Friday

23rd Feb 2018

Investigation

Skyrocketing costs for returning EU migrants

  • Boarding procedure to deport a migrant from Italy to Nigeria. (Photo: Investigative Reporting Project Italy (IRPI))

The EU is spending millions forcibly sending people back to their home countries with one case costing up to €90,000 per head.

An EUobserver probe of some 100 joint return flights coordinated by the EU's border agency, Frontex, has revealed some startling facts.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • Frontex, the EU's border agency, has played a more substantial role in returning migrants after its rebranding in October 2016. (Photo: europarl.europa.eu)

The researched cases date from the start of 2015 to October 2016, with the numbers indicating huge costs for returning the thousands of migrants residing in European countries.

It has been calculated that, on average, the agency has spent around €5,800 for every individual deported back to their country of origin. Over 4,700 have left under the scheme.

The average cost is a rough estimate, as prices vary wildly depending on factors such as the destination of the flight, its route, or the number of escort personnel needed.

Deporting an Albanian from Germany may cost around a thousand euros, whereas forced returns to Nigeria may run up to €9,000.

A spokesperson at the Warsaw-based agency explained that sudden price hikes were also linked to "unexpected circumstances."

“When return operations might be planned and approved, sudden unexpected circumstances may lead to last-minute changes like returnees absconding, changed medical conditions, new asylum claims or other legal challenges."

In some extreme cases, costs can spiral out of control, raising serious concerns over the efficiency of the procedures.

Last May, Swiss authorities asked Frontex to arrange a flight to deport four Togolese citizens and one from Benin back to their home countries.

But, for reasons unknown, they were all removed from the passengers list just before departure. As a result, the flight was re-routed and took off with only two Togolese nationals, who were expelled from Germany, joined by 13 guards.

The whole operation came with a €177,000 bill, or more than €85,000 for each person taken back to their country of origin. In the end, the agency ended up spending close to €90,000 for each person returned to Togo.

The agency has so far spent over €16 million between January and April of this year alone.

Frontex says each situation is analysed on a case-by-case basis and that possible alternatives might be available. They also note that the individual circumstances of every request, as well as the "needs in the respective member state", have to be considered.

Tip of the iceberg

However, these large sums of money might just be the tip of the iceberg, according to Franck Duvell, a senior researcher at the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society of the University of Oxford.

Since return flights are often jointly financed by member states and Frontex, it is difficult to know the exact cost of each trip.

“To this [flight expenses] we also need to add the national costs for detention - where applicable - arranging documents etc., so the total costs would be significantly more,” Duvell told EUobserver.

He added that: “In comparison, in Germany a refugee costs about €12,000 a year, in Southern countries it would be even less. Hence, a deportation cost probably roughly as much as catering for a person for one year.”

The EU institutions should instead invest their financial resources more wisely, Duvell suggests. Rather than powering ahead with an apparent quick-fix like deportations, there should be a focus on integration, which could be more beneficial in the long-term.

“Funds [for forced returns] have a purely repressive purpose. They neither change behaviour nor the root causes that bring it about,” said Duvell.

“In contrast, money that is spent on things such as education, training, micro-credits for businesses and re-integration goes towards constructive means and it is thus more likely to be spent sustainably,” he noted.

The European institutions, however, seem to have a very different view of the issue. In fact, despite their massive costs, forced returns are increasingly being seen as one of the top options to ease migration pressures.

Pressure to repatriate

Earlier in March, Frans Timmermans, vice-president of the European Commission, told a press conference that returns need to be sped up.

"It is now time to improve our internal procedures and make sure that all persons who do not need international protection are returned humanely and swiftly,” he said.

Italy, the main gateway to Europe alongside Greece, has been making efforts.

In 2016, an average of 12 people were sent back to their country of origin everyday. But Italy hosts an estimated 160,000 people stuck in legal limbo with no asylum rights.

Italy's centre-left interior minister, Marco Minniti, has made it one of his top priorities to send them packing. He recently went to Tunisia and Libya to clinch bilateral deals to organise deportations.

“We must work to repatriate to their country of origin those who are beyond the laws, who break the rules”, he said in late January.

Aside from the broader issues of sending people to Libya - a war-torn country, largely run by armed militia groups - Minniti's words still echoed sentiments that are now widely shared across national and EU institutions.

In March, the European Commission presented a set of new measures, calling once again on member states to “ensure swift return procedures and substantially increase the rate of return”.

The initiatives included: shorter appeal periods against return decisions, an increased use of detention and, crucially, a much heavier involvement of Frontex, now also known as the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCG), in all phases of the deportations.

Frontex and deportations

In fact, while the majority of returns are still operated independently by individual countries, the border agency has been playing an increasingly substantial role since its rebranding in October 2016.

A new mandate gives it the right to initiate joint return operations. So far, the agency has not yet organised any return operations on its own initiative.

Naturally, with a bigger role comes a larger pot of money.

Frontex had spent some €11.4 million on joint returns in 2015, which almost tripled the following year, with over €66.5 million now being devoted to the operations.

The impact of the more powerful agency’s stronger mandate is already being felt. The number of return flights in which it played a part is skyrocketing.

Data released to EUobserver shows that since January 2017, it has already organised 100 forced return flights with a total of 4,704 returnees on-board.

As a stark contrast, the agency's weaker predecessor, Frontex, had only deported 3,565 people on just 66 operations throughout the whole of 2015, while last year it organised 232 flights of over 10,000 people.

EU states that want to arrange a removal flight first inform the agency, which then forwards the request to all member states, inviting them to ‘reserve’ seats according to their needs.

At this point, the agency evaluates the plan and decides how much money to allocate to each participating country.

An aircraft is then chartered from a commercial company, bureaucratic formalities are processed, and the flight is scheduled.

Following thorough checks, the returnees board the plane, with each of them being seated next to escort personnel - either police staff or private contractors.

On average, there are three escort personnel on-board for each returnee, although this may vary depending on risk assessments drawn up by participating countries. The passengers’ list is then completed by medical staff, interpreters and, on some flights, independent monitors.

The variable number of guards is far from being the only difference in the way member states enforce deportations.

“This happens because on every flight organised and financed by Frontex, more regulations apply at the same time: the one of Frontex and those of national authorities,” Mauro Palma, the Italian ombudsman, told EUobserver.

On joint return flights this becomes particularly tricky: for instance, returnees expelled from one state may be travelling with their hands bound, while the others are sitting just a few metres away and are able to move relatively freely.

Such discrepancies in treatment are likely to “create tensions and misunderstandings and have discriminatory effects on whoever is subject to tougher security measures,” said the Italian ombudsman’s office in its latest report.

In addition to the differing costs and mixed standards, in some cases, return flights may have been operated in direct breach of human rights provisions.

Returns to Sudan

Salvatore Fachile, an Italian lawyer specialised in migration issues, said that “Lawyers can’t do much before a forced return flight. Sometimes they don’t even have any chance to meet their clients”.

Fachile has been dealing with several cases of mass forced returns.

Last September, he travelled to Khartoum to check on the status of Sudanese citizens who, one month earlier, had been deported from Italy on a flight financed by Frontex.

The decision was supposedly taken in an attempt to relieve migratory pressures, which left hundreds of migrants stranded at Italy’s northern borders.

Sudanese nationals were no casual target: in fact, the Italian police had just reached a memorandum of understating with the eastern African country - and the process of repatriation represented a cornerstone of this agreement.

The agreement had drawn loud criticism from civil society, but Italian authorities seemed eager to put it into effect only a few weeks after signing it.

Forty-eight Sudanese migrants were rounded up from Ventimiglia, an Italian town on the French border, to be returned. But eight of them physically opposed the police and succeeded in staying in Italy.

They would eventually gain refugee status in the country.

Nothing made them different - legally speaking - from the ones deported back to Sudan: everybody originally came from Darfur, a war zone, and they were all eligible for asylum. That’s why five of the 40 repatriated individuals are now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, assisted by Fachile.

Matteo Civillini and Lorenzo Bagnoli are Italian journalists and members of Investigative Reporting Project Italy (IRPI), a centre for investigative journalism in Italy.

EU stands aside as Hungary detains migrants

Commission is withholding action on Hungary's detention of asylum seekers, even as the Hungarian government tries to "stop Brussels" on immigration policy.

Austria wants out of EU migrant relocations

Austria is required to start relocating asylum seekers from Italy and Greece after an exemption to the scheme ended on 11 March. But Austria's chancellor has other ideas and wants the exemption prolonged.

Frontex naval operation to look for 'foreign fighters'

The EU border and coast guard agency, or Frontex, has launched a new naval operation called Themis. The operation replaces its surveillance Triton mission but with a bigger emphasis on security and intelligence gathering.

News in Brief

  1. May to unveil EU departure strategy next week
  2. Pregnant workers may be dismissed, EU court rules
  3. Romanian minister demands anti-corruption prosecutor fired
  4. Luxembourg and Ireland pay highest minimum wages
  5. Freedom of expression under threat in Spain, warn MEPs
  6. Report: EU to increase sanctions on Myanmar
  7. Juncker 'worried' by Italian elections
  8. EU migration to UK at lowest since 2012

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Aid & Trade LondonJoin Thousands of Stakeholders of the Global Aid Industry at Aid & Trade London
  2. Macedonian Human Rights Movement Int.European Free Alliance Joins MHRMI to End the Anti-Macedonian Name Negotiations
  3. Mission of China to the EUChina-EU Tourism Year to Promote Business and Mutual Ties
  4. European Jewish CongressAt “An End to Antisemitism!” Conference, Dr. Kantor Calls for Ambitious Solutions
  5. UNESDAA Year Ago UNESDA Members Pledged to Reduce Added Sugars in Soft Drinks by 10%
  6. International Partnership for Human RightsUzbekistan: Investigate Torture of Journalist
  7. CESICESI@Noon on ‘Digitalisation & Future of Work: Social Protection For All?’ - March 7
  8. UNICEFExecutive Director's Committment to Tackling Sexual Exploitation and Abuse of Children
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersState of the Nordic Region 2018: Facts, Figures and Rankings of the 74 Regions
  10. Mission of China to the EUDigital Economy Shaping China's Future, Over 30% of GDP
  11. Macedonian Human Rights Movement Int.Suing the Governments of Macedonia and Greece for Changing Macedonia's Name

Latest News

  1. EU leaders put 'Spitzenkandidat' on summit menu
  2. European far-right political party risks collapse
  3. The key budget issues on EU leaders' table
  4. EU leaders to kick off post-Brexit budget debate
  5. Greek government's steady steps to exit bailout programme
  6. Frontex: Europe's new law enforcement agency?
  7. Poland and Greece broke EU environment laws, rules court
  8. Dutch MPs vote on ending 'Ukraine-type' referendums

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Swedish EnterprisesHarnessing Globalization- at What Cost? Keynote Speaker Commissioner Malmström
  2. European Friends of ArmeniaSave The Date 28/02: “Nagorno-Karabakh & the EU: 1988-2018”
  3. European Heart NetworkSmart CAP is Triple Win for Economy, Environment and Health
  4. European Free AlllianceEFA Joined the Protest in Aiacciu to Solicit a Dialogue After the Elections
  5. EPSUDrinking Water Directive Step Forward but Human Right to Water Not Recognized
  6. European Gaming & Betting AssociationGambling Operators File Data Protection Complaint Against Payment Block in Norway
  7. European Jewish CongressEJC Expresses Deep Concern Over Proposed Holocaust Law in Poland
  8. CECEConstruction Industry Gets Together to Discuss the Digital Revolution @ the EU Industry Days
  9. Mission of China to the EUChina-EU Relations in the New Era
  10. European Free AlllianceEnd Discrimination of European Minorities - Sign the Minority Safepack Initiative
  11. Centre Maurits Coppieters“Diversity Shouldn’t Be Only a Slogan” Lorant Vincze (Fuen) Warns European Commission
  12. Dialogue PlatformWhat Can Christians Learn from a Global Islamic Movement?

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. European Jewish CongressEJC President Warns Europe as Holocaust Memory Fades
  2. European Free AlllianceNo Justice From the Spanish Supreme Court Ruling
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Solutions for Sustainable Cities: New Grants Awarded for Branding Projects
  4. Mission of China to the EUTrade Between China, Belt and Road Countries up 15%
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersOresund Inspires Other EU Border Regions to Work Together to Generate Growth
  6. Mission of China to the EUTrade Between China, Belt and Road Countries up 15%
  7. AJC Transatlantic InstituteAJC Calls on EU to Sanction Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Expel Ambassadors
  8. ILGA EuropeFreedom of Movement and Same-Sex Couples in Romania – Case Update!
  9. EU2017EEEstonia Completes First EU Presidency, Introduced New Topics to the Agenda
  10. Bio-Based IndustriesLeading the Transition Towards a Post-Petroleum Society