Internal displacement and local integration in Ukraine

Cathrine Brun writes:

On 19 and 20 October I was invited by the Council of Europe to talk at their National Forum organised in cooperation with the Ministry for Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally Displaced Persons of Ukraine and with the support of the Embassy of Japan in Ukraine. The Forum was titled “Three Years of Displacement:
Challenges and Good Practices of IDP integration” and was part of a Council of Europe project on “Strengthening the Human Rights Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Ukraine”. Displacement is a relatively new situation in Ukraine and, at the moment, there are believed to be between 1.6 and 1.8 million internally displaced (IDPs), forced to move since the complex conflict started in March 2014. 

Cathrine Brun (right) in Kyiv

More than 100 delegates participated in the forum with representatives from the internally displaced, from civil society, local and national governments and international humanitarian organisations. The meeting was part of a process to draft a new state strategy for durable solutions for the IDPs. Durable solutions are problematic in many contexts and are often out of reach for displaced populations (see Brun and Fàbos 2017, CENDEP blog by Richard Carver). However, Ukraine stands out as a special case because, already after three years, there is emphasis on local integration rather than return as the preferred solution that has often been the norm. 

We cannot assume that all IDPs in Ukraine prefer integration over return. Additionally, there is still much to be done to secure people’s rights to keep connections to the places they fled from and their right to move on from where they first arrived as displaced. The new national strategy must make sure that these rights are being accessed. At the same time, the relatively early emphasis on integration enables a more long-term and better prospect for people at the places where they are displaced. 

When I was first invited to the Forum, I was asked to talk about integration of IDPs. However, in my work with local integration processes for IDPs, I have come to understand integration as what IDPs and their hosts do, I thus changed the title to talk about integration by IDPs.

In this context, we can understand integration as both an end-point and a process. As an end-point, integration can be said to be when the IDPs have become full members of the societies that they have moved to, but there are many discussions around when displacement ends. Often, these discussions are related to when displaced are no longer in need of assistance as a result of their displacement. Some of the legal measures that are currently being discussed in the Council of Europe project are crucial to put in place for integration to happen. IDPs must be ensured the same rights as their co-nationals, but at the moment this is not always happening. 

Integration can also be seen as a process, and can be defined as ‘collective change’: that is the changes that take place in a society where IDPs and hosts meet and interact (Kuhlman 1994). With integration as a process, we can focus on how the host communities are actively involved in integration processes and assistance can be helpful in assisting interaction that already exists between IDPs and hosts. Rather than a purely legal perspective or an emphasis on the IDP-category as a status, a focus on integration as collective change, enables a needs-based approach to assistance: where the most vulnerable groups among both hosts and IDPs get access to assistance. 

Finally, when dealing with local integration, I want to add a note of caution. After three years of displacement in Ukraine, the IDP category is already well established. From my brief encounter with the situation in the country, it seems to be a category that is taken for granted and used to separate the displaced from their hosts in essential ways, such as access to rights. If the situation of displacement becomes protracted, if the local integration process takes a long time, and if the government continues to treat the people who were displaced and who are placed in the IDP category as separate from the non-displaced, there is a danger that the IDP category moves from being a humanitarian category established to assist people in need of relief due to their displacement to a social category – an underclass or marginalised group that does not enjoy full membership in the society, which we have seen in other contexts (Brun et al. 2017). 

Local integration will continue to happen in places where IDPs and hosts co-exist, but without full membership, recognition and participation in the local communities where they live, displacement may not come to an end.

References

Brun, C. and A.H. Fàbos. 2017. Mobilising home for long term displacement: a reflection on the durable solutions. Journal of Human Rights Practice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hux021

Brun, C., A.H. Fàbos, O. El Abed. 2017. Abject citizenship: when categories of displacement collide with categories if citizenship. Norwegian Journal of Geography 71(4): 220–232

Carver, R. 2017. An end to refugee protection? CENDEP blog 09.10.17, http://cendep.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/an-end-to-refugee-protection.html

Kuhlman, T. 1994. Asylum or Aid? The Economic Integration of Ethiopian and Eritrean Refugees in the Sudan. Research Series 2/1994, African Studies Centre, Leiden.

Velos Youth Centre - support for young refugees in Athens

Amanda Regan (DEP 2014-15) writes:

I started my journey with Refugee Youth Service as a volunteer in the unofficial Calais Camp last year and I am now the Operations Officer for our projects across Europe. Essentially, this means I work from my laptop in London supporting the operations of each project in ever changing contexts. To get a better idea of how things move on the ground in our project sites, I took time to visit the fantastic support being delivered to children and young people through the projects in Calais and Ventimiglia this spring.

Velos Youth Centre in Athens had recently opened (four weeks to be exact) and knowing how much preparation the team in Greece had put in to kick starting the project, I took an opportunity to head out there and see the magic for myself for the first time.

On taking off from Luton, I had the usual mix of apprehension of visiting yet another place where children and young people face risks most would not dream of. In the year I have been working with children and young people on the move, I have learned of the diverse and frankly terrifying experiences which drive these young people to leave their homes. They face more risks travelling from Middle Eastern and African countries to the European frontier in Italy and Greece. Many will then proceed to move across internal EU borders to find family members, known diaspora communities or just to somewhere they have been told is safe. 

Once in Athens, I realised that although I had good reason for the apprehension, I was also filled with an incredible sense of pride for the services that RYS is providing through Velos Youth to support young people in the city. 

Up six floors in a rickety lift, the Velos Youth space is bright and furnished with handmade sofas, coffee tables and desks (the products of one of the very first practical workshops the young people participated in with a local carpenter). My first contact with the staff was warm as I was welcomed into the space. I thought at the time, how positive it would be for a young person to step over the threshold and be met with smiling faces, someone who would be able to speak their language (we have a bunch of wonderfully knowledgeable and multilingual youth assistants) and an introduction to all the wonderful activities and services there are available to them. On the first day, I walked into an acupuncture workshop which was quickly followed by a delicious home made lunch from the Velos Youth kitchen. In the afternoon, a Krav Maga specialist arrived and delivered a workshop on non-violent de-escalation techniques which was welcomed by the young people using the service that day with some inferring it is a much needed skill. 

It didn’t take long to get stuck in to the daily running of the centre, meeting the young service users and helping out with running activities. Each day more and more young people were accessing the space and services. Sometimes this was a result of word of mouth and young people bringing their friends along with them. The most powerful testament to the outreach work carried out twice a week, was the number of young people arriving with the small flyer in their hands which they were given during a street session. It was during these street sessions, my initial apprehensions regarding the acute risks children face throughout their journeys were realised. Children and young people are facing exploitation on a nightly basis in a nearby square. It is open and blatant to anyone who would spend 10 minutes there. I observed young people being misinformed about the cost of legal services by men who appeared to be Greek nationals. The men, who would give drastically inflated costs for necessary services for refugees, would then  provide ‘opportunities’ for the young people to earn the money through various types of work. Street workers from partner organisations informed me that this would take the form of domestic servitude and sexual exploitation. Alongside the risk of exploitation, the majority of young people are faced with homelessness or resort to staying in one of the many squatted buildings in the central city area. The Greek authorities and UNHCR are overwhelmed by the situation and this can be seen in the long waiting periods for accommodation and cash cards. In the meantime, without secure shelter and some cashflow young people are most at risk of exploitation. 

This is why the services at Velos Youth are so important. Using a case management system, trained staff are able to support young people become self sufficient and secure accommodation, gain legal advice, and identify their own pathways to a healthier and wealthier life.

At the very least they can grab a hot shower, bung their washing in the machine and wait for it to dry whilst tucking in to a hearty meal (prepared by young people) before playing a round of Uno with friends. 

I am proud to be part of a team of professionals driven to create immediate safety for vulnerable children and young people as well as aiming to create long term solutions for their safety, security and immigration status. 

Thank you to all of our supporters and partners. Without you we would not have been able to achieve positive outcomes for the children and young people we serve. That said there is still much to be done on all scales to address the needs and to fulfil the human rights of all displaced people.

Cross-posted from the Refugee Youth Service blog.

To support us to continue our work with for children and young people across Europe, follow the link to our fundraising page: https://mydonate.bt.com/charities/refugeeyouthservice

To keep updated with our activities across our projects, ‘Like’ us on Facebook @RefugeeYouthService 

Follow individual projects on Twitter:

@VelosYouth, @RYS_Calais and @RYS_Italy 

Shelter community of practice meets in Geneva

Each October in Geneva there is a gathering of the shelter community of practice. The Global Shelter Cluster invites cluster coordinators and shelter practitioners to come and discuss ongoing shelter operations and what we can learn from them, as well as to continue to discuss and develop strategy and policy on shelter after natural disaster and conflict. In the same week, Shelter Centre hosts a meeting to reflect on current issues for the sector, focused on international NGOs and research centres.

Charles leads a break out discussion on evidence at Shelter Centre meeting

Charles Parrack from CENDEP attended the Global Shelter Cluster meetings as part of Global Shelter Cluster working groups on Shelter Projects, State of Humanitarian Shelter and Settlements, and Promoting Safer Building, as well as the Environment Community of Practice. He also presented CENDEP research on safer self recovery at the Shelter Centre meeting.

One of the most important items to be discussed by the community of practice was the upcoming Sphere Project revisions. It is a great opportunity for the operational agencies to contribute to writing standards for shelter which, due to the adoption of Sphere by so many in the humanitarian system, will influence shelter practice globally.

The Shelter Projects working group has recently overseen publication of the latest volume of Shelter Projects, a compilation of shelter case studies that is becoming a very useful piece of the evidence needed to inform policy and practice. Charles has been influential in this project by working with the operational agencies to raise the quality of the evidence by introducing peer review and methodological rigour.

The State of Humanitarian Shelter and Settlements is an initiative of the Global Shelter Cluster to provide more detailed information and analysis on current shelter practice. It is at the start of the process currently.

Promoting Safer Building is a new working group focused on making sure that effective build back safer messages are identified swiftly for adoption by operational shelter clusters.

At the Shelter Centre meeting Charles presented CENDEP research on the scarcity of good evidence on safety in self recovery shelter programmes. He called for the community of practice to develop better evidence gathering practice, and to co-produce this research along with academic partners. He stated that research will not be successful unless both partners are involved. The practitioners have the depth of contextual knowledge, access and relationships with stakeholders, but time and capacity for research is scarce. Academics can ensure methodological rigour and analytical consistency.

An end to refugee protection?

Richard Carver writes:

Two CENDEP scholars have contributed to a symposium in the Journal of Human Rights Practice looking at new challenges posed by the historically high level of forced migration in the world today. I co-edited the symposium, with Kirsten McConnachie from the University of Warwick and Martin Jones from the University of York, as well as writing an article on the role of national human rights institutions in refugee protection. CENDEP director Cathrine Brun, with Anita Fábos of Clark University, contributed a piece on new approaches to “durable solutions” for refugees and internally displaced persons.

The deliberately provocative title of the collection is “The end of refugee protection?” This is probably an instance of Betteridge’s law of headlines (which states that any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word “No”). However, the implication is that the existing international refugee regime has been inadequate in the face of the multiple crises of the past few years. The common theme is not so much that refugee protection is at an end, as that there is a need to adopt innovative solutions. Cathrine and Anita, for example, point out the importance of bottom-up approaches based on refugees’ own needs and initiatives in a situation where protracted displacement has become the new normal.

It might seem unremarkable that a human rights journal should host a discussion on refugees, yet the sad reality is that the worlds of human rights and refugee protection are often far apart. The international legal regimes governing human rights and refugees were adopted at the same time (late 1940s and early 1950s), in response to the same set of events – the Second World War, Holocaust and subsequent refugee crisis. Yet the two sets of norms use completely different language and conceptual frameworks. The third legal framework updated at the same time, international humanitarian law (IHL), is different again. This would be all well and good if the aim were to generate work for international lawyers, but it can lead to crucial misunderstandings and efforts that are at cross-purposes. To give one simple example, the word “protection,” contained in the title of our feature, has quite distinct meanings in human rights, refugee law, and IHL.

One practical consequence of this has been that the communities of practice of human rights and refugee advocacy have often been quite distinct and separate. (There are, of course, important exceptions, such as Amnesty International, a human rights organization that has long worked on behalf of refugees.) My article in this symposium, in common with several others, argues for a new convergence between human rights and refugee protection.

Joint team from Greek and Macedonian Ombudsmen visit refugee border camp

The example I explore is a rare piece of good news to emerge from the European “refugee crisis.” National human rights institutions (NHRIs) – that is official human rights commissions or ombudsmen – have not historically done much work on refugees. This is because they are usually complaints-driven. Refugees tend not to be aware of the existence of such bodies or how to file complaints with them. In recent years, however, many European NHRIs have taken on a role in inspecting places of detention. This is usually because of a mandate given to them under the snappily titled Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – understandably referred to by its acronym, OPCAT.

The OPCAT requires that these “national preventive mechanisms” have legal powers to carry out visits to places of detention or imprisonment in order to inspect conditions and prevent torture or other ill-treatment. Among the places to be visited are immigration detention centres (and often, by extension, other migrant encampments, even if these are not formally places of detention). In this role, NHRIs, especially in southern Europe, have encountered refugees directly. The visiting bodies in countries such as Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, and Croatia have played an important role, not only in inspecting the conditions in which refugees are housed, but also in giving them advice and conducting more general advocacy on their behalf. International coordination between the inspection bodies has been aimed at creating a common response and making sure that refugees do not fall between the cracks of different national protection systems.