Chapter 3: The Action Plan in context
Addressing root causes of irregular migration
50.The Action Plan states that it “should be seen in the broader context of EU efforts to address the root causes of irregular migration, in cooperation with countries of origin and transit, and prevent the loss of lives caused by smugglers and traffickers.” As we have seen in the preceding Chapter, the root causes of irregular migration for the majority of migrants include civil war or oppression in their home countries. Even in the case of many migrants who are not refugees, the reason for their onward migration to the EU may be poverty, political instability or the impossibility of going back to their home countries.
51.Some witnesses argued that EU action against migrant smuggling, including the Action Plan, had not sufficiently set out the context in which it was to operate, and had neglected the “demand side” of smuggling.39 The European Council on Refugees and Exiles contrasted this with the EU’s Global Approach to Mobility and Migration (GAMM),40 writing that “The lack of acknowledgement of why people need to migrate, the situations they are fleeing, their motivations and needs, including for international protection, means that there is a large gap in the policy.”41
52.Mr Mepham, UK Director, Human Rights Watch, told us that:
“focusing on smuggling to the exclusion of the wider context would not help to address this problem very effectively and might lead to an unbalanced policy response that does not address satisfactorily the major drivers—the major causes—of large-scale migration flows.”42
53.The Migrants’ Rights Network agreed: “the overemphasis on policing in the Action Plan is at best a distraction from the root causes of the problem, and at worst will increase violations of the rights of those fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary in the EU.”43 Dr Düvell, Associate Professor, University of Oxford, wondered “to what extent [the Commission’s policy proposals] are an adequate response to the complexity and scope of the crisis, in particular the Action Plan.”44
54.In addition, the International Organization for Migration complained that the two references made to root causes in the Action Plan do not “provide significant detail on the specific measures that are recommended to address the root causes”.45
55.We welcome the fact that the Commission has sought to place the Action Plan within the context of a broader approach to migration. The Action Plan, however, must focus on the rights of refugees and vulnerable migrants and not just on law enforcement.
56.We also urge the Government to participate fully in the Commission’s discussions regarding possible measures for dealing with root causes of migrant smuggling.
Establishing safe and legal routes
57.Currently those fleeing their homes as a result of the root causes outlined above have very limited means of reaching the EU legally. The Commission identified this as a problem in its Agenda on Migration, as part of which it brought forward a Recommendation for a resettlement scheme.46 Under this scheme 20,000 refugees are to be resettled directly from third countries into the EU. This is not a legislative scheme and the Commission has played a predominantly coordinating role. The Commission also said that it would encourage Member States to “use to the full the other legal avenues available to persons in need of protection, including private/non-governmental sponsorships and humanitarian permits, and family reunification clauses.”
Box 2: What are safe and legal routes?
|
António Guterres, the United National High Commissioner for Refugees, has called upon EU Member States to “commit to creating more legal alternatives for refugees to find protection, such as expanded resettlement and humanitarian admission schemes, enhanced family reunification, private sponsorship arrangements, and work and study visas”, writing that “Without realistic alternative channels for people to reach safety, the much-needed increase in international efforts to crack down on smugglers and traffickers is unlikely to be effective.” UNHCR suggests the following admission programmes which would offer legal avenues for accessing safety and protection:
|
Source: António Guterres, ‘U.N. Refugee Chief: Europe’s Response to Mediterranean Crisis is ‘Lagging Far Behind’’, Time (23 April 2015): http://time.com/3833463/unhcr-antonio-guterres-migration-refugees-europe/ (accessed 26 October 2015)
58.Mr Brokenshire argued that establishing safe and legal routes,47 in the Government’s opinion, would only help relatively few in comparison to the number of potential refugees and irregular migrants coming to the EU. Moreover, with regard to migrant smuggling, he was concerned that such measures might be a source of propaganda to smugglers in the efforts to entice vulnerable people to put their lives at risk. In his view, this solution “can get misinterpreted and manipulated by the traffickers and therefore lead to greater exploitation”48
59.The majority of witnesses, in contrast, argued that the creation of safe and legal routes would be a vital element within any comprehensive attempt to curb migrant smuggling.49
60.The Refugee Council argued in the strongest terms that there was a link between the creation of safe and legal routes and migrant smuggling: “Smugglers exist fundamentally because of the lack of safe and legal routes for refugees and irregular migrants to the EU.” The Refugee Council continued:
“Clearly, demand for smugglers’ services would be reduced by addressing the causes of refugee flight. But at a time when the international community seems incapable of both ending existing wars and preventing new ones, this remains a distant goal at best. In the meantime, demand can only be reduced by opening new legal channels for refugees to protection in Europe and reinforcing existing ones.” 50
61.Others agreed, and emphasised that safe and legal routes should be created as part of a more wide-ranging response to the crisis, which would include addressing the root causes of irregular migration. 51
62.In fact the Action Plan recognises that “smuggling networks can be weakened if fewer people seek their services. Therefore, it is important to open more safe and legal ways into the EU.” Several witnesses welcomed this clear reference, which is also made in the Agenda on Migration.52 But some still criticised the Action Plan for not giving this objective sufficient priority, and failing to put forward practical measures for creating such alternative routes of entry.53
63.The International Organization for Migration wrote:
“Only very brief mention is made of the importance of opening safer, legal ways into the EU. This point in the Action Plan represents an essential opportunity to introduce measures that can adequately disrupt the business model of migrant smugglers.”54
64.The Migrants’ Rights Network agreed:
“We are concerned that the Action Plan does not put forward concrete proposals as to developing safe, legal routes for asylum seekers. From this, and from the political response that the recent crisis has received, it seems to us likely that politicians will focus on policing measures, and will place insufficient resources into assisting vulnerable migrants.”55
65.Amnesty International UK pointed out the connection between the Action Plan and other proposals put forward by the Commission within the context of the Agenda on Migration:
“Prospects of success for the Agenda and Action Plan are dependent on Member States recognising the interconnected and interdependent nature of the suite of proposals the European Commission has advanced … Proposals on resettlement and safe and legal routes are critical to reducing the need for large numbers of refugees to turn to smugglers to escape increasingly intolerable and unsustainable situations in countries which remain destinations for the overwhelming majority.”56
66.One effective way of addressing the root causes of irregular migration would be to create safe and legal routes for refugees to enter the EU. We welcome the Commission’s recognition of this but urge that more be done at EU level to work towards the creation of such routes. It is regrettable that the Action Plan does not set out further details in this regard. We recommend that this be addressed as soon as possible. In particular, we recommend that the Commission should bring forward further initiatives to encourage Member States to create such routes, for example by making use of humanitarian visas.
67.Since the Action Plan was published the Commission has put forward its resettlement scheme and another scheme to relocate asylum seekers arriving in the EU. We investigated the issue of relocating asylum seekers in a brief report in July.57 In that report we called on the UK Government to participate, on a voluntary basis, in a proposed relocation scheme.58 The Government has declined to do so.
68.We regret that the Government has declined to participate in the EU measures for the relocation of migrants. We urge the Commission and all Member States to make greater efforts to reach consensus on EU proposals on relocation and resettlement.
Migrant smuggling and other EU policy areas
69.In its introduction, the Action Plan is clearly described as an implementing measure of both the Agenda on Migration and the Agenda on Security.59 The Action Plan further states that it should “be seen in connection with on-going work to establish a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) operation to systematically identify, capture and dispose of vessels used by smugglers”, and that “the implementation of actions foreseen in [it] will start immediately and will be made in coherence with other related strategies at EU level”.
70.The European Council on Refugees and Exiles welcomed the inter-disciplinary approach taken by the Action Plan, which recognised the overlaps between migration, security and foreign policy.60 This was something Ms Collet, Director, Migration Policy Institute Europe, said the EU had previously neglected, but its implementation would constitute “one of the major challenges” going forward.61
71.Europol was also positive about “policy synergy” at EU level between the Action Plan, the Agenda on Migration and the Agenda on Security, which was in its opinion facilitated by the EU policy cycle for combating organised crime.62 Mr Wainwright, Director of Europol, told us that the implementation of the various policies was supported by the European Commission, which is “principally a coordinating actor. It shares that responsibility with the [Member State] governments and the European Council. There are review and coordination mechanisms, which I can testify work in practice.”63
72.In contrast, the International Organization for Migration had “severe concerns” about the overlap between the migration and security aspects of the Action Plan and the resulting potential “militarisation of migration”.64 The European Council on Refugees and Exiles also had “concerns about the possible impact of the EUNAVFOR Med naval operation to identify, capture and dispose of vessels and assets used or suspected of being used by migrant smugglers or traffickers.”65 It emphasised that “The EU needs to be clear that any naval operations do not put the lives of people fleeing war at risk, and that they do not limit people’s ability to reach Europe to seek asylum”. Drawing a link between the naval operation and the issue of safe and legal routes, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles said that “without the necessary increases in legal ways to reach Europe, the focus on disrupting vessels may lead to refugees and migrants taking even more dangerous routes.”66
73.We welcome the comprehensive nature of the EU response to the crisis, which has brought together policies on migration, security and external affairs. We emphasise that this comprehensive set of EU actions should continue to be conducted in a balanced way, and with due regard to the safety and rights of individuals affected.
Migrant smuggling in the international context
74.The Action Plan must also be seen within the international context of the global refugee crisis and the work of supranational organisations including the United Nations.
75.Mr Mahecic, Senior External Relations Office, UNHCR, described cooperation between the UNHCR and EU institutions as “regular and strong”, while stressing that such cooperation took place on the basis of the organisation’s refugee protection mandate, and that it therefore played a subsidiary role in the field of migrant smuggling. The main UN body responsible for the law enforcement aspects of migrant smuggling is the UN Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC). UNHCR is, though, a member of a consultative forum which issues strategic opinions on the potential fundamental rights impact of planned operations by Frontex, the EU’s border agency.67
76.The UN seeks to address migrant smuggling through a Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.68 This Protocol supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. It requires signatory States to establish the smuggling of migrants as a criminal offence when committed with the aim of obtaining a financial or material benefit. It includes specific provisions on the smuggling of migrants by sea, authorising the search of vessels by ships on government service in cases of suspected migrant smuggling.
77.The International Organization for Migration noted that, despite the Action Plan referring to the UN Protocol and calling upon Member States to encourage partner countries to become party to this instrument, there is no explicit connection between EU and UN action and no common definition of migrant smuggling. The International Organization for Migration recommended that in order to increase coherence between the two approaches, “an Action Plan addressing an issue such as migrant smuggling could begin by contextualising the international framework and make reference to international provisions throughout the document.”69 We look at this issue further in Chapter 4.
78.Similarly, referring to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Mepham felt that the international obligations on EU Member States and the EU itself were “not given the prominence and priority that they ought to have in the Action Plan.”70
79.There should be greater synergy between the EU and other international organisations. We recommend, as a first step towards this, the inclusion of internationally accepted definitions of key terms in EU policy documents and legislation.
39 Q 34 (Franck Düvell); see also written evidence from Immigration Law Practitioners’ Network (PMS0007)
40 Communication from the Commission, The Global Approach to Mobility and Migrant Smuggling (COM (2011)743 Final). See also: European Union Committee, The EU’s Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (8th Report, Session 2012–13, HL Paper 91).
46 Commission Recommendation on a European resettlement scheme (C(2015) 3560 Final)
47 See Box 2 and Appendix 6
49 Written evidence from Amnesty International UK (PMS0001), European Council on Refugees and Exiles (PMS0004), Migrants’ Rights Network (PMS0006), International Organization for Migration (PMS0013) and the Refugee Council (PMS0003), Q 23 (Steve Symonds)
51 Q 2 (Andrej Mahecic), written evidence from Amnesty International UK (PMS0001) and Migrants’ Rights Network (PMS0006)
52 See for example, Q 26 (Steve Symonds) and written evidence from Amnesty International UK (PMS0001)
53 Written evidence from European Council on Refugees and Exiles (PMS0004) and Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (PMS0007), Q 27 (Steve Symonds)
57 European Union Committee, The United Kingdom opt-in to the proposed Council Decision on the relocation of migrants within the EU (2nd Report, Session 2015–16, HL Paper 23). Relocation does not constitute a safe and legal route, as it does not involve taking potential migrants directly into the EU.
58 Proposal for a Council Decision establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit for Italy and Greece (COM(2015)451 final)
59 Communication from the Commission, EU Action Plan Against Migrant Smuggling (2015–2020) (COM(2015)285 Final)
68 United Nations, Protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against transnational organized crime (2000): https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/2011/04/som-indonesia/convention_smug_eng.pdf (accessed 26 October 2015)