In 2015, more than 1 million people fleeing conflicts and persecutions arrived in Europe. Now, in countries like Greece, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia, increasing border controls and scrutiny of targeted checks keep the majority of migrants that do not come from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq at the borders.

 

This crisis demands political, humanitarian and legal responses. Anxiety among the migrants, ambition to travel up to Northern Europe and political demands for raising barriers of entrance clash with one another. As this were not enough, there isn’t any coordinated emergency plan to ensure all refugees, particularly non-Syrians, not to stuck in border bottlenecks. It is also insecure people’s access to adequate humanitarian aid.

 

European asylum system is facing a fatal crisis. For women, this comes to be even worse. Women-asylum-seekers have been neglected by the international community for too long. Recently, Amnesty International and UNHCR have reported gender based violence, which women are facing all along the journey to Europe and in the transit centers. Shelters are overburdened, there is no separation between men, women and even children.

 

Against this, action in concert of sovra-national institutions and national governments is imperative.

 

So far, regardless the existence of a common european asylum system, there are significant differences among countries in the continent, especially for gender-related issues. Generally, member states tend to be gender-oriented. Nevertheless, this dimension is partial and not binding. As a matter of fact, several countries are still to ratify (and sign) the Istanbul Convention, which demands governments to implement a gendered perspective while addressing reception conditions.

 

The Art. 18/9 of the Directive on Reception prescribes that, in front of such a strong pressure in the reception centers, a member state is in the position to provide asylum seekers with the minimum requirements. Clearly, what makes ‘a requirement’ as good as ‘a minimum requirement’ is far from being clear. Should water, food, medicines and clothes be included among the minimum requirements? What about special accommodation for single women and unaccompanied children? There is a pressing need for new guidelines. We need policies, programs and services, which are gender-oriented. They must protect women and girls in vulnerable conditions. A long journey as well as the need to compensate the smugglers with sexual performances due to the lack of economic resources make women especially vulnerable.

 

To this, a decision of the Council gives priority to the most vulnerable people. Again, what makes a ‘person’ be ‘a vulnerable person’ is far from being clear. Moreover, human beings do not want to be identified as vulnerable. This brings additional problems. What to do with people who are not willing to cooperate? Should we restrict their freedom of movement by detention? Despite their being needy fo special protection, should we relocate them as we do with the others?

 

UNCHR and UNWomen suggest that women and girls at risk should have priority in accessing the hotspots for a proper identification. This should follow the principle of non-refoulement. At this point, given the lack of specialized and gender-sensitive staff in hotspots, the challenge is to create a relationship of trust with these people on the run. The permanent inter agency committee, which is the main UN Committee for humanitarian coordination, launched new guidelines for the mitigation of violence. These new guidelines stipulate that all members of humanitarian staff have to take gender-based-violence for granted and treat it as a threat to life, even in absence of concrete evidences. Often, GBV is not documented. Staff needs additional training to deal with women refugee, from expertise in legal protection and psychological counseling to clinical care.

 

Despite these measures go together with the 2014 World Summit Protocol on investigation and documentation of sexual violence in the context of conflict; once more, the European system moves very slowly in this direction. It is yet to implement a series of appropriate steps to establish minimum standards of prevention to mitigate the risk of gender-based violence, such as safe spaces in transit centers (separate toilets and showers for men and women, among the most basic ones).

 

Paradoxically, the measures of this Protocol shall apply to women victims of violence in their own countries. They do not guarantee protections for victims of sexual violence that are abroad. Therefore, neither to those women who come to Europe as asylum seekers. Only, the Protocol of the Directive of the European Union casualties, which came into force few months ago, addresses primarily victims of sexual violence in Europe. It should also be applied also in favor of those women that suffer from violence outside Europe, on their way to ask asylum.

 

As it is, we are far from an inclusive and long-term solution to GBV and the demands of women in their way to Europe. Political and humanitarian responses in Europe still demand urgent reforms, with a pressing need to coordinate the two levels, national and supranational.