RENC(2017)3-final                                                                                                                     13/09/2017

2017 Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Discussion paper prepared by the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees[1]

Migrants and refugees: challenges and opportunities –

The response of religious and non-religious groups[2]

A.         Introduction

1.             Religion has multiple dimensions in the context of forced displacement and migration. Firstly, there is the link between the humanitarian movement and religion. For most of human history, charity and compassion for those forced from their homes by various man-made or natural disasters have been driven to a large degree by religious beliefs. Although extremely diverse, the teachings of the major world religions have many commonalities related to charity, benevolence and the assistance of those in need. Before World War II the humanitarian movement was strongly linked with religious organisations. The secularisation of humanitarian action after World War II led to a certain decline in religious presence. However this trend has begun to be reversed in the past decade, with the expansion of faith-based responses to humanitarian crises and displacement, with the establishment of new religiously inspired NGOs and humanitarian agencies. The expenditures of some religious organisations in international assistance at times equal or exceed the expenditure of secular humanitarian NGOs.

2.             Secondly, many individuals seeking protection and sanctuary are coming from faith or belief traditions and may even be fleeing persecution on the ground of their religion or belief. Their religion and spirituality can help them cope in multiple ways: providing meaning in the face of grave loss, helping reduce anxiety, connecting victims to social support. Having hope helps people cope with adversity, find meaning in adversity and build resilience. Such resilience may be a factor facilitating integration and/or communitarianism. At the same time, strongly held religious beliefs may render difficult the adaptation to the new environment.

3.             The emphasis sometimes placed in public and political discourses in host countries on the religious identity of migrants and refugees may lead to problematic assumptions, such as that most refugees and migrants are Muslim and that they are necessarily practicing their declared religion/faith. Migrants’ experiences are mostly unique and their engagement with religion may be just as individual. For this reason, over-emphasising or ignoring altogether the migrants’ religious identity can make it more difficult to secure their resettlement and accommodation in the new country. It is important to find a middle ground.

4.             And finally, some religious leaders have expressed views that are not entirely positive in relation to forced migration, to strangers or to other religions or beliefs. It is not uncommon for xenophobia and radicalisation attitudes to be, or to be perceived as, anchored in or justified by religious beliefs. The key factor affecting the input of religion on forced migration is ultimately how its adherents understand and enact the normative principles of their religion.

5.             For all the reasons described above and perhaps several others, it is believed that any study of migration and humanitarianism in the context of migration, is incomplete without assessing the complex role of faith, spirituality and religion.

6.             This paper will briefly address the particular responses and challenges of faith-based and non‑faith‑based organisations to massive displacement and migration. It will first discuss the peculiarities of faith-based and secular organisations. It will subsequently consider their role in States’ migration policies as well as in the reception and integration of migrants and refugees. The paper concludes with a short overview of their interaction with international organisations.

B.         Faith-based and secular organisations

Definitions

7.             Faith-based humanitarian organisations (“FBOs”) share many features with their secular counterparts. However, the two aspects which set them apart are that FBOs are motivated by their faith and that they have a constituency which is broader than individuals with humanitarian concerns. An FBO is often defined as an organisation that refers directly or indirectly to religion or religious values, and that functions as a welfare provider and/or as a political actor. It is important to note that FBOs are not just churches or other official religious institutions per se. They also include para-religious associations that exist as independent legal entities. Defining an FBO is a contentious issue, as FBOs are a complex set of actors. Some state explicitly their religious mission, others are motivated by religious texts but also see the texts as supporting values such as human dignity and justice. Some are more traditional and evangelistic; others are strictly working for their own community; while a third category, for example, may operate as umbrella organisations for faith-motivated and secular people within a post-secular context.

8.             On the other side of the spectrum are non-faith-based or secular organisations. Secularism is considered to be ideologically neutral and advocating pluralism. However, scholars have argued that in its appeal to reason as universal, secularism exhibits in fact an ideology which says that only that which is materially verifiable is deemed reasonable. This ideology is seen as a form of liberal materialism. Not all non-faith-based organisations adhere to this position on secularism or identify themselves as humanist, agnostic or atheist; many of them define themselves as secular only to clarify that they are non-religious. Any reference to non-religious or secular organisations in this paper is essentially related to the latter group, unless otherwise specified.

The distinction between secular and faith-based organisations

9.             In some respects, the distinction between secular and faith-based organisations (FBOs) is difficult to draw. Some FBOs explicitly state that they provide assistance regardless of religion, ethnicity, religion, gender. In this sense they share many of the commitments of secular humanitarian organisations, such as impartiality, non-discrimination, respect for the beliefs of others, diversity, empowerment, equality, humanity, and protection against any form of conditionality, including their criticism of proselytisation of persons in vulnerable situations. Staff in large faith-based organisations is increasingly drawn from the same pool of professional humanitarian experts as the staff of secular organisations. Nevertheless, church-led governance structures often differ in expectations, methodology and religious literacy from an increasingly secular staff group. Conversely, many individuals of faith work within the secular humanitarian sector. Secular humanitarian organisations themselves possess an orientation to aid and relief that transcends what is feasible politically, giving humanitarian work itself a kind of faith dimension.

10.          In stressing that their approaches overlap with those based on humanistic, reason-based values, some faith-based organisations, like the Catholic Relief Service and Islamic Relief, indicate that they are ready to be held accountable to the professional standards of effectiveness increasingly operative in the humanitarian world. The debate on professionalism is highly charged and usually defined with reference to Western standards of accountability and management.  Such accountability is becoming a precondition for obtaining the necessary financial support, including support from governments.

Due to the similarities in their efficiency and accountability, secular and FBOs must sometimes compete for funds not only between themselves, but also with private contractors. This is one of the reasons why secular organisations oppose views designating FBOs as similar to them. This reserved stance may partially explain some of the difficulties encountered when coordinating programmatic work between secular and FBOs.

11.          The roles of faith-based actors should not be automatically prioritised over or downplayed vis-à-vis secular actors. It is also unnecessary to artificially give religion and spirituality a central role. However, it may be necessary to leave some room that would allow us to understand how people – refugees, local community members, and humanitarian aid providers – experience religious and secular traditions, religious texts and practices, recognising that at times these texts, practices and traditions will defy categorisation as either clearly “religious” or “secular”. Given that faith, spirituality and religious practices are a central feature of life for a large proportion of displaced people, a focus on dignity must include supporting the spiritual needs of displaced people and better understanding of the contribution of religious rituals and faith-based social networks as sources of personal and communal resilience.

The contribution of faith based and secular organisations in a migration context

12.          The contribution of non-religious organisations in a migration context has been thoroughly studied and is well known, while the study of FBOs in this area has attracted attention only in the last decade. The work of humanists, agnostics and atheists in the same migration-related sphere remains largely understudied. This paper will further explore the particular features of FBOs but also has the purpose of encouraging further discussion on the contribution of secular organisations.

13.          Physical and human resources are often mentioned in respect of the contribution made by faith-based organisations, both in humanitarian relief settings and elsewhere. Religious buildings are often used for shelter, community uses, meeting places and so on. Bells and loudspeakers can be used for warning of risks. Networks of volunteers may be mobilised for many purposes, as they bring a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience.

14.          In terms of human resources, it is clear that holding a religious belief or belonging to a religious group does not necessarily mean that one does not hold prejudicial views against immigrants generally or refugees and asylum seekers in particular. This needs to be taken into account when considering the potential role for local faith organisations in supporting or advocating for refugees. The degree to which the religious institution is connected to the State, and what those State policies towards refugees and asylum seekers are, is important. Teachings of the religion on other topics related to minorities may influence attitudes to immigrants and the drivers to adhere to group norms may be strong. Given all these points, the role of leaders and other persons of influence within faith organisations and communities is crucial for how the group may respond towards refugees and asylum seekers.

15.          The ability of faith-based actors to relate across cultures through the language of commonly held beliefs and to work through local faith-based actors is an important advantage. Engaging with them may facilitate understanding of sensitive issues (like headscarves) which may transcend secular organisations’ expectations. In many settings the community’s religious life is not readily distinguishable from its broader social and cultural life.

16.          Faith organisations can be very useful in helping communities deal with risk and adapt to change; familiar rituals, common beliefs and prayer can bring people together in difficult situations and provide something stable when everything else seems to be changing. In this sense, faith-based actors may have an active role in combating social exclusion and in promoting social cohesion.

17.          By their very nature, faith-based organisations may sometimes be viewed as wishing to proselytise, while engaging in their other work. It is hard to verify the degree to which proselytising occurs, but humanitarian principles would suggest that such organisations should not be prevented from providing aid and that aid should never be conditioned by conversion. The conversion of vulnerable populations such as refugees could be considered to amount to religious persecution. In this context, it should be stressed that conversion may also be a factor prompting individuals/families to apply for asylum.

18.          Among secular organisations the need for spiritual protection is not always consciously considered as a part of the protection that needs to be offered. This is to some extent a consequence of the secular worldview that considers spirituality and faith as a private, personal issue and thus something that each individual must be allowed to resolve for themselves. In this sense, the secular humanitarian sector may benefit from religious literacy. This could be essential for their work with migrants but may also address the existing bias against faith-based organisations among staff outside the faith community. “Religion-blindness” by secular organisations can lead them to adopt a particular stance vis-à-vis religion. Such a stance may explain why refugees seeking aid or asylum in Western countries may feel that they have to portray themselves in particular ways in order to appeal to the ideals of aid agencies and governments: for Muslims asylum-seekers from North Africa and the Middle East, this involves sometimes downplaying their connections to Islam so as not to be treated with suspicion. Challenges related to the outreach to beneficiaries within a diversity of religious orientations may be met by employing agents of different faiths to operate through different modalities in different contexts (employing staff of different faiths, refugee and non-refugee, diversify donor basis). Alternatively, faith differences could be mitigated by the use of secular human rights language.

19.          Selection of beneficiaries may be coloured by facets of the religious beliefs on which the organisation is based. For example if the religion underpinning the organisation has specific teachings on homosexuality, this group may be, overtly or otherwise, excluded from benefit. Funding criteria may also be a factor in beneficiary selection; faith organisations may receive their funding through larger international religious structures which affects whom they help and in what circumstances. Small faith community initiatives may be more flexible in this regard and may not need to abide by specific selection criteria. The most often cited issue related to faith organisations and whom they help is whether or not they abide by the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality when selecting beneficiaries. However, in some cultures partiality can be viewed as natural solidarity. Despite this recognition, there is frequently disquiet about an approach that is not universal.

20.          At the same time, neither secular nor faith-based organisations are immune from patriarchal attitudes. Concerns frequently stem from a series of largely negative assumptions about the relationship between religion and gender, i.e. FBOs are more “conservative” and “patriarchal” than secular organisations and agencies; that local faith communities and faith leaders may hinder the participation of women and girls as decision-makers, as aid and service providers and as beneficiaries alike; and that faith-based organisations will refuse to engage with individuals and social groups that do not comply with dominant norms regarding gender and sexuality. In reality, neither faith-based organisations nor secular organisations are automatically “conservative” or “progressive” with regards to gender roles and relations: both secular organisations and religious organisations can carry gender-limiting beliefs and practices. A survey conducted by the Organisation of Refugee Asylum and Migration in 2013, which examined attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) asylum-seekers, concluded that faith-based organisations’ views on providing services to LGBTI people are no better or worse than the attitudes held by secular institutions. The assumption that secular models are to be preferred to faith-based groups because they are more “neutral” is too simplistic.

21.          The involvement of FBOs with migration policy has generally followed a holistic approach: on one hand, by providing services directly to migrants and, on the other hand, by lending their voice to the design and formulation of public policies that affect migrants. The following two sections will refer to and to policy engagement and to reception and integration services accordingly.

C.         Faith-based Organisations, religion and migration policy

22.          States, and particularly wealthy Western States, are increasingly framing forced migration as a security, rather than a humanitarian issue. This determines the choice of strategies for allowing the entry of migrants and refugees but also the integration model, as described below. The role of FBOs and religion in public policies is largely determined by formal and informal relations between State and religion. In Europe there is not one model for the relations between the State and the religious communities; quite the contrary: Europe has a wide variety of constitutional models governing such relations. The current systems can be divided into three categories: a) existence of a State Church; b) complete separation between the State and all religious organisations; and c) concordat-type relations (the latter is the predominant model in European countries).

23.          The model on which the relationship is based will determine the willingness of States to assume a duty of accommodation for different religious needs in their policies, migration policy included. So far, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has not been unanimous about the existence of a duty of accommodation in respect of freedom of religion, and when it has referred to such a duty the analysis was constrained to the sphere of employment.

24.          The model will also influence the interaction with FBOs, in particular the available funding for FBOs activities and the policy engagement of FBOs. The Stateswhich consider religion a private matter are more likely to consider that the financial survival of religious organisations is the responsibility of religious groups. States which allow religion or belief also in the public sphere - and treat equally religious and non-religious groups, as well as different religious groups - may offer support to activities of organisations or even actively support religions or beliefs which due to structural or special circumstances are disadvantaged.

25.          The policy engagement of FBOs can be seen as a process with the following intermediate stages: a) no involvement with government institutions with or without involvement in parallel activities; b) informal involvement as an observer to government-led processes; c) formal involvement as a participant in those processes; and ultimately d) involvement in the core government structure implementing public policy. In any of these stages, FBOs may act as service providers, as advocacy actors, and as partners in policy formulation, implementation and monitoring.

26.          Governments themselves have frequently sought to involve faith organisations both in the support of refugees and in the provision of welfare services generally. Examples of such services are illustrated in the section below referring to reception and integration. As advocacy actors and partners in policy formulation, FBOs often engage with governments and inter-/supra-governmental institutions by providing feedback on their policy documents (among recent examples may be cited the Council of Europe consultations on the administrative detention of migrants, the EU Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals, EU Home Affairs policies).

27.          The revival of religion in public life has often been accompanied by the emergence and strengthening of the role of religious organisations as actors within the democratic process. Such organisations are called to participate in political initiatives and debates as well as to mediate conflicts that do not touch upon religion directly, but rather upon the cultural and socio-economic integration of migrants. Religious organisations are involved in negotiations over integration policies and other migration-related issues that are largely free from any religious connotation. They have an important role in mediating the demands of the receiving communities in respect of the migration policy implemented by the State; they may equally act as representatives of those communities in their dialogue with migrants and refugees.

28.          In Europe, the policy field is dominated by Christian organisations, which utilise their expertise and influence to act as immigrants’ advocates rather than immigrant representatives. This does not exclude a Muslim presence; the governments often seek their involvement as speakers or representatives of the immigrant community. They indicate and list problems, they lend a voice to socially excluded groups and to the members of their constituency and try to get (solutions to) problems on the political agenda.

29.          With regard to examples of implementing and monitoring policies, FBOs in Europe have signed a partnership with the French government on establishing humanitarian corridors to pre-select and bring into France Syrian refugees from Lebanese camps. FBOs outside Europe have taken political action to protect asylum-seeking children from a policy of detention by becoming a service provider with the government (providing alternative accommodation adequate for children) and thus pressing for policy change to end the detention of migrant and refugee children. They have equally taken initiatives to improve refugee resettlement through work with local communities, church congregations and politicians, and recruiting local people to volunteer as mentors for newly arrived refugees. They have actively militated for the abolition of laws that criminalise humanitarian and social assistance to undocumented migrants.

30.          The organisations undertaking such work usually see this as belonging to and resulting from their general social activities and not necessarily as a political involvement. However, the negative effects of migration policies on migrants are often due to governmental failure to take sufficient steps to reduce risk or to prevent violations of rights. Any advocacy for change in State policies can call into question the organisation’s commitment to political neutrality and the State’s secularism. Addressing root causes and advocating long-term solutions can run the risk of entangling a humanitarian organisation into politics. Action that may be perceived as political may also have an impact on the funding of the organisation, especially if funding is received from the government being criticised.

31.          Where they are commissioned by government to provide formal services, the relationship of FBOs with government will largely be a harmonious one. Commissioning relationships can however be difficult, and faith organisations may fear co-optation and having to balance their independence and adherence to their principles against the receipt of much needed public funding. It could be that with public money religiosity may be muted. There may be suspicion and wariness on both sides, with fears of “hidden agendas” on both the part of the State and the faith organisation.

32.          Furthermore, care has to be taken that the role of FBOs or secular organisations remains one of complementarity to that of public authorities, and does not substitute government or be considered as relieving in any manner or form, the responsibilities which primarily lie with public authorities in addressing the issues under consideration.  

33.          Another positive influence of FBOs on migration policy is their role in overcoming common misapprehensions concerning the religious identity of refugees and migrants, sometimes viewed by the uninformed general public as a homogenous Muslim group associated with terrorism. Such uninformed views and accompanying political and public discourse have sometimes led to an unnecessary securitisation of migration policy. In this context, it is essential that the diversity of religion, including Islam, be stressed in order to separate the religious identity of refugees from their alleged association with risks for internal security.

34.          Faith-based actors seem to have a unique position in promoting the duty of hospitality as one of the common corner stones of the various faith traditions, including the humanist path and encourage interfaith cooperation. They are well placed to condemn racism and xenophobia targeting refugees at all times and to develop campaigns to counter negative narratives and promote a humane, non‑discriminatory approach to the migration phenomenon. This may also include countering negative messages by other religious leaders, including from within one’s own faith.

With an increasing political role, they could make policy recommendations to public officials and politicians from a freedom of religion or belief perspective that include proposals for better management (solutions for better organisation and processing of refugees and migrants) and underline the right to freedom of religion or belief and the importance of preventing and countering of hate speech, incitement and radicalisation.

35.          Even so, a growing number of politicians and members of the public in Europe feel unable to engage in debates concerning the appropriateness of such partnerships because of a lack of understanding about religious ideas and terminology. This in turn can encourage distrust of faith-based development agencies and of their motives, leading to assumptions that secular organisations are to be preferred. For this reason, faith-based actors may wish to consider including religious literacy and understanding in public policy discussions. 

D.         role of faith-based organiSations in Reception and integration of migrants

36.          In a globalised world, States are often no longer able to fulfil on their own the role of actor and provider of protection. Other actors, including FBOs and secular organisations, amongst others, may be more able or more willing to provide adequate protection. This has been particularly visible in respect of migrants and refugees.

37.          Religious actors have emerged as major providers of services for displaced persons. Their services could be categorised as:

a.  professional services offered to specific target groups within the framework of the (local) welfare State and regulated by the authorities. Examples are: services to migrants and refugees such as free schools, shelters, language courses, computer courses, sports activities, choir singing;

b.  supporting vulnerable people and groups who are outside the view and/ or the reach of the official authorities. For instance: helping undocumented migrants, providing healthcare to undocumented migrants;

c.  offering informal assistance and mutual support. Like networks hiding migrants, providing legal advice;

d.  recruiting, activating and supervising volunteers from specific religious communities to carry out activities for vulnerable individuals and groups, inside or outside their own community;

e.  community building and empowerment of their own or other deprived groups;

f.   bridge more or less inaccessible groups with regular welfare and care organisations and public agencies.

In practice, their involvement in the reception of migrants ranges from being the first responders in emergencies, providing accommodation and meals to providing legal advice and healthcare. In some countries they manage the refugee status determination, assign tutors to asylum-seekers and help them apply for refugee status. Their reception work includes building new relationships for newly arrived persons and making new life arrangements for them.

38.          Integration is a more complex process. It is considered as having been achieved when there is widespread accommodation and high acceptance of the needs of refugees/migrants (seen as minority groups) or, on the contrary, by a voluntary renunciation of such needs by them. In general terms, based on these two ideologies of integration, one can distinguish between three dominant approaches to integration:

a.  The political assimilation of individuals into a national unity based on substantive values and rights which are binding for all. This model usually relies on secularism and civic faith as the unifying basis and therefore does not promote policies to address the relevant differences between the individuals once they have become permanent residents/citizens. In practice, the religious identity of newcomers has revealed the limits of this assimilation model and required many adjustment policies.

b.  The functional assimilation into an ethnically defined national State, which usually includes migrants in one area, most often the labour market, but excludes them from civil and political participation.  This model limits integration and does not allow newcomers access to the receiving social order; this can in turn increase racism and xenophobia of the majority population.

c.  Multicultural and communitarian integration based on a pluralist concept of democracy and a management strategy between different ethnic and racial groups. This model relies on functional anti‑discrimination legislation and equal opportunities policies, access to full civil and political rights and arrangements for inter-community communication. It emphasises the promotion of equality in all aspects of life and enables the accommodation of the exercise of different cultural practices. While this model works to decrease tensions between different (majority/minority) identities, it may contribute to a degree of competition between different communities for access to scarce resources, such as jobs, education and housing.

39.          Irrespective of the integration model pursued by State policies, integration is a two-way process which must go hand in hand with social inclusion. It demands change from the newly arrived and from the receiving society alike. FBOs may be particularly adept in assisting newly arrived in adapting to their new environment and may help to prepare European societies for increased diversity and to ensure welcoming societies. Integration of newly arrived people if they hold strong religious beliefs is either facilitated by integration within the same religious community or may require accommodation of religious needs which differ from those of the receiving community. FBOs are well placed to discuss faith and spirituality, including through inter-faith dialogue. But it may be also argued that accommodation of different religious needs may be better addressed if translated into secular terms.

40.          In any case, FBOs may contribute to integration efforts by promoting mutual respect and anti-discrimination in relation to migrants and refugees, inclusion within church and society, inter-faith dialogue, inter-community dialogue, as well as working against intolerance and xenophobia, breaking stigmatisation and stereotypes. They may equally promote community cohesion by providing opportunities for encounter and mutual learning across refugees and resident populations, by linguistic and civic education and citizenship training. Considering their wide audience, FBOs may equally focus on residential population,promoting deeper, more meaningful engagement with others, to understand and come to terms with different values and perspectives, developing common goals and values for living together. Their work may ultimately influence the integration model and the migration policy accordingly.

E.         International activity of faith-based organisations

41.          Following the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and the UN Refugee Summit, the international community has reasserted its commitment to increasingly support localised humanitarian responses to refugees and asylum-seekers, building upon the expanding interest in the roles played by FBOs and local faith communities in providing assistance and protection to refugees since the 2010s. UNHCR itself has recognised the value of the work of faith organisations, faith communities and faith leaders. Since the end of 2012 UNCHR has engaged in a multi-faith dialogue, which resulted in a Partnership Note. The note provides broad guidance for UNHCR staff on engaging with, reaching out to and partnering FBOs, local faith communities and faith leaders. It lists examples of good practices (e.g. providing physical protection and facilitating humanitarian access, deterring violence through presence and accompanying measures, engaging in reconciliation and mediation of tensions, improving reception conditions and accompanying the detained, combating xenophobia and discrimination, preventing and responding to SGBV or forced recruitment, providing legal counselling and asylum case-management, advocating for legislative challenges benefitting persons of concern, supporting refugee resettlement and or local integration), as well as the main challenges (e.g. antagonism towards or exclusion of members of other faith backgrounds, hate speech or incitement to violence directed against individuals or communities of another faith, proselytisation and pressure to convert, gender stereotypes, stigma and discrimination surrounding HIV/AIDS, LGBTI).

The note highlights the principles which may guide UNHCR’s partnerships with faith actors: hospitality, respect, equality, able to secure a point of departure for dialogue and working together. It also encourages the development of a guidance note on “faith literacy” for UNCHR staff.

42.          The Council of Europe has undertaken various initiatives involving religious leaders, communities and associations. For instance, since 2008 the Committee of Ministers organises on an annual basis the Council of Europe Exchanges on the religions dimension of intercultural dialogue, with the participation of representatives of religious communities, non-religious convictions, NGO’s and other civil society actors, as well as representatives of member States’ governments; and the Parliamentary Assembly has organised high level auditions with religious leaders and auditions at technical level to discuss options and possible fields of co-operation.

* * *

Sources:

Bribosia E and Rorive I, Reasonable Accommodation beyond Disability in Europe?, European Network of Legal Experts in Non-discrimination field, European Union, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/reasonable_accommodation_beyond_disability_in_europe_en.pdf

Davelaar M et al., Faith-based Organisations and Social Exclusion in the Netherlands, Acco (Academische Coöperatieve Vennootschap cvba), Leuven (België), June 2011

http://www.verwey-jonker.nl/doc/participatie/3636_(s)Faith-based-Organisations-and-Social-Exclusion-in-European-Cities_FINAL.pdf

ECHR, Guide to Article 9, Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_9_ENG.pdf

ECHR, Overview of the Court’s case-law on freedom of religion, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_religion_ENG.pdf   

Ferris E, Faith-based and secular humanitarian organisations, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 858 June 2005.

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E and Ager A, Local faith communities and the promotion of resilience in humanitarian situations – A scoping study, Working Paper series no. 90, RSC, University of Oxford, February 2013

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E, Gender, religion and humanitarian responses to refugees, LSE Blog entry, 19 October 2016, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2016/10/gender-religion-and-humanitarian-responses-to-refugees/

Goodall C,  Shouting towards the Sky: the role of religious individuals, communities, organisations and institutions in support for refugees and asylum seekers, UNHCR, April 2015  http://www.unhcr.org/554764b49.pdf

Hollenbach SJ D, Religion and forced migration, The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies by Elena Fiddian-Quasmiyeh et al. (eds.)(OUP, 2014)

Meeting with religious leaders and faith based organisations from the European region on their role in preventing incitement to violence that could lead to atrocity crimes, Treviso, Italy, 16-18 September 2015, http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/our-work/Doc.13_Europe%20Plan%20of%20Action.pdf

Morurao Permoser J , et al., Religious organisations as political actors in the context of migration: Islam and Orthodoxy in Austria, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, November 2010

Perfect S, Do the benefits of engaging religion for development outweigh the dangers? (May 2014)  http://faithdebates.org.uk/debates/do-benefits-of-engaging-religion-for-development-outweigh-dangers/  

Refugee Studies Centre, Workshop Report: Faith-based humnitarianism, University of Oxford, 22 September 2010

Refugee Studies Centre, Faith-based humanitarianism in the context of forced migration, https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/completed-projects/faith-based-humanitarianism

UNHCR, Partnership Note on faith-based organisations, local faith communities and faith leaders (2014).

Wilson E, Religious Identity and the Refugee Crisis, 20 June 2016, https://religionfactor.net/2016/06/20/religious-identity-and-the-refugee-crisis/

Appendix

Key questions which could be further explored.

General questions:

1.             Do faith-based organisations use models similar to secular organisations or embody a distinctive mode of interaction?  How does such involvement affect the protection of migrants and refugees? Do they do different things or do they do the same things differently?

2.             Do faith-based and secular actors consider that religious literacy may facilitate communication on questions surrounding faith-based humanitarianism in contexts of migration? Would it facilitate inter-faith communication? Would it facilitate communication with policy makers?

3.             How could the efforts of faith-based and secular organisations be better coordinated? How could the efforts between different-faith faith-based organisations be better coordinated? How effective are or could be the partnerships between FBOs and mainstream humanitarian organisations?

Sub-theme 1 - “From reception to integration: the role of religious communities and non-religious beliefs”

1.             What role do religion, religiosity and concepts of faith and secularism play in the lives of migrants themselves with respect to integration?

2.             What is the role of FBOs in the integration of migrants’ and refugees’ religious identity? Do they advocate for the accommodation of their religious needs?

3.             What lessons could be learned from the specific ways in which FBOs and non-religious organisations interact with refugees and migrants?

Sub-theme 2 - “The role of religious communities and non-religious beliefs in the development of migration policy”

1.             What is the role of FBOs in combating xenophobia, radicalisation and defending freedom of religion or belief, including other religions or beliefs?

2.             What do FBOs advocate in terms of migration policy? Does their work shape the existent humanitarian practice and migration policy? If so, why and how are they able to make themselves heard and listened to?

3.             What lessons could be learned from the specific way in which FBOs interact with the State in defining/implementing State migration policies?