2. UPDATE: Similarities and Differences in the Refugee Situations of 2022 and 2015/16 – Some Situational Observations and Theses from the Perspective of Social Science Disaster Research

By: Cordula Dittmer and Daniel F. Lorenz

Original German version updated as of March 29, 2022, 2:00 PM

Translated version published July 30, 2024

Due to the now very dynamically evolving situation, we have decided to update our contribution from March 5, 2022 and March 11, 2022 (see below).

Refugee arrival, Berlin Central Station (© Daniel F. Lorenz)

Since the summer of 2015, we at the KFS initially focused on the KatFlucht  project, and from October 2018 onwards, on the WAKE project to examine the management of the refugee situation in 2015/16 by German and European civil protection and disaster relief agencies. That less than seven years later we would again be facing massive refugee movements in Europe was unforeseeable. In the (social) media, references to the end of World War II or to 2015/16 are increasingly being made. UNHCR describes it as an exodus, which occurs extremely rarely. UNHCR has now classified the situation in Ukraine as a “Level 3 emergency” the highest category. As of March 28, 2022, UNHCR has registered 3,901,713 refugees; in addition, there is a nearly twice as large number of internally displaced persons in Ukraine. Our analytical focus is on the response to the situation by governmental and non-governmental actors, especially civil protection and disaster relief: We are currently observing both very similar and quite different forms of coping compared to 2015/16.

Structures, learning experiences, and procedures from the refugee situation of 2015/16 are still widely present in 2022 or can be reactivated. Therefore, the governmental reception structures are fundamentally better prepared than in 2015/16; this is also true for aid organizations. However, it must also be acknowledged that since 2015/16, many structures have been dismantled and learning experiences have been documented only to a limited extent.

We have therefore compiled some initial hypotheses from the perspective of social science disaster research, especially regarding Germany, with which we want to provide food for thought about where there are similarities, where there are differences, and where developments in the field of civil protection and disaster relief have taken place from 2015/16 to today.

Migration Dynamics (Supply and Transportation)

  • Germany, unlike in 2015/16, is not currently the primary destination for refugees; most refugees remain in Ukraine’s neighboring countries such as Poland, Moldova, or Slovakia. However, this could change with a further escalation of the war or if the refugee numbers in these countries become unmanageable. Refugee numbers are also rising sharply in Germany, increasingly necessitating the use of civil protection and disaster relief resources to create temporary accommodation or ensure basic supplies.
  • Ukrainians—this applies only to individuals with a Ukrainian passport and not necessarily to people of other nationalities—can enter the Federal Republic of Germany without a visa. Therefore, in contrast to the situation in 2015/16, asylum-related issues do not play an immediate role, and border regimes, especially at Germany’s external borders (recall, for example, the dramatic scenes at the Slovenian-Austrian or German-Austrian border), are also not a concern. Due to the changing escape routes, which adapted to the dynamic border regimes, the necessary supply of refugees posed an additional challenge for civil protection and disaster relief actors, as well as for humanitarian emergency aid, along the entire Balkan route in 2015/16. Currently, this is also absent—apart from transit locations in countries bordering Ukraine—since the transportation routes are relatively clear, and people move using their own vehicles or by train, and are not on foot after leaving Ukraine.
  • This also has far-reaching implications for transportation logistics: For example, for a long time, there was no need for the internal distribution of refugees according to the Königstein key used in asylum procedures and also in 2015/16, nor for corresponding coordination centers (KoSt-FV) for trains and buses (see Dittmer/Lorenz 2020), as the refugees could distribute themselves across the country, also with the support of Deutsche Bahn. However, since the majority of refugees arrived in Germany via Berlin, demands for nationwide distribution increased. A hub has now been established in Hannover to facilitate the distribution of refugees to the federal states. For this purpose, facilities on the exhibition grounds were also put into operation by the German Red Cross (DRK). Another hub was established in Cottbus. However, the hub set up at the former Tegel Airport is receiving particular nationwide attention (see also below). While there was initially hope that the distribution of the refugees could work without state intervention, people who officially register in Germany are now indeed being distributed to other (federal) states. Currently, this means that no refugees who register can stay in Berlin, as Berlin is responsible for only 5% of all refugees according to the Königstein key.

Asylum and Residence Law Aspects

  • Unlike in 2015/16, there is broad agreement among EU member states regarding the response to the movement of refugees. This made it possible, among other things, for the EU’s Mass Influx Directive to be activated for the first time on March 3, 2022. This directive resulted in a completely different status for refugees in Germany compared to 2015/16: While in 2015/16, refugees could only stay in Germany by applying for special protection in the form of refugee protection according to the Geneva Refugee Convention, asylum, or subsidiary protection according to asylum law, Ukrainian refugees can now stay in Germany visa-free for 90 days and thereafter apply for temporary protection based on the Residence Act and the Mass Influx Directive. The invocation of the Mass Influx Directive particularly relieves the asylum systems in Eastern European countries, which likely would not have been able to cope with such an increase, and facilitates integration into other societal systems (housing, education, labor market, etc.). In 2015/16, special facilities had to be created for the immediately necessary initial registration, such as the waiting rooms in Feldkirchen and Erding, which were also established and operated with the support of civil protection and disaster relief organizations, the Bundeswehr, and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). Although registration is not immediately necessary from a residence law perspective, it is indeed necessary for accessing services, leading to bottlenecks in registration. Therefore, an arrival center was set up at Tegel Airport for registration and subsequent distribution to the federal states. The Bundeswehr and BAMF personnel support the registration process.

Civil Society/Spontaneous Aid and Societal Acceptance

  • The level of assistance from the population appears to be similar to what it was in 2015/16. Even though civil society aid was often highly professional at that time, a further professionalization can be observed today. However, as in 2015/16, the high willingness to donate goods sometimes overwhelms the organizational structures (including those of civil protection organizations) in terms of capacity. How civil society aid will evolve also crucially depends on the existence and establishment of state aid offers. Now, as civil and disaster protection organizations with their volunteer structures become involved, conflicts and “turf wars” may arise due to very different organizational logics that partly contradict each other, as was the case in 2015/16.
  • Even though, as in 2015/16, today’s refugees are fleeing war, there currently seems to be less societal polarization regarding their reception. While the humanitarian emergency necessitating the reception of refugees was assessed differently by political actors in 2015/16, there currently appears to be a significantly greater political consensus. Reasons for this may include that anti-Muslim sentiments and racism are less resonant in society under the current circumstances, the war is taking place in Europe and is also seen as an attack on Europe and its political order. The fact that primarily women and children – thus traditionally defined as victims and vulnerable groups – are fleeing or leaving Ukraine further facilitates empathy and thus also confirms existing gender stereotypes of warfare and media representations of “vulnerable refugees”. However, there are often few to no concepts for how to particularly protect vulnerable groups in emergency shelters and distribution centers or in private reception. This is surprising, as the same issue arose in 2015/16 and was extensively problematized. Here, particularly, the discussion focused on the introduction of SPHERE standards for the European context or the creation of child-friendly spaces.

The Importance of Civil Protection

  • Refugee movements from the East due to armed conflicts have been a significant scenario for German civil protection since World War II, at least until the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. This includes the refugee movements after the founding of the two German states from 1949-1955, after 1989 in the context of the border openings for refugees from the GDR, as well as during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s (Dittmer/Lorenz 2020). However, corresponding plans and resources, such as the DRK (German Red Cross) relief train, and civil protection in general, almost completely faded from focus until at least 2015/16, resulting in a lack of corresponding knowledge by the time of the 2015/16 refugee situation. Some resources were reactivated for managing the 2015/16 refugee situation, and as a result, larger care concepts for future humanitarian emergencies, such as the Laboratory 5000, were initiated. Currently, actors in civil and disaster protection, particularly in connection with the Laboratory 5000, are increasingly making references to civil protection, as the current situation clearly highlights the necessities and deficiencies in this area.
  • Through the Joint Reporting and Situation Centre (GMLZ) of the Federal Government and the Länder at the BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance), assistance offers are often coordinated based on the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), and transfers of Ukrainian patients are organized based on the so-called Cloverleaf Concept. For example, power generators, civil protection equipment, and medical supplies were delivered to Poland, and portable pumps for firefighting were sent to Ukraine.

Situation in Berlin

  • On behalf of the Berlin crisis team, aid organizations took over the coordination of refugee arrivals at bus stations, which had previously been mainly managed by spontaneous volunteers or organized volunteers. In other places, such as the Berlin central station, aid organizations initially supplemented spontaneous assistance with medical emergency care upon official requests for assistance. As the spontaneous assistance at Berlin central station is increasingly reaching its spatial and personnel limits, a welcome tent – already too small – was erected in front of the station, and a joint command of the police and fire department has been trying to structure the situation and ensure safety since March 9, 2022. Nonetheless, criticism has been raised, particularly on social media, that in Berlin, professional assistance and especially the necessary support from civil protection services were initiated too late.
  • With up to 15,000 refugees arriving in Berlin daily and current limitations on further distribution within Germany, emergency accommodation measures quickly became necessary. A tent city was constructed at the initial reception center in Reinickendorf by 150 THW (Federal Agency for Technical Relief) operatives and was equipped with materials from the BBK (Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance) and the German Red Cross (DRK). Under the leadership of the DRK and in cooperation with all other registered aid organizations involved in civil protection and disaster relief (Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe, Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund, Malteser Hilfsdienst, Deutsche Lebens-Rettungs-Gesellschaft), a new arrival and distribution center for refugees was established at the former Tegel Airport. This center is designed to accommodate up to 3,000 refugees and distribute 10,000 refugees per day. The facilities in Tegel were supplemented with components of the first module of the Federal Civil Protection Reserve (Labor-Betreuung 5000). Additionally, up to 2,500 refugees can be accommodated at the Berlin Messe, in the former emergency coronavirus clinic of the state. Further new accommodations are being established in various Berlin districts. In other cities, such as Frankfurt am Main, volunteer fire brigades and the DRK are setting up shelters for refugees. It is becoming apparent that many of the shelters will be operated in the form of nonprofit limited liability companies (gGmbHs), for which full-time staff will be hired.
  • The rapidly changing situation in Berlin led to a personnel shortage. Berlin’s request for administrative assistance from the Bundeswehr to support the State Office for Refugee Affairs was initially criticized in the media, referring to the primary duties of the Bundeswehr and the existence of civil protection, and subsequently denied. Currently, about 80 Bundeswehr soldiers are deployed at the arrival center in Tegel, and an extension of this deployment is already being requested.

Declaration of a state of emergency

International Dimension/Aspects of Humanitarian Aid

  • German civil protection organizations, UN agencies, and international humanitarian organizations are currently active in neighboring countries of Ukraine and Ukraine itself as part of humanitarian (foreign) aid, similar to their activities in Greece or along the Balkan route in 2015/16. Unlike 2015/16, which was heavily marked by political disputes among European countries, there currently seems to be a significant alignment between humanitarian and political mandates, which should greatly facilitate the work of these organizations. However, even during 2015/16, there was critical debate over whether Europe, with its financially powerful institutions, should be a field of activity for these organizations, or whether they should focus more on other world regions where state actors have significantly fewer resources. This issue is also being discussed at present.

A view into the future

  • Further deployments of civil protection and disaster relief could be envisioned, significantly influenced by the progression of the war. It will be particularly interesting to see if and to what extent resources from civil protection and disaster relief will be utilized broadly for the accommodation, distribution, or supply of refugees. This may not necessarily stem from necessity alone but could also offer a valuable opportunity to deploy and realistically test various components.
  • In light of the discussions that began following the refugee situation in 2015/16, which were intensified by recent events such as the pandemic and the flooding in 2021, it is expected that the current refugee situation, combined with the immediacy of a conventional war in close geographical proximity, will raise and refresh questions about the orientation and equipment of civil protection as well as a reorientation of civil and disaster protection, some of which have already begun. The care and support of people who cannot return to their homeland for shorter or longer periods will likely be just one of many points of focus.

[1] In mid-June 2021, the category “major damage situation” was newly incorporated into the Berlin Civil Protection Act to establish overarching command structures early on, even if the conditions for a disaster are not yet met, but there is a correspondingly increased need for coordination that significantly exceeds the management of everyday hazards.