From anecdote to evidence: researching RLOs in East Africa and the Middle East

How do refugees organise to respond to the needs of other refugees and members of the host community? This question became more urgent in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. While international actors were limited in their mobility and access to intended beneficiaries, greater attention was paid to the impressive impact of refugee-led responses. Far from waiting passively for assistance to arrive, refugees organised to respond to the needs of their community. Alio, M., Alrihawi, S., Milner, J. et al. (2020) ‘By refugees, for refugees: refugee leadership during COVID-19 and beyond’, 20 April (www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/refugees-refugees-refugee-leadership-during-covid-19-and-beyond).

This response came as no surprise to those engaged with the everyday politics of refugee responses in diverse contexts across the Global South. In East Africa and the Middle East, for example, evidence was mounting on the significance of refugee-led initiatives and the tendency for refugees to turn first to other refugees, not international actors, with needs ranging from social protection to economic support. See: Pincock, K., Betts, A. and Easton-Calabria, E. (2020) The Global governed? Refugees as providers of protection and assistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; and Mencutek, Z.S. (2021) ‘Refugee community organisations: capabilities, interactions and limitations’ Third World Quarterly 42(1): 181–199 (https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1791070). While we knew that refugee-led organisations were important actors in the refugee response ecosystem, their roles and scope of activity were poorly understood. How could we move from anecdote to evidence, to better understand the nature and scope of refugee-led responses to the needs of refugees?

A different kind of research project

In response to this question, the Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN) and the Refugee-led Research Hub (RLRH), based in Nairobi and run by the University of Oxford’s Refugee Studies Centre, launched a different kind of research project in early 2021. With support from a range of partners, This research was made possible thanks to support from the Open Society Foundations, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Global Whole Being Fund, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the IKEA Foundation. we formed two teams of researchers who live and work in close proximity to the phenomenon of displacement. Many of us are refugees or have experienced displacement. We leveraged our access to refugee communities and other local actors, along with our nuanced understanding of the diverse contexts in which refugee-led organisations operate, to co-design and co-conduct research on the impact of refugee-led organisations (RLOs) on protection and assistance to displaced communities in East Africa and the Middle East. Over an intensive 18-month period, we undertook fieldwork in a total of 22 sites across four countries in East Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) and three countries in the Middle East (Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey).

Drawing on the results of mapping exercises and fieldwork involving hundreds of interviews and focus group discussions, we identified more than 600 RLOs across the two regions and answered three core questions:

• What is the nature and scope of RLOs?
• What is the impact of RLOs?
• What factors condition the impact of RLOs?

In light of the changing nature of humanitarian programming and debates on the localisation of humanitarian action since the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and the Grand Bargain, our answers hold profoundly important lessons for the future of refugee responses, while the results of this research provide a solid evidence base on which new policies and programmes can be developed. The final report for the East Africa research is available at: https://refugeeledresearch.org/.The final report for the Middle East research is available at: https://carleton.ca/lerrn/2023/rlos-middle-east-communities-mobilising/.

What is the nature and scope of RLOs?

Across countries and contexts, we found that there was nothing new about the existence of refugee-led organisations. Throughout history, refugees have been active in responding to the needs of their communities.

Regardless of context and scale, what all RLOs have in common is the fact that they are led or managed by refugees themselves, situated within refugee communities, and are organised for the purpose of responding to the needs of refugees and related communities.

RLOs can take on different forms. Some are small, informal, and not registered with local authorities. Some are large, established, registered, and manage diverse programmes with significant budgets and staff. No matter the setting, we found that RLOs are distinct in their deep connection to refugee communities, the level of trust they enjoy with the communities they serve, and their ability to identify and address long-standing and emerging needs among refugees.

In East Africa, we found that RLOs can be found at various stages of development, from a more informal self-help phase, through stages of growth and formalisation, to an expansion phase where RLOs come to resemble non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or larger community-based organisations, able to deliver a diverse range of services. A prominent example of a well-established RLO in East Africa is YARID (Young African Refugees for Integral Development) in Uganda. Likewise, in the Middle East, RLOs can be organised in subtle and arguably covert ways. For example, a prominent restaurant in one capital city serving traditional Yemini food also sponsors Yemini students studying at national universities. Although not registered as an RLO, it is refugee-led and serves an important function in providing for the needs of members of the Yemini refugee community.

Also striking is the range of activities undertaken by RLOs and the impact they are seen to have by refugee communities, especially in responding to the diverse needs of refugees. Across the seven countries we examined, RLOs were found to be active in diverse areas, including:

• Social protection, including advocacy, awareness-raising, and advocating for the rights of particular groups, such as the elderly or the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) community. For example, in Nairobi, Kenya, LGBTQ+ RLOs provide important support for members of the LGBTQ+ refugee community that require advice on legal and physical protection measures.

• Service provision, including education, health, livelihoods and skills training. A prominent example of this type of activity is found in SAWA for Development and Aid and the Molham Team, both in Lebanon, which provide a wide range of services to Syrian refugees, from livelihood support to housing and training programmes.

• Recreating homeland, by organising cultural activities and heritage preservation and education activities, such as the Adungu Music Group in Uganda or the community in Istanbul that has established a training centre to preserve the Syrian music of Sabah Fakhri and the Al-Qudoud al-Halabiya musical tradition.

More generally, and beyond institutional measures of programme delivery, RLOs provide a mechanism through which refugees demonstrate agency. In camp and urban contexts, whether they are larger, more established RLOs or smaller, less visible initiatives – and despite the policy environment in which they work – RLOs represent a critical and vibrant way that refugees are engaged in identifying and responding to the needs of fellow refugees and related communities.

What is the impact of RLOs?

Given the nature of the relationship between RLOs and the communities they serve, it might come as no surprise that community members across contexts reported that the impact of RLOs is positive and significant. RLOs were found to have an impact that was distinct and complementary to the impact of international NGOs and United Nations (UN) agencies.

Community respondents noted that their experience with RLOs was often more positive than their experience with international actors, that RLOs treat them with more dignity and respect, have a better understanding of their needs, provide services in a fairer and more predictable way, are more accessible, and are more accountable to the communities they serve.  

RLOs were found to have a tangible impact on the wellbeing of members of the community they serve, especially in relation to groups within communities that are marginalised or excluded from international assistance programmes. Many respondents noted that RLOs, of various sizes and capacities, were able to consult more readily with the community to ensure that their needs and priorities were reflected in the design of new programmes, respond quickly to new needs, and were able to ensure that programmes were delivered in an accessible and accountable way. In Addis Ababa, refugees expressed their gratitude to RLOs for meeting the costs of transportation so that refugees could attend programming provided by a humanitarian organisation. In the Middle East, many organisations provide services and assistance for Palestinian refugees that would otherwise fall through the cracks of the refugee response system.

Only a small minority of respondents noted any negative impact from RLO activities, but these responses highlight the need to be aware of the potential for RLOs to privilege or prioritise some segments of the community over others.

In contrast, representatives of humanitarian agencies were found to have a narrower understanding of the role of RLOs and their potential impact. Many respondents had a limited understanding of the range of RLO activities and the scope of their activities. Where RLOs were known to representatives of international NGOs and UN agencies, they were seen primarily as useful liaisons for sharing information with refugee communities, potential implementers of programmes designed by non-refugee actors, and targets of capacity-building initiatives.

Changing this perception of RLOs on the part of international humanitarian actors is critical for realising the full potential of the complementary contribution that RLOs can make to refugee responses. See, for example: Asylum Access (2021) Building equitable partnerships: shifting power in forced displacement (https://asylumaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Building_Equitable_Partnerships.pdf).  

What factors condition the impact of RLOs?

The strong bond of trust between RLOs and refugee communities was universally identified as being the single greatest factor that conditions the impact of RLOs. Refugees often felt more comfortable approaching RLOs for help or accessing services provided by RLOs, thus enhancing the impact of RLOs.

But not all RLOs were found to have the same level of impact. Significant variation was identified both within and between regions, and even within the same operational context. Understanding the factors that create this variation is important for understanding where and how barriers faced by RLOs might be overcome.

The single greatest factor conditioning the work of RLOs was the policy environment within which they function. Simply put, RLOs working in more permissive or open policy environments faced fewer restrictions on their activities and were therefore able to implement more ambitious programmes. In contexts where refugees could register their RLOs, work legally and open bank accounts, RLOs were able to develop more public and visible programming and receive and manage external funding. In more restrictive domestic and local conditions, RLOs were required to operate more informally, minimise their public communications, and function as more clandestine initiatives for fear of exposure and punitive responses by local authorities.

In East Africa, for example, RLOs have wider scope to operate in Kenya and Uganda but face significant constraints on their work in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Likewise, in the Middle East, several RLOs have been able to function in Lebanon while registered in European countries, while a much more restrictive environment in Jordan places considerable constraints on the ability of refugees to form RLOs.  

Between these two extremes, however, was the more common reality for RLOs: a complexity of formal and informal policies that needed to be navigated. In response, RLOs have found innovative ways of navigating bureaucratic ambiguities and restrictions, by registering under the name of a host national, presenting their organisation as a social enterprise, or situating their work under the umbrella of an established, national organisation.

Clarifying and improving the policy environment to allow RLOs to register and function legally to serve humanitarian needs would be a significant way to enhance the complementary impact of RLOs.

That said, it should not be presumed that all RLOs want to grow in size and scale. A number of RLOs reported their desire to remain small, informal, and active only in moments of particular need. The danger, however, is to presume that this is the desire of all RLOs. Far from it. In fact, our research included an equal number of RLOs with the capacity to respond at scale to complex needs – such as shelter, education and health – throughout a region.   

Another critical factor determining the impact of RLOs was their ability to access networks. We found significant variation between those RLOs that were able to connect with other RLOs across local, national and regional contexts, and those who could not due to language, power relations, or access to communications technology or the means to travel.

This variation became more acute between those RLOs who were able to access global and transnational networks and those who could not. The larger, more prominent RLOs identified in this study were all connected to global networks and able to mobilise resources through these networks or through transnational networks with members of their diaspora located in the Global North. While a small but growing number of RLOs have been able to access funding through private foundations or other external sources, most RLO funding continues to come from members of the community. In cases where this community includes members who are located in the Global North and able to access larger sources of funding, the capacities of associated RLOs are typically significantly enhanced. Therefore, reducing the barriers to accessing networks is a critical way that the contribution of RLOs can be more fully realised.

Conclusion

Far from being passive recipients of assistance, refugees are active agents in organising and mobilising responses. Across East Africa and the Middle East, RLOs are demonstrating the capacity to develop and implement programmes that respond to the ongoing and emerging needs of refugees and related communities. It is time to recognise the distinct and complementary contribution that RLOs bring to refugee responses.

To further enhance the impact of RLOs: international humanitarian actors need to recognise their contributions and enter into equitable partnerships with RLOs; host states need to enhance the domestic administrative environment for RLOs; and the wider humanitarian community needs to reduce the barriers for RLOs to access networks within which they can thrive and their many contributions be recognised and celebrated.

Farah Al Hamouri, Mustafa Hoshmand and Watfa Najdi were Lead Country Researchers for the study on RLOs in the Middle East. Oroub El-Abed was the Regional Research Coordinator for the study on RLOs in the Middle East. Abis Getachew, Andhira Kara and Uwezo Ramazani were Lead Country Researchers for the study on RLOs in East Africa. Pauline Vidal is Research Facilitator at the Refugee-led Research Hub in Nairobi, Kenya. James Milner is Project Director of the Local Engagement Refugee Research Network, based at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.