07. Appendix 3 Evaluation of reponses to questionaire to refugee coordinators Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 maj 1997

APPENDIX 3:

18.11.1996
EVALUATION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE TO REFUGEE COORDINATORS


This is a brief evaluation of the responses received to the questionnaire mailed to refugee coordinators in March 1996.
A detailed compilation of responses (25 pages) is also available. 50% of those who received the questionnaire responded to it.

23 responses were received from the following sections (by region):

Africa: Benin, Cote d'lvoire, Ghana
Asia: Hong Kong, Japan,. Korea, Nepal
Americas: Canada (fr.), Uruguay, USA
Europe: Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the E.U. Association.

I. Organization of refugee work in the section

There are great variations as to the amount of refugee work undertaken and the way it is organized in different sections.
While one section responding (Korea) has-not started a refugee programme yet (but wishes to do so) and some others
are graduallyi developing their refugee work (Ghana), those sections from Europe and North America responding do have
an ongoing refugee prowamme. In most of these sections there. is at least some Iimited~staff involvement, often supported
by office volunteers. Germany andithe Netherlands have the largest refugee departments (with 4 staff each), supported by
volunteers or a membership structure.

II. Individual case work

Apart from Ireland (and the UK) all sections with a refugee programme are to some extent making assessments of
individual cases; in addition a number of sections try to assess country situations. A smaller number of - mostly -
experienced sections (Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Norway) also make assessments of the danger for specific groups.


III. Information gathering

Ai~ sections responding indicate that they have some form of documentation. Some refugee departments have their
own documentation in addition to the central office documentation. While the documentation consists mainly of al
information, some sections - in particular those with an additional refugee documentation - also collect external information
froln other sources.
In most sections the information is still only or mainly available as hard-copy documents, but some sections (Germany,
Netherlands) have some documents on a data-base and two sections (Denmark, USA) have a case data-base.
The involvement of country coordinators or coordination groups in providing refugee-related information seems rather
limited. While in a number of sections there are no or only very few country coordinators, some other sections with country
coordinators have not involved them. Of those who did, the experiences seem tq be mixed.


IV. Information dissemination

all sections with a refugee programme provide in some form or another information ad-hoc or regularly to most of the ta
rgets mentioned: asylum-seekerslrefugees, lawyers, non-al refugee support groups, asylum adjudicators/status determination agencies, appeal or review boards and the government or government officials.
This is done is most cases both on own initiative or upon request. Most of the information is given away free of charge, but some larger sections (Denmark, UK, USA) do charge a fee to cover expenses and some (Germany, Norway, Switzerland) do so for certain groups (e.g. lawyers). Most of the information is provided in English or another al core language (French, Spanish), as only large sections (Germany, Netherlands) have the capacity to produce enough relevant material in their own language.
Most sections provide al informatiQn only, a few sections in addition provide material from selected other sources (UNHCR, other UN-bodies? other human rights groups) and the Dutch Section provides information from a variety of other sources, as well.
all sections provide al external documents and about half of those responding in addition provide material specifically adapted to address refugee concerns. This material often consists of excerpts from al external documents and adapted/reformulated al internal information. In addition, a number of larger sections produce their own papers on legal or refugee policy issues.


V. Information needs

Most sections think that al external documents, although they provide good background information, are too general and doinot provide enough useful information for their refugee work. Most sections would need more detailed and specific information relevant to individual casework. Areas most often mentioned include information on political parties and movements,~religious groups and minorities. A need is also expressed to obtain copies of irelevant legislation, such as penal codes. Most sections answering this question indicated they see a need for more information regarding "internal flight alternatives". Countries specifically mentioned are Turkey, Sri Lanka and India. Most sections would like to have more al information on "(safe) third countries", but some they this could be obtained from other sources (UNHCR).


VI. Communication with the International Secretariat (IS)

Some sections regularly approach the IS for further information, but others do so only rarely. Most queries are directed to individual research teams (sometimes with copies to the refugee team) or both, research teams and the refugee team, depending on the questipn. The prevailing modes of communication are the fax and the phone, but some sections are using e-mail as well.
A range of questions is being asked, but most appear to concern particular eventslplaces/circumstances mentioned by individual asylum-seekers and in general verification of information given by individual asylum-seekers. also sought is more detailed information on political parties, background information on religious and ethnic minorities, information about legal procedures, etc. The IS is also often asked for an assessment of the risks and dangers in case of return in specific cases or for particular individuals or groups.

Views are~mixed as to whether responses from the IS are forthcoming in a timely manner and are felt to be adequate. Most sections indicate that this varies from team to team and that it is not possible to give a general answer. Not all the sections responding answered the question whether they think IS research teams understand refugee issues and refugee information needs. Some say they have too little experience to give a useful answer. Otherwise, views are mixed. One typical answer.was: "Some research teams are excellent and others are surely lacking understanding."

VII. Information about this project

The majority of sections feel suffic.iently informed about the refugee documentation project, but a number of sections wish to have additional information. Questions raised included the following: What type of service/information do you intend to offer? How will sections be able i to obtain information from the Centre? Where will it be situated? Intended structure?

As to additional comments, one section (Hong Kong) expressed concern "at the long study period" and said "it would be good to establish the documentaion centre before the refugee campaign". Austria "warmly welcomes that such an initiative is now being undertaken" and makes a number of further suggestions as to the future operation of the centre. These include the need for close cooperation with existing documentation centres, in particular the Centre for Documentation and Research of UNHCR, and a very close link to the research already undertaken by the IS. Further comments: "The information such a centre should process should be from a wide variety of sources". "It would be good to start with offering the service only to al structures. Of course, this could then be expanded."

THANKS TO ALLTHOSE WHO HAVE RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONNalRE.
Anyone wishing to obtain a copy of the document containing a compilation of responses received should contact
Karsten Luthke
Amnesty International, German Section
53108 Bonn, Germany
Tel. 49 228 983 730, Fax: 49 228630036