This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Geneva, 11–13 October 2011
Table of contents
1. Purpose of the Global Consultations………………………………………………………………….3 2. Key Conclusions and Recommendations …………………………………..........................4 3. Summary of Discussions ……………………………………………………………………………………5
Field challenges……………………………………………………………………………………………6 Toward more effective field clusters……………………………………………………………………7 Roles and models: UNHCR, refugees and IDPs……………………………………………………..9 Protection in natural disasters …………………………………………………………………………….9 Governments, laws and policies…………………………………………………………………………12 Delivering protection………………………………………………………………………………………….13 Defining UNHCR´s interests: Protection of Civilians……………………………………………14 UNHCR´s role in the search for durable solution ……………………………………………….15 Key constraints and challenges: Discussion with the AHC(P)………………………………16
Annex 1: Concept Note ……………………………………………………………………………………….19 Annex 2: Agenda …………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Annex 3: Participants list …………………………………………………………………………………….25
UNHCR has a long history of involvement with internally displaced persons (IDPs). In 1972, the Office launched its first IDP operation in South Sudan following a request from the UN Economic and Social Council. In the years that followed, other key operations, such as in Northern Iraq and the Balkans in the 1990s, shaped the Agency’s engagement with IDPs. These led the General Assembly to set criteria for UNHCR’s involvement with internally displaced persons which remain valid to this day. The Humanitarian Reform and the adoption of the Cluster Approach have further refined UNHCR’s involvement with IDPs in an inter-agency framework, particularly during humanitarian emergencies. The Agency’s commitments have been translated into internal and inter-agency policy instructions that today delimit UNHCR’s involvement in a more predictable way. Recent developments, however, have created both a need and an opportunity for renewed reflection on the Office’s role in the protection of internally displaced persons. These include (1) UNHCR’s interest in assuming a more predictable role in protection in natural disasters; (2) the reform of the Cluster system by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC); (3) the Global Protection Cluster’s Visioning Exercise, which will provide a new strategic vision for this key body in 2012 and beyond; and (4) the very nature of recent humanitarian crises, which have demanded a well-coordinated response by UNHCR through both its refugee mandate and its institutional commitment to IDPs (e.g,. Kyrgyzstan, Cote d’Ivoire, Libya and the Horn of Africa). The Global Field Consultations on IDP Protection (IDP Consultations) were organized by the Division of International Protection (DIP) with the objective of strengthening UNHCR’s operational response to internal displacement by consulting protection field staff on how UNHCR’s work with IDPs should evolve over the next two years. More specifically, the Consultations sought: • • • To identify key operational needs and recommendations from field offices, To share experiences and good practices across country contexts, and To discuss and influence policy and operational developments.
The Consultations brought together the senior protection staff from 26 field operations where UNHCR is active with IDPs. It also benefited from the participation of key personnel from HQ Divisions, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the former Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. The Consultations reflected on ways UNHCR could better delineate and improve its engagement in (1) protection clusters, (2) protection in natural disasters, (3) assisting Governments in enacting laws and policies on prevention of, response and solutions to internal displacement, (4) the protection of civilians, and (5) durable solutions. A lively panel on “operationalizing protection” in challenging field situations brought together seasoned practitioners from inside the organization. Participants had also the opportunity to present key operational constraints and challenges to the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection and the Director of DIP, and to make recommendations for policy development and operational support.
• The objective of effective protection delivery must be at the forefront of any discussion about how UNHCR works in the field and at the policy level, including with IDPs. It is important to bear in mind UNHCR’s comparative advantages in protection, including its comprehensive approach and extensive field presence, which extends in time beyond the emergency phase. UNHCR’s engagement in interagency processes should always be approached as a means to achieve more effective protection, and not as an end in itself. In particular, where UNHCR has been able to effectively deliver on IDPs and protection of civilians with expertise and resources, this leadership has often resulted in increased stature within the UN system, supporting UNHCR’s protection mandate more generally. At the same time, to remain a lead voice in protection, the Office must invest more decisively in the inter-agency effort to protect IDPs. This entails (1) sufficient and adequately trained staff, particularly full-time cluster coordinators and information managers; (2) the development of standardized tools for the collection and management of protection information, and protection programming; (3) clear policy instructions; and (4) management support at HQ and field levels to fully mainstream cluster responsibilities. UNHCR’s experience shows that a more predictable engagement in protection in natural disasters can, and has, yield protection dividends, including strengthened relationships with national governments that can enable access to conflict-induced IDP situations or even enhance cooperation in refugee response. A strengthened leadership role in natural disasters would also be consistent with projecting UNHCR as the “protection arm” of the UN system. At the same time, decisive support for a more predictable engagement did not emerge from discussions with the Standing Committee, and questions of resources and impact on the mandate remain open. More reflection is needed on the scope of UNHCR´s involvement in protection in natural disasters, as well as on the support needed by the field to fulfil this role. The operational implications of a commitment to lead in natural disasters should be further explored by relevant parts of the house. Many field operations are heavily engaged in the issue of protection of civilians, particularly with Humanitarian Coordinators and peacekeeping forces. Active participation at the field and HQ levels is critical to ensure peacekeeping forces and other actors understand and support the distinct roles of humanitarian and nonhumanitarian actors in protection, and that they respect and preserve humanitarian space. Staff are concerned that OCHA is perceived as the “sole voice” of UN humanitarian actors in peacekeeping processes and mechanisms in New York, when UNHCR is a key source of information and advice based upon its operational engagement and it role as protection cluster lead. While recognizing that the issue extends beyond UNHCR’s mandate, UNHCR needs a strong voice in New York on POC issues, as well as improved information sharing and coordination among the field, New York and Headquarters. Promoting adequate domestic laws and policies on internal displacement should be recognized by UNHCR as an important strategic protection activity, which can support structural and societal change. UNHCR could play an instrumental role in the response to internal displacement, as it has in the development of refugee law and asylum systems. Increased use of national legal staff to support this role could prove 4
essential. However, this should not replace international staff, who can contribute expertise on international standards and experience from other countries. • UNHCR’s operational role in durable solutions for internally displaced persons should be further addressed in policy guidance, including identification of priority areas of operational engagement (based on expertise and value-added), as well as benchmarks for measured disengagement which expressly account for the roles of partners (including development actors, national actors and government). Because the operational response for durable solutions often begins amidst on-going conflict or new displacement, the Agency needs to maintain advocacy and operational engagement on broader protection issues, even when durable solutions are underway. A conflict-sensitive and integrated approach between our efforts for IDPs and returning refugees in countries of origin is also required to ensure individuals are assisted according to need, not their former legal status.
The Director of the Division of International Protection (DIP), Volker Türk, opened the Consultations and invited participants to consider the evolving nature of UNHCR’s involvement with IDPs. He noted that while the Office’s first involvement dates to 1972 in Sudan, in the 1990s the General Assembly defined criteria for UNHCR’s involvement which remain valid and can be considered as mandate-giving. Today, IDPs are UNHCR’s largest group of persons of concern. The Director observed that the Office’s involvement in different contexts and with different populations, with protection concerns related to different causes, is still evolving, and in the future UNHCR might be a different organization altogether. In this context, UNHCR will have to devise better ways to measure its impact on the protection of persons of concern.
The Director encouraged participants to address three questions with an open mind: • The legal dimension: While States resist the involvement of the international humanitarian community in political fora relating to legal standards, many welcome UNHCR’s contributions at the field level. International standards (e.g., Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, the Kampala Convention) have gained traction. At the national level, should UNHCR involve itself more decisively in supporting national frameworks? Current mega-trends: Global challenges include migration, globalization, climate change, slow-onset disasters. Can we be more analytical in studying their relationship with internal displacement? Does UNHCR have a role in prevention, contingency and risk-reduction? Protracted situations: What role should UNHCR play in the achievement of durable solutions? How far, temporally and programmatically, should we go? Should we focus on the vulnerable in general, and not only on IDPs?
To set the stage for the discussions to come, Karen Gulick, Chief of Section, DIP, presented highlights of a pre-consultation questionnaire completed by the participants on their country operations and contexts. Results of the questionnaire paint a an informative picture of the range of displacement contexts UNHCR faces today, the recurrent protection challenges we 5
seek to address, and the operational issues most affecting our ability to effectively deliver protection on the ground. Characterizing the context of displacement in their country of operations: 90% of participants described it as a protracted situation; they were equally split between urban and rural contexts; and only 20% described a camp-based context. Nearly half of the countries in which participant work have a draft national law or policy on internal displacement under discussion, or already adopted. Top protection challenges cited include the following: getting the national government to recognize there is a problem with internal displacement; helping government to understand the particular protection risks of being displaced; the inability of government to provide or support conditions enabling a free choice of durable solutions; the politicization of assistance; and difficulties furthering peacebuilding and reconciliation. On the operational side, the challenges most frequently identified as affecting our delivery of protection include the lack of a clear governmental focal point (such as exits for refugees); reaching and assisting IDPs outside of camps; lack of funding; lack of access; and lack of staff. Concerning the staffing of IDP protection, the survey revealed that only one of the participants was fully dedicated to IDP work. Of the remainder, staff spent on average 40% of their time on IDPs. Protection clusters were identified in 17 situations, 13 of which are led by UNHCR. Among protection clusters in the field, one-third have not developed a protection strategy.
Four colleagues presented the main challenges in their respective operations and proposed recommendations for operational and policy support. In Afghanistan, displacement is increasing due to complex and fragmented causes, including conflict and natural disasters (drought). Spontaneous movements, limited access and adequate data are key challenges. Institutionally, the main challenges include a weak OCHA office, limited partnerships for operational response, insufficient Government capacity, and the need to clearly delineate roles with IOM and other entities for disaster and conflict-induced displacement.
The main recommendations are: • To further specify UNHCR’s role in protection response and coordination, particularly in relation to OCHA, and to explain better this role to donors. This includes clarifying the extent of cluster responsibility for returning refugees. To strengthen in-house capacity, including: better understanding by management of cluster responsibilities, staffing and training for coordination and information management, and better linkages among the UNHCR-led clusters.
Challenges for the Iraq operation include growing uncertainty and violence, the population’s general dissatisfaction with inadequate services, ineffectiveness and lack of capacity of Government, and serious under-reporting of protection problems due in part to poor access. Institutionally, effectively mainstreaming IDP issues into integrated mission planning is difficult. The Iraq operation needs more staff to adequately support displacement-affected communities, manage camps, and support durable solutions. UNHCR’s role in capacity 6
building also needs to be strengthened as a key feature of the Agency’s added value in the operation. UNHCR’s protection leadership and operational activities in Somalia suffer from lack recognition and funding in the face of competition from more agile NGOs. Poor humanitarian access results in limited protection information. There is also a plethora of agendas and actors, some of whom do not subscribe to protection priorities agreed by the cluster. The South Sudan operation faces a complex displacement situation with ongoing conflict, inter-communal violence, a high risk of SGBV, attempted child recruitment, and gross human rights violations by militia. Refugees from North Sudan continuously arrive to South Sudan. These challenges are compounded by a lack of infrastructure and Government capacity, the Government’s reluctance to address inter-communal violence, restricted humanitarian access, and poor protection information.
After the discussion on field challenges, participants discussed ways to work more effectively with country-level clusters. Participants identified the need to further delineate the precise roles and responsibilities of Protection Clusters, means to measure their effectiveness, and good practices of effective leadership. Participants noted that NGO partners have encouraged UNHCR to take a more assertive role in cluster leadership, while also promoting the practice of NGO co-chairs. Participants also requested reflection on how Representatives and Headquarters could improve their support for Protection Clusters, adding that many colleagues, including management, do not adequately understand either the challenges and time–intensive nature of inter-agency work, or, necessarily, the opportunities and benefits inter-agency work offers for strengthened advocacy and protection leadership by UNHCR overall.
Participants broke into three working groups to consider: (1) responsibilities of Protection Clusters in the field; (2) effective leadership and decision-making in clusters; and (3) protection strategies as a tool for leadership. Each group identified how HQ could improve support to field Protection Clusters. The first group concluded that Protection Clusters have two main responsibilities:
• First, to coordinate the activities of its members in line with a jointly developed protection cluster strategy. This includes identifying priority needs, developing appropriate operational responses, dividing implementation responsibilities, continually identifying and assessing protection priorities, and monitoring strategy implementation. The group noted the importance of participating in joint contingency planning processes and building links to all relevant partners, including the Government, local civil society, development actors and other clusters. Second, to enable and support joint activities undertaken within the purview of the Protection Cluster. Examples include needs assessment, ongoing monitoring and joint advocacy. Cluster members need a common capacity-building strategy that includes activities to facilitate hand-over to national Governments when humanitarian actors leave. Adequate information management capacity was unanimously identified as a precondition to fulfilling UNHCR’s coordination and joint action responsibilities. 7
Participants recommended that HQ should develop standard tools to support these responsibilities, including:
• • • • • • A protection monitoring tool, A tool for needs, priority and gap analysis, A tracking and reporting system for baseline performance indicators for Clusters, A standard “who does what where” reporting mechanism, Standard advocacy tools and formats, A library of standard protection activities, in an adaptable format.
The second group, which focused on leadership and decision-making, felt that UNHCR Representatives must be better prepared to represent both UNHCR (as an operational agency) and the Protection Cluster as distinct entities. UNHCR’s experience has shown that Representatives may have difficulty striking a balance between the two, with the Cluster often neglected. In some situations, the group noted that it may be appropriate for the Representative to speak on behalf of UNHCR, while a separate cluster coordinator represents the Protection Cluster. Finally, Representatives must fully realize the potential to use the Protection Cluster as a means to achieving UNHCR’s overall protection objectives. The group requested that senior management provide more training and sensitization for Representatives on these dynamics and the opportunities they present. The third group discussed good practices developing a joint protection cluster strategy. Group members explored the following questions: • What are the minimum core elements of a protection strategy? The group concluded that a protection strategy should always contain (1) definitions of terminology (in particular the scope of the population), (2) a needs analysis, (3) a limited number of priorities, (4) identification of the Government’s role, (5) an action plan, (6) coordination, reporting and monitoring mechanisms, and (7) benchmarks for disengagement. How can strategy development reinforce UNHCR leadership? UNHCR needs to make itself useful to others by providing leadership in the planning process. This requires strong technical planning skills (along with “soft” coordination skills), analytic capacity, and sufficient staffing resources, particularly for information management. Operational strength also lends authority to UNHCR. Is it necessary for UNHCR to develop its own protection strategy in addition to the cluster strategy? Participants agreed that in most cases this is useful, as UNHCR’s strategy would focus on its operational priorities and response, which is part of but not identical to the overall response of the cluster. UNHCR needs to come to the planning process with an idea of the kind of outcome we as an agency want to see. Providing this general vision to our partners is both a planning tool and a mechanism to reinforce our leadership. This also contributes to reinforce coordination among the three clusters that UNHCR routinely leads.
In plenary, participants considered how best to advocate for full-time cluster coordinators. It was suggested that criteria should be developed for when a dedicated coordinator is required, including through research on which countries are particularly prone to emergencies, and through setting up protection benchmarks that need to be met in all cases. Standing emergency capacity should also be developed on a regional basis. Participants echoed that additional institutional work is required on mainstreaming UNHCR’s cluster responsibilities and ensuring the full commitment of Representatives to fulfill these responsibilities.
Louise Aubin (Deputy Director, DIP and GPC Coordinator), Kimberly Roberson (Chief of Section, FICSS and CCCM Coordinator), Kemlin Furley (Acting Head, Inter-Agency Unit), and Sajjad Malik (Chief of Section, Operations Solutions and Transitions Section) addressed the evolution of humanitarian reform and its effect upon UNHCR, including recognition of its refugee mandate, and how UNHCR can support field operations to adapt accordingly. Panelists observed that the humanitarian community has increasingly viewed the Cluster Approach as the default coordination mechanism in all humanitarian emergencies, regardless of the extent or nature of displacement, whether internal or external. Panelists agreed that UNHCR needs to continually assert that the Cluster Approach does not apply to refugees. However, as an Agency UNHCR should recognize that the Cluster Approach has elevated standards and expectations of leadership, partnership and coordination. Donors and operational partners expect cluster leads to account for joint delivery, not only for their individual performance. More inclusion and participation of partners is expected. Leadership is understood as providing common services including needs assessment, information management and planning. Credibility – built on delivery – is the basis of leadership. When we do not deliver in IDP contexts, it weakens our leadership role with refugees. This perception has also been fueled by the nature of latest crises, which have included both refugees and IDPs in Cote d´Ivoire and the Horn of Africa. Some panel members felt that the Cluster Approach had not reinforced UNHCR´s leadership as much as was expected. At a moment when many perceive that the IASC Transformative Agenda is redefining the inter-agency division of responsibilities, UNHCR needs substantial new investment to be a credible partner with IDPs and to defend its privileged role with refugees. Panelists concluded: • UNHCR has three primary roles in emergencies: (1) its classical refugee mandate response; (2) its operational response to IDPs; and (3) its coordination role with IDPs and other affected populations. UNHCR’s credibility in delivering on one role demands that the Office delivers on the other roles. They are inextricably linked. UNHCR’s ability to deliver on SGBV and child protection in all protection responses has become central to its credibility as a lead agency, including with refugees. Policy decisions and guidance are needed on the resources, including staffing and funding, that are needed to maintain our credibility and our capacity to deliver, both as an operational agency and in our leadership role. Increased capacity in information management is also crucial to maintain credibility and leadership.
Protection in natural disasters
Karen Gulick, Chief of Section, DIP, outlined the latest developments on ensuring a more predictable leadership role for field-level protection clusters in natural disaster situations, a role that was left unresolved among UNHCR, UNICEF, and OHCHR in the original Humanitarian Reform in 2005. Following a request by the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator and discussions within the IASC, the High Commissioner indicated his willingness that 9
UNHCR should have the capacity and ability to lead the protection response in natural disasters, when so requested by an affected state. Following an informal consultative meeting with Excom members in early 2011, UNHCR presented a paper to the June Standing Committee addressing its role in natural disasters. The paper proposes more predictable leadership of the Protection Cluster in natural disasters, although notably with nine guiding considerations that inform and delimit the scope both of UNHCR’s leadership and its operational engagement. Most importantly, UNHCR would assume leadership only upon the request of a national authority, and only in situations where no other protection agency has better operational capacity or is already leading a protection coordination body. Member States raised a number of questions about the proposal, touching on the need for increased human and financial resources, unclear criteria and timeframe for engagement, the potential impact on delivery on the core mandate, and respect for national sovereignty. A number of key issues remain, including (1) distinguishing between Cluster leadership and operational response, (2) determining UNHCR’s needs for operational preparedness when it does participate in disaster response efforts, (3) ensuring funding for UNHCR when it does lead (i.e., the importance of Flash Appeals), (4) determining how UNHCR can best contribute to disaster risk reduction and contingency planning processes, and (5) better understanding protection challenges and responses in disaster contexts.
Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement Co-Director Elisabeth Ferris presented on protection issues in natural disasters, inviting colleagues to reflect positively on UNHCR role in this field. Natural disasters are on the increase, and have affected more than 2,4 billion people in the last 10 years. In response, humanitarian actors are grappling with questions such as: How “natural” is natural, when vulnerability is caused also by inadequate planning and response? How “sudden” is sudden: how should we respond to drought? Who are the “affected populations”, when spill-over economic effects of disasters hit whole nations? What are the cascading effects of cumulative smaller disasters? While protection concerns in natural disasters are better acknowledged and understood than they were several years ago, and the IASC has issued operational guidance on protection in natural disasters, much more needs to be done to ensure that Governments and other disaster responders incorporate protection issues as an important part of disaster response efforts. Many protection concerns in disasters are similar to conflict situations. However, Ferris highlighted key differences in disaster responses that impact protection risks and the activities required to address them, including: (1) disasters occur in developed and developing countries; (2) frequently there is less stigma towards displacement caused by natural disaster; (3) protection risks have different causes; (4) the response includes different actors (military, local government, and development); (5) protection is based in part on a different legal basis; and (6) protection agencies generally have a non-confrontational relationship with governments. Operational challenges include recognizing that displacement does not necessarily mean that humanitarian assistance is required, grappling with the ethics and challenge of identifying and singling out IDPs among the urban poor, and exploring the relationship between drought and armed conflict. Given its field presence, protection expertise, and the increasing number and scale of disasters, Ferris argued that UNHCR needs to move beyond its traditional refugee mandate into natural disaster response. She noted that this could also open doors to working in 10
difficult conflict situations. Ferris concluded by encouraging UNHCR to reflect on its potential role as a protection actor in prevention, disaster risk reduction and climate change. Following Ferris’ presentation, a number of participants shared their field experiences with natural disaster operations, highlighting concerns about funding when UNHCR offers assistance in a smaller disaster without an inter-agency appeal, and confusion over the extent to which UNHCR should offer operational and protection expertise to a government. Participants also discussed a potential UNHCR role as a protection advisor in disaster preparedness and contingency planning processes.
Three UNHCR participants presented case studies of recent UNHCR operational engagement with disaster response. In Haiti, where 1.5 million persons were affected by the earthquake, protection problems were rife, including overcrowded, crime ridden camps, SGBV, child abduction and trafficking, lost documentation, forced evictions, and a large number of people with new disabilities (amputees). Institutionally, the main challenges included weak Government capacity, co-leadership of the cluster with OHCHR, recovering from a lost opportunity for funding within the Flash Appeal due to a delay in determining UNHCR’s leadership role, tracking and assisting IDPs outside of camps, defining who should benefit from protection activities, and what the scope of protection should include. In 2012, UNHCR will focus on assisting SGBV survivors, replacing documentation, and quick impact projects for IDPs and host communities outside Port au Prince. The 2010 floods in Pakistan affected 20 million people, with 2011 flooding affecting 8 million more, including 1.8 million IDPs. The Government viewed protection as a crosscutting issue rather than a separate “life-saving” cluster. Challenges were working with the military, ensuring RC/HC support on protection issues, varying degrees of support within the Government for UNHCR’s protection and assistance role (including the mission in Geneva), and the lack of a national IDP policy based on the Guiding Principles. The scope, nature, and operational roles of protection assistance should be agreed in advance with all levels of Government and humanitarian partners, as well as between UNHCR field and HQs offices. This process could be supported by HQ through guidance on UNHCR´s involvement in each phase disaster response, and training RC/HCs on protection needs in disasters. Offices could also benefit from more staffing support for cluster coordination during disaster relief efforts, and increasing advocacy for donors to bilaterally fund protection agencies in the absence of a Protection Cluster or when protection is not adequately reflected in the Flash Appeal. In the Philippines, the 2009 floods affected 9 million people and displaced some 700,000 people. UNHCR deployed an emergency team to lead the Protection Cluster. The team realized that UNHCR has much to learn on protection in natural disasters. Whereas immediate protection problems are similar to conflict situations (SGBV, etc.) the protection environment is different, particularly in terms of a higher interaction with the Government and the military’s role in relief efforts. Affected populations have also developed sophisticated coping mechanisms in response to recurrent natural disasters. Because many disasters are seasonal with predictable protection risks that could be prevented or anticipated in advance, UNHCR should reflect upon its potential involvement in disaster risk reduction. Guidance on relocations is needed. To avoid simply being perceived as an advocacy agency, UNHCR needs to concentrate on tangible protection interventions with a strong operational component, such as QIPs. UNHCR’s welcomed response to the floods eased the way for the Government to invite UNHCR to provide assistance in the 50 year civil war in Mindanao. Examples of good practice and lessons learned would be useful as UNHCR considers it future role in disaster response.
Beginning the discussion, the DIP Director questioned the necessity of formalizing UNHCR’s disaster role, noting that UNHCR has been engaged in disaster response efforts for over thirty years. It such situations, UNHCR was often the only actor with operational capacity to respond; in some cases, such as in the Pakistan floods, it would have been immoral not to assist. He observed that the General Assembly resolutions at the basis of UNHCR’s IDP mandate do not distinguish between conflict and natural disaster displacement. However, the discussion with Excom raised important concerns by States, including highlighting the extent to which many States do not see a need for a protection actor in disaster response, and that doing so would take money away from life-saving assistance. Participants noted that the parameters for UNHCR involvement are still unclear, including the threshold and timeframe of disengagement and the extent to which UNHCR should engage in contingency planning and government capacity building. Some participants felt that UNHCR should be more secure about its operational strengths for protection in disaster response, and that UNHCR should actively market its added value with funding structures to support this capacity. Other issues included: (1) understanding coping mechanisms in disaster response to accurately identify protection needs, (2) an example of a protection in disasters checklist and guidance note used to train government officials in Afghanistan, (3) the need for advocacy within the IASC on how to include protection in disasters within rapid assessments, Flash Appeals, other clusters, and RC/HC training, (4) UNHCR’s potential engagement with UNDAF, (5) the challenge distinguishing slow-onset disasters from larger migration trends, (6) overcoming the barrier between protection and programme functions which can inhibit the incorporation of protection in disaster response, and (7) when and when not to use human rights and protection language in disaster response. The discussion concluded with thoughts on UNHCR as a protection organization operating beyond a mandate for specific categories of people to respond to the current and emerging protection concerns arising from disasters and other global challenges.
Prof. Walter Kälin, the former RSG on the Human Rights of IDPs, led a discussion on the importance of national laws and policies for IDP protection. He argued that although law is not a panacea, it matters because IDP protection is about addressing rights. Legal instruments can usefully tackle a number of protection problems, such as protection against evictions, access to basic services and voting rights. He noted that governments have the primary responsibility for the protection of IDPs, and this is first expressed through domestic legislation. Adapting national laws and policies to address the specific needs of IDPs can improve legal coherence, strengthen coordination, clarify responsibilities of different Government departments, reinforce normative clarity and empower participating stakeholders including the IDP population. The process is in itself useful: it facilitates the creation of consensus among all stakeholders, including donors and IDPs, although adequate momentum needs to be sustained. Field colleagues addressed their experiences supporting national governments. In Kenya the importance of understanding the national institutional and political context and establishing national contacts, including with civil society, was underlined. The experience also highlighted how international engagement, in this case with the visits of the RSG on the Human Rights of IDPs, can contribute on sustaining momentum. Even though a final policy has not emerged, the process has been useful for ongoing protection advocacy at national and 12
local levels. In Yemen, buy-in from local power holders was crucial. The main challenges were absence of clear Government decision-makers, the need to work through traditional leaders, diverse IDP protection challenges, and inadequate understanding of basic concepts such as who is an IDP and what is a durable solution. Thus, UNHCR supported the development of a strategy, as opposed to a policy. UNHCR’s support to the African Union with the Kampala Convention has positioned UNHCR as a key player in normative development and provided an important opportunity to train governments on IDP protection issues. Participants noted that model laws may not be useful, since Governments need to thoroughly assess existing national legislation before developing a strategy for domestic incorporation of the Convention. After a plenary discussion, participants together with Prof. Kälin concluded that • • Law and policy-making is a genuine protection activity, and UNHCR should use its position as Protection Cluster lead to engage more actively. The use of national staff needs to be maximized, while also involving international staff and senior management who can provide expertise on international legal principles and examples of how other countries drafted laws and policies. A number of tools already exist and should be used, such as Kälin’s Manual for Law and Policymakers, a Guide for Practitioners (now under development), and the annual Course on the Law of Internal Displacement for government officials at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in Sanremo, Italy.
A lively panel brought together senior UNHCR managers with experience in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan, as well as Prof. Walter Kälin, to discuss strategies for delivering protection in difficult environments. Panel members observed that operational environments for protection have become more complicated, particularly because the UN’s impartiality has eroded in many operational contexts. Insecurity, lack of access and poor protection information are rife. While certain States are assertive in using humanitarian action to meet political ends, UNHCR also faces the other extreme, where government authorities are very weak. Intense media attention may also create unnecessary competition among humanitarian partners. Panelists agreed that unified policy positions and strong humanitarian leadership, particularly in operations with UN Peacekeeping Operations, are essential components for overcoming difficult protection environments. In some cases, such as with the internment of civilians in Sri Lanka, presenting clear protection strategies and benchmarks based upon international law was a useful tactic in negotiating with the Government. In Somalia, imaginative protection information systems, flexibility, maintaining a good network of contacts throughout society, and sheer persistence allowed UNHCR to gain protection information despite limited humanitarian access. Colleagues agreed that flexibility and creativity in delivering protection is essential; operational protection cannot always be done by the guidebook, and it is necessary at times to engage with non-typical actors. In the end, panelists agreed that “we have to do what works” to provide protection.
The final day of the Consultations opened with a panel discussion on protection of civilians (PoC), concentrating on how should UNHCR should understand the expression, given competing definitions available, and more importantly, how it should define its objectives and engagement in this field of work. The Liaison Office in New York explained OCHA´s definition of PoC, encompassing the wide IASC definition of protection as applied to armed conflict situations. The Office also explained the web of PoC processes and coordination mechanisms in New York, including regular reports to the Security Council by the Secretary-General and the ERC, an expert group within the Security Council, and a monthly OCHA-led working group meeting. Since 1999, 13 peacekeeping missions with Security Council mandates have had PoC mandates. The Security Council is increasingly willing to use targeted sanctions in response to attacks and abuse against civilians. OCHA and DPKO are actively issuing guidance on PoC, and OCHA represents the humanitarian community in PoC-related processes in NY. UNHCR needs to work very closely with OCHA on this brief. The ICRC reflected on the need for clarity on definitions and roles of different actors involved in protection. While the objectives of protection activities are the same, peacekeeping missions constitute a political process and include physical protection, two elements that are absent from the definition of protection within the humanitarian sphere. Integration of structures and strategies carries an inherent risk of “blurring the lines” between the two approaches to protection. Relationships between actors working in these two approaches must be based on complementarity. The Africa Bureau explained that most peacekeeping missions with a PoC mandate are in Africa. The African Union is increasingly involved in PoC, with the same debates over definitions and means arising. In general, there is a debate on whether PoC strategies should cover the whole UN system or only mission components. Issues of blurring of the lines, threats to humanitarian space, duplication, and effectiveness of PoC have arisen. UNHCR is deeply involved in the field and needs more institutional involvement. One field cluster lead argued that UNHCR is not only the global protection lead but also the strongest UN protection agency. Doing day-to-day work well in the field, which includes high-quality protection monitoring, networking with partners, and using PoC resources at field level to the best of our protection objectives, is what will ensure protection impact. This requires also bridging a present disconnect between the field and the policy-making level at Geneva and New York on PoC issues. UNHCR needs represent itself and the protection community strongly in New York, including at the Security Council Expert Group briefings.
Defining UNHCR´s interests: Protection of Civilians
The ensuing discussion focused on the kind of engagement UNHCR needs in PoC issues to further its protection objectives. In the field, the PoC concept remains vague and largely context-specific. UNHCR needs to engage early on with peacekeeping missions, including in training and information-sharing, in ways that are understandable to the military. In the field we are in many cases protection cluster lead and produce most of the information, yet in New York UNHCR´s interests are conveyed and represented by OCHA. We need a stronger presence in New York, reinforced by better information sharing between UNHCR in the field 14
and the NY office. A UNHCR working group, meeting monthly, was proposed to cover this objective.
Introducing the discussion on durable solutions, Josep Zapater, Sr. Protection Officer DIP, highlighted the need for UNHCR to adopt a clearer policy position on its role in durable solutions. Questions for consideration included: what operational areas should UNHCR prioritize? What benchmarks for measured disengagement should UNHCR adopt? At the same time, Zapater highlighted a need for better integration of IDPs and refugees in UNHCR’s doctrine and practice. In countries of origin, he argued that no distinction should be made in UNHCR’s operational involvement between returning refugees and IDPs, other than one based on need and vulnerability. The overarching concept should be “country of origin solutions.” At a regional or global level, comprehensive durable solutions strategies for refugees should take IDPs fully into account. The presentation on Colombia highlighted the challenge of finding durable solutions for IDPs amidst ongoing armed conflict. With new legislation on victim´s rights and land issues, the search for durable solutions has triggered new protection problems since the new laws impact competing commercial interests. However, the Government is not inclined to recognize protection challenges. In this context, IDPs themselves continue making progress towards durable solutions. To support this process, UNHCR has moved away from an individual approach to a community-based perspective, to support the relationship between IDPs and the communities of local integration. UNHCR has developed a comprehensive approach to durable solutions through partnership with humanitarian, government, human rights, and development actors. However, the operation needs policy guidelines on durable solutions and more financial support. Stronger operational involvement is needed both to be a credible partner in durable solutions processes, and to lend weight to our protection advocacy at a time when the persistence of conflict and protection needs are overlooked.
In Sri Lanka, the conflict ended abruptly through total Government victory over Tamil rebels with no peace agreement, coalition government, or reconciliation process. The Government has a strong interest in defining solutions through the return of the 7,500 IDPs still remaining in camps. However, massive return has not yet resulted in durable solutions, and return areas are heavily militarized. At the same time, a protracted caseload remains outside of camps and in host families. OCHA defends a humanitarian coordination structure in what is now a return and reintegration operation. Humanitarian actors have requested that OCHA provide information on the process for de-clusterization and guidance on civil-military relations. UNHCR statistics need to better reflect IDP returnees since this has implications for justifying ongoing financial support. Under UNHCR’s current system, IDP returnees are retained on the statistical record for one calendar year, despite UNHCR’s commitment to provide longerterm assistance for durable solutions. At the same time, UNHCR needs program structures that facilitate integrating refugee reintegration programming and durable solutions for IDPs. The current budget structure requires that funding be placed in different pillars, even if operationally there is no relevant distinction. As a final intervention in the panel, DIP expanded on the need for a comprehensive approach to durable solutions for refugees and IDPs. At the policy level and in some field situations, IDPs and returning refugees are addressed separately. However, UNHCR has substantial institutional experience at comprehensive sub-regional and regional durable solutions strategies where forcibly displaced persons, both IDPs and refugees, are treated according to 15
need. Leadership of the Protection Cluster and extensive field presence gives UNHCR an opportunity to be at the forefront of durable solutions in their earlier phases. Experience has shown that solutions are more sustainable when interventions are harmonized.
Interventions focused on the need for clarity and support in UNHCR´s work for durable solutions for IDPs. The discussion reached the following conclusions: • In protracted situations, adequate strategies, disengagement benchmarks, and funding are lacking. When durable solutions are blocked politically, UNHCR needs to develop interim solutions, using regional solidarity. Protection risks persist after durable solutions have commenced. At the field level, protection needs funding in durable solutions operations. At the policy level we need to advance this point in interagency processes. UNHCR needs to clarify the scope of its role and engagement in durable solutions for IDPs. This should identify the areas of involvement were the office has added value, and establish clear benchmarks for measured disengagement. Involvement in transitional justice is an open question, which depends also on field context. Adequate monitoring mechanisms will be needed to establish when benchmarks have been met. UNHCR needs an integrated approach, from a policy and operational perspective, to returning refugees and IDPs, which focuses on need rather than former status.
The Rossella Pagliucci-Lor, Director of the Global Learning Centre, presented new training initiatives related to internal displacement and introduced a new forum for IDP operations to share good practices and experience through a web-based “IDP community of practice.” A discussion then opened with the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection (AHC-(P)), Erika Feller, on key constraints and challenges in IDP operations and the necessary response by UNHCR. The AHC(P) summarized the conclusions of the recent IASC Cluster Evaluation Phase II. While clusters have improved coverage, predictability in leadership and partnerships, other challenges remain. These include a focus on process at the expense of delivery, exclusion of national and local actors, poor inter-cluster coordination, and underfunding and lack of capacity for protection activities. The AHC(P) stated that UNHCR staff should ask themselves whether the cluster system is the way to go, and what its impact is for UNHCR’s refugee mandate. Summarizing the three days of discussion, participants then presented to the AHC(P) their general assessment of the field’s needs to address the main constraints and challenges in IDP operations: In terms of internal capacity, UNHCR needs to invest more in order to remain a lead agency in the protection field. This requires: • • • Well-trained staff to lead and support clusters, Increased technical expertise, on issues such as civil documentation and registration, More capacity for information management, as accurate information is the basis for both protection strategy development and protection leadership, 16
Better clarification of the respective roles of UNHCR staff in relation to protection clusters, and strong management support in adhering to these roles.
IDP operations are also in need of policy and guidance: • UNHCR needs a policy on its role in durable solutions for IDPs that addresses funding and budget mechanisms, UNHCR’s operational priorities, roles and responsibilities, and benchmarks for disengagement, incorporating both cluster and agency perspectives. Guidance on: Land and property, security sector reform, DDR, transitional justice, and natural resources (as impacting durable solutions and as sources of conflict). UNHCR should reassert a role as the technical lead for protection of civilians in the UN system. Representatives need to accept UNHCR’s cluster leadership as a legitimate and effective mechanism to protect IDPs.
• • •
Regarding natural disasters, field operations need clear guidance on the scope and extent of UNHCR’s involvement, including the definition of the populations that the Office is meant to protect. On the inter-agency front, participants raised the following points: • • A stronger leadership role is needed for UNHCR in the Protection Cluster, working closely with the Humanitarian Coordinator and other partners, The relationship and division of responsibilities with OCHA is dysfunctional and needs to be clarified. OCHA is treading too much on the protection field without adequate knowledge. There is concern about OCHA representing UNHCR at the Security Council without UNHCR being present. Other agencies, in particular large NGOs, should play a more active role in the Protection Cluster. There should be accountability mechanisms. Clarification is needed on how UNHCR works with peacekeeping operations.
Participants observed that there should be a balance between properly refraining from overreaching UNHCR’s refugee mandate, particularly as questioned by some Excom members, and taking advantage of the dividends UNHCR’s general capacity to deliver protection that our engagement with IDPs can yield. On natural disasters, it was observed that positioning UNHCR as the protection arm of the UN system quite naturally leads the agency to take a prominent role also in protection in natural disasters. At the same time, leadership does not require UNHCR to take on all operational aspects of a response. Engagement in natural disasters may yield political dividends and open the possibility for UNHCR to engage in with conflict-induced IDPs, or may favorably dispose an affected government to work more closely with UNHCR on refugee issues. On the protection of civilians, it was recognized that the issue goes beyond IDPs and into the general realm of human rights protection. A leading UNHCR role may expand the Office’s remit much more than intended. At the same time, there is clear discomfort among field staff at OCHA taking the lead on an issue for which UNHCR is the main provider of inputs and information. On the cluster system, participants were reminded that IASC discussions seem to be headed in the direction of returning to the original and more modest understanding of the system, i.e., that clusters are a time-bound mechanism to address gaps. It was also recognized that the cluster system and the humanitarian reform in general open up opportunities to improve both IDP and refugee protection. There was general consensus around the need for more resources, 17
including staffing, policy guidance and management support for UNHCR to be able to fulfill its commitment with IDPs in an effective manner. The Director of DIP and the AHC(P) presented the conclusions of the consultations: • UNHCR’s primary objective is to deliver protection. Inter-agency engagement should be seen as a means to achieving this objective. UNHCR should bear in mind its comparative advantage in protection, including its comprehensive approach to protection and a field presence that extends from the beginning to the end of the displacement cycle. UNHCR needs to do better. The Office has to ensure that protection is not subservient to political considerations, and HQ will lend all necessary support to this end to field operations. UNHCR needs to become a better fundraiser. Programme and protection staff must work more closely together, and protection officers need to become more familiar with programming, budgeting and fundraising. Another avenue for improvement is organizing protection dialogues, a very frank and open high-level conversation with selected national Governments on protection concerns. The call for stronger support to IDP operations by senior management is heard. It will be brought to the Troika, the HC and Bureau directors. In terms of guidance, HQ will assess and take action on a prioritized list of issues. Regarding Protection of Civilians, this issue needs to be looked into. We need to analyze the consequences in terms of policy and operations of a stronger engagement for UNHCR. We have to remind ourselves of the opportunity that field operations have to advocate with national Governments, as appropriate, for the inclusion of issues pertaining to IDPs in the pledging process for the upcoming Ministerial meeting in the framework of the Anniversaries.
• • •
UNHCR FIELD CONSULTATIONS ON IDP PROTECTION
What: A three day consultation with the Senior Protection staff for all IDP operations. Why: Despite a significant evolution in its engagement with IDPs over the past six years, UNHCR has not yet had a global consultation with its senior IDP protection staff. With the strengthening of UNHCR's commitment to offer leadership in protection in natural disasters, the re-‐visioning of the Global Protection Cluster, and the recent experience of regional crises requiring complementary and well-‐coordinated refugee and IDP responses, now is an opportune time to do so. The Field Consultations on IDP Protection are structured with the goal of strengthening and better supporting UNHCR’s operational response to internal displacement. While sessions will allow for sharing new developments and tools, the focus is on discussions and group work to shape UNHCR’s work with IDPs and internal displacement over the next 2 years. The Consultations will be a two-‐way learning experience: • to identify key operational needs and recommendations from field offices; • to share experiences and good practices across country contexts; and • to discuss and influence policy and operational developments. The outcome of these discussions will inform the work planning of relevant support units (including DIP, PDES, and the GLC). At the same time, the consultations will facilitate the flow of communication and support between HQ support functions and the field in the future. The discussions will inform an expert consultation anticipated in 2012, which will review the 2007 policy framework for UNHCR’s engagement with and response to internal displacement. A resource CD will be prepared for participants with key documents, and an IDP Protection Community of Practice will be unveiled during the consultations to facilitate continued discussion and exchange of practice once participants return to their operations. When: October 11, 12 and 13 Where: Geneva, John Knox Centre Who: Organized by DIP with participation from the GLC, PDES, DPSM and LONY. Participation by country: Africa: Burundi, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, S. Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe Americas: Colombia, Haiti Asia: Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka Europe: Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, Serbia MENA: Iraq, Libya, Yemen With participation by the Brookings-‐LSE Project on Internal Displacement, ICRC, and the former Representative of the Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. 19
AGENDA: FIELD CONSULTATIONS ON IDP PROTECTION
8:30 9:00 10:00 10:15 Registration & Coffee WELCOME AND OPENING DISCUSSION V. Türk, Director, Division of International Protection
EXPLANATION OF METHODOLOGY AND INTRODUCTIONS,
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY K. Gulick, Chief of Section, Pillar II, DIP SETTING THE STAGE: VIEWS FROM THE FIELD KEY CHALLENGES IN IDP OPERATIONS TODAY V. Türk, M oderator Afghanistan, Sumbul Rizvi Iraq, Carolyn Ennis Somalia, Wendy Mensah S. Sudan, Charles Mballa Coffee break
WORKING GROUPS: TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE FIELD CLUSTERS L. Zulu, Global Protection Cluster Support Cell, Introduction Working Group 1: Defining Responsibilities of Protection Clusters in the Field L. Zulu
Working Group 2: Leadership and Decision Making in Clusters M. Berg, Sr. ProCap Officer Lunch WORKING GROUPS REPORT BACK TO PLENARY AND DISCUSSION 20
14:30 15:45 16:00
WORKING GROUPS ON PROTECTION CLUSTER STRATEGIES: PLANNING AS A TOOL FOR LEADERSHIP S. Russell, Sr. ProCap Officer, Introduction SHARING RECOMMENDATIONS S. Russell Coffee break
A look at the several roles UNHCR plays in protection responses: fulfilling its mandate obligations to refugees, assuming an increased operational engagement in protection of the internally displaced, and leading clusters in the inter-‐agency sphere. How can UNHCR capitalize on this enhanced role in protection, and what does it mean for UNHCR’s operational response? How should UNHCR bridge IDP and refugee contexts to ensure coherent regional/situational responses to displacement? And how has the IDP response affected partners’ expectations of UNHCR’s leadership in refugee contexts? REMARKS L. Aubin, Deputy Director, DIP & Coordinator, Global Protection Cluster PANEL K. Furley, Head, Inter-‐Agency Unit S. Malik, Chief, Operational Solutions and Transitions Section K. Roberson, Chief, Field Information and Coordination Section PLENARY DISCUSSION
End of day 1
9:00 9:30 UPDATE ON POLICY DEVELOPMENTS K. Gulick PANEL ON PROTECTION IN NATURAL DISASTERS Protection in Natural Disasters (45’) E. Ferris, Director, Brookings-‐LSE Project on Internal Displacement Protection Risks and Operational Challenges (20’ each) Haiti, B. Kale 21
11:15 11:45 13:00 14:00
Pakistan, M. Ameratunga Philippines, J. Zapater Coffee break OPEN DISCUSSION WITH PANELISTS AND PARTICIPANTS: NEXT STEPS V. Türk, Moderator Lunch
THE RELEVANCE OF DOMESTIC LAWS AND POLICIES INTRODUCTION, A. Abebe REMARKS, W. Kälin, Director, Centre suisse de competence pour les droits humains and Director, Institute of Public Law, University of Bern, former Representative of the Secretary General for the Human Rights of IDPs Interactive discussion with all colleagues on supporting the development of laws and policies, with interventions by J. Muigai, Sr. Legal Advisor, Regional Bureau for Africa, on cooperation at the regional level, and A. Mayman, Asst. Rep. (Yemen), I. Ivansic, Sr. Protection Officer (Kenya), and N. Schrepfer, University of Bern, on experiences at the national level and lessons learned. Coffee and refreshments available DELIVERING PROTECTION, REGARDLESS… To serve IDPs and other persons of concern, UNHCR must deliver protection: with (or despite) governments….regardless of remote access….in the face of safety restrictions…in cooperation with or circumvention of armed actors. An informal, free-‐ranging dialogue among senior colleagues will explore operational challenges -‐-‐ and creative and practical solutions -‐-‐ to delivering protection in difficult circumstances. Moderator: J. Crisp, Head, Policy Development and Evaluation Service A. Awad, Director, DESS G. Bettochi, Deputy Director, Regional Bureau for Europe B. Greve, Head, ODM W. Kälin E. Macleod, Head, Inspection Service Transport provided to Headquarters-‐MBT RECEPTION IN HONOR OF FIELD STAFF (MBT CAFETERIA) 22
High Commissioner Antonio Guterres and Assistant High Commissioner for Protection Erika Feller, Welcoming with Senior Management, Divisions and Bureaux staff
K. Gulick, Moderator
A.C. Eriksson, Deputy Director, LONY, Policy and politics: the view from New York J. Keegan, Operational realities: the view from DRC and Cote d’Ivoire A. Painter, Sr. Policy Officer, Regional Bureau for Africa, Regional perspectives: Regional organizations and peacekeeping missions P. Gentile, Head, Protection of Civilians Unit, International Committee of the Red Cross 10:00 10:30 11:00 PLENARY DISCUSSION: UNHCR’S STAKE IN THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS Coffee break
J. Zapater, Introduction and Moderation A. Celis, Durable Solutions in the Midst of Conflict: Colombia G. Balke, View from the Field Post-‐Conflict: Sri Lanka M. Balde, Solutions for IDPs and Refugees: A Comprehensive Approach PLENARY DISCUSSION Lunch
14:00 14:30 BRIEFING BY THE GLOBAL LEARNING CENTRE & PRESENTATION OF THE IDP PROTECTION COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE Rossella Pagliuchi-‐Lor, Head, Global Learning Centre Emil Iuga, Learning Associate, Global Learning Centre DESIGN OF SESSION & FACILITATION: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AHC S. Rizvi, C. Ennis, W. Mensah, C. Mballa 23
15:30 16:00 17:30
Coffee break DISCUSSION WITH THE ASSISTANT HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PROTECTION E. Feller CONCLUSIONS AND CLOSURE E. Feller and V. Türk
Participants List for IDP Field Consultations 11-‐13 October 2011 Name Maya Eduardo Gregory Andrés Carolyn Antonio Guy-‐Rufin Igor Buti Jackie Preeta Ann Charles Magda Gwendoline Sophie Mildred Scott Danijela Daniela Sumbul Rico Shigeyuki Beat Christos Tatiana Name Michelle
Surname Ameratunga Arboleda Balke Celis Ennis Garcia-‐Carranza Guernas Ivancic Kale Keegan Law Maymen Mballa Medina Mensah Muller Ouma Pohl Popovic-‐Efendic Raiman Rizvi Salcedo Sato Schuler Theodoropoulos Troeva Country Pakistan Serbia Sri Lanka Colombia Iraq Chad (Goz Beida) DRC (Goma) Kenya USA (Haiti) Ivory Coast Myanmar Yemen South Sudan Ethiopia Somalia Burundi Uganda Bosnia Herzegovinia Georgia Libya Afghanistan Philippines Sudan Zimbabwe Kosovo Azerbaijan Function/Organisation Assistant Rep (Protection) Representative Senior Protection Officer National Protection Officer Assistant Rep (Protection) Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Deputy Regional Representative Senior Protection Officer Deputy Representative Assistant Rep (Protection) Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Protection Officer, Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Associate Legal Officer Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Senior Protection Officer Protection Officer
Surname Berg Country Canada Function/Organisation Senior ProCap Officer /NRC-‐OCHA 25
Elizabeth Pierre Walter
Ferris Gentile Kälin Russell Schrepfer
United States Switzerland Switzerland
Director, Brookings-‐LSE Project on Internal Displacement Head of Protection of Civilians Unit, ICRC Director, Institute of Public Law & former Representative of the Secretary General for the Human Rights of IDPs Senior ProCap Officer/NRC-‐OCHA University of Bern
Simon Nina First Name Allehone Louise Amin Guillermo Jeff Claudio Charles
Surname Abebe Aubin Awad Bettochi Crisp Delfabro Duverger-‐ Santiago Entwisle Eriksson Feller Furley Gornell Greve Gulick Ismail Malik Muigai Naufal O’Dwyer Pagliuchi-‐Lor Painter Roberson Skovbye Svensson Torzilli Türk Urquía Wissner Zapater Zulu Country Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Hungary Switzerland Switzerland USA Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Swizterland Switzerland Switzerland Hungary Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Function/Organisation Legal Officer, DIP Deputy-‐Director, DIP Director, DESS Deputy Director, Bureau for Europe Head, PDES Senior Protection Officer, GLC Intern, DIP Consultant, DIP Deputy-‐Director, LONY Assistant High Commissioner (P) Coordinator , IAU DPSM Head , ODM Chief of Section, DIP, Pillar II Protection Officer Chief of Section, DPSM Senior Legal Advisor, Africa Bureau Senior Policy Officer , Europe Bureau Senior Protection Officer, DIP Head, Global Learning Centre Senior Policy Officer , Africa Bureau Chief of Section, DPSM Protection Officer, DIP Protection Officer, DIP Senior Legal Advisor, Americas Bureau Director, DIP Senior Emergency Shelter Coordinator Senior Legal Advisor Senior Protection Officer, DIP Senior Protection Officer, DIP
Hannah Anne-‐Christine Erika Kemlin Shelly Betsy Karen Kahin Sajjad Jane Monique Edward Rossella Andrew Kimberly Rebecca Matilda Davide Volker Miguel Andreas Josep Leonard
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.