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
1,704,000
Iran
887,000
Bangladesh
230,000
India
189,000
Thailand
102,000
Malaysia
98,000
Nepal
Australia
Indonesia
74,000
29,000
4,000
6
Source: UNHCR Annual Statistical Reports 2011. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.
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 & exploitation before/after
arrival
• Lack of access to procedures & support
mechanisms
• Lack of systems to register, identify, process
mixed profiles/different protection needs
• Lack of protection “space” fuels onward
movements
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, procedures for burden and
responsibility sharing to support States providing
for :
- 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 !