During the Cold War and the national-liberation struggles of the 1960s and 1970s, those who fled communist regimes and colonial oppression were granted refugee status on the assumption that repatriation was not an option. Resettlement and local integration were generally regarded as the most viable and strategically desirable durable solutions. With the demise of communism and colonialism, however, repatriation became more realistic and attractive for states. Furthermore, the increase since the 1980s in migration from poor to rich countries and the growing association of refugees with migrants fleeing poverty have added to the reluctance of wealthy nations to offer resettlement.[8] As for southern states, in the aftermath of economic adjustment and democratization most of them have been less willing to support local integration. This is in contrast to the situation in the 1960s and 1970s when, in Africa, for instance, rural refugees were allowed a high level of de facto local integration.[9]

Consequently, repatriation is now often regarded as the most desirable durable solution – provided that return is genuinely voluntary and sustainable. The 1990s became the decade of repatriation: more than 9 million refugees returned home between 1991 and 1996. However, returns under pressure from host governments – particularly the 1996 return of Rwandan refugees hosted by Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo, or DRC) and Tanzania – have raised fresh questions about the degree of voluntariness and the role of compulsion in 'imposed return'.[10] Moreover, arguably premature repatriations to the former Yugoslav republics and Afghanistan in the early 2000s have renewed debate on sustainable reintegration and its relationship to post-conflict reconstruction.

The recognition, on the one hand, that voluntary repatriation is not always possible and, on the other, that indefinite encampment is unacceptable has led to a profound review of the three durable solutions and how they relate to one another. The need to avoid human degradation while simultaneously safeguarding voluntariness has spurred the development of new methods and approaches.

The period covered in this book saw the culmination of a cycle of reflection within UNHCR on the use of durable solutions, with the debate reinvigorated by new initiatives. The Global Consultations on International Protection with states, academics, NGOs and refugees resulted in the publication of an Agenda for Protection which stressed the need to redouble the search for durable solutions. To further these aspirations, UNHCR and partner states published a Framework for Durable Solutions for Refugees and Persons of Concern (hereafter referred to as the Framework for Durable Solutions). This elaborated the '4Rs': Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, as a process that would bridge the gap between relief and development. It also emphasized the two related concepts of Development Assistance for Refugees and Development through Local Integration.

Subsequently, durable solutions were placed within the context of a multilateral dialogue, which is referred to as the Convention Plus initiative. This led, most notably, to agreement by a range of resettlement and host states on a Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement. In light of these innovations, this chapter explains UNHCR's new approaches to durable solutions in three areas: first, the targeting of development assistance; second, migratory movements; and third, resettlement. It concludes by discussing the multilateral and political context in which UNHCR has tried to facilitate international cooperation to improve access to durable solutions.

Introduction

Targeting development assistance

Notes

8. B. S. Chimni, 'From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation: Towards a Critical History of Durable Solutions to Refugee Problems', New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 2, UNHCR, Geneva, 1999.

9. J. Milner, 'The Politics of Asylum in Africa: The Cases of Kenya, Tanzania and Guinea', Paper presented at the Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford, 9 March 2005, unpublished manuscript.

10. G. Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics: A Perilous Path, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.