I had the privilege of representing the Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) at a workshop to develop a process for refugee engagement with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Member States and other key stakeholders. It was organized by the IGAD Support Platform. The IGAD Refugee Advisory Forum (RAF) Workshop took place on the 7th and 8th of August 2024 at the Hilton Garden Inn in Kampala, Uganda. The event was organized by IGAD and hosted by the Government of Uganda. More than 25 participants attended, most of whom were refugees representing refugee-led organizations (RLOs) and refugee-led networks (RLNs) operating in the IGAD region. Representatives from the United Nations (UN), non-governmental organizations, and academia were also in attendance. The Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS) was invited to participate and share insights on meaningful participation from its work in the region.
Key Takeaways
While the discussions focused on developing a regional refugee forum that can effectively engage with IGAD Member States and other policymakers, they also provided insights into what the refugees present at the meeting consider meaningful participation. Below are the key takeaways I gathered from the workshop.
Key takeaway 1: Access to freedom of movement and travel documentation are key enablers for meaningful refugee participation at the regional level.
A clarion call reverberating at the workshop hall was ‘anything about us without us is not for us‘. Refugees simply meant that meaningful participation means that they can directly – or through trusted representatives – engage decision-makers on decisions that affect them.
Given that decision-makers and forums are usually located in national capitals far from where most refugees live and that these decision-makers rarely visit refugee locations, participants at the workshop stressed the importance of the right to freedom of movement within their countries of asylum and across the borders of IGAD Member States. This access is essential for refugees to engage directly with decision-makers and participate in forums.
However, despite the significance of freedom of movement, refugees decried the restrictive policies in some IGAD countries and the lack of documentation, which prevents them from engaging in decision-making processes. One example highlighted was the challenge of accessing the Global Refugee Forum (GRF) held in November 2023 in Geneva—a crucial global policy platform that tracks pledges relevant to the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF). Although more refugees were represented at the 2023 GRF compared to the 2022 event, many were denied visas because they were perceived as flight risks. This is a clear example of how restrictive policies hinder refugees’ participation in decision-making processes that impact them.
Therefore, any regional engagement must carefully consider locations accessible to refugees and advocate for greater freedom of movement for all refugees in the region to ensure equitable access to regional decision-makers and forums.
Key takeaway 2: Refugee representation must carefully balance pluralism and sector expertise.
Representation was a topic that generated heated yet constructive debate during the workshop. The critical question was how refugee representatives would be selected for the RAF. In my estimation, two schools of thought were present in the room.
One perspective focused on ensuring the broadest possible representation of refugees in the election of leaders. This view was inspired by the Uganda Refugee Engagement Forum model, which is based on elections. The benefit of this approach is that all refugees, regardless of educational background, can vie for positions and, if elected, represent their peers. It also enhances legitimacy, as every refugee is seen to have an equal opportunity for leadership. However, the downside is the cost and the fact that this model is unique to Uganda among IGAD Member States. If this approach is adopted, it may inadvertently exclude refugees in IGAD countries that do not have similar systems.
The other perspective favoured representation through existing and registered RLOs and RLNs. Given that these organizations operate across the region and some have formed regional networks, they could easily integrate into the proposed IGAD RAF. Additionally, some RLOs have developed expertise in key sectors such as protection, education, and health, which could inform meaningful refugee engagement with decision-makers on these sector issues. However, this approach faces the challenge of insufficient inclusivity. While RLOs do represent some refugees, they cannot claim to speak for all. Moreover, the refugees who operate RLOs often have connections to decision-makers, giving them more influence compared to those who do not. Finally, not all refugees in IGAD countries can register RLOs due to a lack of regulatory frameworks or limited implementation where they do exist. As a result, representation based solely on RLOs may lack the broad-based support necessary for legitimacy among refugees.
The workshop participants appear to have settled on a blended approach to balance the two approaches discussed above. In countries with existing structures, like Uganda, representatives will be chosen through those systems to avoid duplicating efforts and creating parallel systems of refugee participation. In countries without refugee engagement structures, a competitive process will be undertaken to select RLOs or notable community leaders who can represent the views of refugees from that country. To ensure that expertise is considered in the refugee engagement process, RLOs will be encouraged to participate in national and regional refugee engagement forums on thematic issues to ensure their sector expertise is included.
Key takeaway 3: Refugees are keen on a regional engagement process that guarantees outcome influence and compliance monitoring.
A key issue that came up frequently in the workshop was accountability. Accountability has many definitions and takes many forms. However, what struck me was the repeated comments from the refugees represented at the workshop that they would like to see more implementation of agreed-upon actions. This point was also supported by other participants in the room as it was argued that the whole point of accountability was ensuring compliance with decision outcomes and collective review of those decision outcomes that could not be implemented for whatever reason.
This concern addresses two key elements in their understanding of meaningful participation: outcome influence and accountability/ transparency. Refugees expressed frustration with the tokenistic approach to refugee participation, where they are involved in discussions, but their input does not influence the final decisions. They felt it would be meaningful to have access to the outcomes of decision-making processes in a language they can understand. Additionally, they believed it would be helpful to know why certain recommendations they made were not included in the final decision, recognizing that not all suggestions can be incorporated.
Furthermore, in instances where agreed-upon decisions are not implemented, refugees at the workshop indicated they would feel more meaningfully engaged if the reasons for non-compliance were explained to them and if they were given the opportunity to suggest corrective measures. This approach would enhance their confidence that their views matter and that rights holders are accountable and transparent because refugees understand how their input is being applied to decisions. This transparency would also help build trust in the decision-making process.
Key takeaway 4: Meaningful refugee participation at the regional level must consider the cost of participation.
There is a cost involved in ensuring that refugees engage with the relevant stakeholders in the IGAD region. Refugee representatives will need to organize events or calls to engage with the refugees they represent, ensuring their voices are captured in the decisions presented to IGAD Member States and other stakeholders. This requires representatives to incur costs to perform their roles effectively.
However, funding to support this representation is limited, meaning most refugee representatives will have to provide this service voluntarily. Given the challenges refugees face in securing resources to meet their basic needs, let alone provide effective representation, the volunteer model may need to be reconsidered. That said, paid positions also require careful consideration. The availability of monetary resources could create unhelpful competition for these positions.
Therefore, similar to the discussion on representation, there needs to be a careful balance between relying on volunteers who are intrinsically motivated and providing some level of support to enable them to carry out their representation work effectively.
Conclusion
At the end of the workshop, all participants agreed that refugee engagement at the regional level is essential. The primary audience for this engagement is the IGAD Member States, which have direct influence over policies that impact refugees’ lives, such as freedom of movement and access to documentation. Participants also concurred that the primary goal of the engagement forum should be to influence Member States to adopt, implement, and review policies that enable refugees to become self-sufficient. The IGAD Secretariat committed to further refining the terms of reference for this refugee engagement forum, building on the rich discussions held during the 2-day workshop. Elements of representation, accountability, and compensation will undoubtedly continue to influence and shape the discourse on refugee representation in the region.
