The State of the World's Refugees 2006 - Chapter 1 Current dynamics of displacement: Main trends

International efforts to improve refugee assistance and protection have been aided in recent years by the easing of some of the acute displacement crises that dominated the 1990s. Furthermore, there have been breakthroughs in the resolution of a number of long-running conflicts, allowing many refugees to return to their countries of origin. The global population of refugees of concern to UNHCR has declined in recent years, from nearly 18 million in 1992 to just over 9 million in 2004.[1] This is mainly due to a drop in the number of armed conflicts and several large-scale repatriations. But despite the reduction in the total number of refugees worldwide, the majority of those who remain live without any prospect of a durable solution to their plight. In 2004, there were some 33 situations of protracted refugee exile involving 5.7 million refugees. These figures do not include the millions of displaced Palestinians who come under the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) (see Box 5.1).

Conflict-induced displacement

The world has witnessed a decline in armed conflict from a peak in the early 1990s.[2] There has also been a dramatic drop in the number of autocratic regimes – and a corresponding reduction in repression and political discrimination against ethnic minorities. The number of 'ethnonational' wars for independence – which dominated the decade following the end of the Cold War – is at its lowest since 1960. Since 2001, 13 major self-determination conflicts have been settled or contained, as against the emergence of six new or renewed campaigns, including Darfur (Sudan). In Aceh (Indonesia), a protracted, low-intensity conflict that had grown more intense in recent years was defused following a ceasefire and negotiations in the wake of the tsunami of December 2004.

However, the post-11 September 2001 global 'war on terror' has introduced a new dynamic into a number of conflicts and refugee crises around the world, particularly where it has been used to justify new or intensified military offensives. This has been the case in Aceh, Afghanistan, Chechnya (Russian Federation), Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and Palestine. People forcibly displaced by these conflicts have faced closed borders, extremely hostile and insecure conditions in exile and/or accelerated or involuntary returns due to 'anti-terror' measures in asylum states.

Interstate conflict is not as prevalent today as 'internal' strife and civil war, particularly in Africa.[3] However, foreign involvement in civil wars has continued to frustrate efforts to secure peace and stability in a number of areas – including the Great Lakes region of Africa centred on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as well as West Africa. Here, economic imperatives and commercial greed are intertwined with social and political grievances, all manipulated by political, commercial and military actors from within and outside the region.

In the DRC, for example, the exploitation of local resources became progressively militarized as a consequence of the conflict. Military groups used force to acquire and maintain control of mines and other natural resources. Forced labour was often used and populations forcibly displaced. Most of the profits from mineral extraction have been siphoned off by external military, political and commercial interests.[4]

The patterns of mobility and displacement in such protracted crises are complex. In many situations of severe instability, including those in Burundi, Colombia, Sri Lanka and northern Uganda, the dominant trend is one of short-term, short-distance, repetitive dislocation rather than large-scale displacement into camps. It is often extremely difficult to distinguish between displaced and non-displaced populations, or to differentiate movement as a coping mechanism from movement that is forced. Millions of people living in countries affected by conflict lack, or risk losing, even the most minimal levels of security, protection and support. Different levels of vulnerability and need affect communities and individuals in different ways, with those displaced not necessarily being the most vulnerable.

In Colombia, irregular armed groups have sought to control segments of the civilian population and prevent them from fleeing to safe areas so as to guarantee a supply of provisions and recruits. Such communities also provide cover for guerrillas, who effectively use them as human shields.[5] Within Afghanistan, non-displaced populations have been among the most vulnerable, with many of their members too weak or poor to flee.[6] In late 2001, Afghanistan had almost four times as many vulnerable non-displaced persons dependent on aid (4,150,000) as internally displaced people (1,200,000). Indeed, there were more vulnerable non-displaced people in the country than there were Afghan refugees abroad (3,695,000).[7]

Despite a decrease in the overall number of conflicts and those displaced across international borders, recent years have seen new refugee movements from lower-profile clashes. These include both new emergencies, such as in Côte d'Ivoire and the Central African Republic, and more protracted ones, including those in Burundi, Chechnya, the DRC, Myanmar, Somalia, and southern Sudan.

In a number of countries new refugee displacements were taking place at the same time as large-scale voluntary repatriations. Some states were generating refugee flows while simultaneously receiving refugees. For example, in 2004 the number of new Somali refugees arriving in Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, and other countries of asylum outnumbered the 10,300 that returned to Somalia. Meanwhile, the return of 21,000 Liberians from Côte d'Ivoire was counterbalanced by the arrival of nearly 87,000 new Liberian refugees in Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Another 22,200 refugees were displaced into Guinea and Liberia by the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire.[8]

Asylum and resettlement

Asylum applications in the rich industrialized countries have declined substantially. Following exceptionally large asylum flows in the early 1990s due to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and political crises in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Romania and other former Eastern bloc countries, asylum claims rose more gradually in Western Europe during the second half of the 1990s, levelling off at just below 400,000 in 2000.[9] Although some countries have witnessed small increases,[10] since 2001 the overall trend has been downwards. Member states of the European Union received nearly 20 per cent fewer asylum claims in 2004 than in the previous year, and 36 per cent fewer claims than in 2001. Most countries are now reporting their lowest annual total for several years. The number of applications lodged in Germany was 30 per cent lower in 2004 than in 2003, and the United Kingdom saw a drop of 33 per cent in 2004 when compared to the year before. New asylum claims fell by 26 per cent in North America and 28 per cent in Australia and New Zealand during the same period.[11]

Most asylum seekers came from countries affected by conflict or widespread human rights abuses or both, such as Afghanistan, China, Colombia, the DRC, Georgia, Haiti, Iraq, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia and Turkey.[12] Among the factors influencing the decision of individuals to apply for asylum in particular countries are historic, linguistic or cultural ties between states of origin and destination, settled immigrant communities in the destination country and migrant networks.[13]

The precise reasons for the fall in asylum application rates are unclear. Restrictive policies introduced by the destination countries since the early 1990s are certainly a significant factor, although it is difficult to attribute direct causal relationships between policies and outcomes. Direct pre-entry measures – such as carrier sanctions and visa requirements – might have had a greater impact on the number of asylum claims than indirect measures such as status-determination policies, recognition rates, detention and the withdrawal of welfare benefits. The political and economic situation in the home country is probably more significant than the characteristics of the receiving state; the movement of asylum seekers appears to be driven principally by protracted instability and conflict in regions of origin.[14]

Accordingly, a key factor in the recent drop in asylum claims in Western Europe seems to be the absence of emergencies on the region's borders. Another is shifts in the dynamics of some of the major refugee crises that had previously given rise to large asylum flows into the region. The number of Afghan asylum seekers arriving in Europe declined by 83 per cent between 2001 and 2004, while that of Iraqi asylum seekers declined by 80 per cent between 2002 and 2004.[15]

Refugee resettlement is far more susceptible to policy shifts than 'spontaneous' asylum flows because it is much more directly controlled by governments and humanitarian agencies, both in countries of first asylum and final destination. In the United States, for instance, new security controls introduced after the events of 11 September 2001 caused a sudden drop in the number of refugees resettled there in 2002, down to 26,800 from 65,400 in 2001.[16] But a subsequent reinvigoration of the resettlement programme led to the admission of twice that number in 2003 and in 2004.[17]

Against the backdrop of an increasing number of protracted refugee situations and growing resistance to unregulated asylum flows, recent years have seen new interest in refugee resettlement. Overall numbers remain low, however, with only some 55,500 persons admitted for resettlement to the ten main resettlement countries in 2003.[18]

Internally displaced people and other 'persons of concern'

In 2004, there were more than 17.5 million people in the broader category of 'persons of concern' to UNHCR, including internally displaced persons, returned refugees and 'stateless persons', in addition to refugees and asylum seekers.[19] This figure, though down from a peak of 27.4 million in 1994,[20] only encompasses a small minority of the world's internally displaced persons as it is restricted to those receiving assistance or protection from UNHCR.

While nearly 5.6 million internally displaced persons were 'of concern' to UNHCR in 2004, the total number of internally displaced persons worldwide was estimated at 25 million[21] – more than twice the number of recognized refugees (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of issues concerning the internally displaced). The preponderance within populations uprooted by violence and human rights abuse of the internally displaced is reflected in Sudan's Darfur region. Here, internally displaced persons – thought to number at least 1.6 million in 2004 – far outnumber the 200,000 or so Sudanese who fled to neighbouring Chad.[22]

The estimated number of internally displaced people worldwide has remained more or less unchanged in recent years, with the figures for those returning home (approximately 3 million in 2004) nearly matching the numbers for new internally displaced populations.[23]

The apparently exponential increase in the number of internally displaced persons over the past two decades – from a little over a million in 1982 to at least 25 million today – is due to a number of factors. First, there has been growing international recognition of internally displaced persons as a group. Second, many potential asylum states have been restricting entry across their borders. Another key factor behind the increase is the nature of many intra-state conflicts today, where civilians are frequently targeted by warring groups. Most such wars of the past decade – including those in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chechnya, Kosovo, Myanmar, Rwanda, and Sudan – have involved the deliberate displacement of populations.

Repatriation

In the past five years, long-standing conflicts have been brought to an end and human rights conditions have improved in a number of countries. These changes have provided new opportunities for the rebuilding of war-torn societies and the return of refugees and other displaced populations. The largest returns of recent years include the repatriation of more than 3.4 million refugees to Afghanistan and the return of over a million refugees and internally displaced persons to Bosnia and Herzegovina.[24]

In Africa, meanwhile, talks between the Sudanese government and the rebel Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement have triggered the spontaneous return home of nearly half a million refugees and internally displaced people in southern Sudan.[25] At least 300,000 refugees and 4 million internally displaced people have returned to their homes in Angola since the signing of the Luena Peace Accord in April 2002. And by the end of 2004, more than a quarter of a million refugees had returned to Sierra Leone.[26] Worldwide, more than 5 million refugees returned home between 2002 and 2004, including nearly 1.5 million in 2004.[27]

The cessation of hostilities often prompts the large-scale repatriation of displaced populations. But the security implications are often similar in scale to those posed by the initial exodus. Countries struggling to regain their footing in the immediate aftermath of conflict generally do not possess the capacity to absorb large returnee populations. Indeed, states emerging from internal armed conflicts are frequently characterized by deep social divisions, chronic instability, damaged infrastructure and hollowed-out economies. Even where large-scale repatriation programmes and other durable solutions have been successful, the situation could be reversed at any time by political instability and economic stagnation in areas that have suffered massive forced displacement. The reality for most refugees is a return to areas of persistent insecurity and poverty where longer-term development initiatives are patchy or, in some cases, non-existent.[28]

Uncertainty remains about the sustainability of large-scale returns of refugees and internally displaced persons, with the repatriation and reintegration period often proving the most difficult and dangerous. Returnees may face renewed violence, human rights abuse or extreme poverty, leading to further displacement in their search for safety or a viable livelihood. Indeed, security is a key factor in the success and safety of refugee returns. The necessary security and protection guarantees are least likely to be in place where returns are coerced or accelerated by 'push' factors in the asylum country, rather than by the 'pull' of peace and security in the country of origin. This has been the case for many Burundians returning from Tanzania and many Afghans returning from Iran.[29]

Repatriation is the beginning of a long process of reintegration that entails re-establishing ties with home communities and restoring normal and productive lives. It is a major challenge that can be as traumatic and difficult as the life of exile left behind. If returnees are not provided with adequate support and are not able to reintegrate, they may choose to flee again. This has been demonstrated time and again in regions such as West Africa, where chronic instability has hindered many repatriated refugees' efforts to reintegrate.

For instance, the return of Sierra Leonean refugees from Guinea in 2000 and Liberia in 2001, prompted by hostilities in the areas where they had sought asylum, has been likened to an emergency evacuation rather than an organized repatriation movement. Added to this, a review by UNHCR of the repatriation of Sierra Leonean refugees notes that the weak socio-economic structure in the country is not conducive to a rapid reintegration process.[30] Rather it is expected to be a lengthy and protracted one, highly dependent on the long-term commitments of the government and donors and the active engagement of humanitarian and development actors.

In Iraq, many refugees and internally displaced persons who returned in 2004 subsequently suffered renewed internal displacement due to limited local-absorption capacities and continuing conflict. In West Africa, UNHCR has expressed concern about the sustainability of returns due to continuing instability in the region. In Afghanistan, returnees have faced localized violence, persistent drought in some areas and lack of employment, basic social services and housing. Many have consequently headed for Kabul and other urban centres where security and livelihood opportunities are perceived to be better.[31]

Reflecting the importance of UNHCR's work in repatriation in recent years, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has sometimes been referred to as the 'High Commissioner for Returnees'. Recognizing the challenges facing returnees in post-conflict situations, the organization and its partners are searching for balanced and integrated approaches to make returns durable. War-torn communities cannot absorb large numbers of returnees without first improving their capacity to meet the basic needs of citizens. As such, international development agencies must invest in reconstruction and reintegration programmes for local communities in areas of return as well as for returning refugees and internally displaced people.

---

Introduction

Characteristics of refugee populations

---

Notes

1. UNHCR, The State of the World's Refugees: The Challenge of Protection, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1993, Figure A (Global Number of Refugees: 1960-1992); Refugees by Numbers (2005 web edition).

2. M. Marshall and T. Gurr, Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, 2005, pp. 1-2.

3. Ibid., pp. 44-5.

4. S. Jackson, 'Fortunes of War: the Coltan Trade in the Kivus', in S. Collinson (ed), Power, Livelihoods and Conflict: Case Studies in Political Economy Analysis for Humanitarian Action, Humanitarian Policy Group Report No.13, Overseas Development Institute, London, 2003, pp. 21-36.

5. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, pp. 476-77.

6. See, for example, Memorandum submitted by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to the UK's International Development Committee October 2001 inquiry into the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. International Development Committee, First Report: The Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan and the Surrounding Region. Volume II: Minutes of Evidence. HC 300-II, Session 2001-02, The Stationery Office, London, 2001.

7. International Development Committee, First Report: The Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan and the Surrounding Region. Volume I: Report and Proceedings of the Committee. HC 300-I, Session 2001-02, The Stationery Office, London, 2001, paras. 39 and 40. See also Volume II (HC 300-II), Ev 124 (Annex F) for estimated numbers of IDP populations and additional populations dependent on aid as at 13 November 2001, included in the Memorandum submitted to the inquiry by Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development.

8. UNHCR, Refugees by Numbers (2004 edition), pp. 9 and 14.

9. R. Zetter, D. Griffiths, S. Ferretti and M. Pearl, An Assessment of the Impact of Asylum Policies in Europe 1990-2000, Home Office Research Study 259, Home Office, Development and Statistics Directorate, London, June 2003, pp. x and 117.

10. Notably France and the ten new EU Member States. UNHCR, Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries, 2004. Overview of Asylum Applications Lodged in Europe and Non-European Industrialized Countries in 2004. UNHCR, Geneva, 1 March 2005, p. 5.

11. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

12. Ibid., pp. 6-7.

13. R. Zetter et al., An Assessment of the Impact of Asylum Policies in Europe 1990-2000, pp. xvii, 8, 83, and 125.

14. Ibid., pp. xi-xvi.

15. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, p. 451.

16. UNHCR, Statistical Yearbook 2001, p. 32 (Table 1.2); and Statistical Yearbook 2002, p. 36 (Table II.1).

17. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, p. 459; Refugees by Numbers (2005 web edition).

18. The main countries of resettlement of refugees in 2003 were the United States, Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands and Ireland. Around 90 per cent of resettled refugees were admitted by the United States, Australia and Canada. UNHCR, Refugees by Numbers (2004 edition), pp. 16-17.

19. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, p. 14.

20. UNHCR, The State of the World's Refugees: In Search of Solutions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995, Annex II, Table 1.

21. UNHCR, Refugees by Numbers (2005 web edition).

22. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, p. 183.

23. Global IDP Project, Internal Displacement: Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2004, Norwegian Refugee Council, Geneva, 2005, p. 9.

24. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, pp. 332 and 421.

25. Global IDP Project, Internal Displacement, p. 13.

26. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, pp. 238 and 288.

27. UNHCR, Refugees by Numbers (2005 web edition).

28. J. Macrae, 'Aiding Peace ... and War: UNHCR, Returnee Reintegration and the Relief-Development Debate', New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No.14, UNHCR, 1999, p. 1.

29. S. Petrin, 'Refugee Return and State Reconstruction: a Comparative Analysis', New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No.66, UNHCR, 2002. See also 'Reintegration Challenges for Burundi', Forced Migration Review, Issue 21, September 2004, pp. 26-7.

30. M. De Vriese and S. Sperl, 'From Emergency Evacuation to Community Empowerment: Review of the Repatriation and Reintegration Programme in Sierra Leone', Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit, UNHCR, February 2005, p. 12.

31. UNHCR, Global Report 2004, p. 343.