Memorandum submitted by the Thailand Burma
Border Consortium (TBBC)
1. TBBC/ CCSDPT
TBBC is a charity limited by guarantee in England
and Wales, registered in London. It is a consortium of 10 NGOs
from eight countries based in Bangkok with field offices in Chiang
Mai, Mae Hong Son, Mae Sariang, Mae Sot and Sangkhlaburi.
TBBC has been providing humanitarian assistance
to Burmese refugees since the first major influx in 1984 and today
provides all of the food, shelter and non-food items in each of
the nine camps along the Thailand Burma border. There are 19 other
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in health, education,
community services and protection as members of the Committee
for the Coordination of Services to Displaced Person in Thailand
(CCSDPT). TBBC takes a lead role in CCSDPT which coordinates the
assistance under the mandate of the Ministry of Interior (MOI)
of the Royal Thai Government (RTG) and working closely with the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
[***]
TBBC conducts research and documentation on
internal displacement which is now presented in annual reports.
These are acknowledged as the most reliable source of information
on IDPs in eastern Burma and are frequently referred to in international
fora and media, most recently by the Internal Displacement Monitoring
Centre, Geneva.[44]
2. NEEDS OF
IDPS IN
BURMA AND
REFUGEES IN
THAILAND
IDPs: TBBC currently estimates that there
are at least 500,000 IDPs in eastern Burma.[45]
TBBC surveys have demonstrated that these are some of the most
vulnerable people in Burma. Humanitarian needs vary according
to displacement category, those in hiding in conflict areas being
the most challenged. The greatest need is for protection against
humanitarian atrocities and human rights abuses, but assistance
with food security, health care and education are also essential.
Internal Displacement in Eastern Burma, 2006 Survey, Thailand
Burma Border Consortium, www.tbbc.org
Vulnerability surveys reflect a critical situation
amongst internally displaced communities in eastern Burma.[46]
The demographic composition of IDP communities is significantly
younger than for the rest of Burma. Child mortality and malnutrition
rates are more than double Burma's baseline rate, indicating a
public health emergency. More than half of IDP households have
had their children's access to education disrupted or restricted
during the past year.
Protection surveys indicate that despite the
severity of threats to lives, the prevalence of threats to livelihoods
is on a much greater scale.[47]
Arbitrary taxation and forced labour were the most pervasive human
rights abuses recorded, with a third of households directly affected
during the past year. The proportion of households affected by
arbitrary taxes and forced labour was highest in government relocation
sites. In contrast, the destruction of food supplies and housing
was more prevalent amongst people hiding in the most militarily
contested areas. These indicators reflect how soldiers from the
Burma Army are the primary perpetrators of abuse and violence
directed at civilians.
SPDC does not acknowledge that there is an IDP
problem and, in general, Burma-based UN and NGO actors have only
limited access to Eastern Burma. Where access is possible it
is mainly within SPDC controlled areas and very little humanitarian
assistance is delivered to the conflict areas.
However, ethnic CBOs are able to access some
of these vulnerable populations through cross border programmes
addressing basic needs, although much more could be done if
adequate and dependable funding was available. The border
based CBOs have demonstrated their ability to deliver effective
assistance and their capacity to expand activities.
[***]
Refugees: There are currently approximately
154,000 refugees in the nine camps along the Thailand Burma border.[48]
Until recently the RTG permitted no income generation or employment
of the refugees; all refugees were confined to the camps; and
only basic humanitarian services were permitted. As a consequence,
the refugees are almost totally dependent on external services
and supplies provided by CCSDPT members, although the NGOs maximise
refugee participation and responsibilities in implementing their
programmes.
During the last two years, CCSDPT/ UNHCR have
advocated for refugees to be allowed income generation/employment
opportunities and improved skills training and education, and
the RTG has agreed to allow this on a case by case basis. Small
initiatives have already been taken but it is likely to take a
long time and further commitment from RTG before these make any
significant impact on the self-sufficiency of the refugees and
the level of assistance required. Indeed, in the short term additional
resources will be required to start new programmes.
CCSDPT/UNHCR are currently working on a Comprehensive
Plan for 2007-08[49]
which will be presented at a Donors Forum on 29 May. Provisional
data indicate that in 2007 the NGOs and UNHCR will spend approximately
baht 2.2 billion (GBP 32 million) on all services. Currently 15
governments plus the EC fund these programmes.
Whilst existing programmes address basic needs,
the Comprehensive Plan will identify gaps to address outstanding
service needs and protection concerns. These will include efforts
to expand skills training and income generation etc to pursue
opportunities offered by RTG policy changes.
In summary, CCSDPT members and UNHCR have the
capacity and experience to be able to meet all basic refugee humanitarian
needs and to improve the quality of life in response to RTG initiatives.
This will however require ongoing support and increased funding
to meet ever-increasing population numbers, inflation and the
development of new initiatives.
3. CHALLENGES
FACED IN
DELIVERING AID
AND ASSISTANCE
IDPs: Delivering aid and assistance to
IDPs is extremely problematic because Thailand cannot officially
condone cross-border assistance and agencies inside the country
have limited access. However, border-based CBOs have developed
effective aid delivery systems which are capable of expansion.
[***]
Refugees: NGOs enjoy good relationships with
the RTG and there are no significant problems in gaining access
to deliver humanitarian support. The main constraints are
restrictive RTG policies concerning the confinement of refugees
to the camps, limitations on space and difficulties in obtaining
permission to expand activities. As described under 1, considerable
progress has been made in broadening Thai policy and increased
opportunities are anticipated in the future.
4. HOW DIFFERENT
DTHNIC GROUPS
ARE AFFECTED
BY DISPLACEMENT
The TBBC reports referred to in 1 above describe
the impact of displacement on all the ethnic groups in the eastern
border areas, mainly the Karen, Karenni, Mon and Shan nationalities
but including many smaller ethic groups.
IDPs: TBBC's reports clearly
document the situation of IDPs in each of the eastern border States
and Divisions, describing the scale of both conflict and development-induced
displacement. Currently the areas most affected by military operations
and humanitarian atrocities are Karen communities in northern
Karen State and Eastern Pegu Divisions.
Former Mon refugees were obliged to return to
Burma after agreeing a cease-fire with SLORC in 1996 and are still
living in refugee-like conditions in "resettlement sites"
in cease-fire areas across the border. They have limited land,
are remote and have difficulty accessing markets. They are not
self-sufficient and receive very little support from Burma-based
agencies. Food, development and education support are provided
from Thailand.
Refugees: Only the Karen and Karenni are acknowledged
as refugees by the RTG and are provided for in the nine border
camps. There is only one very small unofficial refugee camp for
Shan refugees although it is estimated that over 200,000 have
entered Thailand since 1996. These are scattered throughout much
of Northern Thailand living on farms, orchards and construction
sites as illegal migrant/ workers. Some NGOs are able to provide
very small scale support but Shan refugees generally subsist as
exploited and vulnerable illegal migrants.
[***]
5. THE LIKELY
TRENDS IN
THE REGION
IN TERMS
OF DISPLACEMENT,
AND DEVELOPMENT
AND HUMANITARIAN
NEEDS
The Burmese Army has gradually been assimilating
the ethnic areas in Eastern Burma by force since the mid-1970s.
The last major ethnic resistance bases were overrun in the mid
1990s since when the ethnic nationalities have controlled no significant
territory. During the last 10 years SPDC has gradually consolidated
control through the forced relocation of over 3,000 villages affecting
more than one million people. As territory has been secured SPDC
has embarked on exploitive "development" projects including
agriculture, mines, logging and dams which further displace and
impoverish the population.
It seems apparent that SPDC is determined to
gain total control of the border areas and that the process of
assimilation will continue indefinitely. Unless there is a change
of policy or SPDC is removed from power the trends of the last
decade will continue with more people displaced by the military
campaign and confiscation of land for development projects. This
will inevitably led to further declines in living standards and
ongoing refugee flows into Thailand.
Although some refugees will be leaving for resettlement
to third countries, there will likely be increasing needs for
refugee assistance and increasing needs for support to IDPs.
6. HOW DONORS
CAN ASSIST
IDPS IN
BURMA AND
REFUGEES IN
THAILAND MOST
EFFECTIVELY
Border-based CBOs have demonstrated their ability
to deliver effective assistance and Donors should expand this
support.
[***]
The assistance programmes for refugees in
Thailand are effective, proven and efficient. Donors should continue
to support these efforts. TBBC's funding needs are well-documented
and CCSDPT is currently preparing a Comprehensive Plan which will
identify gaps in assistance and protection programmes. Donor
support could be more effective if Donors placed more effort in
coordinating their responses.
7. THE ADVANTAGES
AND DISADVANTAGES
OF CROSS-BORDER
ASSISTANCE COMPARED
WITH OTHER
WAYS OF
ASSISTING IDPS
IN BURMAFor
many IDPs the only access is from Thailand and the only way of
assisting them is cross-border. Other IDPs may be accessible from
inside Burma. The main advantage of cross-border assistance is
in reaching the most vulnerable IDPs who are hiding from the Burmese
military. Agencies based inside the country may be able to reach
IDPs affected by systematic human rights violations, but they
have not assisted those affected by humanitarian atrocities.
[***]
8. THE IMPACT
OF DFID'S
POLICIES TOWARDS
BURMA'S'
IDPS AND
REFUGEES
DFID supports refugees by funding TBBC and a
small grant to the International Rescue Committee. DFID's grant
represents about 3.5 % of TBBC's budget and little more than 2%
of the total UNHCR/ NGO programme.
Until very recently DFID funds could not be
used for IDP support cross-border and, although this restriction
has now been lifted, no additional funds have been granted for
this purpose.
TBBC is currently about GBP 1.7 million short
of funds for 2007. [***]
TBBC would suggest that DFID should significantly
increase its support to TBBC to help cover the deficiency in funding
[***]
If DFID were able to significantly increase
its support to refugees in Thailand then consideration should
be given to support the expansion of activities through other
NGOs in areas where the RTG is opening new opportunities (protection,
income generation, skills training and education).
TBBC is unable to comment much on DFID's impact
on IDPs from inside Burma because so little is known. [***]
44 "Myanmar, a worsening crisis of internal displacement",
28 March 2007. www.internal-displacement.org Back
45
Internal Displacement in Eastern Burma, 2006 Survey, Thailand
Burma Border Consortium, www.tbbc.org Back
46
Internal Displacement and Vulnerability in Eastern Burma, 2004,
Thailand Burma Border Consortium, www.tbbc.org Back
47
Internal Displacement and Protection in Eastern Burma, 2005, Thailand
Burma Border Consortium, www.tbbc.org Back
48
Thailand Burma Border Consortium 6 Month Report, February 2007,
www.tbbc.org Back
49
Being drafted. The CCSDPT/ UNHCR Comprehensive Plan for 2006/7
was presented to Donors in May 2006. Back
| 
