Brussels, 08/09/2003 (Agence Europe) - EU funding for watchtowers, funding for deporting immigrants intercepted outside the EU, transmitting information about ship passengers… Some of the measures suggested in a confidential feasibility study on a potential European maritime border control policy, to be unveiled by the Commission on Friday to internal ministers of the 25 future Member States at a meeting in Rome. The study concludes it is vital that a genuine EU border control policy be established based on a single operational structure, operational pilot projects, cooperation with countries outside the EU and financial support from one Member State to another. The study notes that no country knows exactly how much maritime border control actually costs, because it is a mixture of different elements. It suggests that financial solidarity cover investment in equipment, training and one-off operations. The long-awaited study was handed over to the Commission at the beginning of the summer by Civipol, mandated to carry out the research.
The study stresses the difference between Member States. Spain, Greece, Italy and Finland are affected the length of their borders. Spain and France are affected at ports welcoming ferries from North Africa. These countries carry out controls for the entire Schengen Area and this in itself justifies operational and financial EU support, argues the study. It asserts that in terms of establishing and managing an EU border policy and concrete activities, a single overall EU level operational structure is required for all types of borders. It describes this as an unavoidable necessity. It could be organised on the basis of an existing body, the Centre for Risk Analysis (CIRAM), supplemented by regional structures (for the Baltic and the Mediterranean).
Operational pilot projects. The study says control should focus upstream (in and with countries of origin) and downstream (on land) rather than at sea, where the risk of deaths and legal and technical problems are far greater. The study rules out any huge deployment of maritime surveillance forces because of the very high cost in relation to effectiveness. It suggests extending the Spanish model in Gibraltar, where distance operated watchtowers monitor the shores of countries where ferries leave from. Costs are high at the outset, but operating costs are low, the areas to be monitored are huge and make it easier to intercept illegal aliens. The study says other technology should also be used for areas where non-EU countries are in close proximity. The study says the investment costs would amount to EUR 150 million per project. In general, the study suggests EU funding of pilot projects cover 50% of development costs and 35% of investment.
For ports, the study makes a very severe assessment of current controls. In addition to a strict application of Schengen rule to ferries from outside the EU, the study suggests big changes. On the model of the US's demands for air passengers, the study suggests making it compulsory to supply passenger lists upon registration with digital copies of passports and visas and photos. This would enable targetted controls to be made upon arrival since less than 1% of people arriving in ports are illegal. This would cost EUR 15 million, some of which provided by the EU.
The experts who carried out the study stress the importance of training and suggest the EU fund 50% of training by a network of EU teachers, staffed by the different Member States.
Cooperation with non-EU countries. The study suggests using the Moroccan model, with improvements. In the Morocco section of the Meda programme, EUR 115 million have been earmarked for creating immigration zones, supporting legal immigration and clamping down on illegal immigration. Experts argue that improvements are needed to the agreement with Morocco to ensure people travelling through the country who come from another country are deported to their country of origin. They say EU funding is "essential" for deporting people to their countries of origin and for establishing transit and "administrative retention centres" with good conditions. The study gives the example of Sri Lankans who had crossed the Suez Canal and were later deported - Italy provided EUR 600,000 funding towards their deportation.
Experts strongly recommend this kind of co-operation, as they feel they "have the maximum dissuasive effect", and the financial effort is limited to the number of people actually intercepted. They believe that this type of expenditure should benefit Community solidarity.
European analysis and work tools: the study suggests that several tools should be set up and funded by the EU (and used for all forms of migration): a statistical instrument; an accounting instrument to establish a method for measuring national effort, which could then be used by all Member States; an inspection and audit instrument; an operational database accessible in real time and by all EU services concerned, to improve forecasts and the fight against networks, especially by including on it "suspicious" boats. The study proposes as an initial measure the Community funding of a feasibility study for a database of all types of boats registered in the countries of the Mediterranean Conference.
State of play: 70-80% of people attempt night passages, in small boats, on the shortest sea crossings. Some 48,000 people were caught in 2002 attempting this type of passage. More spectacular, but very limited, is the arrival of several hundred people aboard one boat. Arrival by liner accounts for only 2-3% of illegal immigration. The study estimates that 80% of these migrants are young men of 20 to 30 years, the rest being mainly made up of families. Practically all speak a European language. On the Spanish and Italian borders, there were some hundred deaths in 2001 and 2002. For traffic approaching the most high-risk zones (due to the increased number of controls), the study provides an estimation of 400 drownings for the first half of 2003. The study does not contain any date for the Greek border.