#europe

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

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

What do all these people have in common?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Dutch prime minister.

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

But let’s get back to those funding streams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still with me?

Because this was just the Netherlands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each country has its own way of categorising projects.

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

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

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

In Nigeria, we found

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

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

to provide all Nigerians with biometric identity cards.

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

in Nigeria: at least €92m.

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

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

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

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

2) Where isn’t the money going?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ping @isskein @isskein @pascaline @_kg_

Croatia wrongly deports Nigerian table tennis players to Bosnia | Global development | The Guardian

▻https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/05/croatia-wrongly-deports-nigerian-table-tennis-players-bosnia

Quinze jours de cauchemars et ils n’auront même pas les excuses des autorités...

#europe_de_merde

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/oktldzm24ogsu78/1800.jpg?dl=0

Abia Uchenna Alexandro and Eboh Kenneth Chinedu, students at the Federal University of Technology Owerri in Nigeria, arrived in Zagreb on 12 November, on their way to participate in the fifth World InterUniversities Championships, held this year in Pula, Croatia.

The 18-year-old table tennis players left Pula for Zagreb after the tournament, and were supposed to fly back to Lagos on 18 November. However, the night before their departure, while taking a walk in the Croatian capital they were stopped by two police officers who asked them for identification documents.
’They didn’t give a damn’: first footage of Croatian police ’brutality’
Read more

“We tried to explain who we were and that our documents were in the hostel, but they took us to a police station,” Chinedu told the Bosnian website Žurnal. “They paid no attention to what we were saying.”

Carte. De l’adhésion au rejet (parfois) : géohistoire des frontières de l’Union européenne

▻https://www.diploweb.com/Carte-De-l-adhesion-au-rejet-parfois-geohistoire-des-frontieres-de-l-Union

https://www.diploweb.com/IMG/jpg/thomas-merle-carte-ue-entrees-_sorties-diploweb.jpg

Comment les frontières de l’#UE évoluent-elles dans le temps, entre élargissements, candidatures délicates et rejets ? T. Merle répond brillamment avec une carte commentée disponible sous deux formats. En pied de page, vous trouverez la carte en grande taille format JPEG... et un lien secret pour la télécharger au format PDF.

#europe #union_européenne #frontières

Why return from Europe is causing problems for The Gambia

https://images.theconversation.com/files/301924/original/file-20191115-66932-1yj39n9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip#.jpg

Roughly 38,500 Gambians left the country through ‘irregular’ means between 2013 and 2017. Today, almost every family has ties abroad. The influx of immigrants to Europe and elsewhere was caused by political oppression under the long-serving former president Yahya Jammeh. His oppressive politics also severely affected the economic prospects of The Gambia’s young population.

As a result, a large number of citizens, mostly young men, sought asylum in Europe. But very few have been allowed to stay. Even more were turned away when Jammeh was toppled after elections in 2017 and the country returned to democracy. More recently, there has been a big push from European Union (EU) member states to return failed asylum seekers back home to The Gambia.

The question of returns is particularly volatile in the west African nation of 2 million people, reflected in the country’s and European press.

A slight increase in Gambian deportations began in November 2018 after the EU and the government agreed on a ‘good practice’ agreement for efficient return procedures.

This intensified cooperation became possible due to the governmental change in 2017, with President Adama Barrow becoming President after the elections, as we found in our research on the political economy of migration governance in The Gambia.

Despite initial cooperation with the EU on returns, in March 2019 Barrow’s government imposed a moratorium on any further deportations of its nationals from the EU. After a standoff of several months, the moratorium has now been lifted. Though only temporary, the moratorium was an important tool for the government to manage problems with its domestic legitimacy.
Relationship challenges

Jammeh’s ousting ended years of severe repression and corruption that had discouraged donor countries from cooperating with The Gambia. When he left, the country quickly established positive relations with the EU which has become its most important development partner. It provides €55 million in budgetary support and runs three projects to address the root causes of destabilisation, forced displacement and irregular migration. But the moratorium was a stress test for this new relationship.

Before the moratorium was imposed in March 2019, the government had started to tentatively cooperate with the EU on return matters. For example, it sent regular missions to Europe to issue nationals with identification documents to facilitate their return.

Relations began to sour when European governments increased returns in a way that authorities in The Gambia viewed as inconsistent with the ‘good practice’ agreement. The agreement stipulates that return numbers should not overstretch the country’s capacity to receive returnees. It also states that adequate notice must be given before asylum seekers are returned. Both of these provisions were allegedly breached.
Problems at home

The incoming returns quickly led to heated debates among the population and on social media. The rumblings peaked in February 2019 with one particular return flight from Germany. Authorities in Banjul claimed they had not been well informed about it and initially refused entry. Public demonstrations followed in March. The moratorium, which European partners had already been notified about, was declared shortly afterwards.

The moratorium can be linked to diplomatic and technical inefficiencies, but it is also based on a more fundamental problem for Barrow’s government. By cooperating with the EU on returns, they risk their domestic legitimacy because by and large, most Gambians in Europe do not want to return home.

The initial euphoria that surrounded the democratic transition is wearing off. Many reform processes such as in the security sector and in the media environment are dragging. The economic situation of many has not improved. Allowing more deportations from the EU is perceived as betrayal by many migrants and their families.

The government is frequently suspected to play an active role in returns and is accused of witholding information about their dealings with the EU and member states like Germany. Incidentally, President Barrow is currently seeking to extend his rule beyond the three-year transition period originally agreed upon, ending in January 2020. Opposition to these plans is widespread.

In these politically tense times, pressing a pause button on returns fulfilled a symbolic function by defending Gambians against foreign national interests. The recent lifting of the moratorium is politically very risky. It paves the way for more of the deeply unpopular chartered return operations.

What next?

On the whole, The Gambia has little room to manoeuvre. It is highly dependent on the EU’s goodwill and financial support for its reforms process. In line with the development focus of the EU, the position of the government is to prepare the ground for more “humane” repatriations, which will need more time and joint efforts.

This would include better and more comprehensive reintegration opportunities for returned migrants. Reintegration is already the focus of various projects funded by the European Union Trust Fund. Programmes like the International Organisation for Migration’s ‘Post-Arrival Reintegration Assistance’ for returnees from Europe are up and running. However, they only serve a limited number of returnees and cannot meet all their needs.

It is important to note that the role of the Gambian state in providing reintegration support has been marginal.

With the lifting of the moratorium EU-Gambia cooperation stands at a crossroads. If EU member states maintain their hardline returnee approach The Gambia’s new government will continue to struggle with its legitimacy challenges. This could potentially jeopardise democratisation efforts.

In the alternative, the EU could take a more cooperative stance by working on more holistic, development-oriented solutions. A starting point would be to move away from plans to return high numbers of failed asylum seekers. Sending back large numbers of migrants has never been feasible.

The Gambian government will be more honest about its migration dealings with the EU if the agreements are fair and practical. Most importantly, if Gambians had access to fair and practical migration pathways this would lessen cases of irregular migration, which continue to remain high.

Without a greater share of legal migration, the issue of return will continue to be particularly contentious.

►https://theconversation.com/why-return-from-europe-is-causing-problems-for-the-gambia-124036
#Gambie #retour #renvois #expulsions #réfugiés_gambiens #développement #coopération_au_développement #aide_au_développement #conditionnalité_de_l'aide #Allemagne #moratoire #réintégration #European_Union_Trust_Fund #Trust_Fund #Post-Arrival_Reintegration_Assistance #OIM #IOM
ping @karine4 @_kg_

J’ai ajouté « #deportees » dans la liste des #mots autour de la migration :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/414225
Et plus précisément ici : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/414225#message812066
#terminologie #vocabulaire
ping @sinehebdo

Ajouté à la métaliste développement-migrations, autour de la conditionnalité de l’aide :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/733358#message768701

« Le système ne peut s’autoriser qu’un lanceur d’alerte gagne » : l’affaire Rudolf Elmer, dissident de la #Finance
▻https://www.bastamag.net/Fraude-fiscale-secret-bancaire-lanceur-d-alerte-Rudolf-Elmer-Suisse-Luxlea

Poursuivi pendant quatorze ans pour avoir révélé les pratiques d’évasion fiscale de sa banque, emprisonné, interdit d’exercer son métier, cible de la vengeance de son ex-employeur, le lanceur d’alerte suisse Rudolf Elmer poursuit son combat. « Les lanceurs d’alerte ne sont pas protégés, alors qu’ils rendent un grand service à notre société », avertit Rudolf Elmer. Le sexagénaire suisse a osé s’attaquer à l’évasion fiscale, et en a payé le prix fort. Comme Stéphanie Gibault, qui a dénoncé les pratiques de la (...) #Résister

/ Indignés de tous les pays..., #Europe, Que faire face à la crise financière ?, #Paradis_fiscaux, Finance, A la (...)

#Indignés_de_tous_les_pays... #Que_faire_face_à_la_crise_financière_ ?

https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/jpg/rudolf_elmer_serbia_2.jpg

Transcender
(Update)

Natalie

▻https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Transcender-Update

Paris, le 7 novembre 2019
Amis,

Ce sous-titre (premier pas vers l’auto-évaluation de votre adaptabilité langagière) signale que les développements à venir sont en prolongement de ce qui avait pourtant été annoncé, au « Plancher des vaches IV|II », comme enfin achevé.

Le sujet étant, comme on le sait, en renouvellement permanent, il se trouve que la lecture, ce jour, de la synthèse du rapport « Le business de l’édification des murs », par Mark Akkerman (synthèse dont je vous recommande vivement la lecture), m’a incitée à me balader dans les sites de quelques-unes des organisations et entreprises mentionnées dans ledit rapport.

Mark Akkerman : « Un grand nombre des entreprises répertoriées dans les présentes, notamment les grandes sociétés d’armement, font partie de l’EOS (Organisation européenne pour la sécurité), le plus important groupe de pression sur la sécurité des frontières. »

Ça vous rappelle quelque chose ? (...)

#langage #symbole #capitalisme #biométrie #La_Vache_qui_rit #libre-service #Schengen #Europe #interaction_digitale #X-Reality #migrants #asile #Paris

Vincenzo Vecchi, condamné à de la prison en Italie pour avoir manifesté, et menacé d’extradition, est libre
▻https://www.bastamag.net/Vincenzo-Vecchi-libere-justice-Rennes-Italie-mandat-d-arret-europeen-Genes

Vincenzo Vecchi était la cible d’un mandat d’arrêt européen, pourtant réservé à la grande criminalité et au terrorisme, alors que son seul « délit » est d’avoir participé à une manifestation altermondialiste. La #Justice française vient de lui rendre la liberté. Vincenzo Vecchi est libre. Arrêté le 8 août dernier en Bretagne, et incarcéré depuis, il était sous la menace d’un renvoi vers l’Italie où l’attendait une peine de 12 ans de prison, pour sa participation à la manifestation altermondialiste de Gênes en (...) #Résister

/ #Atteintes_aux_libertés, Justice, #Droits_fondamentaux, A la une, #Europe

Thierry Breton, PDG d’une multinationale financée par les fonds européens en voie de devenir commissaire... européen
▻https://www.bastamag.net/Thierry-Breton-audition-Commission-Europe-conflit-interets-PDG-Atos-Macron

Après le rejet de Sylvie Goulard par le Parlement européen, Emmanuel Macron a proposé Thierry Breton au poste de commissaire européen au Marché intérieur. Au vu du curriculum vitæ du personnage et des marchés sur lesquels intervient l’entreprise dont il était PDG, Atos, ce choix pose de sérieuses questions. Le 12 novembre, le Parlement de Strasbourg a approuvé en commission la candidature de Thierry Breton au poste de commissaire européen. À 12 voix contre 11, les députés de la commission des Affaires (...) #Décrypter

/ #Europe, #Multinationales, #Capitalisme, #Surveillance_et_biométrie, A la une

Entre 3,9 et 4,8 millions de sans-papiers vivent en Europe

Leur nombre a augmenté en 2015, avec la hausse de la demande d’asile, mais s’est stabilisé dès 2019. La moitié d’entre eux se trouvent en Allemagne et au Royaume-Uni.

Entre 3,9 et 4,8 millions d’étrangers vivent en situation irrégulière en Europe et la moitié d’entre eux résident en Allemagne et au Royaume-Uni. Dans une étude parue mercredi 13 novembre, le centre de recherche américain Pew Research Center évalue le nombre de personnes qui se trouvaient sans papiers sur le continent en 2017. C’est la première étude du genre depuis dix ans, qui permet notamment d’évaluer l’impact de ce qui a été communément appelé la « crise migratoire ».

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

Selon les travaux du Pew Research Center, les sans-papiers représenteraient moins de 1 % de la population européenne (évaluée à 500 millions de personnes). A titre de comparaison, la part des sans-papiers est de 3 % aux Etat-Unis, avec plus de 10 millions de personnes.

Le Pew Research Center note toutefois une « augmentation récente » du nombre de sans-papiers
en Europe, due essentiellement à la hausse des demandeurs d’asile depuis 2015, qui pèsent pour
environ un quart de l’ensemble des personnes en situation irrégulière. Les auteurs de l’étude ont
en effet choisi d’inclure dans leur estimation les personnes sollicitant un statut de réfugié et qui
n’ont pas encore obtenu de réponse du fait de leur avenir incertain (38 % des demandeurs ont
obtenu une protection en 2018). Il est toutefois important de souligner que les auteurs ont
constaté une stabilisation du nombre de migrants sans titre de séjour à partir de 2016.

https://i.imgur.com/f7eUW9g.png

L’Allemagne, le Royaume-Uni, la France et l’Italie, principales destinations
Environ un million de sans-papiers vivent en Allemagne et autant au Royaume-Uni. Si les volumes
sont comparables, le nombre de sans-papiers outre-Rhin a presque doublé entre 2014 et 2016,
alors qu’il est resté plutôt stable outre-Manche, les îles britanniques n’ayant pas été l’une des
principales destinations des demandeurs d’asile arrivés à partir de 2015. De la même manière, si
l’Allemagne compte environ quatre fois plus de migrants réguliers qu’irréguliers – ce qui
correspond à la moyenne européenne –, le Royaume-Uni a autant d’étrangers sans titres que
d’étrangers pourvus d’un titre de séjour.

https://i.imgur.com/lRAE8P9.png

La France et l’Italie arrivent en troisième et quatrième positions avec, respectivement, autour
de 350 000 et 600 000 sans-papiers. « Comparé aux grands pays de destination des migrants
en Europe, la France a un nombre relativement plus faible de sans-papiers, soulignent les auteurs.
Une des raisons possibles est que certains sans-papiers peuvent être régularisés après plusieurs
années s’ils remplissent certains critères ». Autour de 30 000 personnes bénéficient d’une
admission exceptionnelle au séjour chaque année, pour des motifs liés principalement à leur
situation familiale ou professionnelle. Cette particularité montre l’impact des politiques
gouvernementales sur le volume de sans-papiers.

https://i.imgur.com/Od4PI9o.png

Le plus souvent des hommes de moins de 35 ans
Sur l’ensemble du continent, 56 % des sans-papiers sont présents depuis moins de cinq ans, mais
plus d’un quart sont présents depuis plus de dix ans. Ils sont, pour les deux tiers d’entre eux, âgés
de moins de 35 ans et sont des hommes dans plus d’un cas sur deux.
En Europe, les origines des migrants sans papiers sont plus diverses qu’aux Etats-Unis, où
l’écrasante majorité d’entre eux viennent du sous-continent américain et en particulier du
Mexique. En Europe, environ un tiers des sans-papiers sont originaires d’Asie Pacifique – c’est
particulièrement le cas au Royaume-Uni où ils comptent pour plus de la moitié des sans-papiers ;
23 % viennent d’Europe et 21 % du Moyen-Orient et d’Afrique du Nord, tandis que 17 % sont
originaires d’Afrique subsaharienne.

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/11/13/entre-3-9-et-4-8-millions-de-sans-papiers-vivent-en-europe_6019025_3210.html
#statistiques #estimations #chiffres #sans-papiers #Pew_Research_Center #Europe

The business of building walls

Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe is once again known for its border walls. This time Europe is divided not so much by ideology as by perceived fear of refugees and migrants, some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

https://i.imgur.com/b8FDo6k.png https://i.imgur.com/2Bpog4L.png

Who killed the dream of a more open Europe? What gave rise to this new era of walls? There are clearly many reasons – the increasing displacement of people by conflict, repression and impoverishment, the rise of security politics in the wake of 9/11, the economic and social insecurity felt across Europe after the 2008 financial crisis – to name a few. But one group has by far the most to gain from the rise of new walls – the businesses that build them. Their influence in shaping a world of walls needs much deeper examination.

This report explores the business of building walls, which has both fuelled and benefited from a massive expansion of public spending on border security by the European Union (EU) and its member states. Some of the corporate beneficiaries are also global players, tapping into a global market for border security estimated to be worth approximately €17.5 billion in 2018, with annual growth of at least 8% expected in coming years.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAuv1QyP8l0&feature=emb_logo

It is important to look both beyond and behind Europe’s walls and fencing, because the real barriers to contemporary migration are not so much the fencing, but the vast array of technology that underpins it, from the radar systems to the drones to the surveillance cameras to the biometric fingerprinting systems. Similarly, some of Europe’s most dangerous walls are not even physical or on land. The ships, aircrafts and drones used to patrol the Mediterranean have created a maritime wall and a graveyard for the thousands of migrants and refugees who have no legal passage to safety or to exercise their right to seek asylum.

This renders meaningless the European Commission’s publicized statements that it does not fund walls and fences. Commission spokesperson Alexander Winterstein, for example, rejecting Hungary’s request to reimburse half the costs of the fences built on its borders with Croatia and Serbia, said: ‘We do support border management measures at external borders. These can be surveillance measures. They can be border control equipment...But fences, we do not finance’. In other words, the Commission is willing to pay for anything that fortifies a border as long as it is not seen to be building the walls themselves.

This report is a sequel to Building Walls – Fear and securitization in the European Union, co-published in 2018 with Centre Delàs and Stop Wapenhandel, which first measured and identified the walls that criss-cross Europe. This new report focuses on the businesses that have profited from three different kinds of wall in Europe:

The construction companies contracted to build the land walls built by EU member states and the Schengen Area together with the security and technology companies that provide the necessary accompanying technology, equipment and services;

The shipping and arms companies that provide the ships, aircraft, helicopters, drones that underpin Europe’s maritime walls seeking to control migratory flows in the Mediterranean, including Frontex operations, Operation Sophia and Italian operation Mare Nostrum;
And the IT and security companies contracted to develop, run, expand and maintain EU’s systems that monitor the movement of people – such as SIS II (Schengen Information System) and EES (Entry/Exit Scheme) – which underpin Europe’s virtual walls.

Booming budgets

The flow of money from taxpayers to wall-builders has been highly lucrative and constantly growing. The report finds that companies have reaped the profits from at least €900 million spent by EU countries on land walls and fences since the end of the Cold War. The partial data (in scope and years) means actual costs will be at least €1 billion. In addition, companies that provide technology and services that accompany walls have also benefited from some of the steady stream of funding from the EU – in particular the External Borders Fund (€1.7 billion, 2007-2013) and the Internal Security Fund – Borders Fund (€2.76 billion, 2014-2020).

EU spending on maritime walls has totalled at least €676.4 million between 2006 to 2017 (including €534 million spent by Frontex, €28.4 million spent by the EU on Operation Sophia and €114 million spent by Italy on Operation Mare Nostrum) and would be much more if you include all the operations by Mediterranean country coastguards. Total spending on Europe’s virtual wall equalled at least €999.4m between 2000 and 2019. (All these estimates are partial ones because walls are funded by many different funding mechanisms and due to lack of data transparency).

This boom in border budgets is set to grow. Under its budget for the next EU budget cycle (2021–2027) the European Commission has earmarked €8.02 billion to its Integrated Border Management Fund (2021-2027), €11.27bn to Frontex (of which €2.2 billion will be used for acquiring, maintaining and operating air, sea and land assets) and at least €1.9 billion total spending (2000-2027) on its identity databases and Eurosur (the European Border Surveillance System).
The big arm industry players

Three giant European military and security companies in particular play a critical role in Europe’s many types of borders. These are Thales, Leonardo and Airbus.

Thales is a French arms and security company, with a significant presence in the Netherlands, that produces radar and sensor systems, used by many ships in border security. Thales systems, were used, for example, by Dutch and Portuguese ships deployed in Frontex operations. Thales also produces maritime surveillance systems for drones and is working on developing border surveillance infrastructure for Eurosur, researching how to track and control refugees before they reach Europe by using smartphone apps, as well as exploring the use of High Altitude Pseudo Satellites (HAPS) for border security, for the European Space Agency and Frontex. Thales currently provides the security system for the highly militarised port in Calais. Its acquisition in 2019 of Gemalto, a large (biometric) identity security company, makes it a significant player in the development and maintenance of EU’s virtual walls. It has participated in 27 EU research projects on border security.
Italian arms company Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica or Leonardo-Finmeccanica) is a leading supplier of helicopters for border security, used by Italy in the Mare Nostrum, Hera and Sophia operations. It has also been one of the main providers of UAVs (or drones) for Europe’s borders, awarded a €67.1 million contract in 2017 by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to supply them for EU coast-guard agencies. Leonardo was also a member of a consortium, awarded €142.1 million in 2019 to implement and maintain EU’s virtual walls, namely its EES. It jointly owns Telespazio with Thales, involved in EU satellite observation projects (REACT and Copernicus) used for border surveillance. Leonardo has participated in 24 EU research projects on border security and control, including the development of Eurosur.
Pan-European arms giant Airbus is a key supplier of helicopters used in patrolling maritime and some land borders, deployed by Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Spain, including in maritime Operations Sophia, Poseidon and Triton. Airbus and its subsidiaries have participated in at least 13 EU-funded border security research projects including OCEAN2020, PERSEUS and LOBOS.
The significant role of these arms companies is not surprising. As Border Wars (2016), showed these companies through their membership of the lobby groups – European Organisation for Security (EOS) and the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) – have played a significant role in influencing the direction of EU border policy. Perversely, these firms are also among the top four biggest European arms dealers to the Middle East and North Africa, thus contributing to the conflicts that cause forced migration.

Indra has been another significant corporate player in border control in Spain and the Mediterranean. It won a series of contracts to fortify Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish enclaves in northern Morocco). Indra also developed the SIVE border control system (with radar, sensors and vision systems), which is in place on most of Spain’s borders, as well as in Portugal and Romania. In July 2018 it won a €10 million contract to manage SIVE at several locations for two years. Indra is very active in lobbying the EU and is a major beneficiary of EU research funding, coordinating the PERSEUS project to further develop Eurosur and the Seahorse Network, a network between police forces in Mediterranean countries (both in Europe and Africa) to stop migration.

Israeli arms firms are also notable winners of EU border contracts. In 2018, Frontex selected the Heron drone from Israel Aerospace Industries for pilot-testing surveillance flights in the Mediterranean. In 2015, Israeli firm Elbit sold six of its Hermes UAVs to the Switzerland’s Border Guard, in a controversial €230 million deal. It has since signed a UAV contract with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), as a subcontractor for the Portuguese company CEIIA (2018), as well as contracts to supply technology for three patrol vessels for the Hellenic Coast Guard (2019).
Land wall contractors

Most of the walls and fences that have been rapidly erected across Europe have been built by national construction companies, but one European company has dominated the field: European Security Fencing, a Spanish producer of razor wire, in particular a coiled wire known as concertinas. It is most known for the razor wire on the fences around Ceuta and Melilla. It also delivered the razor wire for the fence on the border between Hungary and Serbia, and its concertinas were installed on the borders between Bulgaria and Turkey and Austria and Slovenia, as well as at Calais, and for a few days on the border between Hungary and Slovenia before being removed. Given its long-term market monopoly, its concertinas are very likely used at other borders in Europe.

Other contractors providing both walls and associated technology include DAT-CON (Croatia, Cyprus, Macedonia, Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine), Geo Alpinbau (Austria/Slovenia), Indra, Dragados, Ferrovial, Proyectos Y Tecnología Sallén and Eulen (Spain/Morocco), Patstroy Bourgas, Infra Expert, Patengineeringstroy, Geostroy Engineering, Metallic-Ivan Mihaylov and Indra (Bulgaria/Turkey), Nordecon and Defendec (Estonia/Russia), DAK Acélszerkezeti Kft and SIA Ceļu būvniecības sabiedrība IGATE (Latvia/Russia), Gintrėja (Lithuania/Russia), Minis and Legi-SGS(Slovenia/Croatia), Groupe CW, Jackson’s Fencing, Sorhea, Vinci/Eurovia and Zaun Ltd (France/UK).

In many cases, the actual costs of the walls and associated technologies exceed original estimates. There have also been many allegations and legal charges of corruption, in some cases because projects were given to corporate friends of government officials. In Slovenia, for example, accusations of corruption concerning the border wall contract have led to a continuing three-year legal battle for access to documents that has reached the Supreme Court. Despite this, the EU’s External Borders Fund has been a critical financial supporter of technological infrastructure and services in many of the member states’ border operations. In Macedonia, for example, the EU has provided €9 million for patrol vehicles, night-vision cameras, heartbeat detectors and technical support for border guards to help it manage its southern border.
Maritime wall profiteers

The data about which ships, helicopters and aircraft are used in Europe’s maritime operations is not transparent and therefore it is difficult to get a full picture. Our research shows, however, that the key corporations involved include the European arms giants Airbus and Leonardo, as well as large shipbuilding companies including Dutch Damen and Italian Fincantieri.

Damen’s patrol vessels have been used for border operations by Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden and the UK as well as in key Frontex operations (Poseidon, Triton and Themis), Operation Sophia and in supporting NATO’s role in Operation Poseidon. Outside Europe, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey use Damen vessels for border security, often in cooperation with the EU or its member states. Turkey’s €20 million purchase of six Damen vessels for its coast guard in 2006, for example, was financed through the EU Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP), intended for peace-building and conflict prevention.

The sale of Damen vessels to Libya unveils the potential troubling human costs of this corporate trade. In 2012, Damen supplied four patrol vessels to the Libyan Coast Guard, sold as civil equipment in order to avoid a Dutch arms export license. Researchers have since found out, however, that the ships were not only sold with mounting points for weapons, but were then armed and used to stop refugee boats. Several incidents involving these ships have been reported, including one where some 20 or 30 refugees drowned. Damen has refused to comment, saying it had agreed with the Libyan government not to disclose information about the ships.

In addition to Damen, many national shipbuilders play a significant role in maritime operations as they were invariably prioritised by the countries contributing to each Frontex or other Mediterranean operation. Hence, all the ships Italy contributed to Operation Sophia were built by Fincantieri, while all Spanish ships come from Navantia and its predecessors. Similarly, France purchases from DCN/DCNS, now Naval Group, and all German ships were built by several German shipyards (Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, HDW, Lürssen Gruppe). Other companies in Frontex operations have included Greek company, Motomarine Shipyards, which produced the Panther 57 Fast Patrol Boats used by the Hellenic Coast Guard, Hellenic Shipyards and Israel Shipyards.

Austrian company Schiebel is a significant player in maritime aerial surveillance through its supply of S-100 drones. In November 2018, EMSA selected the company for a €24 million maritime surveillance contract for a range of operations including border security. Since 2017, Schiebel has also won contracts from Croatia, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. The company has a controversial record, with its drones sold to a number of countries experiencing armed conflict or governed by repressive regimes such as Libya, Myanmar, the UAE and Yemen.

Finland and the Netherlands deployed Dornier aircraft to Operation Hermes and Operation Poseidon respectively, and to Operation Triton. Dornier is now part of the US subsidiary of the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems. CAE Aviation (Luxembourg), DEA Aviation (UK) and EASP Air (Netherlands) have all received contracts for aircraft surveillance work for Frontex. Airbus, French Dassault Aviation, Leonardo and US Lockheed Martin were the most important suppliers of aircraft used in Operation Sophia.

The EU and its member states defend their maritime operations by publicising their role in rescuing refugees at sea, but this is not their primary goal, as Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri made clear in April 2015, saying that Frontex has no mandate for ‘proactive search-and-rescue action[s]’ and that saving lives should not be a priority. The thwarting and criminalisation of NGO rescue operations in the Mediterranean and the frequent reports of violence and illegal refoulement of refugees, also demonstrates why these maritime operations should be considered more like walls than humanitarian missions.
Virtual walls

The major EU contracts for the virtual walls have largely gone to two companies, sometimes as leaders of a consortium. Sopra Steria is the main contractor for the development and maintenance of the Visa Information System (VIS), Schengen Information System (SIS II) and European Dactyloscopy (Eurodac), while GMV has secured a string of contracts for Eurosur. The systems they build help control, monitor and surveil people’s movements across Europe and increasingly beyond.

Sopra Steria is a French technology consultancy firm that has to date won EU contracts worth a total value of over €150 million. For some of these large contracts Sopra Steria joined consortiums with HP Belgium, Bull and 3M Belgium. Despite considerable business, Sopra Steria has faced considerable criticism for its poor record on delivering projects on time and on budget. Its launch of SIS II was constantly delayed, forcing the Commission to extend contracts and increase budgets. Similarly, Sopra Steria was involved in another consortium, the Trusted Borders consortium, contracted to deliver the UK e-Borders programme, which was eventually terminated in 2010 after constant delays and failure to deliver. Yet it continues to win contracts, in part because it has secured a near-monopoly of knowledge and access to EU officials. The central role that Sopra Steria plays in developing these EU biometric systems has also had a spin-off effect in securing other national contracts, including with Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Romania and Slovenia GMV, a Spanish technology company, has received a succession of large contracts for Eurosur, ever since its testing phase in 2010, worth at least €25 million. It also provides technology to the Spanish Guardia Civil, such as control centres for its Integrated System of External Vigilance (SIVE) border security system as well as software development services to Frontex. It has participated in at least ten EU-funded research projects on border security.

Most of the large contracts for the virtual walls that did not go to consortia including Sopra Steria were awarded by eu-LISA (European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) to consortia comprising computer and technology companies including Accenture, Atos Belgium and Morpho (later renamed Idema).
Lobbying

As research in our Border Wars series has consistently shown, through effective lobbying, the military and security industry has been very influential in shaping the discourse of EU security and military policies. The industry has succeeded in positioning itself as the experts on border security, pushing the underlying narrative that migration is first and foremost a security threat, to be combatted by security and military means. With this premise, it creates a continuous demand for the ever-expanding catalogue of equipment and services the industry supplies for border security and control.

Many of the companies listed here, particularly the large arms companies, are involved in the European Organisation for Security (EOS), the most important lobby group on border security. Many of the IT security firms that build EU’s virtual walls are members of the European Biometrics Association (EAB). EOS has an ‘Integrated Border Security Working Group’ to ‘facilitate the development and uptake of better technology solutions for border security both at border checkpoints, and along maritime and land borders’. The working group is chaired by Giorgio Gulienetti of the Italian arms company Leonardo, with Isto Mattila (Laurea University of Applied Science) and Peter Smallridge of Gemalto, a digital security company recently acquired by Thales.

Company lobbyists and representatives of these lobby organisations regularly meet with EU institutions, including the European Commission, are part of official advisory committees, publish influential proposals, organise meetings between industry, policy-makers and executives and also meet at the plethora of military and security fairs, conferences and seminars. Airbus, Leonardo and Thales together with EOS held 226 registered lobbying meetings with the European Commission between 2014 and 2019. In these meetings representatives of the industry position themselves as the experts on border security, presenting their goods and services as the solution for ‘security threats’ caused by immigration. In 2017, the same group of companies and EOS spent up to €2.65 million on lobbying.

A similar close relationship can be seen on virtual walls, with the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission arguing openly for public policy to foster the ‘emergence of a vibrant European biometrics industry’.
A deadly trade and a choice

The conclusion of this survey of the business of building walls is clear. A Europe full of walls has proved to be very good for the bottom line of a wide range of corporations including arms, security, IT, shipping and construction companies. The EU’s planned budgets for border security for the next decade show it is also a business that will continue to boom.

This is also a deadly business. The heavy militarisation of Europe’s borders on land and at sea has led refugees and migrants to follow far more hazardous routes and has trapped others in desperate conditions in neighbouring countries like Libya. Many deaths are not recorded, but those that are tracked in the Mediterranean show that the proportion of those who drown trying to reach Europe continues to increase each year.

This is not an inevitable state of affairs. It is both the result of policy decisions made by the EU and its member states, and corporate decisions to profit from these policies. In a rare principled stand, German razor wire manufacturer Mutanox in 2015 stated it would not sell its product to the Hungarian government arguing: ‘Razor wire is designed to prevent criminal acts, like a burglary. Fleeing children and adults are not criminals’. It is time for other European politicians and business leaders to recognise the same truth: that building walls against the world’s most vulnerable people violates human rights and is an immoral act that history will judge harshly. Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is time for Europe to bring down its new walls.

►https://www.tni.org/en/businessbuildingwalls

#business #murs #barrières_frontalières #militarisation_des_frontières #visualisation #Europe #UE #EU #complexe_militaro-industriel #Airbus #Leonardo #Thales #Indra #Israel_Aerospace_Industries #Elbit #European_Security_Fencing #DAT-CON #Geo_Alpinbau #Dragados #Ferrovial, #Proyectos_Y_Tecnología_Sallén #Eulen #Patstroy_Bourgas #Infra_Expert #Patengineeringstroy #Geostroy_Engineering #Metallic-Ivan_Mihaylov #Nordecon #Defendec #DAK_Acélszerkezeti_Kft #SIA_Ceļu_būvniecības_sabiedrība_IGATE #Gintrėja #Minis #Legi-SGS #Groupe_CW #Jackson’s_Fencing #Sorhea #Vinci #Eurovia #Zaun_Ltd #Damen #Fincantieri #Frontex #Damen #Turquie #Instrument_contributing_to_Stability_and_Peace (#IcSP) #Libye #exernalisation #Operation_Sophia #Navantia #Naval_Group #Flensburger_Schiffbau-Gesellschaft #HDW #Lürssen_Gruppe #Motomarine_Shipyards #Panther_57 #Hellenic_Shipyards #Israel_Shipyards #Schiebel #Dornier #Operation_Hermes #CAE_Aviation #DEA_Aviation #EASP_Air #French_Dassault_Aviation #US_Lockheed_Martin #murs_virtuels #Sopra_Steria #Visa_Information_System (#VIS) #données #Schengen_Information_System (#SIS_II) #European_Dactyloscopy (#Eurodac) #GMV #Eurosur #HP_Belgium #Bull #3M_Belgium #Trusted_Borders_consortium #économie #biométrie #Integrated_System_of_External_Vigilance (#SIVE) #eu-LISA #Accenture #Atos_Belgium #Morpho #Idema #lobby #European_Organisation_for_Security (#EOS) #European_Biometrics_Association (#EAB) #Integrated_Border_Security_Working_Group #Giorgio_Gulienetti #Isto_Mattila #Peter_Smallridge #Gemalto #murs_terrestres #murs_maritimes #coût #chiffres #statistiques #Joint_Research_Centre_of_the_European_Commission #Mutanox

Pour télécharger le #rapport :

https://i.imgur.com/LurpJL1.png https://i.imgur.com/xtHjEM3.png https://i.imgur.com/yiU7c7c.png https://i.imgur.com/nYofRH0.png https://i.imgur.com/mGxteLR.png https://i.imgur.com/mGxteLR.png https://i.imgur.com/AxePCx2.png

déjà signalé par @odilon ici :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/809783
Je le remets ici avec des mots clé de plus

ping @daphne @marty @isskein @karine4

Jusqu’à quand l’#OTAN ?, par Serge Halimi (Le Monde diplomatique, novembre 2019)
▻https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2019/11/HALIMI/60956

https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/IMG/jpg/otanbarb.jpg

Dorénavant, l’Union compte une majorité d’États qui ont participé aux aventures impériales des #États-Unis (seize de ses membres actuels ont contribué à la guerre d’#Irak) ; elle relaie l’ingérence de Washington en Amérique latine (d’où la reconnaissance absurde de l’opposition vénézuélienne comme gouvernement légal) ; elle feint de s’opposer aux caprices de l’administration Trump, mais rentre dans le rang sitôt que celle-ci menace de la punir (#sanctions économiques contre les entreprises qui commercent avec l’Iran). L’#Europe pesait davantage au #Proche-Orient avant son élargissement. Et si Charles de Gaulle s’opposait à l’adhésion du #Royaume-Uni au Marché commun parce qu’il pensait que ce pays deviendrait le cheval de Troie américain sur le Vieux Continent, les États-Unis n’ont rien à craindre du Brexit. Car, au fil des décennies, l’#Union_européenne est devenue leur écurie.

#UE

The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the E.U. for Millions - The New York Times
►https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/world/europe/eu-farm-subsidy-hungary.html

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/11/03/world/xxfarms5/xxfarms5-facebookJumbo-v2.jpg

The European Union spends $65 billion a year subsidizing agriculture. But a chunk of that money emboldens strongmen, enriches politicians and finances corrupt dealing.

Every year, the 28-country bloc pays out $65 billion in farm subsidies intended to support farmers around the Continent and keep rural communities alive. But across Hungary and much of Central and Eastern Europe, the bulk goes to a connected and powerful few. The prime minister of the Czech Republic collected tens of millions of dollars in subsidies just last year. Subsidies have underwritten Mafia-style land grabs in Slovakia and Bulgaria.[...]

A New York Times investigation, conducted in nine countries for much of 2019, uncovered a subsidy system that is deliberately opaque, grossly undermines the European Union’s environmental goals and is warped by corruption and self-dealing.

#Pac #fraude #agriculture #Europe #UE

Évacués au #Rwanda, les #réfugiés de #Libye continuent de rêver d’#Europe - RFI

Par Laure Broulard

http://scd.rfi.fr/sites/filesrfi/aefimagesnew/imagecache/rfi_16x9_1024_578/sites/images.rfi.fr/files/aefimagesnew/aef_image/img_9528_0.jpg

Un jeune réfugié dans le centre de transit de Gashora au Rwanda.
© FFI/Laure Broulard

Publié le 03-11-2019 Modifié le 03-11-2019 à 07:25

Le Rwanda accueille depuis quelques semaines des #demandeurs_d’asile évacués de Libye, dans le cadre d’un accord avec le Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés et l’#Union_africaine signé le mois dernier. Un programme d’urgence présenté comme une réponse à la crise des quelque 4 700 réfugiés et migrants bloqués dans ce pays en guerre. Reportage.

Le centre de #Gashora est en pleine effervescence. Situé dans la région du #Bugesera, au sud de #Kigali, il accueillait auparavant des réfugiés venus du #Burundi. Aujourd’hui, des équipes s’affairent pour rénover et agrandir les structures afin d’héberger les quelque 500 réfugiés évacués de Libye que le Rwanda a promis d’accueillir dans un premier temps.

Les 189 demandeurs d’asile déjà arrivés sont logés dans de petites maisons de briques disséminées dans les bois alentour. Un groupe de jeunes en jogging et baskets se passent la balle sur un terrain de volley. D’autres, le regard fuyant, parfois égaré, sont assis sur des bancs à l’ombre.

« Je n’ai pas encore réalisé mon rêve »

#Rodouane_Abdallah accepte de parler aux journalistes, arrivés en groupe dans un bus acheminé par le gouvernement rwandais. Originaire du Darfour, ce jeune homme de 18 ans au regard doux a posé le pied en Libye en 2017. Il a tenté sept fois de traverser la #Méditerranée. Il a survécu par miracle.

Aujourd’hui, il se souvient encore de toutes les dates avec précision : le nombre de jours et d’heures passées en mer, les mois en détention. Deux ans entre les mains de geôliers ou de passeurs. « Là bas, vous êtes nourris seulement une fois par jour, vous buvez l’eau des toilettes, vous ne pouvez pas vous doucher et vous devez travailler gratuitement sinon vous êtes battus », se souvient-il.

Rodouane est aujourd’hui logé et nourri à Gashora. Il bénéficie également de soins médicaux et psychologiques. Cependant, il voit le Rwanda comme une simple étape : « Je suis heureux d’avoir eu la chance de pouvoir venir ici. C’est mieux qu’en Libye. Mais je ne suis pas arrivé à la fin de mon voyage, car je n’ai pas encore réalisé mon rêve. Je veux aller en Europe et devenir ingénieur en informatique », assure-t-il. Ce rêve, cette idée fixe, tous la martèlent aux journalistes. Pourtant les places en Europe risquent d’être limitées.

« #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism »

Dans le cadre de l’Emergency Transit Mechanism (#ETM), le nom donné à ce programme d’évacuation d’urgence, les réfugiés de Gashora ont aujourd’hui plusieurs possibilités. Ils peuvent soit faire une demande d’asile dans un pays occidental, soit rentrer chez eux si les conditions sécuritaires sont réunies, soit bénéficier d’un processus de #réinstallation dans un pays tiers sur le continent africain. Les mineurs non accompagnés pourraient ainsi rejoindre leur famille et les étudiants s’inscrire dans des universités de la région selon le #HCR.

« Ils ont beaucoup souffert pour atteindre l’Europe, c’est donc un objectif qui est encore très cher à leur cœur. Mais maintenant qu’ils sont au Rwanda, nous essayons d’identifier avec eux toute une palette de solutions », explique #Élise_Villechalane, chargée des relations extérieures du HCR au Rwanda.

Mais la démarche inquiète déjà certains réfugiés : « Les pays européens dépensent beaucoup d’argent pour nous éloigner de la mer Méditerranée. Et si c’est pour cela qu’on a été amenés ici, ce serait honteux. La seule chose que je pourrais faire serait de retourner en Libye et de tenter de traverser la Méditerranée », explique un jeune Érythréen, qui préfère garder l’anonymat.

Une solution viable ?

Le Rwanda n’est pas le premier pays à mettre en place ce type de mécanisme. Le Niger a lui aussi lancé un ETM en 2017. Depuis, environ 2 900 réfugiés y ont été évacués de Libye. Environ 1 700 d’entre eux ont été réinstallés dans des pays occidentaux à ce jour. Aujourd’hui, l’Union africaine et le HCR appellent d’autres pays africains à suivre l’exemple. Mais certaines ONG sont sceptiques quant à la viabilité du système.

Au #Niger, le traitement des dossiers est long, ce qui crée des tensions. Le Mixed Migration Center, un centre de recherche indépendant, rapporte que des réfugiés auraient ainsi attaqué un véhicule du HCR en signe de protestation dans le centre de transit d’Hamdallaye en juin dernier.

Plus généralement, #Johannes_Claes, chef de projet Afrique de l’Ouest au MMC, dénonce une externalisation des obligations des pays occidentaux en matière de droit d’asile : « Avec ce type schéma, l’UE délègue une part de sa responsabilité au continent africain. C’est d’autant plus cynique quand on sait que l’Union européenne finance les garde-côtes libyens qui interceptent les migrants avant de les envoyer en centre de #détention », explique-t-il.

Du côté des signataires de l’accord, on présente le projet sous un jour différent : « Ce qui compte aujourd’hui, c’est que ces personnes sont en sécurité le temps que leurs dossiers soient traités. Et je suis fière que le Rwanda se soit porté volontaire », indique Hope Tumukunde, représentante permanente du Rwanda à l’Union africaine.

Début septembre, au moment de la signature de l’accord, #Vincent_Cochetel, l’envoyé spécial du HCR pour la situation en Méditerranée, assurait à Reuters que la plus grande partie du financement de ce mécanisme d’évacuation d’urgence viendrait de l’Union européenne. Il est depuis revenu sur ces déclarations. Pour le moment, c’est le HCR qui assure la totalité du financement de l’opération.

►http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20191103-rwanda-refugies-libye-hcr-ua

ping @cdb_77 —> je me demande encore comment organiser les messages seenthis. En fait, j’aime bien tes métalistes et je me demande si je peux ajouter direct par commenaire ? Mais pas sûre que je connais assez bien ton système. Sinon je te marque et t’ajoutes toi même ? Ou bien je fais mes métalistes à moi...mais peut-être moins efficace qu’essayer de faire ensemble ? ...voilà, j’aime vraiment bien le seenthis et je suis toujours en train d’essayer de comprendre comment faire. En tout cas j’ai du temps maintenant pour m’en investir plus ;)

A-t-on enterré trop vite le cash ? Le Temps du débat par Emmanuel Laurentin - 30 Octobre 2019 - france culture

"Bitcoin", "Lydia", "Libra" ... La disparition du cash est annoncée depuis plusieurs années, et dans certains pays (Chine, Suède) les espèces deviennent obsolètes. A-t-on encore besoin du cash ? Quels avantages, quels inconvénients ? A qui profite de la disparition des espèces, et qui en pâtit ?

▻https://media.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast09/10175-30.10.2019-ITEMA_22189496-0.mp3

https://cdn.radiofrance.fr/s3/cruiser-production/2019/10/93bf7afa-81b6-459f-8da2-31ed015e52e0/838_gettyimages-676907197.jpg

Création récente de la monnaie virtuelle initiée par Facebook, la Libra, lancement possible d’une crypto monnaie en Chine, création d’un service Uber Money : toutes ces nouvelles récentes laissent présager le pire pour la survie des monnaies classiques telles que nous les connaissions sous leur forme papier ou métallique. Et une même petite musique laisse entendre que pour des raisons fiscales et de lutte contre le blanchiment en particulier les gouvernements voudraient se débarrasser du cash. Pourtant il y a dix jours, la Monnaie de Paris rendait un diagnostic exactement inverse, imaginant la survie du paiement en espèces.

• Entretien avec Manuel Valente, directeur de CoinHouse, pour le Journal du Net, le 05/07/2018
• Entretien avec Jeanne Lazarus , « Les Français semblent mûrs » , Le Parisien le 23/08/2014
• Sur la Monnaie de Paris et son PDG, Marc Schwartz : Monnaie de Paris : comment le nouveau patron veut consolider le modèle économique, Les Echos, le 17/05/2019 et La Monnaie de Paris ne croit pas à la disparition du cash, Les Echos, le 21/10/2019

#argent #cash #banques #finances #blokchain #économie #monnaie #euro #argent #bitcoin #libra #économie #europe #union_européenne #contrôle #confiance #Suède #liberté #blockchain #flicage #crypto-monnaie #monnaie_numérique #confiance

Les historiens de la philosophie ont célébré la modernité de l’Europe en faisant d’elle le territoire de la raison. Cela n’a pas été sans conséquences... #Europe #philosophie #raison #modernité ►https://sms.hypotheses.org/19735

Scaling Fences : Voices of Irregular African Migrants to Europe

The Scaling Fences: Voices of Irregular African Migrants to Europe report presents the results of an extensive study exploring the perspectives and experiences of 1970 individuals who migrated through irregular routes from Africa to Europe, originating from 39 African countries.

Its aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between migration and development. The Scaling Fences report is the second major review of contemporary development issues affecting Africa to be published by UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Africa.

Highlights

58% of respondents were either earning (49%) or in school (9%) at the time of their departure. For a majority of those earning, income appears to have been competitive in the national context.
For 66% of respondents earning, or the prospect of earning, was not a factor that constrained the decision to migrate.
62% of respondents felt they had been treated unfairly by their governments, with many pointing to ethnicity and political views as reasons for perception of unfair treatment.
77% felt that their voice was unheard or that their country’s political system provided no opportunity through which to exert influence on government.
41% of respondents said ‘nothing’ would have changed their decision to migrate to Europe Average earnings in Europe far outstrip average earnings in Africa, even in real terms.
67% of those who did not want to stay permanently in Europe said their communities would be happy if they returned, compared to 41% of those who did want to live permanently in Europe.

https://www.africa.undp.org/content/dam/rba/docs/Reports/UNDP-Scaling-Fences-EN-2019-Cover.png/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.221.289.png https://i.imgur.com/3rf97lb.png https://i.imgur.com/wcE9TbP.png https://i.imgur.com/0OQSgb1.png https://i.imgur.com/rRwVVwK.png

ping @_kg_ @karine4

Catalogne : « Une situation alarmante pour les droits humains, la répression et la violence policière »
▻https://www.bastamag.net/Catalogne-repression-prison-blesses-affrontements-violences-policieres-Eur

Depuis la condamnation de neuf dirigeants séparatistes catalans le 14 octobre, les mobilisations n’ont pas faibli à Barcelone. Nous publions ici une tribune de l’Observatoire de la dette dans la la globalisation (ODG), basée à Barcelone. Le 14 octobre, neuf dirigeants séparatistes catalans ont été condamnés à des peines de neuf à treize ans d’emprisonnement pour sédition. Depuis, les mobilisations pacifiques n’ont pas faibli à Barcelone. Mais vendredi, la journée s’est terminée par des affrontements avec (...) #Débattre

/ Démocratie !, #Europe, #Droits_fondamentaux, A la une

#Démocratie_ !

Malgré les risques, plus de 90% des #migrants africains prêts à nouveau à voyager vers l’#Europe (PNUD) | #ONU Info
▻https://news.un.org/fr/story/2019/10/1054431

https://news.un.org/fr/sites/news.un.org.fr/files/styles/large/public/entermedia/Libraries/Production%2BLibrary/AWyVl46LCcbWrkZ3Opg9.jpg?itok=RCPzxpZ6

Une étude des #Nations_Unies sur les #migrations, publiée lundi, montre que 93% des Africains qui se rendent dans des pays européens en empruntant des routes irrégulières le feraient de nouveau, malgré le danger souvent mortel qui les menace.

Approaches to Unaccompanied Minors Following Status Determination in the EU plus Norway

https://i.imgur.com/MchUz9F.png https://i.imgur.com/uYEib7D.png

Rapport sorti en 2018, que je mets ici pour archivage

ping @karine4

#Andrzej_Krauze on the EU’s failings over Syria – cartoon

https://i.imgur.com/GFfoz2c.jpg

Le #gorafi encore plagié : Brexit, Bruxelles : “Ce n’est pas fini !”, crient les partisans du maintien dans l’UE au rond-point Schuman 17 octobre 2019 - 17 Octobre 2019 - Belga - BX1
▻https://bx1.be/bruxelles-ville/ce-nest-pas-fini-crient-les-partisans-du-maintien-dans-lue-au-rond-point-schuman/?theme=classic

Quelques dizaines de partisans du maintien du Royaume-Uni dans l’Union européenne se sont rassemblés jeudi en début d’après-midi au rond-point Schuman à Bruxelles, au pied de la Commission européenne, pour affirmer leur conviction que l’accord engrangé ce midi entre l’exécutif européen et le gouvernement britannique ne signifiait pas la fin de leurs espoirs.

https://bx1.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/okkcommbelgaimage-91074090-full.jpg

“Ce n’est pas fini, continuons à nous battre“, haranguait un orateur sur un podium aux couleurs du “Stop Brexit”. D’aucuns rappelaient que la situation n’était pas si différente d’il y a quelques mois, lorsque la Première ministre Theresa May avait engrangé un accord de retrait avec le reste de l’UE, mais n’avait pu lui faire passer l’obstacle de la Chambre des Communes. C’est l’heure maintenant de “mobiliser le Parlement”, soulignaient les “remainers” présents.

#brexit #europe #royaume-uni #international #union_européenne #ue #grande-bretagne #angleterre #uk #référendum

Calais : « Le Brexit dur ne serait pas synonyme de chaos » Annick Capelle - 16 Octobre 2019 - RTBF
▻https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_calais-le-brexit-dur-ne-serait-pas-synonyme-de-chaos?id=10339170

Entre 4 et 6000 : c’est le nombre de poids lourds qui, chaque jour, transitent par Calais. Dans une fluidité impressionnante, les ferries embarquent ou débarquent ces véhicules chargés de marchandises destinées au Royaume-Uni ou au continent européen. En cas de Brexit dur, les formalités douanières seront rétablies… Du jour au lendemain. Faut-il donc craindre la paralysie ? Non, si l’on en croit les douaniers et les exploitants du port de Calais, qui depuis des mois, se préparent au rétablissement du poste-frontière. Il y a quelques jours, ils organisaient une répétition générale. Objectif : tester leur « frontière intelligente », un dispositif censé éviter les bouchons en cas de sortie brutale du Royaume-Uni.

https://ds1.static.rtbf.be/article/image/1248x702/5/b/f/1b56bc34b59c4dd2bf0a53db75c610da-1570810181.jpg

Anticipation
La clé de voûte de ce dispositif, c’est l’anticipation, souligne Eric Meunier, directeur interrégional des douanes et droits indirects des Hauts de France. « L’entreprise qui importe ou exporte de la marchandise devra effectuer préalablement une déclaration de douane sur internet, et recevra un code-barres. Muni de ce code-barres, le chauffeur de poids lourd se présentera ensuite à la frontière, où notre nouveau système informatique établira automatiquement un lien entre le code-barres, la plaque d’immatriculation et la marchandise transportée. C’est ce qu’on appelle l’appairage. »

Le temps d’attente sera réduit au minimum, puisque, une fois son code-barres scanné, le chauffeur de poids lourd montera directement sur le ferry : « C’est pendant la traversée de la Manche que le système traitera la déclaration de douane ».

Des panneaux verts et orange
Dans le port de Calais, une nouvelle signalétique verte et orange a été mise en place pour aiguiller les poids lourds qui débarquent des ferries en provenance du Royaume-Uni. « Avant même de quitter le ferry, le chauffeur saura quelle voie il doit emprunter à son arrivée », explique Benoît Rochet, directeur général délégué de la SEPD, la société d’exploitation des ports du Détroit. « Si la sortie est autorisée par la douane, le poids lourd prend la ligne verte – une sortie aussi fluide qu’aujourd’hui. En moins de deux minutes, le camion est sur l’autoroute. Si le poids lourd doit emprunter la file orange, cela veut dire qu’il doit se soumettre à un contrôle. »

Plus de 150 places de parking
Les panneaux orange mènent, un peu plus loin, vers des parkings de délestage pouvant accueillir plus de 150 poids lourds en attente de régularisation douanière. Deux nouvelles plateformes y ont été construites. Elles disposent ensemble de dix quais de déchargement. C’est là que les contrôles seront effectués.

Un des poids lourds participant au test, rejoint la première plateforme. Il transporte du ciment. Deux agents de douane vérifient aussitôt la conformité de la marchandise avec la déclaration de douane. Quelques minutes plus tard, le chauffeur peut repartir. Le dispositif semble bien rodé.

La deuxième plateforme sera réservée aux contrôles vétérinaires et phytosanitaires. « Aujourd’hui, il existe déjà des contrôles vétérinaires et phytosanitaires, mais ils sont réalisés dans les Etats membres. En cas de Brexit, il faudra appliquer ces formalités ici, lors du passage à la frontière », explique Jean Michel Thillier, directeur général adjoint des douanes et droits indirects.

Fins prêts
Les douanes et les autorités portuaires sont convaincues que l’on peut éviter l’engorgement du terminal. Tout dépendra de la façon dont les entreprises jouent le jeu de l’anticipation. Eric Meunier : « Il existe une marge d’incertitude : c’est la proportion d’entreprises qui n’auraient pas réalisé les formalités préalables. Pour nous, il est très important que ces entreprises soient le moins nombreuses possible, parce qu’elles vont générer des retards pour elles-mêmes, mais également entraîner une charge de travail qui, sur le port, pourrait entraîner des retards pour l’ensemble des transporteurs. »

Pourtant, Eric Meunier ne croit pas que le Brexit dur sera synonyme de chaos. Depuis plusieurs mois, les douanes françaises mènent une large campagne d’information auprès des entreprises, notamment via les réseaux sociaux. Cette campagne vise bien sûr les compagnies françaises, mais pas seulement : « Sur le franchissement à Calais, 80% des poids lourds ne sont pas français, mais viennent de l’Europe entière. C’est pourquoi, les douanes de tous les pays européens ont informé – et informent encore aujourd’hui – leurs opérateurs de la nécessité d’anticipation. Pour un opérateur, où qu’il soit, dans n’importe quel pays de l’Union, il sera tout à fait possible, de manière dématérialisée, via internet, de déclarer la marchandise préalablement, et une fois à Calais, de franchir la frontière de manière fluide. »

La véritable inconnue, conclut Eric Meunier, concernera les petits opérateurs qui, à l’heure actuelle, ne travaillent qu’au sein de l’Union européenne, et qui ne sont pas habitués aux formalités douanières. Ce sont ces entreprises-là – françaises ou pas – qu’il faut impérativement toucher.

#brexit #france #douane #europe #royaume-uni #international #union_européenne #ue #grande-bretagne #angleterre #uk #référendum #actualités_internationales #politique #frontières

#Bruxelles : La gare du Midi se met à l’heure du Brexit Barbara Boulet - 15 Octobre 2019 RTBF
▻https://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/detail_la-gare-du-midi-se-met-a-l-heure-du-brexit?id=10341246

Un divorce à l’amiable entre l’Union européenne et le Royaume-Uni est-il encore possible ? La Belgique en tout cas se prépare à un départ possible de la Grande-Bretagne à la fin du mois. La gare du Midi à Bruxelles en est un exemple. Les services de douane s’apprêtent à devoir gérer à tout moment l’accueil des voyageurs en provenance du Royaume-Uni et à aider ceux qui s’y rendent à remplir leurs formalités.

https://ds1.static.rtbf.be/article/image/1248x702/f/6/8/9ead4849dfa8787c904e768672d8881c-1571123102.jpg

Une équipe de 28 douaniers a été recrutée, elle est actuellement en formation. Deux locaux sont aussi en train d’être aménagés dans le terminal Eurostar. L’un, à l’arrivée, est déjà là ; il permet le contrôle des marchandises (drogues et armes, mais aussi les marchandises soumises à des taxes comme l’alcool ou le tabac). L’autre, un conteneur qui doit arriver d’ici la fin octobre dans la salle d’attente des départs, permettra le cas échéant de remplir les formalités. Par exemple pour le remboursement de la TVA.

« On se prépare pour éventuellement au 1er novembre pouvoir accueillir des passagers en provenance du Royaume-Uni ou qui partent vers le Royaume-Uni, déclare Florence Angelici, porte-parole du SPF Finance (en charge de l’administration des douanes). Il faut pouvoir s’occuper de toutes les démarches et assurer les contrôles douaniers » 

https://ds1.static.rtbf.be/article/image/1248x702/6/6/6/fabf2594a6949772ee2a3ee2a9966ae3-1571124110.jpg

Qu’est ce qui changerait ? 
Car, en cas de Brexit sans deal, il y aurait du changement pour les voyageurs. Pas en ce qui les concerne directement en tant que personne, donc leur droit à eux de circuler (puisque le Royaume-Uni ne fait déjà pas partie aujourd’hui de l’espace Schengen), mais une sortie sans accord de la Grande Bretagne impliquerait de facto une sortie de l’union douanière. Les marchandises ne pourraient alors plus circuler librement, explique Marianne Dony, professeure de droit européen à l’ULB. "Toute marchandise pour entrer dans l’Union européenne doit disposer d’un papier attestant qu’elle répond bien à la réglementation européenne. La douane doit vérifier ces attestations. Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne les contrôles fiscaux, il faut bien se dire qu’une fois qu’on sort de l’Union, il peut y avoir des remboursements de TVA. On ne peut pas non plus exporter nécessairement la même quantité de marchandises qui ne soient pas taxées. Et il faut aussi vérifier que les marchandises en provenance du Royaume-Uni ont bien payé leur droit de douane".

Autant de contrôles douaniers qu’on ne connaissait plus entre nos voisins du Nord et nous. Et qui devraient revoir le jour en cas de Brexit sans accord préalable. 

#brexit #référendum #démocratie #europe #royaume-uni #international #union_européenne #ue #grande-bretagne #angleterre #uk #référendum #actualités_internationales #politique #frontières #Belgique #boris_johnson

▻https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EF2nfhqVUAAUTn5?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

#visualisation #logement_social #Europe

Intervention turque en Syrie
La révolution politique du Rojava menacée de toute part

Stéphane Ortega

▻https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Intervention-turque-en-Syrie-La-revolution-politique-du-Rojava-menac

Pour la troisième fois en trois ans, l’armée turque pénètre dans le nord de la Syrie, menaçant l’auto-organisation démocratique, féministe et multiethnique créée par les Kurdes au Rojava.

Pour les forces kurdes du nord de la Syrie, il y a d’abord les ennemis acharnés. Ce qu’il reste de Daech bien sûr, mais aussi la Turquie associée aux milices djihadistes qu’elle soutient et pilote. Et puis, il y a tous les autres : vrais adversaires ou faux amis. De la coalition internationale à la Russie, en passant par l’Iran ou le régime syrien, ils sont nombreux à jouer leur propre partition qui passe pour beaucoup par la fin de la tentative révolutionnaire au Rojava, nom de la région autoadministrée par les Kurdes au nord de la Syrie.

Profitant du déplacement des troupes de Bashar al-Assad de leur région vers Alep à l’été 2012, les Kurdes ont entamé un processus d’autogouvernement dans les cantons d’Afrine, Kobané et Djézireh. Le Parti pour l’unité démocratique (PYD), proche du PKK, et les milices de protection du peuple (YPG/YPJ) supplantent les partis concurrents pour devenir la force dominante. Ils s’appuient sur l’auto-organisation des communes, pensées comme une alternative à la création d’un État-nation (...)

#Syrie #Rojava #Turquie #Kurdistan #autogouvernement #Erdogan #djihadistes #offensive #résistance #Russie #USA #Europe