Martine Cassar, a lawyer and former head of the International Organisation on Migration office in Malta, has just been appointed Refugee Commissioner. In her first interview, she tells Philip Leone-Ganado her guiding principles in deciding which migrants qualify for protection – and what Europe needs to do to address the crisis.

A few weeks into the job, how do you see your role?

The role is very specific: to analyse and assess claims for protection and the award of protection. We analyse – objectively and justly – every claim on a case-by-case basis. Naturally there are laws and regulations which govern the different forms of protection, and we give the form we think is rightful in terms of the parameters defined in the law.

What you’ve described is quite a technical function. Do you also see yourself as the public face of the government’s refugee policy?

The claims are heavy: you’re dealing with someone’s future, with someone who went through a journey, often a treacherous one, to get here. So it is technical. We analyse in depth. Our decisions affect people’s futures and I take it very seriously in that respect.

Am I the government’s face? Up to a certain extent. I am the face of the office, but I wouldn’t be there if I didn’t have a supportive team behind me.

Is there a human element?

There’s a big human element. We are dealing with humans not categories. Each case is a human case which deserves a lot of time and attention to assess.

The migration situation in Malta has changed a lot in recent years. Could you give us a snapshot of how things look right now?

We’re seeing changes in policy and search-and-rescue zones which have affected the number of irregular boat arrivals. So my office doesn’t come across any boat arrivals from 2016, but we still have a number of people making claims for asylum.

It’s probably fair to say our policies were drawn up under a very different scenario. Are they still adequate?

I deal with protection. But we’re seeing 300,000 arrivals in Europe, and those are just the lucky few who have made it. People consider themselves lucky when they reach the Libyan shore.

The 3,500 individuals who died in the Mediterranean are nothing compared to the ones we don’t know about: how many people made the fatal journey through the sub-Saharan desert and dropped off the charts.

Europe does not have the mechanisms in place to deal with the influx. We need mechanisms that are durable, even in mass influxes, that treat individuals fairly, and where Member States have an equitable form of burden sharing.

The founding principles of Europe were cooperation and solidarity. Where is this now, in a time of crisis?

Each case is a human case which deserves a lot of time and attention to assess

With relocation, we’re talking for the first time about migrants being brought in to Malta, not being taken out. Is this something we should be putting ourselves forward for or is there a hard limit?

One does not exclude the other. We should be putting ourselves forward as part of the commitment that European States should undertake, and there should be a limit.

There is a mechanism to allocate fairly; the system wouldn’t work without such a mechanism. It wouldn’t be fair for Member States to be made to undertake a commitment without any say into how many people it should take into its own state.

Now that we’re not facing a crisis on a national level, has that given us breathing room to develop structures and policies that can last?

I think the issues locally are being addressed. We’ve seen the setting up of the Initial Reception Centres, developments in respect of Job Plus, a set-up for migrants to register for work, and detention has been addressed.

I’m not in a position to say whether these initiatives would not have taken place if the crisis had continued. They were on the table and they needed time to come through.

Earlier this year the UNHCR raised concern with “the interpretation of the legal grounds for detention, lack of clarity on the applicability of ‘alternatives to detention’” and other issues. What is your view?

I can’t say much because it doesn’t fall within my remit. I know detention policy has been reviewed and it is a step in the right direction.

We have seen protests this year by migrants who are not eligible for protection who are stuck in limbo in Malta. Can anything be done?

I can sympathise with someone who has left their home in search of a better life, but my office’s role ends with the denial or granting of protection.

The issue is not endemic to Malta; all EuropeanStates are dealing with it. It’s an issue of people who are economic migrants leaving and coming here to seek opportunities but who do not qualify for protection.

So does it come down to a more effective returns mechanism?

Yes. There are very clear grounds on whether a person qualifies for protection. If a person can’t be returned, there is the possibility to work, and it’s important that there is the possibility to work legally to prevent a black market developing. But the most important thing is an effective and immediate system of returns.

Beyond the right to work, can anything more be done?

Not from my office. Our mandate is very clear, and the inability to return back home – whether it’s coming from the individual or the home State – is not on its own grounds for protection.

What lacunae or challenges do you see within the current system?

Within my office what I hope to do is streamline procedures and decision-taking to act as efficiently as possible: to cut out delays, to have as much conformity as possible in cases.

At a European level, we have to have a better, well set up, burden-sharing mechanism to actually distribute migrants in a humane way, which would reflect solidarity and cooperation between states.

What is your take on the rise in xenophobic, anti-immigrant groups in Malta – at a time when we’re seeing the fewest arrivals?

It’s interesting to see it’s increased with the increased arrivals in Europe. The fear is there because they see that and think ‘it could be us’; the numbers are equivalent to our entire population.

You address fear with as much information as you can disseminate, but it depends on whether the person is willing to listen or if they’re so closed up that no information will get to them.

I’m slightly hopeful: nobody is born a racist. So when you go back down to it on a human level, I would hope people would understand. If you were in that situation of conflict and war, what would you do? You would also leave. You just have to take away all the levels of misconception and fear.

What would you like to see done at European level to actually address the flow?

There has to be more understanding among European States of the situation in countries of origin and a wider channel of communication.

The Valletta Summit initiatives and action plan are going to be revisited in the EU presidency. If we come up with something that actually works in practice, we’ll be addressing the situation of economic migrants.

Idealistically, I’d hope the crisis in Syria is solved tomorrow, but let’s talk about something that’s already under way: you have the action plan, the political statements, the setting up of a trust fund.

If States live up to that commitment, you would be addressing part of the migration flow, which would be something.

Do you think the distinction between refugees and economic migrants is a meaningful one going forward?

The difference comes out of the law. A refugee is clearly defined in the law. So fair or not, the distinction is there. I understand that somebody who left a country because of drought is also not in an easy situation, but if the parameters of the law are as they are, I cannot act beyond them.

If people are leaving for a better life, we need to address that in the country of origin. Why not have information sessions on what rights a person will actually be eligible for? Most of the time, people are misinformed in their countries of origin.

Economic migration is not going to go away, but we have to address root causes.

In an effort to limit it?

In an effort to find a solution; a sustainable, long-term solution for people to actually have a livelihood in their country.

The outcome of that would be limited migration, limited deaths at sea, limited abuse and slavery and rape across the route to Europe. But there has to be strong volition from the countries of destination and the countries of origin.