Protracted Refugee Situation in Thailand: Towards solutions

Transcription

1 1 Protracted Refugee Situation in Thailand: Towards solutions Presentation to the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand 1 February 2006 Gil Loescher and James Milner James and I are very grateful to UNHCR for organizing our trip to Thailand. Everyone from Hasim and his staff in Bangkok to the Field Offices in Mae Hong Son, Mae Sot and Kanchanaburi, from secretarial staff to drivers, went all-out for us in making this trip possible. We are also grateful to TBBC for its assistance and contacts. During the past three weeks, we have spoken to an incredibly wide range of people in the Thai government and in the provinces, as well as in the Thai military, the UN and other international organizations and NGOs, a number of major donor missions, several Thai and Burmese civil society organizations, and refugees themselves and their camp and political representatives. Perhaps the most memorable event during the trip was a visit to the Handicap International prosthetics centre in Ban Moi Soi camp. Back home in England, I visit a prosthetics centre to try to learn to walk again, and so I wanted to see how the refugees did it. When we reached the Handicap International centre at the camp, we were confronted with a set of steep stairs. We stopped to figure out what to do. Suddenly, several refugees, who were themselves amputees, emerged from the building and proceeded to carry me and my chair up the steps while wearing their prosthetic legs. This experience demonstrated for me the determination of Burmese refugees to carry on with their lives, to innovate, and to meet the challenges they confront every day. Indeed, if there is one clear message that we received from the refugees it is that they want to be part of the solution to their plight. Refugee camps on the Thai/Myanmar border have been in existence for more than 20 years and an entire generation knows little more than life in the camps. The situation in Thailand is clearly ripe for a new approach. This trip is part of a bigger project on protracted refugee situations based at the University of Oxford. In late 2001, we visited Dadaab, a series of camps in Northern Kenya that has been home to 120,000 Somali refugees since At the time, Dadaab was notorious as the most violent camps in the world, and conditions there were awful. We were very depressed by what we saw and on the plane-ride home we talked about little else. We soon realised that there were dozens of other protracted refugee situations. Despite the growing significance of the problem, chronic and seemingly unending refugee situations had yet to feature prominently on the international political agenda. Since the early 1990s, the international community had largely focused on refugee emergencies, delivering humanitarian assistance to refugees and war affected populations, and encouraging large-scale repatriation programmes in high-profile regions. To fill the gap, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies, had been left to

2 2 cope with caring for these forgotten populations and attempting to mitigate the negative implications of prolonged exile. We decided this was an issue that needed much more attention both on the policy and advocacy front and resolved to examine how the human rights and security challenges of long-term refugee situations could be addressed in a more comprehensive, integrated and effective manner. The initial phase of the project has been based on five case studies: Somalis in Kenya, Burundians in Tanzania, Liberians in Guinea, Bhutanese in Nepal and Burmese refugees in Thailand. We have conducted field research in East and West Africa, and have presented initial findings in various forums in Geneva, London and Ottawa. The results of the first phase of the project have been published as a short monograph in the form of an Adelphi Paper for the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. 1 Our research is not an academic exercise, but a project intended to contribute to finding solutions to long-standing refugee problems. To this end, phases two and three of the project will involve drawing-up comprehensive plans of action for individual protracted refugee situations and developing a set of policy-focused tools. What we intend to do tonight is to share with you some of the findings from our recent research. We will begin by discussing: What is a protracted refugee situation, the nature and scope of the problem, and the trends and geographic distribution of major protracted refugee situations in the world today Secondly, I will briefly discuss the causes of protracted refugee situations and their consequences, which involve both human rights and political and security impacts Finally, I will argue that solutions to protracted refugee situations need to be found within the broader political and economic context within which they exist. Historically, it is within this larger strategic and political context that solutions have been found particularly in the past case of the international response to the Indochinese refugees in Thailand and Southeast Asia. In the second half of the presentation, James will draw on our preliminary findings from our fieldwork in Thailand to outline tangible steps that we feel can be taken in the short, medium and long term to contribute to a solution to the Burmese refugee situation in Thailand. Nature and scope of the problem Any examination of long-standing refugee populations in the developing world should begin with a definition of the nature and causes of protracted refugee situations. 1 Gil Loescher and James Milner, Protracted Refugee Situations: Domestic and international security implications, Adelphi Paper 375, Abingdon: Routledge for The International Institute for Strategic Studies, July 2006.

3 3 UNHCR defines a protracted refugee situation as: one in which refugees find themselves in a long-lasting and intractable state of limbo. Their lives may not be at risk, but their basic rights and essential economic, social and psychological needs remain unfulfilled after years in exile. A refugee in this situation is often unable to break free from enforced reliance on external assistance. 2 About 2/3 of refugees in the world today are trapped in protracted refugee situations. These situations occur on most continents in a range of environments including camps, rural settlements and urban centres. The overwhelming majority of these situations are to be found in some of the world s poorest and most unstable regions, and are most frequently the result of neglect and inaction by a range of regional and international actors. Trends in protracted refugee situations Protracted refugee situations are not new. During the 1980s, there existed major long-standing refugee populations in Southeast Asia, Central America, South Asia, the Horn of Africa and southern Africa. In the early 1990s, a number of these long-standing refugee populations who had been displaced as a result of Cold War conflicts in the developing world went home. For example, in Southern Africa, huge numbers of Mozambicans, Namibians and others repatriated. In Indochina, the Cambodians in exile in Thailand returned home and Vietnamese and Laotians were resettled to third countries or were repatriated. With the conclusion of conflicts in Central America, the vast majority of displaced Nicaraguans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans returned to their home countries. In 1993, in the midst of the resolution of these conflicts, there remained 27 protracted refugee situations, with a total population of 7.9 million refugees. While these Cold War conflicts were being resolved, and as refugee populations were being repatriated, new intra-state conflicts emerged and resulted in massive new flows during the 1990s in the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes, and West Africa. Millions more refugees were displaced as a consequence of ethnic and civil conflict in Iraq, the Balkans, the Caucuses and Central Asia. Consequently, the global refugee population mushroomed in the early 1990s. More than a decade later, many of these conflicts and refugee situations remain unresolved. As a result, the number of protracted refugee situations is greater now than at the end of the Cold War. At the end of 2003, there were 38 protracted refugee situations, with a total refugee population of 6.2 million. While there are fewer refugees in protracted situations today, the number of situations has greatly increased. In addition, refugees are spending longer periods of time in exile. It is estimated that the average length of time of protracted refugee situations, has increased from nine years in 1993 to an incredible 17 years at the end of With a global refugee population of over 16.3 million at the end of 1993, 48% of the world s refugees were in protracted situations. Ten years later, with a global refugee population of 9.6 million at the end of 2003, over 64% of the world s refugees were in protracted refugee situations. 2 UNHCR, Executive Committee of the High Commissioner s Programme, Protracted Refugee Situations, UN Doc. EC/54/SC/CRP.14, 10 June UNHCR, Protracted Refugee Situations, 2004.

4 4 Geographic distribution Protracted refugee situations occur in all major regions of the world. Sub- Saharan Africa hosts the largest number of chronic refugee situations with 22, involving 2.3 million refugees. In contrast, the geographical area comprising CASWANAME (Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and the Middle East) hosts eight major protracted situations, accounting for 2.7 million refugees. The overwhelming majority of these refugees are the Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, totalling nearly 2 million refugees at the end of In Asia, there exist five chronic situations, including 670,000 refugees. Clearly, Thailand is not alone in facing the challenge of the prolonged presence of large refugee populations. Causes of protracted refugee situations As argued by UNHCR, 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 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. 4 This analysis illustrates how protracted refugee situations are the combined result of the prevailing situations in the country of origin, the policy responses of the country of asylum, and the lack of sufficient donor government engagement in these situations. In fact, protracted refugee situations are caused largely by both a lack of engagement in a range of peace and security actors to address the conflict or human rights violations in the country of origin and a lack of donor government involvement with the host country. Failure to address the situation in the country of origin means that the refugee cannot return home. Failure to engage with the host country reinforces the perception of refugees as a burden and a security concern, which leads to encampment and a lack of local solutions. As a result of these failures, humanitarian agencies, such as UNHCR and NGOs, are left to compensate for the inaction or failures of those actors responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Consequences: Human rights implications An increasing number of host states respond to protracted refugee situations by pursuing policies of containing refugees in isolated and insecure refugee camps, typically in border regions. This trend, recently termed the warehousing of refugees, has significant human rights and economic implications. More generally, the prolonged encampment of refugee populations has led to the violation of a number of rights contained in the 1951 Refugee Convention, 4 UNHCR, Protracted Refugee Situations, June 2004.

5 5 including freedom of movement and the right to seek wage-earning employment. Restrictions on employment and on the right to move beyond the confines of the camps deprive long-staying refugees of the freedom to pursue normal lives and to become productive members of their new societies. Faced with these restrictions, refugees become dependent on subsistence-level assistance, or less, and lead lives of poverty, frustration and unrealized potential. Containing refugees in camps prevents their presence from contributing to regional development and state-building. Our research and that of others reveal that in cases where refugees have been allowed to engage in the local economy, it has been found that refugees can have a positive impact on the [local] economy by contributing to agricultural production, providing cheap labour and increasing local vendors income from the sale of essential foodstuffs. 5 When prohibited from working outside the camps, refugees cannot make such contributions. Consequences: Political and security implications Unresolved refugee situations represent a significant political phenomenon as well as a humanitarian problem. Prolonged refugee populations are a critical element in continuing conflict and instability and have obstructed peace processes and caused bilateral tensions and conflicts between governments. The long-term presence of large refugee populations have been a source of international mainly regional conflict through causing instability in neighbouring countries, triggering intervention, and sometimes giving a basis to armed elements within camps that can form a source of insurgency, resistance and even terrorist movements. The militarization of refugee camps creates a security problem for the country of origin, the host country and the international community. The prolongation of refugee crises may not only cause such direct security concerns but also have indirect security implications. Tensions between refugees and the local population often arise as refugees are perceived to receive preferential treatment, especially as access to local social services such as health and education becomes increasingly difficult while such services may be widely available in the refugee camps. As donor government engagement for camp-based refugee population decreases over time, however, competition between refugees and the host population over scarce resources becomes an increasing source of insecurity. In the same way, reductions in assistance in the camps may lead some refugees to pursue coping strategies such as banditry, prostitution and petty theft, which creates additional local security concerns. Comprehensive Plans of Action Finally, in seeking solutions to protracted refugee situations, it is important to examine lessons from the past. Past solutions to protracted refugee situations in Europe, SEAsia and Central America have succeeded because they not only addressed the needs of refugees but also the interests and concerns of host states, countries of 5 UNHCR, Executive Committee of the High Commissioner s Programme, Economic and Social Impact of Massive Refugee Populations on Host Developing Countries, as well as Other Countries, UN Doc. EC/54/SC/CRP.5, 18 February 2004.

6 6 origin and donor states. These initiatives also benefited from the engagement of a broad range of actors from the peace and security, development and humanitarian communities. As you all know, Thailand has been confronted with protracted refugee situations in the past. I first started visiting Thailand in the early 1980s to visit the refugee camps along the borders with Cambodia and Laos. It took nearly 20 years to resolve these chronic refugee situations. While there are important differences between the current Burmese protracted refugee situation and the Indochinese cases, the lessons of the Indochinese CPA provide a useful conceptual framework. What we have learned from our own research on the CPA and from the research of Alexander Betts, 6 one of our colleagues on the project, are that successful comprehensive plans of action should be: Comprehensive: drawing on the entire range of durable solutions Cooperative: based on inter-state burden sharing. Countries of asylum cannot solve protracted refugee situations on their own. There needs to be engagement by both regional actors and the international community. Collaborative: involving a broad range of UN agencies and NGOs. UNHCR and humanitarian agencies alone cannot find a solution. There is a need for peace and security and development actors to play a sustained role. In addition, for comprehensive approaches to succeed, certain political preconditions need to exist: There need to be stability and some degree of political normalcy in the country of origin; a viable country of origin and co-operation with the refugee sending country make repatriation possible In any comprehensive plan, the political interests and roles of different stakeholders need to be strong and sustained. In the CPA, there existed a consensus among host states, countries of origin and third countries beyond the region as well as a commitment to inter-state burden sharing and a recognition of the danger of free-riding. It is also important that political logjams be broken in order to create the necessary diplomatic opportunities. In the case of the CPA, there were important linakges between finding a solution to the protracted refugee situations and other areas of regional politics. For example, Vietnam linked its co-operation on the return of refugees to opening new trade opportunities for itself and joining ASEAN. Similarly, the US, after opposing repatriation for years, agreed to permit returns to Vietnam in exchange for the normalization of relations with Hanoi and 6 See: Alexander Betts, Comprehensive Plans of Action: Insights from CIREFCA and the Indochinese CPA, New Issues in Refugee Research, Geneva: UNHCR, 2006.

7 7 securing peace in Cambodia. In addition, geo-political changes at end of Cold War, such as the collapse of key patron-client relationships such as the Soviet-Vietnam alliance and the rapproachment between Vietnam and China, created diplomatic opportunities to finally settle the long-standing Indochinese protracted refugee situation. Finally, it is important to note that the role of UNHCR was critical in promoting solutions to the long-standing Indochinese refugee problem. A key factor was the quality of leadership and commitment to finding solutions, particularly at the Geneva level. Early and high-level planning was essential. UNHCR acted as a catalyst, keeping the negotiations on-track and all the major players on-board. An overall strategic framework similar, but not necessarily identical, to the Indochinese CPA, will be necessary to find a long-term solution to the Burmese protracted refugee situation. This will take time and patience, but the international community should be thinking and planning for it now. We should all remember and be encouraged by the fact that history contains repeated examples of determination and creativity by organizations and individuals who have shown leadership and commitment to finding solutions. We have successfully resolved protracted refugee situations in the past, and can do so again. In the meantime, there are a number of measures that can be taken now in order to prepare for more long-term solutions. James will discuss some of these in the second half of the presentation while presenting our initial research findings from Thailand. Findings from Thailand and recommendations As Gil has noted, our research has considered a number of diverse historical and contemporary cases. These cases have taught us two related and important lessons: First, that humanitarian agencies like UNHCR and humanitarian NGOs cannot single-handedly resolve protracted refugee situations. UNHCR has an international mandate to find solutions for refugees, but it cannot fulfil this mandate without the support of other actors. Second, truly comprehensive solutions to longterm displacement require the sustained engagement of a wide range of political, strategic, development and humanitarian actors. Building from these lessons, we have proposed a solutions framework a sort of generic blueprint for the resolution of protracted refugee situations. This framework involves co-ordinated actions by political, development and humanitarian actors in the short, medium and long term to create the foundations, both in the country of asylum and in the country of origin, for a truly comprehensive solution. Details of this framework can be found in our Adelphi Paper. Of all the contemporary cases we have considered, Thailand is the most advanced in its thinking on solutions for long-term displaced populations. The leadership and initiative demonstrated by the Royal Thai Government in recent months is to be commended, and provides some important components of a response to the question of the Burmese refugee population. Conceptually, there has been a shift in approach from a care and maintenance approach to a new approach, focused

8 8 on the long-term objective of finding solutions. There seems to be broad consensus on the need to allow refugees to lead more productive lives which would, in turn, better equip them for the challenges of either return to their home country or starting a new life in resettlement countries. We have been especially encouraged by the level of dialogue between actors, as demonstrated by the discussions in Chiang Mai in December The leadership and willingness to innovate demonstrated by the Royal Thai Government is clearly an example for other governments around the world hosting protracted refugee situations. At the same time, UNHCR and the Committee for Co-ordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT) are to be commended for their initiatives in recent months. This model of tripartite dialogue and co-operation is the essential foundation for future developments. This co-operation has led to five key developments in the discussion of refugee policy in Thailand: 1. The first is increased educational opportunities for refugees, including vocational training and the teaching of the Thai language 2. The second relates to the work of the Provincial Admission Boards and status determination procedures 3. The third is the opening of the possibility of third country resettlement from all 9 camps 4. The fourth is a more comprehensive, managed and on-going approach to registration, possibly leading to identity documents 5. The fifth is the discussion about increased economic opportunities for refugees, including income-generating projects and the discussion of the potential contribution of refugees relative to the economic priorities of refugee hosting areas In addition, UNHCR and CCSDPT have identified a number of gaps in the protection and assistance programmes. Filling these gaps and moving the policy discussions from theory to practice is the best way to begin the process of a comprehensive solution. It is time to start working for solutions, and we have been struck that the elements of the first stages of such a response are already being discussed. In presenting our initial findings, I will make some recommendations on how the new initiatives may be implemented in a way that is mutually reinforcing. I will also outline a number of other areas for innovation. Finally, I will discuss those longerterm steps that need to be taken to achieve a truly comprehensive solution.

9 9 Moving from theory to practice: priorities in the medium term On-going and dependable registration, the granting of individual status and the issuance of identity cards and registration numbers is an important foundation for a solutions-oriented approach. Any effective comprehensive solution is premised on an accurate and maintained account of the exact membership of the refugee population. The re-registration that has recently been conducted is an important start, but it must be kept up-to-date. By maintaining current and credible registration data, durable solutions can be more readily identified. Investing in the on-going registration of births, addressing the claims of new arrivals through the on-going work of the Provincial Admission Boards and tracking the inevitable changes in the refugee population will benefit both refugees and those trying to manage the situation. Building from a current and credible population database, it is important to develop and implement the proposed initiatives as part of an integrated, solutionsoriented approach. If programmes are carried-out in isolation of each other, their contribution will be limited. Instead, if programmes are implemented in a way that links them to an on-going solutions strategy, they will come to have greater benefit. Increased educational opportunities, vocational training, language training and income-generating projects can all contribute to preparing refugees for a solution, in their country of origin, in a third country, or as a means of achieving self-sufficiency in Thailand. In this sense, it is important to remember that most refugees along the Thai-Myamnar border were largely self-reliant for the first ten years of their stay in Thailand. Here, the experience of Tanzania may provide a useful example. Tanzania hosts more than 600,000 refugees. Some 180,000 of these refugees are Burundians who have been in exile since Most of these refugees live in camps. Like Thailand, Tanzania is confronted with the challenge of allowing the refugee population to be productive within a managed environment. To meet this challenge, Tanzania opened a number of so-called common markets in the early 1990s, where refugees and the local population could meet and trade in a designated area. These common markets were outside the camps, and refugees with valid registration numbers and identification cards were allowed to leave the camps to conduct business in the common markets. Skills developed by the refugees through vocational training such as bicycle repair and tailoring were offered to the local population. In exchange, the refugees were able to buy fresh produce and non-food items traded by the local population. Such an approach may be considered in Thailand. Vocational training in the camps could be focused on providing those goods and services required by the local population and the local economy. Thai language training would further the refugees ability to engage in this exchange. Registration and the issuance of identity cards would enable the Thai authorities to regulate who enters these markets and the movement between the camps and the common markets. The establishment of such economic centres would benefit the local population while providing refugees with the opportunity to work, apply the skills they learn in the camp, and develop additional skills, especially entrepreneurial skills. Finally, offering such opportunities

10 10 could reduce pressures on resettlement as refugees will be able to engage in meaningful and productive activities while awaiting a durable solution. That being said, resettlement also needs to be managed as part of an integrated approach. Resettlement undertaken in isolation will lead to a wide range of problems, including unmanageable expectations within the refugee population, while serving as a pull-factor and a brain-drain. Managed well, however, resettlement will play a vital role in a comprehensive solution, and benefit not only those refugees who are resettled, but also those who remain in Thailand. This is the idea of the strategic use of resettlement, a concept developed in recent years in Geneva during the Global Consultations on International Protection. By using resettlement strategically, resettlement countries, UNHCR and the host country co-operate to resettle a portion of the total refugee population in such a way as to ensure the improvement of the protection environment and livelihood of those refugees not resettled. There have also been a number of other relevant developments in international resettlement policy in recent years. These developments have highlighted the three functions of resettlement: as a tool of protection for individual refugees, as a durable solution, and as a burden sharing mechanism. All three of these functions are relevant to resettlement activities in Thailand. As a durable solution, resettlement can offer a future for a number of refugees and groups of refugees who have been in exile for more than two decades. As a burden sharing mechanism, resettlement is a way for the international community to demonstrate its solidarity with Thailand, who has hosted successive waves of refugees for more than 30 years. Most importantly, resettlement is a tool of protection. As such, resettlement activities should prioritise those refugees identified as eligible for resettlement according to UNHCR criteria. For the past ten years, resettlement countries, NGOs and UNHCR have agreed that resettlement activities should prioritise 8 categories of refugees: refugees with legal and physical protection problems in the country of asylum women at risk, especially female-headed households who do not benefit from traditional community support structures survivors of violence and torture medically vulnerable cases unaccompanied minors elderly refugees refugees with family members abroad and refugees with no local integration prospects in their country of first asylum Resettlement countries recently reaffirmed these criteria at a regional meeting in Oslo. It was agreed that resettlement programmes should focus on the needs of refugees, not their integration potential once resettled. In this way, considerations of education, language skills and integration prospects have no place in the

11 11 determination of resettlement eligibility. Instead, resettlement should target those refugees and groups of refugees who meet the internationally-recognised resettlement criteria. It has also been widely recognized that resettlement programmes should be wellmanaged so as to not create more problems than they solve. Public information, documentation and consultation with the refugee community are all essential to a well-managed resettlement programme, and reduce both the possibility of fraud in the resettlement process and the potential for unrealistic expectations to be raised within the refugee population. Resettlement programmes should also be proactive, not reactive. In other words, UNHCR and NGO partners should be proactively identifying vulnerable refugees who meet the resettlement criteria as part of their on-going protection and assistance programmes. Finally, the implementation of the new initiatives proposed by the Royal Thai Government must be supported by addressing the gaps identified by the CCSDPT/UNHCR Draft Comprehensive Plan for Investing in improving the situation for refugees should be seen as the best way of stabilizing the current situation and providing the basis for a range of possible solutions, no matter how far in the future these solutions may be realized. Continued gaps in areas like food, shelter, community services, protection and health will frustrate efforts to find solutions, and must be addressed as part of the transition to a solutions-oriented programme. The importance of addressing these gaps was clear to us during our visit to the camps. Meeting these gaps would also boost the confidence of refugees themselves. To address a specific gap in the area of protection, a useful lesson may be drawn from an initiative in Kenya. To improve access for refugees to the national judicial system, the Kenyan government and UNHCR co-operated to form mobile courts. Recognising the difficulties for refugees to gain access to the Kenyan judicial system, the mobile courts programme brought the justice system to the camps. Under this scheme, UNHCR supported the sitting of the Kenyan court in the refugee camps on a regular basis to hear cases under Kenyan law. Along with other initiatives, the mobile court programme has dramatically improved the protection environment for all refugees. Actions to reinforce the initiatives In addition to implementing the initiatives proposed by the Royal Thai Government, our research has indicated the benefits of undertaking a range of other activities. First, there is a need to engage with the local population in a meaningful way. The importance of including the local population in the future planning of the refugee programme was a message we heard many times during our visit. Lessons from East Africa reinforce the importance of this message.

12 12 In response to a number of protection, security and environmental concerns in and around the Dadaab refugee camps in Northern Kenya, UNHCR introduced a series of interventions in the late 1990s, including the mobile courts and the Firewood Project. The goal of the project was to supply 30% of the firewood needs of the refugees through the employment of local suppliers. The Firewood Project has had a number of benefits. First, it has reduced the strain on the local environment by ensuring that firewood is collected in a managed and sustainable way. Second, it has ensured an income to the local population, thereby reducing grievances that may arise between refugees and the local population. Third, by providing a context within which the refugees and villagers can co-operate in a large-scale, mutually beneficial project, better understanding has been developed between the two groups. At the same time, such programmes, and more generally the presence of refugee and refugee assistance programme, could significantly contribute to longerterm local development. In fact, the prolonged presence of Burundian refugees in Western Tanzania has resulted in considerable investment in refugee populated areas. Initiatives known as Special Programmes for Refugee Affected Areas (SPRAAs) have resulted in significant investment in local schools, hospitals, transportation infrastructure and administrative capacity. More generally, regional centres like Kibondo have been transformed as the economic benefits of the refugee programme have been designed in such a way as to directly contribute to the local economy. These activities have improved the livelihood of the local population, while altering their perception of the impact of the presence of refugees. As illustrated by these examples, while the prolonged presence of refugees can result in a number of burdens on the host state and the local community, their presence can also bring with it a number of benefits. The objective of solutionsoriented programme planning should be to build on the benefits and mitigate the burdens. Another lesson applicable to Thailand is the importance of seeing the question of refugees within the broader migration context. While there are some 140,000 Burmese refugees in the 9 camps along the border, there some 1 million Burmese migrant workers. In addition to these groups, there are numerous asylum seekers, currently and potentially, who s need for protection still needs to be determined. According to our research, it is important to consider how these groups are related and how different solutions may apply to different sub-sets within these groups. More generally, we were struck by the diversity within the refugee populations and the range of individual circumstances that will need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive solution. To address this challenge, lessons may be learned from current efforts to find solutions for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Pakistan has hosted well over 1 million refugees from Afghanistan, many of whom have been in exile since With the change of circumstance in Afghanistan in recent years, UNHCR has been working closely with the Pakistani authorities on an initiative known as Afghanistan Plus. At the core of this initiative is the belief that within the population of exiled Afghans in Pakistan are a number of groups, including economic migrants, individuals with

13 13 established family links in Pakistan, and individuals with a continued need for international protection. Through detailed census, registration and survey work, UNHCR, the Afghan and Pakistani governments and a range of other international organizations have been able to fashion solutions appropriate for each category of Afghan. Such a holistic approach will likely prove useful for the Burmese in Thailand. A third lesson from our research is the need to reinforce the importance of the new approach at the local level. It is key that Governors and District Officers are committed supporters of this approach as they will be important counterparts for its implementation. More generally, there is a need for education within the local population on the question of refugees and the reasons for their prolonged stay in Thailand. Here, there is an important role to be played by the media and the need to present a more balanced view of refugees. One group that has been clearly instrumental in the conceptualization of a new approach has been civil society. In fact, we have been struck by the vibrancy and diversity of civil society groups, in Bangkok and the field, engaged in refugee, migrant, and human rights issues. Support for these groups, and the encouragement of additional groups engaged with refugees, will further contribute to the goal of finding solutions. A precondition for the successful implementation of a solutions-oriented approach, however, is increased donor engagement. Donors have an essential role to play. For a number of years, donors have been expressing concern about the state of asylum in Thailand. Now that the Royal Thai Government is taking the lead in proposing a new approach, donors cannot miss this vital opportunity to demonstrate their support in three ways. First, donor and resettlement countries need to participate in proactive and dependable resettlement planning. Resettlement planning is dependent on multi-year resettlement commitments and the provision of resources necessary to identify and prepare quality resettlement submissions. Given the current structuring of many resettlement programmes, Bangkok-based missions will need to co-ordinate with their Interior Ministries to ensure that such commitments can be made. Second, the implementation of a more solutions-oriented approach will have resource implications and require greater financial support from donors. There are concerns that gaps exist in the current assistance programme for Burmese refugees in Thailand. These gaps need to be filled, while additional resources need to be identified to support expanded educational opportunities, income-generating projects, engagement with the local community, and other programmes. This support needs to be appropriate in its scale, scope, dependability and sustainability. Finally, donor governments need to be more vocal in their endorsement of the new direction being articulated by the Royal Thai Government. It needs to be recognized that the demarches undertaken by CCSDPT and UNHCR last April have been met and surpassed by the Royal Thai Government. Political support for these undertakings will play an important role in ensuring that they are implemented at the field level.

14 14 Towards long-term solutions The initiatives being discussed in Thailand represent an exciting opportunity. However, while these initiatives could lay an important foundation, their implementation alone would not constitute a solution. While the kind of co-operation and dialogue that we have seen provides a good foundation, it will be necessary to engage in a number of other areas if a truly comprehensive solution to the Burmese refugee situation is to be realized. First, it is important to recognise that the Burmese refugee situation is regional in nature. In addition to Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India all host significant Burmese refugee populations. As the experience of responding to the Liberian refugees in West Africa clearly demonstrates, there is a need for co-ordination at the regional level to ensure that programmes are being implemented in a mutuallysupporting way. As the lessons of the Indochinese CPA made clear, regional responses are more effective. Second, it is important to engage with the development question. The incorporation of the refugee question into broader development planning in both the country of asylum and the country of origin will play a significant role in the realization of both a comprehensive solution and in the rehabilitation of refugee hosting areas. In this area, Thailand has again shown leadership. Multilateral development agencies should, however, be engaged in the question of proposed border economic development zones, to both provide support and to ensure that they are implemented in a way that balances development priorities and protection needs. It is also very encouraging that the needs of migrating and mobile populations were included in the UN Thailand Country Team s Common Country Assessment for This integrated approach should be furthered, especially in the planning and implementation of Thailand s work on achieving the Millennium Development Goals. By incorporating displaced peoples into development planning, the development benefits of hosting refugees will be more comprehensively realized and the development contributions for durable solutions can be more strategically planned. Finally, there is need for sustained engagement in the situation in Myanmar. As countless lessons of history illustrate, the country of origin is an essential partner in any comprehensive solution for protracted refugee situations. This engagement must come from political and diplomatic actors, both regionally and internationally. A humanitarian response to the needs of refugees in the region is not a substitute for engaging in the question of resolving the conditions in the country of origin that continue to force refugees to flee. Given the current political stalemate in Myanmar, it appears as though achieving stability there will be a long-term project. However, as the history of past comprehensive approaches shows, early planning for such a solution is essential. Change in the country of origin may come about in different and unexpected ways, and humanitarian agencies need to be ready to seize the opportunity created by such changes when they do occur.