lunedì 11 settembre 2017

How should Italy and the EU respond to the refugee and migrant challenge? How is the situation evolving?

Description of the scale of the phenomenon. Estimated number of illegal immigrants coming into the EU in the recent past, last year and so far this year.
More than a million illegal migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015, sparking a crisis as countries struggled to cope with the influx, and creating division in the EU over how best to deal with resettling people. The symbolic milestone was passed on 21 December, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said, with the total for land and sea reaching more than 1,006,000. The figure covers entries via six European Union nations - Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Malta and Cyprus.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 Excellent summaryof 2015 situation
http://frontex.europa.eu/trends-and-routes/migratory-routes-map/

 https://www.west-info.eu/west-news/refugees-asylum-seekers/?t=635
This compares with 72,437 illegal immigrants to the EU in 2012, 107,365 in 2013 and 283,532 In 2014. However, 1,000,000 still represents only 0.2% of the EU’s population of 500 million.
According to Frontex this figure fell in 2016 to 503,700 detections of illegal border crossings. This was mainly due to the EU/Turkey agreement, which came into effect in March 2016 and led to tighter border control by the Turkish authorities and readmission of migrants from the Greek islands to Turkey. The drop was also influenced by tighter border controls in the Western Balkans. However, the number of detections on the Central Mediterranean route (towards Italy) rose by nearly one-fifth to 181 000, the highest number ever recorded. This reflects a steadily increasing migratory pressure from the African continent, particularly West Africa, which accounted for most of the growth in 2016.
trends in first quarter of 2017 showed a drop in numbers: http://migration.iom.int/docs/Q1_2017_statistical_Overview.pdf
The situation in the first 6 months of 2017 as seen by the EU is summarised in this document:
Illegal migrants arriving in Italy up to July 2017 :
However, the numbers seem now to be falling sharply:
http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2017-08-26/migranti-patto-la-libia-frena-arrivi-221553.shtml?uuid=AEQsV7HC
latest statistics: https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean (very clear! Updated to 14 Aug)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/28/eu-leaders-offer-support-libyan-coastguards-chad-niger-stem/
Recent EU and Italian policy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/23/italy-prosecutor-says-rescue-boats-contact-people-smugglers/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/libyan-military-strongman-threatens-italian-ships-trying-stop/
and NGO rescue boats:
So there has been a significant rise in migration towards the EU in recent years, increasing dramatically in the last 3 years. Is this a temporary phenomenon or a more permanent change? The result of turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa or something more fundamental relating to economic migration?
Legal Immigration to EU - Of course we should remember that illegal immigration happens within a wider context of legal immigration and both are important in examining popular reaction inside EU member states. Figures for net legal immigration to the EU from non-EU countries were 748,026 in 2010, 693,660 in 2011, 598,352 in 2012, 539,059 in 2013, suggesting a slight decline over that period. However Frontex estimates that there were already 547,335 people illegally present in the EU in 2014. Many of these were from Syria, Eritrea and Afghanistan, with citizens from these countries representing one third of the total.
Applications for political asylum - The EU 28 received about 626,000 new applications for political asylum from non-EU citizens in 2014 compared with 431,000 in 2013. This number rose to 1,260,000 in 2015 but fell slightly to 1,200,000 in 2016. (Germany’s share of the EU-28 total rose from 35% in 2015 to 60% in 2016)
The number of first time asylum-seekers in the EU-28 decreased by -47% in the first quarter of 2017 compared with the same quarter of 2016 and by -21% compared with the fourth quarter of 2016.

The EU Member States granted protection status to 710,400 asylum seekers in 2016, more than double the number in 2015.
In 2016, three fifths (61 %) [4] of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons (see Figure 8). For first instance decisions, some 54 % of all positive decisions in the EU-28 in 2016 resulted in grants of refugee status.
A total of 366,000 persons were granted refugee status in the EU-28 in 2016 at first instance, 258,000 were given subsidiary protection status, and 48,000 were given authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons.
The highest shares of positive first instance asylum decisions in 2016 were recorded in Slovakia (84%) and Malta (83%). Conversely, Greece, Ireland, Poland and Hungary each recorded first instance rejection rates above 75%.
The share of positive final decisions based on appeal or review (17%)was considerably lower in the EU-28 in 2016 than for first instance decisions. Around 37.700 people in the EU-28 received positive final decisions based on appeal or review in 2016, of which 23.200 were granted refugee status, 5.900 were granted subsidiary protection, and a further 8.700 were granted humanitarian status.
Only in three EU Member States were more than half of final asylum decisions in 2016 positive: Bulgaria (65%), the Netherlands (58%) and the United Kingdom (52%).
The highest shares of final rejections were recorded in Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania and Portugal, where all final decisions were negative.

Repatriations - In 2016, 226,150 non-EU citizens who had been issued with an order to leave the territories of an EU Member State were returned to their country of origin (outside of the EU). As such, this was the second consecutive year that there was an increase in the number of returns.

These articles explain why a migrant refused asylum is not necessarily sent homehttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34190359
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38919038

Proportion of migrants in EU member states - The number of people residing in an EU Member State with citizenship of a non-member country on 1st January 2016 was 20.7 million, representing 4.1% of the EU-28 population. In addition, there were 16.0 million persons living in one of the EU Member States on 1st January 2016 with the citizenship of another EU Member State.
In absolute terms, the largest numbers of non-nationals living in the EU Member States on 1st January 2016 were found in Germany (8.7 million persons), the United Kingdom (5.6 million), Italy (5.0 million), Spain (4.4 million) and France (4.4 million). Non-nationals in these five Member States collectively represented 76% of the total number of non-nationals living in all of the EU Member States, while the same five Member States had a 63% share of the EU-28’s population.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics
The EU's Muslim population:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/15/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
Integration - We also need to bear in mind both the size and degree of effective integration of existing immigrant populations.
Criticism of EU migrant policy:

Current migration to Italy - Most of the arrivals in Italy in the first 6 months of 2017 were not from Syria and the Middle East but from Nigeria, Bangladesh, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and the Gambia.
Wider context of Migration - The number of migrants/refugees coming to the EU is, of course, low if compared with the numbers of Syrian refugees arriving in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and, poorer countries facing far more serious problems in dealing with the huge numbers involved - Turkey 3.11 million, Lebanon 1.00 million, Jordan 0.66 million, Iraq 0.24 million and Egypt 0.12 million – 5.17 million in total.
There are also high levels of South-South migration, both legal and illegal, in many other developing countries.
Legal migration of EU citizens to other EU member states - And we should not confuse migration by non-EU citizens into the EU with fully legal internal EU migration, from one member state to residence in another member state. See again:
Many EU states have residents from other EU states who form a significant and often well-integrated proportion of the total migrant population.
The number of Italian citizens resident in four EU countries, the UK, France, Germany and Spain totals more than a million.
However, internal EU migration from poorer (e.g. Romania) to richer countries, has already produced serious frictions that may add to tensions between migrants of all kinds and native residents. Xenophobic reactions take various forms. There are accusation that foreigners steal local jobs at a time of recession and obtain welfare payments that they have not contributed to in taxes. Statistically, this seems largely a false impression as foreigners often do jobs that the local population does not want to do and often fail to claim welfare benefits to which they are entitled. However, these concerns about internal EU migration could be dwarfed by non-EU immigration in terms of scale, duration and the social tensions produced if numbers continue at current rates.
Another concern is crime:

What problems is the EU facing as a result of illegal migration?

The humanitarian crisis – the situation of migrants who are trying to get here. Human smuggling (and trafficking), massive human rights violation and the responsibility to respond to this crisis. Deaths at sea and in container ships.Behind this there is the the challenge of dealing with migant trafficking across Africa and inside Libya.
Structures - The rising numbers are often said to be beyond the capacity and funding of existing infrastructure (e.g. reception centres) and personnel (e.g. coast guard, police, frontier and migration authorities, interviewers interpreters etc…) and the procedures to deal with the migrants (identification, interviewing, temporary accommodation, repatriation if not accepted and more permanent relocation, accommodation and integration if accepted).
Tensions between EU member states - Migrants coming into the EU often cross internal EU borders to move to their preferred destination (often in Northern Europe). This creates tensions between EU member states and has led to growing restrictions by states on free movement within the EU and thus an erosion of the Schengen rules.
Countries on front-line EU external borders (although obviously in a certain sense all countries with ports airports and container ports are on the front line.) e.g. Italy, Greece, Spain, Romania, Bulgaria etc.. have been criticized for not securing their borders by providing effective controls against illegal immigration. This criticism has come from destination countries like Germany, the UK, France, and Scandinavia. These countries, in their turn, are criticized by the countries on the exposed external EU borders for failing to provide adequate economic and material assistance to their partners to help them deal with the problem. For example, Operazione Mare Nostrum in 2013-14, financed at significant expense (9 million euros a month for 12 months) and almost exclusively by Italy, was relatively successful compared with the EU Operation Triton (originally called Frontex Plus) and at first financed at only 3 million euros a month (although it later received €120 million for 2015-2016). Mare Nostrum operated also in international waters, Triton‘s mission only covers border control and activity within 30 miles off the Italian coast. However, the European Union Naval Force Mediterranean also known as Operation Sophia has made the situation more manageable in international waters.
However, doubts and criticisms about the effectiveness of Operation Sophia remain.Does it deter migration? While its search and rescue activities have saved lives, does its destruction of boats lead smugglers to put migrants into even less seaworthy vessels? See below #

The Dublin Regulation - This gives primary responsibilty for processing asylum applications to the country of arrival. Italy and other front-line countries have called for a revision of the Regulation and asked other EU member states to open their ports to migrants. While the EU in July 2017 recognised the enormous challenge facing Italy and agreed to provide more funds, no further progress was made reform to the Dublin Regulation. In July 2017, the European Court of Justice upheld the Dublin Regulation declaring it still stands despite the high influx of 2015, giving EU member states the right to deport migrants to the first country of entry to the EU. Also in July EU interior ministers refused to support an Italian proposal to open up European ports to ships carrying migrants.

Public opinion in many EU countries -There has been a wave of real sympathy for the plight of the migrants on their journey, outrage at their inhuman exploitation by traffickersand smugglers and horror at their sometimes gruesome fate. This has been expressed in the generous reaction of governments, NGOs and the public.
At the same time there is growing concern among EU citizens about the rise in immigrant numbers, increasing opposition to this process, fears about cultural clashes, growing numbers of acts of violence against immigrants and refugee centers and a significant rise in support for xenophobic, or at least more nationalist, political parties.
Criticism of the EU itself – The EU is often blamed and held responsible for the rise in migrant numbers Calls for withdrawal from the EU have also increased, though it is hard to see how leaving the EU would benefit a country in terms of dealing with illegal non-EU immigration.
e.g. in the Brexit vote Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll of 12,369 voters after the referendum found that one third of Leave voters chose to back Brexit as they saw it "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders." This was the second biggest motivation for Leave voters, just behind “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
In 2016 Hungary held a referendum in October on whether to comply with the European Union quota system aimed at solving the migrant crisis, setting the stage for a fresh fight over power-sharing in the 28-nation bloc. Hungarians voted to reject the European Union refugee resettlement plan, but failed to turn out in sufficient numbers to make the referendum legally binding. The Hungarian referendum has worried some in Brussels, who fear that a series of national votes on specific issues could unfasten key planks of EU policy and rules. Senior EU officials have worried that further referendums, above all on a country’s EU membership, could lead to an eventual unraveling of the bloc.
In addition to the June 23 British referendum, Dutch voters also rejected a sweeping EU trade and political agreement with Ukraine in April, potentially forcing the bloc to renegotiate the accord.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/02/europe/hungary-migrant-referendum/index.html
Other countries (e.g. In Eastern Europe) continue to support membership of the EU but seem determined to oppose the EU redistribution quota system for migrants or other openings of this type from within the EU. (The EU Resettlement and Relocation schemes of 2015 envisaged a possible 160,000 resettlements.
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/docs/2_eu_solidarity_a_refugee_relocation_system_en.pdf
So the numbers in this pdf may seem small but only about 35,000 applicationshave been granted.)
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170613_factsheet_relocation_and_resettlement_en.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:First_instance_decisions_by_outcome,_selected_Member_States,_1st_quarter_2017_update.PNG
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Distribution_of_final_decisions_on_(non-EU)_asylum_applications,_2016_(%25)_YB17_II.png
There are fears that this could weakem EU unity, cooperation and effectiveness. However, the victory of pro-EU Emmanuel Macron inthe May 2017 French Presidential election has boosted hopes for increased EU cooperation.
Terrorism - With the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13th 2015 (and further attacks through 2016 and 2017), there is growing concern that Arab terrorists may manage to get into Europe by pretending to be refugees. There is also concern about border security regarding European citizens who sympathize with IS and go to Syria possibly to train and try to return to Europe to carry out an attack.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/630456/EU-migrant-crisis-shock-poll-two-thirds-Germans-expect-ISIS-terrorist-attack
g) The reaction of the EU is often criticized as slow and lacking coordination while EU member states are criticized as too preoccupied with their own national interests. The atmosphere at the EU talks to agree and introduce the quota system among members to deal with the ongoing crisis was an example of these problems.
For the plan see and reactions see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34193568

The debate at the start of 2016 about whether or not to suspend the Schengen agreement for 2 years was also an indication of the strong feelings involved, as was Austria's decision to temporarily suspend it in January 2016. This has now happened in several EU Schengen area member states (France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway):

h) the EU- Turkey deal on refugees and migrants. This has vastly reduced migration pressure through the balkans and into Greece but may have increased pressure on Italy. There are also criticisms from human rights groups about conditions for migrants in both Greek and Turkish camps and EU complicity in this situation.

What are the problems for the future?

a) Beyond the immediate crisis there is the question of whether the scale of the phenomenon is temporary, e.g. due to refugees from the civil war in Syria and the situation in Libya, or part of a growing trend towards movement from non-EU states to the EU based on hopes for greater economic well-being and more security and freedom (e.g. from Africa and Bangladesh).
b) The need to quickly and effectively integrate into society those migrants who are allowed to stay. Many experts argue that many states in the EU with aging populations need migrants as a young and flexible workforce. Others point to the failures in previous integration policies.
c)There is a need to support efforts for pacification and peace-building in the war-torn areas from which the refugees are fleeing. Current efforts (see below) to form a single effective government in Libya and enforce the rule of law by reaching an agreement between all legitimate groups are crucial in any attempt to limit the spread of ISIS and deal with the humanitarian and refugee crisis in Libya at its source.
See also below #
d) There is also a need to provide more funds to UN agencies and NGOs in countries like Syria’s neighbors, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which are trying to deal with the enormous refugee problem.
e) Whatever public resentment there may be about perceived threats to jobs, at a time of recession and unemployment, and the nation’s ‘culture’, immigrant numbers remain a limited proportion of the population. It is only in certain areas with sudden, high immigrant concentrations (Lampedusa) that a community may feel overwhelmed and this calls, above all, for better planning and organization in the redistribution of recently arrived migrants.
f) Although most of the EU economies are either still in recession or growing only slowly, the EU’s population generally is aging and young migrants may play an important and necessary role in the economy if and when the recovery begins.
g) The humanitarian crisis is unlikely to go away soon. So the EU and national governments will have to respond to public concerns about immigration while at the same time honoring their legal and moral obligations to deal with the question by providing better-coordinated, better-funded plans on a long-term basis. So far this has not happened.
h) How to deal with asylum seekers who are successful in their application (where should they reside?) and those who are not (repatriation). See below § Dealing with asylum seekers
i) The idea and effectiveness of using military force against the human traffickers.
j) The question of how to protect the Schengen agreement.
k) the deal with Turkey and questions about human rights and whether it is legal
and in the light of the crack-down after the attempted coup

l) agreements between Italy, the EU and Libya's fragile government aimed at reducing migration from Libya to Italy and attempts to encourage the formation of a unity government there.

Some useful background reading and updates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#2016

See above#
“The mission does not, however, in any meaningful way deter the flow of migrants, disrupt the smugglers’ networks, or impede the business of people smuggling on the central Mediterranean route. The arrests that Operation Sophia has made to date have been of low-level targets, while the destruction of vessels has simply caused the smugglers to shift from using wooden boats to rubber dinghies, which are even more unsafe. There are also significant limits to the intelligence that can be collected about onshore smuggling networks from the high seas. There is therefore little prospect of Operation Sophia overturning the business model of people smuggling.The weakness of the Libyan state has been a key factor underlying the exceptional rate of irregular migration on the central Mediterranean route in recent years. While plans for two further phases would see Operation Sophia acting in Libyan territorial waters and onshore, we are not confident that the new Libyan Government of National Accord will be in a position to work closely with the EU and its Member States any time soon.In other words, however valuable as a search and rescue mission, Operation Sophia does not, and we argue, cannot, deliver its mandate. It responds to symptoms, not causes.”
However, the view expressed above seems to be overly pessimistic given the latest trend:
but there is criticism of the human rights situation and questions about whether the EU is complicit in. Italy denies these charges
http://www.msf.org/en/article/libya-open-letter-european-governments-are-feeding-business-suffering
http://www.msf.org/en/article/libya-open-letter-european-governments-are-feeding-business-suffering
There is also the possibility of a new route:
Poland update


Pubblicato da alle

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)