"Camps should be an emergency solution, not a permanent place to live": how border closure policies generate exiles camps in Europe.

In Europe, since 2015, exiles camps have multiplied and transformed into permanent waiting zones where rights are suspended. Juliette Cailloux, managing director of the Observatory of Refugee Camps (O-CR), tells us about the political mechanisms at stake behind the encampment phenomenon. 

For the past 10 years, since the beginning of the reception crisis, exiles camps have been developing across Europe. How are they distributed, how have they evolved, and why? 

The encampment phenomenon in Europe has intensified since 2015. Their geographical repartition has been shaped by border control policies and the lack of solidarity among European states in receiving exiled people. The O-CR has created a map of encampment sites, which shows a high concentration of camps along external borders: the Greek islands, the Balkan border, the Spanish enclaves, and strategic crossing points such as the camps in Calais and Grande-Synthe, or the French-Italian border. 

In 10 years, the numbers have tripled: at the time, there were approximately 50,000 people living in camps, while we are reaching 150,000 today. This is due to European political choices: Europe is pushing migration management back to its borders. The “hotspots“, which were initially intended to be temporary centers, have become permanent camps. When displaced people try to move towards other European countries, the lack of solidarity mechanisms between states and the inability to apply for asylum in their country of destination traps them in informal settlements. Many camps are also found in transit zones, along migratory routes. 

European policies, especially the recent Pact on Migration and Asylum, are regularly criticized for their lack of ambition and coordination between European countries regarding reception. What are the consequences on the encampment phenomenon? 

The lack of legal pathways to European territory forces people onto dangerous, informal, and costly migratory routes, which fuels the encampment phenomenon. Upon arrival, people are often directed towards “hotspots” and held in closed centers, sometimes for several months. In those detention centers, located in countries of first entry such as Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Spain, fundamental rights are suspended. Without proper relocation mechanisms to other member states where their asylum applications can be processed, these states bear a disproportionate responsibility, and populations are held within their borders instead of being welcomed across other countries of the European Union. 

Unlike camps administered by UN organisations seen in other parts of the world, European camps appear to be mostly informal and self-managed, sometimes even originating from hotspots organised by European states. What about their management and internal organization? 

The O-CR investigates a variety of camp forms: refugee camps, asylum seeker camps, camps for internally displaced persons, and informal camps. This broad approach is essential: it is defended and theorized by Michel Agier in his book “A World of Camps“, and it explains that encampment takes various forms but is always based on the same logic of exclusion and control. 

“Official” camps have limited spots, far exceeding the number of people they receive; this overcrowding is a regular and documented problem. Thousands of people sleep next to the camp or in extensions that no one can see—informal camps. As soon as one leaves the official camp, there is no longer any State responsibility, therefore no obligation to provide water, electricity, or sanitation, and no accountability to NGOs or media. 

Self-governance systems are very common, arising from the shortcomings of the States. People develop alternative systems for food distribution, schools, or healthcare. These are essential capacities for resistance and solidarity, but they do not make up for the abandonment of States.

What consequences does life in camps have on exiled people and their integration? 

Exiles face a migratory journey fraught with violence, from their departure to their arrival in camps. Denying access to the most fundamental rights inflicts further trauma, leading to mental health problems that can persist for years after they leave the camps, and that often go untreated. 

Regarding integration, exiles often lose their professional qualifications in the camps. They spend years without access to information, without using their skills, without learning the language of the country. Children growing up in these camps also suffer this exclusion: the suspension of their education can jeopardise their future and perpetuates marginalisation. Camps are not waiting rooms for integration, but a process of lasting marginalisation that destroys social ties, abilities, and self-esteem of people in exile.

How does the encampment phenomenon contribute to the process of rendering exiled people invisible? 

Encampment renders both visible and invisible: everyone knows that camps exist, but no one wants to see what really happens there. It is this void that the Observatory of Refugee Camps attempts to fill. The invisibility is geographical, since the camps are located in isolated areas: islands, industrial zones, forests. There is also a legal invisibility: fundamental rights are suspended in places that have no legal standing. 

In the media, the encampment issue oscillates between over-reporting and omission: catastrophic articles are often seen during crises, which then fall into complete oblivion. The media’s temporality prevents a structural understanding of the phenomenon: public opinion is kept in the realm of emotion rather than analysis, and people are dehumanised by talking about flows and figures, without any media representation of what they are experiencing. 

In your opinion, what concrete actions should be taken to put an end to this encampment process and its consequences? 

Our goal is not to eliminate every camp, but to fight the logic of encampment that transforms these spaces into lasting areas of control, marginalisation, and abandonment. We call for temporary reception and transit sites with a human rights-based approach. Existing camps should not be dismantled, but legal pathways to European territory must be opened (with humanitarian visas or protection corridors), which would allow to curb camps outside European borders. Enabling people living in European camps to reach other Member States, through a solidarity mechanism, is also necessary to reduce the number of camps within Europe. 

On another topic : 

Malta: a breeding ground for a dangerous and repressive migration policy

In Spain, a new regularisation campaign goes against the European retreat

Egypt adopts its first-ever asylum law, without improving the current system