Report on the Consultations Between UNHCR and Humanitarian and Human Rights NGOs in Africa on Strengthening Collaboration in Support of the International Refugee Protection System*
(Held at the Hotel InterContinental, Nairobi, Kenya, 10 to 11 April, 2000)
Summary
Representatives of 34 humanitarian and human rights Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)
based in Africa met with senior officials of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Nairobi, Kenya on 10-11 April,
2000. It was the second of four planned regional “Reach-Out”
meetings to take place**
and its purpose was to discuss ways to improve collaboration in
support of the international refugee protection system. Discussions
were held on a non-attribution basis, under the Chatham House Rule,
and were conducted with the assistance of an independent Moderator
and two Rapporteurs, one from an NGO and one from UNHCR. The meeting
was conducted in French and English, with the assistance of four
interpreters. The Agenda, the list of Participants, and the
Conclusions/Recommendations reached during the meeting are annexed.
The main conclusions and recommendations of the meeting fell within four broad categories:
Capacity: The NGO participants called for more training on refugee law, both for NGOs
and for government officials. The participants also expressed a
strong interest in developing an African refugee protection network
to facilitate protection advocacy, exchange information and promote
dialogue, building on existing networks wherever possible.
Collaboration: It was recognised that collaboration on protection should be enhanced at
every level between national NGOs and UNHCR, as well as between
national and international NGOs. In any given refugee situation,
meetings to discuss protection issues should be held regularly among
all concerned NGOs and UNHCR protection staff. UNHCR should take
steps to ensure that field staff understand that NGOs have an
important role to play in refugee protection — that it is not
the exclusive domain of UNHCR.
Activities: Just as humanitarian assistance NGOs typically work with UNHCR in
technical areas such as the provision of medical care or sanitation,
so too should NGOs with protection skills serve as implementing
partners of UNHCR. Service ideas include providing legal assistance
to asylum seekers and creating information brochures outlining the
rights and the duties refugees have in an asylum country.
Advocacy:The need for NGOs to undertake refugee protection advocacy efforts was
underscored. Issues such as the growing xenophobia in Africa,
stringent asylum policies, and violations of the basic human rights
of many refugee groups deserve concerted attention. Methods include
engaging the media, training police and other government officials,
targeting regional policy-making bodies and inserting refugee rights
into the curricula of schools and universities. NGOs should also take
advantage of celebrations such Africa Day for Refugees, and upcoming
UNHCR anniversaries to highlight both the protection needs refugees
have as well as the contributions they make to countries offering
them asylum.
Discussion
Preliminary Comments
The Moderator welcomed the NGO participants, observers and UNHCR officials to the conference. He
voiced a need for NGOs and UNHCR to build a coalition of like-minded
partnerships, and to build trust between one another. He noted that
good collaboration grows out of trusting relationships.
The Current State of UNHCR-NGO Collaboration on Protection
UNHCR described the changing nature of UNHCR-NGO partnerships, commenting that
increasingly complex refugee crises, combined with Governments’
decreasing willingness to abide by their international treaty
obligations are undermining the regime of international protection.
Innovative action is required, in part through expanding the role of
NGOs to include specific protection activities. UNHCR noted that the
role of NGOs in the refugee protection domain is not limited to
advocacy or the mobilisation of public opinion. Rather, NGOs are well
positioned to help with reporting, monitoring, information-sharing,
and providing legal assistance to asylum seekers and refugees.
UNHCR encouraged the participants to consider concrete ways to improve refugee
protection, while bearing in mind certain constraints: the economic
burden shouldered by asylum countries, the competing national
priorities for limited resources, the environmental impact of hosting
refugee populations, abuses of established immigration and asylum
systems, the tensions caused by mixing different cultures, and the
inequitable burden-sharing among countries today. These constraints
are real, as are the needs of refugees. The challenge is to find an
accommodation between the internationally recognised rights of
refugees, their assistance needs and the national interests of host
countries. NGOs, with their intimate knowledge of local cultures and
their moral authority, can serve as a bridge between States and UNHCR
as it works to uphold international refugee protection principles.
NGO participants voiced a variety of views on the current status of UNHCR/NGO collaboration as
well as ideas on how to improve the relationship:
It was noted that UNHCR coordinates core assistance sectors such as health, shelter, and water. Their relationship with their NGO partners is established and clear. Yet issues considered to be “protection” are typically relegated to a small number of designated Protection Officers, even though it is obvious that such a small team could never handle so many problems. One solution might be to treat “protection” as a sector, and design programmes to respond to particular protection problems or needs. NGOs can implement them, as they do in other technical service areas. This would be a useful corrective to the tendency to assume that UNHCR should be responsible for addressing every protection problem.
UNHCR said that generally, it is interested in working with NGOs to develop legal assistance programs, and that they currently have such arrangements in place in some parts of the world, although host governments do not always welcome it. Any agreements must be made with the clear understanding that UNHCR has an international mandate for determining refugee status and ensuring the effective protection of refugees, and it cannot derogate from that responsibility.
NGOs urged UNHCR senior staff to ensure that the ideals of the Reach-Out process are shared with the field staff. Often, agreements are made with senior officials, and no one in the field knows, or cares, about new policies. If collaboration is to improve, UNHCR must issue an announcement or perhaps even guidelines to its field offices.
One participant observed that in some places the relationship between UNHCR and NGOs is fraught with suspicion. Typically in such cases, NGOs think that UNHCR does not do enough to protect refugees while UNHCR thinks that NGOs exaggerate. This is a big problem in perception (or reality) and needs to be addressed.
One way to improve understanding might be having periodic meetings between UNHCR protection staff and NGOs, both at the regional and local levels. As partners with a shared commitment to help refugees, both would benefit from sharing information and perceptions as much as possible.
A participant commented that UNHCR’s programs and policies sometimes depend more on the particular interests of an individual staff member rather than on standardised or institutional policies. This degree of personalisation is not appropriate and it complicates NGOs’ relationship with UNHCR.
There has been some real improvement in collaboration on protection between UNHCR and NGOs over the past few years, while there is still considerable mistrust between national and international NGOs. The north/south divide does exist, despite the complementarities of roles and mandates.
One NGO characterised the relationship between UNHCR and NGOs as more of a boss/worker relationship. UNHCR as boss has more information, authority and influence. This skews the nature of the partnership.
UNHCR does have ultimate responsibility for refugee protection and perhaps they have been too exclusive in an effort to protect that mandate.
It was suggested that NGOs conduct a “self-audit” to determine if they are ready to collaborate fully with UNHCR. If not, they should consider ways to prepare themselves for better, more constructive partnerships.
UNHCR briefed the participants on the role of the NGO Coordinator within UNHCR and encouraged NGOs to seek advice and information on building relationships with UNHCR. UNHCR also stated that efforts were underway to strengthen the PARinAC process.
Advocacy and Promotion of Protection Principles
This session began with a review of the situation in South Africa, which enacted a refugee law
in 1998 but has not yet established implementing regulations, despite
offers of help to do so by NGOs. Another problem is that the
government lacks sufficient resources to provide necessary assistance
to asylum seekers and refugees. Compounding this is the growing
xenophobia in South Africa. It is in this environment that NGOs are
attempting to improve conditions for refugees and persuade the
government to do more. Methods to roll back anti-refugee perceptions
include: involving the media in a positive way; training lawyers and
police about refugee law; working with schools to teach students
about tolerance; educating refugees about their duties, as well as
their rights; teaching refugee law at the university level; and
urging UNHCR to take a stronger position regarding refugee rights,
and to worry less about “diplomacy.”
One speaker noted the need for better relationships among NGOs themselves, and with UNHCR, to
improve the quality of advocacy. Creating an NGO protection advocacy
network would be very useful, so that NGOs can exchange information
about refugee situations, policies, and advocacy strategies. NGOs
also need more training on law and how to collect and use
documentation to improve their overall ability to advocate
effectively. NGOs might also wish to create a monitoring mechanism
with which to gauge governments’ compliance with the 1951
Convention.
Other participants added these views:
Promoting the rights of refugees is complicated for a number of reasons, particularly where refugees are pawns in a regional conflict. For example, some NGOs try to provide basic education to refugee children. Yet education in some contexts is considered by the country of origin to be a dangerous capacity-building exercise, designed by the asylum country as a means of training and empowering their enemies. Such suspicious/hostile attitudes make it more difficult for the host country to offer education to all refugees in its country.
It was observed that regardless of the OAU Convention and the 1951 Convention, governments often “cut deals” with one another that reflect regional political objectives rather than respect for refugee rights. Advocates must be mindful of these realities.
It was noted that some countries have no real government (e.g. Somalia), which greatly increases the challenge of designing effective advocacy.
It was recognised that many people are on the move in an attempt to find better economic opportunities. When they become mixed into populations of genuine refugees, it becomes difficult to design effective advocacy.
The constraints outlined above affect both NGOs and UNHCR. Because NGOs are more familiar with local values and cultural practices, they might be in a better position to grapple with these constraints, as opposed to an inter-governmental agency (i.e. UNHCR). The stronger and better-prepared local NGOs are, then, the more effective they will be as advocates. NGOs need assistance; they particularly appreciated some of the advocacy materials prepared and disseminated by Amnesty International.
In addition to urging one’s own government to change its policies or practices, it was suggested that NGOs try to put refugee matters onto the agenda of regional political meetings, such as those of ECOWAS, IGAD and SADEC.
NGOs should consider exploring other refugee protection advocacy measures, such as newsletters, Internet networks, magazines, etc.
Several NGOs highlighted the need to take advantage of well-known anniversaries and special days, e.g. Africa Day for Refugees, for promoting the rights of refugees. UNHCR urged NGOs to get involved in planning celebrations to commemorate the upcoming 50th anniversary of UNHCR and of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Regarding media coverage and school programs, participants agreed that both should be encouraged to examine the positive contributions made by refugees in every society.
It was noted that refugees are important partners to NGOs and to UNHCR; their potential to assist with protection advocacy is huge. Accordingly, advocacy plans should be made in consultation with refugees.
Participants were reminded that the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), based in Geneva, is eager to help NGOs do refugee protection advocacy at an international level. In particular, ICVA, working with PARinAC focal points in the region, can improve information flow to and between member agencies.
UNHCR is working on accessions to the Statelessness Convention. NGO participation in that promotions effort is vital to ensure success.
Dealing with Specific Protection Situations
Speakers cited numerous examples of protection problems in Africa. One tragic episode
described involved Liberian refugees fleeing their homeland by ship,
but not finding a harbour willing to let them disembark. In the face
of these grave situations, NGOs must band together to encourage open
borders and generous asylum policies. Advocacy focused on specific
protection situations requires improved communication capacity
between NGOs, as well as shared policy objectives that reflect
international refugee law. National NGOs can often advocate more
effectively on behalf of refugees in their own countries than can
foreign NGOs and inter-governmental agencies.
Other protection problems are more common place, but in need of an equally strong response:
refugees who are detained; those who are disadvantaged because they
lack papers; those who cannot join family members or work lawfully;
refugees who are harassed by the police or community members; and
even those refugees who are at risk of self-destructing due to the
extraordinary psychological pressure they endure. Finding solutions
to many of these problems is in part the responsibility of NGOs. But
the success of NGO efforts often depends upon UNHCR’s
willingness to provide them with pertinent information and to accept
their recommendations. As discussed in section I, stronger and more
trusting relationships between NGOs and UNHCR are key and for these
to develop it is essential that NGOs and UNHCR protection staff meet
frequently.
Participants made these additional comments:
All NGOs should get e-mail accounts to improve communication capacity.
It was observed that many protection problems stem from the gap existing between a Government’s good intentions and their actual implementation of the Refugee Convention. Some NGO speakers suggested developing a Rating System with which to judge a government’s ability or willingness to respond to specific refugee protection needs. Governments that are given low ratings may be shamed into doing a better job in future.
UNHCR was asked to help NGOs establish a guide, or set of indicators for gauging the adequacy of Governments’ treatment and protection of refugees.
It was suggested that the OAU should expose member countries that do not meet their international obligations under the various Conventions relating to the treatment of refugees.
Building Protection Capacity in Field Operations
Building protection capacity in field operations, like responding to specific protection
situations and improving advocacy, depends upon better communication
between UNHCR and NGOs, more training, and a true willingness on both
sides to collaborate at the field level. It may also require setting
shared priorities and tighter coordination, particularly in field
operations involving large numerous NGOs and UN agencies, e.g.
Rwanda. It is critical that communication among NGOs and between the
latter and UNHCR crosses borders, as well. Where repatriation is
possible, for example, NGOs in the neighbouring countries need to
know specific details on conditions in the country of return. Armed
with that information, they can do a much better job counselling
refugees to return home, or not, as the situation dictates. As
regional NGO networks improve, this type of coordinated work might be
possible.
Many NGOs, guided in part by the PARinAC recommendations regarding refugee protection are
interacting effectively with one another and with UNHCR to address
protection problems in the field. This is true in Zambia, as well as
other countries in Africa.
Other comments included:
It was noted that the situation in Sierra Leone is still alarming. Arbitrary arrests, sexual abuse, etc. are common. The government is not doing very much to curb these abuses, and the people themselves are not saying too much because they fear reprisals and they lack access to a functioning court system. The situation underscores the need for greater networking, so NGOs that are located in a safer environment can speak out on behalf of those who are vulnerable to continuing abuse.
A representative of a donor government encouraged NGOs and UNHCR to invite donor and host governments to protection strategy meetings. By improving the awareness of all the actors, the chance of implementing a program successfully will be much higher. Additionally, it may help to break down the barriers between protection and assistance.
It was acknowledged that protection work costs money. To improve NGO understanding of how UNHCR budgets for its operations, UNHCR should explain to NGOs how the international funding system works, where funds come from and how they are allocated and disbursed.
Although guidelines on protection are extremely important, a few NGOs said that during a refugee emergency they could not always wait for formal guidelines before acting. This is a reality. Instead, it might be wiser to create contingency action plans together, and in the event that a crisis does occur the NGOs will be ready to act quickly and cohesively.
Resettlement is an important tool of protection and NGOs can do more to help, especially by advocating for faster processing.
NGOs were urged to work with Refugee Study programs that have been established in three universities in Africa (Ghana, Kenya and Uganda). They can help to put issues into focus. As more universities include refugee protection issues in their curricula, NGOs can work with them to establish priorities.
Next Steps in Developing a Protection Partnership
The participants considered a set of recommendations***
drafted during the course of the meeting and deliberated how best to
take these ideas forward. UNHCR suggested that one NGO serve as the
focal point for organising further discussions among NGOs and between
the latter and UNHCR on follow-up and implementation of these
recommendations, including the development of a NGO refugee
protection network in Africa. UNHCR would work closely with this
focal point to facilitate necessary follow-up. The Kenyan Refugee
Consortium agreed to play this role initially. It was noted that in
parts of Africa the PARinAC system works quite well and should also
be used for the purpose of information sharing on refugee protection
issues, including follow up to this meeting.
In taking forward the recommendations which emerged from these consultations the need to
work in coordination with the UNHCR-NGO Reach-Out Steering Committee
based in Geneva was emphasised.
Developing a refugee protection network and implementing the other recommendations will
cost money. NGOs need to organise themselves to work together on
grant proposals and plans of action and to actively explore sources
of funding. UNHCR is prepared to advise and assist in this endeavour.
Developing an effective refugee protection network on the continent
will itself facilitate and support this task.
* This report, issued by UNHCR, is based on the notes of the Co-rapporteurs. It provides, in non-attributable terms, the main points of the discussions but is not a full record of the proceedings.
** See Annex 4 for background information relating to the overall Reach-Out process.
*** Attached as Annex 3.
|
email document
text size
