A/HRC/29/36 and rescue operations compared with the mandate of Operation Mare Nostrum, incoherence in search and rescue zone management, tensions between unilateral and regional interventions, disincentives for private and military vessels to provide assistance to migrants, limited resource commitments from member States and difficulties in establishing disembarkation protocols. 34. While search and rescue services are a vital part of addressing the human rights challenges faced by migrants trying to reach the European Union by precarious routes, the root causes of the use of these channels must be examined. A key driver is the lack of regular migration channels that reflect the European Union’s genuine labour needs and the humanitarian and protection needs of those fleeing humanitarian situations. The European Union’s collective response to the Syrian crisis exposes a remarkably intransigent refusal to offer Syrians any significant migration opportunities. Most European Union member States have preferred to look the other way, unsurprisingly pushing migrants to turn to smugglers. 35. The increased use of the central Mediterranean route demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that, whatever measures the European Union implements, migrants will continue to come to the region and that “sealing” European borders is impossible. The risks that migrants are prepared to take to reach safer soil show that border control measures are not an effective disincentive when desperate people face situations of war, insecurity, violence and extreme poverty. Externalization 36. Concerning trends in the use of externalization techniques have continued since the publication of the 2013 report. The European Union has adopted the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility as a policy framework with significant scope for future migration governance and border control. The Approach comprises a complex and vast array of loosely associated policy and legal mechanisms, as well as a number of projects in countries of transit and origin. 37. Mobility partnerships are a key tool of the Approach and have been prominent in the recent dialogue held by the European Union on its migration and border management. The partnerships address a broad range of issues ranging from development aid to visa facilitation, circular migration programmes and the fight against unauthorized migration, including cooperation on readmission. The European Union has signed mobility partnerships with Azerbaijan, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia since 2013. It has also signed a common agenda on migration and mobility with Nigeria. 38. Overall, the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility lacks transparency and clarity on the substantive contents of its multiple and complex elements. Additionally, many agreements reached in the framework of the Approach have weak standing within international law and generally lack monitoring and accountability measures, which allow for power imbalances between countries and for the politics of the day to determine implementation. Nonetheless, the European Union has continued to use the Approach to promote greater “security”. There are few signs that mobility partnerships have resulted in additional human rights or development benefits, as projects have unclear specifications and outcomes. The overall focus on security and the lack of policy coherence within the Approach as a whole creates a risk that any benefits arising from human rights and development projects will be overshadowed by the secondary effects of more securityfocused policies. 39. Readmission agreements are an area of particular concern. Despite protections against such practices in European Union legislation, pushbacks and refoulement to countries of origin and third countries with weak rule of law and poor asylum systems have been conducted under the broad auspices of bilateral agreements. The European Court of 8