Periodic Reporting for period 3 - ADMIGOV (Advancing Alternative Migration Governance)
Reporting period: 2021-08-01 to 2023-01-31
AdMiGov's central goal is to assess the current system of migration policies and to develop comprehensive indicators as a tool for measuring "good" migration governance. The aim is to provide states with possibilities to improve. Facilitating orderly, safe, and responsible migration and mobility of people, through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies, is important for society because it guarantees basic human rights for everyone.
We understand "good governance" as: a) instrumental and effective in reaching its goals, not only on paper but also on the ground; and b) in line with current UN standards. To come to a relevant overview of migration governance, AdMIGov is structured around two interrelated parts. The first part focuses on the most relevant moments and places where migration governance of the EU and the Member States intervene namely Entry, Exit, and more complex temporary and circular schemes. The second part focuses on practices on the ground related to the UN principles of Protection and Sustainable Development. The Protection principle provides attention to the rights of citizens in general with special attention to refugees and unauthorized migrants as target categories, and to human rights and protection gaps as central issues. The Sustainable Development Principle, as formulated in the SDG2030, addresses economic inequality and political instability as root causes of migration, but also the other way around: migration and migrants are potential remedies for inequality and instability. The crucial question here is what migration governance does/can do to create conditions for a positive contribution to migration and development at the micro, meso and macro levels both in the country of origin but also in Europe's labour market.
Combining information on all these elements, we developed an indicators tool. We can conclude that the efficiency and effectiveness of the different policies on the ground are severely hampered (Garcés-Mascareñas & Van Heelsum, 2023). In the different work packages (Entry – Circulation – Exit – Protection in the Borderlands – Protection of People on the Move – Sustainable Development) we have given detailed recommendations for more efficient and desirable policies, initiatives, measures, and practices, that are found to be efficient or desirable.
A second important conclusion is that there are huge gaps in addressing the needs of refugees and migrants in terms of the two UN principles. Research in Greece, Turkey, and Lebanon about migrants who are moving toward Europe shows huge protection gaps. The sustainable development principle is either left unaddressed by policy, or addressed with too little means, or in such a vague manner that one cannot identify the effect as research in Mali, Ethiopia, Turkey, and Lebanon shows.
We understand "good governance" as: a) instrumental and effective in reaching its goals, not only on paper but also on the ground; and b) in line with current UN standards. To come to a relevant overview of migration governance, AdMIGov is structured around two interrelated parts. The first part focuses on the most relevant moments and places where migration governance of the EU and the Member States intervene namely Entry, Exit, and more complex temporary and circular schemes. The second part focuses on practices on the ground related to the UN principles of Protection and Sustainable Development. The Protection principle provides attention to the rights of citizens in general with special attention to refugees and unauthorized migrants as target categories, and to human rights and protection gaps as central issues. The Sustainable Development Principle, as formulated in the SDG2030, addresses economic inequality and political instability as root causes of migration, but also the other way around: migration and migrants are potential remedies for inequality and instability. The crucial question here is what migration governance does/can do to create conditions for a positive contribution to migration and development at the micro, meso and macro levels both in the country of origin but also in Europe's labour market.
Combining information on all these elements, we developed an indicators tool. We can conclude that the efficiency and effectiveness of the different policies on the ground are severely hampered (Garcés-Mascareñas & Van Heelsum, 2023). In the different work packages (Entry – Circulation – Exit – Protection in the Borderlands – Protection of People on the Move – Sustainable Development) we have given detailed recommendations for more efficient and desirable policies, initiatives, measures, and practices, that are found to be efficient or desirable.
A second important conclusion is that there are huge gaps in addressing the needs of refugees and migrants in terms of the two UN principles. Research in Greece, Turkey, and Lebanon about migrants who are moving toward Europe shows huge protection gaps. The sustainable development principle is either left unaddressed by policy, or addressed with too little means, or in such a vague manner that one cannot identify the effect as research in Mali, Ethiopia, Turkey, and Lebanon shows.
1. Our work on the entry policies shows that European policymakers have nearly exclusively focussed on blocking the unauthorized entry of asylum seekers coming from the south (Libya-Italy), south¬east (Middle East, Turkey), and from the east (for instance Poland) with increasingly harsh methods, while for high skilled Western migrants the options were multiple. Avoiding human rights abuses, and more attention to legal pathways are needed (Jeandesboz, 2020).
2.Our work on exit policies includes deportation regimes, assisted voluntary return programs, and re-integration policies in the countries of origin. It was surprising to find out that assisted voluntary return accompanied by long-term re-integration in the country of origin receives less funding and support in EU countries than forced removal, while they seem more cost-effective. Instead, we found consistently increased investment in forced removal without any evidence that it increases the effectiveness of the claimed purposes of such measures (Kalir & Dybdahl Jensen 2021).
3. Work on seasonal and temporary migration in the agricultural sector in Spain, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands shows how the bad working and housing conditions in this sector further deteriorated during the COVID pandemic (Matusz & Aivaliotou 2021).
4. Work on refugees in Greece, Turkey and Lebanon has shown that the conditions in which refugees live in camps, fail to meet any of the humanitarian standards that are laid out by the UN principle of protection, as regulated by the Spheres Standards. The three reports show how the situation deteriorated further during COVID-19. This needs the attention of policymakers (Pallister-Wilkins & Papataxiarchis, 2022)
5. Interviews with refugees who traveled toward Greece and Italy show the terrible conditions that they encounter on the way. For instance, on the south-eastern route in Iran and Turkey they can get shot, detained, and deported (particularly Afghans); while those on the southern route might be robbed, tortured to extract ransom, and even enslaved in Libya. We conclude that these migrants have no other choice than to risk their lives again, and move on through the Mediterranean Sea, to reach a safer environment. When signing deals with countries outside Europe, it is important to take this into account (Linekar & Achilli, 2022).
6. Work on the aspirations of potential migrants and people in transit in Turkey, Lebanon, Ethiopia, and Mali has shown that there is room for improvement to make development interventions sustainable in a long-term perspective in such a way that they would limit migration. If a legal status and livelihood options are lacking and suppression of human rights remains a problem, onward migration is for many interviewees the only way out (Kuschminder & Rejabzadeh, 2022).
2.Our work on exit policies includes deportation regimes, assisted voluntary return programs, and re-integration policies in the countries of origin. It was surprising to find out that assisted voluntary return accompanied by long-term re-integration in the country of origin receives less funding and support in EU countries than forced removal, while they seem more cost-effective. Instead, we found consistently increased investment in forced removal without any evidence that it increases the effectiveness of the claimed purposes of such measures (Kalir & Dybdahl Jensen 2021).
3. Work on seasonal and temporary migration in the agricultural sector in Spain, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands shows how the bad working and housing conditions in this sector further deteriorated during the COVID pandemic (Matusz & Aivaliotou 2021).
4. Work on refugees in Greece, Turkey and Lebanon has shown that the conditions in which refugees live in camps, fail to meet any of the humanitarian standards that are laid out by the UN principle of protection, as regulated by the Spheres Standards. The three reports show how the situation deteriorated further during COVID-19. This needs the attention of policymakers (Pallister-Wilkins & Papataxiarchis, 2022)
5. Interviews with refugees who traveled toward Greece and Italy show the terrible conditions that they encounter on the way. For instance, on the south-eastern route in Iran and Turkey they can get shot, detained, and deported (particularly Afghans); while those on the southern route might be robbed, tortured to extract ransom, and even enslaved in Libya. We conclude that these migrants have no other choice than to risk their lives again, and move on through the Mediterranean Sea, to reach a safer environment. When signing deals with countries outside Europe, it is important to take this into account (Linekar & Achilli, 2022).
6. Work on the aspirations of potential migrants and people in transit in Turkey, Lebanon, Ethiopia, and Mali has shown that there is room for improvement to make development interventions sustainable in a long-term perspective in such a way that they would limit migration. If a legal status and livelihood options are lacking and suppression of human rights remains a problem, onward migration is for many interviewees the only way out (Kuschminder & Rejabzadeh, 2022).
Overseeing the fields of research related to migration governance, the most important result of AdMiGov is the indicators tool we developed to evaluate good migration governance (Pasetti & Lebon-McGregor, 2023). National governments can use the list of indicators to identify their achievements and shortcomings and to test which specific subset of measures they can improve their policies. As the first pilot shows, Greece and Turkey could implement measures to avoid that violence being used against migrants at the borders; Turkey could create a fair policy that supports both Syrians and other nationalities; the Netherlands and Greece should pay more attention to arranging the clean and safe reception facilities, that exist on paper, but not in practice. And in Spain, the protection of temporary labourers needs attention, as their labour conditions are below acceptable standards.
The project's work on dissemination created some interest around the AdMiGov indicator tool, notably among some national governments and at the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).
The project's work on dissemination created some interest around the AdMiGov indicator tool, notably among some national governments and at the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).