The notions of asylum and refugee protection mean very little unless people who are obliged to seek sanctuary in another state are able to enjoy an adequate degree of physical, legal, material and psychological security in that country. Sadly, that is frequently not the case. Too many refugees are obliged to live in precarious conditions, receiving inadequate assistance, unable to establish their own livelihoods, deprived of freedom of movement and at risk of detention, exploitation and violence. Desperate to escape from such difficult conditions, and without any means of moving by authorized means, they readily become prey to human smugglers and traffickers.

The debate around enhancing protection capacity in regions of origin of refugees, and thus preventing onward movement towards industrialized states, has been overshadowed by suspicions about the motives of the states seeking to legitimize policies of forced removal to countries in the region of origin. Strengthening protection capacities in countries/regions of origin is consistent with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The Convention recognizes that international cooperation for the protection of refugees is necessary in order to palliate the heavy burdens on certain countries as a result of granting asylum. It also calls on governments to continue to receive refugees in their territories and to act in a spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees find asylum and the possibility of resettlement.[44] However, it has been argued that recent initiatives on regional protection proposed by some states are more geared towards burden-shifting rather than burden-sharing.

To address these problems, greater efforts are required to enhance protection capacities in countries of asylum. This is especially the case in developing and middle-income countries, many of which have acceded to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and given sanctuary to large numbers of refugees but which simply do not have the legal, institutional and economic means to provide them with a safe haven. This approach was epitomized by a United Kingdom proposal in 2003 for the establishment of 'regional protection areas' in locations close to countries that produce significant numbers of refugees and asylum seekers.[45]

The proposal sparked concern among NGOs and UNHCR, and became the subject of inter-governmental negotiations at the European level. In the case of extraterritorial processing, there has been extensive criticism that such practices may threaten the human security of refugees,[46] given the historical human rights consequences of the precedence of third-country processing centres and the use of concepts such as 'safe havens' and containment.[47] Furthermore, such practices demonstrate illegalities and impracticalities (see Box 2.2).

In 2003, the European Commission proposed a similar approach enabling people to enjoy effective protection as quickly and as close to their own country as possible, thereby averting the need for them to seek such protection elsewhere.[48] The Commission subsequently affirmed the crucial role of European Union member states and other industrialized countries in assisting countries of first asylum to establish such conditions.[49] On this basis, in 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on 'regional protection programmes' which entails enhancing the protection capacity of areas in regions of origin and creating the conditions in which refugees can benefit from the durable solutions of voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement.[50]

Attempts to strengthen the capacity of asylum countries in regions of origin have long been on UNHCR's agenda. Making the most of the impetus of these initiatives, in August 2004 UNHCR launched the Strengthening Protection Capacity project, which develops in three stages and focuses on four countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Kenya and Tanzania.[51] An essential component of the project was the development of a Framework for Identifying Gaps in Protection Capacity. This analytical framework is being used more widely in other countries. For instance, it has been adopted by the Central Asia Protection Gaps Initiative, and for the Preparation of Gaps Analysis and Action Plans for Asylum Building in CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) Countries. It is also being used by the Preparatory Project for a Somali CPA (comprehensive plan of action).[52] Needless to say, efforts of this type are unlikely to prove effective unless they receive financial support from the world's more prosperous states and unless refugee-hosting countries pursue policies that are conducive to protecting refugees and their rights.

The notion of 'protection in regions of origin' is a potentially valuable one that can be used to mobilize the support needed to provide refugees with better conditions of life and improve their prospect of finding durable solutions. But it is not a panacea. Many of the areas in which large numbers of refugees are to be found – northern Kenya, northern Uganda, western Tanzania and eastern Chad, to give just four African examples – are all confronted with serious economic, infrastructural and security problems, and do not provide the conditions in which to provide a high standard of refugee protection. It is equally clear that a good proportion of the world's refugees will be unable to find an early solution to their plight within their region of origin, and that the onward movement of refugees and asylum seekers will continue to take place while standards of living and levels of human security differ so greatly from one part of the world to another.

Given that some 70 per cent of the world's 9.2 million refugees are to be found in developing countries,[53] there is also a risk that the effort to improve protection in regions of origin will require poorer states to assume responsibility for an even greater proportion of the world's refugees. For these reasons, UNHCR considers it essential for the industrialized states to maintain equitable and effective asylum systems, to admit a larger number of refugees by means of resettlement programmes, and to provide tangible support to the notions of burden and responsibility-sharing, as endorsed by the Global Consultations on International Protection.

Refugee protection and globalization

The way forward

Notes

44. See Preamble and Recommendation D to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

45. Letter from the UK Government to the Greek Presidency of the EU, 10 March 2003. Available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/apr/blair-simitis-asile.pdf. This proposal constitutes a revised version of the one presented at the European Conference on Asylum that discussed ways to develop a common asylum procedure and a uniform status valid throughout the European Union, held in Lisbon in June 2000 under the auspices of the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union and the European Commission. J. Straw, 'Towards a Common Asylum Procedure', in Towards a Common European Asylum System. European Conference on Asylum. Lisbon: Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras, 2000, pp 133-9.

46. Amnesty International, UK/EU/UNHCR Unlawful and Unworkable - Amnesty International's views on proposals for extraterritorial processing of asylum claims, IOR 61/004/2003, 18 June 2003.

47. A. Betts, 'The International Relations of the "New" Extraterritorial Approaches to Refugee Protection: Explaining the Policy Initiatives of the UK Government and UNHCR', Refuge, vol. 22, no. 1, March 2004, p. 61.

48. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards more Accessible, Equitable and Managed asylum Systems, COM(2003) 315 final, of 3 June 2003, p. 13.

49. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Managed Entry in the EU of Persons in Need of International Protection and the Enhancement of the Protection Capacity of the Regions of Origin 'Improving' access to Durable Solutions, COM(2004) 410 final, of 4 June 2004, para. 8.

50. Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Regional Protection Programmes, COM(2005) 388 final, of 1 September 2005, para. 5.

51. The state of activities for each country, as well as the gaps analysis reports can be found in UNHCR's website: http://www.unhcr.org/.

52. UNHCR, The Strengthening Protection Capacity (SPC) Project. Summary of Activities, 31 August 2005.

53. UNHCR, 2004 Global Refugee Trends, Geneva, 20 June 2005, pp. 2-5.