The Federal Commissioner of the National Commission for Refugees, Migrants and Internally-Displaced Persons, Mrs Imaan Sulaiman-Ibrahim, just disclosed that the country is working to review its migration policy. Considering that we host about 73,000 refugees from different countries and have more than 2.7 million internally displaced persons of our own, there is no better time to embark on this critical landmark task. Moreover, there is nothing more poignant in painting the picture of how radical Nigerian refugees’ sector has evolved than the fact that, as of 2013, the agency could only boast of a staff of 20.
Yet, there is another monumental factor to be considered. Climate change now has a direct effect on displacement and migration. The impacts of climate change are numerous and may both trigger displacement and worsen living conditions or hamper return for those who have already been displaced. For instance, limited natural resources, such as drinking water, are becoming even scarcer in many parts of the world hosting refugees. Crops and livestock struggle to survive where conditions become too hot and dry, or too cold and wet, threatening livelihoods.
This is why it is instructive to further examine one of the points raised by the NCFRMI boss, Sulaiman-Ibrahim, as she interacted with journalists. She said that the affairs of refugees and internally displaced persons should now be upgraded to an agenda for development players, instead of leaving them in the hands of actors in the humanitarian sector. In other words, the government and the people of Nigeria should start envisioning life beyond IDP camps for these displaced citizens and, in turn, mobilise resources and capacities for their empowerment and resettlement. This “development mentality” would engender a win-win situation because the IDPs could transit from the phase of dependence to independence.
Perhaps, to understand the honourable federal commissioner’s vision may require a little exposition. This is because the average reader might ponder the difference between humanitarian and development intervention for these Persons of Concern. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, humanitarian aid is designed to save lives and alleviate suffering during and in the immediate aftermath of emergencies; whereas development aid responds to ongoing structural issues, particularly systemic poverty, that may hinder economic, institutional and social development in any given society, and assists in stabilising the socio-political fabric in order to guarantee an improved standard of living.
In my view, it is a philosophy worth internalising in Nigeria as a government and a society. I say this because most people view IDPs almost with the lens with which people with disabilities are classified—permanent and mendicant. This is not supposed to be so. The truth is that refugees, migrants and internally displaced people emanated from some accidental societal mishaps. It is not a perpetual state. Therefore, efforts at stabilising them should now be tabled before development players, in order to prepare them structurally, psychologically and spiritually, not only for exiting the camps but for adapting to evolving and far-reaching impacts of climate change and other conflict triggers.
In mainstreaming this innovative thinking, Sulaiman-Ibrahim is yet another proof that our country has what it takes to blaze the trail in the developing world. Our IDPs index is abysmal but we might just have a plan to create a new framework to reinvent the system. And, coming from a woman, it could enjoy the fillip for easy reticulation. Statistics have confirmed that women and children are the most vulnerable among the PoC.
However, considering how innovations and out-of-box initiatives usually attract impulsive opposition, one would not be surprised if the NCFRMI boss experiences attacks, and teething problems, in the mainstreaming and implementation of the “development philosophy.” For instance, those who are stuck in the old ways of doing things would rather go for handouts rather than sit through an ignite session in a renewable energy and energy efficiency technology transfer project.
Meanwhile, further illumination is relevant. The origin of humanitarianism typically pivots around Henry Dunant and his experience at the Battle of Solferino in 1859. Originally on business travel, Dunant accidentally witnessed a carnage between Austro-Hungarian and French troops outside the Italian village of Solferino, which made him join the local townspeople to provide the relief he could. That experience made him start a campaign to establish a permanent relief agency for humanitarian aid in war; a government treaty recognising the neutrality of this agency in order for it to operate in a war zone led to the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Geneva Convention and constructed the humanitarian discourse around a set of guiding principles that still epitomise and shape humanitarian action today. It was later enshrined in two UN General Assembly resolutions.
On the other hand, the institutional development apparatus has a more intentional and political origin. Emerging in the wake of the Second World War and the ensuing geopolitical struggles, aid and economic support were seen as means to establish and secure political interests. Inspired by and extending beyond the Eurocentric Marshall plan, scholars usually associate President Harry Truman’s 1949 inaugural speech as the inception of “development,” marking the start of a particular historical period— the era of development. Point Four of the Truman Doctrine stated, “We must embark on a bold and new programme for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas.”
Jon Harald Sande Lie, in the article, The humanitarian-development nexus: humanitarian principles, practice, and pragmatics, published in the Journal of International Humanitarian Action, noted that “the different discursive origins of humanitarianism and development have produced and reproduced two distinct civilian segments of the international system that often appear to be at odds with each other: humanitarianism’s apolitical and imminent needs-based approaches building on the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence are fundamentally different from the more long-term, political, and rights-based approaches of development.”
The NCFRMI has come a long way, and can now do with a strategic paradigm shift. Originally established as the National Commission for Refugees by Decree 52 of 1989 and now Cap. 21, Laws of the Federation, 2004; the commission came to life in fulfilment of the Federal Government’s obligation under Resolution 319(IV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations and Article 35 of the United Nations 1951 Convention.
Article 1a(2) of the 1951 Convention describes the term “refugee” as any person who as a result of events occurring and owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
The National Commission for Refugees, as it was then called, was only responsible for managing the affairs of refugees. But in 2002, President Olusegun Obasanjo enlarged the mandate to include migrants and Internally Displaced Persons, effectively setting off the expanded responsibilities of the commission. Over the years, the NCFRMI then expanded administratively and structurally in tandem with its mandate of providing care and maintenance as well as durable solutions to all its persons of concern including refugees, internally displaced persons, stateless persons, and returnees among others.
END
Be the first to comment