UNHCR's Convention Plus Process
Targeting Development Aid strand

Informal Meeting on Issues involved in
targeting development assistance for refugee solutions

22 September 2004

Informal note of meeting by NGO representatives (DRC - Thomas Thomsen, RET - Tom Delrue; Concern Worldwide - Antonia Potter)

Summary
The meeting was as useful for gleaning the views of the assembled company as it was for putting NGO perspectives. From UNHCR's point of view, it was disappointing as the clear message from the donors was "don't go outside your mandate" and "let's not have a special agreement"; as they were represented by Anne Willem Bijleveld, it seemed obvious that HCR was interested from a funding point of view (although it would not be fair perhaps to say only that) - but he had to spend a lot of time protesting they were interested only in "catalyzing not implementing". Many of the points the NGOs wanted to make were made by donors, and it was clear that most people's thinking was ahead of the paper - in that participation of refugees, host countries and civil society was a given for most donors, and that several donors are moving in the direction of transitional mechanisms, recognizing there is no clear progression from conflict to post conflict. The NGOs were able to make strong points about participation, the bottom-up approach, the role of civil society etc. which were well received. Perhaps the key watchwords to the discussion from the donor perspective were funding additionality (broadly, they agree it is necessary, but it is not clear how/to what extent) and conditionality (everyone had to say this was inappropriate in view of the national ownership question, hence a lot of emphasis on making "success stories" as case studies, and on "marketing" the positives of refugee populations).

The UN agencies generally made predictable contributions based narrowly on their mandate interests which did not much enrichen the debate; concerns were more about how to make do with sharing already strained funding sources.

A major issue which did not come up was the question of development assistance being used as a substitute for resettlement - this could be addressed at the session described below.

Meeting Notes

• Meeting hosted by Denmark (Chair, Ambassador Henrik Ree Iversen)
• Presentation by UNHCR (Anne Willem Bijleveld)

• Present: WHO, WFP, UNICEF, UNDP, OECD, OCHA, ILO, FAO, UNHCR, World Bank, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, US, UK (name card was there, but no one present), EC

Chair's intro: this is not a new problem, but our traditional top-down approach has yielded no success; the purpose of today's meeting is to see how we can start practically, bottom up, and how we can engage recipient/host countries on this issue. It is not for us to agree or disagree on this paper, but to brainstorm on future directions. There will be no formal note of this meeting.

UNHCR presentation of paper: UNHCR is trying to take the lead in bringing attention to this neglected and often thorny issue. The bottom line of Convention Plus is responsibility and burden-sharing, suggesting as always that the strategic use of development assistance requires collaboration and cooperation. There are a range of initiatives which touch positively on this issue:

• UNDG-ECHA working group on transition (head, Carole Bellamy)
• the guidelines on durable solutions for IDPs to be issued by the end of the year by UNDG
• ongoing experience of implementing the 4Rs
• donor initiatives in setting up transitional budget mechanisms (e.g. Sweden, Denmark [check]
• Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative
• PRSPs: DFID funding a WB analysis of the PRSP process, also due by the end of the year; returnees are only occasionally included in these, refugees almost never

World Bank: we accord this a high priority, Lubbers met Wolfensohn in May 04 for a Convention Plus and 4Rs discussion; on 4Rs, WB works closely with HCR and UNDP in 3 pilot countries (Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone and Eritrea) trying to improve collaborative strategies, the full ownership of the country team and national ownership. Described refugee problem as a "binding constraint on development". DFID-funded study on PRSP aims to make it more conflict sensitive (analyses 10 conflict countries: Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Georgia, BiH, Cambodia, Burundi, Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Nepal, of which 5 will be targeted for application of the given recommendations. He described focus of the Post Conflict and LICUS initiatives (see paper)

Sweden: this is all about transition issues, and we strongly support the strand but believe the focus needs to be on country level - persuading our own country teams and host countries. Linked to this, Japan and Denmark are strongly encouraged to launch concrete operations as soon as possible, in part to demonstrate results. We do not support a generic agreement. Additional funding is key, but our administration is divided on the issue of how we get host government trust that other development or humanitarian funding will not be cut, and how we ensure real national ownership.

Japan: focus on MDGs has led to more convergence, and a more "in the driver's seat" role for recipient countries; we believe in getting to reconstruction and development as soon as possible, but feel that security must be recognized as a major constraint for implementers. For us the absolute key is empowerment, protection and a bottom-up approach, noting that partnership means nothing without ownership and that even vulnerable groups can be important agents of development. He mentioned that education is a key issue throughout this phase.

Netherlands: supported Sweden's statement. We appreciate HCR's catalytic role but it should stay within its mandate and we should help agencies like UNDP to engage earlier so HCR can develop better exit strategies. We do not support a special agreement which could undermine and duplicate e.g. PRSP, CCA, UNDAF etc. Additionality and a bottom-up approach is key, but we should achieve this by improving the bilateral relations/dialogues we have with our recipients, supporting the inclusion of refugees in National Development Plans etc. Recommends that UNHCR undertakes a study of best practices in this regard.

Norway: faces the problem of humanitarian issues and development assistance being institutionally separated within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; initiatives like this help bring them closer together. We are all agreed that development initiatives imposed on recipient countries are less effective. We need to work for the inclusion of not only refugees but also e.g. mine action and small arms in PRSPs. The question of additionality is well handled in the issues paper. ODA is growing but only modestly and global transfers are still less than 1/3 of what OECD countries spend on agricultural subsidies. Notes that countries vary widely on the proportion of ODA that is spent on humanitarian assistance. We remain open and active on this issue and welcome proposals to support DRA/DLI projects

FAO: return is our ideal durable solution. Secure access to land and natural resources is the most critical factor from our point of view, so if this can be comprehended in these efforts, so much the better.

ICVA: (Chair introduced us with a very positive speech on the big NGO role and impact in refugee and development issues): welcomed the bottom-up approach, stressing the need to see civil society and the beneficiaries themselves, including the local population, as partners as important as government in terms of the ownership and implementation debate, in particular in protracted crises when government structures are very weak or even non-existent; that bottom-up means a real commitment to listening to beneficiaries and civil society

UNICEF: especial vulnerability of women and children to trafficking in these transitional situations. If HCR moves to working in development, this will place a strain on already scarce resource.

Switzerland: agreed with Sweden and Netherlands; reiterated support for additionality alongside concern for "falling into trap of conditionality"; wondered if there were meaningful differences between bilateral and multilateral assistance in this regard.

UNDP: we support the new UNDG guidelines on IDPs and will push them with our RCs. Agree that ownership/additionality at the heart of this debate. We must persuade countries to see refugees as an asset (economically and socially, even politically) not as a burden.

WB: vehement support for UNDP's last point which is not in the paper (refugees can be good for your country!). Cited BiH as example of a country where returns happened 7-8 years after conflict when all HA structures had been disbanded (HCR later countered that this was a very unusual, European situation and not typical). Came back on Norway's ODA remarks: of the 2001-3 ODA global increase of $16.1Bn, 57% of the increase was due to foreign exchange rate difference and inflation; aid to just 2 countries hugely skewed the figures (Afghanistan, and Iraq which in 2003 accounted for 87% of the increase). There were only very low level net increase to the MDG deficit countries..

Canada: we are compulsive multilateralists; support Swedish, Dutch position. Additionality is not a panacea. We will discuss entry/exit strategies in transition at Ottawa Good Humanitarian Donorship meeting

US: we must make a credible case for additionality: - without it, recipients will never trust us; we must also establish good mechanisms for them to access such funds - perhaps a special agreement would be a useful mechanism here (US the only speaker to say this)

UNHCR (concluding remarks): we are catalytic and not a development agency; we all believe in ownership, but how to move it forward? The next step is to sit and brainstorm with recipient countries themselves. The UNDP-ECHA WG has task teams reviewing joint needs assessments, and producing a guidance note on the bridge between humanitarian and development phases.

OECD: the DAC plays a limited role in Convention Plus, but does have networks on poverty reduction and conflict. The way we can make this a DAC priority is to present it as a transitional issue through the usual formal channels.

Chairman's Summary: we need more funds, but we also need to create on a country-by-country basis "an offer which cannot be refused". You all seem to be very open to this, and we should get out there and create success stories to persuade recipient countries to address this issue. As to bilateral or multilateral, whatever suits the situation best. We will certainly not forget the importance and role of our friends in civil society.

AP, TD, TT on behalf of ICVA
Geneva 23/09/04