Following up on a workshop on compensation for Palestinian refugees in July 1999 (see al Majdal/ 3), international experts, government officials, UNRWA staff, UNHCR, representatives of the World Bank, and NGOs met outside of London in mid-February 2000 to discuss the future of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Participants contributed to the two days of discussions in a personal rather than official capacity. The workshop, jointly sponsored by the Palestinian Refugee ResearchNet and the Royal Institute of International Affairs and funded by the Canadian and UK governments, focused on several themes related to the future of UNRWA: transition  issues related to the permanent status; availability of resources for the transition; delivery of service issues; and the role of UN agencies in implementing the permanent status agreement.

While the aim of the workshop was to promote innovative thinking and effective policy planning in advance of an eventual permanent status agreement, the pre-determined framework presented for the workshop focused heavily on state rather than refugee interests - i.e. solving the refugee problem, per se, rather than solving the problems of the refugees. The primary state interest concerning the future of UNRWA and provision of education, health, social services was economic, particularly in the context of a rapidly expanding refugee population and declining donor resources.

Transition issues included a discussion of various permanent status scenarios with most participants agreeing that the Oslo process would not likely lead to implementation of the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Discussion also focused on implications of both a rapid and slow termination of the Agency. While a rapid termination may negatively impact efforts  to martial new monies to support implementation of an agreement, a slow termination in the context of continued budget crisis in UNRWA may negatively affect the ability of the Agency to carry out its mandate.

As regards financial resources, some experts argued that donor countries would unlikely be willing to provide long-term economic support for refugees in the advent of an agreement, even if the agreement did not provide for an immediate solution to the problems of the refugees. Other participants felt that donorcountry support for refugees would also be contingent on security interests in the region and the maintenance of stability. While some experts felt that costs currently covered by UNRWA could be transferred in varying degrees to most of the host countries, it would take a substantial  number of years before the Palestinian Authority could assume financially the costs of service provision to the present population of refugees living in the West Bank and Gaza.

Although a significant portion of discussions focused on economic constraints a number of ideas were raised about the delivery of services. These included harmonization of services and salary scales with existing services provided by host governments to the nonrefugee population; the transfer of current  services to host country governments, NGOs,and private service deliverers; shifting UNRWA's role from a service provider to a service manager; and, shifting eligibility for UNRWA services from a status-based to a needs-based criteria. Some participants also raised the prospect of the transfer of services by attrition due to continued budget constraints, rather than by agreement.

The role of other UN agencies related primarily to implementation of a final status agreement. The benefits of involvement by additional agencies, like the UNHCR, UNSCO, and UNDP, were weighed against the potential for inter-agency competition and UNRWA's current high level of efficient operations. Discussion also focused on whether UNRWA alone was equipped to provide all the necessary requirements for implementation of a final status agreement. Additional research, including demography, and facilitation of refugee participation in the process may require the active involvement of other agencies.

The workshop revealed several issues of concern from an international refugee law perspective. The framework for the workshop was focused predominantly around economic constraints, as if the primary stakeholder in the resolution of the refugee issue was donor countries rather than the refugees themselves. While a rights-based approach (i.e. international law and UN resolutions) was examined as one possible scenario for a final status agreement, most of the discussion about the future of UNRWA revolved around a so-called compromise scenario (i.e. no implementation of international law and UN resolutions) based on the current balance of power.

The design and implementation of durable solutions to refugee flows from an internationalrefugee law perspective is centered on  he refugee and the basic principle of refugee choice. This perspective was by and large absent from the workshop framework and subsequent discussions. Some of the final status scenarios were considered to allow refugee choice, however, the choice was severely limited (limited family reunification, rather than return).

The term repatriation, moreover, was often misused in reference to the resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the West Bank. Repatriation, rather applies to the return of refugees to their homes and lands, which are located inside Israel. The workshop highlighted the urgent need to clarify the status and rights of Palestinian refugees under international refugee law. Many participants viewed the creation of a Palestinian state and the accordance of citizenship rights to refugees, even if most do not or are not able to return, as extinguishing the status of refugees as refugees. Several participants noted however, that in the case of Jordan, Palestinian refugees continue to be defined as refugees even though they carry Jordanian citizenship. Few participants were aware of the fact of that Palestinian refugees do not have a functioning protection agency, its relation to UNRWA, and the importance  of such an agency in finding and implementing a durable solution for Palestinian refugees.

Finally, the workshop highlighted a basic misconception of the refugee issue, its relation to the Palestinian people as a whole, and to a resolution of the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict. While refugees are a unique social and increasingly political sector of Palestinian society, the interests and demands of refugees transcend particular social and political identity. The right of return is a national Palestinian interest; a comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian - Israeli conflict (i.e. including all socalled final status issues under the Oslo framework) is dependent on a durable solution (i.e. refugee choice) to the Palestinian refugee issue according to international refugee law and practice. In this sense it is critical for workshops like the one on the future of UNRWA and its predecessors (see past issues of al Majdal and Article 74) to first address the issue of the status of Palestinian refugees under international refugee law, and then to seriously address the issue of repatriation.