Dialogue on Voluntary Repatriation and Sustainable Reintegration in Africa 8
March 2004
Agenda Item 5

Statement on Behalf of Non-Governmental Organisations

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates,

NGOs welcome the opportunity presented by this Dialogue to build new collaborative partnerships to support the voluntary repatriation and sustainable reintegration of refugees in Africa.

As long-standing conflicts in the region show signs of resolution, hope of returning home is finally becoming a reality for hundreds of thousands of Africa's refugees. At the same time, however, it is critical that enthusiasm to promote return - whether on the part of host countries, countries of origin, or actors in the international community - is not allowed to jeopardise the safety and protection of refugees, a fragile emerging peace, or violate the principle of non-refoulement.

In this context, NGOs welcome the overall approach and key principles set out in the two discussion papers prepared as a starting point for this Dialogue. In particular, NGOs appreciate that the concepts of "voluntary" and "sustainable" return are presented as essential to, and embedded in the very title chosen for, today's Dialogue. A commitment to ensuring that each decision by a refugee to return home is made in conditions of full voluntariness, and that reintegration is designed with view to long term sustainability and human rights protections, is a vital pillar of the search for durable solutions to the plight of refugees.

There are a number of issues, however, not explicitly addressed by the background documents, that NGOs would like to highlight this afternoon.

First, it is important that the feasibility of repatriation and reintegration is considered in conjunction with all the durable solutions

Consideration of voluntary reparation cannot happen in a vacuum - it should not be automatically privileged as the solution for all refugees in all post conflict situations. While voluntary repatriation does remain the preferred option for many refugees, a comprehensive approach is essential. This is particularly so where exile has been protracted and the turmoil that gave rise to flight is complex. As strife subsides, there may be a variety of motivations underlying the decision to promote repatriation - not all dedicated to optimally protecting the rights and interests of refugees and their communities. We have seen instances, for example, where the issue of return is imbued with a political or security current, obscuring the right of refugees to make individual decisions about safe return. It is important to stress that no matter which durable solution is preferred, there must be effective consultation with refugees who are entitled to be the primary decision-makers.

Resettlement and local integration options, therefore, must be explored in tandem with return and repatriation. As NGOs have emphasised in past discussions, a comprehensive strategy for resolving a refugee situation must contain, "a mixture of increased resettlement opportunities, [.] possibilities for local integration and repatriation, greater financial support for UNHCR, [and] [.]  a renewed spirit of international responsibility sharing". (NGO Statement, Voluntary Repatriation, Executive Committee Global Consultations on International Protection, 22-24 May 2002). In addition to the availability of various durable solutions for different sectors of a refugee population, mixed models can also be employed. These can include measures such as "go and see" visits, which make both local integration and repatriation solutions available in parallel.

2. Return and reintegration programmes should be careful not to focus exclusively on providing support for the country of origin. The country of asylum may also require assistance in continuing to maintain a protective environment for refugees - a necessary complement to sustainable return.

As voluntary repatriation operations get underway, international support to host and refugee communities in the asylum country must not diminish - particularly in the asylum country where ensuring adequate protection is required. Support for the fulfilment of country of asylum protection obligations in Africa is rooted, inter alia, in the 1969 AU Refugee Convention: "Member States shall, in the spirit of African solidarity and international cooperation take appropriate measures to lighten the burden of the member State granting asylum" (Article II 4). Countries of asylum should be assisted to continue to offer effective protection to those who need it. This is an essential prerequisite to ensuring effective sustainable return. For example, if, as a result of diminished assistance and protection capacity, refugee camps are perceived as incubating threats to the government of origin and local security, local authorities can be pressured to engage in forced return.

At the other end of the scale, support for local integration and the development of host and refugee communities in the country of asylum can actually increase the potential for successful return - once conditions permit. In discussing opportunities for the integration of development concerns in the design of return strategies, promotion of refugee and host community economic and social rights in the country of asylum must also be part of the continuum of attention. There is strong evidence that the more refugees can exercise their skills in exile, the greater capacity they will have to make a successful return home - Namibian refugees in Southern Africa, for example, developed and acquired skills when they were refugees that were used to great impact in reconstruction.

3. Care must be exercised to ensure that refugee decisions to return home are made in conditions of genuine voluntariness.

During the last year in Africa, NGOs have witnessed serious violations of the principle of voluntary repatriation of refugees. The 1969 AU Refugee Convention is explicit about the requirement of voluntariness: "The essential voluntary character of repatriation shall be respected in all cases and no refugee shall be repatriated against his will" (Article V, 1).   In fact, involuntary return of refugees can amount to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement - both when it occurs as a result of direct action by a State or as a result of a package of indirect measures, e.g. cuts in food rations (as happened in 2003 in Tanzania), anti-refugee rhetoric, harassment by the local administration, etc. Reduction in food rations and other assistance as an inducement to repatriate is utterly unacceptable and is a violation of fundamental standards of international law. This is an area where the international community can play a constructive role in helping to ensure that all repatriations take place in conditions of voluntariness and full respect of human rights. 

Ensuring voluntariness does not only require the absence of coercion - there needs to be a positive effort on the part of States and their partners (particularly UNHCR) to ensure that refugees have access to independent information about both the situation in the country of origin and the options for remaining in exile. Without adequate information, refugees cannot make the informed choices necessary. NGOs can be supported to play a unique role here and resources should be made available for the fulfilment of this role. Particular attention should be paid to the needs of different members of the refugee community i.e., women, men, girls, and boys, within the context of voluntary repatriation operations.

4. Encouraging return must not undermine the opportunity to ensure its sustainability.

The conflicts that gave rise to those refugee situations that are currently the subject of repatriation discussions have been highly complex and protracted, reflecting myriad political dynamics. Cycles of return and flight are inevitable if sustainability, as a primary goal of repatriation, is sacrificed for short-term returnee numbers. Tens of thousands of African refugees have been refugees twice or three times over, as unsustainable return has shown itself, in many cases, to be the crucible of renewed conflict. Burundi is a critical case in point.

NGOs urge particular attention to the situation in Burundi - many key issues of security and land rights remain unresolved. Neither do NGOs view conditions in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo as conducive to safe and sustainable return. Extreme caution needs to be exercised also with regard to the security situation in Liberia. We welcome the recognition in Discussion Paper No. 1 of the need for "adequate safeguards in terms of rights and sustainability, including access to justice, restitution of property and improved human rights conditions (para. 7)."

Assessments of the security situation in countries of origin cannot be imposed by the UN system or by governments. Refugees and IDPs must, themselves, be able to assess the security situation and decide when they feel it is safe to return. "Go and see" visits and access to independent information are key to enabling refugees to make freely such a choice.

5. Sustainable return requires the engagement and collaboration of a range of partners.

The African Refugee Convention clearly provides that "refugees who freely decide to return to their homeland [.] shall be given every possible assistance by the country of asylum, the country of origin, voluntary agencies and international and intergovernmental organizations to facilitate their return" (Article V, 5). The active and coordinated involvement of a matrix of local and international actors, as well as the displaced, is often necessary to make return safe and sustainable.

NGOs welcome the recognition in the background documents that the support and involvement of regional and sub-regional institutions in Africa is key to successful and sustainable reintegration. A regional approach - beyond that of a solely national or bilateral perspective - is vital, not just to conflict resolution, but to the assessment of the most sustainable solution for refugees in each situation. Further, refugee returns must be approached with an eye to "addressing the root causes of conflict, including issues of national reconciliation, governance and the rule of law" (para. 4 Discussion Paper No. 1). We would highlight the need to ensure that the fifth "R" - reconciliation - is not overlooked. Attention must be paid to ensuring respect for human rights, a functioning judiciary, promoting rule of law, and ensuring equality within a society. Without these important factors in place, the sustainability of return is put at risk. 

The creation by UNHCR of new links with development actors is welcomed, as is the taking of an integrated approach to assistance to returnees, involving attention to the human rights of the community as a whole. In this regard, support for the mandate of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and for the building of local rights monitoring capacities, might also be mentioned.

The importance of a community-based approach to development, with the active engagement of all participants in various facets of programme design and implementation, should also be stressed if, in fact, reintegration is to be sustainable. We look forward to being in a position to assess the development and success of the 4Rs initiative in Africa. We urge, however, that greater attention be paid at this stage to operationalisation on the ground, particularly from the point of view of planning and resources - we reference recent difficulties experienced with the implementation of DDR in Liberia.

6. It is vital that the integrity of UNHCR's protection role be maintained.

In the embrace by UNHCR of the 4Rs approach and its desire to see refugees return safely to their homes, it is important that UNHCR's primary refugee protection function is neither diluted nor deliberately undermined. Appropriate resources must be provided to UNHCR to enable it to take on the new coordination and collaborative approaches entailed. Most critically, UNHCR must be supported in the exercise of an independent and expert judgment in relation to decisions both to promote repatriation and to commence consideration of the application of the cessation clauses. There have been a number of serious incidences where UNHCR, and in some cases individual staff members, have been put under improper pressure with respect to matters surrounding repatriation. There must be a clear set of criteria that define UNHCR's own involvement in such operations.

7. The Role of NGOs

Finally, we welcome the recognition by many delegations of the role played by NGOs, as well as the High Commissioner's recommendation that NGOs participate in the High Level Working Group, should one be convened as a result of this meeting. It is important to recognise the essential role and contributions made by African NGOs, which are key to working with refugees and IDPs. At the same time, we must ensure that adequate and timely resources are made available for local and national NGOs to be able to carry out the tasks ahead while also further strengthening their capacities. NGOs - both national and international - look forward to participating and contributing to the discussions of a forum, as well contributing to the implementation of the recommendations of the Working Group.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.