On 22 September the Knowledge Platform welcomed Jill Alpes and Ilse van Liempt from Utrecht University, and Orcun Ulusoy from Borderline Europe to present the preliminary findings of their NWO-funded research on the EU-Turkey deal on migration. The central question concerned whether ongoing documented human rights violations are the result of imperfect implementation of the EU-Turkey deal or fundamental problems in the design of the deal itself.

The design of the EU-Turkey deal is based on the premise that international protections are accessible to relocated persons in Turkey, the idea that migrants are distinguishable from refugees, and the notion that relocating asylum seekers to Turkey from Greece will have a deterrent effect on unregulated migratory streams to the EU.

However, preliminary findings on the direct and indirect consequences of the deal expose significant concerns over return-based management. Turkish accommodation facilities are poor and reportedly ‘detention-like’. Both Turkey and Greece lack the operational and administrative capacity to ensure access to and transparency over application as well as appeals procedures. In Turkey, poor treatment of asylum-seekers, discrimination and disenfranchisement of minorities, lacking medical facilities and scarce labor opportunities evidence a general disregard of rights of asylum-seekers. The deal arguably jeopardized the EU’s negotiations on migration deals with other countries, such as Lebanon, and devalued its human rights component.   

Recent changes in Turkish legislation further underline the uncertainty of asylum seekers’ status and safety. Decree no. 676 allows for the deportation of asylum seekers and internationals if they are alleged to have terrorist affiliations, without judicial oversight. This national provision undermines the international protection status of refugees.

The current EU-Turkey appears to disincentivize following irregular and dangerous routes into Europe and seems to have slowed migratory flows. That being said, accelerated application procedures are implemented at the cost of procedural safeguards. The resettlement portion of the deal, specifically in cases of the Netherlands acting as a receiving state, has yielded positive feedback. While the resettlement portion of the EU Turkey deal has been rendered inaccessible to most vulnerable asylum-seekers, overall the Dutch relocation and integration program has successfully maintained its functionality in response to the migration crisis.

From Responsibility Shifting to Responsibility Sharing

Discussants concluded the event by developing mitigating strategies and calling for currently operating EU deals to be analyzed for conflict potential. Fast-tracking procedures should not prevent quality assessment and diminish their accessibility. Increased European solidarity is necessary to adequately address the issue of migration and encourage responsibility sharing, although member states are constrained by political realities. Increased transparency in application procedures will mitigate discriminatory policies. Accountability on the EU level continues to be a problem, particularly in light of the General Court’s assertion that it lacks jurisdiction over the deal.

Finally, robust conversations between member states, international organizations and other actors must address conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategies in the Middle East, and must confirm commitments towards treatment of refugees as key elements towards resolving the migration crisis on the long term.

On 14 June The Hague Institute and its project partners organized a workshop to present and discuss findings of the research project ‘Employment for Stability’ -“Does Opportunity Reduce Instability? A Meta-Analysis of Skills and Employment Interventions in LMICs”.

Read Will Bennett's blog on employment and stability - "Driving in the Fog: Do employment programs reduce instability?"

The multi-year research project is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and led by The Hague Institute for Global Justice. The project brings together a large set of leading researchers working on stability and employment in development from a range of European and African institutions. The Hague Institute’s partners are the Pan-African Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PACCI) based in Addis Ababa, INES-Ruhengeri in Rwanda, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), and the United Nations University, Merit (UNU-Merit) in Maastricht.

The project builds on the realization that creating employment has become a key development strategy, resulting in turn in a surge of pro-employment interventions. With poverty and unemployment regularly cited as robust correlates of instability, such programs also have the potential to increase stability, or the preservation of the social contract. Such potential positive externalities are rarely considered, however, with success measured by economic impact.

The project contributes to filling this gap using employment interventions and stability data in a broad set of countries to identify externalities, their underlying mechanisms, and the role of the macro-environment therein. The workshop included a series of short presentations by several project researchers, followed by a group discussion. The lead of the project, Dr. Tilman Brück, started off with explaining the main drivers of instability: lack of opportunity, grievance and lack of contact.  During the workshop, special emphasis was placed on the discussion of policy relevant implications of the research, leading to suggestions of improved policies and programs strengthening employment for stability in conflict and fragile states. This led to a group discussion on the unintentional effects of targeted programs, the kind of employment that we included in our research and what links employment to peace. The theories of change were discussed in order to understand the different types of intervention that are most successful and the reasons behind their success.

To conclude, our research demonstrates that there is no evidence of a relationship between employment and stability, or that employment programs have an impact. Moreover, there is no robust relationship between employment programs and individual employment. Our findings also suggest that employment programs do not show significant spatial spillovers to non-beneficiaries. This raises questions about suitability of employment programs and how these programs can build peace.

The importance of land in the Great Lakes Region of Africa is undeniable. It is central to livelihoods and identity, and unfortunately also to conflict. Scarcity of land and questions about ownership drive violent conflict. Improper land governance problematizes prevention and resolution of this violence.

Read the one-pager of recommendations for land programming in the Great Lakes Region.

Together with Search for Common Ground, the Platform organized an expert meeting on 15 June to address land issues in the region. Bringing together a number of policy makers, practitioners and researchers working on and in the region, the meeting encouraged reflection on and exchange of (un)successful approaches to tackling land issues.

Root causes and drivers – and different priorities

Throughout the discussion, it was apparent that the priorities on the side of donor governments have shifted from land governance specifically to conflict more generally, and, in particular, migration. On the other hand, it was acknowledged that improper land governance and consequent land grievances are catalysts for both violent conflict and migration from the region.

The meeting highlighted a number of sources of conflict in relation to land. To begin with, various groups in society lack access to land, which leads to grievances that often flare into violence – even within families. Women in particular struggle with access to land. They are limited by patriarchal inheritance laws and unfavorable land registration policies. Additionally, the fear of reprisals or exclusion, and the lack of recourse to justice mechanisms, prevent women from taking claims to objective arbiters.

In Burundi, as well as elsewhere in the region, returnees that fled the country make claims on land that is now in the hands of others. Contested claims spur violence among neighbors and within communities. Unclear or outdated land registration documents prevent dispute resolution on the basis of fact, and, in some cases, only serve to worsen the situation.

While some participants argued that the lack of awareness of land governance legislation among communities in the region prevents them from addressing land injustices, others countered that often the awareness of laws is present, but enforcement by officials and local or state institutions is non-existent. Raising awareness through targeted campaigns must therefore be coupled with institutional development and real change in how land rights are enforced by authorities.

As often is the case, widespread corruption at every level of governance, from the community to the national level, exacerbates many of the aforementioned hurdles to peaceful land governance. Formal institutions tasked with land registration, adjudication and enforcement are all susceptible to corruption. As such, informal mechanisms, like mediation, present themselves as alternative options.

Addressing and mitigating conflicts

Training mediators – often women – proved to be a successful way to find solutions for land disputes that are acceptable to all parties involved, without recourse to local or state institutions. Mediators are taught to bring disputing parties together to find amicable solutions outside of regulatory frameworks. By training women and giving them an important role in resolving disputes, the program also helps to shift the perception and enhance the standing of these women in the community, as well as their involvement in land affairs in general.

A different method of mitigating or preventing land conflicts is to create opportunities for alternative livelihoods. Many land issues center on a lack of alternatives to subsistence farming. As such, employment in other sectors could help ease land scarcity and reduce contested land claims. However, doing so requires two major shifts. The first is the actual creation of sustainable alternatives. In many of the Great Lakes countries, this may be difficult to achieve without donor or government support. The second is a shift in attitudes towards a positive view of work in other sectors and away from the exclusivity of subsistence farming as a livelihood in the region.

Recommendations going forward

The Platform and Search for Common Ground will compile a one-pager that outlines the most important recommendations for policy makers and practitioners to address land issues.

The Dutch Knowledge Platforms are said to “have gold in their hands”.  A recently concluded learning review provides insight into the achievements and added value of the five Knowledge Platforms since their kick-off three years ago.

The Platforms were established following the Kennisbrief that was sent to Parliament in 2011 by the then Dutch State Secretary for Development Cooperation, Mr Ben Knapen. The Platforms have been structured around five strategic themes for development cooperation: food and nutrition security; sexual and reproductive health and rights; security and rule of law; water for development; and inclusive development policies.

While the Knowledge Platforms are diverse in their organization and strategy, the reviewers identify common “gems”, such as the multi-stakeholder approach that lies at the core of their institutional strategy. The Platforms do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, they are positioned among a diverse range of actors: ministries, NGOs, research institutes, consultancies, businesses,  and more. As such, their existence does not only serve to fulfil only the needs of the Dutch government, but rather provides a meaningful way to take stock of multiple and varied perspectives in order to pursue a greater good. The learning review highlights further achievements of the Platforms, including their convening power and their unique ability to address emerging and contested issues.

According to the review, the Platforms also offer an opportunity to move towards more institutionalized knowledge relations. The conception of the Platforms was prefaced by the identification of specific gaps in knowledge creation, exchange, and use in the Dutch development sector.. Significant lacunae included a lack of focus and coherence in research programming, weak relations between different stakeholders, and fragmented use of knowledge by ministries and other practitioners. The Platforms have so far been most successful in knowledge creation and exchange, while knowledge use remains a tough nut to crack. Nevertheless, the review shows that the foundations are in place to get ‘knowledge to work’ for the stakeholders involved.

Internationally, the Dutch approach to knowledge brokering has been well-received. International stakeholders have increasingly expressed interest to learn more about the added value of such an innovative approach to the development sector.

The Platform is looking to build on its successes over the past years and needs your help! We would like to know where we can improve and what you expect from us. Together, we hope to build a Platform that suits the needs of all its stakeholders. Take this short (3 min) survey to help us on our way.

On Wednesday 15th February at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Edouard al-Dahdah, senior public sector specialist at the World Bank presented the 2017 World Development Report on Governance and the Law, accompanied by reflections by Mrs. Engelshoven (vice mayor, The Hague), Mr. Heemskerk (Netherlands Executive Director of the Board of the World Bank Group) and Mr Rebergen (Director General International Cooperation).

Listen to the Platform's interview with Mr. al-Dahdah below.

The report was warmly received, with some hailing it as a game-changing document. It certainly reads differently from what one might expect of a World Bank resource. The discussions during and after the presentation offered interesting insights into the drivers and consequences of poor governance and the effectiveness or failure of political decision-making, as well as evaluating the role of law in development as much as the rule of law.

Read the summary report here.

The Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law seeks to improve understanding and approaches towards security and rule of law; influence and innovate policy and implementation both in The Netherlands and internationally; and facilitate mutual learning and uptake of new knowledge amongst experts, policy makers, practitioners, researchers and relevant other sectors.

In the next phase of our development, the Platform will be working to bring about a shift from knowledge exchange between individuals toward a culture of learning and knowledge uptake within and between organizations.

As an important first step, we are recruiting a consultant to conduct a scoping study on the state of learning within the Knowledge Platform’s members. In pursuit of that, we make a clear distinction between the processes of generating knowledge, of learning from it, and of subsequently applying that knowledge in practice (uptake).

Findings from the scoping study will duly inform the Knowledge Platform’s development of their theory of change and research uptake strategy. Finally, the data set produced by the study will provide the basis for future evaluations of the Platform’s work on learning and uptake.

For more information about the scoping study and its realization, please contact Will Bennett

NWO-WOTRO Science for Global Development granted twelve projects for the call ‘Call for applied research on addressing mixed migration flows’. This call aims to strengthen the evidence-base of policies and/or programmes for Security & Rule of Law addressing the root causes, dynamics and consequences of mixed migration flows within/from Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings and to unlock this knowledge for practitioners organisations.

The proposals are awarded within the Applied Research Fund of the research programme Security & Rule of Law in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Settings. This call is executed by NWO-WOTRO, in close collaboration with the Platform.

Funded projects

The following projects will receive funding

The following projects will receive funding Drivers for onward migration: the case of Iraqi IDPS in the Kurdistan region leaving the country
Main applicant: Prof. D. Ala’Aldeen (Middle East Research Institute, Iraq)
Co-applicants: Mr A. Lawk (Qandil, Iraq); Mr M. Hoshang (Joint Crisis Coordination Centre, Iraq).

The Kurdistan region of Iraq presents a complex scenario in terms of displacement patterns. While it hosts a significant population of refugees from Syria and a considerable presence of Internally Displaced People (IDPs), estimated at around 1.5 million IDPs, the region is also an important point of departure for onward migration of IDPs wishing to leave Iraq. This collaborative project between MERI, Qandil and the Joint Crisis Coordination Centre seeks to uncover the extent to which and under what conditions internal displacement becomes onward migration outside the country. In particular, it aims at: a) assessing at what stage of the displacement process the decision to leave the country is made; b) determining which factors motivate the decision to leave the country, and c) identifying measures and sectors of intervention that can help address the challenges and issues faced by IDPs which contribute to their decision to leave. By adopting a mixed-methods approach with extensive on the ground data collection by means of a household survey and semi-structured interviews, the proposed analysis intends to provide the necessary evidence to better address displacement within and from fragile and conflict-affected settings and turn this evidence into policy recommendations for local and international policy-makers.

Drivers of mixed migration: analysing the determinants and the role of development and security policies in the MENA region with a special focus on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea and Syria 
Main applicant: Prof. T. Brück (International Security and Development Center, Germany)
Co-applicants: Dr E.E.M. Nillesen (The United Nations University (UNU-MERIT), The Netherlands); Mr T. Alami (ESCWA - United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, Lebanon); Mrs J. Vollebregt (SPARK, The Netherlands)

Analyses of mixed migration flows suffer from at least two limitations: the first limitation is grouping origins, destinations or both, into homogenous groups. This limits our understanding of the drivers of mixed migration flows, the role of country-specific factors (like development or security policies) and insights into why crises spike in the first place and, in turn, how they fade away. The second limitation refers to endogeneity issues (e.g. selection effects) inherent to studying migration but often inadequately dealt within the migration literature. This project will overcome these issues through the creation of a novel 3D panel data set where we measure annual bilateral movements for each origin-destination country pair. This helps to assess the impact of time-varying, policy-related “push” and “pull” factors that are specific to each pair (while controlling for country-pair factors that are constant over time). The project will focus on two episodes: the “Balkan” crisis and the current “European Migrant Crisis”. This will be the first project that applies 3D panel data to analyse mixed migration flows. In addition, the project will generate important policy recommendations on the impact of development programs, on policies in destination countries, and on how the current crisis could evolve.

T-STAN: Toolkit on Smuggling and Trafficking, and a security and rule of law approach to their possible Nexus - with a focus on the route from Libya to the EU 
Main applicant: Dr J.E.B. Coster van Voorhout (The Hague Institute for Global Justice, The Netherlands)
Co-applicant: Dr M. Shaw (Global initiative against Transnational Organized Crime, Switzerland)

This project aims to develop a new, evidence-based toolkit for Dutch, EU and UN policymakers focusing on preventing and responding to ‘mixed migration’ through countering the smuggling of migrants from FCAS to the EU. This toolkit will address the calls from ‘mixed migration’ policy-makers for greater precision regarding the use of terms for “those who move” (whether asylum seekers, refugees or migrants). Although ‘smuggling’ and ‘trafficking’ have two distinct legal regimes (e.g. separate Palermo Protocols), they are often still confused at the policy level. For a correct evidence base for policymaking, this project will: (1) analyse the definitions and practices surrounding smuggling and trafficking; (2) review the policy measures against both crimes; and (3) unlock (original) empirical and legal research data on (a) smuggling routes, (b) (increased) prices paid for smuggling services, especially after ‘securitization’/‘militarization’, (c) the continuum of smugglers involved ranging from persons who seek to help persons fleeing from war, persecution or instability to organized crime actors, (d) a potential smuggling-trafficking nexus, and (e) effectiveness of targeted policies that focus on the most damaging end of organized crime smugglers and traffickers. Through case studies of Libya and the Netherlands, this project will illustrate concrete pathways of policy successes and failures.

Ensuring that policy responds to the realities of trafficking and smuggling of mixed migrants from Eritrea and Ethiopia 
Main applicant: Dr L. Hovil (International Refugee Rights Initiative, United Kingdom)
Co-applicants: Dr L. Oette (Centre for Human Rights Law, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), United Kingdom); Ms H. Al-Karib (Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA), Uganda)

In 2014, 37 States in Europe and Africa, along with the EU and AU, formed a policy framework (the “Khartoum Process”) to address trafficking and smuggling in the Horn of Africa (HoA). However, its design and implementation has neither been based on empirical evidence nor has its impact been evaluated empirically based on the experiences of refugees and migrants. This project will research causes of migration and the protection challenges faced by mixed migrants from Ethiopia and Eritrea, through conducting applied empirical research in three sites along a key migration route from the HoA towards Europe (Addis Ababa, eastern Sudan and Italy). The project will produce a detailed report with policy recommendations and two policy papers aimed at the EU and HoA respectively. Knowledge sharing events will ensure the dissemination of findings to all stakeholders working on migration in the region. The research will ask whether existing approaches have been successful, and whether they will continue to promote or undermine human rights standards in practice. This information will be used to influence policy-makers, practitioners, UN actors and academics in Europe and the region, and to engage states in developing/implementing national policies against smuggling and trafficking.

Everyday justice and security provision for displaced and residents in Bukavu, DRC 
Main applicant: Dr ir. C.I.M. Jacobs (Van Vollenhoven Institute, The Netherlands)
Co-applicant: Mr Mulengezi (Groupe Jérémie, Democratic Republic of the Congo)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a country in which prolonged insecurity has caused long-term and cyclical displacement, especially in the east. Most Congolese flee to host communities within their own country. Bukavu is one of the cities in Congo that receives large numbers of displaced people; in some streets within the peripheral neighbourhoods, more than 50 per cent of the inhabitants are internally displaced. This research proposes to look at the consequences of migration in terms of the justice and security concerns in the host communities, both for newcomers and for longer-term residents. This project will further analyse already collected qualitative and quantitative data and build on these data. Secondly, it proposes to collect additional qualitative data on the justice and security concerns of longer-term residents. Findings will be used to set up stakeholder consultations with policy-makers and practitioners at local, national, and international levels. Justice and security analyses will be carried out with newcomers and residents jointly. On the longer term, this research aspires to contribute to more harmonious relationships between displaced and residents, and increased security and justice in the targeted urban neighbourhoods by promoting the dialogue between newcomers and longer-term residents.

Developing capacity for protection-sensitive border management in mixed migration settlings: Lessons from the Border Region Mali-Niger 
Main applicant: Dr K. Kinzelbach (Global Public Policy Institute, Germany)
Co-applicant: Mr Saint Esteben (Danish Refugee Council, Denmark)

Mixed migration in the border region of Mali and Niger constitutes an important phenomenon for The region and beyond. From a research design perspective, the region sticks out as a case of intrinsic importance in respect of donor engagement, political investment, and mixed migration figures. However, weak institutions and capacities in the volatile context create unfavourable settings. Technical cooperation efforts are underway to develop better capacities for protection-sensitive border management. Meanwhile, there has been relatively scant publicly available analysis in academic and practitioner literature of the scope, relevance and effectiveness of such endeavors. This project seeks to fill a knowledge gap by enquiring how donor-funded security and rule of law capacity development measures contribute to protection-sensitive border management in fragile mixed migration settings. The project will: i) systematically review and document existing knowledge; ii) generate new evidence on the relevance and effectiveness of capacity development measures for protection-sensitive border management in a case of intrinsic importance; iii) translate this knowledge into targeted recommendations and advice for policymakers and practitioners; and iv) strengthen linkages to peer researchers and practitioners by creating opportunities for collaborative research and the joint discussion of findings through a proactive outreach strategy.

Comparative study on the impact of youth interventions on mixed migration in Afghanistan and Somalia 
Main applicant: Mr J. Kurtz (Mercy Corps, United States of America)
Co-applicant: Mr Nicolle (Samuel Hall, Kenya)

Afghanistan and Somalia are characterised by a growing youth population and high unemployment Rates – 40 per cent in Afghanistan and 67 per cent in Somalia –, leading to a “youth exodus” through dangerous irregular routes. Since 1986 in Afghanistan, and since 2005 in Somalia, Mercy Corps has worked to develop programmes to help the most vulnerable youth build sustainable livelihoods and be better equipped to play a role in their home society. Without directly streamlining migration choices and outcomes in its programming, its work has had a yet-to-be-measured impact on potential migrants, actual migrants and returnees. This project aims to bridge this gap by addressing existing conceptual and operational gaps related to the youth-migration-employment nexus. Using databases collected by Samuel Hall and Mercy Corps over the past five years, this research will answer the following question: How can youth interventions influence migration decisions and rootedness in home societies? This analysis will be determined by six components: economic prospects, social inclusion, political voice, aspirations, conflict and gender equality. This project will result in key insights that will inform Mercy Corps’ approach, including future programs focused on the youth-employment-migration nexus, to be disseminated with local and international partners.

Evidence-based assessment of migration deals: the case of Turkey 
Main applicant: Dr I.C. van Liempt (Utrecht University, The Netherlands)
Co-applicants: Dr J. Alpes (Amnesty Netherlands, The Netherlands); Mr Ulusoy (Borderline Europe, Germany)

This research project provides a critical assessment of collaborations on mixed migration flows between Europe and migrant sending countries. In the context of increasing asylum and migration flows we observe an important policy move towards partnerships between EU countries and sending countries. The focus of this project is on readmission agreements with Turkey, but with new deals in the making the results of this project will be of wider use and value for European policymakers. At its core, the EU Turkey deals aim to reduce irregular migration, decrease smuggling and human right violations and migrant deaths. In exchange, EU Member States promised to increase resettlement of Syrian refugees residing in Turkey, accelerate visa liberalization for Turkish nationals, and boost existing financial support for Turkey’s refugee population. This project will focus on the effects of the deals. How did the deal transform mixed migration flows and people’s reliance on human smugglers therein? What has been the impact of the deal on resettlement from Turkey to Europe? Field research (document analysis and interviews with forced returnees and migrants on the move) will be conducted to come up with evidence based insights on the implementation and the effects of the deal.

Wellbeing of Urban Refugees: Syrians and Hosts in Jordan and Lebanon (WURSHIJL) 
Main applicant: Dr D.J.H. te Lintelo (Institute of Development Studies)
Co-applicants: Mr Brett (IMPACT Initiatives, Switzerland); Ms Ford (ACTED Lebanon, Lebanon)

The key proposition of this project is that 'modalities of reception' are critical for shaping wellbeing outcomes for refugee and host communities in urban areas of Jordan and Lebanon, in terms of material and relational outcomes, and people’s subjective valuation of these. Such ‘modalities’ comprise (formal and informal) arrangements, policies, programmes and implementation practices to constitute more or less enabling environments for refugee and host communities. There is currently little comprehensive evidence that tells us how and why modalities of reception shape wellbeing outcomes, and how to improve reception environments and reception modalities. The project will ensure that such evidence will be at the fingertips of policymakers, local authorities, practitioner organisations and donors, allowing them to offer best possible support for refugees and host communities, and efficiently use scarce resources. This is critical because urban authorities are challenged daily to meet increasing requests of their constituents with scarce resources, while simultaneously supporting Syrian refugees, within highly strained municipal systems with limited capacity. This project will synthesise evidence for new insights into how donor-supported Security & Rule of Law policies and/or programmes, and security measures can more effectively/sustainably address causes, dynamics and consequences of mixed migration flows.

Irregular migration economies in northern Niger: the lasting economic, governance and social implications of a booming industry 
Main applicant: Ms M.A. Price (The Netherlands Institute for International Relations Clingendael, The Netherlands)
Co-applicants: Dr M. Idrissa (Economie Politique et Gouvernance Autonome (EPGA), Niger); Mr Loprete (International Organization for Migration, Niger)

The socio-political impact of mixed-migration flows is not just limited to destination regions, but also manifests in transit countries. Migration policies that fail to appreciate the effect of mixed migration on these countries may inadvertently leave unaddressed or exacerbate conflict lines in the short term and may thereby contribute to a spill-over of migratory root causes in the longer term. The extent to which the migration economy contributes to stability and/or instability in the transition region, through its contribution to local livelihoods and the empowerment of authority figures, therefore requires further attention. Through a comprehensive case study investigation in Niger applying a mixed-methods approach, this project will explore the relationship between the migration economy and underlying causes of conflict and patterns of in-/exclusion in the Sahel. It applies a multidisciplinary lens to explore the social, political, and economic implications of migration and thereby outlines how mixed migration alters regional (in)stability dynamics. These evidence-based insights are translated into concrete programmatic and policy input in donor-supported security and rule of law initiatives, including those related to social and economic reconstruction, to mitigate mixed migration’s negative effects while maintaining or increasing its contribution to human security in the transit region.

Causes and dynamics of mixed unskilled migrants trafficked within the Horn region. A study including Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan
Main applicant: Prof. M.E.H. van Reisen (Tilburg University, The Netherlands)
Co-applicant: Mr E.J. Pierik (ZOA, The Netherlands)

The research proposed addresses causes and dynamics of mixed migration flows, particularly that of unskilled migrants trafficked within the Horn region (Eritrea, Ethiopia and Sudan). It builds on case studies providing insights on the modus operandi of traffickers in the region and the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in enhancing resilience of those prone to being trafficked through "Youth on the Move" and "Selam" programmes. This include (1) increasing awareness of dangers of trafficking through targeted communication on smartphones; (2) increasing possibilities to enter (mental) health support through ICTs; and, (3) enhancing opportunities for economic integration in the Horn region. The research targets unaccompanied minor migrants and women (with/without children) migrating without male companion as units of study.

Syrian refugees and conflict in Lebanon: local resilience for long-term peace
Main applicant: Mr T.J.W. Wheeler (Saferworld, United Kingdom)
Co-applicant: Mr Atallah (Lebanese Center for Policy Studies (LCPS), Lebanon)

Focusing on how donor programs can more effectively address the consequences of Syrian refugee flows into the fragile state of Lebanon, this project will develop new insights on promoting long-term support for local actors to address tensions and reduce conflict risks. Large numbers of Syrian refugees have crossed into Lebanon in what is becoming a protracted situation. The evidence suggests that the flow and long-term presence of refugees increases the likelihood of conflict, especially in fragile contexts like Lebanon. However, Lebanon has not yet fallen into large-scale conflict. In contrast to existing research at the national level, this research focuses on the role of local actors – mainly municipalities and civil society - who have been on the front-line of Lebanon’s response to refugee flows. Building on previous research, Saferworld and LCPS will examine whether and why local level initiatives to reduce tensions in three comparative case study areas have been successful and sustainable. Recommendations will be made for how donors can better support local actors to reduce conflict risks, especially as they adjust programming to a protracted crisis. The project members will also engage in global policy debates on managing conflict risks due to large and protected inflows of refugees.

On the 12th of January 2017, the Secretariat of the Knowledge Platform Security & Rule of Law and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands organized a meeting on Strategic Communication and Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). The meeting was part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “Home Coming Days” for Regional Security Coordinators, and aimed to bridge connections among Dutch military and civilian actors that use strategic communication, in various forms and fields, to counter violent extremism.

Strategic communication and countering violent extremism

The starting point for the meeting was defining what strategic communication is, how it can be used to counter violent extremism, and what challenges and opportunities exist for its use in different contexts.

Dr. Haroro Ingram of the Australian National University and the International Center for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) in The Hague built on recent ICCT publications to describe how to develop effective strategic communications. While technology helps disseminate extremist messages more widely, Ingram argued, the reason these messages spread is because they resonate with target audiences. Strategic communication can work to dismantle or discredit these narratives.

The ineffectiveness of Western counter-messaging strategies allows extremist messages to prevail. To this end, Ingram suggested three interrelated principles to improve the success of strategic communication campaigns:

1.       Diverse (in means and media) messaging, to reach a wider audience.

2.       Messaging falls under the umbrella of an overarching, grand narrative to prevent the semblance of ad hoc messaging.

3.       Consistency of messages across all means of communication to retain focus on a specific objective and avoid alienation of audiences.

Lt. Col. Johan Koers presented on the challenges of working with (international) partners that maintain diverging narratives. Differences between military and civilian approaches, or the approaches of different countries working in coalitions, can hinder the overall effectiveness of strategic communication efforts. These differences, Koers argued, lead to unequal balances in sharing stories of success. For example, military successes are often easier to communicate than civilian successes. Koers again highlighted coherence in national and international messaging strategies as a condition for success.

Mr. Mourad Saidi shared insights into the Ministry of Social Affairs’ preventative measures against violent extremism. Mobilizing counter-narratives is a part of these efforts, although doing so remains a challenge. Saidi cited the emotional and moral appeal of extremist narratives, often communicated through the media, as particular obstacles to strategic communication. Key learnings accentuated by Saidi included, again, the necessity of consistent messaging and the notion that credibility of the messenger is a strong determinant of success. To this end, Saidi argued that working with civil society actors, and in foreign contexts perhaps local leaders, that enjoy more credibility in communities can spur effectiveness of strategic communication.

Learnings from groups discussions

·         Double standards and the “say-do” gap, the perceived disparity between Western countries’ words and deeds, breed and feed extremist narratives. Addressing and altering those perceptions should be a priority;

·         Working with a broad range of actors in media, government, entertainment, civil society, and, crucially, credible local actors, can enhance strategic communication efforts in terms of reach and legitimacy;

·         Access to (information about) previous strategic communication efforts can and should be improved. Lessons learned, tips and tricks, and contacts should flow between strategic communication actors – for example through an active and diverse network;

·         Consistency is key! Throughout all the discussions, the need for consistency of messaging was a central factor to improving strategic communication.

Strategic Communication & Countering Violent Extremism: The value of an integrated approach’