FRANET 2013 Contribution to Annual Report 2013 The Netherlands Art.1, Dutch knowledge centre on discrimination Date of submission: 07 February 2014 1 1 ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION 1.1 Monitoring of forced returns 1. Organisation appointed 1.1 Which is/are the national organisation(s) tasked with ONLY UPDATE THIS FIELD IF THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN return monitoring? 2013 1.2. Indicate the legal basis in domestic law and provide the ONLY UPDATE THIS FIELD IF THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN link. 2013 2. Monitoring of removals 2.1 Has the organisation (indicated under 1.1 above) Yes. accompanied actual removals by being on the aircraft or vessel in 2013? 2.2 If yes, how often and to which destinations? No statistics available yet. The statistics will be made available in the Annual Report of the organisation, published on its website: www.commissieterugkeer.nl/publicatie/ 2.3 Did it include Frontex-coordinated returns? Not yet available. 2.4 If the reply to question 2.3 is yes, how many and to Not yet available. which destinations? 2.5 Briefly describe which standards the monitor compares ONLY UPDATE THIS FIELD IF THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN his/her observation with (indicate if tools, such as 2013 guidelines or checklists, exist) 3. Funding 3.1 Was the monitoring of forced return co-funded by the No. European Return Fund in 2013? 3.2 If yes, what portion (% and amount in EUR and local n/a currency) was covered by EU funding? 4. Reporting 4.1. Has the monitor issued public reports? Yes. 4.2. If yes, briefly describe the key issues raised and provide In its Annual Report 2012, the CITT states that overall the a link to the document. forced returns witnessed by the CITT are carried out in a human, ethical and correct fashion. The CITT points out very specific weaknesses in the cooperation of the different organisations concerned, including the cooperation between the Return and Departure Service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the use of the central tracking form M118 which is not used properly and does not have the desired quality. Furthermore, the CITT advises that FRONTEX should play a more central role in return 2 monitoring, especially in the context of Joint Return Operations.1 Annual Report 2012 can be accessed at www.commissieterugkeer.nl/Images/j-18896-jaarverslag- 2012-citt-definitief-26-4-2013_tcm96- 499581.pdf?cp=96&cs=32815. 5. Any other comments 5.1. Include here any other comments on monitoring on None. forced returns that occurred in 2013 that you may have. 1.2 Immigration detention and alternatives to detention 1.2.1 Statistics of the Penitentiary Service (Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, DJI) DJI over detention, including immigration detention, can be found here: www.dji.nl/Organisatie/Feiten-en-cijfers The Ministry of Security and Justice publishes a biannual report containing all statistics regarding asylum procedures, detention and return. This report is called 'Aliens chain report' (Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen). The last report published was: "Rapportage vreemdelingenketen periode januari-juni 2013". The following URL refers to a search input in the online archive of the national government leading to results on the 'Rapportage vreemdelingenketen': http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en- publicaties?keyword=rapportage+vreemdelingenketen&period-from=&period- to=&department=&informationtype= 1.3 Fees 1.3.1 Complete the table below, indicating the amount that a third- country national must pay to obtain a residence permit or a similar document. See annex 1 1.3.2 Complete the table below, indicating the amount beneficiaries of refugee status or of subsidiary protection status must pay to the relevant authorities to obtain travel documents, pursuant to Article 25, Directive 2011/95/EU. Status of the Fee collected Can the fee be reduced? If so, specify on Can the applicant get preferential beneficiary which grounds this is the case treatment against a higher fee? If so, explain? 1 Netherlands, Integral Return Monitoring Commission (Commissie Integraal Toezicht Terugkeer, CITT) (2013), Jaarverslag 2012, The Hague, CITT, available at: www.commissieterugkeer.nl/Images/j-18896-jaarverslag-2012- citt-definitief-26-4-2013_tcm96-499581.pdf?cp=96&cs=32815. 3 Refugee €20,802 No No Subsidiary €20,803 No No protection 1.4 Promising practices 1.4.1 Provide a maximum of three new promising practices relating to asylum, immigration and integration, putting each one in a separate table Title (original language) Tell Me Title (EN) Tell Me Werkgroep Kind in azc (Unicef, Defence for Children, Organisation (original language) Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland) Working Group Child in asylumseekers centre (made up of Organisation (EN) Unicef, Defence for Children, Dutch Council for Refugees) Government / Civil society Civil Society Funding body European Refugee Fund, Foundation Kinderpostzegels Werkgroep Kind in azc (2013), 'Tell me', Website, available at Reference (incl. url, where available) www.tell-me.nl/ Indicate the start date of the promising practice and the 5 July 2013 finishing date if it has ceased to exist Type of initiative Information website Main target group Children in asylum seekers centres Indicate level of implementation: Local/Regional/National National A report published in 2009 showed that children in asylum centers are often poorly informed about their situation ('Kind in het centrum', Unicef . For example, they did not know what they were able to do in their asylum seekers centre in terms of activities, where they could go to school, whether they could go to a sports club. The organisations involved in this project found that this lack of information constitutes a risk to the Brief description (max. 1000 chars) participation and development of the children. As a response, they developed the website Tell Me which offers children, parents and professionals information about the different areas of children's life in an asylum seekers centre. It offers not just general information, but also answers very specific and practical questions. It also includes a glossary of terms relating to the asylum procedure and life in the Netherlands. Children can participate by using the forum of the website and asking their 2 Netherlands, Passport Fee Decree (Besluit paspoortgelden), article 6.1.a. 3 Netherlands, Passport Fee Decree (Besluit paspoortgelden), article 6.1.a. 4 own questions. It is the first website in the Netherlands that focuses exclusively on the situation of children in asylum seekers centres. Highlight any element of the actions that is transferable The entire website is transferable. (max. 500 chars) A lot of different organisations are working together in the development and the maintenance of the website, in addition to Give reasons why you consider the practice as sustainable the main partner organisations. As a result, it is likely that the (as opposed to ‘one off activities’) website will be well implemented and the use of it will be promoted. It fills a gap which was identified by the report that triggered the development. The website provides practical information to the target group Give reasons why you consider the practice as having which is otherwise not provided, as was shown in the report concrete measurable impact which triggered this initiative. The website can be easily accessed by children and use will be promoted. Except for the specific information provided by the website, Give reasons why you consider the practice as there is little in this initiative which is country-specific. transferrable to other settings and/or Member States? Therefore, it can easily be transferred to other Member States. The practice is based on the information collected in the report Explain, if applicable, how the practice involves 'Kind in het centrum' (Child in the centre) which presented the beneficiaries and stakeholders in the design, planning, situation of children, based on interviews with children and their evaluation, review assessment and implementation of the parents. Furthermore, the website is connected to a programme practice. of information events carried out by the organising parties. Explain, if applicable, how the practice provides for review No information available. and assessment. Title (original language) Code Name Future Lespakket Vluchtelingenwerk Title (EN) Code Name Future Lesson Material for the Council for Refugees Organisation (original language) Code Name Future Organisation (EN) Code Name Future Government / Civil society Civil Society Funding body Council for Refugees Netherland (Council for Refugees) (2013), Code Name Future Reference (incl. url, where available) Lespakket Vluchtelingenwerk, available at http://codenamefuture.nl/vluchtelingenwerk/ Indicate the start date of the promising practice and the 7 October 2013 finishing date if it has ceased to exist Type of initiative Education Material Teachers and students of lower and higher secondary education Main target group (VMBO and HAVO/VWO) 5 Indicate level of implementation: Local/Regional/National National Commissioned by the Dutch Council for Refugees, Code Name Future has developed specific interactive material for teachers and students of both lower and higher secondary education. It's a small scale programme of two lessons in which students first are encouraged to look for facts regarding immigration and Brief description (max. 1000 chars) asylum in the Netherlands, in order to check and diffuse certain stereotypes concerning for example the extent of influx of asylum seekers. The second lesson aims to create an empathic appreciation of the situation of refugees, focusing on feelings of (in)security. The general content and the interactive approach of the material is transferable to other countries, as the issues (stereotypes, exaggeration of the extent of migration) are comparable across Highlight any element of the actions that is transferable countries. The approach to integrate the topic of refugees and (max. 500 chars) asylum as a general framework for teaching geographic methods (data collection and research) is a useful approach which can be applied in other countries too.