Year: 2011 Last updated: 4/11/2010

Transcription

1 Year: 2011 Last updated: 4/11/2010 HUMANITARIAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (HIP) Title: NEPAL - Bhutanese refugees The activities proposed hereafter are still subject to the adoption of the financing decision ECHO/WWD/ BUD/2011/ CONTEXT Since the early 1990s, up to 108,000 Bhutanese refugees have been living in seven camps run by the UNHCR in the eastern districts of Nepal. This represents approximately 20 percent of the country's (Bhutan) population. 1 The first refugee camp in Nepal was established in 1990 after thousands of `Lhotsampas fled Bhutan fearing for their lives, after the government issued new citizenship rules disenfranchising many ethnic Nepalese families who had been living in the country since the 19th century. 2 The Bhutanese government considers the refugees as migrants who have no right to live in Bhutan. On the other hand, they are not Nepalese citizens either and therefore do not have the right to work or to own land in Nepal, and thus rely entirely on external assistance for their survival. In November 2007 started a third country resettlement programme for these refugees, strongly supported by the Government of Nepal, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and resettlement countries. 3 According to the UNHCR, more than Bhutanese refugees have since resettled, and the process is continuing. Most of them resettled in the USA, while the rest went to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. 4 While a large majority of the refugees have declared an interest in resettlement, many still would prefer to return to Bhutan, or stay in Nepal with a work permit. In any event, without a political solution, it will take several years at the current rate of progress for all the refugees to be resettled IRINN News, NEPAL, "Repatriation or resettlement for Bhutanese refugees?" See at 3 UNHCR Web Site, Briefing Notes, "Over 20,000 refugees resettled from Nepal", 8 September 2009, See at 4 IRINN News, NEPAL, op. cit.,

2 2. HUMANITARIAN NEEDS As of September 2010, over 34,500 refugees have resettled in third countries and there were still around 73,500 refugees living in seven camps. In order to rationalize and facilitate the assistance, it is planned to merge administratively 3 camps by the end of The closure of other camps is under discussion with the Nepali authorities. The main impediment affecting them is that the Nepalese government does not allow any activity that might bestow a more permanent status to the refugees (official policy of non-integration). Nepal is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Thus, refugees are considered foreigners with no political rights. Economic activity and property ownership are not allowed. While refugees have freedom of association, the government s policy of nonintegration limits their access to the economy. As such, they have little means to provide for their basic sustenance without external assistance. Consequently, no land has been donated for even the most basic cultivation, and, officially, refugees are not allowed to seek work outside, or to set up small enterprises within the camps. In reality, many young adults find work in the neighbouring villages and fields (mostly unskilled), and some have left the camps to become teachers in other parts of Nepal. However, refugee workers do not earn much, as local contractors take advantage of the illegality of the situation to impose extremely low wages. Moreover, local unions often protest to ensure that employment opportunities remain minimal for this Bhutanese population. Therefore refugees can hardly provide for their households and rely almost entirely on WFP food rations, and on vegetables and a number of non-food items supplied by the UNHCR. Many try to grow a handful of vegetables on microscopic land in between houses (in most cases between 1 to 3 square meters), initiated with the assistance of WFP s Home and Pot Gardening Projects (the former handed over to the refugees in 2004); other micro-projects include vocational training and small income-generating activities for women, but the possibilities to further develop such activities remain limited. The main problem with food is the possibility of occasional delays in supply due to shortage of WFP funds, last minute procurement and the frequent transport strikes and other blockades. As the Bhutanese refugees are a forgotten crisis and also because of donor fatigue, WFP has been experiencing some difficulties in funding its operation in the camps for the last years. A significant disruption in food deliveries (quantity and quality) would likely result in a deteriorating humanitarian situation. This would put the refugees at considerable risk of diseases related to malnutrition, reversing the progress made in their nutritional status achieved through steady food assistance. The most vulnerable refugees (malnourished children, elderly, pregnant woman), all presently assisted under a supplementary feeding programme, would suffer the most if emergency rations were not provided; acute malnutrition and micro-nutrient 2

3 deficiency disorders are already a concern inside the camps, although with a lower incidence than corresponding figures in the host districts of Morang and Jhapa HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE National / local response and involvement Bhutan and Nepal refuse to accept the refugees as citizens; this makes most of them entirely dependent on international assistance to meet their basic needs. International Humanitarian Response The IOM is in charge of the third country resettlement process, the UNHCR is in charge of protection and provision of non food items and WFP is in charge of delivering food assistance. These organizations also work with local and international implementing partners Constraints and ECHO response capacity in terms of: i.) access/humanitarian space; ii) partners; iii) absorption capacity on the ground and efficiency of operations Bandhas (strikes and blockades) often delay food transport and distribution. Security in the camps has been problematic at times, but has become more manageable and stable since the beginning of resettlement. However, political activity and anti-resettlement groups still voice their presence in the camps, as several refugees are still strongly against this option. So far the UN agencies in charge have been able to deliver adequate levels of humanitarian assistance, including protection. Envisaged ECHO response ECHO is planning to finance 1,200,000 of food aid in favor of the refugees, representing a maximum of 6 months of the camp population's food needs. Other donors are expected to finance the remaining part of the WFP programme, but in the context of a forgotten crisis and of donor fatigue, ECHO is one of the major and most reliable donors to this population. ECHO will continue to advocate for a political solution for the refugees, in association with the EU Delegation and relevant Commission services. Expected results of humanitarian aid interventions. ECHO's response will contribute to improving and/or stabilizing the nutritional status of the refugee population, particularly of the most vulnerable groups (malnourished children, elderly, pregnant women). 5 JAM 2004 draft report. At present, due to WFP/UNHCR intervention, the rate of global acute malnutrition among children under five is stable at 8.4% in the refugee camps. 3

4 4. LRRD, COORDINATION AND TRANSITION (1) Other DG ECHO interventions 2011 : DIPECHO -> 12 million EUR for South Asia of which around 3 million EUR expected for Nepal (2,88 million EUR in 2009) 2010 : Ad Hoc Decision of 1,5 million EUR in favor of conflict affected people 2010 : Ad Hoc Decision of 1,5 million EUR in favor of Bhutanese refugees (2) Other services/donors availability The European Commission (RELEX/AIDCO) is financing non food assistance in favor of the Bhutanese refugees with an average budget of 1,000,000 / year. (3) Other concomitant EU interventions n/a (4) Exit scenarios. If none, say why. The refugee caseload has been steadily decreasing, since November 2007, thanks to the third country resettlement option and, based on requests already put forward by a majority of the camps' population, that trend is expected to continue during 2011 and beyond. The UNHCR estimates that possibly up to 85% of the initial population may be willing and accepting third country resettlement. As the resettlement programme progresses and the number of those remaining in the camps steadily decreases, it is hoped that sustainable durable solutions will be found for the entire caseload within a reasonable timeframe. 5. OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL DETAILS The provisions of the financing decision ECHO/WWD/BUD/2011/01000 and the general conditions of the Partnership Agreement with the European Commission supersede the provisions in this document Contacts 6 Operational Unit in charge: ECHO/A4 Contact persons at HQ: Bernard Boigelot in the field: Luc Verna 5.2. Financial info Indicative Allocation: EUR 1,200,000 6 Single Forms will be submitted to DG ECHO using APPEL (e-single Form) 4

5 Breakdown as per Worldwide decision: Forgotten crises: : Food Assistance: EUR 1,200, Proposal Assessment Assessment round 1 - Description of the humanitarian aid interventions relating to this assessment round: Food assistance to the Bhutansese refugees remaining in camps, in Nepal - Indicative amount to be allocated in this round of proposals: up to EUR 1,200,000 - Cost will be eligible from: 01/01/ The expected initial duration of the Action is up to 6 months - Potential partners: WFP is a Preselected partner because the related activities present specific characteristics that require a particular type of body on account of its technical competence, its high degree of specialization or its administrative power 5