54th Session of the Executive Committee of the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees' Programme
29 September - 3 October 2003

GENERAL DEBATE

NGO SUBMISSION FACILITATED BY ICVA WITH INPUT FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF NGOS
1 October 2003

Mr. Chairman,

The Changed Context of Humanitarian Action

The past several weeks and months will go down in history as an extremely difficult time for humanitarian action. The deteriorated security situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing the death or injury of UN and NGO staff, reinforce the reality of the interdependence of all humanitarian actors. The changed international climate in which humanitarian personnel are deliberately targeted, requires a re-evaluation of the way in which we work and the way in which we are perceived in many parts of the world - it is no longer business as usual. Our neutral and impartial action is increasingly intertwined with the activities of political actors and the military. The large majority of humanitarian funding is provided by only a few donor governments. Yet many of those same governments are also playing a leading role in the war on terrorism. In such an environment, how can we ensure the impartiality and independence of humanitarian action?

We welcome the renewed commitment of the international community to improve the security of humanitarian personnel. The recent Security Council resolution should not remain empty words. In this respect, we call for the immediate release of our MSF colleague, Arjan Erkel, who was kidnapped in Dagestan in the Russian Federation on 12 August 2002.

Simply increasing our physical security, whether by building higher walls around our compounds or increasing the number of guards, will help neither us nor those who we are trying to protect, support, and assist. The security environment in which we work has been irrevocably changed, but the biggest impact of that change will be on the lives of those with and for whom we work.

The Current Context of Refugee Protection

Since this Executive Committee last met, the security and protection of refugees, asylum-seekers, and other persons who have been forcibly displaced, have not improved in many places. On the contrary, numerous reports from NGOs and others point to the further deterioration of refugees' security, further restricting their ability to enjoy their rights to protection and durable solutions. The war on terrorism is used as a blanket excuse for the serious curtailment of refugees' and asylum-seekers' rights.

The trends that we have seen in terms of refugee protection are extremely worrying. We see the very States that have, in the past, committed themselves to protecting refugees, retreating from some of the most fundamental obligations under international refugee and human rights law.

We also see that in the context of mixed migratory flows, a complex and challenging field for all of us, there is still limited recognition of the need for an open and inclusive debate amongst all States and other actors on the social, economic, and protection implications of migration control measures. Instead, in their desire to "manage migration," the policies and proposals of several developed countries seen over the last year seriously threaten the fundamental and universal right to seek and enjoy asylum. Many of these governments are equating "migration management" with building higher barriers so as to keep people away from their borders. The result of such "management" is that asylum-seekers are prevented from exercising their right to seek and enjoy asylum.

We are particularly concerned by proposals of the UK and similar ideas, which are supported by other countries including Denmark and the Netherlands. Essentially, they are a variation of Australia's so-called "Pacific Solution," a scheme that has seriously undermined the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers.

At the same time, these policies off-load responsibility for asylum-processing and protection, usually to poorer countries. Suggestions of providing protection in regions of origin are, in fact, an attempt to shift the responsibility that a State has for asylum-seekers on its territory onto developing countries. Yet, such proposals are being drafted, discussed, and planned with little consultation with those States to which the burden would be shifted, nor has there been any proper consideration of whether there will be access to effective protection.

We are also concerned that some States, in their attempts to shift protection to the regions of origin, are turning to organisations other than UNHCR to implement these plans. UNHCR has the mandate for, and a unique experience in addressing, international protection and must be involved in any discussions and plans relating to it. Outsourcing to IOM, for example, as a pragmatic solution, negates that mandate and experience and is unacceptable.

Several States, including Australia, Canada, the USA, and a number of EU Member States, have consolidated and expanded their interception activities under the rubric of combating illegal migration, smuggling, and trafficking, and of protecting national security. The law of State responsibility applies to any State action, regardless of where that action takes place. Extraterritorial interception by States must, therefore, be consistent with the State's obligations under international human rights and refugee law.

The detention of asylum-seekers by some States continues to be inconsistent with the Refugee Convention, human rights law and standards, and UNHCR's Detention Guidelines. In particular, arbitrary and discriminatory detention, detention on the grounds of a lack of documentation, and the detention of refugee children are unacceptable.

In other parts of the world, the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their own countries is not being respected. The protracted situation of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and the recent verification process are of particular concern. For example, despite reforms introduced in Nepal, Bhutanese refugee women still do not have their own registration documents or independent access to humanitarian aid.

The principle of non-refoulement is increasingly being violated. We strongly support UNHCR's recent efforts to prevent the refoulement from Malaysia of Indonesians from the province of Aceh. We are equally concerned by the situation of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh and elsewhere in South-East Asia, which includes a lack of recognition of refugee status and the threat of forcible return. Despite atrocious living conditions in the camps in Bangladesh, many of the refugees are not willing to return. At the same time, many more have chosen not to take shelter in the camps out of a fear of being returned forcibly.

While much attention has been focused of late on Iraq, the international community must also ensure that other situations, such as Afghanistan, receive adequate support. The deteriorating security environment in Afghanistan is heavily impacting on the ability of humanitarian organisations to carry out programmes. In such an unstable situation, involuntary returns of refugees and rejected asylum-seekers to Afghanistan are unacceptable.

We are deeply disturbed by the continuing pressure on Chechens in Ingushetia to return to the Russian republic of Chechnya. Chechens in former Soviet republics, such as Kazakhstan, must have access to asylum procedures based on UNHCR's standards.

Other protracted situations in Africa require even more attention. In spite of the encouraging prospects for Liberia, it is critical that donors and international organisations recognise the continuing needs of refugee populations that remain in other West African countries. In Guinea, for example, refugee needs, such as child soldier rehabilitation and refugee primary and secondary education, remain underserved. The eventual goal of return will be undermined by a premature phase-out of services.

In Tanzania, we are concerned by the government's restrictions on refugees' freedom of movement that is impacting on their self-reliance abilities. The food rations, which were set in accordance with self-reliance measures, must be increased given the reduction in self-reliance abilities. The lack of adequate food is acting as a push factor for refugees to return to Burundi where the situation remains unstable. Local integration of refugees must be considered as an option for finding a solution to their plight.

Despite the positive political developments, there remains a need for adequate funding to ensure successful return to Angola. Without strong donor commitment, UNHCR will not be able to provide the necessary support to refugees wishing to return.

We welcome the call from the new UN Emergency Relief Coordinator to refocus attention and resources on "forgotten crises." In this context, as Chad is usually not a country in the spotlight, we call on the international community not to forget the 65,000 Sudanese refugees who recently arrived in Chad.

Resettlement

The numbers of refugees being resettled from Kenya has not met the targeted numbers since 11 September 2001 due to security measures. While the US continues to resettle the largest numbers of refugees, the actual number has dropped dramatically. We would welcome further discussion on the proposed Strategic Use of Resettlement in all protracted refugee situations, as many would benefit from the proposed group resettlements. In light of the dramatically falling numbers of arrivals of asylum-seekers in many industrialised countries and the turnover of camps by UNHCR to national governments in some places, now would seem an appropriate time to vigorously pursue resettlement as a durable solution. We are concerned, however, that resettlement decisions are not being made on the basis of protection needs. This being said, the possible extension of resettlement to individual cases of stateless persons is a welcome one.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

We must, yet again, sadly repeat that IDPs continue to fall between the cracks as the collaborative approach seems to be more whimsical than predictable. While we appreciate UNHCR's continuing stated commitment to the collaborative approach, we would like to see a clarification of UNHCR's policy on IDPs and a consistent application of that policy. In this respect, we urge UNHCR to engage in greater consultation with its partners with regards to the identification of IDP populations to be served by the agency. Such an approach would ensure that the more dire, difficult, and under-funded crises are not by-passed by UNHCR. This engagement should also extend to working with the inter-agency IDP Unit to find ways of improving the implementation of the collaborative approach.

Refugee Women and Children

Despite excellent guidelines and commitments to community-based approaches in programming, many refugee women and children continue to be unable to access asylum and effective protection and continue to be subject to rape and other forms of gender-based violence. UNHCR's three evaluations on refugee women, refugee children, and community services highlighted that the current policies and guidelines are valuable, but are being inadequately implemented at the field level. We strongly support an inter-agency, multi-sectoral approach to ensure the protection of refugee women and children. Multi-sectoral teams should be created in all field and branch offices and should include NGOs working with refugee children and women. At the same time, expertise in these areas must support the work of these teams.

The Women at Risk programme fails to effectively target women at greatest risk due to the ambiguity of current definitions, problems in identification, and the slowness of processing. It is essential that the Women at Risk programme be implemented in a manner that ensures that women in need of urgent protection are identified and fast-tracked to safe resettlement countries. Effective strategies to address violence against women should be developed and implemented, in consultation with countries of origin, host countries, resettlement countries, and refugee women.

Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Through the IASC Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and the initiatives taken by UNHCR's Inspector General's Office to both respond to allegations and to develop much needed tools, important steps have been taken. We all recognise, however, that much remains to be done to ensure that refugees are truly protected and NGOs look forward to further working with UNHCR toward this end. We also urge donors to prioritise programme design that views humanitarian assistance through a protection lens.

Convention Plus and The High Commissioner's Forum

NGOs can bring valuable experience from their work with refugees to the various discussions leading to Convention Plus agreements. We hope that the Convention Plus initiatives will particularly focus on protracted refugee situations. We look forward to actively participating in the discussions on resettlement; targeting of development assistance to help achieve durable solutions for refugees in regions of origin; secondary movements of asylum-seekers and refugees; and, of course, in The High Commissioner's Forum. The experience from our participation in the Global Consultations and the Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement can help guide this participation.

ExCom Conclusions

As a former Director of International Protection said to ExCom several years ago, the "Protection Conclusions are supposed to aid policy application at the national level in the interests of improving protection responsibilities for refugees…[and] strengthen UNHCR's ability to carry out its central and obligatory mandate function." We are concerned, however, that States are treating ExCom Conclusions in quite the opposite manner - as a way to dilute rather than strengthen protection.

We hope that in the review that will take place as a result of the UNHCR 2004 process, the ExCom will also revisit the process by which Conclusions are adopted and take a close look at the purpose of the Conclusions. States should make efforts to refocus the current trend of narrowing the scope of refugee protection and instead work towards interpretations that allow for more ways to better protect refugees.

The review should also look at ways of increasing NGO participation in the work of ExCom, as well as in the drafting process of the Conclusions. We found the informal consultations with NGOs that led to the conclusion on the prevention of exploitation to have resulted in a stronger conclusion.

Information

Sharing information is key to carrying out protection. We are concerned that UNHCR has become less forthcoming in making available adequate country of origin information and guidelines on refugee status determination in specific situations to refugees, governments, and NGOs. Without access to this kind of information, protection will be compromised. We call on donor governments to ensure that adequate funds are made available in order to carry out this vital function, as well ensuring that they also share information related to refugee status determination with UNHCR and NGOs.

Partnership

Finally, but certainly not of least importance, we would like to welcome the High Commissioner's recent efforts to strengthen partnership with NGOs. The IOM/FOM issued by the High Commissioner on strengthening collaboration is yet another important step in the long history of partnership between UNHCR and NGOs. We hope that the move towards joint needs assessment, planning, and implementation will materialise throughout the organisation. In addition, partnership between UNHCR and NGOs should continue to look for ways of improving the crucial issue of protection. Only jointly can we work to improve the protection and assistance of refugees.

Thank you.