European Union GLOBAL COMPACT ON REFUGEES Fourth Formal consultations on the Global Compact on Refugees Geneva, 8-10 May 2018 EU coordinated Statement CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Global Compact on Refugees Fourth Formal consultations on DRAFT 2 (Geneva, 8-10 May 2018) EU Statement AGENDA ITEM 1 : INTRODUCTION (PART I) Excellency, Mr Chair, At the outset of this fourth round of formal consultations on the Global Compact on Refugees, I wish to share some introductory observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "Draft TWO". The Candidate Countries Montenegro *, Serbia* and Albania*, and the country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Ukraine align themselves with this statement. The EU and its Member States wish to thank UNHCR for having carefully listened to the different interventions before revising the previous text, integrating many comments and proposing a balanced and well-articulated second draft, including between part A ('mechanisms') and B ('areas in need of support'). At the same time we should make sure the length of the text does not increase excessively if we want the Global Compact to be practical and operational, taken into account the CRRF as an intrinsic part of the Compact. We are satisfied with the revised architecture of the text, notably the reformulation of the "Global Refugee Forum" instead of "Global Refugee Summits", the clarification of the context-specific focus of the "Support Platforms", as well as the clarification of the review and follow-up arrangements. The revised draft in front of us is clearly more solid and implementable. We therefore consider that the result is a very good progress in our discussions. Regarding solutions, we find the new formulations overall satisfactory and equitable. We are pleased to see that references to the 2030 Agenda have been maintained, though those could have been more visible. Similarly, we note that references to some important multilateral initiatives have been deleted, such as the Grand bargain: we are aware that not all States are part of it, but it is an important effort to strengthen the response to those in need, among which refugees. * Montenegro, Serbia and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process. 2
We also welcome the age, gender and diversity focus of the text and the attempts the mainstream gender-responsiveness throughout the text, although there still remains some gaps. As the New York Declaration, the Global Compact on Refugees is, and requires to be, grounded in a strong multilateral and political will to address collectively and globally refugee issues with a renewed commitment. The programme of action itself is a non-legally binding document meant for humanitarian and non-partisan purposes: protecting and assisting refugees and their hosts. In a spirit of togetherness, we are convinced that the Global Compact on Refugees can only live up to the level of our collective ambitions through renewed and amplified commitments by all parties, as the New York Declaration foresaw, which we suggest could be mentioned in the introduction as the basis for the Compact. We therefore call on all UN Member States to not shy away from committing towards refugees and host communities. The Global Compact on Refugees is not about imposing additional standards or burdens; it is not either about opening up the Geneva Refugee Convention - it is about recommitting collectively to foster comprehensive responses through a cooperative framework and an improved global system of burden- and responsibility-sharing, as we all agreed in the New York Declaration. We understand the legitimate concerns of developing countries linked to what some of them could perceive as risk of reducing, shifting existing development aid to refugees. Let us be clear that on the contrary, the Global Compact on Refugees should aim for additionality and not aid reduction or diversion. At the same time, development support can only be effectively delivered if refugees are included into national development systems, policies and plans. We are convinced that this is actually beneficial to all: refugees, host countries and local communities. Reciprocally, we are committed to provide development assistance to refugees and their hosts. We are also committed to continue providing humanitarian assistance to refugees, whenever and wherever necessary, in line with our wider commitments at the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May 2016 and the commitments of the Grand Bargain. We are equally willing to support countries of origin to tackle the root causes and create adequate living conditions. We encourage UNHCR to further mobilize the entire UN family and make sure that the Global Compact on Refugees is mainstreamed by all UN agencies, including regional and international financial institutions, at global, regional and country level. In this regard, we consider that the consistency with the reform of the United Nations is a key reference to be maintained in the GCR. 3
We are convinced that, while recognising the primary responsibility of States, mobilizing all relevant actors (civil society, local authorities, private sector, among others) is also indispensable to fulfil the promise of a multi-stakeholder approach. More detailed comments will be shared in writing. Thank you chair. 4
AGENDA ITEM 2 : PROGRAMME OF ACTION: MECHANISMS FOR BURDEN- AND RESPONSIBILITY SHARING (PART III.A) Excellency, Mr Chair, I wish to share some observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "Draft TWO" concerning now the agenda item 2 on mechanisms for burden- and responsibility sharing. First, we wish to express satisfaction to the adequate reference to the CRRF, since part II of the global compact is the CRRF as annex I to the New York Declaration. We welcome the reference in para 12 to countries of origin and would seek clarification on the "other contexts" to which the text refers. We welcome the formulation of para 13 of the programme of action underpinned by a strong partnership and participatory approach, involving refugees and host communities. We welcome the formulation of para 14 recognising the immense contribution of countries that receive and host refugees from their own limited resources to the collective good. We can accept the formulation of para 15, also with some formulation to reflect the necessary collective commitment to foster comprehensive responses. We consider that the overall architecture and mechanisms are now more suitable and effective for the objective pursued by the GCR. We welcome the formulation of para 16, removing the reference to 'costs' and referring to the impact of hosting, protecting and assisting refugees. We welcome the formulation of para 17 since efforts to avoid duplication are important. We would recommend, if possible, some indication on how to achieve this commendable objective. Concerning the "Global Mechanism for international Cooperation", we are overall satisfied with the revised architecture proposed in the text. We wish to support the objective of ensuring political will behind "Global Refugee Forum", including with a role for the UN Secretary General. As others, we would request information on timing, cost and location of the Forum. We welcome in para 19 the broad reference to pledges, not confined to financing, but how that financing is directed and other means of supporting as well, including policy. We would also suggest that Forums could be convened and co-hosted by 'regional organisations. 5
We expect the Global Refugee Forum to be the high level opportunity to take stock and assess future needs. Could UNHCR clarify the "review" foreseen? In relation to "the "national arrangements", we welcome the stronger reference to national leadership and ownership and reformulation proposed. We welcome the clarification of the mechanism and the reference to regional plans. In relation to "Support platform", we welcome a clearer formulation and the areas of support mentioned, notably political commitment. We would request clarification on the anticipated budgetary implications. Platforms should have finite, possibly quite focussed and targeted duration, at least initially in many instances. We wish to request clarifications on the linkages, complementarity and possible duplications. We welcome the reformulation of para 27 and the link to the UNHCR Executive Committee and the UNGA as well as the link to standby mechanisms. We encourage a stronger and more active involvement of the UNHCR Committees into the shift to the new, comprehensive, approach to refugee issues that the agency is leading with the GCR. Such involvement could imply more frequent GCR related discussions of the Committees. We appreciate the clarification on the Solidarity conference, and wonder whether they should not be the adequate occasion to refer to mutual commitments, which could help to unlock more comprehensive responses. We wish to express satisfaction for the expanded and clarified reference to regional and subregional approaches i, which our experience has demonstrated to be often the pertinent scale for responding to refugee situations. In relation to "key tools for effective burden and responsibility sharing", we welcome the clearer reformulation of para 33. We however regret the absence of reference to the Grand Bargain, which is committal on a voluntary basis. We support the clear reference to additionality of resources provided. We would suggest considering a reference to remittances. Concerning the multi-stakeholder and partnership approach, we welcome the formulation of respective role of States and UNHCR and to the partnership approach. We welcome the addition of the "members of host communities" and the reference to complaints mechanisms in para 35. 6
Besides the appreciated reference to the cooperation between humanitarian and development actors, we welcome the reference in para 36 to additionality. We strongly welcome the reference in new para 37 to the UN System, the contributions of the UNDG (United Nations Sustainable Development Group) and the UN Country Team and the consideration of refugees and host communities in the UNDAF (United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks). We would recommend UNHCR to increase the visibility of the GCR among UN agencies and support a greater ownership of the GCR by the entire UN system. The reference in the previous draft the reform of the UN system was adequate. We support the strong reference to data and evidence in the GCR and strongly welcome strengthening of data protection, and inclusion of interoperability of data. We welcome in para 48 the use of language from the last "omnibus" resolution on measuring the impact and adding some important elements on an apparent link with the GCR indicators; as well as explicit link between data measuring and follow-up. More detailed comments will be shared in writing. Thank you chair. 7
AGENDA ITEM 3: PROGRAMME OF ACTION: AREAS IN NEED OF SUPPORT RECEPTION AND ADMISSION (PART. III.B.1) Excellency, Mr Chair, I wish to share some observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "Draft TWO" concerning now the agenda item 3. While we support the grouping of response measures around the pillars of the CRRF as referred to in para 49, we would like to see a clarification of the scope of these measures to align them with the NY Declaration. We wish to express satisfaction that para 50 refers to the experience gathered with the CRRF, which should be reported in some way by UNHCR. We wish to underline that the GCR is not meant to be prescriptive, nor imposing additional burdens, but to operationalize the commitments made in the NY Declaration. Finally, the aim of the compact is not solely to ease the pressures on hosts, but all four objectives of the CRRF. In para 51, we support the reference to inclusive approach" for refugees and host community members. We also welcome more stringent language on vulnerabilities and specific needs. We recommend however to not only "take into account needs" but also "engage with" and "get input from" those persons. Finally we reiterate that reference should be made to "persons belonging to" minorities, as per agreed language. We agree that, in para 52, "success of the measures outlined in Part B hinges on robust and wellfunctioning mechanisms of burden- and responsibility-sharing" but would recommend to not confine this to "allocate resources" but rather refers to all forms of support that can be provided and is also referred to, e.g. in the section referring to the Support Platform. We support the reference in para 53 to national leadership and ownership, including plans as well as the request of host country. The Compact cannot deliver results without host country engagement, nor support be delivered independent from host country policies. We would suggest referring to "the international community in its entirety. In relation to reception and admission, we welcome the continued focus in paras 54-56 on preparedness and inclusion of linkages to internal displacement, and would encourage reinforcing the reference to national leadership. We welcome this expansion and reformulation discussed in our plenary consultations. 8
We broadly support the formulation of para 57 on immediate reception arrangements. We strongly welcome the spirit of a reference to alternative to encampment, which for us remains an essential, distinct feature of the GCR. We would however recommend reformulating that particular sentence in supporting "efficient mechanisms to pursue alternative to camps away from borders, where relevant". We welcome the reference in para 58 to cash assistance, using national delivery systems. We support the reformulation of para 59 related to safety and security and the responsibility of States. We support the text of para 60 but would request to add a qualifier in relation to mobile courts, which does not exist in every UN Member State. Para 61 related to registration and documentation is adequately drafted and given appropriate importance, provided some qualifier is added. Concerning specific needs, we take note in para 62 the reference to mixed movement situations, which we believe will require attention to coherence with the parallel Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration exercise as well as further clarification. We also welcome the formulation of para 63 for identification, screening and referral. We also support the specific reference made in para 64 to supporting host countries willing to develop alternatives to detention, health care and psychosocial support and services to people with disabilities, those who are illiterate, and older people. Concerning the identification of international protection needs, para 65 is a much clearer formulation of the prima facie recognition of refugee status. However, we would seek clarification on the first sentence. The reference in para 66 to the asylum capacity support group has been improved as well and we continue to support this proposal. We also wish to express satisfaction with the improvement of para 67 on "other protection challenges". It should be the basis for continuing work developed e.g. for the Nansen Protection Agenda as per existing mandates. More detailed comments will be shared in writing. 9
Thank you chair. ********* 10
AGENDA ITEM 4 : PROGRAMME OF ACTION: AREAS IN NEED OF SUPPORT MEETING NEEDS AND SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES (PART. III.B.2 Excellency, Mr Chair, I wish to share some observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "Draft TWO" concerning now the agenda item 4. In the section related to "meeting needs and supporting communities", we wish to express satisfaction that para 68 clearly sets out a development-oriented approach, and links it to in-country progress to the SDGs to foster ownership and leadership. Similarly, we consider para 69 providing a good reference to Agenda 2030 and SDGs, and we welcome the language on country ownership and leadership. We welcome the references in para 70 to humanitarian assistance and urban refugees. Para 71 on the other hand may be based on some misunderstanding of development cooperation that always entails some form of mutual agreement on conditions for delivering assistance according to national development systems, policies and plans. We consider that this misunderstanding should be rectified or the sentence deleted. In relation to education, we welcome the reference added in para 72 to the quality of education but would support also in this para a specific reference to education of girls, including for higher education. Para 73 is well reformulated and comprehensive. We notice with satisfaction the reformulation of para 74 in relation to jobs and livelihoods where a number of positive additions have been inserted, included in the footnotes. A reference to money transfers and remittances could also be added here. We express the same satisfaction with the additions made to para 75 in relation to health. We encourage taking into account particular needs and situations. In relation para 76, we wish to reiterate a request already presented, to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the context of in the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences. The EU further stresses the need for universal access to quality and affordable comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information, education, including comprehensive sexuality education, and health-care services. A reference to 11
harmful practices such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation" should also be added, which is in line with Agenda 2030. We also encourage referring to communicable and non-communicable diseases. In relation to gender, we are satisfied with the reformulation with welcomed references to empowerment and human rights in para 77 and explicitly addressing barriers to participation and leadership. Additional references should be made to international law and standards and national arrangements, as well as to all forms of violence against women and girls, including sexual and gender-based violence after prevent and respond. A reference should also be added to social and health services and clarification provided on what essential health packages are. We wish to express satisfaction that a new section is specifically addressing children (paras 78-79). We noted the absence of reference to UNICEF, which should be inserted. We would also recommend a specific point here on mental health and psychosocial support for refugee children. Finally the para should be completed, after "family reunification" with the following: "and beginning the process of family tracing where this is indicated from the best interests determination and assessment procedures for the child.» Concerning accommodation, energy, and natural resource management, we welcome the additions and clarifications made in paras 80 and 81, particularly the references to impact assessment and to safe access to fuel. We also consider that this section would be adequate for references to alternatives to camps, urbanization and spatial planning. Food security and nutrition are addressed by adequately reformulated paras 82 and 83. We are satisfied with the text referring to civil registries (paras 84 and 85). We can accept the reformulation on statelessness in para 86. We are satisfied with the para 87 dealing with social cohesion and para 88 related to other areas of action. More detailed comments will be shared in writing. Thank you chair. ********* 12
AGENDA ITEM 5 : PROGRAMME OF ACTION: AREAS IN NEED OF SUPPORT SOLUTIONS (PART. III.B.3) Excellency, Mr Chair, I wish to share some observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "Draft TWO" concerning now the agenda item 5, that is in the Programme of action: Areas in need of support solutions (Part III.B.3) In relation to the solutions, we wish to express satisfaction with the introduction in para 89 that strikes an adequate balance. We also wish to support para 90 describing support for countries of origin, third country solutions and local integration. We would however highlight that offers of resettlement and other pathways need to be specified as 'voluntary'. We also note with satisfaction the carefully redrafted paras on voluntary repatriation and support to countries of origin (paras 91-95). The reference to resettlement (paras 96-99) is in general adequate. We would suggest keeping the forward looking, aspirational perspective of the GCR when referring to resettlement and therefore, instead of mentioning traditions and limited number of countries, to «broadening the basis and support to resettlement». Similarly, we support that para 97 refers to the identification and support for emerging resettlement countries, We would suggest to add a reference to regional organisations after the contributions sought 'from States', in order for, in our case, the EU as a whole, not each individual EU MS, to offer such contribution. In para 98, we suggest for the reference to "resettlement of at least 25 per cent of annual resettlement submissions within six months", to retain a clearer formulation referring to speeding up the processing of resettlement (e.g. by aiming at using of flexible processing modalities that fully account for security concerns in order to ensure at least 25 per cent of annual resettlement submissions within six months of UNHCR referral). We also support the reference to existing multilateral resettlement architecture in para 99. Concerning the other pathways for admission to third countries (paras 100-102), we find the text as revised satisfactory. We are satisfied with the improved text on local solutions (paras 103-105). 13
More detailed comments will be shared in writing. Thank you chair. ********* 14
AGENDA ITEM 6 : PROGRAMME OF ACTION: FOLLOW-UP AND REVIEW ARRANGEMENTS (PART. IV) Excellency, Mr Chair, I wish to share some observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "Draft TWO" concerning now the agenda item 6, Follow-up and review. We welcome the reference to UN Member States and the reference (albeit minimal) to SDG reporting under para 106. We should also refer there to "the international community as a whole". We would request clarification on the indicators and monitoring, under para 107. We would request clarification on the tracking mechanism and its timing (para 108). We welcome the new para 109 on the digital platform as an information sharing instrument. We welcome the closing para (110). More detailed comments will be shared in writing. Thank you chair. 15