Review of the Refugee Policy Work of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA)

Keeping refugees at the forefront of our work

Executive Summary with main recommendations

The Review confirmed that refugee work is rightly at the core of ICVA's mandate and should remain so for the foreseeable future. The authority for doing this work comes from its membership, Executive Committee and the capacity of the secretariat.

Everyone acknowledged that ICVA achieved a great amount with its refugee-focused activities given its size. It was also specifically acknowledged and appreciated that ICVA had extra posts for the work related to the Global Consultations. Explicitly and implicitly everyone said that ICVA required more resources, both human and financial, to maintain the high level of services it provides.

Many consulted felt that one of the greatest values of ICVA was that it brought the voice of Southern NGOs into the debates in Geneva. However, there was a sense that this strength was not capitalised on enough by ICVA members. There was a strong feeling that taking this forward should be done with reference to developments with the Partnership in Action process (PARinAC) (see below).

There was consensus on many aspects of the Global Consultations. Most had welcomed UNHCR's undertaking of this exercise and felt that it was important that a wide range of agencies and organisations had had input into the debate. All acknowledged that the Convention had been re-affirmed (or, rather more negatively, saved from dilution and re-writing by hostile States) and that this fact alone may have justified much of the exercise. However, it was felt that the exercise had been enormously resource-intensive, both in terms of money and staff time. Perhaps as a consequence, many felt that the voice of Southern NGOs was missing from the exercise.

The majority feeling regarding the whole exercise was that the proof of whether or not it was worth it would be seen in how much difference the Consultations make operationally on the ground. In other words, how effective will it be at enhancing protection for refugees in the field? Most felt that what was needed now was to turn the Agenda for Protection into a work plan or action plan, assigning key roles and responsibilities to States, UNHCR, NGOs, and others. Such a plan would have clear targets, dates, and deadlines.

There was a wide recognition from States and UNHCR of the value of the NGO input into the process. Related to this fact, everyone appreciated the roles that ICVA had played throughout the stages of the Consultations in facilitating the NGO input.

While the Global Consultations confirmed a commitment to the Refugee Convention, they also highlighted the gap in its implementation. Consequently, much activity within the Consultations looked at a so-called supervisory mechanism. Some felt that this effort outweighed its importance; others felt that it was a distraction; and others saw it as key to the long-term assurance of protection for refugees. While there was no consensus on this issue, it was recognised by all consulted that there was a need to take this area of concern forward. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that the various avenues that might be followed and explored were not necessarily exclusive. In other words, there could be a variety of approaches to pursuing this issue at the same time without negating or duplicating others. It was seen as appropriate that ICVA continue to play a role in taking forward the discussions on a supervisory mechanism.

For many, PARinAC was not foremost in their minds. There was a division between those who currently used and had reference to PARinAC in their daily work, and those for whom it made no tangible difference. However, all said that what was important was the spirit of partnership between UNHCR and NGOs that was informed by the PARinAC principles. The majority feeling was that the terminology and the structure of PARinAC was getting in the way and discrediting the process of partnership between UNHCR and NGOs. This fact needed to be addressed and it was felt appropriate that ICVA take a lead in doing so.

There was widespread appreciation of the Reach Out Refugee Protection Training Programme. It was welcomed as a concrete outcome of UNHCR's Refugee Protection Reach Out process and, significantly, it was an activity taken forward by the non-governmental sector. Other elements of Reach Out were seen as having developed in different forms often not labelled as "Reach Out." The Global Consultations were seen as one such example. Again, for many, as with PARinAC, the term had little reference to their everyday work. What was felt as being important was not the terminology, but the issue of whether protection is being enhanced in the field. In this respect, many felt that more could be done. Some referred to the Agenda for Protection and how it was to be translated into a plan of action (see above).

That UNHCR is still the natural inter-governmental partner for ICVA was confirmed by the Review. It was felt that ICVA should continue to approach and work with the agency on a multitude of levels including the following: formal and informal; from being critical to praising where appropriate; from conducting joint activities, such as training and missions; cultivating contacts at all levels, from the High Commissioner to Protection Officers at the field level.

A key manifestation of this partnership was recognised as the activity around the UNHCR Executive Committee (ExCom) and the Pre-Executive Committee Consultations (Pre-ExCom). For many, these events presented golden opportunities to bring together NGOs around issues of the moment and to facilitate formal and informal meetings and networks. It was felt that ICVA should continue to play a key role in these events.

It was suggested by some that there were other partners and relationships that ICVA could explore in different ways without detracting from the relationship with UNHCR. These included links with States, IOM, and human rights bodies. However, all such partnerships could only be significantly enhanced if there was both a clear strategy and desired outcome for the partnership and sufficient resources to enable it to work.

There was broad recognition and appreciation by many of the regular activities conducted by ICVA, such as the provision of information, organising of meetings, Talk Back, and field reports. Much of this information is refugee-related and is key to the overall refugee work of ICVA. Many of those consulted had access to such information through the ICVA website and acknowledged how useful it was to them along with specific e-mailings from ICVA.

Many suggestions were made as to how these activities might be enhanced or increased. However, it was stressed that such changes should be informed by two factors. Firstly, any activity should build upon and enhance one of the key assets of ICVA, which is that it provides a link between Southern NGOs and Geneva-based organisations and structures. Secondly, adequate resources would need to be secured to perform these functions.

While everyone was aware of the many external issues that touched upon the area of refugees, it was not felt that any single issue, such as the environment, merited the setting-up of new or permanent structures or links. What people appreciated most from ICVA in this respect, and would like to see more of, was ICVA's gadfly ability to pick up the issue of the moment, have a feel for the zeitgeist, and present it in a digestible format to the NGO community for information, discussion, and use. Whether it is humanitarian coordination in Afghanistan or contingency planning for the consequences of war with Iraq, it was ICVA's unique position in being able to pick up on what is relevant to its members and the wider NGO community that was seen as a key strength that should be built upon. In turn, this function necessitates a strong ability to network and to maintain the trust of key players. It also relies on flexibility and creativity to share the material with a wide NGO audience.

Main Recommendations
Agenda for Protection and Supervisory Mechanism

• ICVA should prioritise exploring mechanisms to take forward the Agenda for Protection. Specifically, ICVA should seek to work closely with UNHCR, States, and NGOs on translating the Agenda into a work plan with specific responsibilities and timeframes assigned to different players.

• NGOs should be properly included in the UNHCR decision-making structures that will be taking forward the Agenda for Protection. NGOs should not be sidelined, but rather mainstreamed into the process. This would make concrete the appreciation expressed by UNHCR and States to the value of NGO contribution to date. ICVA should take a lead in bringing this about.

• ICVA should seek to ensure NGO participation in the UNHCR forum, providing a 'high-level and participatory dialogue on protection issues' (Goal 1 of the Agenda for Protection).

• ICVA should organise a meeting of NGOs to specifically discuss the issue of a supervisory mechanism, either around the time of the Pre-ExCom or shortly thereafter. This occasion would allow for broad-based input into the discussion, as many organisations not normally based in Geneva would be in town at this time. The aim of this meeting would be to establish a smaller group to take forward the discussion on a supervisory mechanism. This group should have a two-year strategy and involve the following: a human rights NGO, a Southern NGO, an international NGO involved in delivering assistance, a legal input, and an academic. ICVA should service this in conjunction with the University of Michigan. It should have a budget to coordinate consultation and be able to involve other organisations as necessary throughout the period of its existence.

• ICVA should be involved in an analysis of the Global Consultation process, including the roles of States and NGOs. Such an analysis would look at whether it was the best use of resources in achieving the aim of enhancing protection. ICVA's involvement should be at a 'steering group' level, as its role would also be evaluated.

PARinAC

• ICVA, in conjunction with the UNHCR NGO Liaison Unit and key NGOs, should re-affirm the principles behind PARinAC with an aim of re-packaging these in a new structure with a new name and commitment. This commitment should backed-up by an appropriate budget. The time frame for this effort would seek to have something in motion by the spring of 2003.

• This process should seek to make the new structure useful and relevant to Southern NGOs. It should draw upon their experience of successful partnerships with UNHCR and seek to be relevant to their needs. Some of this has already been noted in the extensive work put into the PARinAC Review conducted in 2000 and the UNHCR Report of the Sub-Working Group on Partnerships which looked at UNHCR partnerships with NGOs in 2001, to which reference should be made.

• ICVA should enhance its links with its Southern NGOs without weakening its position in Geneva (in that ICVA should maintain a strong Secretariat with a continuing link to the policy makers). This enhancement should include: involving such members in specific joint activities such as furthering the discussion and development of the supervisory mechanism, continuing with targeted field visits, co-opting Southern members onto the ICVA Executive Committee and holding key meetings in the South (the ICVA General Assembly is an example of this). ICVA should utilise this link to continue to bring the voice of its Southern members into policy-making. In this effort, ICVA should seek support from States and UNHCR to work in constructive and creative ways towards joint outcomes with all those concerned with protection.

• ICVA should seek funding for a specific programme of work aimed at its Southern Members. This programme should seek to enhance the ability of these NGOs to participate in Geneva-based processes. It should enhance their links with both inter-governmental agencies and international NGOs. It may be appropriate for such a programme to be part of the re-packaging of PARinAC.

• The specific PARinAC website should be dropped formally and methods for the distribution of relevant information should be explored in the development of a new "PARinAC."

Reach Out

• ICVA's active role on the management board of the Reach Out Training should continue.

• The Reach Out Training should be evaluated and the strategic link with other training in this field enhanced.

• The original aspirations of the Reach Out process should be incorporated into the re-packaging of PARinAC.

NGO - UNHCR Cooperation

• ICVA should strengthen its role as a facilitator of NGO-UNHCR cooperation by enhancing the opportunities for NGOs to have a dialogue with, and input into, UNHCR processes. By doing so, ICVA would re-affirm that it is not speaking on behalf of all NGOs, but rather doing the back room work in enabling NGOs to have a voice and participation in a dialogue with UNHCR and others.

• ICVA should seek to make the Pre-ExCom and ExCom as relevant and participatory an exercise as possible for NGOs. This should be done by bringing together NGOs, UNHCR, and States on a variety of levels in smaller less formal meetings. It should also involve continuing liaison with the UNHCR NGO Unit as to ways to make the agendas as relevant as possible to those NGOs working with refugees.

• Continue to cultivate contacts at all levels in UNHCR from the High Commissioner to Protection Officers at the field level, for example by inviting the High Commissioner to a meeting; meeting with him informally with results of this review; and asking him how ICVA and NGOs could help him.

• ICVA staff should make a point of meeting with UNHCR field officers when ICVA staff are themselves in the field (not necessarily in joint meetings with other NGOs, but in separate meetings between ICVA and UNHCR that are mutually informative).

• ICVA should undertake research and evaluation of UNHCR activities (or jointly commission this research with UNHCR).

• ICVA should have joint strategy discussions with key UNHCR people in DIP and Operations.

• ICVA should support research into measuring the NGO effect on protection.

• UNHCR's protection training for its own staff should be made available to NGO staff and similarly UNHCR protection staff should be invited to participate in NGO training.

• ICVA should conduct a review of the High Commissioner's first year in office. This would be a continuation of ICVA's comments on the initial selection process for the High Commissioner.

• ICVA could seek another secondment to UNHCR (although not at the expense of other activities - see note above).

• ICVA should work with UNHCR on its fear of the rise of the right in Europe - ICVA can use its link with civil society to help HCR resist this movement. It could embellish its link with ECRE as part of this effort.

Other ICVA Work

• The core backbone work of ICVA should be enhanced. Specifically ICVA should seek funding for the equivalent of two posts in the Secretariat. This new resource should be used for work with a specific remit on protection (perhaps with an emphasis on helping to take forward the issues arising from the Agenda for Protection). The other post should be used to embellish the excellent core work that ICVA does, as mentioned in the section on 'Other ICVA Activities' (see below). The above posts should clearly be incorporated into the Secretariat, working to a common strategy.

• Refugee work should remain at the core of ICVA's activities

• ICVA should be involved in delivering training, in the fields of protection, advocacy, and networking. This training should be focused on Southern NGOs and be adequately funded. Any training and protection should not duplicate that of others, but rather compliment it.

• ICVA could enhance its role as the think tank to lobby and advocate and bring experience from the field into Protection debate. It could do this by commissioning research. ICVA's key strength in this is its link to the field and its members there. ICVA has an understanding of the operational perspective that is key to designing research aimed at improving aspects of practice in the real world, a perspective sometimes overlooked in other research.

• ICVA should produce an audit of its achievements since the last General Assembly (or since the re-structuring in 1998).

• The ICVA General Assembly in February 2003 should be used to re-affirm the direction and mandate of ICVA including an emphasis on the importance of ICVA's links to Southern NGOs.

• ICVA should state again what is its role is, in order to clear up misunderstandings amongst some stakeholders about issues such as coordination and advocacy. ICVA cannot and does not claim to speak on behalf of all NGOs and any perception that it does should not be misused to avoid meaningful consultations with a wider NGO group.

• ICVA's new Chair and Coordinator should meet up with the head of ECRE in 2003 to explore areas of cooperation, particularly utilising the link that ICVA has with its Southern NGOs who are ECRE's members.

• ICVA should continue its role in SPHERE (now extended until 2004) and should give more feedback to its members about SPHERE.

• ICVA should have a membership drive and re-statement of values

• ICVA should have more informal meetings utilising occasions when NGOs from outside of town come to Geneva.

• ICVA should pay for field-based NGO representatives to come to Geneva, as well as going to the field.

• ICVA should have more joint missions with partners from NGOs, inter-governmental, and donors.

• ICVA should ask their members to do more - some would be very open to being asked to lead or speak on behalf of ICVA

• ICVA should move its office nearer to the centre of Geneva.

• ICVA should share its work programme and calendar with its members with as much notice as possible to enhance the involvement and attendance of Southern NGOs particularly.

Other Issues

• ICVA should continue to be involved with the issue of internally displaced people (IDPs)

• ICVA should maintain its involvement with the debates and mechanisms around the involvement of the military in humanitarian issues.

• ICVA should retain the ability to hold one-off meetings around external issues that touch on the work with refugees. Such meetings should involve key agencies active in these other fields.

  Back to Contents

Introduction

This report is the culmination of the Review of the Refugee Policy work of ICVA conducted over the period April-August 2002. The Review was undertaken to take stock of where ICVA is in relation to this work and to make recommendations for future directions (see Terms of Reference in Appendix 3). It is the result of a mixture of interviews with, and written responses from, key stakeholders (see Annex 1), meetings with the ICVA Secretariat staff, the ICVA Executive, and analysis of key documentation. This report is intended to inform the future work of ICVA in this field and, as such, will be the basis of future funding applications for ICVA.

This report largely follows the format dictated by the key areas of work that were reviewed. The fact that the Global Consultations were fresh in everyone's minds and were ongoing at the time of the Review meant that they tended to dominate and flavour many of the responses. However, feedback was also received on vital regular activities that ICVA performs, which served as a timely reminder that this core work should not be completely overlooked or ignored in favour of newer or more visible activities. These regular activities should be seen as the backbone upon which everything else relies.

The fact that this Review has come about at an opportune time for those working with refugees cannot be overstated. The UNHCR Global Consultations on Protection helped highlight not just the principles on which our work is carried out, but also the key challenge of how to put these principles into practice. For ICVA the Review comes after a period of intense activity around refugee issues, activity built upon a consolidation of the organisation's vision over the last four years. For refugees themselves, the persecution from which they flee continues across many areas of the world and they are faced daily with the reality of what protection really means and the consequences of the lack of it. The ICVA reports from the field illustrate this fact all too well, as does the recent sexual abuse allegations in refugee camps in West Africa. If nothing else, these examples remind us that protection and assistance go together; that it is not enough to deliver one without regard to the other.

All of this is to a backdrop of significant external developments that cannot be ignored as they have an effect as to how refugees are perceived and treated. These developments include: the implications arising from the events of September 11th, the rise of xenophobia within Europe, the increased number of people being trafficked, the renewed migration debate, sustainable development, globalisation, military involvement in humanitarian affairs, internal displacement: the list could go on. What it shows is that this work is taking place in an ever complex and ever changing environment that demands an increased awareness from all involved with refugees. Having the time to monitor these issues and dovetail with relevant debates and organisations is essential, along with the ability to provide the tools and flexibility to respond to these changes. Sadly, it also reminds us that there is more than enough work for everyone in this challenging field, an expression that could have been the title for this Review.

ICVA is well placed to play a crucial role in responding to these challenges by building upon past achievements and continuing to involve all of its members, particularly those from the South. This Review will play its part in helping position ICVA to ensure that it continues to be 'part of the solution' with practical responses to new situations built upon solid principles. While new thinking and new responses are needed, the many activities that make up the day-to-day work of the organisation should not be understated. Those consulted in the Review expressed enormous appreciation of the work of ICVA, much of which goes unsung, along with an acknowledgement of the skill and dedication of the staff. There was enormous good will expressed towards continuing to work with and support ICVA in the future, along with agreement that ICVA should continue to prioritise refugees in its work.

Back to Contents

Main Findings

Overall Role of ICVA in relation to Refugees
That ICVA has emerged from the organisational difficulties of the late '90s stronger and more focused was widely acknowledged by all consulted. It was often said that the excellent work that ICVA does is often understated or unsung. It was felt that the recent activities and emphasis on refugees had been an appropriate use of the time and resources of the organisation and that the needs in this area of work are likely to grow.

ICVA should feel confident of its strengths and seek to renew its mandate with a clear mission statement emphasising its unique position as a bridge between NGOs in the South (the field) and the inter-governmental agencies and international NGOs in the North.

Back to Contents

Global Consultations
There was a feeling that the enormous amount of work put into this exercise needed to be built upon, and that this should be done sooner rather than later. There was a sense of exhaustion with the resource intensive process and that a break over the summer was needed before everyone got on with making the issues operational. Therein, of course, lies the challenge and it would be an illusion to think that this is going to be a quick or easy process. There is common agreement that there needs to be a way to take forward the discussions of how to do this, through the setting of action plans and the setting of priorities of the Agenda for Protection. However, there are different emphases on the reasons and ways to do this:

• For some of the States, the issue is one of making the Agenda for Protection into an action plan from which they can pick and choose items rather than being held to particular things.

• For some of the States a forum is needed to hold UNHCR to account. There were different understandings of what this forum should be, some referring to the forum mentioned in the Agenda for Protection. In this respect some States (and NGOs) have said that any continuing forum needs to be linked to the UNHCR ExCom and Standing Committee. That is, it should not be an ad hoc arrangement that gets sidelined, but is mainstreamed into the decision-making process and accountability lines of UNHCR. A specific discussion needs to be organised around the forum.

• For NGOs, the desire is to ensure better protection in practice and to hold UNHCR and States to account.

• Most agreed that the follow-up needs to be mainstreamed, not sidelined to a one-off forum or mechanism (although the High Commissioner can call such one-off meetings anyway and should do so). Everyone felt that NGOs should be involved in the follow-up, although there were few concrete suggestions as to how (a paper subsequently prepared for the ExCom by UNHCR and Amnesty International makes some suggestions about this). Given the willingness to consider this idea from all sides, it should be capitalised upon by ICVA in the coming months by holding States and UNHCR to account on this.

In all of the above everyone acknowledged that ICVA could continue to play a pivotal role. Particular appreciation was made of the briefings and materials produced by ICVA, the preparing of statements, and the coordination of meetings. The 'User's Guide to the Global Consultations' was a good example of ICVA providing tools that everyone could use to de-mystify the process.

However, there were some conflicting messages around ICVA's role in two issues connected to the Global Consultations. The first was ICVA's role in linking with the University of Michigan. Some people felt that this initiative had arisen out of the blue and had not complemented other activities around this issue. Others felt that they had not been prepared enough for such an initiative. In contrast, some saw it as a bold and creative initiative that stumbled due to a lack of time and the demands made upon people's attention and energy by other aspects of the Global Consultations. This latter point was a common theme of feedback on the Global Consultations as a whole: that they were very resource-intensive in terms of people's time.

Linked to this were some misunderstandings and frustrations about preparing materials for sessions in the Global Consultations. This did not relate to the putting together of statements, more to physical issues, such as who was to photocopy what. This was a combination of a general lack of resources in the NGO community and some confused expectations about who was doing what. This is easily addressable with a clarification of lines of responsibility and proper resources. These things can only go smoothly if there are adequate resources to make them happen. Resources alone do not make the systems foolproof, but there can be no efficient systems without adequate resources. It could also be said that by the end of the Global Consultation process, overall NGO input seemed to have waned somewhat, either due to exhaustion or lack of resources within the entire NGO community, not just ICVA.

Back to Contents

Agenda for Protection
That ICVA should prioritise taking forward the Agenda for Protection in its work was left in no doubt. Specifically, it was suggested that ICVA should have follow-up discussions with UNHCR, States, key international NGOs and key Southern NGOs to help in the establishment of a work plan or plan of action for the Agenda for Protection. This would ascertain tasks, responsibilities by sector, and work towards commitments with timetables. In this exercise ICVA should utilise its connection with key members in the field and be modest in the scope of the consultation, not seek to recreate the enormous mechanism used in the process to date. In this context there are three distinct areas that need to be taken forward:

• The NGO role in the future regarding the Agenda for Protection
• A discussion regarding the 'forum' (what is it, what do people think it should be etc.)
• Accountability of States in protection

ICVA should also concentrate on bringing the process into the normal UNHCR decision-making structures. So while ICVA may call some specific small meetings with key players, it should incorporate the discussion into the work around the Pre-ExCom, ExCom, and Standing Committee. This will not be an easy task, but the momentum is there, along with a willingness of States and others to try and make this happen. Some States particularly wanted to embellish the NGO role in taking forward the Agenda for Protection, but had not worked out how to do so. If ICVA could help States to do so, it would be enormously appreciated.

A separate strand arose regarding ICVA's involvement in an evaluation of the Global Consultations process. Several people consulted expressed a desire to conduct a review or evaluation of the Global Consultations process itself, involving a State, HCR, and NGOs. Some States indicated that they would welcome such an evaluation, perhaps in the light of some of the following comments:

• The cost (human and financial) of the Global Consultations was too much! One State, for example, contributed $100,000 to the process and wondered whether it had been worth it. This could for example have covered the annual costs of a local NGO working with refugees in the field. It was suggested that such money could have achieved more in terms of protection had it been spent in this way.

• The process was designed by UNHCR to meet its purposes and so was not transparent and did not truly involve people as partners. It was recommended that the process be analysed. There is a need to ensure that future work in responding to refugee protection brings on board the concerns of all parties and not just one player. This fact would become apparent through a review of the Global Consultations (see further below).

• It was an elitist exercise that excluded the voice of Southern NGOs

• The NGO community, including ICVA, did not have enough resources to enable it to participate on an equal footing.

• We need commitments and follow-up, papers on plans of action.

Such an analysis would primarily explore whether or not the Global Consultations were successful. Many stakeholders felt that they were successful, but equally as many were sceptical. An evaluation could look at this issue in more detail and make recommendations for how future consultations could be handled. However, while such an evaluation would be useful, it should not be used as a diversion to lose sight of the important issue that the Global Consultations were about and the challenges and expectations that lie therein. It should also not be too resource intensive, but a quick and focused exercise with equal reporting back to the three parties: NGOs, States, and UNHCR. ICVA should only get involved if specifically funded to do so. There may also be a question about ICVA being too close to the whole process to be able to evaluate itself. However, this should not exclude ICVA from having, say, a commissioning or steering role in such an evaluation. It was suggested that such an evaluation could also take into account how to develop PARinAC by drawing out lessons of how NGOs were consulted and worked with as partners. On balance, this might confuse the issue and the development of PARinAC needs to taken forward separately (see below).

Mainstreaming of the needs of Women and children
Mainstreaming the needs of women and children appears as a desire in the Agenda for Protection. However, it was felt by many NGOs to have been sidelined in the Global Consultation Process. No one suggested that ICVA had sidelined the issue of women and children; they simply wanted to highlight the continuing need to mainstream these issues in the taking forward of protection issues. However, in contradiction, some had insisted it be looked at separately in the Global Consultations. A stark example though of how protection relates to women and children was illustrated by the sexual abuse allegations in the refugee camps in West Africa that came to light at the time of the Global Consultations. In this sense, the issue is key for them and it is beholden upon all involved in protection to not sideline these concerns.

Back to Contents

Supervisory Mechanism
It seemed clear that there was no consensus on any sort of a so-called supervisory mechanism. However, there was consensus that the debate and discussion should continue on what it, if anything, it could be. Not all States were against the idea of a supervisory mechanism, but most are resisting any new structure, especially one that entails resources or more accountability. Having said that though, they did recognise that there was a problem with the current set-up. UNHCR seemed against the idea of a supervisory mechanism, as were some NGOs. Some pointed to using existing international laws and convention bodies. However, enough NGOs and others supported the idea to find a way to pursue it without distracting too much energy from following up some of the other issues in the Agenda for Protection. The whole issue goes to the core of the role of NGOs: that is of their putting the needs of their beneficiaries first. However, it also highlights the tension between principle and pragmatism. NGOs may know what would be an ideal solution, but wonder if it is worth pursuing and investing resources in if there is no realistic prospect of that ideal being achieved. Several expressed this view with regards to establishing a so-called supervisory mechanism.

What needs to be stressed is that various different avenues can be explored simultaneously; that they are not exclusive of each other. The ultimate direction would be the same: to improve implementation of the Convention. In fact, given that there is no current consensus (apart from the agreement that something needs to improve), it is entirely appropriate that separate strands are explored at the same time.

Several people welcomed the initiatives that ICVA had taken on this issue, particularly with the University of Michigan. However, for a variety of reasons, this initiative had not received the desired outcome. Some felt there was not enough consultation about this process and that there was not enough forewarning of what was needed for the initiative to be fruitful. It may also be that it was seen as a distraction from the Global Consultations, whereas in fact it sought to address one of the core issues of the Consultations.

However, given that the shortcomings in this process have been acknowledged, it is now time to move on and take the discussion forward, building upon the expertise and resources on offer to do so. Through the holding of a seminar, a small working group could be launched (as with the furthering of the Agenda for Protection there was a reluctance to establish cumbersome new forums and structures to do this) to take forward this issue. It must be stressed that in many of the ideas for taking forward the supervisory mechanism are not exclusive. The working group should build upon the significant amount of work already carried out by others on this topic.

Back to Contents

PARinAC
Partnership in Action (PARinAC) is the name given to the process of UNHCR-NGO cooperation. The plan of action to inform this cooperation was contained in the Oslo Declaration arising from a major conference in that city in 1994 organised by ICVA and UNHCR.

Eight years later, PARinAC was not uppermost in the minds of the majority of those consulted, though there were several comments that illustrated what people thought of PARinAC:

• It has outlived its time;

• You do not need PARinAC for there to be good partnerships;

• The structure got in the way, just as currently the name gets in the way;

• Most focal points did not operate in the way intended and it is a thankless task getting them to do so;

• Terminology is not important, but the relationship and the nature of the partnership with UNHCR is the key;

• Many aspects of PARinAC have been taken forward under different headings;

• Should be honest about its outliving its useful life and re-launch it as something else;

• Need to take it forward by having reference to the UNHCR Sub-Working Group on Partnerships' paper on NGOs;

• UNHCR still has money for PARinAC;

• PARinAC should be an NGO construct, not an HCR one; and

• It should be focused on its use for Southern NGOs.

The consensus was that the structure and name now got in the way and should be repackaged. A repackaging should re-affirm the principles behind the process and put practical measures in place in certain prioritised areas to make real these principles. For example, this could include a linkage with capacity-building and training, along with joint training and goal-setting regarding protection. These priority areas could be seen as templates that could be adopted elsewhere as appropriate. The areas chosen should acknowledge and respond to places where it had worked relatively well to date. A fresh start could re-invigorate the concept and the commitment from HCR.

The only ambiguity was over when to do this. There was a strong sense from UNHCR that the timing had to be thought through to ensure that it was not seen as an excuse to either cut budgets or sideline partnerships with NGOs.

It was clear that ICVA has a key role in taking this repackaged process forward with UNHCR. In this respect, ICVA should work closely with UNHCR and Southern NGOs to do this re-packaging. However, ICVA and the NGOs should be very clear about what they want from the re-packaging. This should involve designing a new structure that is most relevant to Southern NGOs; is focused on specific geographical areas; and is seen as an NGO construct. Specifically, Southern NGOs should obtain further commitments from UNHCR about its role in, and commitment to, partnership, including a clear budget for the work.

To take this forward there should be consultation with Southern NGOs and ICVA to re-design PARinAC. This re-design should draw upon the UNHCR Report of the Sub-Working Group on Partnerships with NGOs (December 2001). A considerable amount of work was put into this Report, which is of direct relevance to the future development of PARinAC. Sadly, not much seems to have happened with this important piece of work. There are also the findings of the Review of PARinAC conducted in 2000 and of course the basic principles in the original PARinAC documents (the Oslo Declaration) that should be taken into consideration.

Given that there is some urgency to re-design PARinAC, the above consultation cannot be too onerous or time consuming. However, it should ensure that it includes some Southern NGOs from an area where PARinAC is felt to be working and at least one from an area where it clearly does not.

Back to Contents

Reach Out
An increasing disregard by States of their international obligations in refugee matters prompted UNHCR in November 1997 to launch the 'Reach Out' consultations on its protection mandate. The overall aim of these consultations was to reinvigorate support for the essential principles and institutions of refuge protection. It was hoped that successful protection partnerships could be established and maintained. One outcome of this consultation process was the establishment of a training programme on protection for NGOs working in the field. At the time of this review, most stakeholders consulted were aware of this Reach Out Training and felt that, on the whole, it was a good way to support NGOs working with protection in the field. People had several comments on the training, but these were mostly issues that could be addressed by an evaluation of the Training, which is planned for this year. These comments included the following:

• There could be more training of a wider range of organisations, not just NGOs;

• The link needs to be made to informing policy;

• There is some need for coordination with other trainers and training programmes; and

• ICVA's role on the Management Board of Reach Out was appreciated and encouraged.

Many felt that there was a limitation to what training alone could achieve. A mechanism needs to be found for follow-up support to those receiving training. This directly informed the idea of ICVA having a role in this, perhaps involving capacity-building (see below). It should also involve some coordination with UNHCR in the field in that UNHCR's offices should be working closely with NGOs who had received the training. Very specifically, it was suggested that UNHCR's Department of International Protection (DIP) could instruct Protection Officers to support NGOs who had received the training. ICVA should work with UNHCR and Reach Out on this suggestion.

There was some frustration that other aspects of Reach Out did not develop in the way that had been envisaged when the process was embarked upon. Some bitterness was expressed about this, and a degree of cynicism in that UNHCR had controlled the agenda too much (this was echoed in some of the comments on the Global Consultations). It was pointed out that, ironically, it was the non-governmental sector that had taken forward the most concrete activity, the training programme. However, this was balanced by comments that some aspects of Reach Out have been taken forward in other vehicles (e.g. Global Consultations with the discussions on the supervisory mechanism).

Going back to the basics of what Reach Out was meant to achieve, it was suggested that a re-packaged and focused PARinAC could include a strong practical programme to enhance protection capacity at the field level within a coordinated approach. UNHCR clearly recognised the role of NGOs in protection issues and that with UNHCR's diminishing budgets they have a need for NGO partners in protection work more than ever. The challenge is to put flesh to this idea. Key ways to do so are to do activities jointly with UNHCR, such as training. By necessity, this would mean prioritising certain geographical areas, of which there are many current examples (e.g. West Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). To be effective, it would have to be thus focussed.

Back to Contents

Partnership with UNHCR
The Review confirmed that UNHCR is the key inter-governmental partner for ICVA and that ICVA should maintain this strong link. The complexity of the relationship was highlighted as it operates at so many different levels. These included: formal links, such as the PARinAC connection; informal contacts; the work around Pre-ExCom; secondments to UNHCR; and funding from UNHCR. What was key in a lot of this was that the nature of the structure of UNHCR meant that no one technique or method could cover everything. ICVA has to work with the structures that exist and needs to understand the pressures on those working within UNHCR. Some talked of a low morale within UNHCR. This was coupled with a re-statement of the obvious, that the UNHCR structure is divisive and not designed for putting protection into operation. However, ICVA should use this to its advantage and continue to build allies within the organisation. The key challenge is how to be a constructive friend and critic to the agency, or more importantly to the many individuals working within the constraints of their own structure. A frequent comment was that criticism of UNHCR is expected from ICVA, but some praise where appropriate would also be welcome. 'It is not what you say as much as how you say it that matters,' was a regular comment. It is easier to work with a partner that you help, as well as criticize.

A factor in this was a misunderstanding on behalf of some in UNHCR as to the role of ICVA. Some feel there is a contradiction between coordination and advocacy. However, this misses the point by a wide mark. It is key to ICVA's role to advocate, as well as to network and coordinate. One activity informs the other and both together produce something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Achieving consensus amongst NGOs does not mean diluting the arguments to the point that they become ineffective, quite the opposite. The links and networks are what enable ICVA to be so effective, aligned with its great understanding of the issues and a feeling for the current 'zeitgeist'. This is in fact why ICVA is so appreciated. For coordination to be done effectively, it needs to be done by someone who understands the issues and knows which structures are best suited to address them. It is not simply an empty vessel conveying other people's views, although it is clearly informed by the opinions of its members. Its role is to interpret and advocate accordingly. ICVA fills this role exceedingly well and there is no contradiction.

Finally, it helps to be pragmatic and realistic in seeking solutions. This approach will embellish the links between ICVA and UNHCR, especially with those in UNHCR who can use such support to be more effective in their roles.

In light of the above, several suggestions were made as to activities that would carry this relationship forward, as mentioned in the recommendations. It is worth noting that a by-product of the close relationship with UNHCR staff at different levels is that ICVA is in a position to articulate concerns that those staff cannot raise themselves (out of a reluctance to upset donors, States, colleagues, etc.). This is very much appreciated by those staff.

An example of this is the role ICVA had in highlighting aspects of the initial selection process for the High Commissioner. A continuation of this would be a review of the first year(s) of Mr Lubbers in this role.

While many recognised the key role that ICVA played in the relationship between NGOs and UNHCR they also wanted a reminder that ICVA is not the sole channel to UNHCR. In this sense, there needed to be greater emphasis put on consultation with NGOs when speaking on their behalf. One comment was that ICVA should be the mid-wife not the mother, that is, it should look after the process, but not be the one giving birth. Embellishing the links with other networks, such as InterAction, will help with this process. It is a question of balance and, of course, a two-way process that is at the heart of coordination (see below).

Pre-ExCom and ExCom
Many saw the Pre-ExCom as still finding its way and were frustrated with the format (and that of the ExCom itself). This frustration was specific to the following:

• The agenda for Pre-ExCom bore no relationship to the ExCom agenda;

• This consultation with NGOs was not really taken to heart by UNHCR (a theme echoed by some on the Global Consultation process);

• That there was not enough dialogue within the meetings;

• That the States paid too little attention to the Pre-ExCom, not least of all because they were too busy preparing for the ExCom; and

• That the meetings were restrictive in only allowing for single NGO statements (ExCom).

Others emphasised, however, that Pre-ExCom represented the high point of NGO activity in Geneva. As such, there were several ideas as to how to enhance the occasion. These included:

• Help better prepare Southern NGOs when coming to Pre-ExCom by working with them beforehand regarding their involvement, working on key themes, setting them up to speak and lead on issues, arrange informal meetings for their time in Geneva with Missions, donors, etc. In general, provide a hosting function. This could be linked with a capacity-building programme (see below).

• Use Pre-ExCom to hold fringe meetings on subjects such as 'civil society support to the Convention' or how do NGOs cope with being approached by donors to prepare for war with Iraq, while at the same time advocating against sanctions, etc. High-level speakers and commentators should be invited to speak. The style would be similar to political party conventions.

• ICVA should facilitate a debate between donors and NGOs on the subject of UNHCR, itself, as a fringe meeting at ExCom.

• Working with States and UNHCR, ICVA needs to improve the link between Pre-ExCom and ExCom.

ExCom members (States) feel that NGOs are excluded from the decision-making process of UNHCR. In this respect, some States are open to exploring ways in which NGO input can be improved. Similarly, UNHCR perceives a shift on the part of some States away from UNHCR to a greater sympathy and recognition of NGOs. ICVA should capitalise on this and pursue with some key States the issue of linking agendas and fringe activities around common concerns at the Pre-ExCom and ExCom. All the States spoken to supported the Pre-ExCom although, ironically for some, the timing was difficult since they were themselves getting ready for the main ExCom.

UNHCR welcomed the ICVA role in helping organise invitees to Pre-ExCom and the organisation of the NGO statements and would seek to enhance this function.

Back to Contents

Other Partnerships

States
The Review highlighted that the dynamics have changed in the refugee arena. UNHCR is generally seen as a weaker agency than in the past (it certainly has less funding) and some States pay more attention to involving NGOs than they have done in previous years. Many of the States consulted were very clear about the importance to them of ICVA and showed an appreciation of ICVA's link with its Southern members. Consequently, it was felt that ICVA should strengthen its links with States, specifically those that share a common agenda with ICVA regarding reform and monitoring of UNHCR. These links could pursue new funding for specific activities to take forward the Agenda For Protection.

ICVA link with IOM
Linked to the above, it is clear that IOM is playing a greater role in issues affecting refugees (their inclusion in the Agenda for Protection is indicative of this fact). Some in IOM are looking for better ways to link and coordinate with NGOs. ICVA could play a key role here although there are several qualifications before taking this forward. A clear outcome and strategy for such involvement would need to be agreed upon. For example, would it be a meaningful liaison or just something that was lip service to put a gloss on the link? Extra resources would be required to make it work in a meaningful way. Most importantly of all, it should not be embarked upon if it is at the expense of the ICVA relationship with UNHCR. It was strongly suggested that this topic be discussed at an ICVA Executive Committee meeting.

ICVA link with ECRE
ICVA and ECRE have collaborated well in the past and there are certain common areas that currently arise where this relationship could be advanced, such as challenging the anti-asylum seeker elements in Western Europe. Another issue is the enormous expense within Western Europe on deterrents to refugees, which far outweighs support to refugees. There is ground there for promotion of different models where ICVA and ECRE could share ideas. It should be stressed that ECRE could utilise ICVA's link with its operational members, particularly Southern NGOs. This could have been used in the Screening Study recently undertaken by ECRE, for example.

Back to Contents

Other ICVA activities (issues beyond the scope of this Review)
"If we did not have an ICVA we would have to invent it." (Said by several of the people consulted.) There was an enormous range of feedback and suggestions made regarding other activities of ICVA. These comments were made with the feeling that ICVA's greatest asset was the dedication and skill of its staff combined with its links to Southern and field-based NGOs through its membership. Every decision to take something forward should be based on enhancing these strengths. It is worth looking at some of these areas in more detail.

ICVA and coordination
Given that the Secretariat is small in relation to some of the resources available to some of the larger member agencies there will always be an issue of ensuring appropriate coordination. This is in the context of several people expressing the view that NGO coordination is almost impossible to achieve and that the expression is often misunderstood, deliberately so when it suits certain parties. In the absence of a different terminology the expression will continue to be used although it will mean different things to different people at different times. Some agencies need ICVA to act as a mouthpiece more than others. Others were very keen on ICVA's position as a filter of information, distilling what was useful to members from a wide variety of sources and structures. Where there is perhaps a need for clarification is in the perception some have of ICVA's role in the so-called coordination of NGOs. ICVA makes it clear that it does not speak on behalf of the entire NGO community. On several occasions, ICVA has been very specific about this so as to prevent agencies such as UNHCR from saying that they have 'consulted NGOs' when they have in fact only spoken with ICVA. ICVA has always made it clear that its main role in this coordination is the facilitation of better links between NGOs and agencies such as UNHCR. This is more of a backroom role but no less important or less difficult for that matter. It would be impossible for ICVA to take the lead on many issues, but it can, and does, help others to do so and to play to their strengths. This vital role should continue.

Where an NGO does take the lead on an issue, such as with ICMC on Re-settlement, those with a specific interest in the area were appreciative. However, there was also expressed a need to enhance mechanisms whereby issues surrounding such specialist areas could be shared with the wider NGO community and the ICVA membership. This challenge is at the heart of the 'lead agency' approach and requires consistency and resources to work properly. There are different ideas of what is the lead agency approach. Some see it as a way of sharing out coordination tasks amongst an under-resourced NGO sector on the basis that an NGO with a strong interest in a particular area can effectively speak about such an issue on behalf of others. For some, it is more simply having an NGO make the statements on behalf of the broader NGO community at key meetings and conferences. Both of these models make huge assumptions about abilities to consult and coordinate that are not always fulfilled, especially where resources are tight. The lead agency approach can also be very exclusive, working for those inside, but not necessarily for other interested parties. This approach should never be seen as a substitute for proper consultation.

Given the nature of NGOs, the complexity of the issues that they are faced with, and the sheer volume of information flowing around, it is inevitable that there may be some misunderstandings about ICVA's role in this respect. However, it can be alleviated through clear lines of communication and accountability and by straightforward things, such as timetables and schedules for consultation. It also involves NGOs taking responsibility for their own roles as spokespeople and for their need to share information and arrive at common positions where appropriate. Sometimes it also involves simply keeping abreast of the vast amount of information that is circulated. Stated priorities and strategies from ICVA and members would also help. Most importantly it involves the maintenance of trust between the organisations and individuals involved in the work alongside the recognition that there is more than enough work for everyone.

Back to Contents

Voice of the Field - Southern NGOs
There was a consensus that the voice of the field, or put by some as the voice of local NGOs or Southern NGOs, was largely absent from the Global Consultations (and elsewhere). Separately many people pointed out that ICVA's membership is largely Southern-based and that is one of its greatest values. However there was some ambiguity about what that actually meant.

Some saw the issue as one of solidarity of ICVA with Southern NGOs. A distinction was made between working with, and working in, solidarity with NGOs. The latter would involve ICVA being much more hands on in support of specific Southern NGOs, for example in South Africa. It was said by most that this does not mean that ICVA itself should go to the field more often, more that the field should come to Geneva. Involving NGOs from the South was clearly not straight foreword. Some recognised that ICVA is constrained by its need to be in Geneva and to be properly linked with the agencies and issues there. After all a key role of ICVA is to digest and pick-up on what is going on in Geneva as that is where many powerful headquarters are based. ICVA then feeds much of this information in a digestible format to its members and the NGO community. However this presents not least physical challenges. How can ICVA be in the field if it leaves the office understaffed? One practical consequence though of being Geneva-based is that potentially ICVA ends up doing more for Geneva INGOs than those Southern members (and non-members) who should be its priority. Specifically, it was felt this happened during the Global Consultations where ICVA did most for those who needed it least.

It was clear that ICVA members in the North did not fully utilise ICVA's link to its Southern members. This may be simply because they have no expectation that they can use ICVA in this way, or it may be that they have not thought through how useful such a link could be. Alternatively some have their own links while others have none at all in the sense of involving Southern NGOs.

Not surprisingly much of this goes back to both expectations of stakeholders and clarity from ICVA. This should be unpicked and made into a concrete plan of activity for which funding should be sought. It may be that it should be linked with the development of PARinAC. It should also clearly be examined at the General Assembly where both the Northern and Southern members will be present.

Enhancing the ability of Southern NGOs to participate in the Geneva Process Several people suggested that there was a key role for ICVA in working with Southern NGOs on bringing their voices into the Geneva arena. Some of this is about ICVA, including its Southern members in the things it does best: advocacy, networking, sharing information, and liaison with the various UN structures. There are different examples of how this could be done: hosting NGOs who come to Geneva for meetings; arranging informal meetings between them and States, UNHCR etc.; producing guides to UNHCR, the Pre-ExCom, for example; facilitating sponsorship by, and twinning, with richer members. There is potential for funding to bring field NGOs to Geneva. This should be linked with the development of PARinAC and Reach Out and could present a package that is very attractive to donors.

The day-to-day activities of ICVA
It was also noteworthy that there was much appreciation of many of the day-to-day activities of ICVA and that these should not be overlooked. In this light the following comments and suggestions are worth noting:

• There was enormous appreciation of papers, briefings, the ICVA website. These should all continue.

• There was broad appreciation of Talk Back. Many liked the tabloid style and although some want research with more depth, they recognise that this is a different task.

• Several people consulted said it would be helpful if there were a clear timetable of activities that ICVA would perform over the year while also allowing space for the flexibility to respond to events. This clear framework would help both those accessing ICVA's services and the staff themselves. To some extent this exists (the Pre-ExCom for example is fixed ever year, Talk Back comes out at regular intervals) and it may just need firming up.

The ICVA strategy
What the above shopping-list leads into is the ongoing need for ICVA to be clear about the aims and goals of the organisation and to have a clear mechanism to achieve them. The more specific the goals, the easier it is to set out a strategy to achieve them. Very specifically, this would help in making decisions and prioritising activities. For example why go to Pakistan rather than an area where there is less topical crisis? It would also help in avoiding people having unrealistic expectations of what ICVA can do. To achieve such a clarity of vision will need the active involvement of those constituents that make up ICVA, namely the Secretariat, the members, and the Executive Committee. Other stakeholders' views should also be taken into account, but principally it is ICVA who must decide on this. Again, this should be discussed at the General Assembly.

The need for Extra Resources
To do justice to the amount of work involved, ICVA needs to secure extra resources Everyone acknowledged that ICVA achieved a great amount given its size. It was very much appreciated that two additional staff had been taken on to work around the Global Consultations (one seconded to UNHCR, another person in the Secretariat, albeit not exclusively used for the Global Consultations). Explicitly and implicitly everyone said that ICVA required more resources - in this case more people. It was a struggle to do what it currently does and the gap of two posts has been noticed. Although obvious, it should be re-stated that ICVA needs extra resources just to maintain its current level of activity let alone approach new areas of activity. Even within the period of the Review there were times when by necessity key members of the Secretariat were out of Geneva at the same time. Given the ever-changing and reactive nature of some of the work, this presented a gap for those needing to contact ICVA. However, the answer to this is more staff and clearer priorities, not an increasing reliance on the existing staff to work longer hours.

There were two strands of thought on how ICVA should use extra resources. In the first instance, the resources were needed for extra staff. In the second, there was need for a specific capacity-building programme (see below) for Southern Members, which may also involve extra staff.

On the need for more staff there was divergence on how best to allocate the staff. Some felt that ICVA should seek a generic staff member, that is a post within the Secretariat that could be part of the team delivering all of the work of the Secretariat. Others felt that a specific post should be sought to work solely on Protection issues and taking forward the development of the Agenda for Protection and Supervisory mechanism (see below). Others felt very strongly that ICVA was already strong in the advocacy department and needed an extra person to help with structures and mechanisms for coordination. Finally, some sought another ICVA secondment to UNHCR, specifically the Department of International Protection (DIP). On this point, although good for enhancing relationships between agencies, secondments are very complicated to manage. Where resources are tight, secondments are a luxury and in the near future this does not seem to be the priority use of ICVA's staff resources.

On balance, it seems best to secure extra resources for two posts within the Secretariat: one with a slant towards refugee and protection work, having a specific work plan, in the first instance, that takes forward the issues of the Agenda for Protection, but not being confined just to this. It may be that the possible sources for funding for this position dictate some explicit role, but an emphasis should be placed on keeping it as part of a team working to a coherent work plan. The other post would reinforce the capacity of the Secretariat, generally.

Back to Contents

Other Issues

External Issues
Most would appreciate the need for one-off forums and mechanisms to discuss various issues, but recognised that this was too big a role for ICVA to take on all the time so ICVA should be very selective as to what issues it follows. In this context, there is a need for someone, ICVA perhaps, to monitor how certain issues are affecting refugee debate. Most people though did not see this as a priority given everything else that ICVA had to do. However, this could be linked with developing ICVA's role of organising formal and informal one-off meetings around the time of key meetings in Geneva (see above).

Civil Military Cooperation
ICVA's role in this issue was appreciated, as it is seen as an important area. It was suggested that ICVA makes an inventory of the positions of its members and tries to draw some commonalities that could serve as minimum criteria in developing a position on whether or not the military should carry out humanitarian work. The idea of a seminar with the participation of humanitarian staff and the military was raised. The issue of minimum conditions for cooperation with the military could be further discussed in such a session. Another suggestion was that ICVA establish a roster of people willing to be involved in meetings and exercises with the military in order to provide them with the humanitarian perspective.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Some consulted felt very strongly that IDPs were receiving a very poor deal and needed champions within the NGO sector. They looked to ICVA and others to perform this role. The frustrations expressed towards ICVA in this respect were part of a general frustration that IDPs were forgotten about. This view came from the field and understandably saw little of the considerable work being done by ICVA and others to keep this issue at the forefront of the work and agendas of States, NGOs, and inter-governmental agencies.

Back to Contents

Background to the review - context

The Review has looked at the various initiatives and processes in the field of refugee policy in which UNHCR and NGOs have cooperated and in which ICVA has played a key role in recent years. This has been done with the aims of consolidating lessons learnt and of developing next steps in this field. Specifically, a work plan for ICVA for the next three years is to be developed from this Review and a Project Proposal to be written for use in approaching potential donors of such work. So, to put it simply there have been two strands to the review: evaluating the work to date and making recommendations for taking the work forward over the coming years.

In the above context, this Review provides an assessment of the efficiency, value, and impact of the following specific activities in which ICVA has been intrinsically involved in recent years:

• Global Consultations on International Protection
• UNHCR - NGO partnerships (including: PARinAC; Reach Out; Pre-ExCom; ExCom and Standing Committee inputs; selection of the High Commissioner etc.)

The Review was also to make reference to the overall work programme and priorities for ICVA: information systems, advocacy and NGO cooperation initiatives on strategic issues (civil-military cooperation, staff security, coordination in crisis, SPHERE Project, accountability, IDPs, migration in relation to refugees, etc.).

No review of this kind could have ignored the huge issues that touch upon refugees and those working with them. Consequently, questions were asked about so-called 'external developments' such as environmental issues, migration, and the consequences of September 11th. However, most of those consulted, while understanding that these issues were important, did not look to ICVA to address them.

ICVA General Assembly
This Review it is hoped will inform the theme of the ICVA Conference preceding ICVA's General Assembly - 'Strengthening NGO Partnerships in a Globalising World: From Global Rhetoric to Local Reality,' which is to be held in February 2003. At the General Assembly, a new ICVA Executive Committee and Chair will be elected and a fresh mandate sought from the membership for the work of ICVA in the coming years. This will be a key opportunity to strengthen the important role of ICVA in this field, building upon the excellent work to date. The Review will be another tool and catalyst to assist the enormous body of organisations and individuals that make up ICVA to pave the way ahead.

Back to Contents

Methodology of the review (including note on stakeholders)

The approach followed relied largely on interviews with key stakeholders, meetings with the ICVA staff and document analysis. Stakeholders included national NGOs, inter-governmental organisations, States, and INGOs. Interviewees were informed that their contributions would be made in an anonymous manner - that is that they would not be quoted by name although, of course, their comments would obviously be used in the Review. It has also included looking at the documentation relating to the key processes in question. Most interviews were in person, with the Consultant travelling as appropriate, to the interviewee. Some were conducted on the phone or via e-mail.

In all contact with stakeholders, the Consultant sought to draw out the information in an appropriate and sensitive way without being directive other than framing the responses within the pre-agreed parameters of the Review. The Consultant sought to ensure that all relevant stakeholders were given access to the process regardless of ethnicity, location, etc.

The Review also sought to give those who have worked on the issues with ICVA, both directly and indirectly, an opportunity to reflect upon their own achievements, have that acknowledged and celebrated and used to inform their own work and that of the sector as a whole.

Stakeholders
Everyone consulted who responded (see Appendix 1) welcomed the review and were glad that ICVA was taking the time and effort to consult in this way. While all of those consulted had their different perspectives, all agreed that this was an opportune time to conduct such review. Key to this was that this stage of the Global Consultations was coming to an end and there was great expectation of taking the work forward. In this, there was consensus that ICVA has a role.

It is worth noting some of the general feelings of the different stakeholder groups. This gives some indication as to how they might be involved in the future development of the work.

States - All spoken to would, in principle, welcome applications from ICVA with proposals. To follow-up specifically is the Canadian idea about evaluating HCR and the Global Consultation process. Spoke to the usual supportive States, but also others, such as Australia. Unfortunately, many were totally distracted by getting the Agenda for Protection text agreed so that they could move on. In this sense, a bit reluctant to open some new dialogue. All the States spoken to valued the role of NGOs and ICVA as such. One described it in terms of "themselves being generalists, NGOs being specialists and to access NGOs ICVA has been key." Another spoke of the "Upward trend of NGO involvement." Some said that ICVA had helped them focus their own input into the Global Consultations.

NGOs - the Northern and Geneva-based NGOs are still very supportive of ICVA. They, themselves, struggle with same issues of keeping policy informed by practice in the field and vice versa. They all acknowledged that there was too much work to do and sharing it out made good sense.

UNHCR - valued ICVA and NGO input into Pre-ExCom, saw this as bringing in field and human rights perspectives. UNHCR inputted into this review, both individually and collectively, some in writing, some face to face. There was much very useful input from the NGO Unit, but perceived their isolation and frustration within UNHCR. There was input from other sections (DIP, Operations, Research and Evaluation), but a sense that DIP was, by necessity, very distracted and under pressure because of the Agenda for Protection. Suggest that ICVA goes back to the head of DIP with a report back on the Review.

ICVA Executive Committee - comments from most, and most very encouraging. This would suggest it would be valuable to share some of the issues from the review very specifically with the new Chair and Executive Committee members to get them on board and behind these issues (particularly to help in fundraising) straight away.

ICVA Members - all were e-mailed and informed of the review and invited to contribute. Very few comments came unsolicited.

ICVA Secretariat Staff - their contribution was vital and ongoing, making the review a collaborative process.

National NGOs - one input was very revealing in that it was very specific about the practical needs of refugees and IDPs and very critical of international NGOs. It also did not address specifically any of the questions, although in one sense cut through all of the issues to focus in on what was affecting them on the ground.

Others (non-NGO voices) - Some were very explicit about their perception that NGOs are in a state of crisis, although they themselves are the last to see it: under more scrutiny than ever; losing out to the military; used politically by donors; etc. They have both lost sight of many of their principles while at the same time failing to make sensible compromises. This is illustrated perhaps as the division between NGOs that practice in the field and those talking of human rights standards from a distance. It was felt that ICVA could play a key role in bridging this gap. One theme that emerged from this sector was the increasing role of the judiciary in refugee protection. A longer strategy for ICVA may be to involve this sector more in its work (e.g. training for judges)

Sadly, some key stakeholders did not really input. It had been hoped for more input from North American NGOs and from those who are not ICVA Members. The response might be indicative of their perception that they don't need ICVA. This can be both liberating as it leaves ICVA to get on with what its most vocal stakeholders say that they want and frustrating as there must be shared areas of concern where duplication can be avoided and pooling of efforts reap more results. Again there may be one or two agencies worth approaching specifically with the Review (or a version of it), such as Oxfam and Amnesty International.

Acknowledgements

As the Consultant who conducted this Review I would like to thank all of those who shared their thoughts, ideas, and wisdom in such an open and constructive way. The amount of time people gave is also very much appreciated given the busy lives and schedules that those in this field have. Lastly, I would like to thank the ICVA Secretariat for so ably facilitating the review, giving their support, guidance, and hospitality. All of these contributions have enabled me to produce a document that I hope reflects the views of all of those involved and will contribute to the furthering of the important work that ICVA carries out regarding refugees.

Nick Scott-Flynn

Back to Contents

Appendix 1 - List of people consulted as part of review

Review of the Refugee Policy Work of ICVA - List of stakeholders consulted

Allan Leas, Coordinator C&E Europe, ECRE
Anders Ladekarl, Danish Red Cross and ICVA Chair
Ann Pesic ,Director, ICVA Serbia
Anne-Marie Kerrigan-Deriche, Associate Liaison Officer, NGO Unit, UNHCR
Areti Sianni, Policy Officer, ECRE
Atle Solberg, NRC
Beth Ferris, World Council of Churches & ICVA Executive Vice Chair
Bill Canny, Director, ICMC and ICVA Executive
Brita Sydhoff, Head of International Law and Refugee Dept, Swedish Red Cross
Bryan Deschamp, UNHCR
Catherine Wibley, UNHCR
Christine Bloch, JRS
Craig Sanders, Coordinator NGO Unit, UNHCR
Dale Buscher, ICMC
Debbie Elizondo, UNHCR
Ed Schenkenberg, ICVA Secretariat
Elisabeth Rasmussen, NRC (Geneva)
Elissa Golberg, Policy Advisor, Dept. Foreign Affairs, Canada
Eve Lester, Refugee Coordinator, Amnesty International
Grainne O'Hara, DIP UNHC
Guillermo Bettochi, UNHCR
Hanne Raatikainen, Second Secretary, Finnish Mission in Geneva
Jim Bishop, Director, Inter Action
Jim Hathaway, University of Michigan
Joel McClellan, Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response
Jose Riera DIP, UNHCR
Julia Purcell, International Development Manager, British Refugee Council
Katy Barnett, IFRC/Reach Out
Henk Van Goethem, IFRC/Reach Out
Klaas Keuning, Stichting Vluchteling
Mamadou Ndiaye, OFADEC and ICVA Executive Committee
Manisha Thomas, ICVA Secretariat
Mariette Grange, Advocacy Offcier, ICMC
Mark Hetfield, Director of Overseas Operations, HIAS
Martin Barber, Chief, UNMAS
Martin Griffiths, Director, Henri Dunant Centre
Michel Moussalli, IRC (Geneva)
Nick Hardwick Chief Executive, British Refugee Council
Paal Nesse NRC (Oslo)
Peer Baneke General Secretary, ECRE
Peter Schatzer Director of External Relations, IOM
Philip Rudge Consultant on refugee issues
Rachel Brett Quaker International
Richard Williams International Protection Policy Officer, British Refugee Council
Roswitha Dinger, LWF Geneva & ICVA Executive
Stephane Jaquemet, UNHCR
Simon Russell, ICMC/UNHCR - Former ICVA Secretariat
Thomas Getman, WVI & ICVA Executive
V Robert, UNHCR
Volker Turk, DIP UNHCR
Kapokela Amissi, EMO-BARAKA
Welmoet van Aardenne, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Jeff Crisp, Evaluation and Research, UNHCR
Merete Lundemo, Norwegian Mission in Geneva
Arne Vaagen, Director International Dept, Danish Refugee Council
Karl Van Den Boscher, Belgian Mission to Geneva
Laurens Jolles, UNHCR DIP

Back to Contents

Appendix 2 - Sample Questionnaire

Dear Colleague,

I am an independent consultant conducting a review of the various refugee related activities that ICVA (Geneva) has conducted in recent years. The purpose of this review is to ascertain the effectiveness of the work to date and to make recommendations as to how to take this important work forward in the coming years. At the core of ICVA's vision is to perform a role that is relevant to its members and stakeholders. It is in the context that I would really value your views, learn from your experience of your work and hear your ideas.

Central to the review is an assessment of the Global Consultation Process, PARinAC and Reach Out, all activities that you may be familiar with. If you have the time I would be very grateful if you were able to let me have your thoughts on the following. Please do not worry if you do not have experience of all of these areas, any perspective from your side would be appreciated, even brief responses are valuable. Any comments that you make will be treated confidentially and will not be quoted by name in the reports that I write for the review.

Please edit your answers into the e-mail (or attached document) as appropriate. Please feel free to add comments at any point. If you are not the right person in your organisation to receive the questionnaire, please pass it on to the most appropriate colleague.

Please note that it would be helpful to have any feedback before….. I would like to thank you in advance for your time, as I know that you are busy. I really appreciate it.

Questions for Review of ICVA Refugee Related Activity

PARinAC

• Is PARinAC dead?
• If so what is worth retaining or keeping from PARinAC?

UNHCR Global Consultation Process

• What were your feelings about the consultation process itself?
• What do you think of the recommendations or suggestions that came out of it (e.g. new supervisory mechanisms)?
• What was the value of ICVA's role in the process?
• What was your perception of UNHCR's acceptance of some of these ideas and their future incorporation into the thinking of the organisation?
• Where do you think the debate should go now?
• What do you feel is the best role for ICVA in the future in relation to this work?

Reach out Training and other protection training

• What is your experience of this?
• What do you think is the future of such training?
• Reach Out was meant to be more than just training. What are your views on this?

Cooperation and partnerships with UNHCR ICVA has provided the key focal point for much NGO liaison with UNHCR around issues such as the UNHCR EXCOM. What is your experience of this?
Could ICVA perform this role differently? <^p> Future roles for ICVA and other issues

• What roles in the future could ICVA perform that would help you in your current job?
• What do you feel about the effect of external factors on the refugee debate, including: migration, September 11th, globalisation, human rights, trafficking, smuggling, environmental issues, military involvement in humanitarian issues, internally displaced persons (IDPs), development issues?
• What do you feel is the role for ICVA in taking forward these issues as they relate to the field of refugees?
• Are there any other issues that you would like to bring up relating to ICVA's current or future work?

Thank you again for your cooperation.

--

Nick Scott-Flynn (Independent Consultant on Refugee and Humanitarian Issues)
Brighton, United Kingdom
e-mail: nick@zogland.demon.co.uk
++ 44 1273 819 816 (phone)
++ 44 1273 628 899 (fax)
++ 44 7980 858 636 (mobile)

Independent Review of ICVA's Refugee Related Activity

Back to Contents

Appendix 3

ICVA's Refugee Policy Work: Developing a Two-Year Work Plan
Terms of Reference
5 February 2002

**Applications for this position must be received by the ICVA Secretariat by 20 February 2002. Mailing Address and e-mail address below.**

Summary
In recent years, several different initiatives and processes have run parallel in the field of international refugee policy in which UNHCR and NGOs have cooperated: PARinAC, Reach Out, the Global Consultations on International Protection, and others. Since ICVA has played a significant role in facilitating these processes, ICVA believes that there is need to consolidate lessons learned of these processes, to take stock of the gains, to identify next steps in following-up, and to translate broad policy into practical activities. In early 2002, ICVA intends to develop a detailed work plan to lay out its refugee policy activities for the next two years. To this end, ICVA is seeking expert advice from a consultant whose main task will be to develop such a plan.

Global Consultations on International Protection
The Global Consultations undertaken by UNHCR and States produced a series of conclusions and recommendations, which require follow-up. At the Geneva level, ICVA will monitor and participate in this process in close consultation with UNHCR (Department of International Protection), particularly in relation to the Agenda for Protection that will be drafted by UNHCR later this year.

One of ICVA's main priorities in the Consultations process was to promote an improved supervisory regime for the Refugee Convention and to consolidate NGO views on this issue. The NGO meeting of 11 December 2001 prior to the Ministerial Meeting (commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Refugee Convention) produced conclusions setting a clear direction in this regard. Follow-up of these conclusions and recommendations should be undertaken in close consultation with ICVA members and partners, including the University of Michigan (Prof. James C. Hathaway).

Not only will ICVA continue its involvement in the discussions with UNHCR and States regarding better implementation of the Convention, but it will also facilitate increased and consolidated NGO monitoring of the Convention at the national and local levels with its field-based members and partners. In this respect, a detailed plan must lay out activities that ICVA can undertake in providing guidance to NGOs on monitoring activities and in facilitating the collection and centralisation of information, while taking into account ICVA's limited capacity and non-operational nature.

UNHCR-NGO Partnership
Following questions at the October 2001 pre-EXCOM as to whether the NGO-UNHCR Partnership in Action process (PARinAC) is dead, alive, or simply in need of revitalisation, it has been agreed that PARinAC needs to move beyond the "rhetoric of partnership" that has often characterised the process. In general, the PARinAC process has proved to be most valuable for national NGOs. In regions where PARinAC is alive, the process provides for a framework for networking and communications among NGOs and between NGOs and UNHCR.

In ensuring that this process will be refocused, new initiatives could be undertaken, for example through the organisation of joint activities in the field, such as workshops on community services, staff security, NGO capacity-building, SPHERE, Reach Out, and other topics of common concern to NGOs and UNHCR. The plan to be developed for ICVA should propose concrete actions for improving UNHCR-NGO collaboration, while taking into account the different needs of a variety of NGOs. The plan should also set out a strategy for continuing and improving communications among NGOs and between NGOs and UNHCR, including through the use of the ICVA and UNHCR websites. These websites will probably incorporate the pages of the PARinAC website, which is presently managed by ICVA.

Methodology for developing the Plan
The consultant will develop the plan through consultations, interviews, and meetings with (former) ICVA staff, member organisations and partners, UNHCR staff, PARinAC focal points, and other relevant actors. Whereas close cooperation with the ICVA Secretariat is required, this work can be done from outside the ICVA offices.

Expected Outcome
A 10-15 page report that takes stock of the gains and lessons learned of the UNHCR-NGO collaboration processes and initiatives, identifies next steps for follow-up, and that translates broad policy into practical, detailed, activities for ICVA over the next two years. The consultant will incorporate the results of the report into a project proposal outlining ICVA's work plan in refugee policy for the next two years, which can be submitted to institutional donors.

Time frame
Three months, starting as soon as possible.

Qualifications

• Degree in international law, international relations, or development studies;
• Specific knowledge of, and experience in, refugee policy and protection issues, in particular in relation to PARinAC, Reach Out and the Global Consultations;
• Knowledge of networking strategies and communications tools, including websites;
• Excellent writing and communication skills;
• Experience in international NGO work for refugees and/or IDPs;
• Fluency in English;
• Good knowledge of French, Spanish preferred.

Applications should be received by the ICVA Secretariat by 20 February 2002:

ICVA
48 chemin du Grand-Montfleury
1290 Versoix
Switzerland
secretariat@icva.ch
Tel: +41 22 950 9600
Fax: +41 22 950 9609

Back to Contents