Search results

The European migration "crisis" has led to new policy and funding mechanisms, such as the European Trust Fund for Africa and funding from the UK Home Office that have in common a dual, and often contradictory, objective: to support migrant protection, while reinforcing a migration management or migration control agenda. They have given flexibility, in a context of "crisis response," to a range of actors with different levels of responsibilities and of transparency when reaching out to migrants, at times to the detriment of one aspect (the respect for human rights) for the benefit of another (irregular migration control), and with questionable results. This article provides an analysis of one program implemented in Ethiopia and Afghanistan: an information campaign implemented between 2016 and 2019, with a focus on behavioral change among potential migrants. This case study reveals practices in migration information campaigns that go against existing standards in social and behavioral communications campaigns. Building on such standards, the article provides a critical lens through which to assess migration information campaigns, through the prism of three criteria outlined in the paper and used to evaluate the results of the program, and provides a way forward for setting standards in planning and implementating migration information campaigns.

AbstractDecisions on the return of Afghans from Europe are often based on the perceived support that communities of return and social networks can provide. This assumption shapes court decisions over asylum cases and is factored in assistance packages upon return. It is assumed that social networks will act as a "safety net" for returnee . However, recent evidence on post‐return outcomes shows that migrants' social networks may not provide them with the resources they need to reintegrate their country of origin. While the role of social networks in destination contexts has been extensively studied, this article shows that social networks may not act as facilitators of reintegration, but as barriers to this process. Taking the case study of returns from Europe to Afghanistan, the article concludes on the weak ties and broken bond between individual returnees and communities, further speaking of a process of community dislocation upon return. Policy and practice need to unpack the concept of "community of return" as a community may simply not exist, have changed or be unable to act as a source of support for returnees from Europe.

This article uses an ecological systems approach to detail community involvement in smuggling in Afghanistan and Somalia—two countries that have similar patterns of irregular outmigration to the West and geopolitical and human security dynamics. I emphasize community connections and family ties as the key points around which irregular migration takes place and smuggling persists. In both of these countries, smugglers are members of local communities. The social organization of smuggling is strongest at community-based points of origin, then weakens as migrants and smugglers get farther from their homes, owing to a growing diversity of actors, cultures, and languages. By analyzing the strength of ties in communities involved in smuggling, the dynamics of referrals and guarantees, and interactions across various distances, this analysis takes the focus away from the causal and economic logic of smuggling to delve instead into its relational dimensions.

Since 2002, an estimated 6 million Afghan refugees have returned to their homeland. The world has witnessed the largest voluntary repatriation program in recorded history (Kronenfeld, 2011), with over 4.6 million returnees assisted by the Government of Afghanistanand the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). While in 2002 Afghanistan was synonymous with return, in 2012 Afghanistanis synonymous with a stalling voluntary repatriation process, growing numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and trends of mixed migration, with families, men, and unaccompanied children leaving Afghanistan legally or irregularly in the hope of a better life elsewhere. In 2012, 'hope' is no longer synonymous with Afghanistan, nor with return, but with life outside of 'home', outside of Afghanistan. In a context of transition and changing migration patterns, increasing emphasis is nevertheless being placed on policies of return to and reintegration into Afghanistan. Central to this question of return is access to land, and the resources available on the lands where returnees settle. This paper discusses the return of refugees to Afghanistan and the strained relationship between refugee return, land allocation and reintegration, with reference to research conducted in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2012. ; Retour sur terre: politiques de retour et d'allocation de la terre pour les réfugiés afghans - Plus de 6 millions de réfugiés afghans sont retournés dans leur pays d'origine depuis 2002, dont 4.6 millions assistés par le Haut-commissariat aux Réfugiés des Nations Unies (UNHCR). Ce retour était, en nombre et en investissement, sans précédent pour l'Afghanistan comme pour le reste du monde. Alors que l'intervention de 2002 marque le début d'une décennie du retour, en 2012, l'Afghanistan est le reflet d'un contexte humanitaire et de développement marqué par un taux très faible de retours volontaires, une croissance du nombre de déplacés internes, et un profil migratoire changeant, orienté vers une migration mixte – ...

Since 2002, an estimated 6 million Afghan refugees have returned to their homeland. The world has witnessed the largest voluntary repatriation program in recorded history (Kronenfeld, 2011), with over 4.6 million returnees assisted by the Government of Afghanistanand the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). While in 2002 Afghanistan was synonymous with return, in 2012 Afghanistanis synonymous with a stalling voluntary repatriation process, growing numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and trends of mixed migration, with families, men, and unaccompanied children leaving Afghanistan legally or irregularly in the hope of a better life elsewhere. In 2012, 'hope' is no longer synonymous with Afghanistan, nor with return, but with life outside of 'home', outside of Afghanistan. In a context of transition and changing migration patterns, increasing emphasis is nevertheless being placed on policies of return to and reintegration into Afghanistan. Central to this question of return is access to land, and the resources available on the lands where returnees settle. This paper discusses the return of refugees to Afghanistan and the strained relationship between refugee return, land allocation and reintegration, with reference to research conducted in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2012. ; Retour sur terre: politiques de retour et d'allocation de la terre pour les réfugiés afghans - Plus de 6 millions de réfugiés afghans sont retournés dans leur pays d'origine depuis 2002, dont 4.6 millions assistés par le Haut-commissariat aux Réfugiés des Nations Unies (UNHCR). Ce retour était, en nombre et en investissement, sans précédent pour l'Afghanistan comme pour le reste du monde. Alors que l'intervention de 2002 marque le début d'une décennie du retour, en 2012, l'Afghanistan est le reflet d'un contexte humanitaire et de développement marqué par un taux très faible de retours volontaires, une croissance du nombre de déplacés internes, et un profil migratoire changeant, orienté vers une migration mixte – volontaire et forcée – avec nombre d'individus, de familles et de mineurs non accompagnés qui tentent de quitter leur pays, légalement ou irrégulièrement. En 2012, l'espoir se tourne de nouveau vers les pays voisins et vers l'Occident, c'est à dire vers une vie en dehors de l'Afghanistan. Malgré cette évolution, les politiques migratoires et les états qui les dirigent restent encore focalisées sur des initiatives de retour et de réinsertion en Afghanistan. Une pièce centrale de ces politiques est la question de l'accès à la terre, et des ressources disponibles sur ces terres. Ce papier s'interroge sur la relation entre les réfugiés rentrés « chez eux », communément appelés «returnees », l'accès à la terre et les politiques d'aide au retour au travers de recherches menées en Afghanistan entre 2007 et 2012.

AbstractResearchers' methodological decisions have an impact on who gets to hear a refugees' story, the meaning a story conveys, and, consequently, the implications a story might have for forced migrants. What we as researchers, or aid workers, do with the stories gathered from forced migrants can contribute to their social and political invisibility, or our scholarship can be a tool to amplify refugee voices as forms of knowledge that are valid not only as testimony but as expertise to design research, programmes and policies. What potential do such methods have to disrupt the "established regimes" of what is audible, visible, or legible in society (Rancière, 2010)? In response to what is now widespread recognition of the "dual imperative" in forced migration research (Jacobsen and Landau 2003), action research has emerged as a common way to do research that is useful to the communities with which we engage. In this article we reflect on our efforts as researchers to address power imbalances by placing forced migrant stories at the forefront of our methods. We rely on two case studies to provide insights into and learn from critical narratives from the displaced themselves: 1) at the Thai-Burmese border, 2) with Somali refugee returnees in Kismayo. The two case studies reveal different ways of working with stories and strategies that can help address the inaudibility of refugee stories. We recognize that such work is necessarily partial and ongoing. To identify space for continued growth and learning, we point to moments where collaboration faltered and moments where our research inadvertently reproduced power inequities.