aspects worth analysing – for example, what is the contribution of a flexible workforce to the Maltese economy? What is the effect on the labour market overall? After a decade of boat arrivals the relevant facts are still not on the table.

Another important perspective is missing: the refugees themselves have so far not had much of a presence in the public sphere. Work is being done by NGOs to provide people with training and organisational tools to address this. Hopefully these efforts will eventually also lead to increased public participation. Refugees’ views on how they see their future and how they may contribute and integrate in Maltese society, is of course highly relevant.

But in the coming days and weeks the key question will no doubt be: what are the next steps for Malta?

In the long term there is hope that Libya will be in a position to engage with regional asylum solutions, but given the manifold problems there, this is not an imminent option. The reality is that there is no quick fix to the unpredictable challenge Malta is faced with. The asylum issue is not one that can be solved in one action, no matter how determined. It is also not a question of either-or approaches.

Work continues by many in Malta to implement the asylum process and to provide related services, including the promotion of integration here and the facilitation of resettlement elsewhere. There is a need to continue building on what has already been achieved, while also identifying new strategies to achieve further results.

The UNHCR aims to contribute to solutions. So here is our suggestion for three steps to move forward:

There is a need to undertake a comprehensive, fact-based analysis of the national asylum system. Such a review should be led by the Government, but it should engage all stakeholders, including civil society and UNHCR.

On this basis, the Government could develop a multi-year plan for how Malta aims to manage the arrival and settlement of asylum seekers in this country, taking into account the revised EU Directives. Different scenarios should be foreseen, and specific potential problems identified.

With these tools, Malta will be better placed to define the required capacities – and hence also be in a stronger position to identify and request the specific support required.

Ultimately, it is not effective to simply talk about crisis when boats arrive. Calls for solidarity should be backed up by Malta’s own assessment and plans for the way ahead. Not only will this result in a better managed system but it will also help attract further support.

Jon Hoisaeter is UNHCR Representative to Malta.