Regional Roundtable on Irregular Migration by Sea in the Asia-Pacific Region

18-20 March 2013 Jakarta, Indonesia

Key issues for

Responses

to Irregular Migration by Sea

from A Refugee Protection Perspective

OUTLINE

• Complex characteristics of external environment • Key protection concerns • Responses

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

Number of Migrants in the Region

More than 13 million migrant workers from ASEAN countries work abroad • 5 million work in ASEAN countries • 8 million work in non-ASEAN countries Source: ASEAN Secretariat,

ASEAN Seeks to Protect and Promote Migrant Workers Rights

, 21 July 2010

5

Main Host Countries in the Region Pakistan Iran Bangladesh India Thailand 230,000 189,000 102,000 Malaysia 98,000 Nepal Australia 74,000 29,000 Indonesia 4,000 887,000 Source:

UNHCR Annual Statistical Reports 2011. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

1,704,000

Causes of Displacement

• Violence /

Armed conflict

• • Poverty

Gross human rights abuses

•

Persecution

• Environment

The complex reality of mixed movements by sea

• Populations on vessels are “mixed” with different

profiles

and

needs

(asylum-seekers, UAMs, stateless, trafficking victims) • Conditions of boats very poor/inadequate • Greater risk of loss of lives (than with overland migration) • Complexity of international law and protection regimes applicable to: - Search & rescue at sea – and disembarkation - Interception - Irregular sea arrivals and reception

The complex reality of mixed movements by sea (cont.)

•

Push factors (war; poverty; gross human rights violations)

are stronger than fears of the journey and hard to reverse despite state responses •

Unpredictable protection environment

given few State protection sensitive systems in place (see in next slide…) • Difficult for States to engage and address problem “balancing” right to control borders/duty to preserve national security with international obligation to protect individual rights and human dignity of the “boat people” • Only few

durable solutions

are available

Legal Protection Environment in South-East Asia

• • • •

Three States have acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention/ 1967 Protocol The Philippines has ratified the 1954 Stateless Convention while no State has acceded to the 1961 Statelessness Convention.

Three States have domestic mechanisms for RSD Use of detention as a migration management tool

10

Key Protection Concerns

Protection issues arise in the context of: • Threat of loss of life at sea • Exposure to

abuse

arrival &

exploitation

before/after • Lack of

access

mechanisms to procedures & support • Lack of systems to register, identify, process mixed profiles/different protection needs • Lack of

protection “space”

movements fuels onward

Responses:

Rescue-at Sea

• Maximise efforts to reduce loss of life at sea • Stronger coordination for a timely SAR • Assisting coastal states (resources & equipment) to meet their obligations under international maritime law in search and rescue areas

Responses:

Disembarkation

• Need to ensure that identification of safe places for disembarkation is predictable and timely • Developing mechanisms to address ambiguity on determination of State responsibility for disembarkation • Addressing interests of shipping industry in rescue and disembarkation operations • Need to uphold old seafaring principle/obligation to render aid to persons in distress

Responses:

Protection sensitive entry systems and reception

• Border control systems are protection sensitive and respectful of the principle of

non-refoulement

• New arrivals basic needs are met by appropriate reception arrangements

Responses:

Profiling & Referral Processes

• Standardized or differentiated procedures need to be ready available to register, profile and refer persons to appropriate processes (e.g. RSD or procedures for trafficking victims) • Profiling should identify new arrival, determine motives of departure, personal needs and address State security concerns

Responses:

Assessment processes

The

Regional Cooperation Framework

proposes:

“Where appropriate and possible, asylum seekers should have access to consistent assessment processes, whether through a set of harmonized arrangements or through the possible establishment of regional assessment arrangements, which might include a centre or centres, taking into account any existing sub regional arrangements.”

[Extraterritorial processing of asylum claims as part of a burden-sharing arrangement, or of a comprehensive cooperative strategy to address mixed movements]

Responses:

Solutions & Outcomes

• Assisted voluntary return • Voluntary repatriation • Resettlement • “in country” solutions

Responses:

Solutions & Outcomes

(cont.)

The

Regional Cooperation Framework

suggests

:

“Persons found to be refugees under those assessment processes should be provided with a durable solution, including voluntary repatriation, resettlement within and outside the region and, appropriate, possible “in country” solutions”.

“Persons found not to be in need of protection should be returned, preferably on a voluntary basis, to their countries of origin, in safety and dignity. Returns shoulb sustainable and States should look to maximise opportunities for greater cooperation.”

Responses:

Regional Cooperation & Burden Sharing

Further establish through the operationalization of

the RCF

for : , procedures for burden and responsibility sharing to support States providing - Disembarkation - Registration, profiling and referral processes - Assessment processes and, or solutions

The Model Framework

for cooperation following interception, rescue-at-sea and, or sea arrivals involving refugees and a/s traveling as part of irregular movements, could be see as part of the RCF.

Thank you !