No information is available for this page.
Learn why

34 KB – 38 Pages

PAGE – 2 ============
Frontex o˜cial publications fall into four main categories: risk analysis, training, operations and research, each marked with a distinct graphic identi˚er. Risk analysis publications bear a triangular symbol formed by an arrow drawing a triangle, with a dot at the centre. Metaphorically, the arrow represents the cyclical nature of risk analysis processes and its orientation towards an appropriate operational response. The triangle is a symbol of ideal proportions and knowledge, re˛ecting the pursuit of factual exactness, truth and exhaustive analysis. The dot at the centre represents the intelligence factor and the focal point where information from diverse sources converges to be processed, systematised and shared as analytical products. Thus, Frontex risk analysis is meant to be at the centre and to form a˝reliable basis for its operational activities. European Agency for the Management of˝Operational Cooperation at˝the˝External Borders of the Member States of the European Union Plac Europejski 6 00-844 Warsaw, Poland T +48 22 205 95 00 F +48 22 205 95 01 Warsaw, January ˙ˆˇ˘ Risk Analysis Unit Frontex reference number: ˙ˆ˘ˇ/˙ˆˇ OPOCE Catalogue number TTAFˇˆˆENN ISSN ˙˘ˆ˘˘ © Frontex, 2015 All rights reserved. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This is a Frontex staorking document. This publication or its contents do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Frontex concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. All charts included in this report are the sole property of Frontex and any unauthorised use is prohibited. Throughout the report, references to Kosovo* are marked with an asterisk to indicate that this designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. The FRAN Quarterly has been prepared by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit. During the course of developing this product, many colleagues at Frontex and outside contributed to it and their assistance is hereby acknowledged with gratitude.

PAGE – 4 ============
BCP border crossing point CIRCA Communication and Information Resource Centre Administrator EDF-RAN European Union Document-Fraud Risk Analysis Network EU European Union EUR euro FRAN Frontex Risk Analysis Network Frontex European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union ICJ International Court of Justice ID identity document IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre ISIL/Da™ish Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ICONet Information and Coordination Network for Member States™ Migration Management Services IOM International Organization for Migration KRG Kurdistan Regional Government n.a. not available Q/Qtr quarter of the year RAU Frontex Risk Analysis Unit SAC Schengen Associated Country SIS Schengen Information System UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution UK United Kingdom VIS Visa Information System WB-RAN Western Balkans Risk Analysis Network 2 of 35

PAGE – 5 ============
FRAN Quarterly reports are prepared by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit and provide a regular overview of irregular migration at the EU external borders, based on the irregular migration data exchanged among Member State border-control authorities within the cooperative framework of the Frontex Risk Analysis Network (FRAN) and its subsidiary, the European Union Document-Fraud Risk Analysis Network (EDF-RAN). The main purpose of the FRAN Quarter -lies is to provide: 1. feedback to the FRAN community in the context of information exchange; 2. a periodic update to the situational pic -ture of irregular migration at EU level; and 3. material for constructive discussion on reporting protocols and related trends and patterns. This report is intended to simultaneously serve two objectives: ˚rst Œ to provide a clear summary of the situation at the ex -ternal border of the EU, and second Œ to serve as an archive for future reference and comparative analyses. Harmonising complex, multi-source mi -gration data among Frontex and Member States is an ongoing process. Therefore, some of the more detailed data and trends in this report should be interpreted with caution and, where possible, cross-ref -erenced with information from other sources. The statistics should be under -stood in the context of the dierent lev -els of passenger ˛ows passing through dierent border sections, the activities of Member State border-control author -ities undertaken to secure dierent bor -der sections and widespread variation in reporting and data-collection practices. FRAN members and Member State risk analysis experts and border-control au -thorities are considered the primary cus -tomers of these reports. In addition to the discussions taking place during FRAN meetings, Member State experts are in -vited and actively encouraged to examine and comment upon the data and analyses presented here. Despite all eorts of the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit and Member State experts involved in data exchange and analyses, it is conceivable that minor errors will occur in these reports due to very challenging timelines and the grow -ing volume and complexity of the data and other information exchanged within the FRAN community. Starting with the 2015 Q1 issue, the Fron -tex Risk Analysis Unit has implemented a number of changes to present the anal -ysis of migration related indicators in the FRAN Quarterly in a more concise and fo -cused way. The ˚rst part provides a situational over -view , broken down by main areas of work of border-control authorities and police activities related to irregular migration. Surveillance , describing and analysing trends in detections of illegal border- crossing between BCPs; Border checks , describing detections reported during checks at BCPs (peo -ple hiding in vehicles or refused entry); Fraudulent documents , describing trends and pattern related to document fraud both at the border and within the EU; Situation in the EU , examining devel -opments related to persons applying for asylum and those detected stay -ing illegally, facilitators, return deci -sions and eective returns. The second thematic part of the report consists of up to ˚ve featured risk anal -yses , examining trends and patterns of ir -regular migration in a more comprehensive manner. Eventually it is hoped that some of the featured analysis topics would be developed by external contributors (FRAN members, EU agencies and international institutions). 3 of 35

PAGE – 6 ============
The current 29 th issue of the FRAN Quar -terly is a comparative analysis of FRAN data collected between July and Septem -ber 2015 and exchanged between 31 Mem -ber State border-control authorities within the framework of the Frontex Risk Analy -sis Network (FRAN). The report presents the results of statistical analysis of quar -terly changes of eight irregular-migration indicators and one asylum indicator, ag -gregated at the level of the event. Analyt -ical reports exchanged by Member States were also used for interpretative purposes and to provide qualitative information, as were other available sources of informa -tion, such as Frontex Joint Operations. Precise de˚nitions of Indicators 1 to 6, aimed at harmonising the data exchanged at EU level, were presented in the annexes of the Q1 and Q2 reports in 2009 and so are not repeated here. The FRAN data exchange has been in place since September 2008. Data are exchanged through the ICONet Internet platform, an interest group of the Euro -pean Commission™s CIRCA server. Mem -ber State monthly data are based on a country template prepared by the Frontex Risk Analysis Unit. The deadline for sub -mitting data for each month was the 25 th day of the subsequent month, with the exception of the end-of-year data, which are requested by 15 January each year. For this 29 th issue of the FRAN Quarterly, the target for Member States to upload the monthly data was thus 25 October 2015. In principle, data submitted subsequent to this date will be re˛ected in the next FRAN Quarterly, except in cases where clari˚cation is needed in order to proceed with comprehensive analysis. In January 2012, the European Union Document-Fraud Risk Analysis Network (EDF-RAN) was formed as a specialist fo -rum to oversee the exchange and analy -ses of detections of document fraud at the external borders and on all interna -tional ˛ights. The data were backdated and merged with those exchanged under a pi -lot Tailored Risk Analysis released in 2011. At the beginning of 2014, Member States started to regularly collect quantitative information on indicators related to sec -ondary movements. In addition, in July 2014, Frontex organised a workshop for Member State experts to gather their ex -pertise and analyse available data. Their input was essential for the analysis of in -tra-EU/Schengen secondary movements of undocumented migrants. External borders refer to the borders be -tween Member States and third countries. The borders between Schengen Associated Countries (Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) and third countries are also considered as external borders. The borders between Schengen Associated Countries and Schengen Member States are considered as internal borders. For the indicators on detections of facilitators, ille -gal stay and asylum, statistics are also re -ported for detections at the land borders 4 of 35

PAGE – 8 ============
6 of 35Table 1. Detections of illegal border-crossing between BCPs Detections reported by routes and top three nationalities at the external borders Eastern Mediterranean route˜ ˚˛˚˝˝ ˙˙ˆˇ˘ ˘˙˙˛˜ ˇ˚˜˜ ˚˛˝˚˙˝ˆ˛˜ ˚˛˝ ˙˝ˆˇˇSyria ˜ ˆ˘˜ ˚˛˛˝˜Afghanistan˘˛ ˚˙ˆˇˇ˙˜˛Iraq˜˛ ˘˘˘˘.ˆOther˛˜˝˛˜˛˝˜˜˛˜.˘Syria ˙ ˇˇ˘ˆ˘ˆˆIraqˇ ˇ˘ˇAfghanistanˇ˘˙˝˘˜˙ ˘.˚Other˙ˇ˙˙ˇ˘˝˝˝˜˙˙˚.˝Western Balkan route ˛ ˇ˛˘ˆ˙ˆNot speci˚ed˙˙ˇ˘ ˝˚˙ ˚˚ Syria ˙ ˆ˘˚˙˙Afghanistan˜ ˝˚˛ ˜˘˜˜˘Other˝˚ ˝˘˘˚ˆ˛˜ˆ˘Central Mediterranean route ˚˘ ˝˛˙˙ˇ ˝ˆˇ˚Eritrea˜ˇ˝ Nigeriaˆ ˙ˆ˘˜˘˛˙ˆ˜˘Sudan˜˘ˇ˙˘Other˚˙ ˙ Western Mediterranean route ˇ ˛˙ˇ˙ ˚˘˛˙ ˘˙ˆˆ˘˙˝ ˆ˘Syria ˇ ˘˘ˇˇ ˚˛ˇ˙ ˘ˆˇ ˜˝ Guineaˇˆˇ˝ˇ˚˜˜˘˛.ˇPalestine ˆˇˆˇ˘ˇˆ˚˜ˇ ˛.˜Other˝˚ˇ˘˘˜˜˚ˇ ˙˙˘Algeria˜˙˙Guineaˇ˜˛ˆ˘ ˜˚Moroccoˇ˚ˆ ˜˚Other˘˝˜ Circular route from Albania to Greece ˝ ˚˝˚˝ ˇ˜˝Albania˙ ˇˇˇ˝ ˇ˛˛˙ ˇˇFYR Macedoniaˇˇˇˆˇ˛˜˚ Serbiaˆˇ˙ Otherˇ˘˘˘˚˜˝˜˝Eastern borders route˝˝˝˙˜ˆ˝ˇˇ˚ˇ˙˝˚ˇ˜Vietnamˇˆ˝˘˜˚˚Afghanistanˇ˛˜˝˛˚ˆSyria ˙˙˘˜˜ˆ˚˛˝˛.˜Other˙˙ˇ˝ˆ˘˙˙˚˜Western African route ˙˛˝˝˜˚˘˙Guineaˇˇ˜˘˜ ˜˜˚ ˜˝˚˙˝Côte d’Ivoire ˙˚˙˜˜˜ˆGambia˝˙˜˘ˆ˘˙Other˙˘˜˙˚˜˙ˆBlack Sea route ˛˘˝˛ˆ˜˜˛˜n.a.n.a.Syria ˆ˘ˆn.a.n.a.Iraqˆˇ˙ˆn.a.n.a.Iranˇˇˆˆn.a.n.a.Other˙˙ˆn.a.n.a.Other routes˙˙˝˝˚Syria ˆˆˆˆ˙˙n.a.Russian Fed.˙ˆ˙˙ˆ˝n.a.n.a.Chinaˆˆˆˆˆˇn.a.n.a.˜˚Otherˇˇˆˆˇ˝˘ n.a.˜˚ ˜˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇˇ

PAGE – 9 ============
Trend Latest situation ˜˚˛˚˝˙ ˜˚ ˛˝˛ ˜ˆ˛ˇ˘˙ ˙˜ ˆ˝ˇ ˇ˛˙˚ ˘˜ ˜˝˜ ˜˚˚˛˝ ˛ ˚˛˜ ˜ˇ˜ ˚˝ ˙˝ˆˇ˘ ˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ˛˛ ˘˙ˇˇ˛˘˜ˆ˛ ˙˝ˆˇ˘ ˙˜ˆ˛ ˝˘˛ ˝˝ ˝ ˜˝˙ ˜ ˛ ˛ ˛ˇ ˛ ˛ †˛ ˛ ††˛ †“˛ ˆ ˚˜ ˜ ˛ ˛ ’š€ ˛ ˛ ‘€ ˙ ˛ ˛ ‡ ˚˝˛…˘… ˜ ˛ — ˚˚˙˛ˇ˚ ˝˘ ˙˚ ˜˚˛˜ ˜˚˛˝ ˜˚˛˙ ˜˚˛ˆ ˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ˘˝˛ˆ˝ ˇ˘˘˘ “ †’ †’ †š ˜˚˛˛ €“ € ˛ ˛˚ ˚ ˛˚ ˛˚˚ ˚˚ Between the second and third quarter of 2015, the FRAN indicators of illegal border- crossings between BCPs, illegal stay, and asylum increased exponentially, reaching their highest ever recorded levels since data collection for the respective indica -tors began. On the other hand, Member States reported fewer detections of ille -gal border-crossing at BCPs and eective returns to third countries than in Q2 2015. Compared to one year ago, the relative im -portance of particular migration routes has clearly shifted. In Q3 2015, most migrants were detected on the Eastern Mediterra -nean and Western Balkan routes. Indeed, most migrants who had entered the EU from Turkey were reported for a second time when they passed through the West -ern Balkans and then crossed the external EU border from Serbia to Croatia. Illegal border-crossings detected at the EU external borders with Turkey have substan -tially increased reaching the highest level in FRAN data collection history. The increase was mostly reported from the Eastern Ae -gean Sea, where Lesbos, Chios and Samos were among the most targeted islands. One year ago, the month of October had already indicated the upcoming winter low in the Eastern Aegean Sea. This year, however, the rise in the number of detections on this route continued unabated. Also irregular migration on the Western Balkan route has reached its highest level since Frontex started its data collection. After a substantial decline in detections of illegal border-crossing in the Western Balkans in March 2015 (which was mainly caused by fewer Kosovo* migrants head -ing for Western Europe), irregular migra -tion ˛ow of non-regional nationals (mostly Afghans, Syrians, Pakistanis) reached new highs in October 2015. Migratory ˛ows in the Central Mediter -ranean have not reached the levels of one year ago, with the number of detections around 18% lower than in Q3 2014. With the end of the summer, migratory ˛ows across the Central Mediterranean Sea decreased even further. The number of Syrians, for ex -ample, represented only around 4% of the level reported back in September 2014. On the other hand, the detections of Nigerian, Somali, Sudanese, Eritrean, Moroccan and Cameroonian migrants were substantially higher than one year ago. Member States detected fewer facilita -tors than in the previous quarter. Most conspicuous in this regard is a decrease in arrests of EU nationals from France, Italy and Spain. On the other hand, more na -tionals of countries along the Western Bal -kan route were arrested, including Turkish, Greek, Bulgarian and Hungarian citizens. In spite of the unprecedented level of irreg -ular migration, the numbers of return deci -sions and eective returns decreased by 3% and 1% since last quarter, respectively. Most signi˚cant are the decreases of eectively returned Kosovo* citizens, while the num -ber of returned Iraqis was 29% higher than in the previous quarter. 7 of 35

PAGE – 10 ============
˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ˘ ˜˚ ˛˝˙ ˆ˚ˇ ˘ˆ˙ ˘ ˇ ˛˝˜ ˘ ˘ ˛˚ˆ ˚˝˚˙˛˘˚˝˚˙˙ˆ˛˚ˆ˛˘˙˝˚ˆ ˛˙˜ ˚˝˚˙˛˘˘˙˝˚ ˚ “ Routes FRAN data for the period between July and September 2015 show an over 449% increase in overall detections of illegal bor -der-crossing compared to the same period of 2014. With 617˝412 detections in Q3 2015, Member States reported the highest num -ber of illegal border-crossings since FRAN data collection began in 2007, clearly ex -ceeding the previous record of more than 170˝000 irregular migrants reported in Q2 2015. Q3 2015 saw the highest ever recorded growth in detections of illegal border-cross -ing from the previous quarter. Most illegal border-crossings (almost 320˝000) were re -ported on the Eastern Mediterranean route. Of this number, almost all accounted for detections on the Eastern Aegean islands, where the number was 15 times higher than during the same period of 2014 and almost four times higher than in Q2 2015. Around 70% of the irregular migrants claimed to be of Syrian nationality, compared to 58% dur -ing the previous quarter. Subsequent to the reporting period, the total number of Syrians on this route increased once again, from over 100˝000 in September to around 110˝000 in October. The total number of Afghans also increased signi˚cantly (three times since Q2 2015), but their share amongst all na -tionalities shrank from about a quarter of all detections in Q2 2015 to 17% during the reporting period. Many irregular migrants who had arrived in Greece or Bulgaria decided to continue their journey across Western Balkan coun -tries towards Western and Northern Eu -rope. The numbers of persons detected illegally crossing the EU™s external bor -der from Serbia increased 25-fold com -pared with the same period of 2014 and by 566% compared to the previous quar -ter, reaching the highest level since FRAN data collection began in 2007. Until Au -gust, almost all apprehensions were re -ported by Hungary. In mid-September 2015 Hungary com -pleted the construction of a fence at its border with Serbia which was initiated in reaction to the intense migration pressure on the Western Balkan route. The meas -ure eectively diverted the transiting mi -gratory ˛ow from the country™s border with Serbia to Croatia, only to increase the pressure on the Croatian-Hungarian border. Thus, Hungary extended the fence to this border section as well, which on its completion on 16 October stopped the mi -gration ˛ow through Hungary. From this day on, the vast majority of migrants has transited Slovenia and Austria to reach their destinations in Western and North -ern Europe. In contrast to last winter, the share of mi -grants from Kosovo* and other Western Balkan countries has shrunk to below 1% of irregular migration ˛ow on this route. Al -ready in June, the increase in non-regional migrants had by far exceeded the peak of Kosovo* citizens observed during Febru -ary 2015. By the third quarter of 2015, ir -regular ˛ows of Syrian, Afghan, Pakistani, Iraqi, Bangladeshi, Iranian and other na -tionals had reached new highs, making the Western Balkans the single most impor -tant entry route for migrants headed for the EU. Notably, compared with the pre -vious quarter, also the number of African migrants detected on this route increased by 150%, with Somalis and Cameroonians ranking top among African nationalities. 8 of 35

PAGE – 11 ============
˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ˘ ˜˚˛˝˙ˆˇ ˜˚˛˝˙ ˆ˛˙ˇ Nationalities Trend Migratory ˛ows across the Central Med -iterranean Sea gained momentum dur -ing the summer months, but did not equal the unprecedented levels of one year be -fore. Compared to the previous quarter, the number of illegal border-crossings re -ported by Italy and Malta only increased by 3%. In previous years, the growth in detections between the second and the third quarters used to be much more sig -ni˚cant. The weaker growth in between Q2 and Q3 2015 was caused by fewer Syr -ian nationals crossing the Central Medi -terranean Sea. Syrians increasingly avoided the risky Central Mediterranean route and opted for the Eastern Aegean Sea as an entry point into the EU. In Q3 2015, the number of Syrians detected on their way to Italy and Malta decreased by 13% com -pared to the previous quarter and by 87% compared to the Q3 2014. Some nationalities, however, were reported in signi˚cantly higher numbers than in pre -vious reporting periods. In Q3 2015, the number of detected West Africans rose by 28% in relation to the second quarter and by 72% compared with the corresponding period of 2014. For example, detections of Nigerians rose from 3˝644 in Q3 2014 to 9˝395 during the reporting period. Also the number of Ghanaians more than doubled in year-on-year terms, reaching 2˝100 de -tections between July and September. The strongest percentage increases compared to Q3 2014 (though relatively low in abso -lute numbers) were reported for nationals of Guinea-Bissau, Benin, Liberia and Togo. In the past, a rise in detections of certain nationalities in late summer was often fol -lowed by even greater growth in the fol -lowing year. Although irregular migration on the West -ern Mediterranean route remains relatively low, Spain has reported increases in detec -tions of irregular migrants for the fourth consecutive summer. In Q3 2015, more than 3˝500 migrants tried to reach the EU from the Moroccan territory, 3% less than in the last quarter but 30% more than in the same period of last year. The contin -uously increasing migration pressure is mainly caused by Syrian migrants trying to reach the Spanish towns of Ceuta and Melilla. In Q3 2015, Spain reported more than 1˝500 Syrians from its land border with Morocco, compared to just around 50 one year before. By contrast, at the sea border between Spain and Morocco there were only half as many detections as in the same period last year, with the only signi˚cant increase observed for Algerian nationals. In Q3 2015, detections of illegal bor -der-crossing at the eastern borders were at the highest level since 2008, exceeding even the migratory ˛ows during the climax of the armed con˛ict in the Ukraine one year ago. The growth in irregular migration resulted from signi˚cantly more Afghans attempting to illegally enter Hungary and Vietnamese trying to enter Latvia. 9 of 35

34 KB – 38 Pages