Refugee Rights News
Volume 4, Issue 7
December 2008
IRRI and the Social Science Research Council Launch New Working Paper Series
In November 2008, IRRI, in partnership with the Centre for the Study of Forced Migration (CSFM) University of Dar es Salaam, and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), launched a paper that examines an initiative currently being conducted by UNHCR and the government of Tanzania intended to end displacement for a particular group of Burundian refugees who have lived in Tanzania for over thirty years.
The paper is the first in a new Working Paper series, a collaborative research and advocacy project between IRRI, SSRC, and civil society and academic partners in the Great Lakes region. The intention of the project is to gain a deeper understanding of the linkages between conflicts over citizenship and belonging in the Great Lakes region and forced displacement. The project employs social science research under a human rights framework in order to show how identity affects the experience of the displaced before, during, and after their displacement. It is anticipated that the findings will help facilitate the development of regional policies that more effectively promote social and political re-integration of forced migrants by reconciling differences between socio-cultural identities and national citizenship rights that perpetuate conflict and social exclusion.
Going Home or Staying Home? Ending Displacement for Burundian Refugees in Tanzania
Working Paper 1, “Going home or staying home? Ending Displacement for Burundian Refugees in Tanzania”, focuses on issues of belonging and exclusion for refugees who fled Burundi in the early 1970s and sought refuge in Tanzania. More than three decades later, so-called “durable solutions” are finally being sought for this group of refugees. Following a decision by the government of Tanzania to offer citizenship, the refugees are being offered a choice between repatriating to Burundi or applying for naturalisation and becoming Tanzanian citizens. Based on four weeks of field research conducted in Ulyankulu refugee settlement and Kigoma region, the paper explores the factors that are influencing decision-making processes amongst refugees and the multi-faceted ways in which they perceive their identities.
In many respects, the current initiative is positive in as much as refugees see the current process as an opportunity to shed the “refugee” label, a label which has symbolised marginalisation from mainstream Tanzanian society for over three decades. Beyond this, ongoing access to livelihoods was, not surprisingly, central in influencing people’s decision-making – for those opting to repatriate, access to land in Burundi was cited as fundamental, while for those opting to stay in Tanzania, socio-economic factors such as access to land, livelihoods and education, were seen as major reasons for staying.
However, the findings also demonstrate that refugees remain ambivalent about the longer-term implications of the choices on offer, with serious concerns expressed about both options. In the case of repatriation, for example, refugees were anxious that the current initiative is moving ahead too fast. Instability continues in Burundi, and many refugees spoke of the need for more objective and accessible information on conditions in Burundi before deciding whether to return. Consequently the report recommends that independent information on the security, legal and human rights situation in Burundi be made available to refugees in order to enable them to make an informed choice.
Repatriation or Naturalisation?
The research found that the process seemed to encourage, and in some cases place undue pressure on, refugees to return. Of particular concern was that refugees who had initially indicated that they would like to naturalise, are being allowed to repatriate if they change their minds, but those who first decided to return to Burundi are not allowed to change their minds. As a matter of both law and good practice refugees who originally opted for naturalisation and have subsequently changed their mind due to security concerns in Burundi should be allowed to access the naturalisation procedures.
For those opting for naturalisation, there were strong reservations about the process through which their applications were being considered. First, the research indicated that there was a possibility that thousands of the refugees may in fact have been Tanzanian citizens for years, by virtue of their birth in Tanzania—although they have, of course, not been recognised as such by the Tanzanian government. Second, refugees lacked information and independent advice, and there were reports that some were turned down in arbitrary ways or in procedures that appeared compromised. It is clear that independent monitoring of the process would help to increase the confidence of refugees and ensure that refugee rights are respected.
There was also considerable concern about what might happen to anyone not accepted for naturalisation. Although such individuals should as a matter of principle be able to retain their refugee status in the absence of other procedures ordering the withdrawal of that status, the research revealed that in practice these individuals were placed under tremendous pressure to return to Burundi. The government of Tanzania should consider, and provide information about, how it will ensure that the rights of any residual refugee population are respected.
Furthermore, refugees questioned whether achieving the legal status of citizen in Tanzania would equate to, or indeed facilitate, social integration and acceptance. Those who opted for naturalisation are uncertain about their ability to access land and other resources, and expressed anger at the fact that they were unaware that they might be forced to relocate from the settlement areas where they have been forced to live for decades: in February 2008, four months after refugees had initially been surveyed, they were informed that the government of Tanzania intended to close the settlements and relocate them elsewhere. The group had anticipated that naturalisation would reinforce their claims to currently occupied land, not undermine them. Consequently many who originally opted for naturalisation have changed their minds and now intend to repatriate to Burundi, despite the fact that they also expressed serious misgivings about the security situation there. Although governments can require citizens to relocate, they may do this under narrow circumstances and, at a minimum, they must provide clear information and due process.
Next StepsIn the research carried out among self-settled refugees in and near Kigoma town, there was considerable apprehension about the process. Up to the time of writing, the naturalisation and repatriation programme has been accessible only to refugees in recognised settlements. There was considerable confusion about whether or not self-settled refugees might be able to benefit from this scheme and, if not, what their future might look like. The research revealed an urgent need for clarification in this regard.
CSFM and IRRI are currently working on a follow-up advocacy strategy in order to ensure that the due process and other concerns uncovered by the research are addressed.
Read the full report, "Going Home or Staying Home? Ending Displacement for Burundian Refugees in Tanzania," November 2008.
