 |
European Reintegration Networking |
|
|
|
||
|
European Reintegration Networking |
|
|
|
||
July 2002
mbA Training, Research and
Development
Circus House
26 Little Portland Street
London W1W 8BX
Tel: (44) (0)20 7255 2264
Fax: (44) (0)20 7580 3130
claudia@mbatrd.com
Verfasser/in: Claudia Marchini
The UK, together with the rest of Europe, has developed a complex and cumbersome system for determining who is a refugee. Some countries, particularly in Africa, simply decide that a whole group of people are all refugees, avoiding the need for such unwieldy and expensive individual determination processes and the risk of potentially fatal wrong decisions.
Respect for the principle of non-refoulement (non-return) implies a commitment to ensuring that the asylum determination system produces decisions of the highest quality, so that nobody is wrongly returned to face persecution. The sharp rise in refusals on “non compliance” grounds in 2000 threw that commitment into question. Large numbers of people are still being refused asylum simply because they have been unable to complete a 19 page form, in English and on time – a practice that has attracted criticism from an influential House of Lords committee:
“Rejection on so-called non-compliance grounds puts the UK at risk of violating its international obligations. There is no substitute for a procedure that produces speedy, fair and sustainable decisions on the merits.” (Minimum Standards in Asylum Procedures, House of Lords, March 2001)
Safe decisions depend on each case being examined in full, where asylum seekers have had access to legal advice and interpreters at all stages of the process and have been allowed to remain in the country while any appeal is heard.
Many have raised concerns about the modus operandi and fairness of the new system. These continuing concerns all suggest that significant numbers of people are faced with removal but have not been through a full and fair procedure.
This paper will examine issues around the reintegration and repatriation of refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. The introductory part presents the terminology and the relevant legislation. An explanation on the current framework for returning migrants follows, with a list of organisations working in the sector and existing programmes. Finally, a series of recommendations from NGOs and experts in the field is presented.
Discussions on the adjustment of asylum rights and on the approaches to support the integration of non EU migrants at EU Member State level, show clearly, that in the future, a large number of migrants will receive a residence permit for only a limited time.
Return and reintegration policies relating to refugees within the EU, vary from Member State to Member State, depending upon a variety of factors. e.g. migrant numbers, public opinion, return programmes already in place etc and produce mixed results. This was particularly demonstrated in the differing way the migration streams from the Balkan countries were handled.
Throughout EU member countries, return and reintegration is not viewed as part of migration policy, but as a separate side issue. There is therefore no holistic approach provided towards the preparation of returning refugees to enable them to contribute more to the economic stabilisation, and to reduce the conflict potentials in their home country upon their return.
Economic and income orientated dimensions of reintegration measures are still undervalued, also other effects e. g. on the social environment or aspects like xenophobia are not taken into account sufficiently both in the receiving countries and in the countries of origin. If possible, aspects dealing with crisis prevention, conflict management, and peace building measures should be investigated more in the context of reintegration programmes and processes.
The programme is divided into two parts: initially, the partners are going to gather information about reintegration policies in the European Countries; then, regional workshops will be put in place in order to develop policy recommendations and best practice papers.
The main objective of the study is to examine issues around the reintegration and repatriation of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.
In addition to consulting relevant academic and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) using reports, articles, and the internet, mbA also undertook research into official literature, predominately through the website of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the Home Office who are responsible for asylum in the UK.
To provide a rounded view of the refugee and asylum seeker situation in the UK, mbA also reviewed newspaper articles and news provided by the BBC website to fully understand the both the media and the public perception of the situation.
The aim of this section is to provide background information into the refugee and asylum situation in the UK. This section covers the following areas:
4.1 Definitions and Legislation
This glossary explains the terminology and legislation that is
associated with refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.
4.2 Framework for Returning Migrants
This section highlights the lack of framework available to
returning migrants, discusses the impact of some of the changes
contained in the Government White Paper, Secure Borders Safe
Havens; Integration with Diversity in Modern Britainand
addresses the issue of removals.
4.3 UK Context
This section briefly examines the number of refugees and asylum
seekers entering the UK and how the UK situation compares with the
rest of Europe.
A person in the UK is a refugee only when their application has been accepted by the Home Office. When a person has lodged an asylum claim with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and is waiting for a decision on their claim they are called an Asylum Seeker. An asylum seeker is granted refugee status if they meet the criteria laid down in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees (see below).
The most commonly accepted definition of a Refugee is:
“A person, who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (United Nations Convention 1951).
Exceptional Leave to Remain describes the process whereby people granted asylum are given leave to remain for 4 years (1 year initially, followed by a grant of a further 3 years). At the end of this period people can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. Both of these terms are detailed more fully below.
The Home office defines a person as a “voluntary leaver” if
The laws affecting Refugees and Asylum Seekers have been subject to radical change. The most important points to bear in mind are described below:
Essentially, access to benefit and to elements of housing support for Asylum Seekers were restricted by the Asylum and Immigration Act and the Housing Act of 5 February 1996. Eligibility for support from the Social Services Department of the Local Authority is consequently not based on an individual’s status as an Asylum Seeker, but on the fact that they have no access to benefits. For families with children, support through Social Services is determined by the Children Act 1989. Various test cases have now established a requirement for Local Authorities’ Social Services Departments to support destitute adults under the National Assistance Act 1948.
Under Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 it is a criminal offence to employ a person aged 16 or over who is subject to immigration control unless:
Research has shown that this can lead to employers implementing a policy of not employing refugees or unscrupulous employers using the Act as a threat against refugee staff members.
Many employers and refugees are unaware of relevant legislation or confused about its content, and these uncertainties are preventing those with the right to work from getting employment as well as leading to exploitation from employers.
The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 received the Royal Assent on 11th November 1999. The new National Asylum Support Service (NASS) was developed to disperse new Asylum Seekers in Kent and London to other parts of the country to reduce the pressure on Local Authorities in the South East.
Some of the main changes detailed in the new legislation can be summarised as follows:
This is the fourth reform to asylum legislation in less than ten years. The white paper confirms the UK Government’s determination to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers, whose asylum application has been refused being removed. The Government’s target is to remove 30,000 asylum seekers by Spring 2003.
The consultation period on the proposals contained in its White Paper ended on 21 March 2002. The next step is for the Government to draw up a bill on asylum, migration and citizenship and present it to Parliament. The bill is expected to be passed by Parliament before the Queen's Speech in November.
The new proposals are all geared towards a Home Office vision of streamlined support, control and tracking of asylum seekers while their claims are processed.
There will be four key elements to the structure: induction, accommodation and reporting, asylum appeals and fast-track removal or integration. The major changes particularly impacting the return and reintegration of refugees and asylum seekers are outlined below.
Induction
Accommodation and reporting
Appeals - the white paper aims to streamline and speed up the appeal process
Fast-track removal – The government is proposing the following
There seem to be no laws or any other legal framework in place, to deal with reintegration and repatriation. The help, advice and initiatives available to returning migrants, appear to be piecemeal and fragmented.
Proposals in the White Paper show the Government beginning to take a more holistic approach to this issue, by treating it as part of the immigration process, rather than a separate stand-alone problem.
Specifically the Government is
Once an asylum seeker has been refused asylum and they have exhausted all avenues of appeal, they are expected to leave the country voluntarily. NASS will give 14 days notice for removal of support and notice to leave the accommodation provided. (Note the White Paper ‘Secure Border Safe Haven’ proposes that this notice period is extended to 21 days) In practice only a small number of persons actually leave or are removed (Guidance to meeting the policing needs of asylums seekers and refugees - Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), March 2001). The ACPO report highlights one factor affecting low rates of removal as Immigration Officers not using the powers of arrest given to them by the 1999 immigration and Asylum Act. These additional powers should limit the need for police involvement. (The Secure Border Safe Haven proposal that refused asylum seekers be taken directly to removal centres should further limit the need for police involvement). Another reason for the low number of removals is the backlog of asylum claims, which led to many people who were refused asylum, living in the UK and still receiving benefits, while their appeals were processed. This could also lead to criminally active asylum seekers waiting for a decision committing criminal acts with limited chance of them being removed.
The ACPO report highlighted the possible outcomes for people who have been refused asylum and had ceased to receive benefits and support (as victims or offenders):
The report felt the knock on effect on the communities the people lived in would be:
The Standard Acknowledgement Letter (SAL) is currently used as the identity document for asylum seekers. These are available illegally through organised gangs enabling people to claim benefits and obtain National Insurance numbers. ‘Secure Border Safe Haven’ proposes that an Application Registration Card (ARC) be phased in to replace the SAL. The ARC is the size of a credit card and would contain personal details, a photograph and the individual's fingerprint. The ARC would be issued to all dependants of the asylum applicant who are over the age of five and would also state whether the cardholder is entitled to work. Although not the primary purpose of ARC this card has the potential to reduce the incidence of fraud in this area.
The removal of asylum seekers is a politically sensitive issue. The government has introduced a target of 30,000 removals over the next twelve months. The ACPO report highlights the problems that could be faced were the police to be involved in implementing this policy:
The Home Office received a total of 71,700 applications in 2001 compared to 80,315 in 2000 – a decrease of 11%. The majority of asylum seekers to the UK continue to apply after entry (46,200 applicants)
In terms of asylum seekers per capita, the UK ranks 12th out of 25 in Europe. In 2000, the UK averaged 10th. From 1991 – 2000, 423,965 asylum seekers came to the UK – an average of 42,397 per year whilst Germany received 1,765,260 applications – an average of 176,526 per year.
The table below indicates countries from which most asylum seekers came into the UK
|
2000 |
2001 |
|
|
Afghanistan |
5,555 |
9,190 |
|
Iraq |
7,475 |
6,805 |
|
Somalia |
6,020 |
6,500 |
|
Sri Lanka |
6,395 |
5,545 |
|
Turkey |
3,990 |
3,450 |
|
Iran |
5,610 |
3,450 |
|
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia |
6,070 |
3,190 |
|
Pakistan |
3,165 |
2,810 |
|
China |
4,000 |
2,415 |
|
Zimbabwe |
1,010 |
2,085 |
|
Former USSR |
4,140 |
4,100 |
The following table shows the countries, from which more significantly more asylum seekers have come since 2000
|
Zimbabwe |
+107% |
|
Afghanistan |
+65% |
|
Ethiopia |
+47% |
|
Sierra Leone |
+46% |
|
DR of Congo |
+35% |
|
Tanzania |
+31% |
|
Angola and Somalia |
+29% each |
The most substantive decisions were made on asylum applications by nationals of Afghanistan. The highest refusals were made on applications from nationals of the following countries: China, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Sri Lanka and former Yugoslavia. The highest positive decision rates were made on the nationals of Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone
The number of asylum applications refused on non-compliance grounds (failure to submit the Statement of Evidence form in time or in a language other than English, or failure to attend or arrive late for an asylum interview) remains high. 18% of all decisions made by the Home Office were refused on these grounds. One of the most frequent reason for applicants refused in this way is the failure to submit the Statement of Evidence form within the ten day deadline. In 2001 9% of Afghan nationals who submitted an asylum request were refused on non-compliance grounds.
3% more unsuccessful asylum seekers were removed or departed voluntarily in 2001 than in 2000. The number of dependants removed since July 2001 had doubled by the end of December 2001. The nationalities of people the Home Office was most successful in removing in 2001 were Kosovans, Albanians and Iranians
The following section outlines the main organisations involved in the migration sector in the UK. It covers both Government organisations and NGO’s.
IND is part of the Home Office. The purpose of IND as defined by the Home Office is ‘To regulate entry to, and settlement in, the UK effectively in the interests of sustainable growth, and social inclusion’. This covers the responsibility to deter and detect people who break Immigration Rules or whose presence in the UK would not be to the public good. In the most serious cases, Immigration Officers have powers to detain people and remove them from the country. IND work closely with the immigration authorities in other countries, and in addition to their operational role, it is their duty to support the Government in the development of immigration policy and law.
NASS is part of IND. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 led to the development the National Asylum Seeker Support Service (NASS) which became responsible for providing support for asylum seekers in April 2000. The Benefits Agency or Local Authority was previously responsible for providing support to asylum seekers. NASS provides support, accommodation and legal advice to asylum seekers, who would otherwise be destitute, while their claim is being considered. NASS has overall responsibility for the support system, assesses claims for support and contracts with the public, private and voluntary sector partners who provide actual support services for asylum seekers.
NASS works with ‘reception assistants’ at ports of entry to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation and vouchers to cover their living needs. Reception assistants are from voluntary organisations and help asylum seekers apply to NASS for their support package and emergency accommodation. They also provide asylum seekers with forms entitling them to healthcare.
Asylum seekers are allocated accommodation through NASS, which is provided by a local authority, housing association or a private landlord. Types of accommodation range from hostels offering full board for single people to self catering houses and flats for families. The provider is responsible for advising asylum seekers how to access local services including healthcare and schooling.
The Community Legal Service Fund (formally the Legal Aid scheme) provides funding to contract immigration law advisors and firms of solicitors to provide legal advice to asylum seekers.
The White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, sets out plans already underway to decentralise NASS operations thereby creating a service that is more responsive to regional issues. The Government is proposing that more resources be deployed regionally and those existing resources be utilised more effectively.
The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) is the principal international organisation charged with migration. It arranges the movement of refugees and migrants to new homes and promotes migration assistance to assure orderly migration and integration.
In mid-2000, 76 governments (including the United States) were members of IOM, and 48 others had observer status; the latter may also benefit from IOM's services to refugees and migrants. More than 50 inter-and non-governmental organisations hold observer status with the organisation. IOM's main governing body, the Council, usually meets once a year, in November.
IOM's 2000 administrative budget was 34 million Swiss Francs. Financing was through contributions from Member States according to a scale of assessment. With more than 10 million Swiss Francs (29,9 %), the United States was the largest contributor to the administrative budget. In addition, IOM has an operational budget that is based on voluntary contributions from governments and multilateral donors. In 1999, IOM operations totalled about $US 300 million. The United States was also the largest contributor to this part of the budget and contributed $US 111 million during 1999.
The International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)
The International Centre for Migration Policy Development is an inter-governmental organisation based in Vienna. ICMPD was created in 1993 at the initiative of Switzerland and Austria. A total of 25 governments now support the Centre. It was granted partial diplomatic status in 1997, and full status in 2000. The purpose of the Centre is to promote comprehensive and sustainable migration policies and to function as a service exchange mechanism for governments and organisations primarily on European migration issues.
ICMPD is different from other inter-governmental organisations dealing with movements of people because it concentrates on policies, fosters a long-term approach, has a deep knowledge of issues, and concentrates on salient immigration management issues confronting sovereign states.
The Refugee Council is the largest organisation in the UK working with asylum seekers and refugees. It not only gives help and support, but also works with asylum seekers and refugees to ensure their needs and concerns are addressed. It is governed by a Board of trustees which includes strong refugee representation
The Refugee Council is an independent organisation and registered as a charity. It is financed by a variety of sources including government departments, the European Commission, trusts and members. Included in the role of the Refugee Council is the campaigning and lobbying for refugees’ voices to be heard in the UK and abroad, keeping them high on the political agenda and discussed in the media; and producing information on refugee issues worldwide, including reports, statistics and analysis.
Refugee Action is an independent charity that supports refugees and asylum seekers to build new lives in the UK.
Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID)
AVID is the national umbrella charity for groups visiting immigration detainees. Britain currently detains nearly 3000 people of this type, and it is planned to increase the number to 4000 in the near future.
The following section outlines the programmes being run to promote return
VARP is run by IOM in partnership with Refugee Action. The programme facilitates the voluntary and orderly return of individuals who have decided to return to their countries of origin, but who do not have the means to do so.
The programme is open to persons who have pending asylum applications, those who have been refused asylum and those who have been granted time-limited exceptional leave to enter or remain (including Kosovans granted temporary protection under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme). Applications are received and screened by the IOM, and the final decision about suitability of the applicant for the VARP rests with IND. VARP includes a funded flight but there is no assistance available in the form of repatriation / resettlement allowance.
Approximately 100 returns per month are made under the VARP programme.
RQUN is implemented by the IOM in co-operation with the Ugandan Government with funding from the EU. The programme aims to strengthen the direct contribution that trained and experienced Ugandan nationals can make towards the development of Uganda, by promoting their return or relocation within Uganda to take up key positions of employment. The RQUN programme seeks to have an impact on Uganda's economic development by helping to meet some of its most critical manpower needs. Employment opportunities, for which suitably qualified manpower is not locally available, are identified within the economic and social sectors of highest priority.
The RQUN programme helps employers in Uganda to fill key position vacancies in "priority sectors" by matching a vacancy's requirements with the qualifications and interests of Ugandan nationals who are residing abroad, but who wish to return to Uganda to live and work on a long-term or permanent basis.
RQUN programme candidates who are successfully matched with a position vacancy and who accept a firm offer of employment are eligible for RQUN financial support to cover some of the costs related to their return and integration. This support is granted according to need, and it might include airfares, shipment of household goods, purchase of professional equipment, and reintegration allowance.
Once RQUN programme participants have returned, IOM and its programme partners monitor and support, to the greatest extent possible, the participants' reintegration and professional development in Uganda.
Only trained and experienced Ugandan nationals who are living outside Uganda can be considered for the RQUN programme.
The IOM - Return of Qualified Afghans Programme (IOM-RQA) aims to boost rehabilitation efforts in post-conflict Afghanistan through the progressive transfer of know-how of Afghan expatriate professionals to their home country. RQA will facilitate the short and long term employment, return and reintegration of an estimated 1,500 professionals by the year 2004.
By May 2002, RQA had placed 150 highly qualified expatriate Afghan nationals in key positions within twelve Ministries of the Afghan Interim Administration and eleven NGOs and International Organisations operating in Afghanistan. They were selected from the RQA Afghan Skills Roster containing over 4,700 names.
To date there have been 26 applicants from the UK for reintegration via this programme
NOTE: According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), a voluntary repatriation programme launched in Pakistan in March 2002 has led to approximately 40.000 refugees returning to Afghanistan every week, bringing the total to 285,000 since the programme began.
Another 10,000 have left Iran since a similar programme began there in early April.
Ruud Lubbers, head of the UNHCR, said the numbers had surged as reports of harassment of ethnic Pashtuns in northern parts of the country had declined. Mr Lubbers said he was surprised and pleased by the movement of refugees, but the increasing numbers meant they needed donor countries to move quickly from pledges to handing over funds.
Note also the following taken from IOM press briefing on 21/06/2002 ‘Meanwhile the future of IOM's Return of Qualified Afghans (RQA) programme continues to hang in the balance. While substantial EU funding for the programme is expected in November, RQA is now effectively bankrupt and no donors have yet come forward to support the programme over the next five months’.
This programme is run by IOM in partnership with UK Home Office, Refugee Action and NGO’s in Somalia. It is the first programme of its kind. It aims to facilitate the sustainable return and reintegration of 100 Somali nationals currently living in the United Kingdom who have applied for asylum and now wish to go back to Somalia. The project will be concentrating on the regions of Somalia--predominantly Somaliland and Punt Land--where there is peace and conditions are conducive for the safe and orderly return and reintegration of Somali nationals.
The Red Cross operates a shelter for 1,000 or more migrants at Sangatte, near the French entrance to the Channel Tunnel or Eurotunnel. Migrants are housed in portable cabins within a large warehouse that was built to hold equipment for the Tunnel's construction. Migrants leave the camp every night for the Tunnel's freight yards, hoping to break in and get on a train bound for the UK. A French court sentenced 10 people to prison terms in January 2002 for operating smuggling rings from the Red Cross centre in Sangatte.
Eurotunnel and the British government are trying to get France to close the centre, arguing that it aids migrants in their unlawful attempts to reach the UK. Eurotunnel, calling the centre "a logistics base for illegal immigration," sued in French courts to close it, but a judge ruled that there was no evidence of a link between the camp and illegal immigration.
In an attempt to encourage the migrants in Sangatte to return home the British Government gave IOM E213.000 ($ 190,000) to mount a campaign to encourage migrants in Sangatte to return home, with an offer of free transportation. A video ‘Dignity or Exploitation – the Choice is in Your Hands’, warned that the migrants would not find refuge in the UK. 17 camp residents took up the offer.
It was announced in July 2002 that the French Government will be closing Sangatte in March 2003. Alternative arrangements for those migrants residing at or currently in transit to the camp have not yet been finalised.
The aim of this programme is to develop minimum standards for professionals in the UK, and in the Balkans to respond to the trafficking of women and girls for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This is a two-year project funded by the Department for International Development, UK.
War, conflict and economic instability have greatly increased the vulnerability of women living in the Balkans. The IOM believe that trafficking of woman and girls is the largest single category of illegal migration into European Union countries; an increasing number of women are trafficked from, and/or through the Balkans. Some women are abducted from their homes; others are deceived, believing that they are being recruited for legitimate jobs. All find themselves in a foreign country in situations of debt bondage, without papers or economic resources. Thus the context in which they provide sexual services is coercive and violates their human rights; they are often held in prostitution through threats to themselves and/or their families.
The limited options open to women who have been trafficked are often exacerbated by inadequacies in agency responses, in both sending and receiving countries. This project will work in partnership to develop training on good practice, for responding appropriately to trafficked women and traffickers. Training will be provided for government agencies and NGO's; participants will then be expected to train others in their sector and to begin building inter-agency networks, in order to make the work more effective and co-operated.
Priority will be given to those:
The countries involved are Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Montenegro.
The modular scheme will be developed in collaboration with partners, and whilst the core framework will be common, the content will be adapted to each country's particular context.
The work involves prevention, and programs to assist in the reintegration of women who have been trafficked.
The UK based partner is The Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit (CWASU), University of North London. CWASU has a national and international reputation for research and training and recently completed the first study of trafficking in women in the UK. CWASU has extensive experience working with international partners and has conducted training in Africa, Asia, and Australia as well as in the Balkans.
The target groups are volunteers, paid employees and professionals who currently are, or would like to be, involved in combating trafficking through prevention, supporting women and girls, and prosecuting traffickers.
At the end of the project the following outcomes should be achieved:
Despite the goodwill of the Afghan employers and Government, matching labour supply and demand is not easy. The education ministry knows it will need teachers for the next school year, which starts in March, but has no idea yet how many and where. The University of Kabul needs extra teachers but finds it difficult to hire returning Afghans who will receive a higher salary than colleagues who stayed through the years of fighting and hardship. In addition, despite the needs of the provinces, most candidates get no farther than Kabul. According to Daiva Vilkelyte, the programme's co-ordinator, the idea is gradually to expand outside the capital as security conditions and communications improve.
As an integrated approach of overall direct assistance to Kosovan Micro-Enterprise Development, this project aims to assist semi-skilled and skilled Kosovans to establish (or re-establish) small businesses through a micro-grant business development opportunity. The programme will contribute to the rehabilitation of economic and social services in Kosovo, which, in turn, will help to enhance the Kosovan community's absorptive capacity for future returns of displaced people. The project will also capitalise on local knowledge and expertise by developing close linkages with local business associations and economists. The project will initially target 200 Kosovan entrepreneurs in the Northern Mitrovica region who have either completed a minimum of 4th level of education or have relevant professional experiences in the areas of proposed business activities. After submitting a sound and concise business plan, approved candidates will receive an average grant/credit amount of (USD 3,750) per person. This will be distributed in tranches and used for either establishing a new business or for the improvement of an existing enterprise. The project is expected to have significant spill over effects on the local economy. As the (new) entrepreneurs' businesses grow, additional employment will be generated throughout Kosovan communities. The programme covers the municipalities of North Mitrovica, Zvecan, Leposavic and Zubin Potok.
The project is funded by the IOM who are responsible for running it together with local UNMIK (UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) authorities and enterprises
The target groups are existing and potential entrepreneurs.
The objective of the KIP is to provide client governments with objective, timely and comprehensive informational support for an integrated and orderly return process, as well as for the expedition of their respective refugee determination processes, with regard to Kosovo. The institutional structure of the information exchange system is based on the specific needs of participating countries and hence includes client feedback mechanisms. The system is therefore designed to accommodate the developing information needs of the interested governments and to allow for equitable burden-sharing between client organisations.
The International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) jointly implement this project, acting within their own sphere of expertise and capacities. The project is based on the joint experience gained by ICMPD and IOM through the Repatriation Information Centre (RIC), which has been carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the summer of 1997.
A refugee may forfeit the protection of the 1951 Convention voluntarily, but there are also circumstances in which a refugee’s status simply ceases, irrespective of his/her wishes. Under Article 1C, a person ceases to enjoy the protection of the Convention if the situation in their country of origin changes for the better: “He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality” (Article 1 (C) (5). The onus is on the host government, however, to prove that the refugee or asylum seeker can safely be returned home. (SSHD v Mohammed Arif, Court of Appeal 17 Feb 1999)
Once someone no longer has refugee status, he no longer enjoys the Convention’s protection; and his host country may expel him if there is no reason other than protection under the Convention not to do so.
Some people however should never be forced to return to their country where they feared persecution. Paragraph 136 of UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status - makes reference to persons who have suffered such atrocious forms of persecution that they should not be expected to repatriate even though there may be changes in their country of origin which might permit them to do so. UNHCR guidance on Kosovo Albanians gave examples of the kind of people who might fall into this category: Particular care will need to be taken when determining the claims of traumatised individuals, such as victims of torture or particularly egregious forms of violence (for example, ex-detainees, or women who may have suffered sexual violence), or witnesses to crimes against humanity. It should be noted with respect to traumatised individuals that their past experiences will be extremely relevant in determining their continued protection need.” UNHCR’s Background Note on Ethnic Albanians from Kosovo Who are in Continued Need of Protection, March 2000.
This humanitarian principle should be incorporated into instructions to IND staff when considering removal and published to permit representations and appeal.
Voluntary return is one of the three ‘durable solutions’ to refugee situations identified by UNHCR, the others being local integration and resettlement. The UN General Assembly declared it to be preferable to the other solutions and the states that make up UNHCR’s Executive Committee (EXCOM) have repeatedly underlined the importance of the voluntary nature of refugee repatriation.
UNHCR’s Handbook, “Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection” offers detailed guidance on how voluntary return should be organised and underlines the fundamental principle of people should return “in safety and dignity”.
The Refugee Convention gives no guidance as to the treatment of people, who, after a full and fair process, are found not to be refugees. It is one of the subjects being debated in the “third track” of UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection, a forum for the members of UNHCR’s executive committee to address issues not addressed, or only partially addressed by the refugee convention.
A regional meeting of government and NGO representatives and experts in Budapest in June 2001 considered the legal and practical aspects of the return of persons not in need of international protection. (EC/GC/01/14, available at www.unhcr.ch). Key conclusions included:
A need for international protection, or the absence of such a need, must be determined by
The UNHCR offers extensive guidance on the voluntary return of refugees in its Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection, UNHCR 1996. The Refugee Council believes that much of this guidance, particularly the fundamental principle that return should take place in safety and dignity, should apply to asylum seekers and those found not to be in need of protection, as well as to refugees.
While recognising the need to discourage repeated attempts to claim asylum by those found not to be in need of protection, the Council believes that, as with refugees, return is more durable when it is voluntary. People are more likely to return willingly and stay in their country of origin if they are given information, assistance and reassurance about their safety and if positive efforts are made in that country to facilitate their reintegration. Indeed, a study by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) found that European efforts to return rejected asylum seekers and illegal immigrants focused on either unassisted voluntary return or involuntary return and that this approach has, in general proved unsuccessful.
There are a number of key prerequisites for the successful implementation of assisted voluntary return programmes:
Advantages to Government in Offering Voluntary Return Programmes (VRP)
Advantages to Individuals
Following the signing of the peace accord in June 1999 a large number of Kosovans who came to the UK on the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) expressed the wish to return home. The government funded Kosovan Programme (KP) VRP was set up in response to this and was run by IOM and the refugee agencies. The programme was open to all Kosovans (HEP and non-HEP) and included the following:
In order to ensure that people were able to make informed choices about their options and to help them prepare for return the refugee sector set up a comprehensive advice and support programme. This included:
The refuge agencies made extensive use of questionnaires and surveys in order to plan the returns programme and to identify the main issues and concerns of people who came on the HEP.
Of the 4,346 people who came on the HEP, 55% returned voluntarily by the end of the VRP, the rate and speed of return being unprecedented on a programme of this nature. Throughout the KP VRP, the refugee sector maintained the position that returns should be voluntary and that there should be some planning for people for whom return was not an option.
The objective of this study by The Centre for Social Action, De Montfort University was to explore opportunities, as well as obstacles and uncertainties, for people from Somaliland to be able to positively return home – by identifying the development needs and opportunities required to support this happening in BOTH the UK and in Somaliland
The program ran for a year between 01/01/1999 and 31/12/1999
The Centre for Social Action trained and recruited local community members in social action techniques in four cities in the UK. The communities were invited to identify their own problems, concerns and issues around returning home to Somaliland and using a peer education/group work process these ideas were refined and prioritised to form an agenda for investigation. The community groups then devised their own criteria for a delegation of 20 members from their communities to return to Somaliland as researchers into the issues raised. On return this group fed their findings and information back into the process and the groups were then able to take resolved problems off their agenda, redefine some problems and add new issues as appropriate. A second delegation was then sent to research the refined agenda and the whole process was repeated three times. In all 63 members of the UK Somaliland community made these investigative trips. The community members reported that this approach enabled them to feel much more confident about the prospect of returning home as they were getting first hand information from people within their own communities. They also suggested that previously the UK Somaliland community was divided in many ways and this project went some way to reuniting them.
Although it was not an original aim of the Project for some participants to return home in fact, of the 63 returnees who took part in the visits, eight women and six men have permanently returned to, or remained in, Somaliland. The Project was aware of a further four people who are planning to return within the next six months. It was understood that there are others who were no longer in contact with the Project who have already, or who plan to, return to Somaliland. In addition, many others would like to return as soon as it was feasibly possible.
Despite its short timescale, this Project achieved well beyond its original aims and objectives. Some positive opportunities and potential programmes were identified, and a lot of positive energy and hope emerged for the future of Somaliland. A large majority of the individuals in the community groups, and almost all of the returnees who participated in the visits, have a strong desire to return to Somaliland as soon as it is practically possible. There were issues of security in relation to citizenship and status but despite some obstacles, this Project has shown to a large portion of the UK Somaliland community, the positive opportunities for them to return home if, and when, they choose. The individual impact, as well as the impact on the community, has been enormous and members of the community are hoping to continue the work that has begun and are seeking funding to enable this to happen. The Somaliland – UK Development and Returning Home Project has given the UK Somaliland refugee community an opportunity to begin the returning process for themselves
Many NGOs have issued papers and press releases that contains recommendations to improve the system of Returns of Refugees and Asylum Seekers.
The main emphasis relies on the nature of such returns, which should be voluntary and not imposed and it should not be promoted.
It is also vital that returnees are given the necessary information to make an informed choice. They should also be entitled to undertake "look and see" visits to assess whether it is realistic to return without putting at risk their Convention or complementary protection status in the country of asylum. They should be given time to commit to the repatriation process and prepare to return, and also offer the option of return to the UK.
In their response to the White paper proposals, the Refugee Council stress the concept that removals can actively be pursued only when the decision-making process itself is demonstrably fair. However, according to the organisation, this remains far from being the case, especially as there is no guarantee that asylum seekers have legal representation from the outset of their case – “a most worrying concern. We are critical of the White Paper's failure to address the issue of quality of initial decisions”.
In addition, there remain serious concerns about the Government's emphasis on speeding up procedures, often at the expense of fairness, as well as about the quality of country information used by the Home Office.
In order to properly address these issues and to develop a credible asylum system, it is therefore essential that the Government establish an independent documentation centre as soon as possible and consider the withdrawal of the proposed immigration hotline, which could have an extremely negative impact to community and race relations.
Many concerns have been raised about the operation and fairness of the new system. In particular, the issues that would require further consideration are:
Particular attention should be paid to children’s rights: the UK should end its reservation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Refugee Council stress that:
In their position on the treatment of Afghan refugees in Europe, ECRE states that “The international community, and in particular the EU, must play a full and active role in creating safe conditions for refugees to return [to their countries of origin]. European states must be made aware of the impact of their returns policies on the ground in the countries of origin and in neighbouring states”.
ACPO Guidance to meeting the Policing Needs of Asylum
Seekers and Refugees
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
March 2001
Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in
Modern Britain
Government White Paper
February 2002
Asylum applications - a brief guide to procedures in the
UK
Immigration and Nationality Directorate
1999
Migration: an economic and social analysis
The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
Home Office
2001
Voluntary Assisted Return Program
International Organisation for Migration (London)
November 1998
Voluntary Return Project
Refugee Action
November 1998
Assisted Return of Nationals
International Organisation for Migration (Geneva)
Various dates
Returns Policy
Refugee Council
Feb 2002
Returns Policy Background Paper A: International Principals
of Protection
Refugee Council
Feb 2002
Returns Policy Background Paper B: Integrity of the UK
protection system
Refugee Council
Feb 2002
Returns Policy Background Paper C: Procedures prior to
Removal
Refugee Council
Feb 2002
Returns Policy Background Paper D: Manner of removal
Refugee Council
Feb 2002
Returns Policy Background Paper E: Country Case
Studies
Refugee Council
Feb 2002
SOMALILAND – UK REFUGEE DEVELOPMENT AND RETURNING HOME
PROJECT
De Montfort University – Centre for Social Action
2000
Asylum Statistics United kingdom 2000 – ( www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1701.pdf)
Migration News – UK Immigration and Asylum www.migration.ucdavis.edumn/Archive_MN/feb_2002-11mn.html
Aid plea as Afghan refugees pour back
BBC news, www.news.bbc.co.uk,
19th April 2002
UK may send back Afghan refugees
BBC news, www.news.bbc.co.uk,
28th January 2002
Kosovo refugees leave UK
BBC news, www.news.bbc.co.uk, 19th July
1999
Crackdown on human traffickers
BBC news, www.news.bbc.co.uk, 19th
4th Feb 2001
Destination: Europe
BBC news, www.news.bbc.co.uk,
19th March 2002
Can't let them stay, can't send them back. It's a dilemma
Guardian Unlimited, www.guardian.co.uk, 7th
Feb 2001
The way forward
Philip Collins, Social Market Foundation, June 25 2001
British limbo for refugees who long to go home
Guardian Unlimited, www.guardian.co.uk, 22nd December
2001
Repatriation of Refugees: A Failing Policy
Monica Duffy Toft, Harvard University. John F. Kennedy School of
Government, 2000
Afghanistan: Continuing need for Protection and Standards for
Return of Afghan refugees
Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/asa110142002,
25th July 2002
Guidelines for the treatment of Afghan Asylum Seekers &
Refugees in Europe
European Council on Refugees and Exiles, http://www.ecre.org/positions/afghan.shtml,
Feb 2002
Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID)
European Council on Refugees and Exiles
Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND)
The International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)
International Organisation for Migration (IOM)
The National Asylum Support Service (NASS)
Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme (VARP)
Voluntary Returns Program
a Success
Home Office
Reference: 217/2002 - Date: 1 Aug 2002
Home Office Findings – VARP, An Evaluation
Return and Reintegration of Qualified Ugandan Nationals (RQUN) Programme
IOM International Organization for Migration - RQUN
IOM Return and Reintegration of Qualified Ugandan Nationals: Bridging Phase (RQUGN)
Return and Reintegration of Qualified Afghans (RQA) Programme
IOM press briefing notes 21 Jun 2002: Afghanistan, Kosovo
US Association for International Migration
Return and Reintegration to the Somali Regions
IOM - Return, Reintegration and Development in Somalia
Global IDP Database – Somalia Information Menu
Return of migrants from Sangatte
Migration News - UK: Sangatte, Labor
Migration News - February 2002 Volume 9 Number 2
IOM - France - Voluntary Return Assistance to Irregular Migrants
Blink – Sangatte to close soon
Counter Trafficking Best Practices
IOM – Best Practices for Counter Trafficking
IOM Counter Trafficking Strategy for the Balkans and Neighbouring countries
G8 Justice and Interior Ministers' Progress Report on Counter-Terrorism
Global Programme against Trafficking in Human Beings
Kosovo
Kosovo Information Project (KIP)
IOM - Kosovo Information Project (KIP) - A Joint ICMPD/IOM Project
|
ARC |
Application Registration Card |
|
ACPO |
Association of Chief Police Officers |
|
AVID |
Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees |
|
CWASU |
The Child and woman Abuse Studies Unit |
|
DFID |
Department for International Development |
|
EEA |
European Economic Area |
|
ELR |
Exceptional leave to Remain |
|
FYROM |
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
|
HEP |
Human Evacuation Programme |
|
IAT |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal |
|
ICMPD |
International Centre for Migration Policy Development |
|
ILR |
Indefinite Leave to Remain |
|
IND |
Immigration and Nationality Directorate |
|
IOM |
Organisation for Migration |
|
NASS |
National Asylum Support Process |
|
NGO |
Non Governmental Organisation |
|
RCO |
Refugee Community Organisation |
|
RQA |
Return and Reintegration of Qualified Afghans Programme |
|
RQUN |
Return and Reintegration of Qualified Ugandan Nationals Programme |
|
SAL |
Standard Acknowledgement Letter |
|
UNCHR |
United Nations Refugee Agency |
|
UNMIK |
United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo |
|
VARP |
Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme |
|
VRP |
Voluntary Returns Programme |
Table 1 – Applications, decisions and information for those applying for asylum in the UK excluding dependants, by main geographical areas 1992 – 2000(1)
Table 2 - Removals and voluntary departures (1) of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, by nationality, 1997 to 2000
|
|
|
|
| website sponsored by:
European Union, Church of Sweden Aid, Uppsala, Zentralstelle für Arbeitsvermittlung (ZAV), Frankfurt/M. |
| website administered by: AGEF gGmbH, Berlin, info@agef.de , www.reintegration.net, www.agef.net |
