• Moins de 5% des besoins mondiaux pour la réinstallation de réfugiés satisfaits en #2018 (#HCR)

    De nouvelles statistiques publiées par l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (HCR), indiquent que malgré un niveau sans précédent de déplacements forcés à travers le monde, seulement 4,7% des besoins mondiaux en matière de réinstallation de réfugiés ont été satisfaits en 2018.

    Selon les statistiques publiées ce mois-ci sur les départs facilités par le HCR vers des pays de réinstallation et parmi 1,2 million de réfugiés qui en avaient besoin en 2018, seuls 55.692 d’entre eux ont été effectivement réinstallés.

    La majorité des départs facilités par le HCR vers des pays de réinstallation se sont effectués depuis les principaux pays d’accueil de réfugiés, dont le Liban (9.800), la Turquie (9.000), la Jordanie (5.100) et l’Ouganda (4.000).

    Sur un total de 81.310 personnes dont la candidature avait été recommandée, la majorité des réfugiés qui avaient besoin d’être réinstallés étaient originaires de Syrie (28.200), de République démocratique du Congo (21.800), d’Érythrée (4.300) et d’Afghanistan (4.000).

    L’année dernière, 68% des dossiers de candidature pour la réinstallation concernaient des survivants de violences et de torture, des personnes ayant besoin de protection juridique et physique ainsi que des femmes et des jeunes filles dont la vie était menacée. Plus de la moitié (52%) des demandes de réinstallation présentées en 2018 concernaient des enfants.
    Peu de réinstallation des réfugiés

    La réinstallation des réfugiés - en provenance d’un pays d’asile et à destination d’un pays tiers qui a accepté de les accueillir et de leur accorder l’installation permanente - n’est accessible qu’à une part limitée de la population réfugiée à travers le monde. En règle générale, moins d’un pour cent sont réinstallés parmi les 19,9 millions de réfugiés relevant de la compétence du HCR à travers le monde.

    Selon le HCR, la réinstallation demeure un mécanisme vital qui permet d’assurer la protection aux personnes les plus exposées. Grâce à ce dispositif concret en matière de protection, les gouvernements et les communautés à travers le monde peuvent partager la responsabilité dans les efforts de réponse aux crises de déplacement forcé. La réinstallation et d’autres voies complémentaires d’admission constituent un objectif clé du Pacte mondial sur les réfugiés qui vise à réduire l’impact, sur les pays hôtes, de situations de réfugiés majeures.

    Selon les estimations pour 2019, 1,4 million de réfugiés actuellement hébergés dans 65 pays d’accueil à travers le monde auront besoin d’être réinstallés.

    Parmi eux se trouvent des réfugiés syriens actuellement hébergés dans des pays du Moyen-Orient et en Turquie (43%) ainsi que des réfugiés se trouvant dans des pays d’asile et de transit situés le long de l’itinéraire de la Méditerranée centrale (22%), où les mouvements vers l’Europe génèrent un lourd bilan en termes de pertes en vies humaines.

    Le Pacte mondial sur les réfugiés appelle les États à offrir davantage de places de réinstallation, via le lancement de nouveaux programmes ou l’extension de ceux qui existent déjà.

    Le HCR travaille actuellement avec les États et ses partenaires à l’élaboration d’une stratégie triennale concernant la réinstallation et les voies complémentaires d’admission - afin d’accroître le nombre de places de réinstallation, d’encourager davantage de pays à participer aux efforts mondiaux en matière de réinstallation et d’améliorer l’accès des réfugiés aux voies complémentaires d’admission.

    https://news.un.org/fr/story/2019/02/1036661
    #réinstallation #statistiques #chiffres #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • L’accueil de réfugiés « réinstallés » dans les communes rurales de #Dordogne

    La campagne serait-elle le meilleur endroit pour accueillir les réfugiés les plus vulnérables ? Dans le cadre des « réinstallations » en France — par le #HCR — de réfugiés venus de pays moins sûrs, des communes rurales se sont portées volontaires pour les accueillir. Récit en Dordogne où la volonté des bénévoles et des élus tente de compenser les manquements de l’État dans l’accompagnement de ces personnes fragilisées par les violences de la guerre ou de leur histoire migratoire.

    Quand, à l’automne 2015, Pascal Bourdeau, maire d’une petite commune de Dordogne, entend l’appel de Bernard Cazeneuve aux édiles de France pour accueillir des réfugiés (« votre mobilisation est déterminante », leur écrit-il), il n’hésite pas une seconde. La France vient de s’engager à recevoir 22 000 réfugiés « relocalisés » depuis les hotspots de Grèce et d’Italie (dont elle n’accueillera finalement que 5 030 personnes). La photo d’Alan Kurdî, enfant syrien trouvé mort sur une plage, plane encore dans les esprits. La ville de Nontron, 3 500 habitants, ouvre donc ses portes à deux familles syriennes. Deux familles soudanaises et une autre centre-africaine les rejoindront deux ans plus tard. Elles sont arrivées dans le cadre d’un programme d’évacuation d’urgence de Libye vers le Niger sous mandat du Haut-Commissariat des Nations-Unies pour les réfugiés, le HCR (voir notre article à ce sujet).

    « Je considère que c’est un devoir d’accueillir ces gens, déclare le maire devenu également vice-président du conseil départemental. Je suis issu d’une famille de résistants et #Nontron a accueilli des Lorrains et des Alsaciens juifs pendant la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. La Dordogne est une terre d’asile : accueillir ces cinq familles allait de soi ». En 2015, Pascal Bourdeau contacte donc le préfet et prépare l’arrivée de la première famille syrienne avec son conseil municipal. Les conditions sont réunies : les écoles sont mobilisées, des navettes mises en place vers Périgueux et Angoulême (pas Limoges, l’autre grande ville de la zone). Plusieurs associations se disent prêtes à accompagner ces nouveaux venus que la guerre et la vie dans les camps a « un peu cabossés physiquement et mentalement », constate le maire de Nontron.

    Ces réfugiés ont bénéficié du programme de réinstallation du HCR, qui existe depuis longtemps et indépendamment de l’épisode des hotspots de la crise de l’accueil en Europe. La France n’avait jusqu’alors pas participé à ce programme qui permet de réinstaller dans des pays sûrs des réfugiés présents dans les camps de l’organisation humanitaire. C’est le cas au Liban, en Turquie, en Guinée, au Tchad ou encore au Niger. Cette réinstallation s’exerce selon le critère humanitaire de la plus grande vulnérabilité.

    En France, l’accueil des réfugiés passe par les territoires

    L’État français, qui pour la première fois a accepté de participer à un programme de réinstallation, délègue l’accueil de ces familles et personnes réfugiées à des associations nationales ou locales. En octobre 2017, la France annonçait l’accueil de 10 000 réfugiés d’ici octobre 2019, dont 3 000 venant du Tchad et du Niger, dans le cadre des programmes de réinstallation de migrants. Ce chiffre n’est pas encore atteint 1, mais la Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement (#Dihal) a mandaté pas moins de 24 opérateurs pour accompagner ces réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables sur l’ensemble du territoire.

    À Périgueux, en Dordogne, l’association Aurore s’est occupée des Syriens, tandis que France terre d’asile (FTdA) a pris en charge les Subsahariens évacués de #Libye via le #Niger. Accueillis dans un premier temps dans la #Cité_de_Clairvivre, un important établissement public médico-social à #Salagnac, ils ont été relogés ensuite dans les communes du département qui se portaient volontaires.

    Pour Claire Courtecuisse, historienne du droit à l’Université Grenoble-Alpes, la volonté politique d’installer les migrants à la campagne remonte à la fin du XIXe siècle, quand se consolide l’idée d’une communauté nationale soucieuse d’identifier les étrangers sans les mêler au reste de la population. « On pense alors que le migrant étranger s’installera de façon durable dans des campagnes, vidées par les Français, grâce aux valeurs attachées à la terre, gage de stabilité et d’ancrage ». Les forts besoins en main-d’œuvre, notamment saisonnière, permettent au secteur agricole de déroger aux lois qui protègent la main-d’œuvre nationale, comme celle du 10 août 1932 qui ne s’appliquera pas au secteur primaire.

    Sur les naturalisations, là encore, les zones rurales font exception. À la Libération, instruction est donnée par le général de Gaulle à son ministre de la Justice de « limiter strictement les naturalisations dans les villes, notamment à Paris, Marseille, Lyon, où l’afflux des étrangers n’est pas désirable », quitte à les favoriser en milieu rural. L’idée d’une répartition équitable des étrangers accueillis sur le territoire français a ressurgi avec la loi Asile et Immigration du 10 septembre 2018, qui confie à chaque préfet de région un #schéma_régional_d'accueil_des_demandeurs_d’asile_et_des_réfugiés (#SRADAR) en lien avec le schéma national.

    « Avec la politique de #répartition_territoriale, la question de l’accueil par les petites villes et les villages se pose de plus en plus », affirmait Matthieu Tardis, chercheur à l’Ifri, devant les maires de France invités à l’atelier de la Dihal sur le « Relogement des réfugiés : un enjeu pour la cohésion des territoires ». Selon le chercheur, les #territoires_ruraux sont une « terre d’asile (...), le citoyen [étant] l’accélérateur de l’intégration des réfugiés. À la fois parce qu’il les aide à s’approprier la langue, et parce qu’il peut être facteur d’insertion professionnelle ».

    Avec sa « Stratégie nationale pour l’accueil et l’intégration des personnes réfugiées », lancée en juin 2018, l’État en appelle — à nouveau — aux maires pour reloger durablement les réinstallés, réfugiés ou demandeurs d’asile présents dans les #Cada (Centres d’Accueil des demandeurs d’asile) ou #CAO (Centres d’accueil et d’orientation).

    Les premiers CAO, ouverts à la hâte à l’automne 2015 pour « mettre à l’abri » les occupants de la lande de Calais (appelée « la jungle ») et de la place Stalingrad à Paris, n’ont pas toujours été bien accueillis par les populations, se souvient Olivier Clochard, directeur de Migrinter. Installé à Poitiers, ce laboratoire héberge le programme de recherche « Campagnes françaises dans la dynamique des migrations internationales ». Camigri réunit une dizaine de géographes sur trois terrains en Aquitaine (Périgord vert, Vienne et Pyrénées ariégeoises) et s’intéresse à l’installation de nouveaux habitants dans les campagnes, qu’ils soient réfugiés, demandeurs d’asile, néo-ruraux ou agriculteurs. Pendant 5 ans (2016-2021), les chercheurs observeront les changements que ces arrivées provoquent en termes démographiques, économiques et politiques dans ces lieux peu peuplés.

    « La mise en place de dispositifs établis sans concertation inquiète les acteurs, explique Olivier Clochard, on doit entendre ces mécontentements, voire comprendre les raisons qui conduisent les personnes à ces réticences. » Le chercheur retient aussi l’expérience positive des tables rondes menées dans les communes rurales des #Deux-Sèvres : « Ces rencontres permettent de saisir une multitude d’initiatives. Écoutant les protagonistes, effectuant des enquêtes (...), j’observe que les politiques migratoires ne se font plus uniquement dans les ministères ou les préfectures aujourd’hui ; elles se construisent également dans les campagnes avec ces diverses mobilisations. »

    Le rôle important des #bénévoles

    Les bénévoles jouent un rôle central dans l’accueil des réfugiés en zone rurale. À Nontron, Brigitte, l’ancienne directrice d’école, était à la retraite l’année de l’arrivée de la première famille syrienne. « Je suis entrée en lien avec l’association prestataire. On devait rencontrer la famille ensemble, mais la personne de l’association m’a fait faux bond ; alors, je me suis débrouillée, et c’est ce que je fais depuis ! » Brigitte met en place un accompagnement scolaire. Avec les nouvelles arrivées, elle mobilise son frère, Christophe, également à la retraite, puis la femme de Christophe, Marie-Noëlle, retraitée du conseil départemental, qui garde les petits quand les parents suivent des cours de français deux fois par semaine.

    Ces réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables ont besoin de soins médicaux. Les rendez-vous se multiplient, particulièrement pour la famille soudanaise arrivée avec une petite fille handicapée qui demande beaucoup de soins et de déplacements. « J’ai fini par lancer un appel par le Collectif de transition citoyenne en Périgord vert (Gco) qui fonctionne par email, raconte Brigitte. Nous sommes aujourd’hui une trentaine de bénévoles, dont quinze très actifs, et ça marche plutôt pas mal. »

    L’installation de ces familles nombreuses bénéficie aussi aux communes. « Nos cinq familles de réfugiés nous ont apporté 20 enfants et ont sauvé nos écoles », se réjouit Erwan Carabin, l’adjoint au maire de Nontron. « Les plus jeunes ont appris le français en un temps éclair. Pour les adultes, c’est plus compliqué. » Pour raconter son histoire, Issam 2 et sa femme, des Syriens arrivés en 2018 d’un camp du HCR au Liban, demandent à leur fils Mansour, 16 ans, de traduire leurs propos.

    Issam a reçu un éclat d’obus au pied et attend la reconnaissance de son handicap par la Maison départementale des personnes handicapées (MDPH) pour pouvoir trouver un travail adapté. Il ne peut pas se déplacer à Périgueux pour suivre les cours de français langue étrangère proposés par le Greta. L’association mandatée localement par l’État pour la prise en charge des « réinstallés » a achevé son mandat après un an pour des raisons budgétaires (c’est la norme). Les cours, et tout le reste, se sont arrêtés du jour au lendemain. « Ils devaient aller deux fois par semaine à Périgueux, explique Brigitte, c’était impossible pour lui, alors nous avons mis en place un cours localement, d’abord financé par une association périgourdine puis, quand ça s’est arrêté, grâce à une bénévole... jusqu’à ce qu’elle trouve du travail ! » Aujourd’hui, il n’y a plus d’enseignement du français pour les réfugiés à Nontron.

    La maîtrise du français est pourtant une des priorités des dispositifs mis en place par les associations prestataires de l’État. France terre d’asile finance également 200 heures de cours de français pendant sa prise en charge. Lorsque le mandat prend fin pour des raisons budgétaires, les communes doivent prendre le relais. Ce n’est pas toujours possible dans une petite ville comme Nontron.

    Dans son HLM, bercé par le chant des canaris en cage, Issam sort son téléphone pour lancer l’application qui lui permet de communiquer en français grâce à une traduction immédiate à l’écrit et à l’oral. Le résultat est plutôt satisfaisant, mais ne convient pas à toutes les situations. Pendant les rendez-vous médicaux, les réfugiés de Nontron peuvent appeler une association d’interprètes à Paris, à laquelle la mairie souscrit par tranches de 15 minutes. « On a bien un habitant qui parle arabe et accepte de venir quand on l’appelle, explique Erwan Carabin, mais on ne peut pas le solliciter tout le temps. Il faut aussi savoir ménager nos bénévoles ! »

    « On ne peut pas s’habituer
    à une souffrance, physique
    ou mentale comme ça,
    surtout quand on ne peut rien faire
    pour la soulager. »

    Marie-Noëlle, bénévole

    Entre les cours de soutien scolaire, deux fois par semaine, et l’accompagnement aux rendez-vous médicaux ou administratifs dans les grandes villes avoisinantes, Brigitte trouve le temps de monter le dossier MDPH de la petite Soudanaise de 8 ans, lourdement handicapée, afin qu’elle soit scolarisée avec des horaires aménagés. Elle a aussi repris le dossier d’Issam, ouvert par l’association prestataire qui a dû renoncer à accompagner cette famille depuis que sa salariée est en congé de longue durée. Les bénévoles ne reçoivent aucune formation et apprennent « sur le tas ». En mai dernier, Brigitte craque ; elle doit s’arrêter quelque temps. « L’histoire de ces gens est douloureuse, explique Marie-Noëlle, sa belle-sœur. Lorsque nous les accompagnons aux rendez-vous médicaux, nous entrons dans leur intimité. On ne peut pas s’habituer à une souffrance, physique ou mentale comme ça, surtout quand on ne peut rien faire pour la soulager. »

    La décision de l’État de placer ces réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables dans des zones qui souffrent de désertification médicale surprend. « Nous avons eu un problème à propos d’une famille qui avait une urgence, se souvient Pascal Bourdeau. Un médecin de Nontron a refusé de les prendre, même entre deux rendez-vous, alors qu’ils ne pouvaient pas se déplacer. Nous avons réglé le problème grâce aux bénévoles et je n’ai pas voulu polémiquer avec lui. La précarité de la médecine en milieu rural est une réalité et sa présence est une aubaine pour l’ensemble de notre communauté. »

    « On a des gens en difficulté dans notre propre population, ajoute Erwan Carabin, on ne peut pas créer de fossé entre les migrants et les autres. Il faut que l’action de la mairie soit pareille pour tous. »
    Les limites de l’installation en milieu rural

    La Dihal a évalué les relogements pour la première fois en avril 2018 à l’échelle des villes et villages de moins de 5 000 habitants. Ils sont opérés depuis 2015 pour « soulager l’effort de certains territoires par la mobilisation de logements vacants dans des territoires moins tendus ». 6 % des relogements de familles ou d’individus réfugiés ont eu lieu dans ces communes.

    Dans son évaluation, le Pôle Migrants de la Dihal fait plusieurs recommandations : ne pas envoyer à la campagne « les personnes nécessitant un suivi médical régulier ou présentant des fragilités psychologiques » ; s’assurer du consentement des réfugiés pour une installation en milieu rural ; vérifier qu’ils ont les moyens de communiquer et se déplacer par eux-mêmes pour prendre rapidement un emploi dans les filières qui recrutent. Et la Dihal de conclure à la nécessité d’un suivi régulier pour « assurer les besoins à court terme des réfugiés relogés dans les territoires ruraux ». Cependant, une fois relogés, les réfugiés ont d’autres besoins, notamment l’aide à l’emploi qui n’est pas prévue dans la mission des associations prestataires.

    L’assistante sociale du département, qui prend le relais quand l’accompagnement spécifique d’un an arrive à son terme, peut intervenir comme elle le fait pour tout autre public « fragile ». En Dordogne, il y a besoin de main-d’œuvre, notamment dans l’agriculture. Les deux pères soudanais de Nontron qui souhaitaient travailler se sont vus proposer un travail à 40 kilomètres. Faute de voiture, ils ont dû décliner.

    « Que faire sans capacité à être mobile
    et tant que les gens ne maîtrisent pas la langue ? »

    Pascal Bourdeau, maire de Nontron en Dordogne

    « On a besoin de gens pour ramasser les pommes, confirme Pascal Bourdeau, et l’économie de Nontron est florissante, notamment dans le luxe avec l’usine Hermès et le sellier CWD de l’équipe de France d’équitation. Certaines entreprises me disent qu’elles manquent de bras, mais que faire sans capacité à être mobile et tant que les gens ne maîtrisent pas la langue ? » Les réfugiés vivent pour l’instant du RSA, des aides de la Caf et de la solidarité du voisinage. « On ne peut pas dire que rien n’a été fait par l’État, reconnaît le maire de Nontron. Un comité de pilotage a été mis en place pendant un an et demi par la préfecture avec les associations prestataires et les assistantes sociales du département, mais le dispositif spécifique s’éteint parfois trop tôt. Il faudrait pouvoir le prolonger pour des cas difficiles. »

    L’intervenante sociale qui suit Aman, un jeune Érythréen désormais installé dans la banlieue de Périgueux (après plusieurs mois à la Cité de Clairvivre), sait qu’il aurait besoin d’être accompagné plus longtemps. Il attend toujours le début d’une formation d’électricien mais, comme les autres réfugiés suivis par les associations prestataires, sa maîtrise du français est très faible, insuffisante pour qu’il soit autonome après un an de prise en charge.

    « Tout cet accompagnement n’est pas assez structuré pour permettre aux réfugiés de s’intégrer », s’emporte Liliane Gonthier, maire de Boulazac, dont la commune a aussi dû accueillir des demandeurs d’asile dans un hôtel proche de la mairie. « Si on veut être une terre d’accueil, il faut une volonté politique. Quand on voit les demandeurs d’asile entassés dans le Formule 1, sans cuisine ou même frigo, ce n’est pas un accueil digne. On sait que, dans certaines communes, les migrants sont repartis vers les grandes villes, peut-être vers la jungle de Calais. Ce n’est pas une politique aboutie et ça manque d’humanité ! » « J’aurais pu continuer à accueillir des personnes », se désole Pascal Bourdeau qui ne souhaite pas recevoir plus de 5 familles dans sa commune, pourtant convaincu que « l’intégration est plus facile dans les campagnes et que les mélanges sont une richesse ». Mais il n’y a aucune coordination entre les différents acteurs institutionnels et peu ou pas de suivi. « Quand on arrive au bout du dispositif prévu par les associations prestataires, on nous laisse tomber ! »

    Certaines familles désirent déjà rejoindre les grandes villes où elles ont des proches. Si Issam, enfant de paysans en Syrie, a choisi la campagne quand le HCR au Liban lui a demandé de choisir, Aman, évacué de Libye via un camp du HCR au Niger, ne savait pas où il arriverait en France quand l’intervenante sociale de FTdA l’a accueilli à Bordeaux.

    « Les territoires ruraux peuvent être des laboratoires de dispositifs innovants en matière d’accueil. »

    Olivier Clochard, directeur de Migrinter

    Comment relever les défis d’une installation dans des petites communes, volontaires mais impuissantes à retenir ces familles et surtout ces hommes en âge de travailler ?

    « Si les lois sont faites principalement par des sédentaires, et des sédentaires qui ne connaissent pas toujours les spécificités de ces territoires ruraux, regrette Olivier Clochard, il me semble important de s’intéresser aux questions politiques relatives à la circulation, voire à l’accueil des personnes dans ces communes rurales — quel que soit le niveau : institutionnel, associatif voire informel — car dans certains cas, elles peuvent être vues à bien des égards comme des laboratoires de dispositifs innovants, rompant avec cette petite musique lancinante des discours présentant généralement l’immigration comme un problème... »

    http://icmigrations.fr/2019/08/30/defacto-11
    #réinstallation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #France #rural #vulnérabilité #campagne
    ping @karine4

  • Le Niger, #nouvelle frontière de l’Europe et #laboratoire de l’asile

    Les politiques migratoires européennes, toujours plus restrictives, se tournent vers le Sahel, et notamment vers le Niger – espace de transit entre le nord et le sud du Sahara. Devenu « frontière » de l’Europe, environné par des pays en conflit, le Niger accueille un nombre important de réfugiés sur son sol et renvoie ceux qui n’ont pas le droit à cette protection. Il ne le fait pas seul. La présence de l’Union européenne et des organisations internationales est visible dans le pays ; des opérations militaires y sont menées par des armées étrangères, notamment pour lutter contre la pression terroriste à ses frontières... au risque de brouiller les cartes entre enjeux sécuritaires et enjeux humanitaires.

    On confond souvent son nom avec celui de son voisin anglophone, le Nigéria, et peu de gens savent le placer sur une carte. Pourtant, le Niger est un des grands pays du Sahel, cette bande désertique qui court de l’Atlantique à la mer Rouge, et l’un des rares pays stables d’Afrique de l’Ouest qui offrent encore une possibilité de transit vers la Libye et la Méditerranée. Environné par des pays en conflit ou touchés par le terrorisme de Boko Haram et d’autres groupes, le Niger accueille les populations qui fuient le Mali et la région du lac Tchad et celles évacuées de Libye.

    « Dans ce contexte d’instabilité régionale et de contrôle accru des déplacements, la distinction entre l’approche sécuritaire et l’approche humanitaire s’est brouillée », explique la chercheuse Florence Boyer, fellow de l’Institut Convergences Migrations, actuellement accueillie au Niger à l’Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey. Géographe et anthropologue (affiliée à l’Urmis au sein de l’IRD, l’Institut de recherche pour le Développement), elle connaît bien le Niger, où elle se rend régulièrement depuis vingt ans pour étudier les migrations internes et externes des Nigériens vers l’Algérie ou la Libye voisines, au nord, et les pays du Golfe de Guinée, au sud et à l’ouest. Sa recherche porte actuellement sur le rôle que le Niger a accepté d’endosser dans la gestion des migrations depuis 2014, à la demande de plusieurs membres de l’Union européenne (UE) pris dans la crise de l’accueil des migrants.
    De la libre circulation au contrôle des frontières

    « Jusqu’à 2015, le Niger est resté cet espace traversé par des milliers d’Africains de l’Ouest et de Nigériens remontant vers la Libye sans qu’il y ait aucune entrave à la circulation ou presque », raconte la chercheuse. La plupart venaient y travailler. Peu tentaient la traversée vers l’Europe, mais dès le début des années 2000, l’UE, Italie en tête, cherche à freiner ce mouvement en négociant avec Kadhafi, déplaçant ainsi la frontière de l’Europe de l’autre côté de la Méditerranée. La chute du dictateur libyen, dans le contexte des révolutions arabes de 2011, bouleverse la donne. Déchirée par une guerre civile, la Libye peine à retenir les migrants qui cherchent une issue vers l’Europe. Par sa position géographique et sa relative stabilité, le Niger s’impose progressivement comme un partenaire de la politique migratoire de l’UE.

    « Le Niger est la nouvelle frontière de l’Italie. »

    Marco Prencipe, ambassadeur d’Italie à Niamey

    Le rôle croissant du Niger dans la gestion des flux migratoires de l’Afrique vers l’Europe a modifié les parcours des migrants, notamment pour ceux qui passent par Agadez, dernière ville du nord avant la traversée du Sahara. Membre du Groupe d’études et de recherches Migrations internationales, Espaces, Sociétés (Germes) à Niamey, Florence Boyer observe ces mouvements et constate la présence grandissante dans la capitale nigérienne du Haut-Commissariat des Nations-Unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) et de l’Organisation internationale des migrations (OIM) chargée, entre autres missions, d’assister les retours de migrants dans leur pays.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlIwqYKrw7c

    « L’île de Lampedusa se trouve aussi loin du Nord de l’Italie que de la frontière nigérienne, note Marco Prencipe, l’ambassadeur d’Italie à Niamey, le Niger est la nouvelle frontière de l’Italie. » Une affirmation reprise par plusieurs fonctionnaires de la délégation de l’UE au Niger rencontrés par Florence Boyer et Pascaline Chappart. La chercheuse, sur le terrain à Niamey, effectue une étude comparée sur des mécanismes d’externalisation de la frontière au Niger et au Mexique. « Depuis plusieurs années, la politique extérieure des migrations de l’UE vise à délocaliser les contrôles et à les placer de plus en plus au sud du territoire européen, explique la postdoctorante à l’IRD, le mécanisme est complexe : les enjeux pour l’Europe sont à la fois communautaires et nationaux, chaque État membre ayant sa propre politique ».

    En novembre 2015, lors du sommet euro-africain de La Valette sur la migration, les autorités européennes lancent le Fonds fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique « en faveur de la stabilité et de la lutte contre les causes profondes de la migration irrégulière et du phénomène des personnes déplacées en Afrique ». Doté à ce jour de 4,2 milliards d’euros, le FFUA finance plusieurs types de projets, associant le développement à la sécurité, la gestion des migrations à la protection humanitaire.

    Le président nigérien considère que son pays, un des plus pauvres de la planète, occupe une position privilégiée pour contrôler les migrations dans la région. Le Niger est désormais le premier bénéficiaire du Fonds fiduciaire, devant des pays de départ comme la Somalie, le Nigéria et surtout l’Érythrée d’où vient le plus grand nombre de demandeurs d’asile en Europe.

    « Le Niger s’y retrouve dans ce mélange des genres entre lutte contre le terrorisme et lutte contre l’immigration “irrégulière”. »

    Florence Boyer, géographe et anthropologue

    Pour l’anthropologue Julien Brachet, « le Niger est peu à peu devenu un pays cobaye des politiques anti-migrations de l’Union européenne, (...) les moyens financiers et matériels pour lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière étant décuplés ». Ainsi, la mission européenne EUCAP Sahel Niger a ouvert une antenne permanente à Agadez en 2016 dans le but d’« assister les autorités nigériennes locales et nationales, ainsi que les forces de sécurité, dans le développement de politiques, de techniques et de procédures permettant d’améliorer le contrôle et la lutte contre les migrations irrégulières ».

    « Tout cela ne serait pas possible sans l’aval du Niger, qui est aussi à la table des négociations, rappelle Florence Boyer. Il ne faut pas oublier qu’il doit faire face à la pression de Boko Haram et d’autres groupes terroristes à ses frontières. Il a donc intérêt à se doter d’instruments et de personnels mieux formés. Le Niger s’y retrouve dans ce mélange des genres entre la lutte contre le terrorisme et la lutte contre l’immigration "irrégulière". »

    Peu avant le sommet de La Valette en 2015, le Niger promulgue la loi n°2015-36 sur « le trafic illicite de migrants ». Elle pénalise l’hébergement et le transport des migrants ayant l’intention de franchir illégalement la frontière. Ceux que l’on qualifiait jusque-là de « chauffeurs » ou de « transporteurs » au volant de « voitures taliban » (des 4x4 pick-up transportant entre 20 et 30 personnes) deviennent des « passeurs ». Une centaine d’arrestations et de saisies de véhicules mettent fin à ce qui était de longue date une source légale de revenus au nord du Niger. « Le but reste de bloquer la route qui mène vers la Libye, explique Pascaline Chappart. L’appui qu’apportent l’UE et certains pays européens en coopérant avec la police, les douanes et la justice nigérienne, particulièrement en les formant et les équipant, a pour but de rendre l’État présent sur l’ensemble de son territoire. »

    Des voix s’élèvent contre ces contrôles installés aux frontières du Niger sous la pression de l’Europe. Pour Hamidou Nabara de l’ONG nigérienne JMED (Jeunesse-Enfance-Migration-Développement), qui lutte contre la pauvreté pour retenir les jeunes désireux de quitter le pays, ces dispositifs violent le principe de la liberté de circulation adopté par les pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest dans le cadre de la Cedeao. « La situation des migrants s’est détériorée, dénonce-t-il, car si la migration s’est tarie, elle continue sous des voies différentes et plus dangereuses ». La traversée du Sahara est plus périlleuse que jamais, confirme Florence Boyer : « Le nombre de routes s’est multiplié loin des contrôles, mais aussi des points d’eau et des secours. À ce jour, nous ne disposons pas d’estimations solides sur le nombre de morts dans le désert, contrairement à ce qui se passe en Méditerranée ».

    Partenaire de la politique migratoire de l’Union européenne, le Niger a également développé une politique de l’asile. Il accepte de recevoir des populations en fuite, expulsées ou évacuées des pays voisins : les expulsés d’Algérie recueillis à la frontière, les rapatriés nigériens dont l’État prend en charge le retour de Libye, les réfugiés en lien avec les conflits de la zone, notamment au Mali et dans la région du lac Tchad, et enfin les personnes évacuées de Libye par le HCR. Le Niger octroie le statut de réfugié à ceux installés sur son sol qui y ont droit. Certains, particulièrement vulnérables selon le HCR, pourront être réinstallés en Europe ou en Amérique du Nord dans des pays volontaires.
    Une plateforme pour la « réinstallation »
    en Europe et en Amérique

    Cette procédure de réinstallation à partir du Niger n’a rien d’exceptionnel. Les Syriens réfugiés au Liban, par exemple, bénéficient aussi de l’action du HCR qui les sélectionne pour déposer une demande d’asile dans un pays dit « sûr ». La particularité du Niger est de servir de plateforme pour la réinstallation de personnes évacuées de Libye. « Le Niger est devenu une sorte de laboratoire de l’asile, raconte Florence Boyer, notamment par la mise en place de l’Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM). »

    L’ETM, proposé par le HCR, est lancé en août 2017 à Paris par l’Allemagne, l’Espagne, la France et l’Italie — côté UE — et le Niger, le Tchad et la Libye — côté africain. Ils publient une déclaration conjointe sur les « missions de protection en vue de la réinstallation de réfugiés en Europe ». Ce dispositif se présente comme le pendant humanitaire de la politique de lutte contre « les réseaux d’immigration économique irrégulière » et les « retours volontaires » des migrants irréguliers dans leur pays effectués par l’OIM. Le processus s’accélère en novembre de la même année, suite à un reportage de CNN sur des cas d’esclavagisme de migrants en Libye. Fin 2017, 3 800 places sont promises par les pays occidentaux qui participent, à des degrés divers, à ce programme d’urgence. Le HCR annonce 6 606 places aujourd’hui, proposées par 14 pays européens et américains1.

    Trois catégories de personnes peuvent bénéficier de la réinstallation grâce à ce programme : évacués d’urgence depuis la Libye, demandeurs d’asile au sein d’un flux dit « mixte » mêlant migrants et réfugiés et personnes fuyant les conflits du Mali ou du Nigéria. Seule une minorité aura la possibilité d’être réinstallée depuis le Niger vers un pays occidental. Le profiling (selon le vocabulaire du HCR) de ceux qui pourront bénéficier de cette protection s’effectue dès les camps de détention libyens. Il consiste à repérer les plus vulnérables qui pourront prétendre au statut de réfugié et à la réinstallation.

    Une fois évacuées de Libye, ces personnes bénéficient d’une procédure accélérée pour l’obtention du statut de réfugié au Niger. Elles ne posent pas de problème au HCR, qui juge leur récit limpide. La Commission nationale d’éligibilité au statut des réfugiés (CNE), qui est l’administration de l’asile au Niger, accepte de valider la sélection de l’organisation onusienne. Les réfugiés sont pris en charge dans le camp du HCR à Hamdallaye, construit récemment à une vingtaine de kilomètres de la capitale nigérienne, le temps que le HCR prépare la demande de réinstallation dans un pays occidental, multipliant les entretiens avec les réfugiés concernés. Certains pays, comme le Canada ou la Suède, ne mandatent pas leurs services sur place, déléguant au HCR la sélection. D’autres, comme la France, envoient leurs agents pour un nouvel entretien (voir ce reportage sur la visite de l’Ofpra à Niamey fin 2018).

    Parmi les évacués de Libye, moins des deux tiers sont éligibles à une réinstallation dans un pays dit « sûr ».

    Depuis deux ans, près de 4 000 personnes ont été évacuées de Libye dans le but d’être réinstallées, selon le HCR (5 300 autres ont été prises en charge par l’OIM et « retournées » dans leur pays). Un millier ont été évacuées directement vers l’Europe et le Canada et près de 3 000 vers le Niger. C’est peu par rapport aux 50 800 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile enregistrés auprès de l’organisation onusienne en Libye au 12 août 2019. Et très peu sur l’ensemble des 663 400 migrants qui s’y trouvent selon l’OIM. La guerre civile qui déchire le pays rend la situation encore plus urgente.

    Parmi les personnes évacuées de Libye vers le Niger, moins des deux tiers sont éligibles à une réinstallation dans un pays volontaire, selon le HCR. À ce jour, moins de la moitié ont été effectivement réinstallés, notamment en France (voir notre article sur l’accueil de réfugiés dans les communes rurales françaises).

    Malgré la publicité faite autour du programme de réinstallation, le HCR déplore la lenteur du processus pour répondre à cette situation d’urgence. « Le problème est que les pays de réinstallation n’offrent pas de places assez vite, regrette Fatou Ndiaye, en charge du programme ETM au Niger, alors que notre pays hôte a négocié un maximum de 1 500 évacués sur son sol au même moment. » Le programme coordonné du Niger ne fait pas exception : le HCR rappelait en février 2019 que, sur les 19,9 millions de réfugiés relevant de sa compétence à travers le monde, moins d’1 % sont réinstallés dans un pays sûr.

    Le dispositif ETM, que le HCR du Niger qualifie de « couloir de l’espoir », concerne seulement ceux qui se trouvent dans un camp accessible par l’organisation en Libye (l’un d’eux a été bombardé en juillet dernier) et uniquement sept nationalités considérées par les autorités libyennes (qui n’ont pas signé la convention de Genève) comme pouvant relever du droit d’asile (Éthiopiens Oromo, Érythréens, Iraquiens, Somaliens, Syriens, Palestiniens et Soudanais du Darfour).

    « Si les portes étaient ouvertes dès les pays d’origine, les gens ne paieraient pas des sommes astronomiques pour traverser des routes dangereuses. »

    Pascaline Chappart, socio-anthropologue

    En décembre 2018, des Soudanais manifestaient devant les bureaux d’ETM à Niamey pour dénoncer « un traitement discriminatoire (...) par rapport aux Éthiopiens et Somaliens » favorisés, selon eux, par le programme. La représentante du HCR au Niger a répondu à une radio locale que « la plupart de ces Soudanais [venaient] du Tchad où ils ont déjà été reconnus comme réfugiés et que, techniquement, c’est le Tchad qui les protège et fait la réinstallation ». C’est effectivement la règle en matière de droit humanitaire mais, remarque Florence Boyer, « comment demander à des réfugiés qui ont quitté les camps tchadiens, pour beaucoup en raison de l’insécurité, d’y retourner sans avoir aucune garantie ? ».

    La position de la France

    La question du respect des règles en matière de droit d’asile se pose pour les personnes qui bénéficient du programme d’urgence. En France, par exemple, pas de recours possible auprès de l’Ofpra en cas de refus du statut de réfugié. Pour Pascaline Chappart, qui achève deux ans d’enquêtes au Niger et au Mexique, il y a là une part d’hypocrisie : « Si les portes étaient ouvertes dès les pays d’origine, les gens ne paieraient pas des sommes astronomiques pour traverser des routes dangereuses par la mer ou le désert ». « Il est quasiment impossible dans le pays de départ de se présenter aux consulats des pays “sûrs” pour une demande d’asile », renchérit Florence Boyer. Elle donne l’exemple de Centre-Africains qui ont échappé aux combats dans leur pays, puis à la traite et aux violences au Nigéria, en Algérie puis en Libye, avant de redescendre au Niger : « Ils auraient dû avoir la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile dès Bangui ! Le cadre législatif les y autorise. »

    En ce matin brûlant d’avril, dans le camp du HCR à Hamdallaye, Mebratu2, un jeune Érythréen de 26 ans, affiche un large sourire. À l’ombre de la tente qu’il partage et a décorée avec d’autres jeunes de son pays, il annonce qu’il s’envolera le 9 mai pour Paris. Comme tant d’autres, il a fui le service militaire à vie imposé par la dictature du président Issayas Afeworki. Mebratu était convaincu que l’Europe lui offrirait la liberté, mais il a dû croupir deux ans dans les prisons libyennes. S’il ne connaît pas sa destination finale en France, il sait d’où il vient : « Je ne pensais pas que je serais vivant aujourd’hui. En Libye, on pouvait mourir pour une plaisanterie. Merci la France. »

    Mebratu a pris un vol pour Paris en mai dernier, financé par l’Union européenne et opéré par l’#OIM. En France, la Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement (Dihal) confie la prise en charge de ces réinstallés à 24 opérateurs, associations nationales ou locales, pendant un an. Plusieurs départements et localités françaises ont accepté d’accueillir ces réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables après des années d’errance et de violences.

    Pour le deuxième article de notre numéro spécial de rentrée, nous nous rendons en Dordogne dans des communes rurales qui accueillent ces « réinstallés » arrivés via le Niger.

    http://icmigrations.fr/2019/08/30/defacto-10
    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Europe #UE #EU #sécuritaire #humanitaire #approche_sécuritaire #approche_humanitaire #libre_circulation #fermeture_des_frontières #printemps_arabe #Kadhafi #Libye #Agadez #parcours_migratoires #routes_migratoires #HCR #OIM #IOM #retour_au_pays #renvois #expulsions #Fonds_fiduciaire #Fonds_fiduciaire_d'urgence_pour_l'Afrique #FFUA #développement #sécurité #EUCAP_Sahel_Niger #La_Valette #passeurs #politique_d'asile #réinstallation #hub #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism (#ETM) #retours_volontaires #profiling #tri #sélection #vulnérabilité #évacuation #procédure_accélérée #Hamdallaye #camps_de_réfugiés #ofpra #couloir_de_l’espoir

    co-écrit par @pascaline

    ping @karine4 @_kg_ @isskein

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765325

  • Evaluation of #Emergency_Transit_Centres in Romania and the Slovak Republic

    Executive summary

    The Emergency Transit Centres were established to provide emergency protection and the possibility to evacuate refugees who could not be protected in their countries of asylum. Temporary relocation of refugees who required resettlement on an urgent or emergency basis to an Evacuation Transit Facility (ETF) was expected to serve five objectives, namely:

    Provide timely and effective protection to an individual or group of individuals of concern to UNHCR;

    Demonstrate a tangible form of burden‐ and responsibility‐sharing, enabling States not otherwise involved in emergency resettlement to accept cases from an ETF;

    Enable officials from UNHCR and resettlement countries to undertake interviews in a stable, safe and secure environment;

    Promote the subsequent realization of the durable solution of permanent resettlement; and - Encourage States hosting ETFs to become involved in resettlement.

    To date, three ETFs have become operational, namely the Emergency Transit Centres (ETCs) in Romania in 2008 and the Slovak Republic in 2011(although the Tri-Partite Agreement was signed in 2010), and the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) in the Philippines in 2009. The ETCs are managed on the basis of Tri-Partite Agreements signed by their hosting governments, UNHCR and IOM. The ETC in Timisoara, Romania, can accommodate a maximum of 200 refugees, whereas the one in Humenné, Slovak Republic, a total of 150 refugees (from mid-2012 onwards). As of 30 September 2015, 1,717 refugees had departed from the ETC in Timisoara, and 797 refugees from Humenné to resettlement countries. Since 2012, the main resettlement countries using the two centres are the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada and Finland, with the USA the sole resettlement country using Humenné since 2013.

    At the request of UNHCRs Resettlement Service in the Division of International Protection UNHCR’s Policy Development and Evaluation Service commissioned an evaluation of the ETCs in Romania and the Slovak Republic. As the ETCs have been in place for seven (Timisoara) and four years (Humenné) respectively, the evaluation presented UNHCR with an opportunity to assess whether the objectives set out at their establishment have been met. A comparative approach was used to assess the functioning of the two ETCs. The evaluation’s main findings should inform the development of strategies to meet emergency resettlement needs. Additionally, the results of the evaluation contribute to reflections on minimum standards and on whether the ETCs should continue with the same or similar objectives, or if there are other objectives that could lead to enhanced protection dividends for refugees.

    The evaluation team was composed of one PDES staff member and one external evaluation consultant.

    The ETCs in Timisoara, Romania, and in Humenné, Slovak Republic, have been relevant and appropriate for UNHCR, IOM, the ETC-hosting governments, resettlement countries and refugees. The ETCs offer a mechanism to UNHCR to provide a safe environment for refugees pending resettlement processing, including those classified under emergency or urgent priority, and to realize the durable solution of resettlement. While the number of refugees with emergency prioritization is small relative to the total number of refugees transferred to the centres, interlocutors described the ETCs as “life-saving” and “indispensable” for those few high-profile or high-risk refugees. This function for the most compelling protection cases is seen as core to UNHCR’s protection mandate.

    The centres also have an advocacy function. This is of pivotal importance to UNHCR and the hosting countries, as the agency must be seen to be able to respond immediately to lifethreatening situations to provide immediate protection. Although the overall contribution to global resettlement figures is small, the positive change brought about by the immediate safety and security (and access to basic services) and the overall realization of resettlement for hundreds of refugees has considerable value. In the evaluation period from the beginning of 2012 until 30 September, 2015 a total of 1,568 refugees were resettled through the two ETCs. The life-saving dimension in compelling protection cases is seen as vital even if there are very few emergency cases.

    Moreover, ETCs provided resettlement countries (and the IOM as part of its Resettlement Service Centre function for the US-government) access to refugees to undertake activities necessary to complete the resettlement process, including the selection of municipalities in resettlement countries. Some countries, in particular the US, are unable to process emergency cases due to long and complicated state procedures. The existence of the ETCs allows the US to process resettlement cases of persons who have been evacuated, and thereby increase accessibility of resettlement to some refugees, even if not on an emergency basis. The centre in Humenné has gradually expanded into one which solely caters to US-government processing, while only Timisoara has received emergency cases due to the shorter Romanian government clearance, and the absence of visa requirements. For the ETC-hosting governments, Romania and the Slovak Republic, the centres provided an opportunity to show their solidarity with countries hosting large refugee case-loads, while neither providing a permanent home to larger groups of refugees nor carrying all the operational costs of these centres.

    While the coverage of the ETCs is in principle global, only refugees of some nationalities and countries of first asylum have been accommodated in the centres. Ad hoc planning and the obstacles experienced by some resettlement countries in the process of adjudication or completion of resettlement procedures, including selecting municipalities, has generally driven the use of ETCs. Most of the refugees transferred to the ETCs were resettled to the USA or the UK.

    Male and female refugees of all age groups have been transferred to the ETCs, although some restrictions have been imposed with respect to refugees with high medical needs, including serious mental health needs due to limitations of the ETCs with respect to providing services to persons with high medical needs. There have also been challenges in providing accommodation to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) refugees. Since 2014, Iraqi refugees from Syria for resettlement to the USA are no longer transferred due to the refusal of already pre-vetted cases during the period 2012 - 2014. This has resulted in traumatic experiences for the concerned refugees, as three of them have remained in Timisoara since 2012 without a durable solution. Although alternative resettlement countries have been found for most of the rejected cases, this created an extra burden for UNHCR as well as delays for the concerned refugees.

    The efficiency of the ETC operations in Timisoara and Humenné was assessed from different angles, namely UNHCR and IP staffing, budgets, and utilization of capacity including the “pipeline”.

    The efficiency of the ETC operations in Timisoara and Humenné was assessed from different angles, namely UNHCR and IP staffing, budgets, and utilization of capacity including the “pipeline”.

    The centres are respectively under the supervision of the UNHCR Country Representative in Bucharest, and the UNHCR Deputy Regional Representative of the Regional Representative Office for Central Europe (RRCE) in Budapest. The resulting reporting lines and management of the budgets has led to limited coordination to ensure commonalities in approach in terms of staffing and assistance provided. Thus, in Timisoara, three UNHCR staff (with UNHCR or UNOPS contracts) work in the centre. In the Slovak Republic, the only UNHCR staff member manages the centre on a UNOPS contract. The difference in ETC-level staffing cannot be fully justified on the basis of their capacity. The above has also led to different budgets and variations in IP capacity, responsibilities and assistance, with the division of responsibilities between the different actors in Timisoara resulting in an overstretched IP with reduced capacity for counseling and other refugee-oriented activities.

    As the host countries’ contributions are different in each of the ETCs, the contribution of UNHCR also differs, the biggest difference being that UNHCR pays the food costs in Timisoara, which amounted to between 40-49% of total expenditures in the period 2012-2014. The overall expenditures for Timisoara, excluding food costs ranged from USD 621,700 in 2012, USD 654,900 in 2013 to USD 657,000 in 2014. If food costs are included, the annual costs are USD 1,031,000 in 2012, USD 1,278,100 in 2013, USD 1,195,800 in 2014 and USD 1,157,000 in 2015. The ETC requires 51% (2015) to 60% (2012, 2013) of the total budget for the Romania operation. The overall expenditure for Humenné was USD 406,700 in 2012, USD 747,800 in 2013, USD 979,900 in 2014, and USD 666,700 in 2015 (first 11 months).

    The underutilization of the ETCs was regularly raised as a concern by interlocutors. Their occupancy rate has historically been relatively low. The average daily occupancy rate for Timisoara is between one third to one half, and for Humenné approximately half of its capacity. Considering the nature of emergency case handling, and the flexibility this requires, the ETCs must always have space available to receive cases with serious protection needs. However, the planning documents for the ETCs do not allocate a specific number of spaces for emergency evacuations. In addition, the turnover of refugees has been slower than envisaged, with some refugees submitted to the US overstaying the maximum period of six months. The overwhelming majority of refugees stay an average of four to five months. Capacity has generally been viewed in terms of the available number of beds instead of in relation to site and shelter space available.

    Minimum standards for ETCs have not been developed. The application of minimum humanitarian standards in the areas of shelter confirms that the centres would not fully comply with these criteria if used to capacity. As the ETCs have become a semi-permanent response mechanism in the resettlement process, it is necessary to consider developing minimum standards for ETCs to guarantee the well-being of refugees. These standards should be based for example on the Sphere minimum humanitarian standards for shelter and non-food items.1 The standards should also take into account the objectives of preparing refugees for life in a resettlement country.

    The Romanian government has received funds from the EU to upgrade an existing facility to house the ETC. Work is expected to begin in 2016 so that refugees could be accommodated in 2017. It is imperative that UNHCR seize the opportunity to be involved at the planning stage of this process in order to ensure that the physical set-up is conducive to providing adequate assistance and protection, and to preparing refugees for resettlement. Some input into planning would also allow cost-savings if, for example, kitchens were included so that refugees could cook for themselves.

    The utilization of the ETCs has also been viewed in connection with the selection of refugees, and the process of obtaining clearances and organizing the transfer to one of the centres. The ETCs are directly linked to UNHCR’s global resettlement operation through the ETC focal point in the Resettlement Service, UNHCR headquarters. UNHCR Field Offices and Regional Resettlement Hubs are vital in identifying refugees for whom transfer to the ETC is an appropriate solution. Yet not all resettlement staff are aware of the existence of these facilities or know how to use these centres. This can be partially attributed to outdated guidance notes and a gap between vision and practice, which has led to different views on the usage of these centres.

    The underutilization of the ETCs is also a consequence of the use of emergency priority quota and/or a direct transfer to the resettlement country, which is the preferred option for all parties. Other obstacles include lengthy exit procedures of some countries of asylum, and a bureaucratic and lengthy process to organize the transfer of cases. Additionally, the part-time nature of the ETC focal point at headquarters does not encourage a more pro-active advocacy role.

    There are some differences in the provision of protection and assistance in the two ETCs. The major protection deficit noted by the evaluation team was the application of “limited freedom of movement” in Romania. Article 2 (2) of the Tri-Partite Agreement states that refugees “shall be required to reside in the ETC facility designated by the Romanian government.” This provision has been implemented in a manner that restricts freedom of movement of refugees as they are not permitted to leave the centre unless escorted by the implementing partner. This limitation is extremely frustrating for refugees and leads to a degree of institutionalization.

    While most of the refugees interviewed during the mission were satisfied with the standards of assistance offered, they felt that their lives in the ETC were on hold and many expressed a desire to have a “normal” life and to move on quickly from the ETC. Especially in Timisoara, concerns were expressed regarding the difficulties arising from living with many other refugees in a relatively small area, including sharing rooms with other families and/or individuals, the limited to no freedom of movement, few opportunities for leisure and language training for adults, and a general sense of boredom. This has produced a living environment in which stress and tensions between individuals can more easily build up. Overall, the services provided in Humenné were more comprehensive than in Timisoara. This was reflected in the level of satisfaction expressed by refugees during the focus group discussions.

    Resettlement is by definition a partnership activity. Cooperation with external stakeholders was generally viewed as efficient and effective by all respondents. Cooperation between UNHCR and the Government of Romania was regarded in a positive light, especially with respect to the limited time needed to process clearance requests, and the provision of identification documentation and security in the premises. However, the “limited freedom of movement” for refugees in the town, the lack of maintenance of the premises, and the regular provision of basic household items has led to some concern.

    Cooperation between UNHCR and the Government of the Slovak Republic was generally considered efficient and effective by all interlocutors, despite some challenges in obtaining visas from embassies in countries of asylum or neighboring countries. The third partner to the agreements, IOM, has taken effective care of travel logistics, medical assessments and cultural orientation training. Possible challenges were ironed out in the beginning of these local partnerships. Some communication challenges were however noted at the field level in countries of asylum between UNHCR and IOM (and some ICRC delegations) due to staff turnover.

    A similar positive note can be recorded with regard to the cooperation between UNHCR and the nine resettlement countries that used the ETCs in the 2012-2015 period. However, concern was expressed about referring an adequate number of refugees for the US “pipeline” on the one hand, and the US speed of processing, both during the pre-vetting stage and the stay of refugees in the ETCs, on the other hand. The first issue was resolved in 2015 with stronger coordination taking place between the three partners: UNHCR, the US and IOM.

    The two ETCs have been effective to some degree considering the initial objectives established especially considering that a transfer can only be approved if a resettlement country is already identified. Only the centre in Timisoara was used for emergency priority cases in 2013 and 2014. An overall reduction of this function is visible during the period 2012-2015. However, for refugees classified under normal priority, the transfer to an ETC was still viewed as life-saving if evacuated from an unsafe situation.

    The majority of refugees were transferred to the ETCs to support either the processing of resettlement cases by means of interviews, biometrics or to find municipalities in the resettlement country. Providing opportunities for recovery and preparing for the integration process has only been achieved to some degree, depending on the situation in countries of asylum and the protection and assistance provided in the two centres. The centres have however supported the objective “potential for resettlement realized”. The overwhelming majority of refugees arriving in the ETCs actually departed for resettlement. The ETCs have therefore contributed to facilitating the resettlement process of some refugees that otherwise could not have been resettled.

    The main impact of the ETCs has been the provision of immediate and effective protection to refugees. Moreover, as a tangible form of responsibility-sharing, the centres have given Romania and the Slovak Republic the opportunity to present their contribution to the international protection regime in international fora. Romania established a resettlement programme with a quota of 40 refugees per year, with the first group of 38 refugees arriving in 2010, and the second group in 2014. The Slovak Republic also pledged, on a voluntary basis, 100 resettlement places in the period 2015-2017 towards the Council of the European Conclusions on Resettlement of 20 July 2015. However, arrivals under this programme are still pending.

    Given the current situation in Europe it could be argued that more responsibility-sharing could be expected, and the existence of the ETCs should not absolve these governments of the obligation to provide durable solutions to a greater number of refugees. The host governments might also be persuaded to contribute more resources to the running of the ETCs.

    The ETCs have contributed modestly to global resettlement figures and to reducing protracted refugee case-loads in countries of first asylum. But they have provided a safe alternative for cases that could not be transferred directly to resettlement countries, thereby offering the only available durable solution to these refugees. For some refugees, without the ETCs, there would simply be no possibility of resettlement.

    In conclusion, the evolution in the operation of the ETCs shows a move away from their original vision. In the words of one interlocutor “there is nothing emergency about this process.” This has resulted in a situation whereby the policies and practices of resettlement countries to a large extent actually determine the use of the ETCs. Internal factors further impact upon the efficiency and effectiveness of the centres. Thus, replacing the first word of the acronym “ETC” with resettlement (“Resettlement Transit Centres”) would actually give a clearer indication of the main purpose of these centres, namely to support the realization of this durable solution. This could then also cover possible shifts or changes in their functions as RTCs continue to respond to the needs of different stakeholders. The sustainability of these centres must also be viewed in relation to UNHCR’s responsibility to manage the “pipeline” in cooperation with resettlement states.

    The key recommendations of this evaluation are directed to DIP’s Resettlement Service, the RRCE and CO Romania.

    https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/575935d17_0.pdf
    #Roumanie #République_Tchèque #ETC #asile #migrations #réfugiés #rapport #réinstallation #évacuation #protection_d'urgence #Evacuation_Transit_Facility (#ETF) #hub
    –-> document de 2016, mis ici pour archivage

    via @pascaline

  • #Charlie_Yaxley, porte-parole du HCR, se félicite sur twitter que l’avion a atterri en Italie avec 98 réfugiés vulnérable à son bord. Réfugiés qui se trouvaient en #Libye :

    https://twitter.com/yaxle/status/1172182248659062786

    Voici le communiqué de presse du #HCR :

    New UNHCR evacuation of refugees from Libya to Italy, as Tripoli fighting continues

    A group of 98 vulnerable refugees have been today evacuated out of Libya to Italy, the third direct humanitarian evacuation to the country this year.

    With Libya continuing to suffer under conflict, such evacuations are a lifeline for the most vulnerable refugees living in detention centres and urban areas, who are in dire need of safety and protection,

    The evacuees are from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan, and include 52 unaccompanied children. The youngest is Yousef, a seven-month-old baby from Somalia, born in detention and traveling with his parents. Many of the refugees had been held in detention in Libya for long periods, some for more than eight months.

    “Today we have taken 98 people to safety, but this is still only a small number of the thousands who need such help. There are still some 3,600 refugees in detention centres. We urgently need to find solutions for them, as well as thousands more vulnerable refugees living in urban areas,” said Jean-Paul Cavalieri, UNHCR Chief of Mission for Libya.

    UNHCR is grateful for the co-operation of the Libyan Ministry of Interior, and for the support of our partner LibAid, for their assistance with securing their release and transfer out of the detention centres.

    “Today’s evacuation is an example of solidarity, and we thank the Italian authorities for making this possible. We hope that other countries will heed this example and provide similar, life-saving humanitarian evacuations,” said Roland Schilling, UNHCR Regional Representative for Southern Europe.

    Prior to the evacuation, the refugees were being hosted in the Gathering and Departure Facility (GDF) in Tripoli, after UNHCR had secured their transfer from detention. In the GDF, they were provided with food, shelter, medical assistance including psycho-social support, as well as clothes and hygiene kits.

    Following this evacuation, UNHCR has assisted 1,474 vulnerable refugees with leaving Libya in 2019, including 710 to Niger, 393 to Italy, and 371 who have been resettled to other countries in Europe and Canada.


    https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/9/5d7a30584/new-unhcr-evacuation-refugees-libya-italy-tripoli-fighting-continues.html

    ... ou on découvre qu’effectivement 98 personnes ont été acheminées vers l’Italie... mais...

    Following this evacuation, UNHCR has assisted 1,474 vulnerable refugees with leaving Libya in 2019, including 710 to Niger, 393 to Italy, and 371 who have been resettled to other countries in Europe and Canada.

    ... 710 ont été évacués vers le #Niger... où sont-ielles ? Quel est leur futur ? Qui suivra leur situation ? Que se passera-t-il avec ielles ?

    sur les évacuations vers le Niger voir aussi :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/737065

    #évacuation #réfugiés #asile #migrations #réinstallation

    ping @karine4 @pascaline @_kg_ @isskein @reka

  • #DHS to store tens of thousands of refugee biometric records from #UNHCR

    The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) began sharing records including fingerprints, iris scans, and facial biometrics of refugees it is recommending for resettlement consideration in the U.S. with the country’s Citizenship and Immigration Service (#USCIS), Nextgov reports.

    The UNHCR sends tens of thousands of profiles to federal agencies each year, according to the report, and the #Department_of_Homeland_Services (DHS) is retaining the data for all of them, including those who do not actually come to the U.S. The biometric data will be stored in the #IDENT_system, and #HART once it goes live.

    “Biometric verification guards against substitution of individuals or identity fraud in the resettlement process,” the USCIS privacy impact assessment for the program states. “Many refugees live for long periods in asylum countries, and the use of biometrics ensures that there is [an] unbroken continuity of identity over time and between different locations.”

    Nextgov notes that UNHCR stats show the USCIS reviewed close to 85,000 cases in 2018, and approved less than a quarter for admission to the U.S.

    “A centralized database of biometric data belonging to refugees, without appropriate controls, could really lead to surveillance of those refugees as well as potentially coercive forms of scrutiny,” Human Rights Watch Artificial Intelligence Researcher Amos Toh told Nextgov. “I think there needs to be a lot more clarity on … how this data is being shared and is being used.”

    Toh also referred to issues around consent for personal data-sharing in humanitarian contexts.

    https://www.biometricupdate.com/201908/dhs-to-store-tens-of-thousands-of-refugee-biometric-records-from-un
    #surveillance #données_biométriques #base_de_données #database #HCR #réfugiés #asile #migrations #biométrie #empreintes_digitales #biométrie_faciale #USA #Etats-Unis #réinstallation #humanitaire

    ping @etraces

    • Inside the HART of the DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management

      #OBIM says its efforts to protect biometric data privacy and security are robust and open.

      The Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) operated by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) was designed in 1994 and implemented in 1995. It was originally meant to perform a South-West border recidivist study, but has grown into the second largest biometric system in the world, next to Aadhaar, with 230 million unique identity records, plus access to millions more held by the FBI and Department of Defense, and 350,000 transactions on an average weekday.

      As the number of programs using IDENT has grown, the system’s roll and size have increased. As the importance of IDENT has grown, so have the warnings and criticism of the program. It is still not widely understood how it works, however, Patrick Nemeth, Director of OBIM’s Identity Operations Division told Biometric Update in an exclusive interview.

      “We don’t own the data, we’re the data stewards, and it was collected by somebody else who ultimately has the authority to change it or delete it,” Nemeth explains. While many government biometric databases around the world are not operated in this way, the arrangement is only the beginning of the complexity the system has evolved to accommodate.

      OBIM performs three basic functions, Nemeth says, with pretty much everything else done in service of them. It operates the automated matching system, which is IDENT, but will soon be the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology (HART), performs manual examination and verification, and coordinates sharing with the owners of the data, which means setting rules for sharing data with agencies. Most government biometric data is centralized with OBIM to minimize duplication under the department’s privacy rule, and also to apply the maximum security and protection to sensitive information.

      As operators of the centralized biometric repository, OBIM takes on the responsibility of dealing with the security, privacy, and civil liberties implications of storing sensitive personally identifiable information (PII). It does so, in part, by applying Fair Information Practice principles to govern procedures for elements including transparency, accounting and auditing, and purpose specification.

      Other than specific databases run by law enforcement and the DoD, which it also coordinates sharing for, OBIM holds all of the U.S. government’s biometric data. It primarily serves DHS agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Border Patrol, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Citizenship and Immigration Services, as well as agencies like the Coast Guard for border entries. It performs a range of functions, including both verification and identification, and during periods when the system is less busy, such as overnight, it performs deduplication and checks latent prints found on improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or in investigations of serious crimes by the FBI, according to Nemeth.

      This enormous expansion of both the system’s scale and mandate is why OBIM is now moving forward with the development of the new HART system. IDENT is becoming obsolete.

      “It’s been stretched and band-aided and added-to in every way that people can think of, but it just can’t go any further,” Nemeth says.

      HART will add a range of capabilities, including to use a fusion of fingerprint, iris, and facial recognition modalities to improve its matching accuracy. It will also expand the scale of the system, which is desperately needed.

      “At one point about five years ago they did a couple external studies and they told me that if we ever reached 300,000 transactions a day that we would see system slowness and if we ever reached 400,000 per day, we would see the blue screen of death,” Nemeth admits.

      IDENT currently process more than 400,000 transactions in a day on occasion, after remedial action was taken by OBIM to increase its capacity. It typically serves about 350,000 requests per weekday, and a little less on the weekend, returning yes or no answers for about 99.5 percent. Nemeth says he uses more than one thousand servers and other pieces of hardware to keep the system running with brute force. That is not an efficient way to operate, however, and the demand keeps increasing with each new biometric border trial, and any other program involving a use of government biometrics.

      Increasing capacity to meet the rapid growth in demand is the main motivation for the move to HART, which will be able to serve 720,000 daily fingerprint transactions when it goes live, and can be quickly scaled. It is being launched on AWS’ Government Cloud, but is designed to be cloud-agnostic. OBIM’s database is growing by about 20 million people per year, which is also accelerating, and as additional modalities become more valuable with the addition of fusion verification, its 3 million pairs of irises may also increase. The current database is twice as large as it was seven years ago, and Nemeth says the current projections are that it will double again in the next seven.

      Some future uses of HART are likely yet to be determined, but an example of the scale that may be needed can be understood by considering the possibility that all 3 million travelers per day who pass through U.S. airports may one day need to be biometrically verified.

      Tech systems from the nineties are also inherently not able to keep up with modern technology. The programming languages and architecture of IDENT are antiquated, and require an inefficient and frustrating process not just to add capabilities, but every time a statistic is requested for analytical purposes.

      “We have to figure out what our question is, send it to our contractors, they write the script, they run it, they send it back to us, and sometimes when we look at it, that wasn’t really the question, and you have to repeat the process,” Nemeth says.

      As the number of agencies and use cases for IDENT has grown, the number of questions from system users, like everything else, has increased. Switching to HART will increase the analytical capabilities and overall flexibility of the system, which is particularly important when considering some of the privacy and security issues related to operating the world’s second largest biometric matching system. IDENT currently uses a multi-layered filtering system to return only the specific information the requesting customer is entitled to.

      “What’s unique about IDENT is because of the wide breadth of Homeland Security missions — law enforcement, information, credentialing, national security – it has kind of a complicated filtering process that we call Data Access and Security Controls,” Nemeth says. “You only get to see what your agency is permitted by law to see, and what the owner of the data has said that you can see. It’s a rather complex dance we do to make sure that we respect the privacy, the reason the information was collected, the legal protections for certain protected classes, all of those things. When we provide you the information, if you’re not allowed to see it, you don’t even know that information exists.”

      Three layers of filters screen what accounts can see data for a subject, what information they are allowed to see and what should be redacted (such as criminal history, in some cases), and an activity filter, which is attached to information by the agency that submitted it. OBIM also addresses the rights of data subjects with an extensive process of consultations and privacy impact assessments for new operations.

      “Every time somebody comes up with a new mission area, or a new application of biometrics, before we can implement that, our own privacy people need to go through it and write a privacy threat assessment,” Nemeth says. “Then, potentially, if its significant enough, they have to amend the privacy impact. Then it goes to our higher headquarters at the National Protection and Programs Directorate where they have to agree, and then finally it goes to the Department’s Privacy Office, where they have to agree that its within the scope of what we’re allowed to do.”

      Some alternately goes through inter-agency Data Access Request Committee for approval, but every new capability desired by a client agency is put in place only after it has gone through many steps and assessments, providing answers about why it is needed and how it should be delivered.

      “There are a lot of constraints on us, which is good, because lots of energetic people come up with lots of ideas and sometimes we just need to slow down a little bit and make sure that we’re properly using that information and protecting it.”

      Not only are OBIM’s efforts to protect biometric data privacy and security robust, according to Nemeth, they are also open. HART will increase the privacy protection the department can provide, he says, for instance by increasing the number and functionality of filtering layers OBIM can apply to data. The combination of privacy protections which are concerted and improving along with willingness to talk about those protections makes Nemeth frustrated with allegations among some media and public advocacy groups that HART represents a surveillance overreach on the part of the government.

      “We’re not going to tell you how to break into our system, but we’ll tell you quite a bit about it,” Nemeth says. “The privacy impact assessments and the privacy threshold analysis are available on the DHS privacy web page, along with our system of record.”

      The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warns that HART will include data collected from innocent people and questionable sources, and argues that it will provide the means for suppression of American’s rights and freedoms. Nemeth says he sympathizes with concerns over the possible erosion of privacy in digital society, and the desire to protect it. He contends that the EFF is not considering the years and painstaking processes that OBIM puts into balancing the rights of individuals to not have their data shared unnecessarily with the mandates of client agencies. He points to the Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Council as an example of the intensive oversight and review that checks the potential for misuse of biometric data.

      “The arguments that the EFF is making they’ve made several times during the fifteen-year history of IDENT, whenever there’s a new issue of the authorizing SORN and PIA, so it’s not new,” Nemeth counters. “They’ve added the facial piece to it. Essentially, they are arguing that we will violate the law.”

      The scrutiny will likely intensify, with public awareness of biometric entry/exit growing as the program rolls out. In the meantime, the number of transactions served by HART will be increasing, and OBIM will be evaluating new procedures using its new biometric capabilities. The privacy impact assessments and other checks will continue, and OBIM will continue the work of helping U.S. government agencies identify people. Nemeth stresses that that work is critically important, even as it requires the kind of extensive evaluation and scrutiny it invites.

      “We don’t retain our highly talented staff because we pay them well,” he confesses. “We retain them because they love what they’re doing and they’re making a difference for the security of the country.”

      https://www.biometricupdate.com/201809/inside-the-hart-of-the-dhs-office-of-biometric-identity-management
      #identité_biométrique

  • Réfugiés : du #Niger à la #Dordogne

    La France a adhéré en 2017 à l’#Emergency_Transit_Mechanism, programme humanitaire exceptionnel permettant à des réfugiés évacués d’urgence de #Libye (reconnus « particulièrement vulnérables ») d’être pris en charge dès le Niger, et réinstallés dans des #pays_sûrs. Comment cela passe-t-il aujourd’hui ?

    De nouveaux naufrages cette semaine au large de la Libye nous rappellent à quel point est éprouvant et risqué le périple de ceux qui tentent de rejoindre l’Europe après avoir fui leur pays. Partagée entre des élans contradictoires, compassion et peur de l’invasion, les pays de l’Union européenne ont durci leur politique migratoire, tout en assurant garantir le droit d’asile aux réfugiés. C’est ainsi que la #France a adhéré à l’Emergency Transit Mechanism (#ETM), imaginé par le #HCR fin 2017, avec une étape de transit au Niger.

    Le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les Réfugiés (HCR) réinstalle chaque années des réfugiés présents dans ses #camps (Liban, Jordanie, Tchad ou encore Niger) dans des pays dits ‘sûrs’ (en Europe et Amérique du Nord). La réinstallation est un dispositif classique du HCR pour des réfugiés « particulièrement vulnérables » qui, au vu de la situation dans leur pays, ne pourront pas y retourner.

    Au Niger, où se rend ce Grand Reportage, cette procédure est accompagnée d’un dispositif d’#évacuation_d’urgence des #prisons de Libye. L’Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) a été imaginé par le HCR fin 2017, avec une étape de #transit au Niger. Nouvelle frontière de l’Europe, pour certains, le pays participe à la #sélection entre migrants et réfugiés, les migrants étant plutôt ‘retournés’ chez eux par l’Organisation Internationale des Migrants (#OIM).

    Sur 660 000 migrants et 50 000 réfugiés (placés sous mandat HCR) présents en Libye, 6 600 personnes devraient bénéficier du programme ETM sur deux ans.

    La France s’est engagé à accueillir 10 000 réinstallés entre septembre 2017 et septembre 2019. 7 000 Syriens ont déjà été accueillis dans des communes qui se portent volontaires. 3 000 Subsahariens, dont une majorité évacués de Libye, devraient être réinstallés d’ici le mois de décembre.

    En Dordogne, où se rend ce Grand Reportage, des communes rurales ont fait le choix d’accueillir ces réfugiés souvent abîmés par les violences qu’ils ont subis. Accompagnés pendant un an par des associations mandatées par l’Etat, les réfugiés sont ensuite pris en charge par les services sociaux locaux, mais le rôle des bénévoles reste central dans leur installation en France.

    Comment tout cela se passe-t-il concrètement ? Quel est le profil des heureux élus ? Et quelle réalité les attend ? L’accompagnement correspond-il à leurs besoins ? Et parviennent-ils à s’intégrer dans ces villages français ?

    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/grand-reportage/refugies-du-niger-a-la-dordogne
    #audio #migrations #asile #réfugiés #réinstallation #vulnérabilité #retour_volontaire #IOM #expulsions #renvois #externalisation #tri #rural #ruralité #accueil
    ping @isskein @pascaline @karine4 @_kg_ @reka

    Ajouté à cette métaliste sur l’externalisation :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765335

  • Le HCR évacue des centaines de réfugiés vulnérables depuis la Libye vers des lieux en sécurité

    Dans un contexte d’affrontements violents et de détérioration de la situation sécuritaire à Tripoli, 149 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile vulnérables ont été évacués aujourd’hui vers Rome.

    Les personnes évacuées sont originaires d’Érythrée, de Somalie, du Soudan et d’Éthiopie. Parmi elles se trouvent 65 enfants, dont 13 de moins d’un an. L’un d’entre eux est né il y a tout juste deux mois.

    De nombreuses personnes évacuées ont besoin de soins médicaux et souffrent de malnutrition.

    Ce groupe avait été transféré depuis le Centre de rassemblement et de départ (GDF) qui est géré par le HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, après avoir survécu pendant des mois dans des conditions difficiles au sein de centres de détention situés dans d’autres quartiers de la ville. L’évacuation a été menée en collaboration avec les autorités libyennes et italiennes.

    « D’autres évacuations humanitaires sont nécessaires », a déclaré Jean-Paul Cavalieri, chef de mission du HCR en Libye. « Elles s’avèrent une bouée de sauvetage vitale pour les réfugiés dont la seule autre alternative est de remettre leur vie entre les mains de passeurs et de trafiquants sans scrupules pour traverser la mer Méditerranée. »

    En début de semaine, 62 réfugiés originaires de Syrie, du Soudan et de Somalie et vivant en milieu urbain ont également été évacués depuis Tripoli vers le Centre de transit d’urgence du HCR à Timisoara, en Roumanie. Ils y recevront de la nourriture, des vêtements et des soins médicaux avant de partir pour la Norvège. L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a fourni un appui pour leur transport.

    Le HCR est reconnaissant envers les Etats qui ont proposé et mis en place des lieux d’évacuation, mais les nouveaux détenus arrivent à un rythme plus rapide que les personnes sur le départ. Plus de 1000 réfugiés et migrants ont été évacués ou réinstallés hors de la Libye par le HCR en 2019. Par ailleurs, plus de 1200 autres ont été renvoyés en Libye par les garde-côtes libyens durant le seul mois de mai, après avoir été secourus ou interceptés lors d’une tentative de traversée par bateau après avoir fui la Libye.

    Les combats à Tripoli ne montrent aucun signe de ralentissement, et les risques que des détenus soient pris au piège dans les affrontements augmentent. Le HCR réitère son appel aux Etats pour qu’ils présentent d’urgence de nouvelles offres de couloirs humanitaires et de places de réinstallation pour les personnes évacuées, afin de pouvoir mettre en sécurité les réfugiés détenus en Libye.

    Plus de 83 000 Libyens ont été contraints de fuir leur foyer depuis début avril, les forces rivales continuant de s’engager dans des combats et des bombardements violents. Les administrations municipales locales et les communautés d’accueil ont joué un rôle crucial dans l’assistance aux personnes déplacées, dont beaucoup ont trouvé abri à l’intérieur des écoles ou d’autres bâtiments publics. D’autres sont hébergés chez des amis et des proches dans les villes et villages voisins.

    Le HCR a fourni une aide d’urgence et des articles de secours à plus de 9000 personnes déplacées et a fait don de matériel médical et d’ambulances aux hôpitaux par l’intermédiaire du Ministère de la santé et du Croissant-Rouge libyen.

    Selon l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), près de 600 personnes ont perdu la vie lors des récents affrontements. La semaine dernière, deux ambulanciers sont morts après avoir été pris au piège dans des bombardements. Le HCR réaffirme que le fait de prendre pour cible des civils et des travailleurs humanitaires constitue une violation du droit international et appelle à ce que tous les auteurs de ces attaques en répondent.

    https://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2019/5/5cf0d99ea/hcr-evacue-centaines-refugies-vulnerables-libye-vers-lieux-securite.html

    #évacuation #Italie #Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réinstallation #HCR

    Alors que Salvini dit que les ports sont fermés (je ne vais pas rentrer dans les détails de cela)... les aéroports semblent, eux, ouverts... même si pour une petite minorité des personnes qui auraient besoin d’être évacuées de Libye...

    ping @karine4 @isskein

    • La réponse du HCR:
      UNHCR strongly rejects widespread allegations against workforce

      The following is UNHCR’s response to media following widespread allegations made against its workforce in a recent NBC press article.

      UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, strongly rejects the widespread allegations against its workforce in a recent press article, which risks jeopardizing the future of refugees in dire need of resettlement.

      UNHCR is one of the biggest and most operational UN agencies, working in 138 countries and serving 68.5 million people. The overwhelmingly majority of our 16,000 personnel are deeply committed professionals, many of whom are working in difficult environments, sometimes risking their own safety.

      As with other organizations, we are not immune to risk or failure on the part of individuals. This is why we have a solid safeguarding structure, which has been further strengthened in the last two years, and which we continuously seek to improve.

      We are fully committed to ensuring the integrity of our programmes. Our workforce is also systematically reminded of the obligation to abide by the highest standards of conduct and to make sure that all their actions are free of any consideration of personal gain.

      Every report or allegation of fraud, corruption or retaliation against refugees by UNHCR personnel or those working for our partners, is thoroughly assessed and, if substantiated, results in disciplinary sanctions, including summary dismissal from the organization.

      Investigations at UNHCR on possible misconduct by our workforce are carried out by the Inspector General’s Office (IGO), which is an independent oversight body. It consists of expert investigators, with a strong background in law enforcement, military, war crimes tribunals or people who occupied similar functions in private companies and other international organizations. In recent years, additional investigators were recruited and some stationed in Nairobi, Pretoria and Bangkok enabling them to deploy rapidly and to have a better understanding of local contexts and issues.

      UNHCR disciplinary measures have been reinforced, with a 60% rise in the number of disciplinary actions taken by the High Commissioner between 2017 and 2018. Referrals to national authorities are undertaken systematically in cases involving conduct that may amount to criminal conduct and waivers of immunity facilitated.

      In addition, we have significantly strengthened our risk management capacity and skills in the past two years. We now have a solid network of some 300 risk officers, focal points and managers in our field operations and at HQ to help ensure that risks are properly identified and managed, that the integrity of our programmes is further enhanced and that the risk culture is reinforced across the organization.

      The prevention of fraud, including identity fraud, is key to ensuring the integrity of our resettlement programme. This is why we use biometrics in registration, including iris scans and fingerprints, in the majority of refugee operations where we operate, including Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda. Biometric registration makes theft of identity virtually impossible and biometric screening of refugees is done at various stages of the resettlement process, including right before departure. In other places, such as Libya and Yemen, where security conditions do not allow us to deploy such a tool, we take all possible preventive measures related to fraud.

      We are acutely aware that refugees are at times approached by people trying to defraud them. For example, reports and investigations have found multiple occasions where people pose as UNHCR officials, using fake ID cards and claiming that they can influence the resettlement process. While it is impossible for UNHCR to root out ground level imposters, we have taken renewed action to raise awareness among refugees, help them recognize and report fraudsters, reminding them that all services provided by UNHCR and its partners are free.

      Resettlement is highly sought after by refugees. UNHCR considered 1.2 million people to have resettlement needs in 2018 alone, while less than 60,000 people were resettled last year. In 2019, those needs further increased. The fact that the needs for resettlement are far greater than the places available is a factor that weighs heavily in favor of those wishing to exploit desperate refugees, many of whom have lived many years in refugee camps, with no foreseeable end to their plight in sight for themselves or their children.

      UNHCR strives to ensure that refugees have proper means to provide feedback. This is essential to ensure their protection and the very reason why we completed last year a survey across 41 countries. We are using the information on the communication systems most commonly used by our beneficiaries – such as complaint boxes, hotlines, emails, social media and face to face interaction – and existing challenges to strengthen these mechanisms. In Kenya, for instance, refugees can report misconduct of any staff member of UNHCR, a partner or a contractor by email (inspector@unhcr.org or helpline.kenya@unhcr.org), by filling in a webform (www.unhcr.org/php/complaints.php), by using complaints boxes that are available at all UNHCR offices or by calling our toll-free local Helpline (800720063).

      UNHCR recognizes its responsibility to protect refugees, particularly those who come forward and cooperate with an investigation to root out misconduct. Significant attention has been devoted to strengthening measures to protect witnesses and people of concern who cooperate with an IGO investigation and these efforts are continuing. We have put a specific protocol in place, with steps taken during the investigation phase, including in the conduct of interviews, the anonymization of testimony and redaction of investigative findings and reports.

      When it comes to our own staff being targeted, our record is clear: If a staff member is found to have retaliated against another member of our workforce for reporting wrongdoing, it leads to dismissal. We have a robust policy to protect staff members that are retaliated against. In September 2018, we issued a new policy on Protection against Retaliation, which now includes our affiliate workforce, expands the scope of the activities considered as protected and extends the timeline to report. It also provides interim measures to safeguard the interests of the complainant and strengthens corrective measures.

      We also launched a confidential independent helpline available to all colleagues who wish to report misconduct or obtain advice on what to do when in doubt. This helpline is managed by an external provider and is available 24/7 by phone, through a web form and an app. It offers the possibility to report in complete anonymity.

      We are committed to eradicating misconduct from our organization. If we receive pertinent information concerning alleged fraud, corruption or misconduct by a member of our workforce, we take action, and if the allegations are substantiated, act to end such inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour. UNHCR encourages anyone, including refugees and journalists, with information about suspected fraud or other wrongdoing to contact its Inspector General’s Office without delay at http://www.unhcr.org/inspector-generals-office.html.

      https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/4/5ca8a2594/unhcr-strongly-rejects-widespread-allegations-against-workforce.html

  • Driven to suicide in Tunisia’s UNHCR refugee shelter

    Lack of adequate care and #frustration over absence of resettlement plans prompt attempted suicides, refugees say.

    Last Monday night, 16-year-old Nato* slit his wrists and was rushed to the local hospital in Medenine.

    He had decided to end his life in a refugee facility run by the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, in Medenine. After running for two years, escaping Eritrea and near-certain conscription into the country’s army, making it through Sudan, Egypt and Libya, he had reached Tunisia and despair.

    A few days later, Nato was transferred to a psychiatric hospital in #Sfax, 210km north of Medenine, where he was kept on lockdown and was frustrated that he was not able to communicate with anyone in the facility.

    Nato’s isn’t the only story of despair among refugees in Tunisia. A female refugee was taken to hospital after drinking bleach, while a 16-year-old unaccompanied young girl tried to escape over the borders to Libya, but was stopped at Ben Gardane.

    “I’m not surprised by what has happened to Nato,” a 16-year-old at the UNHCR facility told Al Jazeera on the condition of anonymity.

    “They just keep us here without providing any support and after we ... witnessed killings of our friends. We feel completely abandoned. We don’t feel secure and protected,” he said.

    The 30 to 35 unaccompanied minors living in UNHCR’s reception facility in Medenine share a room, spending their days remembering past images of violence and abuse.

    “I cannot get out of my mind the picture of my friend dying after they pointed a gun at his temple. He was sitting next to me. Sometimes at night, I cannot sleep,” the 16-year-old said.
    ’They’re trying to hide us here’

    The UNHCR facility in Medenine struggles to offer essential services to a growing number of arrivals.

    According to the information given to Al Jazeera, the asylum seekers and refugees have not received medical screenings or access to psychosocial support, nor were they informed clearly of their rights in Tunisia.

    “We feel they are trying to hide us here,” said Amin*. “How can we say we are safe if UNHCR is not protecting our basic rights? If we are here left without options, we will try to cross the sea.”

    Amin, 19, has no vision of what his life will be. He would like to continue his education or learn a new language but, since his arrival, he has only promises and hopes, no plans.

    The young people here find themselves having to take care of themselves and navigate the questions of what their future will be like, at times without even being able to reach out to their families back home for comfort.

    “My parents are in Eritrea and since more than a year, I was able to speak with them only for three minutes,” said Senait*, a 15-year-old boy from Eritrea.

    Aaron*, a 16-year-old boy who has been on the road for three years and three months, has not been able to call his relatives at all since his arrival in Tunisia.

    “Last time I have contacted them was in 2016 while I was in Sudan. I miss them so much,” he said.

    Last week, many of them participated in a peaceful demonstration, demanding medical care, support from the UNHCR and resettlement to third countries.

    Refugee lives in suspension

    Nato, as well as a number of refugee minors Al Jazeera spoke to, arrived in Tunisia over the Libyan border with the help of smugglers. The same is true for hundreds of refugees escaping Libya.

    Tunisia registered more than 1,000 refugees and 350 asylum seekers, mainly from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia.

    But the country has neither the capacity nor the means to host refugees, and because it doesn’t have a coherent asylum system, the refugees find themselves living a largely suspended life.

    Officially, refugees are not allowed to work and, therefore, there is no formal system of protection for those that do work.

    Awate*, a 24-year-old man from Eritrea, had been working for nine days in a hotel in the seaside city of Zarzis when he was arrested and brought to a police station where he was interrogated for 30 minutes.

    “They told me ’why are you going to work without passport?’,” he said, adding that he has not worked since.

    The UNHCR in Tunisia is pushing alternatives, which include enhancing refugees’ self-reliance and livelihood opportunities.

    A month ago, a group of 32 people moved out of the reception centre with an offer of a monthly payment of 350 Tunisian dinars ($116) and help to find private accommodation. Among them, nine decided to go to the capital, Tunis. The plan is confirmed for three months, with no clarity on what happens next.

    Aklilu*, a 36-year-old former child soldier from Eritrea who took up the offer, is now renting a small apartment on the main road to Djerba for 250 Tunisian dinars ($83).

    “Why should I be forced to settle in a country that’s not ready to host refugees?” he said. “They are thinking of Tunisia as the final destination but there are no conditions for it. The UNHCR is not making any effort to integrate us. We don’t get any language courses or technical training.”


    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/driven-suicide-tunisia-unhcr-refugee-shelter-190319052430125.html
    #Tunisie #HCR #UNHCR #camps_de_réfugiés #suicide #réinstallation #limbe #attente #transit #trauma #traumatisme #santé_mentale #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés #migrations #asile #réfugiés
    ping @_kg_

  • The President Has Mostly Wiped out US Refugee Resettlement. Other Countries Aren’t Picking up the Slack.

    The lead White House official for immigration policy, Stephen Miller, is quoted as seeking to end all refugee resettlement in the United States. This has caused an uproar. But few appear to realize that the U.S. President, at Miller’s direction, is already most of the way there—and that this policy in the US has big implications for the rest of the world, especially if other countries fail to step up and fill the growing gap.

    A look at the UN Refugee Agency’s data shows:

    The current Administration has already eliminated three quarters of refugee arrivals

    Due to the President’s policy, so far there are about 87,000 refugees “missing” from the US.

    Other countries are not resettling more refugees to substantially offset the US decline

    The US Administration has eliminated almost half of the world’s total resettlement spots for refugees

    Here is how I arrive at those rough estimates. First, I need a way of approximately estimating how many refugees would have been resettled in the US if not for the current administration. After all, if refugee arrivals fell, that could be because fewer people needed resettlement.

    To do that, I use refugee resettlement to the rest of the world, after 2016, to build an estimate of how many refugees would have arrived in the US after 2016 if it had continued to receive refugees as it had before. In the years 2008–2016, refugee arrivals in the US moved in tandem with arrivals in other countries: A year-to-year change of 1 in the number of resettled refugees arriving in a non-US country was associated with a year-to-year change of 1.82 refugees arriving in the U.S. in that year. And the number of refugees being resettled by non-US countries did fall somewhat after 2016. If the US numbers had fallen in tandem, according to the pre-2016 pattern, US refugee resettlement would have fallen even without a change in US policy.

    This graph shows the actual number of resettled refugees to the US, in solid red, and to all other countries in solid green, in UN data. Between 2016 and 2018, refugee resettlement to the US fell by 61,648, and resettlement to other countries fell by 8,948. The dotted red line shows how much US resettlement would have fallen if its decline after 2016 had been proportionate to the non-US decline, following the pre-2016 pattern. US resettlement would only have fallen by 16,264.

    This allows some back-of-the-envelope calculations of the magnitude of the US Administration’s change in policy. First, this means that in 2018, US refugee resettlement was down 73% from what it might have been if the US Administration had not sharply changed policy. That is a great deal of progress toward Miller’s reported goal of eliminating the program. In 2017 the difference between the solid red and dotted red lines was 41,515 refugees, and in 2018 the difference was an additional 45,384. Bottom line: By the end of 2018, there were a total of 86,899 refugees “missing” from the United States: people who would have received protection in America if the US Administration had not closed its doors.

    Second, it means that other countries are not stepping in to resettle refugees who have been barred from the United States by the current Administration. It is possible that they are doing so in some measure: In the above graph, it is possible that the green line would have fallen even further if the US had not sharply changed policy. But what is clear is that the large majority of those barred from resettlement to the US are not being resettled elsewhere. They simply aren’t being resettled at all.

    Third, this back-of-the-envelope estimate implies that the US change in policy is singlehandedly responsible for eliminating about half of the world’s refugee resettlement spots. Combining the total actual resettlement by non-US countries with the hypothetical resettlement by the US, total resettlement by the whole world is down 45% from what it would have been if not for the US Administration’s sharp change in policy. The US has singlehandedly eliminated about half of the annual refugee resettlement slots on earth.

    Something to watch for in 2019: How will the rest of the world respond? Will it accept the de-facto elimination of most refugee resettlement, or pressure the US to alter its course, or increase its own resettlement in response?

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/president-has-mostly-wiped-out-us-refugee-resettlement-other-countries-arent-
    #resettlement #réinstallation #asile migrations #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis #chiffres #statistiques #Trump

  • Au Niger, la France donne l’asile à des migrants rescapés des geôles libiennes

    Début décembre, une mission de l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides s’est délocalisée au #Niger pour examiner la situation d’environ 200 demandeurs d’asile.

    « Vous pouvez sourire ! » Cela fait une heure que Jemal raconte pourquoi il a quitté son pays, l’Erythrée, il y a quatre ans. La mort de sa mère, son père infirme, lui travaillant dans les mines d’or, la « discrimination » subie par la communauté protestante dont il fait partie, la peur d’être enrôlé de force dans l’armée… Et puis sa fuite en Ethiopie. L’attente près de deux ans dans un camp de réfugiés, puis le passage au Soudan. Il détaille comment il a été vendu par un passeur à un autre et son arrivée en Libye. Les mois de détention, la torture, par l’eau, les câbles électriques… « Souriez », répète, encourageant, l’officier de protection français. Il a placé son appareil à bonne hauteur pour tirer le portrait du demandeur d’asile. Il ne lui manque plus que cette photo d’identité pour compléter le dossier. Jemal (tous les prénoms des demandeurs d’asile ont été modifiés) a 21 ans et il voudrait obtenir la protection de la France.
    En ce début du mois de décembre, dans l’exiguïté des petits préfabriqués d’une antenne du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) à Niamey, au Niger, ils sont autour de 200, parmi lesquels une très grande majorité d’hommes érythréens, à passer des entretiens avec des agents français. C’est la sixième mission effectuée depuis un an au Niger par l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (Ofpra).
    Ce dispositif singulier de délocalisation de l’examen de la demande d’asile au Sahel est le fruit d’un engagement du président de la République. Le 9 octobre 2017, Emmanuel Macron s’était ainsi positionné pour accueillir, d’ici à octobre 2019, 10 000 réfugiés dans le cadre des programmes de réinstallation, dont 3 000 en provenance du Niger et du Tchad. La spécificité du Niger est qu’il reçoit des migrants évacués de Libye, après qu’ils ont été identifiés par le HCR dans des centres de détention, principalement à Tripoli.
    Horreur de la Libye
    « Même si notre mission de protection est limitée, j’y tiens beaucoup car elle permet de prendre en charge des gens très vulnérables », défendait Pascal Brice, directeur de l’Ofpra, jusqu’à fin décembre. Dans un contexte où, depuis un an, le taux de mortalité en Méditerranée centrale a plus que doublé pour les migrants qui tentent de la traverser, elle est aussi un moyen « d’éviter des drames », appuie Sophie Pegliasco, directrice de cabinet de l’Ofpra.
    Rapportés au nombre de personnes qui restent bloquées dans le pays, les quelque 2 700 migrants évacués de Libye depuis un an vers douze pays d’accueil en Occident demeurent une goutte d’eau. Près de 58 000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile sont enregistrés par le HCR dans le pays mais l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) des Nations unies estime à près de 700 000 le nombre de migrants présents, dont un nombre indéterminé est détenu dans des prisons sauvages, aux mains de passeurs ou de milices. Une partie de ces migrants ont pour projet de gagner l’Europe. Mais, résultat d’unesérie de mesures adoptées par l’Union européenne depuis fin 2016, l’itinéraire migratoire à travers la Méditerranée centrale s’est refermé et les arrivées en Europe depuis la Libye sont en chute libre, passées de près de 120 000 en 2017 à moins de 25 000 en 2018.
    Au fil des entretiens entre les officiers de protection et les demandeurs d’asile, auquel Le Monde a pu assister, c’est d’ailleurs l’horreur de la Libye qui est reconstituée. Ali a failli ne pas en réchapper. Comme de nombreux jeunes Erythréens, il a fui son pays notamment pour ne pas être soumis au service militaire obligatoire à durée indéterminée. Le jeune homme aurait voulu rester en Ethiopie, dans le camp de réfugiés où il a d’abord atterri. Mais porteur d’un projet de vie qui dépasse sa simple personne, « [ses] frères n’ont pas accepté », avoue-t-il. Sa famille débourse 1 700 dollars pour qu’il gagne le Soudan. Comme d’autres avant lui, Ali tombe aussitôt dans un trafic d’êtres humains. Il dit avoir été kidnappé et revendu à un Soudanais, un certain Aziz, qui détient plusieurs hangars en Libye, où les migrants sont reclus et rackettés.

    Aziz, Kidani, Mohamed… Dans les récits des personnes rescapées de Libye, « il y a des noms qui reviennent, souligne Vincent (qui a requis l’anonymat), chef de la mission Ofpra au Niger. Ce sont des gens qui souvent travaillent pour des Libyens dans des hangars où ils font régner la terreur. Cela donne l’impression d’une structuration du système. Compte tenu de l’argent en jeu, c’est logique ». Le rançonnage y est en effet systématisé. Dans le cas d’Ali, le passeur réclame 6 000 dollars en échange d’une libération et d’une traversée de la Méditerranée. Le jeune Erythréen passe six mois en détention. Il est battu, jusqu’à ce que sa famille lui transfère l’argent.
    Prisons sauvages
    Qu’ils parviennent ou non à réunir les sommes exigées, le sort des détenus demeure très aléatoire. Kidane, un Erythréen de 20 ans, également entendu par l’Ofpra, raconte au Monde les cinq mois qu’il a passés dans l’une des prisons sauvages de Beni Oualid, une commune sur la route vers le littoral libyen. « C’est le foyer des passeurs, dit-il. Ils font ce qu’ils veulent. Ils te frappent à coups de bâtons, ils te déshabillent et te jettent dans l’eau… Certains migrants restent enfermés un ou deux ans. D’autres meurent de faim parce qu’ils n’ont pas d’argent. Et même si tu paies, tu n’as aucune garantie d’être libéré. » La famille de Kidane aurait déboursé 4 000 dollars à deux reprises et en vain. Il a fini par réussir à s’échapper. Beaucoup des migrants entendus par la France au Niger ont tenté la traversée de la Méditerranée. Ali a été intercepté en mer par les garde-côtes libyens. Moussa, un Erythréen de 28 ans, aussi. Il a alors été envoyé dans un centre de détention « officiel » à Tripoli. C’est là qu’il sera repéré par le HCR, au bout de cinq mois. L’agence des Nations unies a conclu un accord avec les autorités libyennes pour pouvoir organiser des évacuations du pays depuis les centres gérés par le gouvernement où sont actuellement détenues environ 5 000 personnes.
    Kidane s’est rendu à l’un d’eux, de son plein gré, justement dans l’espoir d’être identifié par le HCR et de quitter la Libye. Il a attendu des mois, avec un millier d’autres migrants, réunis dans une seule et même pièce. « Même si j’ignorais ce qui allait se passer, au moins on ne me demandait pas d’argent. Je n’en pouvais plus d’être kidnappé par les passeurs et torturé. »
    « Dormir et attendre »
    Après l’exfiltration de la Libye, l’attente est longue encore. Moussa est arrivé au Niger en mai. Dans le centre du HCR où il est logé, « on ne fait que dormir et attendre », résume-t-il. Sur les 1 500 personnes que la France doit réinstaller depuis le pays d’ici à fin 2019, seules 352 sont déjà arrivées sur le territoire. Outre les migrants évacués de Libye, l’Ofpra auditionne aussi à Niamey des demandeurs d’asile identifiés par le HCR au Niger. A l’image de Bintou, une femme malienne arrivée en 2012, fuyant la région de Gao, dans le nord du Mali, où son village a été le théâtre de combats entre les djihadistes du Mujao et les Touareg du MNLA. Son « plus grand souhait » est d’être choisie par la France.
    Le Niger, pays parmi les plus pauvres du globe, accueille près de 60 000 réfugiés maliens qui ont fui comme Bintou le nord du pays en 2012 et près de 120 000 réfugiés nigérians qui ont fui Boko Haram à partir de 2013. Si les missions de réinstallation pilotées par le HCR sont aussi l’occasion de faire partir quelques poignées de ces réfugiés, parmi les plus vulnérables, elles génèrent par ailleurs des effets plus inattendus.
    Il y a un peu plus d’un an, au moment où le programme de réinstallation était lancé, un groupe d’environ 2 000 Soudanais originaires du Darfour est arrivé à Agadez, dans le nord du Niger. La plupart étaient descendus directement de Libye, où ils avaient transité après de longues années dans des camps de réfugiés au Tchad ou au Soudan. Certains observateurs voient dans ce mouvement un effet d’« appel d’air » créé par les missions de réinstallation, ce que dément le HCR sur place. Début décembre, plusieurs dizaines de ces réfugiés soudanais ont pourtant manifesté et organisé pendant plusieurs jours un sit-in devant les bureaux du HCR à Niamey. Ils réclamaient d’être eux aussi réinstallés en Europe ou en Amérique. Un projet qui n’est pas au programme.
    –-----------------
    Programmes de #réinstallation
    Depuis novembre 2017, douze pays occidentaux, parmi ­lesquels la France, la Belgique, le Canada et la Finlande, participent au Niger à un programme de réinstallation de réfugiés évacués par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) des centres de détention du gouvernement libyen. Ces Etats ont promis d’accorder l’asile à près de 5 500 migrants au total. Emmanuel ­Macron s’est engagé à accueillir en France, d’ici à la fin de l’année 2019, 10 000 réfugiés, dans le cadre des programmes de réinstallation depuis des pays du Sahel et du Proche-Orient. Parmi eux, 1 500 seront réinstallés depuis le Niger, dont une partie ayant été évacués de Libye.
    En Libye, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a identifié près de 700 000 migrants. Certains d’entre eux ­seulement souhaitent gagner l’Europe. En 2018, l’OIM a rapatrié plus de 16 000 migrants de Libye vers leurs pays d’origine au moyen d’un programme d’aide au retour volontaire.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2019/01/05/au-niger-la-france-donne-l-asile-a-des-migrants-rescapes-de-libye_5405385_32
    #OFPRA #asile #migrations #externalisation #procédure_d'asile #réfugiés #France #délocalisation

  • #Every_Campus_A_Refuge. A Small College’s Engagement with Refugee Resettlement

    Every Campus A Refuge is a novel initiative whereby college campuses provide housing and support to refugees navigating the resettlement process in the United States. This article details the founding and development of the Every Campus A Refuge initiative, particularly as it has been implemented at #Guilford_College, a small liberal arts college in North Carolina. It also details how Guilford College faculty and students are engaging in a multifaceted research study to document the resettlement experiences of refugee families who participate in Every Campus A Refuge and to determine the efficacy of the program in providing a “soft er landing” for refugees. Overall, this article aims to provide a detailed account of Every Campus A Refuge so as to show how such a program may be implemented at other college campuses.

    https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/migration-and-society/1/1/arms010112.xml
    #USA #Etats-Unis #université #réfugiés #asile #migrations #solidarité
    #réinstallation

  • Das Geschäft mit den Flüchtlingen - Endstation Libyen

    Wenn sie aufgegeben haben, besteigen sie die Flugzeuge. Die Internationale Organisation für Migration (IOM) transportiert verzweifelte Flüchtlinge und Migranten zurück in ihre Heimatländer – den Senegal, Niger oder Nigeria. Es ist die Rettung vor dem sicheren Tod und gleichzeitig ein Flug zurück in die Hoffnungslosigkeit.

    Flug in die Hoffnungslosigkeit (picture-alliance / dpa / Julian Stratenschulte)

    Für die Menschen, die Tausende Kilometer nach Libyen gereist sind, um nach Europa überzusetzen, wird die EU-Grenzsicherung zunehmend zur Falle. Denn die Schleuser in Libyen haben ihr Geschäftsmodell geändert: Nun verhindern sie die Überfahrt, kassieren dafür von der EU und verkaufen die Migranten als Sklaven.

    Die Rückkehrer sind die einzigen Zeugen der Sklaverei. Alexander Bühler hat sich ihre Geschichten erzählen lassen.

    Endstation Libyen
    Das Geschäft mit den Flüchtlingen
    Von Alexander Bühler

    Regie : Thomas Wolfertz
    Es sprachen : Sigrid Burkholder, Justine Hauer, Hüseyin Michael Cirpici, Daniel Berger, Jonas Baeck und Florian Seigerschmidt
    Ton und Technik : Ernst Hartmann und Caroline Thon
    Redaktion : Wolfgang Schiller
    Produktion : Dlf/RBB 2018

    Alexander Bühler hat in Gebieten wie Syrien, Libyen, Haiti, dem Kongo und Kolumbien gearbeitet und von dort u.a. über Drogen, Waffen- und Menschenhandel berichtet. 2016 erhielt er den Deutschen Menschenrechtsfilmpreis in der Kategorie Magazinbeiträge, 2018 den Sonderpreis der Premios Ondas.

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/das-geschaeft-mit-den-fluechtlingen-endstation-libyen.3720.de.

    #migrations #UE #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #désert #Sahara #Libye #gardes-côtes_libyens #Tunisie #Niger #OIM (#IOM) #évacuation #retour_volontaire #réinstallation #Côte_d'Ivoire #traite #traite_d'êtres_humains #esclavage #marchandise_humaine #viol #trauma #traumatisme #audio #interview #Dlf

    @cdb_77, j’ai trouvé la super !!! métaliste sur :
    externalisation, contrôles_frontaliers, frontières, migrations, réfugiés...juste que ce reportage parle de tellement de sujets que j’arrive pas à choisir le fil - peut-être ajouter en bas de la métaliste ? Mais le but n’est pas de faire une métaliste pour ajouter des commentaires non ? En tout cas c’est très bien fait cette reportage je trouve ! ...un peu dommage que c’est en allemand...

  • Detainees Evacuated out of Libya but Resettlement Capacity Remains Inadequate

    According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (#UNHCR) 262 migrants detained in Libya were evacuated to Niger on November 12- the largest evacuation from Libya carried out to date. In addition to a successful airlift of 135 people in October this year, this brings the total number of people evacuated to more than 2000 since December 2017. However Amnesty International describes the resettlement process from Niger as slow and the number of pledges inadequate.

    The evacuations in October and November were the first since June when the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) centre in Niger reached its full capacity of 1,536 people, which according to Amnesty was a result of a large number of people “still waiting for their permanent resettlement to a third country.”

    57,483 refugees and asylum seekers are registered by UNHCR in Libya; as of October 2018 14,349 had agreed to Voluntary Humanitarian Return. Currently 3,886 resettlement pledges have been made by 12 states, but only 1,140 have been resettled.

    14,595 people have been intercepted by the Libyan coast guard and taken back to Libya, however it has been well documented that their return is being met by detention, abuse, violence and torture. UNHCR recently declared Libya unsafe for returns amid increased violence in the capital, while Amnesty International has said that “thousands of men, women and children are trapped in Libya facing horrific abuses with no way out”.

    In this context, refugees and migrants are currently refusing to disembark in Misrata after being rescued by a cargo ship on November 12, reportedly saying “they would rather die than be returned to land”. Reuters cited one Sudanese teenager on board who stated “We agree to go to any place but not Libya.”

    UNHCR estimates that 5,413 refugees and migrants remain detained in #Directorate_for_Combatting_Illegal_Migration (#DCIM) centres and the UN Refugee Agency have repetedly called for additional resettlement opportunities for vulnerable persons of concern in Libya.

    https://www.ecre.org/detainees-evacuated-out-of-libya-but-resettlement-capacity-remains-inadequate
    #réinstallation #Niger #Libye #évacuation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #HCR #détention #centres_de_détention #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism (#ETM)

    • ET DES INFORMATIONS PLUS ANCIENNES DANS LE FIL CI-DESSOUS

      Libya: evacuations to Niger resumed – returns from Niger begun

      After being temporarily suspended in March as the result of concerns from local authorities on the pace of resettlement out of Niger, UNHCR evacuations of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from Libya through the Emergency Transit Mechanism has been resumed and 132 vulnerable migrants flown to the country. At the same time the deportation of 132 Sudanese nationals from Niger to Libya has raised international concern.

      Niger is the main host for refugees and asylum seekers from Libya evacuated by UNHCR. Since the UN Refugee Agency began evacuations in cooperation with EU and Libyan authorities in November 2017, Niger has received 1,152 of the 1,474 people evacuated in total. While UNHCR has submitted 475 persons for resettlement a modest 108 in total have been resettled in Europe. According to UNHCR the government in Niger has now offered to host an additional 1,500 refugees from Libya through the Emergency Transit Mechanism and upon its revival and the first transfer of 132 refugees to Niger, UNHCR’s Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation, Vincent Cochetel stated: “We now urgently need to find resettlement solutions for these refugees in other countries.”

      UNHCR has confirmed the forced return by authorities in Niger of at least 132 of a group of 160 Sudanese nationals arrested in the migrant hub of Agadez, the majority after fleeing harsh conditions in Libya. Agadez is known as a major transit hub for refugees and asylum seekers seeking passage to Libya and Europe but the trend is reversed and 1,700 Sudanese nationals have fled from Libya to Niger since December 2017. In a mail to IRIN News, Human Rights Watch’s associate director for Europe and Central Asia, Judith Sunderland states: “It is inhuman and unlawful to send migrants and refugees back to Libya, where they face shocking levels of torture, sexual violence, and forced labour,” with reference to the principle of non-refoulement.

      According to a statement released by Amnesty International on May 16: “At least 7,000 migrants and refugees are languishing in Libyan detention centres where abuse is rife and food and water in short supply. This is a sharp increase from March when there were 4,400 detained migrants and refugees, according to Libyan officials.”

      https://www.ecre.org/libya-evacuations-to-niger-resumed-returns-from-niger-begun

    • Libya: return operations running but slow resettlement is jeopardizing the evacuation scheme

      According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 15.000 migrants have been returned from Libya to their country of origin and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has assisted in the evacuation of more than 1,300 refugees from Libya thereby fulfilling the targets announced at the AU-EU-UN Taskforce meeting in December 2017. However, a modest 25 of the more than 1000 migrants evacuated to Niger have been resettled to Europe and the slow pace is jeopardizing further evacuations.

      More than 1000 of the 1300 migrants evacuated from Libya are hosted by Niger and Karmen Sakhr, who oversees the North Africa unit at the UNHCR states to the EU Observer that the organisation: “were advised that until more people leave Niger, we will no longer be able to evacuate additional cases from Libya.”

      During a meeting on Monday 5 March with the Civil Liberties Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs, members of the Delegation for relations with Maghreb countries, Commission and External Action Service representatives on the mistreatment of migrants and refugees in Libya, and arrangements for their resettlement or return, UNHCR confirmed that pledges have been made by France, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Malta as well as unspecified non-EU countries but that security approvals and interviewing process of the cases is lengthy resulting in the modest number of resettlements, while also warning that the EU member states need to put more work into resettlement of refugees, and that resettlement pledges still fall short of the needs. According to UNHCR 430 pledges has been made by European countries.

      An estimated 5000 people are in government detention and an unknown number held by private militias under well documented extreme conditions.

      https://www.ecre.org/libya-return-operations-running-but-slow-resettlement-is-jeopardizing-the-evac

    • Libya: migrants and refugees out by plane and in by boat

      The joint European Union (EU), African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN) Task Force visited Tripoli last week welcoming progress made evacuating and returning migrants and refugees out of Libya. EU has announced three new programmes, for protecting migrants and refugees in Libya and along the Central Mediterranean Route, and their return and reintegration. Bundestag Research Services and NGOs raise concerns over EU and Member State support to Libyan Coast Guard.

      Representatives of the Task Force, created in November 2017, met with Libyan authorities last week and visited a detention centres for migrants and a shelter for internally displaced people in Tripoli. Whilst they commended progress on Voluntary Humanitarian Returns, they outlined a number of areas for improvement. These include: comprehensive registration of migrants at disembarkation points and detention centres; improving detention centre conditions- with a view to end the current system of arbitrary detention; decriminalizing irregular migration in Libya.

      The three new programmes announced on Monday, will be part of the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. €115 million will go towards evacuating 3,800 refugees from Libya, providing protection and voluntary humanitarian return to 15,000 migrants in Libya and will support the resettlement of 14,000 people in need of international protection from Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. €20 million will be dedicated to improving access to social and protection services for vulnerable migrants in transit countries in the Sahel region and the Lake Chad basin. €15 million will go to supporting sustainable reintegration for Ethiopian citizens.

      A recent report by the Bundestag Research Services on SAR operations in the Mediterranean notes the support for the Libyan Coast Guard by EU and Member States in bringing refugees and migrants back to Libya may be violating the principle of non-refoulement as outlined in the Geneva Convention: “This cooperation must be the subject of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, because the people who are being forcibly returned with the assistance of the EU are being inhumanely treated, tortured or killed.” stated Andrej Hunko, European policy spokesman for the German Left Party (die Linke). A joint statement released by SAR NGO’s operating in the Mediterranean calls on the EU institutions and leaders to stop the financing and support of the Libyan Coast Guard and the readmissions to a third country which violates fundamental human rights and international law.

      According to UNHCR, there are currently 46,730 registered refugees and asylum seekers in Libya. 843 asylum seekers and refugees have been released from detention so far in 2018. According to IOM 9,379 people have been returned to their countries of origin since November 2017 and 1,211 have been evacuated to Niger since December 2017.

      https://www.ecre.org/libya-migrants-and-refugees-out-by-plane-and-in-by-boat

      Complément de Emmanuel Blanchard (via la mailing-list Migreurop):

      Selon le HCR, il y aurait actuellement environ 6000 personnes détenues dans des camps en Libye et qui seraient en attente de retour ou de protection (la distinction n’est pas toujours très claire dans la prose du HCR sur les personnes à « évacuer » vers le HCR...). Ces données statistiques sont très fragiles et a priori très sous-estimées car fondées sur les seuls camps auxquels le HCR a accès.

    • First group of refugees evacuated from new departure facility in Libya

      UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, in coordination with Libyan authorities, evacuated 133 refugees from Libya to Niger today after hosting them at a Gathering and Departure Facility (GDF) in Tripoli which opened on Tuesday.

      Most evacuees, including 81 women and children, were previously detained in Libya. After securing their release from five detention centres across Libya, including in Tripoli and areas as far as 180 kilometres from the capital, they were sheltered at the GDF until the arrangements for their evacuation were concluded.

      The GDF is the first centre of its kind in Libya and is intended to bring vulnerable refugees to a safe environment while solutions including refugee resettlement, family reunification, evacuation to emergency facilities in other countries, return to a country of previous asylum, and voluntary repatriation are sought for them.

      “The opening of this centre, in very difficult circumstances, has the potential to save lives. It offers immediate protection and safety for vulnerable refugees in need of urgent evacuation, and is an alternative to detention for hundreds of refugees currently trapped in Libya,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi.

      The centre is managed by the Libyan Ministry of Interior, UNHCR and UNHCR’s partner LibAid. The initiative is one of a range of measures needed to offer viable alternatives to the dangerous boat journeys undertaken by refugees and migrants along the Central Mediterranean route.

      With an estimated 4,900 refugees and migrants held in detention centres across Libya, including 3,600 in need of international protection, the centre is a critical alternative to the detention of those most vulnerable.

      The centre, which has been supported by the EU and other donors, has a capacity to shelter up to 1,000 vulnerable refugees identified for solutions out of Libya.

      At the facility, UNHCR and partners are providing humanitarian assistance such as accommodation, food, medical care and psychosocial support. Child friendly spaces and dedicated protection staff are also available to ensure that refugees and asylum-seekers are adequately cared for.

      https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2018/12/5c09033a4/first-group-refugees-evacuated-new-departure-facility-libya.html

    • Migration : à Niamey, des migrants rapatriés de Libye protestent contre leurs conditions de séjour

      Les manifestants protestent contre leur détention de vie qu’ils jugent « déplorables » et pour amplifier leurs mouvements, ils ont brandi des pancartes sur lesquelles ils ont écrit leurs doléances. Les migrants manifestant s’indignent également de leur séjour qui ne cesse de se prolonger, sans véritable alternatives ou visibilité sur leur situation. « Ils nous ont ramené de la Libye pour nous laisser à nous-mêmes ici », « on ne veut pas rester ici, laisser nous partir là où on veut », sont entre autres les slogans que les migrants ont scandés au cours de leur sit-in devant les locaux de l’agence onusienne. Plusieurs des protestataires sont venus à la manifestation avec leurs bagages et d’autres avec leurs différents papiers, qui attestent de leur situation de réfugiés ou demandeurs d’asiles.

      La situation, quoique déplorable, n’a pas manqué de susciter divers commentaires. Il faut dire que depuis le début de l’opération de rapatriement des migrants en détresse de Libye, ils sont des centaines à vivre dans la capitale mais aussi à Agadez où des centres d’accueil sont mis à leurs dispositions par les agences onusiennes (UNHCR, OIM), avec la collaboration des autorités nigériennes. Un certain temps, leur présence de plus en plus massive dans divers quartiers de la capitale où des villas sont mises à leur disposition, a commencé à inquiéter les habitants sur d’éventuels risques sécuritaires.

      Le gouvernement a signé plusieurs accords et adopté des lois pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine. Il a aussi signé des engagements avec certains pays européens notamment la France et l’Italie, pour l’accueil temporaire des réfugiés en provenance de la Libye et en transit en attendant leur réinstallation dans leur pays ou en Europe pour ceux qui arrivent à obtenir le sésame pour l’entrée. Un geste de solidarité décrié par certaines ONG et que les autorités regrettent presque à demi-mot, du fait du non-respect des contreparties financières promises par les bailleurs et partenaires européens. Le pays fait face lui-même à un afflux de réfugiés nigérians et maliens sur son territoire, ainsi que des déplacés internes dans plusieurs régions, ce qui complique davantage la tâche dans cette affaire de difficile gestion de la problématique migratoire.

      Le Niger accueille plusieurs centres d’accueil pour les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asiles rapatriés de Libye. Le 10 décembre dernier, l’OFPRA français a par exemple annoncé avoir achevé une nouvelle mission au Niger avec l’UNHCR, et qui a concerné 200 personnes parmi lesquelles une centaine évacuée de Libye. En novembre dernier, le HCR a également annoncé avoir repris les évacuations de migrants depuis la Libye, avec un contingent de 132 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asiles vers le Niger.

      Depuis novembre 2017, le HCR a assuré avoir effectué vingt-trois (23) opérations d’évacuation au départ de la Libye et ce, « malgré d’importants problèmes de sécurité et les restrictions aux déplacements qui ont été imposées ». En tout, ce sont 2.476 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile vulnérables qui ont pu être libérés et acheminés de la Libye vers le Niger (2.069), l’Italie (312) et la Roumanie (95).


      https://www.actuniger.com/societe/14640-migration-a-niamey-des-migrants-rapatries-de-libye-protestent-contr

      Je découvre ici que les évacuations se sont faites aussi vers l’#Italie et... la #Roumanie !

    • Destination Europe: Evacuation. The EU has started resettling refugees from Libya, but only 174 have made it to Europe in seven months

      As the EU sets new policies and makes deals with African nations to deter hundreds of thousands of migrants from seeking new lives on the continent, what does it mean for those following dreams northwards and the countries they transit through? From returnees in Sierra Leone and refugees resettled in France to smugglers in Niger and migrants in detention centres in Libya, IRIN explores their choices and challenges in this multi-part special report, Destination Europe.

      Four years of uncontrolled migration starting in 2014 saw more than 600,000 people cross from Libya to Italy, contributing to a populist backlash that is threatening the foundations of the EU. Stopping clandestine migration has become one of Europe’s main foreign policy goals, and last July the number of refugees and migrants crossing the central Mediterranean dropped dramatically. The EU celebrated the reduced numbers as “good progress”.

      But, as critics pointed out, that was only half the story: the decline, resulting from a series of moves by the EU and Italy, meant that tens of thousands of people were stuck in Libya with no way out. They faced horrific abuse, and NGOs and human rights organisations accused the EU of complicity in the violations taking place.

      Abdu is one who got stuck. A tall, lanky teenager, he spent nearly two years in smugglers’ warehouses and official Libyan detention centres. But he’s also one of the lucky ones. In February, he boarded a flight to Niger run (with EU support) by the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, to help some of those stranded in Libya reach Europe. Nearly 1,600 people have been evacuated on similiar flights, but, seven months on, only 174 have been resettled to Europe.

      The evacuation programme is part of a €500-million ($620-million) effort to resettle 50,000 refugees over the next two years to the EU, which has a population of more than 500 million people. The target is an increase from previous European resettlement goals, but still only represents a tiny fraction of the need – those chosen can be Syrians in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon as well as refugees in Libya, Egypt, Niger, Chad, Sudan, and Ethiopia – countries that combined host more than 6.5 million refugees.

      The EU is now teetering on the edge of a fresh political crisis, with boats carrying people rescued from the sea being denied ports of disembarkation, no consensus on how to share responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees within the continent, and increasing talk of further outsourcing the management of migration to African countries.

      Against this backdrop, the evacuation and resettlement programme from Libya is perhaps the best face of European policy in the Mediterranean. But, unless EU countries offer more spots for refugees, it is a pathway to safety for no more than a small handful who get the luck of the draw. As the first evacuees adjust to their new lives in Europe, the overwhelming majority are left behind.

      Four months after arriving in Niger, Abdu is still waiting to find out if and when he will be resettled to Europe. He’s still in the same state of limbo he was in at the end of March when IRIN met him in Niamey, the capital of Niger. At the time, he’d been out of the detention centre in Libya for less than a month and his arms were skeletally thin.

      “I thought to go to Europe [and] failed. Now, I came to Niger…. What am I doing here? What will happen from here? I don’t know,” he said, sitting in the shade of a canopy in the courtyard of a UNHCR facility. “I don’t know what I will be planning for the future because everything collapsed; everything finished.”
      Abdu’s story

      Born in Eritrea – one of the most repressive countries in the world – Abdu’s mother sent him to live in neighbouring Sudan when he was only seven. She wanted him to grow up away from the political persecution and shadow of indefinite military service that stifled normal life in his homeland.

      But Sudan, where he was raised by his uncle, wasn’t much better. As an Eritrean refugee, he faced discrimination and lived in a precarious legal limbo. Abdu saw no future there. “So I decided to go,” he said.

      Like so many other young Africans fleeing conflict, political repression, and economic hardship in recent years, he wanted to try to make it to Europe. But first he had to pass through Libya.

      After crossing the border from Sudan in July 2016, Abdu, then 16 years old, was taken captive and held for 18 months. The smugglers asked for a ransom of $5,500, tortured him while his relatives were forced to listen on the phone, and rented him out for work like a piece of equipment.

      Abdu tried to escape, but only found himself under the control of another smuggler who did the same thing. He was kept in overflowing warehouses, sequestered from the sunlight with around 250 other people. The food was not enough and often spoiled; disease was rampant; people died from malaria and hunger; one woman died after giving birth; the guards drank, carried guns, and smoked hashish, and, at the smallest provocation, spun into a sadistic fury. Abdu’s skin started crawling with scabies, his cheeks sank in, and his long limbs withered to skin and bones.

      One day, the smuggler told him that, if he didn’t find a way to pay, it looked like he would soon die. As a courtesy – or to try to squeeze some money out of him instead of having to deal with a corpse – the smuggler reduced the ransom to $1,500.

      Finally, Abdu’s relatives were able to purchase his freedom and passage to Europe. It was December 2017. As he finally stood on the seashore before dawn in the freezing cold, Abdu remembered thinking: “We are going to arrive in Europe [and] get protection [and] get rights.”

      But he never made it. After nearly 24 hours at sea, the rubber dinghy he was on with around 150 other people was intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard, which, since October 2016, has been trained and equipped by the EU and Italy.

      Abdu was brought back to the country he had just escaped and put in another detention centre.

      This one was official – run by the Libyan Directorate for Combating Irregular Migration. But it wasn’t much different from the smuggler-controlled warehouses he’d been in before. Again, it was overcrowded and dirty. People were falling sick. There was no torture or extortion, but the guards could be just as brutal. If someone tried to talk to them about the poor conditions “[they are] going to beat you until you are streaming blood,” Abdu said.

      Still, he wasn’t about to try his luck on his own again in Libya. The detention centre wasn’t suitable for human inhabitants, Abdu recalled thinking, but it was safer than anywhere he’d been in over a year. That’s where UNHCR found him and secured his release.

      The lucky few

      The small village of Thal-Marmoutier in France seems like it belongs to a different world than the teeming detention centres of Libya.

      The road to the village runs between gently rolling hills covered in grapevines and winds through small towns of half-timbered houses. About 40 minutes north of Strasbourg, the largest city in the region of Alsace, bordering Germany, it reaches a valley of hamlets that disrupt the green countryside with their red, high-peaked roofs. It’s an unassuming setting, but it’s the type of place Abdu might end up if and when he is finally resettled.

      In mid-March, when IRIN visited, the town of 800 people was hosting the first group of refugees evacuated from Libya.

      It was unseasonably cold, and the 55 people housed in a repurposed section of a Franciscan convent were bundled in winter jackets, scarves, and hats. Thirty of them had arrived from Chad, where they had been long-time residents of refugee camps after fleeing Boko Haram violence or conflict in the Sudanese region of Darfur. The remaining 25 – from Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan – were the first evacuees from Libya. Before reaching France, they, like Abdu, had been flown to Niamey.

      The extra stop is necessary because most countries require refugees to be interviewed in person before offering them a resettlement spot. The process is facilitated by embassies and consulates, but, because of security concerns, only one European country (Italy) has a diplomatic presence in Libya.

      To resettle refugees stuck in detention centres, UNHCR needed to find a third country willing to host people temporarily, one where European resettlement agencies could carry out their procedures. Niger was the first – and so far only – country to volunteer.

      “For us, it is an obligation to participate,” Mohamed Bazoum, Niger’s influential interior minister, said when interviewed by IRIN in Niamey. Niger, the gateway between West Africa and Libya on the migration trail to Europe, is the top recipient of funds from the EU Trust Fund for Africa, an initiative launched in 2015 to “address the root causes of irregular migration”.

      “It costs us nothing to help,” Bazoum added, referring to the evacuation programme. “But we gain a sense of humanity in doing so.”

      ‘Time is just running from my life’

      The first evacuees landed in Niamey on 12 November. A little over a month later, on 19 December, they were on their way to France.

      By March, they had been in Thal-Marmoutier for three months and were preparing to move from the reception centre in the convent to individual apartments in different cities.

      Among them, several families with children had been living in Libya for a long time. But most of the evacuees were young women who had been imprisoned by smugglers and militias, held in official detention centres, or often both.

      “In Libya, it was difficult for me,” said Farida, a 24-year-old aspiring runner from Ethiopia. She fled her home in 2016 because of the conflict between the government and the Oromo people, an ethnic group.

      After a brief stay in Cairo, she and her husband decided to go to Libya because they heard a rumour that UNHCR was providing more support there to refugees. Shortly after crossing the border, Farida and her husband were captured by a militia and placed in a detention centre.

      “People from the other government (Libya has two rival governments) came and killed the militiamen, and some of the people in the prison also died, but we got out and were taken to another prison,” she said. “When they put me in prison, I was pregnant, and they beat me and killed the child in my belly.”

      Teyba, a 20-year-old woman also from Ethiopia, shared a similar story: “A militia put us in prison and tortured us a lot,” she said. “We stayed in prison for a little bit more than a month, and then the fighting started…. Some people died, some people escaped, and some people, I don’t know what happened to them.”

      Three months at the reception centre in Thal-Marmoutier had done little to ease the trauma of those experiences. “I haven’t seen anything that made me laugh or that made me happy,” Farida said. “Up to now, life has not been good, even after coming to France.”

      The French government placed the refugees in the reception centre to expedite their asylum procedures, and so they could begin to learn French.

      Everyone in the group had already received 10-year residency permits – something refugees who are placed directly in individual apartments or houses usually wait at least six months to receive. But many of them said they felt like their lives had been put on pause in Thal-Marmoutier. They were isolated in the small village with little access to transportation and said they had not been well prepared to begin new lives on their own in just a few weeks time.

      “I haven’t benefited from anything yet. Time is just running from my life,” said Intissar, a 35-year-old woman from Sudan.

      A stop-start process

      Despite their frustrations with the integration process in France, and the still present psychological wounds from Libya, the people in Thal-Marmoutier were fortunate to reach Europe.

      By early March, more than 1,000 people had been airlifted from Libya to Niger. But since the first group in December, no one else had left for Europe. Frustrated with the pace of resettlement, the Nigerien government told UNHCR that the programme had to be put on hold.

      “We want the flow to be balanced,” Bazoum, the interior minister, explained. “If people arrive, then we want others to leave. We don’t want people to be here on a permanent basis.”

      Since then, an additional 148 people have been resettled to France, Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands, and other departures are in the works. “The situation is improving,” said Louise Donovan, a UNHCR communications officer in Niger. “We need to speed up our processes as much as possible, and so do the resettlement countries.”

      A further 312 people were evacuated directly to Italy. Still, the total number resettled by the programme remains small. “What is problematic right now is the fact that European governments are not offering enough places for resettlement, despite continued requests from UNHCR,” said Matteo de Bellis, a researcher with Amnesty International.
      Less than 1 percent

      Globally, less than one percent of refugees are resettled each year, and resettlement is on a downward spiral at the moment, dropping by more than 50 percent between 2016 and 2017. The number of refugees needing resettlement is expected to reach 1.4 million next year, 17 percent higher than in 2018, while global resettlement places dropped to just 75,000 in 2017, UNHCR said on Monday.

      The Trump administration’s slashing of the US refugee admissions programme – historically the world’s leader – means this trend will likely continue.

      Due to the limited capacity, resettlement is usually reserved for people who are considered to be the most vulnerable.

      In Libya alone, there are around 19,000 refugees from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan registered with UNHCR – a number increasing each month – as well as 430,000 migrants and potential asylum seekers from throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Many have been subjected to torture, sexual violence, and other abuses. And, because they are in Libya irregularly, resettlement is often the only legal solution to indefinite detention.

      In the unlikely scenario that all the sub-Saharan refugees in Libya were to be resettled, they would account for more than one third of the EU’s quota for the next two years. And that’s not taking into account people in Libya who may have legitimate grounds to claim asylum but are not on the official radar. Other solutions are clearly needed, but given the lack of will in the international community, it is unclear what those might be.

      “The Niger mechanism is a patch, a useful one under the circumstance, but still a patch,” de Bellis, the Amnesty researcher, said. “There are refugees… who cannot get out of the detention centres because there are no resettlement places available to them.”

      It is also uncertain what will happen to any refugees evacuated to Niger that aren’t offered a resettlement spot by European countries.

      UNHCR says it is considering all options, including the possibility of integration in Niger or return to their countries of origin – if they are deemed to be safe and people agree to go. But resettlement is the main focus. In April, the pace of people departing for Europe picked up, and evacuations from Libya resumed at the beginning of May – ironically, the same week the Nigerien government broke new and dangerous ground by deporting 132 Sudanese asylum seekers who had crossed the border on their own back to Libya.

      For the evacuees in Niger awaiting resettlement, there are still many unanswered questions.

      As Abdu was biding his time back in March, something other than the uncertainty about his own future weighed on him: the people still stuck in the detention centres in Libya.

      He had started his travels with his best friend. They had been together when they were first kidnapped and held for ransom. But Abdu’s friend was shot in the leg by a guard who accused him of stealing a cigarette. When Abdu tried to escape, he left his friend behind and hasn’t spoken to him or heard anything about him since.

      “UNHCR is saying they are going to find a solution for me; they are going to help me,” Abdu said. “It’s okay. But what about the others?”

      https://www.irinnews.org/special-report/2018/06/26/destination-europe-evacuation

    • Hot Spots #1 : Niger, les évacués de l’enfer libyen

      Fuir l’enfer libyen, sortir des griffes des trafiquants qui séquestrent pendant des mois leurs victimes dans des conditions inhumaines. C’est de l’autre côté du désert, au Niger, que certains migrants trouvent un premier refuge grâce à un programme d’#évacuation d’urgence géré par les Nations Unies depuis novembre 2017.

      https://guitinews.fr/video/2019/03/12/hot-spots-1-niger-les-evacues-de-lenfer-libyen

      Lien vers la #vidéo :

      « Les gens qu’on évacue de la Libye, ce sont des individus qui ont subi une profonde souffrance. Ce sont tous des victimes de torture, des victimes de violences aussi sexuelles, il y a des femmes qui accouchent d’enfants fruits de cette violences sexuelles. » Alexandra Morelli, Représentante du HCR au Niger.

      https://vimeo.com/323299304

      ping @isskein @karine4

  • #métaliste (qui va être un grand chantier, car il y a plein d’information sur seenthis, qu’il faudrait réorganiser) sur :
    #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #migrations #réfugiés

    Des liens vers des articles généraux sur l’externalisation des frontières de la part de l’ #UE (#EU) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/569305
    https://seenthis.net/messages/390549
    https://seenthis.net/messages/320101

    Ici une tentative (très mal réussie, car évidement, la divergence entre pratiques et les discours à un moment donné, ça se voit !) de l’UE de faire une brochure pour déconstruire les mythes autour de la migration...
    La question de l’externalisation y est abordée dans différentes parties de la brochure :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/765967

    Petit chapitre/encadré sur l’externalisation des frontières dans l’ouvrage « (Dé)passer la frontière » :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/769367

    Les origines de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers (maritimes) : accord #USA-#Haïti de #1981 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/768694

    L’externalisation des politiques européennes en matière de migration
    https://seenthis.net/messages/787450

    "#Sous-traitance" de la #politique_migratoire en Afrique : l’Europe a-t-elle les mains propres ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/789048

    Partners in crime ? The impacts of Europe’s outsourced migration controls on peace, stability and rights :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/794636
    #paix #stabilité #droits #Libye #Niger #Turquie

  • L’équation des #refoulements en Libye : depuis le début #2018 près de 15000 boat-people ont été reconduits en #Libye où sont enregistrés plus de 56000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile. Parmi eux, en un an, 900 ont été réinstallés. Que deviennent les autres ?

    https://twitter.com/Migreurop/status/1053981625321771008

    #push-back #refoulement #statistiques #chiffres #Méditerranée #pull-back #réinstallation

    Source :
    Flash update Libya (UNHCR)

    Population Movements
    As of 11 October, the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) rescued/intercepted 14,156 refugees and migrants (9,801 men, 2,126 women and 1,373 children) at sea during 108 operations. So far in 2018, the LCG recovered 99 bodies from the sea. The number of individualsdis embarked in Libya has gradually increased over the past weeks when compared to the month of August (552 individuals in August, 1,265 individuals in September and 884 individuals so far in October). An increase in disembarkations may be expected as the sea iscurrently very calm.
    During the reporting period, 174 refugees and migrants (163 men, eight women and three children) disembarked in #Alkhums (97 km southwest of Tripoli) and #Zawia (45 km west of Tripoli). The group was comprised mainly of Bangladeshi and Sudanese nationals. UNHCR and its partner International Medical Corps (IMC) provided core-relief items (CRIs) and vital medical assistance both at the disembarkation points and in the detention centres to which individuals were subsequently transferred by the authorities. So far in 2018, UNHCR has registered 11,401 refugees and asylum-seekers, bringing the total of individuals registered to 56,045.

    UNHCR Response
    On 9 October, #UNHCR in coordination with the municipality of Benghazi, distributed water tanks, medical waste disposal bins and wheel chairs to 14 hospitals and clinics in Benghazi. This was part of UNHCR’s quick-impact projects (#QIPs). QIPs are small, rapidly implemented projects intended to help create conditions for peaceful coexistence between displaced persons and their hosting communities. QIPs also strengthen the resilience of these communities. So far in 2018, UNHCR implemented 83 QIPs across Libya.
    On 8 October, UNHC partner #CESVI began a three-day school bag distribution campaign at its social centre in Tripoli. The aim is to reach 1,000 children with bags in preparation for the new school year. Due to the liquidity crisis in Libya, the price of school materials has increased over the past years. With this distribution, UNHCR hopes to mitigate the financial impact that the start of the school year has on refugee families.
    UNHCR estimates that 5,893 individuals are detained in Libya, of whom 3,964 are of concern to UNHCR. On 7 October, UNHCR visited #Abu-Slim detention centre to deliver humanitarian assistance and address the concerns of refugees and asylum-seekers held in the facility. UNHCR distributed non-food items including blankets, hygiene kits, dignity kits, sleeping mats and water to all detained individuals. UNHCR carried out a Q&A session with refugees and migrants to discuss UNHCR’s activities and possible solutions for persons of concern. Security permitting, UNHCR will resume its registration activities in detention centres over the coming days, targeting all persons of concern.
    So far in 2018, UNHCR conducted 982 visits to detention centres and registered 3,600 refugees and asylum-seekers. As of 10 October, UNHCR distributed 15,282 core-relief items to refugees and migrants held in detention centres in Libya.
    Throughits partner #IMC, UNHCR continues to provide medical assistance in detention centres in Libya. So far in 2018, IMC provided 21,548 primary health care consultations at the detention centres and 231 medical referrals to public hospitals. As conditions in detention remain extremely dire, UNHCR continues to advocate for alternatives to detention in Libya and for solutions in third countries. Since 1 September 2017, 901 individuals have been submitted for resettlement to eight States (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland).

    http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR%20Libya%20Flash%20Update%20-%205-12OCT18.pdf
    #réinstallation #détention #centres_de_détention #HCR #gardes-côtes_libyens

    ping @_kg_ @isskein

    • Migranti, 100 persone trasferite su cargo e riportate in Libia. Alarm Phone: “Sono sotto choc, credevano di andare in Italia”

      Dopo l’allarme delle scorse ore e la chiamata del premier Conte a Tripoli, le persone (tra cui venti donne e dodici bambini, uno dei quali potrebbe essere morto di stenti) sono state trasferite sull’imbarcazione che batte bandiera della Sierra Leone in direzione Misurata. Ma stando alle ultime informazioni, le tensioni a bordo rendono difficoltoso lo sbarco. Intanto l’ong Sea Watch ha salvato 47 persone e chiede un porto dove attraccare.

      Gli hanno detto che sarebbero sbarcati in Italia e quando hanno scoperto che invece #Lady_Sharm, il cargo battente bandiera della Sierra Leone, li stava riportando a Misurata in Libia, sono iniziate le tensioni a bordo. Secondo Alarm Phone i 100 migranti, che ieri avevano lanciato l’allarme a 50 miglia dalle coste libiche, dicendo che stavano congelando, sono “sotto choc” e si rifiutano di sbarcare. Le comunicazioni però sono molto difficoltose: non ci sono giornalisti sul posto e mancano conferme ufficiali. Le difficoltà di far sbarcare i 100 migranti sono state confermate a ilfattoquotidiano.it. L’episodio ricorda quello della nave Nivin, quando a novembre scorso un gruppo di migranti si rifiutò per giorni di scendere e l’esercito libico decise di fare irruzione sull’imbarcazione.

      Poco dopo la mezzanotte era terminato il trasbordo sul mercantile inviato da Tripoli in loro soccorso. Le persone – tra cui venti donne e dodici bambini, uno dei quali potrebbe essere morto di stenti – sono state in balia del mare e del freddo per ore. Ore di angoscia che sono terminate con l’invio dei soccorsi: in serata il mercantile dirottato sul posto dalla Guardia costiera libica – su cui pare sia intervenuto personalmente il premier Giuseppe Conte – ha raggiunto la carretta, cominciando ad imbarcare i migranti. “Verranno portati in salvo nel porto di Misurata”, aveva fatto sapere in serata Palazzo Chigi, che in precedenza aveva sollecitato la guardia costiera libica affinché effettuasse quanto prima l’intervento.


      https://twitter.com/alarm_phone/status/1087403549506658308?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E10
      Parallelamente altri 47 migranti, salvati dalla ong Sea Watch, attendono di avere notizie sulla loro destinazione finale: “Sono terrorizzati” dal possibile ritorno in Libia. “Le loro condizioni di salute sono buone e stazionarie”, ha detto all’agenzia Ansa l’equipaggio, “ma ora a preoccupare sono le condizioni meteo in peggioramento“.

      Di Maio: “D’ora in poi li porteremo a Marsiglia”
      “D’ora in poi i migranti che salviamo nel Mediterraneo glieli portiamo a Marsiglia – ha dichiarato questa mattina il vicepremier e ministro del Lavoro e dello Sviluppo economico, Luigi Di Maio, a Rtl 102.5 – Per far stare gli africani in Africa basta che la Francia stia a casa propria”. Il Viminale esprime soddisfazione: “Tutti sani e salvi, e riportati indietro, i 393 immigrati recuperati dalla Guardia Costiera libica nella giornata di ieri. In particolare, 143 sono stati riportati a Tripoli. 144 a Misurata, 106 ad al-Khoms”. La collaborazione funziona, gli scafisti, i trafficanti e i mafiosi devono capire che i loro affari sono finiti. Meno partenze, meno morti, la nostra linea non cambia” commenta il ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini.

      L’allarme e le richieste di aiuto inascoltate per ore
      Domenica mattina Alarm Phone, il sistema di allerta telefonico utilizzato per segnalare imbarcazioni in difficoltà, ha ricevuto la segnalazione del natante in avaria al largo di Misurata. Ora per ora, minuto per minuto, ha raccontato via tweet il dramma delle 100 persone stipate nell’imbarcazione facendo il resoconto delle innumerevoli segnalazioni effettuate a Roma, La Valletta e Tripoli, quest’ultima indicata da tutti come autorità competente a coordinare i soccorsi. “Abbiamo chiamato sette numeri differenti della sala operativa della cosiddetta Guardia costiera di Tripoli – raccontano i volontari – ma non abbiamo ricevuto risposta. Malta ci ha fornito un ottavo numero, che non risponde. Tutto questo è ridicolo. Ne basterebbe uno che funzionasse. Abbiamo avvisato Italia e Malta che la Libia non è raggiungibile. Nessuno ha attivato un’operazione di soccorso”.

      Affermazioni respinte dalla Marina libica, che con il suo portavoce, il brigadiere Ayoub Gassem, ha smentito che le richiesta di soccorso siano state ignorate, sottolineando che in mattinata altri 140 migranti sono stati salvati da una motovedetta di Tripoli. Dal canto suo la Guardia costiera italiana ha precisato che, non appena saputo dell’emergenza, “come previsto dalla normativa internazionale sul Sar ha immediatamente contattato la Guardia Costiera libica, nella cui area di responsabilità era in corso l’evento, che ha assunto il coordinamento e non potendo mandare propri mezzi perché impegnati nei precedenti soccorsi, ha inviato sul posto il mercantile della Sierra Leone”.

      I migranti: “Congeliamo, abbiamo paura di morire”
      A bordo del barcone i naufraghi hanno trascorso ore drammatiche: “Stiamo congelando, la situazione è disperata, aiutateci. Abbiamo paura di morire”, dicevano mentre imbarcavano acqua. Altri 47, salvati ieri da un gommone che stava per affondare, sono sulla Sea Watch, sempre al largo della Libia, in attesa di conoscere quale sarà il loro destino. “Nessuno ci dà informazioni, non sappiano cosa fare, quale sarà il porto dove attraccare – dicono dall’equipaggio – “Chiediamo istruzioni e restiamo in attesa. Siamo stati rimandati ai libici che però non rispondono. Non c’è modo di parlare con loro”.

      https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/01/21/migranti-100-persone-trasferite-su-cargo-e-riportate-in-libia-alarm-phone-sono-sotto-choc-credevano-di-andare-in-italia/4911794

    • Il governo italiano elude il divieto di respingimenti collettivi

      La pietà per le 117 vittime del naufragio di venerdì 18 gennaio non è durata a lungo, e sono rimasti inascoltati tutti gli appelli volti a chiedere agli stati il rispetto degli obblighi di soccorso sanciti dal diritto internazionale. Una strage dopo l’altra, e sempre più rapidamente scattano i meccanismi di rimozione. Alla fine i “colpevoli” vengono indicati nelle ONG, ormai praticamente assenti, e non invece tra i governanti che hanno concluso accordi con autorità militari e guardiacoste che non rispettano i diritti umani, ed adesso omettono sistematicamente gli interventi di soccorso in acque internazionali.

      Si è conclusa nel peggiore dei modi l’operazione di ricerca e soccorso in acque internazionali di un gommone con circa cento persone a bordo, segnalato nella mattina di domenica 20 gennaio a circa 50 miglia a nord della città di Misurata. Per ore, che potevano fare la differenza tra la vita e la morte, praticamente per l’intera giornata di domenica, le autorità italiane, maltesi e libiche non hanno risposto alle richieste di aiuto rilanciate dall’organizzazione Alarm Phone.

      Senza l’insistenza delle organizzazioni umanitarie nessuno sarebbe andato a salvare le persone che erano ormai sul punto di annegare, e malgrado questo dato evidente, il ministro dell’interno Salvini non ha trovato altra risposta che inasprire le minacce contro le ONG, colpevoli di avere portato alla luce l’evento di soccorso, e sprattutto di avere salvato, in una precedente oprazione SAR, altre 46 persone portate a bordo della nave Sea Watch. Persone che ancora oggi rimangono abbandonate, con l’equipaggio della nave soccorritrice in alto mare, perchè nessun governo delle diverse zone SAR confinati nel Mediterraneo centrale ( Italia, Malta, Libia) risponde indicando un porto sicuro di sbarco, come sarebbe imposto dalle Convenzioni internazionali del diritto del mare e dal Diritto internazionale dei rifugiati. Sempre, ammesso e non concesso, che di Libia come stato unitario si possa parlare, e di una Guardia costiera “libica” con un Coordinamento centrale (MRCC) si possa disporre per garantire operazioni di soccorso che non possono essere legate alla ridotta capacità di intervento dei suoi assetti navali o alle pressioni diplomatiche di un governo straniero.

      Dopo una giornata in cui le autorità libiche avevano lasciato cadere le richieste di intervento, a 50 miglia a nord di Misurata, da parte delle autorità italiane, l’intervento del Presidente del Consiglio Conte, e di non meglio precisate componenti diplomatiche, ha indotto il governo di Tripoli a dirottare verso il gommone una nave cargo la Lady Shar con bandiera della Sierra Leone, ma in precedenza immatricolata con altro nome presso i registri maltesi, la nave commerciale più vicina in navigazione nella zona dei soccorsi, ed a effettuare un primo trasbordo dei naufraghi ormai stremati dal freddo. Successivamente, per quanto si è appreso dai media, sembrerebbe che alcune motovedette libiche avrebbero trasportato alcune persone a terra, riportandole nel porto di Misurata, dunque molto vicine al luogo dal quale erano state fatte partire dai trafficanti su un gommone fatiscente, approfittando del temporaneo miglioramento delle condizioni meteo. In realtà risulta che ai migranti “soccorsi” a bordo della nave commerciale “coordinata” dalle autorità libiche nessuno avesse detto che la nave li avrebbe sbarcati a Misurata. E che anzi qualcuno li aveva rassicurati che sarebbero stati sbarcati in Italia.

      Secondo le notizie più recenti però, una parte dei naufraghi starebbe facendo resistenza ancora a bordo della nave che li ha soccorsi, e si profilano altre violenze ai danni dei naufraghi, come già verificato proprio a Misurata, nel caso dello sbarco-irruzione operato a bordo della NIVIN. I naufraghi erano stati sbarcati con la forza dopo una irruzione delle milizie armate che sparavano con fucili proiettili di gomma ad altezza d’uomo. Mentre giornalisti ed operatori umanitari pure presenti nel porto di Misurata venivano tenuti lontani. Non ci sono state più notizie sulla sorte di quelle persone, fatte scomparire nel nulla. Questa è la “Libia”, meglio il territorio controllato dal governo di Tripoli e dalle milizie alleate, con cui collabora il governo italiano.

      A nulla sono serviti gli appelli perchè i migranti, che si trovavano ormai in acque internazionali, molto vicini al limite della zona SAR maltese, fossero portati in un porto sicuro Un place of safety (POS) che non si trova certo in Libia, neppure a Misurata come i fatti dimostrano. In Libia non ci sono place of safety per chi viene intercettato in alto mare, anche secondo quanto recentemente dichiarato dal Commissario per le Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati Grandi, sulla base di rapporti delle stesse Nazioni Unite, che documentano gli abusi che subiscono i migranti intercettati in alto mare e riportati indietro dalla sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”. Per comprendere la gravità delle violazioni del diritto internazionale commesse in questa occasione dal governo italiano occorre una breve ricostruzione dei rapporti intercorsi in questi ultimi due anni tra l’Italia ed il governo di Tripoli.

      2.Dopo gli accordi con la Libia del 2 febbraio 2017, ratificati dal Vertice euromediterraneo de La Valletta, a Malta, il giorno successivo, le autorità italiane hanno sempre operato per aggirare il divieto di respingimenti collettivi in mare, affermato dalla sentenza di condanna dell’Italia da parte della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo il 23 febbraio 2012 nel caso Hirsi.

      Occorreva chudere, o almeno ridurre in modo sostanziale, gli arrivi di migranti dalla Libia, dopo che i principali partiti allora di opposizione, e soprattutto la Lega ed i Cinquestelle, avevano conquistato fasce sempre più larghe di elettorato, utilizzando in modo strumentale l’allarme che si era fatto derivare dall’elevato numero di arrivi di migranti negli anni dal 2013 al 2016, effetto della crisi siriana e di una situazione di crescente instabilità in Libia e negli altri paesi dell’africa subsahariana. Per tutto questo occorreva delegare alla guardia costiera “libica” quell’attività di intercettazione e di respingimento collettivo che le unità italiane, in particolare la Guardia di finanza, non potevano più svolgere come avevano fatto nel 2009 e nel 2010, con Maroni ministro dell’interno. Cosa importava se le motovedette libiche non avevano a bordo neppure salvagenti o mezzi collettivi di salvataggio, in dotazione invece sulle navi delle ONG ?

      In questa direzione, con il supporto dell’Unione Europea ( missione Eunavfor Med) si sono addestrati centinaia di guardiacoste, nella veste di Guardia costiera “libica”, e si erano fornite motovedette e risorse finanziarie (Africa Trust Fund). Prima ancora che si arrivasse alla proclamazione di una zona SAR “libica”, si era quindi intensificata la collaborazione operativa con la sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”, come documentato dalla sentenze della magistratura di Catania, Ragusa e Palermo, al punto che i giudici arrivavano al punto di osservare quasi come scontato che il coordinamento sostanziale delle attività di ricerca e salvataggio (SAR) svolte dai libici in acque internazionali fosse di fatto demandato alle autorità italiane, presenti nel porto militare di Tripoli con la missione NAURAS.

      In un primo periodo, anche sulla base di operazioi di disinformazione alimentate da gruppi della estrema destra europea (GEFIRA), si cercavo di rallentare, se non dissuadere, con una forte pressione mediatica le attività delle navi delle ONG che operavano nelle acque del Mediterraneo centrale, per colmare un vuoto determinato dalla fine dell’operazione Mare Nostrum (2014) e poi dal progressivo ritiro degli assetti navali dell’operazione TRITON di Frontex.

      Nel giugno del 2017 un piano articolato su sette punti,proposto dall’allora ministro dell’interno Minniti, veniva proposto all’Unione Europea che lo approvava e si impegnava a finanziarlo. Tra le azioni previste dal piano rientravano anche le attività di collaborazione e coordinamento con la Guardia costiera “libica”. Gli obiettivi proposti all’Unione europea erano i seguenti :”  1) rafforzare la capacità della Libia nella sorveglianza marittima; 2) dare loro assistenza per la definizione di un’area marittima Sar (Search and rescue, ricerca e salvataggio); 3) istituire una Mrcc (maritime rescue coordination centre), una centrale operativa di coordinamento di salvataggio; 4) assistere la guardia costiera di Tripoli nelle procedure Sar; 5) irrobustire la cooperazione tra le agenzie internazionali e le autorità libiche; 6) intensificare gli interscambi operativi marittimi con l’Italia e gli altri stati Ue; 7) sviluppare le capacità di intervento ai confini di terra nel controllo dei traffici di esseri umani e di soccorso ai migranti in fuga.

      Con il Codice di condotta Minniti, alla fine del mese di luglio del 2017, venivano stabiliti obblighi pretestuosi che esulavano dalle prescrizioni stabilite nelle Convenzioni internazionali e si introduceva il principio che le navi private delle ONG avrebbeo dovuto operare nelle attività SAR senza interferire con le attività di soccorso che nel frattempo venivano affidate alla sedicente Guardia costiera libica, allora coordinata direttamente da personale italo-libico a bordo di una nave della Marina militare italiana della missione NAURAS di stanza nel porto militare di Abu Sittah a Tripoli. Tra le attività di supporto della missione Nauras a Tripoli, rientrava, fino al 28 giugno scorso, anche“l’importante compito di aiutare i libici a interfacciarsi con la Centrale operativa della Guardia costiera a Roma che coordina le operazioni di ricerca soccorso nel Mediterraneo centrale”. Questo coordinamento italiano delle attività di intercettazione in mare, affidate gia’ nella prima parte di quest’anno alla cd. Guardia costiera “libica“.

      Una previsione che contrastava con il riconoscimento della superiorità gerarchica ( rispetto al codice di condotta ed agli accordi bilterali) delle norme di diritto internazionale o di rango costituzionale, dal momento che già allora risultava evidente quanto gravi fossero le violazioni dei diritti ( e dei corpi) dei migranti sempre più frequenti in Libia, paese che ancora oggi non risulta firmatario della Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati). Violazioni gravisssime che lasciavano segni evidenti nei corpi e nello spirito anche nelle persone che erano state bloccate in mare, in acque internazionali e riportate a terra in mano alle stesse milizie dalle quali erano fuggite.

      Il 26 luglio del 2017, all’indomani dell’incontro organizzato a Parigi sulla Libia, l’ex premier Gentiloni dichiarava addirittura che il capo del governo di Tripoli Serraj avrebbe chiesto l’aiuto dell’Italia ” in acque libiche con unità navali, per il contrasto ai trafficanti di esseri umani”.

      Nel mese di agosto del 2017 si concretizzava l’offensiva di alcune procure contro le navi delle ONG, con sequestri ed incriminazioni sempre più gravi, dopo una violenta campagna mediatica nei loro confronti, e soprattutto dopo che i loro equipaggi erano stati “infiltrati” da agenti sotto copertura che fornivano una ricostruzione artefatta delle attività di soccorso che avrebbe dovuto mostrare una “collusione” tra i trafficanti, gli scafisti, e gli operatori umanitari. Una “collusione” che veniva presto smontata da indagini difensive che dimostravano la artificiosità delle prove raccolte a base delle prime denunce, ma che comunque resta oggetto di un procedimento penale a Trapani. Il procedimento penale contro l’equipaggio della nave Juventa della ONG Jugend Rettet è infatti ancora in corso, mentre la Procura di Palermo ha chiesto ed ottenuto l’archiviazione di un analogo procedimento penale avviato presso il Tribunale di Palermo, contro la ONG spagnola Open Arms e contro la ONG tedesca Sea Watch. Anche per la Procura di Palermo nessun porto libico si poteva qualificare come “Place of safety (POS)” luogo di sbarco sicuro, e dunque bene avevano fatto le ONG, peraltro sotto coordinamento della Centrale operativa della Guardia costiera italiana (IMRCC), che in quel periodo avevano sbarcato in porti italiani i naufraghi raccolti nelle acque internazionali a nord della Libia.

      Dopo una serie di comunicati stampa e pesanti interventi mediatici, nonchè una audizione in Parlamento, la Procura di Catania non giungeva invece a formulare alcuno specifico capo di accusa, corrispondente alle prime dichiarazioni del Procuratore capo. Il processo avviato con il sequestro della nave Open Arms a Pozzallo nel mese di marzo del 2018, rimane ancora aperto, presso il Tribunale di Ragusa, dove il procedimento avviato a catania è stato trasferito per la caduta delle contestazioni relative alle ipotesi associative. Ma la nave è stata dissequestrata, dopo che il Giudice delle indagini preliminari, e poi il Tribunale di Ragusa, hanno ritenuto la Libia priva di porti sicuri e dunque conforme al diritto il comportamento del comandante che non aveva chiesto alle autorità libiche la indicazione di un porto di sbarco, ma sie era diretto invece verso le coste maltesi ed italiane per chiedere un POS (Place of safety), ricevendo anche da Malta un netto rifiuto di sbarco. Il Giudice delle indagini preliminari di Catania, decidendo su questo caso, rilevava il sostanziale coordinamento da parte delle autorità italiane (Operazione Nauras) delle attività di ricerca e salvataggio (SAR) condotte dalle autorità libiche nelle occasioni denunciate. Il Gip di Catania osservava in particolare che ” Anche questa eccezione non può essere condivisa, poiché le motovedette libiche erano intervenute per effettuare una operazione di soccorso, come richiesto da IMRCC di Roma e sotto l’egida italiana con le navi militari di stanza a Tripoli, e perciò non si può parlare minimamente di respingimento, ma solamente di soccorso e salvataggio in mare”.

      3.L’aggiramento della sentenza di condanna dell’Italia da parte della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo sul caso Hirsi era ormai realizzato. Con l’insediamento del nuovo governo Salvini-Di Maio-Conte, già nelle prime dichiarazioni del ministro dell’interno si percepiva un ulteriore inasprimento della linea di condotta delle autorità italiane nelle occasioni ancora frequenti di interventi di ricerca e soccorso in acque internazionali sulla rotta libica operati dalle navi delle ONG. Per tutta l’estate dello scorso anno era una guerra aperta contro le ONG, con espedienti burocratici, come le pressio i sugli stati di bandiera delle navi umanitarie perchè le cancellassero dai registri navali, e con la minaccia di altre sanzioni penali, unico strumento per “chiudere i porti”.

      Cresceva anche la pressione diplomatica sulla Libia e sull’IMO a Londra (Organizzazione marittima internazionale che fa capo alle Nazioni Unite) perchè fosse riconosciuta una zona SAR “libica” in modo da delegare completamente, almeno sulla carta, il coordinamento delle attività di salvataggio ad assetti libici ed alla costituenda Centrale operativa libica (IRCC). Una autentica finzione, dal momento che la Libia non ha ancora oggi organi di governo o forze armate uniche per tutto il suo vasto territorio, coste e mare territoriale compreso, controllato da milizie in perenne conflitto tra loro. Il 28 giugno 2018, l’IMO inseriva nei suoi data base la autoproclamata zona SAR “libica” comunicata dal governo di Tripoli che neppure riusciva a controllare il territorio dell’intera città, ma che veniva incontro alle richieste del governo italiano, dopo che una prima richiesta rivolta dai libici all’IMO nel dicembre del 2017 era stata ritirata per la evidente mancanza dei requisiti richiesti a livello internazionale per il riconoscimento di una zona SAR.

      Se fino al 28 giugno scorso era almeno chiaro che le responsabilità di coordinamento spettavano tutte alla Centrale operativa della Guardia costiera italiana (IMRCC), a partire da quella data, con la notifica di una zona SAR “libica” da parte del governo di Tripoli all’IMO a Londra,a partire da quella data è venuta meno qualsiasi certezza circa le responsabilità di coordinamento dei soccorsi, e dunque di individuazione del punto di sbarco. Non si è riusciti neppure a risolvere il problema ricorrente della sovrapposizione tra la zona SAR maltese e la zona SAR italiana, a sud di Lampedusa e Malta, già occasione di conflitti di competenze, che avevano portato a tragedie con centinaia di morti, come in occasione della cd. strage dei bambini dell’11 ottobre 2013. Per quella strage è ancora in corso un procedimento penale presso il Tribunale di Roma, dopo due richieste di archiviazione da parte delle procure di Agrigento e Roma.

      Intanto il responsabile della sedicente Guardia costiera libica da Tripoli annunciava che gli assetti militari a sua disposizione non avrebbero proceduto a svolgere attività di ricerca e soccorso che non fossero coordinate da autorità libiche con mezzi decisi da Tripoli, dunque con totale esclusione di ogni possibilità di collaborazione con le ONG, ancora presenti nelle acque internazionali del Mediterraneo centrale. Per le Nazioni Unite, invece,e dunque per qualunque governo del mondo, “la Libia non può essere considerata un luogo sicuro di sbarco”, come ricorda il più recente rapporto diffuso a livello mondiale. Anche se nei punti di sbarco compaiono le pettorine azzurre dell’UNHCR, coloro che ancora riescono a tentare la pericolosa traversata del Mediterraneo, e che “vengono sempre più spesso intercettati o soccorsi dalla Guardia costiera libica che li riconduce in Libia”, ritrovano l’inferno da dove erano fuggiti. Dopo lo sbarco e la consegna di un kit di prima accoglienza finiscono nelle mani delle milizie che controllano i centri di detenzione.

      In una visita in Libia ai primi di luglio, Human Rights Watch ha intervistato le forze della guardia costiera libica, decine di rifugiati e migranti detenuti in centri a Tripoli, Zuara e Misurata, e funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali. I richiedenti asilo detenuti e i migranti intervistati hanno espresso gravi accuse di abusi da parte delle guardie e dei trafficanti, e alcuni hanno riferito di comportamenti aggressivi da parte delle forze della guardie costiera durante le operazioni di salvataggio in mare. Human Rights Watch ha confermato che le forze della guardia costiera libica mancano della capacità di assicurare operazioni di ricerca e soccorso sicure ed efficaci.

      4. La competenza nelle attività SAR o la individuazione del place of safety non possono derogare i principi fondamentali affermati in favore dei rifugiati ai quali sono parificati i richiedenti asilo. In base alla Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati (art.33), “nessuno Stato contraente potrà espellere o respingere (refouler) – in nessun modo – un rifugiato verso le frontiere dei luoghi ove la sua vita o la sua libertà sarebbero minacciate a causa della sua razza, della sua religione, della sua nazionalità, della sua appartenenza ad una determinata categoria sociale o delle sue opinioni politiche. Il beneficio di detta disposizione non potrà tuttavia essere invocato da un rifugiato per il quale vi siano gravi motivi per considerarlo un pericolo per la sicurezza dello Stato in cui si trova, oppure da un rifugiato il quale, essendo stato oggetto di una condanna già passata in giudicato per un crimine o un delitto particolarmente grave, rappresenti una minaccia per la comunità di detto Stato”.

      In ogni caso, le espulsioni collettive sono vietate dal quarto protocollo addizionale della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo firmato a Strasburgo il 16 settembre 1963 (cfr. art. 19.1 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea).

      L’art.33 della Convenzione di Ginevra che impone il divieto di respingimento delle persone verso paesi che non ne garantiscono i diritti fondamentali, in coerenza con l’art. 10 della Costituzione italiana, rendono del tutto privo di basi legali, e dunque non vincolante, qualsiasi ordine di riconsegna dei naufraghi ai libici impartito dopo i soccorsi a navi private che si trovino in acque internazionali. Va ricordato che né la Libia, né le diverse entità statali in cui risulta divisa, hanno sottoscritto la Convenzione di Ginevra sui rifugiati, ne garantiscono un effettiva salvaguardia dei diritti fondamentali delle persone, per non parlare della condizione di abuso alla quale,dopo la riconduzione a terra, sono sistematicamente esposti donne e minori ( ma adesso anche molti adulti di sesso maschile).

      Se è vero che in base all’art. 25 della Convenzione UNCLOS lo stato può comunque impedire l’ingresso nei propri porti ad una nave sospettata di trasportare migranti irregolari, è altrettanto da considerare che se uno Stato respinge una imbarcazione carica di naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali, senza controllare se a bordo vi siano dei richiedenti asilo o soggetti non respingibili, o altrimenti inespellibili, come donne abusate e/o in stato di gravidanza e minori, e senza esaminare se essi possiedano i requisiti per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato, commette una violazione del principio di non respingimento sancito dall’art. 33 par. 1 della Convenzione del 1951 se i territori (Stati terzi o alto mare) verso cui la nave è respinta non offrono garanzie sufficienti per l’incolumità dei migranti. L’articolo 10 del Testo Unico sull’immigrazione 256/98 prevede ancora espressamente la possibilità di applicare il respingimento differito (comma 2) alle persone straniere che sono state “temporaneamente ammessi nel territorio per necessità di pubblico soccorso”. Dunque anche l’ordinamento interno prevede che in caso di eventi di ricerca e soccorso in mare non si possa procedere ad operazioni di respingimento che peraltro assumerebbero il carattere di respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 4 del Quarto Protocollo allegato alla CEDU e dall’art.19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea.

      La Convenzione di Palermo contro il crimine transnazionale ed i due Protocolli allegati, contro la tratta e contro il traffico di esseri umani, che pure prevedono accordi con i paesi di origine e transito dei migranti, antepongono la salvaguardia della vita umana in mare alla lotta contro quella che si definisce immigrazione “illegale”. In base all’art.7 del Protocollo contro il traffico, (Cooperazione) “Gli Stati Parte cooperano nella maniera più ampia per prevenire e reprimere il traffico di migranti via mare, ai sensi del diritto internazionale del mare”. Secondo l’art. 9 dello stesso Protocollo “Qualsiasi misura presa, adottata o applicata conformemente al presente capitolo tiene debitamente conto della necessità di non ostacolare o modificare: a) i diritti e gli obblighi degli Stati costieri e l’esercizio della loro giurisdizione, ai sensi del diritto internazionale del mare. Particolarmente importante l’art. 16 del Protocollo che prevede Misure di tutela e di assistenza: (1) Nell’applicazione del presente Protocollo, ogni Stato Parte prende, compatibilmente con i suoi obblighi derivanti dal diritto internazionale, misure adeguate, comprese quelle di carattere legislativo se necessario, per preservare e tutelare i diritti delle persone che sono state oggetto delle condotte di cui all’articolo 6 del presente Protocollo, come riconosciuti ai sensi del diritto internazionale applicabile, in particolare il diritto alla vita e il diritto a non essere sottoposto a tortura o altri trattamenti o pene inumani o degradanti. (2) Ogni Stato Parte prende le misure opportune per fornire ai migranti un’adeguata tutela contro la violenza che può essere loro inflitta, sia da singoli individui che da
      gruppi, in quanto oggetto delle condotte di cui all’articolo 6 del presente Protocollo. (3) Ogni Stato Parte fornisce un’assistenza adeguata ai migranti la cui vita, o incolumità, è in pericolo dal fatto di essere stati oggetto delle condotte di cui all’articolo 6 del presente Protocollo. (4) Nell’applicare le disposizioni del presente articolo, gli Stati Parte prendono in
      considerazione le particolari esigenze delle donne e dei bambini.

      Un ulteriore clausola di salvaguardia si ritrova all’art.19 del Protocollo addizionale contro il traffico: (1) Nessuna disposizione del presente Protocollo pregiudica diritti, obblighi e responsabilità degli Stati e individui ai sensi del diritto internazionale, compreso il diritto internazionale umanitario e il diritto internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo e, in particolare, laddove applicabile, la Convenzione del 1951 e il Protocollo del 1967 relativi allo Status di Rifugiati e il principio di non allontanamento”.

      Per effetto degli articoli 10 e 117 della Costituzione italiana le Convenzioni internazionali che l’Italia ha sottoscritto si impongono sulle scelte dell’esecutivo e non possono essere violate da leggi interne o accordi internazionali. Dunque il diritto alla vita ed al soccorso in mare è un diritto fondamentale che non si può ponderare sulla base di altri interessi dello stato pure rilevanti, come la difesa delle frontiere o la lotta alle reti di trafficanti.

      Non è dunque possibile che un ministro dell’interno proclami la sua insofferenza per il diritto internazionale, o che lo ritenga un ostacolo alle sue politiche di “chiusura dei porti”. La creazione della zona SAR libica è servita proprio per aggirare i divieti di respingimento e gli obblighi di salvataggio imposti agli stati dal Diritto internazionale. Era tutto chiaro da mesi. Non sono certo le ONG complici dei trafficanti libici, quanto piuttosto quei governi che fanno accordi con le milizie per bloccare e detenere i migranti prima che possano attraversare il Mediterraneo.

      Va ricordato infine che nel caso di avvistamenti o chiamate di soccorso non seguiti da tempestivi interventi di ricerca e salvataggio potrebbero configurarsi gravi responsabilità penali. Come ricordano Caffio e Leanza (Il SAR Mediterraneo) “è da ritenersi in conclusione che responsabilità sarebbero ipotizzabili nei seguenti casi:1) non intervento di navi le quali siano a conoscenza della situazione (anche a seguito di warning emanato dalle autorità italiane) e siano in condizione di intervenire in tempo utile in ragione della distanza e della velocità sempre che non sussistano condizioni ostative attinenti la sicurezza della navigazione e delle persone che sono a bordo nonché alla tipologia di nave (si pensi alle navi gasiere) sprovviste di spazi per ospitare le persone salvate o addirittura pericolose nei loro confronti;2) mancata emissione di warning ai mercantili in transito da parte delle autorità SAR italiane”.

      5. Occorre trovare al più prsto un porto sicuro di sbarco per le 47 persone soccorse ieri dalla nave SEA WATCH, per le quali nè Malta, nè Italia hanno finora indicato quanto dovuto in base alle Convenzioi internazionali. La Convenzione internazionale sulla ricerca e il soccorso in mare del 1979 (Convenzione SAR) obbliga gli Stati parte a “…garantire che sia prestata assistenza ad ogni persona in pericolo in mare… senza distinzioni relative alla nazionalità o allo status di tale persona o alle circostanze nelle quali tale persona viene trovata” (Capitolo 2.1.10) ed a “ […] fornirle le prime cure mediche o di altro genere ed a trasferirla in un luogo sicuro”. (Capitolo 1.3.2)

      Per “luogo di sbarco sicuro” (Place of safety-POS) si deve intendere un luogo in cui si ritiene che le operazioni di soccorso debbano concludersi e in cui la sicurezza per la vita dei sopravvissuti non è minacciata, dove possono essere soddisfatte le necessità umane di base e possono essere definite le modalità di trasporto dei sopravvissuti verso la destinazione successiva o finale tenendo conto della protezione dei loro diritti fondamentali nel rispetto del principio di non respingimento…» (Regolamento Frontex 656/2014).

      L’adempimento degli obblighi internazionali di salvaguardia della vita umana in mare e la tempestiva indicazione di un porto sicuro di sbarco non possono diventare merce di scambio per modificare le politiche dell’Unione Europea.

      Gli interessi nazionali diretti alla “difesa dei confini” non possono consentire di cancellare sostanzialmente gli articoli 10 e 117 della Costituzione italiana che affermano la piena operatività, nel nostro ordinamento interno, delle Convenzioni internazionali che l’Italia ha sottoscritto e ratificato. Rimane inalterata la diretta efficacia cogente dei Regolamenti dell’Unione Europea che forniscono una definizione vincolante ( anche per i ministri dell’interno) di “luogo di sbarco sicuro”.

      Qualunque trattativa per la distribuzione, pure auspicabile, di naufraghi tra diversi paesi europei può avvenire soltanto quando le persone hanno raggiunto un porto di sbarco sicuro, perché la nave soccorritrice va considerata in base al diritto internazionale come un luogo sicuro “transitorio”, e la permanenza a bordo di persone già duramente provate non può diventare arma di ricatto tra gli stati. Di certo non rileva nella individuazione del porto di sbarco sicuro la bandiera dell’unità soccorritrice, altro argomento utilizzato per impedire o ritardare lo sbarco nei porti italiani delle persone soccorse in mare.

      6. Una volta che il Centro nazionale di coordinamento di soccorso marittimo della Guardia Costiera di Roma(I.M.R.C.C.)abbia comunque ricevuto la segnalazione di un’emergenza e assunto il coordinamento iniziale delle operazioni di soccorso -anche se l’emergenza si è sviluppata fuori dalla propria area di competenza SAR – questo impone alle autorità italiane di portare a compimento il salvataggio individuando il luogo sicuro di sbarco dei naufraghi. Se le autorità di Malta hanno negato il loro consenso allo sbarco in un porto di quello Stato, l’Italia non può negare lo sbarco in un proprio porto sicuro, che diventa essenziale per completare le operazioni di salvataggio. Se, come risulta dagli ultimi rapporti delle Nazioni Unite, e come riconosce persino il ministro degli esteri Moavero la Libia non garantisce “porti di sbarco sicuri”, spetta al ministero dell’interno, di concerto con la Centrale operativa della guardia costiera (IMRCC) di Roma, indicare con la massima sollecitudine un porto di sbarco sicuro, anche se l’evento SAR si è verificato nelle acque internazionali che ricadono nella pretesa SAR libica.

      Se gli ordini di “chiusura dei porti ”, impartiti in modo informale dal ministro dell’interno, continueranno a produrre l’effetto di bloccare in alto mare, in acque internazionali, decine di persone particolarmente vulnerabili, come lo sono tutti coloro che provengono oggi dalla Libia, sarebbe violato l’inalienabile diritto delle persone, quale che sia il loro stato giuridico, “a non subire trattamenti inumani o degradanti”( Articolo 3 della CEDU). Trattamenti direttamente riferibili al ministero dell’interno che non indica un porto sicuro di sbarco e che potrebbero ben configurarsi qualora, a seguito di un ennesimo braccio di ferro tra gli stati europei, la permanenza a bordo dei naufraghi, malgrado il prodigarsi degli operatori umanitari, dovesse procurare ulteriori sofferenze, se non gravi rischi per la salute o per la stessa vita. Non si può ammettere che in acque internazionali ci siano persone sottratte a qualsiasi giurisdizione. Anche se non interviene direttamente con i suoi mezzi, fino a quando non intervengono direttamente unità navali o aeree, o centrali di coordinamento SAR di altri paesi, le persone che chiamano soccorso dall’alto mare si trovano sotto la giurisdizione del primo paese che riceve la chiamata di soccorso, dal cui esito tempestivo può dipendere la vita o la morte.

      In caso di violazione del divieto di respingimenti collettivi ( articolo 4 del Quarto Protocollo allegato alla CEDU) o del divieto di trattamenti inumani od degradanti (art.3 CEDU), imposti agli stati nei confronti di tutte le persone che ricadono nella loro giurisdizione, come sono i naufraghi soccorsi in operazioni coordinate, almeno nella fase iniziale, da una autorità statale, si potrebbero ipotizzare ricorsi in via di urgenza alla Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo. Mentre se il conflitto tra gli stati ( in particolare Italia e Malta) nella individuazione di un POS (porto sicuro di sbarco) si dovesse ripetere, dovrebbe occuparsene la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea.

      https://dossierlibia.lasciatecientrare.it/il-governo-italiano-elude-il-divieto-di-respingimenti

  • Uganda’s refugee policies: the history, the politics, the way forward

    Uganda’s refugee policy urgently needs an honest discussion, if sustainable solutions for both refugees and host communities are to be found, a new policy paper by International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI) reveals.

    The paper, entitled Uganda’s refugee policies: the history, the politics, the way forward puts the “Ugandan model” in its historical and political context, shines a spotlight on its implementation gaps, and proposes recommendations for the way forward.

    Uganda has since 2013 opened its borders to hundreds of thousands of refugees from South Sudan, bringing the total number of refugees to more than one million. It has been praised for its positive steps on freedom of movement and access to work for refugees, going against the global grain. But generations of policy, this paper shows, have only entrenched the sole focus on refugee settlements and on repatriation as the only viable durable solution. Support to urban refugees and local integration have been largely overlooked.

    The Ugandan refugee crisis unfolded at the same time as the UN adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and states committed to implement a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). Uganda immediately seized this opportunity and adopted its own strategy to implement these principles. As the world looks to Uganda for best practices in refugee policy, and rightly so, it is vital to understand the gaps between rhetoric and reality, and the pitfalls of Uganda’s policy. This paper identifies the following challenges:

    There is a danger that the promotion of progressive refugee policies becomes more rhetoric than reality, creating a smoke-screen that squeezes out meaningful discussion about robust alternatives. Policy-making has come at the expense of real qualitative change on the ground.
    Refugees in urban areas continue to be largely excluded from any support due to an ongoing focus on refugee settlements, including through aid provision
    Local integration and access to citizenship have been virtually abandoned, leaving voluntary repatriation as the only solution on the table. Given the protracted crises in South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo, this remains unrealistic.
    Host communities remain unheard, with policy conversations largely taking place in Kampala and Geneva. Many Ugandans and refugees have neither the economic resources nor sufficient political leverage to influence the policies that are meant to benefit them.

    The policy paper proposes a number of recommendations to improve the Ugandan refugee model:

    First, international donors need to deliver on their promise of significant financial support.
    Second, repatriation cannot remain the only serious option on the table. There has to be renewed discussion on local integration with Uganda communities and a dramatic increase in resettlement to wealthier states across the globe.
    Third, local communities hosting refugees must be consulted and their voices incorporated in a more meaningful and systematic way, if tensions within and between communities are to be avoided.
    Fourth, in order to genuinely enhance refugee self-reliance, the myth of the “local settlement” needs to be debunked and recognized for what it is: the ongoing isolation of refugees and the utilization of humanitarian assistance to keep them isolated and dependent on aid.


    http://refugee-rights.org/uganda-refugee-policies-the-history-the-politics-the-way-forward
    #modèle_ougandais #Ouganda #asile #migrations #réfugiés

    Pour télécharger le #rapport:
    http://refugee-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/IRRI-Uganda-policy-paper-October-2018-Paper.pdf

    • A New Deal for Refugees

      Global policies that aim to resettle and integrate displaced populations into local societies is providing a way forward.

      For many years now, groups that work with refugees have fought to put an end to the refugee camp. It’s finally starting to happen.

      Camps are a reasonable solution to temporary dislocation. But refugee crises can go on for decades. Millions of refugees have lived in their country of shelter for more than 30 years. Two-thirds of humanitarian assistance — intended for emergencies — is spent on crises that are more than eight years old.

      Camps are stagnant places. Refugees have access to water and medical care and are fed and educated, but are largely idle. “You keep people for 20 years in camps — don’t expect the next generation to be problem-free,” said Xavier Devictor, who advises the World Bank on refugee issues. “Keeping people in those conditions is not a good idea.” It’s also hard to imagine a better breeding ground for terrorists.

      “As long as the system is ‘we feed you,’ it’s always going to be too expensive for the international community to pay for,” Mr. Devictor said. It’s gotten more and more difficult for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to raise that money; in many crises, the refugee agency can barely keep people from starving. It’s even harder now as nations turn against foreigners — even as the number of people fleeing war and violence has reached a record high.

      At the end of last year, nearly 70 million people were either internally displaced in their own countries, or had crossed a border and become a refugee. That is the largest number of displaced in history — yes, more than at the end of World War II. The vast majority flee to neighboring countries — which can be just as badly off.

      Last year, the United States accepted about 30,000 refugees.

      Uganda, which is a global model for how it treats refugees, has one-seventh of America’s population and a tiny fraction of the wealth. Yet it took in 1,800 refugees per day between mid-2016 and mid-2017 from South Sudan alone. And that’s one of four neighbors whose people take refuge in Uganda.

      Bangladesh, already the world’s most crowded major nation, has accepted more than a million Rohingya fleeing ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. “If we can feed 160 million people, then (feeding) another 500,00-700,000 …. We can do it. We can share our food,” Shiekh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister, said last year.

      Lebanon is host to approximately 1.5 million Syrian refugees, in addition to a half-million Palestinians, some of whom have been there for generations. One in three residents of Lebanon is a refugee.

      The refugee burden falls heavily on a few, poor countries, some of them at risk of destabilization, which can in turn produce more refugees. The rest of the world has been unwilling to share that burden.

      But something happened that could lead to real change: Beginning in 2015, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees crossed the Mediterranean in small boats and life rafts into Europe.

      Suddenly, wealthy European countries got interested in fixing a broken system: making it more financially viable, more dignified for refugees, and more palatable for host governments and communities.

      In September 2016, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution stating that all countries shared the responsibility of protecting refugees and supporting host countries. It also laid out a plan to move refugees out of camps into normal lives in their host nations.

      Donor countries agreed they would take more refugees and provide more long-term development aid to host countries: schools, hospitals, roads and job-creation measures that can help both refugees and the communities they settle in. “It looked at refugee crises as development opportunities, rather than a humanitarian risk to be managed,” said Marcus Skinner, a policy adviser at the International Rescue Committee.

      The General Assembly will vote on the specifics next month (whatever they come up with won’t be binding). The Trump administration pulled out of the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration, but so far it has not opposed the refugee agreement.

      There’s a reason refugee camps exist: Host governments like them. Liberating refugees is a hard sell. In camps, refugees are the United Nations’ problem. Out of camps, refugees are the local governments’ problem. And they don’t want to do anything to make refugees comfortable or welcome.

      Bangladesh’s emergency response for the Rohingya has been staggeringly generous. But “emergency” is the key word. The government has resisted granting Rohingya schooling, work permits or free movement. It is telling Rohingya, in effect, “Don’t get any ideas about sticking around.”

      This attitude won’t deter the Rohingya from coming, and it won’t send them home more quickly. People flee across the closest border — often on foot — that allows them to keep their families alive. And they’ll stay until home becomes safe again. “It’s the simple practicality of finding the easiest way to refuge,” said Victor Odero, regional advocacy coordinator for East Africa and the Horn of Africa at the International Rescue Committee. “Any question of policies is a secondary matter.”

      So far, efforts to integrate refugees have had mixed success. The first experiment was a deal for Jordan, which was hosting 650,000 Syrian refugees, virtually none of whom were allowed to work. Jordan agreed to give them work permits. In exchange, it got grants, loans and trade concessions normally available only to the poorest countries.

      However, though the refugees have work permits, Jordan has put only a moderate number of them into jobs.

      Any agreement should include the views of refugees from the start — the Jordan Compact failed to do this. Aid should be conditioned upon the right things. The deal should have measured refugee jobs, instead of work permits. Analysts also said the benefits should have been targeted more precisely, to reach the areas with most refugees.

      To spread this kind of agreement to other nations, the World Bank established a $2 billion fund in July 2017. The money is available to very poor countries that host many refugees, such as Uganda and Bangladesh. In return, they must take steps to integrate refugees into society. The money will come as grants and zero interest loans with a 10-year grace period. Middle-income countries like Lebanon and Colombia would also be eligible for loans at favorable rates under a different fund.

      Over the last 50 years, only one developing country has granted refugees full rights. In Uganda, refugees can live normally. Instead of camps there are settlements, where refugees stay voluntarily because they get a plot of land. Refugees can work, live anywhere, send their children to school and use the local health services. The only thing they can’t do is become Ugandan citizens.

      Given the global hostility to refugees, it is remarkable that Ugandans still approve of these policies. “There have been flashes of social tension or violence between refugees and their hosts, mostly because of a scarcity of resources,” Mr. Odero said. “But they have not become widespread or protracted.”

      This is the model the United Nations wants the world to adopt. But it is imperiled even in Uganda — because it requires money that isn’t there.

      The new residents are mainly staying near the South Sudan border in Uganda’s north — one of the least developed parts of the country. Hospitals, schools, wells and roads were crumbling or nonexistent before, and now they must serve a million more people.

      Joël Boutroue, the head of the United Nations refugee agency in Uganda, said current humanitarian funding covered a quarter of what the crisis required. “At the moment, not even half of refugees go to primary school,” he said. “There are around 100 children per classroom.”

      Refugees are going without food, medical care and water. The plots of land they get have grown smaller and smaller.

      Uganda is doing everything right — except for a corruption scandal. It could really take advantage of the new plan to develop the refugee zone. That would not only help refugees, it would help their host communities. And it would alleviate growing opposition to rights for refugees. “The Ugandan government is under pressure from politicians who see the government giving favored treatment to refugees,” Mr. Boutroue said. “If we want to change the perception of refugees from recipients of aid to economic assets, we have to showcase that refugees bring development.”

      The World Bank has so far approved two projects — one for water and sanitation and one for city services such as roads and trash collection. But they haven’t gotten started yet.

      Mr. Devictor said that tackling long-term development issues was much slower than providing emergency aid. “The reality is that it will be confusing and confused for a little while,” he said. Water, for example, is trucked in to Uganda’s refugee settlements, as part of humanitarian aid. “That’s a huge cost,” he said. “But if we think this crisis is going to last for six more months, it makes sense. If it’s going to last longer, we should think about upgrading the water system.”

      Most refugee crises are not surprises, Mr. Devictor said. “If you look at a map, you can predict five or six crises that are going to produce refugees over the next few years.” It’s often the same places, over and over. That means developmental help could come in advance, minimizing the burden on the host. “Do we have to wait until people cross the border to realize we’re going to have an emergency?” he said.

      Well, we might. If politicians won’t respond to a crisis, it’s hard to imagine them deciding to plan ahead to avert one. Political commitment, or lack of it, always rules. The world’s new approach to refugees was born out of Europe’s panic about the Syrians on their doorstep. But no European politician is panicking about South Sudanese or Rohingya refugees — or most crises. They’re too far away. The danger is that the new approach will fall victim to the same political neglect that has crippled the old one.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/opinion/refugee-camps-integration.html

      #Ouganda #modèle_ougandais #réinstallation #intégration

      avec ce commentaire de #Jeff_Crisp sur twitter :

      “Camps are stagnant places. Refugees have access to water and medical care and are fed and educated, but are largely idle.”
      Has this prizewinning author actually been to a refugee camp?

      https://twitter.com/JFCrisp/status/1031892657117831168

    • Appreciating Uganda’s ‘open door’ policy for refugees

      While the rest of the world is nervous and choosing to take an emotional position on matters of forced migration and refugees, sometimes closing their doors in the face of people who are running from persecution, Uganda’s refugee policy and practice continues to be liberal, with an open door to all asylum seekers, writes Arthur Matsiko

      http://thisisafrica.me/appreciating-ugandas-open-door-policy-refugees