Asylum regimes

This paper gives an overview of the current integration standards established within the Common European Asylum System and highlights the possible effects of the changing EU and national legal environment on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection. These integration standards are the starting point of the development of the integration indicators within the project “National Integration Evaluation Mechanism” (NIEM), which aims to support key integration and social actors in 14 EU Member States and Turkey to evaluate and improve the integration outcomes of beneficiaries of international protection. The EU’s greatest impact on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection has been through the stable legal framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The recast Asylum Procedures, Reception Conditions, Qualification and Family Reunification Directives all build on the standards set by the 1951 Geneva Convention and aim for its full and effective implementation. They set a series of standards that shape the integration process, starting from the reception phase until the full legal, socio-economic and socio-cultural integration allowing refugees to realise their full potential to contribute to society. These binding legislative acts are complemented by the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU1 and its re-affirmation, 10 Years On2 , which guide Member States on how to respond to the needs and opportunities that beneficiaries of international protection bring to their new homes. However, in the past year, the emergence and strengthening of exclusionary, anti-migrant narratives has threatened to undermine national – and now the EU’s – stable legal framework and level of ambition to promote refugee integration. The negative political discourse induced a surprisingly coordinated race-to-the-bottom reply at national level, whose approach is reflected in the most recent European Commission Communication “Towards a Reform of the European Common Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe”. This document shows a fundamental change in the approach towards beneficiaries of international protection. These proposals reframe the logic of asylum to a more temporary legal status in its nature and have more often recourse to the cessation clause4 , without assessing the long-term consequences: how will it affect the integration of beneficiaries of international protection?

Asielzoekers die de EU op irreguliere wijze inreizen, blijven vaak niet in de lidstaat waar zij aankomen. Doormigratie van asielzoekers in de EU is niet helemaal te voorkomen, maar kan wel beter worden aangepakt. De Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken adviseert daarom een bredere aanpak in EU-verband. Het aantal asielzoekers dat na aankomst in de EU doorreist naar een andere lidstaat is de laatste jaren sterk toegenomen, terwijl het aantal asielaanvragen in de EU sinds 2016 weer op het niveau van 2014 ligt. Tijdens de ‘vluchtelingencrisis’ in 2015 reisden de meeste asielzoekers door van Zuid- naar Noord- en van Oost- naar West-Europa. Sinds 2016 vindt er juist meer ‘secundaire migratie’ van asielzoekers plaats tussen de Noordwest-Europese lidstaten. Doormigratie van asielzoekers in de EU zet de asiel- en opvangstelsels van de lidstaten onder druk, tast de solidariteit tussen lidstaten aan, ondermijnt het maatschappelijk draagvlak voor migratie, houdt mensensmokkelnetwerken in stand en kan tot langdurige verblijfsonzekerheid en verdere uitzichtloosheid voor asielmigranten leiden. Lidstaten proberen het doorreizen van asielzoekers onder meer tegen te gaan door: 1) Het herinvoeren of intensiveren van grenscontroles; 2) Meer toezicht op vreemdelingen; 3) Het versoberen van de opvang; 4) het invoeren van verblijfsrechtelijke beperkingen; 5) Het toepassen van vreemdelingenbewaring (waar mogelijk). Nationale beleidsaanscherpingen kunnen asielzoekers afschrikken, maar dat leidt tot meer doormigratie naar andere lidstaten. Voor de EU als geheel is dat dus geen oplossing. De implementatie van de EU-Turkije verklaring en het sluiten van de Balkanroute hebben geleid tot een vermindering van het aantal asielzoekers dat direct na aankomst in de EU doorreist. Tegenwoordig reizen vooral asielzoekers door die ergens nog een asielaanvraag hebben openstaan of van wie de aanvraag is afgewezen. Het Dublin-systeem, dat is ingevoerd om te bepalen welke lidstaat verantwoordelijk is voor het behandelen van een asielaanvraag, werkt niet goed om het doorreizen van asielzoekers tegen te gaan. Met name de omgang met evident kansarme aanvragen van asielzoekers uit veilige landen van herkomst vormt een probleem. Ook lukt het niet goed om afgewezen asielzoekers terug te sturen naar hun land van herkomst. Doormigratie van asielzoekers in de EU kan effectiever worden tegengegaan door: 1) een overtuigende aanpak van de grondoorzaken van asielmigratie, zowel buiten als binnen de EU; 2) Positieve prikkels te introduceren voor zowel asielzoekers als lidstaten om zich aan de regels te houden. Zorg voor een verschillende behandeling van asielzoekers die al sociale, economische of culturele banden met lidstaten hebben, die afkomstig zijn uit veilige landen van herkomst en die evident kansarme aanvragen indienen en die niet onder de eerste twee groepen vallen; 3) Door onder meer in de relaties met landen van herkomst niet eenzijdig te focussen op het tegengaan van irreguliere migratie.

Upon request by the LIBE committee, this study examines the workings of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), in order to assess the need and potential for new approaches to ensure access to protection for people seeking it in the EU, including joint processing and distribution of asylum seekers. Rather than advocating the addition of further complexity and coercion to the CEAS, the study proposes a focus on front-line reception and streamlined refugee status determination, in order to mitigate the asylum challenges facing Member States, and guarantee the rights of asylum seekers and refugees according to the EU acquis and international legal standards.

The Asylum Information Database (AIDA) is a database containing information on asylum procedures, reception conditions and detention across 20 countries. This includes 17 European Union (EU) Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom) and 3 non-EU countries (Switzerland, Serbia, Turkey). Country and annual reports, legal briefings and video testimonies of asylum seekers; conduct fact-finding missions to further investigate important protection gaps established through the country reports. The website also allows for a comparison of different types of data related to the asylum procedure, reception conditions and detention among up to three countries. AIDA started as a project (September 2012 – December 2015) of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), in partnership with Forum Réfugiés-Cosi, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Irish Refugee Council, and is now developing into a core research and documentation activity of ECRE. The overall goal of the database is to contribute to the improvement of asylum policies and practices in Europe and the situation of asylum seekers by providing all relevant actors with appropriate tools and information to support their advocacy and litigation efforts, both at the national and European level. These objectives are carried out by AIDA through the following activities: - Country reports - AIDA contains national reports documenting asylum procedures, reception conditions and detention in 20 countries. - Comparative reports - AIDA comparative reports provide a thorough comparative analysis of practice relating to the implementation of asylum standards across the countries covered by the database, in addition to an overview of statistical asylum trends and a discussion of key developments in asylum and migration policies in Europe. Annual reports were published in 2013, 2014 and 2015. This year, AIDA comparative reports are published in the form of thematic updates, focusing on the individual themes covered by the database. Thematic reports on reception and asylum procedures were published in March and September 2016 respectively. - Fact-finding visits - AIDA includes the development of fact-finding visits to further investigate important protection gaps established through the country reports, and a methodological framework for such missions. Focus on the reception conditions; transit zone at borders and on issues relating to asylum detention and the criminalisation of irregular entry; looking at registration and the unavailability of accommodation as barriers to access the asylum procedure. - Legal briefings - Legal briefings aim to bridge AIDA research with evidence-based legal reasoning and advocacy. With the assistance of information gathered from country reports, these short papers identify and analyse key issues in EU asylum law and policy and identify potential protection gaps in the asylum acquis. Legal briefings so far cover: (1) Dublin detention; (2) asylum statistics; (3) safe countries of origin; (4) procedural rights in detention; (5) age assessment of unaccompanied children; (6) residence permits for beneficiaries of international protection; and (7) the length of asylum procedures.

The so-called migration and refugee crisis is one of the most contentious topics on the EU agenda in the current context. The recent events related to the Syrian civil war, political turmoil in Libya and the subsequent influx of refugees and other migrants towards Europe as well as perceptions caused by internal migration that led to ‘Brexit’ have had a polarsing effect on Europe. Therefore, territorial evidence on the flows of asylum seekers and refugees, their distribution between and within EU countries, regions and cities, impact on socio-economic development as well as information on crisis management and integration is in high demand. The ESPON applied research activity “Impacts of refugee flows to territorial development in Europe” addresses these issues and aims to provide relevant territorial evidence and policy recommendations. The research aims to answer the following questions: How does the distribution of asylum seekers and refugees look like at regional and urban level and how has this been changing over time as a result of European and national policy decisions in recent decades? What skills and qualifications do the refugees possess and how does the influx of refugees impact the recipient countries´ regional and local labour markets and demographic imbalances (especially concerning regions which are facing the challenges of losing population and ageing)? Do the skills and qualifications meet the needs of local labour markets and how do they compete with local population and regular migrants? How are different European regions and cities located in arrival, transit and destination countries responding to the refugee crisis in terms of providing humanitarian aid, services (accommodation, material support, healthcare provision, education, language courses, labour market programmes), community building, internal distribution of refugees and medium and long term integration? How does the diversity within Europe in terms of integration policies at regional and local levels look like? What are the main challenges and what are the good policy responses and the best practices for successful integration of refugees into the local communities, societies and labour markets at regional and local levels? What kind of support do they need? How successful have the integration measures been in the past? How to improve the use of existing funding opportunities? Is there a need to improve the legislation? What kind of impacts would the implementation of the proposal of European relocation scheme generate to European countries regions and cities? How are countries redistributing refugees internally? What are the main concerns for the host countries and communities? Consortium: VVA Europe, IT (lead contractor), Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale, IT, InTER - Insitute for Territorial Economic Development, SRB Central European University, HU International Centre for Migration Policy and Development (ICMPD), AT Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BE Bernd Parusel, SE Bastian A. Vollmer, DE Richard Williams, UK Gianni Antonio Carbonaro, UK

The EU has had its greatest effects on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection (BIPs) through the stable legal framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The 2013 Reception Conditions and 2011 Qualification Directives build on the standards set by the 1951 Geneva Convention and aim for its full and effective implementation. As presented in the MPG paper “Lost in transition? The European standards behind refugee integration”, they guarantee a series of standards that shape the integration process, starting from the reception phase until full legal, socio-economic and socio-cultural integration allows refugees to realise their full potential to contribute to society. On 13 July 2016, a set of proposals was presented to reform these standards, including to replace the Qualification Directive with a Regulation and to amend the Reception Conditions Directive.1 The social consequences of these proposals are serious. Since BIPs today are fleeing many protracted conflicts that take on average 25 years to resolve2 , our societies will have to live with the consequences of these proposals for years—if not generations—to come. These proposals largely represent a missed opportunity and a potentially major risk for integration. The minor improvements on reception and qualification standards would only marginally improve the situation on the ground in most Member States. Moreover, several of the recast’s proposals would actually delay and undermine the integration process for asylum-seekers and BIPs by reducing support for potentially large numbers and removing some possibilities for more favourable conditions for integration. Unlike the 1 st and 2nd generation of the CEAS, which consolidated the most common national practices in EU law, several of these proposals are modelled on hasty and politicised recent restrictions in only a few Member States. These restrictions have not yet been demonstrated to be justified, proportionate or effective for improving integration outcomes. Overall, national governments and civil society agreed that better implementation of the current Reception and Qualification Directives would have greater effects on integration, without jeopardising the effectiveness of other proposed reforms to the CEAS. Particularly as the Commission’s 2016 asylum proposals were drafted more hastily than previous EU asylum and immigration proposals, these two proposals would need to be revised or seriously amended by Council and Parliament in order to make integration the top priority of this recast and avoid a de facto race-to-the-bottom where Member States are further demanding integration but not effectively supporting BIPs, Member States and the local, social and civil society actors that make integration a reality.

As a result of the refugee reception crisis in 2015 the advocacy for increasing resettlement numbers in the overall refugee protection framework has gained momentum, as has research on resettlement to the EU. While the UNHCR purports resettlement as a durable solution for the international protection of refugees, resettlement programmes to the European Union are seen as a pillar of the external dimension of the EU’s asylum and migration policies and management. This paper presents and discusses the literature regarding the value transmissions taking place within these programmes. It reviews literature on the European resettlement process – ranging from the selection of refugees to be resettled, the information and training they receive prior to travelling to their new country of residence, their reception upon arrival, their placement and dispersal in the receiving state, as well as programs of private and community sponsorship. The literature shows that even if resettlement can be considered an external dimension of European migration policy, this process does not end at the border. Rather, resettlement entails particular forms of reception, placement and dispersal as well as integration practices that refugees are confronted with once they arrive in their resettlement country. These practices should thus be understood in the context of the resettlement regime as a whole. In this paper we map out where and how values (here understood as ideas about how something should be) and norms (expectations or rules that are socially enforced) are transmitted within this regime. ‘Value transmission’ is here understood in a broad sense, taking into account the values that are directly transmitted through information and education programmes, as well as those informing practices and actors’ decisions. Identifying how norms and values figure in the resettlement regime aid us in further understanding decision making processes, policy making, and the on-the-ground work of practitioners that influence refugees’ lives. An important finding in this literature review is that vulnerability is a central notion in international refugee protection, and even more so in resettlement. Ideas and practices regarding vulnerability are, throughout the resettlement regime, in continuous tension with those of security, integration, and of refugees’ own agency. The literature review and our discussion serve as a point of departure for developing further investigations into the external dimension of value transmission, which in turn can add insights into the role of norms and values in the making and un-making of (external) boundaries/borders.

(En) Morocco has long been a country of asylum seekers and refugees from various origin countries. Currently, in Morocco, refugees and asylum seekers are mainly from African and Middle-Eastern countries. Morocco is party to the Refugee’s Convention (1951) and its additional Protocol (1967). Morocco has ratified the Agreement of 23rd November 1957 on maritime refugees as well as its protocol. In 1957, Morocco adopted a law on the implementation modalities of the Geneva Convention related to the refugee status. This law enables the Office of Refugee and Stateless persons (ORS) for the administrative and legal protection of refugees. The law, as it stands, is too general and the ORS has ceased its activities. In spite of it being short lived, Moroccan Law refers to the Geneva Convention (1951) and thus to the rights related to refugee status in terms of the right to work, to education, to health, to freedom of movement etc (article 12-34). UNHCR has had an official representation in Morocco since 1965, through an honorary delegation, and since 2007 it has had diplomatic representation in the country. Because of the absence of any effective national procedure in the field of asylum, UNHCR registers asylum seekers and determines the refugee statute. The UNHCR office deals with all asylum claims and decides on the recognition of refugee status in Morocco. The refugees recognised in Morocco by UNHCR do not benefit from all the rights normally associated with the refugee statute in the Geneva Convention (1951). The Moroccan authorities do not automatically deliver a stay permit which is a necessary condition for migrants wishing to enjoy their rights. Since 2007, UNHCR in Rabat, in partnership with some local NGOs, is active in supporting recognised refugees. UNHCR’s presence in Morocco, in particular, its recent diplomatic representation in the country is considered by some experts and civil society actors as a sign of the ‘externalisation’ of European borders brought about by the EU’s European Immigration and Asylum policy. (Fr) Le Maroc a été depuis toujours un pays de réfugiés et de demandeurs d’asile pour plusieurs peuples venant de plusieurs pays. Actuellement les réfugiés et les demandeurs d’asile au Maroc proviennent principalement des pays africains et du Moyen Orient. Le Maroc a adhéré à la Convention de 1951 et à son Protocole additionnel de1967. Il a également ratifié l'Arrangement du 23 novembre 1957 relatif aux marins réfugiés et le Protocole à cet Arrangement. En 1957, le Maroc a adopté une loi qui a fixé les modalités d'application de la Convention de Genève relative au statut des réfugiés et qui a confié la protection juridique et administrative des réfugiés au Bureau des Réfugiés et Apatrides (BRA). Mais cette loi est assez peu détaillée et le BRA a presque cessé actuellement toute activité. Malgré son caractère bref et assez peu explicite, la législation marocaine se réfère à la Convention de Genève de 1951 qui accorde des droits bien précis aux personnes reconnues comme réfugiés, comme le droit au travail, à l’éducation et à la santé, à la liberté de circulation etc.(articles 12 à 34). Le HCR est représenté officiellement au Maroc depuis 1965, tout d’abord à travers une délégation honoraire puis par une représentation diplomatique en 2007. En l’absence d’une procédure nationale effective en matière d’asile, c’est le HCR qui enregistre les demandeurs d’asile et conduit la détermination du statut de réfugié. Le bureau du HCR traite ainsi toutes les demandes d’asile, détermine et reconnaît le statut de réfugié dans le pays. Les réfugiés au Maroc reconnus par le HCR ne bénéficient pas de tous les droits inclus dans la Convention de Genève de 1951. Les autorités marocaines ne leur délivrent pas automatiquement une carte de séjour qui leur permettra de jouir de leurs droits de réfugiés dans le pays. En partenariat avec certaines ONG locales, le HCR à Rabat est actif dans l’accompagnement des réfugiés reconnus, particulièrement depuis 2007. La présence du HCR au Maroc et son installation diplomatique dans le pays depuis 2007 est considérée par certains spécialistes en migration et par des acteurs de la société civile comme l’une des manifestations de l’externalisation des frontières européennes, du fait de la politique commune d’immigration et d’asile développée par l’Union Européenne.

The current economic crisis occurs at a turning point of the EU asylum policy. After a frenetic phase leading up to the adoption of numerous EU directives and regulations, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has now entered a second phase of consolidation of the asylum acquis. This new impulse paves the way for a re-assessment of the whole CEAS with a view to ensuring a genuine common asylum policy. Against such a background, it is timely to consider whether the EU has developed the appropriate means to achieving harmonization. Indeed, all stakeholders are aware that the CEAS is losing edge, revealing its limits, not only in terms of refugee protection, but also as regards its capacity for properly fulfilling its main objective: the establishment of a truly common asylum system. However, the recurrent temptation to tighten migration controls in times of recession inevitably begs the question of its impact on the current consolidating phase of the EU asylum policy. In the midst of this reflective period, the present Report aims at reassessing the CEAS through a critical overview of its four main strategic pillars: preventing access to EU territory;  combating ‘asylum-shopping’;  criminalizing failed asylum-seekers and enforcing their return;  promoting the integration of refugees duly recognized as such. This four-pronged strategy has proved instrumental in alleviating asylum pressure in the last decade and will probably be even more in the wake of the current recession. The most pressing challenge is that of preventing the economic crisis from transforming into a protection crisis at the expense of refugee rights.

This research and teaching programme will advance knowledge concerning the situation of female asylum seekers and refugees in the European Union, as well as making a contribution to theoretical frameworks for a gendered analysis of asylum and refugee issue s. Asylum and refugee policies are currently a key area of debate for member states of the EU, as well as for the EU institutions themselves. However; although there are many academic studies devoted to the changing framework for legislation and policy on asylum in Europe; there is as yet very little research on the specific impacts that these developments will have on female asylum seekers. This research programme will attempt to fill this gap in knowledge and analysis through an empirical research program me on the experiences of female asylum seekers in the EU and the gendered impacts of EU policies, together with theoretical analysis on issues related to persecutions specific to women and the right to asylum. Dissemination of knowledge in these areas will take place through a programme of research supervision, teaching and lecturing activities; together with ongoing work in the TERRA network (Travaux, Etudes et Recherches sur les Réfugiés et l'Asile).

More than 51 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced today as refugees, asylum seekers, or internally displaced persons. According to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to be recognized legally as a refugee, an individual must be fleeing persecution on the basis of religion, race, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group, and must be outside the country of nationality. However, the contemporary drivers of displacement are complex and multilayered, making protection based on a strict definition of persecution increasingly problematic and challenging to implement. Many forced migrants now fall outside the recognized refugee and asylum apparatus. Much displacement today is driven by a combination of intrastate conflict, poor governance and political instability, environmental change, and resource scarcity. These conditions, while falling outside traditionally defined persecution, leave individuals highly vulnerable to danger and uncertain of the future, compelling them to leave their homes in search of greater security. In addition, the blurring of lines between voluntary and forced migration, as seen in mixed migration flows, together with the expansion of irregular migration, further complicates today's global displacement picture. This report details the increasing mismatch between the legal and normative frameworks that define the existing protection regime and the contemporary patterns of forced displacement. It analyzes contemporary drivers and emerging trends of population displacement, noting that the majority of forcibly displaced people – some 33.3 million – remain within their own countries, and that more than 50 percent of the displaced live in urban areas. The author then outlines and assesses key areas where the international protection system is under the most pressure, and finally examines the key implications of these trends for policymakers and the international community, outlining some possible policy directions for reform.

Sinds de vluchtelingencrisis van 2015-2016 bevindt het Europese asielstelsel zich in een crisis. Het stelsel vertoont grote tekortkomingen. De vluchtelingenkampen in landen aan de Europese buitengrens waar zich mensonterende situaties voordoen zijn daarvan het meest zichtbare gevolg. In de lidstaten van de Europese Unie bestaat tegelijk veel frustratie over het uitblijven van effectieve verwerking van de grote aantallen aankomende asielzoekende migranten. De toedeling van solidariteit en verantwoordelijkheid tussen lidstaten die het stelsel schraagt, hapert in de praktijk. Vanwege de fundamentele onenigheid tussen lidstaten over de richting van een hervorming lukt het nu al jaren niet een uitweg te vinden. Tegen deze achtergrond heeft de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, samen met de staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, de Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV) verzocht om te adviseren hoe de politieke impasse op het terrein van het Europese asielbeleid kan worden doorbroken. Zodoende stelt de AIV in dit advies de vraag centraal welke politiek-strategische benadering een kansrijke uitweg uit de patstelling zou kunnen bieden. Het advies beoogt dus niet de diverse aspecten van de wereldwijde asiel- en migratieproblematiek uitputtend te behandelen. Uiteraard kunnen de maatregelen ter hervorming van het Europese asielstelsel in veel gevallen niet los worden gezien van het asiel- en migratievraagstuk in den brede. Relevante aspecten komen daarom aan de orde in zoverre dit de advisering over het doorbreken van de Europese asielimpasse dient. Het asielbeleid in Nederland en Europa is gebaseerd op een normatief kader stoelend op onder meer het Vluchtelingenverdrag en het Europese Verdrag tot bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens. Dit kader vormt onverminderd het uitgangspunt waarbinnen een oplossing gestalte dient te krijgen. Naar het oordeel van de AIV is dit niet alleen een kwestie van medemenselijkheid en juridische verplichting, maar ook van eigenbelang: stabiliteit en rechtsorde aan de buitengrenzen en elders is hiermee in belangrijke mate gediend. Bovendien kan het Europese asielstelsel niet functioneren zonder medewerking van landen van herkomst en transit van wie we vragen een belangrijk aandeel te nemen in het internationale migratiemanagement en die we nodig hebben voor terugkeerbeleid. Samenwerking bij bescherming in de regio en geloofwaardige mogelijkheden voor legale migratie naar EU-lidstaten zullen daarom onderdeel van het asiel- en migratiebeleid moeten zijn. Evenmin echter kan worden voorbijgegaan aan realiteiten die het functioneren van en het draagvlak voor het asielstelsel ondermijnen, zoals de grote aantallen aankomende migranten die een beroep doen op asielbescherming in Europa zonder daar recht op te hebben, en de toenemende problemen met de groep die niet mag blijven (de ‘veilige-landers’) maar niet terugkeert naar het land van herkomst. Er zijn ook veiligheidsrisico’s verbonden aan onvoldoende gecontroleerde binnenkomsten. Daaruit vloeien in noodsituaties soms moeilijke politieke keuzes voort. De AIV stelt vast dat een hervorming van het Europese asielstelsel dringend nodig is. De huidige impasse is riskant, omdat Europa momenteel slecht is voorbereid op een mogelijke volgende grote migratiecrisis – waarvan de COVID-19 pandemie het gevaar bepaald niet verkleint. Tegelijk leidt een falend Europees asielstelsel, en de perceptie onder Europese burgers van verlies van controle op wie er onze landen binnenkomt, tot verlies van vertrouwen in zowel de rechtvaardigheid van het asielstelsel als het functioneren van de EU. De beantwoording van de adviesaanvraag aan de AIV vergt om te beginnen een analyse van de strategieën die kunnen bijdragen aan het vinden van politieke ruimte om de impasse te doorbreken (hoofdstuk 2). Het gaat dan, bijvoorbeeld, om de voor- en nadelen van een pakketbenadering of juist een stap-voor-stap-aanpak. Ook bespreekt de AIV welke gebeurtenissen de impasse deden ontstaan en welke conflicterende politieke drijfveren en onderliggende onevenwichtigheden erin tot uitdrukking komen. Sterke ideologische opvattingen, diepgevoelde overtuigingen en emoties – voor én tegen ruimhartige opname van vluchtelingen – spelen bij dit thema een grote rol. Alleen goed wederzijds begrip van de publieke ervaringen binnen diverse lidstaten en van de weerslag daarvan op standpunten van politieke partijen en regeringen, biedt een basis voor vertrouwensherstel en voor stappen om uit de impasse te komen. Het rapport behandelt vervolgens enkele ontwikkelingen in politiek en rechtspraak, en ook de intrede van de COVID-19 pandemie, die relevant zijn voor de mogelijkheden de impasse te doorbreken (hoofdstuk 3). Politieke dynamiek komt ook van de eind 2019 aangetreden Commissie-Von der Leyen die zoekt naar manieren om het asielstelsel, eventueel geleidelijk, te hervormen. Daartoe presenteerde de Commissie in september 2020 het ‘asiel- en migratiepact’, waarvan een politieke appreciatie wordt geboden (hoofdstuk 4). De AIV verbindt vervolgens de genoemde strategieën en ontwikkelingen aan de onderdelen van de asiel- en migratieketen en aan ‘Schengen’. In het betreffende deel van het advies (hoofdstukken 5, 6 en 7) worden de contouren van de conclusies en aanbevelingen zichtbaar. In de kern is de AIV van oordeel dat een doorbreken van de impasse slechts mogelijk is op basis van twee grote akkoorden: een intern akkoord gebaseerd op een nieuw evenwicht in de solidariteit en verantwoordelijkheden tussen de lidstaten en een extern akkoord dat het interne beleid flankeert middels effectieve afspraken met derde landen over terug- en overname, gebaseerd op gedeelde belangen. Wat betreft het interne akkoord volgt de AIV de denklijn in het voorstel van de Commissie-Von der Leyen om een van de voornaamste struikelblokken richting een akkoord uit de weg te ruimen dankzij ‘flexibele solidariteit’. Voorwaarde voor de AIV daarbij is dat de geleverde solidariteitsinspanning ten gunste van buitengrenslanden zichtbare handelingen betreft (en niet enkel financiële steun) én getuigt van inhoudelijke solidariteit met vluchtelingen en/of derde landen (en zich dus niet beperkt tot steun aan bijvoorbeeld terugkeerbeleid of grensbewaking). Naar het oordeel van de AIV is een inperking van ‘Schengen’ geen goed drukmiddel om de asielimpasse te doorbreken: de politieke en economische kosten zijn onevenredig hoog. Wat betreft het externe akkoord meent de AIV dat de afspraken moeten zijn gekaderd in een brede, omvattende samenwerking. Daarvan moet sociaaleconomische ontwikkeling, inclusief instrumenten van handelsbeleid, deel uitmaken, maar ook gezamenlijke sturing op migratie en wegen voor legale migratie. De Commissievoorstellen zijn op dit punt weinig uitgewerkt; mede daarom ligt juist hier naar het oordeel van de AIV een rol voor Nederland om te zorgen dat dit externe onderdeel in de discussies over de hervorming van het Europese asielbeleid de prioriteit krijgt die het verdient. In de conclusies en aanbevelingen werkt de AIV dit nader uit, met vijf aanbevelingen die het interne akkoord betreffen en vijf aanbevelingen die het externe akkoord aangaan. Zonder extern akkoord zal geen intern akkoord tot stand kunnen komen. Alleen met tastbare en gelijktijdige vooruitgang op beide terreinen kunnen Nederland en de andere leden van de Europese Unie hun handelingsvermogen op het gemeenschappelijk asielbeleid herwinnen en dit toekomstbestendig vormgeven.

IOM-UNHCR-UNICEF Interagency Factsheet on Refugee and Migrant Children (including unaccompanied and separated children) compiles available data on children on the move in Europe. It provides overview of trends (quarterly and annual) in regards to overall arrivals to Europe, number of asylum claims, relocations, nationality breakdown of children, information about accompanied and unaccompanied and separated children, protection concerns, reception conditions. The factsheet is accessible on pdf reports under the "Data Products" section on the page "Latest on the refugee and migrant crisis" of UNICEF

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the EU’s mechanism of relocation of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other Member States. It examines the scheme in the context of the Dublin System, the hotspot approach, and the EU-Turkey Statement, recommending that asylum seekers’ interests, and rights be duly taken into account, as it is only through their full engagement that relocation will be successful. Relocation can become a system that provides flexibility for Member States and local host communities, as well as accommodating the agency and dignity of asylum seekers. This requires greater cooperation from receiving States, and a clearer role for a single EU legal and institutional framework to organise preference matching and rationalise efforts and resources overall.

Amid rising numbers of asylum seekers arriving in the EU and migrating along the Balkan route in 2015, state, EU and traditional NGO institutions failed to adequately receive, register and care for the new arrivals. Instead, volunteers stepped in to provide humanitarian assistance. They are locals as well as citizens from other European countries who engage with the crisis for a variety of reasons, in a range of contexts and with varying consequences. This research project will examine personal motives, social structures and political conditions of volunteering for refugees in countries along the so-called Balkan route: in Greece, in Slovenia, and in former Yugoslav countries. Based on political process tracing, sociological-ethnographic observations and semi-structured interviews with volunteers, officials, locals and refugees we will devise country reports that will create the basis for a comparative study. Thus, we will interrogate whether we can witness in this refugee policies ’from below’ the creation of a particular, pro-immigration and human rights based European civil society or social movement.

In this 2019 MEDAM Assessment Report, we present insights from MEDAM research and policy dialogue since 2016 to explain how closer cooperation among EU member states and with countries of origin and transit can improve outcomes for all stakeholders. Crucially, short of establishing a new Iron Curtain on the EU’s external border or continuing to tolerate abuses, there is no way that either individual member states or the EU as a whole can insulate themselves from irregular migrants and asylum seekers. Yet, if crossing the EU border enabled all irregular migrants to remain in the EU for good, the integrity of EU visa and asylum policies would be undermined. Thus, close cooperation with countries of origin for the return and readmission of their citizens who have no right to remain in the EU is crucial. Still, it is typically not in the interest of countries of origin to limit the mobility of their citizens. Cooperation between the EU and countries of origin must therefore cover a wide enough range of policies to ensure that all parties consistently benefit from the policy package and have a strong incentive to meet their commitments. We emphasize more EU support for refugees hosted by low- and middle-income countries and more legal employment opportunities for non-EU citizens in the EU. Rethinking EU asylum and migration policies along these lines requires extensive consultations and negotiations among stakeholders in Europe and in countries of origin and transit. Our ‘insights’ are meant to inform and stimulate such conversations. However, sustainable reforms will come only as the result of stakeholders working out the details and developing a sense of ownership of the necessary reforms. Our first set of insights relates to popular attitudes toward immigration and the structure of public preferences for asylum and refugee protection policies (section 2 of this report). Next, we explain how the EU and countries of origin and transit can all benefit from cooperating on border management, refugee protection, and expanding legal labor migration to the EU (section 3). Finally, we consider the implications for cooperation among EU member states and the long-standing plans for reform of the European asylum system (section 4).

This report presents the findings of field research in Kenya under the KNOW RESET project, which maps and analyses legal and policy frameworks as well as practices related to resettlement to European countries. The research in Kenya was a component of this broader project, which included research in 27 EU member states and three countries of first asylum: Kenya, Pakistan and Tunisia. Research was carried out in Nairobi and Kakuma refugee camp between June and October 2012 and involved interviews with refugee and resettlement actors, including those participating in resettlement to European countries. The report broadly explores and presents Kenya’s resettlement landscape, the positions, roles and practices of European resettlement countries within that landscape, and the perspectives and experiences of refugees around resettlement.

For some years there has been considerable criticism of the uneven distribution across the member states of the European Union (EU) of asylum applications and the responsibilities related to them. There are substantial differences between member states in the number of asylum applications received, both in absolute and relative terms. Furthermore, the way the member states deal with asylum seekers and asylum applications varies. This is remarkable, considering that the standards governing the treatment of asylum applications are identical in the majority of member states, and are laid down in binding EU directives. The uneven distribution of responsibilities has led to tensions within the EU. For this reason the State Secretary for Security and Justice asked the Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (ACVZ) for advice on how the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) could be transformed into a system based on solidarity, in which the responsibilities of the member states vis-à-vis asylum seekers and permit holders can be shared fairly among them. In its report, the ACVZ proposes a permanent mechanism enabling member states to share asylum responsibilities. The Advisory Committee understands the term ‘asylum responsibilities’ as including not only the responsibility for processing asylum applications and providing reception during the application process, but also for the integration of asylum seekers whose application is accepted and for returning or dealing with those whose application is dismissed. As a result of the large number of asylum seekers arriving in the EU this year, the debate on the unequal distribution of asylum responsibilities has flared up, leading to the introduction of several measures at EU level. One example is the decision of the European Council to reallocate a total of 160,000 asylum seekers whose asylum application has a good chance of success from Italy and Greece to other member states. However, the implementation of these measures has not been without difficulties and is responsible for even greater tension between member states. It is therefore highly questionable whether this advisory report can count on broad political support in all EU countries. Nonetheless, the ACVZ deems the creation of a permanent responsibility-sharing mechanism to be inevitable. It has therefore attempted to forge a proposal that is both legally viable and practically feasible.

De afgelopen jaren is veel kritiek geuit op de onevenwichtige verdeling van het aantal asielverzoeken en de daarmee samenhangende verantwoordelijkheden tussen de lidstaten van de Europese Unie (EU). Niet alleen verschilt het aantal asielaanvragen -zowel in absolute als relatieve zin- tussen de lidstaten sterk, ook de wijze waarop lidstaten omgaan met asielzoekers en asielverzoeken loopt uiteen. Dit is des te opvallender omdat de normen in de EU gelijk zijn en zijn vervat in bindende Europese richtlijnen. De onevenwichtige verdeling van asielverzoeken levert spanningen op in de EU. Om die reden heeft de staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie aan de Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken (ACVZ) gevraagd hem te adviseren over de vraag hoe het Gemeenschappelijk Europees Asielsysteem (GEAS) zich kan ontwikkelen tot een solidair systeem, waarin de verantwoordelijkheden van lidstaten van de EU ten aanzien van asielzoekers en statushouders billijk worden verdeeld. De ACVZ beantwoordt deze vraag door een voorstel te doen voor een permanent verdelingsmechanisme van asielverantwoordelijkheden. Onder de term asielverantwoordelijkheden verstaat de ACVZ niet alleen de behandeling van asielverzoeken en de daaraan gekoppelde opvang, maar ook de integratie van toegelaten asielzoekers en de terugkeer van, of het omgaan met asielzoekers wier verzoek is afgewezen. Door de grote aantallen asielzoekers die dit jaar naar de EU zijn gekomen, is de discussie over de ongelijke verdeling van asielverantwoordelijkheden in een stroomversnelling terechtgekomen en zijn er in Europees verband verschillende maatregelen getroffen om de komst van deze asielzoekers in goede banen te leiden. Ook wordt gepoogd om de verantwoordelijkheden billijker over de lidstaten te verdelen, bijvoorbeeld door in totaal 160.000 asielzoekers met een hoge kans op een verblijfsvergunning te herplaatsen uit Italië en Griekenland naar de overige lidstaten. De uitvoering van deze maatregelen komt echter maar moeizaam van de grond en leidt tot verdere spanningen tussen de lidstaten. Het is dus zeer de vraag of een advies over een permanent verdelingsmechanisme op dit moment op breed politiek draagvlak kan rekenen in alle lidstaten. Een dergelijk mechanisme is volgens de ACVZ in de toekomst echter onontkoombaar. Daarom heeft de ACVZ gepoogd een advies te schrijven dat zowel juridisch haalbaar, als praktisch uitvoerbaar is

The number of migrant children, including unac- companied minors, registered as present in the European Union (EU) rose between 2020 and 2021, then went on to rise significantly between 2021 and 2022. According to Eurostat, the 27 EU Member States (EU-27) and Norway1 received over 518 000 first time asylum applications from children under 18 years of age and 79 000 asylum applications from applicants considered unaccompanied minors in 2020-2022.3 This included 13 620 unaccompanied minor applicants in 2020, 25 290 in 2021, with a large jump to 40 175 in 2022. Not all unaccompanied minors arriving in the EU apply for asylum or are beneficiaries of temporary protection. Data are not collected systematically across the EU on those children who do not apply for, or benefit from, either regime and it is difficult to give a total number of those involved. However, unaccompanied children registered by child protection services can help to fill in the gaps in many EU countries (see Table 1). With increasing numbers of migrant children arriving in Europe and children’s rights on the agenda of different EU and national institutions, including as part of the negotiations of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum,4 the protection of children in migration remained an area of considerable development in legislation and policy throughout 2021-2022, at both EU and national level. Several EU Member States reported introducing policies and practices to better identify children in migration procedures, as well as detect and address any additional vulnerabilities they may have. Six EU Member States and Norway implemented meas- ures to safeguard vulnerable groups in reception centres in 20216 or 2022,7 while three others increased the provision of special accommodation places for families or unaccompanied minors. New alternative (non-institution- al) care options for unaccompanied children, particularly family-based care/care families, were introduced or improved by four Member States in 2021, and by Norway in 2022. In 2022, several EU Member States reported overall pres- sures on reception systems, which affected places for chil- dren, and/or higher numbers of unaccompanied children arriving, which impacted reception facilities generally. New provisions to strengthen guardianship systems were introduced, and the group of minors eligible for a care order or a guardian allocation was expanded during the reporting period. Procedural safeguards were strengthened in several Member States, including to ensure that the best interests of the child were examined in different procedures,15 or by including additional safeguards in procedures specifically for children. A majority of EU Member States started new initiatives to support unaccompanied minors transitioning to adult- hood, mostly in the areas of employment, education and accommodation