Return to violent conflict? Challenges of sustainable return of refugees and internally displaced persons to and within South Sudan

As the numbers of returnees in many regions of South Sudan increase, and livelihood opportunities need to be established to foster development and prevent new causes of displacement, aid agencies should address the full cycle of displacement to reintegration at a given location. Programmes therefore have to focus on issues beyond emergency aid and be long-term until returnees have indeed become self-sufficient. Young people are very influential in stabilizing the peace process. To promote local economic development, jobs and higher education, for instance, should therefore be offered not only to returnees, but also to hosts to provide alternatives to engaging in violence. Besides vocational training, “spaces” for recreational activities should also be established. Trainings are particular successful when communities participate in designing the programmes. A diversification of income activities (e.g. rural and urban) also promotes the sustainability of return. Local dynamics have to be studied beforehand to prevent the failure of programmes and enhance sustainability. Dialogue platforms help to share information about the peace process and the situation at the return location. Radio broadcasts, in particular, have proven to be a good practice to share information and spread the word of peace. The media thus can be an important tool for fostering communication between groups and, consequently, the reintegration of returnees

Back to turmoil: refugee and IDP return to and within South Sudan

This Working Paper investigates the challenges South Sudanese returnees and displaced persons face from their very own perspective. Building on field research in the autumn and winter of 2015 , it analyses the patterns of return and coping strategies of returnees, as well as any assistance that aid agencies can provide. The findings indicate that return is neither a simple, linear nor necessarily durable solution. From the viewpoint of the returnees, the main challenges of return are the lack of physical security, food, water, education and jobs. As resources in South Sudan are very scarce overall because of a collapsing economy and continued fighting, competition over resources between returnees and local communities, as well among returnees, is common. The easy access to small arms, ethnic divisions and mistrust between groups further exacerbate these tensions. The sustainability of return seems to depend largely on how well returnees can access resources at their return location and thus secure a livelihood for them and their families, which, in turn, is not only influenced by the social network and political access the returnees have but also the economic situation at the return location. Aid agencies therefore should support livelihood opportunities and early development programmes at the preferred return locations, including local communities and youth groups in their efforts, to reduce feelings of inequality between groups. Besides diversified and long-term economic development initiatives, higher education opportunities as well as psychological support must also be provided to guarantee self-sufficiency of returnees and prevent renewed displacement

Going beyond temporary measures: a way forward for refugee livelihood programming in southeastern Turkey

The number of beneficiaries is not an indicator of the quality of programmes. Short-term measures that try to reach large number of people, such as cash assistance, create dependency and cannot enhance sustainable livelihoods. If applied, they need to be embedded within long-term approaches. Different livelihood programmes, from vocational trainings to work programmes, should thus build on, rather than compete with, each other as well as take into account the existing skills of refugees. Job opportunity is one of the main reasons, next to security and social ties, why people move to the southeast of Turkey. This suggests that incentives for employers to hire refugees should be increased. The way forward includes measures to build databases on demand and supply, to assist the development and implementation of business plans in collaboration with refugees, and to roll out market-aligned trainings. At least six months on-the-job trainings can, furthermore, establish trust between employer and employee as well as lead to long-term contracts that will stabilize the livelihoods of refugees. Many refugees, aid agencies and local authorities have no or misleading information about the livelihood activities being offered locally, a situation that causes frustration and mistrust. Fostering more exchange between national and local bureaus of authorities and aid organizations can increase transparency. Livelihood programmes should also extend their reach to nonSyrian refugee groups, local communities and those outside of community centres to prevent resentment between groups

Voluntary return to refugees: chances of peace and sustainable development?

Return does not mean that displaced persons will return to exactly the same place from which they fled. It is less the end of a cycle but rather a new beginning: that of reintegration. A post-conflict situation cannot be equated with the end of all conflict. When developing concepts, one should rather take into account that a post-conflict situation is often a transitory situation in which significant levels of violence continue to exist. IDPs often find themselves in protracted situations and are exposed to the same risks as refugees. More advocacy is needed to protect and support IDPs. The sustainability of return and peace is determined to a large extent by the participation of refugees and IDPs. It is therefore essential to actively include these populations in the strategic planning and implementation of return processes and to address their concerns and use their skills. Return and reintegration projects are usually based on a short-term approach prioritising emergency relief. Yet the negative spiral of violent conflict and displacement can only be halted by an approach in which relief and long-term development efforts are co-ordinated. The experiences and skills gained by the internally displaced in the host region can ease the process of return and have a positive effect on sustainable reintegration

Uganda: a role model for refugee integration?

Uganda hosts the largest refugee population in Africa and is, after Turkey and Pakistan, the third-largest refugee recipient country worldwide. Political and humanitarian actors have widely praised Ugandan refugee policies because of their progressive nature: In Uganda, in contrast to many other refugee-receiving countries, these are de jure allowed to work, to establish businesses, to access public services such as education, to move freely and have access to a plot of land. Moreover, Uganda is a pilot country of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). In this Working Paper the authors ascertain whether Uganda indeed can be taken as a role model for refugee integration, as largely portrayed in the media and the political discourse. They identify the challenges to livelihoods and integration to assess Uganda's self-reliance and settlement approach and its aspiration towards providing refugees and Ugandan communities receiving refugees with opportunities for becoming self-reliant. Drawing on three months of field research in northern and southern Uganda from July to September of 2017 with a particular focus on South Sudanese refugees, the authors concentrate on three aspects: Access to land, employment and education, intra- and inter-group relations. The findings show that refugees in Uganda are far from self-reliant and socially integrated. Although in Uganda refugees are provided with land, the quality and size of the allocated plots is so poor that they cannot earn a living from agricultural production, which thus, rather impedes self-reliance. Inadequate infrastructure also hinders access to markets and employment opportunities. Even though most local communities have been welcoming to refugees, the sentiment has shifted recently in some areas, particularly where local communities that are often not better off than refugees feel that they have not benefitted from the presence of refugees

Freiwillige Rückkehr von Flüchtlingen: Chancen für Frieden und nachhaltige Entwicklung?

Rückkehr bedeutet nicht, dass eine vertriebene Person an genau den Ort zurückkehrt, von dem sie geflohen ist. Sie ist weniger das Ende eines Kreislaufs als der Beginn einer Wiedereingliederung und stellt einen Neuanfang dar. Eine Post-Konfliktsituation ist nicht mit dem Ende aller Konflikte gleichzusetzen. Vielmehr sollte konzeptionell berücksichtigt werden, dass die PostKonfliktsituation oft eine Übergangssituation ist, in der nach wie vor ein signifikantes Maß an Gewalt herrscht. Auch IDPs befinden sich häufig in einer Situation der Langzeitvertreibung und sind meist denselben Risiken ausgesetzt wie Flüchtlinge. Ihr Schutz und ihre Unterstützung bedürfen eines stärkeren Engagements. Die Tragfähigkeit von Rückkehr und Frieden hängt zu einem beträchtlichen Teil davon ab, ob die Bedürfnisse von Flüchtlingen und Binnenvertriebenen berücksichtigt und sie aktiv in die Planung und strategische Umsetzung von Rückführungsprozessen eingebunden werden. Deshalb ist es unerlässlich, ihren Anliegen und Potenzialen Rechnung zu tragen. Rückführungs- und Reintegrationsprojekte stellen meist kurzfristig die Nothilfe in den Vordergrund. Die Negativspirale von Gewaltkonflikt und Vertreibung ist aber nur durch einen koordinierten Ansatz von Nothilfe- und nachhaltiger Entwicklungsarbeit wirksam zu durchbrechen. Erfahrungen und Fähigkeiten, die Vertriebene in der Aufnahmeregion erwerben, können den Rückkehrprozess erleichtern und sich günstig auf die Nachhaltigkeit ihrer Wiedereingliederung auswirken

Protected rather than protracted: strengthening displaced persons in peace processes: a state-of-the-art paper

This Paper reviews the current state of the art on the return of displaced persons as a durable solution for long-term displacement situations. It outlines the impact, challenges and actors involved in the return process. The Paper shows that present understandings of return, protracted situations and conflict are often too short-sighted and need to be revised and extended. Reintegration as part of the return process in particular has only received little attention until now. The Paper further demonstrates that the relationship between displacement, return and peace has not yet been fully understood. More field and comparative research is needed that includes the perspectives of the displaced themselves to fully comprehend the process of return and to be able to identify best practices to guarantee the sustainability of return and reintegration

Risky locations: refugee settlement patterns and conflict

Although constructed for safety, many refugee settlements today encounter violence, becoming risky locations for refugees and hosts. This dissertation investigates why some of these refugee settlements experience violence and not others. Heidrun Bohnet argues that the geographical location and distribution of refugees are influential factors in determining refugee-related conflict. While previous research has highlighted that refugees can become involved in new conflict situations in the host country, little comparative analysis exists that investigates the link between refugees and conflict. By using new quantitative refugee data on Africa from 1999-2010, this dissertation shows that the geographical space occupied by refugees is closely related to the risk of conflict. The author contends that a disaggregated approach towards refugees needs to be taken to understand refugee-related conflict within refugee settlements and beyond them

Conflict-induced IDPs and the spread of conflict

Recent scholarship has found evidence that refugee flows may inadvertently contribute to the spread of conflict across borders. Little is known, however, about the spatial diffusion of conflict within a state's borders and what role internal displacement plays in such a dynamic. This question is of relevance because of the particular marginalization of IDPs, which make them at risk of predation and militarization by armed groups. Drawing on a novel global dataset on internal displacement, we evaluate this question and find evidence for a similar mechanism leading to conflict spread operating at the domestic level

Conflict versus disaster-induced migration: similar or distinct implications for security?

Recent research has found evidence for a linkage between conflict induced-displacement and violence. Yet, displacement is also caused by natural disasters, whose implications for security have until now not received much attention. Drawing on spatial data on flood-induced disasters and forced migration in Africa, we investigate the impact of migration caused by natural disasters on social conflict. We show that disaster-induced displacement differs from conflict-induced displacement and raises distinct security implications. We also consider if areas simultaneously affected by conflict and disaster-induced migration are particularly at risk of conflict. The results suggest that there is no such amplifying effect