Search

Begin New Search Topic Asylum Political Geography Europe

31. Using Evidence to Improve Refugee Resettlement: A Monitoring and Evaluation Road Map

Author:
Aliyyah Ahad, Camille Le Coz, and Hanne Beirens
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The refugee resettlement landscape has shifted considerably in recent years. A number of countries in Europe and elsewhere have launched or expanded their resettlement programs, and some have experimented with new models such as community-based or private sponsorship. At the same time, the United States—long the world’s largest resettlement country—has significantly cut its refugee admissions, leaving other countries to take the lead in global efforts to address displacement. For new and longstanding resettlement programs alike, it is vital that policymakers and program designers have the tools to gauge whether resettlement is meeting its objectives, to facilitate continuous learning, and to ensure that funding is being well spent. Robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) holds the key. Yet many resettlement programs do not have a strong M&E culture. This report examines the added value that M&E can bring to refugee resettlement programs and identifies common obstacles that have kept countries from creating or expanding their M&E operations to date. It then lays out a road map for kickstarting this process—from finding the right “champion” to drive change, to identifying which of a program’s strategic and operational goals to monitor and evaluate, to identifying existing sources of information and designing new data collection tools. These insights are drawn in part from a pilot M&E project conducted by MPI Europe in partnership with resettlement authorities in Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands under the framework of the European Union Action on Facilitating Resettlement and Refugee Admission through New Knowledge (EU-FRANK) project. This report was written as part of the EU-FRANK project, which is financed by the European Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) and led by Sweden. Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are partner countries. More MPI Europe research for the EU-FRANK project can be found on this series page.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Law, Refugees, Immigrants, Resettlement, Asylum, and Integration
Political Geography:
Europe

32. Measuring Up? Using Monitoring and Evaluation to Make Good on the Promise of Refugee Sponsorship

Author:
Hanne Beirens and Aliyyah Ahad
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Interest in refugee sponsorship has taken root in a growing number of European countries since the 2015–16 migration crisis. Also called community or private sponsorship, or humanitarian corridors in certain contexts, proponents of engaging private individuals and civil-society groups in refugee resettlement tout this model’s ability to provide refugees with a warm, supportive welcome and to give sponsors a rejuvenated sense of community and purpose. Yet even as sponsorship programs are piloted and implemented in more countries, there is relatively limited evidence of whether they are living up to these high expectations and what program elements are most effective. This issue brief examines how building a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system into sponsorship programs can help answer these and other important questions. It highlights the value M&E can bring—from strengthening political commitment to sponsorship, to increasing accountability and facilitating improvements within a program. It also lays out key challenges policymakers and program designers will need to tackle to get an M&E system off the ground. The pause in humanitarian protection programs forced by the coronavirus pandemic comes at a critical time in the development of many sponsorship schemes. Their relative youth could leave them more fragile as uncertainty looms over whether and when countries will resume their protection operations. Stronger M&E can help give decisionmakers the confidence—and evidence—they need to make smart decisions about launching, managing, or expanding a sponsorship scheme.
Topic:
Refugees, Immigrants, Resettlement, Asylum, and Integration
Political Geography:
Europe

33. The Effects of COVID-19 For Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the European Union

Author:
Romy De Niet
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Public International Law Policy Group
Abstract:
The global COVID-19 pandemic (COVID-19) has disrupted the status quo in member states of the European Union (EU). With a halt on public events, closed schools, and people working from home, the lives of many have changed in a short amount of time. Refugees and asylum seekers are among the world’s most vulnerable populations, and are likely to be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. This blog post elaborates on the different ways EU member states deal with the COVID-19 crisis and the consequences for refugees and asylum seekers. Discussed are the effects of the pandemic on the processing of asylum applications, the right to health, and rescue at sea. The blog post further discusses how the practises of these states relate to international law.
Topic:
European Union, Refugees, Asylum, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe

34. Understanding the new pact on migration and asylum

Author:
Ramona Bloj and Stefanie Buzmaniuk
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Robert Schuman Foundation (RSF)
Abstract:
In 2019, 22.9 million people or 4.7% of the total population of the European Union were non-European citizens. According to the European Commission, in the same year, the Member States granted 3 million first time resident permits to third country citizens. Whilst the number of asylum requests totalled 1.28 million in 2015, it decreased to 689,000 in 2019. Across the Union, figures vary from one country to another: if we look at the number of migrants in 2019, Germany took in the most with 13.4 million, i.e. 15.7% of its population, followed by France (8.3 million), Spain (6.5 million) and Italy (6.2 million). In the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Poland, according to the OECD was the leading destination of temporary working migrants, ahead of the USA; in 2018 Poland delivered more than a million new permits to extra-European workers.
Topic:
Migration, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe

35. The refugee ‘crisis’ in Greece: politicisation and polarisation amidst multiple crises

Author:
Angeliki Dimitriadi and Antonia-Maria Sarantaki
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
The European refugee “crisis” of 2015 first and foremost unfolded in Greece at a critical period for the country and its place in the EU. Amidst the threat of Grexit and domestic political turmoil, the arrival of the refugees raised to the forefront questions of responsibility and burden sharing between Greece and its EU partners. Drawing from de Wilde’s analytical framework, this paper tried to explore whether the question of responsibility became an issue of politicisation in Greece as well as polarisation and whether it resulted in policy change on migration. The analysis draws from three types of sources: online media, parliamentary debates & party announcements, and public opinion polls. Two periods are investigated: the discussion on relocation from May 2015 to November 2015 and the discussions on the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016. Politicisation of migration pre-existed the crisis and acquired further salience during 2015-2016. Polarisation, in contrast, featured less in 2015, due to the focus on Grexit, but acquires salience in 2016 following the EU-Turkey Statement. Nonetheless two common themes underscore both periods. There is convergence (with varying degrees of intensity) in blaming the member states for failing to adhere to their responsibility and for showing little solidarity. Similarly, there is a broad convergence that migration policy is designed by the European Union and its institutions, with Greece only responsible for the implementation. Thus, the polarisation of 2016 over migration focuses more on the government’s poor implementation and less on the policies initiated at the EU level.
Topic:
European Union, Refugee Crisis, Asylum, and Polarization
Political Geography:
Europe and Greece

36. Asylum-seekers’ integration: The time has come

Author:
Haris Malamidis
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Although four years have passed since the 2015 refugee “crisis”, Greece’s reception system is still inadequate in serving the needs of the arriving populations. Since current debates focus on the weaknesses of the reception system, the issue of asylum-seekers and refugees’ integration has been indirectly outweighed. Without underestimating the issue of reception, this policy brief argues that the current political, social and environmental developments highlight the need to move towards decentralized and locally-oriented integration policies. After discussing the past context and the current developments of migration in Greece, we highlight the political, utilitarian and moral reasons that render integration policies both necessary and beneficiary for the domestic and migrant populations. Finally, we conclude with some recommendations regarding the way forward.
Topic:
Migration, European Union, Refugees, Asylum, and Integration
Political Geography:
Europe and Greece

37. From Tampere 20 to Tampere 2.0: Towards a new European consensus on migration

Author:
Marie De Somer, Philippe De Bruycker, and Jean-Louis De Brouwer
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
To mark the 20th anniversary of the 1999 Tampere European Council conclusions, the European Policy Centre, together with Odysseus Academic Network, European Migration Network Finland and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, embarked on a year-long project to assess the legacy of the Tampere conclusions and how they continue to shape and inspire EU policymaking today. Centred on four pillars – partnerships with countries of origin, a common European asylum system, fair treatment of third-country nationals and the management of migration flows -, these conclusions provided guidelines and sketched out principles that remain relevant two decades later. The project included a series of expert roundtables, culminating in the Tampere 2.0 conference held in Helsinki in October 2019, in the margins of the Finnish Council Presidency. The ideas and suggestions discussed at these events were brought together in this publication.Based on the current state of the EU’s migration and asylum policies and the lessons learned from the 2015-2016 crisis, the book argues that solidarity and the implementation of common policies are the two building blocks for a new European consensus on migration. It puts forward a set of concrete ideas on a new institutional and financial framework for migration policies, on legal migration, the common European asylum system, Schengen, integration, border control, return and readmission, the Global Approach and Partnership Framework, and development. Commission President von der Leyen’s proposal for a new pact on migration is a promising start, but what is perhaps more needed is a compromise uniting the Commission, Parliament and Council, and representing the member states under the auspices of the European Council. Patience and determination will be crucial in securing the successful completion of such a deal. However, that would be a small price to pay for an agreement that will still be as solid and relevant twenty years from now.
Topic:
Migration, European Union, Refugees, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe

38. Diminishing safeguards, increasing returns: Non-refoulement gaps in the EU return and readmission system

Author:
Olivia Sundberg Diez
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
Increasing the rate of return of third country nationals without a legal right to remain in the EU looks set to remain a policy priority for this European Commission. Nevertheless, the European Union and member states must ensure that their return and readmission policy complies in full with their international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement. In this discussion paper, Olivia Sundberg Diez argues that recent trends are creating a growing accountability gap over how returns are conducted, with implications for refoulement: First, procedural safeguards are increasingly diminished in order to accelerate returns. The Recast Return Directive proposal, and the Council’s partial general approach, could curtail access to effective remedies within return procedures. Regarding readmission, cooperation with third countries is becoming ever more informal and frequently bypasses democratic and judicial scrutiny. Second, significant divergence remains between national return practices. EU mechanisms are sometimes strategically avoided when pursuing controversial agreements that are EU-wide or involve the Union, leading to a blurring of responsibility. At the same time, problematic bilateral agreements continue to be concluded with limited data and without EU guidance. Third, there is a lack of suitable monitoring mechanisms within return practices and readmission agreements. This hinders the EU and member states’ ability to guarantee returnees’ safety, and is worsened by the recast Return Directive proposals. In particular, considerations regarding the risk of indirect refoulement are notably absent. These three trends amount to structural shortcomings in EU and member states’ efforts to prevent refoulement. This paper analyses the risks at hand so that they can be better addressed in the next legislative cycle, and calls for strengthening safeguards and accountability measures in future readmission cooperation and the negotiations for the recast Return Directive.
Topic:
European Union, Refugees, Asylum, and Non-refoulement
Political Geography:
Europe

39. Border games: Has Spain found an answer to the populist challenge on migration?

Author:
Shoshana Fine and José I. Torreblanca
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
Spain, and Europe, need a new story about migration – there is some recognition of this in Spain but it remains to be seen how the country will put this into practice. Spaniards are relatively open towards migration, but the policy challenge for their government should be to allay, and not provoke, fears of migrant invasion. The Spanish government has called for reform of the EU asylum system, favouring solidarity and shared responsibility as opposed to simply stopping ‘secondary movements’. Spain’s migration diplomacy aspires to work with origin and transit countries rather than acting in a coercive way towards them. The Spanish experience should inform EU member states’ efforts to seek to answers to the populist challenge: they should enact comprehensive, planned, and proactive policies that see migration as normal and necessary.
Topic:
Government, Migration, Border Control, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe and Spain

40. Untying the Gordian Knot of the Common European Asylum System: Dublin IV Reform

Author:
Shang-Yen Lee and Christian Kvorning Lassen
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Europeum Institute for European Policy
Abstract:
The latest policy paper by our Shang-Yen Lee and Christian Kvorning Lassen focuses on the reform of Dublin IV regulation under the Common European Asylum System and its prospects after the EP elections. The reform of Dublin IV regulation under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has stagnated for years, leaving the EU ill-prepared for future migration and asylum challenges. A reform of Dublin IV is a prerequisite to a comprehensive CEAS reform towards greater solidarity and fairer sharing of responsibilities between the Member States, yet divisions between Parliament and Commission as well as liberal and ‘illiberal’ fault lines have complicated the reform process. The EP elections will most likely stagnate the process further due to a surge in nationalist Eurosceptic MEP’s, which could delay CEAS reform for the foreseeable future, to the detriment of the EU.
Topic:
Reform, Elections, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe