Global

UNHCR is frequently reported to play an ambigious role in neogications with the host and donor governments, seeking to uphold internationally recognized legal and ethical principles of which it is the custodian, whille simultenously meeting the concerns of these stakeholders. In the worst cases, UNHCR has capitulated to such pressures and actively engaged in repatriation operations that are far from safe or voluntary.

Repatriation should not be engineered by states or by UNHCR. Every effort should be made to preserve the principles of safety, voluntariness, and dignity in the context of refugee returns. This is in part because refugee return is successful in the long term only if it is also sustainable. Refugees who are internally displaced upon their return, who are obliged to eke out a living in shanty towns or squatter settlements, or who feel obliged to move on to another country or continent in order to meet their basic needs, cannot be considered to have found a lasting solution to their plight. 

Safe and Voluntary Refugee Repatriation: From Principle to Practice

Lebanon

Syrian Arab Republic

We're talking about the law on international refugee law that it's very clear that it's very open. That is very inclusive, and by now many articles are kind of part of customary internationally. The easiest is the none-refoulment. However, realistically many UNHCR operations fall between the harsh conditions opposed by particular countries. Let me give some examples. One country tells UNHCR I've been hosting that number of refugees for the past 60 years, and many more refugees from Syria entered my country, I would give them temporary residents, I will host them. I will not harm them. But I am not going to sign up any other person of concern from any other nationality or return them to where they are from. What should UNHCR do? One third Lebanon’s population is Syrian refugees. Now Lebanon insists on not calling them refugees, they call them displaced, and they are questioning, granting them prima facie refugee status. Lebanon is not party to the 1951 Convention. So, accordingly, these people are not, for the Lebanese government, they are not refugees. UNHCR, you need to return them back home. Situation in Syria stabilized. You should be returning them back home. UNHCR says, well… for us to return them back home, we need to make sure that they can return back in safety and dignity. We do not believe that the conditions are conducive inside Syria to return these people back, because many of them have deserted or evaded national service, and if they return back now, they are still vulnerable to be to be targeted because of that, and the Syrian Government to repeats so. So, this is a clear point. Plus, in order to return people back or help to return people back, we need funding, pragmatically speaking, none of the donor countries wants to fund any returns to Syria. Why? Because, they still want to squeeze Bashar al-Assad, and they don't want to give him any money. It becomes really political, very sensitive, and when it comes to that point, UNHCR resorts to the pragmatic solution. The dogma loses the fight, so eventually you might find UNHCR, I am sad to say it but sometimes we would accept that there would be collateral damage for a greater good. But the more I stay in the agency, and the more I come across a close to decision making offices, I realize that the questions are not easy to answer, and in many instances UNHCR does not have the answers for example on the return of the Syrians. I want you to write down in Google search and search for “Lebanon return of Syrians”, and “Turkey return of Syrians”. You will find plenty of information and plenty of plans, but nobody can do anything. Plenty of politicization left and right. For example, Turkey announced that UNHCR is in support of this, and UNHCR never said so. They actually put stuff in our mouth, which was wrong. They put it at the highest level. The president of Turkey said the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said… which was not the case. It was a flat out of lie, literally. Lebanon, personalizing the problem. If you cannot start the return of Syrians, then we hate your representative, and we don't want him. But we cannot do this. It's just an issue of being pragmatic. UNHCR relies on funds. If we do not have enough funding, we will not be able to help those returning. Concerning the dogma concerning voluntary repatriation, whether or not it applies, honestly, it doesn't apply… Then someone comes back and says, well, you started repatriating these people back into Afghanistan without these conditions applying. So why are you now insisting on the conditions? Are you guys taking a political side? No; the context in that country of origin is completely different. Then there are the politics that are inescapable. Day after day we tell the donor countries, instead of paying all of this money for the persons of concern within Syria, don’t you want to alleviate the pressure on Lebanon and Jordan and Turkey given the Covid, and instead of spending these money on these operations, don't you want to pay this inside Syria, and we start helping these people return back. You know it is better for you if we start doing this, inside Syria, at least you will be less vulnerable to more people moving to Europe. So, even politically, this is wiser. They will tell you no. Unless Assad abdicates or is removed from the power, we are not giving them a dime. The US sanctions against Syria is making the life conditions really bad for the people. It's not bad for the elite. It is really bad for the people. Then you receive the response from the Americans, the sanctions are working as if there is no care at all with the actual suffering of the people. But then again, this is politics. Now you and me are talking politics. We're not talking about the actual law, if UNHCR goes to them telling them, well…. all of the refugees inside Lebanon need support. Lebanon is not recognizing them. We would appreciate If you gave them opportunities though resettlement opportunities, what is going to happen? You will get nothing. UNHCR is day after day is squeezed more into very hard decisions, and unless they are really dramatic and smart and really creative…It is not working.

Is Repatriation Really Voluntary?

Kenya

South Sudan

Resulting from a chain of communication across the senior management at all levels from HQs to Kakuma, I, as the head of the registration unit, was tasked to plan and monitor the fingerprint verification exercise in 2008. UNHCR undertakes verification exercises to establish the size of the refugee population by certifying the registration records of every individual and household towards the rightful owners of the UNHCR identity document. During the exercise, UNHCR made it mandatory for the refugee head of the households to report to and have their fingerprints verified at the food distribution centres. This decision was justified with the intent to correct the camp population figures through the identification of missing or mismatching fingerprints. The actual aim, however, was to scale down the informal household economics of South Sudanese working elsewhere in Kenya by restricting their freedom of movement. They had to show up at the food distribution site, or else their UNHCR registration records would be inactivated, meaning they would lose their bi-monthly food ration. As part of the efforts to encourage return, essential assistance services in the camp, such as education and health centres, were reduced, effectively serving as push factors driving individuals to return to South Sudan.

Returns to South Sudan from Kakuma

Perhaps we could stay on the voluntary repatriation example. Some participants were referring to the Syria contexts and contemplating around the voluntariness aspect of the returns vis-à-vis the governments in the region asking UNHCR to start the returns. Where do you situate the accountability of UNHCR towards refugees, donors, and government in such contexts?&nbsp;In that specific country, where returns and repatriation happened cross border, the government of one these countries was always questioning the numbers, to boost the number, to show to the international community to get some funding and to prove that there is peace. But this is not always the case. What we call is this pendula movement as people go and they come back. This is the story where I see that this is not aligning. You will see that there is no alignment with the rule, the voluntariness of repatriation. They are encouraged without any choice.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is a like a power relation.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you see that refugees need $500, if you tell them if you go, that someone can never earn that 500 USD within a year even, you tell them, here take the 500 USD, but your kids will not have school, your kids will not have hospital or peace in the country if you go back. You need to share this sort of knowledge with them and not the money. It is a feeling, it is not a fact…It is a feeling that I have, refugees go back for the money, not by choice.&nbsp; How do you see UNHCR’s responsibility in that? But it followed the rules, with the go and see visits, and looking at the country-of-origin information. UNHCR is not encouraging but the government is behind. The governments lead the process.&nbsp;&nbsp;If UNHCR would want to take a step back but the governments would say, we are going to do it with you or without you. We are going to do it. UNHCR ends up mitigating in sending them these people, etc. Instead of the government doing it, better for refugees to stay in the hands of UNHCR following the rules e.g., provide refugees with information on what is happening in their country of origin and arrange go and see visits. But voluntary repatriation will happen at the end and no matter what if the governments want it to happen. In our mandate, we say the government has the primary responsibility. If this government wants this population to repatriate for x reason, UNHCR comes in to mitigate, rather than supervise the implementation of the law. How does that story of that one person that ends up not having a choice but return translate into data from PRIMES to country operation planning and then the global report UNHCR shares its activities?&nbsp; If we take the annual statistic report, what we can see is the number of people returning. You can see the return column, but you will not see, the target. I am in the organization but…what we want to show what is the positive. This is why for the number of Syrian returnees, but what was the target? How many people cancelled their return and what was the reason for it? You will not see this in the report. You will see only the number of returnees. Why did some people change their mind and cancel their return? We make a master list, they come to register for return, we tell the government and headquarters that we have 10,000 people who want to return but we end up with 1,000 people ready to go back. We want to know why they change their mind, some offices may do that, but I have seen this number reported within the organization or but never seen it externally or in the Global Report. We know the target in the office, perhaps what is happening but it is not reported. The gap here is to learn the story and report on that story, which you can’t find in the Annual Statistical Report. As for the data collection tools, you just cancel the event in ProGres. The reason for cancellation is not mandatory to report or generic reasons are usually used, but you need to put the reason for return. The SOPs are not aligned in all operations, but you may have the information within that specific office or operation. That many Venezuelans or Syrians returned…. but have many changed their mind and why, perhaps even through categorically. You have more expense than me, perhaps you have seen this somewhere, this information being reported, but I don’t know.

Balancing Acts: UNHCR's Accountability in Voluntary Repatriation Decisions

To assess the effectiveness and ethical dimensions of UNHCR's repatriation efforts, it is necessary examine the underlying actions and incentives that might influence refugee decisions to return home. This scrutiny encompasses how UNHCR addresses the roots of displacement, the fairness in allocating resources among all solutions, and the transparency in budgeting for repatriation programs. It's crucial to determine if repatriation is truly voluntary, especially when essential services are curtailed or freedom of movement is restricted. One must consider how UNHCR reconciles its responsibilities toward refugees with the promotion of repatriation, how it incorporates refugee feedback into program design, and how it safeguards refugees' rights during return. Further, understanding the degree of transparency about repatriation operations, how feedback from returnees is used, the equity of program implementation, and the indicators measuring reintegration success is vital. These factors collectively provide a comprehensive view of the complexities of UNHCR's repatriation initiatives. Questions: <ol><li>How proactive is UNHCR in identifying, reporting, and addressing issues related to repatriation, including tackling the root causes of displacement?</li><li>How does UNHCR balance repatriation with other durable solutions, and is resource distribution among these options equitable?</li><li>How does UNHCR allocate its budget for repatriation, and is there evidence that funds are used to create conditions influencing refugees to repatriate?</li><li>Are there internal evaluations or third-party assessments of UNHCR's repatriation programs that could provide additional perspectives on the nature of these programs?</li><li>Under what condition is it legal and ethical to promote refugee returns? Does voluntariness matter and if so, why?&nbsp;</li><li>How do the conditions in host countries, as managed or influenced by UNHCR, affect refugees' decisions to repatriate?</li><li>What measures does UNHCR implement to protect the rights of refugees during repatriation, especially with reduced services or freedoms?</li><li>How does the agency reconcile its duty to support refugees in host countries with its efforts to encourage repatriation?</li><li>How does the UNHCR gather and consider the feedback and experiences of refugees in designing and implementing repatriation programs?</li><li>What mechanisms are in place to address potential coercion or involuntary repatriation? How often are these mechanisms employed and with what outcomes?</li><li>What level of transparency does UNHCR maintain regarding repatriation operations, and how is related data shared with stakeholders?</li><li>How does UNHCR track and report on the living conditions and the availability of essential services of returnees?</li><li>Are there in-depth, systematic surveys or interviews returnees to capture their experiences more fully?</li></ol>

A Critical Evaluation: "From Principle to Practice"

UNHCR Handbook Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection

They are the cornerstone of refugee protection and the key legal documents that form the basis of UNHCR’s work.

The 1951 Convention provides the internationally recognized definition of a refugee and outlines the legal protection, rights and assistance a refugee is entitled to receive. 

UNHCR serves as the ‘guardian’ of these documents and assists governments in translating them into national laws to ensure refugees are protected and can excise their rights.

The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol 

ExCom Conclusion NO. 40 (XXXVI)

No explicit legal requirement mandating the participation of refugees in decision-making processes currently exists in international law. Nonetheless, several international legal instruments recognize the normative value of participation and mandate the inclusion of certain groups of refugees in the design and implementation of policy, particularly for women, children, and persons with disabilities. More recently, soft law standards such as the 2016 New York Declaration and the GCR have developed non-binding principles of meaningful participation and articulate best practice. These developments represent an emerging shift in thinking about the inclusion and participation of refugees in policymaking and governance.

No.4 Paragprah 34 of the GCR states that:

Responses are most effective when they actively and meaningfully engage those they are intended to protect and assist. Relevant actors will, wherever possible, continue to develop and support consultative processes that enable refugees and host community members to assist in designing appropriate, accessible and inclusive responses. States and relevant stakeholders will explore how best to include refugees and members of host communities, particularly women, youth, and persons with disabilities, in key forums and processes, as well as diaspora, where relevant.


The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR)


The Handbook for Repatriation and Reintegration Activities (“the Handbook”) is a
guide for United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and partner staff in the field to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate repatriation and reintegration activities. It translates the Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (the 4Rs) component of the High Commissioner’s Framework for
Durable Solutions for Refugees and Persons of Concern (May 2003) into an
operational tool for the field. The Handbook should be used in conjunction with the UNHCR Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation (issued in 1996 and under revision),
which addresses repatriation issues in more detail.

Handbook for Repatriation and Reintegration Activities

What is repatriation?

Voluntary repatriation refers to your free and informed decision to return to your country of origin, in conditions of safety and dignity. This means that you should not be forced, coerced, or unduly pressured into returning to your homeland. Your decision to repatriate should be based on a genuine desire to return and an assessment that it is safe to do so. Repatriation should also ensure the protection of the rights of returnees, including access to land, property, and essential services, and should facilitate your reintegration into society.


The Principle of Voluntary Repatriation

For those choosing voluntary repatriation, it's essential to know that the process should only proceed when conditions of absolute safety are guaranteed in your home country. This means the environment you're returning to should be free from any threats to your life, well-being, or freedom.

Principle of Conditions of Absolute Safety

UNHCR registration staff should provide you at the beginning of the registration interview with thorough counselling on information relevant to you and your family in a language that is known to you. UNHCR registration staff are obliged to treat you with respect and dignity throughout the process. Make sure you receive at least the below top 10 pieces of information during your interview. It is your right to ask for this information, and to ask for clarification if anything is unclear. 
•	What it means to be registered with UNHCR and the next steps; 
•	General Interview procedures;
•	Obligations of the interviewer and interpreter;
•	Other relevant information about seeking asylum in your host country, for example: your rights and responsibilities according to the national law, who to contact in case of an emergency, etc.;
•	Services and service providers in your country of asylum; 
•	What type of personal data (name, date of birth, country of origin, biometrics, etc.) needs to be collected for the purpose of registration and possibly other purposes;
•	How your personal data will be stored and who will access your personal data;
•	With whom your personal data will be shared – such entities (e.g. host government and/or other organisations) should be explicitly mentioned to you;
•	The need and conditions for  providing free and informed consent and your right to withdraw consent and to object to processing;
•	Your rights as a data subject, how to make requests including whom to contact and where to go if you have any questions or concerns about your personal data;
•	Your right to ask questions at the end of the interview to clarify any missing points, take a break, specify the sex of your interviewer, and be interviewed in a language that you understand (including through an interpreter);
•	How to report a general complaint or fraud allegation;
•	Your consent to share personal information, these records should be noted in the same place where the personal data is recorded, either electronically or on paper by means of written signature, thumb print or mark, prior to any processing.

Right to Counselling at Registration

The principle that prohibits your expulsion, deportation, or forced return to a country where your life, freedom, or safety would be at risk.

The Principle of Non-Refoulement

While considering repatriation, you maintain the right to move freely. This includes the right to leave any country, including your own, and to return to your country. Your freedom of movement should not be unduly restricted or subjected to unnecessary limitations.

Right to Freedom of Movement (Repatriation)

Your personal safety and dignity are paramount during the repatriation process. This means that the procedures and conditions during your return should not compromise your well-being or subject you to any form of mistreatment.

Right to Safety and Dignity

The relevance of interventions supporting voluntary repatriation is heavily influenced by the political dynamics surrounding repatriation operations, which are frequently tied to broader processes of peace negotiations and political transitions. The transition from promoting voluntary return to facilitating it assumes that repatriation is part of a peace process, a problematic assumption in protracted crises where many refugees return spontaneously, without formal assistance. While activities in asylum countries are based on firm legal and operational grounds, the complexities in origin countries make it more difficult to verify the impact and achieve the intended outcomes of reintegration efforts due to longer-term objectives and shared responsibilities with various stakeholders.

Coherence in the approach to voluntary repatriation is challenged by a disconnect between the support provided and the real aspirations and complex decision-making processes of refugees, prompting a re-examination of whether voluntary returns should still be considered the preferred durable solution. Facilitated returns are usually conducted within the scope of established guidelines but do not cover the significant number of refugees who return independently. Moreover, the effectiveness of reintegration programs is limited by security issues and the complex nature of partnerships needed for long-term support. Despite effective coordination in managing practical aspects of returns, engagement with development actors for sustainable reintegration has been less fruitful, hindered by diverse leadership approaches and divergent views on durable solutions. Additionally, broad-based reintegration strategies, which include returned refugees and other impacted groups, are suggested to improve sustainability and efficiency in program delivery.

UNHCR narrative considers various aspects of refugee life and is aimed at facilitating refugees' return to their home countries in a way that is respectful, dignified, and sustainable. The report emphasizes various programs, initiatives, and strategies that UNHCR and its partners have undertaken to facilitate the return and reintegration of refugees into their home countries. They are working to enhance the accessibility of basic services, improve livelihoods, provide legal and documentary assistance, and more. The  report also highlights various challenges that hinder these efforts: Slowdown of refugee returns by 21% in 2022, attributed to fragile peace processes, continuous insecurity, limited refugee participation in peace processes, and failure to address root causes.
Destruction or confiscation of housing, land, and property; overstretched services; and absence of viable livelihoods.
Underfunding, which hampers UNHCR’s ability to fully support the return and reintegration process and prevents regular awareness-raising activities about conditions in countries of origin.
Limited support from development and peace actors, making returns and reintegration less sustainable.
Lack of government leadership and ownership in some instances.


For UNHCR to better dedicate its resources and its convening power to greater affect by dedicating more resources to research, by sharing programme data more openly and proactively, by repacking reintegration programming so that the efficiencies gained might make it more attractive to donors.

Recommendations:
- Place more emphasis on contextual realities and returning need and the principles of voluntariness, safety, and dignity in programme design and implementation;
- Update existing materials such as the Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation 1996 and the Handbook for Repatriation and Reintegration Activities 2004 to reflect not he priorities outlined in the Global Compact on Refugees;
- Improve clarity on how UNHCR and its implementing partners understand the concept of durable solutions;
- Broader and integrated multi-partner programmes should be encourage at the national and international level;
- Budgets and funding instruments should be designed to support reintegration interventions of mixed caseloads of returned refugees, returned IDPs and local communities.

Welcome to REFUGEE DATA MINDER tutorial!

Tags