Tag Archives: Border Control

by | 27 May 2015 · 06:09

European Migrant Death Database – Deaths at the Borders of Southern Europe

VU University Amsterdam has released a border death database documenting migrant deaths along the Southern European borders.

Here is a web post from DIIS (Danish Institute for International Studies) describing the project: “On 12 May 2015, researchers of VU University Amsterdam 2015-05-12_Border Deaths Org mapreleased a border death database, based on official death records of migrants who died at the Southern European borders in the years 1990-2013. They suggest that European states continue to collect such data supervised by a new European Migrant Death Observatory which is should be part of the Council of Europe.

The database contains individualized information on 3.188 people who died while attempting to reach southern EU countries from the Balkans, the Middle East, and North & West Africa, and whose bodies were found in or brought to Europe. It is unique because it includes – where known – date and place of death, cause of death, gender, age, country of origin, and whether or not the person was identified. Over the past year, 13 researchers visited 563 local civil registries in Spain, Italy, Greece, Malta and Gibraltar and collected information from death certificates. “This database underlines decades of indifference of European states. They had this information all the time, but failed to collect it”, says Professor Thomas Spijkerboer.

The database can be accessed through www.borderdeaths.org

It includes:
o Full database
o Visualization
o Documentary Counting. The Human Costs of Border Control (Pieter Boeles, 2014) about the research project
o Papers on (1) how was the data collected; (2) preliminary findings; (3) identification; (4) policy relevance”

See also: The short documentary Counting the Human Cost of Border Control, in which Thomas Spijkerboer and Tamara Last (Migration Law, VU University Amsterdam) search for traces of those who have died in the civil registries along the Mediterranean coast.

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis, Data / Stats, European Union, Maps

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | 05 May 2015 · 05:37

Highlights from Frontex Annual Risk Analysis 2015 – Detections of Illegal Border-Crossing Between Border Crossing Points

Frontex released its Annual Risk Analysis 2015 (also here) on 28 April. Over the next few days I will post some key points and excerpts from portions of the 70 page report which are most relevant to migration by sea. See Executive Summary and Statistical Annex. 2015-04-28_Frontex_Annual_Risk_Analysis_2015-COVER

This post contains excerpts and key points from the ARA, Section 3, Situational Picture in 2014 / Detections of illegal border-crossing between border crossing points:

• In 2014, detections of illegal border-crossing reached a new record, with more than 280 000 detections. This was twice as many as the previous record of 140 000 detections in 2011, the year of the Arab Spring;
• With a record level of migrants crossing the border illegally, resources are devoted to their immediate care, but not towards screening;
• Syrians and Eritreans did not apply for asylum in the Member States of entry but rather in other Member States;
• As in 2013 and in 2011, the Central Mediterranean route was the main area for illegal border-crossing into the EU, representing 60% of all detections in 2014;
• Around 3 400 people died or went missing at sea in 2014;
• Civilian vessels have been increasingly involved in the detection and rescue of migrants at sea. More than 600 merchant ships have been diverted from their routes to rescue persons at sea in 2014;
• An increasing number of cases have been reported of cargo vessels being used to smuggle migrants from Turkey directly to Italy. This new trend affects the Eastern Mediterranean route, as the departure area, and the Central Mediterranean area, as the arrival area;
• In 2014, 50 800 detections were reported in the Eastern Mediterranean area, representing 18% of the EU total. This was twice as many as in 2013, mostly due to a sharp increase in detections in the Aegean Sea (from 11 829 in 2013 to 43 377 in 2014);
• In 2014 there were 7 842 detections of illegal border-crossing in the Western Mediterranean region, which consists of several areas of the southern Spanish coast and the land borders of Ceuta and Melilla. This total shows an increase of 15% compared to the total of 6 838 reported in 2013.;
• Detections of illegal border-crossing on the Black Sea were extremely rare. However, since 2013, Bulgaria and Romania have reported an increasing number of detections, totalling 433 migrants in 2014.

Excerpts:

“3.3. Detections of illegal border-crossing between BCPs [along land and sea routes in 2014]

In 2014, detections of illegal border-crossing reached a new record, with more than 280 000 detections. This was twice as many as the previous record of 140 000 detections in 2011, the year of the Arab Spring. This unprecedented number of migrants crossing illegally the external border has roots in the fighting in Syria that have created the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. Indeed, most of the detections at the borders concern migrants from Syria, who later applied for asylum within the EU. [***]

With a record level of migrants crossing the border illegally, resources are devoted to their immediate care, but not towards screening and obtaining information on basic characteristics like their nationality. As migrants quickly continue their journey to other Member States, increasing the movements of persons staying illegally within the EU, this puts the EU internal security at risk. [***]

Indeed, Syrians alone (79 169) represented more than a quarter (28%) of the total as shown in Figure 3. [SEE BELOW.] They were also the top nationality for other indicators, in particular asylum applications, reflecting the dire situation in Syria and the desperate plight of Syrian asylum seekers. However, the vast majority of Syrians did not apply for asylum in the Member States of entry but rather in other Member States for many different reasons, notably because they expect to receive more attractive welfare benefits.

Regarding Eritreans, their detections in 2014 reached a record level (more than 34 500, compared to 11 300 in 2013). They were mostly arriving through Libya on the Central Mediterranean route. Like Syrians, they did not apply for asylum in the Member States of entry, but rather continued to other Member States. Many of the Eritreans stated that they had lived for some time in Libya but decided to leave because of the violence.

Detections of Afghans sharply increased from about 9 500 in 2013 to more than 22 000 in 2014. Afghans were detected on the Eastern Mediterranean route (mostly crossing the Eastern Aegean Sea), and then once again on the Western Balkan route. [***]

Central Mediterranean route

In 2014, more than 170 000 migrants arrived irregularly in the EU through the Central Mediterranean route (see Fig. 4).[SEE BELOW.] As in 2013 and in 2011, the Central Mediterranean route was the main area for illegal border-crossing into the EU, representing 60% of all detections in 2014. Detections were the largest between June and September at over 20 000 per month, but throughout the year, monthly detections were larger than in 2013. Most migrants were Syrians and Eritreans departing from the Libyan coast.

The vast majority were rescued by border-control authorities after issuing a distress call; however, despite best efforts there were many fatalities. Smugglers typically make use of frail, overcrowded boats, with limited fuel available to maximise their profits, putting migrants’ lives at considerable risk. The role of the Italian Navy and the JO Hermes/ Triton was crucial in rescuing an unprecedented number of migrants. Despite these efforts, around 3 400 people died or went missing at sea in 2014 and around 2 800 since the beginning of July according to UNHCR estimates.

Besides naval assets, civilian vessels have been increasingly involved in the detection and rescue of migrants at sea (see Fig. 5). [SEE BELOW.] According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), more than 600 merchant ships have been diverted from their routes to rescue persons at sea in 2014. These deviations are, in the words of the Secretary General, detrimental to shipping and are not offset by any realistic prospects of salvage awards.

In addition to migrants leaving from Libya, since September 2014, an increasing number of cases have been reported of cargo vessels being used to smuggle migrants from Turkey directly to Italy. This new trend affects the Eastern Mediterranean route, as the departure area, and the Central Mediterranean area, as the arrival area. This practice is further developed under the section related to the Eastern Mediterranean route.

As migrants were rescued in high-sea, they were reported as part of the Central Mediterranean route. Many were disembarked in Apulia and Calabria, to alleviate the burden on reception capacity in Sicily. From a statistical point of view, these disembarkations artificially inflated the number of migrants usually reported on the Apulia and Calabria route. In 2014, there were fewer migrants departing from Egypt and targeting this area of the Italian coast than in 2013. [***]

Eastern Mediterranean route

Since data collection began in early 2008, the Eastern Mediterranean has maintained its status as a hotspot of irregular migration (see Fig. 6). In 2014, 50 800 detections were reported from the area, representing 18% of the EU total. This was twice as many as in 2013, mostly due to a sharp increase in detections in the Aegean Sea (from 11 829 in 2013 to 43 377 in 2014). Detections remained comparatively much lower at the Bulgarian and Greek land borders with Turkey (12 262 in 2013 and 5 938 in 2014).

Sea border

Aegean Sea

Compared to the previous year, the sharp increase in the Aegean Sea in 2014 meant that migrants departed from more areas, and also arrived on a larger number of islands. While the islands reporting the largest number of arrivals remained Lesbos, Chios and Samos, detections were also reported from small islands from North to South, stretching capacity of surveillance. Many migrants claimed to be Syrian, and were thus handed an administrative notice allowing them to stay in Greece for up to six months, even without applying for asylum.

Screening processes of some migrants revealed a high degree of falsely claimed nationalities to avoid return. Not knowing the nationality of migrants who are illegally crossing the border and travelling within the EU is evidently a vulnerability for EU internal security. [***]

Increasing use of cargo ships

Since August 2014 the number of irregular migrants arriving in the Central Mediterranean from Turkey sharply increased compared to earlier in the year and to the same period in 2013. This sharp increase was directly related to the use of cargo ships to facilitate migrants and asylum seekers from Turkey to Italy (for example, see Fig. 7).

To date, Mersin has been the place where those wishing to travel to the EU in an irregular fashion have made contact with the smuggling networks. Wooden boats, however, have departed from various points along south-eastern Turkish coast such as Mersin, Adana and Hatay provinces to reach cargo vessels waiting off shore.

Smuggling migrants from Turkey on board large cargo vessels is extremely profitable, and such funds are likely to be an important source of income for smuggling networks also engaged in other criminal activities. This means that the criminal networks might be financing other criminal activities by exploiting and putting at risk vulnerable groups of displaced families from Syria.

Specifically, the cargo ships, which are often bought as scrap, tend to cost between EUR 150 000 and 400 000. There are often as many as 200–800 migrants on board, each paying EUR 4 500–6 000 for the trip, either in cash a few days before the departure or by Hawala payment after reaching the Italian coast. The cost is high because the modus operandi is viewed as being safe and has been demonstrated as being successful.

Hence, the gross income for a single journey can be as high as EUR 2.5 or even 4 million depending on the size of the vessel and the number of migrants on board. In some cases, the profit is likely to be between EUR 1.5 and 3 million once other overheads such as recruiters, safe houses, shuttle vessels, crew and fuel have been taken into account. Given this level of financial gain it is important to act against this modus operandi not only to stem the flow of irregular migration but also to limit the financial assets of the smuggling networks. [***]

Western Mediterranean route

In 2014 there were 7 842 detections of illegal border-crossing in the Western Mediterranean region, which consists of several areas of the southern Spanish coast and the land borders of Ceuta and Melilla. This total shows an increase of 15% compared to the total of 6 838 reported in 2013.

Like in 2013, the first half of 2014 showed most detections being reported at the land border, mostly from Melilla. Indeed, the Spanish authorities reported several violent attempts to cross the fence.

As mitigating measures, the fence has been upgraded. As a result, in the second half of the year, Spain reported more detections at the sea border than at the land border.

Once in Melilla, migrants are turned over to Spanish Police Headquarters for identification, and many are transferred to the Temporary Centre for Immigrants (CETI – Centro de Estancia Temporal de Inmigrantes). However, this centre only has a limited capacity and some migrants had to be transferred to mainland Spain.

In terms of nationality, most of the migrants are from Western Africa, in particular from Cameroon and Mali. Algerians and Moroccans have also been reported among the top ten nationalities, but mostly at the sea border.

Since November 2014, Spain also reported an increase in detections of illegal border-crossing of Syrians at the land border (more than 250 in November and December), then applying for asylum. This increase, combining with increasing detections of Syrians using forged document to enter to the EU, has prompted Spain to open asylum and international protection offices at the borders of Ceuta and Melilla in March 2015.

Black Sea route

Detections of illegal border-crossing on the Black Sea were extremely rare. However, since 2013, Bulgaria and Romania have reported an increasing number of detections, totalling 433 migrants in 2014.

These incidents still constitute isolated cases, and are possibly linked to the increased surveillance on the Eastern Mediterranean route and the increasing number of migrants waiting in Turkey to reach the EU illegally. [***]”

 

Figure 3

 

Figure 4

 

Figure 5

2 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Black Sea, Egypt, Frontex, Greece, Italy, Libya, Malta, Mediterranean, Reports, Spain, Statistics, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey

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

by | 19 Jul 2012 · 18:14

European Ombudsman Opens Public Consultation on Frontex and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; NGOs and Public Invited to Submit Comments

Text of 19 July 2012 press release from the European Ombudsman:  “The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has invited individuals, NGOs, and other organisations active in the area of fundamental rights protection to submit comments in his ongoing inquiry concerning the EU Borders Agency, Frontex. Frontex coordinates the operational cooperation between Member States in the field of border security. In March 2012, the Ombudsman asked Frontex a number of questions about the implementation of its fundamental rights obligations. Frontex replied in May 2012. Comments on Frontex’s response can be submitted to the Ombudsman until 30 September 2012.

Fundamental rights organisations and NGOs invited to submit comments

In 2009, the Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding on Frontex, which is based in Warsaw. Since then, a number of civil society organisations have questioned whether Frontex is doing enough to comply with the Charter, for example, in its deployment of EU border guards to Greece where migrant detainees were kept in detention centres under conditions which have been criticised by the European Court of Human Rights.

In October 2011, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a Regulation setting out additional specific fundamental rights obligations for Frontex. In March 2012, the Ombudsman asked Frontex a number of questions about how it is fulfilling these obligations, including the obligation to draw up a fundamental rights strategy, as well as codes of conduct applicable to its operations.

Frontex submitted its opinion in May 2012. It explained that, since 2010, it has developed a fundamental rights strategy, as well as a binding code of conduct for those participating in its activities. Frontex also listed other measures it is currently taking to ensure full respect for fundamental rights.

The Ombudsman considers that, before proceeding further, it would be useful to seek information and views from NGOs and other organisations active in the area of fundamental rights protection. He therefore invites interested parties to make observations on Frontex’s opinion. The Ombudsman has also invited the EU Fundamental Rights Agency to give its views.

All documents related to the inquiry, including Frontex’s opinion, are available at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/correspondence.faces/en/11757/html.bookmark ”

From the Ombudsman’s website:

What the Ombudsman is looking for

The present inquiry concerns the implementation by Frontex of its fundamental rights obligations. The Ombudsman would, therefore, be highly interested in receiving feedback from interested parties, such as NGOs and other organisations specialised in the areas covered by his inquiry, on Frontex’s answers to the questions he put to it.

The present inquiry is not intended to examine and solve individual cases involving Frontex’s fundamental rights obligations. Such cases can of course be submitted to the Ombudsman through individual complaints. A complaint form that can be used for this purpose is available on this website.

How to contribute

Comments should be sent to the Ombudsman by 30 September 2012.

Click here for press release.

Click here for all documents related to the inquiry.

Click here for Frontex’s 17 May 2012 response.

1 Comment

Filed under European Ombudsman, European Union, Frontex, News, Reports

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 10 May 2012 · 04:40

2012 Frontex Annual Risk Analysis

Frontex posted its 2012 Annual Risk Analysis (“ARA”) on its website on 20 April.   (The 2012 ARA is also available on this link: Frontex_Annual_Risk_Analysis_2012.)  The stated purpose of the ARA is “to plan the coordination of operational activities at the external borders of the EU in 2013. The ARA combines an assessment of threats and vulnerabilities at the EU external borders with an assessment of their impacts and consequences to enable the Agency to effectively balance and prioritise the allocation of resources against identified risks….”

Highlights include:

  • 86% of the detections of irregular migrants in 2011 on the EU’s external borders occurred in two areas, the Central Mediterranean (46%) and the Eastern Mediterranean, primarily on the land border between Greece and Turkey (40%);
  • The 64 000 detections in 2011 in the Central Mediterranean were obviously linked directly to the events in North Africa.  The flow of Tunisians was reduced by 75% in the second quarter of 2011 as a result of an accelerated repatriation agreement that was signed between Italy and Tunisia;
  • There is a very high likelihood of a renewed flow of irregular migrants at the southern maritime border.  Larger flows, if they develop, are more likely to develop on the Central Mediterranean route because of proximity to Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt;
  • Irregular migration in the Western Mediterranean towards Spain remains low, but has been steadily increasing and accounted for 6% of the EU’s detections in 2011;
  • Cooperation between Spain and Mauritania, Senegal, and Mali, including bilateral agreements and the presence of patrolling assets near the African coast, are the main reasons for the decrease in arrivals on the Western African route in recent years.  The situation remains critically dependent of the implementation of effective return agreements between Spain and western African countries.  Should these agreements be jeopardised, irregular migration is likely to resume quickly;
  • The land border between Greece and Turkey is now an established illegal-entry point for irregular migrants and facilitation networks;
  • According to intelligence from JO Hermes, women embarking from North Africa to the EU are in particular danger of being intimidated by their smugglers and forced into prostitution;
  • Austerity measures being implemented by Member States are likely to adversely affect operational environments of border control by reducing resources and by exacerbating corruption;
  • There is an intelligence gap on terrorist groups active in the EU and their connections with irregular-migration networks.  The absence of strategic knowledge may constitute a vulnerability for internal security.

Selected excerpts from the ARA:

“Executive Summary

[***] Looking ahead, the border between Greece and Turkey is very likely to remain one of the areas with the highest number of detections of illegal border-crossing along the external border. More and more migrants are expected to take advantage of Turkish visa policies and the expansion of Turkish Airlines, carrying more passengers to more destinations, to transit through Turkish air borders and subsequently attempt to enter the EU illegally. [Turkey reported an increase in 2011 of 26% in air passenger flow. See p. 12 of ARA.]

At the southern maritime borders large flows are most likely to develop on the Central Mediterranean route due to its proximity to Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, where political instability and the high unemployment rates are pushing people abroad and where there is evidence of facilitation networks also offering facilitation services to transiting migrants. [***]

There is an increasing risk of political and humanitarian crises arising in third countries which may result in the displacement of large numbers of people in search of international protection towards the land and sea borders of the EU. [***]

Various austerity measures introduced throughout Member States may result in increasing disparities between Member States in their capacity to perform border controls and hence enable facilitators to select those border types and sections that are perceived as weaker in detecting specific modi operandi. Budget cuts could also exacerbate the problem of corruption, thus increasing the vulnerability to illegal activities across the external borders. [***]

3. Situation at the external borders

[***] 3.2 Irregular migration

[***] Consistent with recent trends, the majority of detections [in 2011] were made in two hotspots of irregular migration, namely the Central Mediterranean area and the Eastern Mediterranean area accounting for 46% and 40% of the EU total, respectively, with additional effects detectable across Member States.  [***]

Central Mediterranean route

[***] Initially, detections in the Central Mediterranean massively increased in early 2011, due to civil unrest erupting in the region, particularly in Tunisia, Libya and, to a lesser extent, Egypt. As a result, between January and March some 20 000 Tunisian migrants arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa. In the second quarter of 2011 the flow of Tunisian migrants was reduced by 75% following an accelerated repatriation agreement that was signed between Italy and Tunisia. … Since October 2011, the situation has eased somewhat due to democratic elections in Tunisia and the National Transitional Council successfully gaining control of Libya. However, the situation remains of concern, with sporadic arrivals from Tunisia now adding to arrivals from Egypt. There are also some concerns that the flow from Libya may resume. [***]

Eastern Mediterranean route

[***]Undeniably, the land border between Greece and Turkey is now an established illegal-entry point for irregular migrants and facilitation networks. [***]

Western Mediterranean route (sea, Ceuta and Melilla)

Irregular migration across the Western Mediterranean towards southern Spain was at a low level   through most of 2010. However, pressure has been steadily increasing throughout 2011 to reach almost 8 500 detections, or 6% of the EU total. A wide range of migrants from North African and sub-Saharan countries were increasingly detected in this region. It is difficult to analyse the exact composition of the flow, as the number of migrants of unknown nationality on this route doubled compared to the previous quarter. This may indicate an increasing proportion of nationalities that are of very similar ethnicity and/or geographic origin.

The most common and increasingly detected were migrants of unknown nationality, followed by migrants local to the region, coming from Algeria and Morocco. There were also significant increases in migrants departing from further afield, namely countries such as Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Nigeria and Congo.

In 2011, two boats were intercepted in the waters of the Balearic Islands with Algerians on board, having departed from the village of Dellys (Algeria) near Algiers. However, most migrants prefer to target the southern coast of the Iberian Peninsula.

Western African route

The cooperation between Spain and key western African countries (Mauritania, Senegal and Mali), including bilateral agreements, is developing. They are one of the main reasons for the decrease in arrivals on the Western African route over the last years, as is the presence of patrolling assets near the African coast. Despite a slight increase at the end of 2010, detections on this route remained low in 2011, almost exclusively involving Moroccan migrants.[***]

3.3.4 Trafficking in human beings

[***] According to information received from Member States, the top nationalities detected as victims of human trafficking in the EU still include Brazilians, Chinese, Nigerians, Ukrainians and Vietnamese. In addition, victims from other third countries like Albania, Ghana, Morocco, Moldova, Egypt, Indian, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic have also been reported, illustrating the broad geographical distribution of the places of origin of victims. Most THB cases are related to illegal work and sexual exploitation in Europe.

In some cases, the distinction between the smuggling of migrants and THB is not easily established because some of the migrants are initially using the services of smugglers, but it is only later, once in the EU, that they may fall victim to THB. According to intelligence from JO Hermes, this is particularly the case for women embarking for illegal border-crossing from North Africa to the EU. Once in Europe, some of them are intimated by their smugglers and forced into prostitution.

A worrying trend reported during JO Indalo is the increasing number of detections of illegal border-crossing by minors and pregnant women (see Fig. 15), as criminal groups are taking advantage of an immigration law preventing their return. Although it is not clear whether these cases are related to THB, women and children are among the most vulnerable. Most of these women claimed to be from Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire and Cameroon and were between the fifth and ninth month of pregnancy. Minors were identified as being from Nigeria, Algeria and Congo.

Another modus operandi is for the criminal groups to convince their victim to apply for international protection. Such modus operandi was illustrated by the verdict of a Dutch court case in July 2011, when one suspect was convicted for trafficking of Nigerian female minors. The asylum procedure in the Netherlands was misused by the criminal organisation to get an accommodation for the victims. The victims were forced to sexual exploitation in several Member States. [***]

5. Conclusions

[***] 1. Risk of large and sustained numbers of illegal border-crossing at the external land and sea border with Turkey

The border between Greece and Turkey is very likely to remain in 2013 among the main areas of detections of illegal border crossing along the external border, at levels similar to those reported between 2008 and 2011, i.e. between 40 000 and 57 000 detections per annum. [***]

Depending on the political situation, migrants from the Middle East may increasingly join the flow. In addition, migrants from northern and western Africa, willing to illegally cross the EU external borders, are expected to increasingly take advantage of the Turkish visa policies, granting visas to a different set of nationalities than the EU, and the expansion of Turkish Airlines, to transit through the Turkish air borders to subsequently attempt to enter the EU illegally, either by air or through the neighbouring land or sea borders. As a result, border-control authorities will increasingly be confronted with a wider variety of nationalities, and probably also a greater diversity of facilitation networks, further  complicating the tasks of law-enforcement authorities.

This risk is interlinked with the risk of criminal groups facilitating secondary movements and the risk of border-control authorities faced with large flows of people in search of international protection. [***]

3. Risk of renewed large numbers of illegal border-crossing at the southern maritime border

The likelihood of large numbers of illegal border-crossing in the southern maritime border remains very high, either in the form of sporadic episodes similar to those reported in 2011 or in sustained flows on specific routes originating from Africa.

Irregular-migration flows at the southern maritime borders are expected to be concentrated within one of the three known routes, i.e. the Central Mediterranean route, the Western Mediterranean route or the Western African route. Larger flows are more likely to develop on the Central Mediterranean route than on the other two routes, because of its proximity to Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, where political instability and high unemployment rate among young people is pushing people away from their countries and where there is evidence for well-organised facilitation networks.

On the Western Mediterranean route, the situation remains of concern because of the increasing trend of illegal border-crossing reported throughout 2011. According to reported detections, the situation on the Western African route has been mostly under control since 2008 but remains critically dependant of the implementation of effective return agreements between Spain and western African countries. Should these agreements be jeopardised, irregular migration pushed by high unemployment and poverty is likely to resume quickly despite increased surveillance.

The composition of the flow is dependent on the route and the countries of departure, but includes a large majority of western and North Africans. Mostly economically driven, irregular migration on these routes is also increasingly dependent on the humanitarian crisis in western and northern African countries. Facilitators are increasingly recruiting their candidates for illegal border-crossing from the group that are most vulnerable to THB, i.e. women and children, causing increasing challenges for border control authorities.

4. Risk of border-control authorities faced with large numbers of people in search of international protection

Given the currently volatile and unstable security situation in the vicinity of the EU, there is an increasing risk of political and humanitarian crises in third countries resulting in large numbers of people in search of international protection being displaced to the land and sea borders of the EU. The most likely pressures are linked to the situation in North Africa and the Middle East. In addition, the situation in western African countries like Nigeria may also trigger flows of people in search of international protection at the external borders. [***]

6. Risk of less effective border control due to changing operational environment

At the horizon of 2013, the operational environments of border control are likely to be affected, on the one hand, by austerity measures reducing resources, and on the other hand, by increased passenger flows triggering more reliance on technological equipment.

Austerity measures have been introduced throughout Member States in various forms since 2009. The most obvious examples are found in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the Baltic countries. These measures could result in increasing disparities between Member States in their capacity to perform border controls and hence enabling facilitators to select border types and sections that are perceived as weaker in detecting specific modi operandi.

Budget cuts could also exacerbate the problem of corruption, increasing the vulnerability to illegal activities across the external borders.

Austerity measures will inevitably impact on the efficacy of border-control authorities in detecting and preventing a wide array of illegal activities at the borders, ranging from illegal border-crossing through smuggling of excise goods to THB. [***]

8. Risk of border-control authorities increasingly confronted with cross-border crimes and travellers with the intent to commit crime or terrorism within the EU

[***]There is an intelligence gap on terrorist groups that are active in the EU and their connections with irregular-migration networks. The absence of strategic knowledge on this issue at the EU level may constitute a vulnerability for internal security. Knowledge gained at the external borders can be shared with other law enforcement authorities to contribute narrowing this gap.”

Click here or on this link: Frontex_Annual_Risk_Analysis_2012, for 2012 Frontex ARA.

Click here for Frontex press statement on the 2012 ARA.

Click here for my post on the 2011 ARA.

4 Comments

Filed under Aegean Sea, Analysis, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Mediterranean, News, Reports

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

by | 06 Oct 2011 · 15:39

DIIS Policy Brief: Europe Fighting Irregular Migration – Consequences of European non-entry policies for West African Mobility

A new Policy Brief from DIIS by Nauja Kleist, “Europe Fighting Irregular Migration – Consequences of European non-entry policies for West African Mobility.”

Abstract: “In collaboration with African countries, the EU is fighting irregular migration to Europe through border control and deportations. However, rather than halting irregular migration, such policies reconfigure mobility flows and make migration routes more dangerous and difficult. The phenomenon of migrants and asylum-seekers crossing the Mediterranean in boats to reach Europe is just one example of this phenomenon.

In this DIIS Policy Brief, Nauja Kleist explores the consequences of EU migration policies and the fight against irregular migration, focusing on West African migration. The overall policy tendency is a differentiation of African migration flows, making mobility easier for educated and privileged groups and more difficult and dangerous for the large majority of migrants. Likewise there is a tendency to conflate migration within Africa – by far the largest and most important aspect of West African migration – with migration towards Europe.

Examining some of the main routes and migration systems between West and North Africa, the brief recommends to ensure evidence-based and context-sensitive migration polices, to carefully consider the human and politics costs of externalizing border control, and to ensure further access to legal and safe migration.”

Click here for full document.

1 Comment

Filed under Analysis, Eastern Atlantic, ECOWAS, European Union, Frontex, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Reports, Senegal, Spain

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

by | 07 Mar 2011 · 06:37

Interactive Map: Deaths at Europe’s Borders

From OWNI.eu:  an interactive map showing the 14,000 persons who have died trying to reach Europe since 1988.  “[A]n interactive map as an electronic memorial for these tragedies.”

Click here for link.  The map copied below is not the new Interactive Map.  Click on link for the Interactive Map

Mourir aux portes de l’Europe (carte d’Olivier Clochard)

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Data / Stats, Eastern Atlantic, English Channel / La Manche, European Union, Frontex, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | 02 Feb 2011 · 17:09

Greece requests 2d extension of Frontex RABIT deployment due to events in Egypt

Kathimerini reported on 1 February that Greece requested an additional extension of the Frontex RABIT deployment in Greece due to the situation in Egypt and a fear that there may be a surge in migration towards Greece.  The current RABIT deployment is scheduled to end on 3 March.  The deployment was originally scheduled to end in November 2010 and was extended until March 2011.  The Kathimerini article said that Frontex’s initial informal response to the requested extension was positive.

Click here (EL) and here (EN) for articles.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Egypt, European Union, Frontex, Greece, Mediterranean, News, Turkey

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | 22 Nov 2010 · 05:48

Frontex Map: Current Situation at the External Borders (JANUARY – SEPT 2010)

Frontex has released an updated Third Quarter map, January-September 2010, showing data regarding the situation at the external borders.   Note the information on the map pre-dates the deployment of the Frontex RABIT forces to the Greek border in October/November.  The data shows a 369% increase in detected irregular crossings along the Greek-Turkey land border over the first three quarters of 2010 compared to 2009.

The significant reduction in migrants detected at maritime borders continues:

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   11.163 (estimated preliminary data)
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   39.084
  • 71% reduction

Data by route:

Central Mediterranean route

  • Italy:
    • Jan-Sept 2010:     2.866
    • Jan-Sept 2009:    8.289
    • 65% reduction
  • Malta:
    • Jan-Sept 2010:    29
    • Jan-Sept 2009:    1.289
    • 98% reduction

Western Mediterranean route

Spain (land border):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   1.089
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   1.369
  • 20% reduction

Spain (sea border excluding Canary Islands):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   2.592
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   3.540
  • 27% reduction

West African route – Canary Islands (Spain):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   16
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   2.212
  • 99% reduction

Eastern Mediterranean route

Greece (TUR land border):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   31.021 (estimated preliminary data)
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   6.616
  • 369% increase

Greece (sea borders):

  • Jan-Sept 2010:   5.606 (estimated preliminary data)
  • Jan-Sept 2009:   23.735
  • 76% decrease

Click here to view Jan-Sept 2010 Map.

Click here for link to Jan-June 2010 Map.

Click here for link to 2009 Map.

1 Comment

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

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

by | 22 Nov 2010 · 02:54

Israel Begins Construction of Border Fence to Block African Migrants

Israel today begins the construction of a 250 km border fence along portions of its border with Egypt.  The barrier is primarily designed to prevent the entry into Israel of African migrants and asylum seekers.  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying that “Peace does not include the flood of illegal infiltrators, who come from Africa through Sinai … This is a blow which our neighbours in Egypt are also suffering from.”

The Israeli Interior Ministry reported that on average on a weekly basis 1,100 irregular migrants enter Israel along its southern border with Egypt.  The Ministry reported that over 10,000 such migrants have entered Israel in this manner so far in 2010 compared with 4,431 for all of 2009.

The construction project will take at least one year to complete and will include sensors and other devices designed to detect persons along the border.

One effect of such a fence will be the diversion of migrants and asylum seekers who will either attempt to cross at unfenced portions of the border or pursue new destinations, with or without the assistance of human traffickers.

Click here, here, and here for articles.

Click here for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel “Refugee and Asylum-Seeker” Fact Sheet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data / Stats, Egypt, Israel, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 21 Nov 2010 · 05:18

Migreurop Report: European borders- Controls, detention and deportations

Migreurop has released its second report on Europe’s borders: “European borders- Controls, detention and deportations.”  Migreurop describes the report as a “[denunciation of] the « externalization » process of the European union migratory policy [which] shows how third countries are obliged, through the threat of the reconsideration of cooperation agreements and development aid, not only to readmit the migrants chased from Europe, but also to keep them on their own territory from travelling towards its doors.   From Calais area in France to the edge of Turkey and the Adriatic sea, from the surroundings of Gibraltar to the Sahel Saharan desert and the new member states of eastern Europe, a subcontracting of migratory control is carried out in series, sometimes very far away from the Union but also within its territory, especially when it deals with sending asylum seekers from country to country considered as unwanted. A large population of exiles, from both sides of the European borders, is subjected to arbitrary incarceration, wandering, and the constant humiliation of a hostile environment….”

Here is the Table of Contents:

Introduction

  • What have migrants become 3

Ceuta, a gilded prison

  • A murderous border 7
  • A legal limbo 8
  • The situation of migrants in detention 8
  • The situation of migrants in the CETI (open centre) 9
  • Deportations and expulsions 12
  • Surviving without resources 14

Sahel-Saharan countries, Europe’s new sentries

  • I – European interference in inter-African migrations – the case of Mauritania 18
    • The “crisis of the cayucos” 18
    • 1. Cooperation instigated by Europe 18
    • 2. Mauritania tramples on its own principles and conforms 21
    • 3. Subcontracting repression and endangering foreigners 22
  • II – Bargaining between Libya and Europe: migrants as an exchange currency –the case of Niger 33
    • 1. A reciprocal exploitation 34
    • 2. An increasingly repressive control of borders 37
    • 3. Arrests and detention in Libyan territory 39
    • 4. A deadly expulsion policy 42
  • Conclusion: the real face of Kadhafi’s pan-Africanism 44

Poland, Romania: how to be good state members in the enlarged EU

  • I – At the new frontiers: the screening of migration 47
    • 1. Reducing the transit and deserving Schengen 48
    • 2. The border police, Frontex and cooperation with other European states 48
  • II – Reception and detention centres 52
    • 1. The detention of foreigners 52
    • 2. Reception centres: isolating asylum seekers 60
    • 3. “Dublinized” asylum seekers 61
  • III – Returns 63
  • IV – Intolerance towards migrants and refugees 66
  • V – Embryonic mobilizations 70

The Ionian and Adriatic seas: forced returns between Italy and Greece

  • A new migration route at Europe’s gates 73
  • I – Controlling and blocking 75
    • 1. Controls in Greece 75
    • 2. Controls at sea 77
    • 3. Controls in Italian ports 78
  • II – Turning back and readmission 82
    • 1. Arbitrary practices and violation of rights 82
    • 2. The port of Venice: collective returns 83
    • 3. The port of Ancona 86
    • 4. Forced return to Greece 86
  • III – Detention 88
    • 1. At the borders and at sea: areas beyond legality 88
    • 2. Detention in Italy 89
    • 3. Detention in Greece 90
  • IV – Some cruel situations 93
    • 1. In Greece 93
    • 2. In Italy 96
  • V – Mobilizations 97
    • 1. In Venice 97
    • 2. In Ancona 97
    • 3. In Greece 98

Ping-pong at the Greco-Turkish border

  • Selective expulsions and random readmissions 106
  • Reactions to a degrading and sometimes murderous situation 107
  • Assistance, support, resistance 108

Dismantling the Calais jungle: a deceptive operation

  • I – The declared objectives of the 22 September 2009 operation 112
  • II – The real objectives of dismantling the jungle 113
  • III – The Modus Operandi: brutality and trickery 115
  • IV – What next? 116

Migreurop network 121

Annexes 122

  • Knocking down walls and defending the right to migrate 122
  • UNHCR-Libya : the bid is rising, migrants pay the price 124
  • All for the closure of camps for migrants, in Europe and beyond 125
  • Italia and Libya: hand in hand 127
  • Roma people victims of the French government xenophobia 128

Click here for the report (EN), or  here (FR), or here (ES).

Click here for article (ES) in Periodismo Humano about the report.

1 Comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, English Channel / La Manche, European Union, France, Frontex, Italy, Libya, Mauritania, Mediterranean, Morocco, Niger, Reports, Spain, Turkey, UNHCR

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

by | 06 Oct 2010 · 20:05

Cecilia Malmström: Back From Libya

Commissioner Malmström writes her own blog, Cecilia Malmström Mitt Europa (My Europe).  Here is her most recent posting regarding her trip to Libya (translated from Swedish with Google Translate).  There are several points worth noting – and worrying about.  She notes that Libya is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol.  (Though Libya is a signatory to the OAU Refugee Convention.)  She suggests that the new migration agreement between the EU and Libya will involve the UNHCR, but no insight is offered regarding whether or how the UNHCR might return to Libya.  She concedes that the European Commission does not know all of the details of the bi-lateral agreement between Italy and Libya which has resulted in the current push-back practice in the central Mediterranean.  And she seems to say that she was greatly troubled by what she saw when she visited one of the southern migrant detention centres in Libya during her official trip.

Translated excerpts:

“Just returned from Libya … I have been there to try to initiate a dialogue between the EU and Libya on issues relating to asylum, migration and international protection. … I believe it is necessary to have a dialogue with Libya.

Libya has not signed the Geneva Convention and the concept of asylum is not in Libyan law. … Since Italy and Libya signed an agreement, which we unfortunately do not know everything about, it has basically been that case that no boats are crossing the Mediterranean.

Against this background, I see it as progress that the first time we have agreed a text with Libya, a version of a plan for cooperation, which deals with issues of asylum and international protection…  Our aim is to identify people in need of international protection, while helping Libya to raise standards in the detention centres in order to provide decent conditions to people. We also address the issues of border control, labor migration and human smuggling in this plan for cooperation. From the EU side, we are prepared to put up 50 million euros over three years to support reforms. These will obviously not be given as a blank check to Libya but will be provided using the guidelines of the European Commission. For example, we support specific projects by various organizations, including the UNHCR.

Besides holding talks with Libyan ministers, I also visited Libya’s southern border in the middle of the desert, observed International Organisation for Migration activities in Libya, and visited one of the detention centres where many migrants have ended up. I had the opportunity to talk to some of the people there.  Several of these stories that I heard have kept both me and my staff awake at night. …”

Click here for the full posting.

3 Comments

Filed under European Union, Italy, Libya, Mediterranean, News, UNHCR

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

by | 06 Oct 2010 · 05:28

EU and Libya Sign “Unclear” Migration Cooperation Agreement

At the end of a two day visit to Tripoli, 4-5 October, Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Home Affairs, and Štefan Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood, signed a “migration cooperation agenda” with Libya.  The European Commission issued a Press Release with details of the negotiations and signed agreement.

The specific contents of the full agreement and negotiations however are not clear.  “‘What worries us is the vagueness of the deal,’ Annelise Baldaccini from Amnesty International told [euobserver.com]. ‘We do not know what the EU has signed up to. It mentions for instance addressing the burden of recognised refugees and rejected asylum seekers, but it does not say what this involves.’”

Here are some excerpts from the Commission press release:

In the framework of the visit an agreement on a migration cooperation agenda was signed yesterday evening in Tripoli by Commissioner Malmström, Commissioner Füle, M. Moussa Koussa, the Secretary of General People’s Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, and M. Yunis Al-Obeidi, the Secretary of General People’s Committee for Public Security. This is a Cooperation agenda between the European Commission and Libya, including concrete steps on border surveillance system, mobility-related issues, smuggling and trafficking in human beings, and dialogue on refugees and international protection.

Commenting the signature of the Cooperation agenda Commissioner Malmström said: ”It is my objective to put the protection of fundamental rights of all people involved in migratory and asylum flows at the centre of our efforts in the EU relationship with Libya. The Cooperation Agenda will enable us also to promote initiatives aimed at better protecting and assisting the rights of migrants and refugees’.

Commissioner Füle said: “I welcome agreeing on this cooperation agenda because this is an important first step to solve the serious challenge irregular migration poses not only to Libya but also to the EU. This step is part of the much broader relationship we are trying to build together. It was clear from our talks in Tripoli that both EU and Libya have at heart to sustain the new momentum in our relationship over recent months.”

The EU and Libya also discussed the establishment of an informal group of senior officials that would oversee the implementation of the list of possible initiatives in the field of migration cooperation. The proposed initiatives will be implemented through a variety of means, ranging from the sharing of experience and best practices, as well as financing of actions, including the acquisition of equipment in accordance with applicable rules.

Both sides agreed on the following initiatives for possible further dialogue and cooperation.

1. Regional and Pan african dialogue and cooperation

  • Increasing joint efforts in the development of African countries of origin of migration. This would build on the serious and substantial efforts of Libya and the European Union as major donors to African countries. In this context, the EU and Libya will continue to address root causes of migration in the countries of origin of migrants travelling through Libya and creating viable alternatives to migration in these countries.
  • The EU and Libya will support awareness campaigns to take place in main countries of origin of migrants transiting through North Africa and Libya specifically to alert migrants to the dangers of irregular migration.
  • Libya and the EU will work together in the implementation of the “Declaration of Tripoli on Migration and Development” of 2006, and the EU-Africa Migration, Mobility and Employment Partnership adopted in Lisbon in 2007.
  • Libya and the EU will increase dialogue and exchange information regarding the issue of smuggling of human beings and related illicit traffics reaching Libya from other countries and the EU from Libya.
  • Libya and the EU will also establish an informal consultative group that will exchange information on development policies benefitting Africa, and possibly also to identify development projects in sub Saharan Africa. This group will be composed by the Libyan administration, by the representatives of the European Commission and of the EU member States which are willing to participate.

[***]

3. Ensuring effective management of migratory flows

  • Supporting the development in Libya of a more efficient system to manage labour migration. This could be done by allowing to maximise the skills of the migrants already present in the country and of the newcomers.
  • Enhancing the capacities of Libyan authorities, Libyan NGOs and international organisations, to properly launch and implement search and rescue operations aimed at saving lives of migrants in the desert or on high seas and to provide them with the necessary humanitarian assistance.
  • Providing decent treatment, reception and assistance – in line with international standards – to irregular migrants intercepted or readmitted or to be returned by Libyan authorities, or stranded in Libya, with focus on migrants belonging to vulnerable categories (like unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking; pregnant women, and families with small children). This could build on the activities already carried out in Libya by the local authorities, international organisations and NGOs.
  • Offering assisted voluntary return home to irregular migrants intercepted or readmitted or to be returned by Libyan authorities, or stranded in Libya or in the countries of origin, as well as offer support for their social and professional reintegration.
  • Enhancing the capacity to address smuggling and trafficking in human beings, with reference in particular to the two respective protocols of the 2000 UN Convention on the Trans-national organised Crime, and in view of reinforcing the capabilities of law enforcement officials in charge of the implementation of this legislation, by taking also into the account the Ouagadougou Action Plan to combat Trafficking in Human Beings.

4. Border management

  • Carrying out a gap-analysis on the current functioning modalities of the Libyan border and immigration services, aimed at reinforcing the capacity of the latter to prevent the irregular migration flows from entering Libya from its Southern borders.
  • Strengthening cooperation between Libya and the neighbouring and other transit and origin countries, in the border surveillance and in the prevention of attempts of irregular migrants and smugglers to violate Libyan borders, through promoting joint patrolling, intelligence sharing, the development of joint training, the facilitation of working contacts and the establishment of dedicated communication channels aimed at transmitting early warnings and sensible data.
  • Supporting the development of Libyan patrolling, search and rescue capacities in its territorial waters and at high sea. Delimiting the search and rescue region for which it Libya is responsible, pursuant to the SAR Convention it has ratified.
  • Establishment of an integrated surveillance system along the Libyan land borders, with focus on the areas prone to irregular migration flows, in line with the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between Libya and the European Commission on 23 July 2007.
  • Exploring concrete possibilities of cooperation between Libyan police, border, migration authorities and agencies and those of the EU Member States as regards the return and readmission of irregular migrants.

5. International Protection

  • Supporting Libya in its efforts aimed at establishing a protection system able to deal with asylum seekers and refugees in line with international standards and in good cooperation with the competent international organisation , in particular through providing advice on the development of a legislation in line with the 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa as well as providing training, technical assistance and equipment in view of promoting the development of administrative structures and human resources, able to properly act in line with this legislation
  • Assisting Libyan authorities in screening migrants in order to identify those in need of international protection and in addressing the burden represented both by the recognized refugees and the unsuccessful asylum seekers, and which would consist in resettling some of the recognized refugees towards EU Member States, in supporting the voluntary return of some of the unsuccessful asylum seekers back to their origin country, as well as in enhancing the reception capacities offered in Libya to asylum seekers and refugees.

Click here for full European Commission Press Release.

Click here, here, and here for articles.

4 Comments

Filed under European Union, Libya, Mediterranean, News

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 | 29 Dec 2009 · 18:40

Workshop: “The Human Costs of Border Control in the Context of EU Maritime Migration Systems”

VU University Amsterdam held a three day Exploratory Workshop in October 2009 on “The Human Costs of Border Control in the Context of EU Maritime Migration Systems.”

Executive Summary of the Workshop’s Goals:

“The ongoing European harmonisation of migration and border control policies has as a side-effect unclear, but definitely rising numbers of fatalities at European borders (different estimates suggest anything between 1.000 and 10.000 annually). This process has considerable consequences for EU institutions, governments, the administrations of EU Member States, for migrants and people assisting migrants, and neighbouring countries. The consequences are diverse in nature, concerning policy, institutions, social cohesion and conflict, and law. However, while these consequences of the Europeanisation of migration policy are the subject of numerous academic studies, until now, the human costs of border control has received only isolated academic attention. There are insufficient data, and a comprehensive analysis is lacking. This workshop aims at bringing together leading European academics from different disciplines working on this issue. The immediate aim of the workshop is to integrate the analyses of those academics, with a view to developing a comprehensive analysis. The ultimate aim is to create a network engaging in comprehensive data gathering and analysis, leading to concrete suggestions to limit the undesirable side-effects of European migration policies.”

Draft workshop papers (which are not to be quoted or cited to without prior consent of the author) included the following:

Martin Baldwin-Edwards
The Human Costs of Border Control: Greece

Anat Ben-Dor
The un-checked dangers of the Israeli-Egyptian Sinai border

Hein de Haas
Trans-Saharan and Trans-Mediterranean migration – Questioning the transit hypothesis

María Hernández-Carretero
Boat migrants’ perspectives on risk

Ernesto Kiza
The Human Costs of Border Control at the External EU Borders between 1999 and 2004

Silja Klepp
A double bind: Malta and the rescue of unwanted migrants at sea

Mehdi Lahlou
The Human and Political Costs of Irregular Migration: Morocco case

Jorrit J. Rijpma
Frontex: successful blame shifting of the Member States?

Click here for more of the Workshop’s working materials.

Leave a comment

Filed under Colloques / Conferences

Tagged as , , , , , , ,