Sustainable Solutions to the Displaced Person Situation on the Thai-Myanmar Border ASIAN RESEARCH ANALYSIS OF  DONOR, INGO/NGO AND UN  CENTER FOR MIGRATION AGENCY  DELIVERY OF  HUMANITARIAN  ASSISTANCE TO DISPLACED PERSONS FROM  INSTITUTE OF ASIAN STUDIES, MYANMAR ALONG THE THAI‐MYANMAR BORDER  CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY Dares Chusri, Tarina Rubin, Ma. Esmeralda Silva, Jason D. Theede, Sunanta Wongchalee, Patcharin Chansawang Conducted in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme and funded by the European Union ANALYSIS OF DONOR, INGO/NGO AND UN AGENCY DELIVERY OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO DISPLACED PERSONS FROM MYANMAR ALONG THE THAI-MYANMAR BORDER Table of Contents Table of Contents Page List of Tables List of Diagrams Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………….. v Abbreviations…...……………………………………………………………… vi Executive Summary …………………………………………………………… vii 1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Background …………………………………………………. 1 1.2 Study Framework, Objectives, Research Questions........................... 2 1.3 Methodology....................................................................................... 4 1.3.1 Research Design..................................................................... 4 1,3,2 Study Area and Study Population…………………………… 5 1.4 Data Collection and Tool..................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Administration and Coordination.......................................... 6 1.4.2 Research Team ........................................................................ 6 1.4.3 Data Collection........................................................................ 7 1.5 Data Analysis....................................................................................... 9 1.6 Ethical Considerations......................................................................... 10 1.7 Study Limitations................................................................................ 10 2. Literature Review………………………………………………………... 12 2.1 The Historical Role of Stakeholders Providing Humanitarian Assistance to the DPs………………………………………………... 12 2.2 Temporary Shelter-based Stakeholders and Services 13 2.2.1 Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT)………...…………………………………..... 14 2.2.2 Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC)………………… 16 2.2.3 United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)…... 17 2.3 Funding Policy and Use of Funds………………………………….... 17 2.3.1 International Level…………………………………………….. 18 2.3.2 National Level and Use of Funds……………………………... 22 2.4 Current Funding Commitments……………………………………... 26 2.5 Directions of Current Donors’ Policy and Possible Long Term Solutions/ Exit Strategy……………………………………………... 26 2.6 Resettlement Issues of Donors……………….……………………… 30 3 Funding Policy, Project Implementation Strategies and Cooperation Strategies with The RTG…………………………………. 32 3.1 Current Rational of Funding: Working Philosophy………………… 32 3.2 Current Funding Policy and Trends…………………………………. 32 3.3 The CCSDPT/UNHCR Framework………………………………… 34 3.4 NGO Strategies for Cooperation with the RTG…………………… 37 Page 3.5 RTG Policy on DPs 38 4 The Dynamics, Needs and Constraints of Stakeholders……………….. 39 4.1 The Different Roles of Stakeholders………………………………... 39 4.2 Stakeholder Cooperation and Communication: Management 44 Modalities…………………………………………………………… 4.3 Funding Shortage and Coping Strategies 45 4.4 The Impact of Stakeholder Policy and Durable Solutions for DPs…. 46 5 The Positive and Negative Impacts of Existing Intervention Mechanisms, including Gender Related Aspects.................................... 49 5.1 Existing RTG and NGO Intervention Mechanisms………………… 49 5.2 Coordination Mechanisms Between Donors, RTG and INGOs…… 50 5.3 Linking Relief. Rehabilitation and Development: Challenges and Opportunities………………………………………………………... 51 5.4 Needs, Perceptions, Hopes and Expectations of DPs………………. 53 6 The Limitations and Constraints on Effective Intervention Mechanisms………………………………………………………………. 61 6.1 RTG policy………………………………………………………….. 61 6.2 Characteristics of Funding Policy and Intervention Mechanisms…... 63 6.3 Self-reliance and Livelihood Intervention…………………………... 63 6.4 Stakeholder Relationships, Communication and Collaboration: Consideration of Expectations………................................................. 64 6.5 Resettlement, Repatriation and Local Integration: The Remaining Challenges for Effective Intervention Mechanisms………………… 65 7 Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………….. 67 7.1 Conclusions………………………………………………………….. 67 7.2 Recommendations ........................................................................... 70 References............................................................................................................ 75 Annexes................................................................................................................. 84 Annex 1 Detailed Descriptions of Study Areas……………………………. 85 Annex 2 Detailed Descriptions of Interviewee……………...…………….. 89 Annex 3 DPs Respondent Characteristics................................................. 91 Annex 4 Interview guideline...................................................................... 101 Annex 5 Questionnaires............................................................................ 103 List of Tables Page Table 1.1 Research methods and tools 7 Table 1.2 Sampling Site by Location and Research Team 8 Table 1.3 Sampling Site by Location of team B 8 Table 2.1 CCSDPT Members 15 Table 2.2 CCSDPT Projects in the Temporary Shelters 15 Table 2.3 Combined CCSDPT/UNHCR budget statement 2007-2009 23 (million) Table 2.4 2010 UNHCR budget for Thailand 24 Table 3.1 Trends in future funding 33 Table 3.2 Perceptions of INGOs, NGOs and donor respondents on 37 whether the situation is a humanitarian crisis/emergency Table 5.1 Aid dependency by sex and age 53 Table 5.2 Self-reliance by sex and age 54 Table 5.3 Why NGO s provide service 55 Table 5.4 Need for NGOs services 55 Table 5.5 Opportunities for self-reliance 56 Table 5.6 Ongoing donor support 57 Table 5.7 Likely response to termination of funding 57 Table 5.8 Perceptions about various services provided by NGOs to DPs 58 in shelters Table 5.9 Activities to prevent violence against women and children 59 Table 5.10 Legal assistance 59 Table 5.11 Negotiation with Myanmar 60 Table 5.12 Responsible organizations 60 List of Diagram Page Figure 1.1 Study Framework 3 Figure 2.1 MOI & CCSDPT/UNHCR Coordination Structure 12 v Acknowledgements The research team wishes to acknowledge the inputs provided by key informants, including displaced persons and local authorities from Tham Hin, Mae La and Ban Mai Nai Soi shelters, the Thai Ministry of Interior (MOI), NGOs (ARC, COEER, IRC,TBBC, ZOA), IOM, UNHCR, UNDP, WHO, EU and Bangkok-based Embassies (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, UK, USA). The research team would like to thank the Asian Research Centre for Migration (ARCM) of Chulalongkorn University, specifically Professor Dr. Supang Chantavanich, Director, for providing the opportunity for our team to engage in this project. The research team would also like to thank the European Union for their financial support of this project and to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for their management and technical support of this study. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of UNDP or the other organizations mentioned in this report. Dares CHUSRI Tarina RUBIN Ma. Esmeralda SILVA Jason D THEEDE Sunanta WONGCHALEE Patcharin CHANSAWANG July 2011 vi List of Abbreviations ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations ARC American Refugee Committee AUP Aid to Uprooted People CAN Community Agriculture and Nutrition CCSDPT Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand COERR Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees DFID UK Department For International Development DPs Displaced Persons EC European Commission ECHO European Community Humanitarian Aid Department GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship IDPs Internally Displaced Person IOM International Organization for Migration IRC International Rescue Committee KnRC Karenni Refugee Committee KNU Karen National Union KRC Karen Refugee Committee KWO Karen Women’s Organisation MOE Ministry of Education MOI Ministry of Interior NGOs Non-governmental Organisation PRS Protracted Refugee Situation RSD Refugee Status Determination RTG Royal Thai Government TBBC Thailand Burma Border Consortium UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees WEAVE Women’s Education for Advancement and Empowerment WHO World Health Organization ZOA Zuid Oost Azie Refugee Care for the Netherlands vii Executive Summary One of six diverse studies examining durable solutions to the displaced persons (DP) situation along the Thai-Myanmar border, this study analyzes the role of donors, international organizations and non-government organizations (NGOs). It examines the rationale behind international intervention, funding policies and organizational mandates; implementation strategies and the dynamics of cooperation among stakeholders including the Royal Thai Government (RTG); as well as the operating environment and impacts of this for effective intervention. The issue of aid for the situation of DPs on the border coming from local sources is not explored under the Letter of Agreement between ARCM and UNDP. Findings will be applied to facilitate the design of an improved strategy to implement policy and to advocate for a change in policy towards sustainable and long-term solutions for the protracted displacement situation along the Thai-Myanmar border. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are applied in this research. A field study was conducted from June 2010 to January 2011 using a combination of key informant interviews with donor and NGO staff and RTG officials, as well as focus group discussions and structured questionnaires with 444 shelter residents at three purposively selected temporary shelters: Tham Hin, Mae La and Ban Mai Nai Soi. This protracted displacement situation of more than 25 years has its root causes in human rights violations due to internal conflict in Myanmar between ethnic minority groups and the Myanmar government which have been ongoing with no sign of peaceful, mutual agreement since 1984. This study identifies a series of issues in the interplay of various stakeholders and makes recommendations for improved cooperation as they attempt to find durable solutions to this displaced people situation. Responsibility for DPs is not borne by a single body but shared among the RTG, donors and I/NGOs. These bodies work in differing capacities based on their own mandate, mission and policy, thus it is unsurprising to find differences in approach and practice. These differences are predominately based on stakeholders’ consideration of the current situation as an ‘emergency’ or otherwise and their resultant policy approach to serving immediate basic needs versus providing opportunities for self-reliance. These gaps sometimes hinder effective cooperation between stakeholders. Restrictive RTG policy on DPs is premised upon temporary asylum and eventual repatriation. The focus on preventing new influxes and restriction of movement has increased DPs’ dependence on external assistance and limited opportunity for self-determination. The RTG should consider the current PRS and explore ways to adopt international law to support DPs’ self-reliance and provide suggestions or recommendations on the feasibility of project operations. The result of pre-screening pilot projects in four temporary shelters in 2009 should be disclosed soon to demonstrate public accountability. The Provincial Admissions Board (PAB) system should be reactivated as a priority to work more effectively in screening and determining DP status so that new asylum seekers can access protection and basic needs and services, including resettlement options in a timely manner. There is also a gap in the donor–host government relationship that may affect cooperation to deliver durable solutions. There is a lack of effective communication among donor groups themselves, between donors and RTG, and donors and NGOs prohibiting viii information sharing and coordination processes. In some cases the long term provision of support with little or no progress has created a situation of donor fatigue. Donor aid policy has been gradually shifting towards ‘linking relief and development’ since 2007. The inability of donors to commit to multiyear funding and the realignment of policy from emergency aid to a developmental model yield many challenges. Some donor countries are still recovering from economic crisis and trends are revealing disaster response to be the priority of humanitarian assistance. All these factors may contribute to funding shortages and also affect food security for DPs in temporary shelters. Most NGO program activities are also increasingly developmentally focused. Again, yearly funding prohibits long term development plans and the ability to fill specific funding gaps to provide opportunities for DP self-reliance. However, DPs are engaged in many aspects of shelter/project management. Pilot projects on vocational training and agriculture are underway in most shelters, though most are small scale and close monitoring and evaluation of these initiatives is necessary to ensure accountability and viability of expansion. Donors should approach displacement holistically, in both the original and host countries and in both the emergency and development phases. Cross-border programs should work to support people in need internally in Myanmar and prevent the movement of new asylum seekers across the Thai-Myanmar border. UNHCR and Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPST) have developed a 5-year strategic plan to provide direction to durable solutions for DPs. It is a selective strategy that tends to focus on local integration rather than a comprehensive package of solutions including resettlement, local integration and repatriation. Negotiation and dialogue to bring durable peace to Myanmar must be facilitated by the RTG through ASEAN and UNHCR through UNHCR exe-com and the United Nations General Assembly. Agreement on policy direction must also be reached in relation to resettlement; whether to sustain or end the program if it is seen to create pull factors or brain-drain. If resettlement continues to be a viable and desired option, an implementation ‘action plan’ and ongoing advocacy with third countries are needed. More channels for communication in an environment which fosters trust are necessary. UNHCR and CCSDPT should facilitate coordination, consultation and collaboration with donors and high level RTG representatives to obtain mutual agreement on development strategies for DPs, particularly the development of economic self-sufficiency which must be a common goal of all partners. Definition of strategies such as ‘local integration’ will improve understanding of the nature and extent of self-reliance and interventions. Moreover, the concepts of ‘responsibility sharing’ or ‘partnership principles’ may create a more positive working environment, in contrast to ‘burden sharing’ or ‘burden shifting’. By drawing on themes raised by DPs and RTG, donor and I/NGO stakeholders in field research, this study provides practical and realistic recommendations for policy options to reach durable solution for DPs in temporary shelters along Thai-Myanmar border.