Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere
Laurea Magistrale in Scienze per la Pace: Trasformazione dei Conflitti e
Cooperazione allo Sviluppo
Tesi di Laurea
EMBRACING DIVERSITY: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
RECEPTION CENTRE IN GIOIOSA MAREA
Relatore Candidata
Prof. Marcello Mollica Lucrezia Ferrà
ABSTRACT
This dissertation is an attempt to investigate how the distance or the proximity to the reception centres for migrants could influence the perception of local residents about the presence of foreigners in their cities, and whether the different position of the centre could promote or prevent the process of integration.
As a matter of fact, nowadays Italy has to deal with the migratory phenomenon and the reception of those who arrive on the Italian coasts seeking asylum or international protection. In order to manage this situation, Italy created a national Reception System.
To analyse the topic I conducted a fieldwork in the village of Gioiosa Marea, in the Province of Messina, Sicily. Through the participant observation, and a series of interviews I conducted in the village, I investigated the opinions of citizens and local institutions about the place where to establish the reception centre. Data collected shows that the main purpose is to prevent the segregation of migrants in the space of the centre and their exclusion from the urban space of the village. Furthermore, evidence demonstrates that the process of integration requires a real effort by local authorities to promote the creation of deep relations between the guests of the centre and the local residents.
INDEX
INTRODUCTION...p. 4
1. MIGRATIONS AND ASYLUM 1.1 Right of Asylum and the European Union...p. 9 1.2 Asylum and the Italian Legislation...p. 17 1.3 Migration Flows in Sicily...p. 22 1.4 Conclusive Remarks...p. 24
2.THE SYSTEM OF PERMANENT EMERGENCY
2.1 The Italian Reception System...p. 25 2.2 Reception Centres and Spatial Arrangements...p. 33 2.3 The Case of Castell'Umberto...p. 36 2.3.1 An Unprepared Village...p. 37 2.3.2 Some Interviews in Castell'Umberto...p. 39 2.3.3 Conclusions...p. 44
3. THE RESEARCH
3.1 Research Methodology...p. 46 3.2 Fieldwork...p. 49 3.2.1 Gioiosa Marea and its History...p. 51 3.2.2 Gioiosa Marea Today...p. 55 3.3 The Interviews...p. 60 3.3.1 Institutional Actors...p. 60 3.3.2 The Citizens...p. 66 3.3.3 Conclusions...p. 72 CONCLUSIONS...p. 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY...p. 80 APPENDICES...p. 86 Appendix A QUESTIONNAIRE...p. 86 Appendix B ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE...p.87 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...p. 88
INTRODUCTION
The aim of the present analysis is to investigate if and how the decisions taken at institutional level about the place where to establish a reception centre could influence and alter the perception of citizens about the presence of immigrants in their own towns and could allow to promote (or prevent) the process of integration in the local communities.
The necessity to investigate the migratory phenomenon is related to the fact that migration flows are an essential element of human history. People have always had the desire to move all around the world for several reasons. However, in recent years, we have been witnesses of the increasing phenomenon of forced migrations. According to the data of UNHCR, nowadays 65.6 millions of people are forced to leave their own countries. 22.5 millions of them are refugees and 2.8 millions are asylum seekers. They are obliged to abandon their country of origin because of wars, civil conflicts, and violations of human rights, violence committed by the institutions or different guilty parties. IOM - International Organization for Migration - defines forced migration as
“a migratory movement in which an element of coercion exists, including threats to life and livelihood, whether arising from natural or man-made causes (e.g. movements of refugees and internally displaced persons as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects)1”.
Actually, there is no universally agreed definition of forced migration since it is not a legal concept and it includes a variety of circumstances. On the contrary, the term
“refugee” is well defined by law: as we will see in Chapter 1, the status of refugee
1 Definition available online on the website of IOM at the link https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms#Forced-migration.
was recognised firstly by the Convention of Geneva, Art. 1 letter A, and it indicates a person forced to leave his country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted. Furthermore, it is necessary to make a distinction between refugees and asylum seekers: asylum seekers are people having applied for International Protection and waiting for the decision about their status; in fact, their applications could be rejected, or be accepted, recognising them as refugees or beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection (UNHCR).
In the present investigation I will refer to migration flows of refugees and asylum seekers because they are allowed to join International Protection and the system of reception. These migration flows are characterized especially by irregular migrations, often occurring through hopeless journeys by Eastern and Central Mediterranean routes towards Europe. Other States should grant these people the protection they need. Of course national politics are obligated to deal with this matter. In order to do so, reception systems2 are developed in each State, taking into account different
levels of possibilities and capabilities. The systems of reception are based on the creation of centres to host people, granting different levels of accommodation: from those characterized by the only satisfaction of basic needs, to more complex forms of reception, proper of the centres that focus on integrating refugees in national society. The phenomenon of migration flows interests notably, as we are going to see in the following pages, “frontier” States of the European Union: in particular Greece and Italy, countries of destination.
As a matter of fact, the Italian mass media deals extensively with the migratory question, even if the information they give are often altered. The words used concerning migrants are alarmist, especially in regard to the topic of security. The
2 The term "reception" assumes a variety of meanings and it involves different forms of accommoda-tion. In particular the term reception conditions refers to “The full set of measures that Member States grant to applicants for international protection" while reception facilities to "All forms of premises used for the housing of applicants for international protection and other categories of migrants and Refugees". These definitions were elaborated by the European Migration Network (EMN) and they are available on line on the website of Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, ht-tps://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_en.
general perception of the influx of migrants is that it will be combined with a growing risk of terrorism, criminality and social insecurity, creating an irreconcilable gap between “them” and “us”: the population's concerns are mainly related to culture, religion and use of public spaces (Barretta, Milazzo, 2016).
This situation affects the feeling of citizens about the presence of foreigners; it does not matter if they are asylum seekers, refugees or not. This happens principally because of the process of politicisation the issue has been exposed to. It is not hard to realize that it has become an important battleground for political parties. They encourage the categorisation of refugees as a threat, leading the population to feel, in a sense, discriminated, since those who come from abroad are protected and supported by the Italian State, while citizens are often abandoned by national institutions. In general, the migratory phenomenon seems to be perceived especially as a problem. However immigrants, once arrived in Italy, are distributed over the Italian territory, where they come in contact with the residents of the localities in which they are accommodated. This is the reason why the process of integration should take place in local communities. To such an extent, in my opinion, it should be taken into account what citizens feel and think about the migratory phenomenon. In fact, the interest for the matter of my research originates from a basic observation. When the citizens of a town become aware of the fact that a reception centre is going to be established in their own territory, often protests and oppositions emerge. There are a lot of cases that prove it. One of the questions surged from this observation is: why do citizens show this kind of reaction? And the second question is: is it possible to prevent, or at least manage, this situation? In front of these questions I realized that there are a lot of studies and researches about the existing reception centres or the life inside them, but not so much about what happens before the establishment of the centres, precisely the moment citizens are informed - if they are informed by local institutions - of the future arrival of migrants. In order to prevent the emergence of hostility, local administrations could try to hide the presence of migrants - placing them in buildings out of urban centre.
field of my research, a small Sicilian village in the Province of Messina. A similar situation could emerge also there. As a matter of fact, in several Sicilian cities situations of tension between residents and the immigrants hosted in the centres already emerged, such as: Palermo, Porto Empedocle, Siculiana, Messina, Castell'umberto3. It should be stressed that Sicily is the main Italian Region that has
always had to deal with migration flows, since it is the major area of first arrival for migrants in Italy. Therefore the atmosphere in Sicily is permanently overflowing with a climate of wait; it is uncertain when new arrivals will occur and where refugees will be hosted.
When I arrived in Gioiosa Marea I was not aware if the opening of the reception centre would be forthcoming or if the process had just started. The fact that the reception centre had not been opened yet, allowed me to focus on the citizens' opinions, on the matter, on the one hand, and on the means to facilitate the process of integration of the refugees, on the other hand. In order to conduct the research, I spent three months in Gioiosa Marea, from the 15th of October to the 12thof January.
The methodology of participant observation allowed me to spend my time with local people and to observe the everyday life of the community from within. Furthermore, I conducted a series of interviews that gave me the opportunity to discuss with people the question in a specific way. Fortunately, the pre-existence of a network of relations made it easier to gain the trust of local people, and this is why they agreed on being interviewed. In order to explore the topic, I analysed the migratory issue from different points of view, both legislative and pragmatic, focusing especially on the question of reception centres. Gioiosa Marea might be the case through which the main issues of the coexistence of reception centres and local communities may emerge.
Here below I will present a summary of the content of each chapter that compose the
3 The facts refer to 2017 and they are reported by local newspapers in Sicily (see for instance Gazzetta del Sud or Tempostretto).
thesis.
In the first Chapter, I am going to explore the existing European legislation about the status of refugee and in general of those who seek International Protection, and its evolution. Subsequently, I am going to concentrate on the Italian legislation and the difficulties experienced by the legislators in creating an organic law on the matter. Finally, I am going to present a brief historical excursus on the presence of foreigners in Sicily and on the different features of migration flows.
In the second one, I am going to discuss the different features of reception centres which compose the Italian reception system for International Protection seekers. In detail, I am going to focus on the difference between SPRAR and CAS with concern on the decisions made about the place where to establish the centre. I am going to stress the implications that such a choice has in the promotion of the integration of the foreigners. In this regard I am going to report the story of the small Municipality of Castell'Umberto, a village in the northern part of Sicily.
Finally, in the third Chapter I am going to discuss my research. The first and the second paragraphs are dedicated to the methodological approach, based on participant observation, and to the presentation of the fieldwork. I am going to present briefly the history of Gioiosa Marea and the current composition of its society. In the final paragraph, I am going to report some of the answers of the citizens of Gioiosa, extrapolated by the interviews I conducted in the village and conclusions.
1. MIGRATIONS AND ASYLUM
1.1 Right to Asylum4 and the European Union
The recognition of refugee status has its roots in two main instruments of international law: the Geneva Convention, drafted in 1951 and entered into force in 1954, and its 1967 Protocol, relating to the status of refugees, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Convention's merit lays in the fact that it gave, for the first time, a legal definition of the refugee's condition. The art.1 letter A of the Convention defines a “refugee” as a person who
“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, Nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his Nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a Nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.
The Convention is an attempt to recognise universally what are the rights granted to this category of people, beyond their ethnicity or their country of origin. Such rights revolve around healthcare, legal and social assistance and the recognition of civil, social and economic rights. The Convention also established the obligation of States to protect refugees; as a matter of fact, before the Convention set general rules, countries used to adopt different instruments to manage migration flows affecting them, especially as a result of radical changes, concerning land in particular. Between the two World Wars, the League of Nations preferred develop ad hoc policies, through agreements, protocols or conventions, addressed to particular ethnic and
national groups (Ferrari, 2004).
However, the Convention presented temporal and geographical limits; the timing constraint derived from the fact that the notion of “refugee” addresses only people seeking protection because of events occurring before the 1st of January 1951. The
Protocol of 1967 removed this limit and extended the application of the Convention also to events occurred after the 1950s. Moreover, each State could decide, upon signing the Convention, to apply its rules exclusively to events occurring through Europe or to extend its power to countries in the rest of the world. This way, a State could decide to grant protection only to citizens fleeing from other European States. The geographical limitation was adopted also by Italy, and remained into force until the Nineties (Bonetti, Morandi, 2013).
The Convention established also the obligation of non-refoulement: a signatory State could not expel refugees or force them to return in the countries where they are persecuted. This principle applies both to recognised refugees and those who have not had their status recognised yet. There are accepted exception when the public order is threatened, or in the cases in which a refugee can be considered a threat to national security. At international level, the efforts to manage the phenomenon of refugees were not limited to the adoption of the Convention: in 1944, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) was founded, and it remained operative until 1947. It was followed by the International Refugee Organization (IRO), in operation until 1951, and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), founded by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950 (Ferrari, 2004).
Although the Convention is still the pillar of international legislation relating to the status of refugees, it leaves to signatory States wide autonomy in the application of its principles, since it did not establish common procedures; the Convention also excluded from the definition of refugee those people who, not being at risk of persecution, were still involved in situations that actually limited their freedom in their country of origin (Campomori, 2016).
of asylum laws designed to apply to all the Member States. It should be stressed that the EU has had discontinuous diligence concerning the issue of immigration, especially because of Nationalist tendencies that are widely spread throughout Europe even today. Member States find it difficult to relinquish part of their sovereignty in this matter, due to its impact on a national level (Einaudi, 2007). The first agreement underwritten to achieve the aim was the Dublin Convention (Dublin I) signed in 1990, after four years of preparatory works. The Convention established a system, still used in a reformed form nowadays, to determine which Member State is responsible for examining the asylum application “lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities”: the system was designed to prevent an asylum seeker from applying to several Member States, and it established that the State through which the applicant entered the EU for the first time is responsible for the examination of applications (with exceptions, reported in the Convention, such as the case of family reunification). This geographical criterion means that asylum seekers are not allowed to choose in which State they prefer to find asylum, and this might be considered as a partial restriction of freedom. Furthermore, it creates a disproportioned burden that mostly affects European border States (first countries of entry, mainly Greece and Italy) (Einaudi, 2007).
The following initiative was the recognition, through the Maastricht Treaty (1992), of Community competence in the field of immigration, particularly concerning the access of third-country nationals and the right of asylum, but since decisions were subject to the obligation of unanimity, the decision making process stayed paralysed. This situation continued until the signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam, developed in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, through which a common policy about immigration and the introduction of the Acquis of Schengen5 were formalized in
European legislation: the elaboration of an Action Plan6 was assigned both to EU
Council and Commission in order to establish common norms and procedures for asylum applicants, but also common standards for their reception. The determination
5 Through the Decision n 1999/435/EC.
6 Action Plan on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice (December 1998).
to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) rose from the Conclusion emerged during the European Council of Tampere in 1999 (Bonetti, Morandi, 2013). In the first phase, between 1999 and 2005, different legislative measures were adopted in order to harmonize the legal framework of Member States on the basis of common minimum standards for refugees. The first EU Directive issued in 2001 recognised Temporary Protection, an extraordinary measure adopted in case of mass influx. It applies to third-country nationals who need immediate protection but could not benefit from the definition of refugee7. Temporary Protection granted this
category of immigrants access to employment, accommodation, family reunification, healthcare and education; this protection is valid from one to three years, and it does not preclude the recognition of International Protection (Bonetti, Morandi, 2013). In 2004, the EU Directive on minimum standards, for the qualification and status of
third country Nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted introduced
the notion of ”International Protection”8. This definition includes two different legal
statutes, in order to grant protection even to those who are not included in the definition of the word “refugee”, as it was established by the Geneva Convention. The new status introduced by the notion of International Protection is Subsidiary Protection. The beneficiaries of Asylum are those who seek for protection because of the persecutions they faced in their countries of origin through institutionalized violence or other means, in particular victims of human rights abuses. On the contrary beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection are those who, without being victims of persecutions, are at risk of serious injury in their country of origin. The definition of “serious injury” includes death sentence, torture or other forms of inhuman treatment, and serious and individual threat to life by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflicts. Originally these statutes generated different degrees of protection but the EU Directive of 2011 helped making them more similar
7 Council Directive 2001/55/EC on minimum standards for giving Temporary Protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof.
8 Directive 2004/83/CE adopted by the Italian legislation through Legislative Decree n 251/2007 (namely Qualification Decree). Later modified through the Directive 2011/95/EU.
(Mataloni, 2015).
In Italy, for instance, refugees and beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection obtain a residence permit valid for five years and renewable (for the beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection, it is renewable only when the risk persists) and they are allowed the right to family reunification, the access to employment, education, healthcare and social assistance9. Immigrants who apply for International Protection
submit to the frontier Police - or to the Police headquarter in charge, if the applicant has already entered the State boundary- their request, that is later presented to the Territorial Commission responsible for assessing; the commission will value the status of the applicants and what kind of protection is needed to grant them (Bonetti, Morandi, 2012).
In addition, the Italian legislation recognises a further kind of protection: Humanitarian Protection10. The residence permit for humanitarian reasons, valid for
two years, is issued by the Questor when "serious reasons of a humanitarian nature" exist. It is a residual form of protection applicable to those people who are not eligible for the Status of Refugees or Subsidiary Protection, but cannot be expelled by the State according to national, European or international norms. The permit can be issued by the Questor following the direct request of the foreign citizen or a recommendation made by the Territorial Commission that examines and rejects the applications for International Protection. This form of protection grants the foreign citizen access to health service and formation, and it can be converted into a residence permit for work, although it does not grant the right to family reunification (Guerrieri, 2016).
It is necessary to remember other two EU Directives that compose the legal framework established in this first phase: the Directive laying down minimum
standards for the reception of asylum seeker11 and the Directive on minimum
standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee
9 Through the Legislative Decree 2014/18 (implemented by the Directive 2011/95/EU) modifying the Legislative Decree n 251.
10 Introduced in the legal system by the TU about immigration (Legislative Decree 1998/286). 11 Directive 2003/9/CE (namely Reception Conditions Directive), later modified by Directive 2013/33/EU.
status12 (Osman, 2015).
The second phase of the CEAS started in 2007 with the publication of a Green Paper born from a public consultation that involved several stakeholders, including both the Governments and Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs). The starts of this second phase was promoted by the Treaty of Lisbon13, signed in 2007, that
established, through the Art 78, that
"The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country National requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties".
The most important measures adopted in this phase focused on the review and the adjustment of the above-mentioned EU Directives, the strengthening of the role and the use of EURODAC14 (European Dactyloscopie) - the European asylum fingerprint
database that simplifies the determination of the responsibility of a Member State for examining an applications comparing fingerprint dataset - and the introduction of a new Dublin Regulation (Dublin III15, 2014), that offered greater guarantees for
applicants (such as the possibility claim against the transfer to another Member State and the stronger protection of family union). However, the new Regulation did not modify criteria for the determination of responsibility for examining asylum applications so that, once again, the encumbrance of migration flows was supported by Border States, particularly by Greece and Italy. In 2015, the mechanism of relocation was introduced in order to deal with the growing migratory pressure on these Member States and to counterbalance the system created through the Dublin
12 Directive 2005/85/CE (namely Asylum Procedures Directive), later modified by Directive 2013/32/EU.
13 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
14 Created through the Regulation (CE) n 2725/2000 later modified by the Regulation (CE) n 407/2002 e (UE) n 603/2013.
15 The Convention of 1990 was abrogated through the Council Regulation (EC) n 343/2003 later replaced with Regulation (EU) n 604/2013.
Regulation; the European Commission proposed to introduce an emergency response system based on "a temporary distribution scheme for persons in clear need of International Protection to ensure a fair and balanced participation of all Member States to this common effort", as defined by the European Agenda on migration. The relocation is conducted on the basis of a distribution key that takes into account the size of the population, the total GDP and the level of unemployment, the average number of asylum applications and the number of people resettled over the period 2010-2014. These indicators reflect the capacity of a Member State to integrate refugees and the level of the State's efforts made in the past. The relocation scheme was adopted in September 2015 with two Council Decisions providing the transfer of 120.000 applicants from Greece and Italy16. In a first moment, the implementation of
the process was very slow, especially because of the lack of efforts shown by Member States, but in 2017 a change of course in the process17 was recorded, with an
average of 2.300 relocations per month (from February 2017) and the total amount of 27.695 people relocated in the year (as of September 2017), 19.244 from Greece and 8.451 from Italy18 (Campomori, 2016).
Finally, the cooperation and the agreement signed between EU and Turkey about the necessity to manage migration flows upon a coordinate manner, due to Turkey's role as first reception and transit country, should be mentioned: Europe agreed to allocate financial resources to Turkey in order to deal with the reception of migrants; on the other hand, Turkey agreed to meet the needs of refugees. As a matter of fact, "The Facility for Refugees in Turkey focuses on humanitarian assistance, education, migration management, health, municipal infrastructure, and socio-economic support19". The strengthening of the cooperation with Turkey is an attempt to
externalize the control of migration flows beyond the borders of Europe and to stop migrants on departure (Associazione Studi Giuridici sull' Immigrazione, 2017). At the end of 2017 arrivals by sea in the Mediterranean area were 170.317
16 Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601.
17 For the detailed results it is possible to consult Reports of the European Commission. 18 Fifteenth Report on Relocation and Resettlement (6/9/2017, European Commission).
19 Managing the Refugee Crisis. The EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey (European Commission,the first agreement for the Facility was signed in March 2016).
(decreasing compared to the 362.753 in 2016) mainly in Italy (118.874), Spain (27.253) and Greece (29.085), especially from Nigeria (11.3%) and Syria (10.7%). The same decreasing trend is shown by the amount of applications for International Protection20.
IMAGE 1 First time Asylum Applicants (January 2016-September 2017) Source: Eurostat
Germany presents the highest number of first time asylum applicants (28% of the total amount), followed by Italy (20%), France, (14%), Greece (9%) and Spain (5%) but their number at the end of 2017 decreased by -55% compared to the same period of 2016. In any case, it should be taken into account that only Germany, among European States, is included among the top ten major refugee-hosting countries with Turkey, while all the others are countries from developing regions. As a matter of fact at the end of 2016 the population of refugees in the world stood at 17.187.500, and out of the 5.199.900 hosted in Europe, 2.869.400 were welcomed in Turkey21.
20 Data from UNHCR (27/12/2017).
1.2 Asylum and the Italian Legislation
What is the position of Italy in this European legislative context?
The rise of a national legislation concerning asylum and International Protection was the result of a long and discontinuous process. The Art. 10 of the Italian Constitution (1948), establishes that
"Lo straniero, al quale sia impedito nel suo paese l'effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche garantite dalla Costituzione Italiana, ha diritto d'asilo nel territorio della Repubblica, secondo le condizioni stabilite dalla legge22".
Nevertheless, upon signing the Geneva Convention, Italy decided to exclusively apply the measures of reception to other European citizens, excluding third-country applicants. The institution responsible for the evaluation of asylum applications was the Eligibility Commission23. This geographical clause was abolished in 1990 with
the emanation of the Martelli Law that finally allowed citizens of a third country to submit an application for asylum24 (Campomori, 2016).
Moreover, the law implemented the guarantees for beneficiaries of asylum and the procedures of expulsion from the country. Until the emanation of this law, the management of migration flows was disciplined according to the Security Measures adopted in 1932 with the Testo Unico in the field of Security. However, in practice, the Martelli Law actually showed several limits; during the evaluation of the requests, asylum applicants were left alone (economical resources were insufficient and the waiting time to access a first reception centre excessive) and forced to make
22 "The foreigner who is denied in his own country the effective exercise of the democratic liberties guaranteed by the Italian Constitution has the right of asylum in the territory of the Republic, in accordance with the conditions established by law" (English transl. by C. Casonato, J. Woelk). 23 Commissione Paritetica di Eleggibilità (English translation mine), created through an exchange of notes between the Italian Government and the UN High Commissioner in 1952.
24 Law 1990/39 concerning “Urgent norms in matter of asylum, entry and stay of non-EU citizens and regularization of non-EU and stateless citizens already present in the territory of the State”. Through the Martelli Law the Italian policy tried to legislate for the migratory phenomenon. Indeed, it improved the conditions of asylum seekers and started to involve Regions and municipalities in the creation of first reception centres for migrants, but it neglected the measures for the integration of foreigners in the Italian society (Einaudi, 2007).
do with illegal residence on the territory waiting for the emanation of the so called “sanatoria”25 (Einaudi, 2007).
The lack of a relevant legislation was due to the fact that until the Eighties, Italy was above all a State of origin or transit of migratory movements, not a destination country. Nevertheless, in the past Italy had already had to deal with the burden of refugees' arrivals as the result of international crises. The Italian response was to disregard the geographical clause recognising protection also to non European citizens: this was the case of the reception of Chilean citizens in 1973, forced to leave their country after the Putsch of Pinochet (Campomori, 2016).
The emergency aspect is a feature of the Italian way to manage the growing pressure of migratory influx; this implies the adoption of ad hoc measures depending on the situation. For a long time the Italian reception system was supported by the efforts of the so called “third sector” and organisations based on solidarity. But even after the emanation of the Martelli Law, the Italian legislation and its institutions remained unable to deal with these phenomena and the Albanian crisis showed it explicitly in 1991. In that case the attitude of the Italian Government was unsuited to deal with the emergency: in a first time, the Government decided to grant residence permits for humanitarian reasons, disregarding the existing norms, but after a few months it proceeded to refuse migrants the access to borders (Einaudi, 2007).
In 1993 Italy ratified the Schengen26 Agreement, while in 1998 the
Turco-Napolitano27 Law was approved and then included in the "Consolidated Act on
provisions concerning the immigration regulations and foreign National conditions norms”28. The Turco-Napolitano Law was the first attempt to create an organic
regulation on migration. The law was important especially because it established the granting of residence permit for humanitarian reasons (Humanitarian Protection);
25 Until the Eighties Italy was not a country of destination for migration flows. As a matter of fact no legislation on migrations was elaborated. In these years the so called “Sanatoria” (that is a regularization) was the most used instrument to manage the migratory phenomenon: five “Sanatorie” were issued between 1978 and 1995 to rectify irregular situations. This situation promoted the increment of illegal migrations, since migrants were aware of the fact that sooner or later their irregular presence on the Italian territory would be regularised.
26 Law 1993/388 ratifying Schengen Agreement. 27 Law 1998/40.
moreover it created Centres of Temporary Permanence (Centri di Permanenza Temporanea CPT)29 for illegal and irregular immigrants waiting to be expelled from
the country (Einaudi, 2007).
In 1999, once the phenomenon of refugees arriving from Kosovo started, the project “Azione Comune” was launched. It was supported by the EU and by the Interior Ministry, and it involved several actors aiming at the activation of a network of services on the Italian territory in order to deal with refugees' reception. The management of the project was entrusted to the Italian Council for Refugees in coordination with different associations such as Caritas, Casa dei Diritti Sociali (Cds) and the Centro Italiano per l'Educazione allo Sviluppo (Cies). The strengths of the project were several: it favoured the creation of small or medium reception centres; it involved the participation (even if only partially) of local administration; it established common standards for the reception of refugees. In 2000, the participation to the project was extended to all refugees, independently from the Nation of origin (Campomori, 2016).
On the basis of this positive experience, the National Action Plan on Asylum (PNA) was created in 2001 as the result of a Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR, ANCI (Associazione Nazionale Comuni Italiani)30 and the Department for
Civil Liberties and Immigration (Ministry of the Interior). In 2000 the implementation of Italian legislation on International Protection was the result of the adoption of UE Directives31: in particular Italy recognised the Subsidiary Protection
(EMN, 2012).
In 2002 the Bossi-Fini Law came into force, introducing in the Italian reception system several modifications32. The law disciplined the institution of a National Fund
for Asylum Policies and Services and the establishment of Territorial Commissions in charge of the evaluation of asylum applications. Furthermore, thanks to the law, the PNA was incorporated in the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and
29 Temporary Detention Centre.
30 National Association of Italian Municipalities.
31 In addition to the cited "Qualification Decree", it is important to remember the Legislative Decrees 2005/140 and 2008/25.
Refugees (SPRAR)33, nowadays the main feature of the Italian reception system
(EMN, 2012).
Moreover in these years the Italian politics of Bilateral Agreement started; the several agreements with Libya were aimed at prevent migrants from departing the country thanks to the role played by the Libyan Coast Guard. This cooperation, started through the Treaty of Amity between Italy and Libya (2008), cost to Italy a sentence by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2012 (Polchi, 2012).
The new Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2017 to combat illegal migration caused a series of objections, especially after the media divulged the measures of detention used in Libya as a form of migrants “reception”. In the next months, Italy should be held accountable for its decisions both by the EU and ONU (Camilli, 2017).
Lastly, barely over (2013), the “Emergency North Africa” should be mentioned, an organisation founded to deal with the increasing arrivals on Italian shores from 2011. In this case, as in the past, the Italian Government delegated the management of migration flows to the Department of Civil Protection34. It elaborated a Plan for the
Reception of Migrants coming from North Africa that provided for the distribution of people over the national territory on the basis of an equal distribution that took into account also the regional resident population. Different stakeholders took part in the elaboration of the Plan: State, Regions, local authorities and other personalities coming from the national system. The Plan provided for the possibility to accommodate up to 50.000 migrants although, as of December 2012, the people assisted were only 16.84435 (Campomori, 2016).
Which rates of immigration did Italy have to deal with between 1997 and 2016?
33 A clear description of SPRAR is given in Chapter 2. 34 Through the OPCM n 3933 (2013).
IMAGE 2 Migrants arrivals by sea and asylum seekers in Italy (1997-2016) Source: Elaboration of ISMU on data from Ministry of the Interior and UNHCR36
Despite the fact that 2017 saw a reduction in the amount of arrivals by sea compared to 2016 (118.874 arrivals compared to the 181.436 of the previous year), in recent years the rates of arrivals and reception of migrants seem to be excessively high. It is necessary to underline that in recent years the arrivals of migrants seeking for asylum or humanitarian reasons are becoming predominant (overcome only by arrivals for family reunification): in 2016 the arrivals and the requests of residence permit for work purposes were down to a record low, only the 5.7% of the total number of issued permits (the half of 2015) while the permits for protection were the 34% (in 2015 they were only the 28%)37. This situation shows that the composition of
migration flows has changed. Furthermore, data reveals that there is a growing tendency to reject applications for International Protection: in 2013 only the 29% (on 23.634 examined applications, while total amount of requests was of 26.620), was
36 The table reports the amount of arrivals of migrants, the numbers of asylum seekers and the amount of applications examined, from 1997 to 2016.
37 Data from Istat (https://www.istat.it/it/files/2017/10/Cittadini_non_comunitari_Anno2016.pdf?ti-tle=Cittadini+non+comunitari++-+10%2Fott%2F2017+-+Cittadini_non_comunitari_Anno2016.pdf).
rejected while in the 2016 the 60% (compared to the 39% of 2014 and the 58% of 2015). 2016 showed the largest amount of applications, precisely 123.600. However, 2017 seemed to reach a new record: in the first semester of 2017 the applications were 77.44938, 44% more than in the same period of 2016, showing similar rates in
the refusal of requests (from 57% to 61%)39. Both in 2016 and 2017, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Gambia and Senegal remained the main countries of origin of applicants and the most issued residence permits concerned Humanitarian Protection (Ministry of the Interior, 2017).
1.3 Migration Flows in Sicily
Sicily is a land that has always experienced different aspects of migratory phenomenon. It was land of origin of those who emigrated towards Northern Italy and Europe to seek their fortune; a land of arrival and residence, in particular for populations coming from Tunisia in the Sixties and from Eastern European Countries in Nineties; a land of transit for those who, especially today, escape from their countries of origin (in particular from African countries) to seek protection due to the instability of these countries.
The Island experienced foreign immigration since the end of the Sixties with the arrival of workers from Tunisia. They took up residence in the Province of Trapani and found employment in traditional sectors, such as fishing and farming (in the following years, their presence led to the emergence of protests and tensions with the local population, especially in Mazzara del Vallo). In this period the creation of a sort of a migratory chain started: the arrival of workers was followed by the arrivals of their families and of other compatriots (Einaudi, 2007).
Since the Seventies flows from Asia, in particular from the Philippines, have added to these. These flows were mainly composed by women, who were later employed as
38 Report on International Protection in Italy 2017 (Caritas, Italiana, ANCI, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, Central SPRAR Service in collaboration with UNHCR).
39 Data from the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration (Ministry of the Interior, last access: 28/12/2017).
domestic servants. Foreigners gradually began to be employed in those working sectors the Italians rejected, considering them humiliating. During the Eighties, Sicily seemed to be a region of destination and transit, but also a land of emigration for its citizens, and this allowed foreign citizens to play an important role in the economic structure of the Region. Since the Nineties, people from Eastern European countries started to arrive on the island. In these years there was a growing number of forced migrants coming to Sicily especially through channels of illegal immigration. Particularly, the end of the Nineties showed a growing trend in the number of migrants coming by sea to the Sicilian coasts (Castronovo, 2016).
In 2017, 119.247 arrivals affected Italy and a large number of them took place in Sicily: of the 18 Italian harbours affected by arrivals, 8 are in Sicily, 4 in Calabria, 3 in Apulia, 2 in Campania and 1 in Sardinia, as showed by the following figure.
IMAGE 3 Italian harbours affected by the arrivals (2017) Source: Department of Public Safety
Sicily is the first among Italian Islands for number of foreign residents: in 2017 they were 189.169, increasing their number in comparison with the 183.000 of 201640. In
2016, the presence of non-European foreigners amounted to 113.474 persons allocated mainly among the Province of Palermo (22%), Catania (20%), Messina (15.7%) and Ragusa (13.6%). The main countries of origin were Romania, Tunisia,
Morocco e Sri Lanka. The beneficiaries of a residence permit for International Protection or humanitarian reasons were 18.893 (the 28.3% of the total) while the total amount of those who joined a residence permit were 66.764 (2016)41. The
measures adopted at regional level on the reception of migrants are a Regional Decree, that establishes "structural and organisational standards for reception centre of second level reserved to Unaccompanied Minors" and a Comprehensive Plan concerning measures to be adopted in order to facilitate the access of migrants to employment and social integration (the result of an agreement between Regions and General Directorate for Immigration and Policy of Integration, for the years 2014-2020). Despite the lack of organic institutional previsions about immigration, Sicily in practice takes the responsibility to support and give reception to those who enter Italy by sea.
1.4 Conclusive Remarks
Numbers show that Italy, especially Sicily, is nowadays obliged to deal with the migratory phenomenon, being a country of destination for migration flows.
The legal framework on asylum and International Protection, both at European and national level, is permanently in evolution. This creates an unstable system of reference for the reception of migrants in the Italian territory. As a matter of fact, the complexity of the Italian reception system is linked to the features of the existing legislation on the matter. The topic of emergency that characterises the reception system reflects the measures adopted by the policy makers to manage the migration flows that affect Italy.
In view of the existing legislation, once migrants arrive on the Italian coasts where are they accommodated? Which services are they granted? How are they allocated over the Italian territory?
41 Data available at the link http://www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it/leregioni/sicilia/Pagine/Regione-Sicilia.aspx (www.integrazionemigrati.gov.it Vivere e lavorare in Italia, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy).
2. THE SYSTEM OF PERMANENT EMERGENCY
2.1 The Italian Reception System
The institutional overview related to the migrant reception system in Italy is extremely complex and above all, continuously subject to re-adaptation and reorganisation. However I believe that it is important to attempt to clarify this disorienting and confusing subject: the confusion results from the definition of reception centre, which can encompass several aspects, very different from each other. In the following paragraph, I am briefly going to describe the constellation of centres which compose the Italian reception system.
Firstly, it should be underlined that the reception system in Italy adopts a two-tier approach: the First Reception, that includes Hotspot, CPSA (Centro di Primo Soccorso e Accoglienza)42 and collective Centres (CDA-Centri di Assistenza and
CARA-Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo)43, and the Second Reception, the
SPRAR (Sistema di Protezione Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati)44. However, recently
the CAS (Centri di Accoglienza Straordinaria)45 have been introduced in order to
manage the unavailability of places in the second level of reception. When migrants arrive to the Italian coasts, they are first brought to the Hotspot, First Aid and Identification Centre, that is an assembly point for migrants in which health checks, procedures for identification and registration (photo/fingerprint) are done and information activities on the applicable legislation on immigration and International Protection are promoted: then, if the migrant requests it, the procedure for asylum application starts. Hotspots were established in August 201546, although the
42 First Aid and Reception Centre. In the following Chapter, the translations of the acronym of reception centres are reported from websites of Institutional Organisations even if a different terminology is often adopted. In that cases I selected what seems to be similar to the Italian definition. 43 Accommodation Centres and Centres for Accommodation of Asylum Seekers.
44 System of Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees. 45 Extraordinary Reception Centre.
46 Established with Legislative Decree 2015/142 for the Implementation of Directive 2013/33/EU on standards for the reception of asylum applicants and the Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for the recognition and revocation of the status of International Protection.
procedure for their activation has been particularly problematic (in January 2016 only three of the six hotspots expected were running47). Hotspots were accompanied
by the First Aid and Reception Centres (CPSA) which perform the same tasks. Today, these operative centres are set in Lampedusa (Sicily), Pozzallo (Sicily), Trapani (Sicily) and Taranto (Apulia) but, owing to the approval of the Minniti-Orlando Decree48, the creation of new structures is already planned for the near
future. A time limit for the stay of asylum seekers in these centres is not provided by law, since it only provides that they stay “as long as necessary” to complete procedures. This aspect sparked, in the past, several protests towards the long procedures that forced many migrants to remain in these first-reception structures for an excessively long time. The few migrants who do not apply for International Protection are transferred to CPR (Centri di Permanenza e Rimpatrio)49, that have
replaced the older Identification and Expulsion Centres (CIE)50. The law provides an
increment in the number of these centres up to a maximum of 20. The aim is to simplify the procedures to repatriate the so-called economic migrants: in fact, these individuals do not leave their countries of origin for humanitarian reasons, thus their presence on the Italian territory is considered illegal. In these centres may be detained also those applicants who, for different reasons, could be considered dangerous for the public order and the security, or they present the risk of absconding51. A specific legal framework is reserved to the case of unaccompanied
minors: given their particular vulnerability, these minors are reserved, according to the availability of the system, a facilitate access to the SPRAR, even when they are not beneficiaries of International Protection52.
47 Report of the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry on the reception system and identification and expulsion system, as well as on the detention conditions of migrants and on the public resources employed (Doc.XXII-bis, N.6, 3May 2016).
48 Passed on April 2017.
49 Return Detention Centre, definition elaborated by Asylum Information Database (AIDA, last access: 14/01/2018).
50 Identification and Expulsion Centres, created by Law n 40/1998 called also Turco-Napolitano Law. 51 "In the EU context, existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is subject to return procedures may abscond" elaborated by EMN and available on line at the link https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/content/risk-absconding_en.
Asylum seekers, instead, with the exception of the case previously cited, are accompanied in the first 48 hours after their arrival (according to theoretical prescriptions, but what happens in practice is often very different) in First Reception Centres, collective centres also known as Regional Hub. This category includes also CARA and CDA. These centres too are governed by the legislative Decree 2015/142, in which it is specified that here all the procedures for identification, the formalization of asylum application and the start of the examination procedure must be completed (Colombo, 2017).
Once again the law does not provide any temporal term of reference. It is necessary to underline that this system of acronyms is not permanent, nor static; the legislation on reception centres is ever-changing and new forms of centres are continuously introduced, although they often share their functions with the already existing ones. Therefore in the end, there is no a great difference between CARA and Hotspots, or between a First Reception Centre and CAS.
Returning to the path of migrants, applicants can join the SPRAR, a system created through a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2001 by the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior, ANCI and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) that established the PNA, already mentioned in the previous Chapter. In addition to refugees, also those who received Humanitarian and Subsidiary Protection can join the SPRAR. The beneficiaries of Humanitarian and Subsidiary protection are allowed to join the SPRAR for a minimum of six months (extendable to twelve), while asylum applicants are granted accommodation until the ultimate result of the assessment of their application. If their application is rejected, and they do not file an appeal, asylum seekers have to leave the SPRAR system. The applications are examined by the Territorial Commission for the recognition of International Protection; nowadays there are 20 different commissions over the Italian territory. The commission usually evaluates applications through hearings of the asylum seekers. One of the main problems of the Italian reception system is related to the excessively long waiting period between the submission of the protection request and the response of the Territorial Commissions.
The law established that the examination of the application should take place 30 days after its submission and the final result 30 days after the hearing. This does not happen in practice: the system is often under stress because of the great number of applications, thus waiting periods get longer (Surace, 2016).
The main feature of the SPRAR is the creation of a network of reception projects involving several stakeholders (both voluntary sector organisations and local institutions), in order to provide assistance and support to beneficiaries of International Protection. It guarantees an “integrated reception” and the development of personalized programmes of integration, in order to go beyond the provision of board and lodging. The aim is to promote a process of empowerment of those people who are hosted in the reception system. The ultimate goal is to give them self-autonomy, and to improve their integration in the Italian society. The integration process is promoted through ten pillars, considered indispensable services: linguistic-cultural mediation, social assistance, health specialist assistance, job placement services, training services, legal guidance and information, material reception conditions, housing services in local communities, placing minors in the schooling system, orientation and guidance to the local services53. The system is coordinated by
the Central Service, established with the support of the Ministry of the Interior and entrusted to ANCI. Local authorities are willing to take part in the reception system, applying (through a public notice) to access the National Fund for Asylum policies and services, controlled by the Ministry of the Interior. In case of positive result of the evaluation, local authorities will publish a call for proposal in order to select the projects and the managing body for the reception.
However the ability of the system to offer reception facilities is too low compared to the number of applicants for International Protection; this situation is caused by the limited expansion of SPRAR and creates a permanent emergency state. This is the reason why in 2014 the Italian legislation established, through Ministerial Circulars, CAS, Extraordinary Reception Centres. Contrary to the SPRAR, the creation of CAS depends exclusively on the Prefecture. The Prefect selects the place and the adequate
53 Decree of the Ministry of the Interior (10August 2016) containing the arrangements for local authorities to access to National Fund for Asylum policies and services.
building to set up the centre, choosing among the privates who offer to host refugees; furthermore, the Prefect chooses the cooperative that will manage the reception centre. These dispositions depend on the fact that the CAS is a temporary and extraordinary centre and the procedure of activation are supposed to be rapid compared to the SPRAR. However the CAS has to grant a series of services such as: board, laundry service, transport service, communication service, psycho-social assistance, legal information and activities to support integration54. In this case the
promotion of integration is limited to the activation of an Italian language course, information about Italian territory and society, and the planning of leisure activities. It is clear, then, that temporary centres offer lower standards in terms of reception if they are compared to the SPRAR. Theoretically, the CAS is not a centre of first reception, but it is a temporary solution to host those who are waiting to be assigned to the SPRAR. However, practice shows a different situation: because of inefficiency in the managing of the reception centres, the system is always overflowing, and the CAS, from temporary solution, has nowadays become a permanent accommodation for a large part of those who apply for International Protection (Colombo, 2017). Another important difference between the SPRAR and the CAS shall be stressed: the system of allocation of refugees over the Italian territory. To support a proper and equal allocation, the SPRAR is provided with a system of distribution based on demographic proportionality. The Ministry of the Interior developed a National Plan for the allocation of applicants for International Protection defying, at the regional level, a percentage of benchmark. On the basis of this percentage, to each Region is assigned an amount of accommodation to grant in the SPRAR network depending on the percentage of access to the National Fund for Social Policies55. The distribution
on a local level is based on this quota, and it is determined as the following scheme shows.
54 Scheme of tender dossier for the management of immigration reception centres (as an attachment of the Decree n 13 signed by the Minister of the Interior Minniti in February 2017).
55 Agreement between ANCI, UPI and Conference of Regions (2014) and Agreement concerning Criteria for Regional allocation between Government, Regions and local authorities (2014).
IMAGE 4 SPRAR National Plan for the allocation of applicants in the Italian municipalities SOURCE: SPRAR Central System56
In 2016, an agreement developed by ANCI and the Government established a standard amount of 2.5 applicants every 1000 residents. The fact that the criterion takes into account the demographic dimension of each municipality favours the process of integration. This depends on the fact that often, when the number of guests is too high compared to the local population, citizens perceive reception as a form of invasion. The principle adopted is to limit the number of people hosted in each municipality, and at the same to subsidize all the Italian local authorities to take part of the system. The objective is to promote a real integration in local communities. During the foundation of CAS these considerations are set aside, since the priority is to allocate as many people as possible on the territory; the criterion followed concerns exclusively the availability of buildings for the establishment of these temporary centres. This situation often implies a disproportionate amount of guests compared to local population, making it more difficult not only to manage the reception, but also to improve their integration. The Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration specified that the guiding principle in the reception of migrants is to
56 The image shows the distribution criteria adopted for the allocation of migrants over the Italian territory: villages that count until 2000 residents have to host a fixed rate of 6 migrants; towns that count more than 2000 residents have to host a number of migrants elaborated on the basis of a Regional distribution keeping into account the percentage of access to the National Fund for Social Policies; towns of Metropolitan area have to host an amount of 2.0 migrants every 1000 residents.
consider integration as a complex process, starting from the first level of reception. This is specified by the National Plan of Integration for Beneficiaries of International Protection (Ministry of the Interior, 2017). But, in practice, the promotion of the process of integration remains an exclusive feature of the second reception and it is granted only to those “lucky”, ones who are able to join the SPRAR system (Colombo, 2017).
As seen in the previous pages, there is an imbalance between the applicants for International Protection and the capacity of the SPRAR to host them. The Government reaffirmed several times the necessity that Italian municipalities endorse to the system. Indeed, the SPRAR would allow to manage the reception in an orderly and organized way. In order to support the participation of local authorities the law provides encouraging measures such as the safeguard clause57: local authorities that
adopt the SPRAR or that express the will to participate are not obliged to adopt additional reception systems. The strength of this clause is linked to the fact that nowadays, local authorities are intimidated by the possibility of the establishment of a CAS in their town. As a matter of fact, they would not be able to control and limit the amount of migrants, nor to decide where to establish the centre; this would certainly lead to protests and tensions within the local population. For a lot of Mayors this possibility could not be advantageous from an electoral and political point of view (Colombo, 2017).
Despite the measures adopted in legislation, numbers show that CAS is nowadays in Italy the most used tool through which the State deals with the reception issue. This is dangerous, since it produces a disorganized and unbalanced system. Indeed, according to data, the SPRAR system is currently able to host 27.506 persons, in addition to 3.110 minors and 654 persons with disabilities or mental disorders for a total of 31.270 beneficiaries. They are allocated through 775 projects managed by local administrations, Provinces, Unions of Municipalities, Mountain Communities
57 Introduced by a Directive of the Ministry of the Interior concerning Norms for the start of a sustainable system of allocation for asylum seeker and refugees on national territory through the SPRAR (11October 2016).
and other bodies. 1.100 local authorities are involved in the system58. The CAS
instead, host 137.218 individuals all over the Italian territory (73% of the total)59. In
the first semester of 2016 the beneficiaries of the SPRAR were 23.496, and those of CAS were 96.701; CAS experimented an increment of presences in the amount of 40.517 units60.
In Sicily, the projects of SPRAR are 111, of which 13 take place in the Province of Messina (2 in Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, 1 in Capo D'Orlando, 1 in Castroreale, 1 in Fondachelli Fontina, 3 in Messina, 2 in Milazzo, 1 in Montalbano Elicona, 1 in Pace del Mela and 1 in Rodì Milici) for a total of 6.853 beneficiaries over the territory61.
Sicily hosts the 19.4% of beneficiaries hosted in Italy (the second Region is Lazio which hosts the 19.3%). The CAS in the Region hosted 4.593 beneficiaries, the 3.3% of those hosted at national level (in this case, the leaders are Piedmont and Campania with 13.077 and 12.987 presence).
58 Data available on-line on the database of SPRAR Central System. Last access: 15 January 2018, http://www.sprar.it/progetti-territoriali?sort_order=id+asc.
59 Data refers to the end of 2016 and is available in the Report on International Protection in Italy (2017) elaborated by ANCI, Caritas Italiana, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, SPRAR Central Service in cooperation with UNHCR. For the sake of completeness, the Oxfam Report “The Italian Lottery of Reception. The system of the permanent emergency” published on the 8thof November 2017 estimates
the presence in the CAS at 136.477. 60 Ibid.
61 Ibid. This data is significant because Gioiosa Marea, where I conducted my research, is a village in the Province of Messina. As a matter of fact, the presence of reception centres in the Province is important because it implies that the citizens of Gioiosa are constantly aware of what happens in the neighbouring villages where reception centres are already established.
2.2 Reception Centres and Spatial Arrangements
The world of centres that compose the Italian reception system is complex and the differences between various types of centres are not very evident. This is caused by several limits of legislative regulations, and also by the scarce ability to manage the centres. Indeed, in practice, it is possible to identify common critical points in the dimension of the centre.
Firstly, the existence of reception centres is legitimate on the basis of two precepts: Emergency and Impermanence62. They are places in which ordinary laws are
interrupted in the name of the Emergency. This implies that the available spaces are impersonal and sterile, created not for the comfort of people hosted, but to respond only to material necessities (distribute meals, ensure sleeping accommodation, and so on). These places are also considered as temporary, so hosted people are compelled to live in a state of uncertainty and pending, especially when waiting for the residence permit (Paone, 2008).
These issues are pointed out by the definition that Michel Agier gives of the centres. He affirms that centres and camps are
“[...] spazi minimalisti perché rivelano l'emergenza umanitaria o sicuritaria, spazi in forma di deserto di sensi, non sono mai pensati come un mondo possibile di relazioni sociali e politiche che creano una comunità fra gli umani63” (Italian transl. by Sonia Paone)
Centres of reception can be seen as the non-places identified by Marc Augé: in these spaces there is a lack of social and cultural connections among people, depending on the fact that they do not share a common identity; besides, between the place and the history and the culture of each person, there are no links. These spaces are
62 The term “Impermanence” is used to highlight the fact that reception centres are not permanent accommodation for migrants, who, theoretically, will have to leave the system of reception sooner or later. This is the reason why the centres are not designed to give them a sense of stability.
63 "[…] minimalist spaces, since they unveil the humanitarian and security emergency; spaces void of feelings, they are unsuited for creating a world of social and political relations in which a community of human beings can be established” (English translation mine).
