General analysis:

The consensus view after the first round of the consultations is that they went better than expected. As ICVA predicted after the 12 December planning meeting, there was not enough time to take an in-depth look at the agenda items. However, after a shaky start (pointless recitation of thanks, how great it was that it was Women’s Day etc etc), states engaged well in the process. Statements were generally short, and although most were prepared in advance there was some interaction between the delegations. Interestingly, despite EU and IGC meetings in Geneva in advance of the Global Consultations there appeared to be little coordination of statements and the expected blocs did not emerge. Many states referred to practical experience of hosting massive displaced populations and of protection regimes, which was useful. In particular, it was a very good sign that African delegations were prepared to participate and were sometimes sharply critical of the (lack of) assistance from western states.

Few IGOs made statements and the reaction to those which did was mixed. The ICRC statement was well taken, no-one understood the IOM interventions, the Council of Europe was useful technically. NGOs were allowed one statement per agenda item, although we did manage to sneak in a supplementary on the overall protection framework item. The consensus is that the NGO statements were very good; they attempted to be interactive by referring to other statements; they responded to the UNHCR papers but went wider, picking up on issues not mentioned in the papers (this was much appreciated by Erika Feller); they reflected practical difficulties and emphasised a human rights approach in all the statements.

Overall protection framework:

Prevention of displacement emerged as the predominant theme here. Cuba expressed the cyclical nature of the problem of displacement well by saying that poverty causes displacement which causes or exacerbates poverty in host states, thus endlessly replicating refugee situations. This line was repeated by many states. As expected, there was a split between western and African states on the question of temporary protection vs. prima facie recognition of status. However, there were subtle variations. Within the European group, some states were heavily in favour of TP, such as Denmark, Switzerland and Austria. Others, like Sweden and the UK, emphasised the value of the Convention and that TP should not undermine it. Other states, like the USA, were in favour of TP, but emphasised practical difficulties in implementing it and that group determination of Convention status was a useful tool. States with large refugee populations, like Pakistan and Zambia, stressed prima facie determination as the only practical means of responding in mass influx situations. Ethiopia and Zambia emphasised the value of the OAU Convention and the need for more attention on durable solutions. Morocco and Egypt stressed the human rights framework in which responses should be made. All delegations who spoke of durable solutions emphasised voluntary return as the only truly viable solution, although some did concede that resettlement should be expanded.

Only the intervention of Thailand really sticks out as being almost wholly negative, saying the Convention is no longer relevant, that prima facie recognition is a “pull factor” (Denmark expressed this in reverse, saying that TP was a signal to refugees not to come), that there should be quotas for refugee entry, that resettlement leaves the first country of asylum with “undesirables” and that “safety zones” should be considered.

Civilian character of asylum:

Most states endorsed the conclusions of the regional meeting in Pretoria, a report of which was made available just in advance. This was a helpful indication of how the regional meetings are going to feed into the Geneva meetings. States with large refugee populations and problems in separating out combatants referred to the difficulties of doing this alone and stressed the need for international help. The ICRC made a very useful intervention on the definitions of “combatant” and internment etc, implicitly indicating no need to re-define the terms in the consultations.

Registration:

States said very little about registration, other than to endorse the UNHCR project “Profile”. By far the most useful intervention came from the NGOs.

Responsibility-sharing:

Many states, especially those with large refugee populations, had already said a lot about the burden of being a host state during the debate on the overall protection framework. The tone of the discussion here was set by Pakistan listing the economic and environmental catastrophe caused by mass influx and the detrimental impact on crime rates, especially drug trafficking. Tanzania and Iran also stressed higher crime rates as a problem and the fact that refugees took jobs from the local population or were treated better than the local community by international agencies. Perhaps because they could be, western states were more high-minded, stressing a rights-based approach to responsibility-sharing and the need for greater resettlement quotas but little of concrete value was said, except by Sweden, which announced EU plans to establish a stand-by police force to help camp security.