World Refugee Survey: How does Africa score?

Refugee Rights News
Volume 3, Issue 2
July 2006

On June 13, 2006, the International Refugee Rights Initiative co-hosted a session for NGOs previewing the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants’ (USCRI’s) annual World Refugee Survey—Risks and Rights. This year’s Survey features articles on the response to Hurricane Katrina in the United States, the impact that the denial of rights-- also called refugee “warehousing”--has on refugee women, refugee protests in the Global South and an update on internal displacement. Interestingly the Survey found that the global number of refugees had risen last year, in contrast to the assessment of UNHCR, largely due to new outflows from Iraq, included by USCRI but not UNHCR.

The Survey also for the second straight year graded more than 40 countries worldwide, hosting most of the world’s refugee population according to their compliance with international standards regarding the treatment of refugees.  Each country receives a distinct grade in each of four areas, refoulement and physical protection, detention and access to justice, freedom of movement and the right to earn a livelihood. Of particular interest to African advocates is that overall, the USCRI’s assessment showed a deterioration of refugee rights protections in Africa. In 19 African countries there has been a reduction in the grades assigned as compared to last year.

Particularly negative trends were shown in the relation to refoulement and physical protection, where eight counties scored lower in 2006 than in 2005. One such deteriorating score was that of Burundi, which fell from a D to an F in the area of refoulement, largely due to the massive repatriation of approximately 5,0000 Rwandan asylum seekers without screening, in June 2005. USCRI also lowered Tanzania’s score to an F, citing numerous incidents of forced return of asylum seekers and recognized refugees. They also pointed out that for part of the year the government refused even to entertain applications for asylum from Rwandans.

Rollback of standards was also seen in the area of freedom of movement. USCRI lowered Sudan’s grade from a C to a D, for example, citing requirements imposed by UNHCR and the government of Sudan for daily travel permits and security clearances in the tense Kassala state. Newly arrived asylum seekers were also held in detention in Wad Sherife until their claims were processed.

Uganda also drew a lower grade despite maintaining a fairly consistent policy between 2005 and 2006. Changes in the tax system apparently no longer allowed refugees to use receipt of tax payment as identification, thus limiting freedom of movement for some.

With regard to the right to earn a livelihood Côte d’Ivoire saw its grade drop. Côte d’Ivoire received a C in 2005 on the basis that it had passed a law allowing refugees to work. By 2006, however, USCRI declared that “[i]t remained virtually impossible for refugees to work in Côte d’Ivoire.” For Chad, incidents of harassment of refugees for selling plastic sheeting and employment of refugees for less than minimum wage, caused its grade drop from a B to a C.

In the final category, detention and access to courts, Africa’s policy seemed to be more balanced. A number of countries received lower grades, but others improved. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for example, moved up from a D to a C, apparently because incidents like the deportation of Congolese of Rwanda origin were not repeated in 2005. DRC also improved its score in the area of refoulement, as a result of a general respect for the provisions of its national refugee legislation and not repeating previous threats to refoule.

The prevalence of decreasing grades, signaling more arbitrary and restrictive policies, is clearly of concern to refugee advocates. It might be interesting to consider whether use can be made of the grades offered in the Survey in advocacy at the national and refugee level.

See the World Refugee Survey 2006.