Council of Baltic Sea States Expert Meeting

1. ‘’A rights-based perspective on transnational protection’’Andrea VonkemanUNHCR Bureau for Europe Council of Baltic Sea States Expert Meeting Returns and Transfers International and European standards, procedures and safeguards for children exposed to exploitation, trafficking and children at risk 13 – 14 May Riga

2. Setting the scene Global trends: • By end 2013, over 45 million people forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence and human rights violations • Ca. 15.4 million people were refugees • 46 % of those forcibly displaced were children (incl. children in families) In the EU 32% increase in asylum applications in 2013 compared to 2012 • < 3 % of applications lodged by children (UASC) • Only fraction of those arriving apply in 1st country of arrival. • Most move further afield to join relatives, communities; others are (re) trafficked • Mixed migratory flows, children often take dangerous routes • Many children arrive through smugglers (exploitation, abuse) • Among these child victims of trafficking (VoT) who may have asylum claim • Need to speedily identify those in need of protection • UASC should always be granted access to territory

3. Unaccompanied and separated child asylum applicants in the European Union as a proportion of all applicants (source EUROSTAT)

4. Unaccompanied and separated child asylum applicants in the European Union, by age-group (source EUROSTAT)

5. Major Movements of Children

6. Challenges • Many children disappearfrom care • From 1st reception centers (soon after arrival) • When they are rejected in final instance on their asylum claim • When they cannot access the asylum procedure and are given leave to remain until 18 • Where reception conditions including support for children are inadequate • Follow up by authoritiesand cooperation and coordination (assumption that child has moved on irregularly and so no longer of concern) often inadequate • Lack of cooperation and information exchange between actors nationally and transnationally and between the different systems (asylum, migration & child protection) • Transnational UNHCR led project Children on the Move found many children refuse to register intending to move further afield, leaving them at risk to all kinds of harm including destitution, exploitation (e.g. by traffickers), abuse and violence • Reach out through mobile teams and drop in centers only resulted in slight increase in registration and protection

7. Policy response insufficient • Durable solutions not identified in time • Issues around family tracing: some children arrive with a mission in Europe (e.g. to work); majority of these children sent by parents and pressures are enormous on these children to make it in Europe • Note that reasons for leaving their country may also be refugee related (so not only economic) and this needs to be recognised • Children found reluctant to share information about their family fearing this will lead to immediate return (shame, debts to smugglers which cannot be repaid etc.) • Emphasis on return • Child victims of trafficking not always properly identified (esp. those with asylum claim)

8. Real problems Need for comprehensive solutions • For some children parents or relatives cannot be traced yet they are not found to be in need of protection • Challenge for States what to do with these children • Most COO do not have well functioning child protection systems to receive children whose parents or relatives could not be traced • Guardianship systems or similar arrangements are largely absent in such countries and where children have returned • e.g. from PAK to AFG they ended up in orphanages from which most of them consequently disappeared (some believed to have fallen prey to traffickers)

9. Need for comprehensive solutions • Solutions for these children cannot be drawn up in isolation • They need to be part of a comprehensive package/strategy • Tackling root causes of forced displacement including of child trafficking and strengthening child protection systems in countries of origin (COO) • Ensuring well functioning child protection and asylum and migration systems in receiving countries • Strengthening transnational cooperation between actors in the different child protection systems (country of arrival/asylum and COO or other 3rd countries as may be appropriate)

10. Tackling root causes and strengthening child protection systems in countries of origin (COO) • Poverty eradication and combating corruption (with others, Govnt, development IOs, NGOs etc.) • Ensuring better access to services and education • Strengthening child protection systems in COO • Preventing trafficking in source (and transit) countries • Awareness raising (children/youth, parents, community, government) about dangers of overseas migration including on patterns and forms of trafficking, exploitation and risk of trafficking en route etc. • Getting better insight in motivations of parents to send their child overseas (forthcoming UNHCR research Afghanistan) • Noting that reasons for leaving country may be mixed and or include an asylum component (not all children are send abroad for economic reasons!)

11. How to strengthen protection of refugee children against trafficking ? • EXAMPLE: Ethiopia – Sudan – Yemen and Egypt. KEY MULTI-YEAR REGIONAL STRATEGY (UNHCR): • Addressing Secondary Movement, Trafficking and Smuggling • Enhancing Alternative Care Arrangements (community based care, foster care, care by relatives etc.) • Family Reunification (in COA, 1st asylum country or COO if in Best interest of the Child (BiC) • Regional Coordination (track and locate missing children, famre and reunification where in BiC)

12. Ensuring well-functioning child protection and asylum and immigration systems in receiving countries • … which respect best interest of the child from arrival / identification to durable solution in line with UN CRC General Comments 6, 12 and 14 • Proper procedural safeguards (guardian, legal advice), • Increase in safeguards as decision takes on more importance (BID) • Child sensitive procedures including interview techniques (forthcoming UNHCR guidelines) • Development + use of child specific country of origin information (COI) • Proper recognition of child specific forms of persecution • Improved quality of credibility assessments (CREDO II, UNHCR) • Departure from a culture of disbelief around claims lodged by children, using a multi-disciplinary approach)

13. Family reunification • Need to use family criteria under Dublin including the discretionary clauses), more efficiently to ensure more sustainable outcomes and also reduce secondary movement within the EU (children on the move) • Exploring other avenues for legal migration as alternatives to dangerous irregular movements of children including: • Resettlement • Humanitarian admissions (Syrians) • Facilitated access to family reunification • Aiming to decrease # of irregular and oftentimes dangerous crossings by children (by land and by sea) • Return and family reunification (or alterative care) in COO where in best interest of the child (but often poor CPS)

14. Strengthening transnational cooperation between actors in the different child protection systems (country of arrival/asylum and COO or other 3rd country) • Information exchange respecting confidentiality and data protection laws • Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or MOUs, cooperation agreements setting out roles and responsibilities of actors (national and transnational level) • Effective use of actors on the ground (IOs, NGOs, local communities monitored through IOs or NGOs) • Awareness raising and capacity building of communities and community based organisations (CBOs) • Regular monitoring and oversight by IOs, NGOs • Results feeding back into policy

15. Need to strengthen cooperation between actors • Need to strengthen cooperation between actors in COO and COA involving also non-governmental (neutral) actors with expertise in the field of: • Tracing governed by best interests principle (incl. verification and reunification) • Home studies (feeding into decisions on durable solutions) • Training and capacity building of various actors • Monitoring (protection responsibility of COA does not end when child is returned) • Collection and use of child specific COI (neutral sources) • Hand-over mechanisms in case of return incl. file (guardian involvement)

16. Opportunities • EU CHARTER Article 24 • UN CRC and General Comments No. 5, 6, 12, and 14 • BIA and BID: criteria laid down in GC 14 guiding States as to how to carry out BIAs and BID operationalizing article 3 CRC (see also EC action plan on UAM) • Forthcoming UNHCR-UNICEF work on best interests which also provides guidance to States • Mapping of child protection systems • Child protection guidelines (public consultations launched by DG Justice) • DG Justice and Home Affairs: Annual Forum on the Rights of the child bringing together experts and MS recognising need for a holistic approach to child protection along with integrated systems, based on the CRC, which protects ALL children regardless of nationality, immigration status etc. • EU acquison asylum including Anti-trafficking and Return Directive contain important provisions relating to UASC including child victims of trafficking (VoT) • FRA Handbook on guardian systems for child VoT (flowing from EU Anti-Trafficking strategy (strong child protection component) • Need for proper transposition + implementation of 2nd phase asylum instruments • Important role of EC and Court of Justice EU but also of IOs, NGOs etc. (monitors)

17. How? • The legal framework is there • So are tools (including CRC General Comments) • EC funded projects could be more widely disseminated and Member States encouraged to participate in them with other actors • Now it’s time to act and to make the best interest of the childour joint primary consideration!

18. For more information visit: www. refworld.org and www.unhcr.org