Protection and Prevention – of the Community & Child Migrants

Priyanca Mathur Velath

[a member of APRRN, IASFM and an alumni of the CRG Winter Course on Forced Migration, Velath is currently completing her doctoral thesis on the rights of development-induced displaced persons in India at CSLG/J.N.U, New Delhi]

The dilemma in forced migration studies, of whether refugees and IDPs are distinct and if the former is ‘more’ in need of protection, is perhaps jinxed to remain unresolved. But growing out of it are equally, if not more, pressing concerns like what is protection and who needs it. Who needs it most and who slips through the gaps? Can’t protection needs be minimised through preventive mechanisms? Can a community approach address refugee needs better? While refugees are entitled to rights as they ‘vote through their feet’ and flee into a country outside that of their nationality, IDPs continue to crave for rights within the borders of their own country. While their protection needs may get highlighted, often the R&R needs of those internally displaced by ‘developmental’ projects get neglected. Thus this issue of RWO tries to sew together a tapestry of four diverse key concepts - ‘child migrants’, ‘preventive mechanism’, ‘IDP policy’ and ‘community approach’.

Glebova’s article draws attention to the unfortunate plight of child migrants in the Caribbean who slip through the gaps in the legal protection framework and become ‘invisible’ to rights. They become doubly neglected as they reside in a region where low asylum numbers makes migration an issue of lesser national importance. She rightly highlights that “there is still very little research on measuring the impact of migration on families and their children, whether in the Caribbean or worldwide.” The tragic irony is that all Caribbean states have ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) making it legally binding on their territory but its effective implementation is lagging behind. Issues crucial to these migrant children are access to education and health care, particularly the unaccompanied ones who are not just denied access to legal and practical assistance, but also at times detained in places of institutional care. What is of particular concern is that “unaccompanied children can be wrongly considered to be adult undocumented migrants, and deported without exercising their right to seek asylum, and without regard for the rights of the child”.

Jeyaprakash revives the importance of stressing on the preventive mechanism in displacement dynamics. Today when the world around us erupts sporadically with ‘new’ refugee situations like that arising out of Libya, Jeyaprakash’s attempt to push our attention to the need to look at ‘prevention’ has value in making us question if these conditions could have been averted. Despite the fact that recent research, as he notes, has shown that “conceptual fragility” and “internal inconsistencies” continues to plague the concept of prevention, leading it to even being termed as an “impractical idea”. He argues that the rise in the refugee trend and a worst voluntary repatriation scenario stress clearly the need and the importance of prevention policies. “We cannot deny the need for including prevention concerns in displacement dialectics because of the fact that each and every reality has an assignable cause. This causal knowledge leads to prevention.”

Dahal’s article revives the old argument that even though estimates of the number of IDPs are said to be controversial due to debates over definitions as well as methodological and practical problems in counting, it is widely held that because of new forms of conflict, among other reasons, estimates of IDPs are now greater than those associated with refugees. He focuses on the famous Deng UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and through that lens examines the IDP policy of the Himalayan state of Nepal, where conflict-induced displacement is relatively a new phenomenon. Quoting the UN, Dahal points out that human rights problems and violations faced by IDPs in Nepal are related to a number of factors, including poor security and protection; discrimination; inadequate food, shelter, health care or access to education for children; a lack of personal and property identification documents; and gender-based violence, sexual abuse and increased domestic violence. He also notes the deleterious impact such forced migration has on children in Nepal. Besides, crucial observations that emerge from his piece are that in Nepal the legal identity of every IDP and the integrated rehabilitation programs has not yet been specified. Moreover, displaced persons fear to go back to their place of origin without any guarantee of life or the ability to make a living. According to various sources, up to 70,000 IDPs in Nepal do not want to return to their native areas due to fears about security and discrimination as well as housing, land and property restitution. “This is a problem because IDP National Policy only provides support to those IDPs who are willing to return”.

The article sent by the UNHCR Office discusses the community based approach to refugee protection adopted by them in Delhi, one that is based on the principle of ‘helping refugees to help themselves’. Community building between refugees and the host population in the long run also encourages local integration as a possible durable solution. Such an approach supports refugees and asylum seekers in re-establishing familiar cultural patterns and support structures to work together in exercising and enjoying their human rights. (UNHCR: 2008) In fact the UNHCR’s 2009 policy on refugee protection and solutions in urban areas emphasises on community orientation as one of the key principles. “To ensure the best possible use of its limited resources, UNHCR has gradually shifted away from an individual assistance to a community based approach by targeting assistance to those refugees and asylum seekers most in need, including unaccompanied and separated children, single women, female headed households, the elderly, the infirm and persons with disabilities.” One does hope that in the end such a participatory model of refugee protection helps to build and restore a sense of ‘community’ among otherwise dispersed refugee groups in a complex urban setting like New Delhi.

Finally in our section on Reports, Nandakishor critically analyses the proceedings of a recently held conference on ‘Displacement and Rehabilitation: Solutions for the Future’. He puts forth the key discussion points that emerged on sessions that were held on varied issues like Displacement and Livelihood’, ‘Gender, Ethnicity Indigenous Communities and R& R issues’, ‘Rehabilitation Policy and Implementation Issues’,‘ Civil Society and Corporate Bodies’, and ‘Displacement and People’s Response’. Some commendable suggestions are that displaced families be resettled in the spirit of ‘community transplanted’ so that the displaced will fell less culturally alienated; wider dissemination of the land acquisition notices; formation of evaluation committees that should comprise of stakeholders, academia, civil society and government representatives; consultation and participation of affected groups/individuals; resettlement sites to be fully developed prior to relocation; compulsory employment for one member of every displaced family; and efforts to address ‘psychological’ trauma associated with displacement etc.

We shall look forward to your responses and further contributions.

Call for papers: Labor in the Global South: A Search for Solutions-A global, interdisciplinary graduate student research conference
Venue – University of California, U.S.A. || Date - May 27-28, 2011
It is critical to reexamine the position of labor in the global South, in the context of momentous changes underway in the global economic and political order. Consider some of those changes: Newly rising powers, such as Brazil, China, and South Africa, are assuming greater roles. Increasing numbers of voices are questioning neoliberal prescriptions and market fundamentalist solutions, and pushing for a broader conception of development that includes social as well as economic dimensions. New movements for democracy are stirring in the Middle East, along with continuing struggles over the degree and nature of democracy across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. At the same time, informal and irregular employment continue to make up a huge proportion of jobs in the global South, and the fickleness of global capital flows undermines attempts to carry out sustainable development and upgrade job quality. The UN estimates that over 200 million people world-wide are international migrants (above all from poorer to richer countries), and migrant remittances constitute a major income strategy for families and indeed whole countries in the South.

In this context, it is important to take stock of the state of work and workers in the global South, and to share best practices and critiques of strategies to upgrade jobs and empower workers. This conference will bring together graduate students from the United States and around the world to bring their own research to bear on these issues. The goal is not just to exchange information, but to advance discussions about strategies and solutions. To this end, graduate student presentations, which will make up the bulk of conference content, will be supplemented by innovative labor-related practitioners from the South, in addition to senior academics from the United States. Also, to this end, we ask that paper submissions look toward solutions as well as analyzing current and historical conditions. We welcome submissions that look at a full range of issues involving labor, work, and employment, including formal employment, informal employment, and household and other uncompensated work. Possible topics include, but are not limited to the following themes on labor in the global South:
• Democracy and human rights
• Development
• Gender and family
• Race and ethnicity
• Migration
• Corporations and global commodity chains
• Public policies, labor movements and other social movements, NGOs

Submissions are welcome from graduate students in a variety of disciplines, including but not limited to: sociology, political science, history, geography, anthropology, economics, area studies, ethnic and gender studies, public policy, social welfare, and urban planning.

A limited number of travel scholarships (airplane fare only) are available to graduate students outside the United States. Participants from outside Los Angeles will be housed with UCLA graduate students and faculty at no cost.

Proposals (1 page) are due April 8, 2011. Include your name, institutional affiliation (including graduate program name), and country. Please indicate whether you wish to be considered for a travel scholarship. Send to laborintheglobalsouth@gmail.com

Questions? Contact Florentina Craciun at laborintheglobalsouth@gmail.compri

Eviction Left 15 Refugee Families Homeless in Delhi

24 March 2011: Fifteen Chin refugee families, a total of 58 members, are camping out in makeshift shelters in an open space behind the UNHCR Office in Delhi, India after they were evicted from their quarters by the local Indian landlord yesterday.

The families, including children and elderly with health problems, were reportedly forced to move out after the neighbors make complaints to the manager of the flat, Mr. Babulo.

"We were told by the manager that the other neighbors didn't like the smell of our food which includes fish paste (Ngapih). Although we actually refrained from eating ngapih after their initial complaints, they still wanted us out of this area," said Mr. Joshua Hrang Lian Kap, one of the evicted family members.

"Most of the times, we felt that they were hostile to us. Our children got beaten up for no reasons and our properties stolen. We faced verbal and physical abuses. Their intention is clearly to drive us out from this location," continued Mr. Joshua.

The families are now camping out in an open space by the back entrance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office, hoping to get assistance and protection from the UN refugee agency.

"They were informed to vacate the rooms on 15 March 2011 by the landlord, who threatened to take legal actions against them if they failed to comply. So, they had no choice but to move out as they couldn't find any other places that they could afford," added the Chin resident in Delhi.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that 42 Burmese refugees were arrested from their work places, including from local restaurants and factories in a police raid in Aizawl, Mizoram State of India on Tuesday.

At least as 100,000 Chins and other migrant workers from Burma, are estimated to be living in Mizoram State.

Refugee Girl Rescued from Attempted Sexual Assault

A Chin refugee girl, 14, was rescued by passers-by around 3pm Indian local time yesterday from an alleged attempted rape by a local Indian while she was washing clothes. Originally from Lingtui village in Matupi Township of Chin State, the girl was allegedly being approached by a naked neighbor identified as Mr. Waahid when passers-by intervened.

"Suddenly, the girl cried out loudly and the nearby people rushed to her help immediately. And the incident has already been reported to the police," said a Chin resident in the neighborhood.
The girl, who is looking after her mentally challenged mother, came to New Delhi in January 2007 and has been recognized as a mandated refugee by the UNHCR in April 2007.
Last year, at least 30 refugee women were reported to have been sexually assaulted or violently beaten by local Indian men during attempted sexual assaults.
http://chinlandguardian.com/news-2009/1245-eviction-left-15-refugee-families-homeless-in-delhi.html

The Libyan Refugee Crisis - Thousands of people are fleeing the violence in Libya every day, the U.N. refugee agency says.
March 25, 2011 |

Tunisia is receiving about 2,000 arrivals daily, most of them Sudanese and Bangladeshi, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said in a statement. Between 1,500 and 2,000 others are crossing into Egypt each day, most of them Libyans and Egyptians but also a growing number from Chad. As of Wednesday, the total number who had fled the fighting stood at more than 351,000, the statement said. The UNHCR is also receiving reports from its partners of increasing displacement inside Libya. The Santa Monica-based International Medical Corps estimates that as many as 20,000 people have taken refuge in the small town of Butwen, east of the contested city of Ajdabiya, the statement said. The Libyan Red Crescent has told the UNHCR that some 5,000 people are displaced in the coastal town of Derna.

The UNHCR said it had sent two convoys with medical supplies to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi through the Egyptian Red Crescent and the Libyan Red Crescent. It has also sent thousands of blankets, sleeping mats and other relief items. But it said it did not have access to other parts of Libya.

Meanwhile, thousands of migrant workers escaping the violence in Libya, many of them Egyptian, are stranded in a makeshift camp on the border with Tunisia, and appeal for their governments to evacuate them. Franco Frattini, the foreign minister, said Italy was bracing for an exodus 10 times bigger than the number of Albanians who fled to Italy in the 1990s when the Balkan nation descended into anarchy. "We know what to expect when the Libyan national system falls – a wave of 200,000 to 300,000 immigrants," Mr Frattini said. "These are estimates, and on the low side ... It is a Biblical exodus. It's a problem that no Italian should underestimate." He said about a third of Libya's population, or 2.5 million people, are immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa who could flee if the popular revolt topples the government of Muammar Gaddafi. Those living in the eastern part of Libya might try to reach Greece, rather than Italy, because it is closer, he said.

Umberto Bossi, a minister in the government of Silvio Berlusconi and the leader of the Northern League party, threatened to dump the problem on other European countries. "If they arrive we'll send them to France and Germany," he said. The number of refugees and economic migrants reaching Italian islands like Lampedusa, which lies close to the coast of Tunisia, fell sharply after Silvio Berlusconi concluded a pact with Col. Gaddafi in 2008 under which the Libyan navy and coast guard intercepted boat loads of Africans. But the UN's agency for refugees appealed to Italy not to block migrants who may flee from Libya.

The UN’s refugee agency has reacted with understanding to Malta’s unwillingness to host any sub-Saharan refugees evacuated to Egypt and Tunisia Libya. The UNHCR had launched an appeal on behalf of thousands of Eritrean and Somali refugees, among others, who have fled the conflict in the embattled North African state but are unable to return home where they would be persecuted. The European Commission responded by trying to lobby member states to accept resettling some of these migrants but the Maltese government has made it clear it would not be part of such an effort. “At this stage, I think we are already carrying a much bigger burden than we can handle in terms of refugees and asylum seekers and so we won’t be making any offers,” Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said.

However, the UNHCR, which had its fair share of diplomatic disputes with the Maltese government over immigration, told The Sunday Times that while all contributions were welcome it “would not expect that Malta would be among the main resettlement destinations for these refugees”. “Some 1,000 refugees have in recent years benefited from such programmes. The UNHCR considers that this support can provide opportunities for Malta to make further progress with improving the situation also for those who remain in the country,” a spokesman for the agency said. Malta hosts around 3,700 African migrants (79 in detention, 2,224 in open centres and 1,400 in the community) according to official statistics released in November – a far cry from over 10,000 immigrants who were estimated to be in Malta in 2008.However, the government is bracing itself for a possible exodus from Libya once the situation there settles down. Yesterday, the Armed Forces were monitoring a vessel reportedly carrying 300 migrants believed to have left Tripoli on Friday. Asked if Malta should take a symbolic number of migrants evacuated from Libya, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry said: “The EU has already made its position on the matter clear when it pledged its support to the southern member states during an extraordinary European Council held on March 11. “At present Malta is hosting around 4,000 African immigrants while at the same time having by far the highest rate of asylum applications in the EU. “Malta will continue to provide assistance to these people while keeping its size, limited resources and small population in sight. Malta has already proven that it assists and offers protection to those in need,” he said. Earlier this month, about 100 members of the Eritrean community in Malta held a demonstration in Valletta calling on the island and the international community to help evacuate asylum seekers stranded in Libya. They said the Eritreans could not return to their country because they would be prosecuted and as they were not part of the international evacuation effort, they were stranded without protection in Libya. Some were in danger of being shot, being mistaken for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s mercenaries, they added.

The Jesuit Refugee Service had also appealed to the EU and the international community to take immediate and concrete action to provide resettlement opportunities for some the Eritrean asylum seekers stranded in Libya. When contacted, JRS laid stress on the need for northern Europe to help the south, but urged Malta to give special consideration to refugees whose close family members have already been granted international protection here. “While the Libyan crisis, unfolding so close to Malta, is bound to make additional demands on our structures and resources, the international community and EU member states in particular clearly share the moral obligation to come forward with offers of resettlement for refugees reaching Malta and other southern European states who receive a disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in relation to their resources,” the JRS said.

Women and Children Aboard Refugee Boat from Libya

27/3/2011 - The first boat of refugees from Libya has arrived in Italy. Women and children are among the passengers.
Yesterday, the first boat of migrants fleeing Libya reached the shores of Italy. The boat carried 350 African migrants. Conditions on the boat are said to be very poor, with roughly ten children and 20 women on board. Most of the migrants aboard the ship are Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalians. Two pregnant women were aboard the ship. Both were airlifted to hospitals on the shore – one on the island of Lampedusa, the other on the well-known island of Sicily. While the first woman's baby lived through the ordeal, the baby of the second woman did not survive, say medical staff.

The boat is reportedly taking on water, but is being assisted by a Canadian ship taking part in the NATO-enforced naval arms embargo on Libya. “We are monitoring the situation very closely and confidently,” said a NATO spokesperson. According to a spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the only migrants to arrive on Lampedusa were Tunisians until yesterday's boat arrived.

Arriving mostly in small fishing boats, 15,000 Tunisian refugees have made their way to Lampedusa since January's ousting of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. There are still about 250 Tunisian children on the island. Another 250 mostly teenaged children were taken to homes in other parts of Italy. Conditions on the island are said to be very crowded and unfit for children. This led to the transfer of 96 children to a US Coast Guard base elsewhere on the island. However, the Libyan migrants will not be taken to Lampedusa. Instead, they'll be taken to a refugee centre on the island of Linosa.

Earlier this month, one international child charity reported that the lives of one million children were endangered by the fighting between government and rebel forces in Libya. Children in capital city of Tripoli and the surrounding area were said to be particularly vulnerable. An estimated 700,000 children call Tripoli home, though many are becoming fearful for themselves, their family and their friends. Already, 100,000 people have fled to neighbouring countries Egypt and Tunisia. According to the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), there are 180 children and 149 women waiting to be evacuated by the Egyptian border. The number of women and children leaving the country is reported to have increased in recent weeks.

The UN authorized the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya almost two weeks ago. Air strikes with the purpose of civilian protection were also authorized under UN Resolution 1973. Resolution 1973 passed in a 10-0 vote, with China, Russia, Brazil, Germany and India abstaining.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8343963/Libya-Italy-fears-300000-refugees.html
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110327/local/unhcr-understands-government-s-refusal-to-take-refugees-from-libya
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/libya-thousands-fleeing-every-day-un-refugee-agency-says.html
http://www.soschildrensvillages.ca/News/News/child-charity-news/Pages/Children-Refugee-Boat-Libya-661.aspx

‘Invisible’ Children of the Caribbean: Child Migrants fall through the Cracks of Legal Protection throughout the Region

Ksenia Glebova

[works for UNICEF in Suriname, South America. Ksenia is a freelance journalist and Ph.D student interested in child rights, migration discourse, identity and borders]

The Caribbean is a region of extensive migration with currently the highest percentage of out-migration in the world (i). The region is a source, place of transit en route to the United States or Canada, and final destination for both forced and voluntary migrants coming from within the Caribbean, South and Central America, and more recently also from Africa and Asia.

The percentage of migrant population in the Caribbean states varies greatly from 0.1 in Cuba to 34% in Aruba and 53% in the US Virgin Islands whereas in terms of forced migration, the absolute majority of refugees from the region come from Haiti that over 24,000 persons left in 2010(ii). A total of 40 persons were recognized as convention refugees in the Caribbean itself.(iii) Due to the very low number of persons seeking asylum from the Caribbean, asylum issues are a low priority for most states focusing on migration from the national security perspective.

Caribbean societies were “largely formed through immigration, both forced and free” (iv), as a result of slave trade and colonial relationships, and in the recent decades as a strategy of economic survival. The region is characterized by complex and mixed migratory patterns including asylum seekers, refugees, economic and environmental migrants, and other vulnerable migrants such as victims of trafficking and unaccompanied minors.

Children (v) are often among the most vulnerable groups in these mobile societies that jeopardize the rights and well being of accompanied and unaccompanied child migrants as well as of children left behind by one or both parents who have migrated. The effects of migration can have a profound impact on the child’s development let alone safety and well being(vi). However, there is still very little research on measuring the impact of migration on families and their children, whether in the Caribbean or worldwide.

The Other Side of the Postcard

Against the postcard image of tropical tourist paradise, children are part of the little-known side of global migration. Migration trends in the Caribbean region are very similar to those of migration by sea routes from North Africa to Southern Europe. Similarly, the Caribbean is transit point for human traffickers and smugglers operating the route to the US and Canada. There is no reliable data on the number of people who perish due to natural hazards en route but every year several hundred men, women and children do not make it to the shore alive. Those who do are facing familiar discrimination and abuse in breach of the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. Yet the situation in the Caribbean receives far less public attention.

Eleven out of thirteen independent Caribbean states have acceded to the 1951 Geneva Convention, but only the Dominican Republic and Belize have adopted it into national legislation. Similarly, all Caribbean states have ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)(vii) making it legally binding on their territory but its effective implementation is lagging behind. Refugee children have the full rights of children under the CRC and the full rights of refugees under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in the countries that ratified the Convention.

Article 2 of the CRC states that “State parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status”. Therefore, the CRC extends the obligations of the state to protect the rights of all children within its territory, including the rights of migrant children, regardless of their migration status. The “best interests of the child” principle (Article 3) should guide all procedures affecting the child.

However, despite the legal framework protection of child migrants in the Caribbean is more than often only de jure. The global key issues for refugee girls and boys are separation from families and caregivers, sexual exploitation, abuse and violence, access to education and specific concerns of adolescents or young people resonate in the Caribbean, although the absolute majority of migrant children are not forced migrants. In the region, migrant children and especially undocumented children face serious difficulties in securing their access to education and health care, both of which are basic rights guaranteed in the CRC. Even if they secure access to education, there are no special education support programmes tailored to child migrants in this multilingual region, where they may face considerable language challenges in school as do, for example, Guyanese English-speaking children in the Dutch-speaking Caribbean. Birth registration, another basic right enshrined in the CRC, is also problematic, especially for the thousands of Haitian children residing outside their country of origin.

Following the devastating earthquake in January 2010 thousands of Haitians, including unaccompanied children, moved to other Caribbean states that temporarily accepted migrants entering their territory legally and illegally. The island states in closest geographical proximity to Haiti hosted the majority of the migrants. In the Bahamas, the repatriation of Haitians who have entered the country illegally has been put on hold. The government of Dominica extended the stay of all Haitians already on the island for extra six months, regardless of their legal status. However, the Haiti momentum is over and the time has come to guarantee the rights of migrants beyond temporary emergency assistance.

Beyond Safety

Finding safety in the Caribbean is feasible but securing wider child rights, though guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, is more challenging. The asylum systems are weak and underdeveloped and the rates of recognition are uniformly low putting genuine refugees at life-threatening risk of deportation. Especially unaccompanied child migrants in the Caribbean are denied access to legal and practical assistance and at times detained in place of institutional care. Unaccompanied children can be wrongly considered to be adult undocumented migrants, and deported without exercising their right to seek asylum, and without regard for the rights of the child (viii).

The island of Aruba in the Caribbean Sea is a case in point of complex mixed migration, where authorities do not separate between economic migrants and asylum seekers under the Geneva Convention, but only between those who entered the country legally and illegally (ix). Many of those who arrived illegally in Aruba, and other Caribbean islands, may qualify for the Convention status having fled their countries as a result of genuine persecution.

Nevertheless, forced migrants are often taken for economic migrants, detained for illegal entry and promptly deported before they have a chance to submit an application for asylum. Public awareness of the differences between economic migrants and refugees is modest at best, reception facilities do not cater to the needs of migrants who spent weeks at sea, there is no specialised health care. Undocumented child migrants, both forced and voluntary, are consistently among the lowest performing students in schools across the region and have disproportionately high drop out rate (x).

Towards de Facto Child Protection

The discussion on the subject of child migration, both forced and voluntary, in the Caribbean is still relatively new and evolving. Despite their extensive migration experience, the countries in the region do not guarantee even basic protection of the rights of child migrants, let alone in accordance with the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As a result the host governments are failing those often most vulnerable.

The 2010 humanitarian crisis in Haiti demonstrated the capacity of the Caribbean states to respond with extraordinary temporary protection measures as opposed to providing consistent minimum standards of child protection, especially for unaccompanied minors. However, it is precisely the legal and social policy reform that is needed to translate the Convention on the Rights of the Child into national legislation and guarantee rights of all children irrespective of their country of origin and legal status.

Endnotes

i.UN ECLAC (2006) Migration in the Caribbean – What do we know? An overview of data, policies and programmes at the international and regional level to address critical issues.
ii.UNHCR North America and the Caribbean website at http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e45bc56.html
iii.Ibid..
iv.Elizabeth Thomas-Hope (2003) Irregular migration and asylum-seekers in the Caribbean, UNU Wider Discussion Paper no 2003/48.
v.Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines a ‘child’ as any human being under the age of 18.
vi.Bakker, C. et al. (2009) Impact of Migration on the Children in the Caribbean, UNICEF Barbados and Eastern Caribbean.
vii.UN (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
viii.OHCHR (2010) Study of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on challenges and best practices in the implementation of the international framework for the protection of the rights of the child in the context of migration.
ix.Ibid..
x.CRC Committee (2009) Concluding observations on the State Report of the Netherlands, including the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

Renewing Dialectics of Prevention in Displacement

M. Peter Jeyaprakash

[former Voluntary Repatriation Specialist UNHCR, Chennai. At present he is working as Individual Contractor for UNHCR, Chennai]

“I have good reason to believe that somewhere on my planet there is an old rat. I hear him in the night. You can judge this old rat. From time to time you will condemn him to death. Thus his life will depend on your justice. But you will pardon him on each occasion; for he must be treated thriftily. He is the only one we have”.

- The Little Prince by Antoine De Saint – Exupery.

For ages refugees have been kept in the situation like that of the old rat. We have condemned him from time to time and pardoned him on each occasion. And we have given him our deepest consideration that “he is the only one we have”. It is a status quo situation kept alive by denying ourselves the need for prevention mechanism. Migration and displacement has not been a stranger to the concept of prevention. As a matter of fact, it was kept in a limbo like situation all the time since it was introduced into the domain of migration and displacement.

The Rise and Fall of the Concept of Prevention in Displacement Dialectics

The concept of prevention in displacement dialectics was initially focused by J. Hope Simpson in a survey titled The Refugee Problem in the year 1939. He states that “prevention is better than cure and international action must be directed to prevent the emergence of new refugee movements by easing those tensions, political and economic which threaten to produce unplanned migration movements”. And after a long time the UN appointed study group in a Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on International Co-operation to Avert New Flows of Refugees (Note by the Secretary-General, A/41/324, 13 May 1986) brought out the close link between human rights violations and refugee problem in the context of prevention.

And after a long silence, and in an effort to dispel any confusion that could arise out of interests on prevention, UNHCR in a report in 1999 clarified that “Preventive action consists of initiatives which have the effect of averting the occurrence and recurrence of those conditions which force people to leave their usual place of residence. The notion of prevention should never be confused with efforts to obstruct the flight of threatened populations, to deter the departure of people who intend to seek refuge elsewhere or to undermine the institution of asylum”.

The concept, as applied to refugees, makes its appearance again in a UNHCR document in 2001, when one of the objectives of the Agenda for Protection was formulated as “addressing the root causes of refugee movements”. And in the year 2010 a UNHCR research paper fixes the concept of prevention in refugee situations as an inconsistency. The paper brings out only the conceptual fragility of the idea of prevention and examines the internal inconsistencies of the concept. At best it was a willful undermining of the concept of prevention in displacement dialectics.

Thus in the course of time we find that the well intended introduction of the concept of prevention in displacement dialectics in the year 1939 is reduced to an impractical idea in the year 2010.

The Need for Prevention Strategy

However, we find that the problem of migration and displacement has never shown any sign of decline. It has become a major cause for worry among international humanitarian agencies. UNHCR reports that the number of forcibly displaced rises to 43.3 million last year, the highest level since mid-1990s. It also states that the year 2009 has been the worst for voluntary repatriation. The rise in the refugee trend and a worst voluntary repatriation scenario speak loud and clear the need and the importance of prevention policies.

We cannot deny the need for including prevention concerns in displacement dialectics because of the fact that each and every reality has an assignable cause. This causal knowledge leads to prevention.

Logic Implications and Uniformity of Relations towards Prevention

Let me give you some examples. Some years ago I worked for the school drop-outs in the rural areas of Northern Tamil Nadu. These children go with their parents to Chennai to work as house maids and return as confused individuals. They are confused and lost in their heart and mind. You can see the effect of displacement through their borrowed artificial ways of interacting with their own kind as if they are different from them. It is a kind of glistening garb of self-alienation which they are reluctant to shed. Originality takes the backstage so much so that their interaction has a nostalgic sense of hatred for their own kind in their native place.

And just as I was making up my mind that migration and displacement towards an urban area alienates people there was a surprise waiting for me. One of the villages I was working on through PRA methods to enhance the rural women was undergoing a worst situation as a result of economic migration. Most of the men in the village go and stay in Chennai for making an earning in the famous ‘Koyambedu’ vegetable market and return once in a week or month. During their absence some of the miscreants in the village gradually lured the women into road side prostitution with the lorry drivers. This went on until the peek of the AIDS/ HIV campaigns and it waned. In these examples we find that each problem becomes the cause of the other.

We in turn helplessly shift the responsibility on big players in the field like UNHCR to do something about it. UNHCR works at the penultimate end of the problem and in India it merely makes a ghost presence. UNHCR is handicapped by the fact that India is a non-signatory of the 1951 convention. India is keeping it that way. Unaware of this fact many Sri Lankan refugees approach UNHCR in India as soon as they landed with the hope of getting some help from the Office and always returned with a broken heart which got trampled upon by those who were not aware of the refugee rights. They suffered doubly.

Tragic Optimism

These are examples of dominos effect of not going through a causal investigation which, if pursued diligently, would give rise to prevention strategies. Incidents in the Arab world and the tsunami in Japan have spewed out more displacement problems. Remember the little Dutch boy who could not hold off the sea water by plugging the hole on the wall? And I would say that we have come to a saturation point with regard to displacement problem.

Yes, we have learnt a lot from the refugee situations and many theoretical outbursts have streamlined the problem into a cohesive knowledge bank (causal knowledge). Alternately, exhaustive didactic tricks too played havoc with the lives of the migrants and the displaced. So far we have not figured out a way to strike at the root cause of the problem. Amidst this swampy feeling there is a sense of tragic optimism that we have a way of life that also says enough is enough and that we got to put a stop to something recurring and making a fool of us. After all in the end the old rat has to die and stop making noise in the night.

Rethinking Nepal’s IDP Policy with Reference to UN Guiding Principles

Nir Prasad Dahal

[Research Analyst, Eureka Research, Kabul, Afghanistan]

UN Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)

Internal displacement, or forced migration of people within their own countries, is today a common international phenomenon. According to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, ‘in more than 50 countries and practically in every world region, more than 25 million people are actually considered as displaced people just as a result of violent conflicts and human rights violations.’ This number would increase by several million when those who have been uprooted by natural or manmade causes are included (HRWF, 2005).

Internal displacement – and in particular conflict-induced internal displacement – is emerging worldwide as a burning problem. Estimates of the number of IDPs are said to be controversial due to debates over definitions as well as methodological and practical problems in counting, but it is widely held that because of new forms of conflict, among other reasons, estimates of IDPs are now greater than those associated with refugees (i.e., forced migrants who cross national borders). A clear understanding of the causes of and most effective responses to displacement and forced migration has become all the more crucial in this century when incidences of war, violence and cruelty cause the internal displacement of large numbers of citizens, along with human trafficking and other violations of human rights that involve the internally displaced.

To address the issues of IDPs, the Representative of the UN Secretary General on IDPs in 1998 presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights a set of Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. The Commission, in a unanimously adopted resolution, took note of these principles (for the full text cf. Chimni, 2000, among other sources). The Guiding Principles on Internal Displaced Persons (IDPs) includes 30 principles to address the problems of IDPs divided into five sections: General Principles, Principles Relating to Protection from Displacement, Principles Relating to Protection during Displacement, Principles Relating to Humanitarian Assistance, and Principles Relating to Return, Resettlement and Reintegration. In particular, Principle 15 mentions the following four basic rights of IDPs:

a. The right to seek safety in another part of the country
b. The right to leave their country
c. The right to seek asylum in another country
d. The right to be protected against forcible return to or resettlement in any place where their life, safety, liberty and/or health would be at risk.

Similarly, Section Four of the Guiding Principles includes those relating to humanitarian assistance (Principles 24-27). These principles state that humanitarian assistance should be provided to the IDPs in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination, and that this assistance should not be diverted for political or military reasons. The government is primarily responsible for providing humanitarian assistance to the IDPs; however, international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors also have the right to offer their services in support of the IDPs. The principles further state that persons engaged in humanitarian assistance, their transport, and supplies should be protected from attacks and other acts of violence. In turn, humanitarian organizations and actors are required to respect relevant international standards and codes of conduct.

The Guiding Principles are soft laws and they are not legally binding, but the 30 recommendations – which define who IDPs are, outline a large body of international law already in existence protecting a person’s basic rights, and the responsibility of states – were designed to help governments and humanitarian organizations in working with the displaced.

The IDP Situation in Nepal

Conflict-induced displacement is a relatively new phenomenon in Nepal. This form of displacement started in 1996 when the internal armed conflict between the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) and the Government of Nepal began. One estimate states that 12,865 people lost their lives in Nepal during these years due to the conflict between the Maoists and the government of Nepal (INSEC, 2006). Moreover, reports from various organizations over the last few years have quoted IDP figures that range from approximately 37,000 all the way to 400,000 – and these figures exclude those who may have crossed the border into India (SAFHR, 2005). The Inter-Agency Internal Displacement Division (IDD) Mission to Nepal reported that the most reliable estimate of IDPs in Nepal who were internally displaced by the conflict should be upwards to 200,000 (cited in Aditya et al., 2006).

It is well-recognized that displaced people are highly vulnerable. They often suffer from discrimination, experience significant deprivation, and are frequently impoverished. The UN expert on IDPs mentioned in his mission report that human rights problems and violations faced by IDPs in Nepal are related to a number of factors, including poor security and protection; discrimination; inadequate food, shelter, health care or access to education for children; a lack of personal and property identification documents; and gender-based violence, sexual abuse and increased domestic violence (www.un.org/News/Press/Docs/2005/hr4830.doc.htm).

The impact of displacement in Nepal is also said to be unevenly distributed between men, women and children. Many recorded incidents have revealed that many children have been forced to associate with armed forces and armed groups as members of militia, porters, kitchen helpers, messengers/postmen and spies. According to Child Workers in Nepal Concerned Centre (CWIN)(http://www.cwin.org.np/press_room/factsheet/fact_cic.htm), around 40,000 children were displaced in Nepal due to the armed conflict. During this period (1996-2006) 419innocent children are said to have lost their lives; 454 were physically injured; a total of 29,244 children along with teachers have been ‘abducted’, while 230 children are said to have been arrested by the state security forces; 150 children are reported to have been exploited in the worst forms of child labour; and 224 children are said to be facing health problems after being displaced due to armed conflict. In addition, the youth were reported to have left home due to the threat of forced recruitment into the militia. Most of the youth are said to have stayed in the city centre, although some were reported to have fled to India and Gulf countries to seek employment. According to one report by Save the Children Norway, about 10,000 young people under the age of 14-18 crossed the border during the months of July and August 2004 alone. There is no doubt that forced migration has had a significant and deleterious effect on large numbers of children in Nepal.

After Nepal’s political change (Jana Andolan II) in 2006, a new paradigm for conflict and displacement emerged. Top level negotiations between the government and the Maoists were initiated and the two sides reached an agreement to end the insurgency. The Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) was signed on November 21, 2006. The former rebel party – the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) – is now part of the political mainstream, and it has formally committed itself to facilitating the IDPs’ return process, without any political prejudice, through the Comprehensive Peace Accord. Following the agreement that created the CPA, the return process gained momentum and the Government of Nepal (GoN) adopted an IDP National Policy in 2063 BS (2007) to assist IDP returnees.

However, the way in which the IDP National Policy has been implemented to date is still very problematic. The legal identity of every IDP and the integrated rehabilitation programs have not been specified yet. Moreover, displaced persons fear to go back to their place of origin without any guarantee of life or the ability to make a living. According to various sources, up to 70,000 IDPs do not want to return to their native areas due to fears about security and discrimination as well as housing, land and property restitution. This is a problem because IDP National Policy only provides support to those IDPs who are willing to return. This is also not helped by the fact that the IDPs who have already returned to their place of origin are also struggling to integrate (IDMC_NRC, 2010).

In sum, IDPs in Nepal are highly vulnerable and need much greater support in order to return and reintegrate. There is a need to address the problems of IDPs and make a separate mechanism and specific law with an effective system of implementation to provide the protection and care that IDPs in Nepal will require in order to meet even their basic needs.

For this, the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement can serve as a guide. The Guiding Principles can serve as an important part of the process of re-conceptualizing, and understanding in much greater depth, the IDPs’ situation and concerns in Nepal. This is particularly important in this critical phase of the ‘post-conflict’ reweaving of the social fabric and the reestablishing of community ties throughout the country.

References

Aditya, Anand, Bishnu Raj Upreti, and Poorna Kanta Adhikary, 2006, Countries in Conflict and Processing of Peace: Lessons for Nepal, Kathmandu: Friends for Peace (FFP).
Chimni, B. S., 2000, International Refugee Law: A Reader, New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London: Sage Publications.
Human Rights without Frontiers Int. (HRWF), 2005, Internally Displaced Persons in Nepal: The Forgotten Victims of the Conflict, Bruxelles: HRWF.
IDMC_NRC, 2010, Nepal: Failed Implementation of IDP policy leaves many assisted, Geneva: IDMC.
Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC), 2006, INSEC Annual Report 2006, Kathmandu: INSEC.
Ministry of Home, A National Policy on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) 2063 (2007), Kathmandu: Ministry of Home, Government of Nepal.

Community Based Approach to Refugee Protection: UNHCR’s Experience in New Delhi

UNHCR, New Delhi

Introduction

Refugee protection is gradually shifting away from individual case management to a community-based approach (UNHCR: 1996). Such an approach is rooted in the principle of helping refugees to help themselves and goes beyond the mere provision of material relief i.e. cash assistance, aiming to address the social, human, emotional and psychological needs of refugees.

In an urban context, the challenges of reaching out to individual refugees are manifold. The refugee population is widely dispersed and isolated in their host communities with whom they have no cultural, social or language ties. Poverty and lack of sustainable employment and income relegates many refugees to the socio-economic margins and exposes them to major protection risks.

Refugees in urban areas often suffer from lack of community identity and support. The process of community building can be assisted by creating structures and procedures to facilitate communication, dialogue and mutual support. Community building between refugees and the host population should also be actively encouraged, not only in the interests of good relations and public order, but also in the context of local integration as a possible durable solution.

What is a Community based Approach?

A community-based approach is a way of working in partnership with refugees and asylum seekers during all stages of UNHCR’s programme cycle. It recognises the resilience, capacities, skills and resources of persons of concern, builds on these to deliver protection and solutions, and supports the community’s own goals.

This approach can help communities work to prevent social problems and to deal directly with those that do arise, instead of having external actors step in and assume these responsibilities. It supports refugees and asylum seekers in re-establishing familiar cultural patterns and support structures to work together in exercising and enjoying their human rights. (UNHCR: 2008)

UNHCR’s 2009 policy on refugee protection and solutions in urban areas emphasises on community orientation as one of the key principles.

UNHCR’s approach in urban settings will be community-based. In accordance with this principle, the Office will strive to mobilize and capacitate the refugee population, so as to preserve and promote their dignity, self-esteem, productive and creative potential.

Need for a Community based Approach to Refugee Protection in New Delhi

Refugees face a number of problems living in an expensive urban environment like New Delhi. With rising costs and lack of employment opportunities, refugees suffer severe economic hardship. Poverty is a major constraint and impacts on all aspects of life in asylum. The increasing competition for scarce resources with local populations can put refugees at conflict with local populations and at risk of exploitation and discrimination.

Refugees and asylum seekers in India do not have a legal right to work and often live in poor socio economic conditions. However, many of them are able to find employment in the informal job market but often, work in exploitative conditions and are paid low wages. Most of them live in shared and overcrowded accommodation in unsanitary conditions. Instances of gender based violence, including domestic violence and substance abuse are commonly reported, resulting in deteriorating family and community relations.

The number of refugees and asylum seekers has been steadily increasing over the last few years without a proportionate increase in UNHCR’s resources. UNHCR has made significant changes to its programmes to address the evolving needs of the operation.

Given the excessively long waiting times for registration of asylum seekers, UNHCR outsourced registration to a legal implementing partner in mid-2009. As a result, asylum seekers are now registered within three weeks of approaching UNHCR. UNHCR has also streamlined its refugee status determination (RSD) processes to ensure quicker processing of asylum claims.

UNHCR has directed its efforts to narrow the gap in services between asylum seekers and refugees by providing increased access to all asylum seekers of its programmes (health, education, legal aid, counseling, local language lessons) except for those involving direct cash assistance and some livelihood programmes.

To ensure the best possible use of its limited resources, UNHCR has gradually shifted away from an individual assistance to a community based approach by targeting assistance to those refugees and asylum seekers most in need, including unaccompanied and separated children, single women, female headed households, the elderly, the infirm and persons with disabilities.

Some of the features of UNHCR’s community based approach are described as follows:

Protection Outreach

As the 2009 policy on urban refugees states:

UNHCR’s responsibility is to reach as many of those persons who are concern to the organization as possible, an approach that requires the Office to adopt a proactive approach to protection planning and implementation.

In New Delhi, UNHCR has strengthened its protection outreach activities, primarily through the Women’s Protection Centre (WPC) in West Delhi for refugees and asylum seekers from Myanmar and by establishing regular UNHCR presence in partners’ centres in other areas where refugees and asylum seekers from other nationalities live. By reaching out to the community, UNHCR has better served its protection role through early identification and timely intervention to address protection needs and gaps in service delivery.

Fostering Better Relations with Communities

A key aspect of the community based approach is to treat refugees and asylum seekers as partners and not mere beneficiaries. UNHCR’s relationship with refugees in urban areas has sometimes been tense with some degree of mutual suspicion. The 2009 policy highlights the need for UNHCR to strengthen community outreach efforts to ‘establish a constructive dialogue and positive partnership with refugees in urban areas’.

In New Delhi, UNHCR holds regular dialogue with refugees and asylum seekers using a number of channels including refugee reception, protection outreach, open house meetings, participatory assessments and meetings with community representatives. Such direct, transparent and regular interaction has improved relations and fostered the spirit of partnership between UNHCR and the communities.

Open house meetings provide refugees and asylum seekers from each national group the opportunity to get together and present their concerns as a community to UNHCR. Such fora also allow UNHCR to share information, explain policies, clarify doubts and address concerns of the community.

Participatory assessments are another useful tool to build partnerships with refugee and asylum seeker men and women of all ages and backgrounds. What is special in these assessments is that they come together according to their nationality, gender and age group, in the understanding that beyond the commonalities of their situation in India, they have specific concerns which relate to their gender and age group. Together with UNHCR and its partners, they identify protection risks as well as solutions, including the capacities of the communities themselves. The findings of participatory assessments constitute some of the key elements in the planning and implementation of UNHCR’s programmes.

In addition, UNHCR holds regular meetings with community representatives to review issues of concern and discuss possible solutions.

These mechanisms assist UNHCR in reaching out to refugees and asylum seekers and create awareness of and receive feedback on existing services and opportunities.

Training and Income Generation: Towards a Path of Self-Reliance

Poverty and lack of sustainable income and employment continues to remain a major problem for refugees and asylum seekers in Delhi. UNHCR has expanded its livelihood and self-reliance programmes to help refugees and asylum seekers develop their coping mechanisms in a new environment and establish their livelihood. Refugees with specific needs i.e. those refugees who are able to work but would be at risk or have difficulties in find employment in the open job market, are prioritised for income generation activities.

Refugees are also provided with skills and language training which should eventually lead them towards self-reliance, whether they remain in India, return to their own countries or resettle to third countries. Livelihoods programmes are tailored as much as possible to meet the needs of refugees i.e. flexible working hours, home production, small business grants etc. Other livelihood activities include job placement in the informal sector.

Refugees and asylum seekers with young children are encouraged to avail of the crèche facilities provided by UNHCR and its partners near their homes or workplaces in order to engage in income generation and/or learning activities.

Concluding Remarks

It is hoped that such a participatory model of refugee protection will go a long way in building and restoring a sense of ‘community’ among otherwise dispersed refugee groups in a complex urban setting like New Delhi. Refugees and asylum seekers will be empowered to make informed choices about their future, take ownership and bear joint responsibility along with UNHCR and its partners, to implement programmes and policies that affect them both as individuals and as a community.

Displacement and Rehabilitation: Solutions for the Future

Nanda Kishor M S

[Consultant, Centre for Energy, Environment, Urban Governance & Infrastructure Development, Administrative Staff College of India]

Recently in the month of November 2010, National Institute of Technology (NIT) Rourkela, Orissa, had organized an International Conference on “Displacement and Rehabilitation: Solutions for the Future”. The conference lasted for two days with some concrete discussions on the latest developments and trends in displacement and resettlement pattern.

There were sessions in which bureaucrats were of the opinion that the NGO’s and some civil society groups in the name of protecting the rights of the displaced and tribals are making money and hampering the growth of the country. This comment came from none other than Prof. A B Ota (IAS) Director SCSTRTI, Bhubaneswar. This came as a mere shock as he was addressing a gathering in an academic institution and in front of large number of academicians from all over the world. This approach was severely criticized by the speakers who were in the session held after the paper of A.B Ota. The gathering also took strong opposition such type of categorical statements, and unanimously agreed that being academicians and activists we should not conceive to the notion of the State in sensitive issues like displacement.

There were five sessions of which three sessions having 29 papers were deliberated on 13th Nov and two sessions having 13 papers were deliberated on 14th Nov, 2010. The papers centered around the themes like ‘Issues on Displacement and livelihood’; ‘Gender, Ethnicity Indigenous Communities and R& R issues’; ‘Rehabilitation Policy and Implementation Issues’ on 13th Nov and ; ‘ Civil Society and Corporate Bodies’; and ‘Displacement and People’s Response’ on 14th Nov 2010 followed by the valediction being chaired by Prof. Premananda Panda, a practicing anthropologist of Sambalpur University .

The theme oriented sessions of the conference were chaired by Prof R Siva Prasad, Prof. S.N.Tripathy, Prof in economics and Head , Centre for Exclusion Studies and Inclusive Policy, Gokhle Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune, Prof. Premananda Panda and Prof Bhasakar Majumdar, Prof. in Economics, G.B.Panth Institute, Allahabad, D.P. Mishra, GM, Nilanchal Ispat, Odisha.

Penal members being authorized by the floor participants of the Conference recommended the following:

•Since most of the displaced are SC and ST and have the history of being marginalized, the displacement of people should be avoided as far as possible. In unavoidable situation the displaced families should be resettled in the spirit of ‘community transplanted’ so that the displaced will have less scope to feel alienated from their cultural ecology.
•The PESA Act be extended to all non-PESA Mineral belt rural and tribal; areas with spirit and words and non-coercive open discussion / public hearing be encouraged and in it the emergent consensus be put to action .
•The quality of existing human resources of the people are likely to be displaced due to forthcoming projects. So, it is need of the hour to make them the beneficiaries of the projects almost at par with the project personnel on pay roll
•Beside the usual compensation assessments made on tangible substances of the displaced, the intangibles like loss of indigenous social support system, the cost of culture, cost of loss of skill and techniques be assessed and accordingly compensation payment be extended.
•After duly rehabilitated and resettled a fixed share of the profit incurred by the organization be made available to the displaced for whom the project could grow and the government being the acquiring body take the responsibility in streamlining the benefits through effective loss of seepage of benefit to the affected people.
•CSR be mandatory and be a part of constant and continuous process to empower the affected families at least for two generations.
•The Panchayat (Extension to the Tribal Areas) Act 1996 is the Most Revolutionary legislation. Powers vested in the Gram Sabhas but the definition of Gram Sabhas is different and based on localities. Consultation with the Gram Sabhas at the appropriate levels before making acquisition for development projects should be a mandatory. It should be cross checked by a expert committee before any displacement.
•Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act in the following areas important- Most significant amendment to LA Act is doing away with Schedule II of the Act; land acquisition for the private companies will not be possible in the same manner as earlier;
-Public Purpose defined; exclusive and inclusive definition;
-Consultation with Gram Sabha mandatory for consensus before acquisition;
-Power of restoration of the alienated land very significant;

•The training different traits for entrepreneurship to the youth of the likely to be displaced families be given so as to get observed in the organizations for which they are displaced.
•Societal Cost Benefit Analysis of Project should be undertaken before expressing the intent of any project, and the result should be widely circulated in local language to affected families and general public.
•The formation of all evaluating committees should comprise of stakeholders, academia, civil society, and government representatives
•Notification should be widely circulated and publicized in local and language of the ethnic/tribal groups
•Compulsory Social Impact Assessment with respect to Cultivation and CPR Rights should be undertaken
•Compulsory Pre and Post - Environmental Impact Assessment with reference to Tribal Rights, CPR and Carrying Capacity should be undertaken
•Resettlement/Rehabilitation area should be identified in consultation with and with the participation of the people who would be affected.
•Gender participation should be integrated fully in all the processes, consultation, design, and implementation in achieving consensus.
•All the relocation should be in similar geographical terrain, without the loss of cultural and communitarian identity
•No minimum number of households should be laid down for qualification for compensation and R&R
•Resettlement areas should cover or include all sources of livelihood- such as agriculture, horticulture, livestock, fishing, forestry, artisans, CPR products, shops, SSIs, OAME-Own Account Manufacturing Enterprises, family enterprises
•Resettlement sites should be fully developed before any relocation or resettlement including houses, sanitation, schools, drainage, community hall, wells/drinking water, roads, health centers, Ration Shops, Common space- play ground, burial/ crematorium ground, spaces for cultural reproduction , green cover.
•While constructing houses size of the family, needs of the family and future expansion of the family should be taken into account. All the houses should designed in consultation with the affected communities. All houses should be accompanied by homestead land. Ownership right of the house including homestead should be in the names of the husband and wife, and solely in the name of women in the case of female headed house
•Compensation should include all economic and social aspects, including monetary, land, live stocks, CPRs- both priced and un-priced equipment, wells, trees, houses etc
•The resettled area should have full facilities interns of micro finance, SHGs, extension services, with subsidies being provided for all livelihood.
•There should be gender parity with regard to compensation irrespective of age and marital status
•Single window disbursement of beneficiary scheme should be adopted
•All self governance institutions such as Gram Sabhas should be constituted immediately after the rehabilitation with fifty percent gender representation
•All the rehabilitated areas should be declared as revenue villages with the power of PESA even if it is not in scheduled area and scheduled areas in respect of tribals.
•Compulsory employment for at least one member of the displaced community be made available
•Free vocational training and skill up gradation must be provided by new projects from day of MOU with Govt. till the organizations continues to survive
•Amount of compensation to landless should be based on man days and prevailing wages
•It should be made mandatory for the project authorities to sponsor the education of the deserving children from the displaced families.
•The Government should set up committees to look into the matters of resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced families of the old projects, (projects taken up during/after the 1950s and before 2006), where still many issues remain unsolved.
•Land pattas should be issued to the families in the resettlement colonies, (where it has still not been done) which are very essential for the future education of their children (for getting residential certificates).
•The different bodies under the national skill development programme should take up skill development initiatives in the resettlement colonies on a priority basis.
•Displacement has important psychological implications. Therefore, counseling centers should be there in the resettlement colonies which can help in finding out the psychological effects of displacement on children and how it affects their socialization process.
•The Government must make provisions for regular follow up actions, in order to ensure that the rehabilitation measures have been effective. The National R&R Policy 2007 should be made an Act and it should be enforced with uniform guidelines in all the states of India /The Orissa R&R policy should be made an Act so that strict compliance can be ensured.