Tag Archives: European Union

by | 26 Apr 2010 · 06:22

LIBE-Odysseus Network Round Table (26 April) and LIBE Meeting Agenda

A Round Table on “Towards a Common European Asylum System: A study on some horizontal issues” will be held on 26 April at 15.00 – 18.30. The meeting is organised by the LIBE Committee and the Policy Department Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs with the participation of the National Parliaments and the Odysseus Network.  The Round Table meeting precedes the two day meeting, 27-28 April, of the LIBE Committee which will be considering numerous agenda topics including:

  • Creation of an immigration liaison officers network;
  • The establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme;
  • Discussion concerning the European Refugee Fund; and
  • Institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The final agenda item is a Meeting with UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonió Guterres on matters relating to asylum policy, co-chaired by the Committee on Development and the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

Click here for Round Table agenda.

Click here for LIBE meeting documents.

Leave a comment

Filed under Colloques / Conferences, European Union, News, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | 10 Apr 2010 · 04:38

CONCORD Briefing Paper on Revisions to Cotonou Agreement

CONCORD, the European NGO Confederation for Relief and Development, prepared an updated briefing paper regarding the ongoing negotiations concerning revisions to the Cotonou Agreement for the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly session held 27 March to 1 April in Tenerife.

Excerpts regarding Article 13 (Migration) from an updated CONCORD Cotonou Working Group Briefing Paper:

“Migration, still unresolved – The revision of Article 13 on Migration is a major stumbling block to the negotiations.  The two sides failed to reach an agreement by the extraordinary ACP-EU Council on 19 March. EU and ACP states agreed in a joint declaration to continue dialogue on the migration article and report to the joint ACP/EU Council in June 2011.

The bulk of the disagreement lies on the clause on readmission. The EU side would like the clause on readmission in the Cotonou Agreement to become self-executive and binding for all ACP countries without needing complementary bilateral agreements. This will imply unmanageable obligations for many countries and hence an increased risk of migrants rights violations throughout the process of readmission.

In no way should EC and MS ODA [Official Development Assistance] be dependent on the signature of readmission agreements (being bilateral or multilateral).  By making development aid conditional on cooperation on border control, the EU is turning development aid into a tool for implementing restrictive and security-driven immigration policies which are at odds with its commitment to make migration work for development.

Article 13 should rather be focusing on concrete opportunities for increased mobility and ensuring that ACP states are assisted in their national efforts to ‘make migration work for development’ (countering of the negative economic and social effects of brain drain and care drain, sustainable migration opportunities, facilitating remittances…). This would bring progress towards Policy Coherence for Development in the migration area. Opportunities of legal migration, including for low skilled workers, and respect of migrants’ rights are necessary conditions for exploiting the development potential of migration. Provisions on legal migration should be as strong and binding. Finally, EU and ACP states should ratify the UN Convention on Migrants Rights and ratify it themselves.”

Click here for full text of CONCORD Cotonou Working Group Briefing paper.

Click here and here for earlier related posts.

1 Comment

Filed under European Union, News

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 08 Apr 2010 · 04:06

Conference for Heads of Coast Guards of EU States and Schengen Countries

The Second Conference for Heads of Coast Guards from the EU Member States and Schengen Associated Countries is being held in Málaga, Spain.  According to Santiago Macarrón, el general de Fiscal y Fronteras de la Guardia Civil, the conference represents an ongoing effort to standardize actions within the EU.  Among the topics being discussed at the Conference is the question of where migrants who are intercepted at sea are to be taken. Frontex’s Deputy Director Gil Arias stated that where migrants are to be landed is not clear under international law and has caused problems in the past, especially in the Mediterranean.

Click here for article (Spanish).

1 Comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , ,

by | 26 Mar 2010 · 01:44

UNHCR Report on EU Member State Implementation of the Asylum Procedures Directive

The UNHCR has released a comprehensive report entitled “Improving Asylum Procedures: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Law and Practice: A UNHCR research project on the application of key provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive in selected Member States.”

From the Report’s introduction:

“In the exercise of its supervisory role under Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees … UNHCR has undertaken a wide-ranging comparative analysis of the transposition of key provisions of the [2005 Asylum Procedures Directive] into national law by selected EU Member States, and the practical application of those provisions….

The research and recommendations also aim to inform negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament on possible amendments to the APD, as put forward by the Commission in October 2009. They also seek to provide constructive input to preparations for the work of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The EASO has a mandate to facilitate practical cooperation on asylum among Member States, and Member States have underlined their interest in prioritizing the promotion of quality asylum decision-making among its tasks. In that context, this report will provide helpful material.

The research addressed 18 articles of the APD, as they are transposed in law and implemented in practice in the twelve participating states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. As such, the research and recommendations do not address all provisions in the APD, nor the law and practice in every Member State bound by the Directive. This project does not seek to focus scrutiny on any particular Member State.  Where gaps or problematic practices have been observed, UNHCR hopes that this research provides an opportunity to discuss and address them, and to draw on the numerous good practices which have also been observed.”

The UNHCR press release states that the “study found not only that member states are applying the Asylum Procedures Directive in diverging ways, but, in some cases, in ways that may breach international refugee law. Researchers reported that applicants were not always afforded personal interviews, or were not given enough time to prepare for interviews or to explain their claims. Interpreters were not always available or qualified…. These and other practices, the study concludes, create the risk that protection needs are not properly identified and people may be sent back to countries where they face persecution or grave personal harm.  At the same time, the research identified many good practices, including the provision of clear information on how to appeal negative decisions, codes of conduct for interviewers and interpreters, careful recording of interviews and of decisions, and good cross-cultural communication skills on the part of interviewers.”

Click here or here for the Report.

Click here for UNHCR press release.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Reports, UNHCR

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 23 Mar 2010 · 04:47

Migration Provision of the Cotonou Agreement

Eurostep Weekly notes the failure of the EU and ACP to agree on mutually acceptable revisions to Article 13, the Migration provision, of the Cotonou Agreement and calls attention to a February 2010 briefing paper issued by CONCORD’s Cotonou Working Group.

Negotiations between the EU and ACP regarding the second revisions to the Agreement are to continue and are expected to be concluded before the next ACP-EU Ministerial Council in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso on 3-4 June.

Excerpts from CONCORD’s briefing paper:

“[***]  Migration – The revision of Article 13 on Migration of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement aims at bringing the current provision into line with the Global Approach to Migration centered on three pillars: legal migration, fight against illegal migration and the synergies between migration and development. However, there is a real danger that the fight against illegal migration, strongly advocated by the EU side, is prioritized and that ODA [Official Development Assistance] is used as a means and incentive to encourage legal and policy frameworks in origin and transit countries to limit migration and restrict migrants’ rights.

Currently, Article 13 includes a clause on readmission, but to become operational, it requires the implementation of bilateral readmission agreements. The implementation of readmission agreements includes important risks of:

– inhumane and degrading treatment

– extended an arbitrary treatment in the countries migrants are brought back to

– a breach of the principle of non-refoulement of asylum seekers when these countries do not guarantee access to a fair asylum procedure

– a breach of article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention which stipulates that a person should not be submitted to the risk of inhumane and degrading treatment, nor deported to a country where he or she risks exposure to such treatment.

The EU side would like the clause on readmission in the Cotonou Agreement to become self-executive and binding for all ACP countries without needing complementary bilateral agreements. This will imply unmanageable obligations for many countries and hence an increased risk of migrants rights violations throughout the process of readmission. In no way should EC and MS ODA be dependent on the signature of readmission agreements (being bilateral or multilateral). By making development aid conditional on cooperation on border control, the EU is turning development aid into a tool for implementing restrictive and security-driven immigration policies which are at odds with its commitment to make migration work for development…..”

Click here for CONCORD’s Briefing Paper.

Click here for Eurostep Weekly article.

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis, European Union

Tagged as , , ,

by | 22 Mar 2010 · 06:01

Revisions to Cotonou Agreement’s Migration Provisions

The EU and the 78 ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Nations agreed in principle on 19 March to the 2010 revisions to the 2000 Cotonou Agreement.  But the ACP and EU failed to agree on proposed revisions relating to the deportations of irregular migrants from the EU and on proposed revisions relating to gay and lesbian rights.

The revised agreement is scheduled to be signed in June in Burkina Faso.  According to the AFP “[a]n ACP diplomat said … that the 78 nations wanted the question of immigrant returnees to be dealt with in bilateral deals, country by country, rather than as part of Cotonou.”

Click here for the Joint Declaration on Migration and Development issued on 19 March by the EU and the ACP relating to Article 13 (Migration) of the Cotonou Agreement.

Click here and here for articles.

Click here and here for EU Press Statements.

2 Comments

Filed under Communiqués, European Union, News

Tagged as , , ,

by | 16 Mar 2010 · 05:15

EP Report: “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?”

At the beginning of March, a 200+ page report assessing the cost of asylum seekers on EU member states was released by the European Parliament’s Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs.

The report is entitled: “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?”

Excerpts from the Executive Summary:

“Background –  [***] Moreover, although asylum figures today are higher than in the mid 1980s, the number of asylum applications has not been steadily increasing as many assume. … There has been increased concern in tackling irregular migration among the European Member States, which has led to an increasing focus on preventing irregular migrants from reaching the EU. Consequently, joint efforts at border management, under the auspices of FRONTEX, have exposed grey areas in the international protection regime. For example, the extent of States’ responsibilities towards asylum seekers rescued or intercepted in international waters has been subject to debate. Operation Nautilus in 2008 illustrated the difficulties Member States face in agreeing on who should be responsible for asylum seekers amongst irregular migrants intercepted at sea. Member States have also been hampered by the lack of an agreed protocol to assign responsibility for any asylum seekers amongst the irregular migrants.

Some Member States, notably Malta, have protested at the uneven distribution of asylum seekers between EU Member States, and their experiences of particular pressures resulting from their geographical situation. Linked to this, European parliamentarians, NGOs, some Member States and other stakeholders have repeatedly pointed out that the Dublin system allocates responsibility for asylum seekers without attempting to share it equitably. The pressures on EU border countries have been a particularly contentious part of this discussion, but the discussion is not limited to these. In the last six years, Sweden has for example received 40% of the 100,000 Iraqis who have claimed asylum in the EU8….

Aim of the study – The current study aims to provide information and evidence to inform the ongoing debates. This is largely based on three overarching questions:

• What are the asylum related costs borne by Member States?

• Which of these costs could be shared at European level?

• How could these costs be shared? [***]

Key Findings

• Overall refugee numbers in Europe are relatively low. In 2007 Europe only hosted 14 per cent of the world’s refugees or people in refugee-like situations. In 2007 about 220,000 asylum applications were received within the EU27, only just over half the 2001-02 peak of over 420,000 asylum seekers, and about a third of the peak of 1992. This is equivalent to less than one asylum seeker per 2200 European inhabitants.

• The total size of asylum spending reported by Member States is relatively low. The total size of direct spending by each Member State has generally not been more than the equivalent of 1/14th of the international aid target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income. At €4,160m EU wide, these total asylum-related costs to EU Member States in 2007 are less than what UK citizens spent on pets and pet food in the same year….

• Some countries face disproportionately high asylum costs, with the share of asylum spending in relation to GDP being 1000 times higher in some Member States (e.g. Malta) than others (e.g. Portugal) in 2007. When cost of living is taken into account, the differences remain large….

• If no additional responsibility sharing measures are introduced and current proposals are not implemented, there will continue to be a highly uneven distribution of asylum costs and pressures across Europe. This study shows that there are critical differences between Member States and the costs they carry for receiving asylum seekers….

• Only physical relocation of asylum seekers will make a significant contribution to a more equitable distribution of asylum costs across Member States. If this is to avoid generating significant human costs and additional costs to the Member States, it is crucial that this is based on a voluntary relocation of the asylum seeker….”

Click here for the full report.

Click here for EP Press Service article about the Report.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aegean Sea, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Frontex, Malta, Mediterranean, Reports

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 15 Mar 2010 · 15:13

Article: “A Contested Asylum System: The European Union between Refugee Protection and Border Control in the Mediterranean Sea”

An article in the most recent edition (Vol. 12, Number 1, 2010) of the European Journal of Migration and Law by Silja Klepp:

Abstract:

“During the past few years the border waters between Europe and Africa have become an EU-policy crucible. In the midst of the tightening of EU border controls and refugee protection claims, supranational, national and local actors find themselves in a phase of legal insecurity and negotiation. This article is based on ethnographical research carried out in Libya, Italy and Malta. It sheds light on the different actors’ practices at sea and in the surrounding border region. It also explores how new parameters for refugee protection are emerging in the border regions of the European Union. The article argues that the policy practices of the co-operation between Italy and Libya as well as the informal operational methods carried out in the Mediterranean Sea function as a trailblazer of the overall EU refugee policy. In the long term, some of these practices will affect and change the legal basis and the formal regulations of the European refugee regime. The principle of non-refoulement could first be undermined and then abolished in this process. Using an approach that combines the empirical study of border regions with a legal anthropological perspective, the article analyses the Union’s processes of change and decision-making on local, national and supranational levels and their interconnections.”

Click here for link to full article – restricted access only.

1 Comment

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

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 12 Mar 2010 · 05:26

First Meeting of EU Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security – COSI

The Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security was established by the EU Council pursuant to Council decisions of 27 November 2009 (16515/09) and 5 February 2010 (5949/10) based on the guidelines established by the Treaty of Lisbon. Its stated objective is “to strengthen the co-ordination of the operational actions between EU Member States in relation to internal security.”

COSI met for the first time on 11 March in Brussels.  The Spanish EU Presidency’s web site states: “The Spanish Director General of the Police and Civil Guard, Francisco Javier Velázquez, chaired the first meeting of … COSI …which began the process of designing a joint strategy to deal with global threats. The meeting was attended by directors of police and heads of security forces in Europe, who examined joint measures for tackling terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking and cyber crime. …”

“In relation to drug trafficking, [COSI is] studying proposals from Member States, such as a French operational project to deal with trafficking from Africa, or the possibility of creating EU platforms in affected African countries.”

“Other tasks entrusted to COSI include co-ordinating the action of European agencies with responsibilities in areas of justice and home affairs, such as EUROPOL, EUROJUST, FRONTEX and CEPOL. It must also ensure that none of their activities overlap and that there is a real focus on their requirements.”

Click here for article posted on Spanish EU Presidency’s site.

Click here for article.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, News, Spain

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 11 Mar 2010 · 04:35

Réaction du REMDH suite au Sommet UE-Maroc

“Réaction et commentaires du Réseau Euro-Méditerranéen des Droits de l’Homme (REMDH) suite à la Déclaration conjointe publiée lors du premier Sommet UE-Maroc qui s’est tenu les 6 et 7 Mars 2010 à Grenade:

Le REMDH note avec satisfaction que la déclaration conjointe réaffirme les droits de l’Homme comme étant « l’un des piliers fondamentaux du partenariat UE-Maroc ». Il salue l’accent mis sur la nécessité de mettre en œuvre toutes les recommandations de l’Instance Equité et Réconciliation (IER) ainsi que de poursuivre les réformes en matière de justice, de liberté d’expression, de presse et d’association.  Cependant, le REMDH regrette que la Déclaration ne mentionne pas explicitement les droits de l’Homme parmi les domaines qui requièrent une attention particulière comme la réforme de la justice ou les droits des migrants….

Le REMDH exprime par ailleurs sa plus vive inquiétude concernant la volonté réaffirmée de conclure dès que possible un accord de réadmission. La loi relative à l’entrée et au séjour des étrangers au Maroc ne garantit pas la protection des droits de l’Homme, en particulier, le droit à un recours effectif ainsi que la protection contre le retour forcé vers un pays où la sécurité de la personne ne serait pas assurée. Dans ce contexte, le REMDH estime que les droits des migrants, réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile ne sont pas garantis. Il demande à l’UE et au Maroc de respecter leurs engagements internationaux en la matière notamment en interrompant les négociations en cours en vue de la conclusion d’un accord de réadmission…..”

Cliquez ici pour le commentaire complet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Communiqués, Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Mediterranean, Morocco, Statements

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 11 Mar 2010 · 04:12

Déclaration Conjointe Sommet UE-Maroc

Extraits de la Déclaration conjointe Sommet Union Européenne-Maroc Grenade, 7 mars 2010:

“[***] Le Sommet couronne une intense période d’accélération dans les relations UE-Maroc, initiée par l’entrée en vigueur de l’Accord d’association en mars 2000, renforcée par la mise en place du Plan d’Action, dans le cadre de la Politique Européenne de Voisinage, en juillet 2005 et par l’adoption du document conjoint sur le Statut Avancé lors du Conseil d’Association d’octobre 2008.

Ce partenariat qui traduit un processus intense de dialogue couvrant tous les domaines politiques, économiques, sociaux et humains, reflète les aspirations des deux Parties à consolider la spécificité de leur partenariat….

I. L’UNION EUROPEENNE ET LE MAROC PARTENAIRES DANS UN MONDE GLOBAL

[***]  En matière de migration, le Maroc et l’UE conviennent de renforcer les mécanismes de coopération entre les pays d’origine, de transit et de destination, à travers la poursuite du dialogue entre les deux Parties et l’appui au processus de renforcement des capacités des parties concernées en matière de lutte contre l’immigration illégale, promotion de la migration régulière, optimisation de la contribution des migrants au développement et traitement des causes profondes de la migration. Une telle approche globale et équilibrée des questions de migration, incluant aussi une coopération pour le retour et la réadmission des migrants en situation irrégulière, doit constituer un élément fondamental du partenariat entre l’UE et le Maroc.

Le Maroc et l’UE saluent les réalisations du processus euro-africain sur la migration et le développement, lancé à Rabat en juillet 2006 et renforcé à Paris en novembre 2008, processus dans lequel le Maroc a joué un rôle moteur….

II. PREMIERS PAS VERS LA CONSOLIDATION DU STATUT AVANCE

[***]  Dimension humaine.

[***]  Le Maroc et l’UE notent avec satisfaction le consensus qui émerge au niveau international sur la nécessité d’examiner les questions migratoires dans le cadre d’une approche globale basée sur la responsabilité partagée et l’action collective concertée et associant la lutte contre la migration irrégulière, la gestion de la migration régulière et le lien entre migration et le développement.

Le Maroc et l’UE ont convenu de la nécessité de conclure dès que possible la négociation de l’accord de réadmission. La conclusion de cet accord est de nature à développer leur coopération dans le domaine de la migration, leur objectif commun étant de lutter contre la migration irrégulière, de favoriser l’utilisation de canaux réguliers de mobilité et migration, et de promouvoir l’impact positif de la migration sur le développement. La finalisation de la négociation sur l’accord de réadmission permettra une coopération globale sur la migration incluant la facilitation des visas.

III. UN AGENDA OPERATIONNEL POUR L´AVENIR

[***] Nouvel instrument qui prendra le relais du Plan d’action UE-Maroc L’actuel Plan d’action UE-Maroc adopté en 2005 pour une période de 5 ans arrivant à son échéance, les deux parties soulignent l’importance de finaliser le nouvel instrument qui doit être adopté en 2010 et qui prendra le relais du Plan d’action actuel. Ce nouveau document devra donner un contenu opérationnel aux objectifs du Statut avancé en intégrant les réformes agréées et les actions prévues dans le cadre du Plan d’action qui n’ont pas encore été mises  en oeuvre, ainsi que les éléments nouveaux qui sont prévus dans le document conjoint. Il intégrera également les éléments du programme gouvernemental de convergence réglementaire….”

Cliquez ici pour la Déclaration complete.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Mediterranean, Morocco, Statements

Tagged as , ,

by | 10 Mar 2010 · 05:04

Lettre ouverte au Sommet UE-Maroc relative à l’accord de réadmission UE-Maroc

Une letter de la part des associations défendant les droits des migrants où on recommande l’arrêt de toute négociation allant dans le sens de la conclusion d’un accord de réadmission UE-Maroc:

“Depuis le début des années 2000, l’Union européenne tente d’imposer au Maroc la signature d’un accord de réadmission qui comprendrait la réadmission des ressortissants marocains en situation irrégulière en Europe ainsi que celle de tout étranger ayant transité par le Maroc avant de parvenir sur le sol européen.   A ce jour, le Maroc a pu résister aux pressions de l’Union européenne ….  En effet, les accords de réadmission sont un des instruments centraux de la politique migratoire de l’UE, réitérés dans le Pacte européen sur l’asile adopté par le Conseil européen le 16 octobre 2008. Les négociations entre l’UE et les différents pays se réalisent en général dans l’opacité la plus totale….

Suite à l’adoption du principe d’un Statut avancé pour le Maroc et dans le cadre du premier Sommet UE-Maroc, qui se déroule du 6 au 8 mars à Grenade, nous nous inquiétons des pressions de l’Union européenne sur le Maroc qui semblent de plus en plus fortes. En effet, bien que l’UE déclarait, au sujet du Statut avancé du Maroc, lors du 8ème conseil d’association,  que « ce partenariat renforcé entre l’UE et le Maroc traduit la volonté de l’UE de répondre positivement aux attentes et aux besoins spécifiques du Maroc, afin de l’accompagner dans son processus courageux de modernisation et de démocratisation (…) ». Il est pourtant clair que la signature de l’accord de réadmission UE-Maroc ne répond en rien aux attentes et aux besoins spécifiques du Maroc. Au contraire, l’UE à travers ses politiques migratoires restrictives, notamment celles des visas, a transformé les pays frontaliers de l’UE en pays de transit et cherche aujourd’hui à les ancrer dans ce rôle en expulsant vers ces territoires toute personne en situation irrégulière en Europe ayant transité par ces derniers. …

Nous dénonçons par ailleurs, le rôle ambigu de l’UE qui d’une part déclare encourager le Maroc dans son processus de démocratisation et de promotion des droits humains, tout en le poussant, d’autre part à mettre en place des mesures restrictives de contrôle des frontières et de réadmission qui mettent en péril le respect des droits humains et en particulier celui des migrants tant sur le territoire marocain qu’européen. Pour rappel, cela a été déjà le cas par le passé, notamment lors des événements de Ceuta et Melilla….”

Cliquez ici pour la letter complete.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eastern Atlantic, European Union, Mediterranean, Morocco, Statements

Tagged as , , ,

by | 08 Mar 2010 · 15:41

EU Conference on Space and Security

One of the decisions taken at last month’s meeting of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) was a decision concerning EUROSUR (the European Surveillance System)  and GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) where the Council agreed “[…] To invite the Commission to report before the end of 2010 on how the conclusions of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) border surveillance group on common application of surveillance tools, such as satellites, could be implemented in the EU land and sea borders”.

On 10 and 11 March the Spanish EU Presidency is sponsoring a Conference on Space and Security in Madrid.  “The Conference seeks to facilitate a structured dialogue amongst all actors involved in Security-related Space matters embedded in two main programmes: GMES and SSA…. The aim is to build upon the status of discussions on these two programmes in Space Council Resolutions, in GMES Communications from the European Commission and in GMES-related Conferences of previous EU Presidencies (Graz, Munich, Lisbon, Portoroz, Lille, Prague and Stockholm).”

As noted in a Draft Input Paper posted on the Conference web site, one of the topics under discussion is a focus on the security aspects of space monitoring:  “[S]ince its inception, the security element of GMES focused on environmental applications and, to a much lesser extent, civilian security applications. Reflecting on current political dynamics, GMES stakeholders are now taking initiatives to strengthen the ‘S’ in GMES by creating synergies between civilian and military actors.”

“The 2008 EU Council Conclusions on GMES call on the Commission to foster the implementation of GMES security related services to support the related European Union policies. (Council Conclusions on Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): “Towards a GMES programme”, 16722/08 of 2 December 2008.)  Border surveillance, maritime surveillance and support to EU External Action have been identified as priority areas for action.”

Click here for the draft EC/ESA Joint Secretariat Input Paper on Space and Security, Feb. 2010.

Click here for ESA GMES page.

Leave a comment

Filed under Colloques / Conferences, European Union, Frontex, News, Spain

Tagged as , , , ,

by | 08 Mar 2010 · 05:50

Malta’s MEP Will Try to Block EP’s Approval of Changes to Frontex Guidelines

“Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil has told the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee that the procedure used to draw up new [Frontex] guidelines for anti-immigration patrols are illegal and should not be approved. … The guidelines, recently approved by the EU Council despite the objections of Malta and Italy, need the EP’s consent to enter into force.

Intended to act as a new code of engagement for Frontex’s patrol missions, the regulations will place responsibility for rescued immigrants and asylum seekers on the country hosting the mission. … Frontex wants the new rules to come into force before the next anti-migration patrol mission off Malta, scheduled to start in April. However, the new position adopted by Dr Busuttil may derail the process….”

Click here for Times of Malta article.

Leave a comment

Filed under European Union, Frontex, Italy, Malta, Mediterranean, News

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | 08 Mar 2010 · 05:43

Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment re Proposal to Amend the Frontex Regulation

Click here for full Document.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT accompanying the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 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)

Brussels, 24.2.2010, SEC(2010) 149

{COM(2010) 61 final}

{SEC(2010) 150}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES

1.1. Background and political context

1.2. Procedural issues and consultations with interested parties

2. PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.1. The legal framework

2.2. The context

2.3. What are the problems to be addressed?

2.3.1. Insufficient technical equipment put at the disposal by Member States

2.3.2. Insufficient human resources put at the disposal for joint operations by Member States; lack of uniform standards

2.3.3. Inefficient coordination and follow up of joint operations

2.3.4. Insufficient and inefficient cooperation with third countries

2.3.5. Collection, storage and processing of personal data

2.3.6. Return

2.3.7. No use of the expertise of the Agency to evaluate Member States’ performance in the area of border management

2.4. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?

2.5. Right to act

3. OBJECTIVES

3.1. General objectives (cf Article 1 of the Regulation)

3.2. Specific objectives (cf Article 2 of the Regulation)

3.3. Operational objectives

4. POLICY OPTIONS

4.1. Assessment criteria

5. DESCRIPTION OF SUBOPTIONS AND ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

5.1. Revising existing provisions on the use of technical equipment in joint operations, including the mechanisms for contributions from the Member States of such equipment

5.1.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.1.2. Do the options have an impact on external countries/partners?

5.1.3. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.1.4. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.1.5. Comparison of the suboptions

5.2. Mechanisms to improve the availability of border guards in joint operations

5.2.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.2.2. Does the option have an impact on external countries/partners?

5.2.3. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.2.4. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.2.5. Comparison of the suboptions

5.3. Revising the role of the Agency in preparing, coordinating and implementing operations, including with regard to the sharing of tasks between the Agency and the Member States

5.3.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.3.2. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.3.3. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.3.4. Comparison of the options

5.4. Expanding the mandate of the Agency in cooperating with third countries on border management

5.4.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.4.2. Does the option/recommendation have an impact on external countries/partners?

5.4.3. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.4.4. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.4.5. Comparison of the suboptions

5.5. Mandating the Agency to collect and process personal data

5.5.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.5.2. Do the options have an impact on external countries/partners?

5.5.3. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.5.4. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.5.5. Comparison of the options

5.6. Revising the mandate of the Agency as concerns return operations

5.6.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.6.2. Does the option have an impact on external countries/partners?

5.6.3. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.6.4. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.6.5. Comparison of the options

5.7. Mandating the Agency to evaluate Member States’ performance in the area of border management

5.7.1. Do the suboptions address the general objectives?

5.7.2. Does the option have an impact on external countries/partners?

5.7.3. Can the involved costs be (or become) part of the FRONTEX budget and how high are they?

5.7.4. What are the possible impacts on fundamental rights?

5.7.5. Comparison of the options

5.8. Subsidiarity and proportionality

6. ASSESSMENT OF THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION

6.1. Summary of the preferred option

6.2. Overall assessment of impact of the preferred policy option

6.2.1. Subsidiarity and proportionality

6.2.2. Costs

7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Click here for full Document.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, European Union, Frontex

Tagged as , , , ,