Download
1 / 25
250 likes | 252 Vues
This policy study examines the regulatory and policy legacy of the refugee crisis in Croatia, North Macedonia, and Serbia. It assesses the impact of their responses and the EU's coordinated efforts in managing the crisis and post-crisis developments.
E N D
Western Balkans Regulatoryand PolicyDynamicsin the Aftermathof the RefugeeCrisis2015- public presentation of the Policy Study Munir Podumljak, Consultant Split, 30 April 2019.
FAQ • According to Frontex, in 2015, over one million refugees and migrants – compared with about 200.000 in 2014 – reached Europe by sea in an unauthorized manner, mainly arriving in Greece and Italy. • Large share of people, approximately over 800.000 came through Eastern Mediterranean Route that heavily relies on traditional Balkan Route. • This created unprecedented humanitarian, social, political, security and economic pressure on Western Balkan countries, especially North Macedonia, Serbia and Croatia that became main corridor after the Hungarian authorities physically closed their border. • While phenomena is widely researched from different aspects, we focused on the regulatory and policy legacy of the crisis in three countries – Croatia, North Macedonia and Serbia.
Methodology • Policy and academic literature review on 2015/2016 refugee crisis; • Desk research of policy, regulatory and institutional setting in three countries + the EU response; • Statistical analysis in order to assess the impact of designed responses and performance of the observed countries in meeting the objectives of the coordinated and in country efforts in managing the crisis and post crisis developments.
Conceptual Dilemma: Security-Centered Approach in management of refugee crisis create incentive for "Regulatory Migration of Persons"
EU Off guard • Periodic stress tests to the European joint response to refugee movement occurred during the Kosovo crisis (1999), latest Afghanistan conflict (2001-onward), Iraq (2003 onward), and the Arab Spring (2010 onward). • Despite the events and clear need for design of comprehensive joint response by the EU, the outbreak of multilayered violence in Syria that in 2015/2016 escalated to one of worst refugee crisis in Europe since WWII caught Europe off guard and created significant political instability across the Europe, threatening the some of the essential achievements of the EU.
The EU Response • In spring 2015 the EU adopted European Agenda on Migration with appropriate frameworks for implementation. • In addition, in order to manage the pressure from the Eastern Mediterranean route (that heavily relies on the Balkan route), the EuropeanCommission designed a coordination instrument among Western Balkan countries in late 2015 , that was accompanied by the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) and Argus in order to coordinate the efforts of the EU MS.
Country Response - Croatia • Number of refugees who had entered Croatia in 2015 amounted to 585540. • It is mainly since September 2015 that Croatia started to become one of the main transit countries for refugees (about 12 000 entries per day), following Hungary’s construction of a barbed wire fence on its border with Serbia . • In less than a month, from 16 September until 22 November at 9 pm, some 432.000 people entered Croatia. • The majority of registered persons were Syrian nationals, followed by persons from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. • Despite having a fairly good asylum system, only 43 people applied for asylum in Croatia between 16 September and 31 December 2015.
Country Response - Croatia • In addition, in the first months of the crisis, Croatian authorities did not register new arrivals, the practice of registration was introduced only in late 2015. • While during the registration process photos and fingerprints of the migrating persons are taken, the process was not conducted in accordance with EURODAC requirements.
Country Response - Serbia • Statistics in Serbia suggest that the model used for registration of refugees was different thanin Croatia. According to Serbian Ministry of Interior in 2015 there were579.518 registered asylum seekers in Serbia. • Closure of the Hungarian border accompanied by large influx of refugees that was estimated between 4.000 and 5.000 on a daily basis mostly coming over the border with North Macedonia created a burden for Serbian authorities in managing the assistance to refugees. • However, despite the large number of people expressing their intention to seek asylum in Serbia, only approx. 0,1% of refugees have actually applied for asylum (see the table below).
Country Response - Serbia • In comparison to Croatia, the refugees in Serbia during the crisis in 2015 stayed over alonger period of time with prolonged assistance needs including accommodation and health care. • During the crisis, basic registration was conducted by Serbian authorities based on the asylum procedures. • According to the asylum information database (AIDA) report for 2015 "Recording" an asylum seeker – which, under Serbian law, is not the same as "registering them" – entails issuing them a certificate of the expressed intention to seek asylum. • Registration details were insufficient.
Country Response – North Macedonia • According to the UNHCR at the peak of the crisis in 2015 approximate daily arrivals to North Macedonia ranged between 10.000 (October) 9 and 5.000 (November). • Confronted with increasing numbers of arrivals however, in June 2015 Macedonian authorities introduced legal changes permitting refugees presence in the country for a period of 72 hours from the moment of registration. • According to the Ministry of Interior of NM in 2015 over 716.825 persons were registered in 2015 as migrants in North Macedonia due to the refugee crisis. • However, only the 1.721 or 0,24% applied for asylum in North Macedonia.
Country Response - North Macedonia • Macedonia started registering irregular migrants and displaced persons on 19 June 2015. • At first, police were able to register only one-third to one-half of all arriving migrants as the system became fully functional only in December 2015.
Joint Response of Croatia, Serbia and North Macedonia • Several temporary closures of borders between North Macedonia and Greece took place between late autumn 2015 and March 2016. • Disagreements and heated diplomatic dialogue between the countries on the Balkan route disrupted migration flow on several occasions. • On 8 March 2016 North Macedonia, Serbia and Croatia closedborders in a coordinated action (implementation of the Schengen Code).
Are we better prepared now? • Many argue that despite regulatory, institutional and infrastructurechanges across the EU and Western Balkans, the EU is not better suited to handle another similar crisis due to lack of EU MS consensus. • Western Balkan countries despite seeing the crisis, in fact did not provide any long-term assistance to the refugees as no significant numbers of persons remained in countries on the Balkan route.
Paradox of the Security Focused Approach • The main reason for focusing on security-based response to the refugee crisis EU MS was prevention of variety security issues such as crime and terrorism. • However, this research found no evidence that such approach provided for more security of the EU citizens. • On the contrary, violation of human rights of refugees, their discrimination based on ethnicity and religion, and criminalization of refugees and effectiveclosure of the external borders of the EU, pushed persons in need toward criminal groups and networks and their assistance in reaching the EU soil.
Frontex Risk Analysis • Interviews with migrants in the Central, Eastern and Western Mediterranean area in the framework of PeDRA (Processing Personal Data for Risk Analysis) indicate that the vast majority (84 %) of the migrants interviewed claimed that they were facilitated by smuggling networks. • Despite high estimated numbers of the smuggledpersons they are still not appearing in the official statistics as asylumseekers in the EU MS which raises concerns.
What is ahead of us (Frontex report)? • Exodus from Syria’s Idlib region could trigger a new uncontrollable migration wave. • The situation in Syria continues to hold risks for further large-scale outflows of migrants. While the Syrian regime has reconquered much of the country, the opposition stronghold in Idlib province in the country’s northawaits an offensive by government forces • The Syrian regime is deemed determined to reconquer Idlib and the Sochi agreement has been threatened by clashes between jihadists and the Syrian Arab army. • Military action in Idlib could lead to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people northwards into Turkey. On this scale, a new migration wave to Europe could be difficult to rein in.
Recommendations • Reshape and redesign the Coordinated EU and EU Accession countries response to the potential future refugee crisis. • New system needsto rest on Human Rights focused approach in order to provide for more safety of the refugees and better intel and security for EU Citizens. • The pan European biometric ID for refugees needsto be designed and all personal data on refugees need to be managed from one place until final settlementof the person.
Thank you! The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information andviews expressed in the this Study report,lies entirely with the author(s). Sadržaj ovog izvještaja ne predstavlja stavove Europske unije. Odgovornost za informacije i stavove iznešene u ovom izvještaju o Policy studiji, su isključivo autorove. Projekt je sufinanciran iz Programa “Europa za građane”, Europske unije, u okviru projekta “Održivost humanističkih vrijednosti i demokratskih principa je održivost Europske unije”, nositeljice Udruge za promicanje ljudskih prava i medijskih sloboda “CENZURA PLUS”. Project “Sustainability of humanistic values and democratic principles = sustainability of the EU” is co-funded by the Europe for Citizens programme of the European Union and implemented by the Association for promotion of human rights and media freedoms “CENZURA PLUS”, as a lead partner.
