Long-term humanitarian ‘care and maintenance’ programmes have a reputation for ignoring human and social needs. A new strategy designed for Sudanese refugees in Uganda was meant to address these failings by applying a more ‘developmental’ approach. However, political security, refugee participation and respect for human rights have been lacking.

There are approximately 188,000 Sudanese refugees in Uganda. Required by law to register and live in official settlements, the majority are housed throughout the conflict-affected north. They have suffered frequent brutal attacks by the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army. The ongoing civil war in Sudan has prevented their return home for decades, yet the Ugandan government refuses to consider their permanent integration.

The ‘Self-Reliance Strategy’ (SRS), implemented by the Government of Uganda and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1999, looked promising. The SRS aimed to move towards a more ‘developmental’ approach – integrating refugee services into existing government structures. It aimed to allow refugees to grow and buy their own food, and to be maintaining self-sustaining community structures by 2003. As such, it offered refugees the chance to manage their own lives in Uganda, whilst preparing for eventual return.

Research from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in the UK questions the success of the SRS. On the basis of visits to two settlements – Kiryandongo and Achol-pii – in northern Uganda, it finds that:

• Conflict in much of northern Uganda has severely constrained the SRS even in the relatively secure areas where it has been possible to begin implementing it: the movement of the Achol-pi group to the Kiryandongo Refugee Settlement put significant pressure on livelihoods there in the short term.
• The Kiryandongo refugees were expected to host and help to support others in their ethnic group, but denied any substantial role in the planning and implementation of the SRS.
• Refugees still have no freedom of movement in Uganda: tear gas and violence were used to forcibly relocate refugees to areas they considered unsafe, in contravention of Article 26 of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.
• The Government of Uganda has in this case subordinated refugee protection imperatives to its own political, economic and conflict management objectives, with UNHCR not well positioned to make a strong response.

The research does not reject developmental approaches to refugee management, rather asserting that refugee protection must be at the heart of such approaches. Political instability, the restriction of refugee movement, and the manipulation of refugee assistance to advance the wider goals of government have limited the benefits of Uganda’s SRS for refugees.

The author suggests that:

• UNHCR reconsider how best to operationalise its protection mandate for long-term refugees as it moves towards ‘Development Assistance for Refugees’
• the Ugandan Government prioritise the protection of refugee rights in order to meet its obligations under international law, maximise developmental benefits for both refugees and hosts, and deal openly and honestly with the international donor community
• all host states reconsider their reluctance to facilitate the integration of refugees in the short and longer term, recognising that refugees can represent an ‘opportunity’ rather than a burden for the host state, and that their rights must be protected.

Source(s):
‘Participating in Development? Refugee protection, politics and developmental approaches to refugee management in Uganda’, Third World Quarterly Vol. 26 (2), pages 351 – 367, by Tania Kaiser, 2005

id21 Research Highlight: 28 April 2006

Further Information:
Tania Kaiser
Department of Development Studies
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
Thornhaugh Street
Russell Square
London WC1H 0XG

Tel: +44 (0)20 7898 4484
Contact the contributor: tk51@soas.ac.uk

School of Oriental and African Studies

Other related links:
'Rwandan orphans denied land rights'

'Education and health for adolescent girls in Chad’s refugee camps'

'Self reliance: the key to success for Mozambican refugees in South Africa'

'Staying put: time to join refugee self-sufficiency with local integration?'

'Responding to displacement, id21 insights# 44'

Refugees International note on Uganda