2015年-世界发展银行全球_Sustainable_Refugee_Return___Triggers_Constraints_and_Lessons_on_Addressing_the_Development_Challenges_of_Forced_Displacement_162页_2mb

Summary of Sustainable Refugee Return: Triggers, Constraints, and Lessons on Addressing the Development Challenges of Forced Displacement

Core Content

This report, authored by Niels Harild, Asger Christensen, and Roger Zetter, examines the complexities of sustainable refugee return, focusing on the conditions that influence return decisions, the effectiveness of international assistance, and the development challenges associated with forced displacement. It draws on case studies from eight countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Iraq, Liberia, and South Sudan, as well as literature on refugee decision-making and return processes.

The report highlights that refugee return is not a simple or linear process, but rather a complex, iterative, and often protracted phenomenon. It explores the factors that determine when, who, and why refugees return, and how their experiences in host countries and the situation in their country of origin shape these decisions.

Main Findings

1. Return Trends in Protracted Situations

• Formal peace agreements often provide the context for return, but actual returns frequently occur in areas that are not yet stable.
• Spontaneous returns often precede assisted return programs and have, in some cases, exceeded the numbers of those returning through formal schemes.
• Protracted displacement is common, with over 45% of refugees in such situations and 86% hosted in developing regions.

2. Who Returns First and Why

• Refugees with access to livelihood assets and opportunities in their home country are more likely to return early.
• Land access and recovery are central to rural refugees' reintegration prospects.
• In some cases, such as in Afghanistan and South Sudan, national-level trends obscure the impact of local conditions on return.

3. Who Returns Later and Why

• Return is often a staggered or cyclical process, with some family members returning first to establish conditions for others.
• Temporary or permanent dispersal of family members between host and home countries is a common strategy to optimize livelihood access and services.
• Urbanization and circular migration are increasingly important livelihood strategies, often supported by transnational networks.

4. Who Never Returns and Why

• Security, access to services, housing, and livelihood opportunities are key factors that encourage return.
• Without these conditions, voluntary repatriation is unlikely, as seen in the cases of Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, and Somalia.
• Some refugees return only when they are not given the choice to stay, such as Cambodian, Burundian, and Liberian refugees.

5. Impact of Host Country Treatment

• Poor treatment in host countries, such as lack of legal status, limited employment opportunities, and social discrimination, can push refugees to return.
• Integration in host countries does not necessarily prevent return, and may even support it by providing refugees with skills and resources that facilitate reintegration.

6. Urban Displacement and Return

• Over half of the world's refugees and IDPs now live in urban areas.
• Urban environments are often seen as more secure and offer better access to services and economic opportunities.
• However, urban returnees often settle in slums and informal settlements where living conditions are poor, services are inadequate, and vulnerability is high.
• The development crisis in these areas is a major driver of vulnerability and is exacerbated by lack of investment in urban infrastructure and services.

Key Policy and Strategic Lessons

• Return is a process, not an event, and requires long-term, context-sensitive strategies.
• Return is not the status quo ante, meaning it should not be viewed as simply returning to pre-conflict conditions.
• A balanced approach that combines both regional and local development strategies is necessary.
• Urban displacement is a growing development challenge and requires targeted interventions.
• International assistance can support return and reintegration, but must be tailored to local conditions and be responsive to the needs of returnees.

Operational Lessons

• Strategic and operational planning should be informed by analysis of displacement contexts.
• Programming and assistance must address livelihoods, participation, and long-term development needs.
• Housing and urban development are critical components of reintegration, especially in urban settings.
• Legal and institutional frameworks play a vital role in enabling return and reintegration.
• Migration and development are interlinked, and policies must recognize the dynamic relationship between forced migration and economic opportunities.

Conclusion

The report emphasizes that sustainable refugee return must be treated as a development issue, not merely a humanitarian one. It calls for a more integrated approach that considers both the political and economic contexts, the role of international assistance, and the agency of refugees themselves. The findings suggest that development-led return strategies must be flexible, adaptive, and grounded in local realities to be effective.

Key Case Study Insights

• Afghanistan: Spontaneous returns preceded formal schemes, and land access was a key incentive.
• Angola: Returns were facilitated by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and regional development initiatives.
• Bosnia-Herzegovina: Confiscation of property and ethnic segregation blocked return and reintegration.
• Burundi: Host country policies, such as citizenship options and local integration, influenced return patterns.
• Cambodia: Spontaneous returns were driven by the expectation of better conditions in the home country.
• Iraq: Return was constrained by security and economic instability, despite some integration efforts.
• Liberia: Urban returnees often faced challenges in accessing services and housing.
• South Sudan: The CPA led to significant returns, but urbanization and lack of development in return areas posed challenges.

Recommendations

• Develop development-led return strategies that are responsive to local and regional contexts.
• Promote urban development and address the specific needs of displaced populations in urban areas.
• Ensure legal and institutional support for return and reintegration.
• Encourage participatory and inclusive programming that empowers refugees to make informed return decisions.
• Support integration as a complementary strategy to return, not an alternative, to enhance reintegration possibilities.