Convention on the Rights of the Child Mainstreaming in Protection and Care of Separated Children in Europe

Transcription

1 Convention on the Rights of the Child Mainstreaming in Protection and Care of Separated Children in Europe A seminar for members of the European network of NGOs SCEP Separated Children in Europe Programme. Rapport nr. 2/2009 Seminar Report Save the Children Norway

2 2

3 Content Summary 5 1 Introduction Background 7 2 The seminar on separated children in Europe Themes and content The situation for separated children in Norway 10 3 Evaluation 18 4 Conclusion 20 5 The programme and the presentations from the seminar SCEP NGO Network Meeting, Draft Agenda Seminar Programme, UN convention on the rights of the Child - mainstreaming in the protection and care of separated children The presentations from the seminar 23 Capacity building Workshop on Interaction between EU and National Legislation and Policies, Lise Bruun, SCEP Role of EU Law & Policy in Relation to Separated Children, Rebecca O Donnell, Save the Children Brussels Convention on the Rights of the Child a tool for the protection of separated children, Hilde Lidèn, Institute for Social Research Norway The situation for separated children in Norway, Thale Skybak, Save the Children Norway Separated children in Italy, Maria Antonia Di Maio, Save the Children Italy Separated children in Czech Republic, Magda Faltova, Counselling Centre for Refugees Czech Republic Situation of separated children in Poland, Gabriela Roszkowska, Nobody s Children Foundation, Poland Unaccompanied children in Greece, Simone Troller, Human rights Watch Universal Periodic Review a useful tool for child rights advocacy, Louise King, Save the Children UK EU trends and challenges: CRC mainstreaming in the protection and care of separated children, Rebecca O Donnell, Save the Children Brussels 3

4 4

5 Summary Save the Children Norway received NOK from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2008 to implement the project/initiative Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mainstreaming in protection and care of separated children in Europe. The initiative consisted of arranging a seminar for members of the European network of NGOs, SCEP the Separated Children in Europe Programme. The aim of the project was to strengthen the network, and contribute to securing channels for the exchange of information and experiences between organisations that work to ensure that the rights of separated children in Europe are fulfilled, and establish common strategies and methods to develop guidelines and advocacy at national and regional levels. The seminar was held in Oslo 29 and 30 October, and more than 30 members of the SCEP network participated on both days. The first day was dedicated to thematic group sessions and summary discussion in plenum. The second day was an open seminar where cases and experiences from different countries were presented. The issue of why the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will and should always be the cornerstone of all the work done for this group of children was also illustrated. Separated children are under 18 years of age, outside their country of origin and separated from both of their parents or previous legal/customary primary caregiver. All separated children are entitled to international protection under a broad range of international and regional instruments. Separated children have complex backgrounds connected to war, conflicts, flight and a new life in exile. Many of them bear evidence of hurtful experiences. They are vulnerable and in need of special protection. They have all left their homeland, their culture, their friends and family. These children have the right to a fair asylum process regardless of which European country they are in. Save the Children Norway is a member of the SCEP network that works to ensure that separated children are cared for in all European countries. The network was established in 1997 by initiative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the international Save the Children Alliance. The network currently consists of NGOs from 30 countries. The SCEP network is crucial in developing common platforms, statements and policies for advocacy at national and regional levels. It is also an important arena for the exchange of information, knowledge and experiences. 5

6 1. Introduction In spring 2008, Save the Children Norway applied for funding from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to arrange a seminar for the members of the European SCEP network of NGOs. Save the Children Norway received NOK from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to implement the project Separated Children in Europe equal care and political practice in Europe. The project was to arrange a seminar. The main goal for the seminar was to strengthen the European SCEP network Separated Children in Europe Programme, by establishing channels for the exchange of information and experiences between organisations that work to realise the rights of separated children in Europe, and establish common strategies and methods to develop guidelines and advocacy at national and regional levels. Save the Children Norway is a non-governmental member organisation which is party-politically and religiously neutral. Our values are built upon the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Save the Children Norway was established in Save the Children fights for children's rights. We deliver immediate and lasting improvements to children s lives worldwide. Save the Children Alliance is the world s largest independent organisation for children, making a difference to children s lives in over 120 countries. This makes us the world s largest movement for children. Save the Children Norway advocates child rights by (i) Facilitating children s and youths meaningful participation in matters that concern them. (ii) Expanding insight into children s rights issues and children s living conditions by continuous development of knowledge. (iii) Participating in national and international work for meeting children s rights, including participating in or cooperating with other organisations with the same aims. (iv) Influencing public opinion and decision-makers in areas that relates to the aim of Save the Children Norway. Save the Children Norway have approximately 6000 members in Norway. The Separated Children in Europe Programme (SCEP) was established in 1997 by initiative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the international Save the Children Alliance. A commitment to the full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is fundamental to the work of SCEP. SCEP seeks to realise the rights of all separated children entering or travelling across Europe; that they will be protected, that their well-being and development will be promoted, that they will have opportunities to develop their full potential and that they will participate in a meaningful way in the development of policies and practices that impact upon their lives. SCEP seeks to improve the situation of separated children through research, policy analysis, dissemination of information, and awareness raising and advocacy activities at the national and regional levels. The Statement of Good Practice sets out the policy and practices that SCEP believe should be applied to all separated children in Europe. It provides a comprehensive set of principles giving a common standard for work across all countries. The document has a high profile throughout Europe where awareness of its key messages is high amongst both policy makers and practitioners. The Statement of 6

7 Good Practice has been translated into 23 languages that will ensure its widespread dissemination and use. It is reviewed and revised on a regular basis. The Statement of Good Practice can be found at the SCEP website, SCEP has set up a Network with NGOs working for and with separated children in 30 European countries: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. The different NGOs have very unlike possibility to work on this issue. The SCEP network is crucial in developing common platforms, statements and policies for advocacy at national and regional levels. The SCEP network employs a network coordinator geographically situated in Save the Children Denmark s offices. This coordinator s salary is provided by Save the Children Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The coordinator acts as the link between the NGOs and the communication officer, both internally and externally Background Separated children are under 18 years of age, outside their country of origin and separated from both of their parents or previous legal/customary primary caregiver. All separated children are entitled to international protection under a broad rage of international and regional instruments. Separated children may be seeking asylum because of fear of persecution of the lack of protection due to human rights violations, armed conflict or disturbances in their own country. They may be the victims of trafficking for sexual or other exploitation, or they may have travelled to Europe to escape conditions of serious deprivation. More than 42 million people worldwide are refugees. There are currently children living in Norwegian reception centres. During the previous year, there was a massive increase in the number of separated children coming to Norway. During 2008, separated children came to Norway to seek asylum. These children came mainly from war-torn countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Russia and Sri Lanka. They have all left their homeland, their culture, their friends and family. Separated children have complex backgrounds connected to war, conflict, flight and a new life in exile. Many of them bear evidence of hurtful experiences. They are vulnerable and in need of special protection. Separated children coming to Norway have frequently spent shorter or longer periods in other European countries prior to arrival in Norway. The children have in some cases applied for asylum in other countries, or they have lived in hiding. Even if these countries have ratified the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, there are huge differences in the asylum process, and children may have different experiences and expectations relating to immigration authorities. These children have the right to a fair asylum process regardless of which European country they are in. 7

8 Save the Children Norway is a member of the SCEP network that works to ensure that separated children are cared for in all European countries. The SCEP network is an important arena for the exchange of information, knowledge and experiences. Save the Children Norway applied for funds from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to arrange a two-day seminar in Oslo, to allow the participants to meet in person. 8

9 2. Seminar on separated children in Europe The seminar was held in Oslo, 29 and 30 October 2008, in Save the Children Norway s offices and Folkets Hus. 33 members of SCEP, representing 26 countries, participated on both days. The first day, 29 October, was dedicated to an internal meeting for members of the SCEP network only. The focus for this meeting was capacity building and sharing information. Workshops on possible channels of advocacy within the EU, and advocacy and national legislation were held. We also allowed time for workshops on the future work within the network, related to main areas and funding. The second day, 30 October, we organised a professional seminar. The seminar was held at Folkets Hus in Oslo, and a number of relevant organisations and institutions were invited, including UNHCR, Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, the Norwegian Directorate of Integration and Diversity, the Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, NRC Norwegian Refugee Council, Norwegian People s Aid, Save the Children Norway s youth organisation PRESS, Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS), The Norwegian Red Cross and the Ombudsman for Children in Norway. Participants from 26 European countries, UNHCR, NRC Norwegian Refugee Council, Norwegian People s Aid, NOAS and Save the Children Norway attended, totalling 45 participants Themes and content The theme of the seminar was the situation for separated children in different countries in Europe, and the importance of using CRC to realise the right of these children. The title of the seminar was: Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mainstreaming in protection and care of separated children in Europe. The aim was to clarify the situation for separated children, by working to ensure that their rights are fulfilled, and that they receive the care and protection they are entitled to, and to achieve a better understanding of the situation for these children in Europe. The aim was to attain knowledge of the practices in different countries, and clarify how CRC will and should be the cornerstone of all the work done for this group of children. Hilde Lidén, Research Director for International migration, integration and ethnic relations at the Institute for Social Research, introduced the programme. Lidén has recently concluded a project, the rights of separated children, in which she discusses Norwegian immigration policy in light of CRC, particularly focusing on health, care, education and participation. She emphasised the need to further and focus on the rights of separated children. She raised questions regarding the treatment of separated children, in particular the right to participate. Lidén emphasised the need to promote, and focus on the rights of separated children. Child perspective and child rights must be incorporated in all legislation concerning asylum seekers and refugees. The biggest challenge is the small amount of information available on child specific persecution. The purpose of the seminar was to provide an up to date picture of how European countries implement and ensure the rights of separated children: What is the situation 9

10 to day in a number of selected countries seen from the perspective and experiences of NGOs? How do the respective countries receive, meet and protect the children? What are the biggest challenges for the fulfilment of the rights of separated children? The aim of the seminar was to put the situation for separated children on the agenda and contribute to a qualified understanding of how European countries actually protect and care for separated children. There were presentations on the situation in 6 different European countries. These were: Norway, Italy, Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland and Greece. The presentations gave an overview of the basic figures and facts regarding separated children in the countries, there were given a description on what is in place with regard to care and protection, what are the most important challenges in the different countries to meet the standards according to the Statement of Good Practice, and issues that are most concerning in each country. And finally each country presented how the CRC mechanisms used is used. Louise King from Save the Children UK gave a presentation on how Save the Children UK completed and presented the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) to the UN Human Rights Council in April King presented their work, and how it can become an important tool in promoting CRC and child rights on regional and national levels. Working with the UPR created meeting places for dialogue with Save the Children UK and national government on child rights. Working on the UPR created real change that made child rights noticeable. Rebecca O Donnell from the head office of Save the Children in Brussels, reviewed trends and challenges concerning the realisation of the rights of separated children in Europe. She also discussed challenges connected to advocacy in the EU, to make the EU implement CRC in their policies concerning separated children in Europe. All the presentations from the seminar are presented in chapter 5, in this report. The presentation on the situation for separated children in Norway will follow here The situation for separated children in Norway Basic figures and facts regarding separated children in Norway Norway has experienced an increase in the arrivals of asylum seekers in Europe in So far this year more than twice as many asylum seekers have arrived compared to the same period of last year. 60 per cent of the applications for asylum are rejected. In 2007 Norway received asylum seekers and this year around arrivals are expected. So fare around asylum seekers has arrived. Most of these came from war and conflict-torn areas of Iraq, Chechnya, Eritrea and Serbia. The number of separated children has also increased in The number of separated children has increased in all the Nordic countries the last years. By the end of August separated children had applied for asylum. This is 9 percent of all asylum seekers in Norway. 87 percent of the separated children are boys, and stated that they were 15 to 18 years old. Most of these came from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea and Sri Lanka. 10

11 Since 2003, age assessments have been undertaken if there is doubt as to an applicant s age. Of those who applied for asylum in 2007, more than 260 were examined for age. Slightly more than 230 persons received full examination of their applications as genuine separated children asylum seekers. This means that the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration deemed that these persons were single minors at the time the decision was made. Of these, 77 percent were granted asylum, while 23 percent of the application was rejected. The percentage of rejections in 2007 was higher than in previous years, and this is in particular because for many children in Iraq caregivers were found in the country of origin. This is a common reason for the rejection of an application from separated children seeking asylum. In 2007, 43 percent of those who received a decision after having applied as separated children were found to be 18 years or older at the time of the decision and were therefore assessed as adult. During 2007, 258 separated children were granted residence and 54 were rejected after full examination of their applications by the UDI. So far in 2008, 218 separated children were granted residence. In 2007, 29 separated children were granted asylum. Somali nationals were granted the most such permits. So far in 2008, 14 separated children have been granted asylum. A total of 106 separated children received residence on other protection grounds in Most who received residence on such protection grounds came from Iraq and Sri Lanka. So far in 2008, 90 separated children received residence on other protection grounds. In 2007, 60 separated children were grated residence on humanitarian grounds, and they came from Iraq, Somalia and Ethiopia. So far in 2008, 51 separated children have received residence on humanitarian grounds. Describe what is in place with regard to care and protection Care responsibilities The Norwegian Immigration authorities have had the responsibility to care for the separated children. But in early December 2007 the care for separated children under 15 years of age was transferred to the Child Welfare Service from the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI). This means that children who come to Norway go directly to the care of the child welfare services. Bufetat s Regional Office in Eastern Norway has been responsible for developing and establishing a care centre. To day there is tree care centres in Norway. The aim of the centre is to improve conditions for separated children from arrival to settlement in the municipalities or until such time as they might depart from Norway. The centre is required to possess sufficient resources and expertise for assessing and meeting the children s need for care, follow-up, help and support. But the migration authorities are still responsible for processing their applications. They are also responsible for the asylum seekers between the ages of who comes to Norway by themselves. They are offered to stay in separate reception centres or departments for separated children seeking asylum in Norway. To day there are 10 separate reception centres for separated children. Around 260 of the children in reception centres are separated children. 11

12 Hopefully, separated children between the ages of 15 to 18 will also be transferred to the care of the child welfare services in the future. But we don t know when it will happen. It was supposed to happen in 2009, but on the National Budget for 2009 the government has not implemented finance recourses as intended. Save the Children Norway have worked for this for over ten years now. Together with several other NGO s in Norway we are doing a lot of advocacy toward the authorities to make sure that the separated children get the same care rights as other children without parents in Norway. After years of advocacy and information on this issue, the child welfare has the responsibility for the youngest children. These days we are doing a lot of work so that the separated children between 15 and 18 also get the same rights. Next week Save the Children and several other NGOs are meeting in a hearing on this issue at the parliament. A chapter was this spring added to the Act Relating to Child Welfare Services (The Child Welfare Act), concerning separated minors arriving in Norway. It concerns their rights during the asylum process; meaning while their application for asylum is processed. The law currently only applies to separated children under the age of 15, it will apply to minors aged in the future. The Child Welfare Service will be responsible for protecting the rights and interests of separated children. The Law seeks to ensure that children receive adequate care and prevent them from being subjected to extreme physical and psychological stress. The underlying principle governing all child welfare efforts is devotion to the child s best interests. What are the most important challenges in your country to meet the standards according to the Statement of Good Practice? Select the issues you find most concerning. In Statement of Good Practice there are several principles and standards that should be born in mind at all stages of care and provision for separated children. The Norwegian authorities have sought to uphold the children s rights. In August 2003 the CRC was incorporated into Norwegian law. As a result, national legal acts affecting children have had to be reconstructed in order to align with the framework and provisions of the Convention. Compared to many other countries Norway do have a good practice when it comes to have focused on the children rights. We have the opportunity, the system and the recourses to have the best practice when it comes to treatment of separated children. But, the Norwegian state can still be better to protect these children in line with its obligations under the Refugee Convention and the CRC. Looking at the general comments from the UN Child Right Committee, Norway gets some comments and have to make the situation for these children better than it is to day. I have already mentioned the care situation for the separated children, and the challenges according to that issue. There are especially four other issues I want to point at. It is the issue of nondiscrimination, the age assessment, legal guardianship and the asylum determination process. Non-discrimination With regard to children seeking asylum, much public focus has been on Article 2 of the CRC on non-discrimination. This provision obliges states parties to provide to 12

13 every child within their jurisdiction their Convention rights: Irrespective of the child s or his or her parent s or legal guardian s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Equality of opportunity for all children on a state s territory is the provision s fundamental message. Discrimination between Norwegian children and asylum seeking children is consequently prohibited. In Statement of Good Practice non-discrimination is one of the important principles that should be born in mind at all stages of care and provision of separated children; Separated children are entitled to the same treatment and rights as national or resident children. They should be treated as children first and foremost. All considerations of their immigration status should be secondary. But in practice we can see that separated children in Norway is being discriminated at some points. For example: the right to care, the right to a health service and the right to access to education. The Committee on the Right of the Child recommends that Norway improved the situation in reception centres for unaccompanied children seeking asylum, both in terms of resources and adequately trained and competent staff, so that the assistance and care for these children reach the same level as that provided in other institutions under the child welfare system. The Committee expressed its concern about reports of continued discrimination against immigrants such as minors experiencing delays in being accepted, insufficient supervision of and care provided to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children as well as about the insufficient psychological and psychiatric services provided to children living in reception centres. The Committee urges Norway to ensure that there is adequate psychological and psychiatric care for traumatized asylum-seeking children. In the general observation the committee also express that States should ensure that access to education is maintained during all phases of the displacement cycle. Every unaccompanied and separated child, irrespective of status, shall have full access to education in the country that they have entered. This is not the situation in Norway today. Age Assessment Save the Children Norway and Norwegian Organization for Asylum seekers (NOAS) have criticized the methods of age assessment that the UDI is using, because we have the understanding that the methods are incorrect. In 2003 Norwegian immigration authorities introduced age assessments. We had a situation where adult asylum seekers took advantage of the system, and deliberately gave their age incorrectly. Several adults lived in reception centres that were exclusively for children. Save the Children was on one hand positive to the introduction but on the other hand saw it as an necessity to use the method with care. After two years practicing the methods of age assessment several consequences had revealed. Consequences related to juridical matters, matter of care and personal and emotional matters for the seekers. Certain institutions and researchers consider 13

14 that the age assessments methods are not suitable for establishing age. Many of the involved, such as the asylum seeker, lawyers and guardians have questioned the uncertainty of the results. Based on this the Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers (NOAS) and Save the Children made a report on Norwegian age assessments for separated children. After a review of the relevant medical standards and of the application of age assessments in the asylum process, our primary concern was that with the current approach it will be a statistically regular occurrence for someone who is in fact a minor to be incorrectly treated as an adult. We considered therefore that there is a need for several basic changes in how age assessment in Norway is conducted and applied. So that children can have their rights. In cases of doubt as to whether an applicant has correctly stated his or her age, the Norwegian Directorate for Immigration offers age assessment. Age Assessment is voluntary. In 2007, 43 percent of those who received a decision after applying as unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, were considered to be 18 years or older at the time the decision was made. Their applications were therefore processed as adult asylum seekers. The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration determines whether an age assessment is to be offered in each individual case on the basis of observations from the police and reception centre employees and from its own observations. Consent for age testing is obtained during the asylum interview and the test is carried out during the following week. There are some types of expertise which the immigration authorities used to assess an asylum seeker s age: determining age on the basis of hand and wrist x-rays, determining age on the basis of teeth x-rays, evaluation by a pediatrition. In addition general observations made while the asylum seeker s application is being processed may also be taken into account. The teeth examinations are carried out in partnership with the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Oslo. There are currently no wrist examinations carried out, but the UDI is working to find a partner who can carry out this examination. The Immigration Authorities are currently looking at new methods for age assessment, supplementing the dental test now carried out. Save the Children Norway has developed an alternative model based on SCEP s Statement of Good Practice, where age is assessed first at arrival, supporting the decision about which care centre to send the child to, and then after 3-4 months, by independent professionals with appropriate expertise, based on various tests and statements. This latter is meant to be the legal decision about the age. Appointment of a guardian The current situation regarding legal guardianship for separated children in Norway is basically characterized by variation. Variation both in how the guardians understand and perform their role and tasks, and variation in how the responsible offices in the different municipalities work with recruitment, training and following up the guardians. 14

15 The latter is a question both of competence in the specific area of asylum seeking unaccompanied minors and of resources. The result is that a lot of the guardians have no proper training and hence are not to blame if they are not doing what this important task claims. The legal guardian is the one that takes all the important decisions for the child in the parent s absence. They are responsible for seeing that the child s needs and rights are taken care of by the responsible parties. This can be a demanding and challenging job that takes competence, a strong pursuing will and a network to lean on. The Norwegian government has for the first time suggested money for recruitment and training of legal guardians on the state budget for This is honourable and we appreciate it, but there are limitations. The training is only supposed to be for guardians for unaccompanied minors between 15 and 18 years in their first period in Norway. This means in praxis that children below 15, children in reception centres outside the Oslo area, and children finished with their asylum seeking face still in large scale will have guardians without proper training for their task. Norway has experienced severe critic from UN s committee on the rights of the child in several periods both for the caring situation and on how their conditions are looked after. Legal guardians have a crucial role in this respect. Next week Save the Children and Norwegian Peoples AID (NPA) are meeting in a hearing on this issue at the parliament let s hope it matters in our work towards securing the best interests of the child. The asylum determination process When making decisions relating to separated children, the Norwegian Directorate for Immigration assesses the general grounds for asylum, the age of the child and whether the child has caregivers in the country of origin. The UDI has clear guidelines for the priority and processing of applications for unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. This year, the estimated case-processing time for such cases is eight months. Still we have the situation were several separated children is waiting to long for their application. The Committee recommends that Norway should take further measures to ensure a more expedite processing of asylum claims. As I said before about the facts and figures, so far in 2008, 14 separated children have been granted asylum and have the permit to stay in Norway. And 106 separated children received residence on other protection grounds and 51 received residence on humanitarian grounds. A study by Kate Halvorsen from 2004, on separated children in four countries, including Norway, concluded that they are recognised as refugees at a significantly lower rate than adult asylum-seekers, and that child-specific persecution is not taken sufficiently into account. Instead consideration of children is more likely to lead to the granting of residence on humanitarian grounds rather than those stated in the UN Convention. 15

16 In the summer of 2007, the Norwegian Government presented a proposal for a new Immigration Act. Two of the main changes in the Government s proposal are that more of those who are currently granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds will be given refugee status and that child s rights will be strengthened. The plan is for the Act to enter into force on 1 January Then we will se if the new Act will make a change on this issue. How are CRC mechanisms used? Because of the increased number of asylum seekers coming to Norway, the Norwegian Government is concerned with protecting the right of asylum for refugees. According to the government it is therefore necessary to take measures to decrease the number of arriving asylum seekers who do not meet the conditions for protection. The Government has proposed additional measures to reduce the number of arrivals. Some of the measures will affect separated children in Norway. The Dublin II practice has until now not been applied to separated children arriving in Norway if they are age assessed to be minors. But now as a result of the increasing number of asylum seekers arriving in Norway, the authorities launched some measures meant to send out signals to restrict the influx. Applying Dublin II to separated children is one of them. Norway s assessment of cases under the Dublin II regulations will be harmonized with practices by other member states to the effect that Norway does not make general exceptions from the regulations unless there are particular reasons to do so. An individual assessment shall be carried out concerning applicants who are to be returned to Greece and unaccompanied minors. An other measure that will affect separated children is: Based on an individual assessment, temporary residency without the right to renewal can be granted to unaccompanied minors who are 16 years or older and today are given residency simply because Norwegian authorities cannot locate their parents/family. To day separated children are given residency if the authorities cannot locate their parents. As a reaction to the Norwegian Government s introduction of this series of dramatic restrictive measures into the Norwegian asylum system, there has been started a campaign nestekjærlighet.no. In this campaign we strongly ask the Government not to carry out restrictive measures that will break with Norway s fundamental humanitarian traditions. One of the principles that must still form the basis of Norwegian asylum policies is: 1. The UN recommendations must remain the foundation of Norwegian asylum policies. No one must be returned by force to their country of origin in violation of the UN recommendations. 2. Unaccompanied minors without caretakers in their country of origin must be given durable safety in Norway, not false safety for a couple of years before they are returned to an uncertain future in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and other conflict areas. 3. Spouses, parents, and children who have been separated by war, conflict, or political oppression must still have access to family reunification. A requirement that 16

17 the family member in Norway must have worked or been under education for at least four years before the family has the possibility of reuniting, is inhumane. As said earlier; in Statement of Good Practice there are several principles and standards that should be born in mind at all stages of care and provision for separated children. The Norwegian authorities have sought to uphold the children s rights. In the proposal for a new Immigration Act the children s rights will be strengthened. Compared to many other countries Norway do have a good practice when it comes to have focused on the children rights. We have the opportunity, the system and the recourses to have the best practice when it comes to treatment of separated children. But the Norwegian state can still be better to protect these children in line with its obligations under the Refugee Convention and the CRC. Looking at the concluding observations and the general comments from the UN Child Right Committee, Norway get some comments and have to make the situation for these children better than it is to day. 17

18 3. Evaluation The seminar was evaluated by the participants after the meeting. All participants were given an evaluation form. Only 13 participants handed in the forms, but their opinions were very useful and valuable. The evaluation showed that the participants were very pleased with the seminar, and that the thematic group sessions were found to be particularly useful. Several of the participants found the presentations on the EU and advocacy very useful, as well as the presentations on the situation for separated children in different countries. We rate the seminar as successful. We had three goals: empowering our members, capacity building and sharing information. Empowering/motivating our members The seminar made it possible for 33 members from 26 different countries to meet and discuss problems they encounter every day. The funding was crucial in providing all the members with the opportunity to attend. The feeling of working towards a common and important goal, and being presented positive results was of great value. The participants were also given useful input to apply to their own country, which encourages further work. These two days also facilitated social meeting places, where the participants could socialise and talk informally, which encourage further contact. One of the participants gave the following evaluation: It was a very positive and enthusiastic atmosphere at the meeting. After leaving one felt informed and ready to start working with the issues discussed. Capacity building The professional content of the seminar was assured by a high degree of participation from the members of the network. This ensured that the content of the seminar was useful and relevant for their work, and also made it possible for the participants to actively take part in the group sessions. The sessions related to challenging areas, and were particularly useful in providing perspectives and solutions from other countries, and the opportunity to discuss specific cases. It also gave participants with common challenges the opportunity to make professional contacts. Sharing information An important precondition for the seminar was to provide ample time to share information, experiences and ideas. We had arranged for group sessions, and ample time for questions, comments and discussions. One of the participants gave the following evaluation: It was really useful to hear about other countries situation and especially that space was left to ask questions. Several participants welcomed even more time for group sessions, and sharing information. Developing the network The three mentioned goals contribute towards creating a healthy climate for working in our own country, and also create alliances across borders. The seminar clarified that several of the countries have common or similar problems and challenges related to securing care and protection for separated children. We also acknowledged the importance of common advocacy and methods. The members of the SCEP network will continue to collaborate, by having regular contact by , and meeting in group sessions. The next network meeting will be held in Prague April The same participants will meet to share 18

19 experiences and discuss challenges and common strategies in our work to realise the rights of separated children in Europe. It is too early to tell whether the long-term goals of the seminar will be accomplished. But we do believe that the seminar has contributed towards building a foundation, and making it possible to achieve our long-term goals. The seminar in Oslo has helped create a healthy climate for collaboration, dialogue and the exchange of experiences between representatives in countries that work in a demanding and politically challenging field. In addition to capacity building and empowerment, these are important pieces in the puzzle towards achieving long-term victories. It is crucial that the members stay in touch and continue to share information in the future. Aftenposten, the biggest newspaper in Norway, published a series of articles on human smuggling/trafficking in November The journalist participated at the seminar and interviewed many of the members of the network. None of them were quoted, but they still contributed with country-specific background, and helped put the issue of human smuggling/trafficking on the agenda in Norway. 19

20 4. Conclusion Separated children are a group of very vulnerable children, and it is consequently important that organisations and others who campaign to realise their rights collaborate and maintain a close dialogue and contact. We are currently in a situation where the number of asylum seekers and separated children is on the increase in several European countries. People seek asylum in several countries. The situation for separated children in Europe transcends borders, and inconsistent European immigration policies make it crucial to streamline policies and practices to ensure that these children are cared for and protected under the principles of CRC. This way, we can make sure that the CRC and Statement of Good Practice is also valid for these children. We need to remember that separated children are primarily children, and that they need protection, care and legal protection. The seminar held in Oslo, was motivating, interesting and inspired action. The presentations from the seminar are attached to this report, and we sincerely hope they will inspire and be useful to anyone who works toward ensuring a safe environment for all separated children in the future. We would like to thank all lecturers, participants, the staff of Save the Children Norway, as well as all the members of the SCEP network. We would also like to thank the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for funding the seminar. 20

21 5. The programme and the presentation from the seminar 5.1. SCEP NGO Network Meeting, Draft Agenda SCEP NGO Network Meeting 29 October 2008 at Save the Children Norway, Oslo Draft Agenda (10:00 or 10:30 if possible due to arrival times: Welcome and introduction session with newcomers/ Lise Bruun will be communicated directly with newcomers start October) 11:00 11:15 Welcome & introduction of participants & agenda 11:15 12:15 Capacity building workshop on interaction between EU and national legislation and policies, part 1 - Knowledge building: EU policy areas relevant to separated children, EU institutions, political and legislative processes etc. Facilitators: Rebecca O Donnell, Terry Smith & Lise Bruun 12:15 13:00 Capacity building Workshop on interaction between EU and national legislation and policies, part 2 - Advocacy at national and EU level in relation to SCEP s 6 focus themes: Who to try to influence when, where and how Facilitators: Rebecca O Donnell, Terry Smith & Lise Bruun 13:00 14:00 Lunch 14:00-15:30 Strategy follow up: Membership criteria, Memorandum of Understanding, fees, Terms of Reference for thematic groups Introductions by Terry Smith, Louise King & Lise Bruun 15:30-16:30 Coffee/tea and NGO session on NGO Steering Committee representation, working mechanisms and election procedures Facilitated by Christoph Braunschweig, Magda Faltova and Taina Martiskainen 16:30-17:30 Thematic groups: start discussions on work plans, especially 2009 plans and budgets to feed into the budget for the 2009 Daphne Operational Grant. Evening Dinner at restaurant in Oslo 21

22 5.2. Seminar Programme, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child mainstreaming in the protection and care of separated children in Europe UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mainstreaming in the protection and care of separated children in Europe October , Folkets Hus, Youngstorget, Oslo, Norway Draft programme 9:00-9:15 Welcome and opening of the seminar / Janne Raanes, Save the Children Norway & Chair Terry Smith, UK 9:15 10:00 Convention on the Rights of the Child a relevant and effective tool for the protection of separated children. Key note speech by Hilde Lidèn, Research Director, Insitute for Social Research, Oslo 10:00 10:30 National presentations on the situation in European countries: Norway: Thale Skybak, Advisor on Refugee Children, Save the Children Norway 10:30 11:00 Coffee/tea Italy: Maria Antonia Di Maio, Advisor on Child Protection, Save the Children Italy, Contents, Methodologies and Policies Unit 11:00 12:00 National presentations on the situation in European countries, continued: Czech Republic: Magda Faltova, Counselling Centre for Refugees, Czech Republic Sweden: Monica Jacobson, Save the Children Sweden Poland: Gabriela Roszkowska, Nobody's Children Foundation, Poland Greece: Simone Troller, Researcher, Human Rights Watch, Children's Rights Division, Belgium 12:00 12:30 Discussion based on the morning s presentations 12:30 13:30 Lunch 13:30 14:00 The Universal Periodic Review to ensure implementation of the CRC / Louise King, Save the Children UK 14:00 14:45 EU trends and challenges in relation to CRC mainstreaming in protection and care of separated children / Rebecca O Donnell, Policy and Advocacy Officer, Save the Children Brussels Office Discussion 14:45 15:00 Conclusions and closing 22

23 5.3. The presentations from the seminar Following are the presentations given at the network sessions and the seminar. First an overview of all the presentations and the speakers: Capacity building Workshop on Interaction between EU and National Legislation and Policies, Lise Bruun, SCEP Role of EU Law & Policy in Relation to Separated Children, Rebecca O Donnell, Save the Children Brussels Convention on the Rights of the Child a tool for the protection of separated children, Hilde Lidèn, Institute for Social Research Norway The situation for separated children in Norway, Thale Skybak, Save the Children Norway Separated children in Italy, Maria Antonia Di Maio, Save the Children Italy Separated children in Czech Republic, Magda Faltova, Counselling Centre for Refugees Czech Republic Situation of separated children in Poland, Gabriela Roszkowska, Nobody s Children Foundation, Poland Unaccompanied children in Greece, Simone Troller, Human rights Watch Universal Periodic Review a useful tool for child rights advocacy, Louise King, Save the Children UK EU trends and challenges: CRC mainstreaming in the protection and care of separated children, Rebecca O Donnell, Save the Children Brussels 23

24 Separated Children in Europe Programme Capacity building Workshop on Interaction between EU and National Legislation and Policies Oslo, 29 October 2008 Overview of EU institutions, political and legislative processes Lise Bruun

25 Separated Children in Europe Programme EU Institutions The European Council Political heads of states and governments President of the Commission Assisted by the ministers of foreign affairs Overall political directions of the EU EU summits

26 Separated Children in Europe Programme The Council of the European Union The Council of Ministers or the Council Ministers of each member state - 9 main areas Mandate to commit their governments Adopt legislation proposed by the Commission Often in co-decisive procedure with the European Parliament

27 Separated Children in Europe Programme The EU Presidency A presidency of the Council of the European Union Rotates between Member States every 6 months Makes priorities of what issues and areas to pursuit High impact on what will be addressed by the Council

28 Separated Children in Europe Programme The European Commission ~ EU government 27 appointed commissioners (~ EU ministers ) each commissioner responsible for a Directorate-General (~a ministry ) for a political area Headed by the President of the Commission Appointed by states for 5 years Has the single right to propose legislation in the EU!

29 Separated Children in Europe Programme The European Commission continued Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security: immigration, asylum and trafficking Directorate-Generals are subdivided into Directorates (~ departments ) Directorate B: Immigration, Asylum and Borders Directorate D: fight against trafficking, terrorism & economic crime + criminal justice + also covers fundamental rights

30 Separated Children in Europe Programme The European Parliament (EP) politicians from all member states elected by direct elections in each country every 5 years number of national members according to size of population organised according to their political affiliation, not nationality co-legislates together with the Council on a lot of legislation approves the annual budget - in co-operation with the Council exercises the democratic control of the Commission

31 Separated Children in Europe Programme European Parliamentary committees Preparatory work for Parliament s plenary sittings Aid the Commission in initiating legislation 20 specialised standing committees Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs - LIBE 28 and 86 MEPs and chair Meet once or twice a month in Brussels - debates public Legislative reports Non-legislative reports Own-initiative reports

32 Separated Children in Europe Programme The European Court of Justice One judge per member state + president Ensure equal application & interpretation of EU law across EU Avoid national courts interpreting same legislation differently Settle legal disputes between states, institutions, businesses and individuals Ultimate say on matters of EU law - binding decisions Assisted by Court of First Instance Cases brought by private individuals, companies and organisations

33 Separated Children in Europe Programme EU political and legislative processes Programmes - outlines directions of policy developments - agreed by the Council - for immigration and asylum: Tampere Programme, 1999, Hague Programme, 2004 Communications to the Council and the European Parliament - drafted by the Commission followed by - Council Resolutions - Action Plans - 5 year plans - reflected in the Commission s Annual Programme

34 Separated Children in Europe Programme Green Papers - the Commission drafts - outlines planning for future legislation, long term perspective - platforms for discussions to analyse an area in preparation for hearings White Papers - the Commission drafts - more exhaustive, detailed suggestions for very specific policies - often functions as an action plan

35 Separated Children in Europe Programme Binding legislation Directives Conventions Regulations and Council Decisions further specifying directives Directives: solely proposed by the Commission the Commission sends them to the Council the Council can come up with Council positions the Council sends them to the Parliament for hearing during process changes are proposed the Commission redraft accordingly the directive has to be adopted by the Council in some cases co-decided by the Parliament

36 Separated Children in Europe Programme When adopted The directive becomes binding legislation Overrules national legislation Transposed into national law by a certain date Implementation will be monitored by the Commission If not properly applied the Commission can take the State to court Implementation can be evaluated Proposals for revision

37 Separated Children in Europe Programme EU policy and law can be influenced Who can be addressed? National: government/ministers & politicians, national Members of European Parliament (MEPs), national court EU: European Parliament, committees & MEPs, commissioners and their Directorate-Generals, European Court of Justice When? In principle during all stages of processes: drafting, hearings, debates up to decision making, implementation, monitoring, evaluation & revision How? to be addressed in Part II of this workshop

38 ROLE OF EU LAW & POLICY IN RELATION TO SEPARATED CHILDREN SCEP Capacity Building Workshop Oslo October 2008 Rebecca O Donnell

39 OVERVIEW Why Do Certain Things Happen At EU Level? What Types Of Measures Can the EU Adopt? What Role Does the EU Have In Relation to Separated Children? Current Treatment of Separated Children Under EU Law Key Messages

40 WHY DO CERTAIN THINGS HAPPEN AT EU LEVEL AND OTHERS AT NATIONAL LEVEL? EU can Only do What the Treaty Expressly Allows it to do Exclusive Competence in Some Fields Shared Competence (Subsidiarity & Proportionality)

41 WHAT TYPES OF MEASURES DOES THE EU ADOPT AND HOW DO THEY WORK? Key Measures different degrees of harmonisation: Regulation Directive Decision Framework Decision European Court of Justice decisions Other types of non-binding measures, for example, action plans, communications etc Practical measures of support

42 HOW IS EU LAW APPLIED AT NATIONAL LEVEL? Regulations with direct effect Directives to be implemented ECJ judgements Arguments in cases before national courts

43 WHAT ROLE DOES THE EU HAVE IN RELATION TO SEPARATED CHILDREN? Policy Areas Asylum Migration Trafficking Development Free Movement Fundamental Rights (Child Rights) Not an EU Policy Area in And of Itself But Must Be Respected in all EU Actions

44 CURRENT EU MEASURES Asylum: EU minimum standards on reception, procedures, qualification & Dublin II assessments Illegal Migration Proposed Directive for Returning Illegally Staying Third Country Nationals Trafficking Measures Legal Migration Family Reunification; limited other avenues of legal migration for children External Relations Migration and Development

45 CURRENT TREATMENT OF SEPARATED CHILDREN UNDER EU LAW: GENERAL OVERVIEW EU Measures on Separated Children Are Very Fragmented Starting Point is Migration Policy Rather than the Rights of the Child Often Minimum EU Standards are Established & MS Implement EU Rules in Different Ways

46 KEY MESSAGES Remember! EU law is future national law: it is directly relevant to all actors at Member State level; The development of EU law and policy can be influenced in a variety of ways and at a variety of different points in time;

47 KEY MESSAGES (ctd) When advocating for particular principles or practices, it is important to formulate them into the types of obligation which an EU measure typically will contain: i.e. often minimum standards or framework provisions. Making progress at EU level is often an incremental process and provisions affecting children may be scattered across a diverse range of measures.

48 CONCLUSION ONE OF OUR KEY ROLES IS TO ENCOURAGE A HOLISTIC COHERENT APPROACH BOTH AT EU AND NATIONAL LEVEL

49 What s Next on the EU Agenda? SCEP Capacity Building Workshop Oslo October 2008 Rebecca O Donnell

50 Revision of EU Asylum Measures Dublin II Regulation Reception Directive Procedures Directive Qualifications Directive Creation of an European Asylum Support Office.

51 Measures in the Field of Migration Implementation of Returns Directive Migration Proposals Family reunification

52 Trafficking Revision of EU Framework Decision on Trafficking Evaluation of EU Trafficking Action Plan

53 Future Perspectives Next 5 year JHA plan EU Strategy Towards the Rights of the Child Separate measure addressing separated children??

54 Convention on the rights of the Child - a tool for the protection of separated children Hilde Lidén Institute for Social Research hli@socialresearch.no

55 Mainstreaming Refugee Children s rights Incorporation child perspective in all policies concerning refugees and immigration Improve, develop and evaluate policy processes at all levels, by the actors normally involved in policymaking Mainstreaming is about organizing procedures and routines, about organizing responsibility and capacities for the incorporation of a child perspective Mainstreaming must include a gender perspective

56 Five types of rights General rights Rights requiring protective measures Rights concerning the civil status of children Rights concerning development and welfare Rights concerning children in special circumstances

57 Internal displacement

58 Migration women and children

59 Crossing borders illegaly

60 Child Perspective CRC as such To analyze the structural position of children in the society The specific circumstances for the individual child the child s experience, opinion and perspectives on the future

61 CRC on refugee children The article 22 about refugee children is the only explicit refugee related provision in any international human rights instrument. State parties shall take appropriate measure to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic laws and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and other international human rights and humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties.

62 Children not only observers

63 Article 12: The participation and views of the child Children who are capable of forming their own views should be free to hold and express their opinions in all matters affecting them, and that their views should be given due weight "in accordance with the age and maturity of the child". This includes any judicial or administrative proceedings in which they are involved; like asylum proceedings.

64 CRC Committee 2000: Specifically, the Committee is concerned that child applicants for asylum are provided with insufficient opportunities to participate in their application process and that their views are insufficiently taken into consideration....

65 Article 3: The best interests of the child The principle means that legislative bodies must consider whether laws being adopted or amended will benefit children in the best possible way, and that courts or administrative authorities settling conflicts of interest should base their decisions on what is best for the child

66 Article 2 on non-discrimination. This provision puts states parties under the obligation to provide to every child within their jurisdiction their Convention rights; "irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

67 The situation for separated children in Norway SCEP seminar October Thale Skybak

68 Fact and figures Norway has experienced an increase in the arrivals of asylum seekers in The number of separated children has also increased in 2008 Separated children seeking asylum in Norway: 2008: 729 (This is 9 percent of all asylum seekers in Norway) 2007: : 349

69 Fact and figures 87 percent of the separated children are boys 87 percent stated that they were 15 to 18 years old Most of the separated children comes from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Eritrea and Sri Lanka Under Total 6 years girls boys Total

70 Decisions in asylum cases Granted Residence on Residence on Total asylum other humanitarian protection grounds grounds

71 Care responsibilities The Child Welfare Service have the responsibility to care for separated children under 15 years of age. Care centre The centre is required to possess sufficient resources and expertise for assessing and meeting the children s need for care, follow-up, help and support A chapter is added to the Act relating to Child Welfare Services, concerning separated children arriving in Norway. The Norwegian Immigration authorities have the responsibility to care for the separated children between years. They are offered to stay in separate reception centres or departments for separated children.

72 Challenges to meet the standards according to the Statement of Good Practice Non-discrimination Age Assessment Appointment of a guardian The asylum determination process

73 CRC art. 2: Non-discrimination Irrespective of the child s or his or her parent s or legal guardian s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Separated children in Norway is being discriminated at some point. Ex: the right to care, the right to a health service and the right to access to education. Comments from the Committee on the Right of the Child.

74 Age assessment Regulated in the Immigration Act In cases of doubt as to whether an asylum seeker has correctly stated his or her age, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration offers age assessment. In 2007, 43 percent of those who received a decision after applying as separated child, were considered to be 18 years or older at the time the decision was made. Methods : - hand and wrist x-rays - teeth x-rays - evaluation by a pediatrition - in addition general observations made while the asylum seeker s application is being processed may also be taken into account.

75 Legal guardianship The current situation regarding legal guardianship for separated children in Norway is basically characterized by variation. how the guardians understand and perform their role and tasks variation in how the responsible offices in the different municipalities work with recruitment, training and following up the guardians The legal guardian is responsible for seeing that the child s needs and rights are taken care of by the responsible parties. This can be a demanding and challenging job where you need competence, a strong pursuing will and a network to lean on.

76 The asylum determination process The immigration authorities have clear guidelines for the priority and processing of applications for separated children seeking asylum. The CRC Committee recommends that Norway should take further measures to ensure a more expedite processing of asylum claims. In 2007, the Norwegian Government presented a proposal for a new Immigration Act. The main changes in the proposal are that more of those who are currently granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds will be given refugee status and that children s rights will be strengthened. The Act will enter into force in 2010.

77 Tightening of the immigration policy The Government has proposed 13 measures to reduce the number of arrivals to Norway. Some of the measures will affect separated children: Norway s assessment of cases under the Dublin II regulations will be harmonized with practices by other member states to the effect that Norway does not make general exceptions from the regulations unless there are particular reasons to do so. An individual assessment shall be carried out concerning applicants who are to be returned to Greece and unaccompanied minors Based on an individual assessment, temporary residency without the right to renewal can be granted to unaccompanied minors who are 16 years or older and today are given residency simply because Norwegian authorities cannot locate their parents/family.

78

79 SEPARATED CHILDREN IN ITALY UN CRC MAINSTREAMING IN THE PROTECTION AND CARE OF SEPARATED CHILDREN IN EUROPE Oslo, 30 October 2008 Maria Antonia Di Maio Advisor on Child Protection Save the Children Italy

80 SCOPE & FOCUS Country: Italy Basic Facts and Figures Care and Protection Key-challenges SEPARATED CHILDREN IN ITALY Oslo, 30 October 2008

81 BASIC FACTS AND FIGURES Children cannot be removed (Migration Law) Foreign unaccompanied child : every child who is not Italian/EU national and who, while not having applied for asylum, is in the country for whatever reason deprived of parental care or of the care of other adults legally responsible Separated children notified to the Foreign Children Committee over the past 7 years: (average) Main trends: Romania (6 times higher), Morocco (twice higher), Albania (69% to 17% of the total) SEPARATED CHILDREN IN ITALY Oslo, 30 October 2008

82 BASIC FACTS AND FIGURES In 2007, notified to the Committee for Foreign Children Morocco (19,8%), Albania (17,2%), Palestine (14%), Egypt (10,7%), Afghanistan (7,1%), Iraq (6%), 76 nationalities Age: 17 (50%), 16 (25%), 15 (12%), 7-14 (11%), 0-6 (0,8%). Gender: 92% boys A/S 295: Afghanistan (54%), Somalia (12%), Eritrea (10%), Coast (5%), Ethiopia (4%) VoTs 319: Romania and other Eastern European countries, Nigeria, Morocco SEPARATED CHILDREN IN ITALY Oslo, 30 October 2008

83 CARE AND PROTECTION Detailed protection system for children deprived of parental care, including separated children Local institutions (Communes) hold the main responsibility for providing assistance and protection to separated children in referral with several public/private actors (accommodation, notifying to relevant authorities, guardianship procedure, school registration, access to vocational training, health care services etc.) SEPARATED CHILDREN IN ITALY Oslo, 30 October 2008

84 KEY-CHALLENGES Focus: intake, reception and interim care Survey (2008) 66% of Communes: Insufficient financial resources Limited reception capacity Difficult cooperation with some actors Difficulties in engaging children in education/integration projects Children disappear: 62% during interim care SEPARATED CHILDREN IN ITALY Oslo, 30 October 2008

85 KEY-CHALLENGES Focus: Sicily (Southern coast) One of the main detection points (34% of children arriving in 2007) Mixed groups of migrants SCI operational since early 2008: monitoring standards, providing information Monitored 25 child-friendly centers (April- October 2008)

86 KEY-CHALLENGES Excessive duration of placement in border areas, in very inadequate facilities, where freedom of movement is limited Insufficient information is provided to children (entitlements, services available, asylum process etc.) Lack of minimum standards in reception centers for children: - Facilities conditions - Facilitating contact with families - Access to education, training and job opportunities - Appointment of a guardian or adviser - Access to health

87 Thank you!

88

89 SEPARATED CHILDREN IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Magda Faltová Counselling Centre for Refugees Oslo, October 2008

90 CONTENT General principles Legal framework Reception Statistics Compliance with SGP Good practice Bad practice CRC and comment no.6 compliance 3

91 GENERAL PRINCIPLES All children without legal guardians at the territory of the Czech Republic are treated equally principle of non-discrimination Each separated child has a guardian appointed by the court Family court decides about the placement of the separated child Best interest of the child should be observed 4

92 LEGAL FRAMEWORK Constitution and CRC ( ) Act no 359/1999 Coll, Act on Socio-legal Protection of Children - protection is provided to all children at the territory Act no. 325/1999 Coll, Asylum Act - definition of separated children asylum seekers Act no. 326/1999 Coll, Act on Residence of Foreigners - applicable to children older 15 5

93 RECEPTION All separated children irrespective of their status are placed to the Facility for Children of Foreign Nationals Asylum seekers Directly placed to the facility (all younger 15) Detained in the administrative detention for up to 90 days (15-18 years, illegal entry, no passport, fake passport etc.) then placed to the facility Other foreign separated children Some kind of legal status (visa, residency permit, EU nationals) left at the territory by their former legal guardians directly placed to the facility Illegal migrants not applying for international protection detention 90 days, then placed to the facility 6

94 RECEPTION Full access to education Full access to health care Guardianship Guardian for asylum procedure (Asylum Act) Guardian for stay (Act on socio-legal protection) Guardian for detention(act on the Residence of Foreigners) Age assesment 7

95 STATISTICS Data provided by the facility for foreign children from Children placed to the facility 80 females 19 males 62 younger older asylum seekers 37 detained 6 disappearance 34 8

96 STATISTICS Countries of origin Turkey 32 Slovakia 16 Afghanistan 1 China 5 Georgia 1 India 1 Dem.rep Congo 1 Macedonia 2 Mongolia 2 Nigeria 3 Palestine 4 Poland 1 Syria 1 Ukraine 1 USA 1 UK 1 Vietnam 7 9

97 SGP Good practice Long term solutions Possibility to stay at the facility till 26 if studying or preparing for future career Possibility to obtain permanent residency after reaching 18 Judicial review and guardianship Each child has a guardian Only a court can decide about placement of the child Access to education and health care 10

98 SGP Bad practice Detention Up to 90 days, breach of Act on Residence of Foreigners Age assessment Only based on x-ray of palm Return Detention to be returned under bilateral readmission treaty (Vietnam, Moldova, RF) Trafficking No data available, no governmental policy on fight against trafficking of children 11

99 CRC and Comment no.6 Detention - detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of the child being unaccompanied or separated or on their migratory or residence status, or lack thereof. Return - only in the best interest of the child, safety, secure conditions, view of the child into consideration. Training - officials, legal representatives, guardians, interpreters should be trained accordingly

100 Thank you for your attention

101 Situation of separated children in Poland Gabriela Roszkowska

102 Definition Unaccompanied minor a foreign minor arriving to or staying on the territory of the republic of Poland without an adult being responsible for the minor according to a law or a custom The Amendment Act of 12 March 2008 on granting protection to aliens within the territory of the Republic of Poland

103 Statistics In Poland there is no general statistical information on unaccompanied minors. Therefore, statistics related to UAMs in Poland are very limited and contain only data on UAMs who are asylum seekers UAMs in an irregular situation most of them come from Vietnam Majority of UAMs in Poland boys in the age of In 2006, 20 UAMs applied for the refugee status; In 2007, 16 UAMs applied for the refugee status

104 Statistics UAMs applying for the refugee status in Poland and those who were granted any kind of humanitarian protection come from: 1. Russian Federation (Chechnya and Ingushetia) 2. Somalia 3. Bangladesh 4. Burundi 5. Nigeria 6. Pakistan 7. Vietnam 8. Belarus The majority of them are boys.

105 Statistics Most of UAM asylum seekers stayed during 1-2 months in the children s houses. Their stay is short because as for most migrants, including UAMs, Poland is a transit country to Western Europe In the period from , 6 UAMs left to another country on the ground of the Dublin Convention to be reunited with parents or family Number of disappearances 2 UAMs disappeared in 2006 and 3 UAMs in 2007

106 Detention Due to Polish law neither UAM nor SC shall be detained and are also not subjected to a prescreening detention

107 Age assessment Polish law provides that if the declared age of the alien claiming to be a minor gives raise to doubts, a medical examination may be carried out upon the consent of the alien or legal guardian appointedd to represent that alien for the purpose of establishing the actual age of the alien. The examination should contain, apart from establishment of the age, the indication showing the admissible margin of incorrectness of the test

108 Guardianship In the case of unaccompanied minors the body responsible for receiving the application for refugee status requests the guardianship court to establish a legal guardian and to place such minor in the caring institution. The legal guardians are appointed for all categories of unaccompanied aliens. In the case of UAMs applying for asylum, legal guardian is taking care of the respective procedure. In case of other UAMs the legal guardian is appointed by the court to undertake all legal steps in the name of minor.

109 Reception Polish law provides the protection of the child on the basis of Art. 74 of the Polish Constitution. A child without parental custody has the right to assistance and custody on the part of public authorities. According to Art. 72 of the Constitution, the authorities are obliged to protect children rights and everyone can demand the public authorities for the protection of the child from violence, cruelty, exploitation and demoralisation.

110 Reception Asylum seeking UAMs / S.C. shall wait for the end of the asylum procedure at children s homes or foster families In case of refusal to grant refugee status, an UAM shall remain in the facility he/she was assigned to or be placed in another location designated for his/her stay by custody court with jurisdiction over the minor s place of residence until he/she can be handed over to the institutions of his/her country of origin whose statutory tasks include issues related to minors.

111 Reception Other SC at arrival are placed in placed in the emergency care centers and then in the children s homes SC/UAMs staying in emergency care centers or reception facilities have access to education (education is obligatory in Poland for children under the age of 18). In such cases the facilities the children are living in, are providing necessary materials and books. SC/UAMs have access to the medical services financed by the State

112 Procedures In general, UAMs and SC applying for refugee status in Poland follow the same procedure as other applicants. However, there are several differences concerning providing a legal guardian who assists with proceedings or there are special provisions regarding conducting the asylum interview The asylum interview has to take place in the favorable circumstances with the participation of a guardian, psychologist and additional adult person if specified by the minor.

113 Family tracing and reunification For asylum seeking UAMs a Head of the Office for Foreigners is obliged by the Aliens Protection Law to undertake any steps to trace the family members of a minor. Using the opportunity of family reunification Polish Office for Foreigners (governmental body responsible for carrying out a refugee procedure) issues the decisions allowing to send the child to the countries where they can join their families. The decisions are based on Dublin II regulation

114 Return Both asylum and aliens legislation contain special provisions regarding the deportation of UAMs. According to Polish law, a decision ordering the deportation of an UAM to his/her country of origin or another country may be enforced only if care will be provided to him/her in that country by one of his/her parents or other adults, or by the relevant juvenile welfare institutions, in accordance with the standards provided for in the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child

115 Trafficking According to the Polish Penal Code, the trafficking in Human beings is penalized. It covers the crimes conducted against foreign children on the same basis as other categories of persons The same provision penalizes also the illegal adoption In the Ministry of Interior and Administration operates a special working unit for the purpose of preventing and combating the trafficking in human beings. It helps coordinating the actions of different entities involved with the issue such as the Police, various ministries, Boarder Guards or Nobody s Children Foundation

116 Unaccompanied Children in Greece HRW Research 2008

117 HRW s Work on Unaccompanied Children Part of series of research on unaccompanied children in Western Europe 1) Greece December ) 2008: Returns at Any Cost Spain s Push to Repatriate Unaccompanied Children in the Absence of Safeguards 3) 2007: Unwelcome Responsibilities Spain s Failure to Protect the Rights of Unaccompanied Migrant Children in the Canary Islands 4) 2002: Spain / Morocco: Nowhere to Turn State Abuses of Unaccompanied Migrant Children by Spain and Morocco

118 Research Summary Research in Greece: end of May/early June 2008 Interviews with more than 170 migrants, asylum seekers and refugees Among them 53 unaccompanied children (50 boys - 3 girls), both asylum seeking and migrant children Important: Albanian unaccompanied children were excluded from the scope of the research

119 Facts & Figures I Overall Figures and Nationalities We did not obtain official figures of the number of unaccompanied children who entered Greece in 2007 and 2008 Our estimate: at least 1,000 unaccompanied children in 2008 Countries of origin: Afghanistan Somalia Pakistan Iraq Eritrea Other African Countries (Nigeria, The Congo) Philippines

120 Facts & Figures II Asylum Seekers Figures of unaccompanied children who seek asylum 2004: : : : 44 Internal figures of three NGOs for 2007: 210 Trend: fewer unaccompanied children seek asylum

121 Facts & Figures III Deportations Source: Hellenic Police Alien s Division Figures of all children deported from Greece: 2007: 1, : 1,267 (January to August) Figures of unaccompanied children (failed asylum seekers) deported from Greece: 2005: : : : 119 (January to August)

122 Protection & Care What is in Place I LEGISLATION 1. EU directives transposed 2. Prosecutors: temporary guardians for all unaccompanied children; 3. Guardianship provisions in line with international standards 4. Trafficking victim status CARE PLACEMENTS 1. Approximately 200 care placements for unaccompanied children in centers; including good examples of care LEGAL AID AND REPRESENTATION 1. Three NGOs and network of pro bono lawyers offer legal aid and referral to care

123 Greek Ombudsman - children s rights unit 1. Acts on individual complaints 2. Issues timely statements and reports Protection & Care What is in Place II guidelines: treatment of unaccompanied and separated children report: detention and deportation of (unaccompanied) migrant children investigation: disappearance of 500 unaccompanied children from care.

124 Protection & Care What is Not in Place I CARE PLACEMENTS 1. Insufficient number 2. No minimum standards 3. No special center for unaccompanied girls 4. No special center for child victims of trafficking 5. No long-term plans LEGISLATION 1. Immigration legislation - Detention and deportation - No regular status for unaccompanied migrant children 2. No comprehensive child protection law that fully reflects CRC standards 3. Trafficking victim status dependent on consent to cooperate in investigation 6. Priority given to asylum seeking children

125 Consequences 10-year-old Somali girl in detention for the third time: I told the police how old I am, but they haven t had another place for me. I was arrested at the border. I ve been in this jail for 15 days. But before I was arrested in the airport twice and released. I am alone. I have nobody here. If they release me, I ll just go to Omonia square. 15-year-old Nigerian boy who sleeps in parks: I still don t have a place to live. Now I sleep out on the streets. I don t live anywhere. I have cold to my body. I don t feel safe. I walk around to after 1am or 2am. Then I find a park to sleep in.

126 Protection & Care What is Not in Place II ASYLUM SYSTEM 1. Asylum system does not meet international standards 2. Superficial and short interviews 3. Obstacles in accessing asylum 4. No representation during asylum procedure (few exceptions) 5. Very limited availability of legal aid PROCEDURES 1. Dysfunctional temporary guardianship system 2. No formal age assessment procedures 3. No interviews with children after apprehension - interpreters! 4. No functioning procedure to refer children to care (few exceptions)

127 Consequences 1. A sixteen-year-old boy from the Congo described his release from detention: When I was released I got no information. I was told to disappear. I was accompanied up to the gate, then they said leave. After I was released I spent the first night at Omonia square. 2. A fifteen-year-old Afghan boy who earns a living working on construction sites I never went to school in Greece. If I keep working I cannot participate in these classes. If I go to classes I cannot work. If I work I m too tired to study. How can I study when I m too tired? I have to wake up early, around five am, to start work at seven or eight in the morning.

128 Consequences 3. A fifteen-year-old Afghan boy who had just been released from detention and was on his way to Athens My uncle told me I should go to Greece and that my life would be better. My father didn t accept but my uncle said I had to go. My uncle has to pay about 6,000 USD. He told me that I would work and pay him back. There are two smugglers, one is in Pakistan and one in Athens. They said they will take me like a prisoner unless they are given the money. I think my uncle will pay them. When I arrive the smuggler waits for me and will take me to a house to call Pakistan. If [my uncle] doesn t give the money they will keep me.

129 CRC Mechanisms CRC Concluding observations 2002: 1. Harmonize legislation with CRC standards 2. Improve implementation of domestic legislation on children s rights 3. Provide access to free legal aid for asylum seeking and migrant children 4. Avoid detention of migrant and asylum seeking children 5. Reduce delays in processing asylum applications 6. End discrimination against refugee and migrant children The Committee remains concerned at the insufficient attention provided for the specific needs and situation of unaccompanied child refugees. The Committee recommends that Greece develop a procedure to attend to the specific needs and situation of unaccompanied child refugees.

130 UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography Visit to Greece in November 2005 Challenges remain to make a child protection system a functioning reality addressing these challenges requires political will to give a higher priority to child protection. In practice, children are too often treated as adult illegal migrants. This is particularly worrying for the more vulnerable categories of unaccompanied children, such as victims of trafficking and asylum-seekers, who may end up being deported without having had the possibility of accessing the protection measures to which they are entitled Separated children should be provided with suitably trained interpreters, receive legal representation and be informed of their entitlements, the services available, the asylum process, family tracing and the situation in their country of origin.

131 Conclusion Breakdown of an entire protection system Lack of care placements Lack of fair asylum procedures Lack of identification procedures (child, vulnerable, trafficking victim) Lack of regular status for unaccompanied children who don t seek asylum Lack of representation by guardian Insufficient legislation / legislation does not meet international standards No age determination procedure Very limited legal aid available

132 Universal Periodic Review a useful tool for child rights advocacy Louise King, UK Policy Advisor, Child Rights and Protection, Save the Children UK