........ ~ FRONTEX -Reg. No OPERATIONS DIVISION Joint Operations Unit Air Border Sector Annexes of the Operational Plan Joint Operation Focal Points 2014 Air 2014/ABS/03 - European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union www.frontex .europa.eu Rondo ONZ 1, 00 -124 Warsaw , Poland Tel. +48 22 205 95 00 Fax +48 22 205 95 01
...... ::::::: FRONTEX INDEX ANNEX 1 - DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION 3 1. Introduction 3 2. List of Airports recommended for Activation as Focal Points 5 3. Tasking of Focal Points officers during Focal Points 2014 11 4. Conclusion 11 ANNEX 2 - OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND INDICATORS 14 ANNEX 3 - OPERATIONAL AREA - List of Focal Points 2014 Air 16 ANNEX 4 - DEPLOYED RESOURCES 18 ANNEX 5 - OPERATIONAL BRIEFING AND DEBRIEFING 19 ANNEX 6 - COMMAND AND CONTROL SCHEME 20 ANNEX 7 - JORA 21 ANNEX 8 - CONT ACT DETAILS 27
::: FRONTEX ANNEX 1 - DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION 1. Introduction Joint Operation Focal Points has been created to undertake two specific functions. Firstly, to provide a permanent all year round presence at those airports which are perceived as being the most highly exposed to irregular migration, and secondly to respond to Schengen Member States / SAC requests ' for specific human expertise where they consider that they require it. The aim of this exercise is to undertake an assessment that will seek to identify those airports where a permanent a II year round presence in 2014 is deemed appropriate in order to support these airports in dealing with their level of exposure. The assessment is based mainly on Pulsar data provided by the EU Schengen MS / SAC on a weekly basis (reference period: weeks 1 - 46 of 2013) and on results of current and past Frontex operational activities . The selection of airports was based on several aspects . The following facto rs were taken into account: the main risks identified at the EU/ SAC air border in 2013 (See Risk Matrix in Annex 1) the level of impact of migration pressure as measured according to the levels of impact assessment mechanism described below Other factors, which indicate either a need to support respective national authorities in respect of the management of migration flows, or to obtain relevant information / intelligence for the purpose of risk assessments. In the course of analysis, five categories/ levels of impact of migration pressure at EU/SAC airports were identified according to the best fitting th resholds: very high , high , medium , low and very low . The five categories were defined sepa rately fo r the category "refusa l of e ntry" and "asylum " on the basis of cluste rs/groups of airports which registered in 2013 the closest/similar numbe rs of persons refused e ntry and seeki ng asylum . In order to combine the impact levels regarding both indicators a nume rical ranking value was provided in respect of each of the indicators . These were designated as fo llows: Very high: 5; High: 4, Medium : 3, Low: 2, Very low: 1. In orde r to obtain the final scori ng for the five impact levels, ranking values regarding indicators "refusal of e ntry" and "asylum " were combined . It is the case that the larger ai rports with wide global ro ute networks experience the most diversity in terms of the volume of irregula r migrants as well as the type of irregular migration .As it is the intention for Focal Points 2014 to ide ntify and provide information/ intelligence in respect of as many phe nome na as possible, many of these larger airports have been selected to be permane nt Focal Points as they provide the best opportuni ty to e ncounte r the full ra nge of these phe nome na as freque ntly as possible . The dominance of such airports can be realised by the fact that just 4 of these airports produce over 40%of all refusals and asylum applications at the exte rnal Sche ngen/SAC air borde rs. Furthermore , these airports possess by far the majority of direct fli ghts to airports outside of the EU traditionally associated with irregular migration. These airport s Commented [Al] : The non-disclosed text contain detailed information regarding the modus operandi of law also pe rmit easy onward connections from hi gh ris k fli ghts to most othe r EU ai rports. This dispe rsal opportunity means enforcement officials. It contains references to the methods that the risks of irregular migration affect the other EU Member States and SAC. applied by law enforcement officers to perform border control tasks in general and to counter illegal activities in particular. Its publicity would expose the working methods jt should applied those activities which would jeopardize the implementation of ongoing and future operations, and thus facilitate irregular migration and other cross-border crime such as facilitation of irregular immigration , trafficking in human beings and terrorism. Therefore, public security wi ll be affected. In light of the above the text is not disclosed pursuant to the exception laid dow n in the first indent of 1 Heathrow airport London, in the Un ited Kingdom experiences the highest number of refusals of entry and asylum applications of any EU airport. It is Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation No 1049 / 2001 relating to the i """''""'+DL-""'-+'"-====="'--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----{JP~r~ ofc ourse not !J) ot~e':ct~io~n~o~f:_it~h:_ e £p~ub~l:': ic:...'i~nt~e~re::s~t ~as~ re~g~ar~d':. s£p~ub~l:': ic:_:s':_e:' cu:'.n'.~"tY.Y:_•~ J 3/28
::: FRONTEX belowl_~ - - - - - - - - - - Commented [A2]: The text not disclosed contains sensitive operational information related to the effectiveness of border security. Its disclosure would reveal the existing vulnerabilities which, once public, would be explored by the criminal networks of migrant smuggling and of trafficking of human beings. Thus, the disclosure of such information would harm the public interest as regards public security. In this regard the text is not disclosed pursuant to the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 A comprehensive overview of each of these selected airports and the known threats and pressure is provided below. 4 / 28
::: FRONTEX 2. List of Airports recommended for Activation as Focal [Points~!---~ Commented [A3]: The non-disclosed text contains detailed operational information and intelligence related to individual airports. Its disclosure would reveal the existing vulnerabilities which, once public , would be explored by the 2.1. Amsterdam (AMS) criminal networks of migrant smuggling and of trafficking of human beings. Thus, the disclosure of such information would harm the public interest as regards public security. In this regard the text is not disclosed pu rsuant to the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(1 )(a) of Regulation (EC) 1049 / 2001. 2 http: / / en. wikipedia.org /wi ki / Amsterdam_Airport_Schiphol.Note all references to passen ger numbers are sourced from Wikipedia and / or EUR';l-'-=~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5/ 28
