The workshop was organised by UNHCR at the request of the Ad Hoc Experts' Group 1 of the Bali Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. Thirty two participants from twenty five States attended (participants list attached). The aim of the workshop was to facilitate an exchange of views and experience between officials involved in asylum and migration management, especially on the issue of managing mixed population flows.

Discussions revolved around the following main themes: establishing systems to identify those in need of international protection in mixed migration flows; standards of treatment of refugees and asylum seekers within mixed flows; increased international burden and responsibility sharing; establishment of a common framework to address secondary movement; and solutions to mixed flows, including comprehensive approaches to specific situations. At the conclusion of the workshop a checklist of best practices in relation to asylum management was identified and agreed upon by all participants.

Most participants agreed that identifying genuine refugees within mixed migratory flows presented their countries with major challenges, particularly when many arrivals were illegal and undocumented and when many countries did not have established national systems for determining refugee status. It was generally agreed that while States had the right to control their borders there should be safeguards to ensure that genuine refugees were not being kept out.

Most delegates agreed in principle with the establishment of fair and efficient systems for identifying those in need of international protection. A number of participants proposed that UNHCR and countries that already had sophisticated refugee determination systems in place should assist other countries with little or no experience in this area in the context of greater international cooperation. Many were in favour of strengthened capacity building including better training for national staff involved in asylum and migration management. To this end, it was agreed that better co-operation in the areas of technical assistance, information and expertise exchange between States and UNHCR should be pursued. A number of participants also indicated the need for more tools to assist in determining the nationality of undocumented arrivals, such as increased use of linguistic analysis. A majority of participants expressed concern about abuse of asylum systems and/or the costs of hosting large numbers in mass influx situations, many of whom may have left primarily for economic reasons.

It was also noted that people were making very dangerous journeys to migrate from one place to another for various reasons and that traffickers were selling particular destinations. Most participants were in agreement that there should be heavy penalties for human trafficking and that efforts to combat human trafficking should be strengthened. One delegation referred to the importance of balancing protection considerations against actions to limit the illegal movement of people to a preferred destination.

There was general agreement that there was a need for increased international burden-sharing and financial assistance, particularly in order to assist developing countries hosting large refugee populations. There was also general consensus that greater international efforts should be made to address root causes of mixed population flows. Several participants also referred to the need for increased use of resettlement to third countries, particularly in mass influx situations, as a burden-sharing measure.

Some participants raised concerns about the expense of keeping rejected asylum seekers in the country of asylum, and indicated that there was a need for greater co-ordination between States to ensure quicker removal of rejected cases. It was acknowledged that this might involve increased assistance to countries of origin to receive back rejected cases.

A number of participants also emphasised growing donor fatigue, and the fact that money would not solve all of the difficulties faced by countries of first asylum and return. They highlighted the role of state responsibility in providing effective protection in those countries, which also needed to be considered in discussions on the question of burden and responsibility-sharing.

There was broad recognition of the fact that that peace in a country of first asylum was not enough to prevent people from moving on, and that other factors such as levels of development and standards of treatment of refugees played a major role in secondary movement. The concept of effective protection and what constitutes effective protection was considered, with differing views expressed. Most delegates agreed that final destination States had a responsibility to consider issues of effective protection before returning asylum seekers to transit or first asylum countries, although there was no agreement on what amounted to effective protection, nor which State should ultimately take responsibility for providing protection. Many participants raised the need for further burden-sharing, rather than burden-shifting, in efforts to address secondary movement. A number felt that pull factors which might encourage human trafficking should also be avoided.

All participants agreed that in mass-influx situations the principle of admission/non-refoulement should be respected. There was also agreement that efforts should be made to distinguish between refugees and non-refugees in reception arrangements. However, many raised concerns about how difficult this was to achieve in practice, in terms of cost, resources required, and abuse of asylum systems to achieve migration outcomes.

There was general recognition that certain standards of treatment were necessary to ensure effective protection, although there were differing views regarding what the standards should be. A range of views was expressed on the issue of detention of asylum seekers. The majority felt that receiving States had the right to detain undocumented migrants for the purpose of establishing identity. One participant noted that reasons for detention must be transparent and should preferably be accompanied by efficient procedures for determining status, while another felt that there should be strict time limits for detention. Others indicated that detention was the only way that States could ensure that those who were rejected did not "disappear" and avoid deportation. One delegate suggested the creation of a refugee ombudsman in host countries as a possible measure which might enhance standards of treatment of refugees.

All participants agreed that voluntary repatriation was the preferred solution to refugee situations, particularly in cases of mass-influx where local integration and resettlement were less feasible solutions due to the numbers involved. There was broad consensus that voluntary repatriation could only occur when conditions in the country of origin were conducive to return in safety and dignity. The importance of local integration and resettlement was also emphasised, particularly when dealing with protracted refugee situations. One country recommended changes in domestic legislation to facilitate permanent local integration in protracted refugee situations.

It was noted that effective durable solutions for refugees would help to prevent secondary movement. Many countries agreed that the existence of regular channels for migration would alleviate the situation by reducing the numbers attempting to illegitimately enter asylum systems.

Based on the model of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for IndoChinese Refugees, there was broad consensus that comprehensive approaches to address specific situations based on burden-sharing and agreed responsibilities between States, UNHCR and other relevant actors should be explored further. It was, however, noted that comprehensive approaches were dependent on conditions in the country of origin (peace, reconstruction) as well as the existence of political will among all actors involved.

Based on the discussions and the themes which emerged during the workship, a checklist of best practices for asylum management was drawn up and agreed upon by the participants, which might form a useful guide for future action (attached).

• Establishment of systems which identify genuine refugees/asylum seekers quickly and fairly and which reduce abuse of asylum systems within mixed migration flows.

• Better co-operation and information/expertise exchange between States and UNHCR

• Greater international burden and responsibility-sharing:

• political/financial support to address root causes

• increased financial/development assistance to first asylum countries hosting large numbers of refugees

• increased assistance to countries of origin to receive back former refugees (when conditions conducive to return) or rejected asylum-seekers

• Increased use of resettlement for vulnerable cases

• Establishment of common framework/responsibility-sharing arrangements to address secondary movement to: avoid pull-factors which serve as magnets for human trafficking; ensure burden-sharing and not burden-shifting; based on common understanding of what constitutes effective protection

• Development of guiding principles for dealing with mixed migration flows, including interception

• Development of coordination/strategies to ensure quicker removal of rejected asylum seekers

• Recognise importance of legal channels for migration (temporary/permanent)

• Comprehensive approaches to address specific situations based on burden-sharing and agreed responsibilities among states, UNHCR and other relevant actors

• Strengthened capacity-building, including better training for officials involved in asylum/migration management

• Redouble efforts to identify solutions for refugees, with voluntary repatriation the preferred solution, while also emphasising the importance of local integration and resettlement, particularly in protracted refugee situations

• Strengthened efforts to combat human trafficking