Dear Colleagues,

Please find below a note from the ICVA Secretariat on the last meeting of the Core Group on Resettlement under UNHCR's Convention Plus, as well as developments since that meeting.

With best regards,
ICVA

UNHCR Convention Plus Debriefing on Resettlement Meeting of 18 May 2004
On the Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement

ICVA Note to NGOs
26 June 2004

As you may recall, a meeting of the Core Group on Resettlement under the Convention Plus process met on 18 May to further discuss the document on which they have been working. As with previous core group meetings, NGOs had been invited to provide their comments on the document (the NGO comments on the document will be available on the ICVA website shortly or are available upon request). A debriefing was provided by Canada and UNHCR to NGOs and interested governments not in the Core Group on 3 June 2004 in Geneva. This note is produced from that debriefing, with apologies for not getting it finished sooner.

This note has three sections: Changes to the Document; Next Steps; and A Final Note, which includes a thank you from the co-chair, Canada.

- CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT:
By the end of the meeting, there were four bracketed sections of text and two paragraphs for which agreement was still required. The title agreed upon for the document is a “Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement” (during the drafting, the term “undertakings” had been used).

On the NGO comments that were submitted, the proposal to include a timeframe (of over 7 years) in the preamble was rejected as it was felt that the issue had not been discussed in an appropriate forum and was, therefore, not adopted.

In paragraph 13, NGOs had suggested including unaccompanied refugee minors under the section “Timely Registration and Documentation.” It was felt by the core group that unaccompanied refugee minors are included in the term “separated children” and, therefore, the NGO suggestion was not taken on board. Similarly, with the issue of confidentiality in relation to biometric data in paragraph 14, it was felt that the issue was discussed elsewhere in the document and so not included here.

Under “Selection Criteria,” the recommendation to include NGOs in paragraph 17 was rejected because it was felt that governments make the decision in the end anyway. However, the reference to the OAU Convention and Carategna Declaration will be included with the wording “consider those definitions.” The partnership role for NGOs in the use of group methodology was also rejected. There was a movement towards an understanding on the group methodology that viewed a group as one that could have suffered persecution even if all the members of that group did not directly suffer persecution. In paragraph 19, countries were concerned that “physical and medical conditions” not be the basis of arbitrarily rejecting someone for resettlement and so that would be included. The NGO suggestion to include a separate paragraph on separated children was rejected because it was felt that the reference to “age” not being a reason to arbitrarily screen someone out also included (separated) children.

Some countries were concerned about the definition of “family” because their national legislation defines what a family is. The order of paragraphs 20 and 21 were switched.

As there had been agreement not to use “should” in the text, the NGO suggestions to change “to” to “should” in various places was not accepted.

Under “Transparency,” NGOs had suggested including refugees, but that was not taken on board since the term “parties” and who is included in that term is defined in the preambular section. The term “partners,” also included in the preamble, will read “relevant resettlement partners.”

Under “Integrity of Process,” there was a long discussion about including the term “misrepresentation,” but in the end, it was felt that if it was included alongside “fraudulent practices” then it would imply that “fraudulent” would be criminal. The NGO suggestion to include adequate protection measures for those reporting fraudulent activities would, however, be included as s new paragraph. It is left in general terms so as not proscribe because it was felt that it may not be UNHCR’s role.

Paragraph 31, which NGOs had asked to be removed, remains, but with some changes. The idea that resettlement can be a pull factor remains in the paragraph. However, monitoring and screening has been separated out from deterrence. The NGO suggestion to include “confidentiality” when sharing information has been included. The NGO suggested bullet in paragraph 36 on “assisting in the facilitation of resettlement countries’ interview and adjudication missions” has been included.

The section on “Integration Support” was half agreed to during the 18 May meeting. One country had a problem with the NGO suggestion of standards enjoyed “by their nationals” and so the language has been adopted with language that has countries moving “progressively” towards the standards enjoyed by nationals, but the text was bracketed at the meeting for further discussion. The language at the end of paragraph 38 that had a comparison between resettled refugees’ secure legal status to that of recognised refugees was removed. That language had been bracketed going into the 18 May meeting and had been suggested for inclusion by NGOs.

Paragraph 40, which talked about sustainability of a resettlement operation, was changed from “until durable solutions have been found for the majority” to bracketed text that read “until the objectives of the resettlement operation are met.” However, that new language still had to be agreed.

Core group members were supposed to return with comments on bracketed text the second week of May and then hopefully a document would be agreed.

- NEXT STEPS:
Since the debriefing, the text has, indeed, been agreed and a final document produced. It is available from the ICVA Secretariat and is posted on the ICVA (members only) website at: http://www.icva.ch/cgi-bin/member/browse.pl?doc=doc00001191.

A panel discussion will be held during UNHCR’s Standing Committee on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 (13:!5-15:00) to discuss the document. It will be presented to the High Commissioner’s Forum in September, but it is not yet clear whether or not there will be an official adoption of the document or not.

A number of core group members are interested in testing out the document, but it was felt that the core group should not be deciding which countries would be chosen as that was not why the core group was created. States are looking to UNHCR for movement on the testing of the document. ***It was noted that NGO views could be taken into account on possible test cases to apply the document and, as such, NGOs with suggestions for test cases should be in contact with UNHCR’s Convention Plus Unit.***

- A FINAL NOTE:
Bill Lundy, the Canadian co-Chair of the core group wrote the following to the ICVA Secretariat, which we promised we would pass on to NGOs:

“I would like to thank the NGO community for their numerous thoughtful contributions to the drafting process, many of which have found their way into the final document. I would hope that you will agree that this document will make an important contribution to future multilateral resettlement activities.”

With best regards,
ICVA Secretariat