The Fifth Coordination Meeting of the Bali Process was held at the Thai Immigration Building, Bangkok, from 5-6 June 2003

Bali Process Steering Group Meeting

Thai Immigration Building, Bangkok, 5-6 June 2003

The meeting was chaired by representatives of the Co-Chairs of the Bali Process, John Buckley, Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) and Mr Arko Hananto Budiadi, Second Deputy Director, Directorate of Non-UN International Organizations and Non-Governmental International Organizations, Department of Foreign Affairs (Indonesia).

The meeting was attended by:

Ambassador John Hayes, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (AHEG I Coordinator), NZ;

Police Major General Krerkphong Pukprayura, Immigration Bureau, Royal Thai Police (AHEG II Coordinator);

Police Lieutenant Colonel Choochat Thareechat, Immigration Bureau, Royal Thai Police;

Ms Nelly Sigmund, Assistant Secretary, DIMIA (Australia);

Mr Bruce Hill, Coordinator of People Smuggling Team, AFP (Australia);

Mr Pablo Kang, Executive Officer, DFAT (Australia);

Ms Christina Hajdu, Australian Embassy, Bangkok;

Mr Kusuma Pradopo, Department of Foreign Affairs Indonesia;

Mr Denis Nihill, Regional Representative, IOM Canberra;

Mr Farook Azoom, Regional Representative, IOM Bangkok;

Mr Lance Bonneau, Snr. Prog. Development Officer, IOM Bangkok

Mr Robert Ashe, UNHCR Jakarta;

Mr Jon Hoisaeter, UNHCR Geneva.

Executive Summary – Conclusions

The Fifth Steering Group Meeting was convened to review the outcomes of the Second Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (Bali II) and identify the way forward with regard to promoting the implementation of the recommendations made in the Co-chair’s statement.

It was agreed that it is crucial to strengthen the commitment from States on the working group level, as well as to further develop the dialogue on substantive issues among relevant government departments and UNHCR/IOM at the country level.

The meeting sought to identify a number of concrete objectives to serve as a basis for the development of corresponding strategies and activities of the two Ad-hoc Expert Working Groups (AHEG I and II). A number of potential "lead states" were identified in relation to each objective, mainly based on interests expressed by states at an earlier stage. The identified objectives and activities will also serve as the basis for a funding appeal to be developed by IOM.

As a full participant in the Bali Process, UNHCR is positioned to engage in the work of both Ad-Hoc Expert Working Groups. The Steering Group encouraged more consistent involvement from UNHCR, in particular with regard to taking the lead (in partnership with a State) on the asylum and refugee related issues within AHEG 1. UNHCR indicated the intention, as expressed by the High Commissioner at Bali II, to strengthen our overall involvement in the Bali follow up process.

The Co-chairs and the Coordinators put much emphasis on the desirability of having UNHCR as an active participant in the follow up process, pointing to significant potential benefits in relation to promotion of refugee protection. It remains to be seen to what extent this approach will be maintained in through substantive discussions within the two working groups.

(For more details on the way forward and UNHCR follow up, see below under III)
II. Summary of Discussions
Opening remarks

Both representatives of the Co-Chairs underlined the importance of translating the Co-chair's Statement of Bali II into a concrete Plan of Action. Amb. Buckley stressed that clear objectives would have to be agreed before strategies and activities to advance these objectives could be identified. It was underlined that the activities of the two working groups should be considered as parts of one process, with strong linkages between the various issues. There was some discussion on the feasibility of identifying and addressing root causes of trafficking and smuggling with a view to minimize irregular migration. While this issue was considered relevant to the process, there was general agreement that the Bali Process should not develop into a broader political forum for debate on North-South issues in general.

AHEG1

Amb. John Hayes indicated that NZ has agreed to continue the coordination role in the interim, until another State would be identified to take over this responsibility. He reiterated the importance of identifying a clear direction for the Bali Process - only if we know where we want to be 2-3 years from now will it be possible to engage in concrete activities that may result in the desired outcomes. It was suggested that AHEG1 should move the process forward by:

Establishing clear division of labour between the Co-Chairs, the Coordinators and the participating states.
Focus on how to ensure follow up of tasks to be carried out by states.
Focus on involving countries that have expressed continued interest and commitment to the process.

With regard to the last point, Amb. Buckley suggested that it would be desirable to seek as broad participation as possible, and that, as required, bilateral dialogue should be strengthened to avoid misunderstandings and distrust among participants. The Coordinator added that a "frank discussion" is necessary to define UNHCR’s role and responsibilities in the process.

AHEG II

Major General Krerkphong Pukprayura also indicated that he has accepted to continue as Coordinator for Working Group II until another state has agreed to take over this role. The Coordinator underlined the need to consider the work of the two working groups as a concerted, inter-linked effort to further the principles agreed in the two Co-Chairs’ statements. He voiced his concern that many states have not been wholeheartedly involved in the working level activities of the Bali Process, citing examples of inconsistent participation in meetings, where states often were represented by officials without the necessary knowledge to discuss the issues on the agenda of the Working Group. The Coordinator went on to suggest that the links to other relevant regional processes should be strengthened (EU, Budapest Process, etc.). He agreed that better preparation among relevant departments in capitals would be crucial to increase the value and output of meetings and activities, and welcomed UNHCR’s suggestion to initiate this dialogue on the country level in cooperation with IOM.

Comments by UNHCR and IOM

Mr. Robert Ashe reiterated UNHCR's intention to strengthen its involvement in the Bali process. UNHCR was encouraged by the outcomes of the Bali II Ministerial Meeting, and remains committed to actively engage in the follow-up process. It was underlined that UNHCR would put emphasis on strengthening cooperation at the country level through establishing a more regular dialogue in relevant capitals. UNHCR and IOM could play an instrumental role in initiating and strengthening this activity at the country level which would focus on identifying the key actors in government departments and pursuing Bali issues.

UNHCR's contribution would continue to focus on developing the following activities:

Capacity building;
Comprehensive solution oriented approaches (including on the secondary movement issue);
Information sharing mechanisms;
Registration practices and profiling of caseloads of concern;
Advice and guidance in relation to legislative processes.

UNHCR is supportive of the plans to strengthen the link between the two Working Groups in order to facilitate coordination and cooperation. To this end, whenever feasible, working group meetings should be organised back-to-back in the same locations. UNHCR referred to the UNHCR "Elements paper" distributed at Bali II, and reiterated that comments from states would be most welcome. Overall, UNHCR considers that the organisation can play an instrumental role in developing practical solutions to asylum challenges in the region. At the request of the participants of the meeting, UNHCR gave a short briefing on the Convention Plus approach, and distributed the revised version of the Q&A. It was underlined that a special agreement could encompass basic political commitments as well as legally binding arrangements among states. It is meant as a tool to facilitate a multilateral process leading to solution oriented arrangements, and it was also applicable to States which had not yet acceded to the 1951 Convention.

Identified objectives

The meeting focused on developing concrete objectives based on the Co-Chair's statement of the Ministerial Conference (Bali II). After extensive discussion, the following draft proposals were listed:

AHEG I and II

To exchange experiences within the region about ways to address the root causes of people smuggling and trafficking in persons.
To create an effective system for the regional, intra-regional and inter-regional exchange of information relating to people smuggling and trafficking in persons.
To foster improvements in border control systems across the region.
To develop a regional network of return agreements.
To change perceptions about smuggling and trafficking.
To strengthen the capacity of interested states to identify those in need of protection, including those who have been exploited by traffickers and smugglers, and to provide it to them on the basis of a burden and responsibility sharing approach.
To improve region al understanding of the legal migration processes of States and their associated labour migration programs.
To enhance legislative systems across the region to combat people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime.
To provide greater protection to the victims of trafficking.

Corresponding suggested activities and potential "lead countries" were identified in relation to all of the above objectives, and the Coordinators were tasked to approach these states accordingly.

III. The way forward

As mentioned above, UNHCR is committed to continue and strengthen its involvement in the Bali Process. The overall strategy is to engage in the process in order to influence policy development in the region on issues of our concern. In view of the current prioritisation of scarce UNHCR resources, as well as the apparent limitations of the Bali Process as a forum for promotion of refugee protection, it is important that UNHCR clearly defines the objectives for our engagement. We must plan for concrete activities and identify substantive outputs expected from the process, which can also serve as indicators of progress made. However, the establishment of networks within capitals into which UNHCR can feed asylum/refugee issues as well as its concerns on various issues has the potential to eventually lead to a greater awareness of protection issues and more relevance for UNHCR’s positions.

Based on the outcome of Bali II and the Steering Group Meeting, the following suggestions are made in this regard:

UNHCR Objectives and Strategies

Strengthen the regime for protection of refugees in the region, in particular for victims of smugglers and traffickers, through facilitating comprehensive, solution oriented arrangements for handling irregular migration flows and secondary movements. This should be seen as a longer term objective that can be promoted, as appropriate, through the Convention Plus initiative.

Increase the awareness of refugee protection concerns among key policy makers throughout the region by focusing on establishing a continual dialogue with relevant government entities at the national level, as well as through developing training strategies targeting border and police authorities etc.

Aim for more effective handling of asylum claims throughout the region through engagement in further capacity building activities, establishing information-sharing networks and improving registration mechanisms.

Improve the legislative framework for refugee protection on the national level through developing appropriate models and providing advice to policy makers throughout the region.

UNHCR Activities and Inputs

In accordance with the above objectives, UNHCR will engage in the following activities:

Regularize our dialogue with participating states on the national level with relevant government entities and IOM. As a matter of priority, approach states that could potentially take the lead, jointly with UNHCR, on issues most relevant to refugee protection (Indonesia is a possible example). UNHCR should also approach states that have expressed concerns with regard to our involvement in the Bali Process to make clear our intentions for participating in the process (e.g. Malaysia, Singapore).
Promote the contents of the UNHCR Bali "Elements Paper" both bilaterally and through the working groups, in the first instance by actively encouraging states to comment on the document.
Disseminate relevant UNHCR materials that describe protection concerns in relation to irregular migration. This can be done through making available a collection of materials on the Bali II Website, and by developing an information package for states as well as UNHCR offices in the region.
Organise another "best practices" workshop in the region, inviting government officials selected with the involvement of UNHCR and IOM on the national level.
Together with IOM, ensure linkages to other regional processes, regularly informing the participants in the Bali Process about relevant developments in other parts of the world.

UNHCR division of labour

DIP will continue to lead develop the overall global strategy in relation to the Secondary Movement issue, provide substantive inputs to the Bali Process in this regard, and ensure linkages to and coherence with UNHCR’s involvement in other relevant processes world-wide.

The Bureau, in coordination with DIP, should identify aA regional UNHCR regional focal point should be identified by the Bureau, in coordination with DIP, for the Bali Process. The focal point will ensure our continued engagement at an appropriate level, consistency in our approach and coordination in terms of involvement by our country offices and HQs.

The Bureau will continue to lead the strategy forfocus on capacity building activities pursued bilaterally through UNHCR officesthroughout the region, as well as ensure that country offices are informed and instructed about objectives, strategies and required involvement by our field representations in relation to the Bali Process.

DIP will continue to lead the overall global strategy in relation to the Secondary Movement issue, provide substantive inputs to the Bali Process in this regard, and ensure linkages to and coherence with UNHCR’s involvement in other relevant processes world-wide.

The Convention Plus Unit will engage in the Bali Process as appropriate.

RA/JH

16.06.03