Introduction
Return, resettlement and local integration are considered the three main durable solutions for refugees, and serve as the overarching framework for the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) response to refugees, particularly those in protracted situations. According to UNHCR, as of end of 2017, two-thirds of all refugees, or 13.4 million refugees, were in protracted refugee situations (UNHCR 2018f: 22)1 . A protracted refugee situation, as defined by UNHCR, is one in which “25,000 or more refugees from the same nationality have been in exile for five consecutive years or more in a given asylum country” (UNHCR 2018f: 22).Despite the global responsibility to respond to international protection needs, when examining the data on both protracted displacement, it is clear that there is an imbalance. As a whole, neighbouring countries in a region experiencing a conflict have taken on a disproportionate share of the responsibility of hosting refugees in protracted situations.
The Syrian conflict and subsequent refugee displacement depicts this situation clearly. Seven years since the unrest in Syria began, over twelve million Syrians have been displaced, both within Syria and to countries within the region (UNHCR 2018i, 2018m). As of 1 November 2018, 5.6 million Syrian refugees were hosted within their region, with approximately 3.6 million registered in Turkey, 950,000 in Lebanon and 670,000 in Jordan (UNHCR 2018i) In contrast, from 2014-2018, the number of resettled Syrian refugees globally totalled 116,308 (UNHCR 2018l). From 2014 to 2017, across all 28 Member States of the European Union (EU), 37,075 Syrians were resettled and 765,460 received positive asylum decisions (Eurostat 2018). Over the latter part of 2018, media reports have highlighted the (primarily self-organised) return of several thousand Syrians from Lebanon (Reuters 2018a; Jansen 2018), and several hundreds of thousands from Turkey (Bilgehan 2018; Reuters 2018b). Side by side, these numbers paint a stark contrast, clearly demonstrating the burden shouldered primarily by countries within the region. This trend is not unique: prior to the Syrian conflict, in fact, Syria itself was a major host country for Iraqi refugees, hosting over a million Iraqis in the mid to late 2000s (Hendow 2010).
It is within the context of responsibility-sharing, thus, that we position this policy report, which focuses on development-displacement nexus approaches for major refugee-hosting countries. Although the focus of this report can be clearly related to the third prong of local integration as a durable solution, we acknowledge that these approaches can only be successful when comprehensively implemented within a broader global response that takes into account the other durable solutions of return and resettlement. The policy options presented here highlight the recommendations, needs and lessons learned put forward by policy makers of major refugee-hosting countries themselves, based on their own experiences. In adopting this approach, this report actively acknowledges the significant role played by first countries of asylum and major refugee-hosting countries, particularly those in the developing world.
With this in mind, the following report aims at providing indications and recommendations – based on identified good practices and lessons learned – for policy makers, as well as other key stakeholders such as donors or implementing partners (whether international organisations or non-governmental organisations (NGOs)), to integrate development-oriented thinking into humanitarian response planning for refugees. Decision makers lack promising policy options in the context of forced migration, protection and development: options that are based on the priorities and challenges of all stakeholders involved, tested in practice and brought together in a systematic, analytical and policy-relevant way. In response to this need, the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), with support from the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), initiated a research project to assess policy options aimed at: mitigating the adverse effects associated with forced displacement, building the resilience of refugees and host communities and stimulating various aspects of development. Desk and empirical research – including 45 interviews and stakeholder consultations with government institutions, NGOs, chambers of commerce, UN agencies and the donor community – was conducted from March to November 2018.3 The research focused in particular on Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, but also covered global and theoretical approaches to development and displacement. Based on that research, this policy report has been prepared to present the key areas and policy-related actions that desk research, policy makers and other stakeholders have identified as essential to achieving those goals, as well as examples illustrating those approaches.
The report begins first with a background to the conceptual basis for the research, including the development-displacement nexus and examples of regional and national programmes developed with this approach. The bulk of the report then follows, outlining policy options related to designing a development-displacement approach, communicating needs and raising awareness, integrating a development perspective into service provision and boosting business and employment. These policy options are complemented by good practice examples from the research and practical guidance for implementation. The final chapter concludes with a summary of main lessons, and opening up to where policy and research can proceed from here.