James Milner
The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies
Edited by Elena Fiddian Qasmiyeh, Gil Loescher, Katy Long, and Nando Sigona
Oxford Handbooks Online
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter examines the changing temporal scale of displacement and forced migration, focusing on the growing numbers of refugees and other forced migrants who spend years, if not decades, in exile. It begins with an overview of the definition of protracted refugee situations and the origins of the phenomenon. It then considers the causes and consequences of prolonged exile as well as the responses of states, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the refugees themselves to protracted refugee situations.
Keywords: displacement, refugees, forced migrants, exile, protracted refugee situations, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, forced migration
Introduction
The search for ‘permanent solutions for the problem of refugees’ has been a core function of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) since its creation in 1950 (UNGA 1950). Despite this long-standing recognition of the importance of ‘durable solutions’, the task of finding solutions for refugees has become increasingly difficult, and refugees have consequently spent longer periods in exile. In fact, UNHCR estimates that ‘the average [duration] of major refugee situations...increased from nine years in 1993 to 17 years at the end of 2003’ (UNHCR EXCOM 2004). This inability to ensure a timely solution for the plight of refugees has given rise to the phenomenon of
‘protracted refugee situations’, defined as a situation where refugees are in exile ‘for five or more years after their initial displacement, without immediate prospects for implementation of durable solutions’ (UNHCR EXCOM 2009).
A significant majority of the world’s refugees are now to be found in protracted refugee situations. UNHCR estimates that ‘some 6.4 million refugees were in a protracted situation by the end of 2012’ (UNHCR 2013: 12). In addition, there are nearly 4.8 million Palestinian refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which constitutes one of the world’s largest protracted refugee situations. Recent concern for the rise of protracted refugee situations has been motivated not only by the scale of the problem, but also by the range of challenges associated with prolonged exile. Specifically, protracted refugee situations are frequently associated with poor protection environments and limitations on the rights of refugees, along with a range of challenges for states, UNHCR, and other actors.
The purpose of this chapter is to draw from recent research and policy discussions to provide an overview of the issue of protracted refugee situations. The chapter begins by considering the definition of protracted refugee situations and tracing the rise of the (p. 152) phenomenon. The chapter then discusses the causes and consequences of prolonged exile before turning to a more detailed discussion of how refugees, states, and UNHCR have responded to protracted refugee situations.
Definitions
Protracted Refugee Situations
In 2004, UNHCR characterized a protracted refugee situation as ‘one in which refugees find themselves in a long-lasting and intractable state of limbo’ (UNHCR 2004: 1) In identifying the major protracted refugee situations in the world at the time, UNHCR used the ‘crude measure of refugee populations of 25,000 persons or more who have been in exile for five or more years in developing countries’ (UNHCR 2004: 2). Over time, this characterization of major protracted refugee situations became the working definition of all protracted refugee situations. In a 2012 publication, for example, UNHCR defined a protracted refugee situation ‘as one in which 25,000 or more refugees of the same nationality have been in exile for five years or longer in any given asylum country’ (UNHCR 2004: 12). In this way, there has been a tendency to define a protracted refugee situation in both temporal (more than five years in exile) and quantitative (25,000 or more refugees) terms.
This definition is problematic as it excludes from our understanding of protracted refugee situations a number of populations that have been in exile for more than five years, but who number fewer than 25,000. For example, UNHCR reported in 2011 that there were some 11,500 Liberian refugees in Ghana, 14,000 Somali refugees in Djibouti, and 10,000 Sudanese refugees in Egypt (UNHCR 2011: 78–81). All of these populations have been in exile for more than a decade, but would be excluded from discussions of protracted refugee situations if the limit of 25,000 or more refugees remained in the definition. Likewise, quantitative limits on a definition are problematic given the difficulties frequently associated with refugee population statistics (Crisp 1999).
It is, therefore, significant that UNHCR’s Executive Committee adopted a definition in 2009 that does not include a quantitative limit. Instead, it defined a protracted refugee situation as a situation where refugees have been in exile ‘for five or more years after their initial displacement, without immediate prospects for implementation of durable solutions’
(UNHCR 2009: preamble). This definition provides a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a protracted refugee situation, and should therefore be used consistently as a basis for future discussions on the issue.
Trends
The significance of protracted refugee situations has grown over the past two decades with a shift in the balance between the number of refugees in emergency situations and (p. 153) those in prolonged exile. The early 1990s witnessed significant refugee movements in many regions of the world, including the Balkans, the Horn of Africa, Central Africa, West Africa, and South-West Asia. As a result, there was a dramatic increase in the global refugee population and the primary focus of the refugee regime was to deliver emergency life-saving assistance in many regions of the world, almost simultaneously. UNHCR reported that there were some 16.3 million refugees in the world at the end of 1993, the majority of which (52 per cent) were in emergency situations (UNHCR 2004: 2). Ten years later, many of these conflicts and associated refugee situations remained unresolved, with 64 per cent of the world’s refugees no longer in an
emergency situation, but a situation of prolonged exile. By the end of 2011, UNHCR estimated that almost 75 per cent of the refugee population under its mandate, some 7.1 million refugees, were in a protracted refugee situation (UNHCR 2012a). When the 4.8 million Palestinian refugees under the mandate of UNRWA are added to this total, it can be argued that 78 per cent of the world’s refugees are now in a protracted refugee situation.
Some of the largest protracted refugee situations at the end of 2010 included: 1.9 million Afghans in Pakistan, 1.9 million Palestinians in Jordan, 1 million Afghans in Iran, 1 million Iraqis in Syria, 450,000 Iraqis in Jordan, and 350,000 Somalis in Kenya (UNHCR 2011: 78–81). In addition to these large situations, there are dozens of other protracted refugee situations around the world. Regardless of their size, all protracted refugee situations share an important feature: they are proving more difficult to resolve. UNHCR estimates that ‘the average [duration] of major refugee
situations...increased from nine years in 1993 to 17 years at the end of 2003’ (UNHCR EXCOM 2004: 2). Ten years later, with many large situations of prolonged exile unresolved, it may be argued that the average duration of a refugee situation is now closer to 20 years. As a result, several generations of the same family can now be found in many refugee camps. For example, in the Dadaab camps in Kenya, there are some 10,000 third-generation Somali refugees, born to refugee parents who were themselves born in the camps (UNHCR 2012b).
Causes
While each situation has its own unique causes and dynamics, the growing prevalence of protracted refugee situations is generally understood to be the result of a similar set of causes. For its part, UNHCR has argued that:
protracted refugee situations stem from political impasses. They are not inevitable, but are rather the result of political action and inaction, both in the country of origin (the persecution and violence that led to flight) and in the country of asylum. They endure because of ongoing problems in the country of origin, and stagnate and become protracted as a result of responses to refugee inflows, typically involving restrictions on refugee movement and employment possibilities, and confinement to camps.
(UNHCR 2004: 2)
(p. 154) In fact, conditions in the country of origin and the responses of refugee-hosting countries are two important factors that help explain the rise of protracted refugee situations. Many situations of prolonged displacement originate from a number of so-called ‘fragile states’, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, where conflict and a lack of effective state institutions have been a primary driver of displacement. As noted by Long, however, not all protracted refugee situations are the result of the absence of government or state capacity, as in the case of Somalia, but may also be the result of particular types of government and the persecution of minority groups, as in the case of Myanmar or Bhutan (Long 2011: 6). Likewise, refugee situations remain protracted frequently in the midst of the policies of refugee-hosting states that deny refugees the opportunity to be self-reliant or to pursue a solution through local integration, as discussed below.
The prevailing situations in the country of origin and the policy responses of the country of asylum, however, provide only a partial explanation for the causes of protracted refugee situations, and it is consequently important to consider a broader set of causes that fall outside UNHCR’s explanation. In particular, the challenge of solutions for refugees over the past 20 years has coincided with the introduction of more restrictive asylum policies by states in the global North. One consequence of these policies has been the ‘containment’ of refugee populations within their region of origin, thereby limiting solutions for refugees (Hyndman and Giles 2011). At the same time, there has been a marked decline in donor support for long-term refugee-assistance and repatriation programmes. The combination of restrictive asylum policies and declining donor engagement has resulted in concerns on the part of many refugee-hosting states that they are carrying a disproportionate share of the global responsibility for refugees, which, in turn, has reinforced restrictive asylum policies in countries of first asylum. For example, Crisp notes that by the late 1990s, ‘donor states can be said to have exacerbated the decline in protection standards in Africa by making it increasingly clear that they [were] no longer prepared to support long-term refugee assistance efforts’ (Crisp 2000: 6)
The response of UNHCR and the wider UN system has also contributed to the rise of protracted refugee situations. As noted by UNHCR, the typical response to large refugee movements in the 1980s and 1990s was the admission of refugees into countries of first asylum on a prima facie basis, the containment of these refugees in camps, and the long- term provision of food, shelter, and other needs by UNHCR and other humanitarian actors (UNHCR 2008). Over time, UNHCR ‘assumed a progressively wider range of long-term refugee responsibilities’ and functions within refugee camps, leading to concerns that UNHCR was acting as a ‘surrogate state’ and perpetuating refugee situations through long-term ‘care and maintenance’ programmes (Slaughter and Crisp 2008: 128). The past 20 years have also witnessed a marked decline in the engagement of other actors within the UN system to the causes and consequences of refugee movements. In particular, a lack of engagement on the part of various peace and security actors to address the conflict or human rights violations in the country of origin contributes to the prolongation of many refugee situations. Likewise, the limited engagement (p. 155) of development actors in countries of origin and asylum has weakened efforts to find solutions for refugees, especially through repatriation and local integration (Loescher et al. 2008).
Consequences
The greatest consequence of prolonged displacement is for the human rights of refugees. As noted by Durieux, the significance of protracted refugee situations is not only in the ‘duration of life in exile but also, and more significantly, about the quality of such life, which is seen to deteriorate over time as solutions remain elusive’ (Durieux 2009: 60) Since the early 1990s, many states in the global South have required refugees to live in designated camps and have denied refugees a number of the rights enumerated in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, such as freedom of movement and the right to seek wage-earning employment (Smith 2004). Denial of these rights compounds refugees’ vulnerability as they frequently become dependent on dwindling international assistance. Sexual and physical violence can also become prevalent in refugee camps, while refugee women, children, the elderly, and disabled all face particular protection challenges during prolonged encampment. Similarly, refugees in urban settings often find
Protracted Refugee Situations
themselves in precarious situations, subject to harassment and exploitation. Without documentation, those in urban areas are left unprotected by either their home or host governments and suffer from discrimination, inadequate housing, and lack of employment and access to social services (UNHCR 2009).
In addition to these human rights and humanitarian concerns, protracted refugee situations can also lead to a number of political and security concerns for host states, the countries of origin, and the international community (Loescher and Milner 2005). The long-term presence of large refugee populations has been a source of tensions between states and regional instability, especially through the militarization of refugee camps. Armed groups have used refugee camps as a base to launch attacks against their country of origin. Other security concerns, such as arms trafficking, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and the recruitment of child soldiers, have also been documented in protracted refugee situations. In addition to these direct security concerns, protracted refugee situations also have indirect security implications. Tensions between refugees and the local population often arise as refugees are perceived to receive preferential access to social services such as health and education. Over time, competition between refugees and the host population over scarce resources can also become a source of insecurity.
These dynamics may lead host states to perceive the prolonged presence of refugees as a potential threat. This perception frequently reinforces the causes of protracted refugee situations, as states seek to ‘contain’ the refugee
‘problem’, typically in isolated refugee camps, while viewing pressures by the international donor community to encourage solutions for refugees through local integration as ‘burden shifting’ and an infringement of their sovereignty.
Protracted refugee situations also have important consequences for (p. 156) the global refugee regime as they
‘squander precious resources’ (UNHCR 2004: 3) on long-term assistance programmes instead of activities to support durable solutions, serve as flashpoints for tensions between refugee-hosting states in the global South and donor states in the global North, and symbolize the inability of UNHCR to predictably fulfil one of its core functions. As noted by Long,
‘the very fact of protracted displacement is evidence that existing approaches to “solving” displacement have failed’
(Long 2011: 8).
Responses
There are several important historical examples of the resolution of large and chronic refugee situations. In the late 1980s, for example, solutions were found for long-standing refugee populations from Indochina and Central America through Comprehensive Plans of Action (CPAs). As noted by Betts (2008), these past approaches shared a number of characteristics. They were comprehensive in the sense that they drew on all possible solutions: repatriation, resettlement, and local integration as well as expanding migratory opportunities. They were cooperative in that they were based on burden sharing between countries of refugee origin, host countries, and resettlement countries. And finally they were collaborative, meaning they involved a broad range of UN agencies, NGOs, and other actors. While it will be important to consider the limitations of these CPAs and the extent to which they may serve as models for resolving contemporary situations (Bradley 2011), these examples serve as important reminders that past responses to protracted refugee situations have resulted in solutions for millions of refugees.
Notwithstanding these past successes, the issue of protracted refugee situations received very limited international attention during the 1990s. As the decade’s refugee emergencies subsided, however, and attention was drawn to the conditions of refugees in prolonged exile, greater attention was given to the need to develop more effective responses to protracted refugee situations. While researchers and advocacy groups have played an important role in raising the profile of this issue, UNHCR has provided the primary focus for global discussions on responses to protracted refugee situations. Beginning in 1999, UNHCR’s Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit commissioned a number of studies to better understand the dynamics and implications of prolonged displacement (Crisp 2003). The question of protracted refugee situations in Africa was subsequently discussed during UNHCR’s Executive Committee in October 2001 (UNHCR 2001), and was the focus of a 2004 policy paper (UNHCR 2004). These initiatives helped highlight the significance of protracted refugee situations, while providing early analysis of their causes and consequences.
UNHCR’s efforts to promote responses to protracted refugee situations, however, culminated in 2008 and 2009 around three events. The first event was the launch in June 2008 of the High Commissioner’s Initiative on Protracted Refugee Situations, intended to ‘reinvigorate possibilities for solutions to protracted refugee situations (PRS) and, in (p. 157) the interim, to improve the quality of life for populations that have lived in such exile for long periods of time’ (UNHCR EXCOM 2008: 1). To launch the initiative, five priority situations were identified: Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan;
Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh; Bosnian and Croatian refugees in Serbia; Burundian refugees in Tanzania; and Eritrean refugees in eastern Sudan.
The second event was the 2008 High Commissioner’s Dialogue on Protection Challenges, which brought together representatives of governments, NGOs, UN agencies, and researchers to discuss responses to protracted refugee situations. In advance of the Dialogue, UNHCR released a discussion paper that outlined the importance of political action, international cooperation, coordination, and complimentarity in finding solutions for PRSs, in addition to discussing the challenges faced by the traditional durable solutions (UNHCR 2008). Arguably the most significant conclusion of the background document, however, was a call to move away from long-term ‘care and maintenance’ programmes to an approach focused more on self-reliance and local solutions for refugees. In the paper, UNHCR concluded that the care and maintenance model was ‘flawed in several ways’ and called for a new approach focused on livelihoods and self- reliance to prepare refugees for a durable solution, ‘wherever that might be’.
The third significant event during this period was the negotiation of the 2009 EXCOM Conclusion on Protracted Refugee Situations. As is the tradition with EXCOM Conclusions, negotiations to draft a text acceptable to EXCOM’s 70-plus member states produced multiple drafts and resulted in prolonged deliberations. In fact, when negotiations failed to produce a consensus text ahead of the normal meeting of the Executive Committee in October, many observers assumed that efforts to consolidate a decade of policy development and research into an EXCOM Conclusion had failed.
The continuation of negotiations into November and the convening of a special EXCOM meeting in December to adopt the Conclusion is at least partially a reflection of the importance attached to the issues by UNHCR and a number of key EXCOM member states.
While it may be too soon to assess the impact of these three events on the resolution of individual protracted refugee situations, at least four important lessons emerged from these discussions. First, there are important differences within and between refugee populations, and there is consequently no ‘one size fits all’ approach to resolving protracted refugee situations. Second, UNHCR and humanitarian actors cannot resolve protracted refugee situations on their own.
Instead, the sustained engagement of a broad range of stakeholders, especially peace and security and development actors within the UN system, is an important prerequisite for finding solutions for protracted refugee situations. Third, durable solutions need to be looked at in a comprehensive manner and approached in a complementary way, in addition to the reinforcement of the three traditional durable solutions of voluntary repatriation, local integration, and
resettlement, as discussed elsewhere in this volume. Fourth, as noted, there is a pressing need to shift from a long-term
‘care and maintenance’ approach to protracted refugee situations to a ‘solutions-oriented approach’ based on increased self-reliance and livelihoods opportunities for refugees.
(p. 158) These four lessons, however, are indicative of long-standing weaknesses of the global refugee regime, and their implementation will involve overcoming a number of constraints within the regime itself. For example, the difficulties in negotiating the 2009 EXCOM Conclusion is not only a reflection of the complexity of the issues of protracted refugee situations and its close relation to core state interests, such as sovereignty and security, but also the wider challenge of cooperation within the global refugee regime. These tensions speak to the significant divide that remains between refugee-hosting states in the global South and the donor and resettlement countries in the global North. For their part, states in the global South tend to see discussions on solutions for protracted refugee situations as an effort by the global North to continue to contain the refugee issues in the South. In contrast, states in the global North see the policy choices of host states in the South as an impediment to solutions for refugees, especially through local integration.
Given these tensions, it may be significant that a number of governments have become more actively engaged in responses to protracted refugee situations. Among donor and resettlement countries, Canada assumed a leadership role by emphasizing the importance of the issues of protracted refugee situations within its multilateral relations, while domestically establishing an Interdepartmental Working Group on Protracted Refugee Situations in 2007 to help develop more comprehensive and integrated responses (Dion 2009: 28–9). More recently, the US Department of State has identified responses to protracted refugee situations as a US foreign policy priority. While these initiatives have resulted in additional resettlement opportunities from some protracted refugee situations, such as those of Karen refugees in Thailand and Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, they have yet to have a demonstrated impact on the global response to protracted refugee situations.
In contrast, a limited number of states in the global South, including Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Tanzania, have started the process of resolving protracted refugee situations through the naturalization and local integration of refugees. While
1