Report on the Consultations on Strengthening Collaboration Between UNHCR and Humanitarian and Human Rights NGOs in Support of the International Refugee Protection System^*

(Held at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 11 to 12 March 1999)

Background
Summary of the Discussions

1. The Current State of UNHCR-NGO Collaboration on Protection
   
2. Advocacy and Promotion of Protection Principles
   
3. Dealing with Specific Protection Situations
   
4. Protection in Field Operations
   
5. Next Steps in Developing a Protection Partnership
   

Background

The international refugee protection regime is facing fundamental and far-reaching challenges at a time when there is a global increase in population movements. Basic changes in the international environment (the retreat from internationalism; the intractability of socio-economic problems; pervasive concerns about illegal migration and criminal aliens, among others) coupled with the increasing tendency of states to take unilateral action in refugee matters — often in open disregard of agreed treaty obligations — have given these challenges a new dimension and resulted in a confluence of factors which threatens the foundations of this regime.

In this period, most notably in the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa but also elsewhere, governments, including Member States of UNHCR’s Executive Committee (EXCOM), have systematically and intentionally violated the most basic principles of refugee protection with apparent impunity. Concurrently, for the first time, key donor States are not giving consistent and active support to UNHCR’s protection mandate — a development not unlinked to the fact that a number of these States have themselves taken, or are taking, measures in their own jurisdictions which also do not comply with accepted refugee protection principles, and which are being mirrored in other regions.

In response to this situation, towards the end of 1997, UNHCR launched its “Reach Out” initiative — a project aimed at reinvigorating support for the international refugee protection system and for UNHCR’s protection mandate in particular. It envisaged engaging both states and non-state actors in a series of dialogues on the nature and dimensions of the current challenges; on where the main problems lie; what UNHCR should (or could) do differently; and what states and organisations might do together with UNHCR to ensure improved and sustained support for refugee protection principles.

The first phase of this project — involving in-depth bilateral consultations with key EXCOM member States from each region — began in January 1998 and will conclude in mid-1999. The second phase involves a year-long programme of structured dialogues between UNHCR and its NGO partners. NGOs have an increasingly crucial role to play in supporting the international protection system, particularly through advocacy at the national and regional, as well as international, levels. Many of them are as concerned as UNHCR with recent developments, and have remained among the few strong and consistent voices in support of protection in this difficult period. Through these planned exchanges UNHCR and participating NGOs will endeavour to elaborate a common protection agenda, including proposals for concrete and operationally-focused partnerships in protection advocacy that could be taken forward in each region.

To launch this second phase, UNHCR invited leading international humanitarian and human rights NGOs for an initial, round-table discussion on the broad aims of the NGO Reach Out process. The Chief Executive Officers of thirty NGOs, or their designated alternates, participated in this meeting, which was held from 11 to 12 March 1999 at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. Representatives of governments and other donors supporting the Reach Out project, other concerned UN organisations, and umbrella organisations of NGOs also attended in an observer capacity. The full list of participants is attached as Annex I. The discussions, which were facilitated by an independent moderator, took place under Chatham House Rule, on the basis of the agenda attached as Annex II.

Summary of the Discussions

1. The Current State of UNHCR-NGO Collaboration on Protection

Before discussing ideas for strengthening collaboration between UNHCR and NGOs, participants identified current threats to protection principles and noted the practical difficulties in advocating or promoting better compliance with those principles:

• Increasingly, states are in open violation of their treaty obligations. Many are instituting regulations, or taking administrative measures, which, for example, impede or pre-empt access to refugee status determination procedures or effectively result in refoulement.
• Assistance usually takes precedence over protection. It was argued that UNHCR tended to give overriding importance to maintaining its assistance operations in refugee situations, at the expense of protection principles.
• Since UNHCR both sets protection standards and is responsible for ensuring that they are applied in the field, any compromises it makes may reverberate among other organisations involved in a given situation.
• There are many NGO “silent witnesses” who see human rights violations but fear they will lose access to the people they are serving or endanger staff on the ground if they disclose those violations. These concerns often inhibit NGOs from undertaking advocacy, and result in lost opportunities for addressing violations.
• There are too few experienced UNHCR protection officers in the field. Protection requires specialised knowledge and skills, and very few other UN or NGO field staff have those skills.
• States prefer flexible, situation-specific policies for dealing with asylum-seekers rather than abiding by established international law.
• UNHCR’s ability to stand up to state pressure is a key factor. Some participants argued that UNHCR is only as effective as its Member States allow it to be, and that it lacks the autonomy to monitor the behaviour of States effectively and impartially.
• The role of NGO’s in standard-setting processes was considered unsatisfactory in various respects. Some speakers felt that both UNHCR and States resent NGO “interference” in standard-setting and block NGOs from participating in those processes.
• NGOs must galvanise forces to influence policy-makers and mobilise public opinion. Refugee issues must be incorporated into foreign policy, and into public debate on foreign policy issues.
• NGO criticism of UNHCR needs to be complemented by NGO pressure on States to assume more responsibility for refugees. Their practice of off-loading this responsibility onto UNHCR is dangerous and reduces effectiveness.
• The notion of “ethical internationalism” should be promoted to help bolster support for humanitarian and protection work. There has been a 38 per cent drop in assistance aid since 1992.

2. Advocacy and Promotion of Protection Principles

Participants offered suggestions on how to overcome some of the above obstacles and how to improve advocacy and promotion of protection principles. Suggestions included the following:

• Establish an independent body to monitor adherence to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Other speakers recommended, instead, developing monitoring mechanisms based on Article 35 of the 1951 Convention, the potential of which has not yet been seriously explored.
• Continue strengthening partnerships between NGOs and UNHCR through the measures detailed in the PARinAC Oslo Declaration and Plan of Action;
• Share information, create common terminology and offer relevant training opportunities among NGOs;
• Support UNHCR’s Accessions Campaign and lobby to make membership of EXCOM contingent upon accession to the 1951 Convention;
• Incorporate a compliance objective into the Accessions Campaign;
• Use successful models to create new collaborative advocacy efforts (for example, UNHCR and NGOs recently worked together to challenge detention practices and summary exclusion in the US);
• Institute the practice of advance consultations between UNHCR and NGOs on such matters as the annual theme of EXCOM, the Note on International Protection and the Conclusions on Protection, and undertake these consultations early enough so as to have an effect on the quality and efficacy of NGOs’ advocacy efforts with Member States;
• Create collaborative internal/external reference groups (for example, UNHCR could place an NGO expert on women’s or children’s issues in the Department of International Protection);
• Form a media advisory group;
• Use Goodwill Ambassadors more effectively for protection advocacy and promotion purposes;
• Forge stronger relations between northern and southern NGOs, emphasising information-sharing and training;
• Improve coordination between humanitarian and human rights organisations, through more explicit acknowledgement and exploitation of their respective strengths;
• Institute policies and procedures for ensuring that refugees are consulted on protection needs when assessing needs and programmes;
• Create a manual on advocacy, including both field and capital-oriented advocacy;
• In all refugee situations, make it an institutional priority to establish and participate in arrangements at the field level which build trust with and among involved NGOs.

It was suggested that national NGOs are best placed to persuade States which have acceded to the Convention to enact supporting legislation and establish implementing arrangements. Their assistance could be sought through the regional meetings envisioned in the NGO Reach Out process. Many participants expressed the strong desire of NGOs to play a more active role in the EXCOM process. It was noted that the main obstacle to assuming such a role is States’ resistance to NGO involvement.

3. Dealing with Specific Protection Situations

Human rights NGOs suggested that their knowledge of human rights standards, their investigative skills and their advocacy connections enabled them to alert others to protection problems as they arose. Humanitarian agencies emphasised that their operations addressed the fundamental well-being of the people they serve, which included their basic rights (legal, social and economic), but voiced their concern about the ramifications of their assistance work and, in some cases, their worry that involvement in human rights work per se might compromise their ability to accomplish their core goals of humanitarian aid. Participants agreed that improving communication among NGO agencies and with UNHCR and Member States of EXCOM would strengthen individual and collective responses to human rights and humanitarian disasters.

The Capacity to Act Appropriately and Effectively on Protection Issues

• Humanitarian assistance agencies agreed that they cannot ignore egregious human rights violation they may witness. However, although this may be the policy at headquarters, it is not clear that all field personnel can implement this policy. Though many field workers are trained in human rights principles, many others are not, and they may not be able to understand the relevancy or gauge the accuracy of locally obtained information. Steps need to be taken to ensure that relevant and consistent standards are used when reporting rights violations and conducting advocacy.
• Some humanitarian assistance agencies expressed concern about whether the recipients of sensitive protection information (human rights agencies, UN agencies, Governments) are equipped to take action and/or change policy. Some field staff collect and disseminate sensitive information at great personal risk, only to see remedial action occur very slowly, if at all.
• Though UNHCR, often with NGO assistance, sets policy standards on protection practices, many Governments violate these standards with impunity.

The Consequences of Taking Action

• Several humanitarian assistance agencies expressed their worry that involvement in human rights advocacy might jeopardise their effectiveness in the field by diverting attention from assistance projects.
• Some agencies observed that occasionally their programmes inadvertently created protection problems (for example, when people who are drawn to feeding stations are targeted by parties to a conflict).
• A number of speakers emphasised that while it is true that reports on rights violations often anger those who are criticised or exposed, speaking out against human rights violations does not necessarily result in expulsion or restrictions; often, it precipitates needed dialogue.
• When NGOs publicly criticise UNHCR without an effort at prior dialogue, the organisation becomes less inclined to share information with its critics. This shrinks the pool of available information and therefore weakens advocacy efforts and undermines protection standards and principles.
• UNHCR is often accused by Governments of paying too much attention to the views of NGOs.

Specific Recommendations to Improve Information Flow and Protection Response

• NGOs that specialise in publishing reports on human rights conditions could assign staff to work directly with humanitarian assistance agencies. Because the human rights staff member has no operational responsibilities, he/she can focus on collecting pertinent information and making recommendations to host and donor Governments and UN bodies.
• UNHCR should keep concerned NGOs informed of its specific requests to Governments, made in the form of private demarches, public reports and appeals on protection concerns. It should be recognised, however, that this is not always possible or appropriate. UNHCR has to be able to work with governments also on a confidential basis, when needed.
• Humanitarian assistance projects that incorporate protection objectives (such as the Liberian Children’s Initiative) provide useful models for dissemination.
• New institutions, such as the war crimes tribunals and the International Criminal Court, should play a greater role. Much was done to broaden the definition of war crimes to include atrocities such as rape; but more can be done to advocate for the inclusion of other crimes, such as blockading relief convoys.

Participants also debated the usefulness of a proposed internet-based protection alert network and discussed the need to treat sensitive information with care and confidentiality. It was felt that standards and mechanisms for sharing, using, and communicating sensitive information could best be developed in a small working group for later consideration by the rest of the participants.

4. Protection in Field Operations

General Views

• There is a great disparity in the application of protection standards and the provision of assistance in various refugee crises around the world.
• Staff presence and material assistance are not the sole pre-requisites to providing protection; there must also be intent.
• Expatriate staff are valuable to field operations, as they can identify and bear witness to human rights violations and can help improve local NGO capacities.
• Collaboration has faltered in the past perhaps because many humanitarian assistance workers are technical specialists who are on short-term contracts and, given their enormous work-loads, do not have enough time to devote to learning about protection.

Practical Measures

• Protection training is essential for everyone, not just UNHCR Protection Officers.
• Staff exchanges between UNHCR and NGOs, and between human rights and humanitarian NGOs would be valuable.
• UNHCR Protection Officers should attend regularly scheduled programme meetings in the field.
• UNHCR Protection Officers should convene protection-specific meetings with NGOs present in the field.
• NGOs should improve transparency and accountability for their operational activities.
• The shortage of UNHCR protection staff in many refugee situations worldwide needs to be corrected urgently.

5. Next Steps in Developing a Protection Partnership

In the concluding session, participants reviewed the various proposals and recommendations which had been made during the course of the discussions. These were grouped under the following broad headings:

• Mechanisms for sharing and use of sensitive information, including at field level
• Staff training and staff exchanges
• Capacity-building and collaboration with NGOs from the South
• Co-operation and consultation in the context of standard-setting processes,including EXCOM
• Promoting accessions to and compliance with the 1951 Convention, including development of appropriate compliance mechanisms
• Co-ordination and co-operation in advocacy activities

It was agreed that a joint UNHCR-NGO Steering Committee should be formed to examine practical options and decide how best to take these proposals forward. The Steering Committee would also guide and oversee the further development and implementation of the NGO Reach Out consultative process, including the planning and organisation of meetings with national NGOs which UNHCR proposed to undertake in 1999. UNHCR would service the meetings of the Steering Committee. Arrangements were agreed to convene the first meeting of the Steering Committee as soon as possible.

* 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.