The third and final activity included in our work plan on 2020, the international summer camp ”Cultivating youth participation” was carried out in a hybrid format, in February 2021, with participants meeting in national groups or connecting exclusively online. In spite of almost one year of continuous uncertainty, endless online meetings and fluctuating periods of hope and fear, the winter camp was a vibrant activity that brought a concrete and significant finality to the activities planned for 2021.

The hybrid winter camp „Cultivating youth participation” was the third activity included in the our work plan „Rock, paper, participation” which is co-funded by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe, Renovabis and the European Commission.

The winter camp was organised between 20-23 February 2021, after going through a significant risk of not being organised at all. Luckily the new Board members of MIJARC Europe decided to take the risk of postponing the activity for 2021 and made efforts to encourage our member movements to organise residential national groups or select participants to connect online. Our movements from Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania organised in person events, while the participanta in Belgium, Germany and Malta connected online. A group of 61 registered participants, representing 7 European countries joined the activity. 43 of them attended the winter camp for its entire duration.

The general aim was to increase participants’ knowledge on how to design, plan and manage participatory projects aimed at increasing the level of participation of their peers in decision-making and in policy development about sustainable agriculture at local level. The main tool was the participatory project methodlogy (PPM) proposed in the “Have your say” Manual. The PPM provided the backbone for designing real, concrete projects addresing at least one of the issues related to youth involvement in agriculture that had previously been identified during the local visits.

Almost 90% of the participants declared in the formal evaluation forms their satisfaction and increased motivation to ecourage the participation of their peers in decision-making and in policy development about sustainable agriculture at the local level. More than 80% of the participants felt that the activity had achieved all three of its major objectives, namely:

81% of the participants shared that they have participated and felt included during the activities. One of the factors that made this possible was the local facilitators’ presence and contribution. Another factor was the work in small groups in a virtual environment and instant feedback given by the team of educators and facilitators.


The first day of the activity started with a session in which the participants had the opportunity to get to know each other and the educational team, as well. The second session of the first day aimed to introduce the work done by MIJARC Europe and its member organisations until the moment and give an overview of the previous activities on the local level. The third session was an introductory session for the topics of Youth participation and the Revised European Charter On The Participation Of Young People In Local And Regional Life. As there were participants with different experience and background on youth work and youth empowerment, the session also aimed to ensure that all of the participants are on the same page and have the same understanding of the key concepts of participation and youth work. The participants were introduced to a couple of definitions of youth participation given in the Charter. After discussing and creating the « working definition », the participants were divided into two small groups and introduced to the six-step-model of using the Charter and the RMSOS approach, also provided in the “Have your say!”  manual of the CoE. The fourth session was dedicated to the Participatory Project Methodology. Besides the questions of the participants, additional value to the session came from the first-hand experience and examples shared by the local facilitators and the educational team.


The first session of the second day introduced the Participatory Project Methodology (PPM) framework in details. The session was build based on the information shared on the “Have your say!” manual and T-Kit 3: Project Management of the CoE. The second session was dedicated to sustainable agriculture and youth empowerment, with Janna Herzig, a young expert, presenting two projects: La Bolina (Spain) and Solawi Köln (Germany). By presenting the projects, the expert emphasised the vital role of youth participation in the management and the CSA model as a positive alternative, too. The following two sessions were dedicated to the work of the national groups on creating project proposals and implementing the aspects of the PPM framework.


The third day started with deeper elaborating on the topic of youth participation in the context of sustainable agriculture. The participants had the possibility to learn more about MIJARC Europe’s best practices, policies developed during the years and fruitful partnerships. Next, the participants used the Kent Mcdonald’s Stakeholder Map graphic method, modified according to the project’s specifics and the session. The session helped the teams get a clear idea of their strengths and weaknesses in implementing future participatory projects and their interactions with different stakeholders. The third and fourth sessions were dedicated to sharing expertise and creating project proposals in national group work with the support of an external expert from KLJB Germany. At the end of the third day was the International evening of MIJARC Europe. The virtual cultural event was facilitated in an interactive and fun way by the facilitators. The national groups had to present 10 unknown fun facts about their countries and play their favourite song. At the end of every presentation, there was a time for questions and answers, so the participants could understand more about each country’s culture and traditions.

”It was a nice project! The hybrid method is really challenging and it’s not easy organizing such activity so all of your efforts are very appreciated 🙂 You did a really nice job after all and I’m looking forward to the next projects!!! Love you guys”

participant to the Winter Camp


The winter camp’s last day started with presenting the national groups’ projects proposals. Each group presented their proposals and received feedback with some ideas for implementation. Most of the groups had successfully applied the PPM framework and addressed the issues related to sustainable agriculture that could be beneficial for their societies. The following session was dedicated to a presentation on applying for grant opportunities and finance their project proposals. That session helped the participants increase their knowledge of the actual funding opportunities they can use to finance their project ideas, better understand fundraising at the European level, and be more confident in finding the resources for implementing their projects. The Winter camp ended with an evaluation and planning future steps session. The planning activity aimed to encourage the participants to foresee some possible deadlines, make a calendar with activities, and be more engaged with the two main topics of the Winter camp – Participatory Project Management and Sustainable agriculture.

The main outputs of the hybrid seminar are seven project proposals tackling the problems identified during the local visits and discussed during the Winter camp, including the examples of the experts. All the participants created action plans that are expected to be shared with their boards or executive bodies of the organisations. The resource pack with all the training materials, CoE manuals and detailed information for the EYF, the presentations and the materials as websites of the organisations and their projects, useful links to different institutions and contacts shared by the experts were sent to the participants after the activity. The participants also shared information and media content about the activity on different social platforms.

Main learning outcomes:

  • 100% of the participants indicated they knew the participatory project methodology to a good or to a great extent
  • more than 90% felt they knew how to design a youth participatory project increased knowledge on sustainable agriculture and funding available for youth projects

I think everything was useful for all of us. I am sure that such programs will continue, at least locally. I was most interested in the involvement of young people in youth work, but the other topics were also very useful. Thanks for everything.

participant to the winter camp


Miro Board

Our second international activity of the year was carried out in a hybrid format with participants meeting in national groups or connecting exclusively online to create a diverse, joyful and motivated group of young people who managed to learn from and inspire each other despite the global pandemic.

”The topic is really actual. We have so many things to do to find right solutions. There are really a lot of similar problems connected to agriculture all over the world.”

– participant to the seminar

The hybrid seminar and youth lab „Youth Participating by a hectare” was the second activity included in the our work plan „Rock, paper, participation” which is co-funded by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe, and the first international youth lab of the #OurFoodOurFuture project, co-funded by the European Commission and Renovabis.

The seminar and youth lab took place between 3-6 December 2020, after it had been postponed from July to September and then postponed again to the end of the year, when the restrictions imposed by the pandemic across Europe, allowed some of the participating counties to organise face to face meetings. In Armenia, Bulgaria and Georgia our local movements were able to meet in national groups for 4 days and connected with their peers from Belgium, Germany, France, Malta and Romania via Zoom. A group of 44 registered participants, representing 8 European countries joined the activity. 37 of them attended the seminar and youth lab for its entire duration.

The general aim was for participants and their organisations to leave the seminar with concrete measures and practices that they could use in order to increase the extent to which young people get involved in agricultural policies at local level. It also focused on a transformation at individual level, as participants were expected to enter the activity as mere consumers and leave as informed people who know the problems and know where to act to contribute to change them.

With the help of many online tools such as Miro, Mentimeter,, Canva and a lot of creativity, the team of facilitators managed to create an effective hybrid educational activity that increased the participants’ knowledge on sustainable agriculture, its processes and activities (35 out of 37 participants) and on the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (30 participants).

The most useful thing I learnt was how to use the Charter to engage youth in agricultural policies.

participant to the seminar

The activity started with a warm-up evening during which get-to-know-each-other games, exercises and songs brightened the atmosphere and gave a nice introduction on how the hybrid seminar would be led. The facilitators explained the ground rules, helped the participants who had technical difficulties, clarified their roles and tested all the tools that would be used throughout the seminar. The group was happy to welcome Margit Barna from the European Youth Foundation who played a fun quiz about the EYF and the Council of Europe.

On the second day the participants were introduced into the topic of youth participation, food production and agriculture and started their day with a visit to a virtual museum where the priorities identified in each country during the local visits, within the first phase of the work plan, were displayed. Starting from there the participants went on to mapping the realities in their countries guided by questions such as:

  1. What are the main agricultural productions in your country? Give 3 examples.
  2. Point out 3 biggest problems in agriculture caused by climate change in your country and explain how the governments try to solve those problems. 
  3. What is the role of women and young people in agriculture?

The day ended with an offline guided tour and national work groups in which the participants started writing down priorities in their countries and formulating them as objectives in the National Action Plan template prepared by the team of facilitators on Miro. Last but not least, the evening programme took the participants through an escape room where they had to crack a code by working as a team and performing multiple challenges: such as calming a crying baby, playing memory games, signing songs and impressing a mad clown.

The third day was dedicated to three practical workshops on: soil, animal walfare and water and land grabbing. Each workshop was led either by one of the trainers or a guest speaker and oferred specific information, examples and reflection exercises on each of three topics. The day ended with a participatory workshop during which the participants summarised each topic in a mind map. Then the facilitators conducted a virtual world cafe in order to allow participants to discuss connections among the three workshop topics and a collection of European best practices.

Water talks to me, I speak for water. I didn’t get support and I was called crazy, but I never gave up. What I can always do is to continue with my determination and do whater is possible, whatever you are good at.

Ranjan Panda

The fourth and final day relied on emotions, engagement and inspiration to continue the work and take the results of the hybrid seminar a step further. A spiritual impulse created the perfect start for an imaginative exercise that took participants into the future and invited them to reflect about the seminar. Next, the participants had to prepare a 30-second elevator-pitch to deliver to the Commissioner for Agriculture, whom the meet by chance while taking the elevator to the MIJARc Europe office. Want to see or hear what our participants had to say? Here are their recordings: elevator pitches.

The main outputs of the hybrid seminar are the eight national action plans, focusing on increasing youth participation in agricultural policies and tackling the most stringent needs related to agriculture that the participants identified in their countries. The action plans are the basis for the development of the project proposal during the next international activity – the winter camp “Cultivating youth participation’.

Main learning outcomes:

  • increased knowledge on the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People at local and regional level
  • increased awareness on the situation of women in agriculture
  • almost 90% of the participants declared that they knew more about sustainable agriculture, food supply chains and about agriculture in the other participant countries as a consequence of having attended the seminar

“I want to discover what offline MIJARC is! I want to travel outside my country to meet you! Online MIJARC seminar was the best you could have done considering the circumstances, big up for the organisation team!

participant to the seminar


Miro Board

On 4th June 2020, our member organisation APSD-Agenda 21 from Romania organised the third local visit planned among the activities of MIJARC Europe’s annual work plan “Rock, Paper, Participation“. The work plan focuses on seeing-judging-acting on how young people get involved in the dialogue on agricultural policies and on how they take part to sustainable agricultural practices.

The Rock, paper, participation” annual work plan is co-funded by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Following the introduction of the lockdown measures of the COVID-19 pandemic across almost all European countries, several of MIJARC Europe’s member organisations decided to organise the local visits as national webinars. The team of MIJARC Europe designed a webinar format based on online tools and assisted the member organisation in implementing their activities online in line with the objective of the work plan. APSD-Agenda 21 was the first member organisation that hosted a national webinar instead of a local visit to a farm, but the event was useful, effective and well received by the participants.

Organising the event online as a webinar gave the advantage of having more than 12 participants and making it a national rather than a local event. APSD-Agenda 21 spread the call in its national network and finally 66 participants from five counties in Romania attended the webinar.

The webinar was led on Zoom and included a balanced mix of theoretical input and practical exercises that made the activity dynamic and interesting for the participants. First, they got the chance to know each other better through a set of four questions that invited them raise there hand if during the lockdown period that had:

  • taken part to a challenge on social media
  • listened to a podcast
  • baked something for the first time
  • attended online meetings while still wearing their pyjamas

The next block on the agenda was dedicated to agriculture and aimed at bringing the young participants closer to agricultural practices and to understanding how agriculture is done in their country and in Europe. Based on the study on youth involvement in agriculture that MIJARC Europe published specially for this visit, the participants found out that:

  • 56% of the EU citizens live in rural areas;
  • there are almost 12 million farmers in the EU, with only 29% of the farmer owners being women and only 5% being young than 35 years old;
  • Romania is the largest producer of sunflower in the EU;
  • 33% of Romania’s active population work in the agricultural sector.

After the general introduction to the topic of agriculture, the participants had the chance to discuss with one of the leading experts on agriculture in Romania, Mr. Vînătoru Costel – head of the plant gene bank in Buzau and horticulture engineer at the Plant Research and Development Station in Buzau-Romania. The discussion focused on practices used in sustainable agriculture, the phases a product goes through from the moment it is just a seed to the moment we can consume it, several projects of the research station, the expert personal motivation to study agricultural and work in the field, the Common Agricultural policy and who implements it in Romania, ways to involve young people in agriculture and the main problems farmers face in Romania.

The second part of the meeting focused on youth involvement in policies and especially in agricultural policies. While the participants had some idea about what a policy is, almost none of them had ever been involved in a structured dialogue process ir was aware of how young people could influence a policy.

Next, the participants explored the Common Agricultural Policy and the way it is implemented in Romania and were introduced to the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (the Charter) They went through the six-step implementation model, the principles of the Charter, the ladder of participation and the RMSOS approach and were very pleased to see that there was an instrument that could guide them towards getting involved in policies at local and regional level.

Revised Charter

The evaluation session revealed the fact that the participants found the webinar very useful and interesting and discovered a multitude of tools they could use to get involved.

On 14th March 2020, our member organisation Umbrella from Georgia organised the second local visit planned among the activities of MIJARC Europe’s annual work plan “Rock, Paper, Participation“. The work plan focuses on seeing-judging-acting on how young people get involved in the dialogue on agricultural policies and on how they take part to sustainable agricultural practices.

The Rock, paper, participation” annual work plan is co-funded by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe and the European Union.

Umbrella gathered 13 of their young members and took them on a visit to Asureti Village and to Tetritskaro Youth Center. Firstly, they visited a farm and a greenhouses that belonged to the young farmer Gocha Apciauri, located in Asureti village. He presented his farm, the technologies he used and engaged he participants in an experiential learning activity inviting them to harvest vegetables. The discussion with the farmers focused on the challenges that he faced in his daily live as a farmer and the agricultural works.

The second half of the day was spent at Tetritskaro Youth Center, where the participants explored the “ladder of Participation”, the “triangle of cooperation”, worked in groups and used non-formal learning methods to identify challenges/barriers young people face if they want to get involved in the dialogue on agricultural policies.

They based their work on the study on youth involvement in agriculture – the case of Georgia – published by MIJARC Europe especially for this visit and the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (the Charter)

Revised Charter

According to participants their involvement in agricultural policy at local level is extremely low. They were not aware of the possibilities and mechanisms of participation in decision-making process at local level. None of them had ever taken part in discussions on farming issue or had been invited to the local Sakrebulo (local legislative body) meetings. In addition to this, despite the fact that representatives of two local municipalities (Tetrsitskaro and Marneuli) were invited to the meeting, none of them sent representatives.

The young participants decided that the priorities they should focus on at local level should be:

  • Information – access to information is the top priority as quite often the information is on websites but it is not proactively published or spread in the municipality. It also considers the accessibility to internet as it is not developed in rural area.
  • Motivation – low level of motivation or nihilism among youth and non-responsive local authorities. The priority is to raise the level of motivation among young people.
  • Language barrier – in the communities with ethnic minorities (Armenians, Azerbaijanis) in some cases they face language barriers as they lack of knowledge of state language. Translation of information into native languages.
  • Political will – promoting (advocating) political will among local authorities and awareness about the positive sides of involvement of young farmers in agricultural policy development process.

On 7th March 2020, our member organisation Federation of Youth Clubs of Armenia (FYCA), organised the first local visit planned within the activities of MIJARC Europe’s annual work plan “Rock, Paper, Participation“. The work plan focuses on seeing-judging-acting on how young people get involved in the dialogue on agricultural policies and on how they take part to sustainable agricultural practices.

The Rock, paper, participation” annual work plan is co-funded by the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe and the European Union.

FYCA took the young participants to visit several agricultural farms in Nor Geghi (Kotayk province), Armenia.

The visits started with several meetings with local youth representatives and local & regional authorities. At first, the attendees discussed the current situation and existing challenges facing the youth in the region and explored the facts and issues raised by the study on youth involvement in agriculture done by MIJARC Europe.

Later, it was time to start the meetings with the farmers located in the region. The local visit to several agricultural farms in Armenia gathered 25 young volunteers and members from the organization, and also representatives from local and regional authorities from Kotayk province, Armenia.

Prior to the visit, the organization contacted the provincial administration representatives of Kotayk region through FYCA regional coordinator, Mari Hovakimyan. The visit was co-organized by the head of Nor Geghi community, Vardan Papyan and his administrative team.

The field visit started from “Green” intensive apple orchards, where farmers’ staff presented the basics of the fruit cultivation. The participants explored all the stages of producing apples: starting from the basic steps of orchard establishment and development to packing the ready-steady fruits for consumption. The apple orchards have been established in Nor Geghi community in 2016 and currently cover nearly 30 hectares, with the goal of expanding the area by 20 hectares in the nearest future. In addition to apple trees, pear, plum and cherry trees will also be planted there.

It is also interesting to know that the intensive orchards are harvested earlier than traditional orchards. In case of intensive orchards, up to ten times more seedlings are planted on 1 hectare of land. The farm grows a huge variety of apples and each of them is different in its own way.

Having explored the techniques and logistics of the production, it was time to carry out the second visit in the region. The next farm was a fishpond, belonging to “Ninel” LLC and providing employment opportunities to locals.

Afterwards, the team headed to the third well-known farm, “Lusakert” poultry factory. During the visit, the team got acquainted with the bird breeding conditions and technical equipment of the cultivation. As the factory staff informed, the chickens are kept in exclusively natural and ecological conditions, thus providing ecologically pure and nutritious products.

Revised Charter

The information gained during the visits were later on used to discuss about how young people could get involved in agricultural policies and firstly if they should get involved. The participants explored the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (the Charter) and its six step implementation model. The participants came to the conclusion that agricultural development is crucially important for developing rural areas. Hence, the strategies and policies promoting the development of rural areas are considered to be a high priority in the country.

In order to reach sustainable agricultural development, it is necessary to provide rural youth with sufficient access to knowledge and information, through incorporating agricultural skills in the education.
According to the discussions, it became obvious that youth’s involvement in policy dialogue is still an existing challenge in the country. Thus, young people need to have access to integrated trainings in agricultural sector and get coherent response from policy-makers and development practitioners so as to overcome those challenges.

Overall, the following conclusion was drawn in result of the local visit: agricultural development is an extremely important asset for fostering sustainable development of rural communities’ livelihood and increasing the standards of living in those areas.

Study session – “I, YOUTH ADVOCATE”

COE-70y-logos-dark-bg-quadriA study session organised by MIJARC EUROPE and DON BOSCO YOUTH NETWORK in cooperation with the Youth Department of the Council of EuropeEuropean Youth Centre Budapest. 

Dates: 7-10 October 2019

This study session has been a common idea of MIJARC Europe and Don Bosco Youth Network, two international organisations that work on very similar topics and who decided to do a joint study session on advocacy for their members.

Aim and objectives

The “I, Youth Advocate” study session aims to prepare young people from MIJARC Europe and DBYN Networks to be active advocates at European level, on diverse topics of interest for youth.

The main aim is built on the following objectives:

  • Assist young people to reflect on their local realities and link them to the policy changes they want at European level,
  • Explore advocacy tools and policy instruments of the Council of Europe, DBYN, MIJARC Europe and other European stakeholders in order to use them in their advocacy work,
  • Develop advocacy competences such as communication with relevant stakeholders, strategic planning and other skills to implement successful advocacy plans,
  • Empower young people to design concrete actions plans on advocacy to be implemented within the two organizations.

Hosting organizations

MIJARC logo transMIJARC Europe is a European coordination network for rural and Christian youth organizations all over the continent. MIJARC Europe represents over 130. 000 young people from rural areas in 14 European countries. It promotes sustainable agricultural, rural and international development, European citizenship, youth policies, gender equality, environmental protection, interculturality and human rights.

6390467Don Bosco Youth-Net is an international network of Salesian youth work offices and youth organisations which work in the style of Don Bosco.  The network assemblies 18 organisations, who cater for over 125.000 children and young people in 16 European countries.  The task of the network is to create and promote international activities for and by young and to create possibilities for member organisations to share their good practices and start-up new projects together.

Study session design

The study session is based on non-formal education methods and will present a mixture of the methodologies used by the two host organizations. The “See-Judge-Act” methodology of MIJARC Europe and the Don Bosco method promoted by DBYN. You should expect a lot of experiential learning activities, reflection moments, practical examples and space for sharing and exchanging facts and opinions. As MIJARC Europe and DBYN are both faith-based organizations, we will also take time to reflect on our own values, beliefs and spirituality.


Thee will be two main phases of this study session:

  1. E-learning phase (20th September – 2nd October) which will require 1-2 hours of involvement in total and will focus mostly on getting to know each other and setting a common ground to what we all understand by advocacy.
  2. Study session (7-10 October) a four-day residential phase taking place in Budapest, at the European Youth Center. This is the main phase of the activity and participants will learn about advocacy practices and tools and will create action plans that the two host organizations will implement in their work.

Participants will also be invited to continue their involvement within the representation structures of the two host organizations and to further contribute to the implementation of the action plans.

Call for participants: study session “I , Youth advocate”


Between 4th – 8th September 2018, our member movement APSD-Agenda 21 is hosting a youth exchange on peace and conflict. The project is called “Messages from the future” and it is part of our annual work plan on 2018 “We are the others”. The youth exchange is co-financed by the ERASMUS+ Programme of the European Union. It is organized as an international simulation on four different topics which affect peace and conflict at global level: climate change, migration, gender inequality and extremism.


Our youth exchange has just started and we could not be more excited. Yesterday we have welcomed the delegations here in Buzau and they already started sharing and interacting. The atmosphere was great and they were all eager to get to know each other. Therefore, the first session in the morning got them all together in a big circle in the back yard of our venue where they learnt five ways to greet each other that alien civilizations use (don’t forget that for this youth exchange we traveled forward in time in 2068 where we met aliens of course).


Then we played some self-regulation games to help the group pay attention and get used to the way the facilitators give instructions.

There were a lot of team building games and games to find out more about each other which really helped with building a nice group atmosphere and helped each participant interact with the other 49 people.

Once inside the facilitators introduced the project and what its aim was and helped the participant explore the ERASMUS+ Programme and the opportunities the European Union programmes offer for young people. We did this interactively of course: voting with our feet, watching videos or taking group quizzes.


Next, it was time for everybody to reflect on what had brought them there and what they wanted to get from the experience, so hundreds of quotes about learning were laid out on the floor in order to inspire the participants about what learning meant to them. Each of them chose one or two and shared their reasons in small buzz groups, then set their own learning objectives. They also explored the learning process of the Youth Pass and the key competences for life long learning.


Since they had spent too much time inside, we took them out for a clue-game around the city but not before exploring the exhibition of the town museum and reflecting about the history of peace and the European culture. The clue game was not easy and the participants had to run around the city, discovering interesting place such as an


Back at venue, we got into small reflection groups and together reflected on our vision of the world 50 years from now and what to do in the present in order to have sustainable peace then.

Tomorrow will bring the first simulation of the exchange: the one climate change, which takes place in a secret location (can you imagine where we will take them?).

This article is part of a series of stories written by the young people who took part at our seminar “A call for peace for all”. They include real life stories of people who left their countries and/or information about migration in one of the European countries where MIJARC Europe has members. All those whose names or any other identification data appear in the articles have given their written consent for making this information public. 


In the context of the topic chosen for this year by our member movements – peace – we have launched an online campaign of peace messages and quotes under the #nevertakepeaceforgranted slogan. This campaign is part of our work plan which also includes two international activities and a travelling exhibition on the topic of peace. The first international activity of our work plan was preceeded by a preparatory phase during which our members had to interview/discuss with at least two people who had left their countries and are now know as “migrants”, “refugees” or “asylum seekers”. To our members they are just people, as are those living next to us. They have emotional and unusual stories, they live in different conditions but as our participants discovered they have not forgoten to be kind, tolerant, open and to forgive.

Here we bring you the article written by the participants from Bulgaria. The Bu;garia version of the first part of the article can be found below.

Asylum in Bulgaria

Military conflicts in the Middle East and other parts of the world in recent years have led to a significant emigration / refugee wave across Europe, with great force and many issues in Bulgaria. most refugees from Afghanistan, followed by Syria and Iraq. In Bulgaria, asylum seekers are staying in temporary refugee accommodation while waiting for a status decision. According to data in the country about 3,000 asylum seekers are found in refugee camps and a few more are found in foreign addresses. The number of migrants entering the border is much higher, but due to problems with the protection of state borders and the lack of certainty about the country’s policy on this issue, the concrete figures are unclear. The statistics show that more than 60000 people have been seeking state protection since 2013, with the number decreasing since the beginning of 2018, ol 500. The majority of people entering Bulgaria simply want to go through it on their way to Western Europe where they think they will get more security and better living conditions. This shows the statistics, as they themselves say. is approached with the necessary understanding of the refugee problem and most often refers to distrust of the newcomers.

The Bulgarian delegation talked to two refugees who did not accept to disclose any of their personal data, therefore, in the article they will be refer to as X and Y. Both X and Y came to Bulgaria as refugees – X from Afghanistan, and Y- from Syria. Both were running from war and to better life. They faced lots of difficulties during their fight for a new life and fortunately there is a positive effect already caused be government’s policy towards refugees. X, who emigrated to Bulgaria in 2015 has been given a refugee status and already is permitted to work and live in the country alongside Bulgarians. He now works in a big factory for thermo-sensor manufacture and is happy to start a new life. He admits that Bulgarians accept him as their even and opportunities are, on his behalf, yet to come. Y ,on the other side, is a newcomer from Syria going away from war ,who came this year and is still awaiting for a decision towards her status. She hopes that Europe is going to prove as a land of hope and opportunities and war will stay behind her back.

Военните конфликти в Близкия Изток и други части на на света през последните години доведоха до значителна емигрантска/бежанска вълна в цяла Европа ,като това се усети с голяма сила и доведе до много въпроси и в България.По официални данни в нашата страна са потърсили подслон най-много бежанци от Афганистан следван от Сирия и Ирак.В България търсещете убежище пребивават в центрове за временно настаняване на бежанци докато чакат решение за получаване на даден статут. В момента по данни в страната се намират в бежански лагери около 3000 търсещи убежище хора и още няколко стотин от тях се намират на чужди адреси.Неофициално броят на влезлите в границата на държавата мигранти е доста по-голям но поради проблеми със защитата на държавните граници и липса на сигурност относно политикатана държавата по този проблем конкректните цифри са неясни.Статистиката показва че от 2013 година над 60000 лица са потърсили държавна закрила,като последните 2 години броят им намалява като от началото на 2018 година броят им е само около 500.Мнозинството лица влезли в България целят просто да преминат през нея по пътя си към Западна Европа където мислят ,че ще получат повече сигурност и по-добри условия за живот.Това показва статистиката ,както и казват самите те.Българското население също не подхожда с нужното разбиране към бежанския проблем и най-често се отнася с недоверие към новодошлите.

This article is part of a series of stories written by the young people who took part at our seminar “A call for peace for all”. They include real life stories of people who left their countries and/or information about migration in one of the European countries where MIJARC Europe has members. All those whose names or any other identification data appear in the articles have given their written consent for making this information public. 


In the context of the topic chosen for this year by our member movements – peace – we have launched an online campaign of peace messages and quotes under the #nevertakepeaceforgranted slogan. This campaign is part of our work plan which also includes two international activities and a travelling exhibition on the topic of peace. The first international activity of our work plan was preceeded by a preparatory phase during which our members had to interview/discuss with at least two people who had left their countries and are now know as “migrants”, “refugees” or “asylum seekers”. To our members they are just people, as are those living next to us. They have emotional and unusual stories, they live in different conditions but as our participants discovered they have not forgoten to be kind, tolerant, open and to forgive.

Here we bring you the article written by the participants from Germany. The German version of the article can be found below.

Asylum in Germany

In Germany there are 10.6 million migrants and 18.6 million people with immigrant background. The large part of migrants is coming from European countries like Turkey, Poland and Italy. Also there are 1.6 million refugees who are seeking protection in Germany – most of them coming from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are different reasons for migration: refugees are fleeing from war and terror in their country or migrants from other countries are hoping for better living standards for their selves and their families through higher wages or a higher level of education. Refugees are living in reception facilities after coming to Germany. They are distributed through a key system which contributes to an equally number of refugees in all states in Germany.

After their time in these reception facilities they are going to live in a shared accommodation or their own apartment. Also refugees are being supported with activities like German lessons or help with the search for jobs so the transition to daily life is going to be easier for them.

Asyl in Deutschland

In Deutschland leben insgesamt 10,6 Millionen Migranten (Stand: 31.12.2017) und 18,6 Millionen Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund (Stand: 2016). Der Großteil von ihnen stammt aus europäischen Ländern wie z.B. der Türkei, Polen und Italien. Zudem befinden sich 1,6 Millionen Schutzsuchende, von welchen die meisten aus Syrien, Afghanistan und dem Irak eine Zuflucht in Deutschland suchen (Stand: 2016). Die Gründe für die Zuwanderung sind verschiedene – Flüchtlinge suchen in einem sicheren Land Schutz vor Krieg und Terror, welcher in ihrem Heimatland herrscht.

Andere Zuwanderer hoffen sich bessere Lebensbedingungen für sich und ihre Familie erschaffen zu können durch höhere Löhne oder durch bessere Schulbildung. Asylsuchende werden nach ihrer Ankunft und Registrierung in Deutschland in Aufnahmeeinrichtungen aufgenommen in welcher sie kurz- ober auch langfristig untergebracht werden. Schutzsuchende werden in Deutschland durch eine Verteilungsquote den verschiedenen Bundesländern zugewiesen. Diese Verteilungsquote gewährleistet eine gleichmäßige Verteilung der Flüchtlinge in Deutschland.

Nach ihrer Zeit in den Aufnahmeeinrichtungen werden sie in Anschlussunterbringungen gebracht, wie zum Beispiel in Gemeinschaftsunterkünften oder auch in eigenen Wohnungen. Ebenfalls werden sie dabei durch Integrationsmaßnahmen u.a. Deutschunterricht oder auch durch Hilfe bei der Jobsuche unterstützt, damit ihnen der Übergang in das Alltagsleben ermöglicht werden kann.

This article is part of a series of stories written by the young people who took part at our seminar “A call for peace for all”. They include real life stories of people who left their countries and/or information about migration in one of the European countries where MIJARC Europe has members. All those whose names or any other identification data appear in the articles have given their written consent for making this information public. 


In the context of the topic chosen for this year by our member movements – peace – we have launched an online campaign of peace messages and quotes under the #nevertakepeaceforgranted slogan. This campaign is part of our work plan which also includes two international activities and a travelling exhibition on the topic of peace. The first international activity of our work plan was preceeded by a preparatory phase during which our members had to interview/discuss with at least two people who had left their countries and are now know as “migrants”, “refugees” or “asylum seekers”. To our members they are just people, as are those living next to us. They have emotional and unusual stories, they live in different conditions but as our participants discovered they have not forgoten to be kind, tolerant, open and to forgive.

Here we bring you the article written by the participants from Belgium. The Flamish version of the article can be found below.

Asylum applications in Belgium

In 2017, 19,688 persons filed an asylum application. Of this, the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons decided that 13,833 persons needed effective protection. Of these, 76 percent of these people received refugee status. This means that these people have left their country of origin because they fear persecution because of their nationality, race, religion, political opinion or belonging to a particular social group. The remaining 24 percent received subsidiary protection status because if they return to their country of origin there is a real risk of serious damage.

The number of asylum applications in 2017 is comparable to the number of asylum applications in 2016. If we make the comparison with the number of applications in 2015, namely 44,760, the number is much lower. With this, Belgium fulfills its European obligations and it has committed itself to make the same effort in 2018. With this, Belgium participates in the integrated policy of international protection.

If we look at the country of origin of the persons who received the decision to recognize the refugee status, we see that most people came from Syria. The top ten will be completed by Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Somalia, Guinea, Iran, Eritrea, Congo and Palestine.

In Belgium there are 22,152 reception places for persons who submit an asylum application. In June 2018, 15,866 people will be taken care of in one of these places. 49 percent of these people stay here with their families, 36 percent are single men, 6 percent are single women and 9 percent of these persons are unaccompanied minor. No information is available on the reason of departure. (CGRS, 2018, Fedasil, 2018)


*The Belgian delegation had the chance to talk to Nazir who left Afghanistan in 2013, and after a long journey through Europe he arrived in Belgium in 2014. He travelled to Iran, from there to Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia, Austria, Italy, France to end in Belgium. During his travelling, he had often cold, was afraid, had a lot of questions, he didn’t ate much. He travelled on foot, by bus, train, taxi, … In every country there was someone over there that could help him. His uncle paid for the migration to Europe. Which country he would end, was not known. It must be a better and safer country where human rights are important.

Bulgaria was to him the most unfriendly country, they treated him and other Afghans very bad. He also hurt his leg a lot when travelling through Serbia. But because he was illegal in Europe, he wasn’t allowed to go to a doctor by the ‘agents’ who helped him travelling. Finally, in Belgium they could help him. First it looked like Nazir would be send back to Bulgaria, but because he needed an operation in Belgium he could stay here. Now his papers are okay he looks forward to reunite his family here in Belgium. It’s a safe country, with good people who respect the human rights. In Afghanistan, he could have died. He is really grateful for the opportunity his uncle and Belgium gave to him.

Nazir arrived in Belgium in 2014. Before that he traveled a long way from Afghanistan through many countries in Europe, on foot, with a truck, bus, train and tram.

He left Afghanistan in November 2013. His uncle (the brother of his mother) has paid for the whole trip. Several “agents” helped him to continue his journey, he did not have to pay them on the way, sometimes when he wanted (extra) food or drinks on the way.

First he walked five days on foot through the mountains in Iran. “Agents” helped him to continue traveling by car and trucks. They gave the group of refugees very little food and drink. Sometimes they got a small piece of bread, then some tomatoes, … They ate only once a day.

The border with Turkey was crossed on foot overnight. The “agents” said that this was better. It was much too cold to sleep. Nazir wore a coat, but this was too thin in the cold temperatures.

The agents were also strict, saying that everyone should be quiet.

A little later they crossed the Turkish border with some 20 people in a kind of lorry and landed in a city near the border of Turkey.

There was no plan in advance that Nazir would go to. He wanted to go to a country where it was better, where he did not have to fear for his life. A country where people respect human rights, and where he was safe. A country with mutual respect.

In Turkey, the agent bought a bus ticket to Istanbul. With 5 refugees they went to a regular public bus. Each of them received a letter from the agent, with a Turkish text on which they had to write down their name and their destination (Istanbul). This they would then have to give when they got control. Nazir wanted to know what was in the letter, but the agent simply asked them to be quiet.

Finally, the police (or probably a kind of conductors) came to check the bus. Nazir was afraid to give the letter, because he did not know what was in it and if it would be alright. Eventually he did give the letter, and everything was in order for the inspector.

A second check was carried out a second time, asking for IDs, but here too the letter was enough to travel on. Nazir never knew what was in the letter.

Arriving in Istanbul, a man was waiting at the bus to wait for the group of five refugees. Nazir had his doubts, he was not sure if this person was reliable. Eventually they went along with that person. He made sure that they arrived at a building through a taxi ride of about half an hour where they had to go through a door quickly. There Nazir found another 25 or so other refugees, who had already been there for one or two days. These people confirmed that the person who brought them up there was an agent, and Nazir was so reassured.

In total, Nazir spent 4 days in Turkey, of which three together with this group of about 25 people.

Bulgaria would be the next stop after he had asked the agent.

He had to make the journey, walk through woods while it was snowing. It was certainly 12 hours of walking, which was made difficult by the snow. To get warmer he got a jacket from a friend. It was difficult to sleep and he could not eat much either. Since he thought he did not get much or any food on the way, he had paid the agent in Turkey to get a bottle of water and a bag of biscuits. He then had it on the way.

Suddenly they were stopped by police who asked them about their ID. They did not have this. These policemen called other agents, they came with different jeeps. Everyone was arrested and taken to the police station. Then they were taken to a closed institution where they stayed for at least a month. They got very little food there, the police were not respectful either. It seemed more like they were in a prison. The police had also knocked friends of him with a kind of stick to ask to be quiet, even though they did not commit a crime.

Nazir was worried.

Bulgaria was not a good country for him. “Rubbish”. He never wants to go back there.

Then they took fingerprints. And after that he was allowed to travel to Sofia. He heard that that was a big city. There were many other refugees. There he met another agent who knew the other agents who had already helped him during his journey. This man helped him to the next country: Serbia.

Serbia had many hills, where he eventually stumbled heavily. It was very serious. He could not explain exactly what it was, but he probably had torn a ligament on his knee so he could barely stand on his leg. The agent wanted him to hurry, but that did not work. Two other Afghans helped him by supporting him to take the rest of the road (another 3 hours of walking).

He then stayed in Serbia for a month until he could walk again. From there he traveled an hour with the car and then walked another 2 to 3 hours. Fortunately, it was a plain area here. Further to Hungary it was by taxi with 3 others, to a house, where they had to be silent again from the agents. There they were 2 weeks. Nazir was not sure if they were in Hungary, someone had told him that.

Furthermore, the taxi went to Austria. There they were stopped by the police. Nazir was very worried again. The police said they should not worry and took them to the police station for fingerprints. Then they were allowed to go to an open center. There was much more respect for refugees here. He stayed here for one week. Then he came in contact with an agent who had contact with the agent from Turkey. He asked him to stay in the center that day, but then to come to him.

On the way with the agent, there was no mention in the tram. Nazir had to follow the agent in silence and pay attention to signs he would do, for example, to abandon. After the officer’s sign they got off and went to the train station where the agent bought a train ticket for him. From there the journey continued to Italy. Italy was a good and normal country. From Italy it went on to France again, and then Nazir finally ended up in Belgium in 2014. According to the agent, that was a good and safe country.

The agents and other Afghans and an Arab living here helped him to refer to where he could go to request his asylum. Before that he went to Brussels, where they took his fingerprints for the third time. Through the database they knew that he was first registered in Bulgaria (where they first took his fingerprints). According to it He would therefore normally be sent back to Bulgaria in a Dublin agreement. For this there was still a consultation. Meanwhile, Nazir got a shelter in Fedasil, in Brussels he got a train ticket to get there. He spent 1.5 months there. He then received the request to go to the commissariat in Brussels again, but this was not recommended by others if he did not want to return to Bulgaria. They gave the advice to stay illegally in Belgium for 6 months and only then to return again. According to them, the fingerprints would then have been removed from the system or something similar.

Nazir then had many questions. Where did he go during that time for food, shelter, clothes? Someone showed him the way to a church where he could stay for a long time and where everything was free, donated by others.

After 6 months, Nazir then returned to the Brussels office, where he was taken to a center from which the refugees are sent back (in his case back to Bulgaria). There were many other people there who would also be sent back.

He was at his wit’s end and cried, because Bulgaria was a bad country. He did not want to go back there. Two days later he went to the doctor to see his leg that he had seriously injured a long time ago. Now he could have looked at this, earlier could or could not. They were then illegal and were not allowed to be discovered. He still could not use his leg properly.

He told the doctor that he certainly wanted to have his leg healed in Belgium, he was sure that this would not be possible in Bulgaria. They did not have respect for human rights, and in Belgium this was the case.

The doctor did not know what to answer. He sent a message to someone from the migration service. The answer to this was that Nazir could have his leg checked thoroughly. If it is a real problem, he could stay in Belgium. If this is not the case he must return to Bulgaria.

The tests indicated that surgery was needed and a long physiotherapy to recover. For this he had nothing to pay, everything was paid for him even though it was 4,000 euros for the operation alone. Nazir was overjoyed. After the operation, the physiotherapist came to Fedasil for 9 months for exercises for his leg. The assistant in Fedasil received an e-mail from the commissioner that he could submit a new asylum application. He then had to do two more interviews, with ultimately a positive answer. He then had to leave the center. He first received a home from the OCMW of Kortrijk as a temporary solution for a short time. He currently has his own house. He hopes soon to be reunited with his wife and two children aged 4 and 6 years. And he is very grateful for his permission to stay in Belgium.

If he goes back to his homeland now, there is a chance that he might die. He has informed everyone of his family that he has arrived well here, and is really satisfied.

Asielaanvragen in België

In 2017 diende 19.688 personen een asielaanvraag in. Hiervan werd er door het commissariaat-generaal voor de vluchtelingen en staatlozen beslist dat 13.833 personen effectief bescherming nodig hadden. Hiervan kregen 76 procent van deze personen een vluchtelingenstatuut. Dit wil zeggen dat deze personen hun land van herkomst hebben verlaten omdat ze vrezen voor vervolging omwille van hun nationaliteit, ras, religie, politieke overtuiging of het behoren tot een bepaalde sociale groep. De overige 24 procent kregen een subsidiaire beschermingsstatuut omdat indien ze terugkeren naar hun land van herkomst een reëel risico lopen op ernstige schade.

Het aantal asielaanvragen in 2017 is vergelijkbaar met het aantal asielaanvragen in 2016. Als we de vergelijking maken met het aantal aanvragen in 2015, namelijk 44.760 dan ligt het aantal veel lager. Hiermee komt België zijn Europese verplichtingen na en het heeft zich geëngageerd om dezelfde inspanning te doen in 2018. Hiermee werkt België mee aan het geïntegreerd beleid van internationale bescherming.

Als we het land van herkomst bekijken van de personen die de beslissing tot erkenning van het vluchtelingenstatuut ontvingen, zien we dat de meeste personen afkomstig waren uit Syrië. De top tien wordt vervolledigd door Afghanistan, Irak, Turkije, Somalië, Guinee, Iran, Eritrea, Congo en Palestina.

In België zijn er 22.152 opvangplaatsen voor personen die een asielaanvraag indienen. In juni 2018 worden er 15.866 personen opgevangen in één van deze plaatsen. 49 procent van deze personen verblijven hier samen met hun familie, 36 procent is een alleenstaande man, 6 procent is een alleenstaande vrouw en 9 procent van deze personen is een niet begeleide minderjarige. Over de reden van vertrek is geen informatie beschikbaar. (CGVS, 2018; Fedasil, 2018)



Nazir kwam in 2014 in België aan. Daarvoor heeft hij een lange weg afgelegd vanuit Afghanistan doorheen vele landen in Europa, te voet, met een vrachtwagen, bus, trein en tram.

In november 2013 is hij vertrokken uit Afghanistan. Zijn nonkel (de broer van zijn moeder) heeft de hele reis bekostigd. Verschillende “agenten” hielpen hem zijn reis verder te zetten, onderweg moest hij hen niet betalen, wel soms als hij (extra) eten of drinken wou voor onderweg.

Eerst heeft hij vijf dagen te voet door de bergen in Iran gewandeld. “Agenten” hielpen hem met auto en vrachtauto’s verder te reizen. Zij gaven de groep vluchtelingen heel weinig eten en drinken. Soms kregen ze een klein stuk brood, dan eens wat tomaten, … Ze aten slechts een keer per dag.

De grens met Turkije werd ’s nachts te voet overgestoken. De “agenten” zeiden dat dit beter was. Het was er wel veel te koud om te slapen. Nazir droeg dan wel een jas, maar dit was veel te dun in de koude temperaturen.

De agenten waren ook streng, zeiden dat iedereen stil moesten zijn.

Wat later staken ze dan met een stuk of 20 personen in een soort vrachtauto de Turkse grens over en belandden zij in een stad bij de grens van Turkije.

Op voorhand was er geen plan waar Nazir heen zou gaan. Hij wou naar een land gaan waar het beter was, waar hij niet hoefde te vrezen voor zijn leven. Een land waar men de mensenrechten respecteert, en waar hij veilig was. Een land met wederzijds respect.

In Turkije kocht de agent een busticket naar Istanboel. Met 5 vluchtelingen gingen ze op een gewone publieke bus zitten. Elk van hen kreeg een brief mee van de agent, met een Turkse tekst op waar ze hun naam en hun bestemming (Istanboel) op moesten noteren. Dit zouden ze dan moeten afgeven wanneer zij controle kregen. Nazir wou graag weten wat er in de brief stond, maar de agent vroeg hen gewoon om stil te zijn.

Uiteindelijk kwam politie (of waarschijnlijk een soort conducteurs) de bus controleren. Nazir was bang om de brief af te geven, want hij wist niet wat er in stond en of het in orde zou zijn. Uiteindelijk gaf hij dan wel de brief, en was alles in orde voor de controleur.

Er werd later nog een tweede keer een controle uitgevoerd waarbij men vroeg naar ID’s, maar ook hier was de brief voldoende om verder te reizen. Nazir heeft nooit geweten wat er in de brief stond.

Aangekomen in Istanboel, stond er een man klaar aan de bus om het groepje van vijf vluchtelingen op te wachten. Nazir had zo zijn twijfels, hij wist niet zeker of deze persoon wel betrouwbaar was. Uiteindelijk gingen ze toch mee met die persoon. Hij zorgde dat ze via een taxirit van ongeveer een half uur toekwamen aan een gebouw waar ze snel door een deur moesten gaan. Daar trof Nazir nog een stuk of 25 andere vluchtelingen aan, die daar al één of twee dagen aanwezig waren. Deze mensen bevestigden dat de persoon die hen tot daar gebracht had een agent was, en Nazir was zo gerustgesteld.

In totaal verbleef Nazir zo’n 4 dagen in Turkije, waarvan drie samen met deze groep van een 25-tal mensen.

Bulgarije zou de volgende stop worden, nadat hij dit gevraagd had aan de agent.

Hij moest om de reis te maken, door bossen lopen terwijl het aan het sneeuwen was. Het was zeker 12 uur wandelen, wat bemoeilijkt werd door de sneeuw. Om het warmer te krijgen kreeg hij een jas van een vriend. Het was er moeilijk slapen en hij kon ook niet veel eten. Aangezien hij dacht niet veel of geen eten te krijgen voor onderweg had hij de agent betaald in Turkije om een fles water en een zak biscuits te halen. Deze had hij dan mee voor onderweg.

Plots werden ze gestopt door politie die hen vroeg naar hun ID. Dit hadden ze niet bij. Deze politiemannen belden dan andere agenten op, zij kwamen toe met verschillende jeeps. Iedereen werd opgepakt en naar het politiekantoor gebracht. Daarna werden zij naar een gesloten instelling gebracht waar zij minstens een maand verbleven. Ze kregen daar zeer weinig eten, de politie was ook niet respectvol. Het leek meer alsof ze in een gevangenis zaten. De politie had ook vrienden van hem geslagen met een soort stok om te vragen om stil te zijn, ook al deden zij geen misdaad.

Nazir was bezorgd.

Bulgarije was geen goed land voor hem. “Rubbish”. Hij wil daar nooit meer terug.

Dan namen ze vingerafdrukken. En daarna mocht hij doorreizen naar Sofia. Hij hoorde dat dat een grote stad was. Er waren veel andere vluchtelingen. Daar ontmoette hij weer een agent die de andere agenten kende die hem reeds geholpen hadden tijdens zijn reis. Deze man hielp hem naar het volgende land: Servië.

Servië had vele heuvels, waar hij uiteindelijk zwaar gestruikeld was. Het was heel ernstig. Hij kon niet precies uitleggen wat het precies was, maar hij had waarschijnlijk een ligament aan zijn knie gescheurd waardoor hij amper op zijn been kon staan. De agent wou dat hij zich haastte, maar dat ging niet. Twee andere Afghanen hebben hem geholpen door hem te ondersteunen om de rest van de weg (nog 3 uur wandelen) af te leggen.

Hij is daarna een maand in Servië gebleven tot hij weer wat kon wandelen. Van daaruit heeft hij een uur met de auto gereisd en dan nog 2 à 3 uur gewandeld. Gelukkig was het hier een effen gebied. Verder naar Hongarije ging het met de taxi met nog 3 anderen, naar een huis, waar ze opnieuw stil moesten zijn van de agenten. Daar waren zij 2 weken. Nazir was zelf niet zeker of ze wel degelijk in Hongarije waren, iemand had hem dat verteld.

Verder ging het met de taxi naar Oostenrijk. Daar werden ze tegengehouden door de politie. Nazir was opnieuw erg bezorgd. De politie zei dat ze zich geen zorgen moesten maken en nam hen mee naar het politiekantoor voor vingerafdrukken. Daarna mochten ze naar een open centrum. Er was hier veel meer respect voor vluchtelingen. Hier verbleef hij één week. Daarna kwam hij weer in contact met een agent die contact had met de agent uit Turkije. Deze vroeg hem om die dag nog in het centrum te blijven, maar daarna naar hem te komen.

Onderweg met de agent mocht er in de tram niet gesproken worden. Nazir moest de agent zwijgend volgen en letten op tekens die hij zou doen om bijvoorbeeld af te stappen. Na het teken van de agent stapten zij af en gingen naar het treinstation waar de agent een treinkaart kocht voor hem. Van daaruit ging de reis verder naar Italië. Italië was een goed en normaal land. Van Italië ging het weer door naar Frankrijk, en daarna kwam Nazir uiteindelijk in 2014 in België terecht. Dat was volgens de agent een goed en veilig land.

De agenten en andere Afghanen en een Arabier die hier woonden hielpen hem met het doorverwijzen waar hij terecht kon om zijn asiel aan te vragen. Daarvoor ging hij naar Brussel, waar ze voor de derde keer zijn vingerafdrukken namen. Via de databank wisten zij dat hij voor het eerst geregistreerd was in Bulgarije (waar ze het eerst zijn vingerafdrukken namen). Volgens het Dublinakkoord zou hij dus normaal gezien terug naar Bulgarije gezonden worden. Hiervoor werd er nog een overleg gepleegd. Ondertussen kreeg Nazir een onderkomen in Fedasil, in Brussel kreeg hij een treinticket om er te geraken. Daar verbleef hij 1,5 maand. Hij kreeg dan het verzoek om opnieuw naar het commissariaat in Brussel te gaan, maar dit werd door anderen afgeraden als hij niet terug naar Bulgarije wou keren. Ze gaven het advies om 6 maanden illegaal in België te verblijven en daarna pas nog eens terug te keren. De vingerafdrukken zouden volgens hen dan uit het systeem gehaald zijn of iets dergelijks.

Nazir had dan wel veel vragen. Waar moest hij gedurende die tijd terecht voor eten, een onderdak, kleren? Iemand toonde hem de weg naar een kerk waar hij gedurende lange tijd mocht verblijven en waar alles gratis was, gedoneerd door anderen.

Na 6 maanden keerde Nazir dan terug naar het kantoor in Brussel, waar hij toch werd meegenomen naar een centrum van waaruit men de vluchtelingen terug stuurt (in zijn geval dus terug naar Bulgarije). Er waren daar nog vele andere mensen aanwezig die ook teruggestuurd zouden worden.

Hij was ten einde raad en huilde, want Bulgarije was een slecht land. Hij wou er absoluut niet terug heen. Twee dagen later ging hij langs bij de dokter om eens zijn been te laten bekijken dat hij een hele tijd geleden ernstig geblesseerd had. Nu kon hij hier wel naar laten kijken, vroeger kon of mocht dat niet. Ze waren toen namelijk illegaal en mochten niet ontdekt worden. Hij kon nog steeds niet goed zijn been gebruiken.

Tegen de dokter vertelde hij dat hij zeker zijn been wilde laten genezen in België, hij was er zeker van dat dit in Bulgarije niet mogelijk zou zijn. Daar hadden ze namelijk geen respect voor de mensenrechten en in België was dit wel het geval.

De dokter wist niet wat te antwoorden. Hij stuurde hiervoor een bericht naar iemand van de migratiedienst. Het antwoord hierop was dat Nazir zijn been grondig mocht laten checken. Indien het een echt probleem is, mocht hij in België blijven. Is dit niet het geval moet hij terug naar Bulgarije.

De tests wezen uit dat er een operatie nodig was en een lange kinesitherapie om te herstellen. Hiervoor diende hij niets te betalen, alles werd voor hem betaald ook al was het 4.000 euro voor de operatie alleen. Nazir was dolgelukkig. Na de operatie kwam de kinesist nog 9 maanden langs bij Fedasil voor oefeningen voor zijn been. De assistent in Fedasil kreeg een e-mail van het commissariaat dat hij een nieuwe asielaanvraag mocht indienen. Hij heeft dan nog twee interviews moeten doen, met uiteindelijk een positief antwoord. Hierop moest hij dan wel het centrum verlaten. Hij kreeg eerst voor een korte tijd een huis van het OCMW van Kortrijk als tijdelijke oplossing. Momenteel heeft hij nu zijn eigen huis. Hij hoopt binnenkort terug verenigd te worden met zijn vrouw en twee kinderen van 4 en 6 jaar. En hij is heel erg dankbaar voor zijn toelating om in België te mogen blijven.

Mocht hij nu terug naar zijn thuisland gaan, is er een kans dat hij zou kunnen sterven. Hij heeft iedereen van zijn familie op de hoogte gebracht dat hij hier goed is aangekomen, en is echt tevreden.