NGO Statement on Local Integration
Global Consultations on International Protection
22-24 May 2002

Although local integration is always listed among the three durable solutions, in fact it is rarely used in cases of mass influx and has, in that context, almost become a "non-solution." Examples are few, but include Tanzania in the l960s and Mexico in the late 1990s. The reality, however, is that they are almost the only cases where local integration has been formally offered as a choice to refugees in long-term situations¹. De facto integration of refugees has occurred in some countries, but in view of the lack of legal status, provision for naturalization and opportunities for participation in the political life of the country, it is a limited alternative. We are pleased, therefore, to note that UNHCR, in its background paper on local integration (EC/GC/02/6), has recognized that there is an important distinction to be made between local integration, which includes the grant of legal status and concomitant rights and, on the other hand, self-reliance, which may contribute to a durable solution but is not, in and of itself, sufficient to constitute a durable solution in its own right.

We note that the UNHCR local integration paper suggests a number of areas where local integration would be an appropriate solution: in protracted refugee situations where local integration has considerable potential to succeed, where refugees are unable or unwilling to return, and where large numbers of refugees are 'self-settled.' We note that there are many situations in the world where these conditions exist and where local integration can be implemented effectively and immediately, bearing in mind the need for complementary initiatives to provide for the development needs of the host population.

We strongly agree with the suggestion that refugees who have already attained a marked degree of socio-economic integration should be actively considered for the grant of secure legal status and residence rights, including the opportunity to become naturalized citizens of the country of asylum. Notwithstanding this, the absence of the conditions highlighted in this paragraph should not preclude the responsibility of States to give effect to their obligations to accord rights consistent with local integration that are provided for in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and other international human rights instruments².

The paucity of opportunities for full local integration is at least partially a consequence of the lack of genuine responsibility-sharing on the part of industrialized states, which has resulted in protracted refugee situations without adequate access to durable solutions. The reluctance of governments of countries hosting refugees in mass influx situations to allow refugees seeking protection on their territory to integrate locally may be explained, at least in part, by the parallel phenomenon of other (often wealthier) governments actively seeking to evade or shift their own responsibilities, despite the fact that they are host to a comparatively small number of refugees and asylum seekers. The compulsory encampment policies used by host governments represent an attempt to obstruct refugees' rights under the Refugee Convention, the realization of which would include the option of local integration. The lack of opportunities for local integration is also a consequence of limited absorption capacity as a result of inadequate infrastructure either in the national economy of less developed asylum countries or within their social and legal structures.

In the last two years, some promising work has been done on integration. The International Conference on the Reception and Integration of Resettled Refugees (Norköpping, Sweden, April 2001) developed a set of principles and guidelines for facilitating the integration of refugees. Although developed in the context of resettled refugees, most of the principles apply more broadly to the integration of refugees and asylum-seekers in host countries. The process of integration should begin from the day a person arrives in a country of asylum, whether or not they are assisted by any kind of integration programme and, irrespective of whether they have yet been determined to be a refugee. The Conference also bore witness to the fact that with community and government support, refugees can, and do, integrate fully into the life of their new societies.

Refugees who do not enjoy the rights and protection that they are entitled to under the Refugee Convention and other human rights instruments, and which are fundamental elements of the process of local integration, may be exposed to security risks. The trans-border recruitment of child soldiers from refugee camps is a stark example of the cost of failing to integrate refugees into a local society.

The link between the promotion of self-reliance and voluntary return was usefully made in the UNHCR paper on local integration. However, this should be taken a step further, by making the link also between local integration and voluntary repatriation, given that local integration places refugees in a stronger social, economic, and legal position to make a truly voluntary decision to return. At the same time, refugees who choose to integrate locally do not thereby forfeit their right to return to their country of origin.

States have a responsibility to realise refugees' right to a durable solution, a right which may be extrapolated from provisions of the 1951 Convention as well as other human rights obligations. In order to give effect to this obligation in developing countries, international solidarity and responsibility-sharing must be engaged.

We highlight the importance of industrialized countries increasing assistance to host governments in order to improve prospects for local integration in those countries, which ensures refugees' rights, including freedom of movement and residence, the right to adequate housing, the right to work, and the rights to social services, health, and to education.

In parallel, it is incumbent upon industrialized States to ensure access to durable solutions: most obviously and immediately, local integration which must be available to refugees, without discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or, importantly, other status. ³ NGOs are deeply concerned about the social and legal implications of measures deliberately designed to perpetuate refugee limbo. In this regard, we recall the observation of the High Commissioner at last year's EXCOM, that "protection is not protection without solutions."

1. Some other examples include the Philippines and Hong Kong at the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan of Action. However, these examples represent a small residual caseload rather than the use of local integration as a substantial response to mass influx situations.
Back

2. Cf. NGO statement on Voluntary Repatriation which argues that it is possible to extrapolate from the provisions of the Refugee Convention, a legally definable right to a durable solution. Article 1C of the Refugee Convention clearly contemplates all three durable solutions as the basis on which international protection may cease, by virtue of national protection having resumed. This, coupled with the explicit articulation of a substantial set of rights, including social and economic rights (rendered more comprehensive by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), not least of which is the obligation to, as far as possible, facilitate the integration and naturalization of refugees, leads to a strong conclusion that there is a legally definable right to a solution.
Back

3. See article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Back