World Refugee Survey Country Grades:
A new tool for refugee advocates

Refugee Rights News
Volume 2, Issue 2
July 2005

On June 16, 2005 the International Refugee Rights Initiative joined with the International Rescue Committee to host a briefing launching the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants’ (USCRI) annual World Refugee Survey.

The Survey has traditionally been a tremendous resource for refugee advocates, providing accurate estimates of the number of refugees in each country, as well as short descriptions of the conditions refugees face in most refugee hosting countries.

Last year, USCRI made headlines by expanding their focus and launching a comprehensive campaign against “warehousing,” in conjunction with the launch of the Survey. The campaign aims to ensure that refugees are granted the rights guaranteed them in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, especially those rights that make it possible for them to reestablish their lives in exile.

The World Refugee Survey 2005—Warehousing, Inventory of Refugee Rights takes up these issues once again. It also introduces a novel new mechanism of monitoring compliance with international law relating to refugees—a grading system. Each country was not given an overall grade, but was instead judged on its compliance with refugee rights in four major areas: asylum and refoulement, detention, freedom of movement and the right to earn a livelihood.

Some African countries scored badly under this system. For example, Zambia was granted D’s in all four categories. The Survey explained that Zambia had deported over 130 foreigners without affording them the opportunity to seek asylum and had detained several hundred refugees and asylum seekers. In regard to the right to earn a livelihood, the Survey cited onerous regulations making it difficult for refugees to receive work permits in Zambia. The law required refugees to first secure a job offer and then pay about $400 for the permit. With regard to freedom of movement, the Survey noted that Zambian law prohibited the movement of refugees outside of designated camps.

Kenya got an F in the freedom of movement category, with the Survey noting that despite the lack of a legal basis for confinement in camps, the movements of refugees were restricted in practice. Refugees faced prosecution if found outside camps without proper documentation.

The Survey was not only hard on African countries. The United States was granted an F and was singled out as one of the world’s worst offenders in the category of asylum and refoulement. This criticism was primarily due to its policy of returning Haitian asylum seekers interdicted at sea. The US also received a poor mark (D) in the detention category. The US holds asylum seekers who arrive without proper documentation in immigration detention centers for extended periods of time, an average of ten months in one area. The European Union also fared poorly, although surprisingly, the entire EU received only one assessment. Negative assessments of policies related to detention and refoulement focused on key offenders and did not include detailed descriptions on a country by country basis.

Amid all this criticism, some countries were singled out for praise. One African country rated highly by the Survey was Liberia, which received an A in the asylum category. It was noted that Liberia’s legislation provided for the right of nonrefoulement and that group recognition had been extended to 13,000 Ivorians. Liberia also received an A in the area of detention, as there were no reported incidents in which asylum seekers were detained. Both Congo-Kinshasa and Congo-Brazzaville received A’s in the right to earn a livelihood category, with both countries affording refugees the same right to work as nationals. Sierra Leone received an A in the freedom of movement category, reportedly not restricting refugees’ movements in any way.

In addition to making these assessments, the Survey explored some issues in greater depth in a series of introductory articles. Tanzania, which received a poor assessment (two D’s and two F’s), was the subject of one article. Tanzania has argued that it has suffered an unfair burden due to the presence of refugees. According to the government, refugees have increased insecurity and hindered economic development.

USCRI, however, argues that the government’s “warehousing” policy has only exacerbated these effects. For example, refugees have already brought some economic benefit to western Tanzania, as humanitarian organizations have improved roads and facilities. The positive impact has been limited, however, by restrictions on the ability of refugees to trade. Where roads could have created a starting point for more robust trade, the refusal to allow the refugee population to move has hindered the ability of the western region to capitalize on these assets. In addition, it was argued that denying refugees access to livelihoods has increased poverty, which has caused a corresponding rise in insecurity as refugees and locals become more desperate and more likely to turn to crime.

It is hoped that this type of analysis will bolster the campaign that USCRI has already initiated. USRCI is looking to collaborate with other NGOs to ensure that real change occurs. One of the next steps is a planned North-South Civil Society Conference on Refugee Warehousing, scheduled for September 25-26, 2005 in Geneva, just prior to UNHCR’s annual Executive Committee meeting. NGOs focusing on refugee issues around the world are invited to participate. This conference will offer an opportunity to both offer commentary on the World Refugee Survey and forge partnerships with other organizations seeking to promote refugee rights.

If you would like to read the World Refugee Survey 2005 online, order a copy, or find out more about the North-South Civil Society Dialogue on Refugee Warehousing, you can visit the USCRI website.