Lesvos: How EU asylum policy created a refugee prison in paradise

But there is little trace of this hospitable atmosphere today, seven years later.

‘This is no longer the island we grew up on. The refugee crisis acted as a catalyst for all aspects of our society; it brought out the best of us at the beginning, when locals showed spontaneous solidarity to Syrians arriving by boats in 2015. But this protracted situation has turned Lesvos into a toxic political space, a “refugee warehouse” where the EU and the Greek government are testing their anti-immigration policies, letting the far right to spread fear and misinformation among us’, said Christos¹, a local teacher who has been involved in citizen-led initiatives promoting the rights of refugees.

Many local interviewees echo the view that regional policies are impacting their lives without having a say in how these are shaped.

Even though arrivals have significantly dropped since the height of the so-called refugee crisis and Lesvos is currently hosting less than 1,500 asylum seekers,² they are forced to stay on the island until their asylum claim is decided – except in rare cases where this restriction is lifted. Locals and refugees have been protesting for years against this policy and the creation of new refugee camps. Although their political motives vary, their message is clear: Lesvos does not want to be Europe’s ‘refugee warehouse’.

Lesvos is one of five Aegean islands hosting EU-funded ‘asylum hotspots’ that are used as a buffer zone between Turkey and Europe. Since the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, thousands of asylum seekers have been trapped on these islands on their way to Europe.

‘I feel really hopeless waiting in this camp for more than three years now. I want to get out of the camp, I want to finish school, go to university, have a good job, and have a normal life, be a normal person, a free person.’ Anis, an 18-year-old Afghan woman living with her family in Lesvos’ refugee camps while waiting for a positive asylum decision.

For refugees and asylum seekers in Greece, getting ‘back to normal’ can take anything from months to years, during which they live in substandard conditions, without sufficient access to medical care, housing, work or education – let alone integration within society.

Seven years on from the 2015 spike in arrivals, it is unclear who should be held accountable for the ongoing human rights violations on the Greek islands and whether an alternative asylum policy is feasible.³

There is a growing gap between realities on the ground and the top-down asylum policies designed by European Union (EU) institutions for implementation in these hotspots. While these policies are often presented as purely operational, the disregard for political processes and the exclusion of local communities not only renders these policies unsustainable, but also fuels political tensions and a climate of distrust.

As a paradise that has also become a place of such suffering, the case of Lesvos shows how violating the human rights of some people affects society as a whole and damages overall trust in political institutions.

The EU’s Common European Asylum System (CEAS) sets out who qualifies for international protection and covers all aspects of the asylum process. A key part of CEAS is the Dublin Regulation that determines which member state is responsible for examining an asylum application. This is usually the country through which an asylum seeker first arrives in the EU, a rule which has led to an uneven distribution of asylum seekers among member states and shifted responsibility towards countries at the EU’s external borders, including Greece and Italy.⁴

Despite efforts to reform the dysfunctional Dublin system, the EU has been unable to adopt a solidarity mechanism for the fair allocation of asylum seekers across member states. Apart from a short-lived emergency relocation scheme, established in 2015 to relieve pressure on Italy and Greece, it has been impossible to reach political agreement. As explained during an interview with a senior Greek government official who has taken part in such negotiations: ‘Even though top destination countries were open to calls for responsibility-sharing by the ‘Mediterranean front’, there has been strong opposition by the Visegrad countries and others with low levels of asylum applications’. 

The EU’s failure to introduce solidarity and responsibility-sharing in its asylum policy has strained the capacity of the countries at Europe’s external borders and discouraged them from building well-functioning asylum systems. Due to this political stalemate, the EU has increased its efforts to externalize migration flows through agreements with countries of origin and transit – such as Turkey and Libya – aiming to prevent asylum seekers from arriving in exchange for development aid and other incentives.

As a result of the EU-Turkey deal, Lesvos and other Greek islands near the Turkish coast have become open-air prisons for refugees and migrants. Those arriving from Turkey by boat are placed under ‘geographical restriction’, whereby they cannot leave the islands or travel to mainland Greece until their asylum cases are concluded or the restriction is lifted due to exceptional circumstances. Turkey has also suspended readmissions from Greece since March 2020, meaning thousands of people have been trapped in appalling conditions on Lesvos.

Acting as the gatekeeper of ‘Fortress Europe’, Greece has hardened its stance on both asylum and border control, using legislative reforms, increased use of detention, barriers to access asylum as well as illegal pushback practices to keep refugees out, often with the help or tolerance of Frontex,⁵ the EU’s border agency. In an increasingly securitized approach to asylum and migration across Europe, asylum seekers are framed as potential security threats to justify measures to prevent their arrival and outsource responsibility for refugees to neighbouring countries.

Presented as a model for joint migration management, the pilot mainly concerns the creation of a new camp on Lesvos but also deals with matters such as the management of arrivals, reception conditions, asylum and return procedures, and integration measures.

During interviews, EU officials confirmed that asylum policies first implemented on Lesvos have already acted as a blueprint for other EU border regions.

The Pact crystallized Lesvos’s role as a testing ground for EU asylum and migration policies – often at the expense of human rights and the rule of law. Indeed, many of the policies and practices first implemented on the island were codified in the Pact, including the systematic containment of asylum seekers in border zones, unlawful expulsions, and the introduction of derogations from legality for member states under ‘migratory pressure’ – such as the suspension of asylum applications following a political crisis at the Greece-Turkey border in March 2020.

At the same time, EU agencies such as Frontex and the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) are increasingly deployed to Lesvos and other hotspots, with an ever-expanding operational mandate.⁶

‘Frontex’s preparedness to respond in the border crisis between Belarus and Lithuania/Poland can be credited to the expansion of its operational capacity, as applied on Lesvos and other hotspots’, mentioned one of the Commission representatives interviewed for this piece.⁷ Many of these expanded powers were first tested on Lesvos, and subsequently included in their official mandates through legislative reforms. This has led to an increasing integration between EU and national levels in implementing asylum and migration policies and a deepening ‘Europeanization’ in these areas.

Border control with impunity – the case of Frontex

In the case of Lesvos, Frontex has been working alongside the Greek coastguard to control Greece’s sea border with Turkey and is also responsible for the coordination of return operations. Its powers, budget and staff numbers were significantly increased with the adoption of a new Frontex regulation in 2019

Despite this, its accountability processes⁹ fall short of holding the agency accountable for human rights violations. The participation of multiple actors in Frontex operations and the secrecy surrounding them, obscures the lines of responsibility and shifts the blame onto member states. The ongoing investigations into the involvement of Frontex in well-documented pushback operations by the Greek coastguard – which led to the resignation of its director – are an illustrative example of this flawed design, which perpetuates a culture of impunity.

On Lesvos and in other hotspots, Frontex has been accused of systemic human rights violations during the asylum screening process. Even though the agency is actively involved in the registration of asylum seekers, its role remains largely unregulated without transparent procedures or safeguards in place.¹⁰

Asylum processing: the all-powerful EUAA

The EUAA (formerly EASO) plays a crucial role in the processing of asylum applications on Lesvos and throughout Greece, including conducting interviews and issuing advisory opinions which – albeit non-binding – heavily influence the final decision made by the Greek asylum service.

While the EUAA support has significantly strengthened the administrative capacity of Greek authorities, the impact of its involvement on the quality of asylum procedures has been troubling.¹¹

Despite complaints about the EUAA acting outside its mandate and violating the fundamental and procedural rights of asylum seekers, it has not been possible to hold the agency accountable through traditional judicial review procedures or alternative avenues, such as making a complaint to the European Ombudsman. Even though the ombudsman concluded that EASO had overstepped its competences, the inquiry was closed on the basis that future EU legislation would remedy these concerns.

Indeed, its de facto expanded powers were subsequently solidified: first by Greek legislation and a few years later at EU level, when EASO was transformed into the EUAA, a fully-fledged EU agency. Nonetheless, the ombudsman’s decision is a stark reminder that the implementation of EU asylum and migration policies is often tainted by a lack of respect for the rule of law and a lack of accountability.

Can the operational truly be separated from the political?

‘Our role on Lesvos is purely operational: to support local authorities in avoiding emergency situations and oversee the use of EU funds for the improvement of reception conditions’, stated a representative of the European taskforce on the island during an interview. He underlined that ‘the situation can get normalized through efficient management’, adding that ‘we do not interfere in the political debate’.

While it is true that EU institutions and bodies are tasked with operational and financial support for Greece and other refugee-receiving member states, experience from the ground proves that these decisions also carry significant political weight.The complex mosaic of joint implementation of asylum policy by Greek and EU authorities means it is difficult to trace responsibility for ‘operational’ decisions that also have a significant policy impact. A good example is the deployment of a European taskforce to Lesvos, responsible for improving reception conditions and overseeing all procedural matters falling under EU asylum policy, including the construction of the new refugee camp.

During the interviews, Greek officials described the taskforce’s involvement as an ‘incredible level of micromanagement’ in all operational aspects relating to the camp, such as location, infrastructure, applicable procedures and security.

While such co-management takes place within the framework of the joint pilot on Lesvos – coordinated by EU, national, and local authorities – when it comes to enforcing laws, as well as political and social accountability, the lines quickly become blurred. Greek politicians defer to their EU counterparts when defending policies relating to the new camp – a matter of significant importance and political sensitivity for the local population. EU officials, on the other hand, argue their role is purely operational and deflect the political criticism back to the national authorities.

As the Lesvos humanitarian crisis drags on, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish the operational implementation from the political choices and processes underpinning them.

‘The government needs to earn the trust of local communities. We should have been included in the dialogue between Europeans¹² and the regional and municipal authorities, as we have lived experience of the issues. Bringing the riot police was the wrong move; nothing good ever comes of violence’ said Yannis Mastroyannis, president of the Moria municipal community.

In interviews, local actors, including representatives of local authorities, NGOs and civil society, were unanimous about the lack of consultation when designing and implementing migration policies on the island.

While there were different political views and therefore different reasons for opposing these policies – from wanting dignified conditions for asylum seekers and peaceful coexistence, to xenophobic and nationalistic reflexes – most reached the same conclusion regarding their treatment by policymakers: ‘they decide for us without us’.

‘There has been no substantive consultation with the local population. The decisions are pre-determined by the European Commission and imposed on us with the help of the Greek government’, stated the regional governor Costas Moutzouris.

Although regional and municipal authorities across the Eastern Aegean islands are affiliated to the ruling New Democracy party, they oppose government plans for new camps and support the demands of local populations. This has caused tension on Lesvos in particular, where the municipal council accepted the government’s proposal for a new camp by a narrow majority – and despite complaints about the decision-making process – while the regional governor has stood firm in his opposition to the plans.

While a Commission representative admitted that ‘the inclusion of locals is a controversial subject’,¹³ he argued that consultation is the responsibility of the national government. Despite the EU’s commitment to inclusive governance and its obligation to consult with local authorities and communities for the joint pilot on Lesvos, the Commission insists on its narrative of a purely operational role and shifts the political responsibility onto national policymakers.

‘Showing that migration can be managed will help to tackle political tensions and secure the consensus of local society’, said the same Commission interviewee, revealing a shallow understanding of the complex politics permeating Lesvos’ reaction to regional asylum policies. As noted by a Greek official,¹⁴ the EU Commission has a ‘colonial mindset’ when dealing with national and local authorities, expecting the swift implementation of its policies without paying due attention to existing national rules or political realities.

In addition, the space for civil society is shrinking. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and citizens’ initiatives have been targeted by increasingly restrictive government measures that prevent them from carrying out humanitarian work – or even criminalizes it. Organizations active on Lesvos say that access to the temporary refugee camp is extremely restricted and only granted to charities that collaborate with the government, while many foreign charities cannot register and operate in Greece at all due to the mounting administrative hurdles.

Worryingly, in this environment of shrinking civic space, the voices of refugees and asylum seekers themselves are muted. Residents of the camp revealed that the camp’s management does not allow them to speak out against living conditions or any violation of their rights. The same was confirmed by local lawyers and NGOs, who had difficulties obtaining evidence and testimonies by asylum seekers who had been victims of abuse, including survivors of violent pushback operations.

The deal and other exclusionary policies of ‘Fortress Europe’ – including illegal pushback practices – may have contributed to a significant reduction in the number of people arriving, but the narrative of ‘efficient migration management’ promoted by Brussels and the Greek government has not eased political tensions.

Seeing a new mega-camp being built without any prospect of intra-EU solidarity, residents worry Lesvos will become a place solely for confinement of refugees with dire consequences for the development of local communities.

‘The protracted humanitarian emergency, combined with the exclusion of local communities from decision-making has created an atmosphere of hostility towards refugees and distrust of the government and the EU institutions.’ says Marios Andriotis, local political scientist who has worked as an adviser to the former mayor of Mytilene and the UNHCR. 

The growing anti-immigrant sentiment among locals stands in sharp contrast to the welcoming attitudes observed during the refugee arrivals in 2015-16. Conservative politicians and the far right have used and amplified this trend, creating a deepening polarization between pro-immigration locals and civil society on the one hand, and those opposing immigration altogether on the other.

Despite this increasing polarization, activists on both sides have temporarily united in a common struggle against the containment of refugees on the island and the building of new structures. In 2020, the Greek government tried to suppress large protests by locals against the construction of the new camp, resulting in violent clashes with riot police. A powerful and heterogeneous movement has now emerged, comprising people with different political views and from different socio-economic backgrounds, often joined by asylum seekers protesting the restrictive immigration policies keeping them on Lesvos for years.

Protests by locals and refugees have become more widespread, obstructing the construction of the new camp, which is to be built in a remote area next to a landfill site and a large pine forest prone to wildfires. In January 2022, protesters prevented the ship carrying excavators and other construction equipment from docking. The construction has been halted several times and the camp will not be ready before the end of 2022, even though it was originally envisaged to be operational by September 2021.

Both the EU and national policymakers have disregarded alternative proposals put forward by the local communities and civil society regarding asylum management and the location and functions of the new camp. More strikingly, the Greek government has closed all alternative accommodation on the island, including the well-run PIKPA camp, despite the public outcry.

‘Both the EU authorities and the Greek government present the situation as “either the new camp or chaos”, said Christos, a local teacher. Invoking the rhetoric of ‘There is no alternative’ and implementing EU asylum policies on the island without prior public consultation or real accountability pathways has excluded local agency and resulted in a climate of distrust towards political institutions on a local, national, and EU level.

This distrust is further increased by the EU’s inability to build a sustainable asylum system and reflects the broader European stalemate on asylum and migration policies. Even though the EU Commission admitted in September 2020 that ‘the current system no longer works, and for the past five years the EU has not been able to fix it’; six years after the 2016 reform proposals, existing EU asylum laws are systematically violated while the Pact remains under negotiation.

Europe’s unwillingness to share responsibility for refugees has given rise to increasingly restrictive and security-driven policies of questionable legality and accountability. This approach not only harms people seeking asylum but also causes a more general issue of political distrust, which threatens both democracy and the EU’s ability to design sustainable systems in the future.

The failure to adopt fair and inclusive asylum policies and the patterns of joint implementation by the Greek government and the EU have also raised issues of responsibility and accountability, undermining the rule of law and trust in democracy and political institutions.

Despite the Commission’s promise there would be ‘no more camps like Moria’, European core values of democracy and respect for human rights continue to drown on the shores of Lesvos. The EU must protect the safety and rights of people reaching its borders and move towards fairer responsibility-sharing for refugees, but it must also include local communities when creating policies that affect their lives. With the support of the Greek central government, EU policymakers need to establish genuine consultation mechanisms that empower locals to create collective responses.

Regaining local trust is vital not only for building what the EU Commission calls an ‘efficient asylum system’, but also for respecting and promoting democracy. As the EU increases its role in local migration management, it must ensure that what has happened on Lesvos is not replicated elsewhere.