The Mediterranean Sea has become the theater for an unprecedented shift in search and rescue (SAR) responsibilities from state actors to non-governmental organizations. This analysis stems from a recent conversation with the International Association of Search and Rescue Coordinators’ (IASARC) founder, Matthew Mitchel, about changes on the world stage of SAR. I examine why NGOs have increasingly assumed SAR responsibilities traditionally held by governments, the implications of this transition, and the complex dynamics between state and non-state actors in humanitarian rescue operations. Wrapping it all up, I offer some thoughts on how IASARC could integrate into the fold to normalize the strained relationship between national programs and NGOs.
Historical Evolution of Search and Rescue Responsibilities
Search and rescue has, historically, been a core governmental function entrenched in international maritime conventions and humanitarian principles. However, a noticeable shift has occurred since 2014/2015, marking a critical turning point in the Mediterranean SAR landscape.
Italy’s decision to conclude its extensive state-run search and rescue (SAR) operation triggered the “Mare Nostrum” transition in 2014. During its year of operation, Mare Nostrum successfully rescued over 155,000 people. This operation was replaced by Frontex’s “Triton” initiative, which fundamentally shifted focus from humanitarian rescue to border management and security while operating at merely one-third of Mare Nostrum’s budget. As nation-states reduced their rescue capacities and migration pressures increased across the Mediterranean, a void of state-level SAR remains, leaving NGOs to fill the gap.
The decline of nation-states’ involvement in SAR operations in the Mediterranean created challenges and a moral obligation for humanitarian organizations. By 2015, numerous NGOs had launched dedicated SAR vessels to address the growing humanitarian crisis. Organizations such as Médecins Sans Frontières (aka Doctors Without Borders), Sea Watch, ProActiva Open Arms, Jugend Rettet, and Mediterranea Saving Humans initiated their own SAR missions to address what they perceived as a critical gap in humanitarian assistance.
Between 2014 and 2017, approximately a dozen NGO vessels rescued over 110,000 migrants in distress in the Central Mediterranean Sea. The number of people rescued by these operations increased dramatically from about 1,000 in 2014 to more than 45,000 annually in 2016 and 2017. Between 2016 and 2022, approximately 38 NGO ships conducted SAR operations in the Mediterranean Sea.
Factors Driving the Shift from State to NGO-Led Operations
Deliberate Policy Choices and Resource Reallocation
The evidence indicates that the growth of NGO activities in SAR operations is directly linked to intentional policy decisions by European states. The European Commission’s 2020 SAR recommendation notably “acknowledged Member States’ strategic policy of disengagement from SAR operations in the central Mediterranean.” This disengagement represents a conscious reprioritization of resources away from humanitarian rescue toward border management and migration control objectives.
Rather than simply lacking resources, many European countries have made calculated decisions to reduce their SAR capabilities while increasing investment in border security measures. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) transformed in 2017, shifting its operational focus toward border enforcement rather than humanitarian rescue.
Political Considerations and Rhetoric
The portrayal of maritime migration as a security threat, rather than a humanitarian issue, has significantly changed government responses to SAR. Some European politicians have characterized NGO rescue operations as enabling irregular migration and potentially serving as a “pull factor” encouraging dangerous crossings. However, whether or not there was anyone there to save those fleeing, I’d venture to guess that if they’re being persecuted—thus leading to their peril of sailing across the Mediterranean— they’d flee anyway.
Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat bluntly expressed this governmental perspective in 2015: “I think it would be too easy for some people to write cheques for someone to do what is definitely the core function of the State.” This statement encapsulates the tension between acknowledging SAR as a governmental responsibility and stepping back from its implementation.
The Controversial Relationship Between Governments and SAR NGOs
Criminalization and Administrative Restriction
The relationship between governments and SAR NGOs has grown increasingly adversarial in specific European contexts. According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), between 2016 and 2019, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, and Spain initiated more than 40 administrative or criminal proceedings against SAR NGOs.
Italy’s approach represents the most explicit governmental strategy to constrain NGO SAR activities. Following the October 2022 election that brought a far-right government to power, Italy implemented increasingly restrictive measures against SAR NGOs, including:
- A January 2023 “Code of Conduct” requiring ships to proceed to port “without delay” after a rescue, effectively preventing multiple rescue missions during the same voyage,
- Strategic assignment of distant disembarkation ports in northern Italy, imposing additional costs and delays on NGO vessels,
- Selective disembarkation policies allowing only “vulnerable” individuals to leave SAR vessels.
These administrative restrictions reveal how governments can effectively limit NGO SAR operations without explicitly prohibiting them, creating what scholars have termed “a chilling effect and a hostile environment for migrants’ rights activism.”
Legal Ambiguity and Enforcement Challenges
The legal framework governing SAR operations creates significant ambiguity regarding state and non-state actors’ respective roles and obligations. While international conventions like the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establish clear rescue obligations, their implementation remains contested.
The EU’s attempts to clarify these relationships have often preserved rather than resolved this ambiguity. The European Commission’s 2020 Guidance on facilitation and humanitarian assistance to migrants notes that criminalizing NGOs carrying out SAR operations breaches international law only if these operations are “conducted while complying with the relevant legal framework.” This circular definition allows states to impose their own interpretations and restrictions.
The Humanitarian Impact and Operational Consequences
Operational Effectiveness and Coordination
Despite the tensions, NGO SAR operations have demonstrated a significant humanitarian impact. Between 2014 and 2017 alone, approximately a dozen NGO vessels rescued over 110,000 migrants in distress in the Central Mediterranean Sea. In 2016 and 2017, NGOs rescued more than 45,000 people each year.
However, the complex and sometimes adversarial relationship between state actors and NGOs has created operational challenges. The European Agency for Fundamental Rights found that “SAR ships in the central Mediterranean continue to face lengthy delays in finding a safe port, putting the safety and physical wellbeing of the rescued people at risk.” These delays directly result from governmental reluctance to coordinate effectively with NGO vessels.
Ideological Divisions Among SAR NGOs
The NGO landscape itself is not monolithic. Research indicates that SAR NGOs have developed different approaches to their humanitarian mission, with varying interpretations of humanitarian principles like neutrality, impartiality, and independence. These differences manifest as “supportive, neutral, or confrontational approaches vis-à-vis European governments’ border control policies.”
These ideological distinctions impact inter-organizational cooperation, with research showing that “organisations with matching role conceptions have engaged in tighter forms of cooperation; charities with divergent role conceptions, by contrast, have shown a tendency to develop mistrust and engage in more competitive interactions.” These divisions have hindered NGOs from forming a united front against policy restrictions and criminalization efforts.
Future Directions and Policy Implications
Technological Innovation and Capacity Enhancement
Some research points toward technological innovation as a potential solution to SAR capacity challenges. Studies explore using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and autonomous systems for maritime SAR operations, particularly in GPS-restrained environments. These technologies could augment the existing SAR capabilities of both governmental and non-governmental actors.
The same study above presents “the development, instrumentation, system integration, algorithm development, and flight testing of two UAVs for autonomous search and rescue in [GPS-restrained] environments,” suggesting that technology could play an increasingly important role in future SAR operations.
Models for Improved State-NGO Cooperation
Despite current tensions, more constructive models for state-NGO cooperation are possible. Research suggests that decentralized approaches involving collaboration between governments, cities, and civil society organizations have proven successful in migration management efforts on land. However, a contrasting trend of centralization and diminished cooperation has emerged at sea in the Central Mediterranean.
A potential pathway forward is the creation of coordinated SAR systems that recognize the complementary capabilities of state and non-state actors. The SAR Contact Group proposed by the European Commission could assist in monitoring the implementation of the 2020 Recommendation on cooperation among Member States concerning SAR operations. However, meaningful progress would require addressing the fundamental political disconnects regarding migration management.
The Balance of Responsibility in Humanitarian Rescue
The proliferation of NGO-led SAR operations represents an organizational preference and a strategic response to deliberate governmental disengagement from humanitarian rescue responsibilities in sensitive migration contexts. The evidence suggests that governments have not abandoned SAR due to resource constraints alone, but have made calculated decisions to prioritize border management over rescue operations. It all points to the mantra of isolationism.
This transition raises fundamental questions about state responsibilities and the proper role of civil society in humanitarian emergencies. One study notes, “The European Union’s shift from SAR-oriented efforts to border management has resulted in heightened inefficiencies within the Mediterranean SAR infrastructure.” This inefficiency stems largely from “diminished collaboration with NGOs and local entities.”
Resolving this tension requires acknowledging that certain human rights obligations are “absolute in nature, and therefore accept no derogation or weighing with other policy interests.” When lives are at stake, search and rescue cannot be subject to political calculations. The future effectiveness of SAR operations will depend on establishing clearer frameworks for cooperation between state and non-state actors, recognizing their complementary capabilities while preserving the humanitarian imperative that drives this critical work.
Today, the struggle continues prioritizing SAR over self around Mediterranean sailing routes.
Leave a Reply