This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 GENEVA 001689 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF UNHCR
SUBJECT: UNHCR: INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION 
 
REF: GENEVA 01605 
 
¶1.  (U) SUMMARY:  The Executive Committee (ExCom) of the 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) held a 
meeting of its "Standing Committee" June 28-30 to discuss 
budget and program matters.  This cable focuses on protection 
issues, the main topic of the June meeting. Others will focus 
on budget matters and the High Commissioner's Five 
Commitments to Refugee Women.  UNHCR presented papers on "The 
International Note on Protection", statelessness, mass influx 
situations, local integration and self reliance, 
complementary forms of protection, refugee women, and on 
"Project Profile."  Debates, particularly on local 
integration, gender issues, and complementary forms of 
protection, were lively. An undercurrent to the meeting was 
the issue of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs ) see 
reftel), a category of people for whom UNHCR is still trying 
to delineate its protection role.  The discussions reflected 
concern about recent high-profile cases of refoulement, the 
merit of generic frameworks, while nations directly affected 
by refugee movements actively defended their policies and 
looked to UNHCR for additional assistance.  END SUMMARY. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Note on International Protection 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) Director of the Department for International 
Protection Erika Feller introduced this year's Note on 
International Protection as "only a part of a mosaic of 
material on protection issues."  The note emphasized the 
close link between the legal, social, and economic aspects of 
protection. Noting that physical security of refugees was a 
central issue, she expressed concern about recent 
refoulements of refugees, rape as a weapon of conflict, 
abduction and recruitment of children, recent incidences of 
refoulement, and a re-emergence of boat arrivals.  She 
welcomed the "almost unprecedented" levels of voluntary 
repatriation and the "rehabilitation" of resettlement as a 
durable solution, but noted that local integration remains an 
"elusive solution."  She defined international protection as 
the safeguarding of physical security and the enjoyment of 
rights.  Of her recent trip to Sudan, Feller said that UNHCR 
had insufficient staff on the ground to do full justice to 
the protection responsibilities entrusted to UNHCR in West 
Darfur.  She also complained of the gap between supportive 
rhetoric and actual funding of protection interventions 
there. 
 
¶3.  (U) Feller said UNHCR was trying to realize protection in 
a climate of "asylum fatigue" triggered by the 
asylum/migration nexus, international crime, terrorism and 
smuggling of people. She cited a lack of funding as the 
reason why UNHCR does not have adequate numbers for 
appropriately staffed protection and community services posts 
and why protection-related duties are often delegated to 
junior staff and UNVs.  She also highlighted food insecurity 
for refugees and stressed partnerships.  She expressed 
UNHCR's commitment to the collaborative approach.  Feller 
noted concern about mandate gaps, saying that the need for 
protection (and assistance) was not restricted to refugees 
and asylum-seekers.  Key challenges for UNHCR were how to 
ensure that resources at the disposal of protection are 
adequate to the tasks, to capacitate managers in all aspects 
of protection, to ensure the expertise and knowledge of all 
staff doing protection, to minimize security problems, to 
work within the current operational climate, including 
"asylum fatigue", and how to realize solutions in an 
environment of unresolved or rekindling conflicts, protracted 
stay, uneven burden-sharing and limited asylum space. 
 
¶4.  (U) Highlights from the lengthy and wide-ranging debate 
included a call for a more analytical approach to the Note, 
more focus on delivery on the ground, and a holistic approach 
to protection and operations.  Several member states 
expressed support for the collaborative approach on IDPs and 
there were mixed views regarding Convention-Plus (there were 
some calls for mainstreaming it), and stressed the importance 
of resettlement.  Concern was expressed regarding the overuse 
and possible misuse of the Protection Surge Capacity Project 
and Feller agreed to convene a meeting of interested parties 
to discuss UNHCR's approach to IDPs and other populations of 
interest. 
 
¶5. (U) Most delegations agreed that the core mandate of UNHCR 
is protection, and that the preferred durable solution for 
refugees is voluntary repatriation with a community-based 
focus for reintegration.  Feller noted that there was also a 
need for broader, perhaps global, consultations to 
distinguish between protection and non-protection needs.  As 
occurred in the May informal discussions on the preparation 
of the 2006 budget (see reftel), many delegations expressed 
concern over the increasing number of internally displaced 
persons (IDPs), and stressed the collaborative approach as 
the correct solution. It was plain throughout the three-day 
meeting that UNHCR is committed to establishing a more active 
and predictable role on IDPs. 
 
¶6.  (U) USdel noted that resettlement criteria must be 
flexible to accommodate needs.  Many delegations asked that 
UNHCR strengthen its resettlement function and promote 
regional resettlement programs such as the Latin American 
example.  For many countries, resettlement is seen as a 
viable solution and should have synergy with other durable 
solutions.  The Australian delegation lobbied for upgrading 
the level of the senior resettlement position. 
 
¶7. (U) Other delegations expressed concern over 
"asylum-shopping."  The Italian delegation asserted that more 
than 50 per cent of asylum-seekers disappear from camps 
before their status is determined, effectively giving them an 
illegal status.  Many delegations called for the development 
of a multilateral framework with burden- and 
responsibility-sharing in order to preserve respect for 
asylum, ignoring the fact that negotiations on a framework on 
irregular secondary movements have stalled.  Some said UNHCR 
should work with IOM and ILO to address the prevalence of 
economic migrants. 
 
¶8. (U) Many delegations mentioned their desire to strengthen 
the implementation of the 1951 Convention by registering 
asylum-seekers using a standardized system, specifically 
mentioning biometrics as a possible solution to prevent fraud 
and irregular secondary movements.  The African group was 
particularly concerned with this issue.  There was also 
discussion on how EU efforts to define a common asylum 
system, and possibly joint resettlement programs, would 
impact countries in and out of the EU. 
 
¶9.  (U) USdel called for a halt to refoulement by Rwanda, 
Burundi, and Kyrgyzstan (welcomed by Feller who said it was 
time to start naming names in Standing Committee,) sought 
information on the increase by over two million of people of 
concern to UNHCR (IDPs in Sudan and Colombia plus stateless 
persons), requested consultation with member states on 
UNHCR's role vis-a-vis IDPs, expressed concern at dearth of 
experienced international protection staff, emphasized the 
need for more focus in the Note on physical protection and on 
women and children, and highlighted the need for more 
self-reliance for refugees.  USdel praised registration 
efforts, called for donors to better support World Food 
Program, and called for a continued increase in UNHCR's 
resettlement capacity.  Feller said that improved counting of 
IDPs in Sudan and Colombia and stateless persons were 
responsible for the large increase in persons of concern to 
UNHCR.  USdel commented that the Note inadequately covered 
the important issue of physical protection. Feller agreed to 
include more on the issue next year.  USdel also expressed 
concern about the impact UNHCR's taking a larger role 
regarding IDPs might have on host countries willingness to 
grant asylum; Feller said UNHCR was conscious of the risk and 
preserving the principle of non-refoulement was a criterion 
for HCR involvement with IDPs.  There were differing views on 
 the future of Convention-Plus protocol with a few delegates 
(Denmark) calling for its continuation while others (Finland, 
Austria, the U.S., Canada) recommending that it was time to 
mainstream it, apply it to the field, and give the 
responsibility for further discussions on it to the Standing 
Committee. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- 
Statelessness - No Restriction on Scope of UNHCR's Activities 
--------------------------------------------- ---------------- 
 
¶10.  (U) Many states agreed that statelessness is a major 
issue that needs to be remedied.  The progress report 
published by UNHCR at the meeting called for an increase in 
the role that UNHCR will play on this issue.  Basing its 
mandate on General Assembly and ExCom decisions, UNHCR said 
its responsibility extended well beyond the strictly legal. 
However, UNHCR assured USdel that it had no intention of 
expanding its activities dramatically.  UNHCR is working with 
nations who have large numbers of stateless people to develop 
national frameworks.  The debate became personal between 
Russia and Latvia/Estonia regarding former Soviet citizens 
who did not gain citizenship at the time of independence. 
 
¶11.  (U) USdel called for follow-up on the provisions 
included in the Executive Committee Conclusions encouraging 
States, in cooperation with UNHCR, to work on resolving 
statelessness, including through the resettlement of 
stateless persons in precarious situations who may be 
refugees, stressed the importance of ensuring that all 
children are registered when born, regardless of their 
nationality, status or place of birth, urged UNHCR to outline 
objectives targeting selected regions with stateless 
populations and reflect such objectives in its global appeal, 
and mainstream the issue of statelessness into its regular 
operations and training programs.  Amnesty International, on 
behalf of the NGOs, noted the &universal right to a state8, 
welcomed UNHCR's expansion in Central and Eastern Europe and 
called for a dedicated budget line for stateless activities. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
International Cooperation in Mass Influx Situations 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶12.  (U) There were differing views on "International 
Cooperation and Burden Sharing in Mass Influx Situations." 
Refugee-hosting countries supported the creation of new 
mechanisms and conclusions for international cooperation, 
while donor countries spoke out against the need for 
additional frameworks and roundtables.  Donor countries are 
looking for more empirical analysis and practical solutions 
on the issue in lieu of generic theory.  They are concerned 
about trying to create a one-size-fits-all structure that 
will not adequately target solutions in specific crises.  A 
study on the issue, which had been blocked by DIP Head Feller 
because it failed to deal with many practical aspects, is 
expected to be published shortly. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
Local Integration and Self-Reliance - Small Signs of Hope 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶13.  (U) The debate on "Local Integration and Self Reliance" 
was more forthcoming than in the past when many 
refugee-hosting countries refused to discuss either of these 
issues.  A statement by Deputy Director of Protection 
Ngonlardje Mbaidjol that emphasized both the strong 
advantages and interrelatedness of the two issues catalyzed 
much of the debate.  Most of the differences were found 
between resettlement countries and mass-influx countries. 
Smaller nations were concerned about the impact of local 
integration on their economic, social, and environmental 
condition, while the wealthier resettlement nations agreed 
with UNHCR about the benefits.  All delegations stressed that 
special programs need to be developed for women and child 
refugees. 
 
¶14.  (U) A few nations still hesitated to discuss 
Self-Reliance at all, while others wanted self-reliance to be 
officially described as a "tool" to achieving durable 
solutions.  Both resettlement nations and mass-influx nations 
noted its ability to reduce host-country burdens, including 
food aid.  Strangely, some states also raised IDP needs under 
this agenda item. 
 
¶15.  (U) While it was obvious there were strong differences 
of opinion, the Africa Group acknowledged that local 
integration could be an option for small numbers of refugees, 
as long as the international community focused on 
burden-sharing in this context.  The US Committee on Refugees 
and Immigrants' statement on behalf of the NGOs was 
relatively low key, quite well received, and described as 
"fair" by the Zambian delegate.  It stressed, as did several 
delegates, that self-reliance should not be restricted to 
durable solutions but should be viewed in the context of 
ongoing care and maintenance situations.  The underlying 
question on many delegates' minds was whether or not refugees 
are agents of development. 
 
¶16.  (U) UNHCR is planning a study on the impact of local 
integration in developing countries to be published next year. 
 
---------------------------------- 
COMPLEMENTARY FORMS OF PROTECTION 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶17. (U) The document on "Complementary Forms of Protection" 
highlighted  the need for the international protection system 
to address protection gaps, called for complementary forms of 
protection for people who cannot obtain refugee status under 
the 1951 Convention; that complementary forms of protection 
should strengthen the global refugee regime; and that 
complementary forms of protection should not weaken the 
measures in place to address statelessness.  The subsequent 
debate centered on where UNHCR,s mandate begins and ends and 
who should be the beneficiary of complementary forms of 
protection, with many delegations calling for a more 
harmonized, consistent procedure to examine all international 
protection needs.  Other delegations asked that UNHCR ensure 
that refugee protection is not undermined by complementary 
protection, that persons granted complementary protection not 
be given the same status and rights as Convention refugees, 
and that there be a clear distinction between complementary 
and temporary protection. 
 
¶18. (U) Feller emphasized that UNHCR is not trying to confuse 
concepts and equate protection with mandates, humanitarian 
response with protection being offered, or protection with 
status.  Feller said that UNHCR does not have a mandate for 
every victim of displacement or in need of protection.  She 
also drew attention to the report's conclusion, which 
mentions that the 1951 Convention should be implemented 
resolutely and fully, and that complementary forms of 
protection should not be substituted for the Convention. 
However, she also noted that relevant law is not only based 
on the 1951 Convention, but the applicability extends to the 
OAU Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
 
¶19. (U) Feller stated that there would be situations when the 
1951 Convention is not applied as resolutely as it should be. 
  In addition, Feller highlighted that UNHCR's paper does 
not/not address the situation of persons who have been 
excluded from refugee status, but who nevertheless cannot, 
under relevant human rights law, be returned to a country 
where they would face a risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or 
degrading treatment or punishment.  In addition, Feller 
stated that UNHCR's conclusion is not intended to provide in 
full detail the substance of complementary forms of the 
protection regime, but rather suggest an outside framework 
for consideration.  Nevertheless, Feller asserted that the 
mandate between UNHCR and statelessness is clear. UNHCR has a 
mandate for stateless people, coming from Article 11 under 
the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and by 
decisions of the General Assembly. 
 
¶20. (U) Member states seemed to agree that the ExCom 
conclusion should provide a general outline rather than being 
all-encompassing because there should be sufficient 
flexibility for nations to account for differences in 
granting complementary protection.  In particular, the 
Australian delegation stated that it was not appropriate to 
have a "one size fits all" process with so many different 
possible situations.  In response, Feller mentioned that 
there would be significant development at the regional level 
to ensure flexibility at the national level. 
 
¶21. (U) Member states also appeared concerned about the 
distinction between humanitarian as opposed to refugee 
assistance, and highlighted that grants of international 
protection should be on the basis of the threat to the 
individual.  The British, Dutch, and Italian delegations, as 
well as NGOs, emphasized that international protection should 
not be extended to victims of natural disasters; with the 
Dutch government stating that its government did not agree 
that international protection should be extended to any 
people who do not fall under the 1951 Convention.  In 
response, Feller noted that statutes on protection needs do 
not automatically grant status to people who are fleeing 
natural disasters, but that perhaps some forms of 
complementary protection should be designed. 
 
¶22.  (U) Discussion of draft conclusions on "Local 
Integration and Self-Reliance" and "Complementary Forms of 
Protection" will begin July 13 and 14. 
Moley