Number 81 December 2017 Responses to mixed Network migration in Europe Paper Implications for the John Borton and humanitarian sector Sarah Collinson About the authors John Borton is a Senior Research Associate at the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) and an Honorary Lecturer at the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute (HCRI) at the University of Manchester. Sarah Collinson is a Research Associate at HPG. She has also held senior research and policy positions at Chatham House and ActionAid. Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) Overseas Development Institute 203 Blackfriars Road London, SE1 8NJ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0330 Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Email: [email protected] Website: www.odihpn.org About HPN The Humanitarian Practice Network at the Overseas Development Institute is an independent forum where field work- ers, managers and policymakers in the humanitarian sector share information, analysis and experience. The views and opinions expressed in HPN’s publications do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Humanitarian Policy Group or the Overseas Development Institute. © Overseas Development Institute, London, 2017. Cover photo: Syrian refugees come ashore in Lesvos, Greece. ©Ben White/CAFOD Network Paper Number 81 December 2017 Responses to mixed migration in Europe: implications for the humanitarian sector Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Overview: arrivals and key events since 2015 3 Chapter 2 The European asylum and migration framework 9 Chapter 3 National frameworks and responses 11 Chapter 4 The humanitarian response 17 Chapter 5 Filling the (many) gaps: the response by civil society actors 21 Conclusion Implications for the future of humanitarian action 27 Network Paper Number 81 December 2017 | i ii | Responses to mixed migration in Europe: implications for the humanitarian sector Introduction For years nationals from outside the European Union (EU) headquartered or based in EU member states attempted to have sought to enter the EU by irregular means, outside the address the many gaps and failings in state provision, but regulatory norms of sending, transit and receiving countries. with some notable exceptions the response was slow and Since early 2015, however, the number of refugees and patchy, raising many questions about the effectiveness of migrants entering (and trying to enter) the EU irregularly has international humanitarian agencies when trying to respond increased dramatically, presenting the EU and its member in their ‘home’ or ‘own’ region, rather than in Africa, Asia or states with profound organisational and political challenges elsewhere. The evident failings of responsible institutions and and confronting the formal humanitarian sector with tests agencies galvanised volunteers and grassroots groups from that it has struggled, and often failed, to meet. across Europe, and indeed many other countries. In many respects, the scale of the response by civil society has been Between January 2015 and September 2017, over 1.5 million as telling as the failings of the authorities and established refugees and irregular migrants arrived in Europe by sea. At humanitarian agencies. least 9,600 died or went missing trying to make the crossing.1 During the peak months from July 2015 to March 2016, over This Network Paper seeks to disentangle and explain from a 1m arrived in the space of nine months – principally in Greece, humanitarian perspective what has happened in Europe since but also in Italy and to a much lesser extent Spain. The influx 2015, and the potential implications for the humanitarian presented a humanitarian challenge arguably on a scale sector more widely.3 The paper starts with an overview of Europe had not faced since the immediate aftermath of the key events in the period 2015–17 (Chapter 1). Whilst the Second World War. In many key respects the response to that focus is on 2015 and early 2016, developments later in 2016 challenge, by states, regional institutions and the international and during the first nine months of 2017 are also considered. humanitarian system, failed, and for long periods the basic The main elements of the European asylum and migration material and protection needs of many refugees and irregular architecture which framed and shaped these developments migrants were not met. For this to have happened in Europe – are presented in Chapter 2, while Chapter 3 looks at the widely regarded as the birthplace of modern humanitarianism response in key individual states. The responsibilities of – with its high income and well-developed infrastructure, is humanitarian agencies in this context are then considered both astonishing and shaming. in Chapter 4, together with the factors contributing to the slow and patchy response, and the reasons why so many Under EU asylum rules, the primary responsibility for the care refugees and irregular migrants in EU countries continue and protection of refugees and irregular migrants lies with to endure conditions that are well below the minimum the national authorities in the countries they arrive in. The standards expected of a humanitarian response. Chapter 5 reasons why these rules and standards broke down or were looks at the response by volunteers and grassroots groups not adhered to are complex, but at their root lies a lack of from across Europe, exploring the challenges they have faced solidarity between EU members. As the UN Secretary-General and the evolving nature of their relationship with formal put it in August 2015, this was ‘a crisis of solidarity, not a crisis humanitarian actors. The final section draws the key points of numbers’.2 Some international humanitarian agencies together by asking what this experience tells us about the limits of humanitarian action as practiced by traditional humanitarian actors, and the role of civil society actors in the 1 IOM Missing Migrants project: https://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/ provision of assistance and protection. mediterranean. 2 Ban Ki-Moon, ‘Statement Attributable to the Secretary-General on Recent Refugee/Migrant Tragedies’, 28 August 2015, https://www.un.org/sg/en/ 3 This Network Paper builds on a special issue of Humanitarian Exchange content/sg/statement/2015-08-28/statement-attributable-secretary-general- magazine on ‘Refugees and Vulnerable Migrants in Europe’ (no. 67, recent-refugeemigrant. September 2016). Network Paper Number 81 December 2017 | 01 02 | Responses to mixed migration in Europe: implications for the humanitarian sector Chapter 1 Overview: arrivals and key events since 2015 Over the period January 2015 to the end of September 2017, countries – Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. By far the largest over 1.5m refugees and irregular migrants arrived in Europe nationality arriving in Europe by sea in those two years, at just by sea. Almost 70% made landfall in Greece through the over 40% of the total, were Syrians displaced by the conflict Eastern Mediterranean Route (principally from Turkey to the convulsing their country since 2011. Many had experienced Aegean Islands, with a much smaller number from Lebanon multiple displacements within Syria, and had spent months or and Egypt). Of the remainder, 29% arrived in Italy through years in formal and informal refugee camps and urban areas in the Central Mediterranean Route (principally from Libya, with Turkey, Lebanon and other neighbouring countries. According smaller numbers from Tunisia and Egypt), and 3% arrived in to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), for many Spain through the Western Mediterranean Route (principally the decision to move in 2015 was strongly influenced by the from Algeria and Morocco). As Figure 1 shows, the peak months lack of any prospect of a resolution to the conflict, combined were between June 2015 and March 2016, when 964,000 with growing impoverishment in their host countries and cuts refugees and irregular migrants arrived in Greece. in food assistance.4 Faced with the likelihood of living for years without full refugee status and protection, having to work in The home countries of the arriving refugees and irregular the informal, low-wage economy and struggling to get their migrants, the factors influencing their initial decision to leave children into formal education, many opted instead to pay their homes and the routes and duration of their journey smugglers to get them and their families to Europe.5 differed widely. At the risk of oversimplifying a complicated and nuanced reality, the key facts are that two-thirds of For the Central Mediterranean Route the picture is more arrivals into Europe in 2015 and 2016 were from just three complex, with three broad groups involved: those with Figure 1 Monthly sea arrivals in Greece, Italy and Spain, January 2015 to September 2017 250,000 Greece Italy Spain 200,000 150,000 100,000 Numbers arriving each month Numbers arriving each 50,000 0 Jan 15 Mar 15 May 15 Jul 15 Sep 15 Nov 15 Jan 16 Mar 16 May 16 Jul 16 Sep 15 Nov 15 Jan 17 Mar 17 May 17 Jul 17 Sep 17 Source: UNHCR Mediterranean Data Portal 4 Filippo Grandi, ‘Protecting Refugees in Europe and Beyond: Can the EU Rise 5 Heaven Crawley et al., ‘Understanding the Dynamics of Migration to Greece to the Challenge?’, Speech at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, 5 December and the EU: Drivers, Decisions and Destinations’, MEDMIG Research Brief 2, 2016. September 2016. Network Paper Number 81 December 2017 | 03 protection claims; those fleeing instability or violence in their Box 1 Mixed migration countries of origin who may not qualify for refugee status