COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Lives in Dignity: from Aid-dependence to Self-reliance Forced Displacement and Development
Date: 2016-04-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, development aid, humanitarian aid, illegal migration, integration of migrants, internal migration, refugee, return migration, right of asylum, transfer of population

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.4.2016  SWD(2016) 142 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Lives in Dignity: from Aid-dependence to Self-reliance Forced Displacement and Development {COM(2016) 234 final}  
 
 
1.  Introduction  

This  document  accompanies  the  Commission  Communication  "Lives  in  Dignity:  from  Aid-
dependence  to  Self-reliance"  (Forced  Displacement  and  Development)".  It  provides  an 
overview  and  assessment  of  the  existing  EU  policies,  instruments  and  practice  in  assisting 
refugees,  internally  displaced  persons  (IDPs)  and  asylum  seekers  (together  referred  to  as 
"forcibly  displaced  people")  in  third  partner  countries.  It  focuses  on  protracted  forced 
displacement  and  its  context,  drivers  and  consequences  for  the  displaced  and  their  host 
communities  and  countries  and  presents  findings  and  recommendations  resulting  from  the 
review of past and ongoing stand-alone EU projects and interventions. 

2.  Context, drivers, complexity and variety of forced displacement situations  

For the purposes of this document, forced displacement refers to the situation of people who 
are forced to leave their homes due to armed conflict, generalised violence, persecution, and 
human rights violations.  

According to the Geneva Refugee Convention of 1951 and the Protocol of 1967, a refugee is 
an  individual  seeking  protection  outside  of  the  country  of  his/her  nationality  due  to 
persecution  on  the  basis  of  religion,  race,  political  opinion,  nationality  or  membership  in  a 
particular  social  group.  A  recognised  refugee  has  the  right  to  international  protection 
especially through the "non refoulement" principle. IDPs are displaced in their own country. 
Their rights as citizens are enshrined in human rights law and international humanitarian law. 
In  addition,  the  rights  of  IDPs  are  addressed  in  the  UN  Guiding  Principles  for  Internal 
Displacement1 (a non-binding document) and a number of regional conventions.  

Forced displacement situations are highly complex and differ greatly. A number of factors  – 
such  as  different  drivers  for  displacement,  political  and  economic  conditions  of  host 
countries/regions, duration and character of displacement shape and influence each situation. 
As UNHCR2 stated, "protracted refugee situations stem from political impasses. They are not 
inevitable,  but  are  rather  the  result  of  political  action  and  inaction,  both  in  the  country  of 
origin  […]  and  in  the  country  of  asylum.  They  endure  because  of  ongoing  problems  in  the 
country  of  origin,  and  stagnate  and  become  protracted  as  a  result  of  responses  to  refugee 
inflows, typically involving restrictions on refugee movement and employment possibilities."  

Drivers  of  forced  displacement:  Most  situations  of  mass-scale  forced  displacement  are 
currently caused by violent conflicts which are in turn caused by a wide array of factors (land, 
resources, ethnic or religious affiliation etc.). Violence is a key factor forcing people to flee. 
Disasters  and  climate  phenomena  have  an  increasing  impact  on  the  security  and  economic 
well-being of citizens. Climate change can be a threat multiplier for instability, conflict and 
state fragility3.  

Political  and  economic  conditions  of  hosting  countries/  regions:  host  countries'  political 
and  legal  frameworks  towards  forcibly  displaced  persons  can  vary  greatly  regarding  for 

1 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2). 
2 UNHCR: Protracted Refugee Situations, EC/54/SC/CRP.14, 10.06.2004. 
3 Council Conclusions 6061/16, "European climate diplomacy after COP21", 16.02.2016; "The post 2015 Hyogo Framework 
for Action: Managing risks to achieve resilience", COM(2014)216, 08.04.2014; "Climate change, environmental degradation, 
and migration", SWD(2013)138, 16.04.2013. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
instance the right to work, freedom of movement or other important rights such as land use 
and  ownership  and  legal  registration.  These  frameworks  structure  the  possibilities  for 
(temporary) inclusion and set the boundaries for humanitarian or development programming. 
The  available  political  and  economic  space  can  also  vary  significantly  between  different 
regions of the same country.  

Government policies on the right  to movement  vary from strict encampment policies to  no-
camp  approaches.  The  types  of  settlements  vary  accordingly.  Camps  are  widespread,  but 
globally, the majority of refugees and IDPs worldwide live outside of camps. Many settle in 
urban or  rural  areas  or  rent housing from local communities. At the end of 2014  more than 
50%  of  displaced  populations  lived in  urban  areas.  But  there  are  stark  country  and  regional 
differences: in Kenya for instance, only 10 % of refugees and asylum seekers officially live in 
urban  areas.  This  diversity  of  settlements  implies  different  realities  and  therefore  different 
ways of assisting the populations in need.  

Countries hosting a large number of refugees and IDPs vary from Least Developed Countries 
(such  as  Afghanistan,  Chad,  Ethiopia),  Lower  Middle-Income  Countries  (such  as  Egypt, 
Ukraine  and  Pakistan)  and  Upper  Middle-Income  Countries  (such  as  Iraq,  Iran,  Jordan, 
Lebanon or Turkey).4  

Impact of displacement: The impact of forcibly displaced people on a host region depends 
on  the  scale,  duration,  geographic  spread,  demographic  composition  and  crucially,  the 
strength and adaptability of existing economic structures and services. Where large numbers 
of  refugees  or  IDPs  live  amongst  the  host  population,  public  services  provision  will  be  put 
under immense strain.  

Duration: Between 1978 and 2014, less than one in 40 refugee crises were resolved within 
three years, and protractedness has usually been a matter of decades. According to UNHCR, 
the average duration of the 33 protracted refugee situations at the end of 2014 is estimated to 
about  25  years.  Close  to  80%  (24) of  all  protracted  refugee  situations  have  been  lasting  for 
more  than  20  years.5  For  instance,  three-quarters  of  the  Afghan  refugees  remaining  in 
Pakistan have lived there for more than 30 years.  

Cyclical character of displacement: Displacement situations caused by conflicts most of the 
time do not take place in a linear fashion moving smoothly from emergency to rehabilitation 
and  development.  Violence  and  displacement  can  flare  up  again  and  again  leading  to 
recurring crises and secondary movements in and out of an area of origin. 

2.1.  Durable solutions 

The type of displacement – whether people flee to another country (refugees), are displaced 
within  their  own  country  (IDPs)  or  return  to  their  country  of  origin  or  original  place  of 
residence – determines their legal status. It therefore impacts on available rights, opportunities 
for self-reliance during displacement and also – the available durable solutions.  

4 http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/daclist.htm 
5 "World at War" – UNHCR Global Trends Forced Displacement 2014. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
The  international  legal  frameworks  with  regards  to  refugees  distinguish  three  durable 
solutions:6  

  Voluntary repatriation: When a country of origin has stabilised, refugees may decide to 
repatriate  voluntarily.  This  should  be  done  in  safety  and  dignity  and  should  signify  the 
successful end to the trauma of displacement. According to the UNHCR statistics, While 
the overall number of refugee returns in 2014 (126,800) was already the lowest in more 
than  three  decades,  current  trends  indicate  that  2015  figures  may  even  be  lower7.  Since 
2000 there is a steady declining trend in voluntary repatriation. 

  Local  integration:  When  refugees  integrate  fully  as  members  of  the  host  community 
through  legal,  economic,  social  and  cultural  processes  they  are  considered  to  be  locally 
integrated.  It  entails  obligation  for  both  refugees  and  host  societies.  Acquiring  the 
nationality of the host country can be the final stage of integration. In terms of economic 
integration,  it  requires  achievement  of  self-reliance,  which  is  linked  to  livelihood 
opportunities. There is little available data on local integration other than through award 
of national citizenship to refugees. 

  Resettlement to a third country:  In situations in which it is impossible for a person to 
go back home or remain in the host country, refugees can be resettled in a third state "that 
has agreed to admit them and ultimately grant them permanent settlement" (UNHCR). In 
2014,  26  countries  admitted  105.200  refugees  for  resettlement.  Compared  to  the  overall 
displacement figures, this figure is very small.  

Durable  solutions  for  IDPs8  are  achieved  when  they  no  longer  have  any  specific  assistance 
and  protection  needs  that  are  linked  to  their  displacement  and  can  enjoy  their  human  rights 
without discrimination on account of their displacement like other citizens. It can be achieved 
through: 

  Sustainable reintegration at the place of origin (often referred to as “return”); 

  Sustainable  local  integration  in  areas  where  internally  displaced  persons  take  refuge 

(local integration); 

  Sustainable  integration  in  another  part  of  the  country  (settlement  elsewhere  in  the 

country). 

Due  to  lack  of  political  commitment  and  challenging  policy  and  operational  contexts, 
implementation  of  the  three  durable  solutions  for  both  refugees  and  IDPs  has  been 
insufficient.  

In cases on ongoing armed conflicts and other protracted situations, voluntary repatriation is 
not  a  viable  option  for  refugees  because  of  the  decade-long  high  levels  of  insecurity, 
instability and underdevelopment in countries of origin. Often refugees’ access to basic rights 
is  restricted  in  host  countries,  due  to  a  tendency  of  rushing  towards  the  durable  solution  of 

6 http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646cf8.html. 
7 UNHCR, 2015 Mid-Year Trends, June 2015. 
8  The  IASC  Frameworks  to  Protracted  Displacement  and  Development  provides  a  comprehensive  overview  of  achieving 
durable solutions – including legal framework components. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
return  to  the  country  of  origin  and  the  assumption  that  expansion  of  rights  may  diminish 
refugees'  inclination  to  return.  Countries  of  origin  have  often  been  keen  to  encourage  early 
return for domestic political reasons. When conditions in the country of origin are neither ripe 
nor safe to go back due to relapses into conflict and violence, repatriations result in returnees 
moving  back  into  exile or  becoming  internally  displaced.  In  addition,  the  lack  of  livelihood 
opportunities  in  refugees'  and  IDPs’  places  of  origin  is  a  serious  obstacle  to  return.  In  rural 
areas of Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kosovo and Uganda, where access to 
land is synonymous with access to livelihoods, IDPs’ inability to repossess land and property 
that  was  occupied  or  destroyed  makes  return  not  feasible  and  thus  prolongs  displacement.9 
Resettlement has only been available to less than 1 percent of the global refugee population.  

In  sum,  while  it  remains  important  to  advocate  for  attaining  durable  solutions,  there  is  an 
increasing  shift  towards  improving  the  situation  of  both  displaced  and  their  hosts  during 
displacement.  Programmes  and  strategies  designed  to  prevent  and  respond  to  protracted 
displacement could focus on ways of enhancing the self-reliance of refugees and IDPs during 
their  displacement  rather  than  rely  on  the  availability  of  the  ‘durable  solutions’.  A  shift 
towards  securing  better  quality  of  life  for  refugees  and  IDPs  during  displacement  and  their 
hosts  could  ultimately  enhance  their  human  development  and  contribute  to  preventing 
displacement from becoming protracted.  

3.  Current EU policy framework  

No EU legislation, policy or action plan exists to address protracted forced displacement in a 
comprehensive  manner.  However,  a  number  of  policies  are  relevant  in  this  context.  In  May 
'Maximising  the  Development  Impact  of  Migration'10 
2013,  the  Communication  on 
highlighted  that  "the  presence  of  refugees  and  other  forced  migrants  can  also  result  in  new 
opportunities and benefits for national and local economies through refugees’ human capital, 
including by providing labour skills and creating demand for goods and services. Measures to 
harness the potential of refugees to drive development improve their self-reliance, and thereby 
strengthen  the  quality  of  refugees'  protection,  also  to  the  benefit  of  the  host  countries".  In 
addition, the Communication includes a commitment to "ensure that refugees and other forced 
migrants  are  included  in  long-term  development  planning",  placing  a  specific  focus  on 
protracted refugee situations. 

Further,  the  Foreign  Affairs-Development  Ministers  Council  in  its  Conclusions  of  12 
December  2014  on  "Migration  in  EU  Development  Cooperation"  acknowledge  the  urgency 
that  arises  from  conflicts  and  crises  throughout  the  world  and  the  resulting  unprecedented 
challenges  related  to  refugees  and  IDPs  as  well  as  to  host  communities  and  countries.  The 
Council  requests  a  coordinated  development  cooperation  approach  to  forced  displacement 
(i.e. refugees and IDPs). In addition, in the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy11, 
adopted in July 2015, the EU gave a commitment to support partner countries to promote and 
protect  the  rights  of  refugees  and  IDPs,  including  through  capacity  building  and  the 
promotion of the ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. 

10 COM(2013) 292, 21.5.2013. 
11 JOIN(2015)16, 38.04.2015 

5 

 
 
                                                            
 
Migration  also  stands  among  the  most  important  priorities  of  the  reviewed  European 
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)12, with a view to finding the common ground where European 
interests and those of partner countries can both be served. This includes assistance to partner 
countries in developing their asylum and protection systems and in ensuring that basic needs 
of the displaced are guaranteed, their human rights are protected and their socio-economic and 
human potential is not wasted but is made available to host societies and communities.  

The  overarching  framework  of  the  EU  external  migration  and  asylum  policy,  the  Global 
Approach  to  Migration  and  Mobility  (GAMM)  defines  how  the  EU  conducts  its  policy 
dialogues and operational cooperation with third countries, based on clearly defined priorities 
which  reflect  the  strategic  objectives  of  the  EU,  and  embedded  in  the  EU’s  overall  foreign 
policy  framework,  including  development  cooperation.  The  GAMM  is  focused  on  four 
thematic priorities: (1) better organising legal migration and fostering well-managed mobility; 
(2) preventing and combating irregular migration and eradicating trafficking in human beings; 
(3)  maximising  the  development  impact  of  migration  and  mobility;  (4)  promoting 
international  protection  and  enhancing  the  external  dimension  of  asylum.  The  respect  of 
human rights is a cross-cutting priority. 

3.1. Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) and resilience  

The relationship between humanitarian aid and development cooperation has become known 
as LRRD. The initial conceptualisation of LRRD was a linear, sequential transition from relief 
to  development.  Links  entailed  applying  exit  strategies  to  prepare  the  ground  for  the  next 
phase.  Crises  and  conflicts  were  regarded  as  temporary  phenomena  disrupting  the  normal 
development  path.  Over  the  1990s,  the  model  was  slowly  changed  to  recognise  that  relief, 
rehabilitation and development and related instruments should take place simultaneously.  

The  European  Commission  applied  the  "LRRD"  concept  in  two  Communications.  The  first 
one adopted in 199613 centred on the concept of a linear transition from relief to rehabilitation 
to  development.  The  2001  Communication14  makes  a  distinction  between  conflict-induced 
crises and disasters-induced crises. As far as conflict situations are concerned, the document 
continues to emphasise "linkages" that will contribute to delivering better aid as well as the 
need  for  a  handover  or  "taking  over"  from  humanitarian  assistance.  The  Communication 
points  out  that  the  "transition  from  relief/humanitarian  aid  to  development  cooperation  is 
rarely  a  linear  chronological  process.  Nor  do  crises  evolve  in  a  linear  way.  Rather,  they 
oscillate between phases of deterioration, escalation, acute crisis, and de-escalation towards a 
more or less stable peace. Furthermore, reversals are frequent. Experience shows that peace or 
cease-fire agreements are fragile, and donors can never been sure that they will last".  

The EU has since applied the LRRD approach more often to responses to natural disasters and 
food  crises  rather  than  to  conflicts,  forced  displacement  and  protracted  situations.15  Moving 
more  and  more  away  from  the  "handing  over"  model,  in  October  2012,  the  Commission 
adopted  a  Communication  on  the  EU  Approach  to  Resilience16,  which  set  out  key  policy 

12 JOIN(2015) 50, 18.11.2015 
13 COM (96)153, 30.04.1996  
14 COM (2001)153 23.04.2001. 
15 COM(2010)722, 08.12.2010. 
16 COM(2012)586, 03.10.2012 

6 

 
 
                                                            
principles for action to help vulnerable communities in crisis-prone areas build resilience to 
future shocks. Drawing on experiences in addressing recurrent food crises and using lessons 
learned from the SHARE (Supporting the Horn of Africa's Resilience) and AGIR (The Global 
Alliance  for  Resilience  Initiative),  the  Communication  recognised  that  strengthening 
resilience lies at the interface of humanitarian and development assistance.  

Further, the EU Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries (2013-2020)17 recognises 
the  developmental  needs  of  refugees,  IDPs  and  returnees  and  advocates  for  longer-term 
approaches  and  strategies  to  address  protracted  refugee  and  IDP  situations.  The  resilience 
policy  is  centred  on  a  longer-term  and  a  more  systemic  humanitarian  and  development 
approach  to  "building  resilience"  and  recognises  the  role  of  sustainable  development  in 
addressing the root causes of crises. Moreover, the focus of the EU resilience strategy is not 
only  on  countries  and  their  capacity  but  also  on  building  the  resilience  of  vulnerable 
populations. Indeed, whereas the LRRD refers to ‘links’ between different forms of aid, the 
resilience concept draws attention to the lives and capacities of population in situations prone 
to crises18. Overall, as in the past, EU initiatives on LRRD have been particularly prominent 
in  the  field  of  food  security  an  example  being  the  "Supporting  the  Horn  of  Africa's 
Resilience"  (SHARE) 
initiative.  The  Commission  designed  a  Joint  Humanitarian 
Development Framework which has been applied as a planning tool to guide analysis.19  

the  different  mandates,  underlines 

In  2013,  the  European  Commission  and  the  HRVP  adopted  a  Comprehensive  Approach  to 
external conflicts and crises20 which emphasises a need for a long-term commitment from the 
EU and calls for a holistic approach, based on the added value of a wide range of tools and 
instruments,  to  preventing  and  addressing  conflicts.  Indeed,  it  highlights  that  "long-term 
engagement  […]  and  long-term  sustainable  development  are  essential  to  address  the 
underlying  causes  of  conflict  and  to  build  peaceful,  resilient  society".  The  document,  while 
synergies  and 
acknowledging 
complementarities should be ensured by an early, inclusive and intense dialogue between the 
respective stockholders, in order to have a greater impact and achieve better results". In this 
respect, the EU should "coordinate and, where possible combine, the use of a full range of EU 
tools  and  instruments"  spanning  the  political,  security,  humanitarian  and  development 
spectrum  to  responding  to  the  challenges  of  crises  and  conflicts.  Ultimately,  the 
Communication  draws  attention  to  the  key  role  that  Member  States  should  play: 
"[c]comprehensiveness  refers  not  only  to  the  joined-up  deployment  of  EU  instruments  and 
resources, but also to the shared responsibility of EU-level actors and Member States". 

"natural 

that 

Although the term LRRD is no longer used in recent EU policy documents, it is still used in 
EU  programming.  In  addition,  the  LRRD  concept  is  still  often  viewed  in  terms  of  an  exit 
strategy that should be followed by development cooperation.  

17 SWD(2013)227, 19.06.2013 
18 Mosel, I. and Levine, S. (2014) ‘Remaking the case for linking relief, rehabilitation and development  - How LRRD can 
become a practically useful concept for assistance in difficult places’, Humanitarian Policy Group (ODI) - BMZ, available at: 
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8882.pdf 
19 See COM(2012) 586, 03.10.2012 
20 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council The EU's comprehensive approach to external conflict 
and crises, JOIN(2013) 30 final, 11.12.2013. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
3.2. Regional (Development and) Protection Programmes (RDPPs) 

As  part  of  the  establishment  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  and  in  response  to 
increasing  numbers  of  protracted  refugee  situations,  in  2005  the  European  Commission 
elaborated  the  concept  of  Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPPs).  As  stated  in  the 
Commission Communication on Regional Protection Programmes of 200521 "the aim should 
be to create the conditions for one of the three durable solutions to take place – repatriation, 
local  integration  or  resettlement".  In  response  to  the  Communication  and  related  Council 
conclusions, the European Commission launched two pilot Regional Protection Programmes 
(RPPs)  in  Tanzania/Great  Lakes  Region  and  in  Eastern  Europe  (Moldova,  Ukraine  and 
Belarus).  Following  the  pilot  phase,  a  number  of  RPPs  have  been  implemented  with  EU 
support.  All of these programmes  were  implemented by the UNHCR together  with  national 
partners.  

In  2013  the  Communication  on  the  Work  of  the  Task  Force  Mediterranean22  called  for 
moving towards  larger programmes with  stronger involvement of Member  States, a broader 
set  of  activities  and  a  much  stronger  focus  on  development,  including  more  long  term 
engagement.  In  addition  "the  implementation  of  RPPs/RDPPs  should  be  accompanied  by 
strong  political  dialogue  and  advocacy  efforts  on  refugee  protection  and  protracted  refugee 
situations  with  national  authorities  in  third  countries,  including  at  regional  level".  This  new 
approach  was  first  applied  in  the  design  on  the  Regional  Development  and  Protection 
Programmes (RDPP) Middle East. RDPPs have since then also been launched in North Africa 
and in the Horn of Africa23. 

3.3. EU financial instruments 

For the EU Multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, the EU adopted a revised set 
of  financial  instruments  for  the  provision  of  external  assistance  to  partner  countries  and 
regions,  with  the  aim  to  further  rationalise,  simplify  and  increase  the  effectiveness  of  EU 
external cooperation. Among them are: 

•  Humanitarian  aid  instrument  -  as  the  world's  largest  humanitarian  aid  donor,  the EU 
plays  a  central  role  in  tackling  humanitarian  consequences  of  natural  and  man-made 
disasters. The initial MFF reference amount for 2014-2020 is EUR 6.622 billion; 

• 

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), which provides assistance to candidate 
countries  and  potential  candidate  countries  for  accession  to  the  EU,  with  a  reference 
amount of EUR 11.699 billion; 

•  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI)  for  cooperation  between  the  EU  and  its 

Eastern and Southern neighbours, with a reference amount of EUR 15.433 billion; 

•  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI),  which  is  composed  of  geographic 
programmes for developing countries not covered by the IPA, the ENI or the European 
Development Fund (EDF), as well as two thematic programmes supporting global actions 

21 COM(2005)388, 01.09.2005 
22 COM(2013)869, 04.12.2013 
23 COM(2015) 240, 13.05.2015 

8 

 
 
                                                            
or actions in countries covered by the ENI, the EDF or the DCI geographic part, with a 
reference amount of EUR 19.662 billion; 

•  Partnership  Instrument  (PI)  for  cooperation  with  third  countries  to  advance  and 
promote  EU  and  mutual  interests.  Its  budget  for  2014-2020  amounts  to  EUR  954.8 
million; 

• 

Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  (IcSP)  to  respond  to  crisis  situations 
and global threats, with a reference amount of EUR 2.339 billion; 

•  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  (EIDHR)  supporting  the 
development of democracy, the rule of law and human rights worldwide, with a reference 
amount of EUR 1.333 billion. 

In  addition  to  these  financial  instruments  providing  assistance  from  the  EU  budget,  the 
countries  from  the  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific  (ACP)  Group  of  States  continue  to  be 
supported mainly through the European Development Fund (EDF) on the basis of the 2000 
Cotonou Agreement. The 11th EDF, to which over EUR 30.506 billion are allocated, covers 
the period 2014-2020 and is managed by the Commission on the basis of a specific financial 
regulation24.  

Most  of  the  external  cooperation  instruments  cover  migration-related  aspects,  albeit  to  a 
different  extent  and  from  different  perspectives,  and  thus  allow  addressing  GAMM-related 
aspects at global, regional and/or bilateral level. The most relevant instruments for addressing 
forced  displacement  are  the  geographic  instruments  (DCI,  ENI,  IPA),  as  well  as  the  DCI-
funded  Global  Public  Goods  and  Challenges  (GPGC)  Programme,  and  the  IcSP.  The  crisis 
response  component  of  the  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace  (IcSP)  can  be 
mobilised to provide short term support to measures to address the potential impact of sudden 
population  movements  with  relevance  to  the  political  and  security  situation.  This  includes 
assistance to host communities in situations of crisis or emerging crisis.  

The Mid-term review of the programming documents in 2016-2017 provides an opportunity 
to  ensure increased attention for migration and forced displacement  in  EU cooperation with 
priority  partner  countries,  where  relevant.  Under  the  new  EU  financial  framework,  the 
external  cooperation  instruments  are  complemented  by  other  Funds,  such  as  the  new  Home 
Affairs Funds: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), and Internal Security Fund 
(ISF). .  

European  Union  Trust  Funds  (EUTFs)  –  deployed  in  Central  African  Republic  ('Bekou' 
Trust Fund), the Middle East (EU Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis, the 
"Madad  Fund")  and  in  the  Sahel,  Lake  Chad,  Horn  of  Africa  and  North  Africa  region 
(Emergency  Trust  Fund  for  stability  and  addressing  root  causes  of  irregular  migration  and 
displaced  persons  in  Africa))  -  have  introduced  new  dynamics  into  programme  design  and 
development  with  implications  for  the  cooperation  of  EU  humanitarian  and  development 
interventions.  The  Trust  Funds  are  designed  to  pool  resources  (EU  budget,  Member  States, 
others) and fast-track and expedite development programming and delivery in crisis contexts. 

24 OJ L 58/17, 3.3.2015. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
The  Facility  for  the  Refugees  in  Turkey  (FRT) is  another  tool  for  pooling  and  coordinating 
support for the people displaced as a result of the Syrian conflict. 

4.  Analysis of best practices and gaps 

As  no  formal  policy  exists  to  address  long-term  forced  displacement  in  a  comprehensive 
manner,  no  fully-fledged  evaluation  exercise  was  possible.  However,  a  stocktaking 
exercise25  took  place  in  2015  to  map  out  relevant  instruments,  programmes  and 
interventions  to  date  at  EU  level.  This  chapter  summarises  an  analysis  conducted  of  EU 
projects and programmes addressing forced displacement. It identifies best practices and ways 
of  improving  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  response  and  examines  the  means  of 
strengthening the socio-economic dimension.  

4.1.  Methodology 

For  this  exercise  37  EU-funded  programmes  were  analysed  to  provide  a  meta-analysis  of 
humanitarian  assistance  and  development  cooperation  in  the  field  of  forced  displacement. 
Using  a  mixed  methods  approach,  23  development  programmes  and  14  humanitarian 
interventions covering 22 countries were examined in case-studies26.  

The programmes reviewed cover a seven year period from 2011 to 2017 with project budgets 
varying  in  scope  from  just  over  EUR  750,000  to  EUR  40  million.  An  extensive  regional 
coverage  was  ensured  to  include  Africa,  Middle  East,  Eastern  Europe,  South  East  Asia  and 
Latin  America.  The  programmes  also  reflect  diverse  thematic  concerns  such  as  integrated 
rural development, shelter projects, education and vocational training, gender empowerment, 
strengthening  protection  and  rights-based  capacity  and  stability-oriented  macro-economic 
policy.  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  analysis  only  considers  factors  that  are  directly  or 
indirectly related to the humanitarian and development-led interface and interventions. It does 
not review all the substantive content and procedural components of the programmes27.  

Development  programmes  were  analysed  using  primary  sources  including  programme 
documents, budgets as well as monitoring and evaluation reports. Data for the humanitarian 
the  Commission's 
interventions  were  generated  from  a  questionnaire  addressed 
humanitarian field staff.  The difference in methodology used may have led to some double 
counting  between  humanitarian  and  development  projects.  Also,  the  questionnaire  data 
introduces  a  certain  level  of  subjectivity.  Where  possible,  information  provided  has  been 
triangulated  to  ensure  that  the  mixed  methods  approach  has  produced  optimum  findings. 
Nevertheless, there was some limitations concerning the data available and mainly qualitative 
analysis has been carried out. 

to 

The  consultations  with  internal  and  external  stakeholders  ongoing  since  2014  have  also 
provided input for the analysis28. 

25 This analysis was supported by Emeritus Professor Roger Zetter, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. 
26 Listed in Annex 2. 
27  For  example,  substantive  themes  such  as  SGBV  and  educational  provision  are  not  considered  directly  relevant  to 
developmental  perspectives.  Similarly,  procedural  aspects  of  the  various  agreements  such  as  partner  co-ordination, 
monitoring proposals and the quality of evaluations are not reviewed. 
28 See synopsis report on consultation activities in Annex 1. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
4.2. Findings 

4.2.1.  Constraints related to political context / political space 

EU humanitarian aid and development cooperation in support of displaced people frequently 
takes place in highly politicised contexts which affects the provision of assistance. Unresolved 
political  issues  are  at  the  heart  of  the  protracted  refugee  and  IDP  situations  in  hosting 
countries  such  as  Kenya,  Pakistan,  Thailand,  Bangladesh,  Sudan,  Ethiopia,  Colombia, 
Lebanon  and  Jordan.  Palestine  is  another  example  of  an  extremely  protracted  displacement 
situation  since  194829.  Manifold  constraints  exist  in  on-going  conflict  situations  such  as 
Sudan, Syria  and Iraq. But the constraints  are manifest in  different ways and have  different 
implications for humanitarian and development actors. By maintaining a strongly principled 
approach vis-à-vis respect for humanitarian principles, the Commission can navigate complex 
political settings to support wide ranging assistance delivered by its implementing partners.  

Longer–term developmental interventions are subject to political constraints on objectives and 
operational  capacity  which  limit  the  potential  for  development-oriented  programmes. 
Interventions for displaced people by development actors require close working relationships 
with  administrative,  governmental  and  security  authorities,  even  more  so  where  the 
programmes  also  include  the  local  populations.  In  addition,  security  risks  and  the  fear  of 
fuelling  and/or  exacerbating  social  and  sectarian  tensions  can  also  be  limiting  factors  in 
exploring sustainable programmes for displaced people30. As a consequence, in many hosting 
countries  opportunities  for  self-reliance  and  livelihoods  of  the  displaced  are  severely 
constrained or non-existent due to restrictive government policy environments. In Bangladesh 
a  clear  demarcation  of  target  groups  exists  between  registered  refugees  in  camps  and 
unregistered Rohingya refugees. However, this is not due to lack of complementarity between 
humanitarian and development programming, but rather the result of a high degree of control 
exerted  by  the  Government  of  Bangladesh  over  the  Rohingya  refugees  and  actors  assisting 
them.   

The  scope  of  EU  actions  is  also  constrained  by  the  lack  of  political  solutions  to  refugee 
displacement.  For  example,  several  case  studies  identify  strengthening  government  pressure 
for  refugee  pushback  although  the  governments  in  countries  of  origin  may  be  unready  or 
unwilling  to  accept  back  refugees31  Even  in  cases  of  voluntary  repatriation,  sustainable 
reintegration  of  returnees  can  rarely  be  successful  in  a  context  of  continuing  insecurity  and 
limited capacity in the country of origin despite massive financial efforts to support the return 
process  by  EU  programmes  and  those  of  other  stakeholders.  These  substantial  political 
limitations  on  development  actors  make  the  need  to  engage  in  political  dialogue  with 
impacted countries to address development-oriented interventions more pressing. 

Early engagement of development actors and increased development interventions have been 
positively highlighted in a number  of case-studies whilst recognising that the dynamics of a 
crisis  constrains  the  provision  of  assistance.  Flexibility  is  needed  to  adapt  to  changing 

29 According to UNHCR, 5.1 million Palestinian refugees are currently registered by United Nations Relief and Works 
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). 
30 These consideration also impact humanitarian access negotiations and civil-military cooperation to ensure that 
humanitarian actors can operate. 
31 Pakistan to Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Thailand to Myanmar, IDP return in Sudan and in Iraq. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
conditions  on  the  ground.  For  instance  in  Iraq  the  impact  of  EU  development  programmes 
aimed at supporting the return and reintegration of IDPs in Iraq was severely limited primarily 
due to recurrent cycles of government instability and unresolved political and social conflicts. 
Thus,  by  2013,  the  interventions  shifted  again  to  greater  humanitarian  ‘safety  net’, 
programming  for  the  most  vulnerable  displaced  families.  Programming  now  seeks  to 
maximize the opportunities that new instruments (e.g. the Madad Fund) could bring to a more 
cohesive humanitarian-development strategy. 

Conversely,  in  Colombia  humanitarian  assistance  fell  short  of  enabling  local  institutions  to 
support community-based resilience. Whilst EU development programmes have tried to cover 
this  gap  through  subsequent  funding  of  peace  building  and  rural  development,  this  has  not 
taken  place  in  the  areas  most  affected  by  the  conflict  as  access  is  restricted  by  security 
constraints.  

4.2.2.  Limited evidence base for interventions 

So  far,  the  main  instrument  of  sustainable  and  development  oriented  programmes  by  the 
Commission have been livelihood interventions. The stocktaking exercise demonstrated that 
often  limited  evidence  is  provided  to  justify  selection  of  promoted  types  of  skills  and 
livelihoods. Where evidence is available this usually comprises qualitative assessments by the 
contractors, not independent research evidence on potential uptake or beneficiary preferences, 
or the research of labour market and business activity data sets from government sources or 
surveys of refugee populations. For example, promoting skills and vocational training should 
be  based  on  analysis  of  labour  market  conditions  and  gaps  and  workforce  composition. 
Similarly,  the  structure  and  dynamics  of  the  formal  and  informal  economies  are  important 
conditioning factors in the potential uptake of employment for refugees and IDPs graduating 
from skills and vocational training. 

Another  lesson  learned  from  the  analysis  is  the  need  to  improve  the  project  baseline  and 
assumptions. The assumptions in many projects are conceived mainly to reflect the political 
and institutional commitment of host governments and not the needs of the displaced and host 
communities. Failure to fully specify and test assumptions undermines project implementation 
and reduces the potential to prepare contingency strategies that are inevitably required in the 
highly dynamic situations of forced displacement.   

4.2.3. Lack of quantification of aims and measurement outcomes 

In the Commission development programmes analysed, there is a clear dominance of ‘soft’, 
qualitative  indicators  and  lack  of  quantifiable  project  targets  or  quantified  economic 
measurement  of  the  outcomes  in  the  evaluations.  EU  humanitarian  interventions  do  set 
quantitative  targets  but  these  are  mainly  target  indicators  and  lack  coverage  of  economic 
variables.  

12 

 
 
to  basic  services 

The  lack  of  comprehensive  studies  that  establish 
baseline  indicators  to  measure  progress  (or  in  this 
case  deteriorating  progress)  towards  indicators  of 
(education,  health), 
access 
livelihoods,  food  security,  combined  with  poor 
performance monitoring, make  it difficult to  assess 
the  impact  of  projects  such  as  RAHA  (Refugee 
Affected and Hosting Areas) in Pakistan.  

While  at  the  micro-economic  level  the  impact  of 
project interventions is more easily identifiable, it is 
more  difficult  to  provide  quantifiable  measurement 
of  the  impact  of  a  project  for  refugees  and  host 
lie 
communities,  because  many  variables 
outside the project need to be factored into such an 
equation (see box for possible quantifications).  

that 

4.2.4.  Targeting the specific vulnerabilities 

Possible quantification at micro-
economic level: 

•  Changes to refugee and host 

household income achieved during 
the life-span of the project,  
•  Measures indicating how food 
production or food security for 
farmers has improved in rural 
development projects  

Possible quantification at macro-
economic level: 

•  Measures for variations in user 

charges,  

•  Changing opportunity costs for 

refugee and host population service 
users,  

Targeting  both  refugees  and  host  populations  is  an 
essential component of a development-led approach 
which has been successfully implemented in EU programmes.  

•  Changing rent levels for housing. 

Joint targeting: 

Uganda: most services are 
provided to both refugees (ca. 
60%) and the host community 
(ca. 40%); Cameroon: joint 
targeting of refugees (ca. 70%) 
and host population (ca. 30%)  

For example a 2014 evaluation32 commended the foresight 
of  the  EU  project  in  Lebanon  for  investing  in  multiple 
this  point  few  other  major 
beneficiary  groups.  At 
development  donors  were  operating  in  Lebanon  and 
therefore Lebanese host communities and institutions most 
affected  by  the  influx  of  Syrian  refugees  were  poorly 
supported.  The  EU  added  significant  value  by  prioritising 
these groups at an early stage. 

External assistance can be both needs- and rights-based at the same time. In accordance with 
the principle of impartiality, a number of humanitarian actors follow a needs-based approach 
and allocate resources to those with the greatest needs and highest levels of vulnerability in an 
unbiased  manner.  The  needs-based  approach  is  informed  by  rights,  and  therefore  is  not  in 
contradiction  with  the  rights-based  approach  to  guide  the  design  and  implementation  of 
humanitarian  assistance  in  a  manner  that,  consistent  with  human  rights  principles,  those  in 
need of assistance are respected as right-holders. Applying this approach in a development-led 
strategy  to  protracted  forced  displacement  means  helping  to  realise  the  different  rights  of 
refugees, IDP's and voluntary returnees in host communities and designing interventions that 
target the most vulnerable, including in the host community. 

32 Evaluation of “Support to medium and long term needs of Host Communities and Syrian Refugees in Lebanon I and II” 
Financing decisions ENPI/2012/024-339 and ENPI/2012/024-428, final report, August 2014.  

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
In  particular  in  the  context  of  protracted  displacement,  it  is  critical  to  move  quickly  from 
status-based  relief  and  development  assistance  towards  a  differentiated,  vulnerability-
based  assistance.  For  instance  in  Darfur,  humanitarian  programming  followed  a  blanket 
approach for a long time by targeting the population based simply on their IDP status without 
taking into consideration the wide range of vulnerabilities. IDPs displaced for longer periods 
have adapted and developed livelihood capabilities. Their needs are thus quite different from 
an IDP target group comprised of recently displaced people. By failing to differentiate needs, 
a blanket approach has resulted in an inefficient allocation of resources which has ultimately 
undermined strategies to develop self-reliance. The response should be tailored according to 
the  concrete  vulnerabilities,  needs  and  capacities  of  different  populations  of  similar 
status  in  line  with  a  graduation  approach  from  basic  emergency  aid  towards  longer-term 
development assistance  

4.2.5.  Challenges in working together 

The different roles, mandates and funding cycles of EU humanitarian and development actors 
are  complementary.  In  practice,  while  there  are  examples  of  complementarity,  different 
operating contexts present different challenges to working together. The complex context, the 
interplay  between  humanitarian  and  development  objectives,  the  different  duration  of 
engagement and funding cycles may complicate complementarity and result in lack of joint 
vision, joint analytical frameworks and coordination. 

As  a  consequence,  for  many  years  there  was  insufficient  complementarity  between  EU 
humanitarian  and  development  strategies  to  address  protracted  displacement.  In  Sudan 
humanitarian  assistance  has  supported  vulnerable  displaced  people,  while  development 
assistance  has  focused  on  rural  development  and  agricultural  productivity  targeting  non-
displaced  communities  in  rural  areas.33  More  recently,  cooperation  has  become  more 
effective,  by  developing  an  innovative  short/medium-term  resilience  strategy  to  tackle  the 
needs of people in protracted crisis led by the Commission, HRVP and the Member States in 
2015.  The  exercise,  in  preparation  of  the  new  funding  envelop  of  EUR  100m,  aimed  to 
address the coordination gaps by seeking complementarities between the humanitarian and the 
development programmes, with a special (but not exclusive) focus on the protracted caseload 
of forced displaced people, IDPs and refugees.  

Insufficient coordination may often be attributable to a lack of effective coordination by the 
UN system and/or weak host government capacity. Severe crises such as the Syrian crisis and 
related  new  contingencies  emerging  continuously  make  it  difficult  for  host  governments  to 
follow  up  on  activities.  In  this  respect  the  EU,  alongside  other  intergovernmental 
organisations, have a vital role to play in facilitating the development and implementation of 
coordination mechanisms, as it is doing in Jordan with tailor-made support to the Ministry of 
Planning and International Coordination. In Colombia, the Commission has been advocating 
for  the  integration  of  humanitarian  stakeholders  in  the  peace  building  and  development 

33 This strong tendency towards rural issues neglected the fact that protracted displacement in Darfur is closely linked to an 
urbanisation process which has not been comprehensively addressed. 

14 

 
 
                                                            
platforms, through the Humanitarian Donors Group34. And in Cameroon, it has supported the 
opening of an OCHA office in the country in 2015 in order to strengthen the coordination.  

Conversely, lack of joint programming in the past has generated a patchwork of interventions, 
only partially covering needs and reducing the potential for synergies between humanitarian 
and  development-oriented  interventions.  Improving  complementarity  and  coherence  of 
strategies  and  programmes  and  more  structured collaboration  and  knowledge-sharing  would 
help overcome some of the limitations and obstacles to co-ordination in programme delivery. 

In a number of countries challenges posed by the different funding cycles and programming 
regimes are reported. For instance in Sudan, the Commission has been engaged with an on-
going programme of continuous support, through short-term (generally for maximum 1 year), 
project-based  financial  instruments  to  fund  partners  mainly  for  emergency  response  and 
preparedness since 2011 and for more than six years in Dafur. The duration and continuity of 
humanitarian funding has been achieved with consecutive one-year projects.  

A  positive  example  of  a  working  link  between  the  emergency  response  and  longer  term 
activities is the Bekou Fund for CAR refugees in Cameroon. The trust fund has proved to be 
a  good  opportunity  for  joint  humanitarian  and  development  operational  and  programmatic 
opportunities  in  Cameroon,  even  though  designing  and  setting  up  the  programme  has  taken 
longer than anticipated.  

In  the  case  of  the  Madad  Fund,  the  larger  budget  and  scale  of  operations  clearly  require 
effective safeguards to ensure complementarity. In Syria itself, EU humanitarian aid and the 
Madad  Fund  have  worked  jointly  to  ensure  complementarity  of  interventions  by  sector  and 
coordination  of  partnerships.  In  the  refugee  host  countries,  the  Joint  Development 
Humanitarian  Frameworks  2015-2016  are  a  positive  step  in  formalizing  this  process  and 
promoting convergence.  

In sum, where linkages between humanitarian and development approaches have taken place, 
this  has  mostly  been  through  implementing  organisations  and  crucially,  neither  at  the  stage 
and level of a strategic programme design, nor involving government actors. 

4.2.6.  Sustainability and the role of host governments  

In  Afghanistan  and  Kenya,  the  stocktaking  exercise  points  to  the  critical  need  to  align 
development-oriented  programmes  to  national  development  strategies  if  they  are  to  be 
sustainable. Given that migration – let alone forced displacement – is rarely, if ever, included 
in a Country or Regional Strategy Paper for EU partner countries, the programmes can mostly 
be considered as stand-alone interventions. Few of the projects have been explicitly designed 
to: a) align with other actors’ and agencies’ programmes; b) support strategies at regional or 
national  level,  to  mitigate  the  wider  economic  and  developmental  costs  and  impacts  of 
displaced people; or c) support longer-term developmental strategies for displaced people and 
their hosts. As a best practice, the project to enhance refugee self-reliance in South Western 

34 DG ECHO questionnaire response ‘Humanitarian Implementation Plan  - Colombian conflict’ notes ‘The total separation 
between  humanitarian  and  development  coordination  mechanisms  in  Colombia  makes it difficult  to  acknowledge  what  the 
others (stakeholders) are doing and to link both. 

15 

 
 
                                                            
Uganda  provides  a  good  example  of  a  micro-economic  programme  that  directly  tackled 
livelihood support through a comprehensive strategy35. 

Government  and  sometimes  NGO/CBO  capacity  building  is  a  central  component  of  most 
development  projects.  However,  the  question  is  posed  whether  improved  capacity  remains 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  projects.  For  instance  in  Lebanon  project  participants  found  the 
training  relevant  and  of  high  quality,  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  sustainability  follow-up 
was limited. Lack of government capacity is especially problematic in fragile states such as 
Libya  and  Somalia.  Even  where  government  capacity  exists,  as  in  the  case  of  Jordan  for 
example,  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  this  capacity  is  at  the  right  level.  In  Jordan,  the 
Commission interventions engage with national government and municipal institutions; but it 
is  the  latter  level  that  is  crucial  because  the  bulk  of  services  for  the  refugees  and  the  host 
communities are delivered at municipal level.  

4.2.7.  Service delivery, education, livelihoods 

A predominant feature of the projects reviewed is their emphasis on indirect, complementary 
measures and securing baseline conditions (protection, nutrition, community management and 
empowerment)  as  a  platform  for  developing  economic  self-reliance  and  sustainable 
livelihoods, rather than direct delivery of projects that actively provide income generating and 
livelihood  activities  and  that  connect  with  local  economic  conditions  such  as  labour  and 
commodity  markets.  Main  elements  include  vocational  training,  employment  counselling, 
skills development and livelihoods training.  

Conflict Reduction through 
improving Healthcare Services in 
Lebanon 

Symptomatic of this approach is the heavy emphasis, 
in  many  of  the  project  budgets,  on  the  contractors’ 
salary costs for human resources for professional and 
training  staff,  co-ordination  and  technical  staff,  and 
associated project supplies and equipment, rather than 
direct  funding  of  project  beneficiaries.  For  example 
one project which aims, inter alia, to offer ‘livelihood 
opportunities to vulnerable refugees and migrants’ in 
the Horn of Africa,  as part  of a wider programme to 
prevent  onward  migration,  has  a  EUR  2.4  million 
budget  for  which  there  is  no  direct  budget  line  for 
project  beneficiaries.  The  transaction  costs  of  the 
projects  are  frequently  well  in  excess  of  50%  and  in 
the  case  of  a  EUR  1.4million  project  for  Eastern 
Europe, 
focused  project 
incorporating  employment  counselling,  vocational  assistance,  education  for  children,  and 
labour  market  analysis,  staff  costs  comprise  79%  of  projected  budget  costs  with  only  18% 
dedicated to direct costs of vocational training and just over 3% to ‘integration’ grants to 49 
households.  

EU funded project led by the Ministry 
of Public Health to address the 
identified primary health gaps in the 
health system for the vulnerable 
populations in Lebanon especially 
where shortage in resources and 
capacities can lead to tension. 

Overall, this project aims to contribute 
to a reduction of community level 
conflict by improving service delivery 
and access. 

an  otherwise  well 

35 The same approach in Northern Uganda was much less successful due to differences in availability of good agricultural 
land. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
Supporting  the  infrastructure  for  self-reliant  livelihoods  (e.g.  through  skills  development, 
vocational  training  and  rights  protection,  etc.)  is  often  necessary  and  the  costs  for  highly 
qualified professional staff can be well justified.  

Livelihood interventions 

that 

activities 

Overall, the portfolio of livelihoods interventions is 
standardised  and 
the  range  of  actions  often 
relatively small scale. Specifically in the context of 
income  generating  projects  the  scope  is  limited. 
Innovative 
characterise  other 
generally smaller donors and humanitarian actors do 
not feature strongly in EU programmes. As pointed 
out  in  section  4.2.2,  there  is  limited  evidence  and 
justification  presented  for  the  projects  that  are 
promoted.  An  exception  here  is  the  project  for 
Myanmar  refugees  in  Thailand  which  offers  a 
highly articulated programme directly targeting income generation. 

Uganda: Enhancing Local Capacities 
for Promoting Self-reliance of 
Refugees – Success factors: 

  Supporting groups more sustainable 

than supporting individuals or 
individual households;  
  Balance between supporting 

increased agricultural production and 
agricultural marketing. 

In  addition,  there  is  only  limited  evidence  of  initiatives  enabling  self-employment  and 
business  development  setting  up  micro-finance  and  savings  and  loans  institutions, 
promoting  micro-enterprises  or  providing  business  start-up  advice.  Exceptions  are 
development projects in Uganda and Pakistan where community engagement of refugees and 
host communities in business development was a strong feature. The multi-dimensional and 
multi-scale  rural  development  projects  in  Pakistan  and  Uganda  evidence  longer  term 
developmental thinking that went into their design as well as providing an inclusive approach 
that  targeted  refugees  and  host  communities.  To  an  extent  they  can  be  considered  as 
prototypes for emerging policy and practice: important as they are in building up a credible 
portfolio  of  instruments,  they  lack  a  coherent  and  systematic  approach  to  macro-economic 
policy making. 

Macro-economic interventions 

Many  of  the  projects  reviewed  address  essential  ‘base-line’  conditions  for  development-
oriented strategies and some projects can be considered as prototypes for emerging policy and 
practice.  But  they  do  not  offer  a  structured  approach  for  mainstreaming  longer  term 
developmental  strategies,  mediating  fiscal  stress  and  the  costs  and  impacts  of  large-scale 
population  displacement.  They  lack  a  coherent and  systematic  approach  to  macro-economic 
policy making. 

For  example,  the  Commission  has  been  a  partner  in  a  large-scale,  public  sector  reform  and 
financial  management  programme  in  Jordan  and  acts  along  with  other  donors36.  Linked  to 
reforms under an IMF Standby Arrangement, the aim of the budget support programme is to 
implement  a  stability-oriented  macro-economic  policy  aimed  at  restoring  fiscal  and 
economic  stability  in  the  medium  term  and  moving  towards  sustainability  in  longer  term. 
Alongside technical reforms to tax collection, audit control, anti-corruption measures and the 

36 Other donors are USAID, IMF, and GIZ providing technical support 

17 

 
 
                                                            
like, the programme also aims to ensure that: sector strategic plans align with the Jordanian 
government’s overall priorities and are an effective foundation for annual budget sector plans; 
more  effective  use  is  made  of  macro-economic  indicators  and  forecasting  models  that  can 
feed into the medium term fiscal and expenditure frameworks (MTFF); capital project design 
and  budgeting  are  strengthened;  donor  assistance  is  better  co-ordinated  in  its  support  for 
government programmes and assistance.  

Building  on  earlier,  more  modest  Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPP),  the  Regional 
Development  and  Protection  Programme  (RDPP)  for  the  Middle  East  together  with  the 
Madad Fund, mark a major shift in EU thinking and competence in mobilising development-
oriented responses to the medium and long term impacts to forced displacement. Whilst the 
specific actions themselves can be characterised as more micro- than macro- economic, four 
attributes are particularly noteworthy in the context of development-led approaches: (1) this 
RDPP  is  embedded  within  a  coherent  policy  framework  of  the  EU,  giving  the  action 
consistency  with  broader  strategic  EU  development  and  external  migration  policy 
objectives37; (2) the RDPP is designed in line with the national economic development plans 
and  strategies  of  the  three  target  countries  and  the  wider  UNDP  Resilience  Forum;  (3)  the 
RDPP  is  an  inclusive  instrument  targeting  both  refugees  and  host  communities  in 
development  projects  with  the  aim  of  maximising  the  positive  developmental  opportunities 
for  refugees  and  host  populations  alike;  and  (4)  the  RDPP  envisages  that  the  economic 
interventions  aim  to  ensure  that  refugees  can  access  durable  solutions  through  improved 
livelihood capacities, self-reliance, economic opportunities, and labour market participation.  

5.  Conclusions  

The  EU  disposes  with  a  number  of  financing  instruments  to  address  forced  displacement. 
They have not been applied in a systematic, mutually-reinforcing and coherent way in the 
past in the context of forced displacement situations. There is however some evidence of 
better integrated and more coherent development-oriented responses and a shift towards more 
holistic  programmatic  and  regional  interventions.  Lessons  can  be  drawn  from  best 
practices examples such as the RDDP Middle East and the multi-donor public sector financial 
reform  and  management  programme  in  Jordan,  together  with  a  small  number  of  integrated 
projects such as for refugees in Uganda and Pakistan. These projects not only seek to mitigate 
the  costs  and  impacts  of  forced  displacement  by  Commission's  humanitarian  interventions, 
but also to promote a more proactive and coherent development-led response.  

Empirical evidence shows38 that – if the necessary enabling conditions are put in place – the 
forcibly displaced can make positive social and economic contribution to host communities 
in  both  camps  and  urban  areas  by  expanding  markets,  importing  new  skills,  increasing 
demand for goods and services.  The attitude in host countries and local communities vis-a-vis 
refugees  and  IDPs  and  governments’  perceptions  of  displaced  populations,  however,  often 
tend to be negative.  

37 The two policy instruments define this coherent framework: 'Global Approach to Migration and Mobility' (GAMM) COM 
(2011) 743 of 18.11.2011, and 'Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change', COM (2011) 637 
final. 
38 "Reframing displacement crises as development opportunities", Prof. R. Zetter, 2014; "Political Economy and Forced 
Displacement", World Bank 2014; "Protracted displacement: uncertain paths to self-reliance in exile", ODI 2015. 

18 

 
 
                                                            
Political and development actors were not sufficiently involved from the outset of a crisis 
to  facilitate  and  conduct  political  dialogues  with  countries  of  origin  and  asylum  in  finding 
durable solutions for refugees and IDPs, including returnees. 

A  humanitarian  assistance-based  approach  has  so  far  been  the  main  response  of  the 
international  community  to  forced  displacement  crises.  This  approach  to  assistance  has 
largely  been  based  on  the  assumption  that  once  the  initial  crisis  stabilises  and  immediate 
needs are met, longer-term solutions will be found to address the plight of the displaced and 
activities would be handed over to national and international development actors. It should be 
noted,  though,  that  transition  from  emergency  response  to  development  is  not  linear. 
Therefore,  although  providing  vital  emergency  assistance,  this  approach  is  not  adapted  for 
delivering durable solutions for refugees, IDPs and returnees. It has often created dependency 
on  continued  provision  of  humanitarian  assistance  in  the  absence  of  any  other  source  of 
sustainable  funding  and  support.  Paired  with  demographic  trends  and  parallel  large-scale 
complex  emergencies,  it  has  led  to  an  exponentially  growing  pressure  on  international  aid 
resources with no viable longer-term solutions for displacement and serious implications for 
security and stability.   

Further, both EU humanitarian assistance and development cooperation are constrained by the 
highly  politicised  context  in  which  they  are  implemented.  In  political  dialogues  with  host 
countries,  the  development  needs  of  refugees,  IDPs  and  returnees  are  seldom  –  if  ever  – 
discussed.  Hence,  in  many  cases  the  enabling  political  context  is  missing.  With  durable 
solutions not always being available or effective in addressing protracted forced displacement, 
adequate  protection  of  the  displaced  is  not  ensured.  There  is  lack  of  access  to  education, 
labour and basic services and support for their self-reliance and that of their hosts. 

Whilst  the  strength  of  the  Commission's  interventions  lies  in  their  micro-economic  focus,  a 
number  of  important  limitations  exist.  It  is  currently  unclear  to  what  extent  projects 
effectively reflect a common strategy and shared policy objectives. Likewise, in many cases 
a  better  engagement  between  host  governments,  international  donors,  humanitarian  and 
development actors, local communities, civil society, diaspora and the displaced themselves is 
needed.  

Evidence is often missing to underpin context-based interventions. Evidence (including of 
the  socio-economic  impact  of  displacement)  for  informing  policies  is  different  from 
evidence  for  programmatic  purposes.  Project  baselines  and  assumptions  are  not  based  on 
solid  empirical  data.  The  lack  of  quantitative  measurement  is  a  major  gap  in  current 
practice.  

As  a  response  to  the  current  gaps  a  new  policy  framework  is  therefore  presented  in  the 
Communication  on  forced  displacement  that  this  Staff  working  document  accompanies.  It 
underpins the new, development-oriented strategy to address forced displacement.  Fostering 
the self-reliance and resilience of both the displaced and their host communities by targeting 
those  most  vulnerable  and  most  in  need  could  end  long-term  dependencies  on  emergency 
assistance and will help build their ability to cope with future crises and shocks. 

19 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Synopsis report of consultation activities  

The main objective of the consultation activities was to gather expertise and opinions on: 

- the EU assistance projects to forced displacement, protracted refugee and IDP displacement 
and return.  

- best practices/success stories as well as gaps/failures in the response;  

- the development dimensions of forced displacement and  the added-value of a development 
approach  to  forced  displacement,  in  particular  looking  into  the  creation  of  self-reliance, 
livelihoods  and  socio-economic  opportunities  for  refugees,  IDPs  and  returnees  and  host 
communities; 

-  how  humanitarian  actors  and    development  actors,  could  together  strive  to  adopt  a  socio-
economic  approach  when  designing  interventions  by  factoring  in,  when  appropriate,  self-
reliance initiatives and economic opportunities.  

Given  the  rather  specific  and  technical  subject,  a  targeted  stakeholder  consultation 
approach has been chosen. This allowed for more focused interactions with stakeholders and 
tapped expertise more efficiently. These consultations allowed for an open and targeted policy 
dialogue and sharing of experiences between the Commission and a broad set of stakeholders 
from  Member  States,  academia,  civil  society,  NGOs,  private  sector, 
international 
organisations  and  the  UN  on  the  role  of  development  cooperation  in  addressing  forced 
displacement.  All  relevant  needed  input  from  stakeholders  was  gathered  during  the 
consultation process and there was no need to revise the consultation approach. 

The consultation process started in April 2014 on the basis of an Issues Paper "Development, 
Refugees and IDPs"39, presented to the Council working party on Humanitarian Aid and Food 
Aid  (COHAFA)  and  the  Development  Cooperation  Group  (CODEV)  in  April  2014,  shared 
and  informally  discussed  with  selected  partners  (UNHCR,  UNDP,  IRC,  ECRE,  NRC)  and 
made publicly available on ECHO's and DEVCO's web-sites40.  

The  Commission  organised  four  interactive  consultation  events  in  the  period  July  2014-
February 2015: 

1. 
Roundtable on Integrating Migration into Development Strategies, in July 2014, 
with  a  dedicated  session  on  'Mainstreaming  refuges  and  IDPs  into  Development 
Cooperation'; 

The  roundtable  gathered  over  fifty  selected  representatives  from  international  organisations, 
academia, think tanks, civil society, diaspora, Member States and non-EU partner countries.  

The agenda of the meeting and the list of participants are available online41 and a full report of 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-
site/files/roundtable_report_migration_and_dev_july2014_final.pdf. 

roundtable 

available 

at: 

is 

39 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/refugees-idp/dev_refugees_idps_issues_paper_en.pdf.  
40 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/issuespaper-dev-refugees-idps-2014_en.pdf.  
41 http://costarica.iom.int/public/pdf/NFF_DEVCO_Roundtable_post_20_July_2014.pdf. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
Roundtable  on  Development  Solutions  to  Displacement,  in  October  2014,  in  the 
2. 
framework  of  the  project  Dialogue  on  Migration  and  Asylum  in  Development 
(DOMAID)  

The  Expert  Roundtable  brought  together  representatives  of  the  European  Commission,  the 
European  External  Action  Service,  the  European  Parliament,  EU  Member  States,  UN 
agencies and civil society and was held under Chatham House Rules. 

The agenda of the event and the list of participants are available online42 and a full report of 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-
site/files/ecre_roundtable_oct2014.pdf. 

roundtable 

available 

at: 

is 

Informal  consultation/expert  meeting  with  Member  States  and  selected  host 

3. 
countries in December 2014.  

Over fifty selected representatives from Member States and non-EU partner countries (Sudan, 
Ethiopia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, CAR, Kenya), EU institutions and international organisations 
including UNHCR and IOM gathered for the discussions.  

The agenda of the event and the list of participants are available online43 and a full report of 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-
site/files/roundtable_report_forced_displ_and_dev_dec2014_final.pdf. 

available 

meeting 

at: 

is 

Peer-to-peer  to  meeting  on  asylum  and  international  protection  with  Member 
4. 
States and Neighbourhood South host countries, in February 2015, in the framework of 
the  project  Euromed  Migration  III,  with  a  dedicated  session  on  'Viable  and  feasible 
long-term solutions for forced displacement'.   

The  meeting  gathered  representatives  of  8  ENI  South  Partner  Countries44,  15  EU  Member 
States45,  the  UNHCR,  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO),  international 
organisations and representatives of civil society as well as officials from the EC, led by DG 
European  Neighbourhood  Policy  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR),  and  accompanied 
by DG Migration and Home Affairs (HOME), DG Development and Cooperation (DEVCO), 
and the Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO).  

The agenda of the event and the full list of participants are available online46 and a full report 
is  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/150218-
of 
19_ipa_p2p_brussels_report_final.pdf. 

the  meeting 

5.        Expert consultations (21 and 22 January 2016)  

These consultations allowed for an open and targeted policy dialogue and sharing experiences 
between the Commission and a broad set of stakeholders from Member States, academia, civil 
society, NGOs, private sector, international organisations and other relevant stakeholders on 

42 http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/976.html. 
43 http://enpi-info.eu/medportal/news/latest/40042/Dialogue-on-asylum-and-protection-between-EU-and-southern-
Mediterranean-countries-launched. 
44 Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine and Tunisia. 
45 Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, 
Poland, Portugal and Romania. 
46 http://enpi-info.eu/medportal/news/latest/40042/Dialogue-on-asylum-and-protection-between-EU-and-southern-
Mediterranean-countries-launched. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
the  role  of  development  cooperation  in  addressing  forced  displacement.  To  this  end,  the 
Commission  prepared  a  non-paper  for  expert  consultation47  with  key  issues  and  four  main 
groups  of  discussion  questions.  The  four  main  discussion  areas  were  durable  solutions  and 
inclusion, stronger evidence base, socio-economic approaches and levels of intervention. 

A  whole-day  expert  consultation  with  International  Organisations,  NGOs,  CSOs,  private 
sector, diaspora and academia took place on 21 January 2016. The consultation was attended 
by 40 organisations, including international organisations, NGOs, CSOs, private sector actors, 
think-tanks and experts from the academia. Another whole-day expert consultation with EU 
Member States took place on 22 January 2016 and was attended by 23 Member States. 

reports 

found 
expert 
Summary 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/partnerships/consultations/consultation-towards-communication-
forced-displacement-and-development_en. 

consultations 

from 

can 

the 

be 

at: 

Results and contribution to policy-making 

The  consultation  activities  have  revealed  a  broad  consensus  among  the  stakeholders  on  the 
crucial  elements  that  a  new  policy  should  include.  In  addition,  on  the  occasion  of  the  most 
recent  expert  consultations  (January  2016),  there  was  a  general  consensus  that  the  problem 
statement in the consultation non-paper distributed was correct and the key issues cover the 
most  important  elements  that  a  future  policy  must  contain.  A  new  comprehensive  approach 
should include both humanitarian assistance and development cooperation, and engage more 
systematically  with  host  governments,  local  authorities,  the  private  sector,  and  other 
stakeholders enhancing self-reliance of the displaced and their host communities by creating 
jobs and development opportunities.  

In particular the following aspects/suggestions raised by stakeholders have been reflected in 
the policy framework outlined in the Joint Communication: 

1. Humanitarian and development nexus 

The stakeholders, in particular Member States and host countries highlighted the fact there is 
no one-fits-all solution and all the responses and policies targeting forced displacement need 
to  be  context  specific,  adapted  to  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  crisis  and  unique 
environment  in  which  it  occurs  (peer-to-peer  meeting,  December  2014, expert  consultations 
January 2016).  

During the peer-to-peer meeting with Member States and selected third host countries, there 
was a clear consensus on the need to rethink the provision of support to refugees. Approaches 
towards durable solutions needed to be readdressed and reengineered with a larger emphasis 
on  the  positive  contributions  and  potential  of  refugees  and  migrants  in  a  host  community. 
Also,  the  inclusive  approach  of  placing  local  communities  beside  refugees  at  the  centre  of 
consideration  seems  to  be  the  way  to  promote  inclusion  and  to  address  potential  social 
tension. Humanitarian assistance thus needs to be more closely linked with development 
options from the very start of humanitarian responses to a crisis. 

47 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/partnerships/consultations/consultation-towards-communication-forced-displacement-and-
development_en  

22 

 
 
                                                            
New  approaches  should  be  based  on  an  assessment  of  the  development  dimension  from  the 
onset  of  a  crisis  and  utilising  the  existing  coping  mechanisms  developed  by  the  displaced 
population themselves (expert meeting, December 2014, expert consultations January 2016).  

The need to mainstream displacement and migration in all development sectors has been 
highlighted, notably during the roundtables organised in July and October 2014. Further 
analytical  work  on  the  migration-development  nexus  is  required  to  inform  efforts  to  more 
systematically  consider  migration  in  development  interventions  in  the  various  focus  sectors 
discussed. 

The need to build strategies and policies based on evidence has also been raised during the 
consultation  activities.  For  example,  during  the  October  2014  roundtable,  it  was  underlined 
that  more  information  needs  to  be  collected  and  shared  on  the  role  of  different  actors  and 
stakeholders in refugee hosting countries while the peer-to-peer meeting with Member States 
suggested  developing  tools  to  collect  and  exchange  technical  information  on  practical 
cooperation  programmes  that  address  the  development  potential  of  displaced  populations 
together  with  their  host  communities.  This  was  confirmed  in  the  expert  consultations  in 
January 2016. 

The  difficulty  to  combine  the  different  funding  streams  and  cycles  of  humanitarian 
assistance and development cooperation has also been raised while recognising that there is 
a lot of convergence between instruments and it is often a case of terminology or procedures, 
rather than objectives, which prevents them from bridging the gap; overcoming the barrier of 
terms and definitions might be helpful in this direction (October 2014 roundtable). The Joint 
Communication addresses this issue with a view to ensure a coherent programming.  

The  new  policy  framework  took  into  account  the  above  considerations  and  suggestions, 
promoting  new  approaches  as  regards  the  early  engagement  of  all  actors,  the  design  of 
coherent  strategies  based  on  evidence  and  how  to  turn  these  strategies  into  coherent 
programming  by  also  bridging  differences  in  funding  cycles  and  providing  multiannual, 
predictable and flexible funding.  

2. Strategic engagement with partners 

The  issue  of  protracted  displacement  needs  to  be  mainstreamed  and  target  humanitarian, 
development and socio-economic actors; governments of origin, destination and transit, with 
an  emphasis  on  local  authorities;  regional  and  international  organisations  (roundtable, 
December 2014, expert consultations January 2016).  

Stakeholders  called  for  integrated  and  holistic  approaches  based  on  good  coordination, 
information  sharing  and  dialogue,  and  inclusive  of  all  relevant  stakeholders.  Operational 
guidelines  may  be  needed  to  set  the  framework  for  cooperation  and  integrated  approaches. 
Working  with  host  governments  and  communities  is  paramount.  Rather  than  a  top  down 
approach, dictated by development actors, programming needs to be guided by stakeholders 
and  the  needs  on  the  ground  and  beneficiaries  need  to  be  included  in  this  process. 
stakeholders  considered  that  the  forcibly  displaced  should  be  included  in  national 
development plans (roundtable, October 2014, expert consultations January 2016).  

23 

 
 
A  comprehensive  approach  was  also  advocated  by  stakeholders  who  suggested  seeking 
avenues  to  promote  economic  development  strategies  which  support  both  host  and  refugee 
communities. In particular, it was suggested to explore ways to foster the coordination and 
align international humanitarian and development assistance with national development 
strategies in order to streamline efforts and maximise impact on development. It was further 
suggested to involve better local civil society in many aspects which may be instrumental in 
capacity  building  activities  to  unlock  the  development  potential  of  people  in  need  of 
protection. (Peer-to-peer meeting with Member States, February 2015). 

On  the  occasion  of  the  peer-to-peer  meeting  on  asylum  and  international  protection, 
stakeholders considered that a clear division of responsibilities and a clear understanding and 
overview  of  actors  involved  (with  programmes  being  supported)  are  prerequisites  to  using 
human  and  financial  resources  in  the  best  possible  way.  While  cooperation  needs  to  be  as 
broad as possible to include central, regional and local governmental levels, as well  as civil 
society and international organisations, the driving force behind all solutions should be the 
state concerned. Often only the state has the necessary information and powers and is best 
able to judge which resources are available. 

On  the  occasion  of  the  Roundtable  on  Integrating  Migration  into  Development  Strategies 
(July  2014),  stakeholders  suggested  partnerships  with  host  governments  through  political 
dialogue, in order to build a common understanding of the impacts of refugee situations and 
the need for long-term, inclusive strategies. 

The  issue  of  the  growing  numbers  of  displaced  people  residing  out  of  camp  in  rural  and 
urban  areas  was  raised  by  stakeholders,  in  particular  Member  States,  host  countries  and 
implementing  partners,  who  mentioned  the  need  to  adapt  and  develop  tools  and 
methodologies,  as  well  as  strategies  and  solutions  in  order  to  reflect  this  new  reality 
(December 2014 expert meeting, expert consultations January 2016). 

In  addition, stakeholders  referred to  experience and  good  practices  of  many  cities  that  have 
established effective mechanisms to involve different stakeholders within larger communities, 
suggesting  that  these  examples  should  be  used  and  explored  further  in  relation  to  displaced 
populations in urban settings (October 2014 roundtable, expert consultations January 2016). 
The  new  policy  framework  will  take  these  concerns  into  account  by  boosting  engagement 
with local authorities, notably through decentralised cooperation. 

Stakeholders  also  underlined  the  need  to  foster  the  role  of  the  private  sector  and  the 
opportunities  it  offers,  locally  and  regionally  (roundtables,  October  and  December  2014). 
The Communication proposes several actions in that direction.  

3. Sectorial focus 

Access to labour markets 

Stakeholders considered that political leadership and strong advocacy are required to promote 
recognition  of  refugees  as  potential  contributors  to  development.  It  was  recognised  that 
refugees  and  IDPs  are  often  economically  active,  irrespective  of  the  host  government 
resistance or assistance. 

24 

 
 
As  regards  employment  issues,  discussions  confirmed  that  the  challenges  presented  by 
globalisation  to  implementation  of  the  decent  work  agenda  are  closely  linked  to  migration. 
Migrants  are  often  disproportionately  represented  in  3D  jobs  (dirty,  dangerous,  and 
demeaning) and affected by unfair employment practices which undermine labour rights, e.g. 
care  work,  construction.  Informal  or  irregular  migrant  labour  is  also  frequently  used  to 
undercut  national  workforces,  including  in  developing  countries.  Migrants  and  migration 
governance therefore should receive strong consideration as part of efforts to promote decent 
work and ensure productive employment for all (roundtable, July 2014, expert consultations 
January 2016). 

Access to services  

The  issue  of  access  to  services  was  raised  on  the  occasion  of  the  roundtable  on  Integrating 
Migration  into  Development  Strategies  (July  2014).  The  meeting  confirmed  the  numerous 
links between migration issues and access to social services, focusing strongly on health and 
education.  Many  stakeholders  raised  the  need  to  address  education  needs  of  displaced 
children  ay  all  level  and  forms  of  education  and  pointed  out  that  enrolment  in  education 
serves  as  protection  and  enhances  the  protection  space  for  children.  Migrants  and  returnees 
must  be  included  in  planning  for  service  provision.  The  importance  of  the  local  structural 
dimension  was  highlighted.  Local  authorities  frequently  lack  resources  and  experience  on 
migration but are at the frontline in provision of services to refugees, migrants and returnees, 
and are often also best placed to partner with diaspora on e.g. health initiatives. 

In line with the above considerations, the new policy framework proposes concrete actions on 
education, access to labour markets and access to services.  

Other considerations have been raised by stakeholders such as: 

Public perception:  

-  Public  debate  on  the  topic  of  forced  displacement  should  be  provoked  by  using  media 
presence more actively to attract political attention and thus secure further funds and interest 
of actors from beyond the humanitarian circle (expert consultations January 2016);  

-  The  most  important  first  step  for  participants  is  to  work  towards  a  change  in  how  forced 
migration  is  perceived,  by  all  concerned,  and  to  harness  and  emphasise  the  opportunities  it 
provides.  The  challenges  are  numerous  and  forced  migration  affects  all  countries,  whether 
those of origin, transit or destination.  

-  Lively  exchanges  were  held  on  the  challenges  of  integrating  refugees  and  IDPs  into 
development cooperation. Despite growing evidence of the significant negative and positive 
development impacts of refugee crises, increasing urbanisation of refugee situations, and the 
prevalence  of  protracted  displacement  around  the  world,  the  overwhelming  perception 
amongst donors and governments is still that displacement is a humanitarian issue.  

- An integrated approach to displacement in the context of the development of the Post-2015 
Development Agenda is crucial to future developments. Highlighting examples of the positive 
impact of displaced populations on host communities is important in that context. 

Alternative avenues to durable solutions:  

25 

 
 
- Further explore alternative avenues of responsibility sharing, looking beyond the traditional 
durable solutions. For instance, EU MS may continue to enhance resettlement opportunities, 
while  further  avenues,  such  as  the  simplification  of  family  reunification  procedures,  are 
equally explored. 

- Innovative and sustainable approaches need to be designed to address situations in which the 
traditional durable solutions for refugees (repatriation, local integration, and resettlement) do 
not  apply  and  consider  revisiting  the  current  definition  of  5  years  of  displacement  as 
“protracted”. 

Remittances and diaspora: 

-  Discussions  on  migration  and  inclusive  economic  growth  focused  strongly  on  remittances 
and  diaspora.  Significant  efforts  are  still  required  to  reduce  remittance  transfer  costs,  in 
particular for sub-Saharan Africa and South-South corridors. These  should include a variety 
of  measures  including  better  regulation  (e.g.  PCD  on  anti-money  laundering  legislation), 
reducing  remittance  taxes,  promoting  competition,  promoting  use  of  technologies  etc. 
Furthermore,  the  potential  of  tapping  migrant  savings  for  development  was  underlined  e.g. 
through diaspora bonds, though lack of trust from migrants in bonds issued by governments is 
a potential obstacle to the latter. More attention should be given to integrating remittance and 
diaspora contributions in sectoral priorities and building links with the private sector. 

Conflict-induced  displacement/no  focus  on  displacement  caused  by  natural  disasters  and 
climatic events: 

Climate  change  pointed  as  already  impacting  on  migration  in  numerous  ways  and  an  issue 
that requires policy attention. In the Sahel and other parts of Africa, water scarcity as a driver 
of conflict and displacement is a key concern. The large majority of flows will be internal or 
intra-regional (South-South). Greater attention is needed for addressing displacement in work 
on  DRR,  resilience  and  climate  change  adaptation.  The  potential  of  migration  to  positively 
contribute  to  adaptation  is  increasingly  recognised,  including  in  the  context  of  climate 
discussions  on  loss  and  damage.  EU  policies  cover  the  issue  of  climate  and  development 
elsewhere.  The  scope  of  this  Communication  is  therefore  limited  to  conflict-induced 
displacement/no focus on displacement caused by natural disasters and climatic events. 

26 

 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Projects/countries analysed 

Afghanistan: Local Integration of Vulnerable, Excluded and Uprooted People, 
DCI/ASIE/2013/353-658; Support for Afghan IDPs and Returnees in Badghis, Helmand and 
Nangarhar, DCA-ASIE/2014/355-020; ECHO questionnaire on Protection and Humanitarian 
Assistance to North Waziristan Refugees, IDPs and Refugee Returnees in Afghanistan and to 
Afghan Refugees in Iran, ECHO/-AS/BUD/2015/91023 

Bangladesh: Protection, Essential Services and Durable Solutions for Refugees in 
Bangladesh, DCI-ASIE/2013 314 090; ECHO questionnaire on Essential services to 
Rohingya Refugees and Undocumented Myanmar Nationals (UNMs) in South-Eastern 
Bangladesh 

Cameroon: ECHO questionnaire on short- and mid- term response to CAR refugee influx in 
Cameroon  

Colombia: ECHO questionnaire on Humanitarian Implementation Plan - Colombian conflict 

Eastern Europe: Local Integration of Refugees in the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of 
Moldova and Ukraine, MIG/2011/279-884 

Ethiopia: Fostering health care for refugees and local communities in Somalia Region, 
Ethiopia, 2010-13; ECHO questionnaire on Cash Assistance to Somali, Eritrean, South 
Sudanese and Sudanese Refugees 

Horn  of  Africa:  Regional  Protection  Programme  in  the  Horn  of  Africa  –  second  phase  - 
Strengthening  protection  and  enhance  assistance  to  refugees  and  asylum  seekers,  mainly 
displaced Somalis, DCI-MIGR/2012/309-007 

Iraq: Questionnaire on DCI 2013-2017 and ECHO Humanitarian Implementation Plan 2015 

Jordan: Overarching Financial Management Reform of Jordan Financial Management Public 
(Comprehensive Reform Strategy (PFM) 2012-14) National Education - Strategy Educational 
Reform for the Knowledge Economy, ENI/2014/037-650 and ENI/2015/38501; European 
Neighbourhood Partnership, JOR/2011/0227 22 July 2013; EU Support to the Second Phase 
of the Education Reform (EUSSPER) programme for the school years 2013-2014 and 2014-
2015; Budget support to the Ministry of Education to deal with the Syrian refugee crisis 2015-
2017 Technical and Administrative Provisions (TAPS) Support for Basic Education , 
ENI/2014/037-650 and ENI/2015/38501; Promoting the participation of Jordan in the work of 
EASO as well as the participation of Tunisia and Morocco in the work of EASO and Frontex, 
ENPI/2013/325501 

Kenya:  Support  to  Education  for  Refugees  in  Dadaab  (SERD),  Second  Education  Sector 
Development  Programme  (ESDP  II)  Somalia,  FED/2012/295-178,  ECHO  questionnaire  on 
Kenya Refugee Operations/Programme 

Lebanon: Support to Medium and Long term needs for host communities and Syrian 
refugees in Lebanon, ENP1/2012/296-815 

Libya and the Horn of Africa: Thematic Programme of cooperation with third countries in 
the areas of Migration and Asylum, DCI-MIGR/2011/11 

27 

 
 
Middle East: Regional Development and Protection Programme for refugees and host 
communities in the Middle East (Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq), DCI-MIGR 2013/319-137 

Myanmar: Improved access to and utilisation of health services, water and sanitation 
facilities, and rights protection for uprooted people in Kayin State, DCI-ASIE/2012/308-772 

Pakistan: Sustainable rural development in the refugee affected and hosting areas in Pakistan 
(RAHA), DCI-ASIE 2011/260-022 

Palestine: Contribution to UNRWA for Improvement of Living Conditions of Vulnerable 
Palestine Refugees in Jerash Camp, 2012/309-238/ENPI 

Thailand: Technical and Vocational Skills Development for Myanmar refugees in Thailand, 
EuropAid/132791/L/ACT/TH;  ECHO  questionnaire  on  Aid  to  Uprooted  People  (AUP) 
Support to Refugees from Myanmar in Thailand 

Somalia: Strengthening protection for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in the Horn 
of Africa and Yemen,  DCI-MIGR/2013/282-610; ECHO questionnaire on ECHO Somalia 
country programme 

Sri Lanka: Evaluation of the EU-funded housing reconstruction programmes in Sri Lanka 
implemented by UN-Habitat, DCI-ASIE/2010/256-210, DCI-ASIE/2012/296-666 

Sudan: ECHO questionnaire on several DG ECHO and DG DEVCO programmes 

Syria: Emergency restoration and stabilization of livelihoods in affected Syrian Communities, 
ENPI 2013/355-626; Questionnaire on DG ECHO Syria Crisis Humanitarian Implementation 
Plan, 2015 (including Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Syria) and Madad Trust Fund 

Uganda: Enhancing Local Capacities for Promoting Self-reliance of Congolese, Rwandese 
and Somali refugees in South Western Uganda, DCI-MIGR/2010/228-933; ECHO 
questionnaire on Refugee Response Plan in Uganda 

28