The impact of the Covid-19 emergency on migration flows and the new redistribution strategy after Malta Agreement
by Bianca Gazzi (intern) | University of Florence
In response to the COVID-19 emergency, many countries have taken severe measures to prevent the spread of the virus. Because of the state of emergency, these measures, although legitimate and necessary, restrict some fundamental human rights. In this context, the European Commission and other several actors, such as UNHCR and WHO, published recommendations in order to give a guidance on how actions taken to control and prevent the spread of the virus affecting migration policies, could be consistent with established international human rights and refugee law norms.
Italy, since the outbreak of the COVID- 19 pandemic, adopted few measures to promptly respond the emergency; some of them, involving the migration policies and practices.
First of all, since the ,23-𝑡ℎ. of February a compulsory preventive isolation measure has been established for at least 14 days, both for sea and land arrivals. Only at the end of the preventive isolation period, and if no positive cases were found, migrants were transferred to another reception facility. For the positive ones, the Prefects proceed in agreement with the Asl for a suitable location.
With regard to the humanitarian ships, the Interministerial Decree no. 150/2020, published on 7 april 2020, established that for the duration of the COVID-19 health emergency, italian harbors cannot be classified as a Place of Safety for people rescued by vessels flying flag outside the Italian Search and Rescue (SAR) zone.
In the meantime, the migrant relocation policy established by the Malta protocol has been suspended in order to prevent the spread of the pandemic.
It is useful to understand how these measures have influenced migration flows. According to data provided by the Ministry of Internal Affair (Department of public security, cruscotto giornaliero, 10/07/2020) from the beginning of the year to July 10, 8087 persons arrived by the sea: almost three times as compared to 3165 in 2019, but about half as compared to 16937 in 2018. From an initial analysis, it seems, therefore, that despite the closure of ports to humanitarian vessels, the legislative restrictions and the fear of the pandemic, migration flows have not been reduced.
The disaggregated data by months give us a different perspective to understand the possible impact of the pandemic.
Actually, the annual values are affected by a strong growth trend compared to the previous year, which had already manifested itself in January and February: 2553 migrants landed compared to 260 in the first two months of 2019.
In contrast, the data of the March landings seems to be affected by the restrictive measures taken to contrast the spread of the pandemic. In March, a fifth of the landings of the previous month has occurred, with just 5 autonomous disembarkation, none of them with NGO ships (Department of public security, cruscotto giornaliero, 10/07/2020). The last arrival of this type, involving the Sea Watch ship, dates back to February 27, in Messina.
In April, the number of landings exceeds April 2019 but still remains around half of the landings at the beginning of the year, despite better weather conditions favourable to navigation. The months of May and June record similar data to the first two months of the year and also the return of NGO vessels to the sea.
At the hearing of 30 June of the Minister of Internal Affair at the Schengen Committee, (as reported by La Repubblica, 30/06/2020 ) however, it emerges that of the 166 landings that have taken place since the beginning of the year, 140 have arrived autonomously in Lampedusa, only 26 with humanitarian vessels.
A qualitative aspect of the new landings must be stressed: the different composition by nationality, declared at the time of landing. On 31 March, migrants from Bangladesh represented the largest share with 16.5% of arrivals, followed by Algeria and the Ivory Coast, while on 10 July there was a significant increase in Tunisian nationality, accounting for 22.6% of arrivals. In March, Tunisian nationality accounted for only 5.5% of landings (Department of public security, cruscotto giornaliero, 10/07/2020).
The changed nationality of landings could, therefore, be an indirect effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on migrant flows. As indicated in the EUROPOL report published on 19 May 2020 by the European Migrant Smuggling Center (EMSC), prolonged economic instability and the persistent lack of opportunities in some African economies, in particular the drastic reduction in the tourism sector, could trigger another wave of migration: for instance, the appearance of migrants from Egypt on 10 July.
This could change the focus of the investigation; it would not be a question, of hypothesizing the arrival of those who were unable to move during the lockdown, but to photograph the new flows, caused by the virus.
The development of new routes are not merely caused by the direct and indirect effects of covid-19: the policies undertaken by the bridge countries, such as Libya and Turkey, play a significant role in determining migratory routes for Europe. In particular, the push-back actions carried out by Libyan patrol boats and the civil war, drive migrants to privilege the Balkan and Moroccan routes. UNHCR data confirm that in the first six months of 2020 the most significant landings in Europe took place in Greece (10 180 arrivals) and Spain (7 997 arrivals). For this reason, land arrivals in the northern regions of Italy are also increasing.
Even taking into account the new routes, it is important to mention the joint document on immigration signed by Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Greece and Spain presented to the European Commission last June 9. This is a policy proposal with a view to the forthcoming development of a new common EU strategy on immigration and asylum. For the first time the five Mediterranean countries, which are also the most affected by migration, have presented a similar document. The document, signed after a series of consultations between the parties, highlights three crucial points in the new migration agenda, in the continuation of the Malta Agreement of September 2019.
The first aspect concerns the mandatory relocation of migrants landing on the southern coasts of the European Union after the rescue operations conducted in the different SAR zones. While the second point involves the adoption of a European repatriation system, the third, and most important, point concerns the overcoming the responsibility criterion of the country of first entry, laid down in the Dublin Regulation. According to the five countries, the new Regulation will have to provide for a pre-established compulsory and automatic mechanism based on pro-quota redistribution between Member States.
Considering that an effective management of the phenomenon cannot be disregarded, inter alia, by the development of policies capable of ensuring the effective integration of migrants, the initiative of the five Mediterranean countries should launch a new challenge for a common European policy on immigration and asylum.