Presentation on theme: "Intra-EU Migration and child protection Brussels 26.09.2013."— Presentation transcript:
Intra-EU Migration and child protection Brussels
Initial considerations Most of the debates were centered on the very legitimate concern raised by the situations of third country national children on the move, esp. in the context of asylum law. European children are also on the move An area of freedom of movement coupled with citizenship considerations make protection processes unclear and difficult to apply European children on the move are falling under the national child protection systems which are not able to cater to their needs BID processes do not exist and the option that is considered the most by decision makers is return.
A project called ‘Mario’, which became a network …
Today’s structure partnership 6 countries of intervention (ALB;BG;KS;PL;RO;HU) Terre des hommes’ Regional Office in Budapest NCS – ECPAT Bulgaria Terre des hommes’ Delegation in Romania Save the Children in Romania (Salvati Copiii) Save the Children in Albania Terre des hommes’ in Albania Nobody’s Children Foundation in Poland Terre des hommes’ Delegation in Kosovo 4 countries of transnational intervention ARSIS in Greece ECPAT in the Netherlands Associazione 21 Luglio in Italy Open Gate – La Strada in FYROM 5 countries with ad hoc activities Save the Children North West Balkans (BiH) Center for Children’s Rights (ME) Center for Youth Integration (Serbia) OPU (CZ) Human Rights League (SK) AND ECPAT Belgium and TDHIF Brussels represent the network towards
How do we find things? 1.Through 6 national situational analyses Analysis of the ability of national child protection systems to protect children on the move 2. Through transnational analysis of the following migration paths France-Romania Bulgaria-Greece 3. Through transnational outreach researches Bulgaria – Greece Albania – Kosovo Romania/Bulgaria-Greece (upcoming) Romania/Bulgaria-Italy (upcoming) Romania/Bulgaria-The Netherlands (upcoming) Albania/Kosovo-FYROM (upcoming) 4. Through consultation with children on the move 5 child consultation boards are operating throughout Europe (all composed of children on the move)
Mario’s general findings (I) Regional instruments and initiatives are scattered and do not properly address the problem at regional level: there is no formal protection avenues existing or used in any country subject to the project Mario scrutiny for EU children on the move A general lack of collaboration between countries of origin and destination hampers best interests determination processes: Essential elements, such as information on the socio-economic and family situation of a child back home or risks and security assessments, are not shared between countries because: the information exchange channels either do not exist or are not fit from a protection perspective: An emphasis is put on criminal law while opportunities to strengthen collaboration from a civil perspective are not used. no responsible authority is identified which undermines the information exchange process: different channels are used randomly by professionals. a climate of mistrust between professionals from country of origin and destination, and professionals operate in a conceptual vacuum and a low capacity of the child protection system further hampers a proper best interests determination process
Mario’s recommendation (II) A debate on the opportunity to enact a new European instrument on the protection of children who exercise their right to freedom of movement should be initiated on the basis of article 81 of the TFEU. Such a reflexion should include at a very mimimum: Questions related to the appointment of a responsible authority at national level Questions related to guardianship issues Ascertainment of identity of children on the move The opportunity of a network of social workers at European level Procedural safeguards in BID processes Durable solutions and their design Harmonizing methodologies of socio economic and family assessments, including risks and security assessments: need for common minimum standards
Why did we decide to share that with ENOC members? We believe: you can play a leading role in strengthening already existing child protection mechanisms for children on the move you are powerful advocates that, at national level, can push for a better protection of both EU and third country children on the move you can make individual changes that will have a structural impact: pro- activeness with regard to children on the move that fall within systems cracks. The Mario network would therefore suggest that you not only individually raise the awareness of your respective governments but also collectively influence the regional agenda on the lack of protection and safeguards afforded to children on the move exercisin their right to freedom of movement.