Participation, self-reliance and integration
Sudanese refugees in Uganda

For many years, there have been calls for the greater participation of refugees in programmes meant to support and assist them. Has this been achieved in reality?

Recently, debates have resurfaced about the merits of integration as a durable solution to refugees’ problems. ‘Self-reliance’ strategies have been proposed as one way of moving towards this. But is it reasonable to expect refugee populations to contribute to developmental agendas, when their own pressing concerns are not necessarily addressed?

Participation is now prescribed for the humanitarian sector in widely recognised standards and codes of conduct, agency handbooks and guidelines. Some assistance providers, however, continue to interpret participation merely as an instrumental tool of service delivery rather than a way of sharing power and decision-making. The use of mechanical and instrumental approaches to participation at the project level can, paradoxically, block any more challenging or innovative initiatives.

Does the structure of the humanitarian aid framework facilitate the use of participatory approaches? Research into assistance programmes for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and conflict affected people in Sri Lanka suggests that the available participatory space is very small indeed. This is partly because of the constraints of working in a conflict area, but relates also to the rigidity of agency systems and procedures, and the attitudes and understanding of key field staff. Even in prolonged refugee situations, ‘top down’ approaches to programming are still common, and these make it extremely difficult for field staff to be responsive to locally defined priorities.

In Uganda, the Government and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are currently implementing a ‘Self-Reliance Strategy’ (SRS) which aims to integrate refugee assistance into the overall development programme of the district. The SRS promises several long-term benefits and calls for the participation of both the refugee and host populations.

Research shows that to be meaningful to refugee populations, participation must address their political and legal rights as well as their socio-economic needs. While inviting refugee involvement in the development programmes of the districts in which they live is a positive step, there are important issues arising:

• Refugees in Uganda do not enjoy freedom of movement and its associated socio-economic advantages.
• They have no political voice with which to participate in the decision-making processes that establish the conditions within which they live and work.
• The five-level, participatory local council system introduced by the Government in 1986 has no equivalent in the refugee context.
• While individual camps and settlements have refugee welfare committees, these are prohibited from participating in wider political activities.

There is some evidence that the participation of refugees is only welcomed by the Government of Uganda when it contributes to the Government’s own agenda. For example, when refugees in Kiryandongo settlement wanted to offer refuge and support to friends in another refugee settlement which was attacked by Ugandan rebels, they were informed bluntly by the Government that they were not permitted to do so.

Implications for policy are:

• The participation of refugees in assistance programmes is neither a cost-free nor a politically neutral activity.
• The inclusion of a degree of instrumental participation in refugee assistance, self-reliance or integration programmes does not necessarily indicate a just or equitable policy, or one that defends the rights of refugees.
• The co-option of the language of participation by those whose prime concern is not the sharing of power and decision-making, but their own interests, should be rejected.
• Until host governments’ concerns relating to ‘true’ integration are tackled, the ‘glass ceiling’ that prevents refugee groups participating at a decision-making level may remain in place.
• Planners and implementers of ‘integration’ programmes for refugee groups should ensure that such initiatives address their legal status and rights, and do not restrict them to facilitating socio-economic co-existence with host communities.

Tania Kaiser
SOAS
Department of Development Studies
Thornhaugh Street
Russell Square
London WC1H 0XG

T +44 (0)20 7898 4484
F +44 (0)20 7898 4559

tk51@soas.ac.uk

See also
‘UNHCR’s withdrawal from Kiryandongo: anatomy of a handover’, in UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper No. 32 (see also Refugee Survey Quarterly), by Tania Kaiser
www.unhcr.ch

‘Consultation with and Participation by Beneficiary and Affected Populations in Planning, Managing, Monitoring and Evaluating Humanitarian Aid: the case of Sri Lanka’, report prepared for INTRAC and commissioned by ALNAP, by J. Boyden with T. Kaiser and S. Springett, August 2002
www.intrac.org

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.