title: Balkan Refugee Trail – A Pathway for European Solidarity
title: Crisis of Solidarity and Responsibility? A Multinational Analysis of Civil Society Contribution 2015 – 2017
titleType: Subtitle
Creators: name: Avgeri, Danai
name: Davidovska, Aleksandra
name: Marić, Sena
name: Nabergoj, Miha
name: Nagy, Victor
name: Oikonomou, Spyros Vlad
name: Pantović, Anđelka
name: Schreilechner, Anna
name: Stojanović, Jana
name: Traeger, Erin
name: Vidović, Tea
name: Vinčić, Jovana
Publisher: name: interkulturelles Zentrum
Year: 2017
Subjects: migrants
Balkan route
refugees
CSO

description: In the framework of the transnational project Balkan Refugee Trail – A Pathway for European Solidarity, representatives of eight partner NGOs – asylkoordination österreich, Asylum Protection Center (APC/CZA), Center for Peace Studies (CMS), Greek Council for Refugees, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Interkulturelles Zentrum (IZ), Legis and the Legal-Informational Centre for NGOs (PIC) – from seven countries along the so-called “Western Balkan route” conducted research and interviews or established focus groups in order to gain a deeper knowledge and to gather insights into the current situation of refugees and civil society’s role and activities in the field of asylum, refugees, and integration during the period from mid-2015 until mid-2017. In this report, the preliminary outcomes are portrayed.

During the large-scale influx of refugees, coined by many as “refugee crisis”, in the months between August 2015 and March 2016, before the Balkan route was officially closed, governments made unprecedented political arrangements to allow transit from Greece to Germany along the so-called Western Balkan route. Then, as well as during the following crisis – one that could be referred to as a political crisis and a “crisis of responsibility and solidarity” – civil society not only across Europe, but worldwide rose and showed its support for those fleeing wartorn, insecure, and hostile regions. At that time, it felt that especially the months between mid-August 2015 and early 2016 would have been simply unmanageable without the intervention and active presence of the so-called plural sector – from longstanding NGOs and grassroots initiatives to activist groups and volunteers – from day one onwards who assumed responsibility and advocated and stood up for refugees’ rights – a feeling which was also retrospectively ascertained by many scholars and experts.

National country reports were gathered and comparisons with regard to differences were drawn. Thereby, the authors attempt to provide an overall perspective on the current situation of refugees as well as on the outcomes, changes, discrepancies, trends, and consequences result1 Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Austria ing from the large-scale influx of refugees. Moreover, the report strives to shed light on civil society’s role and impact as well as the challenges encountered during the so-called “refugee crisis” as well as during the time after the official closure of the Balkan route. The examination at hand is accompanied by voices of representatives of civil society initiatives – voices that are often not heard by the public, especially those voices of smaller, but essential initiatives and/or volunteers, who have been socially engaged and dedicated.

In order to come closer to those voices, the project partners conducted narrative problem-centered interviews with NGO and civil society initiative representatives and/or refugees or respectively applied the method of focus groups with representatives of state bodies or civil society organizations of different sizes and spectrums. As the capacity of this compiled overall report is limited, the outcomes, inputs, and expertise gained from these interviews are only accompanying this examination, which is, nevertheless, primarily based upon conducted research and gained experiences. To this end, the authors attempt to provide overview answers to the following questions:

• What were the most incisive measures, the positive approaches, the changes, and the restrictions within the respective national asylum systems between mid-2015 and mid-2017?

• How did civil society respond to the large-scale influx of refugees in 2015/2016?

• What forms of coordination and cooperation mechanisms were used among civil society as well as with state institutions and representatives?

• Which kinds of services, activities, and care were provided to those arriving or transiting, in general to those who were seeking protection, during the so-called “refugee crisis” of 2015/2016?

• What forms of advocacy and public opinion activities have been undertaken by civil society actors?

• In what way did the activities and the role of civil society change after the closure of the “Balkan route”? How did measures of cooperation, coordination, and civil society initiative continue, evolve or discontinue?

• How is European solidarity perceived by civil society along the “Balkan route”?