PRESS RELEASE : Horizon 2020 RESPOND Research project attests to ongoing governance failures
RESPOND Press Release No. 111/2020 – 21 November 2020
Horizon 2020 Research Project: Summary of Findings 20.11.2020
European migration and asylum policy: Research project attests to ongoing governance failures
After three years of intense research on European migration and asylum governance in 11 European and non-European countries (Greece, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Sweden, UK, Poland, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey), the final results of the EU financed research project “RESPOND” paint a gloomy picture of the European Union and member states’ governance capacities and failures.
After the numbers of refugee-migrants increased in 2015, the research consortium of 14 partners observed that the EU and its member states are persistently in crisis mode. Given an on-going solid deadlock at the EU level blocking every substantive reform, the only solutions to the migration issue for the EU and its member states have become deterrence, restriction and return. The empirical insights of RESPOND substantiate existing findings, which pointed to increased securitization of the migration policy field leading to an enormous protection gap, the normalization of violence and a disregard by member states and EU actors (FRONTEX, EASO) of internationally and European enshrined human rights norms and the rule of law.
The recently presented Pact on Migration and Asylum of the EU Commission falls short of ameliorating these negative tendencies and is characterized by little innovation: The proposed cooperation with countries of origin and/or transit countries to contain and control departures and to allow for repatriation; the strengthening of external EU borders and the capacity of FRONTEX; a strengthened focus on at-the-border procedures and screenings to narrow down access; an increase in repatriations; and prohibition of secondary movements suggest a continuation of the observed trend towards securitization. Offering no alternative to the Dublin-system, the Pact is far from having the potential to deliver any sustainable solutions nor to addressing the immediate migration management crisis and the crisis of intra-EU solidarity. The Pact fundamentally misses the target of increasing respect for fundamental rights and facilitating access to the European protection system (except to vulnerable migrants).
RESPOND researchers have produced more than 70 thematic country and comparative reports addressing all essential fields of refugee-migration governance, including border management, protection, reception and integration and addressing public and media opinion (all reports are available at: www.respondmigration.com). The rich empirical insights are based on interviews with more than 537 refugees and 220 stakeholders, a survey study in Sweden and Turkey with more than 1,600 Syrian refugees, as well as document and narrative analyses. RESPOND implemented an innovative three-level research design that shows how EU law, national legislation and policy filter down during the process of implementation and are then felt and experienced by refugees themselves.
RESEARCH SHOWS ALARMING TRENDS IN MIGRATION POLICY SINCE 2015
RESPOND focused on the last five years of “crisis management” of migration along the Balkan Route, the Central Mediterranean Route, the Nordic Route via Poland and the routes towards the UK. Each migration route showed alarming trends for the EU and member states’ migration policy as follows:
· A hyper-complex fragmented legal system jeopardizing transparency and consistency
* RESPOND’s legal comparative report clearly demonstrates that the legal framework concerning migration and asylum is extremely complex and hypertrophic in all RESPOND countries. In each country, THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION HAS BEEN CHANGED CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COHERENTLY. The legal frameworks on migration and asylum as well as on border management of the eight EU member states are largely harmonised at the level of formal transposition. However, there is still considerable divergence, which can be partly attributed to the discretion allowed by EU legal frameworks.
* The in-depth analyses of the legal and procedural frameworks of the 11 RESPOND countries also shows that many recent regulations are done THROUGH ACTS OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION AND MARGINALISATION OF PARLIAMENTS. In most RESPOND countries, the acts of primary legislation only provide for the general framework, but immigration issues are de facto regulated in detail and implemented by congeries of acts of secondary legislation (by-laws, regulations, ministerial circulars, administrative rules, etc.). Moreover, secondary acts are rarely subject to parliamentary debate. Hence, this constitutes a democratic deficit in that there is a lack of adequate parliamentary control. A wide field of discretion characterizes the concrete regulation of important migration issues.
* The reports outline a MULTIPLICITY OF ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS involved in the “multi-level” and subsidiary-based management of migration. In most RESPOND countries, all tiers of government (from the national to the local) are involved with different, often overlapping, competences. In addition, in some RESPOND countries, the management of migration involves other relevant actors, such as the third sector and private companies, the courts and also the EU and UN agencies. Given the fact that adequate mechanisms of coordination are often lacking, this multiplicity of actors ends up undermining the uniformity of practices and often results in substandard services and uncertain rights. The certainty and predictability of the law - which are fundamental pillars of the rule of law that characterise contemporary democracies - are therefore in question.
· Shift from a welcoming approach to a policy of narrowing access
* The RESPOND country and comparative research reports demonstrate a general departure from the initial welcoming approach (e.g., an open-door policy in Turkey and Lebanon; a culture of welcome in Germany). All AMENDMENTS OR REGULATIONS INTRODUCED AFTER 2015 IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS OR LIMITATIONS to existing standards of rights and narrowed access to the protection system. Harsher PHYSICAL AND PROCEDURAL BARRIERS were erected on 4 levels: restriction of access to the territory in the first place, blocking and/or restricting the access to the asylum procedure, lowering procedural rights and chances for a positive determination, and, lastly, restricting venues for integration.
* All 11 countries strengthened their borders and intensified border controls. Additionally, a trend towards RE-NATIONALISATION OF BORDER MANAGEMENT POLICIES can be identified, as exemplified by the re-introduction of EU-internal border controls in contravention to Schengen. The reports also indicate a rise to prominence of military and para-military actors, since 2015.
* 6 out of 11 countries – Austria, Greece, Hungary, Lebanon, Poland, and Turkey – restricted access to their national territories with the help of NEW PHYSICAL (WALLS, FENCES, DOGS, DIGITAL DEVICES, ETC.) AND PROCEDURAL BARRIERS, such as so-called “fast-track border procedures” or “hot spot approaches” (Greece and Italy).
* In particular, the “HOT SPOT” APPROACH as it is implemented in Italy and Greece produces prolonged and generalized legal uncertainty concerning the protection of refugees and fails to reach the goals laid down in the European Agenda on Migration (2015). The Greek report mentions the persistence of systematic failures in the conduct of interviews by EASO officials and calls into question a further Europeanization of the asylum procedure via an extension of EASO competences, which is currently outlined in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. It is to be expected that the New Pact will enhance legal downgrading and procedural insecurity due to a lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms.
* Almost all countries introduced PRE-CHECKS BEFORE ACTUAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES, such as “inadmissibility procedures” (Germany and Greece), and they extended the list of safe countries of origin.
* Austria, Germany and Greece introduced different forms and schemes of ‘ACCELERATED’ PROCEDURES with the main effect again of lowering procedural rights. Procedural acceleration is mostly linked with enforced encampment, which turns into half-closed (the ANKER system in Germany) or closed campsites (as on the Greek islands) in some countries.
* Almost all countries tended to DOWNGRADE THE RIGHTS OF APPLICANTS and many countries introduced new categories like “prospect to stay” (measuring acceptance rates) with lesser procedural and social rights. The majority of RESPOND countries’ legislations converge towards a reduction of asylum applicants’ rights and standards. Asylum seekers are most often limited in their freedom of movement and are denied other fundamental rights, in some countries, such as access to the right to work and welfare measures.
*The reports also show a more or less general DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR REFUGEES. In Turkey, a blanket suspension of this right is in place as of 2017. In Sweden and Greece, refugees are entitled to family reunification, but they have to submit their application within 3 months from the granting of status. The same deadline is also provided in the legislations of Germany and Austria. If a refugee fails to meet this deadline, further requirements are imposed in order to enjoy the right to family unit, namely, so-called material conditions requirements.
* The reports show a DOWNSIZING OF THE STATUS OF SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION. The disparity in the legal treatment of this status, as compared to refugee status, has increased in RESPOND countries. For example, in only 4 out of the 11 RESPOND countries are holders of refugee status and subsidiary protection entitled to receive a residence permit of equal duration (5 years in Italy and the UK; 3 years in Greece and Hungary). In Germany, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are denied the right to family reunification, meaning this right is turned into a humanitarian gesture limited to only a few individuals.
* As a general tendency, the reports reveal a PERVASIVE LEGAL UNCERTAINTY. The condition of precarity in which refugee are embedded can be regarded as a common thread running through all of the RESPOND countries. This pervasive uncertainty encompasses, in many instances, every stages of the national migration system, from the operations of rescue and succor, to the RSD and the set of entitlements bestowed on asylum seekers after they obtain protection or permission to stay.
* Additionally, the reports find evidence of a general REGRESSIVE APPROACH and recourse to the notion of the “illegal asylum seeker”. In Respond countries, there is a tendency to merge the status of ‘protection seeker’ with a condition of ‘illegality’ or ‘irregularity’. Following this pattern, more and more frequently, governmental authorities are deploying the punitive arsenal of criminal law against migrants, in an attempt to manage and control migration. Along with this, the distinction between criminal law and immigration law is progressively blurring. Evidence of such schemes have been analysed and theorized in what has been called “crimmigration law”.
· Towards a policy of deterrence and return
* The reports on border management and migration control identify a further SECURITIZATION OF THE ENTIRE POLICY FIELD as a predominant trend, resulting not only in expanded internal control measures, but also in a stronger emphasis on deportation, and expanded use of detention. Conversely, fundamental rights and human rights considerations have been weakened, since 2015.
* SYSTEMATIC PUSH-BACKS and an extensive use of inter-personal violence is reported in Turkey, Greece, Hungary and Poland.
* The report on FRONTEX even indicates that there is DIRECT AND INDIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF THE PIVOTAL EU BORDER AGENCY IN PUSHBACK ACTIVITIES and inadequate reporting on member states’ activities. The report shows that the existing monitoring and accountability mechanisms are especially insufficient for investigating and addressing fundamental rights violations by the agency. The legal framework in particular does not allow for the possibility of allocating responsibility for violations, and there is no meaningful scope of remedies for victims.
* The country reports show that RETURN IS ALSO THE DOMINANT DISCOURSE AMONG POLITICAL ACTORS IN MOST EU AND NON-EU-COUNTRIES. Especially in Turkey, there is increasing concern about the involuntary returns of Syrians, as well as individual cases of administrative detention and deportation of irregular migrants. The fear of involuntary return among Syrians in Istanbul increased when Turkey threatened to open its borders to Europe (March 2019), as well as during the Summer of 2019 when the Governor of Istanbul announced that those Syrians originally registered in other cities were going to be sent back when detained. The number of returnees has increased (although the figures are contested) after the construction of safe zones at the Syrian border.
· External dimension: Producing buffer zones and waiting rooms with a high level of legal precarity
* In the wake of the 2015/2016 migration ‘crisis’, European migration and asylum regimes have created conditions of ‘PROTRACTED TRANSITIONALITY’. Especially in front states like Turkey and Lebanon, but also in Greece refugees are both physically and also emotionally entrapped and stuck in ‘waiting rooms’. Living desperately in legal limbo under precarious conditions. Uncertainty has detrimental consequences for their well-being.
· Border and migration policy endanger the life of people in flight – no safe passage to the internationally enshrined asylum protection system
* The report on border experiences and practices of refugees, which is based on interviews with 507 refugees, demonstrates how the EU and its member states’ migration and border policies also SHAPE THE CONDITIONS OF THE ROUTES AND THE JOURNEYS of people fleeing violence, war and disasters.
* The main effect of the EU and its member states’ policy of restriction and deterrence – especially its external dimension - is that people fleeing are increasingly “directed” towards LONGER, AND EVER MORE DANGEROUS ROUTES leading to “protracted” and fragmented forms of flight-migration up to several years (in some cases up to 11 years).
* Our research confirms that these policies have severe GENDERED EFFECTS and expose the most vulnerable (i.e. women and children) to extreme hardships. 5% of the interviewed refugees indicated that they had been raped and/or trafficked, all on the Central Mediterranean route.
* RESPOND research identifies a correlation between the life-threatening risks fleeing people have to face on the routes to the EU and the EU policy of trying to seal off borders. This situation clearly shows that THE “HUMANITARIAN CORRIDOR” ALONG THE BALKAN ROUTE IN 2015 AND 2016 WAS A POSITIVE HUMANITARIAN EXCEPTION in view of the time, as well as the level of life-threatening risks.
* In general, the interviews demonstrate that the border policies of the EU and its member states deliberately take into account and increasingly enact different forms of INTERPERSONAL AND STRUCTURAL, PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL VIOLENCE THAT CONTRADICT INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN PROTECTION REGIMES, such as the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture or the non-refoulement principle, which is one of the cornerstones of the Geneva refugee convention
* The reports and the survey clearly challenge the myth that all refugees and migrants want to reach Western or Northern European Countries. Rather, the interviews demonstrate that the CHOICE OF DESTINATION COUNTRY is based on a complex assessment in which the existence of diasporic networks, relatives and friends counts heavily.
Contact:
RESPOND
E-Mail: respond.horizon2020@gmail.com