B Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Fridez, rapporteur,
1 Covid-19 and migration: a life-threatening
paralysis
1. For two months and more, most
of the world shut down, national borders closed, freedom of movement was
suspended, administrations put on hold and policing turned to the
enforcement of internal emergency measures. For many, this meant
loss of work, reduction in income and challenges to education. Across
the globe tens of millions of migrants have been stranded, using
up money saved. For migrants and refugees, it often meant the end
of hopes for a foreseeable end to life-threatening journeys, the
perpetuation of squalid and unsafe living conditions, the prolongation
of detention
sine die and
a sudden halt in the processing of asylum and protection claims.
NoteNote However, as this report will show,
some countries managed to maintain asylum procedures by implementing
measures to ensure distancing and prevent contagion.
2. During the same lapse of time, the wars, hardship and oppression
which cause refugees to flee their homes continued: in Libya, the
opposing forces of a failed State continued to tear apart the country
and its inhabitants, whether indigenous or migrant. In West Africa,
locust invasions devoured the livelihood of thousands of people.
In Syria and Afghanistan repression continued. Closer to home, fear
of contagion and fear of migrants taking up the ever-fewer available
jobs, caused increased hostility towards migrants and a greater
reluctance to offer the protection set out in international law.
1.1 Context
and aim of the report
3. Soon after the Covid -19 outbreak
was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on
11 March 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly decided to work on mapping
its effects and examining its public health, social, political and
legal consequences for member States and partners. In line with
its statutory vocation to discuss questions of common concern and
to make recommendations upon any matter within the aim and scope
of the Council of Europe, the Assembly was evidently well placed
to analyse the situation in which Europe found itself, produce guidelines
aimed to mitigate its effects and make proposals to member States
to find co-ordinated multilateral solutions.
4. In this context, the Committee on Migration, Refugees and
Displaced Persons was tasked with preparing a report on the humanitarian
consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for migrants and refugees,
as a contribution to a broad debate in the Assembly. Having supported
the inclusion of migration matters in the debate and suggested the
topic of the report to the Assembly’s Bureau, I was appointed by
our committee to work on the present report on 29 May 2020.
5. Substantial input to the report was provided by the replies
to a questionnaire sent through the European Parliamentary Centre
for Research and Documentation (ECPRD) to parliamentary correspondents,
on national measures taken in relation to the Covid -19 crisis with
respect to migrants and refugees. The questionnaire asked whether
exceptional regulatory or practical measures had been taken for
migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, with respect to awareness-raising
on rights and protection in the Covid-19 context, sanitary prevention,
access to healthcare and emergency medical treatment, extension
of validity of asylum claims or regularisation, extension of residency/employment
or other permits, administrative detention and families with children,
separated and unaccompanied children and women.
6. No less than 39 countries replied, which allowed for a comprehensive
overview of government’s regulatory responses.
Note The
committee also held a remote exchange of views at its meeting on
23 June with Drahoslav Stefanek, the Council of Europe Secretary
General’s Special Representative on migration and refugees, Nina
Schrepfer, Senior Legal Officer, United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) Regional Bureau for Europe, and with Tineke
Strik, former member of the Parliamentary Assembly, currently member
of the European Parliament.
2 A
disease which worsened Europe’s pre-existing chronic ailments
2.1 Old
routes re-open, new passages appear
7. A cursory examination of the
evolution of the so-called migration “crisis” which began in 2015
shows clearly that closing borders and building walls, despite dissuading
migrants from entering individual countries territories to a certain
extent, has not served to stem migratory flows into Europe. Each
time tighter restrictions are put on migratory routes, new “breaches”
appear, usually forcing people desperately in need of protection to
put themselves in even greater danger by attempting new, longer
and more perilous circumnavigations.
8. Covid -19 has created “pile-ups” of migrants stranded in atrocious
conditions. The pandemic required States to implement exceptional
measures to curb the spread of the virus and to protect public health,
including in the event of arrivals of asylum seekers at their borders.
Such measures are in the interest of all, including asylum seekers
themselves. Alternative measures such as medical screening or quarantining
upon arrival protect public health while ensuring access to territory
for persons seeking international protection and protecting them
against the risk of
refoulement.
Border closures may also be detrimental to public health interests,
as they may increase irregular movements, further complicating authorities´
efforts to curb and respond to the pandemic”.
Note
9. Thus, for instance, a 700% surge in migrants arriving in the
Canary Islands was reported (by Reuters and AFP), between January
1 and April 15, and since March, a total of 1 781 migrants had arrived
on the Canaries compared to just 181 over the same period last year.
NoteAlthough
the route across the Atlantic is more direct than crossing the Sahara
and then the Mediterranean to reach Europe, the Atlantic is far
more treacherous with higher seas, strong currents and stronger
winds.
10. When the Balkans route from Turkey to central Europe was blocked
in 2015, asylum applications in Cyprus soared from 2 253 to 13 648
in 2019. The European Union reported that in spring 2019, Cyprus
was receiving three times as many asylum applications per month,
adjusted for population, as Greece. While many came from countries
in conflict, particularly Syria and Cameroon, Indian, Pakistani
and Bangladeshi applicants far outnumbered those fleeing war zones
so far this year.
Note
11. An increase in arrivals at the United Kingdom’s Kent coast
was reported during the Covid-19 lockdown period.
Note The increase began well before the
pandemic set in, but in this instance, too, its effects redoubled
the risk which migrants run. In an interview the chair of Kent’s
County Council, Roger Gough, told the BBC that the number of unaccompanied
child migrants arriving in Kent had risen significantly in the past
12 months, and that the number of young asylum seekers in the county
had doubled in a little more than a year, with 450 child migrants
in the Council's care at the end of April, compared with 257 in
April 2019.
Note
12. A tragic feature of these cases again illustrates the type
of exacerbated danger caused by the pandemic – the drop in lorries
crossing the Channel due to coronavirus led to a rise in the numbers
of children arriving in dinghies, thus adding more danger to the
journey. Also, according to the national Immigration Services Union, the
age of children arriving unaccompanied appeared to be dropping,
seeming to indicate that the journeys could be organised by human
traffickers. Despite the need for protection above other considerations,
the United Kingdom Government took the position that the incidents
were the result of criminals smuggling people into the country illegally,
and that the migrants had “left a safe country”. The government
was said to be seeking to return “specific cases where appropriate”.
Note
2.2 Border
closures in Europe, coupled with pushbacks
13. Reports of violent police pushbacks
on several European borders were examined by the Assembly in a report
prepared by Ms Tineke Strik in 2019.
NoteWith
lockdown and even stricter control of European borders in certain
countries, these practices have increased. On 5 June, for instance,
a national human rights NGO, the Center for Peace Studies filed
a criminal complaint to the Croatian State Attorney’s Office against
“unknown perpetrators” from the police, “based on a reasonable doubt
of degrading treatment and torture of 33 people and their violent,
illegal expulsion from the territory of the Republic of Croatia
to Bosnia and Herzegovina”.
Note
14. The British daily newspaper
The
Guardian reported details on the same incident, along
with photographs and testimonies, showing more than 30 migrants
were allegedly robbed, beaten and spray-painted with red crosses
on their heads when attempting to cross the border from Bosnia and
Herzegovina by Croatian police officers, who said the treatment
was the “cure against coronavirus”. The group included minors. European Union
parliamentarians have now demanded an independent commission of
inquiry to make an investigation.
Note
15. Amnesty International reported a further violent incident
involving 16 Pakistani and Afghan asylum seekers apprehended by
the Croatian police between 26 and 27 May near Lake Plitvice, as
they tried to cross the country to reach Western Europe.
Note Between eight and ten people wearing
black uniforms and balaclavas fired their weapons in the air, kicked
and repeatedly hit the restrained men with metal sticks, batons
and pistol grips. They then rubbed ketchup, mayonnaise and sugar
that they found in one of the backpacks on migrants’ bleeding heads
and hair and their clothes. Amnesty International also spoke to
doctors who treated the men. A doctor in the Velika Kladusa (Bosnia
and Herzegovina) clinic stated that approximately 60% of migrants
and asylum seekers who required medical treatment reported that
their injuries were inflicted by the Croatian police. Despite dismissal
of the allegations the testimonies of violence and intimidation
indicate that unlawful pushbacks continue, not only on the Croatian,
but also on other external borders of the European Union.
16. On 12 June, UNHCR published a call to Greece to investigate
multiple reports of pushbacks by Greek authorities at the country’s
sea and land borders, in incidents where migrants and asylum seekers
were returned to Turkey after reaching Greek territory or territorial
waters. Reports by media and NGOs of such incidents increased from
March 2020. Although the numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Greece
dropped during the period to 3 000, the number of reported pushbacks
rose.
2.3 Search
and rescue in the Mediterranean
17. For two year’s running, 2018
and 2019, the Assembly held urgent debates on the duty of States
to save lives in the Mediterranean, in conformity with international
human rights law including the Law of the Sea.
NoteThe coronavirus
pandemic has both increased fear of, and provided a pretext for,
certain countries in lockdown to abandon and to further thwart NGOs
search and rescue operations, tragically revealing the continued ignorance
by European Union member States of their duty to show solidarity
in dealing with migration flows and emergencies alike, and the European
Union’s failure to address human rights violations before concentrating
on border security.
2.3.1 Malta:
refusal to disembark migrants
18. In 2019, 3 405 migrants disembarked
on the island, of whom 2 795 remained in Malta, according to the authorities.
In the first 7 months of this year, 2 012 migrants have already
arrived. Only 8% were relocated to other EU countries, and in Malta
asylum-seekers and irregular migrants make up 1% of the total of
the population, according to official figures.
19. For over a month, Malta held 425 people rescued in the Maltese
search and rescue zone in tourist vessels chartered by the Maltese
government and moored off Maltese territorial waters. The Maltese Government
declared it would not let these people disembark until other EU
member States pledged to relocate them. The Council of Europe Commissioner
for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, urged Malta to grant monitoring
bodies and agencies access to the ships off its coast and requested
concrete actions to end the situation. The Commissioner was also
concerned that the confinement of those rescued on the ships, and
the lack of remedies against this measure and its indefinite duration,
were not compliant with the right to liberty of those on board,
as guaranteed by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ETS No. 5).
20. In a further statement on 4 June,
Note the Commissioner recalled that “coastal
member States at the forefront of receiving refugees, asylum seekers
and migrants should be able to rely on support from other states”
and that structural solutions at the European level were essential.
Stressing that discussions about responsibility sharing had been
continuing for too long, she called on member States “to promptly
decide on such a system in a true spirit of solidarity”, while expressing
regret at Malta’s action in keeping survivors at sea.
21. At the end of May, the Jesuit Refugee Service in Malta and
the Integra Foundation filed complaints regarding the situation
of the people held on the vessels: one with the UN Special Rapporteur
on the Rights of Migrants, one with the UN Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention, and one with the European Commission concerning the breach
of fundamental rights, including the right to liberty, the right
to asylum and the right to an effective legal remedy. On 6 June
the Maltese Government finally allowed them to go ashore, after
a statement by the Prime Minister Robert Abela that the crew was
in danger of being overpowered by a group of migrants on one of
the boats. Offers of relocation of around 40 of the migrants were
made by France, Luxembourg and Portugal.
Note
22. In an earlier incident reported by
TheGuardian and the
EU Observer on 30 April, the Italian
Government confirmed that the Armed Forces of Malta turned away
a boat with people fleeing Libya at gunpoint from Maltese waters,
after giving them fuel and the GPS coordinates to reach Italy. The
evidence was published by the NGO Alarm Phone. Malta's Government
also allegedly outsourced a push-back of migrants over the Easter weekend
where at least twelve people died.
NoteNote
2.3.2 A
“spiral of chaos and death” in the Mediterranean
23. On 3 June,
SOS Méditerranée echoed the calls
of other humanitarian organisations and NGOs to address the situation
in the central Mediterranean, which had become a "spiral of chaos
and death", calling on European States to immediately set up rescue
operations at sea, directed by governments and respecting maritime
law to save lives at sea.
Note The absence of search and rescue
operations made an evaluation of the situation impossible, according
to Sophie Beau, General Director of
SOS
Méditerranée managing the
Ocean Viking rescue
vessel. But since the same period in 2019 departures from the Libyan
coast had risen by 290% between January and the end of April, reaching
6 629 attempts, and by 156% from Tunisia, according to
AFP mid-May.
24. According to the UNHCR, between January and May 2020 sea departures
from Tunisia to Europe were multiplied by four since 2019, as the
country increasingly became not only a country of origin but also
a region of transit for migrants leaving neighbouring Libya. A shipwreck
off Tunisia on 9 June 2020 caused 53 deaths, most of them people
from sub-Saharan Africa. At least 24 women and the boat's captain,
a 48-year-old Tunisian, were among the victims.
Note Although these tragic incidents
cannot be linked directly to the health crisis, they are symptomatic
of a situation where even less assistance and search and rescue
operations than usual have been possible, putting ever more lives
at risk.
25. On Monday 8 June the Sea Watch
3 left the port of Messina in Sicily after three months
absence in the Mediterranean, heading towards the rescue zone off
the Libyan coast. No other NGO rescue operations had been possible
for the previous two months, as other ships such as the Alan Kurdi and Aita Mari had been immobilised by
the Italian coastguard for “technical problems”.
2.4 Ever
worsening conditions and increased vulnerability
26. In times of crisis, refugees
and asylum seekers are among the most vulnerable as their basic
human rights, already regularly violated, are further jeopardised,
either through simple neglect or through the setting of priorities
by hard-stretched authorities. Already sub-standard living conditions
(lack of basic sanitary conditions, hygiene and healthcare, accommodation
of children and adults without distinction, overcrowding) will become
worse as movement is restricted. The most vulnerable among them
are children, women and the physically and mentally ill, and the
tendency to relegate refugee camps and centres to remote, poorly accessible
locations with limited power supplies, increases hardship and the
risk of contagion.
Note Covid-19 hit refugees and migrants
in “official” centres (managed by national authorities assisted
by humanitarian organisations such as the UNHCR and the International
Organization for Migration (IOM) as well as unofficial camps (Calais,
Paris suburbs, Bihac at the Bosnia and Herzegovina-Croatia border,
Turkey-Greece border, etc.), and homeless migrants in the margins
of urban areas who are more at risk of falling victim to traffickers and
vulnerable to other forms of abuse. And although smuggling was slowed
by the closure of borders, smuggled migrants and victims of human
trafficking were particularly at risk through the closure in some countries
of asylum registration and the protection which comes with it. NGOs
and other humanitarian actors were also less able to provide assistance.
NoteNote As borders were closed, some were
trafficked along even more dangerous routes; others, such as those
forced into prostitution or modern slavery in farming, were abandoned by
traffickers as there was no longer any work, and trafficked victims
were sometimes left homeless and without means of support.
Note
27. On March 13, the Greek asylum service announced that it would
be temporarily suspending all services until at least April 10,
and that "all administrative services to the public are suspended”,
including registration of asylum claims, interviews and appeal submissions.
Although applicants' cards and residence permits due to expire in
the period remained valid, this led to an inevitable worsening of
conditions for all concerned – services at camps accommodating asylum
seekers on the Greek islands were placed in lockdown, school classes
for migrant children were suspended and NGO volunteers were no longer
allowed into camps.
Note
28. Frontline countries already bearing the brunt of arrivals
of asylum seekers, specifically Greece, were faced with both the
inhumane situation on the islands and the reactions of rejection
by Greek people living near camps through fear of contagion, despite
the very low level of infection in the country. On 5 June after
two months, Greece’s coronavirus lockdown on its camps was again
extended for at least 2 weeks,
Note while general conditions eased as
the country prepared to open its doors to tourists for the summer.
29. As it stood by the first week in August 2020, more than 30 200
asylum seekers were accommodated on the Aegean islands, for a total
capacity of 5 400 people, and in June, around 86 500 migrants were
accounted for on the Greek mainland, according to the UNHCR. No
known deaths from Covid-19 were recorded in the camps, and virus
screening, which began in early May, returned only a few dozen infections.
Nevertheless, rights groups and medical experts continued to warn
that a virus outbreak in the camps would be impossible to contain
and would put thousands of lives in danger and expressed concern
that migrants' rights were threatened by the discriminatory anti-virus
restrictions. The UNHCR continues to seek to “shield” the older
and immune compromised asylum seekers from the dangers of Covid-19
by giving priority to their transfer to flats on the islands and
mainland and also hotels on the islands. Unfortunately, there are
more and more cases of Covid-19 outbreaks being reported in camps
across Europe, including for example in Greece and Italy. There are
also serious concerns that an outbreak in the Al-Hol camp for internally
displaced persons in the northern part of Syria could spread rapidly.
2.4.1 Increased
risks for migrant children
30. The label of “migrant” does
not prevent children from suffering from the same abuses as their
sedentary pairs, as recalled by George Nikolaidis and Christel De
Craim, Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Lanzarote Committee
in a statement published on 7 April 2020. The committee monitors
compliance of the Council of Europe’s Convention on the protection
of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse (CETS No.
201). “As more and more countries are locked down, it is a tragic
fact that many children, notably children in a vulnerable situation
because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence,
are trapped with their offenders, be it at home, in out-of-home
care, in makeshift refugee camps or facilities where they are deprived
of liberty.” The committee urged State Parties to ensure that all
children were confined in safe environments.
Note
31. Access to education of migrant children is also a major issue,
according to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, in
particular as many of the different centres do not have stable wi-fi
and there is a lack of online learning tools for children.
Note
32. On 6 March the European Commission stated that eight EU member
States had offered to relocate 1 600 unaccompanied migrant minors
from Greece. This figure has since climbed to 2 000. These countries
were Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg
and Portugal. Later, Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom joined the number, and despite the delays caused by the
coronavirus outbreak in transferring them, the first 12 children,
aged between 11 and 15, were moved to Luxembourg on April 15, followed
by Germany with 47 refugee children and the United Kingdom, who
took 16 underage migrants on May 11 included in 50 asylum seekers
qualifying for family reunification.
Note Since
then, 23 unaccompanied minor asylum seekers arrived in Switzerland
on May 16, and other countries have continued to relocate unaccompanied
migrant minors, including Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia.
33. Voluntary relocation will be the subject of a new report to
be prepared by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced
Persons in the coming months, for which the experiences and initiatives
taken during this period will be relevant. The European Union’s
“pact on migration” under negotiation at the time of drafting the
present report should also propose new solutions aimed to increase
and facilitate this aspect of solidarity between member States and
European countries in general.
2.5 Migration
detention: the Covid-19 pandemic shows that it can be avoided
34. The EU Returns Directive stipulates
that detainees must be released if “a reasonable prospect of removal
no longer exists.” Due to the near-worldwide shutdown of borders
and air travel, returns were not possible during the pandemic, and
immigration detention centres could not fulfil their purpose.
35. Above all, detention was a major cause for concern at the
beginning of the Covid-19 epidemic, as the overcrowding and promiscuous
conditions in the detention facilities of many countries, led to
contagion and prompted swift decisions in some member States (France,
for instance, with its record of prison overcrowding) to order early
release for prisoners serving minor offenses. Some States (Portugal,
Spain, United Kingdom) ended the administrative detention of significant
numbers of migrants awaiting implementation of return decisions.
These initiatives, which show that viable alternatives to detention
can be found, must be encouraged and promoted among member States.
Note
36. In the United Kingdom “Immigration detention bail”
Note allowed 700 migrant detainees from
removal centres to be released. Migrants were required to report
regularly, sometimes to wear identification bracelets, but many
were provided with assistance for subsistence and accommodation
in local communities, proof that this type of detention is not inevitable.
The BBC quoted the “Movement for Justice” charity which underlined the
widespread opposition to immigration detention as being costly,
ineffective and a source of mental and physical health problems.
37. Within a month of the country’s lockdown, most of Spain’s
immigration detention centres were emptied. The Spanish authorities
recognised that health and legal issues made the system untenable,
and that the maximum limit of 60 days for a person to be held (pending
deportation) could not be respected. Detention centres are for use
as temporary holding facilities prior to deportation. As the detention
centres were closed, detainees who could stay with friends or family
were released first, and those without this option were offered the
choice to stay in open reception centres run by NGOs. Closures were
carried out in co-operation between local and regional authorities,
with civil society organisations, the Ombudsman, detention centre
directors, and judges to ensure that the rights and dignity of migrants
were respected.
Note
38. Administrative detention for migrants, especially children
and families, has long been denounced by international organisations,
including the Council of Europe. Our committee organised a three-year parliamentary
campaign “End migration Detention of Children”, promoting alternatives
to closed centres, showcasing good practices in guardianship and
open accommodation and better family reunification procedures.
Note The Organisation has worked on guidelines
for administrative detention of migrants aimed to limit the circumstances
in which detention may be admissible and to prohibit detention of
migrant children, although a lack of consensus has not allowed this
work to be concluded. It should be resumed as soon as possible.
3 Covid-19
goes global in a vicious circle of extreme poverty bound to increase
migratory pressure
3.1 Less
cases in developing countries?
39. Several months previous to
drafting this report, it seemed that Europe’s neighbours in the
countries of origin of many migrants were much less affected than
our continent by the disease. Expert opinions differed as to whether
this was due to the warmer climate, the comparative youth (and thus
reduced mortality) of African and Middle eastern populations, or
whether in actual fact the figures were simply the result of an
inability to fully take into account the number of deaths due to
Covid-19.
40. According to figures updated on 14 June, published by Africa
News, the number of confirmed cases on the African continent stood
at 233 836, with 6 261 deaths. As the weeks have gone by the situation
has evolved and as at the 11 August 2020, the number of cases in
Africa, according to the WHO, have climbed to 965 432. This indicates
that the pandemic is advancing strongly in Africa, even if it is
not at the same level as other continents (Europe over 3.5 million
cases and the Americas over 10 million). Countries reporting most
cases are South Africa (563 598), Nigeria (46 867), Ghana (41 212),
Algeria (35 712) and Morocco (34 063). If it continues to advance
at this rate, the lack of health services will evidently worsen
the situation. According to WHO, 90% of low-income countries suffer
from health worker shortages: sub-Saharan African countries, for instance,
have 0.2 doctors for 1 000 people, compared with 2.2 in Latin America
and 3.4 in the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD).
41. There are concerns raised by many that countries in the developing
world with the least ability to contain coronavirus could become
future reservoirs for the disease. Coronavirus’ potentially devastating
impact on countries with high poverty, widespread social insecurity
or conflict, and heavily dependent on international aid, has prompted
strong calls for more international solidarity in giving humanitarian
aid and development co-operation.
Note
42. According to the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), “with
80% of all confirmed cases, but only 20% of the world’s population,
high income countries have been disproportionately affected by the
outbreak […]. In the interests of early warning and preparedness,
asylum and reception authorities in the EU+1 should consider the
risks of the virus taking hold in lower income countries because
in recent years, these have been the source of most asylum seekers
in the EU+.”
43. There are three overlapping explanations for the unequal distribution
of cases between high- and low-income countries. Firstly, the infection
might be much more equally distributed around the globe than the
data suggest, but poor testing and low-quality data are painting
a distorted picture. Secondly, lower income countries may be inherently
more protected from the virus because of their climate or demographics
(younger populations and less obesity). Finally, the less-connected
low income countries may be temporarily buffered from the infection
which is yet to take hold. There are also other explanations put
forward, namely that low and lower-middle income countries may be
at inherently lower risk of massive Covid-19 outbreaks because there are
fewer international connections and the rural population is higher.
While these explanations might be responsible for delaying the outbreak,
this would be temporary, especially if lockdowns unintentionally encourage
internal travel. In any case, it is not unreasonable to assume that
there are more cases than are being reported, but the scale of this
disparity is unknown.
44. “In the interests of early warning and preparedness, national
asylum and reception authorities should reflect upon the medium
to high risk that the outbreak will eventually take hold in the
countries of origin and transit. In turn, indirect (namely recrudescence
of Daesh) and direct consequences (famine, conflict and security
risks) of the virus might affect asylum-related migration to the
EU+ and contribute the most to new applications or the reception
population.”
Note
3.2 Direct
as well as indirect negative consequences
45. According to the World Food
Programme (WFP), the end of the year 2020 will see acute hunger
almost doubling globally, putting the lives and livelihoods of 265
million people in low and middle-income countries under severe threat
unless action is taken to tackle the pandemic. The figure is nearly
double the 135 million people in 55 countries estimated in the WFP’s
Global Report on Food Crises 2020 (due to conflict, the effects of
climate change and economic crises), drawn up prior to the emergence
of Covid-19 as a pandemic. The new figures provide insight into
the devastating potential of this virus.
Note
46. A team from the Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, studied
how the Covid-19 could affect women and children in low-income countries,
such as those in Sub-Saharan Africa, basing themselves on previous epidemics,
in particular Ebola. They identified two main ways in which the
response to the Covid-19 could increase the number of victims: first
through the disruption of health services caused by fear of consulting
and lack of medical supplies and care; and secondly through lack
of access to enough food (which also increases vulnerability to
sickness). The study predicted that in a worst-case scenario, if
use of health services was reduced by up to 50% and malnourishment
rose by the same percentage, over a million children and 56 700 mothers
could die as an indirect result of the pandemic.
Note.
47. Fear for survival in sub-standard sanitary conditions combined
with the impossible levels of poverty will redouble migratory pressure
as soon as national borders re-open. For the World Economic Forum,
Africa could lose a third of its employment.
Note As Europe went into lockdown and
people were laid off, in particular those with insecure and manual
jobs, along with added difficulties in international transfers,
payments back to rural families also dried up too, leaving them
less able to cope with the drought and removing a vital economic
safety net in poorer rural areas.
NoteNote
3.3 Essential
financial assistance, debt relief and facilitated remittance: essential
tools
48. Poorer countries are also of
course less able to compensate workers for lost wages and bail out struggling
companies than wealthier countries, leaving millions struggling
to cope with the direct impacts of the pandemic, and also forcing
them to return to dangerous, climate-vulnerable places. Debt relief
to poorer countries must form part of how this crisis is dealt with.
Richer countries must not use a crisis at home to slash aid and
development funding. Even while developed countries are dealing
with their own crises, they must continue to offer support to countries
in the global South.
49. As the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) weekly
editorial aptly described the situation on 8 May: “If Europe is
seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, at least concerning the
health crisis, it must still be prepared for impact of Covid-19
on the rest of the world. For geographic and demographic reasons,
the crisis may have a very different profile elsewhere but there
can be no doubt about the impending impact of the multiple secondary
effects in fragile, poor and conflict-affected countries. Where
large sectors of the population live hand-to-mouth, surviving in
the informal economy, disruption is devastating as is the dramatic
fall-off in remittance income. Everything from food insecurity to
political unrest to resource-shortage conflicts are predicted and
increased displacement is inevitable … Europe’s external policies
and resources will more than ever be needed for their true objectives:
healthcare, food security, livelihoods, decent housing, conflict prevention,
governance, etc.”
50. The OECD published a report on the need for more support to
developing countries on 13 May. According to the organisation, “OECD
governments and the broader international community need to unlock ambitious
support, to prevent the loss of lives, contain the risk of aftershocks,
and invest in sustainable recovery. The international response to
the Covid-19 should be unprecedented in terms of resources mobilised,
scope and ambition. It should lead to a new development model that
is conducive to resilience and sustainability.”
Note The report concludes that a supportive
multilateral system is crucial and that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, with its Sustainable Development Goals, provide both
“a vision and a framework for a more prosperous, inclusive, resilient
and sustainable world.”
51. In April, G20 finance ministers reached an agreement on a
debt freeze for poor countries, starting from 1 May until the end
of the year, with an option to extend it until the end of 2021.
But 30 Sub-Saharan African countries spend more on repaying public
debt than investment on public health (Angola and the Republic of Congo
spend six times more on external debt repayment than their health
budgets), so freezing debts will not suffice. Cancelling some debts
should be seriously considered by European countries, whose economies
do not rely on repayments.
Note
52. Reduced remittances are another consequence of the pandemic.
The amount remitted by migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) grew
in 20 years from $4.8 billion in 2000 to $48 billion in 2018, reflecting
the increase in the number of people moving from the continent:
from 21.6 million in 2000, the number of migrants from Africa grew
to 36.3 million in 2017. In 2018 remittances to Nigeria were four
times more than foreign direct investment and official development
assistance combined.
Note
53. According to the World Bank, international remittances to
SSA will drop by 23% in 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic,
with obvious implications for major recipient countries in the region.
The International Labour Organization has also estimated that earnings
of informal sector workers in Africa may have declined by 81% in
the first month of the crisis, with potentially catastrophic impacts
on rural livelihoods. Council of Europe member States should take
measures to ensure that diasporas settled in their countries are encouraged
to maintain their remittances, whether these are from individuals
or small businesses and associations.
Note
54. In another context, among positive measures taken to mitigate
the effects of the coronavirus outbreak, the European Union announced
on 10 June an additional €55 million for refugees from Syria and
vulnerable persons in Jordan and Lebanon to fight the pandemic under
the EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian crisis. The
additional support package for the two countries hosting the highest
number of refugees per capita in the world, Jordan (€20.1 million)
and Lebanon (€34.6 million), should provide support in key areas such
as health, water, sanitation and hygiene.
4 Rights-based
migration management can be a reality
4.1 Good
practices reported by member State and Observer parliaments
55. In March 2020, the Committee
on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons addressed a questionnaire
through the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation
(ECPRD) jointly with the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
on the legislative and oversight role of parliaments in the context
of the Covid-19 pandemic. By 4 May a total of 39 responses had been
received. National parliaments reported on exceptional regulatory
or practical measures taken to prevent the spread of the Covid-19
virus, to protect the population, and to face the challenges in
the field of public health, economy, public order, and various other
sectors.
56. Specific measures taken with regard to migrants, refugees
and asylum seekers included awareness raising on protection in the
Covid-19 context, sanitary prevention measures, reinforced effective
access to healthcare and emergency medical treatment, regularisation
or extension of validity of asylum claims, extension of residency
coupled with travel restrictions, employment or other permits, and
measures to ensure temporary accommodation and housing. Most countries
indicated that migration-related exceptional measures were taken
as part of co-ordinated actions covering public policies in all
areas: justice, economy, education, employment, public order, public
health, etc.
57. Many countries took specific measures to raise awareness of
asylum seekers and refugees about the Covid-19 pandemic and the
need for physical distancing and rigorous hygiene. Some countries
gave good examples of awareness-raising materials distributed in
the different languages of the migrants, refugees and asylum seekers
present (Cyprus provided materials in 14 languages, Belgium in 16,
Portugal in 22, Norway in 24 and Greece in 28). Greece reported
the use of popular radio stations to raise awareness about the need
for social distancing and other protective measures against the
spread of the virus.
58. Sanitary prevention measures, as well as emergency medical
treatment, were usually described as designed for all the population.
The implementation of sanitary prevention measures, however, depended
on the availability of adequate housing or accommodation facilities
to make sure that social distancing, self-isolation and stricter
quarantine measures and curfews were observed. Special facilities
were made available to enforce quarantine measures in some countries
(for example the Czech Republic). Some respondents reported about
regular disinfection of surfaces and objects in centres for asylum
seekers. A number of countries provided detailed instructions on
measures to be taken if refugees and asylum seekers showed symptoms
of infection (the Netherlands, Sweden). Contact with the relevant
services was encouraged primarily by e-mail, telephone or through
e-services. There were no reports however about distributions of
masks amongst refugees and asylum seekers in the temporary accommodation
facilities.
59. Access to healthcare being dependent on migrant’s health care
insurance coverage and levels of protection of asylum seekers, countries
were obliged to take measures to adapt their policies to the Covid-19 context,
such as extending expired healthcare benefits to ensure access to
medical treatment (for example Cyprus). In some countries, telephone
medical consultations were made available and information disseminated
through the government services addressed to foreigners (Poland).
Detailed instructions on access to healthcare were reported to be
made available in other countries (the Netherlands).
60. The validity of asylum and other regularisation claims was
generally prolonged, together with other relevant administrative
documents, such as visas or residence permits. Durations mentioned
varied from a few weeks after the end of the state of emergency
in some countries (45 days in Hungary) to two months in Belgium and
six months in France. New asylum claims, however, were not processed,
given that most of the relevant institutions were closed or functioned
in a limited capacity. New visa applications were either not processed
or rejected as endangering public health (Sweden). In some cases,
repatriation was carried out by charter flights at the request of
migrants wishing to return to their home countries.
61. Most asylum claimants’ interviews and refugee protection document
renewals were replaced with online contacts where possible. The
period of extension of residence rights varied from country to country
and was sometimes automatic (Czech Republic) and sometimes subject
to a formal request (Germany). Requests were to be submitted to
the relevant authorities before expiration of the documents in Germany,
for instance, within 14 days after the lifting of the state of emergency
in Bulgaria, or no later than two months after the end of the confinement
period decided by the country, for instance in Belgium. Some countries
reported extensions of the validity of work permits and other employment-related
documents and benefits.
62. Certain countries reported specific measures taken to provide
temporary emergency accommodation for migrants, refugees and asylum
seekers (Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada). Travel
and visit restrictions were applied to avoid spreading the Covid-19
virus. Local authorities played a major role, given that municipalities
are responsible for temporary accommodation of asylum seekers in
most countries. Governments also took extraordinary measures to
ensure the availability of emergency housing, for instance in Norway
where a temporary regulation was applied in case of an urgent need
for additional housing. The situation of particularly vulnerable
groups required special attention. The questionnaire asked about
member States’ actions with regard to migrants, refugees and asylum
seekers in administrative detention, families with children, separated
and unaccompanied children and women. Few countries replied on measures
taken with regard to refugees or asylum seekers in administrative
detention, although the present report shows that some countries
released detainees. In Sweden the visitation limitations were introduced
and concerned everyone, not just a legal representative for a person
in detention, or a public servant dealing with returns.
63. Measures were taken to support particularly vulnerable groups.
Some countries drew attention to risks posed to family reunification
procedures by the Covid-19 pandemic. As family reunification is
subject to conditions (such as an age requirement) and deadlines,
a family member could lose his/her right to family reunification
or be required to meet more severe conditions in future (Belgium).
64. Finally, respondents to the questionnaire stressed the importance
of effective and efficient coordination of exceptional measures
and their enforcement.
4.2 The
UNHCR: a force for proposals on managing asylum procedures
65. On 9 April the UNHCR, extremely
active during the crisis, published a compilation of good practices
and practical recommendations on how entry into territories and
asylum procedures should be adapted during the period, some of which
will be taken up in the recommendations of this report.
Note These included alternative measures
to manage the arrival of asylum seekers in a safe manner, including
medical screenings or testing, or non-discriminatory and proportionate
quarantine measures.These alternative measures protect public health
while ensuring access to territory for persons seeking international
protection and protecting them against the risk of
refoulement. In this regard, the
UNHCR recognises the emerging State practice in many European countries
of providing for an explicit exemption for persons seeking international
protection from border closures and entry bans. Border closures
may also be detrimental to public health interests, as they may increase
irregular movements, further complicating authorities´ efforts to
curb and respond to the pandemic.
66. Proposals also advised the simplification of registration
processes, increased hygiene measures for in-person registration
and written or electronic registration systems, plus automatisation
of issuance or extension of documentation. Independent private accommodation
or smaller collective centres should be privileged, additional space
provided, with separated facilities for persons confirmed or suspected
of infection and reporting the confirmed cases to WHO. The Covid-19
situation resulted in the suspension of asylum and statelessness
determination procedures in many EU and other European countries.
At the same time, national asylum authorities expressed concerns
over the creation of backlogs and in some instances pursued asylum procedures
to prevent backlogs.Therefore, backlog management is both an immediate
need in the prevailing situation, as well as in the medium-term
when suspended procedures resume. The UNHCR put forward recommendations
for both scenarios, where procedures are suspended and where measures
are put in place to maintain them.
67. Finally, UNHCR recommended the inclusion of refugees, asylum
seekers, stateless and internally displaced people in risk education
and awareness-raising related to Covid-19, with particular attention
to their language and cultural preferences, advising the use of
various information platforms designed to meet the needs of different
groups whether staying in reception facilities, informal settlements,
homeless or living with host communities. It is worth noting that
information and awareness-raising are among some of the good practices
reported by member States in their replies to the questionnaire
circulated to national parliaments.
4.3 Migrants
as key workers
68. During lockdown, facing the
reality that most economies depend on temporary reinforcement of
national labour forces, many exemptions were made for migrants to
cross borders for work, notably in health, agriculture and transport.
The European Commission issued guidelines concerning the exercise
of the free movement of workers during the Covid-19 outbreak, which
cover cross-border workers, seasonal workers and short-term postings
within the European Union.
Note
4.3.1 Seasonal workers – welcomed but
often mistreated
69. Several countries took special
measures for seasonal agricultural workers, enabling people with
limited work permits to remain in their host country to work (for
example Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain). In a few
countries, categories of migrants previously forbidden to work could
do so, for example asylum seekers in Belgium in the first four months
of their application, youth without work rights aged 18 to 21 in
Spain and international students in Ireland. In Greece, an exceptional
fast-track procedure, in place until 30 June 2020, allowed employers
to hire certain third country citizens in an irregular situation
already residing in the country, to help address urgent labour needs
in agriculture. In Germany, 80 000 foreign seasonal workers were granted
entry in April and May, mostly from Romania and Bulgaria.
Note Entries via charter flights were
authorised from non-EU countries for seasonal agricultural workers
to Greece and the United Kingdom.
Note
70. These measures show again that some of the restrictions applied
to migrants can be lifted without negative consequences for society,
and in this case can contribute to sustaining national economies. Unfortunately,
they have largely remained “exceptional”, but should be considered
in the future among the lessons to be learned about the usefulness
of foreign workforce and the advantages of integration of migrants through
work opportunities, including during sometimes lengthy asylum application
procedures. In some regions decent conditions for migrant workers
were not ensured and abuses were reported in the media.
NoteNote Thus lifting restrictions must be
properly framed by regulations and supervision and coupled with
safeguards against exploitation.
4.3.2 Health workers
71. A number of countries relied
on the migrant health workforce, benefiting from the fact that this
group was in principle exempted from entry bans, and that accelerated
work visa delivery was put in place. Several countries therefore
facilitated the temporary licensing of doctors with foreign medical
degrees (Italy), facilitated recruitment in the national health
services (Spain), accelerated current applications for the recognition
of foreign qualifications of health professionals (Belgium, Germany,
Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain), allowed foreign-trained health workers
in non-medical occupations in the health sector (France). The United
Kingdom decided that doctors, nurses and paramedics with visas due
to expire before 1 October 2020 would have them automatically extended
for one year.
72. In the medical sector in particular, the Council of Europe’s
“European Qualifications Passport for Refugees” could be more used
by member States to facilitate the recognition of competencies and qualifications
of refugees without proof of diplomas or equivalences. The passports,
delivered on the basis of extensive expert interviews in the area
of competency of the refugee, is a tool for refugees’ integration, employment
and admission to further studies.
Note Currently 10 countries participate
in the programme and 458 passports have been delivered.
5 Lessons
for Europe from the Covid-19 pandemic and its effect on migrants
and refugees
73. The pandemic has shown that
in times of crisis and catastrophe, migrants and especially the
most vulnerable among them, women and children, must benefit from
the same protection as nationals. This is not just in the interest
of migrants but in the interests of all (healthcare, sanitary measures,
social assistance and support, etc). Solidarity amongst countries
is essential in dealing with the pandemic and no single country
can work alone.
74. When looking at the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic
for migrants and refugees there are many different concerns that
have been highlighted in this report. These range from the impact
of closing borders, to negative attitudes towards migrants, including
fear of disease and losing jobs, and to deeply worrying examples of
violence on borders, pushbacks at sea and refusals to disembark.
There are however other dangers around the corner, when one looks
at the impact of the pandemic on countries of origin and how they
will cope with the emerging health crisis and the economic crisis,
including the large-scale fall in remittances. This will, without doubt,
create even further migratory pressures in the future. It is therefore
essential that member States look beyond their borders to help these
countries, even in times when national budgets are stretched to
the limit.
75. There are certain positive lessons to be learned from the
Covid-19 pandemic. There has been a show of solidarity by certain
countries for certain particular problems, for example resettlement
of unaccompanied minors, some countries have relaxed immigration
detention, opened up the possibility for asylum seekers to work,
or examined further regularisation programmes for irregular migrants.
Furthermore, there have not, so far, been catastrophic deadly outbreaks
in the cramped conditions of many of the camps, but this could change rapidly.
76. With a resurgence of the virus in many European countries
after the summer months, now more than ever, countries have to learn
from the experience so far. No country can solve the pandemic or
the issues of migration and asylum on their own, these are global
phenomena, which require countries, governments, parliamentarians
and organisations to work together in a spirit of solidarity.
