This study offers one of the few refugee-led, evidence-based analyses of why refugees move from camps to Nairobi, how they navigate the journey, and what conditions await them once they arrive. It fills an important gap in understanding internal mobility. An area often overlooked in policy and humanitarian programming.
Key highlights from the research:
Many refugees move to Nairobi seeking safety, dignity, work, education, and autonomy that camp settings often cannot provide.
Complex administrative barriers: especially movement passes and documentation—shape every stage of the journey.
Movement is rarely impulsive; it involves careful planning, risk assessment, and support from social networks.
Life in the city offers opportunities but also exposes refugees to precarity, discrimination, and inconsistent implementation of refugee policies.
Stakeholders—including NGOs, government actors, and community groups: play a crucial role in bridging information gaps and supporting urban integration.
Why this research matters: Internal mobility is a central yet under-discussed part of refugee life in Kenya. As the country moves toward new policies such as the Shirika Plan and urban integration frameworks, understanding refugees lived experiences is essential. This research provides practical insights that can support policymakers, humanitarian actors, and refugee-led organizations in designing more realistic, humane, and rights-based approaches.
I am deeply grateful to everyone who contributed to this work and participants who trusted me with their stories, the RLRH team, the Kenya Evidence Platform, and partners who supported the research and publication.
The U.S. emphasized that it will no longer bear a disproportionate share of global humanitarian costs and called for fairer burden-sharing among member states.
The statement linked rising misuse of asylum systems by economic migrants to declining support for genuine asylum seekers, urging reform to protect the integrity of asylum.
The U.S. urged UNHCR to return to its core mandate—refugee protection and durable solutions—criticizing its expanded scope and calling for reforms focused on efficiency, transparency, and accountability.
It called for budget reforms within UNHCR, emphasizing fiscal discipline, measurable results, and transparency around staff costs and entitlements.
The U.S. also urged UNHCR to avoid divisive cultural or political initiatives, focus on life-saving interventions, and work toward reforms in the global asylum framework that respect national sovereignty while protecting genuine refugees.
Speaking as a refugee, this U.S. statement would make me feel uneasy and concerned about the direction things are heading.
From a refugee’s point of view, several things in the statement sound worrying, even if they are presented as reform or efficiency measures.
Reduced U.S. responsibility and funding The U.S. saying it will no longer pay a “disproportionate share” of global humanitarian costs means there could be less funding for UNHCR programs that provide food, shelter, education, and protection. Refugees depend heavily on this support. If that funding is reduced, it will hit the most vulnerable first.
Focus on sovereignty over protection The statement puts a lot of weight on “national sovereignty” and controlling migration. While every country has the right to manage its borders, this language often means tighter restrictions on asylum access. For a refugee fleeing persecution, stricter border controls and skepticism toward asylum seekers can make it much harder to find safety.
Labeling some asylum seekers as “abusing the system” The claim that “economic migrants” are misusing asylum channels paints a broad and dangerous picture. Many refugees flee situations that don’t fit neatly into legal definitions of persecution but are still life-threatening. If countries start doubting people’s stories more, genuine refugees could be rejected or deported back to danger.
Demand for UNHCR reform Some reform is necessary—efficiency and accountability are good goals—but the tone here suggests cutting costs rather than improving protection. When staff reductions and financial control become priorities, the result could be fewer field workers and slower emergency responses, not better service.
5. Opposition to “divisive cultural initiatives” This is vague, but it sounds like a warning against programs that address inclusion, diversity, or gender equality within UNHCR. Those initiatives actually help refugees integrate, feel respected, and rebuild their lives. Removing them could weaken the sense of dignity and belonging that refugees need
The Kenyan government has officially launched its Shirika Plan, an initiative to turn the country’s two refugee camps – Dadaab and Kakuma – into self-reliant integrated settlements, allowing refugees and host communities to live and work side by side and access donor and government services.
Part of the Dadaab refugee camp complex in northeastern Kenya, which shelters some 427,000 registered refugees.
The Shirika Plan follows a similar pattern to other large refugee-hosting countries in the Global South – notably Jordan and Ethiopia – adopting policies that allow refugees to integrate into host communities and labour markets. This comes on the back of commitments made through the 2018 Global Compact for Refugees and World Bank financial support for refugee rights reforms.
The Shirika Plan has been lauded as a major step forward in securing durable solutions for Kenya’s 800,000 refugees, the majority of whom are from neighbouring Somalia and South Sudan.
Finding solutions for these communities – many of whom have lived in Kenya since the 1990s – has become even more pressing in the wake of recent US aid cuts, which threaten the livelihoods of refugees receiving material assistance from donors.
But what do host country citizens think of the Shirika Plan? Are Kenyans in support of integrating refugees – which has the potential to affect them in their jobs, access to services, and community life – or will there be a backlash against it?
In late 2023, we – a group of researchers from the Immigration Policy Lab at Stanford University – set out to answer this question. We asked over 3,300 Kenyan citizens from across the country what they thought of the integration initiative, and here we share the key findings from our working paper, now under peer review.
Support for the Shirika Plan
We found widespread backing among Kenyans for integrating refugees: 67% said they supported greater access to work permits and financial inclusion; 69% supported refugees gaining access to government services; and 57% supported refugees having the right to move freely throughout the country.
Giving refugees full rights to work and move freely in Kenya was four times more popular than keeping refugees in camps – Kenya’s long-standing status quo policy.
Why are Kenyans supportive of refugee integration? We found the major reason was they feel a humanitarian obligation towards refugees, who are their “neighbours”, their “brothers and sisters”, and “Africans like us”. As one person told us, “We’re human, and it’s not good to see your fellow [human] suffer or bleed. You have to care about the other’s life like you care about your own.”
Many Kenyans said they had no problem with refugees, as many had lived in the country for decades. Others said they welcomed refugees because they could someday become refugees themselves. For example, one person said, “They’re humans and they’re supposed to be helped. The same way it might [become] worse in Kenya and we run to their country. It’s brotherhood.”
We also found that Kenyans perceived refugees as bringing positive benefits to the economy. Contrary to the narrative in countries like the United States, many people discussed refugees bringing new businesses and jobs, increasing trade and tax revenues, and greater demand for goods and services.
One respondent told us: “Most of the refugees are blooming in business more than Kenyans. The interaction they bring to our country will help us upgrade by bringing new ideas and different ways of managing business. You’ll find most refugees are very successful.”
This echoes academic research which shows that refugees often benefit rather than burden host communities economically, including in Kenya and Uganda – though it should be noted that many refugees are not entrepreneurs and still struggle to support themselves and their families.
Others applauded the Shirika Plan’s extension of work rights to refugees because, as another respondent said, “Refugees will now be in a position to feed themselves so it will reduce dependency [on the government and international aid]. It will help them earn something for themselves.”
The highest support for refugee integration was among the communities living near Kenya’s two refugee camps – Dadaab in Garissa county and Kakuma in Turkana.
In Dadaab, this was due, in part, to ties with Somali Kenyans. However, especially in Turkana, locals seemed to experience firsthand the advantages of refugee-hosting. As one person said, “We are benefiting from the refugees. We get employment from the camp. Turkana ladies work there and get money.” Locals also benefit from access to healthcare and schools in Kakuma and the nearby Kalobeyei refugee settlement.
Concerns among Kenyans
While we found widespread support for the Shirika Plan, some citizens were concerned that refugee integration would lead to conflicts with locals because of resource constraints.
As one respondent said, “We already have issues with resource management. We have seen many people fighting over resources, water, and even land. [If there is free movement, refugees] will go where there is reliable rainfall, good transport, and facilities… definitely now people will want to fight over resources.”
While research suggests that a refugee presence does not lead to increased violence, some Kenyans worry that more open refugee policies would increase the risk of insurgent attacks from the Somali extremist group al-Shabab. Successive governments have tried to link the Dadaab camp to high-profile terrorist incidents in 2013, 2015 and 2019, but have not provided evidence to back up these claims.
Concerns were greatest with respect to freedom of movement. When asked what they thought the impact of giving refugees freedom of movement would be, 31% of responses mentioned negative security impacts, and 9% specifically mentioned terrorism.
Despite recognising potential economic benefits, some respondents were concerned about job and business competition. As one respondent said, “If we allow [refugees] to start doing business, most of us will lose jobs because most Kenyans do their business with small [amounts of] money.”
Others were concerned about the government providing additional support to refugees instead of focusing on poverty and unemployment among Kenyans.
Concerns among refugees
Refugees in Kakuma and Dadaab have also weighed in on the Shirika Plan. Many refugee leaders view it as a promising step towards greater dignity and inclusion. They are hopeful that increased access to employment, government services, and freedom of movement will soon become a reality, and they note that the Kenyan public has generally been welcoming.
At the same time, refugees voiced important concerns. Chief among them are frustrations with delays in implementation and the lack of clear information about how the plan will be rolled out – especially regarding access to documentation, government services, and movement rights.
Some are concerned that the Shirika Plan does not expand movement outside of Garissa and Turkana, and that it may end the ability of refugees to resettle to third countries like the US and Canada. Many also expressed disappointment over the limited involvement of refugees in shaping the policy and their ongoing lack of political representation.
As one leader of an urban refugee-led organisation put it: “Refugees need access to timely documentation that facilitates education, work, health, and financial services. We need this not only on paper, but in actual implementation. The only way to achieve this is through meaningful inclusion and accurate representation of real refugee issues.”
Lessons to learn
There is an urgent need for durable solutions to the global refugee crisis, particularly in the wake of US aid cuts. Our research provides hopeful evidence that the Kenyan public, contrary to fears of a backlash, supports extending greater rights to refugees. This sentiment reflects deeply held humanitarian values and hopes for the impact of refugees on Kenya’s economy.
Yet, as promising as these findings are, they also come with caveats. Genuine integration requires meaningful consultation with refugees themselves. Moreover, the Kenyan government must demonstrate its commitment by implementing promised reforms, addressing potential sources of community tension, and proactively countering misinformation.
Our study offers a valuable lesson for other countries grappling with protracted refugee situations and declining international aid: that there can be broad public support for allowing refugees to work and integrate.
Tom R. Muyunga-Mukasa, a dedicated professional with a profound commitment to public health and the well-being of marginalized communities. As a prominent figure associated with the American Public Health Association (APHA) and the American Political Science Association (APSA), Muyunga-Mukasa brings a wealth of expertise to the forefront of the discourse on health disparities and environmental justice. Currently serving as a pivotal member of the Migrant, Asylum Seeker, and New American Navigation (MIGRANANA) Health Platform, Tom R. Muyunga-Mukasa channels his passion for public health into tangible actions. With a focus on addressing the unique challenges faced by migrant populations, asylum seekers, and new Americans, Muyunga-Mukasa’s underscores the importance of inclusivity in public health initiatives. This article, enriched by the insights and experiences of Tom R. Muyunga-Mukasa, delves into the intricate relationship between environmental health and the well-being of diverse communities
Happy readinig…………………………………
Environment health is as relevant in our lives as any other science.There is a relationship between the environment and health. Environmental health explains the role of the environment on health of the people and how in turn health affects the environment.This relationship comes about as a result of the form, substance, particulate nature and processes of the components of what makes up the environment in form of the air, food, plants, land, water and temperature.The composition of the environment has direct effect on health of humans.
The environment presents in different forms e.g., biological, chemical and physical in nature. The environment further presents in different forms e.g. weather, particulate nature, sediments, seasons and processes like the fate and transportation of materials such as chemicals.This affects the character of health in all its forms e.g., social, physical and mental forms. Health itself is affected by the age, physical, political, infrastructure, social, cultural, gender and education enabling and responsive contexts prevailing.
What we perceive as the environment is in fact the forces and processes of the chemical, biological and physical nature of the components in the environment. This has economic, social, cultural, political, legal, gender, infrastructural and physical significance and this is where and why the study of the environment on the health of people and the planet becomes of interest.
Descriptive and analytical epidemiological studies to gauge health threats, vulnerability and risks are done to inform policy, planning and programming. These studies facilitate the creation of meaningful information or knowledge when data on affinity, volatility, risk assessment; risk management, site contamination and chemical contamination are generated, quantified, analyzed and developed into usable reports.
Through environmental health we are able to understand the experiences we go through in our environment and how these are affecting our lives due to exposure; it informs our choices to lead better and healthy lives; stresses the need to move focus toward those who are exposed to contaminants and link them to care; and it provides guidance on routine and habits to engage in to lead healthier lives.
The Anti-TB Campaigns in Kakuma, specifically within the Kakuma refugee camp and Kalobeyei settlement, showcased the dedicated efforts of the INTER FREE team, including refugees, asylum seekers, displaced persons, and local host communities.
Running from November 25th to December 9th, 2023, our volunteers passionately participated in a range of activities aimed at raising awareness about TB prevention.
Guided by the theme “TB Prevention, Community, Rights, and Gender,” our initiative underscored the importance of empowering communities, adopting rights-based approaches, and prioritizing people-first aspirations.
By incorporating cultural activities, food sharing, and entertainment, the campaign not only successfully engaged attendees but also underscored the crucial significance of TB prevention.
Team of Volunteer’s from INTER FREE
Fostering a collaborative spirit, we worked collectively to strengthen the link between the refugee community and TB-related care, firmly integrating these activities into the displaced community.
Currently ,we’ve sought a partnership for the next year with IRC General Hospital Kakuma 4 and Natukubenyo Health Centre, Kalobeyei Health Centre, Kalobeyei V1 to collaborate on establishing a TB desk.
Encompassing all four camps in Kakuma and the Kalobeyei settlement, our efforts brought TB testing services closer to the people, reinforcing the belief that conquering TB necessitates a united village effort. We thank The African Quality-driven Refugees’ Coalition (AQRC) Team behind the TB-testing and Advocacy Network Africa (AdNetN) for the invaluable support.
In unison, we declare: TB must not triumph. It truly takes a village.
Three people, among them, a grandmother and a three-year-old baby, died from scorpion stings and snake bites reported the head of the Scorpion Project in Camp 4 of the Kakuma Refugee camp.
Kakuma, a camp in Northwestern Kenya, is home to 244,000 (October 2022 UNHCR & GOK Statistics) refugees from different neighboring countries and also home to some of the deadliest species such as scorpions, poisonous snakes, centipedes and spiders, according to lead researcher, Godfrey
The inspiration for keeping and monitoring these creatures stemmed from nothing but keeping the “refugee community safe. Kalobeyei is safer than the 4 camps of Kakuma because the more trees, the higher the snakes, scorpions and spiders are off the ground.”
“For almost three decades, refugees have been exposed to stings and snakebites. Many have lost their loved ones, and some are left with amputated fingers, arms, and legs but never get attention from any stakeholder,” said Godfrey. According to him, these incidents reflect a bigger health challenge in Kakuma. A recent incident provides an example of the seriousness of this issue:
In September 2022, a 65-year-old South Sundance woman from Kakuma 4 was pronounced dead after two days of being admitted at the IRC Kakuma 4 hospital. The deceased was stung by a Parabuthus Maximus scorpion on her right leg during the night and she died two days after being admitted. Additionally, a three-year-old boy from the same community in Kakuma 4 was also stung and died while en route to the hospital, according to Godfrey.
“After the sting, grandma didn’t get her leg or body swelling. Yet she was in pain; she was just saying things we couldn’t understand. She could sing in that state. She then lost consciousness after 45 minutes,” said the woman’s granddaughter in an interview with Scorpion project.
Parabuthus is a genus of large and highly venomous Afro-tropical scorpions, that show a preference for areas of low rainfall like Kakuma and the new settlement. Due to their stings’ quick-acting venom, they rely to a lesser extent on their slender pinchers (chelae) to hold onto prey.
A female Parabuthus pallidus is the second most harmful among scorpion species found in the Kakuma refugee camp and the new settlement.
The dangerous symptoms of a poisonous scorpion bite are excessive sweating, nervousness, vomiting and high blood pressure. In scorpion bites, the venom affects the heart; consequently, death occurs due to heart-related symptoms. This is also the case for scorpion bites. However, a drug called Prazosin works like a miracle in the treatment of scorpion bites to prevent death. All that is needed is timely treatment.
Most refugees in Kakuma have been sleeping on the uncemented floors and are susceptible to venomous snake bites and Scorpion stings at night.
Photo Credit: Godfrey- Parabuthus Maximus, the most harmful and feared Scorpion in Kakuma
Depending on the poison they have, the venomous snakes can be grouped into two categories: neurotoxic and haemolytic. A bite by a neurotoxic snake results in the dropping/paralysis of eyelids (Ptosis). This is the earliest symptom and alarm bell in a person that has been bitten. Ptosis is followed by difficulty in swallowing food or drinking water, which may progress to respiratory symptoms, such as difficulty breathing, and finally bodily paralysis.
According to him, Scorpion Project Center is a community-based initiative led by refugees in response to the high rate of stings and snake bites. It aims to create, promote and keep a safe environment among refugees, humanitarian workers and host communities by providing relevant information on the venomous species around Kakuma.
Speaking on challenges faced by the center, Godfrey said, “once we had many scorpions but now, we have a few as we lost many creatures due to very hot temperatures and lack of food, unable to feed them cockroaches due to lack of budget and the same with the snakes, we just freed seven snakes recently due to a lack of breeding rats and lizards.”
For places like Kakuma refugee camp, “keeping the compound clean, putting the shelter in order and moving with light during nighttime could reduce the incidence,” could help.
“For the last 8 months, we haven’t had rain in the region. And the rate of stings and snakebites has considerably reduced contrary to the rain period.”
Speaking on what one could do in case of a Scorpion sting, Godfery had this advice to give: “first rush to the health facilities. But if you were far from the health facilities, just find a rope and tie it tightly to where the sting is, it could be in the hand and leg to minimize the flow of the venom towards the heart, then cut slightly around the place where the sting took place to allow some of the venom to flow out with blood. Also, drinking milk or honey as anti-venom could help.”
A community leader who lived in Kakuma for 7 years, said “one way to curb this incident is to give regular training for community health workers like training them on the management of scorpion and snake bites. Concerned organizations should also take the responsibility for easy availability of rabies vaccines, anti-snake and scorpion venom and other medication.”
The level of incidents of snake bites and scorpion stings in the Kakuma refugee camp is not fully known; an attempt we made to get the details from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) remains unanswered.
Editor’s note: Flipping the Narrative is an ongoing series that aims to put the voices of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants at the centre of conversations about the policies and events that shape their lives. NAIROBI
Have you ever stopped to think how the identity card you carry in your pocket determines how much control you have over your future?
When I imagine my future, I picture myself working my dream job as a developmental psychologist, being able to travel with ease, and not living in fear of being detained or threatened with deportation because of my status as a refugee.
But from the moment people become refugees, the reality is that they have very little say in what happens next in their lives.
Instead, we are made to depend on aid, and we encounter numerous challenges when trying to make choices about our lives and our futures. Many of these challenges stem from issues related to the IDs and documents that establish people’s legal status in the world, which we either don’t have or struggle to obtain.
For example, I was born in no man’s land while my family was fleeing the civil war in South Sudan. Like many other South Sudanese refugees around my age, I do not have a birth certificate. My mother did not have access to a health facility when she gave birth, so registering my birth and obtaining documentation was not possible.
Instead, three hours after I was born, I was bundled into a sling made of an empty food sack, and my family and the group of people they were travelling with continued their journey toward safety.
To this day, the birthday the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) recorded after we arrived in Kakuma camp in Kenya in 1997 is a different year and month than the day my mother actually gave birth. And even after arriving in Kakuma, it took three years for my family to be officially registered as refugees by UNHCR and to receive refugee ID cards.
It didn’t take long for my mother to realise that the camp provided little to no opportunities. Refugees were left with the choice to either stay in the camp and struggle to get by with bare minimum social assistance from UNHCR or go to the city to pursue the dream of being self-sustaining.
In the camp, you feel your power to uplift yourself has been taken away, while you depend on organisations to give you crumbs of support. But having a refugee ID doesn’t allow you to travel and live in other parts of Kenya unless you apply for permission from the government, which is a long and complicated process. So leaving the camp is difficult unless you make the decision to become undocumented.
‘We were undocumented’
When I was young, I developed a severe illness and needed to travel to the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, for medical care – a process UNHCR facilitated by obtaining travel permits and covering the cost of hospital bills.
During one of the trips to Nairobi in 2003, my mother resolved to stay in the city because she realised there was no future for my three siblings and me in the camp. Staying in the city would give us the opportunity to get a primary education, and she would be able to work to support herself.
What we didn’t foresee were the implications of her decision years later, when I turned 18. Because we hadn’t returned to Kakuma, our refugee status became inactive, which meant we were undocumented. After I completed high school, I wanted to continue my studies, but I needed an ID card – which I didn’t have – to be able to apply for university and for financial aid.
For seven years, I tried to trace down my refugee registration in Kakuma from Nairobi, but UNHCR kept telling me to return to the camp.
Eventually, I was able to enrol in a private university that understood my situation, but this is not a solution that is available to many refugees. I had also learned the difficulty and limitations of living in Nairobi undocumented and wanted to try to regularise my status.
For seven years, I tried to trace down my refugee registration in Kakuma from Nairobi, but UNHCR kept telling me to return to the camp. Finally, last year I was able to return to the camp and initiate the process to reactivate my status and transfer my registration to Nairobi so I would no longer be undocumented. It has been more than a year now, and the process is still pending.
‘Even refugees should have control over their own futures’
For most people, being issued a birth certificate and getting an identity card aren’t even things they have to think about. Those two documents allow you to attend school, access health services, set up bank accounts, register telephone numbers, obtain work permits, and so much more.
But for many refugees, the ID issued by UNHCR is their only identity card. It is the document that determines what we are able to do with our futures. The UNHCR ID is only valid for five years, and the process of renewing it can take two years, meaning that by the time you receive a new ID card, it is only valid for three years. When it expires, the cycle starts over again.
If I was designing UNHCR programmes, I would do everything I could to make sure people have both social security and the possibility to work to support themselves.
Even with a refugee ID, the process of obtaining a work permit or a licence to open a business in Kenya is a bureaucratic nightmare. Not having an ID card means not being able to do either of these things and also being left vulnerable to police harassment. We are made to believe that these people protect us, but, to many refugees, men in uniform are people we should stay clear of and avoid at all costs. This is both humiliating and strips us of the little dignity we have left.
So, we come back to where we started: People should have control over their own lives and futures; refugees are people.
If I was designing UNHCR programmes, I would do everything I could to make sure people have both social security and the possibility to work to support themselves. I would also try to maximise their ability to make their own choices about what they want to do and where they want to live.
If I learned anything from my mother, it is to loathe the thought of helplessness. That is what living in Kakuma camp meant to her. I watched her after we moved to Nairobi as she worked throughout the day and late into the night knitting and embroidering bed sheets with South Sudanese designs that she sold to provide for our needs.
My mother’s decision to try to find our way in Nairobi is one that single refugee mothers are faced with everyday. I don’t think choosing between a life of encampment – receiving bare minimum assistance from UNHCR – and choosing to be free to make your own life choices and pursue opportunities should be so difficult.
Curiosity and Hope: Young minds yearn for a world beyond the wire at Kakuma Refugee Camp
Photo by Tolossa Asrat
It has been almost 20 years since the UN General Assembly decided that June 20 would be celebrated as World Refugee Day (A/RES/55/76). Twenty years ago (2001) marked the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
Why Should We Care?
While World Refugee Day is to honour the strength and courage of refugees, people are nevertheless forced to flee their home lands because of conflict or natural disaster. In fact every minute 20 people leave everything behind to escape war, persecution or terror!
Do you know any Refugees?
A refugee is someone who fled his or her home and country owing to “a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”, according to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention. Many refugees are in exile to escape the effects of natural or human-made disasters.
Refugees are among the most vulnerable people in the world, therefore the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol were enacted to help protect them. They are the only global legal instruments explicitly covering the most important aspects of a refugee’s life. According to their provisions, refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.
The Rights contained in the 1951 Convention include:
The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions;
The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State;
The right to work;
The right to housing;
The right to education;
The right to public relief and assistance;
The right to freedom of religion;
The right to access the courts;
The right to freedom of movement within the territory;
The right to be issued identity and travel documents.
Some basic rights, including the right to be protected from refoulement, apply to all refugees. A refugee becomes entitled to other rights the longer they remain in the host country, which is based on the recognition that the longer they remain as refugees, the more rights they need.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger – a refugee – and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.
The 20-year-old, who is one of the most highly rated young players in the world, is the first footballer to be named as a global goodwill ambassador for UNHCR, the United Nations’ Refugee Agency.
Davies was born in a refugee camp in Ghana to Liberian parents who had fled civil war in that country. The family were resettled to Canada when Davies was five.
‘I want people to know about the importance of helping refugees, wherever they are, in camps or cities, in neighboring countries or countries of resettlement such as Canada,’ he said.’’
Editor’s note:Flipping the Narrative is an ongoing series that aims to put the voices of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants at the centre of conversations about the policies and events that shape their lives. This fifth essay looks at how the cycle of dependency refugees are forced into by UN agencies and international organisations needs to be broken for people to have a sense of agency and hope in the future.
KAMPALA
I’ve seen advertisements from UN agencies on social media asking, “What would you take with you if you had to flee your home?”. The question is supposed to generate empathy for refugees, but I think it’s the wrong question to ask. A better one would be: “How would you like to be treated if you had to flee your home and become a refugee?”
In my experience, international organisations and NGOs often treat refugees as burdens that need to be taken care of rather than as human beings capable of taking care of ourselves. Is that what you would want if you were in our shoes?
Becoming a refugee means losing almost everything. But refugees do not lose our brains, life experiences, or accomplishments. If someone was a doctor before they became a refugee, for example, they are still a doctor after becoming a refugee.
One of the most challenging parts of being a refugee, however, is realising that your past experiences and potential don’t matter to the international NGOs (INGOs) and UN agencies you have to turn to for help. Instead, you find yourself depending on their services while your sense of dignity and value are reduced.
‘I did not believe I would get the support I needed’
When I first arrived in Kampala, Uganda in 2011, I was 20 years old and deeply traumatised by the events I faced back home in the South Kivu region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – not only by what forced me to escape but also by what I experienced when trying to reach a safe place. I needed help, but the process of getting it was deeply dehumanising.
“The lesson I took away was that I couldn’t rely on INGOs for support and care when in need of urgent intervention or help.”
I had to wake up very early in the morning to stand in line outside an aid organisation’s office in Kampala, hoping to get in. If I left the line to get food or rest, I’d lose my spot. At the end of the day, an employee would emerge to tell us they were closing and to come back the next day to stand in line again. When I finally managed to enter, I was given an appointment to see a counsellor a month later.
I did not end up going back for the appointment because, after going through that experience, I did not believe I would get the support I needed. The lesson I took away was that I couldn’t rely on INGOs for support and care when in need of urgent intervention or help.
Fortunately, I had some skills with computers and quickly learned English. With the help of Congolese community members, I was able to stay in Kampala and find work to support myself.
My relatives, who came to Uganda a couple of years later, were sent to a refugee camp where they were given a small plot of land, blankets, some basic household items, and a tent to build themselves a shelter. The food rations they were given would not sustain a normal human being for anywhere close to a month. But this is what they were expected to survive on.
‘Many INGOs are okay with keeping refugees dependent on their aid’
Many refugees are grateful for being welcomed and given something to start with. In that sense, humanitarian organisations play a positive role in supporting refugees. But, at the same time, the way UN agencies and many INGOs work has forced refugees to live as beggars.
Organisations give refugees just enough to survive, and refugees always find themselves having to ask for more. The help they are provided with is not aimed at transforming their lives or helping them become self-sufficient. Organisations don’t provide enough scholarships or educational opportunities, and they often don’t know the real needs refugees have because there’s a disconnect between them and the communities they are meant to be supporting.
There are INGOs that take a different, more human approach, but it’s often difficult for refugees to find out that they exist and get connected with them. And, unfortunately, many INGOs are okay with keeping refugees dependent on their aid: Projects for refugees need to keep running because organisations rely on them to spend their budgets, get more donations, and keep their jobs.
This cycle prevents refugees from living full lives or having much hope for the future. Instead of continuing with the status quo, we need to talk seriously about how refugees can become self-reliant.
‘Let us sit at the same table and co-design policies and projects together’
For many years, despite facing a lot of barriers, refugees have been starting businesses, community groups, and organisations that play a major role in taking care of their basic needs and transforming their lives. These initiatives have been on the ground empowering fellow refugees by building skills such as financial literacy, language ability, and the ability to perform handicrafts that people can use to earn a living.
During the COVID-19 lockdown in Kampala in 2020, these refugee led-organisations (RLOs) proved how essential they are. Meanwhile, the lockdown was hard on refugees, many of whom earn money to live off day-to-day by working in restaurants, construction sites, shops, or by selling goods on the streets – all activities that were no longer possible.
“INGOs will not hire refugees for more senior positions where they would have decision-making power, regardless of their qualifications.”
Refugees soon found themselves lacking food and other basic necessities. Many INGOs had paused their operations or began working remotely. And public transportation was also shut down, so many refugees couldn’t move around the city, even to access medical care. People for Peace and Defence of Rights (PPDR), the organisation I’m the executive director of, and other RLOs stepped up to do all they could to fill the gap. We launched fundraising campaigns, used our own cars to distribute supplies, transported people to the hospital, and paid for medical bills and back rent.
The response showed how effective refugee-led initiatives are, how much better they understand refugees’ needs, and how much more capable and nimble they are at responding to those needs.
But there are limits to how much RLOs can do because we do not have access to the funding INGOs have. There is a lot of talk in the international aid community about localisation and supporting refugee-led initiatives. But donors from the Global North continue to fund INGOs from the Global North.
There is also a glass ceiling for refugees when it comes to working at INGOs. Many INGOs will hire refugees as interpreters, community mobilisers, or data collectors, but only as ‘incentive workers’ who are given a monthly stipend that is substantially lower than an INGO salary, not as full-time employees. The jobs provide very little long-term stability and no opportunity for advancement. And INGOs will not hire refugees for more senior positions where they would have decision-making power, regardless of their qualifications.
There is also a lot of talk by INGOs of partnering with refugee-led organisations, but how does that help if all decisions are made without refugees’ opinion or consent? How can INGOs design programmes for people they don’t listen to and therefore don’t understand?
If INGOs want to partner with RLOs, let it be an equal partnership that adds value to the people they serve. Since refugees have shown that we are capable of so much more than being looked at as vulnerable people, let us sit at the same table and co-design policies and projects together. The treatment of humanitarian aid workers and refugees should be equal. This will give refugees a better chance to live a dignified life. Nothing about refugees should be discussed without refugees.
When it comes to localisation and the support INGOs provide to refugees, it seems like people in the aid community are claiming they want me to be independent and empowered even while continuing to make me depend on them for my daily meal.
Reflections from the camps and urban 
