Submitted to the Second Meeting of the Steering Committee for the NGO-UNHCR Reach-Out Process by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, London, U.K.. Please provide any feedback or interest in leading/participating on any of the following to LMACMILL@AMNESTY.ORG or to Leanne MacMillan, Refugee Program Coordinator at facsimile number +44 171 956 1157 by April 30, 2000.

Background

At the New York Consultation on Strengthening Collaboration between UNHCR and Humanitarian and Human Rights NGOs in Support of the International Refugee Protection System (New York Consultation) participants offered suggestions on how to improve advocacy and promotion of protection principles. In particular, it was suggested that an immediate area for collaboration would be that of accession to and compliance with the 1951 Convention. It was understood that this area of concern was shared by most NGOs and the UNHCR and likely a fruitful area for early collaboration given that the UNHCR identified accession to the 1951 Convention as a priority in its protection promotion activities.

The following is based on the more detailed report of the New York Consultation which includes a discussion of the threats to protection principles summarised for the purposes of this task force as follows:

Increasingly, states are in open violation of their treaty obligations. Many are instituting regulations, or taking administrative measures, which, for example, impede or pre-empt access to refugee status determination procedures or effectively result in refoulement.
Assistance usually takes precedence over protection. It was argued that UNHCR tended to give overriding importance to maintaining its assistance operations in refugee situations, at the expense of protection principles.
Since UNHCR both sets protection standards and is responsible for ensuring that they are applied in the field, any compromises it makes may reverberate among other organisations involved in a given situation.
There are many NGO “silent witnesses” who see human rights violations but fear they will lose access to the people they are serving or endanger staff on the ground if they disclose those violations. These concerns often inhibit NGOs from undertaking advocacy, and result in lost opportunities for addressing violations.
There are too few experienced UNHCR protection officers in the field. Protection requires specialised knowledge and skills, and very few other UN or NGO field staff have those skills.
States prefer flexible, situation-specific policies for dealing with asylum-seekers rather than abiding by established international law.

Recommendations and Action

On the basis of the above the Consultation decided to focus on the following recommendations. Possible action to follow is suggested for discussion by those NGOs interested in working on these recommendations.

Recommendation 1:
Establish an independent body to monitor adherence to the 1951 Refugee Convention or develop monitoring mechanisms based on Article 35 of the 1951 Convention.

Possible Action:
Given that there is very little consensus on this matter it is likely necessary to circulate a compilation of papers based on the information produced to date by NGOs and the working papers of the Gap Consultation process. It would prove helpful to have a core group looking at this issue with a view to determining a way forward and to work with the advocacy task force six.
Recommendation 2:
Support UNHCR’s Accessions Campaign and lobby to make membership of EXCOM contingent upon accession to the 1951 Convention.

Possible Action:
Given that this campaign is underway and the issue is straightforward it is proposed that NGOs target their own governments, or for international NGOs to select a number of governments to lobby for accession based on the materials available from UNHCR and other NGOs which have already conducted such campaigns . The means chosen would have to be according to the methods of each NGO, but it would be important to coordinate this effort and to provide feedback to each other on progress made. (In discussion the Steering Committee suggested that the relevant treaties and instruments on statelessness be included as part of this initiative and also noted that the core materials for working on this accessions campaign have already been developed and are available from UNHCR for mass distribution. It also noted that the preferred approach to an accessions campaign might be on a regional basis and that any strategies should take working with NGOs within the region would be prudent. It is assumed that any strategy would be based on as much consultation as possible).
Recommendation 3:
Incorporate a compliance objective into theAccessions Campaign.

Possible Action:
In consultation with UNHCR identify governments with the most egregious records of compliance and target these governments through NGO campaigning and lobbying approaches. It would be the objective of this task force to identify strategies for gaining greater compliance and to work closely with the advocacy task force six.

Task Force Six: Advocacy

Submitted for discussion to the Second Meeting of the Steering Committee for the NGO-UNHCR Reach-Out Process by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, London, U.K. Please provide any feedback or interest in leading/participating on any of the following to LMACMILL@AMNESTY.ORG or to Leanne MacMillan, Refugee Program Coordinator at facsimile number +44 171 956 1157 by March 31, 2000.

Background:

At the New York Consultation on Strengthening Collaboration between UNHCR and Humanitarian and Human Rights NGOs in Support of the International Refugee Protection System (New York Consultation) participants offered suggestions on how to improve advocacy and promotion of protection principles. Many participants at the New York meeting expressed the strong desire of NGOs to play a more active role in the EXCOM process. It was also noted that the main obstacle to assuming such a role is States’ resistance to NGO involvement. While NGOs do presently have an opportunity to participate at formal EXCOM processes, this is not a right as exists in other UN fora. So, the task at hand is to first, review the access arrangements that NGOs have at other international fora, second, to review the role of NGOs in other international consultations/campaigns where rights are articulated and third, on the basis of this understanding, discern what would be the preferred arrangement for EXCOM. It would also be important as part of this review and planning to continue to build on the existing NGO coalition now asking for some form of access to the Conclusions drafting process.

However, an abundance of opportunities exist at the international level in addition to the EXCOM process for advocacy on refugee protection concerns. This task force should therefore identify where and how to locate their advocacy work and explore models of advocacy that will be effective.

For example, it has been noted that in the recent response to the crisis in Kosovo a very limited number of NGOs were invited to critical decision-making meetings at various points in the crisis. In fact, at no time were human rights NGOs allowed to participate at meetings where other IGOs, governments, implementing partners and humanitarian assistance NGOs were invited as a matter of course. As a result, some human rights NGOs established links with humanitarian assistance NGOs in order to have their concerns conveyed. While this had the advantage of maintaining frequent dialogue with humanitarian assistance NGOs, identifying common concerns and sharing information (including policy analysis and observations from the field level) it had the distinct disadvantage of putting firmly on the agenda at these meetings core refugee protection concerns as observed by human rights NGOs.

UNHCR’s ability to stand up to state pressure is a key factor. Some participants argued that UNHCR is only as effective as its Member States allow it to be, and that it lacks the autonomy to monitor the behaviour of States effectively and impartially.
The role of NGOs in standard-setting processes was considered unsatisfactory in various respects. Some speakers felt that both UNHCR and States resent NGO “interference” in standard-setting and block NGOs from participating in those processes.
NGOs must galvanise forces to influence policy-makers and mobilise public opinion. Refugee issues must be incorporated into foreign policy, and into public debate on foreign policy issues.
NGO criticism of UNHCR needs to be complemented by NGO pressure on States to assume more responsibility for refugees. Their practice of off-loading this responsibility onto UNHCR is dangerous and reduces effectiveness.
The notion of “ethical internationalism” should be promoted to help bolster support for humanitarian and protection work. There has been a 38 per cent drop in assistance aid since 1992.

Recommendations and Action

At the New York Consultation meeting participants offered the following recommendations on how to improve advocacy and promotion of protection principles. Possible actions are suggested for discussion by those NGOs interested in working on these recommendations.

Recommendation 1:
Continue strengthening partnerships between NGOs and UNHCR through the measures detailed in the PARinAC Oslo Declaration and Plan of Action;

Possible Action:
Perhaps what is needed first is to remind NGOs of the rich resource that the Oslo Declaration provides on how collaboration is intended to take place. (In discussion the Steering Committee noted that there currently exists a network of NGOs through the PARinAC processes and CIS processes that should be reinvigorated).
Recommendation 2:
Use successful models to create new collaborative advocacy efforts (for example, UNHCR and NGOs recently worked together to challenge detention practices and summary exclusion in the US).

Possible Action:
on the basis of the lessons learned in the US example identify a model for how to collaborate on emerging issues of common concern. The goal would be to have in place the elements for collaboration that could be triggered on quick notice. For example, an ability to collaborate quickly might be simplified by preparing in advance communications trees (via email or fax) so that concerned NGOs would be able to alert each other of initiatives. It might be desirable to set up a secure website or discussion database so that NGOs can keep each other informed and suggest areas for collaboration. If the group can identify issues that are ripe for consultation immediately, then perhaps the US detention model referred to above could be applied to those issues. It would be important to promote collaboration at the national, regional and international level depending on the particular issue.
Recommendation 3:
Institute the practice of advance consultations between UNHCR and NGOs on such matters as the annual theme of EXCOM, the Note on International Protection and the Conclusions on Protection, and undertake these consultations early enough so as to have an effect on the quality and efficacy of NGOs’ advocacy efforts with Member States.

Possible Action:
Given that there is consensus on the need for this form of consultation, it would seem that there is little need for any further research on this issue. Therefore, it would seem appropriate for a number of interested NGOs to jointly request that UNHCR plan for a consultation to take place before the 1999 meeting of EXCOM and to share their views at that time on the substance of themes, the Note and the Conclusions and could helpfully provide guidance on which governments NGOs might usefully target in their campaigning and lobbying initiatives around EXCOM.
Recommendation 4:
Create collaborative internal/external reference groups (for example, UNHCR could place an NGO expert on women’s or children’s issues in the Department of International Protection);

Possible Action: Call on NGOs interested in exploring the creation of internal/external reference groups to propose a plan and issues to focus on.
Recommendation 5:
Form a media advisory group.

Possible Action: There was not a detailed discussion of this idea at the New York meeting so it would seem appropriate to call on NGOs to suggest what the purpose of a media advisory group would be, how it would work and how to identify those in NGOs who might belong to it.
Recommendation 6:
Use Goodwill Ambassadors more effectively for protection advocacy and promotion purposes.

Possible Action:
There was not a detailed discussion of this idea at the New York meeting so it would seem appropriate to call on NGOs to suggest what the purpose of goodwill ambassadors would be, the sorts of issues that they might meaningfully promote and how they should be identified. Since a number of humanitarian assistance agencies already use this approach in their campaigning and media work it would be useful to get their views
Recommendation 7:
Improve coordination between humanitarian and human rights organisations, through more explicit acknowledgement and exploitation of their respective strengths.

Possible Action:
This recommendation relates to a number of the task forces. It would seem to be the case that there are varying levels for improving coordination between humanitarian and human rights organisations and a specific opportunity to build on the collaboration that now takes place between a limited number of “self-appointed” NGOs at international fora. One of the concerns of this group of NGOs is to ensure that when they put forward positions on refugee protection matters that they do so in an inclusive manner. Given the difficulty in obtaining information on a timely basis of those protection issues before EXCOM, it is unlikely that the collaboration between NGOs will improve — essentially, it is those NGOs with a presence in Geneva or with a dedicated refugee protection staff person who contribute to this process. It might be the case that NGOs take better advantage of the pre-EXCOM NGO fora to consult, however, the timing and structure of this are problematic. Perhaps this is an area where better internet based or email based communication would be productive. However, this implies that each organisation identify who would be responsible for participating in this type of advocacy.
Recommendation 8:
Create a manual on advocacy, including both field and capital-oriented [i.e. home government] advocacy.

Possible Action:
Given that a number of NGOs already have advocacy manuals it might be a useful departure point to review these with a view to creating a manual specifically on the techniques for advocacy on refugee protection concerns. Therefore, all organisations with these sorts of manuals should send them to????? (The Steering Committee is looking for a volunteer for this initiative).

Comments? Questions? Contact the Webmaster at: webmaster@icva.ch. Any use of the ICVA logo requires prior written consent from the ICVA Secretariat.

what’s new! | information resources | calendar | member agencies | about icva

advanced search | site map
text-only site | about this site