Search

This Working Paper assesses how humanitarian and development aid agencies address individuals whose human rights and human dignity have been affected by displacement. It proposes a fresh look at how to measure needs that arise in such situations. To this end, the Paper evaluates characteristic needs regarding livelihoods, rights and basic services for displaced persons in an empirical study of so-called protracted refugee situations (PRS). The needs are then contrasted with the international legal category of ‘refugee’ and the descriptive definition of internally displaced persons (IDPs) used by aid agencies to address situations of displacement. Following empirical observations and drawing from existing models, the study establishes an inter-subjectively comprehensible catalogue of needs, i.e. land, employment (livelihoods), housing, social inclusion, nutrition, health, community assets, social networks, education, legal aid, political rights, legal documents, human rights. It is argued that these indicators need to be evaluated in regard to the degree of access displaced persons have (from no access to full access). The weighted indicators establish different points of reference to measure the detrimental impact of displacement on human dignity. Assessment of aid for displaced persons thereby reaches beyond the pre-displacement situation as a central point of reference: This would enable humanitarian and development actors to evaluate their contribution to facilitating a dignified life of individuals more accurately, as a return to the status quo ante does not automatically mean that aid was successful—e.g. a return to misery. Drawing on field research findings in northern Iraq, moreover, the Paper argues that any indicator-based-approach must be combined with an analysis of the socio-political and historical context of forced migration and also pay attention to impacts on the host society. In line with empirical examples, the Working Paper argues that humanitarian and development aid agencies need to start from a long-term, multi-sectoral, whole-of-society, and systematically indicatorbased approach—even though it is inevitable to prioritise some issues (and disregard others) in situations of crisis.

On 28 and 29 November 2018, BICC hosted an international conference entitled "Breaking Cycles of Displacement" in Bonn. The conference presented and discussed the findings of the four-year-long comparative BICC research project "Protected rather than protracted - Strengthening Refugees and Peace" funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). This project scrutinized opportunities for finding solutions to protracted displacement and investigated in how far the participation of displaced persons in peace processes influences the sustainability of their (re-)integration. The conference analysed commonalities and differences of protracted displacement contexts and discussed innovative conceptualisations of protracted displacement based on the project´s research approach to understand the perspectives of those concerned. Case studies from East and West Africa, South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia were presented, covering local (re)integration of displaced persons as well as their role in peace processes, such as in Syria, Afghanistan and Colombia. One critical outcome was that - in particular during peace negotiations - the displaced are rarely heard. Another topic of the conference were the different coping strategies of the long-term displaced. Participants discussed factors that shape prospects for social integration, the challenge of aid dependency but also translocality and its effects on living conditions and the legal status of the displaced. Among the roughly 70 participants of the BICC conference were researchers, experts from national and international non-governmental organisations, UN organisations, such as UNHCR and IOM as well as the BMZ. Participants came from Africa, Europe, South-East Asia and the United States.

On 28 and 29 November 2018, BICC hosted an international conference entitled "Breaking Cycles of Displacement" in Bonn. The conference presented and discussed the findings of the four-year-long comparative BICC research project "Protected rather than protracted - Strengthening Refugees and Peace" funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). This project scrutinized opportunities for finding solutions to protracted displacement and investigated in how far the participation of displaced persons in peace processes influences the sustainability of their (re-)integration. The conference analysed commonalities and differences of protracted displacement contexts and discussed innovative conceptualisations of protracted displacement based on the project´s research approach to understand the perspectives of those concerned. Case studies from East and West Africa, South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia were presented, covering local (re)integration of displaced persons as well as their role in peace processes, such as in Syria, Afghanistan and Colombia. One critical outcome was that - in particular during peace negotiations - the displaced are rarely heard. Another topic of the conference were the different coping strategies of the long-term displaced. Participants discussed factors that shape prospects for social integration, the challenge of aid dependency but also translocality and its effects on living conditions and the legal status of the displaced. Among the roughly 70 participants of the BICC conference were researchers, experts from national and international non-governmental organisations, UN organisations, such as UNHCR and IOM as well as the BMZ. Participants came from Africa, Europe, South-East Asia and the United States.

Der Wiederaufbau und die Befriedung Afghanistans sind gescheitert. Als Interventionspartei trägt auch Deutschland daran eine Mitverantwortung. Die Bundesregierung muss dies in ihrer Politik gegenüber afghanischen Flüchtlingen zum Ausdruck bringen und ihnen hier wie dort Perspektiven bieten, statt Abschiebungen durchzuführen. Die Bundesregierung, Regierungen der EU, der OECD- und BRICS-Länder sowie Regierungen der Nachbarländer Afghanistans können durch ein geregeltes Einwanderungssystem einen bedeutenden Beitrag zur Sicherheit und Zukunftsfähigkeit der Bevölkerung leisten. Flüchtlinge sollten in kurzer Zeit einen Status erhalten, der ihnen Zugang zu Ausbildung und Qualifizierung sowie Berufstätigkeit als Einwanderer und damit eine Integration in die Aufnahmegesellschaften eröffnet. Dies würde auch das Potenzial der Auslandsafghanen und -afghaninnen zur Hilfe und Selbsthilfe für ihre Landsleute stärken. Zudem sollte die Möglichkeit temporärer (Qualifizierungs-) Migration (z.B. durch ein Einwanderungsgesetz) offengehalten werden. Eine langfristige, möglicherweise auf Jahrzehnte angelegte Investitionsstrategie ist erforderlich, um eine tragfähige, vom Binnenmarkt und afghanischer Kaufkraft getriebene Wirtschaftsentwicklung zu unterstützen. Entwicklungsprojekte müssen in diese Strategie eingeordnet und komplementär zu entsprechenden öffentlichen Maßnahmen der afghanischen Regierung sein. Dabei sind die Bedürfnisse des Privatsektors nach verlässlichen Regelungen zu berücksichtigen. Besonders wichtig sind der weitere Aufbau und die Ausweitung von binnenmarktorientierten Berufsausbildungszentren, um der afghanischen Jugend auch im Land eine Perspektive zu geben. Die Bundesregierung muss ihren diplomatischen Einfluss verstärkt nutzen, um auf eine Einigung für einen gangbaren Friedensfahrplan mit Beteiligung der Regierungen von Pakistan, Iran, USA, Russland, China, Saudi-Arabien und Indien hinzuwirken. Sie sollte zudem darauf drängen, dass alle in den letzten 15 Jahren Zurückgekehrten und Vertriebenen legalen Zugang zu Land und Wohnraum bekommen.

Reconstruction and the establishment of peace in Afghanistan have failed. Germany, as party to the intervention, has to accept its share of responsibility for this failure. The German government can do this in their policies towards the Afghan refugees by offering them with prospects both in Germany and in Afghanistan, rather than deporting them. With a well-managed immigration system, the German government, governments of the European Union, the OECD and of BRICS countries as well as governments of Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries can make an important contribution to the population’s security and to overcoming future challenges. Within a relatively short period of time, refugees ought to be able not only to obtain a status that allows them access to education, training and further qualification measures but also to work, which will give them the chance of integrating into host societies. This would also strengthen the potential of Afghans who already live abroad to help and to provide help for their fellow countrymen and –women staying in Afghanistan. In addition, opportunities for immigrants to qualify for legal migration opportunities (through immigration law, for instance) ought to remain open. A long-term, possibly decade-long investment strategy is necessary to support sustainable economic development driven by the internal market and Afghan purchasing power. Development projects must be integrated into this strategy and complement corresponding public measures by the Afghan government while taking into account the need of the private sector for reliable rules and regulations. It is of critical importance to expand and diversify vocational training centres where the Afghan youth can obtain qualifications needed on the internal job market and develop prospects for the future in their country. The German government must make greater use of its diplomatic influence in working towards a consensus for a viable roadmap for peace with the participation of the governments of Pakistan, Iran, the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and India. It should also press for legal access to land and housing for all those who have returned and who were displaced within the last 15 years.

This Paper reviews the current state of the art on the return of displaced persons as a durable solution for long-term displacement situations. It outlines the impact, challenges and actors involved in the return process. The Paper shows that present understandings of return, protracted situations and conflict are often too short-sighted and need to be revised and extended. Reintegration as part of the return process in particular has only received little attention until now. The Paper further demonstrates that the relationship between displacement, return and peace has not yet been fully understood. More field and comparative research is needed that includes the perspectives of the displaced themselves to fully comprehend the process of return and to be able to identify best practices to guarantee the sustainability of return and reintegration.