Tag: refugees

“There is room at the inn”.

irishcentreforhumanrightsLeave a comment

Dr Ciara Smyth

The protests and subsequent arson at the Ross Lake House Hotel in Co Galway have brought sharply into focus (again) the issue of asylum seeker accommodation and the bigger question of whether Ireland is taking in too many asylum seekers. The claim is that the inn or even Ireland is full.

There has been a marked increase in the number of people claiming asylum in Ireland. Last year saw 13,645 asylum applications being made in Ireland – a 68% increase on the previous year. This places Ireland in the top half of EU Member States as an asylum destination (12th out of 27). Similar numbers seem to be applying this year.

However, if we pan out to look at the past decade, Ireland has been in the bottom half of EU countries as an asylum destination for most of the time. Moreover, there is still a huge gulf between Ireland and the top asylum-hosting countries in the EU. Ireland received just 1.4% of asylum applications in the EU last year, compared to Germany, France, Spain, Austria and Italy which, between them, received almost 75% of asylum applications. Therefore, although the numbers have increased dramatically, they have increased from an extremely low base. When further compared with impoverished asylum-hosting countries in the global south, any suggestion that Ireland is overburdened does not hold up.

Nonetheless, given the accommodation crisis in Ireland, it is understandable that some people perceive that asylum seekers are ‘competing’ with Irish citizens for scarce resources. However, the two problems – the accommodation crisis facing Irish people and the accommodation crisis facing asylum seekers – are distinct from one another, even if they overlap. The former problem is linked to successive government policies relating to homelessness, housing delivery, planning laws, house and rent prices and supports for buyers and renters. The latter problem is a product of direct provision.

Direct provision is the Irish system of asylum accommodation that has existed since 2000, whereby private contractors profit from providing bed and board to asylum seekers. The accommodation is often over-crowded, the environment unsafe for children, the food unnourishing and the general conditions a risk to mental health. The weekly allowance paid to asylum seekers places them below the poverty line. Since the government is reliant on the private market for supply, it cannot guarantee enough direct provision places. As a result, asylum seekers are also placed in emergency accommodation or, increasingly, have to sleep rough. Direct provision has been the subject of numerous critical domestic and international reports, not one but two major government reviews and a government white paper. It is slated for abolition in the current programme for government.

The alternative vision, which was settled on before the increase in asylum numbers and the arrival of people fleeing the war in Ukraine (about which more below), was to source and build permanent State-owned short-term accommodation, run on a not-for-profit basis. After three months applicants would move to own-door accommodation under the responsibility of local authorities and be integrated into the social welfare system. This would be delivered by a ‘whole of government approach’, involving all government departments as well as state agencies and local authorities. This approach never materialised. Instead the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and his department have been left to grapple with the issue on their own. Meanwhile, the alternative vision has been overtaken by the numbers and overshadowed by events, like Ross Lake House.

Certainly, operational lessons can be learned from the Ross Lake House experience – about local consultation, about garda consultation, about the supports that asylum seekers and local communities need. But at the strategic level, the government needs to recommit to and resolve the long-standing issue of direct provision in light of current numbers.

The picture is complicated by the arrival of people fleeing the war in Ukraine. More than 100,000 Ukrainians have come to Ireland under EU temporary protection since the war began just under two years ago. According to Eurostat statistics from the end of October, this places Ireland in the top half (10 out of 27) of EU hosting countries.

The EU Temporary Protection Directive provides a framework for Member States to provide emergency protection when there is a mass influx of asylum seekers from a particular country. The advantage of it is that Ukrainians as a group are deemed to be in need of temporary protection, which prevents the asylum decision-making bodies from being overwhelmed.  The disadvantage is that the directive fails to establish a burden-sharing mechanism and leaves it to Member States to decide on accommodation and supports.

Although the Temporary Protection Directive has been in existence since 2001, this is the first time it has been triggered. Therefore, how Member States operate it is largely an experiment. It may well be that Ireland’s initial response – which was to treat Ukrainians far more generously than ‘ordinary’ asylum seekers – has acted as a ‘pull factor’. In hindsight, it may have been preferable to treat the Ukrainian cohort the same as everyone else and raise the pitiful standard of support for all asylum seekers. The government now intends to do the former but not the latter. When its plan to funnel newly-arriving Ukrainians into private-rented accommodation after 90 days comes into effect in the New Year, this may add to the accommodation crisis, at least in the short term.

In short, it’s complex. The existing housing crisis, the delayed abolition and replacement of direct provision, and the increase in numbers of asylum seekers and Ukrainians have all intersected in a very public way. But the answer is not to close the door to people who are seeking protection. The answer is to redesign the inn.

Dr Ciara Smyth is director of the LL.M in International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, University of Galway, and was a member of the McMahon Working Group on Direct Provision.

Addressing human trafficking among refugees and internally displaced persons in Uganda: a role for human rights treaty bodies?

irishcentreforhumanrightsLeave a comment

To mark World Day against Trafficking in Persons (30th July), this blog highlights the ongoing work of the Irish Research Council and Irish Aid funded project ‘Human Trafficking, Forced Migration and Gender Equality in Uganda’

Dr Gillian Kane is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, NUI Galway.

1. Introduction

Since the adoption of the Palermo Protocol in 2000, States across the globe have adopted anti-trafficking law and policy, and increased efforts to address all forms of trafficking in persons. While the Palermo Protocol sits within a transnational organised crime framework, there has been a growing recognition that addressing human trafficking also requires a human rights based approach. The project ‘Human Trafficking, Forced Migration and Gender Equality in Uganda’ undertaken in partnership with the Refugee Law Project in Uganda, explores whether and how Uganda is moving beyond a criminal-justice centred response to human trafficking, particularly in the context of forced migration.

A central theme of the project is the potential of international and regional human rights standards to reform law, policy, and practice on human trafficking in displacement contexts in Uganda.  In view of this, this blog highlights the promise within UN human rights treaty body mechanisms, primarily through the lens of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee). In so doing, it points to some promise within CEDAW’s recent review of Uganda and calls for further action to build upon the foundation that has been established. Before turning to the CEDAW review mechanism, the following section outlines the problem of human trafficking in the forced migration context within Uganda.

2. What is the problem?     

Human trafficking, defined in Article 3 of the Palermo Protocol, contains three elements, which must be cumulatively fulfilled for conduct to fall within its scope, namely: an act, a means, and a purpose. Importantly, Article 3 explicitly states that when it comes to children, only the act and purpose elements need to be established. The definition is broad, encompassing a range of exploitative processes and conduct which can occur in displacement contexts. While the threat or use of force may be the means employed to exploit, subtler coercion, including the abuse of a position of vulnerability, is also included within Article 3.Significantly, consent is deemed to be irrelevant when one of the prescribed means is present. In addition, while transportation or transfer may satisfy the ‘act’ element, they are not required for conduct to amount to trafficking.

In view of the trafficking definition, and the lack of resources, family and social connections, and insecure position of refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons (IDPs), the risk of trafficking within displacement contexts is undeniable.  In addition to 1.7 million IDPs, Uganda hosts around 1.5 million refugees. These figures are only likely to increase as new drivers of displacement continue to emerge. Indeed, earlier in July 2022, a Regional Inter-Ministerial Conference on Migration, Environment and Climate Change was held in Kampala, Uganda, where, among other things, the nexus between climate change and displacement was on the agenda.

Given these rising figures, it is concerning that almost no data on the scale or nature of trafficking in humanitarian contexts in Uganda is available. To move beyond this, Gilbert Nuwagira, from the Refugee Law Project argues that ‘there is a need for a paradigm shift from the conventional assumptions and methodologies to interventions with a deliberate forced migration lens’. Simply put, effectively addressing trafficking in displacement contexts has to begin with acknowledging the risk, understanding what conduct may amount to trafficking, and taking proactive steps to identify it. An effective response also requires the involvement of multiple overlapping international legal frameworks, which extend beyond a criminal justice approach, and include international human rights law and international refugee law.

Despite this, trafficking prevention and protection obligations in refugee and IDP contexts continue to receive only limited attention. For example, the 2021 report on the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Internal Displacement mentions trafficking only once, in relation to risks faced by children, and does not elaborate on protection or prevention obligations. In academic literature, too, discussions on the trafficking-asylum nexus are often framed around human trafficking as the basis of an asylum claim. These discussions are important and must continue. However, literature on the interactions between the anti-trafficking and refugee law frameworks, and on the application of international and regional human rights standards to trafficking in displacement contexts remains sparse.

When it comes to addressing trafficking in humanitarian settings, then, it is necessary to move beyond the silos of applicable frameworks, to acknowledge the explicit connections between displacement and trafficking, and to explore how these overlapping and complementary frameworks can be best operationalised to address trafficking in refugee and IDP communities. Encouragingly, there is evidence of progress. The emerging field of global migration law  provides a framework to move beyond siloed analyses and towards a more comprehensive approach to migration. In practice, The Global Protection Cluster’s Anti-Trafficking Task Team’s ongoing work on human trafficking in IDP settings stands out as a notable example. In addition, the 2021 Political Declaration on the Implementation of the United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons, explicitly acknowledges that ‘refugees and migrants in large movements face greater risk of trafficking in persons.’ Signs of promise can also be seen in the work of UN Treaty Bodies. In the following section, the role that human rights treaty bodies can play in assisting the move beyond siloed approaches, is explored through the lens of the CEDAW committee.

3. Signs of promise in the work of the CEDAW Committee?

While CEDAW’s focus is the elimination of discrimination against women and girls, many aspects of its work are relevant to efforts to address trafficking, and to the treatment of refugees and IDPs. The Committee performs three main functions, each of which have the potential to assist in efforts to tackle trafficking in the displacement context:

 (a) Reviewing Periodic State Reports: Uganda’s most recent review took place earlier in 2022 and the Committee’s report illustrates the potential to highlight the need to tackle trafficking among refugees and IDPs. In particular, the Committee noted that Uganda ‘remains a source, transit and destination country for trafficking in persons, in particular women and girls, and that there is a lack of statistical data on the extent of trafficking and its root causes, including in humanitarian settings’. It also raised concerns about ‘delays in birth registrations, in particular in rural and remote areas and within indigenous communities, delays in the registration, issuance and renewal of identity cards for refugee women and girls and the lack of information on measures taken to reduce statelessness.’ In Uganda’s 2010 CEDAW review – the last CEDAW review before 2022 –  the Committee underlined trafficking related issues, including the lack of statistical information, but it did not explicitly highlight the humanitarian context. Thus, the 2022 review represents a step forward in this regard.

(b) Adopting General Recommendations on Issues affecting Women and Girls:. Significantly, in 2020, the Committee adopted General recommendation No.38 (2020) on trafficking in women and girls in the context of global migration (GR38), which shone a light on, amongst other things, trafficking in contexts of displacement. For example, the recommendation explicitly ‘acknowledges that trafficking and exploitation of prostitution in women and girls is unequivocally a phenomenon rooted in structural, sex-based discrimination, constituting gender-based violence, and is often exacerbated in the contexts of displacement’ (emphasis added). It further states that ‘[g]irls who are unaccompanied or separated from their families or other support structures due to displacement are particularly vulnerable to being trafficked’. Among the recommendations in GR 38 is the call to develop ‘regular coordination between the asylum procedures and trafficking protection systems, such that when both grounds are recognized, women and girls have access to both refugee status and protection as victims or potential victims of trafficking’.  

Beyond GR38, three other CEDAW General Recommendations are of note. First, General recommendation No.30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations acknowledges the connection between trafficking and displacement. Second, in General recommendation No.32 on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, the Committee ‘recognizes the persistence of other forms of exploitation concomitant with displacement, such as trafficking’. Third, General recommendation No.37 on Gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change acknowledges links between climate change, displacement and human trafficking.

(c) Decide on Individual Communications: the adoption of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW opened up the possibility for individuals to bring complaints of alleged violations of the Convention. However, while the Optional Protocol currently has 114 State Parties and 11 Signatory States, Uganda has yet to ratify it. This means that the individual communication procedure remains beyond reach as a means of redress for those within Uganda.  

Taken together, these three functions certainly reveal promise when it comes to the Committee’s capacity to play a meaningful role in addressing trafficking among refugees and IDPs. Particularly encouraging is the fact that the connection between trafficking and displacement is explicitly highlighted in several General Recommendations, and that specific recommendations have been made to Uganda. Clearly, there is not only potential for the CEDAW Committee to assist in the work of holistically addressing trafficking, but it has already begun to deliver on some of this potential. In this way, a foundation has been laid for future efforts to build upon.

However encouraging this is, some of the Committee’s potential remains constrained by States. The fact that the CEDAW complaint mechanism remains out of reach for those in Uganda, unless and until the State ratifies the Optional Protocol, exemplifies this. In addition, the promise identified above can either be more fully realised or hindered, depending on the extent to which actors within the State take action on the domestic plane on the basis of the reports and recommendations. In Uganda, for example, the Coordination Office to Counter Trafficking Persons (COPTIP), which sits within the Ugandan Ministry of Internal Affairs could incorporate recommendations and guidance from treaty bodies into its National Action Plan (NAP) for Prevention of Trafficking in Persons. In this regard, it is encouraging to see that the current NAP acknowledges the risk of trafficking among refugees, although the references to displacement contexts are limited and IDPs are not mentioned at all. In addition, it is essential that domestic actors tasked with refugee and IDP protection, as well as international actors working in Uganda, such as UNHCR and IOM also work towards implementing the relevant treaty body recommendations.

 When it comes to civil society, those advocating for enhanced protection in humanitarian settings can remind States of their duties under CEDAW and point to the authoritative guidance of the Committee to strengthen the case for the need to address trafficking in these contexts. The  Uganda Coalition against Trafficking in Persons (UCATIP), for example, could play a valuable role in this regard.

4. Conclusion: a role for human rights treaty bodies?

This blog has highlighted the need to proactively address human trafficking in the displacement context, particularly in Uganda, which hosts a significant number of the world’s displaced persons. In so doing, it underlined the possibilities that exist beyond the criminal justice framework, pointing to the potential within human rights treaty bodies to assist in this work. The functions of CEDAW and the steps it has taken to speak to the issue of trafficking among refugees and IDPs illustrate how human rights treaty bodies- although not specifically tasked with addressing human trafficking – can and do play a valuable role.

Beyond CEDAW, other treaty bodies and review mechanisms have the potential to play a similar role. Since trafficking does not only affect women and girls, it is essential that this potential is realised. One example is found in the Joint general comment No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on State obligations regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration in countries of origin, transit, destination and return. This general comment highlights the risk of trafficking for unaccompanied and separated children. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an additional review mechanism where obligations relating to trafficking in displacement contexts could be highlighted. Uganda’s most recent UPR took place in 2022. While trafficking and displacement related observations were made, and Uganda’s progressive refugee policies were commended, obligations relating to trafficking in displacement contexts remained absent from the review. This shows that some of the promise within these mechanisms remains as yet untapped.

Moving forward, it is essential to build upon the promising work that has begun to move beyond siloed approaches and towards a holistic approach to addressing trafficking in humanitarian contexts, in Uganda, and beyond. The ‘Human Trafficking, Forced Migration and Gender Equality in Uganda’ project is contributing to such work, through analysis of what obligations from across applicable frameworks require to address trafficking among refugees and IDPs. This work is all the more important as existing and new drivers of displacement continue to leave many with no choice but to flee their homes in search of protection.

*With thanks to project PI Professor Siobhán Mullally for input on this article.