global field consutation on idp protection final

8/2/2019 Global Field Consutation on IDP Protection FINAL

1/26

Report from UNHCRs

Global Field Consultaons

on IDP Protecon

Geneva, 1113 October 2011


2/26

2

Tableofcontents

1.PurposeoftheGlobalConsultations.3

2.KeyConclusionsandRecommendations..........................4

3.SummaryofDiscussions5

Dayone Fieldchallenges6

Towardmoreeffectivefieldclusters7

Rolesandmodels:UNHCR,refugeesandIDPs..9

DaytwoProtectioninnaturaldisasters.9

Governments,lawsandpolicies12

Deliveringprotection.13

DaythreeDefiningUNHCRsinterests:ProtectionofCivilians14

UNHCRsroleinthesearchfordurablesolution.15

Keyconstraintsandchallenges:DiscussionwiththeAHC(P)16

Annex1:ConceptNote.19

Annex2:Agenda20

Annex3:Participantslist.25


3/26

3

1.PurposeoftheGlobalConsultations

UNHCR has a long history of involvement with internally displaced persons (IDPs). In 1972,

the Office launched its first IDP operation in South Sudan following a request from the UN

Economic and Social Council. In the years that followed, other key operations, such as in

Northern Iraq and the Balkans in the 1990s, shaped the Agencys engagement with IDPs.

These led the General Assembly to set criteria for UNHCRs involvement with internally

displaced persons which remain valid to this day.

The Humanitarian Reform and the adoption of the Cluster Approach have further refined

UNHCRs involvement with IDPs in an inter-agency framework, particularly during

humanitarian emergencies. The Agencys commitments have been translated into internal and

inter-agency policy instructions that today delimit UNHCRs involvement in a more

predictable way.

Recent developments, however, have created both a need and an opportunity for renewedreflection on the Offices role in the protection of internally displaced persons. These include

(1) UNHCRs interest in assuming a more predictable role in protection in natural disasters;

(2) the reform of the Cluster system by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC); (3) the

Global Protection Clusters Visioning Exercise, which will provide a new strategic vision for

this key body in 2012 and beyond; and (4) the very nature of recent humanitarian crises,

which have demanded a well-coordinated response by UNHCR through both its refugee

mandate and its institutional commitment to IDPs (e.g,. Kyrgyzstan, Cote dIvoire, Libya and

the Horn of Africa).

The Global Field Consultations on IDP Protection (IDP Consultations) were organized by the

Division of International Protection (DIP) with the objective of strengthening UNHCRs

operational response to internal displacement by consulting protection field staff on howUNHCRs work with IDPs should evolve over the next two years. More specifically, the

Consultations sought:

To identify key operational needs and recommendations from field offices, To share experiences and good practices across country contexts, and To discuss and influence policy and operational developments.

The Consultations brought together the senior protection staff from 26 field operations where

UNHCR is active with IDPs. It also benefited from the participation of key personnel from

HQ Divisions, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, the International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the former Representative of the Secretary-General

on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons.

The Consultations reflected on ways UNHCR could better delineate and improve its

engagement in (1) protection clusters, (2) protection in natural disasters, (3) assisting

Governments in enacting laws and policies on prevention of, response and solutions to

internal displacement, (4) the protection of civilians, and (5) durable solutions. A lively panel

on operationalizing protection in challenging field situations brought together seasoned

practitioners from inside the organization. Participants had also the opportunity to present key

operational constraints and challenges to the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection and

the Director of DIP, and to make recommendations for policy development and operational

support.


4/26

4

2.KeyConclusionsandRecommendations

The objective of effective protection delivery must be at the forefront of anydiscussion about how UNHCR works in the field and at the policy level, including

with IDPs. It is important to bear in mind UNHCRs comparative advantages in

protection, including its comprehensive approach and extensive field presence, which

extends in time beyond the emergency phase. UNHCRs engagement in inter-

agency processes should always be approached as a means to achieve more

effective protection, and not as an end in itself. In particular, where UNHCR has

been able to effectively deliver on IDPs and protection of civilians with expertise and

resources, this leadership has often resulted in increased stature within the UN

system, supporting UNHCRs protection mandate more generally.

At the same time, to remain a lead voice in protection, the Office must invest moredecisively in the inter-agency effort to protect IDPs. This entails (1) sufficient and

adequately trained staff, particularly full-time cluster coordinators and information

managers; (2) the development of standardized tools for the collection andmanagement of protection information, and protection programming; (3) clear policy

instructions; and (4) management support at HQ and field levels to fully mainstream

cluster responsibilities.

UNHCRs experience shows that a more predictable engagement in protection innatural disasters can, and has, yield protection dividends, including strengthened

relationships with national governments that can enable access to conflict-induced

IDP situations or even enhance cooperation in refugee response. A strengthened

leadership role in natural disasters would also be consistent with projecting UNHCR

as the protection arm of the UN system. At the same time, decisive support for a

more predictable engagement did not emerge from discussions with the Standing

Committee, and questions of resources and impact on the mandate remain open.Morereflection is needed on the scope of UNHCRs involvement in protection in natural

disasters, as well as on the support needed by the field to fulfil this role. The

operational implications of a commitment to lead in natural disasters should be

further explored by relevant parts of the house.

Many field operations are heavily engaged in the issue of protection of civilians,particularly with Humanitarian Coordinators and peacekeeping forces. Active

participation at the field and HQ levels is critical to ensure peacekeeping forces and

other actors understand and support the distinct roles of humanitarian and non-

humanitarian actors in protection, and that they respect and preserve humanitarian

space. Staff are concerned that OCHA is perceived as the sole voice of UN

humanitarian actors in peacekeeping processes and mechanisms in New York, when

UNHCR is a key source of information and advice based upon its operational

engagement and it role as protection cluster lead. While recognizing that the issue

extends beyond UNHCRs mandate, UNHCR needs a strong voice in New York on

POC issues, as well as improved information sharing and coordination among the

field, New York and Headquarters.

Promoting adequate domestic laws and policies on internal displacement should berecognized by UNHCR as an important strategic protection activity, which can

support structural and societal change. UNHCR could play an instrumental role in

the response to internal displacement, as it has in the development of refugee law and

asylum systems. Increased use of national legal staff to support this role could prove


5/26

5

essential. However, this should not replace international staff, who can contribute

expertise on international standards and experience from other countries.

UNHCRs operational role in durable solutions for internally displaced personsshould be further addressed in policy guidance, including identification of priority

areas of operational engagement (based on expertise and value-added), as well as

benchmarks for measured disengagement which expressly account for the roles of

partners (including development actors, national actors and government). Because

the operational response for durable solutions often begins amidst on-going conflict

or new displacement, the Agency needs to maintain advocacy and operational

engagement on broader protection issues, even when durable solutions are underway.

A conflict-sensitive and integrated approach between our efforts for IDPs and

returning refugees in countries of origin is also required to ensure individuals are

assisted according to need, not their former legal status.

3.SummaryofDiscussionsDayoneThe Director of the Division of International Protection (DIP), Volker Trk, opened the

Consultations and invited participants to consider the evolving nature of UNHCRs

involvement with IDPs. He noted that while the Offices first involvement dates to 1972 in

Sudan, in the 1990s the General Assembly defined criteria for UNHCRs involvement which

remain valid and can be considered as mandate-giving. Today, IDPs are UNHCRs largest

group of persons of concern. The Director observed that the Offices involvement in different

contexts and with different populations, with protection concerns related to different causes, is

still evolving, and in the future UNHCR might be a different organization altogether. In thiscontext, UNHCR will have to devise better ways to measure its impact on the protection of

persons of concern.

The Director encouraged participants to address three questions with an open mind:

The legal dimension: While States resist the involvement of the internationalhumanitarian community in political fora relating to legal standards, many welcome

UNHCRs contributions at the field level. International standards (e.g., Guiding

Principles on Internal Displacement, the Kampala Convention) have gained traction.

At the national level, should UNHCR involve itself more decisively in supporting

national frameworks?

Current mega-trends: Global challenges include migration, globalization, climatechange, slow-onset disasters. Can we be more analytical in studying their relationship

with internal displacement? Does UNHCR have a role in prevention, contingency and

risk-reduction?

Protracted situations: What role should UNHCR play in the achievement of durablesolutions? How far, temporally and programmatically, should we go? Should we

focus on the vulnerable in general, and not only on IDPs?

To set the stage for the discussions to come, Karen Gulick, Chief of Section, DIP, presented

highlights of a pre-consultation questionnaire completed by the participants on their country

operations and contexts. Results of the questionnaire paint a an informative picture of the

range of displacement contexts UNHCR faces today, the recurrent protection challenges we


6/26

6

seek to address, and the operational issues most affecting our ability to effectively deliver

protection on the ground.

Characterizing the context of displacement in their country of operations: 90% of

participants described it as a protracted situation; they were equally split between urban and

rural contexts; and only 20% described a camp-based context. Nearly half of the countries in

which participant work have a draft national law or policy on internal displacement under

discussion, or already adopted.

Top protection challenges cited include the following: getting the national government to

recognize there is a problem with internal displacement; helping government to understand

the particular protection risks of being displaced; the inability of government to provide or

support conditions enabling a free choice of durable solutions; the politicization of assistance;

and difficulties furthering peacebuilding and reconciliation.

On the operational side, the challenges most frequently identified as affecting our delivery of

protection include the lack of a clear governmental focal point (such as exits for refugees);

reaching and assisting IDPs outside of camps; lack of funding; lack of access; and lack ofstaff.

Concerning the staffing of IDP protection, the survey revealed that only one of the

participants was fully dedicated to IDP work. Of the remainder, staff spent on average 40% of

their time on IDPs. Protection clusters were identified in 17 situations, 13 of which are led by

UNHCR. Among protection clusters in the field, one-third have not developed a protection

strategy.

Fieldchallenges

Four colleagues presented the main challenges in their respective operations and proposedrecommendations for operational and policy support.

In Afghanistan, displacement is increasing due to complex and fragmented causes, including

conflict and natural disasters (drought). Spontaneous movements, limited access and adequate

data are key challenges. Institutionally, the main challenges include a weak OCHA office,

limited partnerships for operational response, insufficient Government capacity, and the need

to clearly delineate roles with IOM and other entities for disaster and conflict-induced

displacement.

The main recommendations are:

To further specify UNHCRs role in protection response and coordination,particularly in relation to OCHA, and to explain better this role to donors. This

includes clarifying the extent of cluster responsibility for returning refugees.

To strengthen in-house capacity, including: better understanding by management ofcluster responsibilities, staffing and training for coordination and information

management, and better linkages among the UNHCR-led clusters.

Challenges for the Iraq operation include growing uncertainty and violence, the populations

general dissatisfaction with inadequate services, ineffectiveness and lack of capacity of

Government, and serious under-reporting of protection problems due in part to poor access.

Institutionally, effectively mainstreaming IDP issues into integrated mission planning is

difficult. The Iraq operation needs more staff to adequately support displacement-affected

communities, manage camps, and support durable solutions. UNHCRs role in capacity


7/26

7

building also needs to be strengthened as a key feature of the Agencys added value in the

operation.

UNHCRs protection leadership and operational activities in Somalia suffer from lack

recognition and funding in the face of competition from more agile NGOs. Poor humanitarian

access results in limited protection information. There is also a plethora of agendas and actors,

some of whom do not subscribe to protection priorities agreed by the cluster.

The South Sudan operation faces a complex displacement situation with ongoing conflict,

inter-communal violence, a high risk of SGBV, attempted child recruitment, and gross human

rights violations by militia. Refugees from North Sudan continuously arrive to South Sudan.

These challenges are compounded by a lack of infrastructure and Government capacity, the

Governments reluctance to address inter-communal violence, restricted humanitarian access,

and poor protection information.

Towardmoreeffectivefieldclusters

After the discussion on field challenges, participants discussed ways to work more effectively

with country-level clusters. Participants identified the need to further delineate the precise

roles and responsibilities of Protection Clusters, means to measure their effectiveness, and

good practices of effective leadership. Participants noted that NGO partners have encouraged

UNHCR to take a more assertive role in cluster leadership, while also promoting the practice

of NGO co-chairs.

Participants also requested reflection on how Representatives and Headquarters could

improve their support for Protection Clusters, adding that many colleagues, including

management, do not adequately understand either the challenges and timeintensive nature of

inter-agency work, or, necessarily, the opportunities and benefits inter-agency work offers for

strengthened advocacy and protection leadership by UNHCR overall.

Outcomesofworkinggroups

Participants broke into three working groups to consider: (1) responsibilities of Protection

Clusters in the field; (2) effective leadership and decision-making in clusters; and (3)

protection strategies as a tool for leadership. Each group identified how HQ could improve

support to field Protection Clusters.

The first group concluded that Protection Clusters have two main responsibilities:

First, to coordinate the activities of its members in line with a jointly developedprotection cluster strategy. This includes identifying priority needs, developing

appropriate operational responses, dividing implementation responsibilities,

continually identifying and assessing protection priorities, and monitoring strategy

implementation. The group noted the importance of participating in joint contingency

planning processes and building links to all relevant partners, including the

Government, local civil society, development actors and other clusters.

Second, to enable and support joint activities undertaken within the purview of theProtection Cluster. Examples include needs assessment, ongoing monitoring and joint

advocacy. Cluster members need a common capacity-building strategy that includes

activities to facilitate hand-over to national Governments when humanitarian actors

leave.

Adequate information management capacity was unanimously identified as aprecondition to fulfilling UNHCRs coordination and joint action responsibilities.


8/26

8

Participants recommended that HQ should develop standard tools to support these

responsibilities, including:

A protection monitoring tool, A tool for needs, priority and gap analysis, A tracking and reporting system for baseline performance indicators for Clusters, A standard who does what where reporting mechanism, Standard advocacy tools and formats, A library of standard protection activities, in an adaptable format.

The second group, which focused on leadership and decision-making, felt that UNHCR

Representatives must be better prepared to represent both UNHCR (as an operational agency)

and the Protection Cluster as distinct entities. UNHCRs experience has shown that

Representatives may have difficulty striking a balance between the two, with the Cluster often

neglected. In some situations, the group noted that it may be appropriate for the

Representative to speak on behalf of UNHCR, while a separate cluster coordinator represents

the Protection Cluster. Finally, Representatives must fully realize the potential to use theProtection Cluster as a means to achieving UNHCRs overall protection objectives. The group

requested that senior management provide more training and sensitization for Representatives

on these dynamics and the opportunities they present.

The third group discussed good practices developing a joint protection cluster strategy.

Group members explored the following questions:

What are the minimum core elements of a protection strategy? The group concludedthat a protection strategy should always contain (1) definitions of terminology (in

particular the scope of the population), (2) a needs analysis, (3) a limited number of

priorities, (4) identification of the Governments role, (5) an action plan, (6)coordination, reporting and monitoring mechanisms, and (7) benchmarks for

disengagement.

How can strategy development reinforce UNHCR leadership? UNHCR needs tomake itself useful to others by providing leadership in the planning process. This

requires strong technical planning skills (along with soft coordination skills),

analytic capacity, and sufficient staffing resources, particularly for information

management. Operational strength also lends authority to UNHCR.

Is it necessary for UNHCR to develop its own protection strategy in addition to thecluster strategy? Participants agreed that in most cases this is useful, as UNHCRs

strategy would focus on its operational priorities and response, which is part of but

not identical to the overall response of the cluster. UNHCR needs to come to the

planning process with an idea of the kind of outcome we as an agency want to see.Providing this general vision to our partners is both a planning tool and a mechanism

to reinforce our leadership. This also contributes to reinforce coordination among the

three clusters that UNHCR routinely leads.

In plenary, participants considered how best to advocate for full-time cluster coordinators. It

was suggested that criteria should be developed for when a dedicated coordinator is required,

including through research on which countries are particularly prone to emergencies, and

through setting up protection benchmarks that need to be met in all cases. Standing

emergency capacity should also be developed on a regional basis. Participants echoed that

additional institutional work is required on mainstreaming UNHCRs cluster responsibilities

and ensuring the full commitment of Representatives to fulfill these responsibilities.


9/26

9

Rolesandmodels:UNHCR,refugeesandIDPs

Louise Aubin (Deputy Director, DIP and GPC Coordinator), Kimberly Roberson (Chief of

Section, FICSS and CCCM Coordinator), Kemlin Furley (Acting Head, Inter-Agency Unit),

and Sajjad Malik (Chief of Section, Operations Solutions and Transitions Section) addressed

the evolution of humanitarian reform and its effect upon UNHCR, including recognition of itsrefugee mandate, and how UNHCR can support field operations to adapt accordingly.

Panelists observed that the humanitarian community has increasingly viewed the Cluster

Approach as the default coordination mechanism in all humanitarian emergencies, regardless

of the extent or nature of displacement, whether internal or external. Panelists agreed that

UNHCR needs to continually assert that the Cluster Approach does not apply to refugees.

However, as an Agency UNHCR should recognize that the Cluster Approach has elevated

standards and expectations of leadership, partnership and coordination. Donors and

operational partners expect cluster leads to account for joint delivery, not only for their

individual performance. More inclusion and participation of partners is expected. Leadership

is understood as providing common services including needs assessment, information

management and planning. Credibility built on delivery is the basis of leadership. Whenwe do not deliver in IDP contexts, it weakens our leadership role with refugees. This

perception has also been fueled by the nature of latest crises, which have included both

refugees and IDPs in Cote dIvoire and the Horn of Africa.

Some panel members felt that the Cluster Approach had not reinforced UNHCRs leadership

as much as was expected. At a moment when many perceive that the IASC Transformative

Agenda is redefining the inter-agency division of responsibilities, UNHCR needs substantial

new investment to be a credible partner with IDPs and to defend its privileged role with

refugees.

Panelists concluded:

UNHCR has three primary roles in emergencies: (1) its classical refugee mandateresponse; (2) its operational response to IDPs; and (3) its coordination role with IDPs

and other affected populations. UNHCRs credibility in delivering on one role

demands that the Office delivers on the other roles. They are inextricably linked.

UNHCRs ability to deliver on SGBV and child protection in all protection responseshas become central to its credibility as a lead agency, including with refugees.

Policy decisions and guidance are needed on the resources, including staffing andfunding, that are needed to maintain our credibility and our capacity to deliver, both

as an operational agency and in our leadership role.

Increased capacity in information management is also crucial to maintain credibilityand leadership.

Daytwo

Protectioninnaturaldisasters

Karen Gulick, Chief of Section, DIP, outlined the latest developments on ensuring a more

predictable leadership role for field-level protection clusters in natural disaster situations, a

role that was left unresolved among UNHCR, UNICEF, and OHCHR in the original

Humanitarian Reform in 2005. Following a request by the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator

and discussions within the IASC, the High Commissioner indicated his willingness that


10/26

10

UNHCR should have the capacity and ability to lead the protection response in natural

disasters, when so requested by an affected state.

Following an informal consultative meeting with Excom members in early 2011, UNHCR

presented a paper to the June Standing Committee addressing its role in natural disasters. The

paper proposes more predictable leadership of the Protection Cluster in natural disasters,

although notably with nine guiding considerations that inform and delimit the scope both of

UNHCRs leadership and its operational engagement. Most importantly, UNHCR would

assume leadership only upon the request of a national authority, and only in situations where

no other protection agency has better operational capacity or is already leading a protection

coordination body. Member States raised a number of questions about the proposal, touching

on the need for increased human and financial resources, unclear criteria and timeframe for

engagement, the potential impact on delivery on the core mandate, and respect for national

sovereignty.

A number of key issues remain, including (1) distinguishing between Cluster leadership and

operational response, (2) determining UNHCRs needs for operational preparedness when it

does participate in disaster response efforts, (3) ensuring funding for UNHCR when it doeslead (i.e., the importance of Flash Appeals), (4) determining how UNHCR can best contribute

to disaster risk reduction and contingency planning processes, and (5) better understanding

protection challenges and responses in disaster contexts.

Fromrefugeestonaturaldisasters:conversationwithUNHCRstaff

Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement Co-Director Elisabeth Ferris presented on

protection issues in natural disasters, inviting colleagues to reflect positively on UNHCR role

in this field. Natural disasters are on the increase, and have affected more than 2,4 billion

people in the last 10 years. In response, humanitarian actors are grappling with questions such

as: How natural is natural, when vulnerability is caused also by inadequate planning and

response? How sudden is sudden: how should we respond to drought? Who are the

affected populations, when spill-over economic effects of disasters hit whole nations? What

are the cascading effects of cumulative smaller disasters? While protection concerns in

natural disasters are better acknowledged and understood than they were several years ago,

and the IASC has issued operational guidance on protection in natural disasters, much more

needs to be done to ensure that Governments and other disaster responders incorporate

protection issues as an important part of disaster response efforts.

Many protection concerns in disasters are similar to conflict situations. However, Ferris

highlighted key differences in disaster responses that impact protection risks and the activities

required to address them, including: (1) disasters occur in developed and developing

countries; (2) frequently there is less stigma towards displacement caused by natural disaster;(3) protection risks have different causes; (4) the response includes different actors (military,

local government, and development); (5) protection is based in part on a different legal basis;

and (6) protection agencies generally have a non-confrontational relationship with

governments.

Operational challenges include recognizing that displacement does not necessarily mean that

humanitarian assistance is required, grappling with the ethics and challenge of identifying and

singling out IDPs among the urban poor, and exploring the relationship between drought and

armed conflict.

Given its field presence, protection expertise, and the increasing number and scale of

disasters, Ferris argued that UNHCR needs to move beyond its traditional refugee mandateinto natural disaster response. She noted that this could also open doors to working in


11/26

11

difficult conflict situations. Ferris concluded by encouraging UNHCR to reflect on its

potential role as a protection actor in prevention, disaster risk reduction and climate change.

Following Ferris presentation, a number of participants shared their field experiences with

natural disaster operations, highlighting concerns about funding when UNHCR offers

assistance in a smaller disaster without an inter-agency appeal, and confusion over the extent

to which UNHCR should offer operational and protection expertise to a government.

Participants also discussed a potential UNHCR role as a protection advisor in disaster

preparedness and contingency planning processes.

Protectionrisksandoperationalchallenges

Three UNHCR participants presented case studies of recent UNHCR operational engagement

with disaster response. In Haiti, where 1.5 million persons were affected by the earthquake,

protection problems were rife, including overcrowded, crime ridden camps, SGBV, child

abduction and trafficking, lost documentation, forced evictions, and a large number of people

with new disabilities (amputees). Institutionally, the main challenges included weak

Government capacity, co-leadership of the cluster with OHCHR, recovering from a lostopportunity for funding within the Flash Appeal due to a delay in determining UNHCRs

leadership role, tracking and assisting IDPs outside of camps, defining who should benefit

from protection activities, and what the scope of protection should include. In 2012, UNHCR

will focus on assisting SGBV survivors, replacing documentation, and quick impact projects

for IDPs and host communities outside Port au Prince.

The 2010 floods in Pakistan affected 20 million people, with 2011 flooding affecting 8

million more, including 1.8 million IDPs. The Government viewed protection as a cross-

cutting issue rather than a separate life-saving cluster. Challenges were working with the

military, ensuring RC/HC support on protection issues, varying degrees of support within the

Government for UNHCRs protection and assistance role (including the mission in Geneva),

and the lack of a national IDP policy based on the Guiding Principles. The scope, nature, and

operational roles of protection assistance should be agreed in advance with all levels of

Government and humanitarian partners, as well as between UNHCR field and HQs offices.

This process could be supported by HQ through guidance on UNHCRs involvement in each

phase disaster response, and training RC/HCs on protection needs in disasters. Offices could

also benefit from more staffing support for cluster coordination during disaster relief efforts,

and increasing advocacy for donors to bilaterally fund protection agencies in the absence of a

Protection Cluster or when protection is not adequately reflected in the Flash Appeal.

In the Philippines, the 2009 floods affected 9 million people and displaced some 700,000

people. UNHCR deployed an emergency team to lead the Protection Cluster. The team

realized that UNHCR has much to learn on protection in natural disasters. Whereas immediateprotection problems are similar to conflict situations (SGBV, etc.) the protection environment

is different, particularly in terms of a higher interaction with the Government and the

militarys role in relief efforts. Affected populations have also developed sophisticated

coping mechanisms in response to recurrent natural disasters. Because many disasters are

seasonal with predictable protection risks that could be prevented or anticipated in advance,

UNHCR should reflect upon its potential involvement in disaster risk reduction. Guidance on

relocations is needed. To avoid simply being perceived as an advocacy agency, UNHCR

needs to concentrate on tangible protection interventions with a strong operational

component, such as QIPs. UNHCRs welcomed response to the floods eased the way for the

Government to invite UNHCR to provide assistance in the 50 year civil war in Mindanao.

Examples of good practice and lessons learned would be useful as UNHCR considers it future

role in disaster response.


12/26

12

DebatewiththeDirectorofDIP

Beginning the discussion, the DIP Director questioned the necessity of formalizing UNHCRs

disaster role, noting that UNHCR has been engaged in disaster response efforts for over thirty

years. It such situations, UNHCR was often the only actor with operational capacity to

respond; in some cases, such as in the Pakistan floods, it would have been immoral not toassist. He observed that the General Assembly resolutions at the basis of UNHCRs IDP

mandate do not distinguish between conflict and natural disaster displacement. However, the

discussion with Excom raised important concerns by States, including highlighting the extent

to which many States do not see a need for a protection actor in disaster response, and that

doing so would take money away from life-saving assistance.

Participants noted that the parameters for UNHCR involvement are still unclear, including the

threshold and timeframe of disengagement and the extent to which UNHCR should engage in

contingency planning and government capacity building. Some participants felt that UNHCR

should be more secure about its operational strengths for protection in disaster response, and

that UNHCR should actively market its added value with funding structures to support this

capacity.

Other issues included: (1) understanding coping mechanisms in disaster response to

accurately identify protection needs, (2) an example of a protection in disasters checklist and

guidance note used to train government officials in Afghanistan, (3) the need for advocacy

within the IASC on how to include protection in disasters within rapid assessments, Flash

Appeals, other clusters, and RC/HC training, (4) UNHCRs potential engagement with

UNDAF, (5) the challenge distinguishing slow-onset disasters from larger migration trends,

(6) overcoming the barrier between protection and programme functions which can inhibit the

incorporation of protection in disaster response, and (7) when and when not to use human

rights and protection language in disaster response. The discussion concluded with thoughts

on UNHCR as a protection organization operating beyond a mandate for specific categories

of people to respond to the current and emerging protection concerns arising from disasters

and other global challenges.

Governments,lawsandpolicies

Prof. Walter Klin, the former RSG on the Human Rights of IDPs, led a discussion on the

importance of national laws and policies for IDP protection. He argued that although law is

not a panacea, it matters because IDP protection is about addressing rights. Legal instruments

can usefully tackle a number of protection problems, such as protection against evictions,

access to basic services and voting rights. He noted that governments have the primary

responsibility for the protection of IDPs, and this is first expressed through domestic

legislation. Adapting national laws and policies to address the specific needs of IDPs canimprove legal coherence, strengthen coordination, clarify responsibilities of different

Government departments, reinforce normative clarity and empower participating stakeholders

including the IDP population. The process is in itself useful: it facilitates the creation of

consensus among all stakeholders, including donors and IDPs, although adequate momentum

needs to be sustained.

Field colleagues addressed their experiences supporting national governments. In Kenya the

importance of understanding the national institutional and political context and establishing

national contacts, including with civil society, was underlined. The experience also

highlighted how international engagement, in this case with the visits of the RSG on the

Human Rights of IDPs, can contribute on sustaining momentum. Even though a final policy

has not emerged, the process has been useful for ongoing protection advocacy at national and


13/26

13

local levels. In Yemen, buy-in from local power holders was crucial. The main challenges

were absence of clear Government decision-makers, the need to work through traditional

leaders, diverse IDP protection challenges, and inadequate understanding of basic concepts

such as who is an IDP and what is a durable solution. Thus, UNHCR supported the

development of a strategy, as opposed to a policy.

UNHCRs support to the African Union with the Kampala Convention has positioned

UNHCR as a key player in normative development and provided an important opportunity to

train governments on IDP protection issues. Participants noted that model laws may not be

useful, since Governments need to thoroughly assess existing national legislation before

developing a strategy for domestic incorporation of the Convention.

After a plenary discussion, participants together with Prof. Klin concluded that

Law and policy-making is a genuine protection activity, and UNHCR should use itsposition as Protection Cluster lead to engage more actively.

The use of national staff needs to be maximized, while also involving internationalstaff and senior management who can provide expertise on international legal

principles and examples of how other countries drafted laws and policies.

A number of tools already exist and should be used, such as Klins Manual for Lawand Policymakers, a Guide for Practitioners (now under development), and the

annual Course on the Law of Internal Displacement for government officials at the

International Institute of Humanitarian Law in Sanremo, Italy.

DeliveringprotectionA lively panel brought together senior UNHCR managers with experience in Afghanistan,

Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan, as well as Prof. Walter Klin, to discuss strategies for

delivering protection in difficult environments. Panel members observed that operationalenvironments for protection have become more complicated, particularly because the UNs

impartiality has eroded in many operational contexts. Insecurity, lack of access and poor

protection information are rife. While certain States are assertive in using humanitarian action

to meet political ends, UNHCR also faces the other extreme, where government authorities

are very weak. Intense media attention may also create unnecessary competition among

humanitarian partners.

Panelists agreed that unified policy positions and strong humanitarian leadership, particularly

in operations with UN Peacekeeping Operations, are essential components for overcoming

difficult protection environments. In some cases, such as with the internment of civilians in

Sri Lanka, presenting clear protection strategies and benchmarks based upon international law

was a useful tactic in negotiating with the Government. In Somalia, imaginative protectioninformation systems, flexibility, maintaining a good network of contacts throughout society,

and sheer persistence allowed UNHCR to gain protection information despite limited

humanitarian access. Colleagues agreed that flexibility and creativity in delivering protection

is essential; operational protection cannot always be done by the guidebook, and it is

necessary at times to engage with non-typical actors. In the end, panelists agreed that we

have to do what works to provide protection.


14/26

14

Daythree

DefiningUNHCRsinterests:ProtectionofCivilians

The final day of the Consultations opened with a panel discussion on protection of civilians(PoC), concentrating on how should UNHCR should understand the expression, given

competing definitions available, and more importantly, how it should define its objectives and

engagement in this field of work.

The Liaison Office in New York explained OCHAs definition of PoC, encompassing the

wide IASC definition of protection as applied to armed conflict situations. The Office also

explained the web of PoC processes and coordination mechanisms in New York, including

regular reports to the Security Council by the Secretary-General and the ERC, an expert group

within the Security Council, and a monthly OCHA-led working group meeting. Since 1999,

13 peacekeeping missions with Security Council mandates have had PoC mandates. The

Security Council is increasingly willing to use targeted sanctions in response to attacks and

abuse against civilians. OCHA and DPKO are actively issuing guidance on PoC, and OCHArepresents the humanitarian community in PoC-related processes in NY. UNHCR needs to

work very closely with OCHA on this brief.

The ICRC reflected on the need for clarity on definitions and roles of different actors

involved in protection. While the objectives of protection activities are the same,

peacekeeping missions constitute a political process and include physical protection, two

elements that are absent from the definition of protection within the humanitarian sphere.

Integration of structures and strategies carries an inherent risk of blurring the lines between

the two approaches to protection. Relationships between actors working in these two

approaches must be based on complementarity.

The Africa Bureau explained that most peacekeeping missions with a PoC mandate are inAfrica. The African Union is increasingly involved in PoC, with the same debates over

definitions and means arising. In general, there is a debate on whether PoC strategies should

cover the whole UN system or only mission components. Issues of blurring of the lines,

threats to humanitarian space, duplication, and effectiveness of PoC have arisen. UNHCR is

deeply involved in the field and needs more institutional involvement.

One field cluster lead argued that UNHCR is not only the global protection lead but also the

strongest UN protection agency. Doing day-to-day work well in the field, which includes

high-quality protection monitoring, networking with partners, and using PoC resources at

field level to the best of our protection objectives, is what will ensure protection impact. This

requires also bridging a present disconnect between the field and the policy-making level at

Geneva and New York on PoC issues. UNHCR needs represent itself and the protection

community strongly in New York, including at the Security Council Expert Group briefings.

Opendiscussion

The ensuing discussion focused on the kind of engagement UNHCR needs in PoC issues to

further its protection objectives. In the field, the PoC concept remains vague and largely

context-specific. UNHCR needs to engage early on with peacekeeping missions, including in

training and information-sharing, in ways that are understandable to the military. In the field

we are in many cases protection cluster lead and produce most of the information, yet in New

York UNHCRs interests are conveyed and represented by OCHA. We need a stronger

presence in New York, reinforced by better information sharing between UNHCR in the field


15/26

15

and the NY office. A UNHCR working group, meeting monthly, was proposed to cover this

objective.

UNHCRsroleinthesearchfordurablesolutions

Introducing the discussion on durable solutions, Josep Zapater, Sr. Protection Officer DIP,highlighted the need for UNHCR to adopt a clearer policy position on its role in durable

solutions. Questions for consideration included: what operational areas should UNHCR

prioritize? What benchmarks for measured disengagement should UNHCR adopt? At the

same time, Zapater highlighted a need for better integration of IDPs and refugees in

UNHCRs doctrine and practice. In countries of origin, he argued that no distinction should

be made in UNHCRs operational involvement between returning refugees and IDPs, other

than one based on need and vulnerability. The overarching concept should be country of

origin solutions. At a regional or global level, comprehensive durable solutions strategies for

refugees should take IDPs fully into account.

The presentation on Colombia highlighted the challenge of finding durable solutions for IDPs

amidst ongoing armed conflict. With new legislation on victims rights and land issues, the

search for durable solutions has triggered new protection problems since the new laws impact

competing commercial interests. However, the Government is not inclined to recognize

protection challenges. In this context, IDPs themselves continue making progress towards

durable solutions.

To support this process, UNHCR has moved away from an individual approach to a

community-based perspective, to support the relationship between IDPs and the communities

of local integration. UNHCR has developed a comprehensive approach to durable solutions

through partnership with humanitarian, government, human rights, and development actors.

However, the operation needs policy guidelines on durable solutions and more financial

support. Stronger operational involvement is needed both to be a credible partner in durablesolutions processes, and to lend weight to our protection advocacy at a time when the

persistence of conflict and protection needs are overlooked.

In Sri Lanka, the conflict ended abruptly through total Government victory over Tamil rebels

with no peace agreement, coalition government, or reconciliation process. The Government

has a strong interest in defining solutions through the return of the 7,500 IDPs still remaining

in camps. However, massive return has not yet resulted in durable solutions, and return areas

are heavily militarized. At the same time, a protracted caseload remains outside of camps and

in host families. OCHA defends a humanitarian coordination structure in what is now a return

and reintegration operation. Humanitarian actors have requested that OCHA provide

information on the process for de-clusterization and guidance on civil-military relations.

UNHCR statistics need to better reflect IDP returnees since this has implications for justifying

ongoing financial support. Under UNHCRs current system, IDP returnees are retained on

the statistical record for one calendar year, despite UNHCRs commitment to provide longer-

term assistance for durable solutions. At the same time, UNHCR needs program structures

that facilitate integrating refugee reintegration programming and durable solutions for IDPs.

The current budget structure requires that funding be placed in different pillars, even if

operationally there is no relevant distinction.

As a final intervention in the panel, DIP expanded on the need for a comprehensive approach

to durable solutions for refugees and IDPs. At the policy level and in some field situations,

IDPs and returning refugees are addressed separately. However, UNHCR has substantial

institutional experience at comprehensive sub-regional and regional durable solutions

strategies where forcibly displaced persons, both IDPs and refugees, are treated according to


16/26

16

need. Leadership of the Protection Cluster and extensive field presence gives UNHCR an

opportunity to be at the forefront of durable solutions in their earlier phases. Experience has

shown that solutions are more sustainable when interventions are harmonized.

Opendiscussion

Interventions focused on the need for clarity and support in UNHCRs work for durable

solutions for IDPs. The discussion reached the following conclusions:

In protracted situations, adequate strategies, disengagement benchmarks, and fundingare lacking. When durable solutions are blocked politically, UNHCR needs to

develop interim solutions, using regional solidarity.

Protection risks persist after durable solutions have commenced. At the field level,protection needs funding in durable solutions operations. At the policy level we need

to advance this point in interagency processes.

UNHCR needs to clarify the scope of its role and engagement in durable solutions forIDPs. This should identify the areas of involvement were the office has added value,

and establish clear benchmarks for measured disengagement. Involvement in

transitional justice is an open question, which depends also on field context.

Adequate monitoring mechanisms will be needed to establish when benchmarks havebeen met.

UNHCR needs an integrated approach, from a policy and operational perspective, toreturning refugees and IDPs, which focuses on need rather than former status.

Keyconstraintsandchallenges:DiscussionwiththeAHC(P)

The Rossella Pagliucci-Lor, Director of the Global Learning Centre, presented new traininginitiatives related to internal displacement and introduced a new forum for IDP operations to

share good practices and experience through a web-based IDP community of practice.

A discussion then opened with the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection (AHC-(P)),

Erika Feller, on key constraints and challenges in IDP operations and the necessary response

by UNHCR. The AHC(P) summarized the conclusions of the recent IASC Cluster Evaluation

Phase II. While clusters have improved coverage, predictability in leadership and

partnerships, other challenges remain. These include a focus on process at the expense of

delivery, exclusion of national and local actors, poor inter-cluster coordination, and

underfunding and lack of capacity for protection activities. The AHC(P) stated that UNHCR

staff should ask themselves whether the cluster system is the way to go, and what its impact is

for UNHCRs refugee mandate.

Summarizing the three days of discussion, participants then presented to the AHC(P) their

general assessment of the fields needs to address the main constraints and challenges in IDP

operations:

In terms ofinternal capacity, UNHCR needs to invest more in order to remain a lead agency

in the protection field. This requires:

Well-trained staff to lead and support clusters, Increased technical expertise, on issues such as civil documentation and registration, More capacity for information management, as accurate information is the basis for

both protection strategy development and protection leadership,


17/26

17

Better clarification of the respective roles of UNHCR staff in relation to protectionclusters, and strong management support in adhering to these roles.

IDP operations are also in need ofpolicy and guidance:

UNHCR needs a policy on its role in durable solutions for IDPs that addressesfunding and budget mechanisms, UNHCRs operational priorities, roles and

responsibilities, and benchmarks for disengagement, incorporating both cluster and

agency perspectives.

Guidance on: Land and property, security sector reform, DDR, transitional justice,and natural resources (as impacting durable solutions and as sources of conflict).

UNHCR should reassert a role as the technical lead for protection of civilians in theUN system.

Representatives need to accept UNHCRs cluster leadership as a legitimate andeffective mechanism to protect IDPs.

Regarding natural disasters, field operations need clear guidance on the scope and extent of

UNHCRs involvement, including the definition of the populations that the Office is meant toprotect.

On the inter-agency front, participants raised the following points:

A stronger leadership role is needed for UNHCR in the Protection Cluster, workingclosely with the Humanitarian Coordinator and other partners,

The relationship and division of responsibilities with OCHA is dysfunctional andneeds to be clarified. OCHA is treading too much on the protection field without

adequate knowledge. There is concern about OCHA representing UNHCR at the

Security Council without UNHCR being present.

Other agencies, in particular large NGOs, should play a more active role in theProtection Cluster. There should be accountability mechanisms.

Clarification is needed on how UNHCR works with peacekeeping operations.Participants observed that there should be a balance between properly refraining from

overreaching UNHCRs refugee mandate, particularly as questioned by some Excom

members, and taking advantage of the dividends UNHCRs general capacity to deliver

protection that our engagement with IDPs can yield. On natural disasters, it was observed that

positioning UNHCR as the protection arm of the UN system quite naturally leads the agency

to take a prominent role also in protection in natural disasters. At the same time, leadership

does not require UNHCR to take on all operational aspects of a response. Engagement in

natural disasters may yield political dividends and open the possibility for UNHCR to engage

in with conflict-induced IDPs, or may favorably dispose an affected government to workmore closely with UNHCR on refugee issues.

On the protection of civilians, it was recognized that the issue goes beyond IDPs and into the

general realm of human rights protection. A leading UNHCR role may expand the Offices

remit much more than intended. At the same time, there is clear discomfort among field staff

at OCHA taking the lead on an issue for which UNHCR is the main provider of inputs and

information.

On the cluster system, participants were reminded that IASC discussions seem to be headed in

the direction of returning to the original and more modest understanding of the system, i.e.,

that clusters are a time-bound mechanism to address gaps. It was also recognized that the

cluster system and the humanitarian reform in general open up opportunities to improve bothIDP and refugee protection. There was general consensus around the need for more resources,


18/26

18

including staffing, policy guidance and management support for UNHCR to be able to fulfill

its commitment with IDPs in an effective manner.

The Director of DIP and the AHC(P) presented the conclusions of the consultations:

UNHCRs primary objective is to deliver protection. Inter-agency engagement shouldbe seen as a means to achieving this objective. UNHCR should bear in mind its

comparative advantage in protection, including its comprehensive approach to

protection and a field presence that extends from the beginning to the end of the

displacement cycle.

UNHCR needs to do better. The Office has to ensure that protection is not subservientto political considerations, and HQ will lend all necessary support to this end to field

operations. UNHCR needs to become a better fundraiser. Programme and protection

staff must work more closely together, and protection officers need to become more

familiar with programming, budgeting and fundraising. Another avenue for

improvement is organizing protection dialogues, a very frank and open high-level

conversation with selected national Governments on protection concerns.

The call for stronger support to IDP operations by senior management is heard. It willbe brought to the Troika, the HC and Bureau directors. In terms of guidance, HQ will assess and take action on a prioritized list of issues. Regarding Protection of Civilians, this issue needs to be looked into. We need to

analyze the consequences in terms of policy and operations of a stronger engagement

for UNHCR.

We have to remind ourselves of the opportunity that field operations have to advocatewith national Governments, as appropriate, for the inclusion of issues pertaining to

IDPs in the pledging process for the upcoming Ministerial meeting in the framework

of the Anniversaries.


19/26

19

Annex1:ConceptNote

UNHCRFIELDCONSULTATIONSONIDPPROTECTION

What: AthreedayconsultationwiththeSeniorProtectionstaffforallIDPoperations.

Why: DespiteasignificantevolutioninitsengagementwithIDPsoverthepastsixyears,

UNHCRhasnotyethada globalconsultationwith itsseniorIDPprotectionstaff.

WiththestrengtheningofUNHCR'scommitmenttoofferleadershipinprotection

in natural disasters, the re-visioning of the Global Protection Cluster, and the

recentexperienceofregionalcrisesrequiringcomplementaryandwell-coordinated

refugeeandIDPresponses,nowisanopportunetimetodoso.

The Field Consultations on IDP Protection are structured with the goal of

strengthening and better supporting UNHCRs operational response to internal

displacement.Whilesessionswillallowforsharingnewdevelopmentsandtools,thefocusisondiscussionsandgroupworktoshapeUNHCRsworkwithIDPsand

internaldisplacementoverthenext2years.

TheConsultationswillbeatwo-waylearningexperience:

toidentifykeyoperationalneedsandrecommendationsfromfieldoffices;

toshareexperiencesandgoodpracticesacrosscountrycontexts;and

todiscussandinfluencepolicyandoperationaldevelopments.

Theoutcomeofthesediscussionswillinformtheworkplanningofrelevantsupport

units(includingDIP,PDES,andtheGLC).Atthesametime,theconsultationswill

facilitate theflowofcommunicationand supportbetweenHQsupportfunctionsand the field in the future. The discussions will inform an expert consultation

anticipated in 2012, whichwill review the 2007 policy framework for UNHCRs

engagementwithandresponsetointernaldisplacement.

A resource CDwillbeprepared for participantswith keydocuments, andan IDP

Protection Community of Practice will be unveiled during the consultations to

facilitatecontinueddiscussionandexchangeofpracticeonceparticipantsreturnto

theiroperations.

When:October11,12and13

Where:Geneva,JohnKnoxCentreWho: OrganizedbyDIPwithparticipationfromtheGLC,PDES,DPSMandLONY.

Participationbycountry:

Africa: Burundi, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, S.

Sudan,Uganda,Zimbabwe

Americas:Colombia,Haiti

Asia:Afghanistan,Kyrgyzstan,Myanmar,Pakistan,Philippines,SriLanka

Europe:Azerbaijan,Bosnia,Kosovo,Georgia,Serbia

MENA:Iraq,Libya,Yemen

Withparticipationby theBrookings-LSEProjecton InternalDisplacement,ICRC, andthe

former Representative of the Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally

DisplacedPersons.


20/26

20

Annex2:Agenda

AGENDA:FIELDCONSULTATIONSONIDPPROTECTION

Tuesday,October11

Opening

8:30 Registration&Coffee

9:00 WELCOMEANDOPENINGDISCUSSION V. Trk, Director, Division of International Protection

10:00 EXPLANATIONOFMETHODOLOGYANDINTRODUCTIONS,

RESULTSOFTHESURVEY

K.Gulick,ChiefofSection,PillarII,DIP

10:15 SETTINGTHESTAGE:VIEWSFROMTHEFIELD

KEYCHALLENGESINIDPOPERATIONSTODAY

V. Trk, Moderator

Afghanistan,SumbulRizvi

Iraq,CarolynEnnis

Somalia,WendyMensah

S.Sudan,CharlesMballa

11:25 Coffeebreak

ProtectionClusters:DoingBetterattheWayWeDoBusiness

11:45 WORKINGGROUPS:TOWARDSMOREEFFECTIVEFIELDCLUSTERS L.Zulu,GlobalProtectionClusterSupportCell,Introduction

WorkingGroup1:DefiningResponsibilitiesofProtectionClustersintheField

L.Zulu

WorkingGroup2:LeadershipandDecisionMakinginClusters

M.Berg,Sr.ProCapOfficer

13:00 Lunch

14:00 W

ORKINGGROUPS

REPORT

BACKTO

PLENARYAND

DISCUSSION


21/26

21

14:30 WORKINGGROUPSONPROTECTIONCLUSTERSTRATEGIES:

PLANNINGASATOOLFORLEADERSHIP

S.Russell,Sr.ProCapOfficer,Introduction

15:45 SHARINGRECOMMENDATIONS

S.Russell

16:00 Coffeebreak

RolesandModels:UNHCR,RefugeesandIDPs

A lookattheseveralrolesUNHCRplays inprotectionresponses: fulfilling its

mandate obligations to refugees, assuming an increased operational

engagementinprotectionoftheinternallydisplaced,andleadingclustersin

theinter-agencysphere.HowcanUNHCRcapitalizeonthisenhancedrolein

protection,andwhatdoesitmeanforUNHCRsoperationalresponse?Howshould UNHCR bridge IDP and refugee contexts to ensure coherent

regional/situational responses to displacement? And how has the IDP

responseaffectedpartnersexpectationsofUNHCRsleadershipinrefugee

contexts?

16:30 REMARKS

L.Aubin,DeputyDirector,DIP&Coordinator,GlobalProtectionCluster

PANEL

K.Furley,Head,Inter-AgencyUnit

S.Malik,Chief,OperationalSolutionsandTransitionsSection

K.Roberson,Chief,FieldInformationandCoordinationSection

PLENARYDISCUSSION

18:00 Endofday1

Wednesday,October12

ProtectioninNaturalDisasters

9:00 UPDATEONPOLICYDEVELOPMENTS

K.Gulick

9:30 PANELONPROTECTIONINNATURALDISASTERS

ProtectioninNaturalDisasters(45)

E.Ferris,Director,Brookings-LSEProjectonInternalDisplacement

ProtectionRisksandOperationalChallenges(20each)

Haiti,B.Kale


22/26

22

Pakistan,M.Ameratunga

Philippines,J.Zapater

11:15 Coffeebreak

11:45 OPENDISCUSSIONWITHPANELISTSANDPARTICIPANTS:NEXTSTEPSV.Trk,Moderator

13:00 Lunch

Governments,LawsandPolicies

14:00 THERELEVANCEOFDOMESTICLAWSANDPOLICIES

INTRODUCTION,A.Abebe

REMARKS,W. Klin, Director, Centre suisse de competence pour les droits

humainsandDirector,InstituteofPublicLaw,UniversityofBern,

former Representative of the Secretary General for the Human Rights of

IDPs

Interactivediscussionwithallcolleaguesonsupportingthedevelopmentof

lawsandpolicies,withinterventionsbyJ.Muigai,Sr.LegalAdvisor,Regional

Bureau for Africa, on cooperation at the regional level, andA. Mayman,

Asst. Rep. (Yemen), I. Ivansic , Sr. Protection Officer (Kenya), and N.

Schrepfer, University of Bern, on experiences at the national level andlessonslearned.

16:15 Coffeeandrefreshmentsavailable

16:20 DELIVERINGPROTECTION,REGARDLESS

ToserveIDPsandotherpersonsofconcern,UNHCRmustdeliverprotection:

with(ordespite)governments.regardlessofremoteaccess.inthefaceof

safety restrictionsin cooperationwith or circumvention ofarmed actors.

An informal, free-ranging dialogue among senior colleagues will explore

operationalchallenges--andcreativeandpracticalsolutions--todeliveringprotectionindifficultcircumstances.

Moderator:J.Crisp,Head,PolicyDevelopmentandEvaluationService

A.Awad,Director,DESS

G.Bettochi,DeputyDirector,RegionalBureauforEurope

B.Greve,Head,ODM

W.Klin

E.Macleod,Head,InspectionService

17:30 TransportprovidedtoHeadquarters-MBT

18:00 RECEPTIONINHONOROFFIELDSTAFF(MBTCAFETERIA)


23/26

23

HighCommissionerAntonioGuterresand

AssistantHighCommissionerforProtectionErikaFeller,Welcoming

withSeniorManagement,DivisionsandBureauxstaff

Thursday,October13

DefiningUNHCRsInterests:ProtectionofCivilians

09:00 K.Gulick,Moderator

A.C.Eriksson,DeputyDirector,LONY,Policyandpolitics:theviewfromNew

York

J.Keegan,Operationalrealities:theviewfromDRCandCotedIvoire

A. Painter, Sr. Policy Officer, Regional Bureau for Africa, Regional

perspectives:Regionalorganizationsandpeacekeepingmissions

P.Gentile, Head,ProtectionofCivilians Unit, International Committee of

theRedCross

10:00 PLENARYDISCUSSION:UNHCRSSTAKEINTHEPROTECTIONOFCIVILIANS

10:30 Coffeebreak

UNHCRsRoleintheSearchforDurableSolutions

11:00 J.Zapater,IntroductionandModeration

A.Celis,DurableSolutionsintheMidstofConflict:Colombia

G.Balke,ViewfromtheFieldPost-Conflict:SriLanka

M.Balde,SolutionsforIDPsandRefugees:AComprehensiveApproach

12:00 PLENARYDISCUSSION

13:00 Lunch

KeyConstraintsandChallengesinIDPOperations

14:00 BRIEFINGBYTHEGLOBALLEARNINGCENTRE&

PRESENTATIONOFTHEIDPPROTECTIONCOMMUNITYOFPRACTICE

RossellaPagliuchi-Lor,Head,GlobalLearningCentre

EmilIuga,LearningAssociate,GlobalLearningCentre

14:30 DESIGNOFSESSION&FACILITATION:RECOMMENDATIONSTOTHEAHC

S.Rizvi,C.Ennis,W.Mensah,C.Mballa


24/26

24

15:30 Coffeebreak

16:00 DISCUSSIONWITHTHEASSISTANTHIGHCOMMISSIONERFORPROTECTION

E.Feller

17:30 CONCLUSIONSANDCLOSURE E.Fellerand V.Trk


25/26

25

Annex3:ParticipantslistParticipantsListforIDPFieldConsultations

11-13October2011

UNHCRFieldParticipants

Name Surname Country Function/Organisation

Maya Ameratunga Pakistan AssistantRep(Protection)

Eduardo Arboleda Serbia Representative

Gregory Balke SriLanka SeniorProtectionOfficer

Andrs

Celis Colombia NationalProtectionOfficer

Carolyn Ennis Iraq AssistantRep(Protection)

Antonio

Garcia-Carranza Chad(GozBeida)

SeniorProtectionOfficer

Guy-Rufin

Guernas DRC(Goma) SeniorProtectionOfficer

Igor

Ivancic Kenya SeniorProtectionOfficer

Buti Kale USA(Haiti) DeputyRegionalRepresentative

Jackie Keegan IvoryCoast SeniorProtectionOfficer

Preeta Law Myanmar DeputyRepresentative

Ann Maymen Yemen AssistantRep(Protection)

Charles Mballa SouthSudan SeniorProtectionOfficer

Magda

Medina Ethiopia SeniorProtectionOfficer

Gwendoline Mensah Somalia SeniorProtectionOfficer

Sophie Muller Burundi SeniorProtectionOfficer

Mildred Ouma Uganda ProtectionOfficer

Scott Pohl BosniaHerzegovinia SeniorProtectionOfficer

Danijela Popovic-Efendic Georgia ProtectionOfficer,

Daniela Raiman Libya SeniorProtectionOfficer

Sumbul Rizvi

Afghanistan SeniorProtectionOfficer

Rico Salcedo Philippines AssociateLegalOfficer

Shigeyuki Sato Sudan SeniorProtectionOfficer

Beat

Schuler Zimbabwe SeniorProtectionOfficer

Christos Theodoropoulos Kosovo SeniorProtectionOfficer

Tatiana Troeva Azerbaijan ProtectionOfficer

ExternalFacilitatorandResourcePersons

Name Surname Country Function/Organisation

Michelle Berg Canada SeniorProCapOfficer/NRC-OCHA


26/26

26

Elizabeth Ferris UnitedStates Director, Brookings-LSE Project on Internal

Displacement

Pierre Gentile Switzerland HeadofProtectionofCiviliansUnit,ICRC

Walter Klin

Switzerland Director, Institute of Public Law & former

Representativeofthe

SecretaryGeneralfortheHumanRightsofIDPs

Simon Russell Switzerland SeniorProCapOfficer/NRC-OCHA

Nina Schrepfer Switzerland UniversityofBern

HeadquartersParticipants/Observers

FirstName Surname Country Function/Organisation

Allehone Abebe Switzerland LegalOfficer,DIP

Louise Aubin Switzerland Deputy-Director,DIP

Amin Awad Switzerland Director,DESS

Guillermo Bettochi Switzerland DeputyDirector,BureauforEurope

Jeff Crisp Switzerland Head,PDES

Claudio Delfabro Hungary SeniorProtectionOfficer,GLC

Charles Duverger-

Santiago

Switzerland Intern,DIP

Hannah Entwisle Switzerland Consultant,DIP

Anne-Christine Eriksson USA Deputy-Director,LONY

Erika Feller Switzerland AssistantHighCommissioner(P)

Kemlin Furley Switzerland Coordinator,IAU

Shelly Gornell Switzerland DPSM

Betsy Greve Switzerland Head,ODMKaren Gulick Switzerland ChiefofSection,DIP,PillarII

Kahin Ismail Switzerland ProtectionOfficer

Sajjad Malik Switzerland ChiefofSection,DPSM

Jane Muigai Swizterland SeniorLegalAdvisor,AfricaBureau

Monique Naufal Switzerland SeniorPolicyOfficer,EuropeBureau

Edward ODwyer Switzerland SeniorProtectionOfficer,DIP

Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor Hungary Head,GlobalLearningCentre

Andrew Painter Switzerland SeniorPolicyOfficer,AfricaBureau

Kimberly Roberson Switzerland ChiefofSection,DPSM

Rebecca Skovbye Switzerland ProtectionOfficer,DIP

Matilda Svensson Switzerland ProtectionOfficer,DIP

Davide Torzilli Switzerland SeniorLegalAdvisor,AmericasBureau

Volker Trk Switzerland Director,DIP

Miguel Urqua Switzerland SeniorEmergencyShelterCoordinator

Andreas Wissner Switzerland SeniorLegalAdvisor

Josep Zapater Switzerland SeniorProtectionOfficer,DIP

Leonard Zulu Switzerland SeniorProtectionOfficer,DIP

global field consutation on idp protection final

Documents