3
-
12.
Has RASRO facilitated planned reception of rescued refugees ?
The answer must, unfortunately, be a qualified no. Within the 90-day deadline set by certain coastal states, it has been very difficult to meet the wishes of some RASRO member states for planned offtake of groups of a set size.
This task has not been helped by the fact that no government has provided UNHCR with a reception plan, only rejected refugees on the grounds that reception facilities are not avialable. Such rejections, often coming late in the 90-day period have resulted in a continuation of the "overstayer" factor, which has long created problems between the coastal states and UNHCR.
13. Other RASRO member states have indicated that the simple fact that submissions of rescued refugees are now spread out over a time span, has greatly assisted orderly intake.
14.
It is expected that the opening of a RASRO Transit Centre (RTC) in Hong Kong in the near future should greatly facilitate the planned reception of rescued refugees. Refugees with a resettlement offer from a government unable to accommodate the refugees within the 90-day period will be able to transit for up to a further 180 days in Hong Kong. It is hoped that the opening of the RTC will significantly reduce the number of rejections. Procedural Paper on the RTC is attached as Annex 5.
15.
Has RASRO facilitated more appropriate matching of refugees with resettlement countries ?
A
Implementation of the RASRO system by UNHCR involves dividing all refugees into one of three categories: those with close links which would normally satisfy resettlement criteria of a RASRO government (Category 1), those who have a link with a RASRO country but one which would not usually qualify them for resettlement in that country (Category 2), and those who have no link in any country of resettlement (Category 3).
16.
The number of refugees in each RASRO category during the review period (1 May 31 December 1985) was :
17.
<<
Category 1 : 528 (42%)
Category 2 : 441 (36%)
Category 3: 274 (22%).
Division into categories was not made prior to the implementation of RASRO and comparison with previous periods is therefore not possible. However, to judge from available data, it seems likely that relative percentages have varied little in recent years.
18. In the pre-RASRO situation, most of those refugees in Category 1 would have been resettled in the country of link (rather than in the country represented by the flag of the rescuing ship). For Category 1 refugees, therefore, little has changed.
19.
Previously, Category 2 refugees would have little chance of being selected by their "link" country. Now the majority are accepted.
20. UNHCR would welcome feed-back from governments on the integration of Category 2 (distant link) refugees. Pending such feed-back, the assumption is that any link is better than no link and that RASRO has therefore been successful in achieving more appropriate matching of refugees with
resettlement countries.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.