PSC Interview: Conditions in Somalia are 'not conducive' to the return of refugees from Dadaab
The UNHCR spells out Kenya's obligations on Dadaab.
The Dadaab refugee camp complex in Kenya is home to over 400 000 refugees who have fled war and instability in neighbouring countries. The overwhelming majority are from Somalia. It is the world’s most populous refugee camp, but also a source of political tension and, according to Kenyan authorities, insecurity.
Kenya has been advocating for Dadaab to be closed or relocated. However, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHRC) Head of Operations for Dadaab, Denis Alma Kuindje, this is easier said than done. He spoke to the PSC Report ahead of a briefing by Kenya to the Peace and Security Council about its plans for Dadaab.
Dadaab has been operational for more than two decades. Do refugees and asylum seekers in Dadaab still require humanitarian assistance after all this time?
Refugees and asylum seekers in Dadaab rely solely on humanitarian assistance and any changes in the resources made available have a direct impact on their situation. Regarding food assistance in particular, refugees are currently receiving 30% less than what they should be getting.
What is the status of the voluntary repatriation programme? Are returnees outnumbering new arrivals?
The voluntary repatriation programme of Somali refugees willing to return is ongoing. So far, 3 424 refugees have been assisted in the framework of the voluntary return to Somalia. The UNHCR has so far provided assistance in the framework of the return to the following areas: Kismayo, Luuq, Baidoa and Mogadishu. Since 5 August 2015 return flights have been organised to Mogadishu, as return by air is the only means possible for returning to Mogadishu. Despite the signing of the tripartite agreement for the repatriation of Somali refugees (on 10 November 2013), and later on the adoption of a repatriation strategy as well as the repatriation plan, the UNHCR has not yet embarked on the promotion of returns to Somalia, as conditions are not yet conducive to returns in many areas.
There has been a drop in the refugee population of approximately 6 000 persons between December 2014 and June 2015 |
|
Numbers should not be the primary consideration but rather the mechanisms established to enable those in need of international protection to benefit or continue to benefit from it; and those eager to return to Somalia to have access to an orderly, safe and dignified return. There has been a drop in the refugee population by approximately 6 000 persons between end-December 2014 and end-June 2015.
More than half of [the refugees who left] went back to Somalia, following the start of the pilot phase on 8 December. Comparatively, 3 719 refugees were registered in July 2015 in Dadaab after the government lifted a moratorium on the registration of all new arrivals/unregistered in Dadaab in Kenya … Moreover, as per the latest position paper on return to southern and central Somalia (issued in June 2014), the UNHCR [condemns] any forced returns to those parts of Somalia.
Has the situation in Somalia improved sufficiently to contemplate a large-scale return of refugees?
Current conditions in Somalia do not enable a safe and dignified return to all parts of the country. For the time being, the UNHCR’s support is provided to those who express a clear and consistent willingness to return to Somalia. In collaboration with the UNHCR’s colleagues and partners based in Somalia, country of origin information is gathered, updated and shared with refugees. In order to facilitate access to information pertaining to the return as well as an informed decision about the return, ‘return help desks’ have been established in all five camps in Dadaab.
The UNHCR continuously monitors the situation in Somalia, where some activities – namely military – are potential game-changers, and will definitely consider embarking on the promotion of returns when conditions so permit, which will only be after a careful assessment.
What, exactly, are Kenya’s obligations to Dadaab’s population under international law?
Kenya is a state party to major refugee and human rights instruments and in that regard, [should] abide by obligations enshrined in these instruments. Kenya is a state party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, as well as the 1969 OAU [Organization of African Unity] Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. Besides refugee-specific instruments, provisions of various human rights instruments to which Kenya is a state party are also relevant, as standards enshrined therein equally apply to refugees in Kenya as they ineluctably fall within the jurisdiction of this country.
As country of asylum and state party to relevant international instruments relating to the protection of refugees and human rights in general, Kenya is primarily in charge of guaranteeing the protection of and assistance to refugees, and of finding durable solutions to their problem, with the support of the international community, including the UNHCR, which has a supervisory role (cf. Article 35 of the 1951 Convention). In that regard, the onus is chiefly on the country of asylum to ensure that refugees’ rights enshrined in relevant instruments are met.
Refugees also have obligations, as highlighted in the 1951 Convention (namely in Article 2 or to some extent Article 32, paragraph 2, which condones expulsion under specific conditions) and the OAU Convention of 1969 (Article 3).
How have other countries handled large refugee populations? Is there a model for resettling or integrating refugee populations that Kenya could follow?
 Tanzania can be praised for having committed to locally integrate thousands of Burundian refugees |
|
The first leg of this question is very broad, making it difficult to answer in a concise manner. Yet various resources that are available either on the UNHCR website or elsewhere online highlight approaches adopted in response to large refugee influxes, which most often carry along additional challenges. Nonetheless, an increased commitment of the country of asylum and strengthened support of the international community are essential. The UNHCR cannot pretend to point out models that Kenya should follow.
However, it can be underscored that some countries, such as the United States, Australia, Canada and Sweden, among others, have been performing well when it comes to opening their doors to refugees via the resettlement programme. Regarding local integration, Tanzania can be praised for having committed to locally integrate thousands of Burundian refugees who have been living there for decades.
The Tripartite Commission was established to deal with the question of Dadaab’s future. It comprises representatives from the UNHCR and the governments of Kenya and Somalia. Is this an effective mechanism?
The Tripartite Commission is a mechanism whose role is critical … The last meeting of the Tripartite Commission was organised on 29 July 2015 in Nairobi. At that occasion, the Tripartite Commission adopted the repatriation strategy and the operational plan relating to the repatriation of Somali refugees, which will reinforce the framework relating to this process. The Tripartite Commission also adopted the tentative list of projects that will be submitted during the pledging conference scheduled for October in Brussels, in order to support the return and reintegration of Somali refugees. With the scale-up of voluntary returns to Somalia, the Tripartite Commission may meet more frequently and therefore will continue to play a prominent role.
As voluntary return remains one of the three durable solutions to the problem of refugees, even the main one among the three [others include resettlement in other countries, and integration into Kenyan society], it goes without saying that the role of the Tripartite Commission when it comes to shaping the future of Somali refugees in Dadaab is important.
