UNHCR has recently undergone an intensive internal review of its operations, priorities, and organizational structure.74 While the reasons for this review have not been clearly articulated in public documents by the agency,the effort appears to be in response to a perceived need to cut spending and personnel, and to improve UNHCR's efficiency in the delivery of assistance. Upon completion of the review, an ambitious plan of organizational change, known as Project Delphi, was presented to the Senior Management Committee of the UNHCR and endorsed by the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme (ExCom) in its September 1996 meeting.75 UNHCR began implementing Project Delphi shortly thereafter. Human Rights Watch is concerned that the changes wrought by Project Delphi may further erode refugee protection.
UNHCR's efforts to streamline its operations, as contemplated by its Delphi Plan of Action, in order to respond more quickly to the immediate physical needs of refugees should certainly be commended as a means of reducing the misery they face. However, the Delphi Plan of Action also includes provisions that may very well weaken refugee protection. In seeking to improve its relief operations, UNHCR must not sacrifice its fundamental obligation to protect refugees, a mandate that UNHCR alone bears. Nor does Human Rights Watch believe that the changes that may weaken protection are necessary to achieve the overall goals of the Delphi Plan of Action. In many instances over the past few years, Human Rights Watch has researched and documented situations where relief efforts took precedence over, or even eclipsed altogether, the protection of refugees. The end result may well be not only the increased suffering of refugees but, ironically, an increased burden on UNHCR to renew provision of relief for refugees as hastily resolved crises unravel again.
The Situational Approach
Central to the restructuring of UNHCR described by the Delphi Plan of Action will be a new "situational approach."76 This approach shifts much of the responsibility for the planning and oversight of daily field activities away from headquarters and grants this authority to one of eight regionally based "situation managers." While Human Rights Watch recognizes the clear advantage of decentralizing logistically complex assistance operations for improving efficiency in the delivery of assistance, these advantages must be weighed against potential negative impacts on UNHCR's ability to protect refugees.
For example, paragraph 6 of the Delphi Plan of Action states, "in the case of refugee outflows for which the likely solution is, or includes, voluntary repatriation, the situation [sic] approach would mean that the related Operations Plans would cover both the country of origin and the countries of asylum." Strong links between the country of origin and of asylum may be desirable when genuine voluntary repatriation becomes possible, but UNHCR involvement in both countries can also increase the susceptibility of the agency to political pressures. In the host country, such pressures could erode the agency's ability to effectively protect refugees against refoulement. In addition, it would be incumbent upon any UNHCR representative based in a country of origin to provide accurate and timely information on the human rights situation in that country which may influence refugees' decisions to return. Such information must not be compromised by the agency's desire to maintain a presence in the country of origin, a significant problem which Human Rights Watch has already documented in the case of UNHCR operations inside Burma.
Human Rights Watch is also concerned about the Delphi Plan of Action's emphasis on achieving durable solutions. While it is undeniable that UNHCR must seek permanent solutions for the problem of refugees as a part of its mandate, any operational guideline that stresses durable solutions must be evaluated in the context of UNHCR's distinct trend towards favoring voluntary repatriation over the other two options of resettlement and local integration. Even more importantly, seeking solutions is the second half of UNHCR's mandate, the first part of which is to provide protection to refugees. The Delphi Plan of Action requires that each situational manager must, through thepreparation of an "operations plan," articulate a strategy to achieve a durable solution early on in the refugee emergency.77 This emphasis appears to imply that such a solution would be identified for the entire "situation." Human Rights Watch believes that an "early clear and strategic orientation towards the search for solutions" runs the risk of defining a solution too early in a refugee situation, before the agency is well informed of conditions in the country of origin. Such an approach may be overly deterministic and inflexible in the face of highly volatile political and security conditions common to refugee situations.
The theme of decentralization runs throughout the Plan of Action, and it is certainly an appropriate goal for the assistance portion of UNHCR's operations. However, transferring to the situation managers decision-making authority over the allocation of assistance may put logistical or assistance needs ahead of UNHCR's protection function. Paragraph 21 (vii) of the Delphi Plan of Action states that "managers would be able to shift resources from one component to another within agreed parameters," yet the document does not indicate what these parameters might be. UNHCR operates under the extreme pressure of emergencies, often in situations where logistics and assistance demands may appear to be more important than protection. Without effective oversight by the Division of International Protection, UNHCR's fundamental protection mandate may well be given short shrift in the face of pressing operational demands.
The absence of central oversight of UNHCR's protection activities is particularly worrisome since elsewhere the Delphi Plan of Action states that the operation-specific policy of UNHCR would, "elaborate the application of strategic policy and global standards within an operation; this could entail regional variations, which would need to be justified."78 Such significant delegation of authority to the situation manager will allow him or her to alter policies and standards, raising significant questions about how standards of protection can be preserved in an atmosphere of such flexibility, without expert oversight. The Delphi Plan of Action does not indicate what kind of variation might be justifiable, nor who or what body within UNHCR would evaluate "justifications" for departures from UNHCR's standards. Without clear policy on such questions, UNHCR practice may become more vulnerable to the arbitrary demands of States on protection matters.
Indeed, the day to day concerns of administering humanitarian assistance operations in the field receive much more attention in the Delphi Plan of Action than UNHCR's protection activities. One of the "overarching principles" of the Delphi Project is the effective integration of protection and assistance.79 If carefully planned and executed, such an integration could help bolster protection of refugees. For example, the application of protection concerns to the delivery of food assistance to refugees would safeguard against the inappropriate provision or denial of food to force refugees to repatriate. On the other hand, integration of these two tasks could lead to the further subordination of protection functions to assistance demands. Such may be the result if, for example, organizations other than the UNHCR (i.e., those without a mandate to provide protection) were to undertake protection functions, either directly or indirectly, in conjunction with assistance activities. UNHCR is the only agency with the international legitimacy and experience to effectively protect refugees, and its protection activities must not be included among the tasks that UNHCR transfers to other entities in its reorganization. This point must be highlighted when UNHCR, in accordance with the Delphi Plan of Action, seeks to distinguish between "those activities and tasks which should be carried out by the UNHCR staff and those which could more logically be entrusted to others."80
The Fate of the Division of International Protection
The threats to refugee protection latent in the Delphi Project are reflected in the fate of the Division of International Protection foreshadowed by the Delphi Plan of Action. The Division of International Protection and its director were once powerful entities in UNHCR, with direct input into the policies set at the highest levels of the organization and strong oversight over the implementation of protection in the field. The Delphi Plan of Action formally weakens the division's ability to influence protection policy as well as practice.
With regard to the setting of policy, the director of the division appears to have lost the ability to directly address concerns to the senior management of UNHCR. Instead, a new level of hierarchy has been created in the form of the Policy Committee, to which the Division of International Protection may offer substantive advice. In addition, while the division appears to have the ability to contribute to global operational policy and procedures, there is no provision in the Delphi Plan of Action that expressly provides for divisional oversight of the implementation of such policies. Finally, it appears from paragraphs 39-44, that the Division of Operations Support will become responsible for reporting to the ExCom, without specifying any means for input from the Division of International Protection.
Also of concern is the changing degree to which the Division of International Protection will have authority over field-level protection concerns. While the Delphi Plan of Action does provide in paragraph 38 (b) for the division's input into the elaboration of measurable objectives for protection activities, the division has little ability to evaluate achievement of these objectives in the field. Setting aside the question of whether the protection functions of UNHCR can be distilled into "measurable objectives," there is little utility in establishing such objectives if the division has no ability to monitor field-level performance and implementation. In fact, the Delphi Plan of Action focuses on "regular self-evaluation" exercises at the operational level (para. 21 (iv)) and does not specify any centralized oversight functions for the only division with the requisite expertise.
Nor is it clear from the Plan of Action what precise balance will be struck between centralized and de-centralized protection work. The overall thrust of the Delphi Project as set forth in paragraph 36 of the Plan of Action indicates that the goal is to develop a system which would create "less demand for centrally-provided protection support." However, protection is inherently a centralized function of UNHCR because it is based on universal protection standards. The consistent interpretation and application of these protection standards is a critical role UNHCR has played since its inception, affecting not only the refugees UNHCR protects and assists directly, but also the protection standards incorporated into national law throughout the world. The promotion of such standards must not be diluted by the regionalization of UNHCR.
Moreover, there are distinct benefits to the continuation of a centralized Division of International Protection such as the transfer of methodology between regions. In this report, and elsewhere, Human Rights Watch has documented the use of creative and proactive protection techniques for Somali women refugees in Kenya. Such techniques should be transferred to other operational settings where they would significantly improve the lives of refugee women. Yet, under a system where refugee protection becomes fragmented, such a transfer of methodology will become more difficult.
The Delphi Plan of Action seeks to offset the absence of central oversight of protection activities by having the Division of International Protection train field-level personnel and disseminate protection systems and tools. At the same time, however, specialized and uniquely qualified protection officers are kept to a minimum under the new structure. Human Rights Watch certainly supports effective training for all UNHCR staff in protection functions, but is concerned that it will be difficult to provide to all staff in UNHCR the high levels of technical expertise required in the short implementation phase envisaged by the Delphi Plan. Moreover, given the Plan of Action's overall drive to reduce headquarters functions, Human Rights Watch is concerned that the substitution of training for consistent, centralized oversight of field protection activities may lead to further marginalization of the Division of InternationalProtection, which has been instrumental to establishing and promulgating many fundamental principles of the international protection of refugees.
The combination of all of the concerns articulated above, regarding high levels of flexibility in determining the goals and priorities for an operation, mandatory identification of a solution early on in a refugee emergency, thwarting access of the Division of International Protection to high-level policy-setting personalities and bodies, and diminished oversight by the division of protection activities in the field, indicate a trend to dilute the effectiveness of the division. Human Rights Watch strongly encourages UNHCR to reconsider some of the detrimental decisions which have already been made. As the agency moves into this critical implementation phase of the Delphi Project, there is still time to reverse the erosion of UNHCR's central and unique protection mandate.
74 According to a UNHCR Conference Room Paper, this restructuring plan was "foreshadowed" by the High Commissioner at the October 1995 session of the Executive Committee, at which she made "a commitment to restructure the way UNHCR worked with a view to improving its efficiency and effectiveness." United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, "Project Delphi: Plan of Action," a Conference Room Paper for the Standing Committee's Fourth Meeting, September 4, 1996, EC/46/SC/CRP.
75 The Plan of Action was "approved by the Senior Management of UNHCR on September 3, 1996 for presentation to the Executive Committee for endorsement of the broad directions of the Plan . . . ." Project Delphi Plan of Action, para. (I).
76 Project Delphi: Plan of Action, paragraph 6.
77 "A further emphasis [of the Delphi Project is] on the need to maintain a focus on achieving a durable solution to a situation or a problem . . . . Thus there is a need for an early and clear strategic orientation towards the search for solutions to be fully integrated into the normal planning process." Project Delphi: Plan of Action, paragraph. 7 (emphasis in original).
78 Project Delphi: Plan of Action, paragraph 17.