• #Aires_d'accueil dans la Seine-Saint-Denis (93)
    https://visionscarto.net/aires-d-accueil-seine-st-denis-93

    Derrière Paris (où seulement deux aires d’accueil existent) la Seine-Saint-Denis est un des départements les plus denses de France avec près de 7 000 habitant·es au km². La Seine-Saint-Denis c’est surtout une histoire qui part très mal en matière d’accueil : par deux fois, en 2003 et en 2013, le schéma d’accueil des gens du voyage est annulé par un tribunal administratif. Les raisons annoncent la couleur : « insuffisance de l’évaluation préalable des besoins et de l’offre existante dans les domaines sociaux (...) #Billets

    / Aires d’accueil

  • Enfouissement des #déchets : la colère gronde | 60 Millions de Consommateurs
    https://www.60millions-mag.com/2020/10/21/enfouissement-des-dechets-la-colere-gronde-17606

    #Pollution de l’#air, contamination des #sols et des #nappes_phréatiques, émission de gaz à effet de serre, explosion ou incendie… les problèmes générés par les centres de stockage des déchets se multiplient. À tel point que riverains et collectivités locales en viennent à refuser l’implantation de décharges près de chez eux.

    [...]

    [...] la réglementation n’est pas bien respectée. Le code de l’#environnement a beau stipuler qu’on ne peut enfouir que les déchets dits « ultimes », une masse énorme de biodéchets et plastiques partent directement en décharge, alors qu’ils pourraient être recyclés ou transformés en #compost.

    En cause, un niveau de tri à la source insuffisant (par les ménages), des machines à tri défaillantes, des emballages multi­composants compliqués à recycler.

    Dans la vallée du Dun, en Normandie, des citoyens se mobilisent contre une décharge attenante à un méthaniseur située au-dessus d’une nappe phréatique.

    Le projet initial, piloté par Veolia, prévoyait l’enfouissement des seuls déchets ultimes, mais, dans les faits, le méthaniseur ne parvient à traiter que 47 % des ordures reçues, contrairement aux engagements de départ. Et donc le site d’enfouissement s’étend démesurément.

    #eau #climat

  • Improving indoor #air quality to prevent #COVID-19
    https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2020/10/18/improving-indoor-air-quality-prevent-covid-19/3566978001

    Your chances of being infected depend on the size of the room and the number of people infected with COVID-19 inside.

    “When they talk, talk loudly, when they breathe, small respiratory #aerosols are released,” Miller said.

    If you’re in a classroom, office or other enclosed space, these aerosols can build up over time.

    “It’s like if you’re in a smoky bar,” Miller says. “When it opens, there’s not a lot of smoke, but the more people smoke, it becomes a cloudy room. You can think of virus being released like that.”

    Pour y remédier, importance :

    – de l’apport d’air extérieur pour diluer les aérosols, d’autant plus efficace que le nombre d’élèves par salle est réduit,

    – de la filtration (dans le cas d’air conditionné) ou/et de l’évacuation (à l’aide de ventilateurs dirigés vers les fenêtres ouvertes) de l’air intérieur chargé d’aérosols.

    #ventilation, #aération,

  • L’UE achète des drones à #Airbus pour repérer les bateaux transportant des migrants

    Airbus et deux sociétés d’armement israéliennes ont reçu 100 millions d’euros pour faire voler des drones au-dessus de la #Méditerranée. Le but : identifier les bateaux chargés de migrants qui tentent d’atteindre l’#Europe, selon le Guardian. Un article d’Euractiv Italie.

    Dans le cadre des « services de #surveillance_aérienne_maritime » qu’elle assure, l’#UE a décidé de recourir à des #appareils_téléguidés volant à moyenne altitude à longue endurance, connus du grand public sous le nom de drones. C’est Airbus qui a été mandaté par Bruxelles pour fournir les engins. Le conglomérat européen spécialisé dans l’aéronautique et la défense travaillera avec la société publique #Israel_Aerospace_Industries (#IAI). Un deuxième contrat a été signé avec #Elbit_Systems, une société d’#armement israélienne privée. Les deux contrats s’élèvent à 50 millions d’euros chacun, selon une information du journal britannique The Guardian.

    Les opérations seront menées en #Grèce et/ou en #Italie et/ou à #Malte selon le contrat-cadre signé entre #Frontex et les fournisseurs, dans le cadre des mesures de contrôle des frontières du sud de l’Europe.

    Le #budget de l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de gardes-côtes (Frontex), est passé de 6 millions d’euros en 2005 à 460 millions d’euros cette année, ce qui reflète l’importance croissante donnée au contrôle des frontières extérieures en raison de l’immigration. Le service de surveillance aérienne comprendra la mise à disposition d’un flux de #données fiable en temps réel et la capacité de partager ces données en temps réel.

    L’IAI affirme que son drone #Heron, employé couramment par les forces armées israéliennes et allemandes, est en mesure de voler pendant plus de 24 heures et peut parcourir jusqu’à 1 000 miles à partir de sa base à des altitudes supérieures à 35 000 pieds.

    Elbit Systems soutient pour sa part que ses drones #Hermes peuvent voler jusqu’à 36 heures à 30 000 pieds. Le mois dernier, Elbit a annoncé que des drones Hermes avaient été testés avec l’Agence maritime et des garde-côtes britannique au large de la côte ouest du Pays de Galles pour des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage.

    Les drones israéliens sont le résultat d’une technologie de surveillance qu’Israël a développée et testée lors d’une série d’attaques sur Gaza, comme le détaille un rapport de Human Rights Watch. Airbus a fait savoir que son modèle n’était pas en mesure de transporter des armes, et qu’il serait peint en blanc avec le label « Frontex ». Les premiers tests seront effectués en Grèce sur l’île de #Crète.

    Dans le cadre du programme Frontex, le drone italien #Falco_Evo de l’entreprise #Leonardo avait déjà été testé pour des activités de surveillance maritime aérienne dans l’espace aérien civil italien et maltais.

    En juin 2919, le drone avait permis de mettre au jour une pratique fréquemment utilisée par les passeurs : le transbordement de dizaines de personnes d’un « vaisseau -mère » vers une embarcation qui est ensuite laissée à la dérive. La Guardia di Finanza, la police dounière italienne, alertée par les images du drone, avait alors intercepté et saisi un bateau de pêche.

    Reste que l’utilisation de ce type de technologie suscite de nombreuses craintes. Les détracteurs les plus acharnés de la surveillance aérienne par des drones affirment que l’obligation légale d’aider un navire en danger et de sauver des naufragés ne s’applique pas à un engin aérien sans pilote, quel qu’il soit.

    https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/lue-achete-des-drones-a-airbus-pour-reperer-les-bateaux-transportant-des-mi
    #complexe_militaro-industriel #business #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #drones #contrôles_frontaliers #surveillance_des_frontières #Israël #EU #Union_européenne #UE

    ping @e-traces

  • Gens du voyage : des aires « insalubres, à l’écart, surveillées » - Bretagne - Le Télégramme
    https://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/gens-du-voyage-des-aires-insalubres-a-l-ecart-surveillees-18-10-2020-12

    Les aires d’accueil des gens du voyage sont-elles toujours situées à côté d’une déchèterie ? C’est ce qu’a voulu vérifier William Acker. Le juriste a déjà cartographié 60 départements, dont les Côtes-d’Armor et le Finistère.

    • Quel est le montant des loyers payés sur ces aires d’accueil ?

      Pour un carré de goudron et un robinet, vous arrivez en général entre 200 et 400 euros par mois, parfois 600 euros, entre le forfait d’emplacement, la consommation d’eau et d’électricité ou de gaz. Et un des gros soucis, c’est que le statut de la caravane ne permet d’accéder aux aides au logement. Sans parler des tarifs abusifs de l’eau, qui peuvent varier du simple au double entre l’aire d’accueil et le premier riverain, et les cas d’extorsion, liés au fait que tout est payé en liquide sur les aires d’accueil.

  • Meet the Customer Service Reps for Disney and Airbnb Who Have to Pay to Talk to You
    https://www.propublica.org/article/meet-the-customer-service-reps-for-disney-and-airbnb-who-have-to-pay-to-

    Arise Virtual Solutions, part of the secretive world of work-at-home customer service, helps large corporations shed costs at the expense of workers. Now the pandemic is creating a boom in the industry. Airbnb, battered by the pandemic recession, announced in May that it would be laying off a quarter of its workforce. In a post hailed for its empathy and transparency, CEO Brian Chesky wrote, “We will have to part with teammates that we love and value.” He outlined a generous severance (...)

    #Apple #Comcast #Disney #instacart #Airbnb #Amazon #conditions #GigEconomy #télétravail (...)

    ##travail

  • Ventiler, quantifier le taux de CO2, filtrer
    En résumé

    La #ventilation des locaux est un facteur clé de réduction de la #transmission_épidémique, améliorable par des mesures simples et peu coûteuses.
    - L’#équipement du milieu scolaire et universitaire en capteurs de taux de CO2 est nécessaire pour recenser les salles dont la ventilation pose problème, avec un objectif quantitatif (650 ppm) et un niveau au-delà duquel une révision du protocole de ventilation s’impose (850 ppm).
    – Des #purificateurs d’air doivent être installés dans les lieux de restauration collective, puis dans les pièces dont la ventilation ne peut être améliorée.
    – Les #tests salivaires rapides de groupe, les #masques FFP2 non-médicaux et l’installation graduelle de #VMC à double-flux constituent des moyens complémentaires pour diminuer la #contagion.

    Ils ne manquent pas d’air…

    “On doit s’attaquer très fermement aux foyers d’infections [clusters] locaux, sinon à Noël on aura [en Allemagne] des chiffres comme ceux de la France.” [1]

    A. Merkel, le 28 septembre 2020

    “Les aérosols sont déterminants, les endroits fermés sont un problème. Nous devons donc faire attention à la ventilation.“) [2]

    A.Merkel, le 29 septembre 2020

    “Les établissements sont prêts à recevoir les étudiants”

    F.Vidal 3 septembre 2020

    “Ce ne sont pas des clusters par promotion mais des clusters par groupe d’amis (...) Rien ne nous dit que les contaminations se fassent au sein des établissements de l’enseignement supérieur.”

    F.Vidal, le 28 septembre 2020

    “Les récentes évolutions de la #COVID19 conduisent à restreindre les capacités d’accueil des établissements d’enseignement supérieur situés en zones d’alerte renforcée ou d’alerte maximale à 50% de leur capacité nominale dès le 6 octobre.”

    F.Vidal, le 5 octobre 2020

    “N’oublions pas que les étudiants comme les néo-bacheliers ne se sont pas rendus en cours pendant près de six mois et pour s’adapter aux méthodes de l’enseignement supérieur, il faut une part de cours à distance.”

    C.Kerrero, recteur de la région Ile-de-France, le 5 octobre 2020

    En dernière instance, la rentrée en “démerdentiel” procède de ce qu’on appelle en algorithmique un interblocage (deadlock en anglais), qu’il faudrait baptiser ici « L’étreinte mortelle de la bureaucratie". Les universitaires attendent les instructions des directeurs de composantes et laboratoires, lesquels sont à l’affût des normes et des procédures qui ne manqueront pas d’être édictées par les Doyens de Faculté qui, eux-mêmes, guettent les spéculations éclairées — n’en doutons pas — des présidences, lesquelles temporisent pour ne pas contrevenir aux directives à venir du ministère, cependant que le cabinet dudit ministère sursoit à toute décision avant les arbitrages de l’Elysée et de Matignon, dont les conseillers, faute de renseignement objectivé sur la situation, poireautent en prenant connaissance sur Twitter des plaintes des universitaires.

    Reboot.

    Nous proposons ci-dessous une #fiche_pratique à l’usage des collègues comme de la technostructure pour mettre en œuvre des moyens simples de réduction de la propagation épidémique en milieu confiné.

    Etat épidémique

    L’épidémie a cru, pendant les trois derniers mois, d’un facteur 2 toutes les trois semaines, environ. Le taux de reproduction épidémique (nombre de personnes contaminées en moyenne par une personne atteinte) est légèrement supérieur à 1. Pour l’abaisser le plus bas possible en dessous de 1, et juguler l’épidémie, il est nécessaire de cumuler des politiques publiques normatives et incitatives pour atteindre par chacune un facteur d’abaissement de la transmission.

    Facteurs de transmission épidémique

    Les personnes contaminées asymptomatiques génèrent un #aérosol de #micro-gouttelettes, dont une fraction n’est filtrée ni par les masques de tissu, ni par les masques chirurgicaux, et induisent une concentration de virus qui dépend :

    - du nombre de personnes secrétant du virus dans la pièce,
    - du flux de ventilation de la pièce
    - du volume de la pièce

    La probabilité qu’une personne saine soit contaminée croit avec

    - la concentration en particules virales, possiblement avec un effet de dose (non-linéarité), voire un effet de seuil
    - le temps de présence dans l’atmosphère contaminée

    Chaque personne a un système immunitaire spécifique qui implique que cette probabilité de contamination — pour grossir le trait, le seuil de concentration virale — varie entre individus. De plus, les données actuelles suggèrent que l’infection par le SARS-CoV-2 accroitrait la production du récepteur du virus ACE2 par les cellules pulmonaires, favorisant la fixation ultérieure d’autres virus sur ces cellules, ce qui augmenterait la probabilité de contamination. Toutefois cette probabilité n’est pas connue, même en moyenne.

    En résumé, on peut agir sur la ventilation, qui permet de maintenir la concentration virale la plus basse possible, sur la dénaturation ou le piégeage des particules virales, sur la qualité des masques et sur la détection préventive de personnes atteintes.

    Ventilation (quantification, contrôle et mesures effectives)

    Les gouttelettes exhalées de taille inférieure à 5 µm (aérosols) se maintiennent en suspension dans l’air pendant plusieurs heures. Le renouvellement de l’air est donc requis pour éviter une transmission aéroportée par ces aérosols potentiellement chargés en virus. Pour quantifier le renouvellement de l’air dans une salle, on peut mesurer la concentration de CO2 dans l’air à l’aide de capteurs infra-rouge. Dans l’hypothèse basse de linéarité entre probabilité d’infection et concentration virale, la concentration de CO2 dans l’air, une fois soustraite celle du milieu extérieur, détermine directement la probabilité de contamination, indépendamment du nombre de personnes dans la pièce et de son volume, quand une personne sécrétant du virus s’y trouve. Des modèles hydrodynamiques plus fins peuvent être produits si besoin.

    Il convient d’aérer le plus possible, en conservant une température permettant de travailler confortablement. La mesure la plus simple consiste à exiger que les portes des salles soient ouvertes et d’aérer 5 minutes en grand toutes les 30 ou 45 ou 60 minutes, et plus longtemps en début de matinée, à la pause déjeuner et en fin d’après-midi. Il est nécessaire d’aérer très fortement les lieux de restauration, où la transmission est extrêmement rapide et efficace. Il convient aussi de demander aux élèves et aux étudiants de se vêtir chaudement (pulls, polaires, etc) pour pouvoir aérer. Le chauffage doit être réglé pour prendre en compte l’aération. Ces consignes doivent faire l’objet d’une circulaire envoyée à tous les personnels et l’information communiquée à tous les usagers, lesquels seront invités à s’en saisir et à les adapter localement. Il convient d’inverser la logique d’intervention de l’Etat, appelé à fournir une aide effective, y compris matérielle, et une boîte à outils d’aide à la décision aux composantes des établissements universitaires.

    La seconde mesure consiste à équiper tous les établissements de capteurs de CO2 de sorte à optimiser la ventilation de chaque pièce :

    - fenêtre entrebâillée en permanence ou ouverte périodiquement en grand
    - révision des systèmes de ventilation forcée, quand ils existent, et réglage des vitesses de ventilation

    La mesure de CO2 s’effectue à 1 m 50 ou 2 m du sol, avec un relevé au cours du temps. Le taux de CO2 doit être amené, en permanence, au niveau le plus bas possible. Un objectif quantitatif consiste à essayer d’atteindre 200 ppm de plus qu’à l’extérieur (soit 650 ppm à Paris). Les mesures préliminaires effectuées en milieu universitaire et scolaire montrent des taux anormalement élevés, y compris là où les VMC sont aux normes. Passer de 1500 ppm à 650 ppm permet de gagner au moins un facteur 5 en probabilité d’infection, et probablement beaucoup plus, par effet de seuil/de dose. Il conviendrait de fixer un maximum raisonnable (850 ppm est une valeur type recommandée par différents scientifiques) au delà duquel il faille :

    - diminuer la jauge d’occupation
    – ajouter un système de filtration (voir ci-dessous)
    - faire réviser la ventilation forcée pour augmenter le débit

    Il convient d’avoir un recensement exhaustif des salles à risques, avec une attention particulière pour les lieux de restauration.

    Budget pour améliorer la ventilation — L’essentiel passe par des circulaires ministérielles et par une campagne de sensibilisation par des scientifiques, évitant le ton des campagnes du printemps.
    Budget pour les capteurs CO2 — Equiper chaque établissement scolaire, et chaque UFR d’un capteur CO2, produit à 50 €, coûte 3 millions €. Il faut pour cela une commande d’Etat de 60 000 capteurs-enregistreurs, et le recrutement et la formation de techniciens aidant à la mise-en-œuvre.
    Intégration à des projets pédagogiques — L’utilisation de capteurs infra-rouge peu onéreux, à monter sur des cartes de type Arduino, leur test dans une enceinte fermée dans lequel une bougie se consume, et la caractérisation de la ventilation peut faire partie de séances pédagogiques, à partir de fiches détaillées, adaptées aux différents niveaux.

    Purificateurs d’air

    Les salles de restauration (en priorité), les amphis et les salles de classe peuvent être équipées de système de purificateurs d’air, créant une circulation intérieure au travers de filtres HEPA (technique robuste, appareils commerciaux ou en kit existants) ou au voisinage d’un néon UV-C, entouré d’un tuyau opaque. L’investissement n’est pas spécifique au Covid, mais sera rentabilisé par la prévention de toutes les maladies respiratoires. La seconde technique est prometteuse, mais demanderait une PME nationalisée pour la production — il existe cependant quelques systèmes commerciaux pour les halls de grande surface.

    Tests salivaires rapides

    Détecter la présence d’une personne sécrétant une charge virale importante, en utilisant des tests salivaires, même peu sensibles, réduirait significativement la transmission du virus. Il convient de mettre à disposition des tests salivaires produits pour un usage collectif (pour 20 personnes par exemple) avec résultat rapide. Le consortium formé par la société de biotechnologie SKILLCELL, filiale du groupe ALCEN, le laboratoire du CNRS SYS2DIAG (CNRS/ALCEN) et la société VOGO a mis au point ces tests. Commander pour l’institution scolaire des tests collectifs quotidiens assurerait une baisse importante de la transmission.

    Masques

    Les masques de norme UNS comme les masques en tissu ne sont pas efficaces pour filtrer des aérosols qui sont de taille < 5 µm. Les masques souples intissés ont un effet important mais sont souvent mal portés, produisant des fuites d’air par les bords. Les masques FFP2 filtrent efficacement les aérosols (à l’exhalation comme à l’inspiration), et de plus s’adaptent de façon étanche au visage et évitent les fuites d’air. Les masques FFP2, N95 ou KN 95 non médicaux, testés sur une journée (taille de l’élastique, confort, étouffement de la voix, humidité accumulée), assurent une filtration efficace et une étanchéité sur la peau. Le port généralisé de ce type de masques par les élèves, les étudiants et les enseignants limiterait considérablement les contaminations aéroportées. Il est indispensable à court terme, d’équiper de masques FFP2 non médicaux les personnes à risque, les personnels d’accueil et de restauration.

    Budget — 20 centimes par masque à la production en France, 9 centimes en Asie. Option maximale : 1 million € par jour. Par comparaison, les tests PCR coûtent entre 10 et 100 millions € par jour à la sécurité sociale.

    Ventilation à double flux

    La plupart des bâtiments scolaires ont été construits avant la mise en place des normes sur la qualité de l’air et la mise en place de système de ventilation. La plupart n’ont qu’un système de ventilation manuelle — des fenêtres — limité par les normes de sécurité. Un programme d’installation de ventilation à double flux doit être mis en place, pour améliorer graduellement la situation, à moyen terme. Le dimensionnement doit être fait avec précision, pour éviter les nuisances sonores inutiles.

    Bibliographie

    - Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (Science)
    - Note d’alerte du conseil scientifique COVID-19 (22 septembre 2020)
    – Effects of ventilation on the indoor spread of COVID-19 (Journal of fluid mechanics)
    - Risk Reduction Strategies for Reopening Schools (Harvard)
    - Healthy Buildings (Harvard)
    - The risk of infection is in the air (Technische Universität Berlin)
    - How to use ventilation and air filtration to prevent the spread of coronavirus indoors. (The conversation)
    - Effect of ventilation improvement during a tuberculosis outbreak in underventilated university buildings. (Indoor air)
    - Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by inhalation of respiratory aerosol in the Skagit Valley Chorale superspreading event. (Indoor air)
    - Coronavirus : 90 % des contaminations se produiraient de façon aéroportée dans les lieux clos et mal ventilés (Caducée)
    - It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Clinical Infectious Diseases)
    – Préconisations pour améliorer la ventilation de bâtiments existants (air.h)
    – Aerosol and surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 observed in quarantine and isolation care (Scientific reports)
    – How can airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors be minimised ? (Environment International)
    - Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. (Scientific report)
    - UV air cleaners and upper-room air ultraviolet germicidal irradiation for controlling airborne bacteria and fungal spores (J. Occup. Environ. Hyg.)
    - Back to Normal : An Old Physics Route to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Indoor Spaces (ACS Nano)
    - COVID-19 Prävention : CO2-Messung und bedarfsorientierte Lüftung
    - Aerosolforscher : “Wir müssen ein ganz anderes Lüftungsverhalten entwickeln”

    http://www.groupejeanpierrevernant.info/#Ventilation

    #covid-19 #coronavirus #espaces_fermées #salles #cours #école #université #air #contamination

    siginalé par @colporteur ici parmi d’autres liens:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/879663

  • Palantir Shares Up in Wall Street Debut
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/technology/palantir-stock-initial-public-offering.html?action=click&block=more_in_reci

    The Silicon Valley company leads a wave of tech outfits hoping to test the public markets in the busiest season for I.P.O.s in two decades. Palantir Technologies, a company that helps government agencies analyze vast amounts of digital data, saw its shares jump in its Wall Street debut on Wednesday in a sign of continued investor excitement for money-losing software companies. The company’s shares began trading at $10 on the New York Stock Exchange, a 38 percent increase from a “reference (...)

    #Airbus #In-Q-Tel #Palantir #CIA #Airbnb #DoorDash #Paypal #migration #données #bénéfices #écoutes (...)

    ##surveillance

  • How to use ventilation and air filtration to prevent the spread of coronavirus indoors
    https://theconversation.com/how-to-use-ventilation-and-air-filtration-to-prevent-the-spread-of-

    The vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs indoors, most of it from the inhalation of airborne particles that contain the coronavirus. The best way to prevent the virus from spreading in a home or business would be to simply keep infected people away. But this is hard to do when an estimated 40% of cases are asymptomatic and asymptomatic people can still spread the coronavirus to others.

    Masks do a decent job at keeping the virus from spreading into the environment, but if an infected person is inside a building, inevitably some virus will escape into the air.

    I am a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder. Much of my work has focused on how to control the transmission of airborne infectious diseases indoors, and I’ve been asked by my own university, my kids’ schools and even the Alaska State Legislature for advice on how to make indoor spaces safe during this pandemic.

    Once the virus escapes into the air inside a building, you have two options: bring in fresh air from outside or remove the virus from the air inside the building.

    All of the air in a room should be replaced with fresh, outside air at least six times per hour if there are a few people inside.
    It’s all about fresh, outside air

    The safest indoor space is one that constantly has lots of outside air replacing the stale air inside.

    In commercial buildings, outside air is usually pumped in through heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems. In homes, outside air gets in through open windows and doors, in addition to seeping in through various nooks and crannies.

    Simply put, the more fresh, outside air inside a building, the better. Bringing in this air dilutes any contaminant in a building, whether a virus or a something else, and reduces the exposure of anyone inside. Environmental engineers like me quantify how much outside air is getting into a building using a measure called the air exchange rate. This number quantifies the number of times the air inside a building gets replaced with air from outside in an hour.

    While the exact rate depends on the number of people and size of the room, most experts consider roughly six air changes an hour to be good for a 10-foot-by-10-foot room with three to four people in it. In a pandemic this should be higher, with one study from 2016 suggesting that an exchange rate of nine times per hour reduced the spread of SARS, MERS and H1N1 in a Hong Kong hospital.

    Many buildings in the U.S., especially schools, do not meet recommended ventilation rates. Thankfully, it can be pretty easy to get more outside air into a building. Keeping windows and doors open is a good start. Putting a box fan in a window blowing out can greatly increase air exchange too. In buildings that don’t have operable windows, you can change the mechanical ventilation system to increase how much air it is pumping. But in any room, the more people inside, the faster the air should be replaced.

    CO2 levels can be used to estimate whether the air in a room is stale and potentially full of particles containing the coronavirus.
    Using CO2 to measure air circulation

    So how do you know if the room you’re in has enough air exchange? It’s actually a pretty hard number to calculate. But there’s an easy-to-measure proxy that can help. Every time you exhale, you release CO2 into the air. Since the coronavirus is most often spread by breathing, coughing or talking, you can use CO2 levels to see if the room is filling up with potentially infectious exhalations. The CO2 level lets you estimate if enough fresh outside air is getting in.

    Outdoors, CO2 levels are just above 400 parts per million (ppm). A well ventilated room will have around 800 ppm of CO2. Any higher than that and it is a sign the room might need more ventilation.

    Last year, researchers in Taiwan reported on the effect of ventilation on a tuberculosis outbreak at Taipei University. Many of the rooms in the school were underventilated and had CO2 levels above 3,000 ppm. When engineers improved air circulation and got CO2 levels under 600 ppm, the outbreak completely stopped. According to the research, the increase in ventilation was responsible for 97% of the decrease in transmission.

    Since the coronavirus is spread through the air, higher CO2 levels in a room likely mean there is a higher chance of transmission if an infected person is inside. Based on the study above, I recommend trying to keep the CO2 levels below 600 ppm. You can buy good CO2 meters for around $100 online; just make sure that they are accurate to within 50 ppm.

    Air cleaners

    If you are in a room that can’t get enough outside air for dilution, consider an air cleaner, also commonly called air purifiers. These machines remove particles from the air, usually using a filter made of tightly woven fibers. They can capture particles containing bacteria and viruses and can help reduce disease transmission.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that air cleaners can do this for the coronavirus, but not all air cleaners are equal. Before you go out and buy one, there are few things to keep in mind.

    If a room doesn’t have good ventilation, an air cleaner or air purifier with a good filter can remove particles that may contain the coronavirus.
    The first thing to consider is how effective an air cleaner’s filter is. Your best option is a cleaner that uses a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, as these remove more than 99.97% of all particle sizes.

    The second thing to consider is how powerful the cleaner is. The bigger the room – or the more people in it – the more air needs to be cleaned. I worked with some colleagues at Harvard to put together a tool to help teachers and schools determine how powerful of an air cleaner you need for different classroom sizes.

    The last thing to consider is the validity of the claims made by the company producing the air cleaner.

    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers certifies air cleaners, so the AHAM Verifide seal is a good place to start. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board has a list of air cleaners that are certified as safe and effective, though not all of them use HEPA filters.

    Keep air fresh or get outside

    Both the World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that poor ventilation increases the risk of transmitting the coronavirus.

    If you are in control of your indoor environment, make sure you are getting enough fresh air from outside circulating into the building. A CO2 monitor can help give you a clue if there is enough ventilation, and if CO2 levels start going up, open some windows and take a break outside. If you can’t get enough fresh air into a room, an air cleaner might be a good idea. If you do get an air cleaner, be aware that they don’t remove CO2, so even though the air might be safer, CO2 levels could still be high in the room.

    If you walk into a building and it feels hot, stuffy and crowded, chances are that there is not enough ventilation. Turn around and leave.

    #réduction_des_risques #ventilation #CO2 #mesure_du_CO2 #purificateur_d'air #covid-19 #coronavirus #espaces_fermés #air #contamination

    • HKU mechanical engineering study reveals airborne transmission of COVID-19 opportunistic in nature and poor indoor ventilation plays a role in transmission - All News - Media - HKU
      https://seenthis.net/messages/879105

      Germans embrace fresh air to ward off #coronavirus | Germany | The Guardian
      https://seenthis.net/messages/879381

      Ventiler, quantifier le taux de CO2, filtrer, Groupe Jean-Pierre Vernant
      http://www.groupejeanpierrevernant.info/#Ventilation

      La seconde mesure consiste à équiper tous les établissements de capteurs de CO2 de sorte à optimiser la ventilation de chaque pièce :

      fenêtre entrebâillée en permanence ou ouverte périodiquement en grand
      révision des systèmes de ventilation forcée, quand ils existent, et réglage des vitesses de ventilation

      La mesure de CO2 s’effectue à 1 m 50 ou 2 m du sol, avec un relevé au cours du temps. Le taux de CO2 doit être amené, en permanence, au niveau le plus bas possible. Un objectif quantitatif consiste à essayer d’atteindre 200 ppm de plus qu’à l’extérieur (soit 650 ppm à Paris). Les mesures préliminaires effectuées en milieu universitaire et scolaire montrent des taux anormalement élevés, y compris là où les VMC sont aux normes. Passer de 1500 ppm à 650 ppm permet de gagner au moins un facteur 5 en probabilité d’infection, et probablement beaucoup plus, par effet de seuil/de dose. Il conviendrait de fixer un maximum raisonnable (850 ppm est une valeur type recommandée par différents scientifiques) au delà duquel il faille :

      diminuer la jauge d’occupation
      ajouter un système de filtration (voir ci-dessous)
      faire réviser la ventilation forcée pour augmenter le débit
      Il convient d’avoir un recensement exhaustif des salles à risques, avec une attention particulière pour les lieux de restauration.
      Budget pour améliorer la ventilation — L’essentiel passe par des circulaires ministérielles et par une campagne de sensibilisation par des scientifiques, évitant le ton des campagnes du printemps.
      Budget pour les capteurs CO2 — Equiper chaque établissement scolaire, et chaque UFR d’un capteur CO2, produit à 50 €, coûte 3 millions €. Il faut pour cela une commande d’Etat de 60 000 capteurs-enregistreurs, et le recrutement et la formation de techniciens aidant à la mise-en-œuvre.

    • Covid-19 : l’aération, pilier jusqu’ici négligé de la prévention, c’est cité par Macron donc, Le Monde.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/10/16/covid-19-l-aeration-pilier-jusqu-ici-neglige-de-la-prevention_6056262_165068

      Diluer par la ventilation la concentration du virus dans l’air pourrait réduire les contaminations en lieux clos. Des chercheurs proposent de généraliser les capteurs de CO2, un indice utile à condition de bien interpréter la mesure.
      Par David Larousserie

      La recommandation est tombée comme une évidence lors de l’entretien avec Emmanuel Macron, le 14 octobre, annonçant le couvre-feu en Ile-de-France et dans huit métropoles : « Aérer régulièrement (…), dix minutes trois fois par jour. » C’est, selon le président de la République, la quatrième règle barrière que tout le monde devrait suivre. L’évidence est en fait assez récente. Le Haut Conseil de la santé publique (HCSP) l’évoque dans bon nombre de ses avis, et des médecins le proclament depuis longtemps, mais la consigne restait loin derrière le lavage des mains, les masques ou les distances de sécurité. Le conseil scientifique ne l’a mentionnée que deux fois dans ses avis, à propos des municipales et des écoles.

      Sans doute cette soudaine mise en avant doit-elle beaucoup à la chancelière allemande, Angela Merkel, qui depuis plusieurs semaines insiste sur l’importance de la ventilation pour contrer l’épidémie et dont le gouvernement a prévu 500 millions d’euros d’ici à 2024 pour la rénovation des systèmes de ventilation des bâtiments publics.

      La logique de cette consigne est assez simple. Puisque le virus se transmet par l’air, diminuer sa concentration, en le diluant par un air renouvelé, abaisse les risques. Sauf que, dans le détail, la situation est plus compliquée, comme viennent d’en faire l’expérience plusieurs enseignants-chercheurs et chercheurs.

      « A la rentrée universitaire, nous voulions assurer la sécurité sanitaire de nos enseignements. Alors nous avons commencé à réfléchir de façon informelle au meilleur protocole à suivre », se souvient Bruno Andreotti, professeur de physique à l’Université de Paris, qui a participé à cette réflexion avec une poignée de volontaires, physiciens, biologistes, informaticiens… La question des masques, des gels ou de la distance étant déjà bien établie, il restait celle de l’aération.

      Situations variables

      D’abord, il a fallu arbitrer une « controverse ». Même si l’Organisation mondiale de la santé maintient que « la transmission du SARS-CoV-2 par les aérosols n’a pas été démontrée », une accumulation d’indices montre que les postillons ou les gouttes exhalées ne sont pas les seules sources de contamination, et donc que les particules qui restent dans l’air plus longtemps (les aérosols) comptent beaucoup. Par exemple, une équipe néerlandaise en juillet a montré la transmission aérienne du virus entre deux cages abritant des furets. Des infections de plus de 30 personnes à partir d’un seul malade dans des chorales en Allemagne ou aux Etats-Unis plaident aussi en faveur de ce mode de contamination. Et donc pour le bien-fondé de la ventilation.
      Ensuite, « recommander d’aérer, c’est une chose, mais savoir quantitativement si c’est bien fait, c’en est une autre », précise Benoit Semin, chercheur CNRS au Laboratoire de physique et mécanique des milieux hétérogènes, à Paris, qui a mené avec des collègues des mesures dans les salles de classe, de réunion, le métro, les voitures, les restaurants… Ces volontaires découvrent alors que, même dans une salle moderne équipée de ventilation aux normes, les situations sont très variables. Ils quantifient aussi l’effet d’une ouverture de fenêtres ou de portes. Ils constatent l’effet de la présence de 5, 10 ou 20 personnes dans une pièce.

      Comment ? Grâce à des capteurs bon marché, à une centaine d’euros, qui mesurent la concentration en dioxyde de carbone, CO2, qui est un gaz exhalé par la respiration humaine. La variation de la concentration de ce gaz permet donc de mesurer l’effet d’une ventilation mécanique ou manuelle par l’ouverture des portes et fenêtres, tout comme elle renseigne sur la présence d’humains dans la pièce.

      « Au début, nous avons suscité l’incompréhension de nos administrations », raconte Jacques Haiech, professeur honoraire de l’université de Strasbourg. « Il a fallu batailler », complète Bruno Andreotti. Les mesures montraient en effet quelques défaillances dans les ventilations…

      « Dès qu’on met un capteur dans une salle indiquant la concentration, cela crée des réflexes pour ventiler », explique Benoit Semin. « On voit même des profs annoncer qu’ils ont fait cours à tel ou tel niveau de concentration en CO2 », apprécie Bruno Andreotti. Ces campagnes de mesures bénévoles ont permis de constater qu’il faut une demi-heure environ pour qu’une personne seule fasse plus que tripler la concentration en CO2 (pour une pièce de 10 m3). Ou que dans une salle de réunion, même avec une ventilation rénovée, les teneurs en CO2 montent vite. Les ventilations ne sont en effet pas prévues pour, comme à l’hôpital, éviter les pathogènes et leur taux de renouvellement d’air est bien plus faible.

      Estimation du risque délicate

      « Les relations avec l’administration s’améliorent. Maintenant il faut passer à l’acte et s’équiper en compétence et en matériel », insiste Jacques Haiech. Plusieurs participants aux discussions et mesures ont mis en ligne un guide des bonnes pratiques sur un site critique de l’évolution de la politique de recherche, le « Groupe Jean-Pierre Vernant ». Désormais, dans plusieurs universités, les étudiants viennent en polaire en cours, leurs profs mangent la fenêtre ouverte, aèrent cinq minutes toutes les demi-heures. Le guide chiffre à 3 millions d’euros la dépense pour 60 000 capteurs, dont certains sont en rupture de stock. « On pourrait lancer des PME pour la fabrication de purificateurs d’air ou de capteurs. Mobiliser les étudiants et les profs pour faire ces mesures… », rêve Bruno Andreotti, qui peste contre l’inertie du système.

      Voilà pour les mesures. Mais, ensuite, quel seuil d’alerte fixer ? La réponse est pour l’instant impossible à donner, car personne ne sait quelle charge virale est contaminante et, a fortiori, quelle concentration dans l’air serait risquée. Deux hypothèses peuvent être avancées.

      L’une est que la probabilité d’être infecté est proportionnelle à la concentration en virus. Alors, mesurer la concentration en CO2 est une bonne manière d’estimer le risque de contamination.

      L’autre hypothèse est qu’il existe un seuil au-delà duquel on est contaminé et en deçà non. L’estimation du risque serait plus délicate, mais cela signifierait aussi qu’il est possible d’empêcher toute contamination. En 2019, une équipe taïwanaise a ainsi rapporté avoir réussi à supprimer la tuberculose dans des salles de classe correctement ventilées. Pour le nouveau coronavirus, aucun seuil ne peut encore être défini. Il semble donc imprudent, sur le plan sanitaire, de proposer des indicateurs rouge, orange ou vert en fonction de la concentration en CO2 d’une pièce, comme le suggèrent de nombreux amateurs : leurs capteurs faits maison pourraient procurer des assurances trompeuses.

      Sur la charge virale qui détermine la contamination, évoquer la thèse d’un seuil sans rappeller pas l’effet dose (cf, diminution de l’ampleur des symptômes si masques) n’est pas très sport.

  • « Guerre des étoiles » : comment la notation systématique a infusé notre quotidien
    https://www.bfmtv.com/tech/guerre-des-etoiles-comment-la-notation-systematique-a-infuse-notre-quotidien_

    L’évaluation, bien souvent à coup d’étoiles, des produits et services, est devenue une habitude en apparence inoffensive. Dans « La nouvelle guerre des étoiles », deux journalistes de Libération se sont plongés dans les arcanes, dérives et effets pervers de ces nouveaux systèmes de notation. TripAdvisor, Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo, les centres d’appels ont un point commun. Tous proposent à leurs clients d’évaluer, systématiquement, leurs produits ou services, une fois leur prestation concrétisée. Et tous s’en (...)

    #Airbnb #Amazon #booking.com #Deliveroo #TripAdvisor #Uber #SNCF #Alipay #GigEconomy #notation #SocialCreditSystem #surveillance (...)

    ##travail

  • Lisbonne entre en guerre contre #Airbnb | korii.
    https://korii.slate.fr/biz/lisbonne-tourisme-guerre-airbnb-transformer-courte-duree-location-longue

    Partager sur Facebook
    Partager sur Facebook Messenger
    Partager sur Twitter
    Partager sur LinkedIn

    Pour la capitale portugaise, la #pandémie de Covid-19, qui entraîne une chute vertigineuse du #tourisme, est l’occasion de repenser la question des locations à courte durée –notamment celles effectuées via la plateforme Airbnb.

    Accusées de dénaturer la ville et de provoquer une augmentation des #loyers, forçant les locaux à fuir le centre historique, ces locations sont dans le viseur du conseil municipal de Lisbonne. Ce dernier vient d’introduire un programme appelé « Renda Segura », visant à transformer les habitations locatives de style Airbnb en logements abordables pour les habitant·es.

    Le plan propose de payer aux propriétaires jusqu’à trois ans de loyer à l’avance afin d’imposer la décision de remplacer la location de leur #logement à courte durée en une à longue durée. La ville se charge par la suite de trouver des personnes pour louer, grâce à un programme de logement destiné aux jeunes et aux familles à faible revenu.

  • Lisbon Airbnb : Portugal Pushes Affordable Housing Plan
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-airbnb-short-let-reforms-lisbon

    Lisbon City Council is introducing measures to turn Airbnb-style homes into affordable housing. But with many short-term rental owners holding out for tourism to return, the city’s new program has yet to attract many owners. Under the so-called “Safe Rent” program, Lisbon is offering to pay as much as three years of rent up front to lure property owners—many of whom have seen their rental income evaporate due to coronavirus-related travel restrictions—to switch their short-term rental units (...)

    #Airbnb #migration #pauvreté #urbanisme

    ##pauvreté

  • Lisbonne entre en guerre contre Airbnb
    https://korii.slate.fr/biz/lisbonne-tourisme-guerre-airbnb-transformer-courte-duree-location-longue

    Un programme ambitieux prévoit de transformer les locations de courte durée en logements abordables pour les Lisboètes. Pour la capitale portugaise, la pandémie de Covid-19, qui entraîne une chute vertigineuse du tourisme, est l’occasion de repenser la question des locations à courte durée –notamment celles effectuées via la plateforme Airbnb. Accusées de dénaturer la ville et de provoquer une augmentation des loyers, forçant les locaux à fuir le centre historique, ces locations sont dans le viseur du (...)

    #Airbnb #pauvreté #urbanisme

    ##pauvreté

  • #Air_conditionné et Covid : attention aux risques de #transmission aérienne
    https://francais.medscape.com/voirarticle/3606172

    Le fonctionnement même des #climatiseurs est à interroger. Quand les températures extérieures sont extrêmes, les systèmes #HVAC (climatisation - chauffage - ventilation) ajustent le mélange d’air frais pour ne pas trop utiliser d’énergie. En d’autres termes, plus il fait chaud dehors, plus l’air intérieur va recirculer. Cela signifie que « vous respirez un plus grand pourcentage d’air exhalé par d’autres personnes », indique le Pr Edward Nardell ( Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Etats-Unis). Donc si quelqu’un dans l’immeuble a le Sars-CoV-2, il est vraisemblable que le nouveau virus se retrouve dans l’air recirculant.

    De plus, les petites particules virales - les #aérosols - restent plus longtemps en suspension dans l’air à cause des ventilateurs et des climatiseurs qui brassent l’air. « Les courants d’air produits par les climatiseurs et les #ventilateurs peuvent transporter des particules à des distances plus importantes » ajoute-t-il. Avant de rappeler que les climatiseurs assèchent l’air, « un air sec, ce que les virus préfèrent. »

    Dans certaines situations, cette combinaison de facteurs pourrait se révéler être les conditions parfaites pour une #contagion.

    Ebauches de preuves en défaveur des climatiseurs

    En juillet, une équipe chinoise a publié ses travaux[3] sur un #cluster de cas qui avaient tous diné dans un même #restaurant de Guangzhou. Les dix personnes qui sont tombées malades étaient toutes assises à des tables du même côté de la pièce. Les tables étaient espacées de plus d’un mètre, ce qui laisse à penser que le virus n’a pas été capable d’être véhiculé par des gouttelettes qui tombent relativement rapidement une fois qu’elles sont expulsées dans l’air. Les auteurs considèrent qu’un « fort courant d’air » produit par un climatiseur mural a probablement dispersé des aérosols, ou « #microgouttelettes », depuis un seul individu asymptomatique, vers l’ensemble des tables, infectant trois familles différentes.

    Dans une autre étude, qui n’a pas encore été reviewée, des chercheurs ont analysé le contenu de climatiseurs HVAC d’un hôpital de Portland (Oregon, Etats-Unis). Grâce à des tampons, ils ont recherché la présence du matériel génétique du #SARS-CoV-2. Les tampons étaient positifs dans un quart des échantillons.

    « Nous en avons trouvé dans différentes localisations du système de traitement de l’#air », indique Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg (Institute for Health in the Built Environment, University of Oregon, Eugene, Etats-Unis).

    Une étude similaire[4] a montré qu’il était possible de détecter du matériel génétique du virus dans des échantillons d’air collectés dans les chambres de patients Covid. Plus inquiétant d’après les auteurs, même dans les échantillons d’air collectés à plus de deux mètres.

    Cela dit, Kevin Van Den Wymelenberg précise que ces deux études ne prouvent pas le potentiel infectieux des échantillons positifs. Pour le savoir, il aurait fallu aller plus loin, à savoir mettre en présence ces échantillons avec des cellules en culture, ce qui nécessite un laboratoire sécurisé de type P3.

    Mais revenant à son étude, il considère que retrouver du matériel génétique viral dans la machinerie du système de refroidissement des hôpitaux, même ceux qui ont de bons filtres , devrait faire réagir les experts de #santé_publique, lesquels devraient considérer l’air conditionné comme un moteur de la dissémination virale.

    Une règle d’or : aérer

    La Pr Shelly Miller indique que le geste le plus simple pour que le virus ne s’accumule pas dans l’air intérieur est d’aérer en ouvrant régulièrement portes et fenêtres. Un conseil difficile à appliquer dans les bâtiments commerciaux.

    « Ce que nous avons recommandé pour minimiser les risques à l’intérieur, est d’apporter 100 % de l’air extérieur, ce qui est impossible si vous essayer de chauffer ou de refroidir parce que cela serait extrêmement coûteux » concède-t-elle.

    Une autre solution serait de recourir à des systèmes germinicides de radiation UV muraux ou à disposer sur le plafond. Ces systèmes, sans danger pour la peau, permettent de tuer les pathogènes. Ils ont fait leur preuve pour lutter contre des virus à transmission aérienne comme la tuberculose, indique le Pr Nardell.

    Il est toujours possible d’investir dans un purificateur d’air. Mais là aussi, prévient Shelly Miller, il faut connaître les subtilités d’utilisation, et notamment le CADR (la quantité d’air purifié par minute). « J’en ai acheté un que je fais marcher seulement si quelqu’un est malade chez moi afin de réduire la charge virale dans l’air de ma maison ».

  • EU pays for surveillance in Gulf of Tunis

    A new monitoring system for Tunisian coasts should counter irregular migration across the Mediterranean. The German Ministry of the Interior is also active in the country. A similar project in Libya has now been completed. Human rights organisations see it as an aid to „#pull_backs“ contrary to international law.

    In order to control and prevent migration, the European Union is supporting North African states in border surveillance. The central Mediterranean Sea off Malta and Italy, through which asylum seekers from Libya and Tunisia want to reach Europe, plays a special role. The EU conducts various operations in and off these countries, including the military mission „#Irini“ and the #Frontex mission „#Themis“. It is becoming increasingly rare for shipwrecked refugees to be rescued by EU Member States. Instead, they assist the coast guards in Libya and Tunisia to bring the people back. Human rights groups, rescue organisations and lawyers consider this assistance for „pull backs“ to be in violation of international law.

    With several measures, the EU and its member states want to improve the surveillance off North Africa. Together with Switzerland, the EU Commission has financed a two-part „#Integrated_Border_Management Project“ in Tunisia. It is part of the reform of the security sector which was begun a few years after the fall of former head of state Ben Ali in 2011. With one pillar of this this programme, the EU wants to „prevent criminal networks from operating“ and enable the authorities in the Gulf of Tunis to „save lives at sea“.

    System for military and border police

    The new installation is entitled „#Integrated_System_for_Maritime_Surveillance“ (#ISMariS) and, according to the Commission (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-000891-ASW_EN.html), is intended to bring together as much information as possible from all authorities involved in maritime and coastal security tasks. These include the Ministry of Defence with the Navy, the Coast Guard under the Ministry of the Interior, the National Guard, and IT management and telecommunications authorities. The money comes from the #EU_Emergency_Trust_Fund_for_Africa, which was established at the Valletta Migration Summit in 2015. „ISMariS“ is implemented by the Italian Ministry of the Interior and follows on from an earlier Italian initiative. The EU is financing similar projects with „#EU4BorderSecurity“ not only in Tunisia but also for other Mediterranean countries.

    An institute based in Vienna is responsible for border control projects in Tunisia. Although this #International_Centre_for_Migration_Policy_Development (ICMPD) was founded in 1993 by Austria and Switzerland, it is not a governmental organisation. The German Foreign Office has also supported projects in Tunisia within the framework of the #ICMPD, including the establishment of border stations and the training of border guards. Last month German finally joined the Institute itself (https://www.andrej-hunko.de/start/download/dokumente/1493-deutscher-beitritt-zum-international-centre-for-migration-policy-development/file). For an annual contribution of 210,000 euro, the Ministry of the Interior not only obtains decision-making privileges for organizing ICMPD projects, but also gives German police authorities the right to evaluate any of the Institute’s analyses for their own purposes.

    It is possible that in the future bilateral German projects for monitoring Tunisian maritime borders will also be carried out via the ICMPD. Last year, the German government supplied the local coast guard with equipment for a boat workshop. In the fourth quarter of 2019 alone (http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/19/194/1919467.pdf), the Federal Police carried out 14 trainings for the national guard, border police and coast guard, including instruction in operating „control boats“. Tunisia previously received patrol boats from Italy and the USA (https://migration-control.info/en/wiki/tunisia).

    Vessel tracking and coastal surveillance

    It is unclear which company produced and installed the „ISMariS“ surveillance system for Tunisia on behalf of the ICPMD. Similar facilities for tracking and displaying ship movements (#Vessel_Tracking_System) are marketed by all major European defence companies, including #Airbus, #Leonardo in Italy, #Thales in France and #Indra in Spain. However, Italian project management will probably prefer local companies such as Leonardo. The company and its spin-off #e-GEOS have a broad portfolio of maritime surveillance systems (https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/sea/maritime-domain-awareness/coastal-surveillance-systems).

    It is also possible to integrate satellite reconnaissance, but for this the governments must conclude further contracts with the companies. However, „ISMariS“ will not only be installed as a Vessel Tracking System, it should also enable monitoring of the entire coast. Manufacturers promote such #Coastal_Surveillance_Systems as a technology against irregular migration, piracy, terrorism and smuggling. The government in Tunisia has defined „priority coastal areas“ for this purpose, which will be integrated into the maritime surveillance framework.

    Maritime „#Big_Data

    „ISMariS“ is intended to be compatible with the components already in place at the Tunisian authorities, including coastguard command and control systems, #radar, position transponders and receivers, night vision equipment and thermal and optical sensors. Part of the project is a three-year maintenance contract with the company installing the „ISMariS“.

    Perhaps the most important component of „ISMariS“ for the EU is a communication system, which is also included. It is designed to improve „operational cooperation“ between the Tunisian Coast Guard and Navy with Italy and other EU Member States. The project description mentions Frontex and EUROSUR, the pan-European surveillance system of the EU Border Agency, as possible participants. Frontex already monitors the coastal regions off Libya and Tunisia (https://insitu.copernicus.eu/FactSheets/CSS_Border_Surveillance) using #satellites (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2018-003212-ASW_EN.html) and an aerial service (https://digit.site36.net/2020/06/26/frontex-air-service-reconnaissance-for-the-so-called-libyan-coast-guar).

    #EUROSUR is now also being upgraded, Frontex is spending 2.6 million Euro (https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:109760-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML) on a new application based on artificial intelligence. It is to process so-called „Big Data“, including not only ship movements but also data from ship and port registers, information on ship owners and shipping companies, a multi-year record of previous routes of large ships and other maritime information from public sources on the Internet. The contract is initially concluded for one year and can be extended up to three times.

    Cooperation with Libya

    To connect North African coastguards to EU systems, the EU Commission had started the „#Seahorse_Mediterranean“ project two years after the fall of North African despots. To combat irregular migration, from 2013 onwards Spain, Italy and Malta have trained a total of 141 members of the Libyan coast guard for sea rescue. In this way, „Seahorse Mediterranean“ has complemented similar training measures that Frontex is conducting for the Coastal Police within the framework of the EU mission #EUBAM_Libya and the military mission #EUNAVFOR_MED for the Coast Guard of the Tripolis government.

    The budget for „#Seahorse_Mediterranean“ is indicated by the Commission as 5.5 million Euro (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-000892-ASW_EN.html), the project was completed in January 2019. According to the German Foreign Office (http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/19/196/1919625.pdf), Libya has signed a partnership declaration for participation in a future common communication platform for surveillance of the Mediterranean. Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt are also to be persuaded to participate. So far, however, the governments have preferred unilateral EU support for equipping and training their coastguards and navies, without having to make commitments in projects like „Seahorse“, such as stopping migration and smuggling on the high seas.

    https://digit.site36.net/2020/06/28/eu-pays-for-surveillance-in-gulf-of-tunis

    #Golfe_de_Tunis #surveillance #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #militarisation_des_frontières #surveillance_des_frontières #Tunisie #externalisation #complexe_militaro-industriel #Algérie #Egypte #Suisse #EU #UE #Union_européenne #Trust_Fund #Emergency_Trust_Fund_for_Africa #Allemagne #Italie #gardes-côtes #gardes-côtes_tunisiens #intelligence_artificielle #IA #données #Espagne #Malte #business

    ping @reka @isskein @_kg_ @rhoumour @karine4

    –—

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

    Et celle-ci sur le lien entre développement et contrôles frontaliers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/733358#message768701

  • Actu Coronavirus – 24-30 juin
    https://www.les-crises.fr/actu-coronavirus-24-30-juin

    Ce fil d’actualités comprend des informations provenant de deux sources : le live Covid-19 de 20 minutes et le compte Twitter @Conflits_FR. 30 juin 21h30 Le groupe aéronautique #Airbus va supprimer 14 931 emplois dans le monde, dont près de 5 000 en #France, suite à la chute du trafic aérien sur la planète. #Bercy […]

    #Revue_de_Presse

  • Airbnb Quietly Fired Hundreds of Contract Workers. I’m One of Them
    https://www.wired.com/story/airbnb-quietly-fired-hundreds-of-contract-workers-im-one-of-them/#intcid=recommendations_wired-right-rail_8a6540d7-16d5-47f1-b0da-418d52621a68

    While the company touted generous severance packages for its terminated employees, it offered unequal help to its shadow workforce. In April, with travel halted worldwide and revenue plunging, the cofounders of Airbnb raised $2 billion in debt and equity financing. Two weeks later, I was laid off. For 13 months, I worked full-time as a contract copywriter on a social impact initiative at Airbnb—and before that, for four months on a marketing project for the company. My office life (...)

    #Airbnb #discrimination #GigEconomy #licenciement #travail

  • UK Deportations 2020: how BA, #Easyjet and other airlines collaborate with the border regime

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis, with hundreds of people released from detention. But a recent charter flight to Poland shows the motor is still ticking over. Will things just go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts, or can anti-deportation campaigners push for a more radical shift? This report gives an updated overview of the UK deportation system and focuses in on the role of scheduled flights run by major airlines including: #BA, Easyjet, #Kenya_Airways, #Qatar_Airways, #Turkish_Airlines, #Ethiopian_Airlines, #Air_France, #Royal_Jordanian, and #Virgin.

    On 30 April, with UK airports largely deserted during the Covid-19 lockdown, a Titan Airways charter plane took off from Stansted airport deporting 35 people to Poland. This was just a few days after reports of charter flights in the other direction, as UK farmers hired planes to bring in Eastern European fruit-pickers.

    The Home Office’s deportation machine has slowed during the corona crisis. Hundreds of people have been released from detention centres, with detainee numbers dropping by 900 over the first four months of 2020. But the Poland flight signals that the Home Office motor is still ticking over. As in other areas, perhaps the big question now is whether things will simply go “back to normal” as the lockdown lifts. Or can anti-deportation campaigners use this window to push for a more radical shift?
    An overview of the UK’s deportation machine

    Last year, the UK Home Office deported over seven thousand people. While the numbers of people “removed” have been falling for several years, deportation remains at the heart of the government’s strategy (if that is the term) for “tackling illegal immigration”. It is the ultimate threat behind workplace and dawn raids, rough-sleeper round-ups, “right to rent” checks, reporting centre queues, and other repressive architecture of the UK Border Regime.

    This report gives an overview of the current state of UK deportations, focusing on scheduled flights run by major airlines. Our previous reports on UK deportations have mainly looked at charter flights: where the Home Office aims to fill up chartered planes to particular destinations, under heavy guard and typically at night from undisclosed locations. These have been a key focus for anti-deportation campaigners for a number of reasons including their obvious brutality, and their use as a weapon to stifle legal and direct resistance. However, the majority of deportations are on scheduled flights. Deportees are sitting – at the back handcuffed to private security “escorts” – amongst business or holiday travellers.

    These deportations cannot take place without extensive collaboration from businesses. The security guards are provided by outsourcing company Mitie. The tickets are booked by business travel multinational Carlson Wagonlit. The airlines themselves are household names, from British Airways to Easyjet. This report explains how the Home Office and its private sector collaborators work together as a “deportation machine” held together by a range of contractual relationships.

    Some acknowledgements

    Many individuals and campaign groups helped with information used in this report. In particular, Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants shared their valuable research and legal advice, discussed below.

    We have produced this report in collaboration with the Air Deportation Project led by William Walters at the University of Carleton in Canada, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Corporate Watch received funding from this project as a contribution for our work on this report.

    Names, numbers

    First a quick snapshot of deportation numbers, types and destinations. We also need to clear up some terminology.

    We will use the term “deportations” to refer to all cases where the Home Office moves someone out of the country under direct force (for scheduled flights, this usually means handcuffed to a security “escort”). In the Home Office’s own jargon, these are called “enforced returns”, and the word “deportation” is reserved for people ejected on “public policy” rather than “immigration” grounds – mostly Foreign National Offenders who have been convicted by criminal courts. The Home Office refers to deportations carried out under immigration law euphemistically, calling them “removals” or “returns”.i

    As well as “enforced returns”, there are also so-called “voluntary returns”. This means that there is no direct use of force – no guard, no leg or arm restraints. But the term “voluntary” is stretched. Many of these take place under threat of force: e.g., people are pressured to sign “voluntary return” agreements to avoid being forcibly deported, or as the only chance of being released from detention. In other cases, people may agree to “voluntary return” as the only escape route from a limbo of reporting controls, lack of rights to work or rent legally, or destitution threatened by “no recourse to public funds”.

    In 2019, the Home Office reported a total of 18,782 returns: 7,361 “enforced” and 11,421 “voluntary”.ii
    These figures include 5,110 “Foreign National Offenders” (27%). (The Home Office says the majority of these were enforced returns, although no precise figure is provided.)
    There is a notable trend of declining removals, both enforced and “voluntary”. For example, in 2015 there were 41,789 returns altogether, 13,690 enforced and 28,189 “voluntary”. Both enforced and voluntary figures have decreased every year since then.
    Another notable trend concerns the nationalities of deportees. Europeans make up an increasing proportion of enforced deportations. 3,498, or 48%, of all enforced returns in 2019 were EU citizens – and this does not include other heavily targeted non-EU European nationalities such as Albanians. In 2015, there were 3,848 EU enforced returns – a higher absolute figure, but only 28% of a much higher overall total. In contrast, EU nationals still make up a very small percentage of “voluntary” returns – there were only 107 EU “voluntary returns” in 2019.
    The top nationalities for enforced returns in 2019 were: Romania (18%), Albania (12%), Poland (9%), Brazil (8%) and Lithuania (6%). For voluntary returns they were: India (16%), China (9%), Pakistan (9%).

    We won’t present any analysis of these figures and trends here. The latest figures show continuing evidence of patterns we looked at in our book The UK Border Regime.iii One key point we made there was that, as the resources and physical force of the detention and deportation system are further diminished, the Border Regime is more than ever just a “spectacle” of immigration enforcement – a pose for media and key voter audiences, rather than a realistic attempt to control migration flows. We also looked at how the scapegoat groups targeted by this spectacle have shifted over recent decades – including, most recently, a new focus on European migration accompanying, or in fact anticipating, the Brexit debate.

    Deportation destinations

    Home Office Immigration Statistics also provide more detailed dataiv on the destinations people are “returned” to, which will be important when we come to look at routes and airline involvement. Note that, while there is a big overlap between destinations and nationalities, they are of course not the same thing. For example, many of those deported to France and other western European countries are “third country” removals of refugees under the Dublin agreement – in which governments can deport an asylum seeker where they have already been identified in another EU country.

    Here are the top 20 destinations for deportations in 2019 – by which, to repeat, we mean all enforced returns:

    It is worth comparing these figures with a similar table of top 20 deportation destinations in the last 10 years – between 2010 and 2019. This comparison shows very strongly the recent shift to targeting Europeans.

    The Home Office: who is targeted and how

    As we will see, the actual physical business of deporting people is outsourced to private companies. The state’s role remains giving the orders about who is targeted for arrest and detention, who is then released, and who is forced onto a plane. Here we’ll just take a very quick look at the decision-making structures at work on the government side. This is based on the much more detailed account in The UK Border Regime.

    The main state body responsible for immigration control in the UK is the Home Office, the equivalent of other countries’ Interior Ministries. In its current set-up, the Home Office has three divisions: Homeland Security, which runs security and intelligence services; Public Safety, which oversees the police and some other institutions; and Borders, Immigration and Citizenship. The last of these is further divided into three “directorates”: UK Visas and Immigration, which determines visa and asylum applications; Border Force, responsible for control at the frontiers; Immigration Enforcement, responsible for control within the national territory – including detention and deportations. Immigration Enforcement itself has an array of further departments and units. Regular restructuring and reshuffling of all these structures is known to bewilder immigration officers themselves, contributing to the Home Office’s notoriously low morale.v

    At the top of the tree is the Home Secretary (interior minister), supported by a more junior Immigration Minister. Along with the most senior civil servants and advisors, these ministers will be directly involved in setting top-level policies on deportations.

    For example, an enquiry led by then prisons and probation ombudsman Stephen Shaw into the Yarl’s Wood detention centre revolt in 2002 has given us some valuable insight into the development of modern Home Office deportation policy under the last Labour government. Then Home Secretary Jack Straw, working with civil servants including the Home Office permanent secretary Sir David Omand, introduced the first deportation targets we are aware of, in 2000. They agreed a plan to deport 12,000 people in 2000-1, rising to 30,000 people the next year, and eventually reaching 57,000 in 2003-4.vi

    Nearly two decades later, Home Secretary Amber Rudd was pushed to resign after a leak confirmed that the Home Office continued to operate a deportation targets policy, something of which she had denied knowledge.vii The 2017-18 target, revealed in a leaked letter to Rudd from Immigration Enforcement’s director general Hugh Ind, was for 12,800 enforced returns.viii

    As the figures discussed above show, recent austerity era Conservative governments are more modest than the last Labour government in their overall deportation targets, and have moved to target different groups. Jack Straw’s deportation programme was almost entirely focused on asylum seekers whose claims had been refused. This policy derived from what the Blair government saw as an urgent need to respond to media campaigns demonising asylum seekers. Twenty years on, asylum seekers now make up a minority of deportees, and have been overtaken by new media bogeymen including European migrants.

    In addition, recent Home Office policy has put more effort into promoting “voluntary” returns – largely for cost reasons, as security guards and detention are expensive. This was the official rationale behind Theresa May’s infamous “racist van” initiative, where advertising vans drove round migrant neighbourhoods parading “Go Home” slogans and a voluntary return hotline number.

    How do Home Office political targets translate into operations on the ground? We don’t know all the links, but can trace some main mechanisms. Enforced returns begin with arrests. One of the easiest ways to find potential deportees is to grab people as they walk in to sign at an Immigration Reporting Centre. 80,000 migrants in the UK are “subject to reporting requirements”, and all Reporting Centres include short-term holding cells.ix Other deportees are picked up during immigration raids – such as daytime and evening raids on workplaces, or dawn raids to catch “immigration offenders” in their beds.x

    Both reporting centre caseworkers and Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) raid squads are issued with targets and incentives to gather deportees. An Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) report from 2017 explains how reporting centre staff work specifically to deportation targets. The inspector also tells us how:

    Staff at the London Reporting Centres worked on the basis that to meet their removal targets they needed to detain twice the number of individuals, as around half of those detained would later raise a barrier to removal and be released from detention.

    ICE raid teams are set monthly priorities by national and regional commanders, which may include targeting specific nationalities for deportation. For example, the Home Office has repeatedly denied that it sets nationality targets in order to fill up charter flights to particular destinations – but this practice was explicitly confirmed by an internal document from 2014 (an audit report from the director of Harmondsworth detention centre) obtained by Corporate Watch following a Freedom of Information legal battle.xi

    Day-to-day deportation and detention decisions are overseen by a central unit called the National Removals Command (NRC). For example, after ICE raid officers make arrests they must call NRC to authorise individuals’ detention. This decision is made on the basis of any specific current targets, and otherwise on general “removability”.

    “Removability” means the chance of successfully getting their “subject” onto a plane without being blocked by lack of travel documents, legal challenges and appeals, or other obstacles. For example, nationals of countries with whom the UK has a formal deportation agreement are, all other things being equal, highly removable. This includes the countries with which the UK has set up regular charter flight routes – including Albania, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana, and more recently Jamaica and a number of EU countries. On the other extreme, some nationalities such as Iranians present a problem as their governments refuse to accept deportees.

    The Home Office: “arranging removal” procedure

    A Home Office document called “Arranging Removal” sets out the steps Immigration Enforcement caseworkers need to take to steer their “subject” from arrest to flight.xii

    On the one hand, they are under pressure from penny-pinching bosses keen to get the job done as quick and cheap as possible. On the other, they have to be careful not to make any mistakes deportees’ lawyers could use to get flights cancelled. Immigration Officers have the legal power to order deportations without the need for any court decision – however, many deportations are blocked on appeal to courts.

    Here are some of the main steps involved:

    Removability assessment. The caseworker needs to assess that: there are no “casework barriers” – e.g., an ongoing asylum claim or appeal that would lead to the deportation being stopped by a court; the detainee is medically “fit to fly”; any family separation is authorised correctly; the detainee has a valid travel document.
    Travel Document. If there is no valid travel document, the caseworker can try to obtain an “emergency travel document” through various routes.
    Executive approval. If all these criteria are met, the caseworker gets authorisation from a senior office to issue Removal Directions (RD) paperwork.
    Risk Assessment. Once the deportation is agreed, the caseworker needs to assess risks that might present themselves on the day of the flight – such as medical conditions, the likelihood of detainee resistance and of public protest. At this point escorts and/or medics are requested. A version of this risk assessment is sent to the airline – but without case details or medical history.xiii
    Flight booking. The caseworker must first contact the Airline Ticketing Team who grant access to an online portal called the Electronic Removal Form (ERF). This portal is run by the Home Office’s flight booking contractor Carlson Wagonlit (see below). Tickets are booked for escorts and any medics as well as the deportee. There are different options including “lowest cost” non-refundable fares, or “fully refundable” – the caseworker here should assess how likely the deportation is to be cancelled. One of the options allows the caseworker to choose a specific airline.
    Notice of removal. Finally, the deportee must be served with a Removal Directions (RD) document that includes notification of the deportation destination and date. This usually also includes the flight number. The deportee must be given sufficient notice: for people already in detention this is standardly 72 hours, including two working days, although longer periods apply in some situations.

    In 2015 the Home Office brought in a new policy of issuing only “removal window” notification in many cases – this didn’t specify the date but only a wide timeframe. The window policy was successfully challenged in the courts in March 2019 and is currently suspended.

    #Carlson_Wagonlit

    The electronic booking system is run by a private company, #Carlson_Wagonlit_Travel (#CWT). CWT is also in charge of contracting charter flights.

    Carlson Wagonlit has been the Home Office’s deportation travel agent since 2004, with the contract renewed twice since then. Its current seven year contract, worth £5.7 million, began in November 2017 and will last until October 2024 (assuming the two year extension period is taken up after an initial five years). The Home Office estimated in the contract announcement that it will spend £200 million on deportation tickets and charters over that seven year period.xiv

    Carlson is a global #business travel services company, i.e., a large scale travel agent and booker for companies and government agencies. Its official head office is in France, but it is 100% owned by US conglomerate #Carlson_Companies Inc. It claims to be active in more than 150 countries.

    A report on “outsourced contracts” by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration gives us some information on CWT’s previous (2010-17) contract.xv This is unlikely to be substantially changed in the new version, although deportation numbers have reduced since then. The contract involved:

    management of charter flights and ticketing provision for scheduled flights for migrants subject to enforced removal and escorts, where required, and the management of relationships with carriers to maintain and expand available routes. […] Annually, CWT processed approximately 21,000 booking requests from Home Office caseworkers for tickets for enforced removals. Some booking requests were for multiple travellers and/or more than one flight and might involve several transactions. CWT also managed flight rescheduling, cancellations and refunds. The volume of transactions processed varied from 5,000 to 8,000 per month.

    The inspection report notes the value of CWT’s service to the Home Office through using its worldwide contacts to facilitate deportations:

    Both Home Office and CWT managers noted that CWT’s position as a major travel operator had enabled it to negotiate favourable deals with airlines and, over the life of the contract to increase the range of routes available for enforced removals. (Para 5.10).

    The airlines: regular deportation collaborators

    We saw above that Home Office caseworkers book flight tickets through an online portal set up and managed by Carlson Wagonlit Travel. We also saw how CWT is praised by Home Office managers for its strong relationships with airlines, and ability to negotiate favourable deals.

    For charter flight deportations, we know that CWT has developed a particular relationship with one charter company called Titan Airways. We have looked at Titan in our previous reports on charter flight deportations.

    Does the Home Office also have specific preferred airline partners for scheduled flights? Unfortunately, this isn’t an easy question to answer. Under government procurement rules, the Home Office is required to provide information on contracts it signs – thus, for example, we have at least a redacted version of the contract with CWT. But as all its airline bookings go through the intermediary of CWT, there are no such contracts available. Claiming “commercial confidentiality”, the Home Office has repeatedly information requests on its airline deals. (We will look in a bit more depth at this issue in the annex.)

    As a result, we have no centrally-gathered aggregate data on airline involvement. Our information comes from individual witnesses: deportees themselves; their lawyers and supporters; fellow passengers, and plane crew. Lawyers and support groups involved in deportation casework are a particularly helpful reference, as they may know about multiple deportation cases.

    For this report, we spoke to more than a dozen immigration lawyers and caseworkers to ask which airlines their clients had been booked on. We also spoke to anti-deportation campaign groups including Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, who have run recent campaigns calling on airlines to refuse to fly deportees; and to the trade union Unite, who represent flight crew workers. We also looked at media reports of deportation flights that identify airlines.

    These sources name a large number of airlines, and some names come up repeatedly. British Airways is top of the list. We list a few more prominent collaborators below: Easyjet, Kenya Airways, Ethiopian Airlines, Qatar Airways, Turkish Airlines, Royal Jordanian. Virgin Airlines is the only company to have publicly announced it has stopped carrying deportees from the UK – although there have been some questions over whether it is keeping this promise.

    However, the information we have does not allow us to determine the exact nature of the relationship with these airlines. How many airlines appear in the CWT booking system – what determines which ones are included? Does CWT have a preferential arrangement with BA or other frequent deportation airlines? Does the Home Office itself have any direct interaction with these airlines’ management? How many airlines are not included in the CWT booking system because they have refused to carry deportees?

    For now, we have to leave these as open questions.

    British Airways

    We have numerous reports of British Airways flying deportees to destinations worldwide – including African and Caribbean destinations, amongst others. Cabin crew representatives in Unite the Union identify British Airways as the main airline they say is involved in deportation flights.

    The airline has long been a key Home Office collaborator. Back in 2003, at the height of the Labour government’s push to escalate deportations, the “escort” security contractor was a company called Loss Prevention International. In evidence to a report by the House of Commons home affairs committee, its chief executive Tom Davies complained that many airlines at this point were refusing to fly deportees. But he singled out BA as the notable exception, saying: “if it were not for […] the support we get from British Airways, the number of scheduled flight removals that we would achieve out of this country would be virtually nil”.xvi

    In 2010, British Airways’ role was highlighted when Jimmy Mubenga was killed by G4S “escorts” on BA flight 77 from Heathrow to Angola.

    Since 2018, there has been an active calling on BA to stop its collaboration. The profile of this issue was raised after BA sponsored Brighton Pride in May 2018 – whilst being involved in deportations of lesbian and gay migrants to African countries where their lives were in danger. After winning a promise from Virgin Airways to cease involvement in deportations (see below), the group Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) have made BA the main target for their anti-deportation campaigning.

    The campaign has also now been supported by BA cabin crew organised in the union Unite. In December 2019 Unite cabin crew branches passed a motion against airline scheduled flight deportations.xvii

    Kenya Airways

    We have numerous reports from caseworkers and campaigners of Kenya Airways flying deportees to destinations in Africa.

    The typical route is a flight from Heathrow to Nairobi, followed by a second onward flight. People deported using this route have included refugees from Sudan and Somalia.

    Easyjet

    We have numerous reports of Easyjet flying deportees to European destinations. Easyjet appears to be a favoured airline for deportations to Eastern European countries, and also for “third country” returns to countries including Italy and Germany. While most UK scheduled deportations are carried out from Heathrow and Gatwick, we have also seen accounts of Easyjet deportations from Luton.

    Qatar Airways

    We have numerous reports of Qatar Airways carrying deportees to destinations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Qatar Airways has carried deportees to Iraq, according to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), and also to Sudan. (In March 2019 the airline suspended its Sudan route, but this appears to have been restarted – the company website currently advertises flights to Khartoum in April 2020.xviii) Other destinations include Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Thailand, the Philippines, and Uganda. The typical route is from Heathrow via Doha.

    Turkish Airlines

    We have numerous reports of Turkish Airlines carrying deportees. The typical route is Heathrow or Gatwick to Istanbul, then an onward flight to further destinations including Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR), Turkish Airlines has been one of the main companies involved in deportations to Iraq. A media report from June 2019 also mentions Turkish Airlines carrying someone being deported to Somalia via Istanbul.xix In August 2017, a Turkish Airlines pilot notably refused to fly an Afghani refugee from Heathrow to Istanbul, en route to Kabul, after being approached by campaigners – but this does not reflect general company policy.xx

    Ethiopian Airlines

    We have reports of this airline deporting people to Ethiopia and other African countries, including Sudan. Flights are from Heathrow to Addis Ababa. In April 2018, high-profile Yarl’s Wood hunger striker Opelo Kgari was booked on an Ethiopian flight to Addis Ababa en route to Botswana.

    Air France

    Air France are well-known for carrying deportees from France, and have been a major target for campaigning by anti-deportation activists there. We also have several reports of them carrying deportees from the UK, on flights from Heathrow via Paris.

    Royal Jordanian

    According to IFIR, Royal Jordanian has been involved in deportations to Iraq.

    Virgin Airlines

    In June 2018, Virgin announced that it had ceased taking bookings for deportation flights. Virgin had previously been a regular carrier for deportations to Jamaica and to Nigeria. (NB: Nigeria is often used as a deportation transit hub from where people are subsequently removed to other African countries.) The announcement came after the Windrush scandal led to the Home Office apparently suspending deportations to the Caribbean, and following campaigning by Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants (LGSM) – although Virgin claimed it had made the decision before being contacted by the campaign. A Virgin statement said:

    we made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have already informed the Home Office. We believe this decision is in the best interest of our customers and people, and is in keeping with our values as a company.xxi

    But there are doubts over just how much Virgin’s promise is worth. According to a report by The Independent:

    The airline had agreed to deport a man to Nigeria […] a day after announcing the decision. The only reason he wasn’t removed was because the Home Office agreed to consider new representations following legal intervention.xxii

    Do airlines have a choice?

    In response to its critics, British Airways has consistently given the same reply: it has no choice but to cooperate with the Home Office. According to an August 2018 article in The Guardian, BA says that it has “a legal duty under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove individuals when asked to do so by the Home Office.” A company spokesperson is quoted saying:

    Not fulfilling this obligation amounts to breaking the law. We are not given any personal information about the individual being deported, including their sexuality or why they are being deported. The process we follow is a full risk assessment with the Home Office, which considers the safety of the individual, our customers and crew on the flight.xxiii

    The last parts of this answer fit the process we looked at above. When booking the flight, the Home Office caseworker sends the airline a form called an Airline Risk Report (ARA) which alerts it to risk issues, and specifies why escorts or medics are needed – including an assessment of the likelihood of resistance. But no information should be shared on the deportee’s medical issues or immigration case and reasons for deportation.

    But is it true that an airline would be breaking the law if it refused a booking? Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants have shared with us a legal opinion they received from law firm Duncan Lewis on this issue. We summarise the main points here.

    The law in question is the Immigration Act 1971, Section 27(1)(b)(iii). This states that, when issued the correct legal order by the Home Office, the “owner or agent of a ship or aircraft” must “make arrangements for or in connection with the removal of a person from the United Kingdom when required to do so [by appropriate Removal Directions]”. It is an offence to fail to do so “without reasonable excuse”.

    The offence is punishable by a fine, and potentially a prison sentence of up to six months. As a minor “summary only” offence, any case would be heard by a magistrates’ court rather than a jury.

    In fact many airline captains have refused to carry deportees – as we will see in the next section. But there are no recorded cases of anyone ever being prosecuted for refusing. As with many areas of UK immigration law, there is simply no “case law” on this question.

    If a case ever does come to court, it might turn on that clause about a “reasonable excuse”. The legal opinion explains that the airline might argue they refused to carry a deportee because doing so would present a risk to the aircraft or passengers, for example if there is resistance or protest. A court might well conclude this was “reasonable”.

    On the other hand, the “reasonable excuse” defence could be harder to apply for an airline that took a principled stand to refuse all deportations as a general rule, whether or not there is disruption.

    Again, though, all this is hypothetical as the Home Office has never actually prosecuted anyone. Virgin Airlines, the first company to have publicly stated that it will not fly deportees from the UK, so far has not faced any legal comeback. As reported in the press, a Virgin spokesperson explained the company’s position like this:

    We’ve made the decision to end all involuntary deportations on our network, and have informed the Home Office. We always comply with the law and would continue to comply with legislation; however, we have ended our contractual agreement to carry involuntary deportees.xxiv

    Due to our lack of information on Home Office agreements with airlines, it’s hard to assess exactly what this means. Possibly, Virgin previously had an outstanding deal with the Home Office and Carlson Wagonlit where their tickets came up on the CWT booking portal and were available for caseworkers, and this has now ended. If the Home Office insisted on contacting them and booking a ticket regardless, they might then be pushed to “comply with the law”.

    Above we saw that, according to evidence referred to in a report of the House of Commons home affairs select committee, in 2003 the majority of airlines actually refused to carry deportees, leaving the Home Office to depend almost exclusively on British Airways. Even in this context there were no prosecutions of airlines.

    This is not an uncommon situation across UK immigration law: much of it has never come to court. For example, as we have discussed in reports on immigration raids, there have been no legal cases testing many of the powers of ICE raid squads. To give another example, on numerous occasions campaigners have obstructed buses taking detainees to charter flights without any prosecution – the Stansted 15 trial of protestors blocking a plane inside the airport was the first high-profile legal case following an anti-deportation action.

    Even if the government has a legal case for prosecuting airlines, this could be a highly controversial move politically. The Home Office generally prefers not to expose the violence of its immigration enforcement activities to the challenge of a public legal hearing.

    Resistance

    We want to conclude this report on an upbeat note. Deportations, and scheduled airline flights in particular, are a major site of struggle. Resistance is not just possible but widespread and often victorious. Thousands of people have managed to successfully stop their “removals” through various means, including the following:

    Legal challenges: a large number of flights are stopped because of court appeals and injunctions.
    Public campaigning: there is a strong tradition of anti-deportation campaigning in the UK, usually supporting individuals with media-focused and political activity. Common tactics include: media articles highlighting the individual’s case; enlisting MPs and appealing to ministers; petitions, letters of support; mass phone calls, emails, etc., to airlines; demos or leafletting at the airport targeting air crew and passengers.
    Solidarity action by passengers: in some high-profile cases, passengers have refused to take their seats until deportees are removed. This creates a safety situation for the airline which may often lead to the pilot ordering escorts to remove their prisoner.
    Direct action by detainees: many detainees have been able to get off flights by putting up a struggle. This may involve, for example: physically resisting escorts; taking off clothes; shouting and appealing to passengers and air crew for help. Unless the deportee is extremely strong physically, the balance of force is with the escorts – and sometimes this can be lethal, as in the case of Jimmy Mubenga. However, pilots may often order deportees off their plane in the case of disruption.

    There are many reports of successful resistance using one or more of these tactics. And we can also get some glimpses of their overall power from a few pieces of aggregate information.

    In a 2016 report, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration revealed one telling figure. Looking at the figures for six months over 2014-15, he found that “on average 2.5 tickets were issued for each individual successfully removed.”xxv Some of this can be put down to the notorious inefficiency of Home Office systems: the Inspection report looks at several kinds of coordination failures between Home Office caseworkers, the escort contractor (at that point a subsidiary of Capita), and Carlson Wagonlit.

    But this is not the biggest factor. In fact, the same report breaks down the reasons for cancellation for a sample of 136 tickets. 51% of the sampled cancellations were the result of legal challenges. 18% were because of “disruptive or non-compliant behaviour”. 2% (i.e., three cases) were ascribed to “airline refusal to carry”.

    Where there is resistance, there is also reaction. As we have discussed in previous reports, one of the main reasons prompting the development of charter flights was to counter resistance by isolating deportees from passengers and supporters. This was very clearly put in 2009 by David Wood, then strategic director of the UK Border Agency (Home Office), who explained that the charter flight programme is:

    “a response to the fact that some of those being deported realised that if they made a big enough fuss at the airport – if they took off their clothes, for instance, or started biting and spitting – they could delay the process. We found that pilots would then refuse to take the person on the grounds that other passengers would object.”xxvi

    For both deportees and supporters, charter flights are much harder to resist. But they are also very expensive; require specific diplomatic agreements with destination countries; and in some cases (Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) have been blocked by legal and political means.xxvii The Home Office cannot avoid the use of scheduled flights for the majority of deportations, and it will continue to face resistance.

    –—
    Annex: issues with accessing airline information

    We will expand a bit here on the issues around obtaining information on the Home Office’s relationships with airlines.

    Under UK and EU public sector procurement rules, central government departments are obliged to publish announcements of all contracts valued over £10,000, including on the contractsfinder website. However, there is no publicly available information on any contracts between the Home Office and specific airlines. This is legally justifiable if the Home Office has no direct contractual agreements with airlines. It has a signed contract with Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT), which is published in a redacted form; and CWT then makes arrangements with airlines on a per-ticket basis.

    The Home Office certainly has knowledge of all the tickets booked on its behalf by CWT – indeed, they are booked by its own employees through the CWT maintained portal. And so it certainly knows all the airlines working for it. But it has refused all requests for this information, using the excuse of “commercial confidentiality”.

    There have been numerous attempts to request information on deportation airlines using the Freedom of Information Act.xxviii All have been refused on similar grounds. To give one standard example, in December 2018 A. Liberadzki requested statistics for numbers of removals carried out by British Airways and other scheduled airlines. The response confirmed “that the Home Office holds the information that you have requested.” However, it argued that:

    “we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)e and 43(2) of the FOIA. These provide that information can be withheld if its disclosure would have a detrimental effect on the Home Office and its ability to operate effective immigration controls by carrying out removals or would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any persons (including the public authority holding it).”

    In April 2019 Kate Osamor MP put similar questions to the Home Secretary in parliament.xxix She received the same reply to all her questions:

    “The Home Office does not disclose the details or values of its commercial contracts. Doing so could discourage companies from dealing with the Home Office.”

    Of course this answer is blatantly false – as we just saw, the Home Office is legally obliged to disclose values of commercial contracts over £10,000.

    https://corporatewatch.org/uk-deportations-2020-how-ba-easyjet-and-other-airlines-collaborate-w

    #rapport #corporate_watch #compagnies_aériennes #British_Airways #avions #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #déboutés #sans-papiers #UK #Home_Office #résistance #Jimmy_Mubenga

    ping @isskein @karine4 @reka

  • Charte #air-Energie-Santé
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2020/06/05/charte-air-energie-sante

    Chaque jour environ 15 000 litres d’air transitent par nos voies respiratoires. Contrairement à l’eau potable que nous buvons, nous ne pouvons malheureusement pas choisir l’air que nous respirons. La Lire la suite...

    #Alternatives_à_la_voiture #Marche_à_pied #Pollution_automobile #Réchauffement_climatique #Ressources #Transports_publics #Vélo #climat #consommation #covid-19 #énergie #pollution

  • Lobbying : l’épidémie cachée | Les Amis de la Terre
    https://www.amisdelaterre.org/lobbycovid

    La crise actuelle est propice à l’absence de transparence dans les décisions publiques. Une aubaine pour le secteur privé, qui bénéficie d’un accès privilégié aux décideurs politiques. C’est ce que révèle le rapport « Lobbying : l’épidémie cachée » publié aujourd’hui par les Amis de la Terre France et l’Observatoire des multinationales.

    Il montre comment, alors que la situation sanitaire attirait toute l’attention, les industriels et leur lobbys ont lancé une grande offensive auprès des pouvoirs publics avec un double objectif.

    https://www.amisdelaterre.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/lobbying-epidemie-cachee-at-odm-juin2020.pdf

  • Armement : la Belgique, premier client export de la France
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2020/06/02/armement-la-belgique-premier-client-export-de-la-france_6041541_3234.html

    La baisse des commandes du Moyen-Orient est compensée par une politique volontariste en Europe. Sur fond de tensions géopolitiques et de repli des nations, que la crise du Covid-19 devrait encore intensifier, le monde s’arme. La France, troisième exportateur mondial de matériel militaire avec 8 % de parts de marché, y trouve un avantage, même si la compétition n’a jamais été aussi rude. Selon le rapport annuel remis, lundi 1er juin, au Parlement, et rendu public mardi 2 juin, les exportations de (...)

    #surveillance #frontières #bénéfices #militaire #Thalès #MBDA #Dassault #Airbus

  • Fermeture des vols intérieurs : « Si Aurillac est sur la liste, le Cantal est mort » | Public Senat
    https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/politique/fermeture-des-vols-interieurs-si-aurillac-est-sur-la-liste-le-cantal-est

    #Air_France_KLM va réduire de 40 % ses vols nationaux d’ici à 2021. Les sénateurs dont les territoires sont concernés par ces fermetures de ligne craignent l’#enclavement de leur région mais aussi les conséquences économiques.

    Pour Air France, un plan d’aide peu écolo et non contraignant
    https://reporterre.net/Pour-Air-France-un-plan-d-aide-peu-ecolo-et-non-contraignant

    Pour faire face aux conséquences économiques de la pandémie de Covid-19, le gouvernement va accorder 7 milliards d’euros d’aides à Air France. En échange, la compagnie est censée devenir « plus respectueuse de la planète ». Mais les conditions environnementales posées ne sont ni ambitieuses ni contraignantes

    Liens cités dans l’article de Reporterre :
    Réseau Action Climat, Climat : que vaut le plan du Gouvernement pour l’aérien ?, https://reseauactionclimat.org/publications/climat-que-vaut-le-plan-du-gouvernement-pour-laerien

    The Shift Project, « Crise(s), climat : préparer l’avenir de l’aviation » : les propositions du Shift de contreparties à l’aide publique au secteur aérien, https://theshiftproject.org/article/climat-preparer-avenir-aviation-propositions-shift-contreparties

    #changement_climatique #transport_aérien #aménagement_du_territoire #développement_durable

  • Can Air Conditioning Spread COVID-19? Probably Not
    https://www.healthline.com/health-news/can-air-conditioning-spread-covid-19-probably-not

    The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) says it’s concerned about the possibility of #aerosol transmission of COVID-19.

    So, it has set up its own pandemic task force with industry scientists looking at the data.

    William P. Bahnfleth, PhD, PE, is a professor of engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and chair of the ASHRAE Epidemic Task Force.

    Bahnfleth points to an analysis of the restaurant study that found there was no outdoor air supply in the restaurant and that window exhaust fans were not operating.

    It concluded that “Aerosol transmission of #SARS-CoV-2 due to poor ventilation may explain the community spread of #COVID-19.”

    “A well-functioning air conditioning system in the #restaurant that actively provided the appropriate amount of ventilation and had good filters for particulate matter would have greatly lowered the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in the air, perhaps to the point that fewer diners would have contracted COVID-19,” Bahnfleth told Healthline.

    Meanwhile, Bahnfleth says ASHRAE is advising its members to:

    consider bringing in more outside air or opening windows upgrade filters in air conditioning systems control airflow directions in a building to move from clean to less clean follow the recommendations of the CDC and others regarding physical distancing and hygiene

    #air_conditionné #aérosol

  • Jeff Bezos Shouldn’t Be a Billionaire, Much Less a Trillionaire
    https://jacobinmag.com/2020/05/jeff-bezos-trillionaire-amazon-billionaire

    Jeff Bezos is reportedly on pace to be the world’s first trillionaire. That’s a grotesque indictment of our society — and the only way to change it is to organize Amazon workers to wrest back the extraordinary power and wealth that Bezos is hoarding. Jeff Bezos may become the world’s first trillionaire. The Amazon founder’s net worth grew by an average of 34 percent over the last five years, and according to a recent analysis, he is on track to reach trillionaire status by 2026. The nauseating (...)

    #Google #Airbnb #Amazon #Uber #bénéfices #chômage #conditions #COVID-19 #licenciement #lutte #pauvreté #santé (...)

    ##pauvreté ##santé ##travail