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

Progress in UNHCR's Approach to Resettlement

While we welcome the assertion in the UNHCR paper that resettlement "is of equal importance with the other solutions" and that 'the three solutions are complementary in nature and can function simultaneously,' too often, resettlement is in fact viewed as the "least favored option" for refugees and is considered only when there are no possibilities for either repatriation or local integration. But in many situations, resettlement may be either the only or the most appropriate solution. While resettlement will probably never meet the needs of more than a small percentage of the world's refugees, it should not be considered as the least favored option.

In recent years, states, NGOs, and UNHCR, working together, have diversified resettlement efforts worldwide while promoting consistent resettlement criteria, as embodied by the UNHCR Resettlement Handbook. Through this partnership, resettlement has become a more effective tool of protection, durable solution, and instrument of responsibility sharing. As the UNHCR paper on the issue acknowledges, however, the tripartite partnership needs even more vigor, resources, and creativity in approaching the dilemmas, challenges, and opportunities which resettlement presents us. By sharing responsibilities with countries of first asylum, the resettlement countries not only take refugees out of harms way and allow them to start a new life, but also re-enforce the viability of the other durable solutions

The paper prepared by UNHCR accurately reflects the importance of resettlement, and many of the challenges and opportunities before it. The purpose of this NGO statement is not to challenge the conclusions in the paper, but to fill in the blanks.

As the paper notes, resettlement is a vital tool of refugee protection. Five years ago, UNHCR unveiled the Resettlement Handbook. The Handbook is the result of extensive roundtable consultations with governments, NGOs, and UNHCR personnel from all over the globe. It provides an excellent articulation of UNHCR resettlement criteria - particularly for refugees in need of resettlement for reasons of protection. These criteria, however, are still not globally implemented by UNHCR. In some places, the Handbook gathers dust on the shelves at UNHCR offices as refugees who clearly meet the protection criteria of the Handbook - including women and children at risk, medical cases, asylum seekers at risk of torture, inhumane treatment, or even refoulement, - remain unprotected and unreferred. The reasons vary - sometimes a pull factor is cited, other times a lack of resources to perform the labor intensive work required for each resettlement referral, and sometimes a fear that resettlement heightens the risk of fraud or corruption. UNHCR needs to clearly instruct its field that such concerns must be addressed - but must never trump UNHCR's protection-based resettlement criteria.

Resettlement - to Complement, not to Replace, Asylum

The resettlement paper also makes a commendable effort to emphasize the complementary and strategic role of resettlement in the troika of durable solutions. We especially concur that countries may not choose resettlement as an "orderly" alternative to asylum. Asylum is a legal obligation, and cannot be "traded" for resettlement. Resettlement, however, is an essential tool for promoting responsibility sharing with countries of first asylum. It is also a critical human rights tool when countries of first asylum are unwilling or unable to live up to international legal obligations to protect some of the refugees within their borders. The resettlement paper is articulate in its explanation of resettlement as a complement - and not a replacement - for the other durable solutions.

With this in mind, we offer the following principles with regard to resettlement and its relationship to the other durable solutions:

1. Resettlement should not be used as a fig leaf for policies of migration control to enable states to sidestep international legal obligations to people in need of protection by preventing them from setting foot on their territory.
2. Resettlement must be additional to states' obligations under the 1951 Convention towards refugees who make their own way. A two-tier system must not be allowed to develop, as it has in some resettlement countries, where those who arrive in an 'unauthorized' manner, even if eventually recognized as refugees, can never enjoy the same rights as people who arrive under the resettlement programme.
3. Resettlement should be used to foster public support for all refugees. Resettlement and evacuation programmes have been, and should be, used to promote public sympathy for refugees. Firm action and political leadership is needed to counter the idea from developing that "resettled = good refugees," while "asylum-seekers = bad refugees" which has allowed two-tier systems to evolve in some major resettlement countries.
4. The number and type of refugees resettled must demonstrate a real commitment to sharing a global responsibility that falls disproportionately on the shoulders of developing countries. Quotas should be proportionate to the resettlement country's wealth and population.
5. Resettlement programmes must be conducted in close partnership with UNHCR, in accordance with its Resettlement Handbook and must be founded wholly on the principle of resettling those in greatest need of protection and those in protracted situations in need of a durable solution. Resettlement must not be used to select refugees according to labor market needs or other non-protection criteria. Economic migration objectives should be dealt with through work visas and other legal migration channels.
6. Recognizing that resettlement is resource-intensive, resettlement programmes must be properly funded at all stages. However, funds must not be diverted from the system of determination and support of asylum seekers and refugees in resettlement countries or from the protection of refugees in countries of first asylum.

Strategies to Emphasize the Interconnectedness of the Three Durable Solutions

While excellent in other respects, we regret that the UNHCR Global Consultations papers on the other two durable solutions - voluntary repatriation and local integration - pay scant attention to the strategic and complementary potential of the three durable solutions, and make no mention of resettlement. Neither paper notes that local integration, voluntary repatriation and resettlement can, if used strategically as international responsibility sharing instruments, re-enforce one other or, if applied on a large scale without appropriate planning, undermine one another.

The complementary nature of the three durable solutions would also be enhanced if only UNHCR would devise and implement standard operating procedures to ensure the accurate, comprehensive registration of refugees - conducted outside of the context of resettlement and as early as possible after flight. Timely and effective registration procedures are a necessary tool for planning, promoting and monitoring voluntary repatriation, local integration, as well as resettlement, not to mention protection.

UNHCR and the international community should do their utmost to ensure that the three durable solutions are not applied piecemeal, rather than in a forward-looking strategic and complementary fashion.

Too Much Resettlement Need, Too Few Resettlement Places?

Turning to resettlement capacity, UNHCR notes, "There are clearly more refugees in need of resettlement than there are places or resources available." This is the truth, but not the whole truth.

First, in spite of there being more refugees in need of resettlement than there are places or resources available, there are more than 10,000 resettlement slots worldwide which remain unfilled, year after year. This means that, over the last decade, more than 100,000 refugees in need of resettlement could have been rescued from danger, or been given an opportunity to lead productive fulfilling lives, rather than live off handouts in squalid camps. These shortfalls would be met if states, UNHCR, and NGOs made more of an effort strategize together to identify and address major inefficiencies in the system to ensure that there are not any empty seats on the lifeboat.

That being said, although resettlement slots go unfilled and their total number has declined, the resettlement countries deserve tremendous credit for going beyond their obligations of asylum and "volunteering" to open their doors to refugees in need of third country resettlement. Other countries should follow their example. Although the inefficiencies of the current system cause many slots to go unfilled, there are still, as UNHCR indicates, "clearly more refugees in need of resettlement than there are places or resources available."

In its Global Appeal and fundraising efforts, UNHCR should appeal for donors to supplement funding commitments with pledges to welcome a proportional number of refugees for resettlement. UNHCR should also properly acknowledge resettlement places as a "contribution" by the resettlement countries in support of the core functions of UNHCR. At the same time, UNHCR should absolutely discourage countries from "bolstering" resettlement by diverting resources from asylum or refugee assistance.

Too Much Resettlement Need, Too Few Resettlement Countries

The NGO community has long urged resettlement countries to resettle more refugees. We have not, however, emphasized enough that many countries with the greatest resettlement capacity do not resettle refugees at all, or do so only on a limited ad hoc basis. In fact, of the G-8 countries, for many years only two have maintained resettlement programmes. We are pleased that the United Kingdom has been moving toward developing a resettlement regime and hope that others in the G-8 and the European Union will follow suit. While the EU has member states, which are longstanding and zealous participants in resettlement, most member states do not offer refugees any protection beyond their legal obligations of first asylum. We urge the EU and its member states to go beyond basic obligations and complement asylum efforts with strategies to bridge the gap between resettlement needs and resettlement availability.

Nor is resettlement limited to the countries of the G-8, the EU, Australia and New Zealand. In recent years, the international community of resettlement states have welcomed new members from South America and Africa, who have already started to play a vital role in resettlement. These states have come to fill an important niche, particularly for urgent protection cases and for refugee families where certain cultural issues, such as polygamy, make it legally impossible for the traditional resettlement countries to accept them as refugees. UNHCR, through the deployment of resettlement experts and the facilitation of tripartite efforts such as the International Conference on the Integration and Reception of Resettled Refugees (ICRIRR), has been instrumental in promoting the exchange of information and good integration practices so that emerging resettlement countries can learn how to do resettlement, and traditional resettlement countries can learn how to do it better.

Greater Resettlement Efficiencies Needed from States, UNHCR and NGOs

We concur with UNHCR's conclusions that resettlement needs exceed resettlement quotas, and that there is the need for not only more resettlement places, but also greater capacity to identify and process refugees in need of resettlement. That being said, there are a number of steps recommended to maximize resettlement resources:

UNHCR's Role in Resettlement: Leader, Coordinator, or Caseworker?

States should permit UNHCR should play more of supervisory or, at the very least, coordinating role in resettlement. Currently, however, states require that much of UNHCR's time and resources be spent fulfilling basic paper and casework functions, both at Headquarters and in the field. It would be more cost effective to devolve this function to NGOs operating under UNHCR supervision, particularly with UNHCR to designate "categories" of refugees to be processed by NGOs for resettlement, applying established UNHCR criteria. Such a programme would build on the successes of the ongoing UNHCR-ICMC Deployment Scheme, in which UNHCR's resettlement capacity is already enhanced by deploying experts from NGOs to assist with the preparation and presentation of resettlement referrals.

By devolving the casework function to closely supervised NGOs, UNHCR resources would be freed to identify urgent protection cases, as well as to coordinate regional and local durable solutions strategies, a vital function which has been underutilized, to the detriment of refugees without local integration prospects. While this category of refugees - those without local integration prospects - may be considered for resettlement under Chapter 4.9 of the Resettlement Handbook, the Handbook is clear that the scarcity of resettlement places requires that "resettlement of refugees without local integration prospects, as distinguished from the more immediate need of resettlement for reasons of protection, should be promoted by UNHCR only when specific conditions are met." Such resettlement also requires a consultation process with UNHCR Headquarters. UNHCR, however, is often too bogged down in individual casework to proactively pursue such strategies and, as a result, refugees who have been languishing in camps only continue to languish.

The devolution of casework to NGOs would liberate UNHCR resources to more vigorously pursue resettlement for refugees without local integration prospects.

NGOs, Case Identification and Resettlement

Second, UNHCR should continue to intensify its efforts to encourage NGO implementing partners to identify refugees with urgent protection needs for resettlement. A model would be the UNHCR-IRC Durable Solutions Project in Pakistan, in which such protection cases identified by local NGOs and implementing partners are carefully verified and interviewed by IRC, and then re-interviewed by UNHCR prior to referring the refugee to a resettlement country. This system identifies the most vulnerable cases, while its checks and balances help ensure against fraud.

Dossier Submissions and Other Ways to Enhance Protection through Resettlement

Resettlement countries that accept dossier resettlement submissions from UNHCR - that is, those countries that will urgently resettle certain emergency protection cases without a face-to-face interview between the refugee and the government - deserve special appreciation for all that they have done to enhance refugee protection. Resettlement countries that will not waive the government-refugee interview, however, can still do much to make resettlement more responsive to the needs of emergency protection cases.

Specifically, the community of resettlement countries has unnecessarily expended UNHCR and their own resettlement resources by not making an effort to harmonize their own resettlement forms and procedures. We acknowledge that every resettlement country has the right to determine its own resettlement policies and priorities, and affirm that diversity among resettlement countries helps to establish a more efficient division of labor in refugee resettlement.. There are, however, many non-substantive areas where states should work to internationalize and standardize their resettlement procedures, in order to expedite resettlement. For example, some resettlement countries have their own resettlement application forms that take hours to complete and require multiple interviews, even though much of the information on these forms is redundant of the UNHCR "Resettlement Registration Form" (RRF). States should collaborate at the working level to shorten and standardize their own forms, and allow the information in the UNHCR RRF to be incorporated as an attachment.

While collaboration on form harmonization is certainly a mundane exercise, and while government agencies often view their forms as sacred objects, such an effort could vastly improve the efficiency of the international resettlement regime, and significantly enhance refugee protection and the search for durable solutions.

Refugee Resettlement and Mass Influx

While refugees arriving in mass are usually considered prima facie refugees, when the same individuals are processed for resettlement, a different set of criteria comes into play. We support the suggestion made in the paper that resettlement countries harmonize their resettlement criteria with UNCHR's mandate to allow for the unique circumstances and resettlement needs of prima facie refugees. While it was not a resettlement programme, some countries used a creative application of their resettlement criteria as the legal framework to participate in the Humanitarian Evacuation out of Macedonia Such creativity should be seen more often, and in more places, so that resettlement can be used as an effective burden-sharing instrument in mass influx situations.

Resettlement Strategies and the Working Group on Resettlement

While more efficiently delegating casework to NGOs and elevating its own role, the Resettlement Section should coordinate, with the Regional Bureaus and the Division of International Protection, meetings of an invigorated Working Group on Resettlement which would bring together UNHCR, states and NGOs to discuss global and regional resettlement strategies, particularly with regard to refugees without local integration prospects or identifiable refugee populations with serious protection issues. The Working Group meetings could act as mini "pledging conferences" for states to indicate their interest in taking part of a specific group of refugees. As implementing partners and advocates who can help identify categories of refugees in need of protection or a durable solution, it would be helpful to invite NGOs to have a voice - if not a "vote" - at the table. In this spirit, we urge the Resettlement countries to once again consider permitting an NGO presence at the meetings of the Working Group.

Family Reunification and Resettlement

Family unity is a fundamental human right. As stated in Article 74 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and reaffirmed in numerous international legal instruments since that time, "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state." We regret that the paper on Resettlement does not substantively address the issue of reuniting refugees with their families.

With resettlement needs greatly exceeding resettlement slots, reuniting refugees with close family members in other countries is one of the most essential criteria for prioritizing scarce resettlement places. In recent years, states have increasingly relied on UNHCR as the sole or primary source of resettlement referrals based on family links. This reliance, however, is another ineffective use of UNHCR resources and has ill served the principle of family unity.

Only states, and to a lesser extent NGOs, in the resettlement country are in a position to verify such family links. UNHCR does not have access to the "anchor" relative, nor to official records, to confirm these relationships. Families in resettlement countries should initiate family reunification through their governments, rather than expecting UNHCR to initiate family-based resettlement from the camps. Such family reunification processes should be in place in all resettlement countries, for refugees of all nationalities. Ideally, UNHCR involvement should be limited to facilitating the screening of the refugee once the links have been claimed in the receiving country. To expect more of UNHCR in this area only delays family reunion, and is an unnecessary and unrealistic diversion of UNHCR resources.

Resettlement and Transparency

All too often, states deny resettlement cases with little or no explanation to the refugee, or even to UNHCR. There is little justification for such an opaque approach. When rejecting a resettlement referral, states should give UNHCR the information it needs to understand the basis for rejection. Such information is necessary for UNHCR to improve its screening and presentation referrals, and to decide whether or not to "appeal" the submission or present it to another resettlement country.

Resettlement and Fraud

We support efforts being to address fraud; when the integrity of the system is questioned, refugees suffer. At the same time, we note that fraud occurs because of the lack of opportunities for refugees. If local integration were a real possibility for a larger number of the world's refugees, we would expect to see less fraud around resettlement.

In addition, when addressing fraud, UNHCR must remember that resettlement is not just an "option" - it is an urgent escape route to safety and dignity. The recent murder of the refugee children who were awaiting resettlement in Nairobi is a tragic case in point. UNHCR should not address fraud by suspending resettlement. Resettlement delayed is protection denied. Fraud needs to be addressed aggressively, but the show must go on.

Conclusion

In order for durable solutions to be widely implemented and to offer an alternative to refugees who are presently "warehoused," a re-kindling of the commitment to responsibility sharing is needed. A fundamental principle of the present international refugee regime is that it is the responsibility of the international community to care for refugees - not just the government of the country in which they happen to arrive. In this context, resettlement plays an essential role.

If pursued strategically, consistently, and efficiently, resettlement is an incredibly effective tool of protection and durable solution. Just ask any refugee whose life has been saved by resettlement or any refugee who has been languishing in a camp for many years.

There is a famous teaching: "to save one life is to save the World." Through resettlement, the World has been saved millions of times, one life at a time.

Summary - Recommendations

1. UNHCR and its Executive Committee should ensure that the three durable solutions are consistently addressed and implemented in a strategic and complementary fashion, with an emphasis on their roles as instruments of responsibility sharing and international solidarity. They should also pay close attention to ensure that states do not choose to replace or displace one durable solution with another.
2. UNHCR should intensify its training and monitoring efforts to ensure that resettlement criteria is implemented more consistently throughout the World, and that its field staff do not allow the Protection Criteria in the Resettlement Handbook to be displaced by other concerns and priorities.
3. In its Global Appeal and fundraising efforts, UNHCR should appeal for donors to supplement funding commitments with pledges to welcome a proportional number of refugees for resettlement. UNHCR should also properly acknowledge resettlement places as a "contribution" by the resettlement countries in support of the core functions of UNHCR. At the same time, UNHCR should absolutely discourage countries from "bolstering" resettlement by diverting resources from asylum or refugee assistance.
4. UNHCR should devise and implement standard operating procedures to ensure the accurate, comprehensive registration of refugees - conducted outside of the context of resettlement and as early as possible after flight. Timely and effective registration procedures are a necessary tool for planning, promoting and monitoring voluntary repatriation, local integration, as well as resettlement, not to mention protection.
5. UNHCR, Resettlement Countries, and NGOs should work together to ensure that resettlement is applied more efficiently, and that no resettlement places go unused. Specifically:
   1. States should permit UNHCR to play more of supervisory or, at the very least, coordinating role in resettlement. The labor-intensive paper and casework functions currently performed by UNHCR should be devolved to NGOs operating under UNHCR supervision.
   2. UNHCR resources should be dedicated to more vigorously and strategically pursue resettlement for refugees without local integration prospects.
   3. UNHCR should continue to develop efforts to encourage NGO implementing partners to identify refugees with urgent protection needs for resettlement.
   4. UNHCR should vigorously encourage states to enhance their emergency resettlement procedures - including, but not limited to - resettlement submissions on a dossier basis.
   5. The resettlement countries, coordinated by UNHCR, should make a concerted effort to harmonize their resettlement procedures in order to make resettlement more efficient and effective. For example, states should collaborate at the working level to shorten and standardize their own forms, and allow information on the UNHCR Resettlement Registration Form to be incorporated as an attachment.
   6. The Working Group on Resettlement should permit NGO participation, and should address become an invigorated forum in which the tripartite partners could strategize how they could work together to address specific global and regional resettlement needs.
   7. Resettlement countries should harmonize their resettlement criteria with UNCHR's mandate to allow for the unique circumstances and resettlement needs of prima facie refugees.
   8. When rejecting a resettlement referral, states should give UNHCR the information it needs to understand the basis for rejection. Such information is necessary for UNHCR to improve its screening and presentation referrals, and to decide whether or not to "appeal" the submission or present it to another resettlement country.
   9. States should permit family "anchors" to initiate resettlement for refugee family members, rather than expecting UNHCR to initiate family based resettlement from the field. Such refugee reunification processes should be universal, and not limited to specific nationalities. When such mechanisms are in place, UNHCR involvement should be limited to facilitating the screening of the refugee once the links have been claimed in the receiving country.
6. States, NGOs, and UNHCR should take effective measures to combat fraud and corruption in resettlement, but ensure that this is not done by delaying or discouraging refugee protection.