This blog builds on findings from the LERRN study “The Politics and Process of Refugee Leadership: A Comparative Analysis of Factors Conditioning Refugee Leadership in the Global South”, funded by the Gerda Henkel Foundation. As part of this research, I conducted fieldwork in the Kakuma and Kalobeyei refugee settlements in Kenya to explore the factors that enable or constrain refugee leadership. Using qualitative methods, I gathered data through one focus group discussion with twelve participants, four key informant interviews with representatives from three humanitarian organizations and one government agency involved in refugee protection, and four individual interviews with leaders of Refugee-Led Organizations (RLOs).

Photo Credit: Pascal Zigashane

Most of the refugee leaders I interviewed in Kakuma refugee camp were not leaders in their countries of origin. While in their home countries, the refugee leaders I spoke to throughout the research project were not involved in any leadership roles. One expressed that while in Uganda, “I was involved as a leader in a church function of a group of young people.” Refugees are inspired to take on leadership roles because of the circumstances and gaps in humanitarian services. Refugee leadership is very important to them as they mobilize their communities to collectively respond to their needs.

What motivates refugees to take up leadership roles in Kakuma refugee camp?

Gaps in humanitarian services drive refugees to take on leadership roles. Humanitarian organizations provide assistance to refugees in various sectors such as education, livelihoods, and health care, but they don’t always meet every need. In the implementation of humanitarian services, refugee leaders see gaps and feel motivated to take action to address them. They start initiatives and mobilize communities to fill these gaps. In the education sector, refugee leaders start initiatives to provide afternoon classes to help students perform and get good grades in school. Some of these leaders have established formal schools to address quality education issues. The teacher-student ratio in NGO-run schools reveals a huge gap in the quality of education, with one teacher serving a class of more than 180 students. This leaves some students unattended. Refugee leaders would go the extra mile to mentor those who have completed secondary school and guide them through the process of applying for tertiary scholarships to increase enrollment in tertiary education.

Refugee leaders take initiatives to equally address the needs of those who don’t have secondary education and those who can’t enter tertiary education due to poor performance in the national exam. Refugee leaders take the initiative to develop vocational training to equip their fellow refugees with various skills that will enable them to participate in the informal economy. Throughout the implementation of these initiatives, refugee leaders demonstrate solidarity with their communities. Refugees will mobilize resources to provide their peers with tools to engage in entrepreneurial activities to achieve self-sufficiency. They build infrastructure where their community members can access services and support.

Most of the female refugee leaders who participated in the research are motivated to take on leadership roles in order to change cultural norms. During the interview, the Executive Director of the She Can Initiative expressed her drive to establish the initiative to support young girls who have long been denied equal status with men in society by their culture. In some cultures, young girls are married off before the age of 18 and have no say in family decisions. They drop out of school to start a family at an early age. Some refugee women who have taken on leadership roles have initiatives that empower women, drive change and influence cultural norms that affect women. They address cultural issues and advocate for women’s rights. As part of their support for young girls, they provide training on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Refugee-led, women-owned organizations empower young girls to make their own sexual choices.

Roles and Responsibilities of refugee leaders

Refugee leadership is crucial for their role in speaking out about refugee issues. Refugee leaders are advocates for refugee issues. Through advocacy, refugee leaders become the voices of voiceless refugees and raise awareness of systemic issues. Leaders advocate for changes to gaps in services provided by humanitarian organizations. They advocate for refugee education, economic inclusion, health care, livelihoods, safety, employment, and identification documents. Through advocacy, refugee leaders speak out about the harassment and arbitrary arrests their communities experience at the hands of authorities and security officials. They use structurally available platforms and social media to make the voices of their community heard.

Despite limited access to resources, refugee leaders play a very important role in mobilizing their community members to collectively respond to the issues that affect them. Refugee leaders mobilize their communities to protest humanitarian interventions that affect them. In the recent protests in the Kakuma and Kalobeyei settlements, refugees protested the lack of access to clean water, cuts in World Food Program food rations, and insecurity. When refugee voices are not heard, leaders mobilize their community members to protest at the UNHCR sub office in Kakuma to make their voices heard. Refugee leaders also play the role of peacemakers. Kakuma refugee camp has experienced recurrent ethnic conflict, which has caused loss of life in the affected communities and sometimes escalated to their countries of origin, such as South Sudan. Formal leaders, those elected to represent and lead their communities, and ethnic leaders work together to bring peace and de-escalate conflict.

Challenges that refugee leaders face in demonstrating leadership

There are platforms for policy discussions, but refugee leaders face limited participation in these spaces. A few refugee leaders are invited to local and national meetings, but their voices are often ignored in decision-making processes. Refugee leaders who are invited to these platforms are often invited based on the interest of the organizer. Meaningful refugee participation is hindered by tokenism. According to the research findings, tokenism makes the participation of refugee leaders in decision-making very superficial, where their voices matter because they serve the interests of those who brought them. The other challenge that refugee leaders face that prevents them from exercising leadership is the delay in obtaining identification documents. This prevents them from attending important meetings outside their localities. Without proper documentation, they face restrictions on movement and limited access to services.

Conclusion

Most of the refugee leaders in Kakuma camp had no leadership experience in their countries of origin, but while in the camp, they took on leadership roles to address gaps in humanitarian services. They also demonstrate leadership in advocating for communities to influence change in the areas of education, health, economic inclusion, livelihoods, and security. Their efforts address not only humanitarian gaps but also harmful cultural norms in their communities including those that deny women’s right to sexual autonomy and reproductive health. Refugee leaders mobilize their communities to respond to these issues and protest policies that do not effectively address their needs. Despite the important role refugee leaders play, they face significant challenges in having their voices heard in decision-making. They also experience limited participation in forums due to delays in accessing identification documents. Often, their involvement is reduced to tokenism, keeping their participation in decision-making superficial.

This study delves into the complex dynamics of waiting for resettlement faced by refugees in Kenyan refugee camps, specifically focusing on the strategies individuals and communities develop as they navigate uncertain futures. By examining the psychological, social, and economic dimensions of waiting, the publication sheds light on the resilience and adaptability of refugees in the face of prolonged displacement and uncertainty of resettlement.

Abstract

For many refugees, going home is not possible because of continued instability and local integration is unavailable due to host country policies, so resettlement becomes the only possible “durable solution” to displacement. In Kenya, despite long-standing resettlement programmes, there remain over 588,000 refugees and asylum seekers living in the country. While most studies of resettlement focus on those who resettle, this paper sheds light on the perspectives of those who are still waiting in Kenyan camps for resettlement: those who have “not yet” and perhaps will “never” be resettled. Through focus groups and interviews with 75 refugees in the Dadaab refugee camps, Kakuma Refugee Camp, and Kalobeyei settlement, we find that camp residents experience waiting for resettlement individually and communally. Individually, camp residents assess options, place life plans on hold, and face the mental health consequences of prolonged uncertainty. Communally, camp residents interpret policy changes, share information, and exchange remittances.

This research was co-produced with equal participation of researchers with lived experiences of displacement, currently residing in Kakuma and Dadaab, Kenya. This work is essential for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners working in refugee studies, migration, and humanitarian aid.

We hope this research sparks meaningful conversations and contributes to advancing our understanding of displacement, waiting for resettlement, and resilience in refugee communities.

Related Publications

Policy Brief: Waiting for Resettlement Increasing Transparency in the Resettlement Process in Kenya

Additionally, it is crucial to take into account that the current global circumstances, such as the pandemic, worsened the imperilled mental health of refugee populations. For example, the Dadaab Response Association released a special working paper about the pandemic’s negative impact on youth well-being in the Dadaab refugee camps, which reveals the prevalence of self-harm and suicide amongst refugee youth. In light of the ongoing challenges refugees face and the impacts of the pandemic, it is urgent to strengthen mental health and psychosocial support systems for refugees and displaced persons.

In October 2022, UNHCR’s Executive Committee adopted , which draws special attention to the mental health and psychosocial needs of refugees and forcibly displaced persons. In the for the ExCom Conclusion, Sajjad Malik, Director for the UNHCR Division of Resilience and Solutions stated that “The best way to improve the mental health of refugees is to find lasting solutions to the crises they are fleeing.” While the global commitment to implementing sustainable psychosocial support systems is certainly a positive step, there are still various challenges and barriers to be considered.

We reached out to LERRN partners Pascal Zigashane and Michaela Hynie to hear their thoughts on the importance and implications of this Conclusion.

Michaela Hynie

Professor, York University

Full Profile

Pascal Zigashane

Executive Director, Action Pour leĚýProgres

Full Profile

Pascal Zigashane, Executive Director at Action Pour le Progrès, allocates services for children in pre-school with a focus on social and emotional issues, while also offering services to refugees from non-English speaking countries, such as English courses.

Dr. Michaela Hynie, the interim director of Center for Refugee Studies at York University, focuses on social inclusion using changes in mental and physical health outcomes as a measure of the success of our settlement programs as well as considering access to health care for people who have precarious migration status or who have experienced displacement or forced migration, as well as mental health consequences of social exclusion. The interviews below were conducted separately and have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What do you think about the on mental health? Does it address the full scope of the issue?

Pascal Zigashane: I think the [Conclusion] addresses many of the mental health issues that refugees face. However, the refugees are currently struggling with even worsened situations with increased prices for essential goods and lack of food security.

You find that it is becoming an unbearable situation for refugees. They escape war and conflict, and their mental health becomes even more strained with food insecurity and life conditions in the camp.

Also, humanitarian organizations, including UNHCR, may add more stress to refugees’ lives and contribute to the victimization of refugees. Let me give you an example: I personally applied for a travel document, and I did it via UNHCR because I wanted to attend a conference in Uganda back in May. The documents were not processed in time for the conference because they were not a priority.

Michaela Hynie:ĚýA strength of the conclusion is that it does talk about the need to recognize that we create conditions that result in negative mental health consequences and acknowledges that the people who are working in these environments also can experience distress. Also, it is crucial to adapt these services culturally.

Q: What are the current barriers to access health services for asylum seekers and refugees in your community or areas of focus?

PZ: Refugees are still having issues with essential needs such as food assistance. The major problems are still related to offering the fundamental needs to refugees.

A person needs to see a hopeful future.

This affects especially refugee youth because they are not seen as a priority. They lose hope for their future because they do not get resettlement or chances to go to university and generate income. This leads refugee youth to criminalization.

Refugees spend years in the camp while they wait for a decision, that is why the rejection of refugee claims can also be very dangerous for the mental health of the claimant. That person cannot access the services in the camp anymore. Their movement is limited, their access is limited.

MH: We know that the majority of people who are refugees under UNHCR definitions are not living in UNHCR-controlled areas, that they are living in urban centres. How are they accessing care there? How people access any kind of care when they are outside of a refugee camp setting? Do clinics in these countries provide services and do they provide mental health services? And are those services culturally appropriate? These are all really important questions. In public health care systems, particularly in low-income countries which is where most people who are forced migrants are residing, mental health services receive a fraction of the funding of physical health services.

I think also talking about digital equity and people’s access to affordable Internet services when providing mental health services through technology is important to consider. Most people have access to a cell phone now, but not everybody can read. So, are those services that are being offered through technology accessible to people with low reading skills? Do those services require data plans that people might not be able to afford to access? It is also important to recognize who is included or excluded from technologically enhanced or mediated mental health services, because many of those services are not appropriate for people with very serious mental health issues, such as psychosis or post-traumatic stress disorder.

Q: What are the existing response mechanisms to the mental health needs of forcibly displaced and refugees in your community?

MH: This question depends on what your status is and it depends on what the insurance programs are in the country that you have migrated to. Those barriers sometimes include stigma and it can be not knowing how to access those services. So, when we speak to people who eventually ended up using mental health services, we have found that many of them would talk about how they didn’t know how to reach care or they didn’t know how to figure out if they need those services.

Mental health services need to work with community organizations, community leaders, and community networks, because the care needs to be community specific. A one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t actually work.

Other barriers could include language barriers, the times at which services are available, and accessibility to digital services.

Ěý

Q: What are some possible impacts of this Conclusion? How do you think it addresses social determinants, integration and inclusion into national health services?

PZ: The Conclusion will help humanitarian organizations to assign more budget to mental health support and psychosocial services. It will also create more jobs in this area. However, it is important to make sure everyone can access these services, not just a select few.

MH: Organizations and governments should reflect on how their policies are impacting mental health and well-being in partnership with the communities that they’re working with, because policies that are well intended can sometimes have very negative consequences. This is because the governing bodies haven’t consulted with communities about what they need. Again, there isn’t going to be one-size-fits-all within a community. We want standardized solutions because it’s easier and it’s cheaper. However, the first step in implementing mental health services needs to be partnering with the community around identifying the appropriate solution. It is also important to think very carefully about who is speaking for the community. Who is not being heard from? Often, the most vulnerable people are excluded from the conversation.

Q: What do you hope international collaboration would entail in terms of mental health and psychosocial support services to refugees?

PZ: It is good to mobilize resources internationally for mental health support. But there should be accountability for how these resources will be allocated.

MH: I feel like international always needs to be a network of local for these kinds of initiatives.

There can be international initiatives that provide support, tools, and recommendations around processes, but it always has to be taken up at a local level.

Q: What role do you see refugee-led organizations can play in advancing the Conclusion?

PZ: COVID actually made refugee-led organizations more visible. At Action Pour le Progrès, we are already taking initiatives to help children in pre-school who are affected by the distressing processes.

RLOs know what refugees go through and they are connected to their communities, which makes it easier to connect and reach the refugee leaders. Their doors are open to their community.

Q: Would you like to share any concluding remarks?

PZ: The refugee conditions are getting worse. Food and security remain the primary concerns for refugees. Mental health services are definitely needed, but counselling is not enough.

MH: Providing access to appropriate affordable and timely mental health and psychosocial support services is absolutely important.

We’re so focused on individual-level solutions rather than thinking about the upstream causes of distress. So, never lose sight of reflecting on prevention not just at an individual level, but prevention at a structural, social, and policy level.

This publication was prepared by LERRN Project Writer Irem Karabag.

This conference brought together refugees living in Kenya and in other countries to speak about inclusion and what it looks like from their perspective. The conference was a good example of “Nothing ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ us Without Us” since it gave refugees a platform in discussions and offered recommendations on how best to include refugees in discussions about policies and programs going forward. It engaged participants from Africa, Europe, and North America in the fields of academia, implementing agencies providing services to refugees, and funders (EUTF), to understand how migration has changed due to COVID. The conference also showcased art produced by refugees in partnership with local artists and supported by UNHCR. It was a very successful event that highlighted striking differences between Kakuma/Kalobeyi and Dadaab which relate to the framing of Dadaab as a security risk and a space about to disappear, and the framing of Kakuma/Kalobeyi as a space of self-reliance.

Event details and recordings available here.

The Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN) and the (IDRC) hosted their third joint webinar on 15 December 2020. Focused on refugee leadership, the webinar discussed the importance of refugee participation and refugee-led organizations as service-delivery providers in humanitarian settings during and beyond COVID-19. The webinar attracted over 104 participants from 14 countries, viewing from the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, Europe, South and North America.

Anchored on an article recently published in Forced Migration Review, entitled “, the webinar drew on the perspectives of refugee leaders, Pascal Zigashane from Action pour le Progrès and Diala Ayman from the , and from and from with opening and closing comments from from the IDRC.ĚýThe webinar was co-moderated by Mustafa Alio and James Milner.

The discussion highlighted the critical role refugee-led organizations play as first responders during emergencies like COVID-19. When international actors have faced mobility constraints due to the pandemic, Refugee-led Organizations (RLOs) have been on the frontlines serving their communities. These accomplishments are exemplified by Action pour le Progrès and the Molham Team. Action pour le Progrès provided food, face masks, and sanitizer to refugees in Kakuma Camp and facilitated capacity building training for community residents on healthcare and physiotherapy. Similarly, the Molham Team delivered food assistance to over 39,000 forcibly displaced persons during Ramadan and repairing the homes of 130 Syrian refugee families following the Beirut blast. In 2020, Diala Ayman said, “the Molham team managed to collect 9 million dollars,” providing “life-saving services to thousands of refugees in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan.” Beyond these two examples, the seven RLO recipients of the also demonstrate the valuable contributions of RLOs.

Yet, despite the capacity and contributions that RLOs offer in protection and assistance before and during the pandemic, they face significant recognition and funding challenges. Access to funding remains a considerable challenge as RLOs, James Milner acknowledges, are caught in a “catch-22” where they need to demonstrate experience to qualify for funding, but they need funding to gain experience. Even when RLOs demonstrate significant capacity and expertise, Pascal Zigashane asserts, they remain excluded from many funding mechanisms and have limited access to decision-making processes. Notwithstanding the valuable work of Refugee-led Organizations, they are also not always recognized or known outside of their communities.

Panelists agreed that refugee participation and refugee-led organizations are essential and beneficial for refugee protection and assistance. Stella Ogunlade affirmed that UNHCR’s “work would improve with the active participation of RLOs.” Similarly, Kathryn Toure, acknowledging IDRC’s commitment to the LERRN partnership and recognizing the imbalance between the dominance of forced migration research in the Global North while “most of the world’s forcibly displaced populations, including refugees, are hosted in the countries of the Global South,” lamented that “local knowledge is often overlooked and underused.” She stressed that “international compacts and agreements on displaced populations need to reflect better the interests, priorities, concerns and perspectives of refugee communities and host countries in the global south.” Gillian Gillen also stressed the Government of Canada’s commitment to refugee participation through , integrating meaningful refugee participation in policy work. Canada also demonstrated its commitment by making in December 2019 as the first country with a refugee advocate and former refugee, Mustafa Alio, in its delegation to the UNHCR Global Refugee Forum.

The panelists also acknowledged that there is an opportunity to leverage and build on existing measures for greater refugee inclusion and support to RLOs. Stella Ogunlade highlighted UNHCR’s work with refugee organizations since 2015 and during COVID-19. One example is the that celebrates NGOs who developed innovative approaches to protect and deliver services to refugees and other persons of concern to UNHCR. Among the seven RLOs that won the award for 2020 was the , whose founder – Abdullahi Mire – was a speaker at the LERRN-IDRC webinar on refugee education in November 2020. Asserting that the UN agency has a long history of engaging with refugees through camp management committees, peaceful coexistence committees, tools for participatory assessment, and multi-stakeholder and community-based approaches, Ms. Ogunlade acknowledges that there is a need for strengthening systematic engagement with refugees and refugee-led organizations. Gillian Gillen said that the Government of Canada has increased funding to country-based pooled funds, which provide financing directly to NGOs. Other Canadian funding opportunities that may benefit RLOs include the Canadian Fund for Local Initiatives for small-scale and high-impact projects, the Women’s Voice and Leadership Program for women’s rights organizations, and the Equality Fund.

Concluding that there is a need to shift the conversation from “if” refugee participation and leadership is crucial to “how” to make it happen, the speakers emphasized that institutionalizing refugee participation at all policymaking and practice levels has vast potential for transformative change. They proposed the following:

1. Strengthening creative solutions:ĚýRLOs have raised money independently through innovative solutions such as asking for refugee volunteers’ contributions, fundraising campaigns, and individual donations. These measures, integrated with capacity-building and flexible funding, can contribute towards equal partnerships. Supporting capacity-building can help these RLOs gain access to funding.
2. Capacity building:ĚýPanelists agreed that strengthening the capacity of RLOs is critical to meaningful participation. These could include supporting efforts such as the Kakuma Refugee Network that link up with educational institutions and others to build partnerships that inspire positive changes, and the Molham Team focused on building local refugee-led businesses’ as a key for better allocation of resources, efficient project implementation, and building partnerships with INGOs.
3. Flexible Funding:ĚýAccess to funding remains a challenge for refugee-led organizations. Mustafa Alio pointed out that “In 2019, less than 1% funds to local and refugee-led organizations.” Addressing the gap between humanitarian needs and funding support during the global health crisis, Diala pointed out that “Refugees have been in an emergency mode for years and years facing many legal obstacles including anti-refugee rhetoric and economic problems.” Donors are also exploring new and existing mechanisms to fund RLOs. Stella Ogunlade mentioned that UNHCR is exploring Simplified Partnership Agreements for Refugee-led Organizations. The Innovation Awards are a promising example of a simplified process. Equal partnerships require refugees to have the ability to decide which projects to pursue and how to implement them, not just to be consulted within externally driven agendas.
4. Meaningful participation and partnership:ĚýRefugee-led organizations’ many benefits include the representation of refugee voices, awareness of community needs, improved responses, accountability to displaced populations, relationships of trust with the community, and the ability to mobilize local resources, knowledge, and connections. As Stella Ogunlade stated, meaningful refugee engagement needs to move beyond “tokenistic appearances” to engage with refugee-led organizations, including enhancing access to refugee communities, supporting empowerment initiatives for refugees, and assisting with localization. Similarly, Mustafa Alio suggested that Refugee-led Organizations can be important and meaningful partners in refugee responses, but issues of trust and power need to be addressed to create genuinely equal partnerships, crucial in providing services and program implementation.

With limited time to address questions from the audience and social media during the webinar, the panelists reacted to the following questions in a correspondence following the webinar.

What role can RLOs play in changing public narratives around refugees, both in host countries and elsewhere?

The inaccurate perception of refugees as passive recipients of humanitarian assistance remains a persistent narrative. Through their work, RLOs demonstrate refugee self-reliance as they actively contribute to their fellow refugee and host communities. In fact, RLOs that have proven their leadership and impact on the ground can play a huge role in changing the negative connotation that comes with the word ‘refugee’, from a passive recipient of assistance to an active provider of assistance to fellow refugees, and an equal partner to international aid providers.

What are examples of changes we have seen in mechanisms for funding to RLOs, such as the UNHCR Simplified Partnership Agreement or Canada’s Fund for Local Initiatives (CFLI)? How can we build form these examples of progress?

The CFLI is designed to be a small-scale, flexible funding mechanism. This makes it highly accessible to local organizations who may not have previously received donor funding. Expanding the envelopes of funding available, as Canada is doing, and encouraging other donors to put in place similar funding mechanisms, are ways to increase available opportunities for RLOs. By program design, the CFLI is intended to respond to local needs and engage closely with recipients, many of whom are small organizations with modest resources. Regarding past changes to these funding mechanisms, in 2012, the CFLI transitioned into being a fully decentralised program managed by Canadian missions overseas. This decentralization allowed the program a greater degree of flexibility, and to build closer working relationships with implementing partners. A recent adaptation, for example, was through the CFLI program’s updated Terms and Conditions to allow more flexibility with the kinds of local organisations eligible for funding. This allows the CFLI to be able to partner with a wider range of stakeholders who often face restrictions.

What are some practical suggestions that can be shared in how RLOs can navigate the vetting process to receive external funding? / How can RLOs work to bridge the gap between the current capacity of RLOs and the necessary reporting and vetting requirements from donors?

As mentioned during the webinar, a frequently cited obstacle to funding is the lack of previous experience managing funds. Small, more manageable funding arrangements, such as those provided by the CFLI, can be valuable tools in this regard. Likewise, there have been examples of RLOs partnering with INGOs for both funding purposes, as well as other forms of capacity-building and training. Larger NGOs can also serve as “mentors” in this regard and provide advice on the development of the internal governance, policies and financial oversight required for many vetting processes.

Other forms of capacity-building can also be important resources to offer to RLOs to increase partnership opportunities over the long term. An example on how this may be pursued is Canada’s Women Voice and Leadership and Equality Fund, both of which are focused on providing support to local organizations, including women led and RLOs, and include a measure of capacity building for the implementing partner.

How can work on refugee-led organizations be mindful of the limits of the term “refugee”? How do we include those organizations not run by registered refugees, but by migrants or asylum seekers without status?

It is important to have flexibility in the use of the term ‘refugee’, since many people meet the UNHCR definition of a refugee but are not granted the formal status as refugees due to procedural complications and/or because they do not necessarily need the status in their host countries. For example, there are many Syrians who fled Syria due to the exact reasons that render a person a refugee per the legal definition, but they are not formally registered as refugees with the UNHCR because their host countries are not parties to the 1951 Convention. As such, not all organizations led by members of displaced communities are led by individuals who benefit from ‘refugee’ status.

This report was prepared by Sohaila Khaliqyar, LERRN Project Communications and Social Media Coordinator, Rachel McNally, LERRN Project Officer, and Nadeea Rahim, LERRN Program Officer.

The LERRN-IDRC Webinar Series on Forced Displacement is coordinated by Jennifer Kandjii, LERRN Research Officer. For further information or ideas please contact us here.

The piece discusses the crucial role that refugee-led organisations are playing in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for meaningful and substantive refugee participation and leadership during and beyond the pandemic.

Read the full piece here.

This blog post was co-authored by refugee leaders from LERRN Mustafa Alio and Pascal Zigashane, along with LERRN Project Director James Milner and leaders from the Global Refugee-led Network Shaza Alrihawi, Anila Noor and Najeeba Wazefadost to discuss the importance of embracing and supporting refugee leadership and delivering on our promise of refugee participation.Ěý

published on the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law website.Ěý

The world is facing a health threat and Kenya is finding it very crucial to contain the spread of COVID-19.

Kakuma refugee camp is an arid place with no agriculture activities. Refugees fully depend on food stock from other counties in Kenya, especially Kitale County. Fear rises amongst refugees if they become disconnected from other parts of Kenya. I talked to Chance Bahati, a business owner, who said that

“product prices have increased and the curfew has affected my business. Many people come to my shop late in the evening and now they are not coming because, all shops should be shut by 7pm.”

With restrictions put in place by the Government of Kenya and the UNHCR, refugees are hopeless to navigate this global health crisis. Several government services to asylum seekers and refugees have been suspended. This includes welcoming refugees and registration. The Refugee Affairs Secretariat has suspended all its activities in Nairobi and Kakuma refugee camp.

UNHCR Kakuma has passed information to refugees in Kakuma through a public system managed by FilmAid International. They have warned refugees not to leave the camp and that they will be arrested by Kenyan Police out of the camp. UNHCR will not take any responsibility and will not provide assistance to anyone who will test positive with COVID-19.

Health care providers in Kakuma, IRC (International Rescue Committee) and AIC (Africa Inland Church) are at risk. They don’t have COVID-19 prevention kits. They are very exposed to this pandemic disease. Distancing measures are not applicable. There are many patients who are suffering from other diseases at the clinic and they don’t understand distancing measures.

Monicah Atiek, who is a South Sudanese woman, shared with me her worries about women in Kakuma becoming the most victimized people.

“A community which has residents from different nationalities share 1 tap and all residents should fetch water from that tap. It is easy to contract the virus at the tap and spread it in the family.”

Refugee women at the Kakuma refugee camp fetching water from a tap to bring back to their families. [Photo courtesy of Pascal Zigashane]

She is also worried that her fellow refugees will contract the virus and die without medical personnel to attend them.

Despite many people not respecting the measures put in place to prevent the virus, few refugees are observing wash hand measures when they are at the police station and market places. More efforts are required to protect refugees from this deadly virus.

Pascal Zigashane is the executive director atĚýĚýin Kakuma, Kenya. He worked with Kenya Red Cross Society, Refunit and Jesuit Refugee Service. Pascal also volunteers at Sky School as an education coordinator and IT support.

The event built from commitments made to the localization of humanitarian action, stemming from the 2016 , the commitments, the and the 2018 . While there remains a commitment to work more substantively through local actors – national NGOs, refugee-led initiatives, and national academics – significant barriers remain.

The event sought to unpack some key questions: What is localization? What is its value and importance? And how can localization be enhanced through practical steps to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of refugee responses in the global South, which hosts 80% of the world’s refugees?

To answer these questions, the event featured insights from a critical group of actors who have experience in the challenges and opportunities that derive from localization, speaking from the perspective of donors, an international NGO, a national NGO, academics based in major refugee-hosting states and refugee-led organizations:

• Mozghan Moarefizadeh, Executive Director, RAIC Indonesia
• Pascal Zigashane, Director, URISE for Africa Initiative, Kakuma, Kenya
• Janemary Ruhundwa, Executive Director, Dignity Kwanza, Tanzania
• Maha Shuayb, Director,ĚýCentre for Lebanese Studies, Lebanese American University
• Alejandra MacĂ­as Delgadillo, Executive Director, Asylum Access MĂŠxico
• Arjan de Haan, Director, Inclusive Economies, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada
• Anna Crowley, Division Director, Open Society Foundations, UK
• Jessie Thomson, Vice President, Partnerships for Global Change, CARE Canada

The discussion identified key issues that need to be addressed for progress on localization to be realized. Participants noted the range of interests held by larger, international organizations and actors, and the extraordinary imbalance in power relations between such actors and local actors. A number of speakers spoke to the practical barriers that need to be addressed to enhance localization, from the registration of local organizations to the capacity of such organizations to meet the reporting requirements of external donors.

More critically, speakers identified the immense value that local actors bring to refugee responses. Local actors have more nuanced understandings of local contexts, have networks and connections that can be mobilized to advocate for change, are seen as more legitimate by nationalist and populist governments, and remain in the country long after the spot-light has faded and international attention has waned. Given that refugee situations now last an average of 20 years, this sustained presence is increasingly important.

Speakers agreed for the need to decolonize research, policy and program relations, to address power imbalances between actors, and to build solidarity networks so that trust can be built and the contribution of local actors legitimized by external partners. Critical to this is the question of trust, and the need for external partners to engage with local partners as equals, and to allow local partners to set the agenda for engagement.

Speakers also identified the need for donors to provide more holistic funding to local organizations and to demonstrate a willingness to take informed risks when supporting national institutions. All agreed that such support has the greatest potential to be transformational in its impact.

Ultimately, the event highlighted the central role of power. Change will be limited so long as relationships remain rooted in old power asymmetries. Instead, participants called for a more inclusive and participatory approach to power that raises the capacities of all actors and enables them to work together to affect change.

Jessie Thomson summarized this change in her comments by quoting from this piece from the :

“Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.ĚýNew powerĚýoperates differently,Ěýlike a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.”

Background

“” has become a central theme in development and humanitarian policy and practice, especially since the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. The need to engage host communities, refugee communities, and national actors across the humanitarian and development fields is equally central to the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), which was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in December 2018. The GCR is premised on the understanding that responses to refugees are best pursued in partnership with host communities and in response to local conditions, opportunities and interests.

These priorities all stress the importance of multi-sectoral approaches to displacement, with responses integrating development, humanitarian and peacebuilding programs. They also highlight the need to situate refugee responses within analysis of local markets and economies, develop programs that benefit refugees and host populations, and relate to host state policies on employment and education. They also speak to the critical importance of building and sustaining political will in support of lasting and rights-based solutions, and the need for responses to account for social and cultural realities.

As argued by Asylum Access in their report on National Governance Frameworks for Refugees, refugees and the local civil society organizations that support their inclusion are among the key actors that can inform and advise host country policy. Refugee voices combined with knowledgeable, connected and locally-led NGOs are uniquely positioned to provide host governments with technical assistance on legislation, argue persuasively for policy reform based on evidence and practices, and bring refugee voices to the table. Currently, such groups are totally underutilized. Greater funding and participation for locally-led advocacy organizations and refugee representation will help achieve more effective governance frameworks for refugees.

Likewise, localized knowledge and sustained research capacity in regions of refugee origin is a vitally important foundation for such localized responses to displacement, yet it is critically under-supported and often lacking in capacity in key refugee-hosting regions. While 80% of the world’s refugees remain in their regions of origin in the global South, well over 85% of the dominant, published academic research on refugees and forced migration originates from scholars and research centers in the global North. The concentration of research capacity in the global North perpetuates this trend, while support for research centres in refugee-hosting regions in the global South has largely been crisis-driven and unsustainable.

More localized research and engagement on refugee issues can contribute to more effective policy and practice, especially given the complex dynamics of displacement in fragile contexts and the need to integrate refugee responses into local, national and regional development and peacebuilding strategies. The renewed emphasis on promoting self-reliance for refugee and integrated responses that include the needs of host communities mean that effective responses to refugees require localized and granular understandings of local dynamics, economies, markets and development agendas.

In fact, local institutions are critical contributors to the “whole of society” approach, as articulated in the Global Compact on Refugees. Experts by virtue of their long experience navigating local contexts, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that local institutions instigate positive long-term outcomes for refugees and host communities. However, most local institutions struggle without core funding, causing gaps in response and adding weight to host governments. In contrast, the vast majority of published research on refugees comes from academic institutions in the north, despite the interest and deep knowledge of local researchers, who also struggle to secure funding and staffing.

Together, national NGOs, refugee-led initiatives, and national researchers form the basis of vibrant, localized “ecosystems” with the ability to generate new knowledge, identify new solutions that are viable and accepted by all stakeholders, mobilize support for innovative responses, and support the implementation and evaluation of new responses. Such ecosystems require sustainable support, the autonomy and authority to identify opportunities for innovation in local contexts, and stable support that enables them to pilot new initiatives, tolerate risks, and take successful innovation to scale.