Report on International Protection In Italy 2014 - sprar.it · RepoRt on InteRnatIonal pRotectIon...

RepoRt on InteRnatIonal pRotectIon In Italy - 2014ABRIDGED VERSION

1

Report on InternationalProtection In Italy 2014

ANCICARItAS ItAlIANACIttAlIAFONDAzIONE MIGRANtESSPRARIN COllABORAtION wIthUNhCR

ABRIDGED VERSION


2

UnH

cR/J

.StJ

eRne

klaR

/JU

ly 1

994


3

Introduction

At the global level 2013 was marked by severalprolonged humanitarian crisis, reaching levelsunseen since the time of the Rwandan genocidein 1994. More than 2.5 million people were for-ced to abandon their homes and seek protectionoutside their countries’ borders, mostly in nei-ghbouring States.

The issue of safe arrivals for those who areforced to flee their countries and risk losing theirlives while trying to reach Europe has thus be-come increasingly pressing. This clearly meansthat action is needed not only at the national le-vel – where a better reception and protectionsystem is needed – but also at the internationallevel, through the creation of humanitarianchannels and the implementation of search andrescue activities comparable to those undertakenin the course of 2014 by operation Mare No-strum.

In this respect, better outcomes could beachieved if Italy were to become more involvedin the various resettlement programmes whichclearly require additional funding to ensure thesafety of individuals throughout all the stagesof their journey, from the place of departure toarrival, in a more complete and safe manner.

Over the past twenty years and more, Italyhas experienced inflows of international mi-grants closely connected to the serious huma-nitarian crises that have exploded in the courseof time and have increasingly turned our Pe-ninsula into a country of arrival for people see-king protection and asylum. In recent years thisscenario has given rise to an intense dialoguebetween institutions and the third sector, re-volving around the need to rethink “receptionprocedures” and go beyond a fire-fighting ap-proach, through the promotion of local net-works. Social organisations continue to play adecisive role in such networks. There is nodoubt that the reception, protection and inte-gration of those who arrive in Italy looking forprotection can only be guaranteed if mecha-nisms promoting self-reliance and social inclu-sion are put in place at local level. Local gover-nment and third sector networks play a strategicand essential role in activating the synergiesneeded for reception and protection program-mes to be effective. The fact that such program-mes are implemented locally not only means

that the local level should play a leading role,but also that the local level itself should showsolidarity and awareness.

Because of the complexity of the scenario,the characteristics of international mobility inthe Mediterranean area have evolved andchanged so deeply in recent years that newand dedicated tools of analysis are needed tointerpret these phenomena in transnationalterms. It is indeed clear that similar events ne-ver have an isolated impact but rather producemultiple consequences that must be taken intoconsideration. Developments in Syria, amongothers, well represent this interconnection,making international protection a phenome-non that unfolds as a long chain of events,from crisis areas to small local communitieshosting the refugees.

On the basis of this common understanding,the major organisations that have worked onthese issues for years decided to join their ef-forts and visions and, notwithstanding theirdifferent perspectives, produced a dedicatedjoint publication on international protection.

The 2014 Report on International Protectionin Italy, drawn up by ancI, Caritas Italiana, Cit-talia, Fondazione Migrantes, Servizio Centraledello SpRaR and UnHcR, starts from an analysisof the role of the State, Local Governments andthe Third Sector in receiving asylum and inter-national protection seekers, to offer an overviewof how Italy’s integrated reception system hasbeen developed throughout the years. The re-port also highlights how migration is now ex-perienced by an increasing number of vulnera-ble persons, such as foreign minors, statelesspersons and trafficking victims, whose circum-stances often overlap with those of refugees.The Report contains four chapters focusing on:I) asylum and the role of the State and of theThird Sector; II) the phenomenon of interna-tional protection seekers in Italy and the systemof protection for asylum seekers and refugees(SpRaR and other forms of reception implemen-ted as needed); III) highly vulnerable persons(stateless persons, trafficking victims and unac-companied asylum-seeking children, UaSc); andIv) the flows of forced migrants at internationaland European level.

The joint effort made by the agencies in dra-


4

wing up this report is a good first step towardsthe development of a national effective and in-tegrated system of protection and reception,where no stakeholder feels either excluded orthe sole actor involved. We will meet again a ye-

ar from now, hopefully not to discuss the pro-blems we need to solve but rather the qualitiesof a system that is taking shape. With this report,we hope to make an active contribution to itsdevelopment.

A human rights-basedapproach at internationalbordersIn applying the measures regarding accessto the procedure for granting internationalprotection, the European Union has to meettwo different requirements, which are toooften dealt with in a conflicting way: on theone hand, external border control, accord-ing to policies and strategies aimed, amongother things, at guaranteeing the internalsecurity of individual Member States andof the territory of the Union as a whole; onthe other, proper protection of forced mi-grants. This conflict has prevented the twin objec-tives of “border control/asylum” from beingproperly pursued, which has in turn led tothe adoption of stop-gap measures and poli-cies. Hence, the approach that is required to en-sure a standardisation of border controlmeasures and, at the same time, to guaran-tee protection, is a human rights-based ap-proach.

In particular, the following recom-mendations are made:n The European Union must comply with

its international obligations on the pro-tection of human rights at its externalborders, also through search and rescueoperations that can save thousands ofhuman lives, as proven by operationMare Nostrum.

n Freedom of movement should not be re-stricted and the right to leave any coun-try, including one’s own, should be re-spected, also by guaranteeing fast accessto identity and travel documents.

n Common guidelines at European levelfor managing the entry into Europe ofinternational protection seekers.

n In the event of a humanitarian crisis gen-erating an exceptional influx of refugees,humanitarian channels of entry into Eu-rope should be expanded, also by grant-ing visas that can be applied for at Em-bassies located in the countries of transitand origin, facilitating access to thirdcountries through the Embassy of aMember State other than the one for

which the applicant wishes to request anentry visa.

n Extend humanitarian admission pro-grammes through greater involvementof all 28 eU Member States and by pro-viding additional funds for resettlementprogrammes.

n Close co-operation, particularly at na-tional level, between border police andborder patrol forces on the one hand, andnon-governmental organisations and oth-er protection bodies responsible for pro-viding support and assistance to migrantsarriving in the eU to seek internationalprotection on the other.

n Establish a Europe-wide training and up-dating programme, aimed in particularat border police and patrol forces, whichallows for the inclusion of modules pro-moting an understanding of the specificneeds of forced migrants and vulnerablegroups in particular.

n Test common procedures for the identi-fication of migrants that can be appliedwithin a specific period of time, with de-tailed and precise measures, respectingfundamental human rights and the dig-nity of individuals.

n Review the Dublin Regulation also in or-der to further facilitate family reunionfor individuals whose family membersalready reside in European Union coun-tries.

n Provide guidance and assistance servicesat all border crossings (airport, port andland crossings) and entry areas, dedicat-ed to foreign citizens intending to applyfor international protection. These serv-ices could be managed by non-govern-mental organisations and other protec-tion bodies, developing forms of co-op-eration with police forces, complyingwith common guidelines and trainingprogrammes.

n Envisage periodic eU monitoring mis-sions to border and entry areas.

Recommendations


5

Redesigning a singlereception system In order to set up a single reception systemin Italy – an objective which the Ministryof Interiors, ancI, UnHcR, protection bod-ies and associations have pursed for years– we must overcome the dichotomy be-tween “first reception” (reception at theinitial stage) and “second reception” (re-ception at a later stage). In operationalterms, such dichotomy has led, over theyears, to different objectives for these twodifferent levels and to different standardsof intervention, with a tendency to lowerstandards for initial reception.Within a redesigned single reception sys-tem, the same guidelines and identicalstandards must govern all reception meas-ures – from the moment forced migrantsfirst arrive in Italy, to the phase when theycan benefit from inclusion programmesat local level. The common objective of allmeasures should be that of helping bene-ficiaries to become self-reliant and over-come the need for reception services, withparticular attention to more vulnerablegroups as unaccompanied foreign minors.

In particular, the following recom-mendations are made:n Same reception standards for every re-

ception context, be it of a permanentor extraordinary nature (caRa, HUb,SpRaR, multifunctional municipal cen-tres, temporary centres activated in re-sponse to possible “emergencies” in ar-rivals management). These standardsshould be based on the SpRaR guide-lines, developed in recent years in a bot-tom-up approach with the key contri-bution of social workers at local level.

n Mechanisms to inter-connect the differ-ent forms of reception should be put inplace and coordinated at local level bythe interested local and regional gov-ernments; such mechanisms should in-clude well-defined forms of exchangeand cooperation with protection bod-ies.

n All reception projects for unaccompa-nied foreign minors should be broughtback within the SpRaR system; diversi-

fied forms of reception for these chil-dren should be promoted including –besides dedicated care centres – tutor-ing/accompanying mechanisms andfoster care, on the basis of the principleof the best interest of the child;

n Common mechanisms to monitor andassess all types of reception projectsshould be developed, so as to verify theefficiency and effectiveness of the re-ception provided in terms of quality (tobe evaluated on the basis of commonstandards) as well as in terms of the op-timisation of both financial resourcesand policy and organisational strate-gies.

Policies and Strategies forsocio-economic inclusionThe time spent in reception facilities is tem-porary by nature and only represents ashort spell in the lives of asylum seekersand beneficiaries of international and hu-manitarian protection in Italy.Therefore, it is wrong to think that recep-tion can in itself meet all the needs of theindividuals received. Consequently, meas-uring its effectiveness exclusively on thebasis of few socio-economic indicators,such as housing and employment, is mis-leading. While hosted in reception facili-ties, individuals benefit from support ac-tivities aimed at developing the skills theyneed to become self-reliant once the assis-tance programme ends. Such activities arethus mainly focused on learning Italian,familiarising with and accessing existingservices, identifying social networks of ref-erence, etc. This does not automaticallylead to the person finding a job and a placeto live. No reception system will ever beenough to guarantee, on its own, the suc-cess of social inclusion for its beneficiaries.As a matter of fact, unless we implementpolicies, strategies and programmes at re-gional and national level to facilitate thesocial and economic inclusion of asylumseekers and beneficiaries of internationaland humanitarian protection, the expo-nential growth in reception capacity (asin the case of SpRaR, which increased its

capacity from 3,000 to 20,000 places in2014) will be of little help.

In particular, the following recom-mendations are made: n At national and regional level, imple-

mentation of dedicated policies andprogrammes aimed at promoting thesocio-economic and housing inclusionof the beneficiaries of international andhumanitarian protection, by grantingthem – for a limited amount of time af-ter they have been given the interna-tional protection or humanitarian status– the same entitlements that highly dis-advantaged groups are eligible for inItaly, including access to entrepreneur-ship support, social security and tax re-lief programmes;

n Strengthening actions aimed at support-ing the social inclusion of beneficiarieswhile they are still in reception, by inte-grating financial resources at local leveland creating virtuous models of local so-cio-economic inclusion that can turn intoan opportunity for the entire urban com-munity;

n In the interest of optimising use of re-sources as mentioned earlier, facilitateinter-institutional dialogue – also at thelevel of ministries and regional or mu-nicipal departments – so as to supportthe development of integrated pro-grammes for beneficiaries of interna-tional protection, economic migrants,and European and Italian citizens.


6

UnH

cR/H

.J.D

avIe

S/19

96


7

the first chapter of the Report, devoted to therole of the State and of Third Sector organisa-tions in the management of the migration phe-nomenon, reconstructs the steps of reception inItaly both from the regulatory standpoint andfrom the economic and social standpoint, by pro-viding an overview of the various humanitariancrises that have involved our Country: from thevietnamese boat people, to the crisis in the Bal-kans, to the boats from Albania through to theso-called “North Africa Emergency” and the Ma-re Nostrum arrivals in the course of the presentyear. This overview has brought up not only theneed to go beyond the reception of refugees andasylum seekers by providing emergency make-shift measures, but it has also prompted aware-ness of the huge work done by the local networksof non-governmental bodies and third sector or-ganizations in managing the phenomenon.

From a historic and political analysis of theseimportant events it can be noticed that rightfrom the earliest interventions of a humanitariannature in favour of the refugees (1970s), ourCountry has experimented with interesting ini-tiatives and at time innovative measures thathowever have had to come to terms with the in-capacity of the Italian government to implementan efifcient reception and protection system.

The first time Italy was engaged in a searchand rescue operation at sea was back in 1979when in the Indochinese sea some 1000 peoplewere saved by the ships of the Italian Navy. Thir-ty-five years later, under our Mare Nostrum Ope-ration more than 150 thousand people have be-en rescued at sea. Two experiences, years andyears apart, that were never turned into syste-matic practice that in the interim could have sa-ved other hundreds of thousands of people fromdeath in the Mediterranean Sea.

Over these years we have also seen that theregulations and administrative practices regar-ding the protection of people asking for inter-national protection has evolved in a haphazard,laborious and at times incomprehensible man-ner. From the geographic reservation, introdu-ced in the transposition of the 1954 Geneva Con-vention that remained in force up until 1990, tothe extensive use made in recent years of thehumanitarian formula, what emerges is the ina-dequacy of the legal instruments used on the va-rious occasions to give protection to the peoplearriving in Italy.

As to the various types of reception facilitiesand the different solutions adopted to cope withthe events of recent decades, the situation is noless problematic: from the three Centres for as-sisting refugees and foreigners set up in the1970s at Padriciano (Trieste), Latina and Capua,through to the recent Extraordinary ReceptionCentres envisaged throughout the territory in2014. A time frame that is very broad duringwhich the Italian Government has had the op-portunity of developing also a national receptionsystem (SpRaR) compelled to co-exist, however,with other experiences that are not always co-ordinated in terms of standards and quality ofservices offered.

A complex and fragmented picture to whichis to be added the third sector church and layorganisations that have struggled to give theircontribution complementary to or in replace-ment of the actions adopted from time to timeby the Government. The strengthening of insti-tutional collaboration at both national and locallevels, therefore, constitutes an essential pre-condition for intervening in a truly effectivemanner in favour of the beneficiaries requestinginternational protection.

Action by the State andthird Sector Organisations

8


Persons requestinginternational protection in Italy

After the arrival of a first large number of mi-grants in 1999, in particular from Albania follo-wing the Kosovo war, there was a constant andsteady flow of arrivals on the Italian coasts bet-ween 2000 and 2007. From 2008 to 2013 the ti-de of arrivals instead became stable, reflectingthe political, economic and social conditions ofthe countries of origin of the migrants. Indeedthe years when the surges occurred are 2008,2011, 2013 and 2014: the first North Africanemergency (2008), the exodus following the

events that characterized the so-called ArabSpring (2011) and the onset and escalation ofold and new conflicts in many areas of NorthernAfrica and the Near East (2013-2014). From 1stJanuary to 1st July 2014, indeed there have beenas many as 400 arrivals bringing a total of 65,456migrants who reached the Italian coasts on boats.During the same period of 2013 the figures onarrivals were considerably lower, namely 7916people, a figure which in any case was higherthan the number of people who arrived in 2012.

Chart 2

Monthly arrivals:comparison between2013 and 2014 (as at 14 April) Absolute values

Fonte: elaborazione Cittaliasu dati Ministero dell’Interno

Chart 1

Arrivals from 1999 to 2014(as at 1st July) Absolute values

Source: Ministry of the Interiordata processed by Cittalia

Migrants arriving via the sea and requestsfor international protection between 2013and the first six months of 2014

January

20.715

3.357

2.156

4.391

7.916

13.853

21.054

30.086

38.343

40.244

42.925

March DecemberApril JuneMay July August September October NovemberFebruary

0

10.000

30.000

40.000

20.000

50.000

217

4.777

449

1.524

10.962

2013

2014

49.999

26.817

20.143

23.719

14.331 13.635

22.939

22.016 20.165

36.951

9.5734.406

62.692

13.267

42.925

65.456

1999

2001 20142002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20132000


9

Indeed, in 2013 there was a massive influx ofmigrants for a total of almost 43 thousand per-sons, 325 per cent more than in the previousyear, and the trend continues also in 2014. Inpractice Sicily is the region that receives the lar-

gest number of boat people. Suffice it to say thatduring the first six months of 2014, 85.5 percent of migrants reaching Italy by sea have ar-rived in Sicily followed by Apulia and by Cala-bria (Table 1).

Table 1

Boat people reaching thecoasts of Italian Regions:2011-2014 (as at 1st July) Absolute values

Source: Ministry of theInterior data processed byCittalia

Region 2011 2012 2013 2013 (al 01/07) 2014 (al 01/07)

Sicily* 57.181 8.488 37.886 6.125 56.649

Apulia 3.325 2.719 1.030 695 5.978

Calabria 1.944 2.056 3.980 1.096 1.765

Sardinia 207 4 29 0 23

Campania 0 0 0 0 1.041

Lazio 0 0 0 0 0

Friuli Venezia Giulia 35 0 0 0 0

Total 62.692 13.267 42.925 7.916 65.456

*detail of Sicily

Lampedusa, Linosa and Lampione 51.753 5.202 14.753 3.648 1.459

Province of Agrigento 806 551 2.937 301 8021

With reference to the nationality of the mi-grants who reached the Italian coasts duringthe first six months of 2014, some 30 per centof the total is Eritrean, followed by Syrians andMalaysians. In 2013, the migrants who rea-ched the Italian coasts were mostly Syrians

(26.3 per cent), Eritreans (23 per cent) andSomalis (7.6 per cent); instead, in 2012 theTunisians were the nationality that was mostrepresented with 17 per cent, followed by So-malis (16.4 per cent) and Afghans (13 percent) (Table 2).

Table 2

Nationality of Migrants,2012-2014 (as at 1st July)Absolute values


* The figure may includeimmigrants who are still in theprocess of being identified

Nazionalità 2012 Nazionalità 2013 Nazionalità 2014 (al 01/07)

Tunisia 2.268 Siria 11.307 Eritrea 19.329

Somalia 2.179 Eritrea 9.834 Siria 11.236

Afghanistan 1.739 Somalia 3.263 Mali 5.835

Eritrea 1.612 Egitto 2.728 Gambia 3.333

Pakistan 1.247 Nigeria 2.680 Nigeria 3.089

Egitto 1.223 Gambia 2.619 Somalia 2.196

Bangladesh 622 Pakistan 1.753 Senegal 1.791

Siria 582 Malì 1.674 Egitto 1.552

Nigeria 358 Senegal 1.314 Pakistan 1.330

Gambia 348 Tunisia 833 Marocco 917

altre 1.089 altre 4.920 Other* 14.848

Totale 13.267 Totale 42.925 Total 65.456

10


The report also offers an overall view of the Ma-re Nostrum Operation1 that was started on 18October 2013 following the shipwreck off thecoast of Lampedusa on 3 October that causedthe death of more than 300 people. Up until the31st of December 2013, this operation comple-ted 34 interventions rescuing a total of 4.323migrants. During the first six months of 2014,Mare Nostrum has carried out 259 interventions

during which 48695 migrants were rescued: ofthe 259 interventions, 216 were carried out bythe Navy (41.554 people saved) and 43 werejoint interventions (36 First aid actions carriedout jointly by the Coast Guard, Guardia di Fi-nanza and SM units during which 5.417 mi-grants were rescued and another 7 First aid ac-tions by the Navy) that saved 1724 people (Ta-ble 3).

1 “Humanitarian operationaimed at strengthening theair and sea units for moni-toring and rescue actions atsea, aimed at improving sa-fety for human beings andat controlling the flow ofmigrants. The Operation isequipped with five navalunits and two aircraft of theNavy”.

Total n° events People rescued259 48.695

of which

Navy interventions

Joint interventions

First aid actions CG/GDF/SM units First aid action Navy

Interventions rescues Interventions rescues Interventions rescues

216 41.554 36 5.417 7 1.724

Table 3

Figures of the MareNostrum Operation

Mare Nostrum 2013(From 18 October to 31 December)Absolute values

Mare Nostrum 2014(From 1 January to 14 July)Absolute values


Total n° events People rescued34 4.323

of which

Navy interventions

Joint interventions

First aid actions CG/GDF/SM units First aid action Navy

Interventions rescues Interventions rescues Interventions rescues

29 3.870 0 0 5 453

In 2013 the Applications for international pro-tection filed in Italy were around 27 thousand,that is to say 10 thousand more than the pre-

vious year; during the last 14 years the trendhas been discontinuous (Chart 3).

Chart 3

Trend of applications forinternational protection(1999-2013).

Comparison of applicationsfor international protectionsubmitted to territorialboards and boat arrivalsAbsolute values

Source: Ministry of the Interiordata processed by Cittalia

1999

2001 20132002 20042003 2005 2008 200920072006 2010 2011 20122000

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

Applications received

Arrivals


11

If we consider the Countries of origin of the ap-plicants for international protection we find thatthey come from two continents: Africa and Asia.In particular, as regards Africa the largest num-ber of persons who asked for international pro-

tection came from Nigeria with 3519 aplicationsfollowed by persons from Pakistan (3232), So-malia (2,774), Eritrea (2109), Afghanistan(2056) and Malaysia (1806) (Chart 4).

Chart 4

Top ten Countries oforigin of applicantsrequesting internationalprotection, 2013


Other

Nigeria

Pakistan

Somalia

Eritrea

Afghanistan

Mali

Senegal

Gambia

Egypt

Syria

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Instead, as regards the decisions on the appli-cations filed with Italian territorial Boards, theReport highlights that in 2013 some 24 thou-sand applications were examined.

A form of international protection was gran-ted to 8,642 people, namely 36.6% of the ap-plicants. In particular, 13 per cent were grantedthe status of refugees while subsidiary protec-tion was granted to 24 per cent of the appli-

cants. By adding to these data the number ofpersons who were granted a permit of stay forhumanitarian reasons (24 per cent), the positiveresults for the applications in terms of the gran-ting of some form of protection was 61 per cent(Chart 5).

These figures show that the numbers relativeto the granting of international protection in2013 are very close to the numbers for 2011.

29%

24%

24%

13%

10%

Not granted

Proposal for humanitarian protection

Proposal for subsidiary protection

Refugee status

Not found

Other outcomes (0%)

Chart 5

Decisions on theapplications requestinginternational protection,2013Percentage values


12


As regards the first six months of 2014, 25,401applications for international protection weresubmitted to the Italian authorities of which 70per cent by citizens coming from the African con-tinent and 25 per cent from Asia. Almost all thepeople who submitted the applications were ma-les (93 per cent). Looking at the top ten countriesof origin of the foreigners whose applications forasylum were examined during the first sixmonths of 2014, they were all from Africa andAsia and in particular: Mali, Nigeria, Gambia,Pakistan, Senegal, Afghanistan and Ghana.

In order to handle the request for receptionand assistance by foreigners, specific dedicatedfacilities were set up that vary in terms of capacityand of the functions attributed to them. In Italy,as at 26 August 2014, the theoretical overall ca-pacity of the CPSAs (Centres for first aid and re-ception), the CDAs (Reception centres) and CA-RAs (Reception centres for asylum seekers) was7,810 beds that rose to 10,331 in terms of num-ber of immigrants present who were receivedand given assistance to which need to be addedmore than 28,500 migrants who were receivedin the CASs (Extraordinary reception Centres).The Centre that in absolute terms received thelargest number of immigrants was the cDa-caRaof Mineo which hosted 3792 people (37% of allthe persons present in reception centres in Italy).To these figures we must add the 1746 peoplepresent in Bari Pales (with 17% of persons pre-

sent out of the national total) and Crotone with1531 (15%). At the joint conference of 10 July2014, an understanding was reached by the Go-vernment, the Regions and the Local Gover-nments on the National Plan for the Receptionof Migrants that envisages the creation of regio-nal hubs for first reception, an increase in thenumber of beds within the SpRaR network (Net-work for the protection of asylum seekers andrefugees) and the commitment to organize a sy-stem-wide governance of facilities providing careto unaccompanied foreign minors by activatinghighly specialized first reception facilities andplanning the reception of all unaccompanied mi-nors within SpRaR, adequately upgraded and fi-nanced for this purpose. Underlying this under-standing is the need to create a single receptionsystem that envisages a first stage of aid and carethrough ad hoc government facilities where peo-ple remain for a short time. This is then followedby a phase of first reception in regional and in-terregional hubs where the migrants who haveasked for protection are received. And then a se-cond phase of reception and integration centredon the SpRaR network that is the core of this mo-del both for adults and for unaccompanied fo-reign minors. The Report continues by presentingan overview of reception within the SpRaR net-work (Network for the protection of asylum see-kers and refugees) during the last ten years withan update of the data that refer to the first six

If we look beyond our national borders, the otherCountries of the European Union received435,390 applications for international protectionin 2013, of which 30 per cent were given a po-sitive response thereby meaning that some form

of international protection was granted. In par-ticular, it can be seen that the number of appli-cations for international protection addressedto Germany, France and Sweden was above theweighted European average (Table 4).

Refugee status Subsidiary protection Humanitarian protection

France* 83.0 17.0

Austria* 68.5 31.5

Germany 53.2 30.5 16.3

Greece 41.3 29.9 30.7

Spain 39.6 58.6 1.8

Sweden 28.2 64.9 6.9

Italy 21.3 38.9 39.9

EU weighted average 53.1 26.0 20.9

Table 4

Comparison of EUCountries that grantedsome form ofinternational protection in 2013 Percentage values

Source: Eurostat dataprocessed by Cittalia

* The national law does not envisagehumanitarian protection


13

months of 2014. While the reception projects wi-thin the SpRaR network in 2013 were 151 withthe involvement of 128 local bodies and alloca-tions for 3000 persons, to which an additional6402 extraordinary beds were added (Chart 4),for the 2014-2016 three-year period instead, 456projects have been funded of which 367 that willprovide reception for the beneficiaries belongingto the ordinary categories, 32 for recipients with

mental of physical disabilities, and 57 for unac-companied foreign minors. These projects havemade available 13,020 beds plus additional6,490 beds. The local authorities that run theprojects are 415 of which 375 municipalities (in-cluding territorial and social areas, intercommu-nal consortia, Health associations and mountaincommunities), 30 Provinces and 10 clusters ofmunicipalities.

Network for the Protection ofAsylum Seekers and Refugees

Fact sheetabout SPRAR

SpRaR – The Network for the Protectionof Asylum Seekers and Refugees wasestablished by Act no 189/2002 and wasgiven the legacy of the National AsylumProgram (PNA), a consortium for recep-tion initiatives by municipalities andthird sector organizations. PNA was setup in 2001 following a Memorandumof Understanding signed by the Ministryof the Interior, the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees and the Na-tional Association of Italian Municipa-lities (ancI). Today SpRaR comprisesthe network of local bodies that, in or-der to accomplish their local projects forreceiving asylum seekers, refugees, andpersons entitled to subsidiary and hu-manitarian protection, have access tothe scanty resources of the NationalFund for Asylum Policies and Servicesmanaged by the Ministry of the Interiorand envisaged in the Budget Act of theState. Access to the National Fund forAsylum, Policies and Services is regula-ted by a decree of the Ministry of the In-terior that regulates the call for submis-sion of proposals for integrated recep-tion projects by local authoriteis. Thedecree – and its call for proposals – was

published annually up until 2008. Therewas a single call for 2009 and 2010, whi-le from 2011 the call is issued everythree years. The Central Service ofSpRaR – The coordination of the Protec-tion Network is ensured by the CentralService, an operational structure esta-blished by the Ministry of the Interior

and entrusted, under agreement, to an-cI as per Act 189/2002. The Central Ser-vice has the task of monitoring, infor-ming, promoting, training, consultingand providing technical assistance to lo-cal authorities as well as managing theactivities for the adjustment of the per-sons in the reception facilities.

KEY WORDS OF SPRAR

Public nature of both the resources made available and of the bodies that are politicallyresponsible for providing reception - Ministry of the Interior and local authoritiesaccording to the multilevel governance approach.

Synergies, started on the territory with the “managing bodies”, third sector players –associations. NGOs, cooperatives – that offer an instrumental contribution to theimplementation of the interventions.

Decentralization of “integrated reception” actions, carried out across the national territorywith a presence in all the Regions (except for Valle d’Aosta).

Local networks – stable, solid, interactive – promoted and developed with the involvementof all players and special interlocutors for the success of the reception, protection andsocial inclusion measures adopted.

Specific skills of operators, strengthened over the years by in-the-field experience, bytraining and updating, ensured also at the central level.

Voluntary nature of the local authorities’ participation in the network of projects forreception, bearing witness to the political engagement by the local administrations inchoosing to plan the interventions to be carried out in their territory of competence infavour of asylum seekers and refugees.

14


612 | Lombardia

93,3% 3,4% 3,3%120 | Trentino-Alto Adige

91,7% 0% 8,3%

540 | Piemonte

91,5% 1,1% 7,4%

223 | Liguria

91,9% 1,8% 6,3%

381 | Toscana

97,9% 2,1% 0%

3.376 | Lazio

98,4% 0,5% 1,1%

723 | Campania

94,3% 0% 5,7%

60 | Sardegna

100,0% 0% 0%

945 | Calabria

89,3% 1,5% 9,2%

2.412 | Sicilia

87,8% 4,2% 8,0%

234 | Friuli-Venezia Giulia

92,7% 3,0% 4,3%

212 | Veneto

95,3% 0% 4,7%

527 | Emilia Romagna

94,5% 2,5% 3,0%

363 | Marche

89,5% 3,6% 6,9%

281 | Umbria

86,5% 3,9% 9,6%

130 | Abruzzo

100,0% 0% 0%

1.170 | Puglia

90,9% 2,5% 6,7%

247 | Basilicata

83,0% 0% 17,0%

278 | Molise

96,4% 0% 3,6%

Ordinary

Mental disability

UMAS

Map 1

Beds available in theSPRAR network bycategory of project(aggregate data on aregional basis).First six months of 2014Percentage and absolutevalues


15

In 2013, while the allocated funds were inten-ded for 10,381 individuals, the actual recipientswere 12,631, 4,808 people more than in 2012.In the first six months of 2014, 10,852 peoplewere received of whom 10,325 were ordinarybeneficiaries, 132 beneficiaries had mental orphysical disability and 395 were unaccompa-nied foreign minors (Chart 6).

As regards the regional distribution, in the firstsix months of 2014, the largest presence wasrecorded in Sicily (21.4% of the national total)and in Lazio (20.8%), while the percentage for

the remaining regions was less than 8%. It mustbe pointed out that in valle d’Aosta there are noreception centres belonging to the SpRaR net-work (Table 5).

Chart 6

Persons received by theSPRAR network.First six months of 2014Percentage values

95%

1%4%

Ordinary

UMAS

Mental/physical disability

Table 5

Persons received bythe SPRAR network byRegion (incidence outof national total)Percentage values

Lazio Piemonte Emilia Romagna

Campania Toscana Friuli VeneziaGiulia

Liguria Basilicata Molise

20,8%

6,5%5,5% 5,1%

3,1% 2,5% 2,3%1,3% 0,8%

Sicilia Puglia Calabria Lombardia Marche Veneto Umbria TrentinoAlto Adige

Abruzzo Sardegna

21,4%

8,0%6,4%

5,1%3,4% 2,7% 2,3% 1,4% 1,2% 0,5%

16


Out of all the individuals received, 63% reque-sted international protection, while the remai-ning individuals are holders of some form ofprotection (33% humanitarian, 12% subsidiary;the remainin 12% obtained the status of refu-gee). The high number of applicants reflects the

reorganization of the SpRaR network since therecent expansion has made it possible to wel-come additional first-time international-protec-tion-seekers. This category includes almost allunaccompanied foreign minors (89%) and 61%of ordinary beneficiaries.

Among the leading nationalities of the bene-ficiaries received in 2014, at the top of the listis Nigeria (14.4%), followed by Pakistan(12%), Somalia (10.6%), Afghanistan (9.1%)and Gambia (9%). The Countries that are be-low 8% are Eritrea (7.7%), Mali (6.9%), Se-negal (4.1%), Egypt (3,1%) and Ghana(2.7%). The incidence of foreign minors in thefirst ten nationalities of beneficiaries is veryhigh among the Egyptians (42%), followed atgreat distance by the Nigerians (12.8%), Se-negalese (12.5%) and Gambians (11.4%). Asregards gender, instead, the study shows thatthere is a sharp prevalence of males, especiallyfor some nationalities where the migrants arealmost entirely all males. This is the case ofGambia (99.8%), Mali (99.6%), Pakistan(97.7%), Senegal (96.1%), Ghana (95.5%) Af-ghanistan (95.3%). The nationalities that in-stead have a higher presence of women amongthe first ten Countries of origin are Egypt(35.6%), Eritrea (26.4%), Somalia (26.3%)and Nigeria (23.9%).

Finally if the age of beneficiaries is taken in-to account, it is found that the age range mostlyrepresented goes between 18 and 25 with

45%; while the persons aged between 26 and30 are 22%. The sum of these two age groupsaccounts for 67% of all persons received. Theindividuals between 31 and 35 account for11% and those between 36 and 40 account for5%. Globally the persons aged between 18 and40 account for 90% of all the persons received.The data regarding the first six months of 2014confirm the increase in the number of personsaged between 18 and 25.

Regarding the services delivered within theframework of the territorial projects in theSpRaR network, the total number of beneficia-ries was 48,231. The services were above allhealthcare (21.2%, language-cultural media-tion 16.5%), social services (15.5%), multi-cultural activities (12.1%), job adjustment(11%) and legal counseling (8.7%), As regardsthe profile of beneficiaries, the Report focuseson the presence of unaccompanied foreign mi-nors who, with regard to nationality, comemainly from Gambia that ranks first with29.1%, followed by Senegal (13.2%), Nigeria(10.4%), Mali (8-6%), Egypt (7.6%), Eritrea(5.3%), Bangladesh (3.5%), Ghana (3.5%)and Afghanistan (2.8%) (Chart 8).

100,0

14,0

12,0

61,0

27,0

33,0

0,0

25,0

50,0

75,0

Mental disorder

6,0

2,0

89,0

13,0 15,0

25,0

3,0

UMASOrdinary

63%13%

12%

12%

Total beneficiariesby type of permitof stayPercentage values

International protection

Humanitaria protection

Subsidiary protection

Refugees

Chart 7

Types of permits of stay Percentage values


17

These partial data relative to the first sixmonths of 2014 show that there is a sharp dif-ference compared to previous years where themain Countries of origin were Afghanistan to-gether with Bengal and Pakistan. The minorsreceived are almost all males and mostly aged

between 16 and 17 (65%). Compared to 2013,therefore, there seems to be a lowering of me-an age since there are minors aged between11 and 13 (1%) and there is an increase in thenumber of minors aged between 14 and 15(17%).

65%

17%

17%

1%

16-17 years

Just over 18

14-15 years

11-13 years Bangladesh

13,2%

Senegal

2,8%

Afghanistan

Gambia

29,1%

Nigeria

10,4%

5,3%

Eritrea

3,5%

Ghana

Mali Somalia

Egypt

8,6%

6,1%3,5%

7,6%

Age range ofUMAS thatarrived in ItalyPercentage values

Chart 8

Top ten nationalities ofUMAS received in theSPRAR network Percentage values

As regards the modality of entry into the Coun-try of unaccompanied foreign minor asylumseekers (UMaS), in almost all cases they arrivedby boat (91%), a figure that has been increasingin recent years. very few enter the Country bycrossing land borders (4%), or arriving at har-

bours (3%) and airports (1%). Regarding themain services delivered to the UMaS received,17% are multicultural activities, 14% healthca-re, 13% language-cultural mediation, 13% so-cial services, 12% jobs and 11% guidance andlegal counseling (Chart 9).

Illegal landings

Land border

Harbour

Airport

92%

4% 3% 1%

17%

14%

13%

13%

12%

5%

11%

5%

5%

4%

Multicultural activities

Healthcare

Language/cultural mediation

Social services

Job adjustment

Guidance/Legal counseling

Training

Lodging

School adjustment

Other

Chart 9

Modality of entry into theCountry and servicesprovided to the UMASsreceivedPercentage values

ServicesModality

18



19

the meaning of beingstateless and thisphenomenon in Italy

the third chapter is dedicated to the categoryof vulnerable individuals, namely stateless peo-ple, victims of trafficking, and foreign minorsseeking asylum whose conditions are more andmore frequently becoming intertwined withthose of refugees and asylum seekers. This sec-tion of the Report begins with an examinationof the meaning of “stateless” person, and it givesan overview of the regulatory instruments andmeans of protection for stateless people withreference to the Italian case and to the missionof the High Commissioner of the United Nationsfor Refugees. According to the definition givenin the Convention Relating to the Status of Sta-teless Persons adopted in New York on 28 Sep-tember 1954, a “stateless person means a personwho is not considered as a national by any Stateunder the operation of its law. Hence being sta-

teless is a condition of juridical anomaly for cir-cumstances almost always not dependent onthe person’s will where the perosn is denied therights and duties associated with citizenship”.

In practice a distinction needs to be madebetween original statlessness and a new condi-tion of statelessness: in the former case the per-son has never held citizenship rights from birth,while the new condition of statelessness inter-venes at some point in a person’s life wherehe/she loses his/her citizenship without acqui-ring a new one. An additional cause of stateles-sness is the interaction with the rules on citi-zenship that are markedly discriminating to-wards women: indeed, in as many as 27 Coun-tries in the world there is inequality betweenmen and women in the transmission of citizen-ship to offspring.

Vulnerable individuals: statelessindividuals, victims of trafficking andminors requesting asylum

20


des a lack of interest in the phenomenon; onlyin recent years has this phenomenon beenbrought to the attention of the internationalcommunity. Even though during the last ten ye-ars there has been considerable progress, todate 75 Countries have established proceduresfor gathering reliable statistica data on statelesspersons (Chart 10)

One of the biggest problems linked to the de-scription of statelessness with reference to itsdiffusion worldwide is related to the lack of re-liable data on the number of stateless personsand of persons exposed to the risk of becomingstateless. This shortcoming is due mainly to theliving conditions of stateless persons often lin-ked to precarious and marginal contexts, besi-

ly: the study, entitled “Mapping Statelessnessin Italy”, tried to delineate the phenomenon inall of its complexity, by identifying the directionsof research and highlighting the fragmentationof information about the numbers and make-up of stateless persons in our Country. Sufficeit to point out that from the last census carriedout by IStat in 2014, there emerges that thepresence of stateless persons registered in theMunicipal offices where they reside indicatesthe presence of 583 persons, while, the estima-tes drawn up by the Comunità di Sant’Egidioindicate that there are 15,000 persons in thiscondition all of whom come from former Yugo-slavia. Similarly, the school is a place for iden-tifying cases of statelessness amongst the newgenerations. The data of the Ministry of Educa-tion, referring to the 2012/2013 academic year,show that there are 246 stateless students inthe various Regions of Italy.

It was after the Second World War that the in-ternational community became aware of thisphenomenon and in particular it was realizedthat there was a relationship between stateles-sness and the status of refugee. “In dealing withthe relationship between statelessness and thestatus of refugee, the General Assembly of theUnited Nations has pointed out that stateles-sness (including in this definition the impossi-bility of establishing the nationality of a person)can give rise to the displacement of people; inthis sense, the Assembly pointed out that pre-vention and the reduction of statelessness andthe protection of stateless persons play an im-portant role in the prevention of refugee con-ditions”. Statelessness in the world is a complexissue and very often there is a mismatch in fi-gures and statistics. For instance, with referenceto the Italian case, in 2011 UnHcR drew up amap of the phenomenon of statelessness in Ita-

Chart 10

Countries that haveprovided statistics onstateless persons, 2004-2013Absolute values

11

30

2004

48

14

2005

49

19

2006

54

17

2007

58

22

2008

60

21

2009

65

20

2010

64

21

2011

72

17

2012

75

19

2013

Countries with known population but without reliable data

Countries with reliable data


21

Type of school Stateless students Students of unknown or non-declared nationality

Kindergarten (3-6 years) 59

2.236

Elementary school (6-11 years) 181

Junior secondary school (11-14) 48

Secondary school (14-19) 3

Total 291

Italian Regions Stateless students Total students with non-Italian

citizenship (absolute values)

Piemonte 9 73.914

Valle D’Aosta 0 1.632

Lombardia 9 191.526

Trentino A.A. 5 17.299

Veneto 7 91.867

Friuli V.G. 1 18.563

Liguria 2 22.742

Emilia Romagna 9 90.286

Toscana 43 62.449

Umbia 0 17.390

Marche 1 27.118

Lazio 20 75.338

Campania 118 21.095

Puglia 0 16.329

Basilicata 0 2.326

Calabria 0 13.447

Sicilia 1 23.492

Sardegna 21 5.010

Nord-Ovest 20 289.814

Nord-Est 22 218.015

Centro 64 182.295

Sud 118 68.004

Isole 22 28.502

Italia 246 786.630

2012-2013

Table 5

Stateless students in Italian schools.2009-2010

22


procedures. Indeed, while the former may beundertaken only by the foreigner who is in italywith legal papers, the Judicial procedure makesit possible to examine the application even ifthe applicant does not have regular papers forbeing in the Country. Instead, as regards the re-cognition of citizenship, Art. 32 of the 1954Convention sets forth that signatory States shalladopt mechanisms that facilitate the assimila-tion and naturalization of stateless persons. Inthe Italian legal order there are two provisionsthat concern stateless persons: the first envisa-ges the granting of nationality to children bornin Italy who would otherwise be stateless: Art.1 of Act 91 of 5 February 1992 envisages that“a person born on the territory of the Republicis an Italian citizen if born from unknown orstateless parents, or if the offspring do not fol-low the parents’s citizenship according to thelaw of the State to which they belong”. The se-cond provision, instead, envisages the possibilityfor the stateless person to file an application forbeing granted citizenship after five years of legalstay in the Country.

People trafficking and asylum

Special attention is dedicated also to the issueof human trafficking and to the relationshipwith the rules on asylum. In Italy the correlationand interdependence between internationalprotection and human trafficking within illegalmigration flows appears to be increasingly clo-ser even though the literature on the issue isscanty and there are no data. The trafficking ofhuman beings is constantly evolving and cur-rently includes increasingly diversified and com-plex actions, types of victims and forms of ex-ploitation. Alongside the so-called “traditional”forms of exploitation, there are new forms thatconsist of a wide range of coercive illegal acti-vities (thefts, pick-pocketing, begging, sale offake products, growing and peddling drugs, andalbeit less frequently, removal of organs, forcedmarriages). Italy has regulatory instruments for the protec-tion of persons and for combating organizedcrime that still is a point of reference for the

There are two international instruments forthe protection of stateless persons: the first,as seen earlier, is the Convention Relating tothe Status of Stateless Persons adopted in NewYork on 28 September 1954 while the otherone is the Un Convention on the Reduction ofStatelessness adopted on 30 August 1961. TheConvention of 1954, that in recent years hasgone from 65 signatory States to 82, providesa definition of stateless person without defi-ning a procedure for recognizing such status.Only 12 Countries in the world have adopteda procedure for recognizing this status, oneof which is Italy.

Procedure for the recognitionof the status of statelessness in Italy and citizenshipthe procedure for being recognized the statusof statelessness in Italy is an administrative pro-cedure which requires a judicial action beforean ordinary judge. The administrative proce-dure for certifying the condition of statelessnessis a prerogative of the Ministry of the Interiorand is regulated by Art. 17 of D.P.R. 576/93.Based on this regulation, the Ministry “may”certify the condition of statelessness upon re-quest by the person involved and accompaniedby relevant documents”.

Once the documentation submitted by theapplicant has been examined, the Ministry ofthe Interior may ask the opinion of the Ministryfor Foreign Affairs in order to make sure thatthere are no citizenship constraints between theapplicant requesting the status of statelessnessand the State(s) with which the applicant mayhave had significant relationships such as birth,residence or prior citizenship. In this case theprocedure may take up to 895 days. A secondmodality through which the status of stateles-sness may be recognized is ascertaining suchstatus through a judicial action filed with theOrdinary Court (this procedure was availableup until the ratification of the 1954 Conven-tion). One of the distinctions between procedurefor certifying the status of statelessness throughthe administrative or judicial channels consistsis the requirements for having access to such


23

flows. They are a particularly vulnerable cate-gory and the protection envisaged by asylumregulations come to add to the general protec-tion envisaged for minors who in no case are tobe held in the identification or temporary re-ception centres, as provided for in Art. 2 (5) ofD.P.R. 303/2004. Unaccompanied foreign mi-nors who could be subjected to persecution intheir Countires for reasons of race, religion, na-tionality, belonging to a given social group, orfor political opinions, have the right to submitan application for international protection withthe help of their tutors. Under Art. 2 (5) ofD.P.R. 303/2004, the ordinary procedure shallapply on the basis of which, within two daysfrom the application being filed, the Questore(Police Commissioner) forwards the applicationto the Territorial Commission that within a ma-ximum of thirty days shall hold a hearing. Atthe same time, reception is provided by the localbody within the famework of its SpRaR services(Network for the protection of asylum seekersand refugees) (Table 6)

whole European landscape. In particular, Art.18 of the Consolidated Text on Immigration (Le-gislative Decree 286/98) envisages that permitsof stay be issued in order to enable the foreignerto escape from violence and from being subjec-ted to organized crime and participate in an as-sistance and integration program irrespectiveof there being a formal report of his/her exploi-ters and of bearing witness in a criminal pro-ceeding. The permits issued so far range betwe-en 800 and 1000 per year, with only about 520being issued in 2012. This poor results raisesserious doubts as to the use of this instrumentespecially given the massive recourse to appli-cations for international protection filed by po-tential trafficking victims. At the same time, inthe asylum procedure there is the need to suc-ceed in bringing to light these situations of greatvulnerabiltiy and envisaging more adequateforms of intervention.

Foreign minor asylum seekers:the procedure for grantinginternational protectionAs pointed out, during the last decade, the pre-sence of unaccompanied foreign minors is acommon element in all international migration

Table 6

International protection toUnaccompanied foreingminors

Submission of application for asylum to Border Police or to the Questura

Within 48 hours appointment of a tutor and confirmation of the application for asylum

Checking age, identity, nationality

Delivering a copy of the report to the Questura that received the application

Issue of a temporary permit of stay for recognition of asylum or the so-called Dublin permit if there are doubts on Italy’scompetence in examining the application

Forwarding documents to the Territorial Commission by the Questura within 2 days from reception

Hearing before the Territorial Commission within 30 days

Delivery of the report on the audition with the Territorial Commission

Decision within 3 days

Challenge, if any, within 15 days.

➔➔

➔➔

➔➔

➔➔

➔

24



25

the report ends with a chapter on the issue offorced migrations at global level which showsthat in 2013 more than 2.5 million persons we-re compelled to abandon their homes and seekprotection outside the boundaries of theirCountry, mostly in neighbouring countries.

These new refugees have come to add to the 2million persons who had become refugees in2011 and 2012. The war in Syria, in its thirdyear in 2013, was the main cause for these di-splacements as evidenced by two dramaticevents.

International and European forced migrations

26


conflicts and violations of human rights) of which42.9 million of competence of the UnHcR.

In 2013 more than 51 million persons were com-pelled to migrate (displaced persons, fleeing wars,

Chart 11

Forced migrations, 2001-2013 Values in millions

Source: UNHCR dataprocessed by Cittalia(various years)

20022001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

40

0

10

20

30

Displaced persons

Asylum seekers

Refugees

Among these, 16.7 million were refugees, 33.3million were internally displaced persons (IDPs)and about 1.2 million persons were asylum see-kers whose application for asylum had not yetbeen processed by the end of the year of refe-rence. The highest levels of forced migrationssince 1989 were recorded in 2013. 1989 is thefirst year for which full statistical data are avai-lable on forced migrations in the world. If thesepeople constituted a nation they would be the

twenty-sixth largest country in the world interms of population. About 414,600 refugeesreturned to their Country of origin during theyear, a figure that unfortunately is only one-fifthof the figure reported in 2012 (526,000). Onthe contrary, in 2013, UnHcR advocated, withthe States involved, the cases of more than93,200 refugees for resettlement, and some71,600 were able to leave with the help of theUn Agency.

55,8%

27,3%

8,1%

3,2%2,7%

1,0%2,0%

Refugees

Refugees who returned to their CountriesDisplaced persons

Displaced persons who returned to their CountriesStateless persons

Asylum seekers

Other

Chart 12

Persons under the UNHCRper status, 2013Percentage values

Source: UNHCR dataprocessed by Cittalia


27

(865,500), Jordan (641,900) and Turkey(609,900).In Europe, instead, even though the global po-pulation of refugees has remained relatively sta-ble – namely 1.8 million people, two importantevents occurred in 2013 that mutually compen-sated one another. First of all Turkey managedthe arrival of about 478,000 Syrian refugees du-ring the year, of which some 140,800 returnedspontaneously to their Country during that sameyear. Another 37,800 Syrian asylum seekers we-re granted international protection on an indi-vidual basis in European Countries. Secondly,the overall refugee data for Europe dropped be-cause of the significant decrease in the numberof refugees in Germany. Refugee figures wentfrom 589,700 in early 2013 to 187,600 by yearend, because of the alignment of definitions usedto count refugees.

At the end of last year the total number of refu-gees under UnHcR mandate was estimated to be11.7 million, some 1.2 million more than theprevious year (+11%). This was the highest le-vel since 2001, when the people considered tobe refugees at year end were 12.1 million. Du-ring 2013, 2.2 million Syrian refugees were re-gistered, especially in the neighboring Countries,while hundreds of thousands of people fled theirCountry in Africa from the Central African Re-public to the Democratic Republic of Congo,from South Sudan to Sudan, and from Mali. The-re had not been such a large increase in the num-ber of refugees since 1994. Fifty-three per cent of refugees in the world co-me from three countries: Afghanistan, Syria andSomalia. Pakistan is the country that has hostedthe largest number of refugees in the world (1.6million), followed by Iran (857,400), Lebanon

Chart 14

First 10 Countries thatreceive refugees, 2013Values in millions


Altri

United States

People’s Rep. of China

Ethiopia

Chad

Kenya

Turkey

Jordan

Lebanon

Iran, Islamic Rep.

Pakistan

0 2 4 6

2001

2003 20132004 20062005 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112002 2012

0

10

15

20

25

15

30

Refugees

Displaced persons

Chart 13

Refugees and displacedpersons under the UNHCR,2001-2013 Value in millions

Fonte: elaborazioni Cittaliasu dati UNHCR (anni vari).

28


2013, the 40 countries that received the largestnumbers of refugees versus per-capita dollar ofGDP (PPP) all belonged to developing regionsand included also 22 of the least developedcountries of the planet. More than 5.4 millionrefugees, namely 46% of the refugees in theworld, lived in countries whose per capita GDP(PPP) was lower than 5 U.S. dollars. Pakistanhad the highest number of refugees in relationto its national economy, considering the 512 re-fugees versus per-capita U.S. dollar (PPP) thatit received (Fig. 4). Ethiopia was second with336 refugees, followed by Kenya (295), Chad199, South Sudan, (177) and the DemocraticRepublic of Congo (153). The first developedCountry, Serbia, holds 44th place on the listwith 7 refugees versus per-capita U.S. dollar(PPP).

At the end of 2013, the developing regions ofthe world received 10.1 million people, equiva-lent to 86% of world refugees, the highest valuein the last 22 years. The least developed coun-tries alone gave asylum to 2.8 million refugees,namely 24% of the world total. These figuresare further confirmed by the analysis of thenumber of refugees received versus the per ca-pita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (under pa-rity of purchasing power- PPP). The ratio bet-ween refugees hosted in a Country and its ave-rage income level may be an indicator of theburden associated with the reception of refu-gees. When for each US dollar of GDP (PPP) percapita a high number of refugees is received, itcan be stated that the Country in question isgreatly committed and is giving a great contri-bution in relation to its national economy. In

Chart 15

Refugees received in 2013versus per capita GDP(purchasing powerparity). Top ten Countries, 2013 Refugees per US dollar


Pakistan

Yemen

Bangladesh

Jordan

Uganda

Democratic Rep. Congo

South Sudan

Chad

Kenia

Ethiopia

0 200 400 600


29

2008 2010 2011 201320122009

0

100,000

300,000

400,000

200,000

500,000

2009-2010

2008-2009 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

30,0

0,0

10,0

15,0

5,0

20,0

25,0

-5,0

In 2013, the largest number of applicants wererecorded in Germany (126,995 applicants,29.2% of the total), followed by France (66,265,namely 15.2%), Sweden (54,365, 12.5% of thetotal), United Kingdom (30,110 - 6.9%), Italy(26,620 - 6.1%), Belgium (21,215 - 4.9%), Hun-gary (18,900 - 4.3%), Austria (17,520 - 4.0%),Netherlands (17,160 - 3.9%) and Poland(15,245, namely 3.5%). In total, these ten Mem-ber States received almost 90.6% of all the ap-plications for protection filed in the EuropeanUnion.

Applications for international protectionin Europe

Chart 16

Applications forinternational protection in the European Union (28 States) and in Europe,2008-2013.Absolute values

EU - 28

Chart 17

Variation in applicationsfor InternationalProtection in theEuropean Union (28 States) and in Europe,2008-2013 Percentage values

EU - 28

Europe

Chart 18

Applications forinternational protection inEurope. Breakdown byCountry, 2013Percentage valuesGermany | 29,2%

France | 15,2%

Svezia | 12,5%

United Kingdom | 6,9%

Italy | 6,1%

Belgium | 4,9%

Hungary | 4,3%

Austria | 4,0%

Netherlands | 3,9%

Poland | 3,5%

Other 14 EU Countries | 3,2%

Bulgaria | 1,6%Denmark | 1,7%

Greece | 1,9%Spain | 1,0%

30


Altri 196.365Nigeria 11.590

Iran 12.760Eritrea 14.580

Somalia 18.500Kosovo*

* United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99

20.220Pakistan 20.815

Serbia 22.375

Afghanistan 26.200

Russian Fed. 41.485

Arab Rep. Syria 50.435

0 50 100 150 200

2008 2010 2011 201320122009

0

20

10

40

50

30

60

was recorded for citizens from Eritrea whose num-ber rose from 6,400 to 14,580, followed by the Sy-rians who, because of the conflict under way intheir Country, more than doubled their requestfor international protection (from 24,115 to morethan 50 thousand). Also the number of applica-tions by nationals of Kosovo increased considerably(from 10,210 to 20,220) and of the Russian Fede-ration (from 24,290 to 41,485).

Out of the more than 400 hundred thousand ap-plications submitted to the European Union, Syrianand Russian nationals accounted for 21.1% of allasylum seekers. In particular, Syria, with 50,435applications, namely 11.6%, topped the list ofCountries of origin of applicants in 2013, followedby Russia (41,485), Afghanistan (26,200), Serbia(22,375), Pakistan (20,815) and Kosovo (20,220).Compared to the previous year, the biggest increase

Half of the positive responses (50.6%) were re-corded by three Countries: Sweden (26,400),Germany (26,080) and France (16,155), whilealmost 80% of the positive outcomes was rea-ched by including Italy (14,465), United Kin-gdom (13,400) and the Netherlands (10,620).At the European level, out of the more than 130thousand people who obtained some form ofprotection, 47.5% (namely 64,465 persons) we-re given the status of refugee, 37.5% (50,890)subsidiary protection and 15.0% were grantedhumanitarian status.

During 2013, the 28 eU Countries received12,635 Applications for international protectionby minors seeking asylum, a figure that was vir-tually the same as the applications submitted in2012 (12,715). It is worth pointing out that50.1% of the applications were addressed to thetop two Countries – Sweden and Germany – whi-le the remaining 49.9% were heterogeneouslyaddressed to the remaining 26 Countries of theUnion. In 2013, the applications that receiveda positive answer were 135,740, marking an in-crease over 2012 (102,700) and 2011 (84,300).

Chart 19

Top 10 Countries of originof applicants forinternational protection in EU-28, 2013 Value in thousands

Chart 20

Applications forinternational protection.Top five Countries oforigin as at 2013,2008-2013 Vlues in thousands

Arab Rep. Syria

Serbia

Russian Fed.

Pakistan

Afghanistan


31

ANCI (Associazione Nazionale dei ComuniItaliani, National Association of ItalianMunicipalities) is the representation sy-stem for Municipalities before the Par-liament, Government, Regions, PublicAdministration bodies, eU bodies, theCommittee of Regions and any other in-stitution performing governmental fun-ctions of local relevance. 7,318 Munici-palities are members of ancI, represen-ting 90% of the Italian population. In thesphere of immigration and asylum ancI,within the framework of the positionsdeveloped by its Immigration Commis-sion, encourages the implementation ofinnovative policies, promotes networksand cooperation, and contributes to thenational debate on matters of local inte-rest, such as the exercise of citizenship,integration, access to services, by liste-ning to the demands and proposals ofMunicipalities and advocating for themin the appropriate contexts. The effortsof ancI in the sphere of immigration arebased on the promotion of virtuous coo-peration between central and local go-vernment, drawing on the experience ofthe System of Protection for Asylum See-kers and Refugees (SpRaR).

Caritas Italiana is the pastoral body of ceI(Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, ItalianEpiscopal Conference) for the promotionof charity. It is aimed at promoting «thewitness of charity in the Italian Churchcommunity, in forms that are appropriateto the times and needs, in view of humandevelopment as a whole, social justiceand peace, with particular attention tothe least ones and with a prevailing edu-cational function» (art. 1 of the Statutes).Among its many activities, Caritas Italianaworks at national and international levelon the issue of human mobility in contextsof humanitarian emergency, receptionand protection. It is a member of CaritasInternationalis, a worldwide network ac-tive in more than 160 country, and of Ca-ritas Europa, the umbrella body for theCaritas organisations of 46 Europeancountries. In Italy, through its network of220 diocesan Caritas, the organisationprovides widespread support to third-country nationals by carrying out activi-

ties focused not only on reception but alsoon the integration of single individualsand families on our territory.

Cittalia - Fondazione ancI Ricerche is theancI body dedicated to research and stu-dy activities on issues of major interestfor Italian Municipalities. Set up in 2008,the Foundation worked in the areas ofenvironment, institutions and innova-tions, and later shifted its focus on wel-fare and society, social inclusion, parti-cipation and public spaces managementand urban policies. The mission of Citta-lia is to support Italian cities and Muni-cipalities in facing the challenges of achanging society and economy, so thatthey can develop effective public policiesand improve their capacity to plan, ma-nage and assess their actions. Cittalia isalso the National Dissemination Point inItaly of the Urbact European programme,and comprises the Central Service (Ser-vizio Centrale) – the coordination bodyof the System of Protection for AsylumSeekers and Refugees (SpRaR).

Fondazione Migrantes is a pastoral bodyof the Italian Episcopal Conference. Itwas created in 1987 to promote an un-derstanding of the issue of mobility, witha particular focus on safeguarding therights of migrant individuals and familiesand promoting a responsible citizenshipfor migrants. Migrantes inherited the pa-storal and social legacy of UceI (Ufficiocentrale dell’emigrazione italiana, Cen-tral Office for Italian Emigration). Fromthe 1960s up until the 1980s, UceI, incooperation with other Christian Chur-ches and religious organisations and withUnHcR, provided support for refugeesarriving in Italy following humanitariancrises. Nowadays, Migrantes contributesto the dissemination of information onthe situation of international protectionin Italy and Europe, with the support ofthe Permanent Observatory on Refugees“vie Di Fuga” (Osservatorio permanentesui rifugiati “vie di Fuga”), and in coo-peration with diocesan and regional Mi-grantes organisations, religious coope-ratives and institutions – represented inthe National Council for Migrations (Con-

sulta Nazionale delle Migrazioni) –, thePontifical Council for Migrants and Iti-nerant People, the Council of EuropeanBishops’ Conferences (ccee) and IcMc.

SPRAR . Set up by Law No. 189/2002, theSystem of Protection for Asylum Seekersand Refugees (Sistema di protezione perrichiedenti asilo e rifugiati, SpRaR) is thenetwork of local administrations acces-sing, within the limits of available resour-ces, the National Fund for Asylum Poli-cies and Services (Fondo nazionale perle politiche e i servizi dell'asilo) to set upintegrated reception projects. At the ter-ritorial level, local governments, with thefundamental support of third sector or-ganisations, deliver “integrated recep-tion” services for asylum seekers and re-fugees. The purpose of such services isto go beyond the mere provision of foodand accommodation, integrating the of-fer through training courses and mento-ring, assistance and guidance activities,in order to provide for personalised pathsof socio-economic inclusion. SpRaR is co-ordinated and monitored by the Ministryof Interiors and ancI through the CentralService.

UNhCR is the world’s leading organisationat the forefront of efforts to save humanlives, protect the rights of millions of re-fugees, displaced and stateless persons,and build a better future for them. It ope-rates in 123 countries throughout theworld and takes care of more than 40 mil-lion people. UnHcR was established onDecember 14, 1950 by the United Na-tions General Assembly. Since then, it hashelped more than 60 million people re-start their lives. UnHcR was awarded twoNobel Peace Prizes for such efforts, thefirst in 1954 and the second in 1981. Theagency is mandated to lead and co-ordi-nate international action to protect refu-gees and safeguard their wellbeing. Itstrives to ensure that everyone can exer-cise the right to seek asylum and find saferefuge in another State. In cooperationwith governments, UnHcR helps refuge-es to return home voluntarily, integratein the country were they fled or resettlein a third country.

PROFIlES OF thE PROMOtERSthE REPORt

Report on InternationalProtection In Italy 2014

SPRAR Sistema di Protezioneper Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati

In collaboration with

ABRIDGED VERSION

Date post:	21-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hanga
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Report on International Protection In Italy 2014 - sprar.it · RepoRt on InteRnatIonal pRotectIon...

Documents