Es Interno libertàcivili Inglese · 2017-10-17 · by Sandra Sarti 8 The “Italian Model” for the rescue of migrant refugees Interview with Giuseppe De Giorgi, Chief of Staff

Special /

In this issue, contributions by: Angelino Alfano

Vincenzo CesareoGiuseppe De GiorgiGiuseppe De Rita

Maura MarchegianiAndrea RiccardiSandra Sarti

The EU Semester

libe

rtàci

vili

BIMONTHLY

OF RESEARCH

AND DOCUMENTATION

ON IMMIGRATION

ISSUES

libe

rtàci

vili

1/14BIMONTHLY

OF RESEARCH

AND DOCUMENTATION

ON IMMIGRATION

ISSUES

january-december 20142

libe

rtàci

vili

libertàciviliBimonthly magazine of the Department for CivilLiberties and Immigration of the Ministry of Interior

1, Piazza del Viminale - Rome 00184Tel. + 39 06 46525869Fax + 39 06 4827209

[email protected]

Scientific Committee

President

Enzo CheliVice President Emeritus, Italian Constitutional Court

Members

Vincenzo CesareoProfessor Emeritus of Sociology- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Milan

Mario GiroUnder-Secretary for ForeignAffairs

Antonio GoliniProfessor Emeritus, former professor of Demography- “Sapienza” University of Rome

Angelo MalandrinoPrefect - Deputy chief of Department for Civil Libertiesand Immigration - ResponsibleAuthority for Asylum, Migrationand Integration fund, 2014-2020

Mario MorcelliniDirector of the Department of Communication and SocialResearch - “Sapienza”University of Rome

Mario Morcone Head of Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration

Serenella RavioliResponsible for institutionalcommunications at the Ministryof Interior

Giuseppe RomaSenior Advisor with CENSIS

Editor-in-ChiefMario MorconeHead of Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration

Managing EditorGiuseppe Sangiorgi

Editorial StaffAlessandro GrilliOscar Gaspari

Organisational ManagerStefania Nasso

Graphic designStudio Francesca CantarelliMilan

PhotographsCover © Italian Navy;pag.16,34, 55,77, 84, 95 © Italian Navy;pag.39 © Alessio Mamo |Contrasto; pag.67 © Lorenzo Maccotta |Contrasto;pag. 110 © Giulio Piscitelli |Contrasto

CoverStudio Francesca Cantarelli

Authorization by the Court of MilanNo. 579 18.12.2009 Bimonthly

Copyright © 2014 by the Ministry of Interior

EditingRodorigo Publishing, Rome

PrintingRodorigo Publishing Via Poggio Moiano 34/D Rome 00199

Fifth YearJanuary-December 2014Printed in July 2015

libe

rtàci

vili

Special /

In this issue, contributions by: Angelino Alfano



The EU Semester

BIMONTHLY

OF RESEARCH

AND DOCUMENTATION

ON IMMIGRATION

ISSUES

Con

tent

slibe

rtàci

vili

january-december 2014 3

EditorialThe hardest matchby Mario Morcone 5

From the Shipwreck in Lampedusa to the European Agenda by Sandra Sarti 8

The “Italian Model” for the rescue of migrant refugeesInterview with Giuseppe De Giorgi, Chief of Staff of the Italian Navy 2 2

From Mare Nostrum to Triton 2by Alessandro Grilli 30

Seeking for normalcy in the management of migration and refugee flowsby Oscar Gaspari 37

The Facts / Tarakhel v. Switzerland: The Circumstances of the Case 4 2

Legal Matters / The Principle of Solidarity between European States in Applying the Dublin Systemby Maura Marchegiani 4 4

The ABC’s of the Dublin Regime by Maria Vittoria Pontieri 49

Immigration, five years later: A De Rita-Riccardi Debateby Giuseppe Sangiorgi 53

UE strategies for the integration process by Vincenzo Cesareo 58

Knowing for governing by Stefania Nasso 70

The Long Road towards a Europe for Asylum-Seekers 75

European Migration Network, an organization providing help to Europeby Alberto Bordi 81

Against Stereotypesby The Leone Moressa foundation 8 6

Sem

este

rSpe

cial


Con

tent

slibe

rtàci

vili

Taking action to better manage migratory flows 91

The final document of the Ministerial Conferenceon Integration 98

European Migration Network, an organization providing help to Europeby Angelo Malandrino 10 4

Asylum Conference: the message from the Minister of the Interiordi Angelino Alfano 116D

ocum

enta

tion

Edi

tori

allibe

rtàci

vili


The hardest match

by Mario Morcone

nce again, I find myself, along with friends and colleagues,

taking part in the hardest match Republican Italy

has ever faced in humanitarian and human rights issues.

The chequer boards of Eastern Asia and the African continent

are awash with movements that are dragging them backwards,

and cruel conflicts that have virtually extinguished the Arab

spring’s flame of hope: this is the extremely precarious backdrop

of suffering from which hundreds of thousands of people

are fleeing in search of salvation and, perhaps, better living

conditions.

It is an odyssey which sees criminal convoys of death crossing

the deserts of north-eastern Niger or Sudan as far as what was

known as Libyan Jamahiriya until a few years ago, where they

then cross the Mediterranean.

An exodus which for some months now has also been attempting

the tormented Balkan road, through the countries of the former

Yugoslavia, as far as the confines of the Schengen area.

It is an incredible, suffering tidal wave of women, men and children

who look to Europe as the longed-for continent where they can

build a new life. A wave that forces us to ask ourselves:

is this Europe really willing to offer a tangible response to this

cry for help?

Juncker’s proposal is certainly under discussion. If nothing else,

it opens a new scenario of a common, well-structured migration

and immigration policy, not just on reception as we know it,

but also on third-country transfers known as “resettlement”;

a way of creating a safe entry channel, and of freeing at least

20 thousand people living in desperate conditions in refugee

camps in Lebanon, Jordan and several African countries.

There is also heightened focus on support and development

for countries whose democracy hangs in a fragile balance,

O


Edi

tori

allibe

rtàci

vili

The hardest match

such as Tunisia, which is threatened by jihadist terrorism.

Something is, at last, moving. Yet strong and often obtuse resistance

is still being put up by a number of countries which cling

to the historically outdated Dublin agreement as a means

of concealing selfish positions founded on national interests.

They overlook the fact that only a lucid, farsighted policy

for governing the migratory phenomenon can ensure Europe

avoids being engulfed by this new scenario, which it will be forced

to deal with for a considerable time to come.

There is no end to the bureaucratic inventions, which often

masquerade under sophisticated names such as hotspot and hub.

Yet I can’t help feeling concern that they merely conceal

an attempt to push the frontiers of the Schengen area back into

our southernmost regions, in an attempt to block the flow

of migrants reaching our shores in Sicily, which has to date

displayed true generosity in receiving them, or in Calabria

and Puglia.

The quality of life of Sicilians, Calabrians, Milaneses, Parisians

or the inhabitants of Tallinn all have the same dignity;

it is a principle we intend to uphold.

Sharing must mean dividing the burdens in an equal manner

with a view to common development. It is an opportunity

that also results in an integration and cultural diversity

which we need have no fear of whatsoever.

In a recent interview, Zygmunt Bauman declared: “We arehostages of our wellbeing. The new immigrants are perceivedas harbingers of doom, the avant-garde of a hostile army pitching its tents in our midst.” And I am proud to say that

Italy is doing its part to counteract this distorted view of reality

from spreading, sweeping out the cobwebs of controversy that

attempt to hold us back.

The EU Semester

Sem

este

rSp

ecia

l

Providing documentation and references,

this special issue of libertàcivili acts as an

observer of the continued work of the Italian

authorities over the six months of EU

Presidency, concerning immigration issues.

Thanks to their efforts, the archetype of the

phenomenon of immigration is now differently

perceived, having changed, gradually,

from an all-Italian into a European issue


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

From the Shipwreck in Lampedusa to the EuropeanAgenda

The fundamental phases of the Italian EUPresidency Semester, the results achieved and the further developments that can represent a turning point in European immigration policies

by Sandra SartiMinister of the Interior Deputy Head of Cabinet

3 October 2013: The Lampedusa Tragedy

On 3 October 2013 a boat crammed with migrants dramatically

sank off the island of Lampedusa. 364 non-EU citizens died

and Italian rescue workers recovered their bodies. A shock for

Italy, Europe and the world. Faced with such a tragedy, the EU

president of the time, Barroso, and Commissioner Malstroem

came to pay a painful homage on behalf of Europe to those

bodies who were denied the future they had so much yearned for.

This sad indelible page in the history of migration marked a

turning point in relations between Europe and Italy. Until then,

the EU had always held that Italy, being a border country, was

supposed to handle its frontiers and the waves of migrants on

its own, using the financial instruments made available by the

European Refugee Fund and Return Fund. This despite the

streams of migrants of 2008 and those linked to the “Arab

Springs” of 2011 and despite swarms of boats packed with

migrants continued to head towards the country’s coasts.

Yet in those years, Italy had done the impossible to manage

the emergency, which had gradually become of a structural

nature. Also on its own, as part of a strategy based on dialogue

with the countries of origin and with transit countries to try to

contain the constant flux of immigrants, it had taken serious

commitments with Libya, supporting its capacity building via

several structured projects, which Italy followed until Libya’s

political instability neutralised the effectiveness of those efforts.

After Lampedusa, the European Commission finally managed

to sensitize member states to the need of finding shared

On 3 October2013 a boatcrammed with migrantssank off the island of Lampedusa.364 non-EUcitizens died. A shock forItaly, Europe,and the world

From the Shipwreck in Lampedusa to the European Agenda

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


solutions. The session of the Justice and Home Affairs Council

held in Brussels 7-8 October 2013 announced the setting up

of a “Task Force Mediterranean” (TFM) to create a synergy

between member states for the management and containment

of the extraordinary pressure and to prevent similar human

tragedies from ever happening again.

As well as all EU member states, European Agencies such

as EASO (the European Asylum Support Office), Frontex, Europol,

FRA (the Fundamental Rights Agency) and EEAS (the European

External Action Service), were present at the TFM sessions of

24 October and 20 November 2013. During the discussions, it

emerged clearly for the first time that the management of

migratory streams had to be faced taking into account the

situation in the entire Mediterranean area. It was then decided

to implement effective diversified actions with an operational

strategy.

The Task Force Mediterranean

The TFM, established as already mentioned at the JHA of

7/8 October 2013, developed, following a holistic structure, lines

of intervention that were later formalised in a Communication

focused on short, medium and long-term actions, such as:

a) actions in cooperation with third countries, which are crucial

partners to handle the profound causes of irregular migration

and to keep watch over migratory flows, as well as to gather

information on itineraries and networks and hence help dismantle

the networks of traffickers and smugglers;

b) regional protection programmes, resettlement schemes and astrengthening of the opportunities for legal immigration to Europe.

All these are necessary to improve the situation of refugees at

the local level. The intervention is aimed both at reinforcing

existing Regional Protection Programmes (RPP) in North Africa

(Libya, Tunisia and Egypt) and in the Horn of Africa (Kenya,

Djibouti) and at establishing new programmes with other strate-

gically important countries. It is also necessary to encourage

the use of resettlement, which allows those in need of protection

to reach the European Union without embarking on dangerous

Mediterranean journeys;

c) fighting human trafficking and organised crime. With this aim,

the EU intends to develop its capacity for contrasting human

trafficking in North Africa, in the main countries of origin and an

in first asylum countries. Training programmes to launch in third

countries as part of the planned cooperation should extend at a

multidisciplinary level, also involving police and judiciary authorities;

During thediscussions, it emerged that the management of migratorystreams had to be facedtaking intoaccount the situation in the entireMediterraneanarea


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


d) assistance and solidarity for member states forced to faceheavy migratory pressure. Member states are responsible for

investing and strengthening their capacity to guarantee flexible

and effective national asylum, migration and reception systems

in conformity with the EU acquis. They are also responsible for

developing the capacity to handle sudden increasing pressure.

At the same time, assistance and solidarity play an important role

in order to ease pressure on member states in the general

context of the EU;

e) reinforcing border surveillance. To help save migrants in the

Mediterranean it is necessary to reinforce the role of Frontex,

crucial both to coordinating the operations of states in the

Mediterranean and to guaranteeing effective border surveillance.

The various meetings that took place during the Greek

semester of Presidency of the European Council also handled

these issues, without, however giving a particularly incisive

thrust to European migration streams strategy.

The Italian semester of Presidency of the European Council:

1 July / 31 December 2014

It was only with the beginning of the Italian Presidency that

the principle was affirmed that the Mediterranean is not only

the Italian border, or that of the other coastal states, but it is the

border of Europe. Lampedusa, in particular, is where Europe

ends and we begin to see Africa. This concept, the leitmotiv of

the Italian Presidency semester at every meeting, at every debate

and for every argument on the theme of migrations – sustained

by the incessant landings of migrants, which maintained

awareness on the Mediterranean high – contributed to changing

Europe’s direction and induced member states, step by step,

to assume responsibility for the phenomenon alongside Italy.

At the end of the informal JHA Council of 8/9 July 2014 held

in Milan, Italy obtained the commitment of the member states

to cooperate in implementing the actions stated in the final

document of the Task force Mediterranean. This was a definite

success, which consisted not only in inducing member states to

acquire a greater awareness of the need for a shared approach

to handle the migratory phenomenon, but also in soliciting them

to understand how such a phenomenon can no longer be faced

with one-off measures, but needs instead a well-structured

operational strategy. Particularly since the issue of contrasting

organised crime – involved in human trafficking and international

terrorism – has become more and more correlated to migratory

In the beginning of the ItalianPresidency was affirmed the principlethat theMediterranean is the border of Europe


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


movements. Throughout its semester, the Italian Presidency

continued to reinforce synergies with the individual member

states on these points, also developing an intense calendar

of bilateral meetings with the single states.

The incisiveness of political action carried out by the Italian

Presidency on issues regarding migration, and in particular

on the issue of border surveil lance, led to an important

concrete result during the Justice and Home Affairs Council of9 -10 October 2014, with the approval of a text of Conclusions

drawn up by the Italian Presidency. This aimed at indicating a

model for a structured answer to situations of pressure and

was denominated “Taking action to better manage migratory

flows” (editor’s note: you will find it published in full in the

“Documents” section of this issue).

The Italian Presidency’s initiative was built according to

three fundamental lines of action: 1) reinforced management

of external borders and of FRONTEX, 2) cooperation with third

countries, 3) development of actions aimed at reception and

fingerprinting.

1. With regard to the reinforced management of external borders,

Italy effectively obtained the consolidation of the presence of

Frontex in the Mediterranean and the deployment of a joint

operation. The latter passage legitimised and politically

strengthened the launch of operation Triton in November 2014.

Triton made it possible first to reduce and then to close Mare

Nostrum, which was an extraordinary, albeit onerous, search

and rescue operation, one wanted and carried out for over a year

by Italy alone and thanks to which, between 18 October 2013

and 31 October 2014 over 150,000 migrants in the Mediterranean

were saved. The reinforcement of Triton was therefore also an

important result, a first signal of concrete sharing by the member

states of the burden of the surveillance of external maritime

borders and of the management of migratory streams.

2. With regard to cooperation with third countries, Italy activated

an intense dialogue with African states and with states bordering

with Syria (Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq). In this sphere,

a structured series of cooperation measures was proposed for

dismantling trafficking organisations and for detecting modes

for the limitation of boat supplies from Tunisia and Egypt; the

crafts used by traffickers. At the level of tools to implement

in order to handle migratory pressure in the Mediterranean,

it was agreed to put into action protection and regional

development programmes to submit to North African and

With regard to the reinforcedmanagement of external borders,Italy effectivelyobtained theconsolidationof the presence of Frontex in theMediterranean


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Sub-Saharan African countries, with the participation of Interna-

tional Organisms, with the hope to work alongside Libya as

soon as possible. The launch of these programmes is aimed at

helping the mentioned countries to create structured, sustainable

and long-lasting protection systems and at allowing a more incisive

cooperation in the fight against human trafficking networks.

3. Finally, with reference to reception and fingerprinting, the Italian

Presidency had to deal with an attitude of extreme “prejudice”

on behalf of the member states, according to which the Italian

border authorities allegedly carried out photo identification

and the taking of migrants’ fingerprints only partially, thus eluding

the obligations set by International norms.

European Migration Policies and the Strong Italian Impulse

Another Italian success was promoting closer synergies

between the EU’s Internal Affairs and its External Policies and,

more particularly, fully integrating migration policies into the

EU’s external action; also in the light of the new European

institutional context. Based on this, we organised in Rome on

27 November 2014 the historical Joint Jumbo Conference

between the Ministers of the Interior and Foreign Ministers of

the 28 EU member states, in presence of the High Representative

of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica

Mogherini, and of the Commissioner for Immigration, Dimitris

Avramopoulos.

The meeting dealt with migration issues, including the question

of refugees, whose presence is predominant within the context

of migration flows, and that of human trafficking. On this

occasion, Italy managed to give European migration policy an

innovative character that has extended its outlook beyond the

Mediterranean, towards African countries.

In this direction, the meetings with the countries of West

Africa, such as the Rabat Conference, were particularly

important, and those with the countries of West, Central and

Mediterranean Africa and the Horn of Africa, such as the

Khartoum Conference.

The Italian Presidency also attempted to accelerate the

enactment of the Common European Asylum System by activa-

ting, at the technical level, a reflection on the need to acquire

to this end a mechanism of mutual recognition for decisions

regarding asylum.

The framework of activities and initiatives undertaken within

the European scheme for undertaking strong responsible political

decisions was therefore extremely intense.

Italy managedto giveEuropeanmigration policy an innovativecharacter that has extended its outlookbeyond theMediterranean,towardsAfrican countries


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


1 July 2014 Italy assumes Presidency of the Council of the European Union

for the following six months.

4 July Italy presents its programme for the Semester

8-9 July Informal meeting between the Ministers of Justice and Home

Affairs (JHA) in Milan.

16 July The first European Council – extraordinary – of the Italian Presidency

Semester is held in Brussels.

2-3 October International workshop entit led “Integrating Migration into

Development: Diaspora as a Development Enabler”, organised

by the General Directorate for Development Cooperation (Ministry

of Home Affairs) and by the International Organisation for Migration

(IOM), under the aegis of the Italian Presidency of the European

semester.

8 October Rome: conference on “Policies of admission and integration of

migrants”, the fourth conference in the cycle entitled: “EU: rights,

players and policies for the Presidency semester”. Meeting

promoted by the Prime Minister’s Office.

9-10 October The first Council on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) responsible

for policies against crime and terrorism, judicial cooperation and

immigration, protection of external borders and asylum applica-

tions is held in Luxembourg. The Council adopts legislation on

free movement in the ‘Schengen area’.

23-24 October First European Council of the Semester of the Italian Presidency

in Brussels.

5-6 November The conference entitled “Migration and Integration: a Global

Approach to Human Mobility. A Well-Managed Migration for

a Better Integration” was held in Milan. It was organised by

the Ministry of the Interior.

18 -19 November Rome: international conference on the subject “Managing Asylum

Flows: Strengthening the Tools, Strengthening the System”, an

event promoted and organised by the department for Civil

Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior in conjunction

with the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the National

Association of Italian Councils (ANCI) and the University of Rome

2-Tor Vergata.

27 November The Euro-African Ministerial Conference on Migration and

Development is held, chaired by the Ministers for Foreign and

Internal Affairs.

4-5 December The second Council on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) is held

in Brussels.

Key Events of the Italian Semester


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


The Internal Front

In the meantime, Italy has continued to play a prominent

role both in terms of the surveillance of maritime borders and

in terms of migrant reception. It has also carried out, at all

levels, local and national, an unbelievable effort to expand

reception structures, which had become suddenly inadequate

in the face of the demand connected to the ever-growing entity

of landings.

170,000 people reached Italian coasts in 2014, 93,912 in 2015within July 7. This data alone suffices to show how commendably

Italian territory, above all Sicily, has sustained and still sustains

on a daily basis, the shock wave of arrivals that does not promise

to stop in the foreseeable future.

This result is due to endless work by those who work locally,

starting from the prefects, who coordinate all stages of the

reception process from the immediate post-landing phase,

with the help of police, health units and organisations like

UNCHR, IOM, Save the Children, the Red Cross, Caritas and

all the NPOs involved in various activities. Equal credit goes

to the city mayors, who constantly work on the frontline to find

accommodation, also dealing with the diverse reactions of

their local communities; to the Association of Italian City

Councils (ANCI), which with the Ministry of the Interior manages

the process of reception within the Protection System for

Asylum Seekers and Refugees (SPRAR), to the Territorial

Commissions that examine applications for international pro-

tection, operating nonstop in various Regions with the help of

interpreters, psychologists, intercultural mediators and experts.

A super-active, but silent and invisible world, working

ceaselessly to allow Italy to concretise the democratic principles

at the basis of its Constitution and to respect in an exemplary

17-18 December Rome hosts the conference entitled “Towards a European

migration policy: strategies for multi level governance of

immigration”, promoted and organised by the department for

Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior,

as part of the semester of Italian Presidency of the Council of

the European Union.

18-19 December The second European Council of the Semester of the Italian

Presidency is held.

19 December Rome: Top level conference as part of the “EUROMED III” project

on migration issues, co-chaired by the Ministry of Labour and

Social Policies and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Italy has continuedto play a prominentrole both in terms of thesurveillance of maritimeborders and in terms of migrantreception


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


way, in this perhaps unique in the European scenario, the

principles of solidarity, of the priority of saving lives at sea

and of non refoulement, also laid down in international provisions.

This great abnegation contributed to affecting the rigidity of

the European institutions, which ultimately felt the need to

undertake as soon as possible “a huge common effort” in view

of the unstoppability and biblical dimension of the phenomenon.

The European Agenda on Migrations

On this basis, on 13 May 2015, the European Commission,

considering the increase in the “voyages of hope” undertaken in

the Mediterranean by thousands of human beings in conditions

of absolute insecurity and with the constant risk of shipwreck,

released a document based on the principles of solidarity and

responsibility aimed at involving all member states in the opera-

tional management of the phenomenon. Managing migrations

has therefore become for the first time one of the European

Commission’s explicit priorities.

The document, entitled “Agenda on Migration”, mainly

addresses Italy and Greece, the countries that are most exposed

to migratory pressure, and indicates measures to take in order

to face the crisis in the short, medium and long-term. Standing

out among these initiatives, we find the proposal to implement

mechanisms for the distribution between member states ofimmigrants needing international protection and the creationof local so-called hotspots. The latter would be places where

experts from Frontex, EASO and Europol would work with officials

from the member state in question to identify, register and rapidly

fingerprint immigrants, as well as giving support on asylum

request procedures and repatriations and investigations on

human traffickers.

The document, currently under examination by the member

states, will be discussed at the next European Council of 25-26

June.

In the meantime, last 27 May, the Commission launched a

package of proposals, the so-called “Migration Package”.

With this, the Commission plans to treble the capacity of thejoint Frontex, Triton and Poseidon operations in 2015 and 2016

through an amendment of the budget and a budget amendment

proposal for 2016, in order to allocate the necessary funds.

The Commission also intends to activate the emergencyresponse mechanism for migrations provided in art.78, par. 3of TFUE, which introduces a special legislative procedure in

case one or more member states need to face an emergency

The “Agendaon Migration”,mainlyaddresses Italy and Greece, indicates measures to take in orderto face the crisis in the short,medium and long-term


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


situation characterised by a sudden inflow of citizens from

third countries. (In such cases, the Council, upon proposal by

the Commission, may adopt temporary measures to benefit

the member state(s) concerned, acting by a qualified majority

after consulting the European Parliament).

The measures proposed by the Commission also include

ambitious programmes for relocation (proposal for a Council

Decision on temporary relocation measures for the benefit of

Italy and Greece, COM 2015/286) and resettlement (Commission

Recommendation on a European resettlement scheme,

C2015/3560/2) to offer refugees evidently in need of interna-

tional protection 20 thousand places distributed among all the

member states.

In addition, the Commission is prepared to launch a commonsecurity and defence policy (CSDP) operation in the Mediterranean(The 18 May Foreign Affairs Council adopted Council Decision

no. 2015/778 with regard to a European Union military operation

in the Central-Southern Mediterranean, “Eunavfor Med”) aimed


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


at dismantling networks of traffickers and contrast the smuggling

of migrants, respecting international law.

Finally, and equally important, there are the Commission’s

proposals regarding respectively the Guidelines for the finger-printing of asylum seekers upon arrival (SWD 2015/150) and

the Communication containing the EU Action Plan againstmigrant smuggling for 2015-2020 (COM 2015/285).

The agenda also includes the allocation of 30 million euro for

regional development and protection programmes, the institution

in Niger of a multi-function pilot centre by the end of 2015; a

new method based on “crisis points”, via field cooperation

between the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), Frontex

and Europol with the member states on the frontline.

Reflections on the Commission’s Document

The “proposal for a Council Decision on temporary relocation

measures for the benefit of Italy and Greece”, COM 2015/286,

provides for 40 thousand persons – of which 24 thousand from

Italy and 16 thousand from Greece – to be transferred in the

next two years to other EU member states on the basis of a

apportionment formula the Agenda has identified. Member

states prepared to relocate asylum-seekers will receive 6,000

euro for each person relocated on their territory.

The relocation will concern citizens in need of international

protection who arrived in the two countries concerned after 15

April 2015 and will almost exclusively regard Syrian and Eritrean

citizens, two nationalities that present an average rate of

recognition of international protection applications in the EU

equal to or above 75%. The proposal remains of a temporary

nature until the Commission presents a draft directive. The latter

is due within the end of 2015 and should include a stable reloca-

tion mechanism to activate in emergencies, wherever they may

take place.

Again, with regard to pinpointing asylum-seekers who should

be relocated to other states, the Commission has provided for

(art. 5, sub-paragraphs 2 and 5) Italy and Greece to be assisted

by Support Teams made up of EASO (European Asylum Support

Office) members and, if necessary, by Liaison Officers from

other member states. The Commission has also provided for

allowing relocation only if the asylum-seekers have been finger-

printed in conformity with the Community acquis.

Furthermore, at article 7, the Commission has proposed to

give Italy and Greece, when necessary, special assistance by

sending national experts for several activities. These include:


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


screening of third country citizens, including their clear identi-

fication, fingerprinting and the registration of international protection

applications; initial processing of applications; supply of informa-

tion or specific assistance for applicants or potential applicants

who could be subject to relocation; implementation of applicants’

transferal to other member states.

These initiatives, undoubtedly inspired by ideals of solidarity,

are however still tied to onerous mandatory conditions. One of

these is the measure imposed on Italy and Greece in the

Commission’s Document (article 8), which consists in the obliga-

tion of preparing a road map for the improvement of their asylum,

initial reception and repatriation sectors, strengthening the

capacity and quality of the current systems in the two countries.

The presentation of the road map must occur within a month

of the entry into force of the Decision, and the two countries will

have to report to the Council and the Commission every three

months on the application of the Decision and the implementation

of the road map.

This obligation is reinforced by the possibility, left to the

discretion of the Commission, to decide to suspend Italy and

Greece’s relocation benefits for a period of three months.

In all honesty, one cannot help stressing that the obligation

to present a road map, along with the supporting role of EASO

experts and member state liaison Officers, could end up intro-

ducing mechanisms of external inspection on Italy’s activities.

Such a perception would appear to be supported by the tight

schedule imposed for the presentation of the road map and by

the obligation to submit quarterly reports on its implementation.

The same observation can reasonably be made with regard to

the proposal of support from experts of other nationalities for

identification activities included in article 7.

Furthermore, the relocation proposal is valid only for migrants

who reached Italy after 15 April 2015, something that excludes all

those who arrived in 2014 and before this date in 2015. Those

whose presence in Italian territory is particularly consistent and

onerous. It would be desirable for the measure in question to

be extended at least to all those who reached Italy from the

beginning of the year 2015. The same quota of 24 thousand

asylum-seekers that Italy will be able to relocate to other member

states appears, in any case, quite limited and certainly insuf-

ficient to alleviate the enormous migratory pressure the country

will be called to deal with in the future too.

In the Recommendation regarding the European resettlement

scheme, C2015/3560/2, the Commission invites member states

The relocationproposal is valid only for migrantswho reachedItaly after 15 April 2015. It would be desirable for the measure in question to be extended


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


to resettle, in a period of two years, 20 thousand persons from

non-EU countries and evidently in need of international protection

according to UNHCR. The proposed apportionment formula is

based on the same criteria used for the emergency relocation

mechanism, i.e. GDP, population and unemployment rate, also

taking into account the number of asylum-seekers received

and resettlement efforts made by member states on a voluntary

basis in the past. The apportionment formula for Italy is 9.94%

(1,989 resettled persons in total). A financial contribution of

50 million euro will be given to member states that subscribe

to the invitation.

Conclusive Considerations

To recapitulate, the European proposal was based on the

following points summarised below:

Financing package to treble the capacity of Triton and Poseidon

in 2015-2016 and to finance the EU resettlement programme

Immediate support to a possible CSDP mission on migrant

trafficking

Legislative proposal to activate within May the emergency

system provided for in article 78, paragraph 3 of TFEU, on the

basis on the distribution criterion indicated in the annex

Proposal to institute by the end of 2015 a permanent common

EU system for relocations in emergency situations

Adoption by May 2015 of a recommendation on an EU

resettlement programme

Allocation of 30 million euro for regional development and

protection programmes

Institution in Niger of a multi-function pilot centre by the

end of 2015.

The measure, submitted to member states for examination,

already generated discordant opinions when presented at the

Coreper of last 27 May: in particular, the discussion became

heated in relation to quotas and criterions for the repartition of

migrants. After all, it is absolutely undeniable that the problem

of migration represents in every state a particular and highly

sensitive issue, so much so that certain states have asked

Italy to face the problem as part of bilateral relations, trying to

bypass community obligations. The Commission’s initiative to

make the repartition of migrants compulsory was therefore

strongly opposed also on occasion of the Council of Heads of

State or Government of 25 -26 June.

It is undeniablethat the problem of migrationsrepresents in the nationalpolicies of each State a particularlyand highly sensitive issue


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


There is no doubt that, through the exacting and complex

path that since 2006 has engaged Italy in a huge solitary

humanitarian operation, we have now reached a particularlydelicate and crucial phase of European migration policies. This is

happening, moreover, within a context where the principle ofsolidarity seems to have been drained of any ethical connotationsand reduced to an economic tool useful for alleviating but not

solving the emergency. Even less so is it useful for sustaining

and delineating, as is absolutely necessary, an actual strategy

in European migration policies.

The member states, closed in the vision of defending their

identity and their sovereignty and safeguarding their territory,

are not prepared to share the handling of the phenomenon,

which however, because of its historical significance, cannot

but concern them. The consequence of this is that EU action

is incapable of addressing the member states towards a

common migration policy, in this way potentially questioning

the validity of Schengen and the setting up of a “common

European asylum system”. And its help for states undergoing

migratory pressure is based on a different acceptation of the

principle of “solidarity”, intended essentially as economic aid,

which the beneficiary state can access only after taking on the

“responsibility” of fulfilling the obligations set by the EU itself.

In practice, at a careful reading of the various European

procedures, as of the text of the Agenda, we find that imple-

menting the principle of solidarity involves the beneficiary

member state being subjected to the rules not only of accounting

and financial reporting, but also of advance planning. As well

as having to report its management procedures for the migratory

phenomenon on national territory. In short, a burden added to

another burden.

This is what the European Agenda has been reduced to.

Emptied of the principle of repartition of migrants between

different states, it becomes only an occasion for assigning

funds to Italy, which in return is asked to fulfil a series of obli-

gations, some of which involve not too veiled forms of control.

As if managing a migratory phenomenon of biblical dimensions

like the one we are experiencing can be reduced exclusively

to Italy’s ability, or alleged inability, to receive and identify

migrants as they land on our coasts.

We are however convinced we should fight within the

European context so that the problem, by its very nature not

only an Italian one, may be addressed by all member states.

From this point of view, so that Italy is not left to face the problem

We havereached a crucial phasein Europeanmigrationpolicies


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


alone, we are prepared both to negotiate, where possible, and

accept, where necessary, the suggested measures.

We should however be careful on the one hand about

safeguarding the necessary balance between the burdens

and benefits of the European plan, so that Italy does not risk

being crushed by mechanisms possibly invasive of its capacity

for self-determination in managing the migratory emergency,

and on the other that the principles of solidarity and fairness

at the base of the European order are applied.

In the face of this enormous Italian effort we think, to conclude,

that we not only should, but also have a right to ask Europe

both to show the cohesion in which Italy above all, as a founding

member, has always believed in, and to use every energy to

develop a more incisive migration policy strategy for the complex

Mediterranean and Central-Northern African quadrant, adopting

measures as extraordinary as the extraordinariness of the

phenomenon requires.

All the more so because it is not destined to end tomorrow,

nor the day after next, but requires years of intense, coordinated

and, above all, shared work.


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

The “Italian Model” for the rescue of migrant refugees

The story of Mare Nostrum told by AdmiralGiuseppe De Giorgi, Chief of Staff of the Navy, an operation which allowed us to help 150 thousand migrants and made Italy earn the praise of international institutions

Interview by Giuseppe Sangiorgi

Mare Nostrum has been narrated in (almost) all languages

of the world. Every piece of information that can be found in the

documentation prepared by the Italian Navy on this operation

is impressive: the number of migrants rescued,

150 thousand just in 2014, the naval force

deployed, the staff employed, the assistance

provided, the contrast against the traffickers

of human lives. The press, both in Italy and

abroad, has shown to what extent it was

echoed globally. It is easy to understand why

there has been talk of Italian heroism, and a

nomination for the Nobel peace was proposed:

Mare Nostrum was probably the largest operation of rescue at

sea that was ever realized, taking into account its continuity,

duration and amplitude. Something our country can be proud

of, and a model capable to set new standards, considering

the number of foreign delegations who came to study it. And yet,

in the interview that the Chief of Staff of the Navy Admiral

Giuseppe De Giorgi has released to libertàcivili there is no

trace of pride that might be ostentatious. There is talk of duty,

of solidarity at sea, enhanced in this case by an extraordinary

ability to employ discipline, professionalism, and military

technologies for humanitarian purposes.

“We need to stamp out the trafficking of human beings,

and the European Union must give an answer to the quest

to Europe for reception by so many desperate people”.

Mare Nostrum was probably the largest operation of rescue at sea that was ever realized,taking into account its continuity,duration and amplitude

Interview with Admiral Giuseppe De Giorgi, Chief of Staff of the Italian Navy

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


This was the call made by Sergio Mattarella, President of

the Republic of Italy, talking about immigration. To stamp

out the trafficking of human beings: how can the Italian Navy,

strengthened by the experience of Mare Nostrum, keep

providing its contribution to achieve this goal?

The contribution is part of the missions of the Navy: its

presence and surveillance at sea is the foundation to ensure

the legitimate use of the sea. What we must avoid is that the

sea remains an empty space without those protections that

have been provided by international treaties on freedom of

navigation and movement, which are fundamental rights to be

guaranteed, however avoiding that criminal organizations

avail of such freedom as they please. Hence, naval presence

in the high seas is vital, and it is necessary that the Navy be

enabled to take action, since it is the only one authorized to do

so according to international treaties. This means, firstly, to take

proper action, that is, placing the vessels strategically in the

areas where the traffickers operate. Then, by the coordination

of the Prosecuting Authorities, such as in the case of the opera-

tions performed by the authority of Catania and its prosecutor

Giovanni Salvi, to exercise the rights of boarding versus any

suspect vessels. To beat effectively the organizers of these

desperate trips, an effective measure would be to make the

crime of human trafficking equivalent to that of the slave trade,

Admission


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


because in fact this is what happens in a climate of coercion and

violence. The migrants become real hostages. We saw people

attacked with firearms because they had refused to obey the

oppression imposed on them, such as sailing despite extremely

hazardous sea conditions.

How were the crews of rescuers affected even emotionally

by the spectacle of what was happening between the African

and the Italian coasts?

It was a painful experience both for crews and commanders.

The majority of people are not prepared to see dozens of women,

children, and bodies floating in the water, or

dying in the imminence of a rescue. There are

mixed feelings. On the one hand the gratifi-

cation about arriving on time, saving, and

welcoming people, so as to set an end point

to a nightmare. On the other, the frustration

of becoming aware of misfortunes already

occurred which could not be remedied. A great

satisfaction was to capture the smugglers:

366 of them were arrested. We had on board strong teams from

the Ministry of Interior, including members of the scientific

investigation division of the police, and cultural mediators, so

when migrants boarded they were sorted, and thanks to this

first survey out at sea, connected via satellite with the central

computer of the Ministry of Interior, we could promptly match

photographs and fingerprints so as to find out if there were

people already known and identified among them. There was also

some staff of the Ministry of Health and non-profit organization

on board, so it was really an experience of synergy of different

organizations within the Government administration and outside

it, which worked very well together.

A country alone, that is, the resources of one country,

facing such impressive migration flows as those currently

coming from Africa and the East, they just don’t make it. It has

been repeated so many times that you cannot give local

responses to global problems. So which ways of international

coordination, and what support can be effective?

The strategic solution to alleviate such situation is that action

is taken on the reasons behind migration. It is clear that if it

were possible to mitigate the problems of the civil wars, and

of the violent events presently occurring in Syria, Ethiopia,

Eritrea, the number of cases would be reduced considerably.

The majority of people are notprepared to see dozens of women,children, and bodies floating in the water, or dying in the imminence of a rescue


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Then we should channel immigrants into our embassies, promoting

screening operations to separate who is a refugee from who is

motivated by economic reasons. In addition, we should be

able to build gathering places in neighbouring regions to the

main routes, Egypt, Tunisia, making sure that these places do

not become enclaves of terrorism. Another focal point is Libya,

if it can regain control of its institutions and its territories.

Can we say that Mare Nostrum has been an “Italian model”

of rescue at sea setting an example for other countries?

Praise has been expressed by IOM, by the Council of Europe,

and by most of the European Community and international

bodies...

I think so, that we can speak of an Italian model. The novelty

was that we were on the ships together with all the authorities

concerned with the phenomenon of migration. So everything

Statistics on Mare Nostrum

Data relative to the performed interventionsPeople rescued in the operation: 150 thousand

People rescued by the ships of the Navy only: 94 thousand

Managed events of search and rescue: 439

Area of operation: 70 thousand square kilometres

Number of suspected smugglers arrested and handed over

to the judicial authorities: 366

Medical interventions: 60 (16 medical transports by helicopter,

44 cases of healthcare assistance provided on board)

Inspections of vessels suspected of illegal trafficking: 15

Captured ships: 9

Staff and equipment employed32 vessels involved (1 amphibious ship, two patrol boats,

two corvettes, merchant ships)

2 submarines

4 helicopters

3 airplanes

2 aircrafts

900 soldiers each day (Navy)

14 members of the Task Force of the Department of Public

Safety (+ 2 cultural mediators) - central management for

Immigration and Border Police (for recognition on board)

Volunteer doctors and nurses from RAVA Foundation and from

the Italian emergency Corps of the Order of Malta (CISOM), and

from the Military Corps, plus Italian Red Cross volunteer nurses


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


could be implemented at the same time: reception, and sorting

people for health and security purposes. Migrants who were

entitled to enter Italy were greeted with a welcome; they reacquired

their dignity as human beings. They were refreshed and assisted:

we had at least two parties on board. Instead, the traffickers

were isolated and identified, so we arrested the smugglers. To make

timely rescue operations we deployed several ships, frigates,

patrol boats, corvettes, each with an area of action in proportion

to its operating capability. The total area of the rescue was a

semicircle that embraced the area towards Libya, and also the

lines of approach from Egypt and Syria. We used helicopters

and the technologies available on the ships for sightings. It

was essential to timely intervention: the survival in the waters

of people who are neither experienced nor equipped is a matter

of half an hour.

The culture of peace is often identified with an anti-militarist

culture. Mare Nostrum, as well as many Italian military opera-

tions in the world, however, outlines a different story, reading

that our Armed Forces know how to deploy for peaceful

purposes too the organizational and technological resources

traditionally employed for other purposes, for fighting enemies

and external threats.

By Mare Nostrum the meaning was shown of 360-degree

commitment to safety at sea: this is not just a commitment to

fight against someone, but for the community in general, which

implies the fight against crime, oppression, violence. This is a

type of contrast which requires strong operational capabilities

and the ability to ensure adequate maritime control, through

that professionalism and those tools that are closely related to

the activities that the Navy has always held

in its history, such as in fighting submarines

and enemy ships. The same sensors used to

discover periscopes discover, in this case,

someone shipwrecked or a drifting small punt.

The infrared equipment apt to identify a target

ship in a distance has proved suitable to track

something else too. It’s the same investment,

there’s no need of any additional ones to

cover also humanitarian emergencies. A military patrol vessel

costs more than a patrol boat, but it can sail in heavier seas,

is equipped with sensors that are used for a dual use and, in

the event of a national security issue, a military patrol vessel,

unlike a patrol boat, is armed and, thus, can thwart an attack.

This is not just a commitment to fight against someone, but for the community in general,which implies the fight againstcrime, oppression, violence


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


In this sense a military ship is already equipped with all you

need even for civil security purposes.

What are the differences between Mare Nostrum and

Triton? Mare Nostrum operation launched as a response

to the tragedy of the hundreds of deaths occurred on 3

October 2013 off the coast of Lampedusa, and lasted until

31 October 2014. Then Triton took over. However, after

October 31, new tragedies with hundreds of deaths continued.

Mare Nostrum was an operation in the high seas. Triton

operates up to thirty miles off the coast, and its great quality

feature is that of being a European operation, mainly oriented

to control the accesses, also being able to rescue people at

sea. Health and legality controls are delegated to facilities on

land. Today, the shipwrecked are rescued mainly by merchant

vessels. Then the Ministry of Interior prepares the channelization

on land into the facilities providing organized reception, first

health care, and first legality control. The fact that Triton is a

European operation is nevertheless a step towards a greater

involvement of the European Union, which is necessary. In

order to step up Triton, larger vessels should be used. A simple

patrol can hardly accommodate loads which may be comprised

of hundreds of people at times, exhausted by suffering and

strenuous sailing conditions. Out and away from the waters of

Triton, in the case of vessels in danger, the laws of the sea are

taken into account without renouncing the obligation provided

for SAR, searching and rescuing in the respective areas of

Mare Nostrum and Triton: the two operations compared

Mare Nostrum Triton

Ownership of the operation: Ownership of the operation:Italy UE operation, led by Frontex

It involves 19 Countries

Objective: Objective:To rescue migrants To reinforce border surveillance

and capture traffickers in Central Mediterranean Sea

Area of operation: Area of operation:International waters between 30 miles from the coasts of Italy

the coasts of South Italy and Malta

and North Africa (about 175 miles)

Monthly cost: Monthly cost:9.3 million Euros (Italy) 2.9 million euros (EU)

From May 2015, 9 million Euros


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


competence. The Board of Governors of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

of the NATO defense has also proposed the extension of naval

duties relative to maritime safety to the phenomenon of migration.

Tossed into the heart of the Mediterranean, Italy plays a

key role which goes beyond its mere geographical location.

Due to its mission, the Navy perceives this condition in the

most direct and immediate way, day by day. How can we

develop a culture of the Mediterranean, regarded as a bridge

connecting different continents rather than a border sea?

This is a multifaceted problem. In its culture, Italy must

acquire a new awareness of its maritime destiny. For many years,

our view has been primarily contained within our territorial

boundaries, whilst many other countries made of the sea their

main resource also in terms of trade and balanced development

of the economy of the sea. We can grow a lot in this direction.

The Mediterranean is only one percent of

the ocean surface, but 19 percent of the

world’s marine traffic goes through it, and

65 percent of oil and merchant shipping to

be delivered in Italy and other European

countries. It is still a vital crossroads for

goods converged to the ports of our country

from the Middle East by Suez: Trieste for

Northeastern Europe, Genoa for Western

Europe, Gioia Tauro as a stopover exchange for containers

from larger ships to smaller ones. However, in order to keep

all this alive and dynamic, we need support. Our ports are

going to face strong competition from Morocco, which is

planning the opening of a great stopover on the Atlantic

Ocean so as to intercept the traffic of large container ships

into the Mediterranean, should they opt for travelling around

the Cape of Good Hope.

This puts the issue of migration in the broader geopolitical

context of the Mediterranean.

All this is an additional reason why it is important to resolve

the issue of migrants at sea. Merchant ships may find it non-

economic to travel the Mediterranean if they have to spend

long days to help the refugees and take them into the Italian

harbours. When piracy in front of Somalia was more active,

the record showed in few years a reduction of 16 percent of

commercial traffic through Suez. Ship owners would rather

tour South Africa, heading to North Europe, because the cost

Italy must acquire a new awareness of its maritime destiny.For many years, our view hasbeen primarily contained withinour territorial boundaries


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


of insurance had become too high. The goods would then get

to Italy from Hamburg. The maritime cluster represents more

than 3 percent of the national GDP, our fishing fleet is the third

in Europe, the sector's businesses have tens of thousands of

employees, the coastal countries of the Mediterranean are

claiming a kind of exclusive right of exploitation of the seabed

and fishing in their waters, therefore, just 30 percent of this

sea is still free. Italy is the only one that does not have its

exclusive economic zone.

Starting from the videos, the witnesses, and all the

documentation collected, is there any project of communica-

tion to be provided through the schools, for instance?

That of Mare Nostrum was a significant experience, which

can teach young people the meaning of poverty, desperation,

fleeing the violence, and, however, striving for a better life too.

For communication purposes, we have mostly employed the

first part so far, the toughest one concerning travels and

rescues at sea. Now we should link it to the dream, that is, to

what happened in the lives of the rescued migrants after-

wards. A web series that has been produced is “the choice

of Catia”, by Corriere della Sera, which was also broadcasted

by Rai Tre. It was the real time filming of what happened on

board of one ship of ours, the Libra, commanded by

Lieutenant of vessel Catia Pellegrino, in the period December

2013-August 2014. We have co-produced some documentaries

with Germany, the US, Australia. Some other publications are

going to be issued, photo books, short stories, but certainly

the idea of liaising with the Ministry of Education would be

good. Going into schools, telling the experience of Mare

Nostrum to our young. I think they would understand, and this

would mean deeper awareness to everyone.


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

From Mare Nostrum to Triton 2

A comparison between the two operations, both relative to the intervention in the Mediterranean to cope with a huge humanitarian emergency, but with separate ownership, motivations, and operating modes

by Alessandro Grilli

From Mare Nostrum to Triton

On the memorable date of 16th October, 2014 the Minister

of Interior, Mr Alfano, announced officially to the Chamber of

Deputies the closing down of Mare Nostrum operation, which

was ratified some days after by the Council of Ministers. 1st

November, 2014 would mark the end of that experience, which

had officially started on 18th October of the year before to face

the state of humanitarian emergency in the Strait of Sicily caused

by the exceptional flow of migrants (170 thousand people landed

in 2014), also on the emotional wave of the tragedy that had

occurred on 3rd October, 2013 near Lampedusa: the sinking

of a boat full of migrants, with almost 400 victims. A mission with

two key objectives: ensuring search and rescue operations ininternational waters; bring to justice traffickers and smugglerswho profit on immigrants’ “journeys of hope”.

It was certainly a serious engagement on the part of our

country – at a monthly cost of 9 million euros – and the expe-

rience came under the scrutiny of political controversy, for its

alleged role in having multiplied the number of desperate

people sailing from the ports of the southern Mediterranean,

attracted by the “certainty” of being rescued at sea. Such

interpretation, however, has been contradicted by the latest

news; despite the closure of Mare Nostrum the number of

migrants has steadily grown, and the record shows 33,831

landings to the Italian coast in the first four month of 2015

against 29,501 in the same period of 2014, while asylum

applications have even tripled, from just over 26 thousand to

Despite the closure ofMare Nostrumthe number of migrantshas steadilygrown, and the recordshows 33,831landings to the Italiancoast in the first four month of 2015


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


almost 65 thousand. Migrants from Africa continue to embark

towards Italy for reasons far more profound than the superficial

ones disclosed by the media or in the political debate: first of all

Libya’s situation, which is the country of origin of the majority

of boats loaded with refugees, marked by institutional chaos

and the impossibility to keep control of the territory.

As also emerged from the interview to Admiral De Giorgi in

this issue of libertàcivili, rather than a police operation, Mare

Nostrum was mainly a great humanitarian mission, which helped

to save and assist more than 150 thousand people over one

year through the actions of the Navy, the Coast Guard and the

commercial vessels involved. Rescues at sea, in a vast area

of international waters between the Italian coast and those of

North Africa, genuinely conveyed its most important content,

assuming that the streams of refugees from the southern

coast of the Mediterranean firstly represent a humanitarian

problem, and then a matter of national and European security.

The fault of Mare Nostrum, if any, is that it was an all-Italian

Mare Nostrum had the virtue of encompassing in one

operation all the aspects relative to the management of

migration flows at sea: both humanitarian and healthcareand safety aspects.

Staff, vessels, and aircraft of the Navy were deployed, as

well as of the Air Force, the Carabinieri, the Finance Police,

the Harbour Master’s Office, plus military personnel of the

Corps of the Red Cross and of the Italian State Police, on

board of naval units, and staff of all the Government entities

anyway in charge of controlling migration flows by sea.

The Command of the Naval Air Forces deployed was

entrusted to one officer Admiral on board of a ship, granted

powers of command and control. On board of the same

vessel there were experts of the Police Department for

Public Safety - central management for Immigration and

Border Police, who could step up, thanks to their expertise,

the controls for migrants’ identification directly on board.

In all of the deployed facilities, however, health checkswere carried out by the medical staff on board, with the close

cooperation of the medical staff of ISMAF (Border surveil-

lance organization for aviation and maritime security), the

staff of the Army Corps and the Italian Red Cross volunteer

nurses, plus voluntary staff of CISOM (Italian Emergency

Corps of the Order of Malta) and of RAVA Foundation.

The modus operandi used in Mare Nostrum


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


operation, and its burden was exclusively on our country,

which repeatedly called for more involvement and support from

Brussels, since the fronts of Lampedusa and Sicily correspond

to the southern border of the European Union and not just of

Italy. This was an alarm call which fell on deaf ears several times.

Operation Triton

The starting date of Triton operation was 1st November 2014,

but its coincidence with the conclusion of Mare Nostrum is not

to suggest that this mission replaced the previous one, as

also repeatedly stressed by the European institutions. There

is no doubt about this. Indeed, Triton has the advantage of

involving the EU in the surveillance of the Mediterranean

(under the responsibility of the security agency Frontex),

however, to a more limited extent if compared to Mare

Nostrum, since its mandate is limited to border surveillance

and excludes search and rescue operations – which remain

the responsibility of the Member States (and, therefore,

essentially, of Italy) – its financial resources are fewer (at least

in its first phase), i.e., 2.9 million euros per month compared

with 9 per month granted by Italy in aid to Mare Nostrum, and its

area of operation is more limited, since the patrols cover just an

area 30 miles off of Sicily, Calabria and Puglia. Furthermore,

when Triton was launched, the operations of identification of

the immigrants and of healthcare were moved to the ground,

therefore, they no longer take place directly on board of the

ships, making the procedures last for longer.

However, despite the launch of Triton, the Italian Navy did not

stop immediately its operations, but carried on rescues at sea

for further two months, until the end of 2014, implementing the

Maritime Security and Coastal Surveillance System (DNSSM

after the Italian denomination), which operated for the safety

of life at sea, the contrast to illicit trafficking, the arrest of

smugglers, and the capture of “mother ships”, as well as for

preventive health care, through containment and screening of

migrants before their landing to the national coast. A sort of addi-

tion to Mare Nostrum, achieving the rescue of further 4,608

people in addition to the total 13,668 salvaged not only by

the Navy, but also by the means deployed by the Harbour

Master’s Offices, the Financial Police and the merchant ships,

and the delivery to Judicial authorities of 19 alleged smugglers.

From 2015 onwards, however, after the closing of DNSSM,

rescue at sea is governed only by the Law of the Sea, which

provides the obligation to rescue only in case of accidents or

Triton has the advantageof involvingthe EU in thesurveillance of theMediterraneanhowever, to a more limited extentif compared to MareNostrum, since its mandate is limited to border surveillance


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


sinking. The ships of the Navy shall proceed to the rescue only

in the event that they catch sight of a boat in danger during their

ordinary operations, but, as it is obvious, failing a specifically

dedicated patrol, the cases of warning and rescue are reduced

drastically. For the rest, the burden of the interventions is on

the commercial vessels sailing in the areas of sighting, which

are warned about the vessel in distress and are obliged to

change their route to intervene. It should be remarked, however,

that this course of action cannot produce long-term satisfactory

results, firstly because commercial vessels are not equipped

for such interventions, and, secondly, because no compensation

is provided to private operators for the economic damage suffered

on account of the change of route and of the time lost for the

rescue.

On balance, the “autumn campaign” on immigration, in the

six months of Italian Presidency, surely stimulated a greater

involvement of Europe in terms of resources available for the

operations of border surveillance, but no step forward towards

greater support to the operations of rescue at sea or, even, in

terms of accepting refugees and asylum seekers. This position

of most EU countries is essentially grounded on a fundamental

misunderstanding, based on the total number of clandestine

accesses in the Union; in fact, refugees landed to the southern

coasts by freighter are a very small percentage (10 -15%) of the

total number of accesses. However, when they display this data

in support of their arguments, those countries which are reluctant

to accept the principle of solidarity do not take into account

the fact that the control of land borders does not require such

an effort as the surveillance on maritime borders, since it has

not to deal with the rescue of human lives and with the complex

organization related to this, but it just has to patrol and detect

any attempted fraudulent access.

The huge emergency: “Triton 2” and the EU Plan

Once again, however, it was history which made a change

and forced everyone to face reality. On 18 th April 2015, in the

sinking of a roughly 20 meter boat coming from the coast of

Libya, more than 700 people died, although, according to the

testimony of the few survivors, the migrants on board were about

950, and, consequently, the death toll must have reached 900.

The emotional wave of yet another tragedy, obviously,

shook up the conscience of EU institutions and something

started moving. Two days later, in the Joint EU MinisterialMeeting of Foreign and Interior Ministers in Luxembourg,

The ItalianPresidency,stimulated a greaterinvolvement of Europe, but no stepforwardtowardsgreater support to theoperations of rescue at sea or in terms of acceptingrefugees


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Dimitris Avramopoulos, Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs

and Citizenship, presented a ten-point plan which was upheld

by the Ministers. The following were included among the

points: reinforcing Triton and Poseidon operations (the latter

is similar to the former, albeit in the area of the Aegean Sea),

the systematic effort to capture and destroy vessels used by the

smugglers; the deployment of EASO (European asylum support)

operational teams in Italy and Greece, to process asylum

applications jointly; considering options for an emergency

relocation mechanism of refugees; a voluntary pilot project on

resettlement, offering a number of places to persons in need

of protection; a new return programme for rapid return of irregular

migrants coordinated by Frontex.

The items proposed in Luxembourg were then presented to

the Extraordinary meeting of EU Heads of State or Governmenton 23rd April in Brussels, regarding precisely the situation in

the Mediterranean. The result of the summit marks a tentative

step towards further European involvement. It was decided to


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


reinforce the mission Triton, whose funds were tripled (with a

change to the budget for 2015 that provides the necessary funds,

a total of 89 million euro, including 57 million for the Fund for asy-

lum, migration and integration, and 5 million for the Internal

Security Fund), reaching a commitment worth approximately 9

million Euros per month (exactly what Italy was spending for Mare

Nostrum); Member States also undertook to provide more vessels

and aircrafts. Triton became, in some way, “Triton 2” and, despite

the absence of a formal amendment to the mandate of the opera-

tion, it seemed clear that a greater deployment of forces also

means greater benefits for the search and rescue of the vessels

of desperate refugees.

Since 1988, on the borders of Europe at least 21,439 peoplehave died. This datum is updated as at 4 th October 2014

and is based solely on the news recorded in the archives of

the international press over the last 26 years, thanks largely

to the work of Fortress Europe blog. No official statistics

exist on the subject - and it could not be otherwise. Also the

UNHCR (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)

and the IOM (International Organization for Migration) process

data, but by partial collection, limited only to episodes which

are known; they do not take into account the many boats

which had sailed and never reached the shores, about which

there has never been news.

We tried to recall the major tragedies occurred in recent years,

just in the sea channel between Libya and Tunisia on the one

hand, and Sicily and Malta on the other. Not to forget.

18th April 2015 In the sinking of a boat traveling from Libya to Italy, the death

toll is higher than 700, but the few survivors indicate the presence

of about 950 people on board. It is the biggest tragedy ever

occurred in this sea route.

14th September 2014 Shipwreck off Tajoura (Libya), rescued 26 passengers, at least

224 victims.

13th September 2014 Shiwreck off Malta, only 9 survivors, 300 passengers missing.

10th September 2014 500 lost at sea 300 miles off Malta. Reportedly, the crash was

caused by the smugglers, who, from another vessel, deliberately

rammed and the boat carrying 500 passengers and made it

sink, after a tough confrontation.

30th July 2014 Shipwreck off the Libyan coast on the routes to Sicily, a hundred

kilometres east of Tripoli. The number of 20 victims was confirmed,

108 people were missing at sea.

The main tragedies in the “journeys of hope” in the Mediterranean


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


19th July 2014 A vessel sinks off Malta. According to the survivors landed in

Messina, the dead suffocated in the hold during the sinking

plus those lost at sea during the journey make the number of

missing people equal to 181 out of the 750 passengers of a boat

overloaded beyond belief.

12th May 2014 Shipwreck south of Lampedusa: 17 bodies recovered, but people

missing at sea are no less than one hundred.

11th October 2013 Shipwreck in the Sicilian Channel, 70 miles off Lampedusa. A boat

capsizes during rescue operations. Recovered the bodies of

34 victims, including a dozen children. According to the report

made by the 206 survivors, 160 are missing at sea.

3rd October 2013 A vessel crammed with migrants shipwrecks off Lampedusa,

by the Island of Rabbits. The final death toll is 366 victims and

20 assumed dead. Following this tragedy, Italy decides to launch

Mare Nostrum.

7th September 2012 79 passengers lostat sea from a sunk vessel off Lampedusa.

6th April 2011 A boat that had left Libya with 300 people on board overturned

in the Strait of Sicily due to bad sea conditions. 51 people were

rescued, while missing people were over two hundred, according

to what was reported by the survivors.

3rd April 2011 The bodies of 70 migrants probably drowned during the travel to

reach the Italian coast were recovered in the Libyan sea, off

Tripoli.

16th June 2008 A “vessel of hope” sank off the coast of Libya. On board there were

150 Egyptian migrants: only one could be rescued.

19th August 2006 The Corvette “Minerva” of the Navy rescued a boat crammed

with 120 illegal immigrants. The boat capsized for the weight of

the refugees, huddled on one side hoping to be saved. Ten corpses

were recovered and 40 people were lost at sea.

20th June 2003 A vessel carrying 250 illegal immigrants shipwrecked in

international waters off the coast of Tunisia. The death toll is

fifty corpses returned from the sea. Missing people were 160,

41 survived.

libe

rtàci

vili


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

Seeking for normalcy in the management of migrationand refugee flows

On July 10, 2014 the Italian Government, Regions,Provinces, and Municipalities signed an agreementaimed to the purpose of managing orderly and regularly the landings on the national territoryand organizing rationally their reception

by Oscar Gaspari

On the date of July 10, 2014 a milestone has been reached

in finding a solution to the problems of the Government relative

to immigrants and refugees. On July 10, 2014 the Italian

Government, Regions, Provinces, and Municipalities – gathered

in a Joint Conference – signed an agreement

so as to face the landing of immigrants and

refugees on the national coasts in the most

consistent and orderly way possible, and to

set up a rational organization of their reception.

Obviously, this is not a final step, however

it is essential that all administrations have

decided to manage in synergy a phenomenon

that can no longer be considered short-term

by now.

At first, in fact, the arrival of immigrants

and refugees from Arab countries and North Africa at the time

of the so-called “Arab Spring”, between 2010 and 2011, could be

considered an exceptional event linked to the political upheavals

of that period and, as such, to be solved by extraordinary and

temporary measures. In the aftermath, though, the incoming

refugees were more and more from the countries at war or in

endemic political, economic or social crisis in the areas of the Horn

of Africa and the Middle East. The increasing number of landings

required some progressive structural interventions that had to

be implemented with the necessary involvement of authorities

and national and local institutions. An involvement that was soon

after extended to European political and administrative authorities.

The increasing number of landings required some progressive structural interventions that had to beimplemented with the necessaryinvolvement of national and local authorities


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

July 10, 2014, agreement reached between Government, Regions, Provinces, and Municipalities

A first effort to solve the problem of the exceptional stream

of immigrants and refugees by means of a set of standard

procedures dates back to July 2013, when Mr Graziano Delrio,

Minister for Regional Affairs and Autonomy at that time, pre-

sented to the Joint Conference the text of an Agreement between

the Government, the Regions and the Local Authorities on the

shared guidelines providing a standard procedure for the

ordinary management of unplanned migration flows (applicants/

beneficiaries of international protection and unaccompanied

minors). The National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI),

the Union of Italian Provinces (UPI), the Regions and Autonomous

Provinces approved the proposal by the

Government, resulting from the joint work of

national and regional coordination boards,

including the one on unaccompanied

minors, established in the Ministry of Labour

and Social Policy. Its objectives were the

organization of reception, and the response

to the issue of unplanned immigration flows,

whilst the necessary resources were to be

set later.

There was no follow up to the Agreement,

though, and it wasn’t just that.

Since the beginning of Mare Nostrum operation in October

2013, which was necessary to save so many endangered lives

by the perilous crossing of the Mediterranean, the number of

landings of immigrants and refugees in our country increased

further, requiring the mobilization of the Government and of all

local institutions. In particular, it became essential to ensure

regular and decent health and social care, which was imperative

in the case of unaccompanied minors.

On April 16, 2014 Mr Enzo Bianco, Mayor of Catania,

addressed a heartfelt speech to the Joint Conference, stating

that it was materially impossible to his community, and to

many other towns in Sicily as well, to ensure decent hospitality

to thousands of immigrants and refugees who were reaching

Sicily from North Africa. Mr Bianco denounced, above all, the

financial difficulties hindering in particular the accommodation

of unaccompanied children, due to lack of funds.

Ms Lorena Rambaudi, representative of Regions, Councillor

for Social Policies of the Region of Liguria, pointed out the

huge extent of the phenomenon of migration in early 2014 and

the need for more consistent participation by regional and local

administrations.

Since the beginning of Mare Nostrum operation in October 2013, which wasnecessary to save so manyendangered lives, the number of landings of immigrants in our country increased further

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

The Deputy Minister of Interior, Mr Domenico Manzione,

insisted on the need for European involvement in Mare Nostrum

operation concerning the rescue of migrants and refugees in

mortal danger. Mr Piero Fassino, President of ANCI, called for a

measure aimed to manage regularly migration flows, and for

immediate funding to municipalities for handling this emergency.

The President of Emilia-Romagna, Mr Vasco Errani, stated that

the management of refugees and immigrants could not be

“charged on” municipalities without any programming, hence

he called for a decision, shared with regional and local gover-

nments, urging also to evaluate the possibility of the provision

of temporary permits to the migrants landed in Italy, allowing

them transit to some other European countries.

Mr Graziano Delrio, in his role as Undersecretary to the

Presidency of the Council of Ministers, assured that the

Government would work quickly to resolve the serious pro-

blems laid down.

On June 12 again, however, the Mayor of Catania, on behalf

of ANCI and UPI, pointed out all the hardships endured by the

Sicilian municipalities located on the southeastern coast of


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l


Sicily to provide the large number of incoming non-EU citizens

with first reception services. The Mayor reiterated, among

many others, the emergency of unaccompanied minors. His

speech was upheld by President Errani, who shared all the

concerns and critical issues represented by Mr Bianco.

Deputy Minister Manzione collected every requests from

the involved local institutions and Regions, and he assured

the intervention of the Government, jointly with Ms. Carmela

Lanzetta - Minister for Regional Affairs and Autonomy.

The appointment of July 10, 2014 was coming under way,

the date of the conclusion of the preparatory work between

experts of ANCI, UPI, Autonomous Regions

and Provinces on one side and those of the

Ministries of Interior, Labour and Social

Policies, Economy and Finance on the other.

The Joint Conference, thus, approved the

Agreement between the Government, the

Regions and local Authorities at national level

to deal with the extraordinary flow of non-EU

citizens, adults, families and unaccompanied

minors.

The most significant part of the Agreement

is that relative to the National operational plan to cope with the

extraordinary flow of non-EU citizens based on the responsible

commitment of all the signatory institutions “to face the situation

deriving from to the unplanned flow of non-EU citizens in a spirit

of sincere and joint cooperation” and the creation of “Boards

coordinated respectively by the Ministry of Interior and the

Prefect of the regional capital municipality” for the coordination

of efforts at national and local levels.

Therefore, the founding principles of the management of

the phenomenon of migration were developed starting from

the distinction of a preliminary phase, for the rescue, managed

by first aid and assistance centres in the regions of landing or

the surrounding ones.

The second phase, for first reception and identification, shall

be ensured by regional and/or interregional hubs provided with

adequate capacity to the relevant regional or interregional base,

and the time of the stay in them shall not exceed the necessary

time for the formalization of the application for protection, the

conclusion of the procedures of examination of applications,

and the selection of the most suitable location in the protection

system for asylum seekers and refugees (SPRAR).

The most significant part of the Agreement is the Nationaloperational plan to cope with the extraordinary flow of non-EU citizens based on the responsible commitmentof all institution

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

The following phase, for further reception and integrationthrough SPRAR, is aimed to proceed with the prompt placement

of immigrants and refugees in accordance with a shared plan

for distribution throughout the country which referring, primarily,

to the expansion of SPRAR network. SPRAR network, in fact,

has been confirmed as the keystone of the second-level

reception system for both adults and unaccompanied minors.

It was then determined that the Board of national coordination

would be in charge of proposing a plan for spreading the

flows of migrants also making sure that a system of registration

and monitoring of the presence of people in the national territory

be managed in real time.

In regard to the all-important issue of unaccompanied

minors it was resolved to create an integrated system starting

from the implementation of highly specialized governmental

structures of first reception, in charge of the reception of the

minors in the first tracking down phase, and assigned to the

tasks of identification, age and status assessment, if need be,

also in order to speed up the reunion with their relatives, if any,

in other EU countries; conversely, the second level of reception

of all unaccompanied minors shall be carried out within

adequately strengthened SPRAR units.

Pending the implementation of these provisions, the Ministry

of Interior is in charge of the setting up some temporary facilities

for the reception of unaccompanied minors, identified and

authorized by the Regions, in cooperation with the Prefectures

and the local Authorities involved, with the support of the Ministry

of Labour and Social Policy and with the entrenchment of the

Information System of Minors (SIM).

The opposition made by some Regions to the reception of

immigrants and refugees does not undermine the importance

of the Agreement of July 10, 2014, which was also reaffirmed

by the meeting of May 7, 2015 between Mr Angelino Alfano,

Minister of Interior, and Mr Piero Fassino, President of ANCI,

who mutually agreed on the need for greater coordination

between the Government and the local Authorities involved,

and unanimously confirmed the model already established by

common agreement. At the same meeting then, regarding the

opposition made by some Regions to the reception of immigrants

and refugees, the importance was underlined of creating

some incentives systems, and again, contextually, of a greater

involvement of the European institutions in the necessary opera-

tions to face the phenomenon.


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

The Facts/Tarakhel v. Switzerland: The Circumstances of the Case

The affair of an Afghan family’s request for politicalasylum in Switzerland and of the subsequentEuropean Court for Human Rights’ sentence as emblems of the controversial application of the “Dublin System”

Born in Afghanistan, Golajan Tarakhel (1971) emigrates to

Pakistan, where he marries Maryam Habibi (1981). Both then

emigrate to Iran, where they spend around 15 years. They have

five children: Arezoo (1999), Mohammad (2001), Nazanin (2003),

Shiba (2005), Zeynab (2008). Around 2011 the family leaves Iran

for Turkey. From there they board a ship that leaves them on the

coasts of the Italian region of Calabria on 16 July 2011. On the

same day, the Tarakhels are given accommodation in a facility

provided by the municipal authorities of Stignano, in the province

of Reggio Calabria. At the identification process, they submit

false identities.

On 26 July, the family is transferred to the Reception Centre

for Asylum-Seekers (Centro di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo,

“CARA”) in Bari, where their true identity is established. The

Tarakhels denounce the awful living conditions in the Centre:

lack of hygiene, absence of privacy, an atmosphere of violence.

On 28 July, the family leaves the Bari facility, without permission,

and reaches Austria on 30 July. Their asylum application is

rejected and on August 1 the Austrian authorities request Italy

to assume responsibility for the Tarakhels. The Italian authorities

accept the request on August 17. The family abandons

Austria without permission and reaches Switzerland, where

on November 3 they apply for asylum status. On November

15, interviewed by the Federal Office for Migration (FMO), the

Tarakhels declare that, due to the harsh living conditions in

Italy, it would be impossible for them to find work there.

On 22 November 2011, the FMO requests the Italian authorities

The Tarakhel case: the facts

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


to take charge of the family. The petition is accepted. On 24

January 2012, the FMO rejects the Tarakhels’ asylum application

and expels them to Italy. On 2 February, the family appeals to

the Federal Administrative Court and, relying on Article 3 of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms, support their case by stating that the Swiss authori-

ties have not given sufficient consideration to their complaint in

regard to the harsh living conditions awaiting them in Italy. On

9 February, the Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the

FMO’s decision. On 13 March 2012, the Tarakhels request the

FMO to have the proceedings reopened and grant them asylum

in Switzerland. The Administrative Court rejects their request

on 21 March.

On 10 May 2012, the family reports to the European Court

for Human Rights in Strasbourg the sentence by the Federal

Administrative Court rejecting their asylum application and

requests to carry on living in Switzerland while awaiting a final

decision, also in light of the fact that their children are all

attending school in the country. On 18 May the European Court

accepts their request.

In the meantime, the Tarakhels’ sixth child, Amir Hassan, is

born in Lausanne in 2012.

On 4 November 2014 the Strasbourg European Court of Human

Rights, with judgment n. 29217/12, establishes that the Tarakhel

family be returned to the Italian authorities.

(o.g.)

Link to the sentence of the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-147608


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

Legal Matters /The Principle of Solidarity between European States in Applying the Dublin System

In the Tarakhel v. Switzerland case, the ECtHR confirms its position in favour of cooperation between States in the mechanismof shared responsibility for asylum applications

by Maura MarchegianiUniversity for Foreigners of Perugia

In the jurisprudence of European Court concerning the compa-

tibilitity of the controversial “Dublin System” with conventional

standards, the recent Tarakhel v. Switzerland 1 judgement arises

from a perspective of continuity and development of the constant

attempt, by the Court, to promote solidarity and cooperation

between States in implementing the mechanism of shared

responsibility for international protection applications.

The Dublin mechanism, recently modified after the adoption

of Regulation 604/2013, so called Dublin III, identifies a series

of objective criteria to determine which single European State is

competent for examining application for international protection 2.

The serious difficulties and inconsistencies essentially result

from the continuing lack of an adequate level of harmonisation

of national systems and procedures to access to international

1 ECtHR, Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], application no. 29217/12, judgement of4 November 2014. For an analysis of the case and for references to the EuropeanCourt’s jurisprudence on this issue, see M. Marchegiani, Il sistema di Dublino ancoraal centro del confronto tra Corti in Europa: carenze sistemiche, problemi connessialle “capacità attuali del sistema di accoglienza” e rilievo delle garanzie individualinella sentenza Tarakhel v. Switzerland, in Ordine internazionale e diritti umani 2014,pp.1107-1116

2 Regulation (UE) n. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and Council of 26 June 2013establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsiblefor examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the MemberStates by a third country national or stateless person (recast), in OJEU L 180/31 29 June2013. Up to now, however, judgements only concern the discipline contained in theprevious Regulation (EC) n. 343/2003 (Dublin II), of 18 February 2003, OJEU L 50,25 February 2003, p.1 ff., which replaced the original 1990 Convention determiningState responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the MemberStates of the European Communities

The Tarakhel case: Legal Matters

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


protection. This situation has compromised from the beginning the

proper functioning of the Dublin System, founded on the principle

of mutual trust among Member States and on a general presumption

of conformity of their procedures to the human rights standards 3.

The European Court has in this regard expressed a real

awareness of the inherent limits of the Dublin System. The

application of the criterion according responsibility for examining

the application for international protection o the Member State

whose borders have been irregularly crossed, widely prevalent

in practice, has led to a significant burden for states placed

at the external borders of the European Union 4. These States

have been already burdened by the growing pressure of massive

streams of irregular immigration 5.

In this light, the overall analysis of the ECtHR case law,

including the Tarakhel case, clearly manifests the intention of

the Court to correct and contain the imbalances deriving from the

application of this mechanism, in order to reconcile the requi-

rements of the Commonwealth European Asylum System with

a proper protection of conventional human rights. The Court

has constantly focused on an adequate sharing and distribution

of responsibilities between State parties with regard to inter-

national protection obligations in the light of the principle of

solidarity in the management of migration. Though affirmed in

general terms in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European

Union 6, the principle of solidarity hardly finds effective application

in practice, especially because of the costant reluctance of

governments of many Members States and the consequent

difficulties in addressing the issue of international protection

in an authentically humanitarian way, instead of in a logic marked

by repression and contrast of migration flows. A logic that

inexorably continues to prevail in the international debate 7.

3 On the subject, ex multis, see A. Adinolfi, Riconoscimento dello status di rifugiatoe della protezione sussidiaria: verso un sistema comune europeo?, in E.Triggiani (ed.),Europa e mediterraneo. Le regole per la costruzione di una società integrata, Naples2010, p. 237 ff.

4 ECtHR, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], application no. 30696/09, judgementof 21 January 2011, par. 223

5 See on this subject Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2015, 27 April 2015, is availableon-line at: frontex.europa.eu/publications/?c=risk-analysis

6 Art. 67 of the TFEU, referred to, inter alia, by the Court in the judgement M.S.S.v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, par. 58

7 See Special Meeting of the European Council, 23 April 2015, Statement. On thesubject, inter alia, see V. Favilli, Le responsabilità dei Governi degli Stati membri nelladifficile costruzione di un’autentica politica dell’Unione europea di immigrazione e diasilo, available on-line at: http://www.sidi-isil.org/sidiblog/?author=90

The Courthas constantlyfocused on an adequate sharing and distribution of responsibilities between State parties with regard to internationalprotection obligations


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


This perspective is clearly reaffirmed by The Court through the

statement of the general incompatibility with the requirements

of any conventional automatic and purely procedural application

of the Dublin mechanism. In the Tarakhel v. Switzerland judgement,

the principle is enhanced by the provision of the obligation of

a systematic, “thorough and individualised examination of the

situation of the person” subjected to transfer 8. This condition

definitely reshapes the role of general presumption of compliance

by Member States with fundamental rights. This presumption

however already called into question since the M.S.S. judge-

ment 9.

The importance the Court gives to the value of an effective

cooperation between States with regard to the Dublin System,

according to the principle of solidarity, is evident in its decision.

These choices are oriented to tendential repartition of responsi-

bilities, which often translates into exercising firmer control on

and demanding specific fulfilments from the states that proceed

to transferring asylum-seekers to the state of initial entry when

implementing the Dublin mechanism.

This is the specific direction the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece

judgement and the more recent Sharifi v. Italy and Greece judge-

ment both converge on. In both cases, the Court affirmed

responsibility for the violation of Art. 3 of the ECHR, to the risk of

a par ricochet inhumane or degrading treatment. This only with

reference to the States that ordered the transfer according to the

Dublin System and not with reference to Greece, only condemned

for the violation of Art.13 in conjunction with art. 3 of the

Convention, considering the absence in the Greek system of

effective remedies against consequent, highly probable,

expulsion orders10. This solution seems to reflect awareness

of the considerable difficulties in coping with an increasing

8 Tarakhel v. Switzerland, mentioned above, par.104

9 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, par. 353. In the same direction, ECHR,Sharifi v. Italy and Greece, application no.16643/09, judgement of 21 October 2014.In this case, the Court also condemned Italy for sending back to Greece a groupof asylum-seekers on the grounds that “aucune forme d’éloignement collectif etindiscriminé ne saurait être justifiée par référence au système de Dublin, dontl’application doit, dans tous les cas, se faire d’une manière compatible avec laConvention” (no form of collective indiscriminate expulsion can be justif ied bythe Dublin System, the application of which must in any case be compatiblewith the Convention) (par. 223)

10 The problematic aspects of this layout are set extensively in, L. Magi, Protezionedei richiedenti asilo “par ricochet” o protezione “par moitié”? La Grande Cameraripartisce fra gli Stati contraenti le responsabilità per violazione della Convenzioneeuropea conseguenti al trasferimento di un richiedente asilo in attuazione del regolamento“Dublino II”, in Rivista di diritto internazionale 2011, pp. 824-832

The importance the Court gives to the value of an effectivecooperationbetween stateswith regard to the DublinSystem, is evident in its jurisprudentialchoices


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


flux of migrants and asylum seekers11 faced by European

States that give onto the Mediterranean, in some of which, and

particularly in Greece, the migratory phenomenon has acquired

a truly dramatic dimension in recent years.12 States that the

European Union’s immigration and asylum policies do not

seem to take sufficiently into account, not even in the light of

the most recent modifications. It is with regard to the existence

and to the extent of the principle of solidarity in international

protection itself that we register the main difficulties in reaching

an accomplished revision of the Common European Asylum

System13.

The judgement stating that those states which ordered

expulsion in application of Conviction for breach of Art. 3 in

respect of States which have ordered the transfer in imple-

mentation of the Dublin system thus appears as an attempt by

the Court to induce States to a joint distribution of the burden

of protection by encouraging them to meet the costs of protection

in a spirit of collaboration14.

The Tarakhel v. Switzerland judgement moves in the same

direction. If the acknowledgment of systemic and generalised

deficiencies in the receptive system of the state identified as

responsible for examining the application imposes, according

to the Court’s reconstruction, an “exit” from the system, via the

sovereignty clause15, the existence of “serious doubts linked to

the current capacities of the system”16, though they do not

preclude in themselves the application of the Dublin mechanism,

do however subordinate it to the necessity of a further level of

cooperation between the states in question. A cooperation

11 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, mentioned above, par. 223

12 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, mentioned above, Concurring opinion of JudgeRozakis

13 See the Communication from the Commission to the European Parl iamentconcerning the Posit ion of the Council on the adoption of a proposal for aRegulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteriaand mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examiningan application for international protection lodged in one of the Member Statesby a third-country national or a stateless person, COM(2013) 416 final (2008/0243(COD), of 10 June 2013

14 On the existence of a solidarity-based refugee distribution obligation, F. Salerno,L’obbligo internazionale di non-refoulement dei richiedenti asilo, in Diritti umani e dirittointernazionale 2010, p. 487 ff., in particular p. 599

15 On the sovereignty clause, see M. Marchegiani, Sistema di Dublino e tutela deidiritti fondamentali: il rilievo della clausola di sovranità nella giurisprudenza europearecente, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 2014, pp.159 -182

16 Tarakhel v. Switzerland, cited above, par.115

This solutionseemsto reflectawarenessof theconsiderabledifficultiesin coping with an increasingflux of migrants facedby EuropeanStatesthat giveonto theMediterranean


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


aimed at obtaining adequate guarantees that the state that

orders the expulsion is obliged to request from the state that the

Dublin System identifies as competent, at least in individual

cases of particularly vulnerable asylum seekers17.

From this point of view, the judgement solicit a mode of

cooperation based on solidarity and on a constant dialogue

between States, identifying the exchange of individual guarantees

as an appropriate tool to safeguard the resilience of the

Dublin System18 and to ensure it continues to be compatible

with conventional obligations, beyond its objective limits and

contradictions.

The European Court has therefore progressively opposed

the need of an incisive, constant and constructive dialectics

between states against the original automatism derived from

the mechanical formal execution of the criteria foreseen by

the Dublin System, incompatible as such with conventional

requirements. Such a level of cooperation is the necessary

counterbalance to the practical needs underlying the Dublin

System, in order to “respond to humanitarian needs through

solidarity”19 and in this way ensure a real protection of the

fundamental rights of every applicant for international protection.

17 The prominence of individual guarantees restricted to cases of “particular vulnerability”due to the individual conditions of the single asylum-seekers involved on a case bycase basis, is confirmed by two inadmissibility decisions subsequent to the Tarakhelv. Switzerland case: A. M. E. v. the Netherlands, application no. 51428/10, decisionof 13 January 2015; M.O.S.H. v. the Netherlands, application no. 63469/09 decisionof 3 February 2015.

18 For further analysis on the characteristics and limits of individual assurances, seeS. Bolognese, Il ricorso a garanzie individuali nell’ambito dei c.d. ‘trasferimenti Dublino’:ancora sul caso Tarakhel, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale 2015, pp. 233-23

19 Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999, Conclusions of the Presidency,Paragraph 4

The EuropeanCourt hasprogressivelyopposedthe needof an incisive,constant andconstructivedialecticsbetween States

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


The ABC’s of the Dublin Regime

This Regime, created to guarantee objective criteriafor determining the Member State responsible forexamining an application for international protection,is now showing its contradictions, having to dealwith the huge pressure of immigration

by Maria Vittoria Pontieri

1 When mentioning Dublin Regime, we refer to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013,so-called Dublin III, Regulation (EU) No 343/2003 so-called Dublin II, Regulation No118/14 for enforcing Regulation No 604/13, Regulation No 1560/2003 for enforcingRegulation No 343/2003, Regulation (EU) No 2725/2000 establishing Eurodac,Regulation (EU) No 407/2002 enforcing Regulation No 2725/2000, and Regulation(EU) No 603/13 amending Regulation No 2725/2000

2 The Signatory States include the 28 EU Member States (AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ,DK, ET, FI, FR, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES, SE, UK),and 4 States joining in the convention: NO; IS; CH; LI

3 This is referred to by the “one chance only principle”. EASO Training Module onDublin III Regulation

Introduction

The Dublin Regime 1 determines the Member State which is

responsible for examining an application for international protec-

tion lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country

national or a stateless person, and once that responsibility is

established, it provides for the transfer of the asylum seeker

to that Member State. Therefore, the Regime aims to assign to

any of the 32 Signatory States 2 the responsibility for the said

examination, and, thus, it not only ensures effective access to the

procedures for recognition of refugee status, but also prevents

any possible abuse relative to it, such as the presentation of

multiple applications by one person in several Member States 3.

The Regime provides some objective criteria of responsibility

based on the principle that the responsibility is, primarily, on

the State the applicant lands on and resides in first, with some

exceptions deriving from the need to protect the union of the

The Regime ensures effective access to theprocedures for recognitionof refugee status, but also preventsany possible abuse relative to it


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

The Dublin Regime

family, dependent persons and unaccompanied minors. In

addition, through its discretionary clauses, the Regime allow the

State concerned to derogate from the laid down responsibility

criteria and to take into account the legitimate interests of the

asylum seekers involved. The rules are part of the Common

European Asylum System 4, which is based on the full application

of the Geneva Convention, and seek to ensure compliance

with the principle of non-refoulement.

Origin and development of the Dublin Regime

This Regime was originally established as a parallel measure

to the creation of an area without internal border checks by

Member States. For the first time this Convention, which came

into force on 1st September, 1997, established a mechanism

for determining the responsibility for examining an application

for international protection, thus providing a remedy to the

situation of the so-called “orbiting” asylum seekers, that is, cases

in which no state could be held responsible for examining the

asylum application; furthermore, it was aimed to prevent the

phenomenon of “asylum shopping”, i.e., the practice of applying

for international protection simultaneously in multiple states by

asylum seekers, once they access any free circulation territories 5.

The Convention was subsequently reviewed and refined in its

operation with the adoption of Regulation 343/03, the so-called

Dublin II, based on the same general principles, and contextually

making some innovations to the system for determining the State

responsible. Regulation 304/03 was subsequently repealed by

the entry into force of Regulation 604/13.

Regulation no. 604/13, so-called Dublin III

EU Regulation no. 604/13, binding and directly applicable

in the Member States (and in the States which joined in the

Convention), entered into force on 19 th July, 2013 and was to

be applied to any applications submitted from 1st January,

2014 onwards.

The basic assumption underpinning the Regime implies that

an application for asylum is examined by a single Member State,

which is identified as the competent State based on the criteria

4 CEAS (Common European Asylum System)

5 To support the enforcement of the Convention, EC Regulation no. 2725/2000 wasissued, establishing EURODAC, i.e., a system for comparing fingerprints of asylumseekers

The Dublin Regime established a mechanism for determining the responsibilityfor examiningan applicationfor international protection, to prevent the “asylum shopping”

The Dublin Regime

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


set out in Chapter III, in the listing order used therein 6.

In view of the difficulties that may arise from a strict appli-

cation of the criteria for determining the responsibility, the

Regulation allows Member States to derogate from the sais

criteria by means of the so-called discretionary clauses referred

to by Article 17. The first of these discretionary clauses is the

so-called sovereignty clause 7, by virtue of which, the State

receiving an application for international protection may

always examine it regardless of the criteria for determining

the responsibility. The second one is the clause called “huma-

nitarian” 8, allowing the States to protect the unity of the family

of the asylum seeker, even in cases in which the strict application

of the criteria of the Regulation would lead to a separation of

the family members.

These clauses, whose application has been considered

extremely important by Italy, which promoted it in its relations

with other Member States, are an integral part of the Regime

and allow for having the interests of asylum seekers taken into

consideration.

The Italian Dublin Unit: the activities and issues dealt

with after the entry into force of the new Regulation

Following the entry into force of the new Regulation, the

Dublin Unit had to face manifold issues. The first criticality that

the Unit had to face in this regard was relative to the provision

by the new Regulation of extremely strict terms to submit certain

types of requests, which was unprecedented. Other important

issues to deal with included the problem of failing photo-

checks on landing sites, the issue of the guarantees to be

provided - in accordance with the ECHR case law - to families

with children moving to Italy, the increase in litigation resulting

from the impulse given by Italy to applications addressed to

other Member States. Particular attention was given to handling

matters concerning children, also through active participation

in the European project “PRUMA” with IOM, by the imple-

mentation of a specific procedure, providing that the interests

of children were to be strongly protected, to be applied following

the entry into force of the new Regulation.

6 So-called hierarchy of criteria

7 Article 17.1

8 Article 17.2

The Italian Dublin Unit gave particular attention to handlingmatters concerning children and their interests


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

The Dublin Regime

Statistical data

The data reported here below show the evident increase,

over the years, of the requests made by the other Member

States pursuant to the Dublin Regulation.

Time period Jan.-Dec. 2012 Jan.-Dec. 2013 Jan.-Dec. 2014*

Requests made by Italy to Member States 2,186 3,308 4,989

Requests made by Member States to Italy 17,631 22,700 28,498

Transfers from Italy to Member States 25 5 13

Transfers from Member States to Italy 3,551 2,966 3,343

Reading the above statistic with a crit ical approach,

undoubtedly, we cannot but call the limits of the Regime into

question. The number of people actually transferred is in fact much

lower than the requests made by various Member States.

Further thought should be made about the DNA of the Dublin

Regime: I mean that the Treaty is still pervaded by national

sovereignty, which is exercised and covers all the provisions,

even in the latest version which became effective on 1st January,

2014. Conversely, the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007, entered into force

on 1st December 2009, despite the fact that it was laboriously

carried out so as to reach a lower target compared to the initial

ambitions, laid down the principles of solidarity of the common

European home in many of its sections, and especially in

Article 80, which are difficult to reconcile with the idea that

inspired the reasoning of Dublin.

This contradiction is becoming more and more evident in

the last international crises and in the extraordinary migratory

pressure pushing on the borders of the Schengen area from

south to Italy and Greece and from south-east through the

Balkans. A completely new scenario, which calls into question

the rules in part overwhelmed by the needs of the people fleeing

lands hit by various crises, and which, in fact, will require some

amendments to those rules, overcoming the stubborn hostility

of some countries, which have been privileged on account of

their geographical position.

During the Italian Presidency, the issue was brought forward

several times to the purpose of building an asylum-providing

Europe based on mutual recognition of international protection

between Member States. Seemingly, according to the news in

recent weeks, this goal is distant, however, it is inescapable,

or the winds of history will be overwhelming.

* Data referring to 2014 are not final yet

libe

rtàci

vili


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

Immigration, five years later:A De Rita-Riccardi Debate

Giuseppe De Rita and Andrea Riccardi together again to

discuss immigration. Same city, Milan, same context, a Ministry

of the Interior initiative, a new date: the first was in September

2009, the latest occasion was in November 2014. What’s

changed in the meantime? We can find the answer by reading

and comparing their contributions of today and of five years

ago. In 2009 the context was the second national immigration

conference (the first had taken place in Florence in

September 2007). In 2014, the context was the fifth ministerial

conference entitled “Migration and Integration: a Global

Approach to Human Mobility. A Well-Managed Migration for

a Better Integration”. An event organized as part of the

Semester of the Italian Presidency of the European Union by

the Ministry of the Interior’s department of civil liberties and

Immigration in cooperation with the Ministry of Labour and

Social Policies, which brought together ministers and ministerial

delegations from the 28 member countries to discuss integration

policies for third country citizens.

In 2009 (see the January-February 2010 issue of libertàcivili),

De Rita had warned against the mistake made in the seventies

and eighties of underestimating the immigration phenomenon

and not implementing adequate policies in order to deal with

it. The idea at the time was that the phenomenon could be

absorbed at a local level: by individual cities, industrial districts

and the single geographical areas where foreign labour concen-

trated for agricultural work. In less than thirty years, immigrants

The occasion was the conference on migrationand integration organised by the Ministry of the Interior in Milan. What’s changed and what hasn’t five years since the first debate at the national immigration conference of 2009?

by Giuseppe Sangiorgi

In 2009 De Rita warnedagainst the mistake of under-estimating theimmigrationphenomenonand not implementingadequate policies in order to deal with it


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

Five years later: A New Debate between Giuseppe De Rita and Andrea Riccardi

in Italy had risen from 500 thousand to 5 million, with individual

areas by then unable to manage such a growth in the volume

of immigration. Six years ago, De Rita stressed that not repeating

the underestimation errors of the past translates into realising

a fact: immigration, however slowed down by economic crisis,

would continue. It would be polycentric, i.e. spread across

the country, and stable, no longer seasonal, and it would

require a progressive and constant development of social services

necessary to sustain the impact of increased demand by the

new arrivals.

How has this stabilization process been managed? Let’s

turn to the De Rita of 2014. Something new compared to the

situation of 2009 is a marked increase in the number of immigrants

reaching Italy after fleeing their countries for political reasons:

wars and forms of religious, racial or social discrimination.

Besides these immigrants, and the relevant procedures for

requesting asylum status, what still often persists for other

immigrants is a logic of “chaotic integration”, i.e. underground

economy, unstable employment, makeshift jobs, forms of petty

crime: “a disorderly logic that derives from the dramatic need

to stay among us.” Under these conditions, how to translate

into something concrete the generic affirmation that we need

an orderly integration of immigrants? The latter is based on a

few foundational pillars: work, housing, schooling, training,

social services.

These, however, are no longer “sectorial” answers specifically

related to immigrants alone. The questions that concern them too

are also simply generic political issues. This is the qualitative

leap we need to achieve culturally, in the country’s collective

imagination and in the organization of the solutions to implement.

As Monsignor Luigi Di Liegro already explained several years

ago: immigrants are not a problem to face according to the

logic of an emergency, they are a reality to reckon with on a

daily basis. A European reality, not just an Italian one, De Rita

stresses: “between 2000 and today in Europe we have had 13

million extra workers, a workforce that has increased in proportion

to the people who have reached us. Without them, many European

enterprises wouldn’t have had enough personnel, many

European families wouldn’t have had any services. In Italy in

particular, the entire sector of care for the elderly, with the

figure of the ‘badante’ (a person, usually female, who looks after

elderly people in poor health), is covered by foreign residents”.

Finally, a reference to the local reality, which according to

De Rita is still crucial, “because the Italian model is a localistic

As MonsignorLuigi Di Liegroexplained several yearsago: immigrants are not a problem to face according to the logic of an emergency,they are a reality to reckon with on a dailybasis

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

one, even in the economic structure. Censis (the independent

institute carrying out research on social conditions in Italy)

began research on immigration in 1977, and since then the

real variable that has always come into play is the way of life

of the local community: the local occupational reality, its culture,

its welfare. This is the target to bring back into play with

respect to the four fundamental objectives of integration: the

social and political, the educational and cultural, employment,

welfare. Therefore, every day the local community reveals itself

as the real centre of responsibility and presence, of fermentation

of the integration process”.

According to Andrea Riccardi, on the other hand, if in 2009

the message the institutions should have given the public was

on of reception, of saying no to the creation of juxtaposed

communities and to the creation of “non-citizen Italians”,

today we should add to this the need to develop the culture of

integration in relation to the religious dimension. For many


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

Cinque anni dopo: Giuseppe De Rita e Andrea Riccardi a confronto

immigrants religion means roots, there is almost a “reinvention”

of the meaning of the word; it is not only faith, it is also culture,

community, anthropology. “The religious community immigrants

belong to – according to Riccardi – in the same way as the

ethnic one, represents the first protective net they use when

they reach a new country. Religion acts as a refuge. The new

world an immigrant lands in is too large, frightfully large, and

the immigrant does not possess the parameters to measure it”.

For this reason, he warns, a radicalisation of religious identity

may sometimes take place, leading to worrying phenomena,

like judging the host society moralistically. In the name of

one’s religion, one may end up despising the new world one

lives in, or at least not appreciating it, even if one uses its

benefits and services, such as employment, housing and

technologies. Such a depreciation of the host country’s culture

can thus become an alibi to justify difficulties in integration: it

can become the starting point of a path that leads to funda-

mentalism and its dangerous drifts.

To contrast this risk, integration, as Umberto Eco explained,

should become a sort of “daily negotiation” in response to a

multiculturalism that does not unite and is passed on from

generation to generation, maintaining distances. This type of

negotiation, however, also implies a daily dialogue between

the various religious cultures that are the backdrop to migration

processes (on this subject see the September-October 2011

issue of libertàcivili on relations between “the three children

of Abraham”: Jews, Christians and Muslims). This is why we

cannot detach the dialogue between religions and the religious

dimension from integration processes.

The proceedings of the November 2014 conference on migra-

tion and integration were presided by the Undersecretary of

the Ministry of the Interior Domenico Manzione, who insisted

on the need to establish an ever-closer link between reception

and integration. “Immigration today”, he said, “has partly shed its

old skin. From an immigration originally motivated by exclusively

economic reasons, we have moved on to one that mainly

involves human beings escaping from war scenarios and from

the violation of the most elementary human rights”. This draws

in the European Union, particularly on the subject of conforming

procedures and requirements for gaining refugee or protection

status.

Lacy Swing, the director general of IOM, the International

Organization for Migration, stressed the drama of the new

scenarios that have opened up: in not too long, the population

According to AndreaRiccardi:Religion actsas a refuge.The new worldan immigrantlands in is too large,frightfullylarge, andthe immigrantdoes not possess the parametersto measure it

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

of Africa will reach the two billion mark, while that of Europe

will continue to decrease. Wars and natural calamities are on

the rise. All this implies the need for humanitarian and political

solutions and the ability to manage the huge existing social,

cultural and religious diversities. This is a challenge that Europe,

which has always been an integrated and never ethnically

“pure” society, must accept. “We live in an era of great transitions

and changes –Swing concluded – and therefore we need great

political courage and a strong leadership in order to handle

this change with effective integration policies”. Swing thanked

Italy “for the huge effort in implementing Mare Nostrum, which

has helped save over 150 thousand human lives”.

Eva Schultz, policy officer of the Directorate-General for

Home Affairs of the European Commission, provided an update

on the position of the European Union (while the conference

was taking place, Dimitris Avramopoulos, former mayor of Athens,

was nominated new Commissioner for Migration). Integration

policies, she admitted, are not consistent at the European

level. This is why in recent years the Commission has identified a

series of common indicators to monitor the results of integration

policies. These cover four areas of importance: employment,

social inclusion, active citizenship and education. If it’s true

that “integration begins the very day the migrant arrives”, the

common European denominator that should be reached is that

of making the integration process functional to the migrants

on the one hand, and the host societies on the other. Voting

rights at local elections is also a phase of this process, in the

same way as access to employment, learning of the language

and entry into the education system.

The path has been indicated clearly enough, now it’s time

to undertake it.

This is a challengethat Europe,which hasalways been an integratedand neverethnically“pure” society,must accept


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

EU strategies for the integration process

The 5th EU Conference held in November 2014gave Ministers from the 28 member States the opportunity to discuss and draft a series of common priorities upon which the EU will be basing its actions in coming years

by Vincenzo Cesareo

To follow is the speech given by Vincenzo Cesareo at the fifthMinisterial Conference on Integration, held in Milan on 5 and 6November 2014. At the end of the Conference, the representativesfrom the 28 States signed an Outcome of Proceedings, reassertingtheir common commitment to tackle integration issues by pursuinga global approach, with special attention dedicated to policies gearedtowards countering discrimination, mainstreaming integrationpolicies, and ensuring the implemented measures are monitored atall times. The whole document is provided further on under the“Documentation” section

Introduction

This, the fifth edition of the Ministerial Conference on Integration,

has proven to be well-timed, for two reasons: first and foremost

owing to the rapid and somewhat dramatic development in

migratory flows towards the European Union throughout 2014,

forcing member States to tackle considerable challenges and

the need to implement the same response at a European level;

and secondly because 2014 also coincided with a number of

major events linked to the institutional and political cooperation

process developed by the EU.

As far as the first point goes, the year drawing to a close

primarily saw an unprecedented increase in migratory pressure

in the Mediterranean. In spite of efforts by the Italian government,

in particular through the Mare Nostrum operation which made it

possible to save the lives of 150 thousand migrants, at least


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


3 thousand people perished in the Mediterranean in 2014. Yet

in all likelihood the figure is actually underestimated, owing to the

problems involved in monitoring the real extent of this phenomenon.

In view of this dramatic situation, establishing a common

response for tackling the challenges posed by the “mixed”

flows witnessed in Mediterranean migration – including an

ever-increasing number of asylum seekers, owing to prolonged

instability in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa – has become

of the utmost importance for the European Union. In this

respect it is necessary to remember that well-organised, efficient

management of these flows also involves implementing integration

measures which take into account the specific needs of those

seeking international protection. These measures must accompany

them throughout the whole process of inclusion in the host society,

right from the initial arrival phase.

On the subject of European immigration policies, on 26-27 June

2014 the European Council issued the “Strategic Guidelines forthe Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”, replacing the previous

Stockholm programme to help guide the EU’s initiatives in the

coming years. With regard to integration policies, the Guidelines

stressed the importance for the EU of “supporting the initiatives

of member States aimed at pursuing active integration policies

which promote social cohesion and economic dynamism”.

Lastly, 2014 sees the tenth anniversary of the Common BasicPrinciples (CBPs) on integration. These were adopted by the

Home Affairs Council on 19 November 2004 following the

Ministerial Conference on Integration staged in Groningen the

same year. The CBPs continue to provide the reference framework

for developing the policies and initiatives of the EU regarding

integration, a fact that was reiterated by the Council of Ministers

of the European Union in its Conclusions dated 5-6 June 2014.

The same Conclusions highlighted the fact that member States

have developed a large number of positive practices in keeping

with the CBPs in fields such as education, anti-discrimination

and participation of migrants in social and working life, and

how at the same time “the potential of these principles has not

been exhausted in full, and how they can be used to assist

member States in further developing their integration policies

and practices”.

In order to ensure all the development opportunities afforded

by the CBPs are seized within the context of increased

European cooperation, it is first and foremost necessary to

pause briefly to analyse the specific aspects of the competence

entrusted to the EU in terms of integration: a competence which

The Guidelinesstressed the importancefor the EU of “supportingthe initiativesof memberStates aimed at pursuingactive integration policies”


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


has evolved through a specific process which lies beyond the

traditional reaches of the EU approach.

1. The EU’s competence in integration

Immigration and asylum were included for the first time in the

sphere of competence of what was then the European

Community with the Amsterdam Treaty, which came into force

on 1 May 1999, as part of the wider objective of creating an

area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Yet the Amsterdam

Treaty only included sporadic and indirect references to inte-

gration policies. Article 13, in particular, awarded the Council

of Ministers of the European Union the power to take “appropriate

action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic

origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”. In

addition, Article 73k asked the Council to adopt measures

concerning immigration policies. Amongst others, these included

aspects such as “conditions of entry and residence, and

standards on procedures for the issue by member States of long

term visas and entry permits, including those issued for family

reunion”. A clear link between the action of the EU and integration

policies was established in the subsequent meeting of the

European Council in Tampere in October 1999; nonetheless, it

only addressed countering discrimination of third country

nationals. In particular, the Conclusions of Tampere stipulated

that “the European Union must ensure fair treatment of third

country nationals who reside legally on the territory of its member

States. A more vigorous integration policy should aim at

granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of EU

citizens”.

This situation of legislative uncertainty, increased by the fact

that the EU had, in the meantime, developed a number of

practices and instruments which could actually be linked to

an open coordination Method (and which will be described in

brief in the next section) was, in part, overruled by the Lisbon

Treaty which came into force in 2009. For the first time, it

included an explicitly legal foundation for promoting EU-level

integration. In particular, Article 79.4 of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union states that “The European

Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the

ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures to

provide incentives and support for the action of Member States

with a view to promoting the integration of third-country nationals

residing legally in their territories, excluding any harmonisation

of the laws and regulations of the Member States”.

Immigrationand asylumwere includedfor the first timein the sphereof competenceof what wasthen theEuropeanCommunitywith theAmsterdamTreaty, which cameinto forceon 1 May 1999


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


In spite of the contribution provided by the Lisbon Treaty

in clarifying the EU’s field of action where integration is concerned,

it seems apparent that the Union’s competences are still limited,

if we compare them with those awarded in other areas of immi-

gration policies, where it can harmonise laws of the member

States. The Lisbon Treaty therefore confirmed the role played

by the member States as key figures in integration, and the only

ones authorised to adopt legally binding instruments.

By virtue of its limited competences, the EU’s field of action

regarding integration has taken the form of a cooperation

framework based on soft law. This consists of a number of

instruments geared towards promoting coordination and infor-

mation exchange between member States, other institutional

elements of the Union (Commission, European Parliament) and

the other players involved in integration policy, such as NGOs,

migrant organisations and so forth. One of the main results

delivered by this European “exchange of ideas” has been the

agreement on Common Basic Principles (CBPs) on integration

approved by the Home Affairs Council in November 2004. The

CBPs constitute the relevant framework and are referred to on

a continual basis for setting out the actions and policies of the

European Union and the Member States where migrant integration

is concerned. They include a regulatory dimension which stipulates

that integration is a “dynamic and bilateral process of reciprocal

adaptation” between immigrants and the receiving society, as

well as illustrating the areas and measures which State policies

should focus on most in order to achieve the Integration objective.

Ever since they were first introduced in 2004, the CBPs have

been at the heart of the European integration debate, and have

provided an important contribution to strategic orientation,

and to ensuring the initiatives developed by member States are

coherent.

In addition, over the course of the last decade, an approach

has been developed to make the concepts and enunciations

contained in the CBPs operative, and accordingly translate

them into tangible political initiatives. The European Commission,

in particular, with its Common Agenda for Integration of 2005,

has underscored the importance of rendering the CBPs

“operational”. Accordingly it has proposed a series of initiatives

later put into practice, including the creation of a European

Integration Forum which provides a channel for dialogue bet-

ween European institutions and NGOs (which is again referred

to further on), the Integration Handbooks, and the network of

National Contact Points on Integration. By the same token, the

The LisbonTreaty therefore confirmed the role playedby the memberStates as keyfigures in integration,and the onlyones authorised to adopt legallybinding instruments


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Common Agenda for Integration of 2011 put forward a number

of initiatives geared towards promoting the social and economic

integration of migrants, reiterating the need for greater invol-

vement of local organisations in the integration process, and

the importance of strengthening ties with the countries of origin.

Whilst the European Refugee Fund (2007-2013) adopted different

national approaches to using the financial resources placed

at its disposal, it also provided vital funding made available

by member States to implement integration initiatives inspired

by the CBPs.

In this process of developing a common European framework,

the ministerial Conferences on integration provided a channel

for discussing and identifying common priorities, and defining

the integration agenda of the member States. Accordingly,

whilst the first conference at Groningen had the merit of actually

drawing up the CBPs, the following Conferences at Potsdam

(2007), Vichy (2008) and Zaragoza (2010) tackled other crucial

aspects of the integration process, such as intercultural dialogue,

integrating migrants in the working world, the role of local players

in the integration process, and the need to create an efficient

framework for assessing integration policies based on analysing

common indicators. In spite of the progress made, it seems

clear that subsequent efforts are now needed to step up

coherence and the impact of European integration polities. In

particular, two aspects of particular relevance, which proved

pivotal in debates at the Ministerial Conference on Integration

organised by the Italian presidency, are described to follow:

the importance of adopting a holistic approach to integration

policies, and that of creating common strategic orientation

based upon which future integration policies of member

States can be developed.

2. A holistic approach to integration policies

The need to adopt a holistic approach towards tackling the

challenges posed by integration has been reiterated on a

European level on a number of occasions. The Conclusions of

the Home Affairs Council on Integration held in June 2014

stressed this point, recognising the “importance of a holistic

approach to integration and inclusion (mainstreaming) of policies

and practices linked to integration in all political sectors, and at

all levels of government”. The importance of the points ratified by

the Council is self-evident: separating integration policies from

the wider framework of migratory policies would appear to be

counterproductive, owing to the mutual interconnections and

The ministerialConferenceson integrationprovided a channelfor discussingand identifyingcommon priorities, and definingthe integrationagenda of the memberStates


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


the large number of synergies which can be established between

these two areas.

In spite of the declarations of principle described above,

the artificial separation of immigration and integration policies

continues to represent an unresolved issue in a number of

fields. One particularly important case in this regard is that of

migrant detention policies. Here it is necessary to bear in

mind that the rules governing migrant detention are regulated

by two legislative instruments adopted by the EU: the so-called

“Return Directive”, which sets out the conditions and methods

used in detaining illegal immigrants, and the “Directive on

Reception Conditions” concerning asylum seekers. Broadly

speaking, the above directives oblige member States to adopt

strict limitations in using detention instruments. They stipulate

that said instruments should only be used as a last resort (in

the absence of any less coercive measures) and for the shortest

period of time possible. Nonetheless, a number of contributions

made by academics and NGOs have highlighted that detention is

still widely-used and effectively “institutionalised” in systems

for managing immigration in a large number of member States.

This obviously spotlights the need to ascertain and, of course,

bridge the presumed gap in the implementation of the above

European regulations.

The importance of the legal question regarding the imple-

mentation of European asylum legislation by member States

was, amongst other points, reiterated in the strategic Guidelines

approved in June 2014. Yet the other pivotal point requiring

reflection regards the impact these measures have on the

process of integrating migrants, who in many cases and for a

variety of reasons, later find themselves living in the same host

country in which they experienced detention.

The question illustrated above was tackled in a recent study 1

conducted as part of the KING research project, coordinated

by the ISMU foundation. It conducted a comprehensive analysis

of studies on the subject, placing the emphasis on the high

costs in economic and social terms that detention policies have

for the hosting society. In particular, in addition to the costs for

maintaining appropriate detention facilities and ensuring they

are run in keeping with the standards set by European legislation,

the costs linked to the impact detention measures have on the

1 Anne Bathily, ‘Immigration detention and its impact on integration – A Europeanapproach’. KING Project – EU Policy Unit Desk Research Paper no. 2 July 2014

The artificialseparation of immigrationand integrationpoliciescontinues to represent an unresolvedissue in a number of fields


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


psychological and physical health of migrants can prove equally

costly for the hosting society. This is because deterioration in

health forces those involved to make greater use of the medical

system, making it difficult for them to be integrated into the

employment market (and accordingly to make a contribution

to the hosting society’s economy that is appropriate for their

abilities). This also risks frustrating the effects of any measures

subsequently implemented to promote integration at a later

stage. Based on the points illustrated above, it is possible to

conclude that the effects of detention practices should be

considered in the long term, paying attention to the impact

these measures have on the process of integrating migrants

when these policies are being drafted.

The need to adopt a holistic approach is even clearer with

regard to asylum policies. In this respect, as already noted,

the increased number of migrants arriving throughout the EU

from countries torn apart by civil war or oppressive regimes

makes it necessary first and foremost to step up efforts to

create an efficient asylum system that can offer effective

protection to those requesting it in Europe. In addition, the

Union also needs to guarantee the actual integration of the

beneficiaries of international protection it hosts in its territory.

To do so, two processes should be pursued, and they have

already been mapped out in part by recent initiatives under-

taken by the EU.

The first involves adopting integration measures that take into

account the specific needs and requirements of the benefi-

ciaries of international protection. The Regulations of the new

and recently approved Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

covering the 2014-2020 period prove that the need for greater

cooperation between integration and asylum policies has been

acknowledged, particularly where it is stated that “the integration

measures should also extend to the beneficiaries of international

protection, in order to guarantee a global approach to integration

which takes the specific nature of the groups involved into

account”.

The second concerns the priority, now acknowledged at a

European level, of implementing the main legislative instruments

of the Common European Asylum System in full, the reform of

which was completed in 2013. The regulations contained in

the instruments in question can in fact have a significant

impact on the integration prospects of refugees and subsidiary

protection beneficiaries. The duration of the asylum procedures,

the reception conditions (including the detention measures

It is possible to concludethat the negativeeffects of detentionpracticesshould beconsidered in the longterm


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


described above) and the rights recognised to the beneficiaries

of international protection are all elements contained in these

instruments which can have a sizeable influence on the integration

prospects of the international protection beneficiaries, on both

an individual and local level.

3. The KING project

Three strategies for integration policies

The adoption of a holistic approach also forms the basis of

the set of theories and methods of the KING research project(Knowledge for INtegration Governance) 2. The aim of the

project was to draft an in-depth, up-to-date analysis of the main

aspects of the integration process affected by the Common

Basic Principles– namely the legal/political, socio-economic

and cultural/religious dimensions – whilst also taking into

account the reciprocal influences between these aspects. This

approach was adopted during the process of setting up the

project, as a preliminary condition to ensure that coherent

integration policies would be drafted. These policies also need

to coordinate measures in the many fields involved in the

integration process, such as access to employment, to education,

to the health system and the protection and valorisation of political

participation and cultural and religious diversity.

Starting from this premise, the experts taking part in the

KING project drafted a series of operative recommendations

aimed at the political decision-makers, to guarantee that each

Common Basic Principle would be implemented to best effect.

At the end of the empirical and theoretical phase, the King

team also indicated three key strategies around which the future

integration policies of European countries should be constructed.3

These strategies, which will be summed up in the following

section, are:

i) adoption of the concept of non-discrimination as the main

principle involved in developing the regulatory framework and that

of political action in the States involved regarding immigration;

ii) the mainstreaming of the integration policies at all levels of

government, and in all the relevant areas of intervention;

iii) the creation of a far-reaching system to monitor the integration

process and the policies associated with it.

2 See the project’s website on this link: http://king.ismu.org

3 D. Carrillo, M. D’Odorico, G. Gilardoni, ‘KING. Knowledge for Integration Governance.Executive Summary’, November 2014

The adoption of a holisticapproach also forms the basis of the set of theories and methods of the KINGresearch project(Knowledge for INtegrationGovernance)


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


By examining the strategy of non-discrimination in greater

detail, we find it consists of countering the many forms which

discriminatory actions can take, whether explicit or implicit,

regardless of whether they manifest themselves at a collective

or individual level. CBP no. 2, which states that integration

involves respecting the basic values of the EU, makes an indirect

reference to the principle of non-discrimination, as it is set forth

in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (art. 21). In this

respect it is necessary to stress the importance of countering

all methods which result in discriminatory practices occurring,

whether they are the result of formally restricting the access

foreigners have to rights which are, so to speak, written into the

legislative and institutional system of a given society, or whether

they arise from more complex social and economy dynamics,

such as social marginalisation which continues to limit access

of a considerable section of the foreign population to schooling

or employment. In both cases, increased cooperation between

member States at a European level can prove vital; first and

foremost for ensuring that the legislation of the States fully

respects the principle of non-discrimination set forth in the EU

Charter of Fundamental Rights; and secondly to ensure there is

an exchange of the experiences and best practices implemented

by the States to guarantee immigrants have access (in both

theoretical and practical terms) to rights.

The need to ensure the concept of non-discrimination is pivotal

in policy is directly linked to the concept of mainstreaming, the

second integration strategy proposed by the KING project. As

established by CBP no.10, the adoption of mainstreaming as a

strategy requires integration policies to be included in all relevant

political portfolios, levels of government and public services.

Mainstreaming accordingly consists of a horizontal dimension

which establishes a synergy between key political figures

involved in policies linked to integration (such as health,

employment, housing and economic development), and a vertical

dimension which requires greater cooperation between different

levels of government, in particular at local, national and super-

national level.

In this respect, the cooperation framework developed within

the European Union can play a fundamental role in both the

above dimensions. As regards the vertical dimension, it can act

as a stimulus on a national and local level by proposing common

courses of action and strategies, even if the European Union does

not have a formal competence for integration. This can be achieved

thanks to the support provided by funding made available by the

Cooperationbetweenmember Statesat a Europeanlevel can provevital for ensuringthat the legislation of the Statesfully respectsthe principle of non-discrimination


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


EU to develop integration initiatives. Secondly, on a horizontal

level, the various European institutions can act together to

develop policies regarding areas such as asylum or access

to employment by third country citizens: as stated beforehand,

these aspects can have a considerable impact on integration

policies. In particular, the organisational changes introduced

by the new European Commission which recently took office –

including the strategic partnership between the Directorate

General for Migration and Home Affairs and the Directorate

General for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility

– are a sign that authorities are more aware of the need to tackle

the challenges posed by migratory phenomena synergically; if

they are sufficiently well structured, they can have undeniably

positive knock-on effects on the integration of immigrants as well.

Lastly, the final strategy put forward by the KING project

involves creating an efficient system to monitor integration

processes and policies. This system should provide an essential


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


form of support for policy-makers involved in this field, at all

levels of government. In this respect, the previous ministerial

Conferences, in particular the one held in 2010 in Zaragoza,

provided important contributions towards drafting common

integration indicators. It is therefore necessary to continue

along this path, increasing the quality and uniformity of the

data available to the relevant authorities. The instruments made

available by the European cooperation system, such as the

National Contact Points on Integration and European Integration

Modules can increase information and best practice exchanges

between member States regarding assessment and monitoring

of policies, and as such they merit further analysis and deve-

lopment. The European Migration Forum is also starting work in

2015, undoubtedly a step forward in increasing cooperation

between national stakeholders who deal with migratory issues.

Starting from the experience of the previous European Integration

Forum, this new Forum aims to increase coordination and coope-

ration between civil society organizations working in other fields

within member States (such as immigration and asylum), raising

awareness of the European authorities regarding the challenges

which the organisations of civil society encounter in fulfilling

their work, and helping to orientate the EU decision-making

process.

Conclusions

The points analysed here allow us to highlight the specific

nature of the competences assigned to the EU with regard to

integration policies. In particular, it has been noted that member

States are fiercely protective of their prerogatives in this area of

politics, which touches on a number of key aspects of their

national identify and their respective welfare models, a fact which

has prevented any form of national legislation on a European

level. As a result, the EU’s cooperation in this field has followed

a peculiar pathway which has taken tangible form in a soft law

system. This is made up of a number of instruments and dialogue

channels which aim to promote the exchange of information,

best practices and the adoption of strategic orientations across

a European level.

It has also been stressed that optimal use of the instruments

made available by the European system, and increased cooperation

between government authorities and civil society organisations,

should be implemented in order to achieve considerable progress

in the scope and quality of initiatives implemented to tackle the

challenges posed by integration. In particular, drawing on the

The EU’s cooperation in integrationpolicies has followeda peculiarpathway whichhas taken tangible form in a soft lawsystem


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


results of the KING project described above, the need to

contextualise integration policies using a strategic approach

has been stressed: notwithstanding the relevant prerogatives of

member States and the legitimacy of the various approaches

they put into practice, it is necessary to adopt policies guided

by common goals and operative guidelines that can steer the

efforts of the member States in a coherent manner.

At the same time, it has been noted that the European Union

finds itself legislating on integration policies, such as access

conditions and the rights of specific categories of third country

citizens and measures for receiving asylum seekers. Measures

in this field should always be developed taking into account the

effects these measures can have on the process of integrating

those involved, including in the long term.

The work undertaken by the EU and member States regarding

integration should, as far as possible, be based on strict

monitoring and assessment of the measures implemented. This

work represents the best response to simplistic, misleading

visions of the migratory phenomenon, which tend to conceal

the real dynamics behind migrant flows, or to link them with

aspects that have a negative effect on the receiving societies

such as crime, terrorism and increases in public expenditure.

On the contrary, demographic trends for the next few decades

would tend to suggest that migrant flows into the countries of the

European Union will help counteract the gradual ageing of the

population, and increase the active segment of the population.

It is, however, a mistake to state that the only contribution

made by migrant flows is the solution they provide for the EU’s

demographic deficit.

In addition to this, a number of sources of empirical evidence

for the employment situation in member States indicate that, it if

wishes to continue being competitive on an international level,

the European economy will not only need to be able to attract

foreign workers at every level of skill, but that it will also have

to valorise the human resources offered by the foreign population

already living in Europe to the full. These vital objectives can

only be achieved, however, if we manage to create open, inclusive

societies which fully harness the contribution diversity can

make to the wellbeing and development, not just economic, of

the EU.

It is a mistaketo state that the onlycontributionmade bymigrant flowsis the solutionthey providefor the EU’sdemographicdeficit


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

Knowing for governing

The international seminar organised during theItalian Semester revolved around the conditionsneeded for an effective integration process,focusing specifically on key figures involved in governance of the phenomenon

by Stefania Nasso

Migrant integration is a process which involves and alters

social culture. It affects many individuals, and is influenced by

many factors; by the same token, it can either succeed or fail.

What conditions determine a successful outcome?

Examining these key topics, with particular emphasis on

the key figures working at different levels of

governance, was the objective of the inter-

national seminar held in Rome on 17 and 18

December 2014. Promoted and organised

by the Department for Civil Liberties and

Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior, it

saw the invaluable collaboration of the CNR,

Italy’s National Research Council.

The role played by the European Union in

setting out the legal framework and agenda of integration policies

was underscored by many of those present. Yet the conference

was first and foremost an opportunity to examine this process

from the inside, to share the competences developed in a number

of European States, and to highlight an element which became

the common thread throughout the works: the need to adopt an

empirical approach at a number of levels, not just in the field of

research, but also in defining the policies and managing

European funds allocated for integrating non-EU foreign citizens.

Integration is a question of time. A fact that Friedrich Heckmann,

of Bamberg University, highlighted when explaining that often

the perception of poor integration results from a flow of new

The conference was an opportunity to examine the roleplayed by the EU in setting outthe legal framework and agendaof integration policies

The international seminar on integration, 17-18 December 2014

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


migrants who, like those before them, experience language,

housing, employment and schooling related problems at the

outset. Yet they are not the same individuals; a superficial

onlooker might have the impression that the integration process

has not worked, whilst in actual fact an increasing number of

people from a migrant background manages to achieve an

economic position and level of participation which are no longer

determined or affected by their origins.

Access to services, anti-discrimination policies and specific

policies for supporting adaptation undoubtedly contribute

towards successful integration, yet they have an indirect effect.

Motivation, the ability to learn and competences are what have

a direct bearing; it involves individuals taking tangible action,

using the facilities and organisation of the country where they

have settled to improve and grow, to play an active role in

schooling and the employment market, to safeguard their own

health. All this translates into a self-empowering mechanism, as

well as encouraging other migrants to do the same.

Accordingly on a macro level, successful integration is

achieved when many individual processes are combined together.

These processes are not, however, unaffected by the availability

of resources to finance dedicated policies, or the number of

immigrants to be integrated, and the ability

of the host society to adapt to the changes

and challenges posed by the new intercultural,

inter-religious and inter-ethnic relationships

that arise: “...these processes end up changing

the social structures. The prevailing society

incorporates new people with different back-

grounds, which merge with the existing

structures to create a new collective body. I

suggest calling it a process for building a new nation, which

takes tangible form in a context of globalisation and interaction

with Europe. This means rebuilding and renewing the modern

idea of a nation. In the past it was ‘us and them’. Now, with the

success of integration, the others have become part of the new us”.

Walter Kindermann and Ingrid Wilkens took us straight into

the heart of Europe, to one of the German regions with the

highest rates of foreign citizens (one in four) and a GDP higher

than the German overall average: Hessen. The foreign population

was, and to a certain extent still is, characterised by a low

standard of professional qualification, poor education levels,

and modest schooling results. The effect on the labour market

Access to services, anti-discrimination policies andpolicies for supporting adapta-tion have only an indirect effecttowards successful integration


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


proved significant, with an unemployment rate amongst migrants

double that of local workers.

At the start of the new millennium, given the need to change

this situation, the region embarked on a policy based on the

transversal nature of the concept of integration.

To underscore its importance, in 2009 the

Deputy Prime Minister took up the post of

Minister for Integration. The set of measures

adopted by the government of Hessen is based

on building networks, on incentives to local

authorities and on information. The approach

adopted was described as integration main-

streaming, a measure that involved government,

municipalities, the private sector, non-profit and voluntary

organisations, in a combined effort not just to reach the foreign

citizens with specific programmes and social policies, but also to

increase awareness of the importance of integration amongst

the rest of the population.

Marie-José Bernardot, of the French Ministry of the Interior,

brought several examples of the involvement of local organi-

sations (city and departments) in offering specific services to

migrants, even though they are not specifically obliged to do

so, given that integration policies are managed at a national

level by Ministerial departments and, at a regional level, by the

State’s public administrations. Many cities finance instruments

such as consultation bodies that represent foreign citizens,

language and service orientation courses, and projects for

promoting a historical memory of immigration, and have taken

measures to help vulnerable categories of migrants, such as the

elderly and women.

Professor Salvatore Strozza, from the Federico II University

of Naples, provided an overview of the relations, dimensions

and characteristics of the foreign presence in Italy, providing

a number of considerations on the stabilisation process of

immigrants and their children. It proved to be an interesting

journey amidst statistics and results of surveys, and one geared

towards gauging the various dimensions of integration: home

and work are the cornerstones of the economic integration of

immigrants, cultural integration is greatest in the large cities,

economic integration is greatest in smaller centres, social and

professional training and education are vital for complete

inclusion and improved social cohesion.

In France, city and departments offers specific services to migrants,even though they are not specifically obliged to do so


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Whilst the importance of the material and structural aspects

is beyond question, social and cultural integration is affected

by greater or lesser individual propensity, whilst the meaning

the word “integration” acquires varies from feeling accepted

and being able to satisfy one’s needs (“limited” integration) to

the ideal of achieving an integrated society, not the integration

of immigrants into society.

Antonio Golini, emeritus professor of Demography, underscored

the important role which statistics plays in assessing the direction

taken, and the best practices referred to in the course of the work.

To define integration he used the concept launched by Professor

Giovanna Zincone, of “peaceful co-existence and cohabitation

between the communities”, which he feels has now been inter-

nalised by hosting communities and immigrant communities

alike. He went on to underline the importance of integration in

institutions, and of integration in administration sources, which

is vital for understanding and analysing the phenomenon from

a multidimensional perspective.

Martin Schieffer, of the European Commission, confirmed the

importance of statistics, from the EU’s standpoint, in mapping

policies and rationalising debate on such a

highly charged topic. There is no European

integration model, and the treaties do not

stipulate that the EU can legislate to harmonise

policies on a local level. Overall, however, a

great deal has been achieved in spite of the fact

that, as emerged in the course of the conference,

there is still a great deal to be done.

Without a doubt, the new Asylum, Migration

and Integration Fund is an instrument which improves how the

various aspects of migration, asylum, normal migration, repatriation

of foreign citizens and integration are managed. Simplification

and potential for planning which covers a number of years are

just some of the advantages reaped by merging the previous

Funds. At least 20% of the allocated resources will have to be

spent on measures that support legal migration and promote

proper integration of immigrants; in particular, it is now possible

to fund measures prior to departure, and include close family

members in steps dedicated to integration, thereby removing

an obstacle often encountered in the past.

The Prefect Angelo Malandrino, Deputy Director of the

At least 20% of the allocatedresources will have to be spenton measures that support legalmigration and promote properintegration of immigrants


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration (the report of

which is provided in full under the “Documentation” section of this

issue), highlighted the importance of the local dimension in

managing integration processes, in which the Regional and local

authorities play a pivotal part. Italy has adopted the various

levels of intervention at a systematic level: one example is the

model adopted for managing the Integration Fund for third

country citizens. Work on programming, identifying needs and

the measures to be taken have focused on coordination between

the authorities involved, and on consultation with Third Sector

associations and migrant associations, thereby creating a

networked management and planning system. The new Fund will

make it possible to incorporate resources destined for social

inclusion into the system for receiving international protection

beneficiaries, because “proper reception is a precursor to proper

integration”.

The Italian side also underscored the importance of examining

the impact of the measures adopted until now by the various

member States, of measuring their effects and understanding

how measures that have proven successful can be applied to

other national contexts, using future planning with a systematic

approach. The first commitment of the Italian Authority will in fact

be to establish links with Authorities in other countries, to explore

the possibility of defining integrated measures, and establish

an approach to governance which supports development of a

common European policy.

libe

rtàci

vili


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

The Long Road towards a Europe for Asylum-Seekers

The conference organised in November 2014 by the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration as part of the Italian Semesterwas an opportunity to review the system of asylum flows management and tools

A “Europe for asylum-seekers”, a Union that will translate

into policies a response to the “rising phenomenon of humani-

tarian immigration”. Something that in recent years has taken

on epochal dimensions due to the crises

suffered by several African and Middle-

Eastern countries. Economic crises, due to

poverty, health crisis, due to diseases like

Ebola and Aids, social crises, due to war,

dictatorships, up to the new terrorism of

Isis. This was the sense of the international

conference on “Managing Asylum Flows:

Strengthening the tools, Strengthening the

system”, which was one of the central

moments of the Ministry of the Interior’s ini-

tiatives during the semester of the Italian Presidency of the

EU. The conference, held in Rome on 18 and 19 November

2014, presided by the State Secretary for the Interior Domenico

Manzione, was organised by the Department for Civil Liberties

in cooperation with the European Asylum Support Office

(EASO), the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI)

and Università Roma 2 - Tor Vergata.

The conference was an opportunity for Interior Minister

Angelino Alfano – whose contribution you can read in full in the

“Documentation” section of this issue – to relaunch the Italian

position on the issue of asylum. A “technical” relaunching, in

the sense of how to improve, implement and organisationally

develop the measures contained in the Dublin Agreements.

The conference was anopportunity for Interior MinisterAngelino Alfano to relaunchthe Italian position on the issueof asylum, to develop the measures contained in the Dublin Agreements


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

The Conference on Asylum-Seekers of 18-19 November 2014

And, above all, a political relaunch, with regard to a vision of the

migration phenomenon as a whole and its impact on the complex

of European countries and institutions. “This is an authentic

challenge, Minister Alfano said, not only for the individual

national communities, but also for supranational organisations

and for the European Union as a whole”.

The centrality of asylum is given by the fact that “owing to

today’s geopolitical scenarios and to the high levels of unrest

in the Mediterranean and in North Africa,

the current migratory streams are due mainly

to humanitarian factors. Those who reach

our territories do so out of the necessity to

escape from war, violence, persecution and

situations where the most elementary human

rights are not recognised”. Therefore, Mr. Alfano

stressed, this is not only an Italian issue, but

a European one, and as such implies, also

on the basis of the Geneva Convention,

forms of solidarity, policies and answers that

go beyond borders and the competencies and responsibilities

of single countries. This implies the creation of “a common

legal framework” to manage migratory streams, one based on

a series of structural elements: cooperation with third countries,

the reinforcement of Frontex, an asylum system based on

cooperation and solidarity common to the 28 member states

of the Union.

Mario Morcone, head of the Department for Civil Liberties,

was on the same wavelength. He stressed the objective of

reviewing the Dublin agreement with a reinterpretation that

enhances its potential structure based on solidarity and

sustainable assistance between the states of the Union, in

other words, the principle of burden sharing to deal with the

pressure of migratory flows.

The same concept was expressed by EASO executive

director Robert Visser – “Europe means solidarity and trust

and therefore we must invest on each other” – and Mayor of

Catania, representing ANCI, Enzo Bianco, according to whom

burden sharing between EU countries should follow the form

defined in Italy at the home level on 10 July 2014 at the National

State-Regions-Councils Conference with reference to the

country’s local institutions (see the article by Oscar Gaspari in

this issue of libertàcivili).

Contributions by the President of the National Commission for

the Right to Asylum, Angelo Trovato, and Enzo Rossi, professor

Mario Morcone, head of theDepartment for Civil Liberties,stressed the objective of reviewing the Dublin agreement relying on solidarity between the states of the Union

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

of Economics and Director of the Centre for Economic and

Legal Research (CREG) of Rome’s Tor Vergata University,

entered the details of the political and practical problems in the

application of the Dublin Agreement and the establishment

of a common asylum system. They both reached the conclusion

that the gap to fill between the principles often expressed and

the reality is still wide.

Mr. Trovato pointed out a series of problems weighing down

on the current system, which include in particular the difference

in asylum procedures between states, the resistances to the

adoption of a common procedural model; the absence of a

common system for gathering asylum-seekers’ so-called “COI”

(Country of origin information), which allows more adequate

examinations of international protection applications and a

more credible assessment of the applicant; the consequent

dissimilarity of treatment that citizens of the same nationality

often receive according to the country that examines their

asylum application. Mr. Trovato also suggested that an initial path

to take to reach a greater harmonisation could be that of

transferring to national legislations, via internal directives, the


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l


principles developed by the European jurisprudence in its

decisions of recent years.

Enzo Rossi analysed in detail the motivations of the apparent

“paradox” according to which on the one hand it is extremely

convenient for EU member states to manage the huge problem

of asylum in common, but on the other they tend to keep a

certain degree of autonomy with respect to European policies

on refugee access, allowing them to manoeuvre also with regard

to their internal public opinion. According to Prof. Rossi,

within this scenario, made worse by the natural rivalry between

states triggered off in situations of high migratory pressure,

the Dublin System, which has indeed guaranteed solutions for

several problems and has contributed to appeasing public

opinion in the countries that are most attractive for asylum

seekers, is no longer capable of fulfilling its role.

Hence the focus on the issue of relocation. Prof. Rossi’s

proposal is to create a European refugee and asylum-seeker

relocation system to be managed by a

European agency in cooperation with the

relevant authorities of the individual member

states. The system would make use of a

computerised system, “CDI - Country of

Destination Information”, that would as far

as possible match refuge requests and the

availability of the single member states. Not,

therefore, a centralised system, but one

shared with the individual states, so that it may

be harmonised with their respective political

agendas.

Prefect Rosetta Scotto Lavina supplied the analytic repre-

sentation of the problems on the map with regard to managing

immigration streams in her contribution entitled “The Italian

reception system and a new European reception system in the

scope of common responsibility”. The data to start from regards

the different ways immigrants are perceived according to the

motivation for their arrival: the economic motivation, considered

useful for the country’s economy, and the humanitarian, considered

an obligation on the basis of constitutional and international

norms. This ambivalence should actually be overcome at a time

when the UN is saying that the number of migrants in the world is

growing constantly: 154 million in 1990, 175 million in 2000,

over 230 million in 2013, while the prediction for 2040 is 400

million. Hence a long-term perspective and reality.

After summarising the results of operation Mare Nostrum,

Prof. Enzo Rossi’s proposalis to create a European refugeeand asylum-seeker relocationsystem to be managed by a European agency in cooperation with the relevantauthorities of the member states

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

then replaced with Triton (on the subject see the interview

with Admiral Giuseppe De Giorgi in this issue of libertàcivili),

Prefect Scotto Lavina went on to illustrate the outlines of our

immigrant reception system with the objectives developed

since 2012-2013, “aimed at setting up a stable system, under

an ordinary regime, hence with no type of derogation from

ordinary regulations, for taking care of refugees coming into our

country. The action plan carried out was to involve all subjects

competent in the field of immigration in a sharing process,

building upon the positive experience put into practice during

the North Africa emergency with the National Coordination

Roundtable set up by the Ministry of the Interior, which put

together, following a logic of subsidiarity, Regions, Provinces

and Municipalities and international organisations, historical

partners of the Ministry, such as UNHCR, OIM, Red Cross and

Save the Children”.

With the 10 July 2014 agreement, the Coordination

Roundtable led to the “National operative

plan to handle the extraordinary stream of

non-EU citizens: adults, families and unac-

companied minors”. This is a cooperative

system that is repeated at the regional level

with the activities of regional coordination

Roundtables to apply the necessary measures

at the local level. Two are the crucial points,

Prefect Scotto Lavina explained: a speedier

examination of international protection appli-

cations and a strengthening of assistance

for unaccompanied foreign minors, a constantly growing

phenomenon. (Editor’s note: out of approximately 25mila foreign

minors who landed in Italy in 2014, over 18 thousand were

unaccompanied. Source: Migrantes).

“But all this, Prefect Scotto Lavina stressed, is insufficient

if the measures enacted by Italy are not accompanied by

international actions carried out by Europe, and if agreements

are not established with migrants’ countries of origin and of

transit, like Syria and Libya”. Much is expected of the new

European Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs,

Dimitris Avramopoulos, who in the October 2014 plenary session

of the EU Parliament indicated as priorities the reinforcing of

Frontex, the revision of the Dublin Regulation in the direction

of accentuating the solidarity of the states of the Union, the

full application of asylum policies and a set of common rules

to control legal immigration. All this means moving from a

Prefect Scotto Lavina explained two crucial points: a speedier examination of international protection applications and a strengtheningof assistance for unaccompanied foreign minors


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l


statement of principles, reasserted by the European Council

of 27 June 2014, to their application, in conformity with article

80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(TFUE), based on the principle of solidarity, and in conformity

with article 67, par. 2 of the Treaty on Asylum, Immigration and

External Border Controls.

“Whether we like it or not, Prefect Scotto Lavina concluded,

the European Commission itself indicates the presence in

Europe today of over 20 million immigrants from third countries

on a total of 500 million EU residents. Immigrants therefore

represent 4 per cent of the total EU population and 9.4 per cent

of the 214 million legal migrants known in the world. This is

the current data and the future will be more and more marked by

an increase in the pressure of migratory flows. One word

summarises the need to integrate these flows into the social,

economic and political fabric of the Union. That word is

“integration”.

(g.s.)

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

European Migration Network, an organization providing helpto Europe

The many and multifaceted activities of theNational Contact Point of the European Networkfor Migration, playing an important role for providing information on the issues of migration and asylum

by Alberto BordiVice Prefect Central Directorate for Immigration and Asylum Policy and SteeringBoard Member at the European Commission for EMN

The conference held on 17th and 18th December 2014 regarding

the interventions for inclusion, on occasion of the semester of

the Italian Presidency of the EU Council, not only was joined

by researchers and experts in the debated subjects, but was

also enriched by the interventions of some

professionals who handle daily, in their

respective capacities and in the involved

territories, both the impacts of the dynamics

of migration and the relevant procedures.

Therefore, they gave a significant added value

to the discussions at the meeting, which had

been arranged at the premises of the National

Research Council (CNR) in Rome. Surely,

even the specific choices of this venue and of the CNR as a

partner for the management of the Scientific Committee of the

event were not accidental, but they had been motivated by

the role that such prestigious institution of research had played

since 1st April 2014, as Italy’s National Contact Point within

the European Migration Network.

The European Migration Network (EMN) has gained more

and more praise over the time, in virtue of its accomplishment

of an important and valuable mission beneficial to the European

Commission and its Member States, for it provides them with

updated, objective, reliable and comparable information on

migration and asylum issues. It is a network operating throughout

Europe which was established by the European Commission

on behalf of the European Council in 2003, and confirmed as

The European Migration Network (EMN) has gained moreand more praise over the time: it provides updated informationon migration issues

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili



libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

EMN, an organization providing help to Europe

legal entity by 2008/381/ EC Decision by the EU Council.

The objectives of the EMN also include the involvement of the

general public by the circulation of its performed researches.

The network is comprised of the European Commission, a Steering

Committee (Steering Board), two service providers and, at

local level, the National Contact Points in each EU Member State

and in Norway. From 2004 to 31 March 2013, the National

Contact Point for Italy, was managed by IDOS Centro Studi e

Ricerche; on 1st April 2014 the assignment was taken on by

the CNR – Department of Humanities and Social Sciences –

Cultural heritage, based on the results of a public tender launched

and managed by the Department for Civil Liberties and

Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior, which plays the role

of coordinator of the Contact Point.

The primary assignment of the Contact Point and of the Central

Directorate for Immigration and Asylum Policies I Service is to

provide information and data in response to the many Ad Hoc

Queries submitted by the European

Commission and other Member States on

specific legal, procedural or operational

issues relative to immigration and asylum.

These are specific queries, expressed in

English only like any communication related

to the EMN; the answers to them are provided

within short time, and the collection of data

which is possible thanks to them is particularly

valuable, since their sources are reliable, their content updated,

and the information provided are immediately comparable on

a European scale. On occasion of an interview last May I had

the chance to express my appreciation for this way of sharing

communication, through which information are provided on

the actual situation of law and administration in the various

Member States with regard to specific issues, and, sometimes,

about some capillary segments of their organizations in the

macrocosm of migrations, and, furthermore, objective and updated

data on the relevant aspects are analysed and compared, by

means of that particularly swift and economical way which is

typical of the circulation of contributions by email.

It seems unnecessary to underline that, in this process of

international interaction on issues of extreme importance and

modernity, each representative of every Member State shall pay

particular attention to the search for best practices to adopt

and possibly to adjust according to the actual situation in their

respective country. The National Contact Point is required to

The objectives of the EMN also include the involvement of the general public by the circulation of its performed researches

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

implement two or three bilingual publications on migration

issues per year, based on evaluations shared with the Director

of the Interior Ministry in charge in the relevant year; lastly, in our

country, they concerned “Unaccompanied foreign minors”.

Particular efforts should be dedicated to the organization of

conferences, seminars, meetings, and other initiatives to spread

the abundant information available to the EMN. To date, the

National Research Council, together with the Department for

Civil Liberties, has already organized over ten events in which

issues of primary importance have been discussed, with the

participation of distinguished speakers and experts specializing

in the relevant sectors.

The activities of the Network also include drafting Annual

Policy Reports, specially focused on the main developments

in policy and law of the Member States, as well as on the political

debates regarding migration and asylum issues; these contribu-

tions are also used for drafting the Annual Reports on Immigration

and Asylum Policy of the European Commission, with the side

advantage of monitoring the forecasts and the full implementation

of the programs relative to immigration and asylum issues.

The core purposes of EMN are analysing and monitoring the

many and always changing phenomena typical of the dynamic

world of migration; the analyses are focused on issues deemed

relevant for policy makers in order to meet their needs for

knowledge in the short and long term. The topics to be analysed

are selected on the basis of proposals made by one or more

Contact Points (EMN NCPs) and/or the

European Commission, and they are chosen

with regard to their importance to the Member

States and the Commission and its agencies

for the development of the necessary policies.

Some topics may be proposed either for more

thorough and strategic research, with a long-

term relevance, or for shorter surveys, also

called “focused surveys”, aimed at responding

to an immediate need for knowledge. The selection of topics

to be included in the Annual Work Programme of the EMN is

submitted to the approval of the Steering Committee (Steering

Board), whose official consent is given by means of an articu-

lated procedure. A Synthesis Report is also drafted every year,

which is a comparative report encompassing the main results from

the national contributions, envisaged in a European perspective.

All of the research performed and the activities carried out

within the EMN can be found on its website (http://emn.europa.eu),

The core purposes of EMN are analysing and monitoringthe many and always changingphenomena typical of the dynamic world of migration


libe

rtàci

vili

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l


however, each Member State is required to implement its own

national website for reference; on this front, Italy can be proud

to have reached this goal, thanks to synergies of CNR and of the

Central Directorate for Immigration and Asylum Policies I Service,

since a particularly pregnant and functioning product, available

at http: //www.emnitaly. cnr.it, was implemented within a brief

span of time.

Among the number of EMN’s multifaceted activities for infor-

mation and circulation at European level and, contextually, at

national level, it is worth mentioning EMN Inform, a tool for

spreading information that allow policy makers to be swiftly

provided with the main conclusions and recommendations on

particular subjects, based on the results obtained by the collection

and analysis of information and data handled by the network.

Again, talking about communication activities, the EMN Bulletin

provides timely and updated information, on a quarterly basis,

on issues of particular relevance, reported in summary and

often supported by statistics, mainly from Eurostat, expected

to be of interest.

The publications produced by the network since its starting

phase are so many that cannot be listed; the most significant

researches performed for EMN Italy have been published, with

parallel English translation. I should like to mention the reports

“Migrant access to Social Security. The Italian Case” (2014),

“International students at Italian Universities: empirical survey

libe

rtàci

vili



Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

l

and insights” (2013), “Immigrants and refugees. Legislation,

institutions and competences” and “Migration channels Visa and

irregular flows” (2012, both), “Labour market and immigration”

(2010), “Unaccompanied Minors, Assisted Return, International

Protection” (2010), “Migration policies. High qualified workers.

Health sector” (December 2009).

Among the publications by EMN, the feather in its cap cannot

be omitted, that is, the Glossary, the five-year effort of a group

of researchers from every country in Europe. It includes over

300 of the most important terms and definitions relating to

asylum and migration, reported in Italian, English and many

other European languages, improving their comparability and

drawing on a variety of sources, primarily on EU and interna-

tional legislation. The Glossary was published in Arabic too,

and it is now used also for building an EMN Thesaurus, which

provides a functional collection of all available documents. In

April 2015, the Central Directorate for immigration and asylum

policies issued a memorandum addressed to the Italian

Prefectures and specially focused on the Glossary, in order to

make it known and used as an essential tool for drawing

migration policies correctly, preventing any misunderstandings.

Last but not least, the reports on the progress of EMN activities

are worth to be noted, since they provide regular updates on

the progress of EMN activities and achievements, according to

a working system tested for efficiency and effectiveness. These

reports are adopted as a Working Document by the European

Commission and are officially presented to the European

Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the European Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. In

addition to this variety of activities, we cannot overlook the

commitment of Italian representatives in some specific study

groups such as, in recent times, the one focussing on the

phenomenon of smuggling and on the prospects of assisted

voluntary return.

In view of the increasingly complex dynamics that mark deeply

the migration flows of people moving around the world, the

European Migration Network has taken an increasingly important

role, and the inclusion of European funding for the its activities

in the new Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), pro-

claims its renewed value, requiring the National Contact Point

and its institutional point of reference (the Department for

Civil Liberties and Immigration) to take an ever stronger and

qualified commitment in the more and more passionate and

varied debate relating to peoples in flight and host communities.


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili

Against Stereotypes

A research project by the Leone MoressaFoundation entitled “The value of Immigration”contributes with its data to contrasting the spread of false information on the migrationphenomenon by the media

Immigration and communication: the research project

The public debate on immigration issues is usually defined

according to ideological positions, with a polarization between

those “in favour” and those “against” the phenomenon. A funda-

mental component of this outlook is the media. Communication

plays a fundamental role in the construction of positive or

negative images of immigration that take root in public opinion.

In recent years, immigration awareness campaigns among

journalists have achieved some positive results: most importantly

the introduction of the Rome Charter (2008), a Code of Ethics

on migrants, asylum-seekers, refugees and victims of trafficking

in human beings, signed by the National Council of the Italian

Journalists’ Association and the Italian Press Federation, in

cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency (Unhcr). The Leone

Moressa foundation is part of this path with its “The value of

immigration” project. Carried out in 2014 with the support of the

Open Society Foundations, the project aims at bringing to the

surface particular reflections on the relationship between

immigration and communication, also contrasting the spread

of particular stereotypes, and the ensuing discriminatory attitudes,

and promoting a realistic image of immigration, especially in the

economic domain.

The main objective of the research was to analyse the kind

of information conveyed by the Italian press on the subject of

immigration, i.e. how the mass media talks about immigrants

present on Italian territory. The data was gathered throughout

a six-month monitoring period between January and June

by The Leone Moressa foundation

The mainobjective of the researchwas to analysethe kindof informationconveyed by the Italianpress on the subjectof immigration

The value of immigration

Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


2014 with an empirical documentation consisting of 846 articles

taken from the most widespread national newspapers: la

Repubblica, Corriere della sera and Il Sole 24 Ore. In addition,

700 families units were interviewed to try to understand the

public opinion’s perception on the migratory phenomenon in Italy.

In the articles under survey, the central thread is the boatloads

of immigrants landing in Italy, undoubtedly a phenomenon

that has remarkably influenced the Italian media and set its

agenda. On the other hand, the theme of work is very much in

the background, with only a very small number of articles

shedding light on immigration’s contribution to the Italian economy.

The media instead tends to privilege a representation that has

been perpetuating itself for years now: immigrants are people who

land in the country on boats, usually illegally, or are commonly

involved in crime episodes and legal questions. In this way,

the media contributes to fuelling a constant association between

these phenomena with a tendency towards an actual crimina-

lisation of immigrants.

One thing worth stressing is that the opinion of those concerned,

the immigrants, is almost totally absent. It is an undisputable

fact that immigration now belongs to a public discourse; everyone

talks about it, from political representatives to religious authorities,

the only point of view that is missing, however, is that of the

immigrants themselves. How are immigrants then represented?

The press tend to privilege a generic identification of the subjects

involved, without specifying their ethnic group. Just immi-

grants. Migrants and refugees are the most recognised cate-

gories. The general judgement on the subjects is neutral: the

articles describe the facts and any relevant data without any

particular evaluative connotations. The issues they deal with,

however, are all very similar: boat landings and criminality. Only

12% of the sampled articles analyses the economic component

of immigration.

Stereotypes

For almost thirty years, ever since the phenomenon of migration

became relevant in Italy too, immigration has been presented to

the public as a problem. This type of representation is harmful not

only for the foreign nationals, insofar as it produces an intensification

of xenophobic sentiments, discrimination and violence against

immigrants, but also for the host community, which loses sight of

the complexity of the phenomenon and its importance also in

terms of Added Value. It makes more widespread the belief that

the economic contribution of immigrants is worthless for Italy.

In the articlesunder survey,the centralthread is theboatloadsof immigrantslanding in Italy,undoubtedly aphenomenonthat has remarkablyinfluenced the Italianmedia and set itsagenda


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


That immigration is not perceived from the economic point

of view is also reflected in the opinion of Italian households,

with the majority of subjects underestimating the number of

foreign taxpayers and stating that the latter do not contribute

to Italian social security, while taking advantage of the social

benefits available. However, the wealth produced by employed

foreign workers, i.e. the “GDP of immigration”, equal to 123

billion euro, represents 8.8% of Italian wealth1.

It’s worth stressing that migrations are a structural component

of our era, as of human history in general. If we compare the

numbers of migrants who reached Italy on illegal boats and,

for example, the number of work permits issued by host countries

or the number of family reunifications, it is easy to see the

extent of this distortion. In Italy immigrants make up 8.1% of

the resident population (4.9 million residents as of 1 January

2014), 15% of new births in 2013, 9% of school pupils (academic

year 2013/2014) and they represent 10.5% of the workforce

and 7.8% of the total number of entrepreneurs.

From the economic point of view, between 2008 and 2012 the

number of taxpayers born abroad increased by 9.1%, reaching

3.5 million euro, whilst reported incomes reached 44.7 billion

euro. Foreigners who do not “steal” Italians’ jobs, as they do

different kinds of work. Foreign employment is concentrated

within a small number of low-skill professions and is limited by

the issue of residence permits and the lack of family support

networks.

Even more rooted is the stereotype of public spending for

immigration. If we analyse the data, we can see that the main

items of Italian public spending are pensions and healthcare,

which are dedicated mainly to the elderly. Taking into account

that the mean age of foreign residents is lower than that of

Italians, their use of services is presumably lower in the pensions

and health sectors and higher in schooling, where the majority

of costs, however, are due to staff salaries and are hence

fixed. If, therefore, we compare annual public expenditure

allotted for immigration purposes (services, welfare, integration,

contrasting irregular immigration, reception) and the incomes

due to revenues paid by foreign workers (taxes and contributions),

our country benefits from a surplus due to immigration of nearly

4 billion euro.

1 Estimates by Leone Moressa Foundation

Foreignemployment isconcentratedwithin a smallnumber of low-skill professionsand is limitedby the issue of residencepermits and the lack of family support networks


Sem

este

r Sp

ecia

llibe

rtàci

vili


Whenever we speak about immigration, we should never

forget this data. The time has then come to recognise the

immigrant population not as a problem to contain or an emergency,

but as an unavoidable component of contemporary society,

which, in the same way as all the others, presents specific

characteristics and needs. An in-depth knowledge of such a

complex situation will perhaps be the first step towards a new

vision of the immigration phenomenon.

Income Amount Expenditure Amount

Income tax revenue 4.9 National Health 3.7

Consumption taxes 1.4 Schools 3.5

Tax on mineral oils 0.84 Social services 0.6

Lotteries 0.21 Housing 0.4

Other taxes and licenses 0.25 Legal 1.8

Total tax revenue 7.6 Ministry of the Interior 1.0

Economic transfers 1.6

Social security contributions 8.9

Total Revenue 16.5 Total Expenses 12.6

Balance: +3.9 billion euro

Estimate of incomes and expenditures linked to the presence of foreign residents in Italy (2012. Standard costs. Data in billions of euro)

Source: data from Istat (statistics institute) and Ministry of Finance, processed by Leone Moressa Foundation

Doc

um

enta

tion

libe

rtàci

vili


Doc

umen

tati

on

Taking action to better manage migratory flows

The following document reports the Conclusions on “Takingaction to better manage migratory flows'” discussed in the JHACouncil held in Luxembourg on 9 -10 th October 2014.

Strategic approach and operational priorities

The informal meeting of JHA Ministers, which took place in

Milan on the 8 th of July, following the adoption of the Strategic

Guidelines for the JHA area by the European Council, confirmed

the common commitment to overcome the current polarization

along the principles of solidarity/responsibility, and develop a

common narrative and action at the EU level.

The challenge linked to increasing migratory flows and the

shifting routes of access to the EU, also as a consequence of

measures taken at national level, needs to be addressed with

common actions. This is even more important as these migratory

flows do not only affect countries on the frontline but Europe as

a whole, also due to the large secondary movements taking place.

Pressures recorded on the land border section between

Greece and Turkey, and on the Bulgarian - Turkish land border,

are now mainly concentrating on the Mediterranean. At the

same time, instability at the eastern border (Ukraine), emerging

threats in the Middle East (Iraq) as well as in countries on the

Silk Route and flows from the Western Balkans have to be carefully

monitored since they could potentially create new pressures to

which Europe as a whole needs to be ready to respond in a timely

manner.

Having this objective in mind, the Presidency has presented

some proposals for a possible way forward in order to define a

sustainable approach, based on three pillars, to respond to

migratory pressure in a structural manner and go beyond the

immediate emergency measures. Such approach could be

used as a blueprint to address possible future challenges and

could be adapted to the specific needs of the emerging situation.

The three pillars encompass cooperation with Third Countries,

with a specific focus on the fight against smugglers and traffickers

in human beings, the strengthening of Frontex’s ability to respond

in a flexible and timely manner to emerging risks and pressures,


libe

rtàci

vili

Doc

umen

tatio

n

JHA Council Conclusions on “Taking action to better manage migratory flows’”

and finally actions in the EU to uphold and fully implement our

Common European Asylum System, also through increased

operational cooperation. This strategic and operational approach

builds upon the results of the Task Force Mediterranean, and

aims at streamlining their implementation in a flexible manner,

to adapt them to emerging trends in migratory flows.

As the main hotspot of migratory flows is currently in the

Mediterranean, affecting Europe as a whole, the detailed acti-

vities to be implemented in the short term should be primarily

focused on that operational area.

I. Action in cooperation with third countries

Action in third countries should focus, as a matter of priority,

the following key countries, which are currently at the crossroads

of migratory movements: Western Africa (Niger, Mali, Chad,Gambia, Ghana, Mauritania, Senegal, Nigeria) Eastern Africa

(Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia), Northern Africa (Libya, Egypt,Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia), as well as the region neighbouring

Syria (Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq) as these countries are

taking the brunt of the Syrian refugee flows and are under

extreme pressure. In Libya all efforts should be made to foster

the creation of conditions which allow the possible starting of a

comprehensive political dialogue including on migration

issues. In the short term international organizations on the

ground should be supported in their activities Attention should

be paid also to countries on the silk route region, including in

particular Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In particular the following initiatives should be undertaken

without delay, notably with a view to preventing hazardous journeys

by sea:

a. identifying together with Tunisian, Egyptian and Libyan

authorities ways of curtailing the supply of vessels from Tunisia

and Egypt, while supporting those countries in managing

migratory flows

b. making better use of networks of Liaison Officers in third

countries in charge of fight against smuggling to foster more

efficient information exchanges

c. the possibility to launch, where appropriate, initiatives in the

field of law enforcement, including joint investigation teams

with relevant third countries in order to prevent and prosecute

THB and smuggling of migrants, should also be explored

d. ensuring that Europol is made aware swiftly of all information

useful for the fight against smugglers gathered at the EU border

by MS surveillance services and Frontex. This should include

libe

rtàci

vili


JHA Council Conclusions on “Taking action to better manage migratory flows’”

Doc

umen

tatio

n

the stepping up of police cooperation initiatives in Europe in

the field of smuggling, under the coordination of Europol. In this

context, Frontex and Europol should finalize their agreement on

the processing of personal data without delay

e. reinforcing relevant third countries’ own capacities in borders

and migration management , notably in Ethiopia, Niger, as well

as in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia including by providing technical

assistance

f. continuing dialogue and cooperation with the Turkish

authorities, in view of dismantling the smugglers’ networks,

to promptly exchange information and reinforce joint activities

with the EU Member States and to achieve the full implementation

of the readmission agreement

g. taking steps to start a dialogue on migration, mobility and

security with Egypt and Lebanon

h. developing new and reinforced Regional Development and

Protection Programmes in North Africa and the Horn of Africa

and fully implement the existing Regional Development and

Protection Programme in the Middle East

i. implementing the EU Strategy for the Sahel, in order to contribute

to security, stability and governance of the region

j. proposing a credible number of resettlement places, on a

voluntary basis, in order to offer an alternative legal avenue

and contribute to stabilize refugees communities in partnership

with Unhcr. While taking into account the efforts carried out by

Member States affected by migratory flows, all Member States

should give their contribution to this objective in a fair and

balanced manner, also with the support of the Asylum,

Migration and Integration Fund (Amif)

k. in line with the June Council Conclusions Third Countries

should be supported in building up their capacities to provide

assistance to returnees

l. strengthening the use of joint EU actions on return, in particular

under the coordination of Frontex, also through the voluntary

participation of Member States to the current Pilot Project on

return, and reinforcing Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) pro-

grammes run by International Organizations and NGOs

m.implementing the planned information campaigns and consider

new ones, on the risks of irregular migration and opportunities

for legal access to Europe

n. persuading the authorities of North African countries to

participate in the Seahorse Mediterranean Network.

Such initiatives, which should be undertaken in line with the


libe

rtàci

vili

Doc

umen

tatio

n

JHA Council Conclusions on “Taking action to better manage migratory flows'”

Global Approach to Migration and Mobility also building on

Mobility Partnerships, and which should continue to be accom-

panied by longer term initiatives addressing root causes of

migratory flows, will help to stabilize migrants communities,taking into account the needs of the vulnerable among them,

as well as to dismantle criminal networks profiting from the

smuggling of migrants, and human trafficking, also in order to

prevent hazardous journeys to the EU. These initiatives should

also provide incentives to Third Countries to engage in a

comprehensive manner and ensure their ownership. Further

stronger incentives should be identified in all EU policies and

tools to encourage closer and partnership-based cooperation

of third countries on migration issues. Centres managed by

UNHCR/IOM could be established in transit countries in order

to implement the actions envisaged under h), j) and l) in a

coherent manner and thereby offering concrete forms of solidarity

and support to the Third Countries concerned. EASO’s role in its

external dimension could also be helpful in the implementation

of several actions.

The European External Action Service, the Commission, as

well as MS having consolidated bilateral relations with the

above mentioned Third countries, will have to cooperate closely

to achieve these objectives and make available their expertise

in these fields.

Finally we should build on the positive experience of the

Rabat Process, which targets the Western African migratoryroutes, and verify the possibility to extend such a model to

other Regions of Africa, in particular East Africa, which is one

of the main route of access to the EU, starting from the EU-Horn

of Africa Migratory Route Initiative on Trafficking in Human

Beings and Smuggling of migrants (Khartoum process). Also

the EUROMED Migration Framework should be harnessed in

these regards.

II. Reinforced management of external borders and Frontex

The enforcement of the surveillance of EU external borders is

of vital interest to all MS. MS should cooperate closely with

Frontex in order to consolidate the agency’s presence in the

Mediterranean. In particular in the central Mediterranean, the newjoint Operation Triton needs to be deployed without delay. While theoperation is being deployed, full coordination with the emergency

measures taken by Italy will be ensured, in view of their promptphasing out. The Frontex-coordinated joint operation, which hasto be compliant with the Frontex mandate, aims to confirm the

libe

rtàci

vili



Doc

umen

tatio

n

EU commitment to the surveillance of the common external borders

under full civilian control.

The above mentioned objective can be achieved through the

following steps:

based on risk analysis and the needs specified by the host

Member State(s) and Frontex the operational area, the assets,

resources and modules needed for the strengthened Frontex

joint operation will be defined

additional necessary operational assets should be provided

to the Agency by Member States

budgetary resources for the deployment of a Frontex coordi-

nated operation should be made available by the Commission

and the budgetary authority within the existing EU funds.

The strengthened Frontex operation could also incorporate

operational tools which aim at the identification of migrants, the

provision of information, and the screening of vulnerable cases

or persons in need of medical attention in order to cater for

their needs upon disembarkation. Easo could also support in

these endeavours in accordance with its mandate.

The strengthening of the financial resources of Frontex in

order to foster its operational capabilities, will have to be made

sustainable starting from 2015 and beyond, within the normal


libe

rtàci

vili

Doc

umen

tatio

n


budgetary cycle and the overall ceiling of the Multi-Annual

Financial Framework, and will have to be based on the compre-

hensive risk analysis carried out by Frontex, encompassing all

of the EU air, land and sea borders, in order to allow a flexible

redeployment of assets to respond to emerging threats and

challenges.

Member States could make use of the possibility provided

for by the new Internal Security Fund - Borders to allocate

resources under their national programmes to finance operating

support in the area of border management 1.

III.Action at Member States’ level

Reception and fingerprinting

In the short term, the EU needs to act to ensure the full and

coherent implementation of the Common European Asylum

System. To this end all Member States must prioritize to invest

and build up capacity to ensure a flexible national system for

reception and asylum, capable to respond to sudden flows 2.

Furthermore in order to address the large secondary movements

within the EU which are currently taking place solutions

should be found to counteract the modus operandi devised

by smuggling networks which aims at circumventing the

EURODAC system (fingerprinting and identification of migrants).

At the same time, support should be given to Member States

under pressure.

For this reason Member States, while ensuring the full and

coherent implementation of the Common European Asylum

System, should work in particular on systematic identification,

registration and fingerprinting by, among others:

1. ensuring that fingerprints are taken on land, immediately upon

apprehension in connection with irregular crossing of the borders,

in full compliance with the EURODAC Regulation;

2. taking restrictive measures to prevent absconding in case

1 i.e. costs related to operations aimed at ensuring effective control of externalborders, MS can use up to 40% of the amount allocated under the ISF-borders totheir national programmes to finance operating support

2 For example in Italy, an in-depth revision of the reception and asylum system isunderway. The objective is to establish a three tier reception system, with newcenters for the very first reception where migrants will be hosted for the time strictlynecessary for transporting them to major hubs. The latter, around 20 in total, willconstitute the backbone of the system where screening activities, including finger-printing, and first evaluation of applications for asylum will be carried out. Thethird phase will then entail the final integration of refugees in the existing localreception system (SPRAR) which is being broadened to face the new challenges

libe

rtàci

vili



Doc

umen

tatio

n

migrants refuse fingerprinting, whilst respecting fundamental

rights;

3. inform migrants in a timely manner of their rights and obligations

and consequences of non-compliance with rules on identification.

In parallel, in order to support Member States under pressure,

all Member States should make full use of existing tools under

the Dublin Regulation by applying the provisions on family reu-

nification, including through the strengthening of family tracing

systems, and through a greater use of the sovereignty clause,

in line with the jurisprudence of Cjeu. The possibility to use in

a more systematic manner prioritized, accelerated, and border

procedures in justified circumstances as provided by existing

legislation should also be explored. Easo should stand ready to

support Member States in this endeavour and continue to pursue

its pilot project on Joint Processing. The use of relocation, on a

voluntary basis, while taking into account the efforts already

carried out by affected Member States, also contributes to support

Member States under pressure.

Follow Up

The operational priorities so defined should be implementedby all players involved without delay and under the coordinationof the European Commission which will closely liaise with theEuropean External Action Service and the Council. TheCommission is invited to report, through an ad hoc scorecardfocused on the three pillars, on the state of play of the imple-mentation of the above mentioned actions to the Council asappropriate, and in particular when reporting on the Task ForceMediterranean. A first report should be envisaged at theDecember JHA Council.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili

The final document of the Ministerial Conferenceon Integration

On 5 and 6 of November 2014 the Italian Presidency organized

a Ministerial Conference on Integration, with the aim to further

develop the Strategic Guidelines concerning the area of

Freedom, Security and Justice adopted by the European

Council in June 2014. The discussion built upon the Common

Basic Principles adopted on 19 November 2004, the informal

meeting of EU Integration Ministers of Zaragoza of 15-16 April

2010, the following Council Conclusions on Integration adopted

on 3-4 June 2010, and the Council Conclusions adopted on 5 and

6 June 2014.

In this context delegations agreed on the need to explore the

key aspects of integration, focusing on the different levels of

governance at which the integration process unfolds and on

the interconnections that exist between integration and related

policy fields. In particular, the following aspects should be

taken into consideration:

I. Addressing integration through a comprehensive approach

The Council Conclusions on the integration of third-country

nationals legally residing in the EU of 5 and 6 June 2014

recognized the importance of a comprehensive approach to

integration and of mainstreaming policies and practices in

all relevant policy sectors and levels of government. The

Conclusions further specified that such an approach to integra-

tion presupposes inter alia effective reception policies and

measures responding to the specific needs of both individuals

and different groups of migrants, which are more likely to be

exposed to social exclusion, including beneficiaries of inter-

national protection.

Additionally, the European Agenda for the Integration of

Third-Country Nationals issued by the Commission on 20 July

2011, stressed that integration is linked to a framework of legi-

slation and policy defined and coordinated at EU level, and

underscored the importance that integration priorities are fully

EuropeanMinisterialConference on IntegrationMilan, 5 and 6November2014

European Ministerial Conference on Integration: final document

Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


taken into account in all relevant areas, so as to contribute in a

coherent way towards meeting integration challenges as well

as other political priorities.

The interconnections between migration and integration

policies are manifold. In particular, reception conditions of

beneficiaries of international protection strongly impact on their

future prospects of integration in the receiving societies. In

light of the previous, and as stated by the European Council

in its Conclusion of 26/27 June 2014, the Union's commitment

to international protection requires a strong European asylum

policy based on solidarity and responsibility, principles which

are enshrined in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of

the European Union.

II. Non-discrimination

Non-discrimination is a central dimension of EU integration

policy and has been at the centre of initiatives launched at the

EU level since the Conclusions of the European Council at

Tampere in 1999, which stated that the EU integration policy

should aim at granting third country nationals’ rights and

obligations comparable to those of EU citizens and should also

enhance non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural

life and develop measures against racism and xenophobia.

Almost every Common Basic Principle refers in some way to

non-discrimination, due to the fundamental role such principle

plays in facilitating integration and promoting social cohesion.

In particular, the common basic principle number 2, which is

devoted to respect for the basic values of the European Union,

explicitly points to non-discrimination as one of the concepts

enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European

Union.

Reaffirming such commitment to non-discrimination, the

Council Conclusions of 5 and 6 June 2014 on the integration of

third-country nationals legally residing in the EU recognized

that further efforts should be made to find a more balanced

approach to safeguard basic values underpinning European

societies, to counter prejudices and to respect diversity with a

view to enhancing tolerance and non-discrimination in the

European societies, in close collaboration with social partners

and civil society.

In this respect, it is crucial that non-discrimination policies

are developed with regard to employment. The common basic

principle number 3 states that employment is a key part of the

integration process and is central to the participation of immi-


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


grants, to the contributions immigrants make to the host society,

and to making such contributions visible.

The 2005 Common Agenda for Integration indicated several

measures to favour migrants’ access to the labour market,

including innovative approaches to prevent labour market

discrimination, training courses, exploring additional ways of

recognising newcomers’ qualifications and facilitated conditions

for accessing the labour market for women. Efforts in this field

should continue to be a priority for European States not only

because non-discrimination is a fundamental principle of EU

law but also because, as recognized by the EU 2020 strategy,

increasing migrants’ access to the labour market is crucial to

achieve sustainable economic growth in Europe.

Non-discrimination plays a central role also regarding

migrants’ access to education. The common basic principle

number 5 states that efforts in education are critical to preparing

immigrants, and particularly their descendants, to be more

successful and more active participants in society. To this regard,

the Council Conclusions of November 2009 on the education of

children with a migrant background invited Member States to

set up or strengthen anti-discrimination mechanisms, increasing

the permeability of pathways within school systems and removing

barriers to individual progression through the system, in order

to combat segregation and contribute to higher achievement

levels for migrant learners. Children with a migrant background

should be provided with targeted support in order to fill the gap

in education results that still exists between them and children

belonging to the native population.

Another central priority to face discrimination is reducing

and overcoming the practical barriers that prevent migrants

from accessing social services, a priority that is included in the

common basic principle number 6. Evidence shows that such

barriers could be linked either to migrants’ linguistic or cultural

differences or to their more disadvantages socio-economic

conditions. In order to tackle such barriers, several measures

should be adopted in cooperation between different levels of

government. Diffusion of new technologies, in particular

access to the internet, holds a great potential for addressing

the needs of a diverse community, favoring integration and

mutual exchange. It is thus important to adopt measures in

order to overcome the existing gap in the use of new technologies

in some segments of the population, including migrants.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


III.Mainstreaming of integration policies

The common basic principle number 10 states that main-

streaming integration policies and measures in all relevant

policy portfolios and levels of government and public services

is an important consideration in public-policy formation and

implementation. In the explanation of this principle included in

the Council Conclusions on Immigrant Integration Policy in the

European Union of 19 November 2004, it is further stated that

particular consideration should be given to the impact of immi-

gration on public services like education, social services

and others, especially at the level of regional and local

administrations, in order to avoid a decrease in the quality

standards of these services. While recognizing the relevance of

mainstreaming integration in policy formulation and implemen-

tation, the same Conclusions also underlined the necessity of

accompanying it with specifically targeted policies for integrating

migrants.

As shown by initiatives undertaken in several countries,

mainstreamed policies present numerous advantages. First of

all, they allow responding to the needs of heterogeneous and

increasing diverse societies, pushing towards a diffuse sensibility

to diversity that contrasts discrimination and stereotypes.

Secondly, they allow better coping with the rising number of

second-and third- generation immigrants, who may face

structural barriers to succeeding in education or on the labour

market. Finally, if properly managed, mainstreaming of integration

priorities also allows designing policies that are both cost-

effective and capable of improving outcomes for the society as

a whole, thus maximizing the impact of public resources.

While recognizing the potential of mainstreaming integration

priorities in public policies, some caveats should also be

reminded. First of all, the risk of so-called “target disappearance”,

namely that the specific needs of the migrants’ population –

such as language acquisition, credential-recognition support,

and access to citizenship – are overlooked by policy responses

that address the entire population. In light of the previous, a big

effort is required at all levels of government to design policies that

can effectively reach every member of the society, in particular

by strengthening flexibility in services’ provision and enhancing

awareness of the differentiated welfare needs of the population.

Beside this, the needs of some groups of migrants such as

refugees, women and children should continue to be addressed

by means of targeted support and specific measures.

Mainstreaming of policies also passes through increased


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


cooperation between relevant actors at the EU level dealing

with different policy portfolios. To this regard, innovations in the

organization of the newly appointed European Commission

should be welcomed. First of all, the appointment of a Vice-

President in charge of the rule of law and the EU Charter of

Fundamental Rights. At the same time, the envisaged cooperation

between the Commissioner in charge of Migration and Home

Affairs and the Commissioner in charge of Employment, Social

Affairs, Skills and Labor Mobility is expected to deliver results

in fields such as access to the labor market and intra-EU mobility.

The establishment of the new European migration Forum is

a significant step in furthering cooperation between national

stakeholders dealing with migration issues. Building on the

experience of the European Integration Forum, the new

European Migration Forum will continue to be a platform for

civil society, and its participatory approach will be enhanced

by ensuring a closer involvement of civil society organisations

in the preparation and organisation of its meetings. Therefore,

the European Migration Forum represents a new and promising

platform of dialogue and exchange of expertise at the EU level

that should be welcomed.

IV. Monitoring of integration policies

The common basic principle number 11 states that developing

clear goals, indicators and evaluation mechanisms is necessary

to adjust policy, evaluate progress on integration and to make the

exchange of information more effective. Following the priorities

set by the Potsdam ministerial conference in May 2007 and

reaffirmed by the Vichy Ministerial conference in November 2008,

the ministerial conference held in Zaragoza in 2010 identified

Common European “indicators” in four areas of relevance for

integration: employment, education, social inclusion and active

citizenship. Stressing the importance of such indicators, the

Commission stated in its 2011 European Agenda for Integration

the intention to monitor developments in this field and formulate

recommendations, in dialogue with the Member States.

Monitoring of the integration process and of policies adopted

in the area of integration is crucial to enhance the European

learning process. In reason of that, monitoring should be con-

sidered as a cross-cutting aspect and developed alongside the

policy- making process at all stages and levels. In particular,

monitoring is also functional in assessing the effectiveness of

policies implemented in those areas such as anti-discrimination

and mainstreaming of integration policies.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


In order for further progresses to be achieved in this field,

efforts should be devoted at assuring that integration indicators

are based on high quality statistics and on a homogeneous set

of data across Member States, as those provided by EURO-

STAT. As the regional and local levels are crucial for the success

of the integration process, specific tools and indicators to

monitor dynamics occurring at these levels should also be

engineered. Lastly, it is important to acknowledge that integration

is a multifaceted process that needs to be covered in its entirety:

in particular, all the different dimensions of integration - economic,

social and cultural - should be adequately monitored by means

of appropriate indicators.

To achieve the above objectives, the EU framework on inte-

gration represents a privileged platform, in particular for

exchanging information and developing best practices. In this

context, the National Contact Points on Integration should

devote further efforts in improving mutual exchange on issues

related to the monitoring of integration, also making use of the

European Website on Integration. The European Modules of

Integration also constitute an important instrument that has

been developed by the Commission to monitor and benchmark

integration practices. Building on what has already been

accomplished, it is important in the future to extend the use of

the European Modules on Integration, improve their current

structure and content and increase their operational dimension.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili

The Italian way to social inclusion:networking so as to streamlinemultiple levels of intervention

Speech by theDeputy Headof the Departmentof Civil Libertiesand Immigration -RA of EIF/AMIFat the Ministry of Home Affairs,Mr. AngeloMalandrino, at the big international conference“Towards a EuropeanMigration Policy:strategies for a multilevelgovernance of immigration”held on 17th -18 th

December, 2014 in Rome

The case study of Italy

In the European scenario, Italy can provide a specific contribution,

even innovative in some respects, with respect to the provided

service models for social inclusion of immigrants. We can

define the Italian model as a “polycentric network of services”:

opposed to what happens in other Member States, where the

functions dedicated to social inclusion report directly to the central

administration or to the local authorities, in Italy the number of

actors involved in this sector is really large, and involves both

the public administration at various levels – including central

government, Regions, and Municipalities – and the private

social sector.

Rather than being just due to the recent implementation of

the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance referred

to by the relevant European Community policies, such mutual

supplementation roots directly in the history and in the civil social

capital of our country, characterized by multiple independent

local entities and identities, transversal bodies, and different

components of the civil society.

A system based on many interacting entities, different by

nature and functions, and relying on multiple levels of expertise,

is typically a complex system. This complexity, if not properly

organized, may entail some risks: late decision-making and

slow-pace operations, layered processes, overlapping and

repeated interventions, difficult communication, and excess of

cost centres. Conversely, the same complexity, if well organized,

can have an extraordinary multiplier effect on the public action,

which may overcome in efficiency the sheer result of adding

up the single actions of every individuals working in the same

field.

In this perspective, it is easily shown that the existence of

multiple players in our institutional organization, firstly, provides:

a number of consistent and faithful pieces of information as

well as different points of view on the phenomenon of migration

by Angelo Malandrino

The Italian model of services for social inclusion of immigrants

Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


a comprehensive construction of the framework in which

the involved operators can work with adequate awareness.

In addition, the active cooperation of entities of different nature

(public and private social organizations, central and Local

Authorities) each of them bringing their respective contribution of

experience, knowledge, operational expertise and sensitivity,

may result in more fitting responses to the needs of a multicultural

society, even sterilizing, at times, those political positions that are

too strongly headed towards one direction or the other, in order to

handle the phenomenon of migration.

It is easily understood that the general principle that inspires

our system is that of “knowing better, for good governance”:

the principle that expresses an unavoidable necessity even

before a principle of good administration, in order to deal with

such complex and multifactorial needs.

The entire system, then, is structured – or should be structured

– on the complementarity of actions and on the fruitful dialogue

between everyone involved. Therefore, in this complex scenario,

we take as a challenge the objective to value and appreciate

the contribution and specificity of each subject and to ensure

a continuous and fruitful collaboration between the various

stakeholders involved, in their respective capacities, in the

field of services for migrants, promoting the best governance

and coordination among the various levels of action.

European Union guidelines for a multi-level governance

The European Union recommends that the Member States

avoid overlapping actions by public authorities or inefficiency

in public action, and that the abundance of active operators be

coordinated and exploited to promote inclusion and integration.

In particular, the European Agenda for the Integration of Third

Country Nationals, adopted in 2011 by the Commission for the

implementation of the Stockholm Programme, identified three

key objectives to encourage the process of social inclusion of

immigrants:

action at local level to be stepped up

social inclusion through participation to be promoted

involvement with the Countries of origin to be optimised.

First, it is acknowledged that integration policies are to be

followed using a true bottom-up approach, keeping contact

with the local realities, in order to provide practical support

for language learning, access to services, support to employment,

contrast to discrimination, to ensure the effectiveness of the

processes of social inclusion and promote the participation of


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


migrants into the society. The Commission stresses that integration

policies are to be established and implemented with the active

involvement of the authorities in the impacted areas, particularly

Local Authorities, since they are those who provide a wide range

of services and hold a series of functions keeping direct contact

with immigrants.

The importance of an approach based on territory has been

further highlighted by the European Commission through the

directions for the European Fund for the Integration (EFI), in

the planning phase from 2007 to 2013 and, to a greater

extent, for the new Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund

(AMIF), for the timeframe 2014 to 2020. Among the strategic

objectives, the Commission actually highlights the need to

“increase the multi-level cooperation between the various

levels of governance involved in the development of strategies

and measures of integration, and to promote local actions and

a bottom-up approach to integration”.

In this perspective, in fact, the Commission recommends

that Member States develop some comprehensive strategies

for integration to be implemented with the effective participation

of all stakeholders, including local and regional ones, through

a “bottom-up” approach; furthermore, that they support “territorial

pacts” as a framework for cooperation among stakeholders at

different levels, for the development and implementation of

integration policies.

These directions are shareable: we cannot but notice that

Central Administrations, facing on their own the challenge of

such complex and new social phenomena and the duty to pro-

vide fitting responses to them, need to cooperate with other

players throughout the national territory – whether public or

private – to coordinate the actions to be taken and to support

the role of each of them.

The role of the Regions and Autonomous Provinces

The Regions and the Autonomous Provinces have a key role

in the integration of immigrants, since they are expected to draw

specific programmes to be adopted and enacted, and to develop

plans and strategies for the provision of services in favour of Third

Country Nationals in the relevant regional area, in various fields

including social assistance, health protection, and job services.

Without prejudice to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State

Administration in the field of migration (with regard to the

regulations on entry and residence permits), many Regions

have adopted their own regulations concerning the services


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


dedicated to foreigners in the region, helping to devise a

comprehensive and integrated framework of interventions on

their own.

In fact, the Italian law system provides that the Regions may

use their legislative autonomy to regulate the processes of

social inclusion of the immigrants residing on their respective

territories. Interventions in the field of housing, access to

health and social services, education and training are planned

and implemented either in close coordination among the

national, regional and local levels of government, or on their

own by the lower levels of government than the State.

The “dialogue” between State and Regions is formalized as

institutional through appropriate consultation bodies such as the

State-Regions Conference. With specific reference to the reception

of immigrants landed in Italy in recent years, to promote a more

effective and concerted plan of action, a National Coordination

Board was established, chaired by the Ministry of Home

Affairs - Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration and

comprising central government authorities, at regional and local

level, having competence in the area of integration and migration

policies.

The involvement of the Regions in implementing the EIF,

and the Regional plans of action

The responsible authority of the EIF has largely relied on

the results of the consultations with Regions and Autonomous

Provinces for the implementation of the Fund, involving them every

year in planning the activity, in the analysis of immigrants’

needs for social inclusion, and, consequently, drafting the

contents of the announcements spread to the relevant territories

for the proposals of various projects in the relevant sectors.

Each Region was then involved in the evaluation of the

projects eligible for funding submitted by Local Authorities

and associations working in their respective territories, so as

to ensure consistency between proposals, local needs and

regional guidelines. All this has been set up in the belief that

an effective evaluation of operations depends on the “on site”

awareness of the existing criticalities, and of the suitable

responses to them. The involvement of the Regions has been

progressively confirmed and expanded, by giving them the

role of Authorities empowered with specific and autonomous

functions of coordination and promotion of regional policies in

the fields of language training, work orientation services, and

policies against discrimination.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


As a result, the resources allocated through special tenders

designed for the Regions have been gradually increased in

accordance with the principle of allocation of resources,

based on the incidence of non-EU citizens residing in each

Region. The promotion of networking has taken on a particular

significance in the scope of the Fund.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning the experience made

over the last four years in the field of language training, which

has been possible thanks to a close cooperation between the

Ministries of Home Affairs, of Labour, of Education, University

and Research, the Regions, the Regional Offices of Education,

the Territorial Centres for Adult Education, the Prefectures, the

Local Authorities and various third sector associations. From

2010 onwards, the implementation of a system for language

training was promoted - an empowerment tool which is essential

for the integration of immigrants - to be developed by direct

actions of the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces, ensuring

delivery of literacy teaching services for immigrants based on

shared quality standards, uniform throughout the Nation, and

the promotion of local networks for action.

In view of the acknowledged need of having a qualified,

uniform, and standardised educational plan throughout the

national area, the Responsible Authority has worked through a

technical committee in charge of drawing up specific guidelines

to identify the contents of the regional plans of action, the services

to be rendered, the provision of literacy support and teaching

of the Italian language, as well as the contents of the training

sessions on civic education and information. A network has

been set up, including every stakeholder who has been called

to play a specific role in its respective area of responsibility,

and according to its own potential.

In order to ensure that the implemented action be performed

by one system throughout the nation, the Regions have been

appointed to the role of leaders, called, thus, to ensure the

coordination of actions, to analyse local training needs, and

to strengthen organizational processes to incentivise modularity,

integration and complementarity in the training paths and in

the services rendered on the respective territories.

The training services have been provided by skilled operators:

firstly by the teachers who work in the network of the Provincial

Centres for Adult Education already operating in the regional

schools, and, by ancillary way, by the voluntary associations

devoted to literacy teaching. Finally, active participation in all

projects has been requested from the Regional Offices of


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


Education and the Prefectures, since they are necessary partners

to ensure consistency and complementarity with the promoted

services on their territories.

The resources allocated by regional tenders have gradually

absorbed ever larger shares of the Fund each year. The budget

for the projects in the respective Regions was set in advance

in each call for tenders according to an allocation of resources

based on the incidence of non-EU citizens residing in each

Region, and was bound to the provision of educational services

in compliance with specific quality standards.

From 2010 Annual Planning to date, the analysis of the relevant

actions shows the creation of 75 regional plans of civic and

language training with an implementation rate of 95% compared

to the resources allocated by the respective calls; a remarkable

achievement (especially when compared to the Italian performance

in the use of EU funds), that demonstrates the effectiveness

of a coordinated action on multiple levels of intervention. The

number of immigrants who had free access to civic and language

training over this period amounts to 114,628.

The contribution of Local Authorities

The action of Local Authorities is crucial, since they stand for

hubs and main points of reference for the policies of integration

of immigrants between the central and regional administrations

on the one part and the realities in the relevant territories on

the other part. In fact, Municipalities are placed at the forefront

in providing a wide range of services to people, such as social

assistance, social and intercultural mediation, access to housing,

to education services, and in general, to essential services.

The patchwork of large cities and small towns in Italy is

diversely many-sided. In this regard, in the sector of the services

for inclusion, many strengths coexist with serious weaknesses

deriving from multiple causes: delays in the capability to

respond adequately to the new challenges of a multicultural

society, situations often made critical by economic hardship,

volatility of the policies set out by the public authorities in

such a sensitive area as that of immigration: in summary,

there are gaps between the more or less advanced levels of

welfare applied in the different areas.

In this many-sided framework, however, it must be recognized

that Local Authorities, called to activate bottom-up strategies

and interventions to promote the integration of the immigrants

in the host communities, represent the most advanced forefront

of the public authorities in relation to immigrants. The more


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


qualified is the action of the local level involved the greater

the chance of performing activities of inclusion and integration

which are innovative and sustainable over time, apt to reach

even the most vulnerable groups by providing the necessary

social services.

On the contrary, if an action is quality-poor, it provokes

many problems, including the risk of discrimination in the use

of services and the consequent unequal treatment, which would

introduce a very negative element, obviously, in the process

towards integration. In order to mitigate the risks associated

with the implementation of quality-poor actions, therefore, it is

essential to develop policies which are apt to support the

activities of Municipalities, sharing resources with them, and

cooperating in the implementation of projects for social inclusion,

which are also supported by European funds.

This approach, however, implies a radical change of

method for planning and implementing the operations. From

a centralized approach, according to which the State, i.e., the

Ministries, plan the projects and make their result fall down over

the territories and, thus, on Local Authorities, to a decentralized


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


approach, according to which the State finances directly the

projects of Municipalities and their implementation. This has

been the method used in the management of the European

Fund for Integration. In the last FY of the Fund, 91.2% of the

total resources available have been allocated to local and

regional levels.

The role of Local Authorities in the protection

of asylum seekers and refugees: SPRAR

Local Authorities also stand as pillars in the system of protec-

tion for asylum seekers and refugees (SPRAR). In Italy, in fact,

the system of reception for asylum seekers and refugees is

based on a multilevel organization that combines the first level

of reception, managed through government centres which

provide hospitality and various services to immigrants and

asylum seekers, with further level, of a larger extent, promoted

throughout the country by the direct involvement of Local

Authorities (SPRAR). The SPRAR, in fact, consists of integrated

reception projects, proposed by Local Authorities along with

entities of the Third Sector. Therefore, it may be referred to as

“integrated hospitality”, meaning that, as it is obvious, it does

not just consist of the provision of food and accommodation,

but also includes the creation of personalized socio-economic

integration patterns by means of support with job seeking,

and, in general, leading to autonomy.

SPRAR local projects are characterized by active commitment,

shared by large cities and small country towns, by metropolitan

areas and little communities. Differently from the European

scenario, the Italian scenario includes the implementation of

small to medium sized SPRAR projects, decided and imple-

mented at local level with the direct participation of the existing

stakeholders in the relevant territory, which helps to build and

strengthen a culture for the social inclusion of immigrants in

the town communities involved and encourages socio-economic

integration to be continued to the advantage of the beneficiaries.

The networks of Local Councils for Immigration

and Permanent Local Centres

Again, in order to provide an overview of the stakeholders

operating in the realities in the relevant territories, I would like

to highlight also the role played by another network spread

over the whole national territory: the Local Councils forImmigration (referred to as CTIs, after the acronym in Italian).

CTIs are boards in the relevant Provinces “entrusted with


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


analyzing the needs and promoting the interventions to be

implemented at local level” in the general context of immigration.

The 103 CTIs, placed in the relevant Prefectures - Territorial

Offices of the Government, comprise all the representatives of

the peripheral offices of the Central Administration, as well as

Regions, Provinces and Local Authorities. They also include

representatives of trade unions of workers and employers, the most

representative associations of foreigners and of institutions

and associations active in assisting immigrants in the relevant

local areas. This composition enables a rich and integrated

dialogue between all parties.

This network, which is very representative throughout the

country, has been widely involved both as recipient of the

immigrants’ needs for integration, and as a hub between central

and local levels in the phase of implementation of the operations.

Likewise, the network of 560 Provincial Centres for Adult

Education (referred to as CPIAs, after the acronym in Italian)

is noteworthy, located in school premises and competent to

provide, among other things, language training services,

accessible by immigrants free of charge. These centres constitute

places to which the requests for education are directed and

where the initiatives for education and training of adults are

devised, discussed, promoted, and managed. The CPIAs also

coordinate the provisions of education and training programmed

in the territory, organized vertically in the school system and

horizontally with other providers of training services, so as to give

adequate response to every requests whether coming from

individuals or from institutions or from the work environment.

This extensive network is integrated in turn into the network

of the Prefectures for the provision of civic and language training

services, and for the first orientation to those foreigners who have

just landed on our country and signed the integration agreement.

The partnership with entities of the private social sector

The private social sector and the associations of immigrants

have had an important role in the definition and implementation

of services for immigrants and in the development of main-

streaming operations. Therefore, it should be acknowledged

that entities belonging to the third sector and the voluntary

sector have generally contributed to deliver social services

and particularly to provide reception and integration to the

immigrants, to grant them access to health and social services,

to combat discrimination, to provide free legal assistance to

them, and so on.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


Even in the field of immigration, it was in the voluntary sector

that the first actions were promoted spontaneously for helping

immigrants, before their numbers increased so as to make

migration a phenomenon of larger dimensions: that being so,

the third sector has been able to identify and take on the

responsibility to meet local needs even before than the State most

of the time, playing a precious and decisive role of anticipator,

providing new answers to the needs of new people landing on

the Country. In fact, we must admit, that whenever some new

social phenomena come underway, the reaction of the institu-

tional entities is often delayed because they are hard put to

grasp the outside changes, and to adapt their competences

and organizational structures quickly and flexibly. These units

of our civil society, thus, were the first to detect new problems

and needs, calling the government to provide structured

responses.

Hence, we may say without fail that public institutions and

private social sector have taken action complementarily since

the early 90s, to which, supposedly, the steady growth of the

phenomenon of migration dates back; a virtuous cycle that

helped provide flexible and integrated responses to many

needs: from supporting reception services for the thousands

of foreign nationals arriving in Italy in emergency occasions

up to a continued commitment over time, relative to education,

schooling, and intercultural dialogue.

This path of cooperation between the Public Administration

and the associations, which has developed fruitful collaboration

and interaction at local level over the years, deserves to be

maintained and enhanced, and, likewise, the number of occasions

and places for meeting with the representatives of the com-

munities of immigrants will need to be increased.

What has been done in Italy “to streamline multiple levels

of intervention in the field of social inclusion”?

Due to the fact that the Italian system is characterized by

manifold and complex elements, a joint effort among all stake-

holders is necessary, aiming to coordinate the actions of each

and every one of them in the most efficient way.

During the experience made by my Administration in the

management of the European Fund for Integration, great effort

has been made, aimed at sharing always the programming

choices and the implementation mechanisms of the interventions.

A working group was established including representatives of

Central Administrations, Regions, Provinces and Local Authorities.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


A level of consultation with local communities has been promoted

too, through the Local Councils for Immigration, the Third

Sector and the associations of immigrants.

A National Coordination Board is in charge of programming

the future activities of the Asylum, Migration and Integration

Fund, and it comprises both the Central Administration and

representatives of Regions, Municipalities, as well as national

and international organizations working in the field of asylum;

even though it was originally set up for the needed operation

for reception, the Board is now also in charge of programming

activities in the area of integration.

In general, the chance to communicate not only made the

acquisition of data and the exchange of information easier,

but also, as an added value, made it possible to develop and

step up a system for sharing network programmes, which is

an essential prerequisite for planning coordinated actions which

are responsive to the demand of integration expressed directly

by the many territories involved.

The primary area in which investments were made was, as

already mentioned, that of language training and civic orien-

tation, which implied the implementation of multidisciplinary

interventions at different levels; besides training services,

some ancillary ones were provided, aimed to support the partici-

pation of learners (baby-sitting, proximity services, tutoring),

and such service activities were performed by a number of

public and private entities.

Another practical application of the same pattern of coope-

ration through the network was the project of guidance for

getting access to the labour market, certainly a prerequisite

to a real social inclusion. This intervention, devised by the

Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, has been highly remarkable

and very good in terms of linking the interventions by EIF, just

limited to the preliminary actions to get access to the labour

market, to those of the European Social Fund, leading further,

up to the actual employment. All this was obtained by imple-

menting regional projects and involving public and private

entities operating across the territory in the labour market

field.

Conclusions

Which are the principal guidelines, in my view, to be set up

as the foundations of the future strategy for social inclusion?

What I would put first is a closely joint action between the

government, the Regions, and the Local Authorities. At central


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


level, it is the turn of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy

to seek for the harmonisation of the interventions in the large field

of integration, in which, as mentioned, a number of stakeholders

are operating.

In programming the future activities of the Asylum, Migration

and Integration Fund, we must continue to rely on Regional

and local levels as well as on third sector organizations.

Taking into account that, at present, immigration flows are

mainly made up of asylum seekers, no longer turning up any

immigrants for economic reasons after 2010 due to our stagnant

labour market, we will need to dedicate great care and many

resources to the development of the reception system.

Good reception foreshadows good integration. Hence, a great

effort is needed for the implementation of widespread quality

controls on the reception system.

For any documentation relative to the conferences organized byMinistry of Interior for the Semester of the Italian Presidency of theEU Council in 2014, and the interventions therein, published on thewebsite of the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration, pleasego to the following URL:http://www.libertaciviliimmigrazione.interno.it/dipim/site/it/documen-tazione/convegni_mostre/2014/Semestre_di_Presidenza_italiana_del_Consiglio_dellxUnione_Europea.html


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili

Asylum Conference: the message from the Ministerof the Interior

Speech given by the Minister of the Interior, Mr Angelino Alfano, at the opening of the international conference“Managing Asylum Flows:Strengthening the Tools,Strengthening the System”, held in Rome on 18 and 19November 2014within the European Semester

by Angelino Alfano

Firstly, allow me to express my deepest appreciation for this

conference, concerning an issue of strategic importance for

Europe, and my genuine hope that its work in these days may

provide not only some time to pause and think but also, and above

all, a starting point for new ideas and stimulating contributions.

It is clear that the migratory phenomenon, involving a huge

number of people, raises some economic, social and political

issues. It is a challenge not only for the individual national

communities but also to supranational organizations and for the

European Union as a whole.

The roots of this phenomenon are found in situations related,

in various ways, to the social, historical and cultural features of

the countries of origin, however, they are may be essentially

related to the following two elements: an economic factor, and

humanitarian aid.

On account of today's geopolitical scenarios and serious

conflicts in North Africa and Mediterranean areas, the current

migration flows are determined, primarily, by humanitarian

factors, since they portray the need, on the part of those who

come to our territories, to escape war, violence, persecution

and situations of denial of basic human rights.

In any case, the urge to move is so strong that the phenomenon

has taken on a structural condition that all European states are

called to deal with. In fact, if we acknowledge the right of

migrants to escape the situations mentioned above to receive

international protection, we cannot but state, as a consequence,

that Europe, which has acceded to the Geneva Convention,

has, for that reason, the obligation to welcome them and to give

effect to this right.

Indeed, since Europe is comprised of 28 Member States and

included in tens of thousands of kilometres of external borders

– by air, sea and land – a migration like the one that characterizes

our present time cannot be managed solely by its individual

Speech of the Minister of the Interior at the Conference regarding asylum flows

Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


member states, given its size and the complexity of the flows

involved, which have now become of mixed nature: hence

the urgent need that all EU member states share the same

framework and application of laws, to manage together and

homogeneously the increasing migration flows.

It is relative to such ability to give a joint response to migra-

tion pressure, in fact, that we can measure the credibility and

sustainability of Union migration policies.

In this regard, the European Union, starting from the Tampere

Programme in 1999 to the Stockholm Programme, which ended

in June 2014, initiated a policy of harmonization of rules,

procedures and standards of treatment aiming to create a

“Common European Asylum System” (CEAS) and implement

migration policies of cooperation and solidarity between

Member States.

I can’t help noticing, however, that their European policies on

migration have actually started opening towards the countries

of origin and transit of the flows by means of the establishment

of the “Task Force Mediterranean”, following to the tragedy of

Lampedusa in October 2013, in order to create a strategic

synergy for the management and containment of the strong

migratory pressure.

However, despite considerable efforts, there are still several

problems in the complex management of the phenomenon by

the Union. In other words, if the objectives set by Europe are

quite clear and fully shared, the existing rules and structures to

deal with the streams currently flowing into Europe have not

shown to be quite adequate yet.

A paradigmatic example of these rules is given by the Dublin

Regulation.

In this regard, I must say that the Italian Presidency has

strongly stressed the issue of giving effect to the right of

migrants to realize their migration project, which is expected

to include the ability to reach family groups or ethnic communities

of reference.

Let’s talk about the most recent initiatives, anyway. The

informal meeting of EU Ministers of the Interior, which took

place in Milan on July 8, and opened the Italian Presidency

was an opportunity to highlight how the Italian border is, in

effect, a European border. And in fact, from that very moment,

there has been a growing commitment by Europe in facing

migration flows with joint and timely actions, culminating in


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


the last JHA Council of October 9, in Luxembourg, in which a

significant change in the provisions was resolved, so as to

strengthen Frontex by a massive participation of the Member

States to its operations.

I wish to recall here that, in order to provide a structured

response in line with the commitment taken in Milan versus

migratory streams, the Italian Presidency has developed a

paper on “Actions to be taken to better manage migration

flows.” This document, submitted to the JHA Council in

Luxembourg, has offered an innovative, sustainable, and

flexible model of management of migration flows, based on

three elements, which was shared by the Member States and

incorporated in the conclusions of the EU Council.

In particular, the three key elements proposed for the joint

management of migration are: cooperation with third countries;

the strengthening of Frontex; the actions within the EU to support

and implement homogeneously our common European asylum

system.

As regards cooperation with third countries, it is clear that its

actions - guided by the European strategy for the development

and the increase of the instrument of mobility partnerships,

which is, moreover, one of the pillars of the global approach to

migration of the EU - must cover, as a priority, the countries of

origin and the transit of the flows, located in Africa and the

Middle East, not to mention the Asian countries of the Silk

Road, especially Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. More

precisely, the immediate action should be aimed at preventing

departures and, with them, the tragedies at sea.

Among the actions included in this field, the ones which play

a fundamental role are those concerning law enforcement,

aimed to strengthen third countries’ abilities in the management of

their borders, also by means of programs of technical assistance,

to assign officers one to another so as to facilitate the exchange

of information, and to assign joint investigation teams to the

fight against criminal networks involved in trafficking illegal

immigration and profiting from it.

Equally important are those actions aimed to relaunch, with

the cooperation of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees

(UNHCR), security programs and regional development in

North Africa, the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, as well

as programs of assisted voluntary return, managed by the

International Organization for Migration (IOM).

These are the foundations to reach the possible opening of


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


humanitarian corridors, with screening carried out in the

countries of origin and transit of the seekers for international

protection and an hospitality which be fairly shared among

the Member States.

Despite the particular difficulties, mainly due to the present

conflicts in the geo-political conditions and the absence of

reliable partners in some third countries, and that I am perfectly

aware of, I am convinced that the EU can and must start a more

open and courageous discussion of this issue.

These initiatives, combined with other longer-term measures,

could help stabilize migrant communities, to dismantle the

criminal networks that profit from the trafficking of migrants

and human trafficking, to reduce dangerous journeys by sea

to Europe and to encourage third countries to implement closer

cooperation with the EU on immigration according to the principle

of “more for more”.

As regards the strengthening of Frontex, in light of the foregoing

considerations, it seems clear that, since the security of the

external borders of the EU is of vital interest to all Member

States, we cannot disregard the cooperation with the said Agency

and step up its presence in the central Mediterranean, which

is now the most vulnerable point of the external borders of the

Union. And, indeed, this is the purpose of the joint operation

“Triton”, started in early November.

The strengthening of the operational abilities of Frontex should

also entail a more agile performance of the procedures apt to

identify migrants with information collection and screening of

vulnerable persons – such as unaccompanied minors – in respect

of which, in September 2013, the European Parliament issued a

resolution urging the Commission and Member States to intensify

their efforts to ensure effective protection and medical care, so

as to provide for their needs immediately upon landing.

As regards the actions in the EU to support and implement

equitably the Common European Asylum System, I would like to

recall that this system is based, primarily, on cooperation and

solidarity between Member States. These are called, on the one

hand, to ensure a flexible national system for reception and

asylum, capable even to respond to sudden flows, and, on the

other hand, to take the fingerprints of migrants and enter them

promptly into Eurodac database so as to allow the registration

of the first country providing asylum, and counter those scams

apt to prevent immigrants’ identification.

The integration of all European structures that are involved in


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


its implementation have then stressed the importance of the

aforesaid document: this mechanism is apt to trigger some

virtuous relationships of mutual trust between Member States,

causing them to increase the level of cooperation. And, in

fact, it will be thanks to a comprehensive series of collective

actions – that is to say, literally, European actions – inspired

by solidarity between the Member States, that we can develop

a common asylum and migration policy in Europe which is

credible, sustainable and effective.

Before ending these brief observations, I should like to

point out that, anyway, the role of each individual Member

State in the management of migration and hospitality is vital

within the frame of reference established by the European

Union.

The commitment to the reorganization of the reception

system has led to the development of a national operational

plan, shared by the Central Government, the Regions, and the

Local Authorities, agreed on by the Joint Conference at its

meeting on July 10, last.

The innovative aspect of the plan is that the management of

migration flows acquires the connotation of an ordinary activity,

structured and programmable, based on the interaction between

the State and the local government bodies, and this, in turn, has

been identified as the ordinary method to handle this issue.

Under this Plan, the reception operations are carried out

through three stages organized so as to allow moving swiftly

from one to another:

A phase of rescue and first aid, implemented by some special

government centres located in the landing areas or in the adjacent

regions, in which the stay is expected to be very short so as to

guarantee the highest turnover of admissions.

A phase of first reception and qualification, to be implemented

for limited periods of time in an unprecedented type of

governmental structure - the hub - conceived as a wide logistic

base, at regional or interregional level, in which – among other

things – those entitled to asylum will be distinguished from

those who are not, after completion of the relevant procedure

A phase of further reception and integration, implemented

through SPRAR – which, as it is known, is managed by local

authorities under the central direction of Ministry of the

Interior – which is confirmed as the only system of second

stage reception.


Doc

umen

tatio

nlibe

rtàci

vili


The engine of this complex machine is still the Ministry of

the Interior, which, as regards the distribution of migrants

throughout the country and the organization of the other measures

included in the plan, avails of the support and the directions

of the Board of national coordination, involving the State

Administrations concerned, the Conference of Regions, the UPI

and the ANCI. Similarly, the Prefect of each regional capital City

initiates and chairs Boards of regional coordination assigned

to the task of implementing the local operations strategies

provided by the National Board.

By a recent legislative initiative, the action of technical

bodies responsible for examining the applications for asylum

has been stepped up, and the procedure for examining appli-

cations for asylum has been dramatically simplified and speeded

up, and this will enhance the operational capacity of the

Commissions, and, therefore, will reduce waiting times without

prejudice to the rights and protection of refugees. To speed up

the procedure, the number of Committees and territorial

Sections was doubled, from 20 to a total of 40.

Finally, the bill of 2015 Stability Law includes some important

provisions for the protection of unaccompanied minors on the

national territory, providing that, even if they do not seek for

asylum, are to be received in the protection system for asylum

seekers and refugees.

I think, ultimately, that, on the issues mentioned above, the

policies of each individual Member State and the European

Union are bound to be developed contextually according to a

medium/long-term vision, since we all are aware that the current

migration phenomenon has irrevocably become relentless and

structural.

This is the only way to ensure the right balance between

security needs and the protection of fundamental rights, so that

Europe may be more and more perceived as an area of protection

and solidarity which we can be proud of.

Keep up the good work.

libe

rtàci

vili

BIMESTRALE

DI STUDI

E DOCUMENTAZIONE

SUI TEMI

DELL’IMMIGRAZIONE

Speciale /

In questo numero interventi di: Angelino Alfano



il Semestre UE