#accord

Asylum Outsourced : McKinsey’s Secret Role in Europe’s Refugee Crisis

In 2016 and 2017, US management consultancy giant #McKinsey was at the heart of efforts in Europe to accelerate the processing of asylum applications on over-crowded Greek islands and salvage a controversial deal with Turkey, raising concerns over the outsourcing of public policy on refugees.

The language was more corporate boardroom than humanitarian crisis – promises of ‘targeted strategies’, ‘maximising productivity’ and a ‘streamlined end-to-end asylum process.’

But in 2016 this was precisely what the men and women of McKinsey&Company, the elite US management consultancy, were offering the European Union bureaucrats struggling to set in motion a pact with Turkey to stem the flow of asylum seekers to the continent’s shores.

In March of that year, the EU had agreed to pay Turkey six billion euros if it would take back asylum seekers who had reached Greece – many of them fleeing fighting in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan – and prevent others from trying to cross its borders.

The pact – which human rights groups said put at risk the very right to seek refuge – was deeply controversial, but so too is the previously unknown extent of McKinsey’s influence over its implementation, and the lengths some EU bodies went to conceal that role.

According to the findings of this investigation, months of ‘pro bono’ fieldwork by McKinsey fed, sometimes verbatim, into the highest levels of EU policy-making regarding how to make the pact work on the ground, and earned the consultancy a contract – awarded directly, without competition – worth almost one million euros to help enact that very same policy.

The bloc’s own internal procurement watchdog later deemed the contract “irregular”.

Questions have already been asked about McKinsey’s input in 2015 into German efforts to speed up its own turnover of asylum applications, with concerns expressed about rights being denied to those applying.

This investigation, based on documents sought since November 2017, sheds new light on the extent to which private management consultants shaped Europe’s handling of the crisis on the ground, and how bureaucrats tried to keep that role under wraps.

“If some companies develop programs which then turn into political decisions, this is a political issue of concern that should be examined carefully,” said German MEP Daniel Freund, a member of the European Parliament’s budget committee and a former Head of Advocacy for EU Integrity at Transparency International.

“Especially if the same companies have afterwards been awarded with follow-up contracts not following due procedures.”

Deal too important to fail

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/characters-updated-1280x762.png

The March 2016 deal was the culmination of an epic geopolitical thriller played out in Brussels, Ankara and a host of European capitals after more than 850,000 people – mainly Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans – took to the Aegean by boat and dinghy from Turkey to Greece the previous year.

Turkey, which hosts some 3.5 million refugees from the nine-year-old war in neighbouring Syria, committed to take back all irregular asylum seekers who travelled across its territory in return for billions of euros in aid, EU visa liberalisation for Turkish citizens and revived negotiations on Turkish accession to the bloc. It also provided for the resettlement in Europe of one Syrian refugee from Turkey for each Syrian returned to Turkey from Greece.

The EU hailed it as a blueprint, but rights groups said it set a dangerous precedent, resting on the premise that Turkey is a ‘safe third country’ to which asylum seekers can be returned, despite a host of rights that it denies foreigners seeking protection.

The deal helped cut crossings over the Aegean, but it soon became clear that other parts were not delivering; the centrepiece was an accelerated border procedure for handling asylum applications within 15 days, including appeal. This wasn’t working, while new movement restrictions meant asylum seekers were stuck on Greek islands.

But for the EU, the deal was too important to be derailed.

“The directions from the European Commission, and those behind it, was that Greece had to implement the EU-Turkey deal full-stop, no matter the legal arguments or procedural issue you might raise,” said Marianna Tzeferakou, a lawyer who was part of a legal challenge to the notion that Turkey is a safe place to seek refuge.

“Someone gave an order that this deal will start being implemented. Ambiguity and regulatory arbitrage led to a collapse of procedural guarantees. It was a political decision and could not be allowed to fail.”

Enter McKinsey.

Action plans emerge simultaneously

Fresh from advising Germany on how to speed up the processing of asylum applications, the firm’s consultants were already on the ground doing research in Greece in the summer of 2016, according to two sources working with the Greek asylum service, GAS, at the time but who did not wish to be named.

Documents seen by BIRN show that the consultancy was already in “initial discussions” with an EU body called the ‘Structural Reform Support Service’, SRSS, which aids member states in designing and implementing structural reforms and was at the time headed by Dutchman Maarten Verwey. Verwey was simultaneously EU coordinator for the EU-Turkey deal and is now the EU’s director general of economic and financial affairs, though he also remains acting head of SRSS.

Asked for details of these ‘discussions’, Verwey responded that the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – “does not hold any other documents” concerning the matter.

Nevertheless, by September 2016, McKinsey had a pro bono proposal on the table for how it could help out, entitled ‘Supporting the European Commission through integrated refugee management.’ Verwey signed off on it in October.

Minutes of management board meetings of the European Asylum Support Office, EASO – the EU’s asylum agency – show McKinsey was tasked by the Commission to “analyse the situation on the Greek islands and come up with an action plan that would result in an elimination of the backlog” of asylum cases by April 2017.

A spokesperson for the Commission told BIRN: “McKinsey volunteered to work free of charge to improve the functioning of the Greek asylum and reception system.”

Over the next 12 weeks, according to other redacted documents, McKinsey worked with all the major actors involved – the SRSS, EASO, the EU border agency Frontex as well as Greek authorities.

At bi-weekly stakeholder meetings, McKinsey identified “bottlenecks” in the asylum process and began to outline a series of measures to reduce the backlog, some of which were already being tested in a “mini-pilot” on the Greek island of Chios.

At a first meeting in mid-October, McKinsey consultants told those present that “processing rates” of asylum cases by the EASO and the Greek asylum service, as well as appeals bodies, would need to significantly increase.

By December, McKinsey’s “action plan” was ready, involving “targeted strategies and recommendations” for each actor involved.

The same month, on December 8, Verwey released the EU’s own Joint Action Plan for implementing the EU-Turkey deal, which was endorsed by the EU’s heads of government on December 15.

There was no mention of any McKinsey involvement and when asked about the company’s role the Commission told BIRN the plan was “a document elaborated together between the Commission and the Greek authorities.”

However, buried in the EASO’s 2017 Annual Report is a reference to European Council endorsement of “the consultancy action plan” to clear the asylum backlog.

Indeed, the similarities between McKinsey’s plan and the EU’s Joint Action Plan are uncanny, particularly in terms of increasing detention capacity on the islands, “segmentation” of cases, ramping up numbers of EASO and GAS caseworkers and interpreters and Frontex escort officers, limiting the number of appeal steps in the asylum process and changing the way appeals are processed and opinions drafted.

In several instances, they are almost identical: where McKinsey recommends introducing “overarching segmentation by case types to increase speed and quality”, for example, the EU’s Joint Action Plan calls for “segmentation by case categories to increase speed and quality”.

Much of what McKinsey did for the SRSS remains redacted.

In June 2019, the Commission justified the non-disclosure on the basis that the information would pose a “risk” to “public security” as it could allegedly “be exploited by third parties (for example smuggling networks)”.

Full disclosure, it argued, would risk “seriously undermining the commercial interests” of McKinsey.

“While I understand that there could indeed be a private and public interest in the subject matter covered by the documents requested, I consider that such a public interest in transparency would not, in this case, outweigh the need to protect the commercial interests of the company concerned,” Martin Selmayr, then secretary-general of the European Commission, wrote.

SRSS rejected the suggestion that the fact that Verwey refused to fully disclose the McKinsey proposal he had signed off on in October 2016 represented a possible conflict of interest, according to internal documents obtained during this investigation.

Once Europe’s leaders had endorsed the Joint Action Plan, EASO was asked to “conclude a direct contract with McKinsey” to assist in its implementation, according to EASO management board minutes.

‘Political pressure’

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/timeline-updated-1280x1712.png

The contract, worth 992,000 euros, came with an attached ‘exception note’ signed on January 20, 2017, by EASO’s Executive Director at the time, Jose Carreira, and Joanna Darmanin, the agency’s then head of operations. The note stated that “due to the time constraints and the political pressure it was deemed necessary to proceed with the contract to be signed without following the necessary procurement procedure”.

The following year, an audit of EASO yearly accounts by the European Court of Auditors, ECA, which audits EU finances, found that “a single pre-selected economic operator” had been awarded work without the application of “any of the procurement procedures” laid down under EU regulations, designed to encourage transparency and competition.

“Therefore, the public procurement procedure and all related payments (992,000 euros) were irregular,” it said.

The auditor’s report does not name McKinsey. But it does specify that the “irregular” contract concerned the EASO’s hiring of a consultancy for implementation of the action plan in Greece; the amount cited by the auditor exactly matches the one in the McKinsey contract, while a spokesman for the EASO indirectly confirmed the contracts concerned were one and the same.

When asked about the McKinsey contract, the spokesman, Anis Cassar, said: “EASO does not comment on specifics relating to individual contracts, particularly where the ECA is concerned. However, as you note, ECA found that the particular procurement procedure was irregular (not illegal).”

“The procurement was carried under [sic] exceptional procurement rules in the context of the pressing requests by the relevant EU Institutions and Member States,” said EASO spokesman Anis Cassar.

McKinsey’s deputy head of Global Media Relations, Graham Ackerman, said the company was unable to provide any further details.

“In line with our firm’s values and confidentiality policy, we do not publicly discuss our clients or details of our client service,” Ackerman told BIRN.

‘Evaluation, feedback, goal-setting’

It was not the first time questions had been asked of the EASO’s procurement record.

In October 2017, the EU’s fraud watchdog, OLAF, launched a probe into the agency (▻https://www.politico.eu/article/jose-carreira-olaf-anti-fraud-office-investigates-eu-asylum-agency-director), chiefly concerning irregularities identified in 2016. It contributed to the resignation in June 2018 of Carreira (▻https://www.politico.eu/article/jose-carreira-easo-under-investigation-director-of-eu-asylum-agency-steps-d), who co-signed the ‘exception note’ on the McKinsey contract. The investigation eventually uncovered wrongdoings ranging from breaches of procurement rules to staff harassment (▻https://www.politico.eu/article/watchdog-finds-misconduct-at-european-asylum-support-office-harassment), Politico reported in November 2018.

According to the EASO, the McKinsey contract was not part of OLAF’s investigation. OLAF said it could not comment.

McKinsey’s work went ahead, running from January until April 2017, the point by which the EU wanted the backlog of asylum cases “eliminated” and the burden on overcrowded Greek islands lifted.

Overseeing the project was a steering committee comprised of Verwey, Carreira, McKinsey staff and senior Greek and European Commission officials.

The details of McKinsey’s operation are contained in a report it submitted in May 2017.

The EASO initially refused to release the report, citing its “sensitive and restrictive nature”. Its disclosure, the agency said, would “undermine the protection of public security and international relations, as well as the commercial interests and intellectual property of McKinsey & Company.”

The response was signed by Carreira.

Only after a reporter on this story complained to the EU Ombudsman, did the EASO agree to disclose several sections of the report.

Running to over 1,500 pages, the disclosed material provides a unique insight into the role of a major private consultancy in what has traditionally been the realm of public policy – the right to asylum.

In the jargon of management consultancy, the driving logic of McKinsey’s intervention was “maximising productivity” – getting as many asylum cases processed as quickly as possible, whether they result in transfers to the Greek mainland, in the case of approved applications, or the deportation of “returnable migrants” to Turkey.

“Performance management systems” were introduced to encourage speed, while mechanisms were created to “monitor” the weekly “output” of committees hearing the appeals of rejected asylum seekers.

Time spent training caseworkers and interviewers before they were deployed was to be reduced, IT support for the Greek bureaucracy was stepped up and police were instructed to “detain migrants immediately after they are notified of returnable status,” i.e. as soon as their asylum applications were rejected.

Four employees of the Greek asylum agency at the time told BIRN that McKinsey had access to agency staff, but said the consultancy’s approach jarred with the reality of the situation on the ground.

Taking part in a “leadership training” course held by McKinsey, one former employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told BIRN: “It felt so incompatible with the mentality of a public service operating in a camp for asylum seekers.”

The official said much of what McKinsey was proposing had already been considered and either implemented or rejected by GAS.

“The main ideas of how to organise our work had already been initiated by the HQ of GAS,” the official said. “The only thing McKinsey added were corporate methods of evaluation, feedback, setting goals, and initiatives that didn’t add anything meaningful.”

Indeed, the backlog was proving hard to budge.

Throughout successive “progress updates”, McKinsey repeatedly warned the steering committee that productivity “levels are insufficient to reach target”. By its own admission, deportations never surpassed 50 a week during the period of its contract. The target was 340.

In its final May 2017 report, McKinsey touted its success in “reducing total process duration” of the asylum procedure to a mere 11 days, down from an average of 170 days in February 2017.

Yet thousands of asylum seekers remained trapped in overcrowded island camps for months on end.

While McKinsey claimed that the population of asylum seekers on the island was cut to 6,000 by April 2017, pending “data verification” by Greek authorities, Greek government figures put the number at 12,822, just around 1,500 fewer than in January when McKinsey got its contract.

The winter was harsh; organisations working with asylum seekers documented a series of accidents in which a number of people were harmed or killed, with insufficient or no investigation undertaken by Greek authorities (▻https://www.proasyl.de/en/news/greek-hotspots-deaths-not-to-be-forgotten).

McKinsey’s final report tallied 40 field visits and more than 200 meetings and workshops on the islands. It also, interestingly, counted 21 weekly steering committee meetings “since October 2016” – connecting McKinsey’s 2016 pro bono work and the 2017 period it worked under contract with the EASO. Indeed, in its “project summary”, McKinsey states it was “invited” to work on both the “development” and “implementation” of the action plan in Greece.

The Commission, however, in its response to this investigation, insisted it did not “pre-select” McKinsey for the 2017 work or ask EASO to sign a contract with the firm.

Smarting from military losses in Syria and political setbacks at home, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan tore up the deal with the EU in late February this year, accusing Brussels of failing to fulfil its side of the bargain. But even before the deal’s collapse, 7,000 refugees and migrants reached Greek shores in the first two months of 2020, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

German link

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/numbers-updated-1280x755.png

This was not the first time that the famed consultancy firm had left its mark on Europe’s handling of the crisis.

In what became a political scandal (▻https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bamf-skandal-im-news-ticker-jetzt-muessen-sich-seehofer-und-cordt-den-fragen-d), the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, according to reports, paid McKinsey more than €45 million (▻https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/politik/Millionenzahlungen-Was-hat-McKinsey-beim-Bamf-gemacht-id512950) to help clear a backlog of more than 270,000 asylum applications and to shorten the asylum process.

German media reports said the sum included 3.9 million euros for “Integrated Refugee Management”, the same phrase McKinsey pitched to the EU in September 2016.

The parallels don’t end there.

Much like the contract McKinsey clinched with the EASO in January 2017, German media reports have revealed that more than half of the sum paid to the consultancy for its work in Germany was awarded outside of normal public procurement procedures on the grounds of “urgency”. Der Spiegel (▻https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/fluechtlinge-in-deutschland-mckinsey-erhielt-mehr-als-20-millionen-euro-a-11) reported that the firm also did hundreds of hours of pro bono work prior to clinching the contract. McKinsey denied that it worked for free in order to win future federal contracts.

Again, the details were classified as confidential.

Arne Semsrott, director of the German transparency NGO FragdenStaat, which investigated McKinsey’s work in Germany, said the lack of transparency in such cases was costing European taxpayers money and control.

Asked about German and EU efforts to keep the details of such outsourcing secret, Semsrott told BIRN: “The lack of transparency means the public spending more money on McKinsey and other consulting firms. And this lack of transparency also means that we have a lack of public control over what is actually happening.”

Sources familiar with the decision-making in Athens identified Solveigh Hieronimus, a McKinsey partner based in Munich, as the coordinator of the company’s team on the EASO contract in Greece. Hieronimus was central in pitching the company’s services to the German government, according to German media reports (▻https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-147594782.html).

Hieronimus did not respond to BIRN questions submitted by email.

Freund, the German MEP formerly of Transparency International, said McKinsey’s role in Greece was a cause for concern.

“It is not ideal if positions adopted by the [European] Council are in any way affected by outside businesses,” he told BIRN. “These decisions should be made by politicians based on legal analysis and competent independent advice.”

A reporter on this story again complained to the EU Ombudsman in July 2019 regarding the Commission’s refusal to disclose further details of its dealings with McKinsey.

In November, the Ombudsman told the Commission that “the substance of the funded project, especially the work packages and deliverable of the project[…] should be fully disclosed”, citing the principle that “the public has a right to be informed about the content of projects that are financed by public money.” The Ombudsman rejected the Commission’s argument that partial disclosure would undermine the commercial interests of McKinsey.

Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen responded that the Commission “respectfully disagrees” with the Ombudsman. The material concerned, she wrote, “contains sensitive information on the business strategies and the commercial relations of the company concerned.”

The president of the Commission has had dealings with McKinsey before; in February, von der Leyen testified before a special Bundestag committee concerning contracts worth tens of millions of euros that were awarded to external consultants, including McKinsey, during her time as German defence minister in 2013-2019.

In 2018, Germany’s Federal Audit Office said procedures for the award of some contracts had not been strictly lawful or cost-effective. Von der Leyen acknowledged irregularities had occurred but said that much had been done to fix the shortcomings (▻https://www.ft.com/content/4634a3ea-4e71-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5).

She was also questioned about her 2014 appointment of Katrin Suder, a McKinsey executive, as state secretary tasked with reforming the Bundeswehr’s system of procurement. Asked if Suder, who left the ministry in 2018, had influenced the process of awarding contracts, von der Leyen said she assumed not. Decisions like that were taken “way below my pay level,” she said.

In its report, Germany’s governing parties absolved von der Leyen of blame, Politico reported on June 9 (►https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-german-governing-parties-contracting-scandal).

The EU Ombudsman is yet to respond to the Commission’s refusal to grant further access to the McKinsey documents.

▻https://balkaninsight.com/2020/06/22/asylum-outsourced-mckinseys-secret-role-in-europes-refugee-crisis
#accord_UE-Turquie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #privatisation #sous-traitance #Turquie #EU #UE #Union_européenne #Grèce #frontières #Allemagne #EASO #Structural_Reform_Support_Service (#SRSS) #Maarten_Verwey #Frontex #Chios #consultancy #Joint_Action_Plan #Martin_Selmayr #chronologie #Jose_Carreira #Joanna_Darmanin #privatisation #management #productivité #leadership_training #îles #Mer_Egée #Integrated_Refugee_Management #pro_bono #transparence #Solveigh_Hieronimus #Katrin_Suder

ping @_kg_ @karine4 @isskein @rhoumour @reka

Petrolio e migranti. Il « patto libico »

Decine di navi e depositi per il contrabbando attraverso Malta e i clan siciliani. Business da oltre un miliardo. Ispettori Onu e Ue: a comandare sono i boss del traffico di esseri umani.

https://www.avvenire.it/c/2020/PublishingImages/377f25fcc0b9482b809eb38e462bb7c8/IMG1325_69834480.jpg?width=1024#.jpg

«Oil for food» la chiamavano in Iraq. Export di petrolio in cambio di cibo. Era l’unica eccezione all’embargo. Le milizie libiche hanno cambiato i fattori: «#Oil_for_migrants ». Dovendo rallentare la frequenza dei barconi, hanno ottenuto cospicui “risarcimenti” mentre imbastivano un colossale contrabbando di petrolio. « Oil for migrants ». A tutto il resto pensano i faccendieri maltesi e la mafia siciliana.

Le ultime tracce della “Libia connection” sono del 20 gennaio. In Sicilia, per questioni di oro nero, sono finiti indagati in 23, tutti vicini ai clan di mafia catanesi. Il 5 dicembre 2019 la Procura di Bologna aveva messo i sigilli a 163mila litri di carburante. Solo due giorni prima i magistrati di Roma avevano arrestato 16 persone e bloccato 4 milioni di litri di gasolio. Abbastanza per fare il pieno a 80mila utilitarie. Secondo la procura di Trento, che aveva chiuso un’analoga inchiesta, nel nostro Paese l’evasione delle imposte negli idrocarburi può arrivare a 10 miliardi di euro. L’equivalente di una legge finanziaria.

Per venirne a capo bisogna ficcare il naso a Malta, che «rappresenta anche uno snodo per svariati traffici illeciti, come quello dei prodotti petroliferi provenienti dai Paesi interessati da una forte instabilità politica», si legge nell’ultima relazione al parlamento della Direzione investigativa antimafia. L’episodio chiave è del 2017, quando la procura di Catania porta a termine l’operazione “Dirty Oil”, che ha permesso «di scoprire – ricorda sempre la Dia – un traffico di petrolio importato clandestinamente dalla Libia e che, grazie ad una compagnia di trasporto maltese, veniva introdotto sul mercato italiano sfruttando il circuito delle cosiddette pompe bianche». In mezzo, però, c’è l’omicidio di Daphne Caruana Galizia. La reporter maltese era stata eliminata con una bomba il 16 ottobre 2017, due giorni prima della retata che da Catania a Malta avrebbe confermato tutte le sue rivelazioni sui traffici illeciti tra la Libia e l’Europa via La Valletta. Messo alle strette, il governo dell’isola aveva chiesto sanzioni internazionali contro i boss del contrabbando di petrolio. Ma è a questo punto che accade un imprevisto. Uno di quegli inciampi che da solo permette di comprendere quale sia la misura e l’estensione della partita. Ad agosto 2019 il Cremlino, a sorpresa, annuncia di voler porre il veto al provvedimento con cui il Consiglio di Sicurezza Onu si apprestava a disporre il blocco, ovunque nel mondo, dei patrimoni della gang di maltesi, libici e siciliani. Un intrigo internazionale in piena regola. Un anno prima il Dipartimento del Tesoro Usa aveva disposto l’interdizione di tutti gli indagati da ogni attività negli Stati Uniti.

Tra le persone che Malta, dopo l’uccisione di Caruana Galizia, avrebbe voluto vedere con i sigilli ai conti corrente ci sono l’ex calciatore Darren Debono e i suoi associati, tra i quali l’uomo d’affari Gordon Debono e il libico Fahmi Bin Khalifa. Nomi che tornano spesso. I tre, con il catanese Nicola Orazio Romeo, sono sotto processo perché ritenuti responsabili di un ingente traffico di gasolio sottratto ai giacimenti libici sotto il controllo della milizia Al-Nasr, quella del trafficante-guardacoste Bija e dei fratelli Kachlav. Dallo stabilimento di Zawiyah, il più grande della Libia, praticamente a ridosso del più affollato centro di detenzione ufficiale per migranti affidato dalle autorità ai torturatori che rispondono sempre a Bija, l’oro nero viene sottratto con la complicità della “ Petroleum facility guard”, un corpo di polizia privato incaricato dal governo di proteggere il petrolchimico. Ma a capo delle guardie c’è proprio uno dei fratelli Kachlav. Il porto di Zawyah è assegnato alla “Guardia costiera” che, neanche a dirlo, è comandata sempre da al Milad, nome de guerre “Bija”, nel 2017 arrivato con discrezione in Italia durante il lungo negoziato per fermare le partenze dei migranti.

A sostenere la connessione tra smercio illegale di idrocarburi, traffico di armi ed esseri umani sono gli esperti delle Nazioni Unite inviati in Libia per investigare. Il gasolio «proviene dalla raffineria di Zawiyah lungo un percorso parallelo alla strada costiera», si legge nell’ultima relazione degli ispettori Onu visionata da Avvenire. Molte foto ritraggono proprio Bija alla guida di gruppi combattenti o impegnato su navi cisterna. Le conclusioni confermano inoltre che l’area di Zuara, dove spadroneggia il clan Dabbashi – a seconda dei casi alleato o in rotta di collisione con i boss di Zawyah – «è stata la principale piattaforma per le esportazioni illecite via mare di prodotti petroliferi raffinati». Nei dintorni ci sono almeno 40 depositi illegali di petrolio. Da questi impianti «il carburante – si legge ancora – viene trasferito in autocisterne più piccole fino al porto di Zuara, dove viene caricato in piccole navi cisterna o pescherecci con serbatoi modificati». A disposizione dei contrabbandieri c’è una flotta ragguardevole: «Circa 70 imbarcazioni, piccole petroliere o pescherecci da traino, sono dedicate esclusivamente a questa attività». Dalle stazioni di pompaggio i trafficanti utilizzano condutture che trasportano il carburante alle navi che sostano «tra 1 e 2 miglia nautiche al largo».

I nomi dei vascelli sono noti e riportati in diversi documenti confidenziali. Impossibile che in Libia nessuno veda. In totale «esistono circa 20 reti di contrabbando attive, che danno lavoro a circa 500 persone», spiegano gli esperti Onu. Manodopera da aggiungere alle migliaia di libici arruolati dagli stessi gruppi per controllare il territorio, gestire il traffico di esseri umani, combattere per le varie fazioni.

Le inchieste, però, non fermano il business. Il catanese Romeo, indagato nel 2017 per l’indagine etnea “ Dirty Oil”, in passato era stato ritenuto dagli investigatori in contatto con esponenti della famiglia mafiosa Santapaola–Ercolano. Ipotesi, in attesa di un pronunciamento dei tribunali, sempre respinta dall’interessato. A confermare l’interesse di Cosa nostra siciliana per le petroliere sono arrivati i 23 arresti di gennaio. Tra gli indagati vi sono ancora una volta esponenti dei clan catanesi, stavolta della famiglia Mazzei, tornata ad allearsi proprio con i Santapaola– Ercolano. «Abbiamo riscontrato alcuni collegamenti con personaggi coinvolti nell’indagine Dirty Oil, dove era emersa proprio l’origine libica del petrolio raffinato», ha commentato dopo gli arresti il procuratore aggiunto di Catania, Francesco Puleio. Alcuni degli indagati hanno anche «cercato nuovi canali di fornitura e sono entrati in contatto con l’uomo d’affari maltese Gordon Debono, coinvolto nell’indagine Dirty Oil».

Il collegamento tra mafia libica e mafia siciliana per il tramite di mediatori della Valletta è confermato da un’altra rivelazione contenuta nel dossier consegnato al Palazzo di Vetro a fine 2019. A proposito della nave “Ruta”, con bandiera dell’Ucraina, sorpresa a svolgere attività di contrabbando petrolifero, gli investigatori Onu scrivono: «Secondo le indagini condotte dal Procuratore di Catania», il vascello è stato coinvolto in operazioni illegali, compreso il trasferimento di carburante ad altre navi, «in particolare la Stella Basbosa e il Sea Master X, entrambi collegati alla rete di contrabbando di “Fahmi Slim” e, secondo quanto riferito, ha scaricato combustibile di contrabbando nei porti italiani in 13 occasioni ». Quello di “Fahmi Slim” altro non è che il nome di battaglia di Fahmi Musa Bin Khalifa, il boss del petrolio di Zuara, in affari con Mohammed Kachlav, il capo in persona della milizia al Nasr di Zawyah.

A ostacolare il patto tra mafie dovrebbe essere l’operazione navale europea Irini «che ha già dimostrato l’utilità in termini di informazioni raccolte, e per l’effetto deterrenza anche sul contrabbando di petrolio», ha detto nei giorni scorsi il commissario agli affari Esteri Josep Borrel. E chissà se l’aumento del 150% delle partenze sui barconi sia solo una coincidenza o non sia uno degli effetti di «Oil for migrants».

▻https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/petrolio-e-migranti-il-patto-libico
#pétrole #migrations #Libye #pacte #extractivisme #accord #Malte #Italie #contrebande #mafia #Libia_connection #Dirty_Oil #Daphne_Caruana_Galizia #Darren_Debono #Gordon_Debono #Fahmi_Bin_Khalifa #Nicola_Orazio_Romeo #Al-Nasr #Bija #Kachlav #Zawiyah #Petroleum_facility_guard #gardes-côtes #Dabbashi #Zuara #Zawyah #Romeo #Santapaola–Ercolano #Cosa_nostra #Mazzei #Ruta #Stella_Basbosa #Sea_Master_X #Fahmi_Slim #Fahmi_Musa_Bin_Khalifa #Mohammed_Kachlav #Irini

–—

voir aussi :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/849512

ping @isskein @albertocampiphoto @wizo

Petit-fils d’#Algérie

https://www.casterman.com/media/cache/couverture_large/casterman_img/Couvertures/9782203093997.jpg

La famille de Joël Alessandra est originaire d’Italie. Au début du XXe siècle,elle a quitté la misère pour l’Eden que représentait l’Algérie, un morceau de la France où tout était à construire. À l’aune de ce que l’histoire a retenu des ‘colons’, Joël se pose une question légitime. Ses grands-parents étaient-ils des exploiteurs, des racistes, des esclavagistes ? Étaient-ils proches de l’OAS ? Ils ont tout quitté du jour au lendemain, ruminant à jamais une rancoeur profonde et légitime contre ce pays, ses habitants et bien sûr De Gaulle. En 2013, armé de son passeport et d’un visa (et accompagné de l’ « indispensable » guide sur place), Joël se rend pour la première fois à Constantine, ville de sa famille. Il est prêt à affronter ses craintes et ses doutes. Ce livre retrace son parcours… semblable à celui de milliers de familles.

▻https://www.casterman.com/Bande-dessinee/Catalogue/albums/petit-fils-dalgerie
#livre #BD #bande_dessinée
#Italiens #Constantine #rapatriés_d'Algérie #Marseille #Français_d'Algérie #pieds-noirs #accords_d'Evian #Robert_Lacoste #Bataille_d'Alger #FLN #indépendance #De_Gaulle #Charles_de_Gaulle #guerre_civile #FIS #mémoire #mémoire_familiale

EU proposes to ’top up support’ for refugees in Turkey

https://i.hurimg.com/i/hdn/75/0x0/5ed89526c9de3d253cffa51f.jpg

The European Commission on June 3 proposes to release a payment of €485 million ($545 million) for Turkey to support Syrian refugees in 2020.

The institution presented a budget amendment on June 3 suggesting “to top up support for refugees and host communities in response to the Syria crisis by a total of €585 million.”

€100 million ($112 million) will be allocated to Jordan and Lebanon, while Turkey receives the rest.

The proposal reflects the current circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic “with no immediate end in sight of the Syrian crisis”, EU commissioner for enlargement and neighborhood Oliver Varhelyi explained in a statement.

“The European Union continues to show strong solidarity with our partner countries Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, as well as with the refugees they are hosting”, he added.

According to the plan, €485 million transfer will extend the functioning of two established programs in Turkey until the end of the next year.

The program, #Emergency_Social_Safety_Net, provides monthly financial assistance to more than 1.7 million refugees.

The other one, #Conditional_Cash_Transfers, helps over 600,000 refugee children to attend school.

The funding is part of 2016 EU-Turkey deal, meant to stop irregular refugee flows and improve the conditions of Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The EU had pledged €6 billion ($6.5 billion) aid for the refugees.

According to EU’s latest data, all operational funds have been committed, €4.7 billion ($5.3 billion) contracted and €3.4 billion ($3.8 billion) disbursed.

In previous communications, the EU promised to pay €4 billion ($4.5 billion) by 2020.

If the current proposal is approved by the European Parliament and the EU member states, the €485 million will top up the €4 billion.

The full €6 billion amount is expected to be paid by 2025.

Turkey currently hosts 3.58 million Syrian refugees, more than any country in the world.

▻https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/eu-proposes-to-top-up-support-for-refugees-in-turkey-155326
#externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #EU #UE #Union_européenne #Turquie #aide_financière #réfugiés_syriens #Liban #Jordanie #accord_UE-Turquie #budget #2020

ping @rhoumour @karine4 @isskein

Chronique Monde | #Mauritanie. Un partenariat européen au goût amer

https://i0.wp.com/asile.ch/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/L1010886.jpg?resize=768%2C514&ssl=1#.jpg

La Mauritanie fait figure d’exception au Sahel pour sa relative stabilité. Contrairement à d’autres États de la région, ce pays grand comme presque deux fois la France, à cheval entre le Maghreb et l’Afrique subsaharienne, n’a pas connu d’attentat terroriste depuis 2011. Dans ce contexte, Nouakchott est devenu un partenaire de choix dans le cadre de la lutte internationale contre le terrorisme et l’immigration irrégulière. Face à de tels impératifs, le respect des droits humains sur place passe largement au second plan.

Tour d’horizon des droits humains

Depuis le 1er août 2019, la Mauritanie est dirigée par Mohamed Ould El-Ghazaouani. Même si son élection au premier tour est contestée par l’opposition, elle marque la première transition présidentielle pacifique de l’histoire politique mauritanienne. Lors de son investiture, Amnesty International a qualifié de « déplorable » le bilan en matière de droits humains laissé par son prédécesseur, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, citant notamment l’esclavage, les discriminations raciales ainsi que les atteintes à la liberté d’expression, d’association et de réunion.

Même si l’esclavage a été officiellement aboli en 1981, criminalisé en 2007 et élevé au rang de crime contre l’humanité en 2012, sa pratique touchait environ 43000 personnes en 2016. Dans le même temps, Haratines et Afro- Mauritanien-ne-s restent largement exclu·e·s des postes de responsabilité et donc moins susceptibles de faire valoir leurs droits économiques et sociaux. Depuis l’indépendance, la quasi-totalité des pouvoirs politiques, militaires et économiques est détenue par les Beydanes, une communauté elle-même extrêmement hiérarchisée.

Celles et ceux qui s’attaquent à ces questions sensibles s’exposent aux représailles de la part de l’État. L’exemple le plus parlant est celui du blogueur Mohamed Ould Mkhaïtir, condamné à mort en 2014 pour « apostasie » après avoir dénoncé l’usage de la religion pour légitimer les pratiques discriminatoires dont est victime la communauté dite des forgerons. Sa peine a depuis été réduite à deux années de prison et il vit actuellement en exil après avoir été libéré en juillet 2019.

Une tradition d’hospitalité remise en cause

La Mauritanie est à la fois un pays de transit pour les réfugié-e-s et les migrant-e-s qui se rendent en Afrique du Nord et en Europe et un pays de destination pour celles et ceux à la recherche d’emplois saisonniers dans les secteurs de la pêche et de l’industrie minière ou d’une protection internationale. Signataire de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés, la Mauritanie a ouvert ses portes en 2012 à plus de 55000 réfugié-e-s malien-ne-s installé-e-s dans le camp de Mbera situé non loin de la frontière malienne.

Cette politique d’accueil doit néanmoins être nuancée à la lumière de l’externalisation des frontières européennes. L’#Union_européenne (UE) a fait pression sur la Mauritanie pour qu’elle signe en 2003 un #accord_de_réadmission avec l’Espagne qui l’oblige à reprendre sur son territoire non seulement ses nationaux, mais également les ressortissant-e-s de pays tiers dont il est « vérifié » ou « présumé » qu’ils ou elles auraient transité par le territoire mauritanien. Un #centre_de_rétention avait été mis sur pied à #Nouadhibou avec l’aide de l’#Espagne. Il est aujourd’hui fermé (voir VE 135 / décembre 2011 : ▻https://asile.ch/chronique/mauritanie-nouvelle-frontiere-de-leurope).

Parallèlement, la Mauritanie a reçu entre 2007 et 2013 huit millions d’euros dans le cadre du #Fonds_européen_de_développement afin d’« appuyer et de renforcer les capacités de gestion, de suivi et de planification des flux migratoires » à travers notamment la révision du dispositif pénal relatif aux migrations.

Résultat : la politique migratoire s’est durcie durant la présidence Aziz. Les autorités ont multiplié les contrôles aux frontières, placé en détention et renvoyé de force des milliers de personnes et soumis certaines d’entre elles à des tortures et mauvais traitements.

L’ensemble de ces mesures a contribué à déplacer les routes migratoires vers le désert du #Sahara et la #Méditerranée_centrale. Le nombre d’arrivées dans l’archipel espagnol des #Canaries en provenance des côtes mauritaniennes a chuté de 30 000 à moins d’un millier entre 2006 et 2015.

Cette dynamique est néanmoins en train de s’inverser à mesure que la #Libye apparaît comme une zone de plus en plus inhospitalière. Cette reconfiguration préfigure une recrudescence des naufrages dans l’#Atlantique faute de voies migratoires sûres. Le 4 décembre 2019, une embarcation de fortune partie de #Gambie a sombré au large de #Nouadhibou provoquant la mort d’une soixantaine de personnes.

►https://asile.ch/2020/04/17/chronique-monde-mauritanie-un-partenariat-europeen-au-gout-amer
#externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UE #EU #aide_au_développement #développement #coopération_au_développement #contrôles_frontaliers #routes_migratoires
via @vivre
ping @rhoumour @isskein @karine4 @_kg_

–—

Ajouté à la métaliste « externalisation » :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765327

Et la métaliste aide au développement et conditionnalité de l’aide :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/733358#message768701

Frontex bientôt sur les frontières du #Monténégro et de la #Serbie

1er juin - 8h : L’Union européenne a approuvé, mardi 26 mai, un #accord passé avec le Monténégro et la Serbie, prévoyant le déploiement de la #mission_Frontex sur les frontières de ces deux pays. Il s’agit d’aider le Monténégro et la Serbie, candidats à l’intégrer, à « mieux gérer les flux migratoires ». Le déploiement de #Frontex sera effectif dès juillet au Monténégro, tandis qu’une date doit encore être fixée pour la Serbie.

►https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Les-dernieres-infos-Refugies-Balkans-Bosnie-Herzegovine-un-nouvea

#Balkans #route_des_balkans #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés

–---

Voir aussi :

2018 :
« Come il Montenegro si prepara a un’emergenza che non c’è »
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/712376

2019 :
European Border and Coast Guard : Agreement reached on operational cooperation with Montenegro
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/758359

À partir de 22 mai 2019, Frontex déploiera des équipes conjointes à la frontière grecque avec des agents albanais. La Commission européenne a passé des accords semblables avec la Macédoine du Nord, la Serbie, le Monténégro et la Bosnie-Herzégovine, qui devraient également entrer en vigueur.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/782260

ping @isskein @reka @karine4

Latest Tactic to Push Migrants From Europe ? A Private, Clandestine Fleet

The government of Malta enlisted three privately owned fishing trawlers to intercept migrants in the Mediterranean, and force them back to a war zone, officials and a boat captain say.

With the onset of the coronavirus, Malta announced that it was too overwhelmed to rescue migrants making the precarious crossing of the Mediterranean Sea, where the tiny island nation has been on the front line of the maritime migration route over the past decade.

In secret, however, the Maltese authorities have worked hard to make sure no migrants actually reach the island.

It dispatched a small fleet of private merchant vessels in April to intercept migrants at sea and return them by force to a war zone in Libya, according to information provided by the captain of one of the boats, a senior commander in the Libyan Coast Guard, and a former Maltese official involved in the episode.

The three repurposed fishing trawlers are privately owned, but acted on the instructions of the Armed Forces of Malta, the captain and the others said.

The clandestine operation, which some experts consider illegal under international law, is just the latest dubious measure taken by European countries in recent years to stem the migration from Africa and the Middle East that has sown political chaos in Europe and fueled a populist backlash.

Since 2017, European states, led by Italy, have paid the Libyan government to return more migrants to Libya, hassled the private rescue organizations that try to bring them to Europe, and asked passing merchant vessels to intercept them before they enter European waters.

But Malta’s latest tactic may be among the most egregious, maritime experts say, because it involved a designated flotilla of private vessels, based in a European port, that intercepted and expelled asylum seekers from international waters that fall within the responsibility of European coast guards.

“Against a pattern of increased abuses against asylum seekers in recent years, this newest approach stands out,” said Itamar Mann, an expert in maritime and refugee law at the University of Haifa in Israel. “Its methods chillingly resemble organized crime, and indeed the operations of people smugglers, which European policymakers so adamantly denounce.”

“The facts available raise serious concerns that we are seeing the emergence of a novel systematic pattern, such that may even put Maltese state officials in danger of criminal liability, at home or abroad,” Dr. Mann added.

The Maltese government did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The activity was first documented on the evening of April 12, when three aging blue trawlers left the Grand Harbour in Valletta, the Maltese capital, within an hour of each other. The three boats — the Dar Al Salam 1, the Salve Regina and the Tremar — departed at the request of the Maltese authorities, according to the captain of the Tremar, Amer Abdelrazek.

A former Maltese official, Neville Gafa, said he was enlisted by the government that same night to use his connections in Libya to ensure the safe passage of the first two boats to Libya.

The boats did not submit paperwork to the immigration police, and switched off their satellite tracking devices soon after leaving port, maritime databases show.

But their mission had already been determined, said Mr. Gafa, who said he had been asked by the Maltese prime minister’s chief of staff, Clyde Caruana, to help coordinate the operation. Mr. Caruana did not respond to requests for comment, but a government spokesman told The Times of Malta that Mr. Gafa had been asked to liaise with Libya on a separate matter that was unconnected to the episode.

The trawlers were sent to intercept a migrant vessel attempting to reach Malta from Libya — and which had been issuing mayday calls for some 48 hours — and then return its passengers to Libya, Mr. Gafa said.

The stricken migrant vessel was still in international waters, according to coordinates provided by the migrants by satellite phone to Alarm Phone, an independent hotline for shipwrecked refugees. But it had reached the area of jurisdiction of Malta’s armed forces, making it Malta’s responsibility under international maritime law to rescue its passengers and provide them with sanctuary.

Two of the trawlers — the Dar Al Salam 1 and the Tremar — reached the migrant vessel early on April 14, guided by a Maltese military helicopter, Mr. Abdelrazek said. Several of the migrants had already drowned, according to testimony later gathered by Alarm Phone.

The roughly 50 survivors were taken aboard the Dar Al Salam 1, Mr. Abdelrazek said.

The Dar Al Salam 1 and the Salve Regina sailed to Tripoli on April 15, the former carrying the migrants and the latter carrying several tons of food and water, as a show of appreciation to the Libyan government, Mr. Abdelrazek and Mr. Gafa said. The Tremar waited in international waters, Mr. Abdelrazek said.

The Maltese authorities told their Libyan counterparts that the Dar Al Salam 1 was in fact a Maltese vessel called the Maria Cristina, said Commodore Masoud Abdalsamad, who oversees international operations at the Libyan Coast Guard. To further obscure its identity, the boat’s crew had also painted over the ship’s name and flew a Maltese flag to confuse the Libyan Coast Guard.

Though based physically in Malta and owned by a Maltese shipowner, the vessel is legally registered in Tobruk, a port in east Libya controlled by opponents of the authorities in Tripoli. The crew did not want to risk upsetting the Tripoli government by broadcasting its links to Tobruk, leading it to hide its name and home port, Mr. Abdelrazek said.

After disembarking, the migrants were taken to a notorious detention center run by a pro-government militia, where migrants are routinely tortured, held for ransom or sold to other militias. The detention cells stand close to an arms depot, and the surrounding area was hit by shelling in December.

Conditions at the detention center are “utterly appalling,” said Safa Msehli, a spokeswoman for the International Organization for Migration, an arm of the United Nations. “People are caged in overcrowded hangars with barely any access to food or sanitation facilities.”

“Many tell us of the abuse they endure and the inhumane ways in which they are exploited,’’ Ms. Msehli added. ‘‘Reports of migrants being used to load weapons, and the detention center’s proximity to a military facility, raise serious concerns over the safety of people detained there arbitrarily.”

After departing Tripoli, the Dar Al Salam 1 turned its satellite identification system back on, and the boat resurfaced off the coast of Libya on the evening of April 15, data provided by Marine Traffic, a maritime database, shows.

The owner of the Salve Regina, Dominic Tanti, declined to comment through an intermediary, and the owner of the Tremar, Yasser Aziz, did not return a message seeking comment.

The owner of the Dar Al Salam 1, Carmelo Grech, did not to respond to multiple requests for comment sent by text, voice message and a letter hand-delivered to his apartment. But he has confirmed his boat’s involvement to a Maltese newspaper, and several outlets have already highlighted its role, including the Italian newspaper, Avvenire, and the Maltese blogger Manuel Delia.

Mr. Grech and his boat have colorful histories, raising questions in Malta about why the government involved them in a state-led operation.

Mr. Grech has previously recounted how he used the boat, then known as the Mae Yemanja, to bring supplies to Libyan rebels during the Libyan revolution in 2011. In 2012, court records show it was impounded after Mr. Grech was accused, though later acquitted, of smuggling contraband cigarettes from Libya to Malta.

In 2015, Mr. Grech was detained by a Libyan faction for several days for what he later described as a misunderstanding over his visas.

Maltese ship records obtained by The Times show that Mr. Grech canceled his boat’s registration in Malta last February, before repainting it to show it had been re-registered in Tobruk, for undisclosed reasons.

Mr. Abdelrazek also has a criminal history, having been convicted in 2014 of forging documents, court records show.

After appearing briefly in Malta last week, the Dar Al Salam 1 and the Salve Regina returned again to sea on Sunday.

Their satellite trackers were once again switched off shortly afterward.

▻https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/world/europe/migrants-malta.html
#privatisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Malte #Méditerranée #push-backs #refoulement #refoulements #Libye

–—

Commentaire de @isskein via la mailing-list Migreurop :

Depuis avril fonctionne une méthode pro-active : une #flotte_privée de 3 bateaux qui se chargent d’arrêter les bateaux de migrants et de les renvoyer vers la Libye.

Un ancien officiel maltais, #Neville_Gafà, a été engagé par le Premier Ministre pour monter l’affaire avec ses contacts libyens

il est entre autres responsable de la #tragédie_de_Pâques : le gouvernement a ignoré durant 48h un bateau qui se trouvait dans sles eaux internationales (mais dans la juridiction des Forces armées maltaises) , puis envoyé sa flotte privée, qui a pris à son bord 51 migrants dont 8 femmes et 3 enfants, à bord 5 cadavres ; 7 migrants s’étaient noyés auparavant. Ils ont été ramenés à Tripolii
voir ►https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/the-faces-and-names-of-a-migration-tragedy.788723

#mourir_en_mer #morts #décès

–---
Dans le mail reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, Conni parle de #hotspot_mobile :

Yesterday we got news from the Maltese media about a new strategy of the authorities to keep rescued migrants out: a floating hotspot on a cruise ship off their coast:
▻https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/102051/rescued_migrants_to_be_kept_on_captain_morgan_vessel_outside_territor

▻https://www.tvm.com.mt/en/news/rescued-migrants-will-remain-on-vessel-13-miles-outside-maltese-territorial-

via @isskein

InfoPark
15 – 21 April 2020
Weekly Flashback

Serbia
➢ A heavy presence of police and military troops continued in and around centers in Serbia, failing to yield any improvement of the situation. Some of the recent repressive actions can only be described as an open intimidation of migrants without
any clear reason and against international humanitarian laws – using surveillance drones flying low above the tents or parading with heavy vehicles in camps both during the day and during the night.

➢ During his visit to Obrenovac RTC on April 16, Serbian Minister of Defense Aleksandar Vulin stated that migrants present a security and health risk to Serbian citizens, stressing that the camps will remain locked until the end of pandemic, guarded by the Serbian Army. Soon after, Obrenovac migrants demolished an internal CCTV system installed for camp’s surveillance, continuing tense relations
with the authorities.

➢ According to local media, another massive incident occurred on Easter Sunday in Adasevci Reception Center when approx. 50 migrants tried to leave (as an act of nonviolent protest). This protest also came as a result of dissatisfaction over being locked in overcrowded government run centers, inadequate services and in this case,
repeated complaints over poor food quality. The riot was halted when an officer of the Serbian Armed Forces fired warning bullets into the air. This is the second time that live bullets were used in Serbian camps against non-armed refugees and migrants in the state of emergency.

➢ In the 7th week of COVID-19 outbreak, the centers are not yet capable of fulfilling the universal recommendations on social distancing, quarantine requirements and
voluntary isolation.

➢ A boat with migrants capsized on the Serbia-Romania border last week, according to Romanian police. Allegedly, the boat carried 2 Serbian smugglers and 16 migrants of different origins (Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Palestine). Two persons drowned,
eight were reported missing and eight were rescued. Official report on the incident has yet to be issued, however it has been shown once again how illegal movement through Serbia is still very strong despite the lockdown.

➢ Deutsche Welle (DW) in Serbia reported on a mysterious international agreement between Austria and Serbia, which allegedly gives an option to Austria to return rejected asylum seekers on behalf they have previously passed through Serbia and their deportation to countries of origin is not possible. The Austrian Ministry of Interior confirmed that there is such a “working agreement” However, details have
been marked as secret and it is unclear whether or not the agreement has been implemented so far. Info Park expects this information to cause additional stir on Serbian political scene, since several right wing, anti migrant parties were accusing the government of “a secret agreement” between Austria and Serbia that has now
been formally confirmed. The right-wing groups accused Serbian authorities of secretly implementing the agreement in the first days of camps lockdown, bringing busloads of migrants from Austria to RTCs overnight. No reaction from the Serbian officials was noted so far.

➢ Serbia faced the longest general lockdown of 84 hours during the weekend. Results of fight against COVID-19 on Monday, 20 April, in Serbia are: Confirmed cases - 6,630, Deaths - 125, total number of tested people: 41,812. None of the 8,900 refugees, asylum seekers or migrants in Serbia have tested positive for COVID-19.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
➢ Although displacement of asylum seekers and other migrants to the new camp Lipa near Bihac, Bosnia and Herzegovina, was announced in March, it has not yet occurred. However, according to local B&H media, the first migrants should be accommodated this week, due to the coronavirus crisis. Fifty tents in total were erected on this site, which should accommodate 1,000 migrants.

Greece
➢ Following the closure of the migrant camps due to coronavirus pandemic, the restrictions on the movement of refugees and migrants thought Greece have been extended until 10 May. Meanwhile, a fire destroyed parts of one of Greece’s largest migrant camps on the Aegean island of Chios. The fire tore through Vial camp
destroying some accommodation and administrative facilities leaving a few hundred homeless. Three migrants have been arrested, according to Infomigrants portal.

#Covid-19 #Migration #Migrant #Balkans #Bosnie-Herzégovine #Serbie #Grèce #Camp #Obrenovac #Adasevci #Roumanie #Lipa #Bihac #Chios #Vial #Révolte #Incendie #Accordderéadmission #Autriche

Différents threads sur twitter de #Victor_Pereira (▻https://twitter.com/VictorPereir1) sur l’#histoire de l’#immigration portugaise en #France.

Je les mets ci-dessous... chaque thread un commentaire de ce fil de discussion.

#migrations #Portugal #migrants_portugais

ping @isskein

Frontières européennes et #Covid-19 : la commission des affaires européennes du Sénat sensible à l’inquiétude du directeur exécutif de #Frontex

Jeudi 9 avril 2020

La commission des affaires européennes du Sénat a entendu, le 8 avril
2020, par audioconférence, Fabrice LEGGERI, directeur exécutif de
Frontex, agence européenne chargée de la sécurité des frontières
extérieures de l’Union européenne (UE).

Les sénateurs ont interrogé le directeur sur la façon dont Frontex avait
adapté ses missions à la #fermeture_des_frontières européennes et à la
période de #confinement actuelle, sur l’évolution récente des #flux_migratoires, sur la situation à la frontière gréco-turque, et enfin sur les moyens alloués à Frontex pour remplir ses missions, en particulier mettre en place le corps européen de 10 000 gardes-frontières et gardes-côtes annoncé pour 2027.

Fabrice LEGGERI a indiqué que Frontex devait actuellement gérer une
double #crise : sanitaire, avec les #contrôles imposés par l’épidémie de
Covid-19, et géopolitique, avec la pression migratoire qu’exerce la
Turquie sur l’Union européenne en ne régulant plus le flux migratoire à
la frontière, au mépris de l’accord conclu en 2016. Fin février-début
mars, 20 000 migrants hébergés en Turquie se sont ainsi présentés aux
frontières terrestres et maritimes grecques : moins de 2 000 – et non
pas 150 000 comme allégué par les autorités turques – les ont franchies,
dans un contexte parfois violent tout à fait inédit. Les autorités
grecques ont été très réactives, et, avec l’appui de l’UE, la situation
est aujourd’hui maîtrisée. En dépit du confinement, Frontex a déployé
900 de ses garde-frontières équipés de protections sanitaires sur le
terrain, dont 600 en Grèce, priorité du moment pour assurer la
protection des frontières extérieures européennes.

Le directeur exécutif a insisté sur le risque budgétaire qui pèse
lourdement sur Frontex. Alors que cette agence devait se voir allouer 11
milliards d’euros sur les années 2021 à 2027, les Présidences
finlandaise puis croate du Conseil de l’UE ont proposé de réduire ce
budget de moitié. Fabrice LEGGERI a qualifié cette situation de
« catastrophique » : non seulement, la création du corps européen ne
serait pas financée, alors que 7 000 candidatures ont été reçues pour
700 postes à pourvoir au 1er janvier prochain, mais l’agence ne pourrait
pas renforcer sa contribution au retour effectif des étrangers en
situation irrégulière vers leur pays d’origine, question pourtant
essentielle pour la crédibilité de la politique migratoire de l’Union
européenne.

Fabrice LEGGERI a indiqué que les flux migratoires avaient logiquement
diminué dans le contexte actuel de confinement de la majorité de la
population mondiale, mais qu’il était trop tôt pour évaluer l’effet de
l’épidémie sur leur évolution de moyen terme. Des sorties de crise à des dates différentes selon les régions du monde devront en tout cas
conduire à renforcer les contrôles sanitaires aux frontières extérieures
de l’Europe pour ne pas relancer l’épidémie quand elle sera en voie de
résorption dans l’UE.

Le président #Jean_BIZET a déclaré : « Vouloir une Europe qui protège tout en assurant la libre circulation, qui plus est dans un contexte
d’épidémie, requiert des moyens : il faut absolument sécuriser le #budget de Frontex pour les prochaines années ».

►http://www.senat.fr/presse/cp20200409.html
#coronavirus #crise_sanitaire #contrôles_frontaliers #crise_géopolitique #pression_migratoire #Turquie #EU #UE #Union_européenne #accord_UE-Turquie #Grèce #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #gardes-frontières #frontières_extérieures #risque_budgétaire

–----

–-> commentaire reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 10.04.2020 :

D’après ce communiqué du Sénat, la pandémie cause des inquiétudes
à Frontex.
Mais apparemment ça ne concerne pas la santé des migrants bloqués aux frontières européennes.

ping @thomas_lacroix @luciebacon

Coronavirus: Urgent appeal for evacuation of Greek refugee camps

Moria, on the island of Lesbos, is Europe’s biggest camp for displaced people. It was designed for 3,000 people but houses 20,000. Given the coronavirus, evacuating it is paramount, migration expert Gerald Knaus says.

How do you keep social distance in a sprawling, totally overstretched refugee such as Moria, which was already a health hazard before the coronavirus made landfall in Greece? How do you regularly wash your hands when there is not enough water and soap?

For most people living in any of the overcrowded camps on the Greek islands, following the measures recommended to prevent the spread of the coronavirus simply is not possible.

Read more: Moria ’an ideal breeding ground for a rapid spread’ of coronavirus

DW spoke to migration expert Gerald Knaus, who is a co-founder of the think tank the European Stability Initiative. Knaus was the architect of the European Union’s refugee deal with Turkey signed in March 2016. However, he says that that deal is now “gone.”

DW: The European Union wants to start the relocation of 1,600 unaccompanied minors to willing EU member states this week — is this a sufficient step?

Gerald Knaus: Under normal conditions, it makes sense to focus on the most vulnerable, such as unaccompanied minors. However, these are not normal conditions and the emphasis should be on whatever can help the largest number of vulnerable people. There are tens of thousands of vulnerable people on the Greek islands, many of them children, and all of them should be evacuated. Children with parents are no safer than unaccompanied minors. The question is how to move 35,000 people from the islands to the mainland fast.

Knaus was key in developing a refugee and migration deal between the EU and Turkey

Because of the coronavirus?

Yes. We are facing a still preventable, well-announced and devastating humanitarian crisis on the islands. Conditions have been terrible for a long time, but if you add that some in these hotspots will at some point catch the virus, under conditions in Lesbos where 20,000 people can’t separate, can’t wash their hands, and with only six intensive care beds on the island — it is obvious why we must act.

The coronavirus entered a Dutch submarine recently, and everyone was put in social isolation right away. What are we waiting for in Lesbos? This is not only in the interest of the refugees but of Greece and the European Union as a whole. To defeat the virus we need to tackle the weakest links in our health care systems.

How could such a relocation to the Greek mainland work?

The very basic first step is that the Greek government tells its European partners that it wants to do this. If the Greek government is thinking, “we’ll sit this out, we’ll risk it,” then nobody can help.

It is clear now that there will be no returns from the islands to Turkey in the coming months. The borders are closed. This means those who are now on the islands will stay in Greece. Many in Greece understand that this is a time bomb: it is like repeating a large-scale mass event, every day. I hope any moment now the Greek prime minister will call other prime ministers in Europe and say, “We must solve this, and we need support.” Then, of course, others in the EU must be ready — and that requires starting a debate on what to do, now.

You are taking part in this debate and you have presented a proposal.

It’s actually clear what needs to be done and what can be done. You have to evacuate 35,000 refugees as quickly as possible from the islands to the Greek mainland. You could quickly have 15,000 additional beds in temporary tent camps. The International Organization of Migration (IOM) is capable of building these within a few weeks. Another 10,000 people can be accommodated in now-vacant Greek hotels. Finally, 10,000 people could easily be accommodated in places already paid for by the EU — places where recognized refugees are hosted right now. If countries like Germany could take in these recognized refugees quickly they would create space for families from the islands immediately. This would also send a strong signal to the Greeks that they’re not alone.

But in European countries strongly affected by the coronavirus, politicians might find it very difficult to convince the public to take in refugees right now.

It is clear only some countries will participate. In Germany, people are aware that there is space in refugee centers today. And if you transfer recognized asylum-seekers you know who they are. Let’s say Germany offers to bring in 5,000 of them from the mainland. We know their identity. We know they deserve protection. We are talking about a relatively small number. Germany moved 170,000 Germans back from abroad in the past week. This could be done while ensuring health standards. It would be the kind of European solidarity that people would still remember decades from now.

It is in a moment of crisis where we show that we will defend values like human dignity and the refugee convention, that solidarity with European partners will still be defended under pressure.

Watch video01:44

Coronavirus catastrophe looms over Lesbos refugee camp

What is the status of the EU-Turkey refugee deal given the pandemic? You were the mastermind behind it four years ago.

It’s gone. We had an agreement in 2016. That worked for four years, benefitted Syrians in Turkey and brought down numbers of arrivals and deaths sharply. It never worked on the islands, however, and the assistance the EU promised to Turkey was to be allocated for four years. This happened, and the money was all allocated to projects by the end of 2019. This was the key interest for Turkey from the statement. But there was no follow-up. Then, at the end of February 2020, Ankara did the opposite of what it had committed to and moved migrants to the Greek land border. With this the 2016 statement was history.

So what now? If the EU wants renewed cooperation, we need a new mutual engagement, a new statement. There are talks at this moment between the European Commission and Turkey. But these suffer from two basic problems: The European Commission is not putting more money on the table. This must change, but it will only change if EU member states back this strongly. And secondly, Turkey is not realistic. It wants to discuss things now that the EU will not resolve quickly in this crisis. Turkey needs to be realistic; the EU needs to be realistic. Everybody loses without cooperation. All benefit from helping refugees where they are, and from reducing irregular migration. Greece and the European Union should continue to uphold the right to claim asylum.

The interview was conducted by DW’s Birgitta Schülke.

▻https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-urgent-appeal-for-evacuation-of-greek-refugee-camps/a-52967371

#Covid-19 #Migration #Migrant #Balkans #Grèce #Moria #Camp #Relocalisation #Accordgrecoturc #Lesbos

Comment l’Europe contrôle ses frontières en #Tunisie ?

Entre les multiples programmes de coopération, les accords bilatéraux, les #équipements fournis aux #gardes-côtes, les pays européens et l’Union européenne investissent des millions d’euros en Tunisie pour la migration. Sous couvert de coopération mutuelle et de “#promotion_de_la mobilité”, la priorité des programmes migratoires européens est avant tout l’externalisation des frontières. En clair.

À la fois pays de transit et pays de départ, nœud dans la région méditerranéenne, la Tunisie est un partenaire privilégié de l’Europe dans le cadre de ses #politiques_migratoires. L’Union européenne ou les États qui la composent -Allemagne, France, Italie, Belgique, etc.- interviennent de multiples manières en Tunisie pour servir leurs intérêts de protéger leurs frontières et lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière.

Depuis des années, de multiples accords pour réadmettre les Tunisien·nes expulsé·es d’Europe ou encore financer du matériel aux #gardes-côtes_tunisiens sont ainsi signés, notamment avec l’#Italie ou encore avec la #Belgique. En plus de ces #partenariats_bilatéraux, l’#Union_européenne utilise ses fonds dédiés à la migration pour financer de nombreux programmes en Tunisie dans le cadre du “#partenariat_pour_la_mobilité”. Dans les faits, ces programmes servent avant tout à empêcher les gens de partir et les pousser à rester chez eux.

L’ensemble de ces programmes mis en place avec les États européens et l’UE sont nombreux et difficiles à retracer. Dans d’autres pays, notamment au Nigeria, des journalistes ont essayé de compiler l’ensemble de ces flux financiers européens pour la migration. Dans leur article, Ils et elle soulignent la difficulté, voire l’impossibilité de véritablement comprendre tous les fonds, programmes et acteurs de ces financements.

“C’est profondément préoccupant”, écrivent Maite Vermeulen, Ajibola Amzat et Giacomo Zandonini. “Bien que l’Europe maintienne un semblant de transparence, il est pratiquement impossible dans les faits de tenir l’UE et ses États membres responsables de leurs dépenses pour la migration, et encore moins d’évaluer leur efficacité.”

En Tunisie, où les investissements restent moins importants que dans d’autres pays de la région comme en Libye, il a été possible d’obtenir un résumé, fourni par la Délégation de l’Union européenne, des programmes financés par l’UE et liés à la migration. Depuis 2016, cela se traduit par l’investissement de près de 58 millions d’euros à travers trois différents fonds : le #FFU (#Fonds_Fiduciaire_d’Urgence) de la Valette, l’#AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) et l’Instrument européen de voisinage (enveloppe régionale).

Mais il est à noter que ces informations ne prennent pas en compte les autres investissements d’#aide_au_développement ou de soutien à la #lutte_antiterroriste dont les programmes peuvent également concerner la migration. Depuis 2011, au niveau bilatéral, l’Union européenne a ainsi investi 2,5 billions d’euros en Tunisie, toutes thématiques confondues.

https://inkyfada.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Migration-Infographie-2-1920.jpg

L’écrasante majorité de ces financements de l’UE - 54 200 000 euros - proviennent du #Fond_fiduciaire_d'urgence_pour_l'Afrique. Lancé en 2015, lors du #sommet_de_la_Valette, ce FFU a été créé “en faveur de la stabilité et de la lutte contre les #causes_profondes de la migration irrégulière et du phénomène des personnes déplacées en Afrique” à hauteur de 2 milliards d’euros pour toute la région.

Ce financement a été pointé du doigt par des associations de droits humains comme Oxfam qui souligne “qu’une partie considérable de ses fonds est investie dans des mesures de #sécurité et de #gestion_des_frontières.”

“Ces résultats montrent que l’approche des bailleurs de fonds européens vis-à-vis de la gestion des migrations est bien plus axée sur des objectifs de #confinement et de #contrôle. Cette approche est loin de l’engagement qu’ils ont pris (...) de ‘promouvoir des canaux réguliers de migration et de mobilité au départ des pays d’Europe et d’Afrique et entre ceux-ci’ (...) ou de ‘Faciliter la migration et la mobilité de façon ordonnée, sans danger, régulière et responsable’”, détaille plus loin le rapport.

Surveiller les frontières

Parmi la vingtaine de projets financés par l’UE, la sécurité des frontières occupe une place prépondérante. Le “#Programme_de_gestion_des_frontières_au_Maghreb” (#BMP_Maghreb) est, de loin, le plus coûteux. Pour fournir de l’équipement et des formations aux gardes-côtes tunisiens, l’UE investit 20 millions d’euros, près d’un tiers du budget en question.

Le projet BMP Maghreb a un objectif clairement défini : protéger, surveiller et contrôler les #frontières_maritimes dans le but de réduire l’immigration irrégulière. Par exemple, trois chambres d’opération ainsi qu’un système pilote de #surveillance_maritime (#ISmariS) ont été fournis à la garde nationale tunisienne. En collaboration avec le ministère de l’Intérieur et ses différents corps - garde nationale, douane, etc. -, ce programme est géré par l’#ICMPD (#Centre_international_pour_le_développement_des_politiques_migratoires).

“Le BMP Maghreb est mis en place au #Maroc et en Tunisie. C’est essentiellement de l’acquisition de matériel : matériel informatique, de transmission demandé par l’Etat tunisien”, détaille Donya Smida de l’ICMPD. “On a fait d’abord une première analyse des besoins, qui est complétée ensuite par les autorités tunisiennes”.

Cette fourniture de matériel s’ajoute à des #formations dispensées par des #experts_techniques, encore une fois coordonnées par l’ICMPD. Cette organisation internationale se présente comme spécialisée dans le “renforcement de capacités” dans le domaine de la politique migratoire, “loin des débat émotionnels et politisés”.

"Cette posture est symptomatique d’un glissement sémantique plus général. Traiter la migration comme un sujet politique serait dangereux, alors on préfère la “gérer” comme un sujet purement technique. In fine, la ’gestionnaliser’ revient surtout à dépolitiser la question migratoire", commente #Camille_Cassarini, chercheur sur les migrations subsahariennes en Tunisie. “L’ICMPD, ce sont des ‘techniciens’ de la gestion des frontières. Ils dispensent des formations aux États grâce à un réseau d’experts avec un maître-mot : #neutralité politique et idéologique et #soutien_technique."

En plus de ce programme, la Tunisie bénéficie d’autres fonds et reçoit aussi du matériel pour veiller à la sécurité des frontières. Certains s’inscrivent dans d’autres projets financés par l’UE, comme dans le cadre de la #lutte_antiterroriste.

Il faut aussi ajouter à cela les équipements fournis individuellement par les pays européens dans le cadre de leurs #accords_bilatéraux. En ce qui concerne la protection des frontières, on peut citer l’exemple de l’Italie qui a fourni une douzaine de bateaux à la Tunisie en 2011. En 2017, l’Italie a également soutenu la Tunisie à travers un projet de modernisation de bateaux de patrouille fournis à la garde nationale tunisienne pour environ 12 millions d’euros.

L’#Allemagne est aussi un investisseur de plus en plus important, surtout en ce qui concerne les frontières terrestres. Entre 2015 et 2016, elle a contribué à la création d’un centre régional pour la garde nationale et la police des frontières. A la frontière tuniso-libyenne, elle fournit aussi des outils de surveillance électronique tels que des caméras thermiques, des paires de jumelles nocturnes, etc…

L’opacité des #accords_bilatéraux

De nombreux pays européens - Allemagne, Italie, #France, Belgique, #Autriche, etc. - coopèrent ainsi avec la Tunisie en concluant de nombreux accords sur la migration. Une grande partie de cette coopération concerne la #réadmission des expulsé·es tunisien·nes. Avec l’Italie, quatre accords ont ainsi été signés en ce sens entre 1998 et 2011. D’après le FTDES* (Forum tunisien des droits économiques et sociaux), c’est dans le cadre de ce dernier accord que la Tunisie accueillerait deux avions par semaine à l’aéroport d’Enfidha de Tunisien·nes expulsé·es depuis Palerme.

“Ces accords jouent beaucoup sur le caractère réciproque mais dans les faits, il y a un rapport inégal et asymétrique. En termes de réadmission, il est évident que la majorité des #expulsions concernent les Tunisiens en Europe”, commente Jean-Pierre Cassarino, chercheur et spécialiste des systèmes de réadmission.

En pratique, la Tunisie ne montre pas toujours une volonté politique d’appliquer les accords en question. Plusieurs pays européens se plaignent de la lenteur des procédures de réadmissions de l’Etat tunisien avec qui “les intérêts ne sont pas vraiment convergents”.

Malgré cela, du côté tunisien, signer ces accords est un moyen de consolider des #alliances. “C’est un moyen d’apparaître comme un partenaire fiable et stable notamment dans la lutte contre l’extrémisme religieux, l’immigration irrégulière ou encore la protection extérieure des frontières européennes, devenus des thèmes prioritaires depuis environ la moitié des années 2000”, explique Jean-Pierre Cassarino.

Toujours selon les chercheurs, depuis les années 90, ces accords bilatéraux seraient devenus de plus en plus informels pour éviter de longues ratifications au niveau bilatéral les rendant par conséquent, plus opaques.

Le #soft_power : nouvel outil d’externalisation

Tous ces exemples montrent à quel point la question de la protection des frontières et de la #lutte_contre_l’immigration_irrégulière sont au cœur des politiques européennes. Une étude de la direction générale des politiques externes du Parlement européen élaborée en 2016 souligne comment l’UE “a tendance à appuyer ses propres intérêts dans les accords, comme c’est le cas pour les sujets liés à l’immigration.” en Tunisie.

Le rapport pointe du doigt la contradiction entre le discours de l’UE qui, depuis 2011, insiste sur sa volonté de soutenir la Tunisie dans sa #transition_démocratique, notamment dans le domaine migratoire, tandis qu’en pratique, elle reste focalisée sur le volet sécuritaire.

“La coopération en matière de sécurité demeure fortement centrée sur le contrôle des flux de migration et la lutte contre le terrorisme” alors même que “la rhétorique de l’UE en matière de questions de sécurité (...) a évolué en un discours plus large sur l’importance de la consolidation de l’État de droit et de la garantie de la protection des droits et des libertés acquis grâce à la révolution.”, détaille le rapport.

Mais même si ces projets ont moins de poids en termes financiers, l’UE met en place de nombreux programmes visant à “développer des initiatives socio-économiques au niveau local”, “ mobiliser la diaspora” ou encore “sensibiliser sur les risques liés à la migration irrégulière”. La priorité est de dissuader en amont les potentiel·les candidat·es à l’immigration irrégulière, au travers de l’appui institutionnel, des #campagnes de #sensibilisation...

https://inkyfada.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Migration-Infographie-1-1920-1.jpg

L’#appui_institutionnel, présenté comme une priorité par l’UE, constitue ainsi le deuxième domaine d’investissement avec près de 15% des fonds.

Houda Ben Jeddou, responsable de la coopération internationale en matière de migration à la DGCIM du ministère des Affaires sociales, explique que le projet #ProgreSMigration, créé en 2016 avec un financement à hauteur de 12,8 millions d’euros, permet de mettre en place “ des ateliers de formations”, “des dispositifs d’aides au retour” ou encore “des enquêtes statistiques sur la migration en Tunisie”.

Ce projet est en partenariat avec des acteurs étatiques tunisiens comme le ministère des Affaires Sociales, l’observatoire national des migrations (ONM) ou encore l’Institut national de statistiques (INS). L’un des volets prioritaires est de “soutenir la #Stratégie_nationale_migratoire_tunisienne”. Pour autant, ce type de projet ne constitue pas une priorité pour les autorités tunisiennes et cette stratégie n’a toujours pas vu le jour.

Houda Ben Jeddou explique avoir déposé un projet à la présidence en 2018, attendant qu’elle soit validée. "Il n’y a pas de volonté politique de mettre ce dossier en priorité”, reconnaît-elle.

Pour Camille Cassarini, ce blocage est assez révélateur de l’absence d’une politique cohérente en Tunisie. “Cela en dit long sur les stratégies de contournement que met en place l’État tunisien en refusant de faire avancer le sujet d’un point de vue politique. Malgré les investissements européens pour pousser la Tunisie à avoir une politique migratoire correspondant à ses standards, on voit que les agendas ne sont pas les mêmes à ce niveau”.

Changer la vision des migrations

Pour mettre en place tous ces programmes, en plus des partenariats étatiques avec la Tunisie, l’Europe travaille en étroite collaboration avec les organisations internationales telles que l’#OIM (Organisation internationale pour les migrations), l’ICMPD et le #UNHCR (Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés), les agences de développement européennes implantées sur le territoire - #GiZ, #Expertise_France, #AfD - ainsi que la société civile tunisienne.

https://inkyfada.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Migration-Infographie-3-1920-1.jpg

Dans ses travaux, Camille Cassarini montre que les acteurs sécuritaires sont progressivement assistés par des acteurs humanitaires qui s’occupent de mener une politique gestionnaire de la migration, cohérente avec les stratégies sécuritaires. “Le rôle de ces organisations internationales, type OIM, ICMPD, etc., c’est principalement d’effectuer un transfert de normes et pratiques qui correspondent à des dispositifs de #contrôle_migratoire que les Etats européens ne peuvent pas mettre directement en oeuvre”, explique-t-il.

Contactée à plusieurs reprises par Inkyfada, la Délégation de l’Union européenne en Tunisie a répondu en fournissant le document détaillant leurs projets dans le cadre de leur partenariat de mobilité avec la Tunisie. Elle n’a pas souhaité donner suite aux demandes d’entretiens.

En finançant ces organisations, les Etats européens ont d’autant plus de poids dans leur orientation politique, affirme encore le chercheur en donnant l’exemple de l’OIM, une des principales organisations actives en Tunisie dans ce domaine. “De par leurs réseaux, ces organisations sont devenues des acteurs incontournables. En Tunisie, elles occupent un espace organisationnel qui n’est pas occupé par l’Etat tunisien. Ça arrange plus ou moins tout le monde : les Etats européens ont des acteurs qui véhiculent leur vision des migrations et l’État tunisien a un acteur qui s’en occupe à sa place”.

“Dans notre langage académique, on les appelle des #acteurs_épistémologiques”, ajoute Jean-Pierre Cassarino. A travers leur langage et l’étendue de leur réseau, ces organisations arrivent à imposer une certaine vision de la gestion des migrations en Tunisie. “Il n’y a qu’à voir le #lexique de la migration publié sur le site de l’Observatoire national [tunisien] des migrations : c’est une copie de celui de l’OIM”, continue-t-il.

Contactée également par Inkyfada, l’OIM n’a pas donné suite à nos demandes d’entretien.

Camille Cassarini donne aussi l’exemple des “#retours_volontaires”. L’OIM ou encore l’Office français de l’immigration (OFII) affirment que ces programmes permettent “la réinsertion sociale et économique des migrants de retour de façon à garantir la #dignité des personnes”. “Dans la réalité, la plupart des retours sont très mal ou pas suivis. On les renvoie au pays sans ressource et on renforce par là leur #précarité_économique et leur #vulnérabilité", affirme-t-il. “Et tous ces mots-clés euphémisent la réalité d’une coopération et de programmes avant tout basé sur le contrôle migratoire”.

Bien que l’OIM existe depuis près de 20 ans en Tunisie, Camille Cassarini explique que ce système s’est surtout mis en place après la Révolution, notamment avec la société civile. “La singularité de la Tunisie, c’est sa transition démocratique : l’UE a dû adapter sa politique migratoire à ce changement politique et cela est passé notamment par la promotion de la société civile”.

Dans leur ouvrage à paraître “Externaliser la gouvernance migratoire à travers la société tunisienne : le cas de la Tunisie” [Externalising Migration Governance through Civil Society : Tunisia as a Case Study], Sabine Didi et Caterina Giusa expliquent comment les programmes européens et les #organisations_internationales ont été implantées à travers la #société_civile.

“Dans le cas des projets liés à la migration, le rôle déterminant de la société civile apparaît au niveau micro, en tant qu’intermédiaire entre les organisations chargées de la mise en œuvre et les différents publics catégorisés et identifiés comme des ‘#migrants_de_retour’, ‘membres de la diaspora’, ou ‘candidats potentiels à la migration irrégulière’", explique Caterina Giusa dans cet ouvrage, “L’intérêt d’inclure et et de travailler avec la société civile est de ‘faire avaler la pilule’ [aux populations locales]”.

“Pour résumer, tous ces projets ont pour but de faire en sorte que les acteurs tunisiens aient une grille de lecture du phénomène migratoire qui correspondent aux intérêts de l’Union européenne. Et concrètement, ce qui se dessine derrière cette vision “gestionnaire”, c’est surtout une #injonction_à_l’immobilité”, termine Camille Cassarini.

►https://inkyfada.com/fr/2020/03/20/financements-ue-tunisie-migration
#externalisation #asile #migrations #frontières #Tunisie #EU #UE #Europe #contrôles_frontaliers #politique_de_voisinage #dissuasion #IOM #HCR #immobilité

Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765330

Et celle sur la conditionnalité de l’aide au développement :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/733358#message768701

ping @karine4 @isskein @_kg_

New pact paves way for innovative solutions to disaster and climate change displacement in Africa

People fleeing disasters and climate change will be able to seek safety in neighbouring countries under the pioneering deal.

A breakthrough agreement to assist people fleeing natural hazards, disasters and climate change in eastern Africa was concluded this week. The deal not only allows those forced to flee disaster-affected countries to seek safety in neighbouring countries, but also ensures they will not be sent home until it safe and reasonable to return.

The new agreement – the #IGAD_Free_Movement_Protocol – was endorsed by all seven Member States of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Khartoum on 26 February. The Protocol follows years of negotiations and consultations. It marks a significant step in addressing the protection gap for growing numbers of people worldwide displaced by disasters, who often do not qualify for refugee status or other forms of international protection.

It is all the more poignant that the IGAD Free Movement Protocol takes in a region that includes some of the countries worst affected by drought, flooding and environmental degradation, including Somalia, Ethiopia and South Sudan. The combination of natural hazards and disasters with other challenges – including conflict, poverty and weak governance – makes dealing with displacement in this region a complex and multifaceted issue.

The IGAD Protocol’s protection for people affected by disasters and climate change is broad. It facilitates entry and lawful stay for those who have been displaced. It also allows those at risk of displacement to move pre-emptively as a way of avoiding, or mitigating, the impacts of a disaster.

It specifically provides for citizens of IGAD Member States to cross borders ‘in anticipation of, during or in the aftermath of disaster’, and enables disaster-affected people to remain in another country as long as return to their country of origin ‘is not possible or reasonable’.

The IGAD Protocol could provide inspiration and impetus for the use of free movement elsewhere in Africa as well. In the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC), free movement agreements are already in place. But it is not yet clear how disaster-affected communities in these regions will access free movement arrangements, or be protected from rejection or return when crossing an international border.

The need for African governments to further consider the role of free movement in addressing disaster and climate change displacement in Africa was the subject of a regional meeting in South Africa last year. Policymakers and experts agreed that free movement could provide some of the communities most vulnerable to climate change access to safety and opportunities for more sustainable livelihoods.

One of the advantages of using free movement arrangements to address displacement is that it obviates the need to impose specific, and sometimes artificial, distinctions between those who move. While refugee protection depends on a person meeting the technical, legal criteria of a refugee, free movement is generally available to all citizens of Member States of the same region. In some cases, a passport is not even required – possession of a national identity card may be enough to facilitate entry and stay elsewhere.

The progressive realisation of free movement is a continent-wide goal in Africa. The African Union (AU) ‘Agenda 2063’ sets out a vision of an integrated Africa, where people and goods move freely between countries. In 2018, the AU adopted the continent-wide Protocol Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment. The IGAD Protocol could provide a first step in supporting the other African regions and countries to develop specific frameworks and guidelines for the use of free movement in the context of disaster and climate change.

For the potential of the IGAD Free Movement Protocol to be realised in reality, implementation is key. At present, regional and sub-regional free movement agreements across Africa’s various RECs may be undermined by restrictive laws and policies at the national level, or by onerous documentation requirements for those who move. The IGAD Roadmap to Implementation, adopted together with the Protocol, sets out specific measures to be taken by IGAD Member States when putting free movement arrangements into practice.

The adoption of the IGAD Protocol presents a cause for celebration. It also presents a timely opportunity to further consider how countries in Africa can provide avenues to safety and security for the large, and increasing, numbers of people who move in the context of natural hazards, disasters and climate change. Action taken now could ensure the benefits of free movement for vulnerable communities well into the future.

▻https://news.trust.org/item/20200228175003-4k8dq

#réfugiés #réfugiés_climatiques #réfugiés_environnementaux #asile #migrations #changement_climatique #climat #pacte #accord #Afrique #sécheresse #inondations #dégradations_environnementales #Somalie #Ethiopie #Soudan_du_Sud #liberté_de_mouvement #liberté_de_circulation

ping @karine4

#Frontex wants to disembark refugees in Senegal

https://digit.site36.net/files/2020/03/SAR-Zones-Western-Africa.png

„#Hera“ is the only Frontex maritime mission on the territory of a third country. A new agreement might extend this joint border #surveillance.

The EU border agency Frontex wants to bring back refugees picked up in the Atlantic Ocean to Senegal. The EU Commission should therefore negotiate a so-called #Status_Agreement with the government in Dakar. The proposal can be found in the annual report (▻https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6294-2020-INIT/en/pdf) on the implementation of the Regulation for the surveillance of external sea borders (▻https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0656). It regulates the maritime „operational cooperation“ of Frontex with third countries.

It would be the first agreement of this kind with an African government. So far, Frontex has only concluded Status Agreements with a number of Western Balkan countries for the joint surveillance of land borders. The only operation to date in a third country (►https://digit.site36.net/2019/11/25/frontex-expands-operations-in-eu-neighbouring-countries) was launched by the Border Agency in Albania a year ago.

Frontex has been coordinating the joint operation „Hera“ in the Atlantic since 2006 (▻https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news-release/longest-frontex-coordinated-operation-hera-the-canary-islands-WpQlsc). The reason for the first and thus oldest EU border surveillance mission (▻http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-307-frontex-operation-hera.pdf) was the arrival of many thousands of refugees in boats on the Canary Islands via Morocco, Mauritania, Cape Verde and Senegal. For a short period of time, the German Federal Police had also participated in „Hera“ (▻http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/16/098/1609888.pdf), in addition to Portugal, France, Italy, Finland and Luxembourg. Already in 2007 the arrivals decreased drastically. For the past year, Frontex’s „Migratory Map“ (▻https://frontex.europa.eu/along-eu-borders/migratory-map) records only 711 irregular arrivals (by December) on Gran Canaria, Tenerife and the other Spanish islands. According to media reports (▻https://www.laprovincia.es/canarias/2020/03/03/canarias-supera-1200-personas-llegadas/1260792.html), this number has been nearly doubled in the first two months of 2020 alone.

„Hera“ is the only maritime mission in which Frontex coordinates an operation which, with Senegal, also takes place in the 12-mile zone, the exclusive economic zone and the airspace of a third country. In „Themis“, „Indalo“ and „Poseidon“, the operational plan only covers waters under the jurisdiction and monitoring of EU Member States.

Currently, „Hera“ is operated by Spain as the „host state“ with support from Portugal. The two countries patrol with frigates and smaller ships and carry out aerial surveillance with a helicopter. They first transmit their information to a control centre in Las Palmas, to which Morocco, Mauritania and Senegal have sent liaison officers. Processed intelligence is then forwarded to the International Coordination Centre (ICC) in Madrid, which manages all operations of the Spanish border authorities and is also responsible for cooperation with Frontex.

If suspicious boats are detected in the area of operations in „Hera“, a report is made to the competent Maritime Rescue Operations Centre (MRCC). All those picked up in the Spanish Search and Rescue zone have been able to disembark in the Canary Islands in recent years.

If the refugees are still in the Senegalese #SAR zone, the national coast guard brings them back to the West African country. With a Status Agreement, Frontex assets could do the same. According to SAR Info, a Canadian information platform, the Senegalese national #MRCC (▻https://sarcontacts.info/countries/senegal) is also responsible for the rescue coordination off the coast of Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Mauritania.

Before each operation, Frontex is required to assess the possible disembarkation of intercepted refugees in the third countries concerned. In the report for 2018, Leggeri writes that his agency, with the „host states“ of the missions „Themis“ (Italy) and „Indalo“ (Spain), considered such disembarkations to Libya and Tunisia as well as to Morocco to be incompatible with regulations to which Frontex is bound.

From Frontex’s point of view, however, disembarkations would be possible for Turkey and Senegal, as the governments there do not violate basic fundamental and human rights and also adhere to the principle of non-refoulement, according to which refugees may not be returned to countries from which they have fled. So far, says Leggeri, Frontex and the EU Member States involved in „Poseidon“ and „Hera“ have not forced any persons to Turkey or Senegal.

The report signed by Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri is as usual one year late, the paper published last week refers to 2018. That was the same year in which the European Union once again wanted to set up „regional disembarkation centres“ in North Africa (▻https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4629). There, asylum applications of persons seeking protection would be examined even before they reach Europe. All the governments in question rejected the proposal, and the African Union also opposed it a year ago. Led by Egypt, the 55 member states criticise the planned EU facilities as „de facto detention centres“ (►https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/24/african-union-seeks-to-kill-eu-plan-to-process-migrants-in-africa).

In the report, Leggeri complains that Frontex has too little competence in its four maritime missions. Bilateral agreements, such as those Italy has concluded with Libya (▻https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/12/italy-halt-abusive-migration-cooperation-libya) or Spain with Morocco (▻https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/02/21/inenglish/1550736538_089908.html), allow for much closer cooperation with North African coastguards.

▻https://digit.site36.net/2020/03/01/frontex-wants-to-disembark-refugees-in-senegal
#Sénégal #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #désembarquement #surveillance_frontalière #accord #accords #frontières

Et pas mal de matériel sur seenthis autour de...
#plateformes_de_désembarquement #disembarkation_paltforms #plateformes_de_débarquement #regional_disembarkation_platforms #Albanie #Océane_atlantique #Atlantique #Allemagne

–-> voir notamment ici, dans la métaliste sur l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765334

ping @karine4 @isskein @_kg_

L’UE veut multiplier les « #partenariats » avec les pays africains

https://fr.euractiv.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/EU_Africa-summit_CREDITLenan-Koula_EPA-800x450.jpg

L’UE cherche à placer une série de « partenariats » de diverses thématiques politiques au cœur de sa #stratégie_UE-Afrique, qui sera officiellement lancée début mars, selon un document confidentiel.

22 commissaires européens sur 27 doivent se retrouver jeudi à Addis Abeba en Ethiopie, pour le sommet de l’Union africaine. Le continent, dont la présidente de la commission a fait une priorité, doit faire l’objet d’une stratégie ad hoc. Dans une première version qu’Euractiv a pu consulter, la Commission assure qu’il faut « changer de discours et regarder l’Afrique sous l’angle de son devenir : la terre de la plus jeune population mondiale, la plus grande région commerciale depuis la création de l’OMC, un appétit pour l’intégration régionale, l’autonomisation des femmes, et tout ça créant d’immenses #opportunités_économiques. »

L’ébauche de stratégie énonce aussi les domaines que l’UE couvrirait. Elle souhaite ainsi créer des partenariats pour la #croissance_durable et l’#emploi, pour une #transition_écologique, pour une #transformation_numérique, pour la #paix, la #sécurité, la #gouvernance et la #résilience, mais aussi pour la #migration et la #mobilité et enfin, le #multilatéralisme.

L’accent mis sur les « partenariats » plutôt que sur le « #développement » y est clair. Il avait aussi marqué les premiers mois de la Commission #Von_der_Leyen.

Le document de la Commission contient peu de substance sur les politiques mais montre la direction de la politique EU-Afrique dans l’un des documents clés donnant les orientations de la Commission « géopolitique » d’#Ursula_von_der_Leyen. Il devrait être dévoilé par l’exécutif le 4 mars sous la forme d’une communication, mais il est peu probable qu’il devienne une politique officielle avant le sommet UE/Union africaine en octobre à Bruxelles.

Le processus d’ébauche de la #stratégie a débuté avec une réunion des ministres européens du Développement le 13 février dernier. Ces derniers doivent maintenant adopter des conclusions lors d’un Conseil Affaires étrangères en avril ou mai, puis lors du sommet européen des 18 et 19 juin.

La #politique_africaine est aussi portée par le gouvernement finlandais, qui détient la présidence tournante de l’UE jusqu’en juillet.

« La #Finlande prépare aussi sa propre stratégie pour l’Afrique. Les deux stratégies visent à renforcer un #partenariat_stratégique entre égaux entre l’UE et l’Afrique, et à stimuler leurs relations commerciales et politiques », commente la ministre finlandaise du Développement, Ville Skinnari.

La stratégie se concentrera probablement sur les manières d’accroître les #opportunités_commerciales et l’#investissement entre les deux continents. Elle promet aussi davantage de soutien de l’UE pour l’accord établissant la #zone_de_libre-échange continentale africaine, qui entrera en vigueur plus tard dans l’année.

Il risque néanmoins d’être éclipsé par les lentes tractations autour du successeur de l’#accord_de_Cotonou, qui couvre les relations politiques et commerciales entre l’UE et l’Afrique, les Caraïbes et le Pacifique. L’accord de Cotonou expire en mars et pour l’instant pas l’ombre d’un nouvel accord à l’horizon.

L’exécutif européen assure qu’il est sur la bonne voie pour verser les 44 milliards d’euros d’investissements dans le #secteur_privé promis dans le cadre du #Plan_extérieur_d’investissement lancé par la Commission Juncker. Reste à savoir si la nouvelle « stratégie » comprendra de nouveaux investissements ou outils d’investissement.

La note confidentielle souligne seulement que la Commission se concentrera sur « la mobilisation de tous les moyens : l’#engagement_politique, l’#aide_publique_au_développement, la #sécurité, la mobilisation des #ressources_domestiques, le secteur privé, etc. »

L’UE est loin d’être le seul acteur international en lice pour développer davantage de relations économiques et politiques avec l’Afrique. Le #Royaume-Uni, l’#Inde, la #Turquie, la #Russie et la #France ont organisé ou organisent des conférences sur l’investissement axées sur l’Afrique en 2020.

L’administration américaine de Donald Trump a également commencé à étoffer sa nouvelle offre de #commerce et d’investissement aux dirigeants africains.

Le secrétaire d’État américain, Mike Pompeo, s’est rendu au Sénégal, en Éthiopie et en Angola pour une tournée express du continent la semaine dernière. Il s’agissait de son premier voyage en Afrique subsaharienne depuis sa prise de fonction il y a deux ans.

L’administration Trump a entamé des pourparlers sur un accord de libre-échange avec le #Kenya ce mois-ci. Selon elle, c’est le premier d’une série d’#accords_commerciaux_bilatéraux avec les nations africaines dans le cadre de sa nouvelle stratégie commerciale « #Prosper_Africa ».

Dans le même temps, Washington veut que sa nouvelle #Société_internationale_financière_pour_le_développement rivalise avec les investissements chinois sur le continent africain.

▻https://www.euractiv.fr/section/l-europe-dans-le-monde/news/partnerships-to-be-at-heart-of-eu-africa-strategy-leaked-paper-reveals
#Afrique #accords #UE #EU #libre_échange #USA #Etats-Unis

Libya ‘pact’: Malta facilitated return of migrants to ‘ghastly and horrific’ situation, NGOs says

Civil Society Network calls for public inquiry into Malta-Libya deal • Aditus: ‘Do we want to be a nation that treats people with such a vile disregard for their humanity and dignity?’

Malta ensured that hundreds of men, women and children were returned to a situation which the United Nations described as “ghastly and horrific”, the NGO Aditus Foundation said on a secret ‘pact’ to help Libya prevent boat migrants from reaching Maltese waters.

On Sunday, Neville Gafà told MaltaToday how he helped broker an agreement in the summer of 2018, by direct order from the Office of the Prime Minister (▻https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/100529/neville_gaf_reveals_controversial_secret_migration_pact_with_libya.

Gafà said that he used to receive information of boats departing from Libya and their coordinates from the Armed Forces of Malta, before relaying them directly to the Libyan coastguard. He said he carried out his job on direct orders of the Office of the Prime Minister under Joseph Muscat.

Aditus Foundation Director Neil Falzon said that this was not an issue of a man acting alone, but of a man acting on behalf of Malta.

“The legality of this policy of death is questionable and the present government should be warned that such practices are not as innocent as Gafà seems to believe,” Falzon said.

In international law, countries are forbidden from returning asylum seekers to a country in which they would be in likely danger of persecution; but Gafà claims these were not pushbacks because Libyan authorities were taking in departing boats before they reach international waters.

Falzon spoke about how asylum seekers intercepted by the Libyan coastguard are returned to a place where men are sold as slaves, women are sexually exploited and people are sent to die in detention centres. “Beyond legality questions, we should be asking ourselves if we want to be a nation that treats people with such a vile disregard for their humanity and dignity,” he said.

Civil Society Network call for public inquiry

The activist NGO Civil Society Network has also called for a public inquiry into the secret pact between Malta and Libya to stop asylum seekers from leaving Libyan waters.

“Set up a public and independent inquiry into the ostensibly illegal agreement that was reached between the Maltese Government and the Libyan coastguard which could have led to several thousands of lives lost,” Civil Society Network (CSN) said.

Neville Gafà’s recent testimony suggests an illegal pact, resulting in a potential serious breach of international refugee law, according to CSN.

CSN said that Gafà’s statements on how he used to relay coordinates to the Libyan coastguard, suggest that the Maltese government failed to abide by its international obligations.

“Gafà appears to have done all this with the blessing of ex-Prime Minister Joseph Muscat; hence, there is a pressing need for an independent public investigation to establish the exact role of the Maltese Government and of Gafà,” the statement read.

On Sunday, former Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Arnold Cassola, also wrote to the International Criminal Court, asking them to investigate Malta’s collaboration with Libya.

The former Green Party chairman told the criminal court that if such claims were true, there would be a violation of basic human rights and a serious breach in international law.

Gafà reacted by implying that the entire EU has engaged in acts of refoulement. “Have you ever heard of Operation Sophia? Do you know what was the scope of Operation Sophia?” he said of the EU naval operation set up in 2015 to supplant Italy’s Mare Nostrum refugee rescue mission.

▻https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/100549/libya_pact_malta_facilitated_return_of_migrants_to_ghastly_and_horrif
#Libye #Malte #pacte #accord #externalisation #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #asile

ping @reka @karine4 @isskein

–---

Ajouté au métaliste sur l’externalisation:
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749

L’APD, un levier au service de la politique migratoire
= une des 20 décisions pensées par le Comité interministériel sur l’immigration et l’intégration pour « améliorer notre politique d’immigration, d’asile et d’intégration » ►https://medias.amf.asso.fr/upload/files/Decisions_Immigration.pdf

... et c’est quand même la 2e mesure évoquée (p.5)...

L’APD a une finalité propre qui est de lutter contre les #inégalités et de contribuer au #développement des pays, en particulier les plus vulnérables. Elle peut, à ce titre, constituer un levier au service de notre #politique_migratoire (#aide_humanitaire, renforcement capacitaire, projets sociaux-économiques). Dans ce cadre, elle doit s’inscrire dans un dialogue plus large et dans une logique d’engagements réciproques. Un dialogue annuel sera institutionnalisé avec les États bénéficiaires de l’APD française. Ce dialogue s’appuie aujourd’hui sur plusieurs instruments : le plan « migrations / asile », visant à obtenir une réduction de l’immigration irrégulière par une meilleure coopération, actuellement mis en œuvre avec plusieurs pays tiers ; le plan « migrations internationales et développement » 2018-2022, doté de 1,58 Md € afin de prendre en compte les enjeux migratoires dans les politiques de développement ; les #accords_de_gestion_concertée (#AGC) des flux migratoires (ex : avec la Tunisie, le Sénégal, etc.).

Le Gouvernement entend également faire valoir ce lien APD / migrations dans les négociations sur les instruments européens de coopération et d’#aide_au_développement. Dans le cadre de la négociation européenne sur un nouvel instrument de « voisinage, de coopération au développement et de coopération internationale » (#NDICI) pour la période 2021-2027, la France met l’accent sur les questions migratoires. Elle souhaite que 10% des fonds soient ciblés sur des projets directement liés à la gestion des flux migratoires. Elle demande aussi la création d’un mécanisme financier de réaction rapide aux crises.La France défend par ailleurs, dans le cadre des négociations du futur accord entre l’Union européenne et les pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP) – appelé à succéder à l’#accord_de_Cotonou, l’inscription d’engagements ambitieux permettant d’assurer l’effectivité de la coopération en matière migratoire et notamment la mise en œuvre de l’obligation de #réadmission.

►https://medias.amf.asso.fr/upload/files/Decisions_Immigration.pdf
#France #asile #migrations #développement #root_causes #APD #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #accords_bilatéraux

ajouté à la métaliste :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/733358#message768698

ping @karine4 @isskein

Visa Facilitation and Readmission : the European Union and Belarus sign agreements

Today, the European Union and Belarus signed a visa facilitation agreement and a readmission agreement. The agreements represent an important step in EU-Belarus relations and pave the way for improved mobility of citizens, contributing to closer links between the EU and its Eastern Partnership neighbours. At today’s signing ceremony, Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, together with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior of Croatia as Council Presidency, Davor Božinović, signed for the EU, while Belarus was represented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vladimir Makei.

Commissioner Johansson said: "These agreements between the European Union and Belarus are a significant step forward in our cooperation. They will improve the mobility of our citizens in a well-managed and secure environment and help build closer links between the European Union and Belarus. From the European side, we will now move ahead rapidly with ratification procedures, so citizens can feel the benefits as soon as possible.”

The visa facilitation agreement will make it easier for Belarusian citizens to acquire short-term visas to come to the European Union. Once the visa facilitation agreement enters into force, the visa fee will be reduced to €35. In addition, the service fee will be limited and the deadline for consulates to take a decision on a visa application will be shortened. Several categories of travellers, including journalists, students and members of official delegations, will be able to receive multiple-entry visas with increasingly longer validity, while having to submit less supporting documents to prove their purpose of travel. Belarus has unilaterally introduced measures to facilitate short-term visa-free travel for EU citizens arriving in Minsk.

The main objective of the EU-Belarus readmission agreement is to establish, on the basis of reciprocity, procedures for the safe and orderly return of persons who reside irregularly in the EU or Belarus, in full respect of their rights under international law.

Next steps

Following today’s signature, the agreements will be submitted to the European Parliament for consent. The Council will then be able to formally conclude the ratification of both agreements. A ratification procedure is also required on the Belarusian side, through approval from Belarus National Assembly. The agreements could enter into force in June 2020 (on the first day of the second month following conclusion). Both agreements will enter into force on the same day.

Background

Negotiation of the EU-Belarus Visa Facilitation Agreement formally started in 2014. In February 2015, the Council amended its negotiating directives by including the possibility to negotiate a reciprocal visa waiver for the holders of diplomatic passports. At the sixth round of talks held on 26 March 2019, the parties reached final agreement on both texts, which were initialled on 17 June 2019.

Over the past years, there has been progress in EU-Belarus relations. Belarus has been participating actively in the multilateral formats of the Eastern Partnership. The EU-Belarus Coordination Group meets twice a year to steer cooperation and oversee further development of relations. The bilateral relationship will be strengthened through the EU-Belarus Partnership Priorities, which are currently being negotiated. This will set the strategic framework for cooperation in the coming years. Tangible steps taken by Belarus to respect universal freedoms, the rule of law and human rights will remain fundamental for shaping EU’s policy towards Belarus.

Since 2006, the EU has concluded visa facilitation agreements with Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, North Macedonia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Russia and Ukraine.

Formal readmission agreements or practical arrangements on return and readmission are in place with 24 countries.

▻https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_6
#visa #accord_de_réadmission #UE #EU #Biélorussie #Union_européenne #renvois #expulsions

Un tiers des rapatriements par Frontex provenait de la Belgique en 2019

Environ un tiers de l’ensemble des rapatriements via Frontex provenait de Belgique.

De tous les pays membres de l’Union européenne, la Belgique est celui qui a fait le plus appel l’an dernier au soutien de l’agence européenne de gardes-frontières et de gardes-côtes Frontex pour renvoyer dans leur pays d’origine des personnes en séjour illégal, ressort-il de chiffres livrés mercredi par le cabinet de la ministre en charge de l’Asile et de la Migration, Maggie De Block (Open Vld).

Selon le cabinet de la ministre libérale flamande, en 2019, la Belgique a pu compter sur environ 2,5 millions d’euros de l’Union européenne pour les vols de 1.540 personnes qui devaient quitter le territoire. 233 ont été accompagnées jusqu’à leur pays d’origine et 1.279 ont pu monter à bord sans escorte. 28 sont parties volontairement. L’an dernier, Frontex a été utilisé dans le cadre du #retour_volontaire, tant en Belgique que dans l’Union européenne.

Retour forcé, la clé de voûte

« Le #retour_forcé reste la clé de voûte de notre politique de l’asile et de la migration ferme et humaine », a commenté Mme De Block dans ce contexte. Selon la ministre, en 2020, l’Office des Étrangers continue à miser de manière ciblée sur le retour forcé des #criminels_illégaux, des demandeurs d’asile déboutés et des #transmigrants. Il produira encore des efforts supplémentaires. Cette semaine, quarante places en centres fermés ont rouvert pour la détention de groupes cibles prioritaires, comme des criminels illégaux, des récidivistes causant des troubles et des illégaux en transit via la Belgique. Dans les centres fermés, leur expulsion continue à être préparée.

Les quarante places avaient été libérées à la suite de la décision en décembre de la ministre De Block et de son collègue Pieter De Crem, ministre de l’Intérieur, d’"optimaliser l’approche de la transmigration". Pour les #illégaux_en_transit, 160 places restent prévues dans les centres fermés.

En outre, la Belgique continue à miser sur des #accords avec les pays d’origine pour collaborer au retour. Ainsi, un accord de retour a été conclu en 2019 avec le Rwanda et des discussions sont en cours avec la Turquie (avec l’UE), l’Angola, le Kirghizistan, le Tadjikistan et le Vietnam (via le Benelux) et avec l’Algérie, le Niger et le Sénégal.

▻https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/un-tiers-des-rapatriements-par-frontex-provenait-de-la-belgique-en-2019/article-news-1239993.html
#renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Frontex #Belgique #statistiques #chiffres #2019 #machine_à_expulser

@sinehebdo
Trois mots en plus ? ça foisonne dans cet article où le choix des mots est fort discutable...
#criminels_illégaux #transmigrants #illégaux_en_transit
#mots #terminologie #vocabulaire

Irregular migration into EU at lowest level since 2013

The number of irregular border crossings detected on the European Union’s external borders last year fell to the lowest level since 2013 due to a drop in the number of people reaching European shores via the Central and Western Mediterranean routes.

Preliminary 2019 data collected by Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, showed a 6% fall in illegal border crossings along the EU’s external borders to just over 139 000. This is 92% below the record number set in 2015.

The number of irregular migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean fell roughly 41% to around 14 000. Nationals of Tunisia and Sudan accounted for the largest share of detections on this route.

The total number of irregular migrants detected in the Western Mediterranean dropped approximately 58% to around 24 000, with Moroccans and Algerians making up the largest percentage.

Eeastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans

Despite the general downward trend, the Eastern Mediterranean saw growing migratory pressure starting in the spring. It peaked in September and then started falling in accordance with the seasonal trend. In all of 2019, there were more than 82 000 irregular migrants detected on this route, roughly 46% more than in the previous year.

In the second half of 2019, irregular arrivals in the region were at the highest since the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement in March 2016, although still well below the figures recorded in 2015 and early 2016 with the situation before the Statement.

Some persons transferred from the Greek islands to the mainland appear to have continued on the Western Balkan migratory route. There has been an increase in detections on the Greek-Albanian border after the start of the Frontex joint operation in May. In the second half of the year, a significant number of detections was reported on the EU borders with Serbia.

In total, around 14 000 irregular crossings were detected at the EU’s borders on the Western Balkan route last year – more than double the 2018 figure.

On the Eastern Mediterranean route and the related Western Balkan route, nationals of Afghanistan and Syria accounted for over half of all registered irregular arrivals.

Top nationality

Overall, Afghans were the main nationality of newly arrived irregular migrants in 2019, representing almost a quarter of all arrivals. The number of Afghan migrants was nearly three times (+167%) the figure from the previous year. Roughly four out of five were registered on the Eastern Mediterranean route, while nearly all the rest on the Western Balkan route.

The most recent available data also suggest a higher percentage of women among the newly arrived migrants in 2019. In the first ten months of last year, around 23% of migrants were women compared with 19% in 2018. EU countries counted approximately 14 600 migrant children younger than 14 in the January-October period, almost one thousand more than in all of 2018.

▻https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/news-release/flash-report-irregular-migration-into-eu-at-lowest-level-since-2013-n

......

Et comme dit Catherine Teule via la mailing-list Migreurop, qui a signalé cette info :

Bravo Frontex !!!! ( et ses partenaires des pays tiers).
Enfin, pas tout à fait puisque certaines « routes » ont enregistré des augmentations de flux à la fin de l’année 2019...

#statistiques #chiffres #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Europe #2019 #frontières_extérieures #Frontex #Méditerranée #Balkans #route_des_Balkans #réfugiés_afghans

L’#or_vert ou la stupéfiante odyssée du #khat

Le khat est consommé dans de nombreux pays d’#Afrique_de_l'Est. Vendue sous la forme de feuilles et de tiges, cette plante psychotrope provoque une sensation stimulante d’#euphorie impulsée par une accélération du rythme cardiaque. Mais le khat crée aussi des effets d’accoutumance et de manque, doublés de déprime, de léthargie, et chez certains, notamment les enfants, de troubles mentaux. Ancien dépendant au khat, #Abukar_Awalé, membre de la diaspora somalienne en Grande-Bretagne, a alerté les autorités britanniques et milité pour la fin de la tolérance. Ce film suit son combat courageux, remonte la filière du khat à travers le monde et en expose les ravages et les enjeux économiques.

https://tel.img.pmdstatic.net/fit/http.3A.2F.2Fimages.2Eone.2Eprismamedia.2Ecom.2Fprogram.2F4.2F3.2F3.2F1.2F6.2F4.2F9.2F7.2Fc.2Fb.2Fb.2Fe.2Fb.2Fe.2Fd.2F0.2Ejpg/640x360/quality/80/l-or-vert-ou-la-stupefiante-odyssee-du-khat.jpg

#métaliste des infos concernant la construction de #barrières_frontalières (#murs) à #Calais, à la #frontière entre #France et #Angleterre (#UK)

#Manche #La_Manche #migrations #asile #réfugiés #militarisation_des_frontières

Europe spends billions stopping migration. Good luck figuring out where the money actually goes

How much money exactly does Europe spend trying to curb migration from Nigeria? And what’s it used for? We tried to find out, but Europe certainly doesn’t make it easy. These flashy graphics show you just how complicated the funding is.
In a shiny new factory in the Benin forest, a woman named Blessing slices pineapples into rings. Hundreds of miles away, at a remote border post in the Sahara, Abubakar scans travellers’ fingerprints. And in village squares across Nigeria, Usman performs his theatre show about the dangers of travelling to Europe.

What do all these people have in common?

All their lives are touched by the billions of euros European governments spend in an effort to curb migration from Africa.

Since the summer of 2015,
Read more about the influx of refugees to Europe in 2015 on the UNHCR website.
when countless boats full of migrants began arriving on the shores of Greece and Italy, Europe has increased migration spending by billions.
Read my guide to EU migration policy here.
And much of this money is being spent in Africa.

Within Europe, the political left and right have very different ways of framing the potential benefits of that funding. Those on the left say migration spending not only provides Africans with better opportunities in their home countries but also reduces migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. Those on the right say migration spending discourages Africans from making the perilous journey to Europe.

However they spin it, the end result is the same: both left and right have embraced funding designed to reduce migration from Africa. In fact, the European Union (EU) plans to double migration spending under the new 2021-2027 budget, while quadrupling spending on border control.

https://i.imgur.com/ZAXFmxr.png https://i.imgur.com/Cz2dO81.png

The three of us – journalists from Nigeria, Italy and the Netherlands – began asking ourselves: just how much money are we talking here?

At first glance, it seems like a perfectly straightforward question. Just add up the migration budgets of the EU and the individual member states and you’ve got your answer, right? But after months of research, it turns out that things are nowhere near that simple.

In fact, we discovered that European migration spending resembles nothing so much as a gigantic plate of spaghetti.

If you try to tease out a single strand, at least three more will cling to it. Try to find where one strand begins, and you’ll find yourself tangled up in dozens of others.

This is deeply concerning. Though Europe maintains a pretence of transparency, in practice it’s virtually impossible to hold the EU and its member states accountable for their migration expenditures, let alone assess how effective they are. If a team of journalists who have devoted months to the issue can’t manage it, then how could EU parliament members juggling multiple portfolios ever hope to?

This lack of oversight is particularly problematic in the case of migration, an issue that ranks high on European political agendas. The subject of migration fuels a great deal of political grandstanding, populist opportunism, and social unrest. And the debate surrounding the issue is rife with misinformation.

For an issue of this magnitude, it’s crucial to have a clear view of existing policies and to examine whether these policies make sense. But to be able to do that, we need to understand the funding streams: how much money is being spent and what is it being spent on?

While working on this article, we spoke to researchers and officials who characterised EU migration spending as “opaque”, “unclear” and “chaotic”. We combed through countless websites, official documents, annual reports and budgets, and we submitted freedom of information requests
in a number of European countries, in Nigeria, and to the European commission. And we discovered that the subject of migration, while not exactly cloak-and-dagger stuff, is apparently sensitive enough that most people preferred to speak off the record.

Above all, we were troubled by the fact that no one seems to have a clear overview of European migration budgets – and by how painfully characteristic this is of European migration policy as a whole.
Nigeria – ‘a tough cookie’

It wasn’t long before we realised that mapping out all European cash flows to all African countries would take us years. Instead, we decided to focus on Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country and the continent’s strongest economy, as well as the country of origin of the largest group of African asylum seekers in the EU. “A tough cookie” in the words of one senior EU official, but also “our most important migration partner in the coming years”.

But Nigeria wasn’t exactly eager to embrace the role of “most important migration partner”. After all, migration has been a lifeline for Nigeria’s economy: last year, Nigerian migrants living abroad sent home $25bn – roughly 6% of the country’s GNP.

It took a major European charm offensive to get Nigeria on board – a “long saga” with “more than one tense meeting”, according to a high-ranking EU diplomat we spoke to.

The European parliament invited Muhammadu Buhari, the Nigerian president, to Strasbourg in 2016. Over the next several years, one European dignitary after another visited Nigeria: from Angela Merkel,
the German chancellor, to Matteo Renzi,
the Italian prime minister, to Emmanuel Macron,
the French president, to Mark Rutte,

the Dutch prime minister.

Three guesses as to what they all wanted to talk about.
‘No data available’

But let’s get back to those funding streams.

The EU would have you believe that everything fits neatly into a flowchart. When asked to respond to this article, the European commission told us: “We take transparency very seriously.” One spokesperson after another, all from various EU agencies, informed us that the information was “freely available online”.

But as Wilma Haan, director of the Open State Foundation, notes: “Just throwing a bunch of stuff online doesn’t make you transparent. People have to be able to find the information and verify it.”

Yet that’s exactly what the EU did. The EU foundations and agencies we contacted referred us to dozens of different websites. In some cases, the information was relatively easy to find,
but in others the data was fragmented or missing entirely. All too often, our searches turned up results such as “data soon available”
or “no data available”.

The website of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) – worth around €3.1bn – is typical of the problems we faced. While we were able to find a list of projects funded by AMIF online,

the list only contains the names of the projects – not the countries in which they’re carried out. As a result, there’s only one way to find out what’s going on where: by Googling each of the project names individually.

This lack of a clear overview has major consequences for the democratic process, says Tineke Strik, member of the European parliament (Green party). Under the guise of “flexibility”, the European parliament has “no oversight over the funds whatsoever”. Strik says: “In the best-case scenario, we’ll discover them listed on the European commission’s website.”

At the EU’s Nigerian headquarters, one official explained that she does try to keep track of European countries’ migration-related projects to identify “gaps and overlaps”. When asked why this information wasn’t published online, she responded: “It’s something I do alongside my daily work.”
Getting a feel for Europe’s migration spaghetti

“There’s no way you’re going to get anywhere with this.”

This was the response from a Correspondent member who researches government funding when we announced this project several months ago. Not exactly the most encouraging words to start our journey. Still, over the past few months, we’ve done our best to make as much progress as we could.

Let’s start in the Netherlands, Maite’s home country. When we tried to find out how much Dutch tax money is spent in Nigeria on migration-related issues, we soon found ourselves down yet another rabbit hole.

The Dutch ministry of foreign affairs, which controls all funding for Dutch foreign policy, seemed like a good starting point. The ministry divides its budget into centralised and decentralised funds. The centralised funds are managed in the Netherlands administrative capital, The Hague, while the decentralised funds are distributed by Dutch embassies abroad.

Exactly how much money goes to the Dutch embassy in the Nigerian capital Abuja is unclear – no information is available online. When we contacted the embassy, they weren’t able to provide us with any figures, either. According to their press officer, these budgets are “fragmented”, and the total can only be determined at the end of the year.

The ministry of foreign affairs distributes centralised funds through its departments. But migration is a topic that spans a number of different departments: the department for stabilisation and humanitarian aid (DSH), the security policy department (DVB), the sub-Saharan Africa department (DAF), and the migration policy bureau (BMB), to name just a few. There’s no way of knowing whether each department spends money on migration, let alone how much of it goes to Nigeria.

Not to mention the fact that other ministries, such as the ministry of economic affairs and the ministry of justice and security, also deal with migration-related issues.

Next, we decided to check out the Dutch development aid budget
in the hope it would clear things up a bit. Unfortunately, the budget isn’t organised by country, but by theme. And since migration isn’t one of the main themes, it’s scattered over several different sections. Luckily, the document does contain an annex (▻https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/begrotingen/2019/09/17/hgis---nota-homogene-groep-internationale-samenwerking-rijksbegroting-) that goes into more detail about migration.

In this annex, we found that the Netherlands spends a substantial chunk of money on “migration cooperation”, “reception in the region” and humanitarian aid for refugees.

And then there’s the ministry of foreign affairs’ Stability Fund,
the ministry of justice and security’s budget for the processing and repatriation of asylum seekers, and the ministry of education, culture and science’s budget for providing asylum seekers with an education.

But again, it’s impossible to determine just how much of this funding finds its way to Nigeria. This is partly due to the fact that many migration projects operate in multiple countries simultaneously (in Nigeria, Chad and Cameroon, for example). Regional projects such as this generally don’t share details of how funding is divided up among the participating countries.

Using data from the Dutch embassy and an NGO that monitors Dutch projects in Nigeria, we found that €6m in aid goes specifically to Nigeria, with another €19m for the region as a whole. Dutch law enforcement also provides in-kind support to help strengthen Nigeria’s border control.

But hold on, there’s more. We need to factor in the money that the Netherlands spends on migration through its contributions to the EU.

The Netherlands pays hundreds of millions into the European Development Fund (EDF), which is partly used to finance migration projects. Part of that money also gets transferred to another EU migration fund: the EUTF for Africa.
The Netherlands also contributes directly to this fund.

But that’s not all. The Netherlands also gives (either directly or through the EU) to a variety of other EU funds and agencies that finance migration projects in Nigeria. And just as in the Netherlands, these EU funds and agencies are scattered over many different offices. There’s no single “EU ministry of migration”.

To give you a taste of just how convoluted things can get: the AMIF falls under the EU’s home affairs “ministry”

(DG HOME), the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) falls under the “ministry” for international cooperation and development (DG DEVCO), and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) falls under the European External Action Service (EEAS). The EU border agency, Frontex, is its own separate entity, and there’s also a “ministry” for humanitarian aid (DG ECHO).

Still with me?

Because this was just the Netherlands.

Now let’s take a look at Giacomo’s country of origin, Italy, which is also home to one of Europe’s largest Nigerian communities (surpassed only by the UK).

Italy’s ministry of foreign affairs funds the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation (AICS), which provides humanitarian aid in north-eastern Nigeria, where tens of thousands of people have been displaced by the Boko Haram insurgency. AICS also finances a wide range of projects aimed at raising awareness of the risks of illegal migration. It’s impossible to say how much of this money ends up in Nigeria, though, since the awareness campaigns target multiple countries at once.

This data is all available online – though you’ll have to do some digging to find it. But when it comes to the funds managed by Italy’s ministry of the interior, things start to get a bit murkier. Despite the ministry having signed numerous agreements on migration with African countries in recent years, there’s little trace of the money online. Reference to a €92,000 donation for new computers for Nigeria’s law enforcement and immigration services was all we could find.

Things get even more complicated when we look at Italy’s “Africa Fund”, which was launched in 2017 to foster cooperation with “priority countries along major migration routes”. The fund is jointly managed by the ministry of foreign affairs and the ministry of the interior.

Part of the money goes to the EUTF for Africa, but the fund also contributes to United Nations (UN) organisations, such as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM), as well as to the Italian ministry of defence and the ministry of economy and finance.

Like most European governments, Italy also contributes to EU funds and agencies concerned with migration, such as Frontex, Europol, and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).

And then there are the contributions to UN agencies that deal with migration: UNHCR, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), IOM, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), to name just a few.

Now multiply all of this by the number of European countries currently active in Nigeria. Oh, and let’s not forget the World Bank,

which has only recently waded into the waters of the migration industry.

And then there are the European development banks. And the EU’s External Investment Plan, which was launched in 2016 with the ambitious goal of generating €44bn in private investments in developing countries, with a particular focus on migrants’ countries of origin. Not to mention the regional “migration dialogues”
organised in west Africa under the Rabat Process and the Cotonou Agreement.

https://i.imgur.com/uu99r6b.png

This is the European migration spaghetti.
How we managed to compile a list nonetheless

By now, one thing should be clear: there are a staggering number of ministries, funds and departments involved in European migration spending. It’s no wonder that no one in Europe seems to have a clear overview of the situation. But we thought that maybe, just maybe, there was one party that might have the overview we seek: Nigeria. After all, the Nigerian government has to be involved in all the projects that take place there, right?

We decided to ask around in Nigeria’s corridors of power. Was anyone keeping track of European migration funding? The Ministry of Finance? Or maybe the Ministry of the Interior, or the Ministry of Labour and Employment?

Nope.

We then tried asking Nigeria’s anti-trafficking agency (NAPTIP), the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS), the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission, and the National Commission for Refugees, Migrants and Internally Displaced Persons (NCFRMI).

No luck there, either. When it comes to migration, things are just as fragmented under the Nigerian government as they are in Europe.

In the meantime, we contacted each of the European embassies in Nigeria.
This proved to be the most fruitful approach and yielded the most complete lists of projects. The database of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI)
was particularly useful in fleshing out our overview.

So does that mean our list is now complete? Probably not.

More to the point: the whole undertaking is highly subjective, since there’s no official definition of what qualifies as a migration project and what doesn’t.

For example, consider initiatives to create jobs for young people in Nigeria. Would those be development projects or trade projects? Or are they actually migration projects (the idea being that young people wouldn’t migrate if they could find work)?

What about efforts to improve border control in northern Nigeria? Would they fall under counterterrorism? Security? Institutional development? Or is this actually a migration-related issue?

Each country has its own way of categorising projects.

There’s no single, unified standard within the EU.

When choosing what to include in our own overview, we limited ourselves to projects that European countries themselves designated as being migration related.

While it’s certainly not perfect, this overview allows us to draw at least some meaningful conclusions about three key issues: where the money is going, where it isn’t going, and what this means for Nigeria.
1) Where is the money going?

In Nigeria, we found

If you’d like to work with the data yourself, feel free to download the full overview here.
50 migration projects being funded by 11 different European countries, as well as 32 migration projects that rely on EU funding. Together, they amount to more than €770m in funding.

Most of the money from Brussels is spent on improving Nigerian border control:
more than €378m. For example, the European Investment Bank has launched a €250m initiative

to provide all Nigerians with biometric identity cards.

The funding provided by individual countries largely goes to projects aimed at creating employment opportunities

in Nigeria: at least €92m.

Significantly, only €300,000 is spent on creating more legal opportunities to migrate – less than 0.09% of all funding.

https://i.imgur.com/F7ng9WA.png

We also found 47 “regional” projects that are not limited to Nigeria, but also include other countries.
Together, they amount to more than €775m in funding.
Regional migration spending is mainly focused on migrants who have become stranded in transit and is used to return them home and help them to reintegrate when they get there. Campaigns designed to raise awareness of the dangers of travelling to Europe also receive a relatively large proportion of funding in the region.

https://i.imgur.com/kM4CltW.png

2) Where isn’t the money going?

When we look at the list of institutions – or “implementing agencies”, as they’re known in policy speak – that receive money from Europe, one thing immediately stands out: virtually none of them are Nigerian organisations.

“The EU funds projects in Nigeria, but that money doesn’t go directly to Nigerian organisations,” says Charles Nwanelo, head of migration at the NCFRMI.

See their website here.
“Instead, it goes to international organisations, such as the IOM, which use the money to carry out projects here. This means we actually have no idea how much money the EU is spending in Nigeria.”

We hear the same story again and again from Nigerian government officials: they never see a cent of European funding, as it’s controlled by EU and UN organisations. This is partially a response to corruption within Nigerian institutions – Europe feels it can keep closer tabs on its money by channelling it through international organisations. As a result, these organisations are growing rapidly in Nigeria. To get an idea of just how rapidly: the number of people working for the IOM in Nigeria has more than quadrupled over the past two years.

https://i.imgur.com/aIeGcoM.png

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Nigerian organisations are going unfunded. Implementing agencies are free to pass funding along to Nigerian groups. For example, the IOM hires Nigerian NGOs to provide training for returning migrants and sponsors a project that provides training and new software to the Nigerian immigration service.

Nevertheless, the system has inevitably led to the emergence of a parallel aid universe in which the Nigerian government plays only a supporting role. “The Nigerian parliament should demand to see an overview of all current and upcoming projects being carried out in their country every three months,” says Bob van Dillen, migration expert at development organisation Cordaid.

But that would be “difficult”, according to one German official we spoke to, because “this isn’t a priority for the Nigerian government. This is at the top of Europe’s agenda, not Nigeria’s.”

Most Nigerian migrants to Europe come from Edo state, where the governor has been doing his absolute best to compile an overview of all migration projects. He set up a task force that aims to coordinate migration activities in his state. The task force has been largely unsuccessful because the EU doesn’t provide it with any direct funding and doesn’t require member states to cooperate with it.

3) What are the real-world consequences for Nigeria?

We’ve established that the Nigerian government isn’t involved in allocating migration spending and that local officials are struggling to keep tabs on things. So who is coordinating all those billions in funding?

Each month, the European donors and implementing agencies mentioned above meet at the EU delegation to discuss their migration projects. However, diplomats from multiple European countries have told us that no real coordination takes place at these meetings. No one checks to see whether projects conflict or overlap. Instead, the meetings are “more on the basis of letting each other know”, as one diplomat put it.

One German official noted: “What we should do is look together at what works, what doesn’t, and which lessons we can learn from each other. Not to mention how to prevent people from shopping around from project to project.”

Other diplomats consider this too utopian and feel that there are far too many players to make that level of coordination feasible. In practice, then, it seems that chaotic funding streams inevitably lead to one thing: more chaos.
And we’ve only looked at one country ...

That giant plate of spaghetti we just sifted through only represents a single serving – other countries have their own versions of Nigeria’s migration spaghetti. Alongside Nigeria, the EU has also designated Mali, Senegal, Ethiopia and Niger as “priority countries”. The EU’s largest migration fund, the EUTF, finances projects in 26 different African countries. And the sums of money involved are only going to increase.

When we first started this project, our aim was to chart a path through the new European zeal for funding. We wanted to track the flow of migration money to find answers to some crucial questions: will this funding help Nigerians make better lives for themselves in their own country? Will it help reduce the trafficking of women? Will it provide more safe, legal ways for Nigerians to travel to Europe?

Or will it primarily go towards maintaining the international aid industry? Does it encourage corruption? Does it make migrants even more vulnerable to exploitation along the way?

But we’re still far from answering these questions. Recently, a new study by the UNDP

called into question “the notion that migration can be prevented or significantly reduced through programmatic and policy responses”.

Nevertheless, European programming and policy responses will only increase in scope in the coming years.

But the more Europe spends on migration, the more tangled the spaghetti becomes and the harder it gets to check whether funds are being spent wisely. With the erosion of transparency comes the erosion of democratic oversight.

So to anyone who can figure out how to untangle the spaghetti, we say: be our guest.

▻https://thecorrespondent.com/154/europe-spends-billions-stopping-migration-good-luck-figuring-out-where-the-money-actually-goes/171168048128-fac42704
#externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Nigeria #EU #EU #Union_européenne #externalisation #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Frontex #Trust_fund #Pays-Bas #argent #transparence (manque de - ) #budget #remittances #AMIF #développement #aide_au_développement #European_Development_Fund (#EDF) #EUTF_for_Africa #European_Neighbourhood_Instrument (#ENI) #Development_Cooperation_Instrument (#DCI) #Italie #Banque_mondiale #External_Investment_Plan #processus_de_rabat #accords_de_Cotonou #biométrie #carte_d'identité_biométrique #travail #développement #aide_au_développement #coopération_au_développement #emploi #réintégration #campagnes #IOM #OIM

Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749
Et ajouté à la métaliste développement/migrations :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/733358

ping @isskein @isskein @pascaline @_kg_

Dossier : #Irlande_du_Nord

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5383/i7S2HJ.png https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/474/pDaDc8.png https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/5955/Wfl5vz.png https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/1264/jEISzO.png

Exposed : Malta’s secret migrant deal with Libya

OPM’s Neville Gafà acts as intermediary in agreement

https://cdn-attachments.timesofmalta.com/0ef067a7562d99b882ce07ef740f0e61bc6ea78f-1573365812-5dc7a834-960x640.jpg

Malta has secretly negotiated an agreement with Libya that sees the Armed Forces of Malta coordinating with the Libyan coastguard to intercept migrants headed towards the island and returned to the war-torn North African country.

The agreement for “mutual cooperation” was struck between members of the AFM and the Libyan coastguard, with government official Neville Gafà acting as an intermediary.

Mr Gafà, who works out of the OPM in an undisclosed position, has faced repeated allegations of bribery linked to the issuing of medical visas to Libyan nationals, claims he denies.

He has come under fire for posing as a “special envoy of Prime Minister Joseph Muscat” during meetings with the Libyan government and was exposed as having held a meeting with a Libyan militia leader who ran extortion rackets and a private detention centre, where former regime officials and sympathisers were held.

In one such meeting, held on June 18, Mr Gafà sat in on talks with the Libyan deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Maiteeq, attended by Colonel Clinton O’Neill, head of plans and intelligence at the AFM.

The meeting was led by Malta’s new ambassador to Libya, Charles Saliba.

However, a senior government source told The Sunday Times of Malta that talks between Mr Gafà, the AFM and the Libyan authorities, on the subject of cooperation, first started around a year ago.

“We reached what you could call an understanding with the Libyans. When there is a vessel heading towards our waters, the AFM coordinates with the Libyans who pick them up and take them back to Libya before they come into our waters and become our responsibility,” the source said.

He added that had the agreement not been reached with Libya then the island would have been “drowning in migrants” by now.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said last night that bilateral meetings on various sectors are held on a regular basis and Malta always acts in accordance with applicable international laws and conventions.

“The EU is actively advocating in favour of compliance with instructions of competent authorities and against the obstruction of operations of the Libyan EU-funded and trained coastguard to help support migration management and fight smuggling.”

The search and rescue areas form part of high seas where foreign military assets have every right to investigate any illegal activity departing from their coast, the spokesman added.

Without an agreement, the island would have been ‘drowning in migrants’ by now

“In the past months, Malta has continued to welcome on a humanitarian basis migrants and asylum seekers, even when not legally obliged to do so, in a spirit of cooperation with other European states and solidarity with migrants.”

The OPM did not respond to a question asking whether in at least one instance the Libyan coast guard had entered Malta’s search and rescue area or whether it recognises Libya as a safe port. In a tweet on one such particular incident, which took place on October 18, Vincent Cochetel, UNHCR’s special envoy for the Central Mediterranean, said he believes the case may have constituted a violation of maritime law.

“The problem is that the migrants were disembarked in Libya. That’s certainly a violation of maritime laws. It’s clear that Libya isn’t a safe port,” he said.

A spokesman for UNHCR office in Rome said they had reached out to the Maltese authorities for an explanation and were still waiting for the relevant information to be handed over.

The list of accusations against Libya’s coastguard is long: human rights violations, including torture, hindering rescue operations of volunteer rescue groups, and ties to smuggling gangs are but a few.

This picture taken on October 1 shows rescued migrants sitting on a pier next to a Libyan coast guardship in the town of Khoms, 120 kilometres east of the capital.

The government source however, justified the deal, saying it followed a similar understanding reached between the Libyan and Italian governments.

It also tallied with the EU’s highly-criticised position of supporting the Libyan authorities, he said.

The number of migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean from Libya declined dramatically over the past years, from almost 120,000 migrants in 2017 to around 23,000 in 2018. So far this year, the number of migrants arriving from Libya diminished even further.

While Malta received few or no migrants at the height of the migration crisis in the Central Mediterranean between 2014 and 2017 when Italy was in charge of the rescue effort and accepted the disembarkation of virtually all migrants rescued, the tide turned around 2018 when a right-wing government was elected in Italy.

During the past two years, the Italian government effectively closed the country’s ports to humanitarian search and rescue operations, and scaled down its rescue operations, re-routing hundreds of migrants towards Malta.

In September, the EU extended its anti-migrant-smuggling mission along the Libyan Mediterranean coast, by six months. However, actual naval operations by the EU remain halted, with the mandate now mainly consisting of air support and training Libya’s ill-equipped coastguard.

Human rights groups have repeatedly called on the EU to stop its policy of allowing migrants to be returned to Libya, where they face hellish conditions in detention centres, according to UN organisations.

Mr Cochetel insists there is no safe port in Libya for migrant arrivals.

▻https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/exposed-maltas-secret-migrant-deal-with-libya.748800
#Malte #externalisation #frontières #asile #migrations #Libye #accord

Ajouté à ce fil de discussion :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/705401