What have we learned in the last two years?
In March 2016, the European Union signed a deal with Turkey with the aim of stemming the inflow of people to the continent. The deal defined Turkey as a “safe third country”, stating that every person arriving irregularly to Greece after March 20th 2016 should be returned to Turkey, unless the applicant can prove that Turkey is not safe in their specific case.
Hotspots
This deal saw the adoption of the “hotspot” model of migration management, whereby those applying for international protection are detained in hotspots during the examination of their asylum application. In Greece the 5 hotspots are the islands of Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros and Kos. People[ss1] continue to arrive despite the EU-Turkey deal.
There are low acceptance rates (25% in 2016[2]) and even lower success rates for appeals (10% in 20168 with verbal reports of 0.04% in 2017 after policy changes).
Living Conditions
Severe overcrowding terrible living conditions continue and are well-documented as being “dire”[3][4], with islands frequently referred to in the media as “living hell”[5] and “island prisons”[6]. Diseases, such as scabies, are rife and people lack access to basic services and shelter, leaving them to struggle with harsh winter weather in tents and unheated warehouses (4) or the heat of the summer. These conditions contribute to the already heavy mental strain people are suffering with organisations such as Medcins Sans Frontiers and Human Rights Watch describing the growing “mental health emergency” as a direct results of EU policy[7]. Symptoms of PTSD, depression and suicide are increasing, in Vial, Chios a young Syrian man set himself on fire[8]. Demonstrations and riots are commonplace.
There is a lack of transparency around the procedures and actions of the authorities; Amnesty International spent 12 months documenting the forced return of Syrian asylum-seekers to Turkey without being given the right to apply for asylum or appeal the decision against their return[9].
Complicated Procedures
The EU-Turkey deal added a layer of complexity to the asylum procedures. Citizens from countries with high recognition rates such as Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia are subjected to complicated border procedures, which means that they must undergo an admissibility interview before before they are able to apply for international protection in Greece. Applicants subject to border procedures must demonstrate persecution or harm in Turkey , rather than persecution or harm in their country of origin. Most people go to this interview not understanding that they need to evidence harm or persecution and thus are unprepared with disasterous consequences.
Legal Assistance
There is a severe lack of legal assistance available; on Chios, for example, there are around seven lawyers assigned to assist over 2,500 people, the picture is the same in the other hotspots. This leaves people to navigate the complex asylum procedures largely alone or with often misinformed advice from fellow refugees or volunteers.
Denial of basic Information to Inform people of their rights and the procedures
Information regarding border procedures has been consistently denied to people arriving after the EU Turkey deal was agreed, and has not been provided by any official organisations apart from RefuComm and a couple of other independent information groups. This has catastrophic consequences for people from the refugee community.
Literacy
We know from our interaction with new arrivals that literacy levels are poor although there has been no formal research to date that we know of. We estimate that the literacy rates could be as high as 80 -90%, particularly for women and unaccompanied minors. People who have often gone through extreme traumas and are living in physically and mentally damaging conditions are left to navigate complex asylum processes.
Who We Are
RefuComm is a small yet agile, grassroots organisation. We have been working with refugees since November 2015, originally providing detailed, translated route information, mobile charging units and information points along the Balkan route. After the closure of the Balkan route in May 2016 we shifted our focus to information provision in Greece as one of the main points of entry to the EU and because information was not available in any other language apart from Greek. We have researched and created over 100 information resources in up to 9 languages, which are available on our website. The topics cover all aspects of claiming asylum in Greece on the mainland including eligibility and admissibility interview preparation, assisted voluntary returns, Dublin procedures and available services in Greece. We are the only organisation providing information in any meaningful way for arrivals to the Islands. Our resources are available in text format but also audio and film format specifically designed for people with low literacy, such as unaccompanied minors. All our material is checked by legal representatives and is kept up to date, .
We are an organisation committed to human rights and have provided evidence in several important cases brought against the EU by Amnesty International. We believe in giving people the tools they need to help themselves, to be able to live in dignity and have some control of their lives and a better chance of navigating complicated procedures.
There has always been a severe lack of information on the islands. Official actors such as the Greek Asylum Service (GAS) and UNCHR have made information resources for the mainland but have denied information for people in the hotspots, despite the much greater need. We learned that poor internet connectivity meant people were struggling to access our resources online. This led to the idea by our founder to put resources on microSD cards and distribute them via partner organisations already providing aid.
In June 2017 we travelled to Chios with our partners Translators Without Borders (TWB) to evidence[ss2] the information requirements of refugees arriving on the Islands and to trial the use of microSD cards. We wanted to give people from the refugee community a voice.
Research Objectives
The aim of the research was to evidence the current situation for refugees arriving on the Islands in relation to information provision, to inform our work and allow us to improve the services we provide.
Our main objectives were:
1)
To test the comprehension of and preference for different formats of information resources. Comprehension testing was conducted by and further details will be available in their report when published. A previous study for language and comprehension can be found here.
2) To evidence the current state of information provision for new arrivals. Are people provided with information by the authorities or other organisations? Are people satisfied with the information they are receiving? What consequences does the lack of information provision have on the asylum process?
3) To pilot the use of microSD cards as a way of distributing information and to gather feedback on RefuComm material.
Methods
The information in this report was collected between the 18th-21st July 2017. Over this period experienced researchers from TWB and the director of RefuComm, who has almost three years of working with refugees in the field, conducted focus group discussions with 100 participants living in Vial and Souda camp.
Study area
The research was conducted on the Greek island of Chios. Under the EU-Turkey deal, Chios became a hotspot on which there are two operating camps; Vial and Souda.
Souda Camp
Souda camp is a beach near the main town. There were approximately 1,500 people living there at the time of the study.
Vial
Vial is a few kilometres outside the main town and is a former aluminium factory. Camp residents are housed in containers and the camp is surrounded by barbed wire. Initially Vial was a closed camp and people were forbidden to leave. At the time of writing, there were rumours that Vial will become a closed facility again in September 2017. There were approximately 2,000 people living there.
Data collection — focus groups.
All results were collected via focus group discussions which were video recorded and transcribed after the event. All results collected are qualitative.
Participation in the study was determined on a voluntary basis with volunteers recruited through RefuComm contacts in Vial and Souda camps. Due to the conditions of the study and time constraints random sampling techniques were not viable. Focus group discussions were held in a safe and secure environment away from the camps. Participants were divided into language groups (listed below), each group discussion lasting half a day.
The research methodology and professional translators were provided by Translators Without Borders.
Focus groups:
1. Arabic speaking men from both camps
2. Arabic speaking women from both camps
3. Farsi speaking men (Souda)
4. Farsi/Persian speaking men (Vial)
5. Farsi speaking women (Vial)
6. Urdu speakers men from both camps
Structure of the discussions:
Session 1 — Groups were shown the 3 types of resources to be compared (described below) followed by a group discussion on reaction and preferences. During this time people also individually completed comprehension tests, the details of which can be found in the TWB report.
Session 2 — SD cards were demonstrated, and participants were shown in group some of the material available on the cards. Group discussion on the topic of current information availability, RefuComm material and SD card use.
The resources compared:
Type
Topic
Source
Official document, text
Asylum procedure overview, post EU-Turkey deal.
GAS, available here.
Infographic
Definitions of vulnerable groups.
TWB and RefuComm material, created for purpose of study. Shown below.
Film
The eligibility interview.
RefuComm, available here in Arabic, Farsi and Urdu. English versions here.
Main findings.
Below are the summaries of the focus group discussions from all groups highlighting general trends and notable remarks. The full notes, by language group, can be found in appendix 2. For results and discussion on the comprehension testing, please contact TWB.
Objective 2 — Access to information.
1. Where do you currently get information on your rights and the Greek asylum procedures?
a. All participants said that they do not have access to official information about their rights or the asylum procedures in either written or verbal format from the Greek Authorities or their partners.
b. Many participants said that when they ask for information from the Greek authorities or their partners they are denied. People reported that they were told to ‘wait’ or ‘go away’.
c. Most participants said that they get information by word of mouth from other refugees.
d. All participants said that they do not use social media for official information.
e. The organisations they mentioned who provided information to them directly were ourselves and Refugee InfoBus, who share RefuComm written information and films.
f. Most participants said that they needed information to be provided when they arrived.
g. Most participants agreed that if they had received information it would have helped them with their asylum applications.
2. How easy is it for you to access the internet for free where you are living?
a. All participants said they do not have free internet access in either Souda camp or in Vial.
b. Participants from Vial reported that they have to walk into the mountains, which is some distance, to get a mobile signal.
c. Participants from Souda reported that they need to walk into the town to get wi-fi from the cafes but that involves spending money on food and drinks which they don’t have. Furthermore, some participants reported being turned away from some cafes due to their refugee status and hostility from local residents.
d. Participants from both camps said that they often struggle to make their data plans last until the end of the month and data limits and cost of additional data is a barrier to accessing information videos online. Furthermore, weak signal strength means that videos can be slow to download, and people lose patience or are unable to watch it fully if signal is lost.
e. All participants agreed that an offline solution to information provision is essential.
3. Are you currently satisfied with the information given to you by the Greek authorities on your rights and the asylum procedures?
a. All participants said that they were very unsatisfied.
4. Have you received information from the Greek authorities at all stages of your asylum application in a language you understand? And if yes, how useful was this information?
a. All participants said that they do not receive information about the asylum procedures and there is nothing useful available for them.
5. Is it easy or difficult to find information about your rights and the Greek asylum procedures in a language you understand?
a. All participants said there is nothing provided to them in their language.
b. Some participants stated that there is a significant lack of interpreters on the Island to address language barriers. The Farsi-speaking groups especially highlighted that a Farsi translator comes only once a week to the camp unable to see everyone that has questions.
6. What important information do you need that is difficult to find?
a. Participants said they needed to understand what stage of the procedure they were at so that they could prepare for their interview. They need information on how to prepare for their interviews and they need information on what to do if they need to appeal and how to access services on Chios for legal aid, services for vulnerable people.
7. What are the consequences, to you, of not having access to information?
a. The Farsi-speaking group from Vial reported that they are unable to visit the town because of the animosity and risks involved from other refugee groups.
b. Female participants reported that they must rely on their husbands and do not have their own phones or any access to information. They said they were happy to be included in the research.
c. Many participants reported that they went to interviews unprepared to talk about their situation in Turkey and were surprised when EASO asked questions about Turkey and did not ask them questions about their situation in their own country.
d. All participants who have had negative decisions agreed that the information on our website was useful and that they would have had an easier time in the admissibility interviews if they had the information when they arrived in Greece
e. Many participants said they had no idea about the status of their application, did not understand which stage of the procedure they are in or how to obtain information about it.
f. Participants needing family reunification did not understand the Dublin regulations and some did not know how to apply or how to follow up on their case.
Objective 3 — Feedback on RefuComm material and SD card pilot
Preferred information format.
We asked in the focus groups which method of information provision people preferred.
1. All participants said that they prefer film to documents. Reasons given were:
a. That they prefer film because they don’t read.
b. That they prefer film because they find it easier than reading long documents.
SD cards and RefuComm material.
Initial reception
People generally did not have problems inserting the cards and were quite literate with their phones. The women had the most problems, especially the older women amongst the groups, as many of them didn’t have phones of their own but instead shared a phone with their husbands.
1. Do you think the information will be helpful to/useful you?
a. The answer depended upon which stage of the asylum application they were in. Those who had interviews coming up or were newly arrived said that they thought the SD cards would be very useful. Those who had already reached the appeal stage said it was too late for them although they would have liked to have had this information before their interviews and would use the cards to help others.
2. Would you have liked to have had this information when you arrived on the Island?
a. All participants said yes.
3. Are there any parts of the SD card you do not understand/had difficulty understanding?
a. Participants had no negative feedback on the content. Participants who could not read said they would like all of it to be in film format.
4. Is there any other information or any other features you think would be useful/would like us to include on the SD cards in the future?
a. Most participants said that they need information on preparing for interviews to get a positive decision.
b. Some participants requested information on how to access services; especially for vulnerable people.
5. Would you use the SD cards for the following:
1. To prepare for your admissibility or asylum interview?
a. All participants said yes.
2. To find and access services?
a. All participants said yes.
3. To better understand your rights?
a. All participants said yes.
6. There is space on the SD card for you to store your important documents, phone numbers and family photos. Do you think you would use this space/is this useful?
a. Most participants said yes.
7. Would you share the SD card with friends or family?
a. All participants said yes.
b. They also said that they will use the SD cards to help others.
8. Where will you keep the SD card?
a. Most participants said they would keep it in their phones
b. Some participants agreed it would be advisable to take it out and keep it in a safe place in case they are arrested or deported so that they had a back-up if their phones were confiscated.
Information access: general discussion and case specific examples.
We discussed as a group peoples understanding of the procedures, their experiences and how they thought access to information would have helped their cases.
A summary of the main points:
1. Many participants in the sample groups lacked very basic knowledge of the procedures in the interview.
2. Most participants did not know until we showed them our animation that they could stop their eligibility interview if they couldn’t understand or didn’t trust their translator.
3. Many reported that they had interpreters in their interviews who they did not understand or trust. Sometimes they were people from completely different parts of the world and different nationalities. Farsi speaking interpreters for Kurdish nationalities for example. Arabic interpreters from Syria for Iranians. Because they did not know their rights the interviews went ahead. All the people we spoke to had received negative decisions.
4. One respondent said that his translator was not even physically present and that he interpreted by telephone. He has since had a negative decision.
5. Many participants did not know that they were entitled to a transcript or recording of their interview; especially Afghans in Vial. Subsequent requests for the transcripts, which are necessary for lawyers to work with when preparing an appeal, have been refused by the authorities.
6. Information for Urdu speakers and French speakers is even more difficult to find. Even mainland information is not always translated into Urdu. Participants from the Urdu speaking group were very pleased to find that we have Urdu information resources.
7. There are few interpreters on the Island and local volunteer groups largely rely on refugees to translate for them.
8. One person, who had previously seen the video, reported that he had stopped his interview because the translator did not speak his language.
Discussion and Future
Information provision
The responses of the study participants illustrate the catastrophic failure of information provision on the islands. All participants reported having close to no information provided to them prior to their first interview (either admissibility or eligibility). On the rare occasions people did receive information, it was given to them at the beginning of their interviews, leaving them with no time to prepare their case. The consequences were damaging, some examples given were people missing their interviews and having to start the process again accepting translators who didn’t speak their language and couldn’t translate the information at the interview, attending admissibility interviews unprepared because they believed they should have prepared to speak about the situation in their country, not appealing in time because they didn’t know they could appeal.
At the time of the study the only information on asylum procedures was an incredibly complex flowchart, in English. None of the participants had seen the chart previously and expressed anger that this was what they were meant to comprehend.
The results also highlight the severe lack of interpreters available, meaning that when people have questions on their case they are effectively silenced and unable to ask the necessary authorities. This is yet another tool in denying people the ability to inform themselves and prepare their cases. There were reports of direct misinformation, as in the case of “A” and other respondents. By keeping people in the dark about their rights under international law, it is much harder to hold the authorites to account and leave people open to human rights abuses, as documented by Amnesty International.
There was a feeling among participants that the lack of information is a deliberate tactic to confuse them and jeopardise their applications. The systematic lack of information provision that we have witnessed during this research and over the past 2 years of field work, supports this claim. Other organisations, such as Refugee Rights Data Project[10] and Amnesty International[11] and media outlets have also researched and reported on the systematic lack of information provision.
The consequences are an unjust treatment of some of the most vulnerable people, contradicting the supposed European principles and, in many cases, European law. Many people will have had recent and often severe traumatic experiences and are forced to live in sub-standard, inhumane conditions. Emina Cerimovic, researcher on the HRW report[12], states, “The psychological impact of years of conflict, exacerbated by harsh conditions on the Greek islands and the uncertainty of inhumane policies, may not be as visible as physical wounds, but is no less life-threatening,”. Denying people information adds to their already significant mental stress and can leave people feeling hopeless, helpless and confused[13].
Informing our work.
On the use of microSD cards, we received very positive responses from participants towards the cards themselves and the sample information resources they were shown. Since there is no free access to Wi-Fi and data is expensive, the SD cards were received well as being accessible despite these conditions. Having the resource at their disposal also allows people to check over the material at their own pace. That most respondents indicated that they would share the resource with new arrivals was promising as it extends the reach of the cards. Some respondents indicated that they liked other types of resources as well as films which further supports the content list of the SD card which contains a mixture of video (animation and real people) and text resources, allowing people to select the resources they find most useful. This is further supported by previous research done by TWB[14].
The feedback we have received, that people are eager to have access to this information reconfirms the work we are doing and drives us forward. Communication preferences will be taken into account when making new resources and we will continue to have open dialogue with the people we serve. Feedback is incredibly important in driving our work and we will continue to have open dialogue with the people we serve. As always, our commitment is to provide accurate and accessible information to empower people and allow them to regain some autonomy over their future.
Since the study, we have provided almost 2000 micro SD cards to people on the Islands, loaded with the information they need. We are continuing with this highly successful project which we showcased at the Techfugees summit in the summer of 2017.
We have also responded to their needs by producing new films with our partners that explain the border procedures in a calm, clear way, using language that is accessible to all in 9 languages.
We are currently launching them on Lesvos where they are being really well received. Especially by the people they were made for.
Contacts
Sharon Silvery, RefuComm CEO, sharonsilvey1@gmail.com
Amy Humphreys, RefuComm Operations Manager, amy_1707@hotmail.co.uk
Appendices
Appendix 1 — Micro SD Cards — Content List
Appendix 2 — Full notes of the discussion groups
[1] http://mindigital.gr/index.php/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%86%CF%85%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C-%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1-refugee-crisis
[2] https://www.worlddata.info/europe/greece/asylum.php
[3] https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/23/greece-dire-refugee-conditions-islands
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/28/refugees-greece-europe-dirty-secret-chios-detention-centres-bursting-point
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/migrants-living-hell-greek-detention-medecins-sans-frontieres-scabies-tb
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/this-isnt-europe-life-greece-worst-refugee-camps
[7] http://www.msf.org/en/article/greece-eu-border-policies-fuel-mental-health-crisis-asylum-seekers
[8] http://greece.greekreporter.com/2017/03/30/syrian-refugee-sets-himself-ablaze-in-chios-video/
[9] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/03/the-eu-turkey-deal-europes-year-of-shame/
[10] http://refugeerights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RRDP_AnIslandAtBreakingPoint.pdf
[11] https://www.amnesty.nl/content/uploads/2016/04/report_trapped_in_greece_embargo_180416.pdf?x73404
[12] https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/12/eu/greece-asylum-seekers-silent-mental-health-crisis
[13] http://refugeerights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RRDP_AnIslandAtBreakingPoint.pdf
[14] https://translatorswithoutborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Language-Comprehension-barriers.pdf
