The UN High Commissioner for Refugees' Forum
1st Meeting
27 June 2003

NGO Statement on
the Other Initiatives under Convention Plus

Thank you, High Commissioner,

Secondary Movement
Several delegations have raised a number of issues that they are interested in taking forward under Convention Plus. Firstly, on the concrete proposal of Switzerland on secondary and irregular movements, we would note that "secondary movement" is a value-neutral term, used to describe any onward movement of a refugee from the country to which s/he first fled.

Governments must not confuse secondary movement with the irregular movement of refugees, referenced first by the Executive Committee of UNHCR in its Conclusion 58 (1989). Irregular movement is the onward movement of refugees from a country in which they have found effective protection to another country.

Secondary movement must never prevent the right to seek asylum. Decision-makers, therefore, must be able to use fair, impartial, and efficient procedures in order to distinguish between legitimate secondary and irregular movements. Many secondary movements are legitimate movements of persons from countries where they faced new incidents of persecution or the lack of effective protection. As there is no legal requirement that refugees seek asylum in the first country to which they flee, the onward movements of such persons should be seen as a part of their search for effective protection.

Much work needs to be done in defining the term effective protection, although some initial first steps were taken at the Lisbon roundtable meeting in December of 2002 and, more recently, the European Commission's Communication No. 315 of June 3, 2003, which lays out its views on what constitutes a minimum core of effective protection.

In the end, the only criteria, when determining refugee status should be whether the asylum-seeker concerned has a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country of nationality or habitual residence, irrespective of secondary movement.

Targeting Development Aid to Achieve Durable Solutions
Many delegations have made reference to moving forward on the issue of targeting development aid to achieve durable solutions and Japan has offered to facilitate. Targeting development aid can play a part in the search for new ways to achieve better protection and durable solutions for more of the world's refugees. But the ultimate goal must be better protection of refugees, which will be achieved by stronger and more committed responsibility-sharing among states, and the allocation of sufficient funds for sustainable solutions. We would urge donors to ensure flexibility in the provision of humanitarian aid so that programmes can contribute to meeting the development needs of refugees and host communities.

If effective protection, durable solutions, and sustainable reintegration of refugees are to be achieved, there is a need for better responsibility- sharing between developing countries and industrialised states. There is also a need for additional funding, both in terms of development aid and humanitarian assistance, to bolster the insufficient material support that is being given to host developing countries at the moment. Development aid should not be redirected from poverty reduction programmes. There is a need for additional funding for development aid to developing countries, for development aid to refugees, and for humanitarian assistance to refugees.

Our main concern is that the effective protection of refugees remains the ultimate goal of any initiatives under Convention Plus. Any focus on using development aid for durable solutions must not undermine the right to seek asylum and the obligation of developed countries to establish and maintain fair, transparent, and rights-respecting asylum procedures.

Like some of the other interventions we have heard from States during the last few days, we have a number of serious reservations about the ideas of establishing regional and transit processing arrangements that are being pursued by some States, especially where they represent restrictive measures designed to inhibit access to asylum in certain countries.

As the African Group noted earlier in the day, Convention Plus needs to be focused on refugee protection. As a complement to the Refugee Convention, Convention Plus cannot be otherwise.

Such a priority demands that the focus of Convention Plus be on building protection capacity and expansion of resettlement opportunities. It is imperative that such initiatives are not viewed, either politically or legally, as a substitute for the long and complex process of enhancing the quality of protection in all host countries. From our perspective, such an approach puts refugee protection first, does not undermine solidarity, and is also ultimately in the best interests of all States.

We recognise the important and difficult challenge that is presented by the lucrative business of smuggling and trafficking in people. The purpose and spirit of the Refugee Convention and also of human rights law requires that any measures to meet those challenges must be undertaken in a way that puts international protection and human rights standards first. In tackling this problem, consideration also needs to be given to how this business may in fact be fuelled by restrictive measures introduced by an increasing number of States.

With this in mind, High Commissioner, we agree with you wholeheartedly that this process should facilitate responsibility-sharing, not shifting. We also welcome strong interventions from States, including Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Mexico, Sweden, and South Africa which, amongst other things, highlighted not only the need for Convention Plus agreements to comply with international refugee law, but also human rights law.

Finally, we welcome Sweden's remarks noting that it is States, inter-governmental organisations, and NGOs that provide the substance to Convention Plus agreements. NGOs, as such, are ready to provide that substance into the discussions of the Convention Plus process.

Thank you