Category Archives: Analysis

by | 16 Feb 2011 · 15:00

Observations About Tunisia and Europe from Prof J. Peter Burgess

Here are some thoughtful insights about the Tunisian revolution and Europe from Prof. J. Peter Burgess’ blog (Prof. Burgess is a philosopher, political scientist and cultural historian and is currently Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), where he leads the Security Programme):

“A completely unique conjuncture of events has brought a new wave of undocumented migration to Europe and with it a new wave of principled challenges to European responses to it.  There is widespread awareness in Europe and elsewhere of the tidal change set off by the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia. Now overshadowed by hyper-mediatized events in Egypt, the ousting of Tunisia’s longstanding president Zine el Abidine Ben Ali on January 14 was in some ways more decisive and dramatic than events in Egypt, though less networked. …  Yet while the mass manifestations of democratic aspirations in Egypt lead Euro-Americans to wipe a tear of self-affirmation, the democratic aspirations of Tunisians has quickly morphed into a security threat to Europe. Built on lofty principles, the European Union talks the talk, and is once again called upon to walk the walk of migrant and human rights. …”

Click here for the full post.

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Italy, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 16 Feb 2011 · 05:47

Une fuite en masse sans precedent (Le Temps, la Tunisie)

Une opinion de M. Naceur BOUABID, un journaliste tunisien (Le Temps):

“Emigration clandestine – Une fuite en masse sans precedent.  Quelques jours après l’avènement de la révolution héroïque du peuple tunisien, le phénomène de l’émigration clandestine refait surface et reprend le devant de la scène. De jour en jour, ce phénomène s’amplifie prenant des proportions réellement inquiétantes. Des centaines de jeunes, profitant de l’instabilité sécuritaire prévalant se ruent sur la ville de Zarzis, point de départ des premiers harragas, dans l’espoir de tenter leur chance….

Ces centaines de candidats à l’émigration clandestine, originaires de la région et d’ailleurs, en majorité à la fleur de l’âge, sont partout dans la ville, dans les cafés, dans la gare centrale, ou à la poste, qui trouve d’ailleurs des difficultés à satisfaire toutes les demandes de retrait d’argent transféré de l’étranger par un proche ou un parent  pour couvrir les frais d’acheminement jusqu’à l’île italienne de Lampedusa, fixés à 2000 dinars par ces marchands d’hommes sans scrupules que sont les passeurs….

Les images diffusées à répétition samedi dernier  par la télévision publique italienne (RAI 1) montrant  cette longue file de jeunes tunisiens la tête basse venant de débarquer à Lampedusa  et transportés vers des centres d’identification, ne sont pas pour nous égayer ni pour nous remplir de fierté….”

Cliquez ici pour l’article.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, Italy, Mediterranean, Tunisia

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 26 Jan 2011 · 06:55

EP Adopts Recommendation to Council on EU-Libya Framework Agreement

On 20 January 2011 the European Parliament adopted a slightly watered down recommendation to the Council regarding the negotiations on the EU-Libya Framework Agreement.  The adopted text is similar in most, but not all respects to the Draft Proposal prepared 23 November 2010 by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Rapporteur MEP Ana Gomes.  One substantive difference between the draft proposal and the final adopted text is a weakening of the language addressing the negotiation of the readmission agreement with Libya.  The final adopted text is also critical of the secrecy of the Council/Commission negotiations with Libya.

The Draft Proposal prepared by MEP Ana Gomes in Nov. 2010 called for an end to negotiations on the readmission agreement with Libya given the poor human rights conditions in Libya.  (Click here (pdf) or here for ECRE interview with MEP Gomes.)  The final text eliminated the call for an end to negotiations on readmission and replaced the language with a call for the respect of the rights of persons subjected to a future readmission agreement.

The Draft Proposal’s language stated:

“(d)  [the Council is urged] to cease pursuing a readmission agreement with Libya, as sending individuals back to a country with a record of continuous human rights violations and the use of the death penalty would be in breach of EU legal obligations;”

The final adopted text now states:

“(d)  [the Council and the Commission are reminded] of their obligations to ensure full compliance of the EU’s external policy with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly its Article 19, which prohibits collective expulsion and grants the principle of ‘non-refoulement’;

[***]

(f)  [the Council and the Commission are urged] to ensure that a readmission agreement with Libya could only be envisaged for irregular immigrants, excluding therefore those who declare themselves asylum-seekers, refugees or persons in need of protection, and reiterates that the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ applies to any persons who are at risk of the death penalty, inhumane treatment or torture;”

The final adopted text is critical of the secrecy surrounding the Commission’s negotiations with Libya:

“(a) [The Parliament] [n]otes the recent Council decision to finally allow a limited number of Members of Parliament to read the mandate given to the Commission to negotiate a Framework Agreement between the EU and Libya; regrets however the delay in this decision and calls for the EP to be granted access to the mandates of all international agreements under negotiation, in accordance with Article 218(10) TFEU, which states that Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure;”

The final text urges the Council and Commission to take steps to encourage Libya to ratify and implement various international agreements and to allow the UNHCR to work within the country.  For example, the Council and Commission are urged-

  • “to strongly recommend that Libya ratify and implement the Geneva Convention on Refugees of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol, including full cooperation with UNHCR so as to guarantee adequate protection and rights for migrants, and adopt asylum legislation that recognises refugees‘ status and rights accordingly, notably the prohibition of collective expulsion and the principle of ’non-refoulement‘;”
  • “to request that the Libyan authorities sign a Memorandum of Understanding granting UNHCR a legal presence in the country, with a mandate to exercise its full range of access and protection activities;”
  • “to encourage Libya to fully respect its pledges given when acceding to the UNHRC and thus urges Libya to issue standing invitations to those appointed under UN special procedures such as the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as the Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances and the Working Group on arbitrary detentions, as requested in the recent Universal Periodic Review on Libya; calls in the same spirit for unfettered access to the country for independent scrutiny of the overall human rights situation;”

Click here for final adopted text.

Click here for draft proposal.

Click here for link to EP’s Procedure File – Negotiations on EU-Libya Framework Agreement.

Click here (pdf) or here for ECRE interview with MEP Ana Gomes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Libya, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 26 Nov 2010 · 07:24

INEX Report and Interview with Frontex Director Laitinen

A final report prepared as part of the INEX Work Package 3 “Value Dilemmas of Security Professionals” has just been released.  The Report is entitled “Ethical Security in Europe? Empirical Findings on Value Shifts and Dilemmas across European Internal-External Security Policies.”  The report’s authors are Dr. Matteo Tondini and Dr. Isabelle Ioannides.  The report contains extensive empirical findings and policy recommendations that are based primarily on two case studies: “the recent interception of migrants in the Central Mediterranean Sea undertaken by the Italian authorities” and “the implementation of anti-terrorism/radicalisation measures in the Netherlands and the UK.”

The report contains a significant amount of information which will be of interest to anyone concerned with migrant interdiction practices in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere).  I will try to post a few summaries of some portions of the report in the coming days, but in the meantime I wanted to call attention to an interview that was conducted in May of this year by Dr. Tondini with Frontex Executive Director Ilkka Laitinen as part of the research project.  A transcript of the interview is included in the report. [INEX Laitinen Interview 12May2010]

In the interview Mr Laitinen said that contrary to the information contained in the Human Rights Watch Report of 21 September 2009, Frontex had no involvement in the 18/19 June 2009 incident where Italian and Libyan authorities jointly intercepted and returned a group of migrants to Libya.  He noted that the recent agreements between Libya and Italy had closed the central Mediterranean migration route and that it is therefore now “the right moment for the Agency to intervene, with the aim of consolidating the results achieved so far … The only way of doing this is to cooperate with neighbouring countries such as Libya.”  And while Mr Laitinen stated that the “respect of fundamental rights is a crucial part of the European border control service” he also stated that “the right of boat people to claim asylum or other forms of protection outside [Member States’] territorial waters is not yet acknowledged Europe-wide.”  In response to this latter point, Dr. Tondini pointed out that it is the position of the Italian government that if an asylum claim is made on board an Italian vessel, the asylum seeker is supposed to be transported to Italy for the purpose of making a formal claim.

(Thank you to Matteo Tondini for sharing the Report.)

Click here for the final Report.

Click on this link- INEX Laitinen Interview 12May2010 -for the transcript of the Interview.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, Data / Stats, European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, Reports

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 09 Nov 2010 · 07:02

UNHCR Issues Protection Policy Paper: Maritime Interception Operations and the Processing of International Protection Claims

The UNHCR has issued a Protection Policy Paper: “Maritime interception operations and the processing of international protection claims: legal standards and policy considerations with respect to extraterritorial processing.” (Nov. 2010).

The “paper outlines UNHCR’s views on extraterritorial processing of claims for international protection made by persons who are intercepted at sea.”  UNHCR’s position is that it is not possible to conduct a full and adequate RSD onboard a ship and therefore intercepted persons should in most circumstances be disembarked in the territory of the intercepting state to have their claims for protection considered in regular in-country RSD procedures.

The paper should be read in its entirety (17 pages).  Here are some excerpts (with most footnotes omitted):

“1. Governments in some regions have adopted, or are considering, measures to process certain claims for international protection outside of their territory.  This is particularly the case following maritime interception operations, 2  where asylum-seekers and migrants are prevented from reaching their destination while on the high seas or in the territorial waters of a third State. …

(Ftnt 2 There is no internationally accepted definition of interception, and its meaning is largely informed by State practice. A working definition is provided in Executive Committee Conclusion No. 97 (LIV) (2003) on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, available at http://www.unhcr.org/41b041534.html .)

4. If extraterritorial processing is part of a comprehensive or cooperative strategy to address mixed movements, the location of reception and processing arrangements is only one relevant element. With its 10-Point Plan on Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration, (‘10-Point Plan’), UNHCR has developed a tool that provides suggestions across a number of areas, … This paper should be read in conjunction with the 10-Point Plan, and related strategies for comprehensive State cooperation in this field.

[…]

9. The existence of jurisdiction triggers State responsibilities under international human rights and refugee law.  It is generally recognized that a State has jurisdiction, and consequently is bound by international human rights and refugee law, if it has effective de jure and/or de facto control over a territory or over persons….

(Ftnt 10 Some governments have argued that an intercepting State may not have jurisdiction under international law over persons located on parts of its territory that have been excised under domestic law (e.g. declared ‘international’ or ‘transit’ areas in airports, ports and border areas, or other parts of State territory including remote territories or islands), on high seas, or on the territory of a third State that is under the control of the intercepting State (e.g. because the intercepting State is responsible for a military base or reception centre). Such arguments are inconsistent with the notion of jurisdiction under international law. Domestic law is not determinative of the existence of jurisdiction as a matter of fact under international law: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679, entered into force 27 January 1980, Article 27 (providing that a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty); see also Article 3 of ILC, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts with Commentaries (2001).)

55. Processing onboard maritime vessels is generally not appropriate. In exceptional circumstances, that would need to be defined further, initial profiling or prescreening onboard the maritime vessel by the intercepting State may be one solution to ensure that persons with international protection needs are identified and protected against refoulement. Following profiling, those persons identified as having potential protection needs would need to be disembarked in the territory of the intercepting State to have their international protection claims considered in regular in-country RSD procedures….

56. In general the carrying out of full RSD procedures onboard maritime vessels will not be possible, as there can be no guarantee of reception arrangements and/or asylum procedures in line with international standards….”

(My thanks to Dr. Neil Falzon, former Head of UNHCR’s Malta Office, for bringing this to my attention over a week ago – and my apologies for being behind in email and updates. –nwf)

Click here for complete Paper.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Statements, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 12 Oct 2010 · 05:56

New Paper: M Tondini, “Fishers of Men? The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya”

A new legal paper by Dr Matteo Tondini entitled “Fishers of Men? The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya” is available.  This paper should be read by anyone with any interest in Italy’s current push-back practice with Libya.  Dr Tondini is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam – Faculty of Social Sciences – Department of Governance Studies.  The paper has been produced as part of the INEX Project, financed by the EC under the FP7 (http://www.inexproject.eu).

The paper refers to some unpublished material and interviews. Here is the abstract:

“This paper presents an extensive account and assesses the legality of the recent naval constabulary operations – undertaken by Italian and Libyan military vessels – in the central Mediterranean Sea, aimed at intercepting boat people in international waters and returning them to the Northern African coasts. If considered as a border control operation, the interception of migrants and their debarkation in a third country often lacks a valid legal basis. The latter is easier to be found under maritime law, by ‘labelling’ interceptions as rescue missions. Nevertheless, such operations must be conducted according to state obligations under human rights law and refugee law (especially the non-refoulement rule), which only allow Italian vessels to disembark boat people to a ‘safe third country’. The paper concludes that since Libya cannot be considered a ‘safe third country’ in this sense, the interception of migrants on the high seas and their forced return to Tripoli may entail violations of maritime, human rights, migration and refugee law at both an international, European and domestic level.”

Click here or here to access the paper.

(Thank you to Dr Tondini for bringing this paper to my attention.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | 29 Sep 2010 · 05:46

Frontex 2nd Quarter Report

The Frontex Risk Analysis Unit has released its Report for the Second Quarter of 2010 (April-June).  It is a 30+ page report containing data, charts, and graphs detailing entry routes, detections of migrants, detections of facilitators, and other information.

Excerpts from the Report’s Executive Summary:

Illegal migration pressure in the EU underwent a foreseeable seasonal increase during the second quarter of 2010, but is still clearly in a period of decline.…

The widespread decline in illegal migration pressure is probably due to two key factors. The first is decreased employment opportunities in the EU …  [and the] second is stricter migration and asylum policies in Member States, supported by much more effective collaboration with key third countries. For example, stricter migration and asylum policies in Norway and the UK have reduced the number of applications in these Member States…. Similarly, bilateral agreements between Italy and Libya, and between Spain and both Senegal and Mauritania, continue to control, for the time being at least, most illegal migration via the Central Mediterranean and West African routes, respectively.

Notwithstanding the general decline in detections, there were two emerging trends in the second quarter (Q2) of 2010: a continued and intensified shift from the Greek sea border to the Greek land border with Turkey….  In the beginning of 2009 illegal crossings of the EU external border between Greece and Turkey were divided roughly equally between the land and sea borders.  However, there has been a gradual and recently intensified shift to the land border. Reasons for this shift from sea to land borders are linked to the effectiveness of the Frontex activities in the Aegean Sea, combining surveillance activities with identification of illegal migrants, and opening the possibility of return to origin countries for detected migrants. ….

Main trends:

  • There is a general decline in illegal migration to the EU compared to a year ago;
  • For the time being, Turkey is the main transit country for illegal migration to the EU….;
  • In the Eastern Mediterranean route, there has been a gradual and recently intensified shift from the Greek-Turkish sea border to the land border, where 90% of detections were made….   At the Greek-Turkish land border around 60% of detections were made at the Border Control Unit (BCU) Orestiada which is under the biggest pressure. Air connections to Turkey are increasingly used by migrants from North Africa, who then illegally cross the EU external border with Turkey. As well as effective Frontex-coordinated joint operations at the sea border, potential explanations for this shift include cheaper facilitation costs, a lower risk crossing, lower detection rates…;
  • There were increased detections on the Central Mediterranean route, probably due to the recent re-organisation of criminal groups in response to effective bilateral agreements in the area. In June 2010 Libya expelled the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with whom 9,000 refugees and 4,000 asylum-seekers were registered and who, in the absence of protection, may now attempt entry to the EU.

Click here for the 2nd Quarter Report.

Click here for the 1st Quarter Report.

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, News, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 27 Sep 2010 · 05:37

Les pirogues de fortune – CARIM Note

A CARIM Analytic and Synthetic Note by Serigne Mansour TALL and Aly TANDIAN was issued in July entitled “Regards sur la migration irrégulière des Sénégalais : vouloir faire fortune en Europe avec des pirogues de fortune.”

Résumé – Ce papier met en exergue le voyage des sénégalais qui utilisent des pirogues de fortune dans l’espoir d’atteindre l’Europe via les îles canaries. L’auteur analyse les motivations sous-tendant ces itinéraires « irréguliers » ou « illégaux » et met en lumière les stratégies ainsi que les ressources que ces migrants utilisent pour partir.

[Abstract (the paper is only in French) – The paper focuses on the Senegalese who embark on “fortune seeking pirogues”, hoping to reach Europe via the Canary Islands. The author analyses the motivations of these ‘irregular’ or illegal migratory itineraries and sheds light on the strategies and resources that they employ in order to leave.]

Click  here (FR) or here (FR) for Note.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Eastern Atlantic, Reports, Senegal, Spain

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 23 Sep 2010 · 06:20

ECRE and AI Joint Briefing on Commission Proposal to Amend Frontex Regulation

On 21 September ECRE and Amnesty International released a 30+ page joint briefing on the 24 February 2010 European Commission “Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX),” COM(2010) 61 final.

The joint briefing presents detailed views on the proposal and makes numerous specific recommendations for possible amendments.  I have not had time to read the full briefing closely, but here are several excerpts from the Summary:

“1. Role and responsibilities of Frontex vis-à-vis Member States –  [***] Amnesty International and ECRE recommend that Frontex be subject to full accountability by the enhancement of democratic oversight of the Agency before the European Parliament, in addition to judicial oversight by the European Courts for legal protection against unlawful actions, and by effective implementation of the requirement to give access to prompt, objective and reliable information on its activities. In particular, accountability should be enhanced by providing for the following: 1) Relevant information, including risk analysis, should be transmitted to the European Parliament to enable adequate scrutiny of Frontex activities; 2) Independent observation should be enabled at the meetings of the Management Board; 3) Frontex programme of work should be subject to public consultation. [***]

2. The legal framework governing Frontex –  The proposal clarifies the legal framework of Frontex operations by stating explicitly that its activities are subject to the Schengen Borders Code and should be undertaken in accordance to relevant international and EU law, obligations related to international protection and fundamental rights. Sea border surveillance activities fall within the remit of the Schengen Borders Code, even if implemented in the high seas, and as such must be conducted without prejudice of the rights of refugees and other persons demanding international protection. The Council Decision setting out rules which apply to join sea operations further clarifies that all aspects of these operations, including interception and disembarkation, are subject to international obligations arising from refugee and human rights law.

While meant to deal with Member States’ disputes over responsibility, the Council Decision also includes non-binding guidelines, which must form part of the operational plan drawn up for each Frontex operation and state modalities for disembarkation of persons intercepted or rescued. Yet, these are not detailed enough to ensure that sea operations will meet the requisite standards.

Amnesty International and ECRE recommend that the new Frontex Regulation includes an explicit requirement that the rules for interception at sea operations be formalized in the operational plan. Moreover, they should be accompanied with detailed measures to ensure that disembarkation meets the requisite standards, in particular by specifying the place of disembarkation and as regards the provision of food, shelter and medical care, as well as access to asylum and protection from refoulement.

Although the extent of the extraterritorial application of the EU acquis remains to be determined, Member States intercepting individuals beyond their territorial waters cannot operate in a legal vacuum. In addition, when border surveillance activities take place in the territorial waters of a third country, Member States and Frontex appear to attribute responsibility for any possible human rights breaches to the third country concerned. Adequate measures must also be in place to ensure that those involved in joint operations are able to guarantee refugee and human rights protections in a practical way, both when they act within a territory or territorial waters, as well as extraterritorially Amnesty International and ECRE recommend that the proposal sets out the concrete measures by which States can effectively meet their obligations, when these are engaged both territorially and extraterritorially. These should include at a minimum the following: 1) Individuals have the possibility of explaining their circumstances during a personal interview; 2) Those who wish to apply for asylum are helped to access the asylum procedure, including through interpretation and independent legal advice. International cooperation should never be construed as releasing EU Member States from fundamental rights obligations in relation to those intercepted or diverted in the territorial sea of the third state in question. [***]”

Click here for the Joint Briefing.

Click here for the Proposed Amendment to the Regulation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Communiqués, European Union, Frontex, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 19 Sep 2010 · 05:12

RSQ Article: Refugees, Europe, Camps/State of Exception: “Into The Zone”, the EU and Extraterritorial Processing of Migrants, Refugees, and Asylum-seekers

The latest issue of Refugee Survey Quarterly has been released (2010; Vol. 29, No. 1).  An article by Dr. Carl Levy (Reader in European Politics, Department of Politics at Goldsmiths College, University of London) is of particular interest.

Here is the Abstract:  This article outlines the debate over extraterritorial processing in the European Union (EU) from the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) to the Treaty of Lisbon (2009). It will briefly outline the historical precedents, the evolution of policy within the EU, and the role of other models (Australian, American, etc.). This article emphasizes the contested understandings of how these zones might be manifested in practice. It uses evidence from the political history and policy-making of the EU to question Giorgio Agamben’s concept of the state of exception. In fact, the promotion of extraterritorial zones was not merely sold as necessary, if unfortunate, choices. Likewise, the more sinister interpretation of these zones as a regression from the Liberal State to the universe of camps failed accurately to capture what was happening in reality. Firstly, supranational extraterritorial processing was beyond the constitutional or political capacity of the EU. Secondly, at times, the unintended consequences might have led to a liberalization of so-called “Fortress Europe” and caused certain politicians to become disenchanted precisely because the proposed form of extraterritorial processing threatened to institute a rigorous form of burden sharing.

Click here for link to Journal.  (Subscription required.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Frontex

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 25 Jul 2010 · 04:25

DIIS Working Paper: Sovereignty at Sea: The Law and Politics of Saving Lives in the Mare Liberum

DIIS (Danish Institute for International Studies) has published a paper by Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tanja Aalberts, Sovereignty at Sea: The Law and Politics of Saving Lives in the Mare Liberum (DIIS Working Paper 2010:18).

The paper addresses “the complicated politics and law of ‘rescue at sea’, and the legal duty to render assistance to migrants in distress at sea that falls upon all sovereign states. Yet, exactly because this takes in international waters, the precise division and content of this sovereign responsibility remains contested and subject to varying interpretations. As a result, ‘the drowning migrant’ finds herself subject to an increasingly complex field of governance, in which participating states may successfully barter off and deconstruct responsibility by reference to traditional norms of sovereignty and international law. …  The … paper was presented at the first international workshop in this framework titled ‘Sovereignty, Territory and Emerging Geopolitics’ held at DIIS, 3-4 May 2010.”

Click here for the Paper.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Mediterranean

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | 25 Jul 2010 · 04:08

CARIM: Updated migration profile for Senegal

CARIM has published an updated migration profile for Senegal.  CARIM profiles are “[d]ivided into three parts – the demographic-economic, legal, and socio-political frameworks [and] portray key trends and dynamics as well as legal and policy developments crucial to acquiring a general picture of outward and inward migration in the country.”

Click here for the July 2010 profile.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, Data / Stats, Senegal

Tagged as , ,

by | 14 Jul 2010 · 05:16

Frontex 2010 1st Quarter Report: Irregular Migration at Sea Borders Less Than 10% of Peak Levels

Frontex has released information from its 2010 First Quarter report by the Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN).  A copy of the report itself has apparently not been released.  According to the summary provided, there have been significant reductions in irregular migration:

  • “[D]etections of irregular immigrants at [all EU] sea borders … were less than one-tenth of the peak level (for the third quarter of 2008) when roughly 33,600 detections were reported.”
  • “[D]etections at the Spanish and Italian sea borders became negligible…”
  • “[D]etections at the dominant Eastern Aegean Sea border between Greece and Turkey also fell by more than 60% to just under 2,300.”
  • “Detections at the Greek-Turkish land border were for the first time greater than those at the countries’ sea border.”
  • There were “only 150 detections of illegal border-crossing [in the Central Mediterranean], compared to 5,200 detections in the first quarter of 2009…”
  • There were “only 500 irregular immigrants detected [in the Western Mediterranean] (almost 72% down on the fourth quarter of 2009 …).”
  • There were “only five detections over the first three months of 2010 [on the West African/Canary Island route], in contrast to 31,700 detections in 2006…”

Click here for full statement.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Algeria, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, News, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 13 Jul 2010 · 02:49

UNODC Publication: Smuggling of Migrants into, through and from North Africa

UNODC has issued a new publication entitled “Smuggling of Migrants into, through and from North Africa: A thematic review and annotated bibliography of recent publications.”  Most of the reviewed literature and data are from 2008 and earlier dates and therefore the publication does not include references to more recent events, e.g. the Italy-Libya migration agreement.  But it is a comprehensive and useful publication.  The 16 page Annotated Bibliography is a very good resource.

According to the UNODC web site, the publication “focuses primarily on the patterns and dynamics of migrant smuggling, as it concerns the North African region. Recognizing, however, that irregular migration and smuggling flows are transnational in nature, the review goes beyond North Africa, to also cover sub- Saharan African and European countries affected along the various smuggling routes.  The aim of the review is twofold: to describe major findings on smuggling of migrants; into, through and from North Africa, and to highlight the need for further research on specific issues that have not yet been studied.”

Table of Contents:

  • I. Introduction
  • II. Quantifying irregular migration and smuggling of migrants
  • III. Migrant smuggling routes
  • IV. Profiles and characteristics of smuggled migrants
  • V. Smuggler-migrant relationships
  • VI. Organizational structures of migrant-smuggling networks
  • VII. Modus operandi of migrant smuggling
  • VIII. Smuggling fees
  • IX. The human and social costs of smuggling
  • X. Summary of findings
  • XI. Annotated bibliography

Click here for the publication.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Algeria, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Reports, Senegal, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, UNODC

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 24 Jun 2010 · 16:12

Updated CARIM Overview of Migration Developments in Libya

CARIM just issued a short paper, Libya: The Migration Scene – Which implications for migrants and refugees?: “In the light of UNHCR’s announcement of the 8th of June 2010 that it was requested to close its offices in Libya, CARIM provides an overview of migration developments in Libya from sociopolitical, legal and demographic-economic perspectives.”

Click here for the document.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Libya, Mediterranean, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , ,