Input:
_Women’s livelihood strategies_ According to DFID (2001), a livelihood comprises the capabilities and assets (both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is said to be sustainable when it can recover from shocks, stresses and trends and maintain and enhance its capabilities both now and in the future while not undermining the natural resource base for future generations (Ibid).

Access to and control of land to a greater extent determines refugee women’s access to livelihood assets such as physical capital, natural capital, human capital, financial capital and social capital. Unfortunately, as Wengi (1998) points out, access and control are limited by their lack of resource rights. For instance, in most of Sub Saharan Africa, women do not own land and even what they produce on the land, is controlled by the men (World Bank, 2000; Verma, 2001). Paradoxically, women through their labour are the major contributors to household livelihoods especially in refugee situations (Mulumba, 2002).

Women and men negotiate access and maintain control over land as a productive and material resource differently and inequitably within local relations of power (Verma, 2001:79).Land conflicts influence women’s access to resources such as cultivable land, water and firewood. Given their domestic responsibilities, refugee women negotiate access to natural resources such as land for cultivation, firewood and water vital for the survival of their families.

Because of land conflicts and depletion of resources such as trees and arable soils women have been forced to look beyond the settlement for other sources. For instance, interviews with refugee women revealed that they collect firewood and water five to seven kilometres away from the settlement. Travelling such long distances makes them vulnerable to sexual exploitation and gender based violence from both refugees and host populations. The distances also take away their valuable time to engage in income generating activities or to participate in skills training.

It was also established that women do not control proceeds from surplus food sold in the markets nor independently use the surplus from other household income generating activities. As a result, they are dependent on men for their daily needs a fact that greatly disadvantages them. For instance, because of their low income, women are denied access to dispute settling mechanisms in the settlements. For example in the case of land conflicts, Refugee Welfare Committees [8] demand fees before they can settle a dispute.

According to the Refugee Welfare Committee chairman, this is to ‘facilitate’ their work in settling cases in the form of stationary. This requirement has become a hindrance to women who wish to seek assistance and adjudication of their cases.
Further to that, at times, police posts in the settlements also demand money from refugees to address their complaints. For instance in cases where women report cases of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV), the police request ‘fees’ to arrest 8 Refugee Welfare Committees are not facilitated by the government or UNHCR to carry out their day to day activities.

6


Input:
perpetrators [9] . Since women often lack money to pay such fees, they at times fail to report cases.

Refuge women’s vulnerability is also partly due to men who migrate out of the settlements to seek for work opportunities in urban centres leaving their wives behind to maintain a presence in the settlement. As observed in a study of urban refugees in Kampala (Kalyango, 1999) some refugees have ended up with a dual settlement, that is, some live in urban centres such as Mbarara and Kampala and only return to the settlement when there is food distribution or a census.

The majority of refugee women respond to these hindrances in their attempts to establish a livelihood by building up their social capital. For instance, they respond to the lack of labour in the households as a consequence of the absence of men, by forming groups through which they harness their joint labour. Women for example cooperate in cultivating each other’s gardens as a group. They also participate in community activities such as women’s groups, or as volunteers with humanitarian agencies operating in the settlement.

Some refugee women work as social workers for the Uganda Red Cross Society or as Community Volunteers for the International Medial Corps (IMC). Social capital is developed through vertical (patron/ client) or horizontal (between individuals with shared interests) networks that increase people’s trust and ability to work together and expand their access to wider institutions (DFID, 2001). Social capital helps to increase women’s productivity, improves their access to income generating activities and facilitates the sharing of knowledge (Ibid.).

Furthermore, some women have devised survival strategies such as the use of sex and marriage to achieve livelihood goals. For instance, they either exchange sex for services they need or engage in outright prostitution. Joseph (not real name), who runs a drug shop in the settlement, revealed that at times women request to exchange sex for drugs in case they have no money.

Another livelihood strategy of women is that of marriage as agency to access livelihood resources. Women seek marriage [10] to either nationals or refugee men. In the absence of role models and evident benefits from formal education, marriage has remained as the only option for many. Girls are married off as early as 16 years to acquire income or dowry and or extra labour for the household. Refugees reported that if a girl reaches puberty then she is ready for marriage as in the case of Esther: Esther lost her husband in 1994 in Rwanda while fleeing the genocide with her under-aged daughter Doris. When she arrived in Nakivale refugee settlement, she got involved with a Rwandan man in order to secure social support and survival. She gave away Doris to another man to marry her. The man was later arrested for defilement which is illegal in Uganda after a marriage ceremony attended by the Refugee Welfare Committee members. Doris’s mother refused to give evidence against her son-in-law arguing that Doris was of age and that the man had been wrongly arrested.

9 The request for fees arises out of the poor facilitation of the police units in the settlements.
10 At times they cohabit with men with no formal marriage ceremonies.

7

study of urban refugees in Kampala


Input:
Early marriages arise out of the communities’ view that women’s place in society is in the home (Obbo, 1990:210). Early marriages however have a negative impact on girls’ access to education and building up their human capital. Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability, labour and good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives (DFID, 2001).

The study concurs with the World Bank (2000:152) which observed that when girls reach adolescence, they are generally expected to spend more time on household activities such as cooking, cleaning, collecting fuel and water and caring for children.
Moreover, quite often men marry young girls not for companionship but as extra labourers in households.

Such attitudes have partly led to high school drop out rate for girls in higher classes (secondary school level) despite high enrolment rates in lower classes (primary school level). Education policies have emphasised the enrolment of girls in both primary and secondary school and not their retention in school. Whereas girls are encouraged to attend school, nothing much has been done to provide an enabling environment for their retention in school. According to the Government of Uganda’s Development Assistance for Refugees (DAR) policy, refugees need more education facilities to ensure that children are able to access primary education (GoU, 2004:12).

A closer look at the government strategy shows that it does not address the quality of education and the retention of the girl child in school. For instance, in one of the secondary schools in the settlement, of the 300 students, 200 are boys and 100 are girls. The head teacher said that girls have a high drop out rate because of early marriages, pregnancy and neglect of parents. Mulumba (1998:35-40) noted that there is little motivation to educate daughters and further observed that in the refugee settlements, it is not uncommon for girls as young as 13 and 14 years to marry.

A limited number of women are involved in the informal sector within the settlement instead of only relying on land resources. Some women operate kiosks that sell basic necessities such as sugar, salt, paraffin; others provide services operating hair saloons and restaurants. This concurs with research by Deepa Narayan (2000:45), who observed that poor people try to diversify their sources of income and food by carrying out different income generating activities.

Despite their hard work, it was found that women rarely participate in decisionmaking processes at both the household and community level. This is a result of cultural expectations that perceive women as belonging to the ‘home’ (Tinker, 1990:17) and their preoccupation in care activities that limit their time to actively participate in decision-making.

Refugee women with some form of formal education seek employment in the settlements, although the opportunities are limited. A few semi-skilled women are employed as social workers, community volunteers, teachers or midwives in the health units. In all these activities, they earn incentives that are not commensurate to the work they do, as according to the government of Uganda, refugees are not 8


Input:
supposed to work. Hence, humanitarian agencies cannot sign a contract with them, give them terms of reference and pay them a salary [11] .

Another livelihood strategy is that of engaging in Functional Adult Literacy (FAL) programs. The majority of the refugees who attend these classes seek to learn English in order to improve their (economic and social) integration into the Ugandan community.

It is also a strategy of those who hope to be resettled in other countries such as the United States of America, Australia and Canada. Enrolment in English language classes reveals that refugee women have a long-term view of their livelihood beyond the parameters of their households and domestic work. Whereas they thus search for opportunities that can get them and their families out of poverty, at the same time it is important to realize that they are constrained by having to juggle their studying with care and livelihood activities in the households.

**Conclusion**

In all, conflicts over land between refugees and host populations have had negative impact on the way refugee women access livelihood goals. Land, for the majority of refugee women is central to their survival. In order to overcome the predicaments of land conflicts and inequitable access to resources, refugee women have devised other livelihood strategies to ensure their survival and that of their children. For instance marriage, Functional Adult Literacy and building up of their social capital are seen as agency in this regard.

The extent to which refugee women can attain livelihood goals is however limited by restrictions on their freedom of movement. As a result, refugees fail to fully utilize livelihood opportunities even when they sneak out of the settlement. Ideally, for a way forward, refugees should be given an opportunity to build their livelihoods outside the framework of the settlement approach which is prone to conflicts with the local population and greatly limits achievement of sustainable livelihoods.

11 Interview with program officer, Uganda Red Cross October 2004 9


Input:
REFERENCES Bagenda E, Naggaga A and Smith E (2003), Land problems in Nakivale refugee settlement and implications for refugee protection in Uganda, Refugee Law Project working paper No. 8, Makerere University, Kampala Uganda.

Crisp Jeff (2002) ‘No solution in sight: the problem of protracted refugee situations in Africa,’ paper prepared for a symposium on the multidimensionality of displacement in Africa, Kyoto Japan.

DFID (2001), Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, London, United Kingdom.

Harrell-Bond, B (1986), Imposing aid: Emergency assistance to refugees New York: Oxford University press.

Hajabakiga Patricia (November, 2004), “Addressing land issues in post conflict settings: the case of Rwanda”, paper presented at a conference on a theme Land in Africa: market asset or secure livelihood, London.

Harrell-Bond, B (2002) ‘Towards the economic and social ‘integration’ of refugee populations in host countries in Africa’, paper presented at an International conference on protracted refugee situations in Africa, Entebbe Uganda.

Holborn W. Louise (1975) Refugees a problem of our time: the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1951-1972, Vol. II Metuchen N.J: The Scarecrow Press, Inc pp 1213-1258 Jacobsen, K (2001) ‘The forgotten solution: local integration for refugees in developing countries’, New issues in refugee research, working paper no. 45, UNHCR, Geneva Johns Richard (2003), Participatory Poverty Assessment of Nakivale and Oruchinga Refugee Camps in Southern Uganda: Livelihood Characteristics, Economic Constraints and Recommendations for Change, UNHCR and the Economic and Social Research Council, UK.

Kabeer Naila (1994) Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in Development thought, London: Verso.

Kalyango Ronald and Huff Kirk (2002) Refugees in the city: status determination, resettlement and the changing nature of forced migration in Uganda, Refugee Law Project Working paper No. 6, Kampala Uganda.

Kasfir Nelson (1988), ‘Land and peasants in Western Uganda: Bushenyi and Mbarara Districts.’ In Hansen Holger B and Twaddle Michael (Eds.) Uganda Now: between decay and development, London: James Carrey Limited.

Kalyango Ronald (forth coming), Interfaces of care, institutional policies and livelihood strategies of refugee women in Uganda.

Kibreab, G (1989), ‘Local settlements in Africa: a misconceived option?’ Journal of Refugee Studies 2(4):468-490.

11


Input:
Mugerwa Kisamba W (1992) ‘Rangeland tenure and resource management: an overview of pastoralism in Uganda’, Makerere Institute of Social Research and the Land Tenure Centre, Kampala Uganda pp 1-35 Mulumba Deborah (2002) ‘Refugee economy and livelihood in East Africa, upbl.
Study report, Centre for Refugee Studies Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya.

Nuwagaba (2002) ‘Land tenure and administrative issues in Kampala city and their effect on urban development’, a research report by Makerere University and SIDA, Makerere University, Kampala. pp 26-40 Pincwya Ginyera (1998), Uganda and the problem of refugees, Kampala: Makerere University Press. pp 8-25 Pirouet Louise, (1988) ‘Refugees in and from Uganda in the post independence period.’ In Hansen Holger B and Twaddle Michael (Eds.) Uganda Now: between decay and development, London: James Carrey Limited. pp 158-174 UNHCR (2000) The state of the world refugees Fifty years of Humanitarian Action, New York: Oxford University Press inc. pp 275-287 Tshikaka Dzodzi (November, 2004) “Securing women’s land rights: approaches prospects and challenges,” paper presented at a conference on a theme Land in Africa: market asset or secure livelihood, November.

Verma Ritu (2001) Gender, Land and Livelihoods in East Africa: through farmer’s eyes, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. pp. 79-114 Wengi Okumu Jennifer (1996), Dispossession and management of common property: Women and inheritance in East Africa, in Gibson C, Banana A, Ntabirweki J (Eds.) Common property resources management in East Africa, Kampala: Makerere Institute of Social Research.

World Bank (2001), Engendering development through gender equality in Rights, Resources, and voice, a World Bank policy research report, New York: Oxford University Press.

12


Input:
# **UNHCR Monitoring Visit to Manus Island, Papua New Guinea** **11-13 June 2013**

_UNHCR undertook a visit to Manus Island on 11-13 June 2013 to assess progress by_ _Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) in implementing their obligations under the_ _1951 Refugee Convention since UNHCR’s January 2013 visit and to review the_ _reception conditions at the Regional Processing Centre (RPC)._

**Summary Findings**

UNHCR acknowledges a number of positive developments since its January visit, including the transfer of children and their families back to Australia, and was also impressed by the obvious sensitivity, dedication and good will of staff and officials on site.

Despite these efforts, conditions remain below international standards for the reception and treatment of asylum-seekers. Physical living conditions remain harsh, in particular for asylum-seekers living in the single adult males’ compound.

While the ongoing development of excursions and activities available to asylumseekers is welcomed, freedom of movement remains extremely limited.

The current PNG policy and practice of detaining all asylum-seekers at the closed Centre, on a mandatory and indefinite basis without an assessment as to the necessity and proportionality of the purpose of such detention in the individual case, and without being brought promptly before a judicial or other independent authority amounts to arbitrary detention that is inconsistent with international human rights law.

Transfer arrangements remain problematic and do not appear to reflect the required procedural safeguards under international law, or under the bilateral agreement between Australia and PNG.

Pre-transfer assessments do not appear to assess the individual needs of children or persons of heightened vulnerability, or the nature of the facilities and services that would be available to them at the RPC.

UNHCR welcomes the commencement of refugee status determination (RSD) processing, but notes the shortcomings in the legal framework, including PNG laws and regulations. UNHCR considers changes to these laws and regulations need to be implemented to ensure that a fair and efficient process, which meets international standards and is accessible to all asylum-seekers in PNG, regardless of their means of arrival, is put in place.

UNHCR also reiterates the need for durable solutions for those found to be refugees or otherwise in need of international protection, within a reasonable time, consistent with both States’ obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

UNHCR Regional Office Tel: +61 2 6281 9104 3 Lyons Place Mob: +61 (0)407 971 686 Lyons ACT 2606 Fax: +61 2 6260 3477 Australia www.unhcr.org.au


Input:
**Recommendations**

**Refugee Status Determination**

**A. The Government of PNG should amend the Migration Act and Regulation**

**governing the RSD of asylum-seekers to:**

**I.** **ensure consistency of the domestic legal framework with the**
**provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention, in accordance with the**
**detailed comments provided by UNHCR;**
**II.** **set out in detail the asylum processes and procedures in PNG,**
**including to ensure an independent merit review process and to**
**incorporate** **complementary** **protection** **and** **non-refugee**
**statelessness claims to align the procedures with international**
**standards to which Australia and PNG are party; and**
**III.** **ensure that the same regime applies to all asylum-seekers**
**regardless of where they are from or their mode of arrival in PNG.**

**B. The Governments of PNG and Australia should finalize and disseminate**

**as a matter of urgency clear information to asylum-seekers about their**
**legal rights and entitlements, and provide counselling on the procedures**
**which will be followed to assess their claims for refugee status including**
**the legal basis, the decision-making authority and the indicative time**
**frames for these various steps.**

**C. Additional and specific support should be provided to vulnerable**

**persons, including children, to ensure that they are able to fully**
**understand and benefit from the RSD processes and procedures. In the**
**case of unaccompanied or separated children, an independent and**
**qualified guardian as well as a legal adviser should be appointed and**
**claims should be prioritized for early attention.**

**D. The Government of PNG should proceed, as a matter of priority, to**

**implement its pledge to lift the seven reservations to the 1951 Refugee**
**Convention.**

**Reception of Asylum-Seekers**

**E. The need for detention of an asylum-seeker should be based on an**

**assessment in the individual case of risk to public order, public health or**
**national security.**

**F. In the absence of reasonable and proportionate limitations arising from**

**each individual case, asylum-seekers should be provided with freedom of**
**movement as a matter of priority and the Centre on Manus Island should**
**be made an open centre.**

**G. The Government of PNG should establish a legal framework which**

**outlines the permissible bases for detention, which should be consistent**
**with international law and in line with UNHCR’s Detention Guidelines.**
**Such a legal framework would ensure that asylum-seekers be given**
**reasons for their detention in writing and be allowed to challenge the**
**decision to detain, with periodic reviews thereafter to ensure no one is**

2


Input:
**detained longer than necessary, with express maximum periods for such**
**detention.**

**H. The consideration of alternatives to detention, as well as improvements in**

**the physical living conditions for asylum-seekers on Manus Island, are**
**urgent and should be undertaken as soon as possible.**

**Children**

**I.** **UNHCR recommends that children and their families not be transferred to**
**Manus Island under these arrangements.**

**J. If children are to be transferred, PNG should develop specific legal**

**measures and administrative guidance to ensure that children are treated**
**in full respect of their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the**
**Child.**

**K. In the event that, exceptionally and as a last resort, a child is detained, the**

**safety, security and well-being of that child needs to be assured.**

**L. As a matter of principle, the refugee claims of children and other**

**vulnerable groups should be prioritised for assessment and these should**
**be carried out by suitably qualified officials who are also able to conduct**
**‘best interest determinations’ (BIDs).**

**Mental Health**

**M. Against a background of deteriorating mental health on the part of the**

**asylum-seekers, the recommendations contained in this report should be**
**addressed as a matter of urgency.**

**Oversight and Monitoring**

**N. Australia and PNG should continue to ensure that appropriate**

**independent oversight bodies are able to gain access to asylum-seekers**
**at the Centre on Manus Island.**

**O. Australia and PNG should consider establishing an Advisory Committee**

**to provide advice to the respective Governments on issues arising out of**
**the implementation of the arrangement and be a body to which the**
**Governments might refer issues for guidance and advice.**

**Pre Transfer Assessments**

**P. Pre-transfer assessments conducted in Australia should fully take into**

**account the individualized needs of vulnerable individuals, including**
**children, the elderly, survivors of torture or trauma, disabled persons and**
**persons with specific health needs.**

**Q. Pre-transfer assessments should also contain a realistic assessment of**

**the actual quality of support and capacities of service providers on PNG,**
**within the legal, operational and physical conditions currently prevailing.**

3


Input:
_**I.**_ _**Introduction**_

1. On 11-13 June, a three-person UNHCR team visited Manus Island. The visit
followed the earlier visit by UNHCR on 15-17 January 2013. [1] 2. UNHCR undertook both visits pursuant to its supervisory role under Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article II of the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (collectively referred to as ‘the 1951 Refugee Convention’), to which Papua New Guinea (PNG) is a party.

3. The terms of reference were to: assess the extent to which Australia and PNG were implementing their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and other related international obligations; review the reception conditions for asylum-seekers and refugees at the temporary ‘Regional Processing Centre’ (RPC) located at Lombrum Naval Base, Manus Island; and meet with officials, service providers and asylum-seekers to hear any concerns they might have in relation to their situation.

4. During its 11-13 June visit, UNHCR met with senior officials from the Governments of Papua New Guinea (PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority – PNG ICSA) and Australia (Department of Immigration and Citizenship – DIAC), as well as senior staff of the key service providers: G4S (security and logistics); International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) (health and medical services); Salvation Army (case management and welfare); and, Save the Children (education and child welfare).

5. UNHCR also met with the majority of the asylum-seekers resident in the RPC at the time of the visit, all of whom were invited to come to meetings in linguistic groupings. UNHCR inspected the facilities and observed a ‘transferee interview’ undertaken by a PNGICSA official who had received mentoring from experienced DIAC officers to undertake such interviews.

6. UNHCR appreciates the assistance of the PNG Government for facilitating this visit and giving full access to all areas and persons at the Manus Island RPC.
UNHCR also appreciates assistance provided by Australian officials and staff of the service providers, all of whom were helpful in ensuring that UNHCR was able to achieve the objectives of the visit.

7. UNHCR acknowledges the significant efforts being made to ensure the treatment of asylum-seekers, refugees and stateless persons is progressively improved in what continue to be extremely challenging conditions, in a remote and isolated location.

8. At the time of the 11-13 June 2013 visit, there were 302 asylum-seekers at the temporary RPC facility at Lombrum Naval Base. Some 200 of the asylumseekers were single adult males. The breakdown by country of origin for the single adult males was as follows: Vietnamese (59), Afghan (50), Iranian (39), Iraqi (36) and Pakistani (16). The remaining 102 asylum-seekers consist of 1 UNHCR Report on its 15-17 January 2013 visit was published on 4 February 2013 and is available online at: www.unhcr.org.au 4


Input:
family groups, including 26 children. [2] The breakdown of the family groups by country of origin was as follows: Sri Lankan (64), Iranian (32), Iraqi (4), Afghan (1) and Pakistani (1).

9. The team reviewed progress in relation to recommendations made in February 2013, in light of major developments.

_**II.**_ _**Legal framework for transfer arrangements**_ 10. UNHCR maintains its view that the transfer of asylum-seekers from Australia to PNG, as an arrangement agreed by two Convention States, does not extinguish the legal responsibility of the transferring State for the protection of the asylum-seekers affected by the arrangements.

11. UNHCR assessed the current conditions and treatment of transferees against the following standards and agreed principles, which must be guaranteed for each asylum-seeker transferred: (i) be individually assessed as to the appropriateness of the transfer, subject to procedural safeguards, prior to transfer. Pre-transfer assessments are particularly important for vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied and separated children. The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration; (ii) be admitted to the proposed receiving State; (iii) be protected against _refoulement_ ; (iv) have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status and/or other forms of international protection; (v) be treated in accordance with applicable international refugee and human rights law standards, for example, appropriate reception arrangements; access to health, education and basic services; safeguards against arbitrary detention; identification and assistance of persons with specific needs; and (vi) if recognized as being in need of international protection, be able to enjoy asylum and/or access a durable solution within a reasonable time. [ 3] 12. Furthermore, in addition to these standards against which the transfer arrangements are assessed, UNHCR is of the view that, at the time of the visit, the terms of the bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the transfer of asylum-seekers had also not been met. These terms included the commitment by PNG to make an assessment, or allow an assessment to be made, of claims for refugee status, and the commitment by both Governments to ensure that relevant human rights standards would be met. [4] 2 As of 11 May 2013, there were 26 children, though, at the time of the visit, UNHCR understands that one child had turned 18, leaving 25 children.

3 UNHCR, _Guidance Note on bilateral and/or multilateral transfer arrangements of asylum-seekers_, May 2013, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/51af82794.html 4 Clauses 14, 15, 16 and 18 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea and the Government of Australia, relating to the transfer to and assessment of persons in Papua New Guinea, and related issues, signed 8 September 2012.

5


Input:
_**III.**_ _**Refugee Status Determination**_ _Regulatory framework_ 13. Since January 2013, the Government of PNG has passed Migration (Amendment) Regulation No. 1 of 2013 to provide the Immigration Minister of PNG with guidance in respect of determining refugee status of non-citizens who are transferred to PNG under the MOU between the Governments of PNG and Australia.

14. Several provisions of the Regulation are inconsistent with PNGs commitments under the 1951 Refugee Convention, including that it: (i) reinforces differential treatment of asylum-seekers depending on manner of arrival, which could amount to discrimination; (ii) incorrectly applies the limited exclusion provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention to ordinary criminal matters more properly dealt with under PNG criminal law, which could lead to wrongful denial of refugee status for certain categories of persons; (iii) incorrectly allows for exclusion on the basis of ‘a demeanour incompatible with a person of good character and standing’ in relation to behaviour carried out at or after arrival in PNG; and (iv) does not provide for adequate procedural safeguards, such as independent merits review of first instance decisions.

15. UNHCR encourages PNG to further amend the law and regulations to cover both complementary protection and non-refugee statelessness claims to align the treatment of transferees more closely to applicable international standards and commitments made by the two Convention States respectively.

16. UNHCR provided the Government of PNG with comments on the new Regulation, which should be further reviewed to reflect PNG’s international obligations.

17. In particular, UNHCR recommends that the Government of PNG develop a legal framework for assessing the international protection needs of all asylumseekers arriving in PNG, by whatever means.

_Capacity building_ 18. The Government of PNG has recruited a number of officials who will undertake refugee status determination (RSD) in PNG, and UNHCR understands that, while these will initially be focusing on assessing the claims for refugee status of those asylum-seekers transferred from Australia to PNG, the intention is that they will also, in the future, undertake RSD for other asylum-seekers arriving in PNG.

19. UNHCR agreed to provide an introductory capacity-building session to officials of the Government of PNG, in keeping with its broader capacity-building activities in the Pacific region, to outline the key elements of the international 6


Input:
protection system. This training was completed in Sydney in the period following the visit, on 24-26 June 2013, and formed part of a broader threeweek training programme being undertaken by the officials.

20. UNHCR understands that, subsequent to the three-week training programme, RSD officers will commence RSD with experienced DIAC officials mentoring them for a period of six months. In parallel, experienced DIAC decision makers will be seconded to the Government of PNG to increase its decision making capacity.

21. UNHCR welcomes these developments to improve capacity, but assesses that it will take a period of at least six months’ before PNG officials are able to undertake RSD with any degree of self-sufficiency and that - even then - some ‘quality oversight’ mechanism could usefully be established, including ongoing mentoring support from the Australian Government.

22. It is also noteworthy that at the time of the capacity-building training, final procedural guidelines were not yet available. Although UNHCR notes that progress on drafting has been made, the final details of the process, including review mechanisms, were still to be finalized and promulgated.

_Progress on Manus Island towards establishing RSD_ 23. During its visit to Manus Island, UNHCR held discussions with the Centre Manager (PNG Government) and the senior DIAC official (Australian Government) about progress towards establishing the RSD process for the asylum-seekers, some of whom have been at the temporary centre since 21 November 2012.

24. A team of Australian lawyers was to arrive on Manus Island to provide asylumseekers with assistance in their refugee claims in the week beginning 24 June 2013. Eligibility interviews were to commence not long afterwards.

25. Initial interviews – described as ‘transferee interviews’ – that are designed to elicit details about the asylum-seekers, their families, the route they took to Australia and some basic information about why they came to Australia have commenced, with only 63 such interviews said to be outstanding at the time of the visit. Initially transfer interviews were undertaken by experienced DIAC officers with PNGICSA officers observing. As at the time of the visit, the interviews were being undertaken independently by PNGICSA officers.

26. UNHCR observed two half interviews (the second half of one, followed by the first half of another). They appear to be very similar in nature to ‘entry interviews’ conducted by the Government of Australia and observed by UNHCR in Australia.

27. UNHCR observed that the interviews were undertaken with professionalism, consistency and attention to detail. The interviews, however, were rigidly directed by use of a detailed template and script, leaving little scope for capture of information relating to individual circumstances of the applicant in his country of origin, or protection problems experienced in transit countries. In some instances, the observer noted that the nature of the interview template forced the interviewer to record information at variance from that being communicated by the applicant. A heavy focus on collection of information relating to routes, 7


Input:
methods and persons involved in irregular migration was evident. In light of this focus, it was of concern that applicants were informed that details may be shared with law enforcement agencies as appropriate, but were not offered access to legal advice or counselling.

28. Asylum-seekers who met with UNHCR continued to express confusion over the processing arrangements that would apply to them in PNG. As during UNHCR’s 15-17 January 2013 visit, many advised that the information they received on arrival about the process was limited and confusing. Many were somewhat reassured by indications that processing would commence imminently, though most expressed severe anxiety and unhappiness about indications they continued to receive from RPC staff that the asylum-seekers were likely to remain on Manus Island anywhere from two to five years. Many expressed a deep sense of injustice about why such a small number of them had been selected for transfer to Manus Island out of the 20,000 or so who had arrived by boat to Australia. This sense of injustice was compounded by the harsh conditions, their likely protracted stay, and uncertainty about their eventual fate.

29. UNHCR understands information fact sheets about the process have been drafted but not yet finalized. UNHCR is keen to see these finalized and deployed, especially in view of the uncertainty and confusion expressed by asylum-seekers.

30. Some asylum-seekers expressed concern that they would be denied refugee status on the basis of having been charged with certain minor offences under PNG law. There are 18 asylum-seekers in this situation, all of whom remain on bail at the RPC, and regarding whom court cases are pending.

31. While UNHCR acknowledges that all asylum-seekers are subject to the laws of the country in which they find themselves, the 1951 Refugee Convention sets out exhaustive bases on which someone may be excluded from refugee status or expelled. The 1951 Refugee Convention does not allow for denial of status on the basis of minor criminal offences and to do so would be disproportionate to the potential harm resulting. Such matters can and should be properly dealt with under the ordinary criminal law of PNG, and not lead to the denial of refugee status.

32. UNHCR received positive indications from officials in PNG, including at the international Ministerial Meeting on 10 December 2011, that it would lift the seven reservations to the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, UNHCR notes that despite the positive pledges made, 18 months has elapsed without any apparent progress in having the reservations lifted.

33. UNHCR welcomes progress made towards the establishment of an RSD system to allow for processing of asylum-seekers transferred from Australia to PNG. UNHCR also appreciates the efforts made by PNG, in cooperation with Australia, to ensure there is sufficient capacity and expertise among officials to process all refugee claims fairly and expeditiously.

34. UNHCR reiterates its concerns that procedural guarantees, including access to fair and efficient RSD procedures, were not in place at the time of transfer, and that a significant period of time has elapsed between arrival of asylum-seekers in PNG and the establishment of an appropriate RSD process. Progress has 8


Input:
been made, but it remains to be seen how and when final RSD decisions will be made and handed down.

35. UNHCR notes that there has been progress on drafting the procedural guidelines which decision makers will be required to follow, and welcomes consultation on these, as well as on the procedures for merit review.

**Recommendations: Refugee Status Determination**

**A. The Government of PNG should amend the Migration Act and Regulation**

**governing the RSD of asylum-seekers to:**

**I.** **ensure consistency of the domestic legal framework with the**
**provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention, in accordance with the**
**detailed comments provided by UNHCR;**
**II.** **set out in detail the asylum processes and procedures in PNG,**
**including to ensure an independent merit review process and to**
**incorporate** **complementary** **protection** **and** **non-refugee**
**statelessness claims to align the procedures with international**
**standards to which Australia and PNG are party; and**
**III.** **ensure that the same regime applies to all asylum-seekers**
**regardless of where they are from or their mode of arrival in PNG.**

**B. The Governments of PNG and Australia should finalize and disseminate**

**as a matter of urgency clear information to asylum-seekers about their**
**legal rights and entitlements, and provide counselling on the procedures**
**which will be followed to assess their claims for refugee status including**
**the legal basis, the decision-making authority and the indicative time**
**frames for these various steps.**

**C. Additional and specific support should be provided to vulnerable**

**persons, including children, to ensure that they are able to fully**
**understand and benefit from the RSD processes and procedures. In the**
**case of unaccompanied or separated children, an independent and**
**qualified guardian as well as a legal adviser should be appointed and**
**claims should be prioritized for early attention.**

**D. The Government of PNG should proceed, as a matter of priority, to**

**implement its pledge to lift the seven reservations to the 1951 Refugee**
**Convention.**

_**IV.**_ _**Reception conditions**_ _Progress to permanent facility_ 36. At the time of the visit, all asylum-seekers remained at the temporary RPC at Lombrum Naval Base pending the future construction of a permanent facility.
PNGICSA confirmed to UNHCR that a site had been identified for the new permanent RPC, and advised UNHCR that the permanent facility will provide asylum-seekers with better conditions and greater freedom of movement.

9


Input:
37. This proposed site will be very close to Lorengau (the capital of Manus Island), which could be expected to allow for significantly greater opportunities for interaction with the local population and activities outside the RPC. [5] UNHCR viewed the designated site from the road and noted the site’s close proximity to the Manus Island capital and secondary school.

38. UNHCR understands that the tender process sought a design which would accommodate 600 asylum-seekers in three blocks of 200 each. The design would be ‘family friendly’ with the possibility of conversion in part or in whole to accommodate single adult males.

39. Clearing and surveying the new site has commenced and it was anticipated by DIAC and PNGICSA officials that construction work would commence in July.
Although UNHCR understands there is a rough estimate of seven months to completion of the new RPC, there was no clear time frame for the completion of the permanent facility and associated improvements in the conditions provided to asylum-seekers.

_Progress at temporary facility_ 40. In the six months since UNHCR’s 15-17 January 2013 visit, asylum-seekers have remained at the temporary facility at Lombrum Naval Base.

41. The facility is broadly divided into three sectors: a compound housing single adult males; a compound housing families; and operational, administrative and staff quarters. The single adult males are accommodated in tents, whilst the families are accommodated in demountable ‘dongas’.

42. Although the facility remains essentially unchanged since January, some progress was observed in a number of areas. During the visit, UNHCR was able to observe the playing field in use as a recreational area for volleyball, soccer and other exercise, and a clearer separation between the single adult males and family groups has been created, introducing a narrow ‘no man’s land’ space between the two compounds. Additionally, provision of excursions has increased and connections with local schools allow for some exchanges between local students and asylum-seeker children. Consultative groups with asylum-seekers have been instituted.

43. Nevertheless, UNHCR overall found the living conditions for all asylum-seekers to be harsh, as outlined below. Many of the service providers who spoke with UNHCR agreed with this assessment.

44. The single adult males are accommodated in canvas tents, some with tarpaulins over them to prevent leakage in the often heavy rains. Many of them were in need of repair. The tents are close together; the different ethnic groups are close together; the tents contain between four and six men in each.
The temperature generally on Manus Island is high and inside the tents it is extremely high. All the tents have fans, but they only provide limited relief from the heat.

5 The current, temporary RPC is located over 30 minutes drive from Lorengau, within the Lombrum naval base on Los Negros Island (though generally referred to as part of ‘Manus Island’).

10


Input:
45. During interviews with UNHCR, many of the single adult men expressed the following concerns about living conditions: (i) cramped conditions and need for more space; (ii) hygiene issues in relation to ablutions block; (iii) heat, especially late afternoon and at night in the tents; (iv) desire for greater space between ethnic groups; (v) the nature of the food being served (in terms of hygiene); and (vi) the desire to be able to do their own cooking 46. The Family Compound houses asylum-seekers in ‘dongas’, similar to shipping containers, which are around three metres by three metres. Each of these is home to either a couple (two persons) or a couple with a child/minor relative (three persons). The dongas in which three persons were housed contain one camp bed and one pair of bunk beds, with limited space to store belongings.

47. For their part, the families expressed many of the same issues (though the actual living conditions are not quite as harsh as those of the ‘tent city’ experienced by the single adult men).

48. In addition, the families were particularly concerned about: (i) the close proximity of the children and young women to the single adult males, who are separated visually and physically by a narrow ‘no man’s land’ and colorbond fences; (ii) children continued to hear angry outbursts, fighting and other frightening sounds from the single adult male compound; (iii) young women felt threatened by the close presence of so many single adult men; and (iv) the proximity of the men was of general concern to the family groups who said they did not feel safe living so close to the large number of single adult males.

_Freedom of movement_ 49. Progress has been slow to achieve greater freedom of movement and access to local schools. The lack of a clear legal framework for freedom of movement is compounded by the remoteness of the location and slow negotiations with the local community.

50. At the time of the visit, all but four asylum-seekers had cleared security and health requirements and were therefore able to take part in organized excursions. The health and quarantine requirements include inoculations, which have posed some issues for the four remaining asylum-seekers, which UNHCR understands are in the process of being resolved.

51. At the time of the visit, two excursions by bus were arranged each day, each of which catered for about thirty asylum-seekers. The asylum-seekers are able to register their interest and thereafter take it in turns to participate in excursions.
Current capacity allowed for approximately two excursions per week per asylum-seeker. Excursions allowed asylum-seekers to alight from the bus in some locations around the island, under close escort, but there was limited scope for specific activities during these excursions on Manus Island.

52. Efforts were being made to introduce more meaningful activities, such as art or cultural awareness-raising activities, and options for allowing asylum-seekers to 11


Input:
undertake voluntary work in the community were, similarly, being explored.
Use of the playing field within the RPC was provided to asylum-seekers for a couple of hours each afternoon to play sports and undertake other activities.
Asylum-seekers were allowed to cook their own meals on two nights per week, with use of communal cooking facilities allocated by roster.

53. UNHCR welcomes the efforts officials and service providers working in the Centre have made to ameliorate the asylum-seekers’ difficult living conditions, to organize excursions and to provide meaningful activities for the asylumseekers.

54. Nevertheless, UNHCR was deeply concerned by the ongoing deprivation of freedom of the asylum-seekers in the Centre, especially in the harsh and crowded conditions. While the physical limitations of the Centre appear to be fairly low-security, there is a significant presence of security guards and no one is allowed to enter or leave without explicit permission.

55. The remoteness of the location, the nature of the facility (on a naval base) and the difficult living conditions appear to contribute to the all-pervasive sense of frustration and despondency which, if left unresolved for a protracted period, is likely to lead to increased levels of psycho-social and physical harm of those affected.

56. This is particularly serious for children (who are dealt with separately below).

57. Overall, UNCHR concludes that the current arrangement for the housing of asylum-seekers at the RPC constitutes detention under applicable international law. According to UNHCR’s Detention Guidelines, ‘detention’: _...refers to the deprivation of liberty or confinement in a closed place_ _which an asylum-seeker is not permitted to leave at will, including, though_ _not limited to, prisons or purpose-built detention, closed reception or_ _holding centres or facilities._ [6] 58. Most asylum-seekers have been detained for protracted periods, without processing or assessment of their claims to international protection, in difficult conditions.

59. Since UNHCR’s last visit, there continues to be: (i) no adequate domestic regulatory framework for detention; (ii) no adequate process by which the necessity of detention of an individual is made or reviewable; (iii) no clearly defined process in place to consider claims for refugee status, although such a process is imminent; and (iv) no time limit on the period which detention will last.

60. The current PNG policy and practice of detaining all asylum-seekers at the closed Centre, on a mandatory and indefinite basis without an assessment as to the necessity and proportionality of the purpose of such detention in the individual case, and without being brought promptly before a judicial or other independent authority amounts to arbitrary detention that is inconsistent with international human rights law.

6 UNHCR Detention Guidelines: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/503489533b8.pdf 12


Input:
**Recommendations: Reception of Asylum-Seekers**

**E. The need for detention of an asylum-seeker should be based on an**

**assessment in the individual case of risk to public order, public health or**
**national security.**

**F. In the absence of reasonable and proportionate limitations arising from**

**each individual case, asylum-seekers should be provided with freedom of**
**movement as a matter of priority and the Centre on Manus Island should**
**be made an open centre.**

**G. The Government of PNG should establish a legal framework which**

**outlines the permissible bases for detention, which should be consistent**
**with international law and in line with UNHCR’s Detention Guidelines.**
**Such a legal framework would ensure that asylum-seekers be given**
**reasons for their detention in writing and be allowed to challenge the**
**decision to detain, with periodic reviews thereafter to ensure no one is**
**detained longer than necessary, with express maximum periods for such**
**detention.**

**H. The consideration of alternatives to detention, as well as improvements in**

**the physical living conditions for asylum-seekers on Manus Island, are**
**urgent and should be undertaken as soon as possible.**

_**V.**_ _**Children**_ 61. At the time of the visit, UNCHR observed that: (i) there were 25 children housed at the Centre; (ii) educational and child welfare services were provided by Save the Children Australia; (iii) children were provided with formal education programmes in a classroom on site, and the education programme was coupled with extra-curricular activities; and (iv) negotiations to send children to local schools had not been successful, for a number of reasons, including the fact that local schooling is conducted in the Tok Pisin language.

62. Asylum-seekers expressed particular concerns about: (i) the deprivation of liberty for children; (ii) the deteriorating mental health of children in the RPC, which was impacting on their ability to engage in educational activities; (iii) the trauma caused to the children by being in close proximity to the single adult male compound, notwithstanding the additional measures taken at the Centre to provide a visual and greater physical barrier between the two groups; (iv) the uncertainty associated with the length of time the children and youth were expected to spend on Manus Island, during their formative years; (v) the lack of tertiary education for those children entering adulthood; 13


Input:
(vi) the health issues associated with the Centre, including fear of malaria as well as fear of the measures being taken to prevent malaria (medication and spraying); (vii) inadequacy of educational facilities; (viii) the unsuitability of the terrain for children to play (including areas of rocky ground, with glass shards and other debris); and, (ix) lack of access to human rights institutions and lawyers.

63. Service providers also indicated that while all efforts were being made to organize excursions and other meaningful activities, the nature of detention and the conditions at the Centre, especially the proximity to the single adult males and the lack of adequate space, had caused significant distress to the families and huge stress on the children. This stress was only likely to increase with time.

64. Since the visit, the Governments of PNG and Australia began to transfer children and their families back to Australia from Manus Island. At the time of writing, UNHCR understands all family groups, including children, have been returned to Australia from PNG.

65. In view of the current shortcomings at the temporary facility, UNHCR welcomes this development and encourages the Governments of Australia and PNG to end the transfer and detention of children at the Manus Island RPC.

66. Under international law, children should only be held in immigration detention facilities as a ‘last resort’ and for the ‘shortest appropriate period of time’. [7] 67. A child’s best interest is a primary consideration in all decisions made in relation to children, [8] and refugee children are entitled to special protection and assistance. [9] 68. While the children’s rights to education, to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities are actively promoted at the Centre, UNHCR is deeply concerned by the transfer of children to a closed detention facility with no time limit for when freedom of movement may be achieved. An overall ethic of care – and not of enforcement – is the appropriate response for all interactions with asylum-seeking children. [10] 7 CRC, art. 37 (b); UNHCR Detention Guidelines, guideline 9.2.
8 CRC, art. 3; UNHCR Detention Guidelines, guideline 9.2 [51]; UNHCR Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment 6 [31].
9 CRC, art. 22.

10 UNHCR Detention Guidelines, guideline 9.2.

14


Input:
**Recommendations: Children**

**I.** **UNHCR recommends that children and their families not be transferred to**
**Manus Island under these arrangements.**

**J. If children are to be transferred, PNG should develop specific legal**

**measures and administrative guidance to ensure that children are treated**
**in full respect of their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the**
**Child.**

**K. In the event that, exceptionally and as a last resort, a child is detained, the**

**safety, security and well-being of that child needs to be assured.**

**L. As a matter of principle, the refugee claims of children and other**

**vulnerable groups should be prioritised for assessment and these should**
**be carried out by suitably qualified officials who are also able to conduct**
**‘best interest determinations’ (BIDs).**

_**VI.**_ _**Mental health**_ 69. Many of the asylum-seekers UNHCR met with expressed a profound sense of injustice and perceived discrimination arising from their selection for transfer to Manus Island while the vast majority of asylum-seekers who had arrived in Australia remained on Australian territory and, in many cases, had been released with freedom of movement into the Australian community.

70. All asylum-seeker groups expressed deep anxiety and said their mental health was deteriorating.

71. Despite the concerns voiced by asylum-seekers, UNHCR understands that there have been no incidents of self-harm recorded at the Manus Island facility in the period between its visits. It was clear that significant efforts of the Salvation Army and Save the Children, and the positive and empathetic approach of numerous G4S staff and officials on site are helping to defuse tensions and mitigate, as far as possible, the mental health effects of long term detention.

72. However, a number of officials and service providers to whom UNHCR spoke, expressed concerns over the likely deterioration of mental health of asylumseekers at the facility if certainty and progress was not made in processing and case resolution. UNHCR welcomed advice that a torture and trauma counselling team was expected to arrive on Manus Island in early July, to have a permanent presence.

73. While UNHCR’s Team did not include a medical officer, it noted that all asylumseekers on Manus Island displayed apparent signs of anxiety and depression.
While action to respond to this is welcome, it is regrettable that this action is remedial rather than preventative. UNHCR is left with the overall impression in the temporary RPC of a volatile environment in which otherwise minor disagreements or misunderstandings had the potential to spark significant 15


Input:
tensions or self-harm as pressure, uncertainty and feelings of vulnerability increased among the asylum-seekers.

**Recommendations: Mental health**

**M. Against a background of deteriorating mental health on the part of the**

**asylum-seekers, the recommendations contained in this report should be**
**addressed as a matter of urgency.**

_**VII.**_ _**Physical health**_ 74. UNHCR inspected the medical facilities in the Centre. These appeared small, but well-equipped and well managed by professional and sensitive service providers. The fact that asylum-seekers had to be driven to the medical centre, rather than having direct access continued to be an issue for many.

75. At the time of the visit, there were only limited dental services available on Manus Island.

76. IHMS advised that the pre-transfer screenings which take place in Australia are very thorough and the PNG Government is very strict in requiring asylumseekers to be in good health prior to transfer, due to the tropical conditions and remote location of Manus Island.

77. Nonetheless, UNHCR noted that many asylum-seekers expressed concern about: (i) their deteriorating physical as well as mental health; (ii) the limited medical services available; (iii) the time it took to access medical treatment; (iv) the limited medication they were issued with; (v) the need for tranquillizers and sleeping pills to sleep; and (vi) the need for more specialized gynaecological resources.

_**VIII.**_ _**Assisted voluntary returns**_ 78. UNHCR was informed that recently 19 Vietnamese nationals and one Iraqi had volunteered for assisted voluntary returns (AVR) to their countries of origin. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) had spent two weeks on Manus Island to discuss the possibility of assisted voluntary returns for asylum-seekers who expressed an interest.

79. In addition, asylum-seekers were able to access IOM by telephone at any time.
ICSA and DIAC officials gave assurances that asylum-seekers were fully counselled and the voluntariness of any returns was fully explored and assured.

80. While UNHCR fully supports the need for a functional AVR programme to help any asylum-seeker return home at any time, it is concerned that some asylumseekers who may be bona fide refugees might contemplate a return to a country of origin as a result of the uncertainty around processes in PNG, and the prospect of lengthy delays in accessing a permanent solution, in onerous detention conditions. This may be particularly prevalent where asylum-seekers 16


Input:
are reduced to a psycho-social state of hopelessness and despondency.
UNHCR considers it essential that any returns are fully informed and consensual, and not prompted by uncertainty and protracted detention.

_**IX.**_ _**Oversight and monitoring**_ 81. Within the RPC, there is a complaints mechanism accessible to asylumseekers and managed by the Salvation Army. Any complaints are referred to DIAC (as the manager of the service providers) for written response and delegated follow up as required. In this regard, UNHCR notes that in the environment of the RPC, there are few available spaces for staff to meet with asylum-seekers to discuss sensitive issues in private.

82. UNHCR recommends the Governments of PNG and Australia consider establishing an Advisory Committee which could advise them on issues arising out of the implementation of the arrangement and be a body to which the Governments might refer issues for consideration. Such an Advisory Committee has been established in the case of the Australia-Nauru transfer arrangements, and were contemplated in the Australia-Malaysia transfer arrangements. A similar advisory body would be of assistance to both States in addressing the challenges of processing in this location.

83. Such an Advisory Committee could allow the Governments to have the benefits of the advice of independent experts in various aspects of the reception, treatment and processing of claims for refugee status of asylum-seekers. It would also increase the transparency of the arrangements.

84. UNHCR appreciated full access to all areas and asylum-seekers at the RPC during its visit. It was grateful also, that the Centre Manager and senior DIAC officials indicated that they would be happy to put up posters informing asylumseekers of the contact details for UNHCR. It also understands that the ICRC also has access to the Centre, which it welcomes.

**Recommendations: Oversight and Monitoring**

**N. Australia and PNG should continue to ensure that appropriate**

**independent oversight bodies are able to gain access to asylum-seekers**
**at the Centre on Manus Island.**

**O. Australia and PNG should consider establishing an Advisory Committee**

**to provide advice to the respective Governments on issues arising out of**
**the implementation of the arrangement and be a body to which the**
**Governments might refer issues for guidance and advice.**

_**X.**_ _**Pre-transfer assessments**_ 85. As related in its 4 February 2013 Report, “special procedures for vulnerable individuals with clear pre-transfer assessments by qualified staff (including best interests determination for children, especially unaccompanied and separated 17


Input:
children)” [17] form an integral part of the suite of measures to be agreed by the transferring States and implemented in practice by those States.

86. In the period following its 4 February Report, UNHCR has reviewed a further sample of pre-transfer assessments conducted by DIAC prior to the transfer of asylum-seekers, including Best Interest Assessments (BIAs) where undertaken by Australian officials regarding the situation of children.

87. UNHCR remains concerned by a number of aspects of the pre-transfer assessment process, including the limited scope allowed by the assessment template for analysis of individual needs and vulnerabilities. The sample assessments reviewed continue to indicate that the assessment process does not appear to make a comprehensive analysis of the physical and mental characteristics (physical or mental health of the persons, special needs identified, fitness to travel, and other vulnerabilities), nor, apparently, are the actual resources at the RPC given adequate weight and consideration.

88. In the case of children, UNHCR considers a BIA should result in an individualized assessment of the situation of the child and include recommendations on protection and care interventions. [11] 89. UNHCR remains of the view that the legal framework and detention environment at the Manus Island facility fall short of international standards of protection, it is difficult to see how a determination of the best interests of transferee children, appropriately weighed, could lead to a conclusion that adequate and appropriate levels of care and support are currently available on the island. The recent transfer of children and their families to Australia, which UNHCR welcomes, appears to support this finding.

**Recommendations: Pre Transfer Assessments**

**P. Pre-transfer assessments conducted in Australia should fully take into**

**account the individualized needs of vulnerable individuals, including**
**children, the elderly, survivors of torture or trauma, disabled persons and**
**persons with specific health needs.**

**Q. Pre-transfer assessments should also contain a realistic assessment of**

**the actual quality of support and capacities of service providers on PNG,**
**within the legal, operational and physical conditions currently prevailing.**

90. UNHCR stands ready to provide technical advice or assistance to the Governments of PNG and Australia in effecting the changes recommended in this report.

UNHCR Regional Representation Canberra, 12 July 2013 11 UNHCR, Field Handbook for the Implementation of UNHCR BID Guidelines (November 2011), 7.

18


Input:
# **The 2014 Afghanistan Refugee and Returnee Overview**

**Mandated lead agency: UNHCR**
**Contact information: Clare Askew, Assistant Programme Officer askew@unhcr.org**

PEOPLE IN NEED

# 515,600

(Pakistani refugees, Afghan returnees and undocumented vulnerable returnees)

# OF PARTNERS
(NOTE: UNHCR lead refugee response working with 16 partners) PEOPLE TARGETED

# 30,000 Pakistani

refugee families

# 245,600 Afghan

refugee returnees

# 45,000 Afghan

undocumented vulnerable returnees REQUIREMENTS (US$)
# 62.82 million

**Key objectives**

- Provide 30,000 refugee families with protection and essential services in Khost and Paktika;

- Facilitate informed, voluntary repatriation of refugees as a key humanitarian focus for Afghan
refugees from Pakistan, Iran and other non-neighbouring countries;

- Deliver humanitarian and return assistance to 45,000 vulnerable undocumented Afghan
returnees from Iran and Pakistan consisting of deportees and returnees including those displaced from North Waziristan Agency.

**Chapter** **Core Activities**

Pakistani Refugees - Improve or maintain quality of registration and profiling

- Ensure uniform treatment and standards of protection and services for all refugees

- Foster security from violence and exploitation: protection of children strengthened, risk of SGBV is
reduced and quality of response improved

- Provide food assistance to meet immediate food needs

Afghan refugee returnees - Respond to immediate protection needs on return, with particular focus on cash grants to facilitate travel and short term integration needs, and referrals where appropriate

- Identify persons with specific needs

- Broaden scope of Returnee Monitoring to identify protection concerns in return areas and address
gaps

- Promote peaceful coexistence between returnees and local communities by identifying tensions or
scarce resources and advocating for interventions with relevant actors to mitigate potential repeated displacement Afghan undocumented vulnerable returnees

- Provide immediate protection services including screening, identification of Persons with Specific
Needs and first hand humanitarian assistance.

- Provide transportation to final destination

- Support the most vulnerable groups with flexible short term reintegration support

1 |


Input:
**Humanitarian Needs Overview: District vulnerability ranking matrix for refugees**

**Absorption**

**Capacity**
**Vulnerability**

**District**
**Province** **District**

**ID**

**Refugee**
**Population**
**Vulnerability**

**Unmet Needs**

**Vulnerability**

**Access**
**Vulnerability**

**Wash**
**Vulnerability**

**Overall**
**Ranking**

**Khost** Gurbuz 2607 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.21 1.00 # 0.79

Spera 2611 0.52 0.56 0.94 0.95 0.76 0.74 Tere Zayi (Alishir) 2608 0.27 0.16 0.22 0.74 0.84 0.44 Shamal-Lakan 2610 0.26 0.50 0.14 0.21 0.87 0.39 Mando Zayi 2605 0.21 0.10 0.09 0.53 0.84 0.35 Sabari 2602 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.79 0.33 Tani 2606 0.18 0.08 0.05 0.53 0.64 0.29 Khost (Matun) 2601 0.37 0.07 0.35 - 0.57 0.27 Nadir Shah Kot 2604 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.53 0.79 0.16 Jaji Maydan 2613 - - - - - 0.00 Musa Khel 2603 - - - - - 0.00 Qalandar 2609 - - - - - 0.00 Bak 2612 - - - - - 0.00

**Total Khost**

**Paktika** Barmal 2515 0.85 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.86

Urgoon 2510 0.02 0.01 0.04 1.00 0.79 0.37 Wazakhwah 2513 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.79 0.36 Surubi 2509 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.79 0.36 Paktika Center (Sharan) 2501 - - - - Mata Khan 2502 - - - - Yosuf Khel 2503 - - - - Yahya Khel 2506 - - - - Sar Rawza 2504 - - - - Omna 2507 - - - - Zarghun Shahr 2505 - - - - Gomal 2508 - - - - Jani Khel 2512 - - - - Ziruk 2517 - - - - Nika 2511 - - - - Giyan 2516 - - - - DilaWa Khushamand 2518 - - - - Wormamay 2514 - - - - Turwo 2519 - - - - -

**Total Paktika**

**Calculation of Coefficients**

- Families in Need = Refugee Families - Families that Received NFIs

- Refugee Population Vulnerability = Refugee Population / Highest district Refugee Population;

- Absorption Capacity Vulnerability = Refugee Population / Local Population

`o` (The coefficients thus obtained were normalized, so that they would all be in the range from 0 to 1)

- Unmet Needs Vulnerability = Refugee Families / Highest district Refugee Families

- Overall ranking = Unweighted average of specific rankings

2 |


Input:
**Humanitarian Needs Overview: Provincial vulnerability ranking matrix for all returnees**

**Returnees from**
**Pakistan, Iran and**

**other countries**

**(Individuals)**

**Vulnerable**
**Undocumented**
**Migrant Returnees**

**Total returnee**
**population (refugee**
**and undocumented)**

**Province**

**Last 3 years** **Last 3 years** **Total**

Badakhshan 279 1,409 1,688 935,327 0.0018 0.01 0.09 0.05 Badghis 180 972 1,152 487,838 0.0024 0.01 0.12 0.07 Baghlan 7,032 4,155 11,187 894,838 0.0125 0.25 0.66 0.45 Balkh 6,012 2,836 8,848 1,298,247 0.0068 0.21 0.36 0.28 Bamyan 513 670 1,183 439,899 0.0027 0.02 0.14 0.08 Daykundi 182 1,694 1,876 417,476 0.0045 0.01 0.24 0.12 Farah 1,835 4,853 6,688 498,951 0.0134 0.06 0.70 0.38 Faryab 1,636 2,799 4,435 981,197 0.0045 0.06 0.24 0.15 Ghazni 1,497 1,888 3,385 1,208,559 0.0028 0.05 0.15 0.10 Ghor 78 1,863 1,941 679,085 0.0029 0.00 0.15 0.08 Hilmand 4,762 1,532 6,294 909,395 0.0069 0.17 0.36 0.27 Hirat 7,599 5,356 12,955 1,852,790 0.0070 0.27 0.37 0.32 Jawzjan 2,718 1,014 3,732 530,751 0.0070 0.10 0.37 0.23 Kabul 24,397 4,971 29,368 4,227,261 0.0069 0.86 0.36 0.61 Kandahar 8,262 764 9,026 1,200,929 0.0075 0.29 0.39 0.34 Kapisa 655 1,224 1,879 433,867 0.0043 0.02 0.23 0.13 Khost 1,313 32 1,345 565,211 0.0024 0.05 0.12 0.09 Kunar 8,159 945 9,104 443,272 0.0205 0.29 1.08 0.68 Kunduz 15,024 6,703 21,727 990,937 0.0219 0.53 1.15 0.84 Laghman 5,357 1,967 7,324 438,346 0.0167 0.19 0.88 0.53 Logar 4,600 670 5,270 385,638 0.0137 0.16 0.72 0.44 Nangarhar 28,406 10,389 38,795 1,489,787 0.0260 1.00 1.37 1.18 Nimroz 180 20,842 21,022 162,135 0.1297 0.01 6.80 3.40 Nuristan 264 4 268 145,574 0.0018 0.01 0.10 0.05 Paktika 183 232 415 427,692 0.0010 0.01 0.05 0.03 Paktya 5,255 118 5,373 542,896 0.0099 0.18 0.52 0.35 Panjsher 276 98 374 151,004 0.0025 0.01 0.13 0.07 Parwan 2,241 1,205 3,446 653,362 0.0053 0.08 0.28 0.18 Samangan 645 378 1,023 381,459 0.0027 0.02 0.14 0.08 Sar-e-Pul 2,392 2,193 4,585 550,238 0.0083 0.08 0.44 0.26 Takhar 2,378 3,336 5,714 966,576 0.0059 0.08 0.31 0.20 Uruzgan 95 254 349 380,469 0.0009 0.00 0.05 0.03 Wardak 939 911 1,850 586,623 0.0032 0.03 0.17 0.10 Zabul 573 231 804 299,125 0.0027 0.02 0.14 0.08

**Total** **145,917** **88,508** **234,425**

3 |


Input:
**PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS**
**Refugees and undocumented vulnerable migrant returnees displaced to Khost and Paktika**

**I. MOST LIKELY SCENARIO**
Key assumptions: 1) Military operations and fighting in Pakistan (North and South Waziristan agencies) may cease but the population will probably gradually return to Pakistan after March/April due to destruction of infrastructure, winter and reduced opportunities for livelihood in the area of origin. If the fighting continues, it is expected that there will be limited population movements towards Afghanistan as it will be difficult to travel during the winter months.
Thus, refugee population is expected to stabilize.
2) Absorption capacity of the host families will decrease during winter and as resources are exhausted, thus, the population figure in the camp may increase.

Operational Assumptions: 1) Humanitarian access will continue to be limited, it is estimated that national and international organizations, including Government have 60% access in Khost and 20% access in Paktika.
2) Humanitarian community and local authorities will continue to receive sufficient resources from donors.

Refugee Response Plan 1) Planning Figure: 30,000 families ( _planning figure is subject to verification_ *).
2) Area of Operation: Khost and Paktika (limited reach/access in Paktika) Operational Priorities 1) Registration and provision of international protection (*verification exercise is planned in the course of the 2014/15) 2) Provision of humanitarian assistance, with a focus on moving away from emergency towards stabilization, including sectors such as shelter, education and health/WASH 3) Humanitarian assistance to focus on supporting host communities to continue providing assistance to the influx 4) Assistance to the host communities is on a community-basis and not individual-basis, with a focus on integrating development actors as early as possible 5) Switch to durable solutions, with a focus on facilitation of voluntary return, in second half of the year (May to October) 6) Monitoring with specific focus on Protection issues

**II. WORST CASE SCENARIO**
Key Assumptions: 1) Military Operations continue outside NW/SW and more refugees arrive in Afghanistan 2) Host communities lose all absorption capacity and large numbers of refugees need to be hosted in additional camps Operational assumptions: 1) Security worsens: No access to Paktika and more restricted access in Khost 2) Lack of donor interest Population Figures: 1) 40,000 families: 30,000 families in Khost and 10,000 in Paktika, of which 15,000 in camps in Khost.

4 |


Input:
**Afghan refugee returnees**
While there are fewer returnees as compared to the peak years (2002-2008), Afghanistan is still the largest repatriation operation in the world. Refugees surveyed in Pakistan cited increased insecurity and economic concerns as the two biggest reasons for their continued stay in exile, in particular due to the uncertainty and heightened risk of tensions over the election period in 2014.

For 2015, and based on regional consultations, UNHCR anticipates that refugees will continue to return to Afghanistan from Pakistan, Iran and other countries, with a possible slight increase on 2014 election year figures. The validity of the Proof of Registration cards (PoR) for Afghans in Pakistan has been extended until December 2015 and it is unclear what status refugees in Pakistan will have after this date.

For 2015 planning purposes, UNHCR will use the figure of 172,000 Afghan refugee returnees. While there may be progress towards the planning figure of 172,000 returnees- during 2015, UNHCR Afghanistan shall channel prioritized operating level resources towards a more realistic figure of 50,000 refugees returning. However, of those returning the vulnerability figures are expected to be higher than previous years, with refugees repatriating who may be facing increasing intimidation, deteriorating economic opportunities or the possibility of camp closure in countries of asylum.
Therefore an increase of people with specific needs is anticipated, identified on their return.

The total number of refugee returnees receiving UNHCR reintegration assistance in 2015 is estimated at 245,600, including both those arrivals in 2015, and those having returned during 20122014.

**Undocumented vulnerable returnees**
Afghanistan is expected to continue through a series of transitions: political, economic and security.
The uncertainty associated with these transitions will continue to impact population movement in and surrounding Afghanistan. In addition, the flow of deportations and voluntary return is largely contingent on a combination of regional political dynamics between Afghanistan and its neighbouring countries, which may impact their policies towards undocumented Afghans. As it is almost unpredictable to ascertain what could affect the migration trend and what would be the result, it is important to maintain the post-arrival assistance mechanism at the border points to be the base of collective response for possible mass return from Iran or Pakistan. The sudden displacement from North Waziristan Agency following military operations in Pakistan since June 2014 is a good example.

Since 2007, there were 200,000-300,000 Afghans deported per year from Iran and Pakistan. Every year since 2012, IOM has assisted between 30,000 and 40,000 identified vulnerable Afghan returnees who crossed through Islam Qala in Herat, Milak in Nimroz and Torkham in Nangarhar province. Since May 2014, IOM has also assisted over 500 identified Afghan undocumented families displaced from North Waziristan Agency in Pakistan to Khost and Paktika province. In 2015, based on above observations as well as previously assisted numbers, IOM predicts that the flow of movement from the three border crossing points with Iran and Pakistan will remain at a similar level as in 2014.
Regarding the undocumented Afghan families from North Waziristan Agency arriving in Khost/Paktika, under the most likely scenario, the flow is expected to stabilize. However, in 2014 undocumented Afghan families are still leaving Pakistan due to ongoing insecurity and will require assistance in 2015.

5 |

Proof of Registration cards


Input:
**1.** **IDENTIFIED NEEDS**

**Pakistani Refugees**
Based on Focus Group Discussions conducted with both refugees and members of host communities, UNHCR has sought to identify the immediate needs and protection risks faced by Pakistani refugees, as well as the impact on host communities since the beginning of the displacement in June 2014. The most urgent need that has emerged is shelter: while the host communities have been very welcoming and have readily opened their homes to refugees, in some districts the number of refugees is very close to the local population. Available accommodation (as well as other resources) is therefore very limited, particularly as winter approaches and sleeping in open air is no longer possible. Other priority needs emerging from the focus group discussions included NFIs, health care, and water. Refugees also cited poverty, lack of job opportunities, and limited resources in Afghanistan as increasing existing vulnerabilities.

While the displaced population tends to share close family, tribal, and friendship ties amongst themselves and with the host community, there have nonetheless been identified cases of women, elderly, and children without support, though these are limited in number. UNHCR plans to conduct interventions for these and other vulnerable categories through the persons with specific needs (PSN) programming. Other planned protection interventions include camp management, mine clearance and mine risk education, emergency education, identifying and addressing gender based violence issues, identification and necessary interventions on behalf of unaccompanied and separated children, family tracing, and protection monitoring. It is also anticipated that the lack of resources and livelihood opportunities will make it difficult for refugees to return to Pakistan when the security situation stabilizes sufficiently to allow for voluntary repatriation. Therefore, it is anticipated that UNHCR will provide assistance when refugees decide that conditions have improved sufficiently to allow them to return home.

**Returnees**
The prioritised focus of UNHCR’s operations in Afghanistan will remain the implementation of the Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees in cooperation with the Government. UNHCR will continue to provide assistance to refugee returnees at all stages of the return process, including providing information in the countries of asylum and facilitation of joint ‘go-and-see’ visits, as specified in the quadripartite agreement. UNHCR will work to ensure that return is informed, voluntary, and sustainable.

The absorption capacity in Afghanistan remains challenging. Despite some progress in the health, education, construction, trade and agriculture sectors since 2001, Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world. The deteriorating security situation and withdrawal of international security forces, high levels of unemployment, landlessness, limited access to basic services (particularly in areas of high return and disputes over property rights will continue to present impediments to return and reintegration.

Reintegration of refugee returnees cannot be viewed as being facilitated solely by humanitarian interventions. Humanitarian assistance must be complemented with development interventions to ensure sustainability of interventions. Therefore building partnerships with development actors is a key priority for the operation, which must be closely monitored. In large urban settings and provincial capitals, development actors have been reluctant to engage despite the obvious need. The lack of development contributes to growing insecurity and the presence of insurgents. This cycle of poverty and insecurity in turn results in continuously increasing displacement both inside and outside these provinces. Returnees are particularly vulnerable to forced internal displacement.

6 |


Input:
The primary focus of all UNHCR interventions, both immediate humanitarian assistance and longerterm integration, is to advance protection principles. In some cases, this will involve addressing protection concerns directly, for instance, through SGBV support projects, or legal assistance programmes. In others, it may involve undertaking activities that will lead to a future protection dividend, for instance, livelihood projects that result in a reduced risk of secondary displacement.
Assistance that is able to bring about a protection dividend shall be prioritized: for example, building a well in a location where it is likely to create a more harmonious relationship between IDPs and the host community. UNHCR will strengthen the capacity of communities to integrate and protect returnees and IDPs, as well as increase the incentives and reduce the cost for communities. At the same time, UNHCR will encourage returnees and IDPs to contribute to local communities through participation in local governance.

Reliable information on the numbers, location and condition of returnees – disaggregated by age, gender and other key indicators – is essential for improving the protection of returnees. Thus, Information Management forms a keystone of the protection strategy. In order to gather information and ensure that programmes are sensitive to the specific protection needs and capabilities of different groups, UNHCR aims to undertake regular rights-based, participatory assessments and monitoring visits to both IDPs and returnees, engaging Age, Gender and Diversity mainstreaming principles.

Secondly, UNHCR will reach out to government and development actors to encourage them to mainstream returnees into their existing programmes. The aim is to bridge the humanitarian / development divide, thus ensuring persons of concern continue to receive protection after the immediate “humanitarian” phase has passed and are ultimately able to achieve a durable solution.
UNHCR recognizes that many returnees wish to live in urban areas, which poses specific challenges to both humanitarian and development responses. In light of this trend, UNHCR’s pursuit to the right to freedom of movement is essential, particularly to ensure that no returnee should be forced to return to their place of origin, or be resettled to another place where their lives or safety are threatened.

**Undocumented vulnerable returnees**
Many deportees and spontaneous returnees arrive in Afghanistan in a highly vulnerable physical and mental state and are unprepared for the process of reintegrating into their home communities.
Humanitarian support continues to be required to prevent vulnerable undocumented returnee families and individuals from being at risk of death, secondary displacement, sexual abuse, kidnap and other kinds of violation of human rights upon their return. Recently conducted surveys confirm that short-term, post-arrival assistance continues to be a key need upon return as 73% of respondents from Herat, Nangarhar and Nimroz listed it as one of the top three concerns followed by shelter/housing (44%) and financial support (30%).

For Afghan families displaced from North Waziristan into Khost and Paktika, the largest need in 2015 will continue to be non-food items, food, tents and medical assistance. In addition, families have indicated the need for transport and reintegration assistance as many are not able to return back to Pakistan.

For many returning Afghan migrants, reintegration remains a challenge. In 2011, an IOM survey of returned migrants found that only 23.3% of respondents had been able to find paid employment. As described above for refugee returnees, for undocumented returnees there is also a need to integrate long term reintegration support within humanitarian assistance. In particular, IOM has identified an urgent need for direct reintegration support for specific, highly vulnerable PSN groups of non-refugee returnees with high protection risks, which includes unaccompanied minors and single female returnees.

7 |

IOM survey

IOM survey of returned migrants


Input:
Unaccompanied migrant children continue to be the largest single group of vulnerable non-refugee returnees assisted by IOM since 2009. Minors move primarily due to lack of employment opportunities in Afghanistan, and because the heads of their families had no form of income or were not producing sufficient income. While in the country of exile (Iran) and in the process of deportation, many report facing treatment which is concerning from a protection standpoint. There is an urgent need to intervene and avoid secondary displacement by providing minors and their families with means of generating income while providing minors primarily with education and a practical skill set.

Another vulnerable group are single female returnees who face particularly high protection risks and reintegration challenges. A majority of these women were in need of shelter and vocational training to resume their lives in Afghanistan. Other groups include non-refugee returnee families who were displaced from North Waziristan Agency due to military operations who are unable to return back to their homes as well as drug-addicted individuals.

2. **RESPONSE STRATEGY**

**Registration**
Given its centrality to understanding the refugee population, profile, and vulnerabilities, all of which are crucial to designing appropriate and effective interventions, registration is a priority activity for 2015. Due to significant logistical challenges, mostly linked to large numbers of new arrivals and a lack of access due to insecurity, assessments of refugee families have until now been conducted at the household level on the basis of emergency verification. These assessments are being conducted for the purpose of fixing population figures and assistance distribution, and are not intended for refugee status determination purposes or the issuance of documentation.

At this point in time, transitioning to individual registration will help to stabilize the numbers and facilitate planning further assistance targeting the most vulnerable among the population. The exact modalities of the registration exercise are being discussed with the Government of Afghanistan, and a mission from Geneva is planned to identify the feasible registration options for this context. The authorities may consider the issuance of documentation for refugees, while UNHCR will continue to maintain and update a database system for all refugees in Khost and Paktika.

The registration campaign will require significant resources, both in terms of human resources and logistics. It is estimated that it will be carried out in the first three months of 2015 in all districts of Khost and Paktika with refugee presence. The exercise will pave the way for the development of targeted longer-term strategies for durable solutions, facilitate voluntary repatriation when appropriate and help to identify vulnerable individuals.

**Protection Interventions**
In coordination with relevant partners, UNHCR will undertake core protection activities additional to registration in all districts, including assistance to vulnerable cases under the PSN programme (nonfood items and cash assistance of up to USD 500 over one year for chronic and very vulnerable cases), legal assistance, child protection and gender/GBV interventions. The humanitarian community will also continue to carry out focus group discussions along an AGDM (Age, Gender and Disability Mainstreaming) approach with refugee men, women, and young people both in the communities and in the camp. The purpose of these discussions will be to highlight protection and assistance needs of refugees. Separate focus group discussions will be conducted with the host communities.

8 |


Input:
The entry point for child protection is primarily through the provision of educational services, which include psychosocial support. In Khost, emergency education is being implemented in a partnership between the provincial Department of Education, NRC and UNICEF, and includes both children in Gulan Camp and children living in communities. In Paktika, where the only implementing partner is the Department of Education, teachers in the refugee population have been hired by the DoE to run temporary learning centres, and will receive training and support to provide psychosocial services to children as part of the educational programme. Additional child protection activities will focus on the identification of unaccompanied minors (UAMs) and separated children (SC). Cases involving UAMs will be sent to the Best Interest Determination (BID) committee for identification of appropriate care arrangements, while SCs will be monitored and referred to the BID committee in cases in which neglect, abuse, or other problems in existing care arrangements are identified. Cases will be referred to ICRC for family tracing as appropriate.

Gender Based Violence (GBV) work will focus in identification of cases at risk through awarenessraising and establishment of effective communication networks through which GBV incidents or risk factors can be reported. Participation by refugee women in focus group discussions and recentlyestablished women’s _shuras_ in Gulan Camp and host communities will help to give voice to protection risks and concerns, which can then be mitigated through appropriate interventions.
UNHCR will also seek to establish an effective referral system, ensure coordination with relevant national authorities and provide vocational training and educational opportunities to vulnerable female and male groups.

The provision of services to the local population is essential to avoid the perception amongst host communities that the refugees constitute a burden on the community or existing local services.
Accordingly, it is important to ensure that services and activities are provided for both the hosting communities and the refugees

**Afghan Refugee Returnees**
Afghanistan is the largest repatriation operation in the world, despite the fact that rates of return are much lower compared to the peak years between 2002 and 2008. In total, more than 5.8 million Afghan refugees returned to Afghanistan in the last 12 years; over 4.7 million returned with UNHCR and MoRR support. This figure represents over 20% of the current population in Afghanistan. This poses considerable challenges to the country’s absorption capacity.

For 2015 planning purposes, this plan will use the conservative figure of 50,000 Afghan refugee returnees, in need of life-saving assistance to return to their place of origin/intended destination in Afghanistan.

Prioritized activities include immediate return assistance needs (cash grants, travel assistance, and short-term integration needs and shelter assistance), protection activities (including legal representation), and community-based interventions promoting peaceful co-existence. Activities include the following:

- Ensuring provision of immediate return assistance (repatriation cash grants, travel assistance,
provision of non-food items and shelter assistance), protection and basic assistance at point of entry; supporting education registration, lifesaving healthcare, and essential vaccinations for children under 5 years of age; basic mine awareness and transit facilities;

- Cross-border monitoring, returnee tracking, profiling and an annual multi-functional
comprehensive needs assessment;

- Providing legal assistance to help obtain security of land tenure to reduce the threat of forced
evictions;

- Promoting targeted community-based interventions in areas of high return, including in urban
settings where increasing numbers of returnees are settling; 9 |


Input:
- Awareness-raising for the purpose of reducing the risk of GBV and strengthening reporting
mechanisms; providing appropriate referrals and assistance to GBV victims; strengthening national capacity for sustainable reintegration through an integrated approach aimed at facilitating the transition from humanitarian assistance to long-term development.

The most vulnerable returnees, including female-headed households and unaccompanied minors will be prioritized for the provision of shelter and access to basic services on arriving at their place of return.

In 2015, UNHCR will conduct an annual needs assessments through a multi-functional team involving both humanitarian and development actors to assess refugee returnee needs across Afghanistan, within all sectors. Focus group discussions will be conducted according to the principles of the AGDM/Gender Marking approach. The multi-functional team consists of Protection and Shelter Cluster regional coordinators in all regions, with Health, WASH and FSAC Cluster members in respective regions. Focus group discussions will be conducted separately for returnee women, girls, boys and men.

Housing, land and property disputes are problematic due to limited availability of land (including agricultural land, pasture, and 'high value' land in cities), water, firewood and fodder and aggravated by environmental degradation. Some of these disputes also result in displacement, which has historical social, environmental, economic and political contexts. Therefore, UNHCR and partners will ensure that all assessments, programming and advocacy efforts will adhere to a 'Do No Harm' framework and that conflict-sensitive solutions provided by UNHCR and other partners are grounded in environmental protection and sustainability.

Shelter and basic services assistance will be provided through a community-based approach, which will strengthen resilience through self-help programmes contributing to promoting peaceful coexistence within the communities. The community takes primary responsibility for identifying eligible beneficiaries to receive shelter assistance, while the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation (MORR), other local authorities, implementing partners, and multi-functional team members play advisory and coordination roles.

The shelter Beneficiary Selection Committee must include members of the Community Development Councils (CDCs) where present or the provincial, district, village shura, (committee of elders and trustees), or local authorities (district authorities, provincial representatives of MORR). Joint monitoring will be carried out through established communication channels with beneficiaries, including on land and property issues such as land disputes, ownership, women’s access and control of land, engaging with government for relocation sites, social and housing issues. The shelter package includes one latrine per family, thereby increasing environmental hygiene in beneficiary communities. The shelter programme seeks to contribute to local economies wherever possible by using skilled and unskilled labour in the local market, and by local procurement of raw materials.

UNHCR will continue supporting the Afghan Government’s efforts to develop the role of women and has a strong commitment to the participation of women in decision making and project implementation. Recognising the challenges of facilitating female participation, all interventions strive to involve women in selection, implementation, monitoring, and management to the greatest extent possible within regionally and culturally appropriate contexts.

**Undocumented vulnerable returnees**
The planned target group in 2015 are 45,000 of the most vulnerable undocumented Afghan returnees from Iran and Pakistan including those families displaced from North Waziristan Agency who are in need of live-saving assistance and return assistance to their province of origin.

10 |