THIS CONTENT HAS BEEN ARCHIVED
Page language:
English

Global Compact on Refugees - 3rd Formal consultations on DRAFT 1

11.04.2018
Teaser

Global Compact on Refugees - 3rd Formal consultations on DRAFT 1
Geneva, 10-11 April 2018
EU Statement

Text

[General introduction, to be read together with Agenda item 1]

Excellency, Madam Chair,

At the outset of this third round of formal consultations on the Global Compact on Refugees, I wish to share some observations, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, on the text shared as "draft 1".

The Candidate Countries Montenegro[*] , Serbia* and Albania*, the country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Ukraine and Georgia align themselves with this statement.

We wish to repeat that we are strongly convinced that the Global Compact on Refugees is an opportunity to modernize refugee responses and bring a much more robust involvement of development actors. This is fully in line with the EU approach to forced displacement and the humanitarian/development nexus.

The EU and its Member States are also convinced that the Compact can be a unique opportunity to strengthen cooperation internationally in the area of asylum with those states that are not actively engaged in the global refugee response, signatories of the Geneva refugee Convention or members of the UNHCR Executive Committee. We welcome the approach of comprehensive, mutual responses combining host country leadership and reliable external support to such leadership, in the spirit of the New York Declaration of 2016.

In line with the non-binding nature of the Compact, it is clear that no legal obligations can arise from it, neither for host countries, nor for donors, resettlement countries or other actors. The Compact seeks to foster comprehensive responses through a cooperative framework and an improved system of burden- and responsibility-sharing.

We welcome that UNHCR has incorporated many of the comments made during the first round of consultations and strengthened the language in many sections of the first draft. We also welcome a number of additions such as: food security, nutrition and statelessness.

We would encourage referring throughout the text to "refugee flows” instead of “large flows” since the absence of specification could risk generating confusion regarding the scope of the Global Refugee Compact and overlaps with the Global Migration Compact. We recall our previous comments on the importance to avoid potential misunderstandings or creation of new legal categories. We would also recommend throughout the text a more detailed reference to data protection principles, as well as references to persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, to LGBTIQ, victims of trafficking as well as to  pregnant women and people with disabilities. Finally, the text should consistently use terminology ‘promoting and protecting human rights’ when it refers to human rights.

 

[Agenda item 1: 'Reception and admission' - Part III.B.1)]

Coming now more in detail to the detail of Agenda item 1: Reception and admission, we would highlight that preparedness, early identification registration and status-determination of persons who have applied for international protection allowing for their rapid referral to asylum procedures, are at the core of our approach.

We welcome the addition in the GCR of a strong reference to preparedness because it ensures more effective, better accepted and less costly intervention when a crisis arises. Prevention and contingency planning must be led and supported by the relevant states and included in national and regional planning. We recommend drawing on existing systems.

We support the reference to support to risk analysis, contingency plans and capacity strengthening. Global and regional awareness-raising should be considered. We recommend further reinforcing the reference to, where possible, national ownership and leadership of host countries, in respect of development effectiveness principles. Reference should also be made to the need to strengthen preparedness, early warning/ and early action capacities of other relevant stakeholders, in particular humanitarian organisations. We would also welcome a stronger invitation to host States to facilitate entry for standby and emergency humanitarian deployments.

We welcome the text proposed for immediate reception arrangements that rightly highlights the primary responsibility of the receiving State. We consider that UNHCR’s support to the local authorities should be delivered with duly informing and in close coordination with the national authorities.

We would encourage developing approaches geared to avoiding encampment from the outset. A critical role should be played by integrated urban policy, spatial planning and settlement policies. Cash based interventions could be considered from the outset.

While many stakeholders need to engage could UNHCR for its part clarify whether it considers being in position to deliver on these activities within its current budget? Could UNHCR clarify what 'protection risks' are targeted at the immediate reception phase?  

We welcome the reference to legitimate security concerns of host countries and the need to uphold the civilian character of asylum.

We fully support the recognition of the importance of registration and encourage using robust and effective biometric systems taking into account specific vulnerabilities of refugees. Registration being distinct from status determination, we can also support the reference to statelessness determination where requested by a host country for which the role of UNHCR is to support the establishment and strengthening of procedures.

Group-based protection (rather than recognition) or other similar options mentioned in the draft in relation to large movements should be an option only as appropriate, when an individual assessment is not possible to addressing international protection needs. We consider as a preferable option the individual assessment that strengthens the credibility of asylum systems.

The EU stands ready to consider the possible involvement of EASO in the asylum capacity support group. We would also ask for clarification on potential links to the Global Support Platform and existing UNHCR structures, as well as the composition of global pool of experts, their functions and mandate.

We ask for clarification of the concept of 'broader international protection challenges' and how it should be included in the GCR that should remain clearly focused.

Finally, given that the GCM and the GCR are separate but complementary, could UNHCR clarify the scope of the humanitarian assistance that it provides under these different circumstances?

More detailed comments will be shared in writing.

 

Agenda item 2 ('Meeting needs and supporting communities' - Part III.B.2)

Excellency, Madam Chair,

Concerning the section related to meeting needs and supporting communities, we consider of particular importance for the Global Compact to recognize the interlinkage between refugees' and host communities' welfare. We would recommend recognition that fostering self-reliance, skills acquisition and education better prepares refugees for all durable solutions.

The complementarity between emergency and development assistance is an essential priority for the EU and we encourage  further strengthening this approach, in a spirit of partnership with all relevant stakeholders, notably other UN agencies and development actors.

A strong call for support to humanitarian assistance would be welcome, since it will inevitably be a major component of assistance to refugees pending durable solutions, and go beyond “emergency response”. Humanitarian assistance, in many cases, will continue to play an important role in refugee protection and assistance over longer periods of time while, at the same time, development actors will support refugees, countries of origin and host states and communities in order to realize durable solutions. Humanitarian assistance needs to be delivered strictly according to need and in line with the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence.

The EU and its MSs support the priority given to education of refugees, including early childhood, secondary and tertiary education, and encourage developing these aspects, in a spirit of partnership with all relevant stakeholders, notably other UN agencies and education actors. We also recommend referring to the quality of education, since this is not about school enrolment numbers only, and have a strengthened reference to education of girls. The overall approach regarding the inclusion of refugee children and youth in national education system is welcomed but it would need to be further strengthened.

Concerning jobs and livelihood, we welcome the explicit reference to ILO instruments and decent work principles and suggest that key elements from the 'guiding principles' could be included. We also support the addition of vocational training which was missing in the 0-draft, but would recommend, given its specific importance, to make it a standalone topic. As for promoting financial inclusion, we would recommend beyond facilitating access to services, also improving their availability, including by addressing financial risks for service providers. Finally this section would benefit from referring to private sector and local business.

We support the reference made to expanding national health systems to facilitate access by refugees and host communities. A reference to the paradigm of universal health coverage agreed through SDG 3 could be considered. Further reference should be included to the need for non-discriminatory access to national systems. We would suggest referring more explicitly to the support that can be provided for refugee health by other instruments, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

We welcome the emphasis on gender equality and stronger language in comparison with 0 draft. This should be further strengthened by adding references to women’s and girls’ full enjoyment of all human rights, reference to UNSC Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security; and 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 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 would also encourage specific needs of women, men, girls and boys to be better referred to in the Global Compact on Refugees.

As already mentioned we support clear reference to alternative to camps and ending encampment. Water management should also be included. We note the importance of energy efficiency in the context of the Agenda 2030. At the same time we would seek clarification from UNHCR on how the increased use of renewable energy in refugee contexts could be achieved, bearing in mind the challenges involved.

We welcome the addition of food security. Among specific targets for food security; we would encourage to add the categories of children of 0-6 months of age and teenage boys.

With the same objective of fostering inclusive economic growth, we would also recommend encouraging access to land for refugees, as appropriate.

We strongly support the focus on civil registries, independently from status determination. We also would highlight the importance of this instrument for protection of women and children, and  against trafficking for the purpose of economic or sexual exploitation.

We would welcome mentioning that data protection principles need to be enhanced for the effective and safe use of digital technology.

We welcome the reference to statelessness as a cause and consequence for refugee forced displacement. Stateless people can also enjoy international refugee protection.

We would recommend a reference to the principle “shared responsibility” of the 2030 Agenda.

More detailed comments will be shared in writing.

 

Agenda item 3 ('Solutions' - Part III.B.3)

Excellency, Madam Chair,

We welcome that draft 1 expands on all durable solutions. We would recommend that the draft clearly highlights the need for engagement of more countries in providing some such solutions for refugees.

We support the approach to voluntary repatriation and support by the international community. However, we would recommend mentioning that repatriation, when conditions allow, can be highly beneficial for countries of origin and returnees can bring positive input to them.

We support efforts addressing root causes, removing the obstacles to voluntary repatriation of refugees in safety and dignity, and enabling conditions favourable to voluntary repatriation, notably in post crisis environments. Efforts should also refer to human rights, with an explicit reference to States' obligations under international human rights law and standards to ensure and facilitate voluntary repatriation and reintegration in safety and dignity. We encourage more explicit reference to social, economic, political and legal reintegration of returnees as the goal of voluntary and safe return.

We would suggest widening the focus of support under para. 77 to other relevant issues.

We would also recommend that support to voluntary repatriation could also include issues of urbanisation, settlement and spatial planning, considering that many refugees return for instance to cities.

We have developed our resettlement programmes, as a sign of solidarity to enable the most vulnerable refugees in need of protection to reach Europe through legal and safe pathways. Resettlement is a decision made by the receiving State to provide support in specific situations and address needs that cannot be addressed in the country where they have sought protection.

We consider that the Global Compact on Refugees should provide for the establishment of a framework for coordinating efforts of admitting states with first countries of asylum.

We welcome the reference to resettlement being one of the tools for protection of and solutions for refugees as well as a tangible mechanism for burden- and responsibility-sharing, notably in addressing specific protection needs of most vulnerable.

We support all efforts to approach countries not yet participating in resettlement efforts and would request clarification on whether this would be in addition to the three year strategy mentioned later in the draft GCR. We would be interested to hear more about plans how to engage more countries; the possible role of the support platform and solidarity conferences. We would like to learn more about how coherence between potential resettlement pledges made at the Global Refugee Summit and the implementation of such a strategy is ensured and what role the Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement would play in strategy development. We welcome the proposal of a three year strategy and would request clarification its details.

We would request UNHCR to clarify the rationale behind the choice of these four specific numerical objectives and more information on multi-year “resettlement schemes”.

We support and actively participate already to several existing resettlement core groups, both the EU and EU Member States.

We welcome the reference to other pathways, already concretized in various flexible experiences, leaving to the admitting countries the choice of the nature of their instruments and their modalities.

We strongly welcome the reference made to local solution. The reference made to the type of support to be provided to local solutions is a good basis for discussion and we welcome the inclusion of development actors.

Let me conclude in highlighting that we thank UNHCR and the co-chair for their excellent work as well as all colleagues for their very constructive and cooperative spirit. We look forward to the next formal consultations and the changes proposed by the co-chairs in the revised draft in May.

More detailed comments will be shared in writing.

Thank you.

 


[*] The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.

 

Category
Statements on behalf of the EU
Location

Geneva

Editorial sections
UN Geneva