Annex 1 Terms of Reference

Protracted refugee situation evaluations

Evaluation of UNHCR’s role in theBurundian refugee situation in Tanzania

1. Background and rationale

In 2008, the High Commissioner (HC) launched a Special Initiative on Protracted Refugee Situations (PRS) to promote durable solutions and improvements in the life of refugees in protracted refugee situations.

The HC’s Initiative focuses on five situations in different parts of the world where refugees have been living in exile for long periods of time. As a part of the Initiative, a number of country-specific strategies and work plans were established. A commitment was also made to ’review the overall progress of the PRS Initiative and report on its findings and recommendations in 2010’. This will be done by undertaking country-based evaluations in four of the five targeted protracted refugee situations:

• Croatian refugees in Serbia (Amended August 10^th, 2010);
  
  
  
• Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh;
  
  
  
• Eritrean refugees in Eastern Sudan and;
  
  
  
• Burundian refugees in Tanzania.

The Afghan situation has been excluded for the time being due to security considerations.

2. Overall purpose and objectives

The overall aims of the evaluations are:

• to assess how effectively UNHCR has exercised its mandate in finding durable solutions for refugees;
  
  
  
• to determine whether the search for solutions has been consistent with UNHCR’s protection mandate;
  
  
  
• to examine the catalytic role UNHCR has played in engaging other players in the resolution of the refugee situation;
  
  
  
• to assess the progress UNHCR has made in improving the quality of life for the refugees;
  
  
  
• to identify examples of good practice, innovative approaches and lessons learned.

3. Background to PRS evaluation in Tanzania

For over a decade the United Republic of Tanzania has hosted the largest number of refugees in Africa, with Burundian refugees constituting the largest single group. Burundian refugees have come in several waves, firstly in 1972 when internal conflict drove a mass of people out of the country – the majority to Tanzania, where 220,000 people continue to live in three designated settlements in central and western Tanzania, known as the ’Old Settlements’.

These people are in a different situation to those who arrived later as the 1972 refugees have lost all claims to their land and assets in Burundi, many of them have lived in Tanzania for 35 years or were born there (82%) and have developed cultural, economic and kinship ties to Tanzania. Furthermore, the approach to these refugees was quite different, with settlements laid out as planned villages and each household allocated a few acres of land for cultivation.

Settlements achieved agricultural and economic self sufficiency fairly rapidly and stopped receiving any form of international assistance in 1985. They are now administered by the Government of Tanzania through the Ministry of Home Affairs.

In 2007 Tanzania indicated its intention to close the Old Settlements. As a result a tripartite Commission of the Governments of Burundi and Tanzania, and UNHCR, established an Old Settlements Task Force (OSTF) to find durable solutions to these people’s displacement.

UNHCR organized a census and an individual registration, through which the intention of refugees was recorded. In addition a detailed study was made of their social, demographic and economic situation. On the basis of this the OSTF developed a durable solutions programme based on three components:

1. Voluntary repatriation and re-integration in Burundi for those who wish to return (20%)
   
   
   
2. Naturalisation of refugees who wish to stay in Tanzania (80%), and
   
   
   
3. Full social and economic integration of the newly naturalized citizens including relocation to other areas of Tanzania.

Later influxes of Burundian refugees in the 1990s have been hosted in refugee camps in the north western part of Tanzania, which hosted 340,000 people for over ten years. With peace and stability returning to Burundi, an organized repatriation programme assisting refugees cover the immediate needs during the actual relocation (transport of people and assets) and the initial repatriation period (food, non-food items, cash grant, legal aid, and shelter for vulnerable groups), coupled with the Tanzanian Government decision to close down all camps, the number of Burundian refugees in camps has reduced significantly. Only one camp – the Mtabila camp – remains open providing protection and essential services for the residual population of Burundian 35,000 refugees.

4. Objective of Tanzania evaluation

The overall objective of the evaluation will be to address the key questions outlined in the generic ToR and above, i.e. assess:

• how UNHCR has exercised its mandate in finding durable solutions, i.e. the role and contribution of UNHCR in the design and implementation of the durable solution strategies in Tanzania, particularly the naturalisation and full integration strategies;
  
  
  
• the catalytic role UNHCR has played in engaging other players, in particular the Governments as well as UN and donors through the Deliver as One UN process (to which Tanzania is a pilot);
  
  
  
• the progress it has made in improving the quality of refugee life.

In addition to this the objective of the Tanzania evaluation will be to assess each of the three durable solution strategies in terms of:

• the relevance and appropriateness of the strategies to refugees themselves and to other relevant stakeholders such as host communities, local and national government;
  
  
  
• the effectiveness of the strategies in achieving their stated goals and the role and adequacy of UNHCR support to these processes;
  
  
  
• the link between short and medium term activities and objectives of repatriation and integration strategies on one hand and longer term development goals on the other.

5. Scope of evaluation

Interventions: The evaluation will cover all three strategies for durable solutions. While the strategy on naturalisation, and the strategy on full social and economic integration are only relevant to the 1972 group of Burundian refugees living in the ’Old Settlements’, the strategy on voluntary repatriation pertains to all Burundian refugees, both the 1972 group as well as later Burundian refugees based in camps. The repatriation strategy has, however, been applied slightly differently between the ’Old settlements’ and the camps. An assessment of the repatriation strategy will therefore need to distinguish between the two approaches.

Timeframe: While the Special Initiative of the High Commissioner was initiated in December 2008, the evaluation will cover a longer time period from 2007 when the Tanzania Government announced its intention of closing down the Old Settlements and the OSTF was established. The period from 2007 and onwards also covers the time when significant repatriation of refugees in camps took place.

Evaluation criteria: A subset of the five standard OECD-DAC evaluation criteria will be applied, in particular relevance and effectiveness and to some extent impact (see section on methodology) as well as a subset of the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria developed for evaluating humanitarian action in complex emergencies, in particular appropriateness, coordination and connectedness i.e. the extent to which UNHCR has been able to engage Government and other stakeholders with more long term development agendas to ’take over’ when UNHCR support ceases.

Evaluation questions: Below follows a list of nine main evaluation questions as well as suggested sub-questions pertaining to each of these. While the first three questions are not evaluation questions in themselves but more background and contextual information necessary to understand the subsequent more investigative and analytical evaluation questions, they have however been included in the list below in order to provide a full overview of the issues expected to be covered in the evaluation report.

Background (contextual information)

1. Outline the overall historical context of the refugee situation as well as the current refugee situation:
   
   
   • Reasons behind, scope and timing of refugee migration flows; current location, profile, and situation of refugees; impact on host communities.
     
     
2. Describe the operational environment in which UNHCR and other partners work:
   
   
   • Political / social / economic / and security environment; the national asylum climate; how the formal legal framework, as well as the existing informal structures have affected the PRS and influenced people’s lives.
     
     
3. Describe the durable solutions strategy in general and the three specific durable solution strategies for refugees in Tanzania – voluntary repatriation, naturalisation and full integration:
   
   
   • Rationale for the Special Initiative in Tanzania. Is the initiative appropriate and in line with UNHCR’s principles and AGDM strategy?
     
     
     
   • Underlying assumptions (programme theory), planned activities, and expected results of each of the three strategies.

Evaluation questions

4. What is the relevance and appropriateness of the durable solution strategies to refugees as well as other key stakeholders?
   
   
   • What motivated the Governments of Tanzania and Burundi to engage in durable solutions? What role did UNHCR play in bringing about the durable solutions strategy? What determined the mix of strategies?
     
     
     
   • To which extent have the interests and needs of different key stakeholders (national and local government, host communities, refugees themselves including vulnerable groups within those societies) been taken into account and reflected in the durable solution strategies?
     
     
5. How effective has the implementation of the durable solutions strategy been in undertaking the planned activities and achieving the anticipated results? How relevant and appropriate have the activities been?
   
   
   • What is progress and achievements compared with the expected results?
     
     
     
   • Which constraints or challenges to implementation exist and to which extent are they related to logistical bottle necks, capacity and experience of UNHCR and other partners, coordination, resource allocation etc.?
     
     
     
   • Was the assistance provided by UNHCR to the repatriation process, the natural-isation process and the integration process appropriate and adequate? To which extent did it meet the (short/medium/long term) needs of refugees including vulnerable groups. To which extent did it contribute to capacity building of local authorities?
     
     
6. How has the internal coordination been in UNHCR?
   
   
   • Degree of internal coordination and support between UNHCR field offices operating in the countries of origin and in host countries, as well as the relevance and effectiveness of support provided by HQ?
     
     
7. What has been the role of partnerships in the planning and implementation of the PRS – UNHCRs role in engaging different stakeholders?
   
   
   • To what extent was UNHCR’s strategy developed a part of a broader inter-agency assessment and planning process – what role has the Delivering as One process played?
     
     
     
   • Establishment of effective partnerships with national and local government authorities, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders? Did UNHCR play a catalytic role in bringing about these partnerships?
     
     
     
   • Do other agencies see any added value in partnering with UNHCR? Is there potential for greater collaboration?
     
     
     
   • Did UNHCR make any effort for responsible disengagement including capacity building of key partners? If not, is there potential for measured disengagement and the handing over of responsibilities to other partners?
     
     
8. To what extent has UNHCR and the Special Initiative on PRS influenced or contributed to the implementation of durable solutions in Tanzania:
   
   
   • Who are the movers and drivers of the durable solutions strategy (stakeholder analysis)? What has been the role and manoeuvre room for UNHCR and has its role changed over time?
     
     
     
   • To which extent has UNHCR exploited the full potential for the promotion of durable solutions, are there any missed opportunities?
     
     
9. What difference if any has the High Commissioners Special Initiative on PRS made compared with what was already planned in the Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy (TANCOSS) launched in March 2008.
   
   
   
10. To what extent have the durable solution strategies contributed to improvements in the quality of life of Burundian refugees?
    
    
    • What are the expectations of different stakeholders to the repatriation process and the naturalisation process, what are these expectations based on, how realistic are they, and what role has UNHCR played in shaping the expectations?
      
      
      
    • What difference has the repatriation process made to the lives of the returned Burundian refugees? To which degree have their expectations been met?
      
      
      
    • What are the possible positive and negative implications of the integration strategy for the newly naturalized former Burundian refugees?
      
      
      
    • How does UNHCR plan to protect the rights of newly naturalized former refugees and promote the full implementation of the planned integration activities, once they start to be relocated? What role does UNHCR play in the debate on whether and where to relocate the former Burundian refugees?

6. Methodology

The evaluation will be based on a triangulation of methods including:

• a desk review of relevant documents, UNHCR documents will be reviewed as well as documents and reports from external partners such as NGOs, Government and other international organizations;
  
  
  
• interviews with UNHCR staff in Geneva;
  
  
  
• country mission including interviews with UNHCR staff in Tanzania, staff from relevant organizations such as civil society, government at national and local level, donors etc. and focus group discussions with district staff as well as with refugees in the Mtabila camp and in one or more of the three ’Old Settlements’ disaggregated on the basis of age, gender and diversity.

Distinction between UNHCR support in general and the PRS initiative
As the durable solutions strategies for Burundian refugees in Tanzania were planned before the launch of the High Commissioners PRS initiative, the evaluation will to a large extent focus on the role UNHCR has played in the development and implementation of these strategies, and the lessons that can be drawn from this irrespective of whether Tanzania was part of the special initiative or not. Only the last concluding question will address the issue, of whether the inclusion of Tanzania as one of the five targeted countries for the special initiative on PRS has actually had any influence on the durable solutions work in Tanzania or not.

Limitations
The impact of the durable solution strategies on refugees, can only be dealt with in an indirect manner. As fieldwork is confined to Tanzania, it will not be possible to conduct interviews with refugees who have already repatriated to Burundi. Information on how the strategy has influenced their lives will therefore need to be based on i) secondary data such as existing reports, studies, surveys, ii) anecdotal evidence from refugees still in Tanzania but in contact with friends or relatives already repatriated in Burundi, and iii) possibly telephone interviews with the UNHCR Burundi office and possibly relevant district offices (with many returnees).

In relation to the naturalisation and local integration strategy the relocation of newly naturalized citizens has not yet been implemented and it is therefore too early to evaluate the actual impact of the strategy. Instead the evaluation will need to discuss the possible implications of the integration strategy on refugees as well as on local communities in terms of economic, social, cultural and environmental implications.

7. Evaluation team

The evaluation will be undertaken by a two person team of external consultants, an international team leader and a national team member. This team will be supported by two resource persons from UNHCR HQ, a staff member from respectively OSTS and PDES.

8. Output

The evaluation will lead to the preparation of a report providing specific recommendations for the durable solutions programme, generic lessons learned and good practice examples. The report should not exceed 35 pages (excluding annexes) and must be accompanied by a summary of findings and recommendations.

9. Reporting and timing

The evaluation will be undertaken during the period April-August 2010. The following workplan outlines timing of key milestones:

10. Management and funding

The evaluation will be managed jointly by the Policy Development and Evaluations Services (PDES) in UNHCR and the Evaluation Department (EVAL) in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Participation of UNHCR staff members in the evaluation missions will be funded by their respective units. Consulting fees, travel expenses and DSA for the two consultants will be covered by EVAL. Please refer to ’Agreement between the Evaluation Department in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and UNHCR regarding the Tanzania Evaluation’ for further details.

11. Norms and standards

The evaluation will be undertaken in accordance with UNHCR’s evaluation policy, as well as the UN Evaluation Group’s Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the UN system and the UNEG Code of Conduct.

Copenhagen, June 6^th, 2010.