Protecting Vulnerable Refugees: An empirical examination of the implementation practices of aid workers and state actors in Uganda

Executive Summary This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.vulner.eu). Our project arose from the finding that the requirement to address migrants’ multiple and various vulnerabilities is flooding the policy discourse on asylum and migration at the EU and global levels (as illustrated by the UN Global Compact for Migration and its objective 8 to ‘reduce vulnerabilities’ in migration, and the current focus at the EU level on the establishment of vulnerability assessment mechanisms as part of asylum and border procedures as well as in resettlement programmes). Yet, if not based on scientific data and analyses that provide a clear and non-stereotyped understanding of the vulnerabilities that are lived and experienced by migrants, such a policy objective runs the risk of failing to address vulnerabilities, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities or even producing new ones. The overall objective of the VULNER project is to produce such scientific knowledge in ways that will assist states in identifying suitable strategies to assess the ‘vulnerabilities’ of migrants, to address their specific needs and to prevent stereotyped understandings of their lived experiences. The VULNER project also seeks to develop a broader, more thorough and more critical reflection on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy standard that guides the development and the implementation of migration policies, including how it relates to border control considerations inherent in such policies. Our research focus is on asylum seekers and migrants applying for other forms of humanitarian protection as established in the relevant domestic legislation. This research report presents some of the intermediate research results of the VULNER project, based on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mechanisms developed by the office of the United Nations and High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and international aid agencies, including how they are implemented on the ground through the practices of the public servants aid workers in charge. The following research questions are addressed: What do the relevant domestic legislation, policy documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how “vulnerabilities” are being assessed and addressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to assess migrants’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal and bureaucratic criteria? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand and perceive the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the migrants they meet on a daily basis? How do they address these ‘vulnerabilities’ through their everyday practices? What is their stance on existing legal requirements towards ‘vulnerable’ migrants? Which loopholes do they identify? The approach followed for this report was an inductive one, in which we aimed to start by analysing existing state approaches towards ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy concept. We complemented our focus on the legal framework with interviews with decision-makers. This is just the first phase of the data collection process. We are now conducting ethnographic fieldwork among informal and state-run migrant and refugee settlements, with the view to reach a more profound understanding of migrants’ own experiences of vulnerability. The objective is to document and reflect on how these experiences are shaped, and sometimes even produced, by the legal frameworks and state practices; how refugees and migrants adapt their behaviour to fit within existing vulnerability categories; and what coping and resilience strategies they develop. Our ultimate objective is to reflect upon thoroughly and from a critical perspective on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a standard that guides the development and implementation of migration policies at EU and global levels. The determination of refugee status in Uganda is provided for in the Refugees Act, 2006 in section 4 (a) and (b). These sections are modelled after the 1951 Geneva Convention and they stipulate that one can qualify for refugee status if they have ‘a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, sex, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion…’ and are outside their country of origin or habitual residence. Additionally, section 19 of the Refugees Act, 2006 provides for the procedure for applying for asylum. An applicant can apply to an authorised officer or to a representative of UNHCR. The Act provides that the Eligibility Committee shall within a period of 3 months determine the status of the applicant. Once refugee status has been granted, refugees enjoy the same rights as citizens of Uganda. However, the Act also spells out measures for appeal in case the application is rejected by the Eligibility Committee. The procedure for appeal is provided for in section 21 of the Act. Having submitted the application for refugee status determination, the applicant is entitled to a temporary document which is renewable every 2 months (section 24 (1) (a). However, in cases where there are mass influxes, the Refugees Act provides for Group recognition and temporary protection (section 25). This declaration of prima facie refugee status is valid for 2 years or until the reason for the influx has ceased to exist. Interviews with Refugee Status Interviewing Officers (RSIOs) as well as the Profiling Officer at the Refugee Desk – an Urban reception centre – confirmed that this was in fact the procedure. It was important to examine the legal framework laying out the asylum application procedure and inquiring with relevant authorities whether this was the practice so as to examine whether there was a disjuncture between law and practice. Although a large number of legal sources and administrative guidelines were analysed, I mention the frameworks and policies that appear or informed arguments in the report. At the national level, the refugees Act and Refugee Regulations, 2010, The Children (Amendment) Act, 2016, the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, the Constitution of Uganda 1995, the Penal Code Act (Chapter 120), the persons with Disabilities Act 2020, the Mental Health Act of 2018 as well as national policies and diverse international aid agency assessment forms and guidelines (such as UNHCR policy on Refugee protection and solutions in urban areas) were examined. In addition, diverse regional and international Conventions were examined such as African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Some of the legal framework and policies that are listed here feature prominently or minimally depending on the issues addressed. Some reports and policies (e.g. National Development Plan II and III, reports on the progress of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework) that were examined do not feature prominently in the final version of the report but were nevertheless informative in understanding the nature of protection accorded to refugees and asylum seekers. The reason for examining a broad and diverse number of frameworks and policies that have direct or no direct bearing to refugees was to examine whether there were any conflicts in the laws or policies and in what ways these conflicts (if any) would potentially impact on the protection of refugees. The other reason for examining legal frameworks at national, regional and international level was to understand whether the domestic laws fulfilled international obligations that the country had entered into by signing relevant treaties on human rights. Interviews were conducted with 26 key interlocutors involved in the humanitarian operations. These included high profile key decision makers at headquarter level or street level bureaucrats at operational level (field officers). The people interviewed included both public servants and international aid actors. Many participants agreed to be interviewed on condition that the names of their organisations were not mentioned in the report. Consequently, I mention only the names of the organisations where interlocutors gave permission to include them. Participants interviewed were from UNHCR, Office of the Prime Minister, Refugee Desk Kampala, Alight, Medical Teams International, Tutatpona, Refugee Welfare Councils, War Child Canada and Windle Trust among others. These agencies were chosen because they offer key services to refugees and have programs that prioritise special groups/persons based on specific criteria. It was therefore important to understand how such persons are assessed and prioritised for targeted interventions. Due to the period in which the research was conducted, observations could only take place in limited spaces in Kampala for two reasons. The research took place during the corona virus pandemic where access to refugee settlements was not granted to researchers. Additionally, because the implementation of most aid programs takes places in refugee settlements given that most refugees live in settlements in remote areas of the country, limited observations were conducted at the Urban refugee desk and at OPM premises, where `I was allowed to attend the training of Refugee Status Interviewing Officers. My request for permission to attend the Appeals Board which was reviewing cases of those whose application were rejected was denied in order to protect asylum seekers whose cases were considered to be very sensitive. This denial itself was informative as it allowed me to witness the extent to which Uganda goes to safeguard asy

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.