(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (2) establishes, on the basis of a preliminary risk assessment, a list of high risk plants, plant products and other objects.

(2)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2018 (3) lays down specific rules concerning the procedure to be followed in order to carry out the risk assessment referred to in Article 42(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 for those high risk plants, plant products and other objects.

(3)

Following a preliminary risk assessment, 35 plants for planting originating from all third countries were included in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as high risk plants, amongst which are the genera Malus Mill. and Acer L.

(4)

On 31 July 2019, Serbia submitted to the Commission a request for export to the Union of one- to two-year old bare rooted, dormant, grafted plants for planting belonging to the species Malus domestica. That request was supported by the respective technical dossier.

(5)

On 13 May 2020, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) published a scientific opinion regarding the commodity risk assessment of Malus domestica plants for planting from Serbia (4). The Authority identified Erwinia amylovora as a pest relevant for those plants for planting, evaluated the risk mitigation measures described in the dossier for that pest and estimated its likelihood of pest freedom.

(6)

On the basis of this opinion, the phytosanitary risk from introduction into the Union of one- to two-year old bare rooted, dormant, grafted plants for planting belonging to the species Malus domestica, originating in Serbia is considered to be reduced to an acceptable level, provided that appropriate mitigation measures are applied to address the risk of the pest related to those plants for planting. As such appropriate measures are provided for in point 9 of Annex X to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (5) those plants for planting should no longer be considered high risk plants, and should be removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

(7)

On 29 August 2019, New Zealand submitted to the Commission a request for export to the Union of one- to three-year-old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded plants for planting belonging to the species Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi. That request was supported by the respective technical dossier.

(8)

On 20 May 2020, the Authority published a scientific opinion regarding the commodity risk assessment of Acer spp. plants for planting from New Zealand (6). The Authority identified Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, Meloidogyne fallax, Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis as pests relevant for those plants for planting, evaluated the risk mitigation measures described in the dossier for those pests and estimated the likelihood of pest freedom for each pest related to those commodities.

(9)

On the basis of this opinion, the phytosanitary risk from introduction into the Union of one-to three-year-old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves, grafted or budded plants for planting belonging to the species Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi, originating in New Zealand is considered to be reduced to an acceptable level, provided that appropriate mitigation measures are applied to address the risk of pests related to those plants for planting. As such appropriate measures are provided for by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1362 (7), those plants for planting should no longer be considered high risk plants, and should be removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

(10)

In order to comply with the Union obligations deriving from the World Trade Organization agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (8), the import of those commodities should resume within the shortest possible delay. Therefore, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication.

(11)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 (2) established, on the basis of a preliminary risk assessment, a list of high risk plants, plant products and other objects.

(2)

In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, if it is concluded, on the basis of a risk assessment, that a plant, plant product or other object originating in a third country, group of third countries or a specific area of the third country concerned poses an unacceptable pest risk, but that that risk can be reduced to an acceptable level by applying certain measures, the Commission is to remove that plant, plant product or other object from the list established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 and add it to the list referred to in Article 41(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.

(3)

In addition, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 (3) sets out the phytosanitary measures for the introduction into the Union of certain plants, plant products and other objects, which have been removed from the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

(4)

The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 includes plants of the genus Acer L. as high risk plants.

(5)

On 29 August 2019, New Zealand submitted to the Commission a request for export to the Union of one- to three- year-old bare rooted, dormant, free of leaves grafted or budded plants for planting belonging to the species Acer japonicum Thunberg, Acer palmatum Thunberg and Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi (‘the specified plants’). That request was supported by the respective technical dossier.

(6)

On 20 May 2020, the European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) published a scientific opinion regarding the commodity risk assessment of Acer spp. plants from New Zealand (4). The Authority identified Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, Meloidogyne fallax, Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis (‘the specified pests’) as pests relevant for the specified plants, evaluated the risk mitigation measures described in the dossier for those pests and estimated the likelihood of pest freedom for each pest related to that commodity.

(7)

Following that opinion, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1361 (5) removed the specified plants from the list of high risk plants established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.

(8)

Moreover, and on the basis of that opinion, the necessary measures to address the risk of the specified pests can be adopted as phytosanitary import requirements, to ensure the phytosanitary protection of the Union territory from introduction of the specified plants into the Union.

(9)

Concerning Oemona hirta and Platypus apicalis, the measures described by New Zealand in the dossier are considered sufficient to reduce the risk from introduction into the Union of the specified plants to an acceptable level. Therefore, the measures for those two pests should be based on those described by New Zealand in the dossier.

(10)

Concerning Meloidogyne fallax, the measures described by New Zealand in the dossier are in line with the existing requirements laid down in point 10 of Annex VII to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (6) for nematodes, regarding trees and shrubs, intented for planting.

(11)

With regard to Eotetranychus sexmaculatus, it is considered that the sole application of the measures proposed by New Zealand in the dossier cannot reduce the risk from introduction into the Union of the specified plants to an acceptable level, as according to the opinion of the Authority, some uncertainties remain. Addressing the identified uncertainties, by applying additional measures as regards official statements and phytosanitary certificates for those plants, can reduce the risk from introduction into the Union of the specified plants to an acceptable level. Therefore, the measures applied by New Zealand in the dossier for Eotetranychus sexmaculatus should be complemented with those measures, which address the uncertainties.

(12)

Oemona hirta and Meloidogyne fallax are listed as Union quarantine pests in Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. Eotetranychus sexmaculatus and Platypus apicalis are not yet included in the list of Union quarantine pests of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 but they may fulfil the conditions to be included following a further complete risk assessment. If it is established that those pests fulfil those conditions, they will be included in the list of Annex II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, and the relevant plants will be listed in Annex VII to that Regulation, together with the respective measures, based on a complete risk assessment on those pests. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 should be then reviewed accordingly.

(13)

The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(14)

In order to comply with the Union obligations deriving from the World Trade Organization agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (7), the import of the specified plants should resume within the shortest possible delay. Therefore, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such authorisation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, applications were submitted for the authorisation of the preparation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840. Those applications were accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of that Regulation.

(3)

Those applications concern the authorisation of the preparation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 as a feed additive for all porcine species, to be classified in the additive category ‘zootechnical additives’.

(4)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinions of 21 February 2018 (2) and 4 October 2019 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, the preparation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 does not have an adverse effect on animal health, consumer safety or the environment. It also concluded that the additive should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser and no conclusion can be drawn on its potential irritancy on skin and eyes, and on skin sensitisation. Therefore, appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive. The Authority concluded that the additive has a significant effect on improvement of zootechnical parameters in all porcine species. The Authority does not consider that there is a need for specific requirements of post-market monitoring. It also verified the report on the method of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

(5)

The assessment of the preparation of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens DSM 25840 shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that preparation should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

The number of refugees and others in need of international protection is rising globally. As a result, there is a need to strengthen the Union’s capacity to fulfil its moral duty to provide effective assistance. All Member States should participate in the Union’s collective efforts to show solidarity to those in need of international protection by offering legal pathways to the Union and enhancing the protection space outside the Union.

(2)

This Recommendation aims to support Member States’ sustained efforts in providing and enhancing legal and safe channels for those in need of international protection. In particular, recommended action aims to show solidarity towards non-EU countries where a large number of people in need of international protection is displaced, contribute to international resettlement and humanitarian admission initiatives and to better overall management of migration.

(3)

The Union is working on developing and enhancing the protection space in countries of transit, destination or first asylum in order to assist both people in need of international protection and migrants who are particularly vulnerable, as well as help host communities. The Regional Development and Protection Programmes (1) in the Horn of Africa and North Africa and the Middle East support, among others, upholding and improving the protection space through capacity development of national systems and supporting authorities and civil society. They provide protection by offering direct assistance to those in need of international protection. All actions are delivered by implementing partners. The programmes support durable solutions for those in need of international protection, in particular resettlement, by ensuring screening and registration, facilitating the effective determination of refugee status as well as by directly supporting the resettlement operations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Member States are called upon to play an active role as consortium members or make financial contributions to support and implement the Regional Development and Protection Programmes in order to strengthen the external dimension of EU migration policy.

(4)

Resettlement is an important tool for offering protection to those in need of international protection and demonstrating global solidarity with non-EU countries to help them cope with large numbers of people fleeing war or persecution. It is also a key element of the Union’s comprehensive asylum and migration policy: by offering safe and legal pathways for those in need of protection, resettlement helps save lives, reduce irregular migration and counter the business model of smuggling networks. Resettlement is also an important and integral part of the comprehensive approach to migration when engaging partner countries on the whole spectrum of migration-related areas.

(5)

The UNHCR has confirmed that the global resettlement needs remain high, with 1,44 million cases in 2020. This number is expected to increase in the coming years.

(6)

The first Global Refugee Forum, which was held in December 2019, took stock of progress on implementation of the UNHCR’s Global Compact on Refugees (2). It mobilised broad international support for seeking durable solutions for the world’s refugees, including solutions for resettlement and expansion of the number and range of legal pathways available for those in need of international protection. The UNHCR’s three-year strategy (2019-2021) on resettlement and complementary pathways provides a roadmap for expanding them by offering more places, mobilising more actors and creating more welcoming societies. To take on a global leadership role on resettlement, Member States are called upon to support implementation of the strategy and counter the current trend of a decreasing number of resettling countries globally and a sharp drop in resettlement pledges (3).

(7)

Since 2015, two successful EU-sponsored resettlement programmes, involving the participation of a significant number of Member States, have helped more than 70 000 of the most vulnerable people in need of international protection find shelter in the Union. Between 2015 and 2018, when the global resettlement landscape changed considerably, annual resettlements to Member States tripled, with the EU’s share of global resettlement increasing from below 9 % before 2016 to 41 % in 2018. This increase shows the benefit and potential of EU-level cooperation and coordination in the area of resettlement. It also shows the importance of funding from the EU budget, with EUR 1 billion dedicated to directly supporting the resettlement efforts of Member States for 2015-2020.

(8)

Under the first EU resettlement scheme (4), Member States, together with the Dublin Associated States, agreed to resettle 22 504 people in need of international protection from the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and North Africa over a period of 2 years (2015-2017) (5). In total, 19 452 people were resettled under this first, successful EU scheme (86 % of the total pledge).

(9)

Under the second EU resettlement scheme (6), Member States agreed to resettle 50 039 people in need of international protection from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan as well as from countries along the Central Mediterranean route, supporting in particular the emergency transit mechanisms established by UNHCR in Niger (2017) and Rwanda (2019). The scheme was a success, with 43 827 people resettled (88 % of the total pledge).

(10)

To maximise the number of resettlements and make good use of available funding, Member States that have not yet fully implemented their pledges under the second EU resettlement scheme are afforded the opportunity to do so in 2020 and 2021 to fulfil their previous commitments.

(11)

Under the EU-Turkey Statement (7), more than 27 000 people had been resettled by mid-September 2020 (8). The Member States have resettled further people in need of international protection from Turkey via their own national schemes.

(12)

The Union needs to move from ad hoc resettlement schemes to schemes that operate on the basis of a stable framework that ensures that Union resettlement schemes are sustainable and predictable. To this end, the Commission proposed a Regulation in 2016 establishing a Union Resettlement Framework (9) to provide safe and legal pathways to international protection for those in need as part of the overhaul of the Union asylum system. A partial provisional political agreement was reached in June 2018, which included adding humanitarian admission – alongside resettlement – to the scope of the proposed Regulation. Swift adoption of the proposal is an important element for a more efficient, fair and stable EU policy on asylum and migration including a stable resettlement framework.

(13)

To ensure resettlement efforts continue until a stable framework is in place, the Commission invited Member States to submit resettlement pledges for 2020 at the 9th Resettlement Forum in July 2019. This was based on the agreed priorities for this period and in line with UNHCR’s projected global resettlement needs for 2020 and UNHCR recommendations for 2020 EU resettlement planning, which called for 30 000 places for 2020. It resulted in just under 29 500 pledges submitted by Member States. This sizeable overall pledge, which amounts to more than 50 % of all resettlement places made available by states to UNHCR for 2020, underlines the Member States’ continued commitment to offering protection, saving lives and offering credible alternatives to irregular movements.

(14)

Against the background of the projected global resettlement needs for 2020, the UNHCR three-year strategy (2019-2021) on resettlement and complementary pathways and the first Global Refugee Forum (December 2019), this significant pledge by Member States affirms the EU’s role as a global leader on resettlement.

(15)

The choice of priority regions for resettlements under the 2020 pledging exercise is based on the UNHCR projected global resettlement needs and the need to continue implementing the EU-Turkey Statement of March 2016. Member States should continue resettlements from Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, as well as from the key African countries along and leading to the Central Mediterranean route, including Libya, Niger, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan. They should also support the emergency transit mechanisms in Niger and Rwanda, and provide places for emergency resettlements. The implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement includes activation of the Voluntary Humanitarian Admission Scheme with Turkey provided that all preconditions for it have been met and irregular crossings between Turkey and the EU end or have at least been substantially and sustainably reduced.

(16)

To help Member States implement the target of 29 500 places in 2020, some EUR 300 million has been made available from the Union budget (10). Subject to the rules of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), Member States may qualify for an incentive payment of EUR 10 000 per resettled person from priority regions or particularly vulnerable groups and EUR 6 000 for other resettlements.

(17)

Between January and March 2020, there were more than 3 600 resettlement arrivals in the EU as part of the 2020 pledging exercise. However, the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic has led to a severe disruption of resettlement operations. The Member States, UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) suspended such operations as of mid-March 2020. On 18 June 2020, UNHCR and IOM announced the resumption of resettlement travel for refugees (11). Since the summer, several Member States have started to resume gradually their resettlement activity.

(18)

This unprecedented global health threat and the measures to contain the spread of the virus have had a considerable impact on all operations and procedures related to resettlement, humanitarian admission and community sponsorship. The need for EU coordination has become clear to maximise the impact of the measures taken.

(19)

In its Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement (12), the Commission invited the Member States to continue showing solidarity with those in need of international protection and with non-EU countries hosting large numbers of refugees by ensuring, to the extent possible, continuity of resettlement-related procedures. The Commission invited Member States to consider new ways of working, such as remote interviewing or dossier resettlement. On these topics, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) has provided swift operational support thanks to a series of thematic online meetings as part of the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Network.

(20)

Acknowledging the disruptive effect of the coronavirus pandemic on the implementation of the pledges made under the 2020 pledging exercise, the Commission decided to extend the implementation period beyond 2020 to ensure that Member States have enough time to implement these pledges fully. The original one-year programme will therefore be transformed into a two-year programme covering 2020-2021, during which the Member States should implement 29 500 pledges. In addition, Member States are invited to consider additional state-funded national resettlement programmes, if possible.

(21)

To ensure seamless continuation of EU resettlement efforts after the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, new resettlement programmes should be considered from 2022 onwards, taking into account the financial resources allocated in the 2021-2027 Asylum and Migration Fund to support the Member States’ pledges. The Union’s ambition remains to embark on a path of steadily growing resettlement numbers in the years to come.

(22)

Beyond EU financial support, various measures are in place to help Member States resettle people. EASO aims to help Member States fulfil their resettlement pledges. The Resettlement Support Facility in Istanbul, which has been operational since April 2019 (pilot phase), supports Member States’ resettlement efforts from Turkey. Moreover, the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Network, facilitated by EASO, which has been operational since January 2020, fosters cooperation and knowledge sharing between the Member States, with the focus on EU-specific topics. The network has been the main forum for Member States to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic through information sharing and peer learning.

(23)

In addition, in line with the UNHCR three-year strategy (2019-2021) on resettlement and complementary pathways, it is appropriate to promote the putting in place or making further use of humanitarian admission models and other complementary pathways as an additional means of admission to expand the number of places offered through safe and legal pathways, in addition to resettlement.

(24)

The proposed Union Resettlement Framework Regulation envisages providing Member States with funding for humanitarian admission.

(25)

Reflecting the diversity of humanitarian admission models, a wide array of promising experiences already exist in the Member States and in non-EU countries, which can be scaled up or replicated in other Member States.

(26)

Several Member States have implemented community sponsorship schemes (13), which can underpin resettlement, humanitarian admission and other complementary pathways. In all cases, private sponsors, groups of private individuals or non-profit organisations can play a structured role in welcoming and integrating those in need of international protection.

(27)

In the context of resettlement, community sponsorship schemes can help Member States increase the number of resettlement places and successfully integrate refugees into welcoming host communities. Based on a strong partnership between the State and civil society organisations, individuals or groups of individuals, private sponsors usually provide financial, practical and moral support for the admission or integration of refugees. As demonstrated in the 2018 study on the feasibility and added value of sponsorship schemes (14), community sponsorship models can take many different forms. Depending on their design and objective, they help increase the number of admission places available to those in need of protection, enable faster and more efficient integration, improve public support for refugees and resettlement and help prevent irregular onward movements of resettled persons.

(28)

Other forms of community sponsorship beyond resettlement, which can serve as a model, include what some Member States and private organisations refer to as ‘humanitarian corridors’, namely the community sponsorship model currently implemented by faith-based organisations in Italy, France and Belgium in cooperation with the respective national governments. Under this model, private sponsors are involved in all stages of the admission process, from identifying those in need of international protection to transferring them to the Member State concerned. They also take charge of reception and integration efforts and bear the related costs. Since 2016, more than 2 700 people in need of international protection arrived in Europe through this pathway, mostly to Italy and France. The detailed rules of cooperation between the State and the private sponsors are often set out in memoranda of understanding.

(29)

Considering the benefits of community sponsorship, the Union should further promote an EU approach to community sponsorship building on existing Member State experience and involving EASO. The Union will continue to provide support for capacity building of civil society actors engaged in community sponsorship schemes and promotes transnational exchanges on knowledge sharing in order to scale up existing community sponsorship programmes, create new programmes, including in Member States that have not yet implemented such schemes. In 2019, the Commission launched a specific call for proposals to this effect under the AMIF Union Actions Programme (15). Promoting complementary pathways for people in need of protection and their further integration is one of the topics included in the call for proposals for transnational actions on Asylum, Migration and Integration under the AMIF 2020 Work Programme (16).

(30)

The coronavirus pandemic has also affected community sponsorship schemes. In its Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement, the Commission encouraged Member States to keep communication channels open with sponsors, keep them informed of developments and continue sponsor recruitment and screening to increase future hosting availability.

(31)

As highlighted by the UNHCR, family reunification is widely recognised as a key factor for successful integration in the host country. Forcibly displaced people in need of international protection often face many challenges to their right to family reunification, such as lengthy and burdensome administrative processes (17). This can lead to attempts to circumvent the rules through dangerous irregular migration. To facilitate access to the right to family reunification in line with the Family Reunification Directive (18), Member States are encouraged to put in place family reunification assistance programmes that improve access to information and simplify the visa application process. In addition, for cases falling outside the scope of the Family Reunification Directive, Member States are invited to set up humanitarian admission programmes, such as family-based sponsorship.

(32)

To leverage skills, qualifications and the motivation of individuals in need of international protection, other complementary pathways for admission, such as education or work, should also be explored. Several Member States support programmes that facilitate access to existing legal avenues for those in need of international protection, such as students or workers. Member States are encouraged to use the EU Skills Profile Tool for Third Country Nationals in such procedures. This dedicated online tool helps map and document the skills and qualifications of people with a migrant background (19).

(33)

It is estimated that less than three percent of refugees worldwide have access to higher education (20). Even when they have the skills and necessary knowledge, they often lack the information and financial means to apply for undergraduate or postgraduate programmes in the Union. Member States should consider improving access to universities for young people in need of international protection and therefore make it easier for them to be admitted on their territory as students. Such initiatives may require a proactive selection process in non-EU countries, language training, flexibility on the admission criteria to study programmes as well as scholarships and dedicated integration measures upon arrival. After graduation, students wishing to stay in the Member State concerned in line with Directive (EU) 2016/801 of the European Parliament and of the Council (21) should benefit from counselling and help in looking for a job.

(34)

To facilitate the implementation of such programmes, the Commission will encourage peer learning and the exchange of experiences between Member States, and will explore possibilities for EU financial support in designing and developing these pathways for students.

(35)

Member States should further consider working in partnership with the private sector, employers, trade unions and civil society to develop innovative international labour mobility schemes for those in need of protection.

(36)

EASO, together with the Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission Network, will help Member States design and implement programmes for humanitarian admission and other complementary pathways.

(37)

When implementing resettlement, humanitarian admission and other complementary pathways programmes, Member States should take into account the obligations set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

(38)

To ensure monitoring of the implementation of EU resettlement schemes in 2020 and 2021, Member States should, upon request, report to the Commission on those resettled on their territory in line with their pledges, specifying the country from which the person has been resettled. The Commission will also monitor the various projects and programmes for humanitarian admission implemented in the Member States to maintain an overview of all legal pathways for those in need of international protection and the number of places offered through these channels.

(39)

This recommendation should be addressed to the Member States. The Dublin Associated States are invited to contribute to common European resettlement efforts as well as common efforts in relation to other complementary pathways.

(1)

Providing assistance to any persons found in distress at sea is a legal obligation of Member States established in international customary and conventional law, in particular the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention,1974), the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1979), and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention, 1979), as well as Union law. The European Union is a contracting Party to UNCLOS.

(2)

Since 2014, thousands of people have been attempting to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe, requiring a multifaceted response by the European Union and its Member States with a view to avert loss of life, improve migration management, address the root causes of irregular migration and disrupt organised crime groups of migrant smugglers and traffickers in human beings.

(3)

While irregular migration to the EU has decreased in the last 2 years and fewer lives have been lost at sea, the risky use of small, unseaworthy vessels in the Mediterranean remains a feature of the migratory landscape, continuing to fuel organised crime and causing unacceptable deaths. According to the International Organization for Migration, the total deaths in the Mediterranean so far in 2020 exceed 500, with over 1 880 in 2019 and over 20 300 overall since 2014, making in particular the Central Mediterranean route to Europe the deadliest worldwide.

(4)

Since 2015, search and rescue capacity, coordination, and effectiveness in the Mediterranean have been enhanced considerably in response to the migratory crisis, including with significant contributions from coastal states and the increased involvement of private and commercial vessels. The EU and the Member States have reinforced their capacity in the Mediterranean, including through national operations and operations led by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), such as Themis (formerly Triton), Poseidon and Indalo, as well as, previously, the EU naval operation EUNAVFOR MED Sophia, which have helped to rescue over 600 000 people at sea since 2015.

(5)

In this context, several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have also been operating private vessels, mostly in the Central Mediterranean area, significantly contributing to the rescue of persons at sea, who are then brought to EU territory for safe disembarkation. As already stressed in the EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling (2015-2020) and further clarified in the Commission Guidance on the Facilitators Package (C(2020) 6470), there is a need to avoid criminalisation of those who provide humanitarian assistance to people in distress at sea, while ensuring that appropriate criminal sanctions against smugglers are in place.

(6)

In its resolution of 18 April 2018 on progress on the UN Global Compacts for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and on Refugees (2018/2642(RSP)), the European Parliament called for greater search and rescue capacities for people in distress, for greater capacities to be deployed by all states, and for the support provided by private actors and NGOs in carrying out rescue operations at sea and on land to be acknowledged.

(7)

Search and rescue operations in emergency situations require coordination and rapid disembarkation in a place of safety, and respect for the fundamental rights of rescued people, in conformity with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement, and with customary and conventional international human rights and maritime law, including the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) Guidelines on the treatment of persons rescued at sea.

(8)

A new form of search and rescue operations in the European maritime landscape has emerged in recent years whereby vessels operated by NGOs in the Central Mediterranean Sea have been engaged, as their predominant activity, in search and rescue operations, which they have performed under the coordination of national Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres or on their own initiative. In many cases, these vessels conducted consecutive rescue operations before disembarking those rescued at a place of safety.

(9)

Migrant smuggling by sea is a criminal offence, which may put people’s lives at risk and is sanctioned both under European and international law. The European Union and its Member States are contracting Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and the Protocols thereto, including the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by land, sea and air, supplementing the UNTOC. In this context, it is essential to avoid a situation in which migrant smuggling or human trafficking networks, including criminal organisations trafficking people or engaging in forms of exploitation assimilated to slavery, take advantage of the rescue operations conducted by private vessels in the Mediterranean.

(10)

It is recalled that the SAR Convention obligates contracting parties to participate in the development of search and rescue services and to take urgent steps to ensure that the necessary assistance is provided to any person who is, or appears to be, in distress at sea; the relevant parties should coordinate and cooperate so that those assisted are disembarked from the assisting ship and delivered to a place of safety as soon as reasonably practicable. In line with the IMO Guidelines on the treatment of persons rescued at sea, the selection of a place of safety for disembarkation should take into account a variety of important factors and the particular circumstances of each case. Among others, the need to avoid disembarkation in territories where the lives and freedoms of those alleging a well-founded fear of persecution would be threatened should be taken into account in the case of asylum-seekers and refugees recovered at sea. Moreover, the IMO Guidelines require responsible State authorities to make every effort to expedite arrangements to disembark survivors from the ship, while underlining that in some cases the necessary co-ordination may result in unavoidable delays.

(11)

The regular presence of NGO vessels carrying out search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean triggers specific operational needs of enhanced coordination and cooperation between the vessels carrying rescued persons and national authorities, and concerns Member States in different ways: some are the States which coordinate the search and rescue operations; some are those which receive the rescued persons, who are disembarked on their territory; some are those where the non-governmental organisations are legally established; and others are those where the vessels used in the search and rescue activities have obtained their flag.

(12)

Private vessels engaged in rescue efforts in the Mediterranean are involved in complex and often recurring search and rescue operations, which may concern large numbers of people in relation to the vessel capacity and involve a broad range of actors, from rescue to the disembarkation. It is therefore a matter of public policy, including safety, that these vessels be suitably registered and properly equipped to meet the relevant safety and health requirements associated with this activity, so as not to pose a danger to the crew or the persons rescued. These activities need to take place in a coordinated framework, through reinforced cooperation and coordination between private operators and national authorities.

(13)

The continued disembarkations of rescued people in coastal Member States have direct consequences on their migration management systems and place increased and immediate pressure on their migration and asylum systems, including on their reception and processing capacity.

(14)

In addition to other initiatives, on 4 July 2017 the Commission adopted an ‘Action plan on measures to support Italy, reduce pressure along the Central Mediterranean route and increase solidarity’, which included the development by Italy, of a code of conduct for NGOs carrying out search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean, in consultation with the Commission and on the basis of a dialogue with NGOs.

(15)

Beyond coordination efforts established so far, including under the Shared Awareness and De-confliction in the Mediterranean (SHADE MED) forum set up by the EU naval Operation Sophia, there remains a need to address the specificity of the search and rescue practice which has arisen in the Mediterranean over the past years by setting up a more structural, reliable and sustainable framework, in line with EU competences and relevant international standards. This framework should lay down specific rules for solidarity between Member States, and address the need for reinforced cooperation among in particular the flag and costal Member States. Cooperation with private entities that own or operate vessels for the purpose of carrying out search and rescue activities and bringing rescued people into EU territory is also necessary; such a framework should also aim to provide appropriate information as regards the operations and the administrative structure of these entities, in line with the principle of proportionality and the EU Charter of fundamental rights, and enhance safety, in compliance with the applicable international legislation in the interests of all those on board.

(16)

The Commission will establish an interdisciplinary Contact Group in which Member States can cooperate and coordinate activities in order to implement this Recommendation. The Group will compile an overview of national rules and practices, identify lessons learnt, assess the possibility to create improved means of cooperation between the flag and coastal states with regard to their tasks and responsibilities, and develop best practices which would reflect the needs ensuing from the search and rescue operations as they have developed over the past years. It will liaise regularly with relevant stakeholders, including EU agencies, notably Frontex, and, as appropriate, non-governmental organisations carrying out search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean, academics and international organisations, such as the IMO, in order to exchange knowledge and maintain coherence of activities with the international legal and operational framework. Member States should provide the Commission with all relevant information on the implementation of this Recommendation. The Contact Group will monitor the implementation of the Recommendation and issue, once a year, a report to the Commission.

(17)

The Commission will take into account the work of the Contact Group and the implementation of this Recommendation when developing the European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy and the annual Migration Management Reports set out in the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, as appropriate. On this basis, the Commission will also assess and recommend future initiatives, as needed.

(18)

This Recommendation is without prejudice to any duty of cooperation and any other obligation stemming from relevant international and Union law,

(1)

The refugee crisis of 2015 exposed weaknesses and gaps in EU and national migration crisis management systems as well as a lack of capacity and tools available to the Member States most under pressure. The crisis disclosed the need to act on several fronts simultaneously, in the third countries of origin, transit and/or destination, at the EU external borders and in other Member States under pressure.

(2)

The measures undertaken by the Union and the Member States after the 2015 refugee crisis targeted multiple policy, legislative, operational and financial needs and aimed at improving the sustainability of migration management. These unprecedented efforts, entailing measures at a national, international and EU level contributed to a successive reduction in irregular arrivals year after year, eventually reaching in 2019 the lowest level in six years.

(3)

The situation at the external borders remains however highly volatile and further improvements are needed in order to be better prepared to withstand potential large-scale migration crises. In addition, migrants engaging in unauthorised movements and submitting asylum applications in several Member States may constitute a severe burden to the national asylum systems.

(4)

To avoid the emergence of seemingly uncontrolled migration flows arriving to the EU as in 2015 and to ensure the effective functioning of national migration systems, it is necessary to consolidate the operational cooperation developed so far by establishing a framework supporting a more coordinated use of the relevant legislation. The establishment of such a framework would contribute significantly to ensuring that Member States and the Union develop the resilience necessary to deal efficiently with any type of migration crisis. In addition, the migration situation should be monitored regularly in order for decisions to be taken on the basis of a full situational picture wherever possible. This process should be based on the experience acquired after the 2015 refugee crisis in monitoring the migration situation including with the issuance of the Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis (ISAA) reports under the Council’s Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) relevant activation.

(5)

In order to strengthen the Union and Member States’ resilience, all stakeholders, including Member States through bilateral channels, should continue to actively engage in conflict prevention and resolution as well as to keep each other alerted of a potential crisis in a third country, which could lead to a migration crisis within the EU. All relevant EU tools in line with their legal frameworks and main objectives should be used to support partner countries in building their capacities and in addressing such crises, before their impact reaches the EU while reinforcing migration policy objectives.

(6)

An effective operational response to a migration crisis is dependent on the preparedness of individual Member States and their capacity to deploy the requisite equipment and resources as well as on coordinated action supported by existing Union structures. It further requires all relevant actors to cooperate swiftly and effectively. An effective and timely crisis management mechanism relies therefore on the existence of previously established crisis cooperation procedures in which the roles and responsibilities of the key actors at national and Union level are clearly defined.

(7)

A structured migration management mechanism is necessary, with real-time monitoring, early warning and a centralised, coordinated EU response to mobilise structures, tools, human and financial resources as needed, across EU institutions and agencies and in cooperation with Member States.

(8)

Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on the European Border and Coast Guard has set out the shared responsibility of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and of the Member States’ competent authorities for the implementation of the European integrated border management. It also requires ensuring situational awareness and provides for integrated planning for European integrated border management, including contingency planning.

(9)

The Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint guiding principles should be: anticipation, solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, coordination, timely reaction and flexible resource allocation.

(10)

The Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint core purpose is to ensure on the one hand situational awareness and better preparedness, and on the other hand effective governance and timely response.

(11)

The Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint should provide an operational framework for monitoring and anticipation of migration flows and migration situations, building resilience as well as organising a coordinated response to a migration crisis. These objectives reflect the two key stages outlined in the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint, monitoring and preparedness on the one hand and crisis management on the other.

(12)

For the purpose of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint, a migration crisis should be defined as any situation or development occurring inside the EU or in a third country having an effect and putting particular strain on any Member State’s asylum, migration or border management system or having such potential. This includes and goes beyond the circumstances defined in Article 1(2) of the proposal for a Regulation addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum or the circumstances defined in Article 2(w) of the proposal for a Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management.

(13)

The Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint is consistent with and complementary to the established EU crisis management mechanisms notably the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) including its Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), the Council’s Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) arrangements, the Commission’s ARGUS and the EEAS Crisis Response Mechanism (CRM), which may be activated concomitantly or after the activation of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint in its crisis management stage. The Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint aims at supporting the interaction and cooperation of these general crisis mechanisms by ensuring that they are provided with up-to-date information on the crisis situation.

(14)

While the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint builds on the relevant existing legislation, it is also designed to support the implementation of the new instruments as proposed by the Commission including a Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management and a Regulation addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum.

(15)

In its monitoring and preparedness stage, the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint should provide for a number of steps that ensure regular situational awareness and early warning/forecasting as well as help to prepare the annual migration management report issued by the Commission in accordance with Article 6 of the proposal for a Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management. The situational awareness provided by the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint might inter alia allow the Presidency of the Council to deescalate the current IPCR activation for migration crisis. In its crisis management stage, the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint should ensure that up-to-date comprehensive information on the migratory situation is available to all actors allowing to take timely decisions and that the implementation of those decisions is monitored and coordinated properly.

(16)

To make the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint a reality, the Member States, the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) should work together as an EU Migration Preparedness and Crisis Management Network (‘the Network’). The Network’s main objective should be to ensure the adequate exchange of information relevant for the two stages of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint.

(17)

This Network should support monitoring and anticipation of migration flows, increase resilience and improve technical coordination of the response to the crisis, in full respect of the legislation in force and while using and complementing the existing tools.

(18)

The relevant third countries of origin, transit and/or destination should also be involved on an ad hoc basis, where possible, in the functioning of the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint. This involvement should contribute to efficient exchange of information as well as actions building adequate situational awareness on migration in those countries and their response to potential crises,