‘Urban first’ in a world without camps
Most of the world’s refugees and internally displaced persons live in towns and cities, while donors and aid agencies channel support to those living in camps. A radical ‘urban first’ approach could provide a cost-effective and equitable way forward for displaced people – and donors.
Hamdi (not her real name) fled Somalia at the age of 21 with her ex-husband and five children, and now she serves tea for customers in Eastleigh, Nairobi (Photo: Arete/Brian Ongoro/IIED)
About 60% of the world’s refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) now lives in cities, but the urban displaced have little humanitarian assistance, and are conveniently assumed to be ‘self-reliant’. Meanwhile donor funding is still focused mainly on those in camps where, with their right to free movement often curtailed, refugees and IDPs are largely reliant on aid.
A recently completed four-year research project with displaced people in camps and urban areas in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Jordan and Kenya, looked in depth at their experiences of displacement, wellbeing, livelihoods strategies and entrepreneurship. Our findings suggest a radical new approach.
Challenging the status quo
We believe a middle ground exists between economically unsustainable camps that restrict basic rights, and the abandonment of refugees and IDPs in cities. We therefore challenge the international community to consider a world without refugee camps, and advocate an ‘urban first’ approach.
We propose the default crisis response should be to house people in existing towns and cities, rather than provide emergency accommodation in camps, while acknowledging that this strategy requires a fundamental realignment of response to forced displacement. It needs both a major reformulation of international policy, and investment in local initiatives to design and pilot new approaches to the social and economic inclusion of displaced people.
An ‘urban first’ strategy proposes that instead of ‘turning a blind eye’ to refugees who leave or bypass camps, or developing an institutional response to those already there, it must include practical preparations for those still to arrive in towns and cities. Five key principles underline this approach.
The five principles
-
Importance of a rights-based approach
Refugees and IDPs have a right to live in cities – first acknowledged in the UN Refugee Agency’s 2009 urban policy, when it described urban areas as “legitimate place for refugees to enjoy their rights”. We go further to argue that urban areas should be the first location of choice for hosting displaced people.
This is because of the relative freedoms and opportunities in cities, the potential for aid to have wider development benefits for host communities, and because most displaced people want to live outside camps.
In Jordan, we met a Syrian refugee family who had repeatedly ‘escaped’ from the camp to establish themselves in Amman. This meant that their children could not attend school in the city for two years, as they did not have the correct papers. Each time they were sent back to the camp, they left again, so determined were they not to rely on aid, and to re-establish the freedoms they had left behind in Syria.
Recent studies of displaced people living outside camps show most have restricted rights and limited support, navigating the city, often informally, to access housing, livelihoods and community. As a proactive response, local government, service providers and society must provide an enabling environment for their newest residents.
Refugee/IDP rights should be portable, so that the right of residency is not confined to a specific locality, the right to work is not tied to a specific employer, and aid is not place-specific.
-
Economic inclusion
In protracted crises, the issue of the right to work quickly comes to the fore so this is key. Data from our study confirm that most urban refugees want to work and have rights to start a business. Pride in supporting family and identity gained through work are important for the wellbeing of displaced people, alongside the need for an income.
However, often with limited rights, many are forced into types of informal employment where they face exploitation, low pay, extortion and police harassment.
During our research in Nairobi, we found Somali women refugees who work as street vendors are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and sexual assault. Often sole carers for their children, they lacked family support networks and had minimal access to credit to expand their businesses.
Current debates around the ‘self-reliance’ of displaced people often centre on livelihoods support through skills training. These approaches underplay the legal barriers that displaced people face, assets that they bring to their new settings, and the collective contribution of their enterprises to urban economic development.
-
Recognise the primacy of local government
In most displacement situations, local government’s role is key. In a sudden large-scale crisis, early humanitarian assistance may be required, but where people’s exile is long term, displacement must be considered a development issue.
Ideally local governments should lead the response – with financial and technical support. They already provide a wide range of services to residents, including health, education and housing, and can reach dispersed communities in need – such as the urban displaced.
Providing refugees and IDPs with separate services misses opportunities to use relief funds to strengthen local service provision for all. A city-led response to displacement means channelling donor funds to local governments, to build their capacity to recognise the needs of displaced people, and enable and incentivise them to develop local refugee/IDP policy and programmes, and embed displacement issues into long-term strategic planning.
Recognising the problems refugees face in accessing services in the city, Nairobi County has recently approved a refugee integration strategy. This pioneering approach will require commitments from political leaders and changes in the mindset of officials so that working with refugees becomes ‘business as usual’. It will also require increased funding for the county to support services for these additional populations.
-
Recognise the agency of refugees, IDPs and hosts
Far from passive victims, displaced people choose to settle in urban areas, and devise livelihood strategies to survive in the city. The agency of refugees and IDPs has distinct characteristics, having been built on hope in the face of protracted uncertainty, although often constrained by hostile regulation, ethnic discrimination or ongoing insecurity.
In Addis Ababa, there is an assumption that most Eritrean refugees are waiting passively for resettlement. However, we found multiple examples of refugees establishing businesses and employing local people and other refugees – despite restrictions on their rights to work.
Agency is also achieved through organisations that support and advocate for refugees and IDPs, and as displaced people pursue similar paths in the struggle for improved lives – for example to access shelter, education or employment. An ‘urban-first’ approach will facilitate displaced people’s involvement in policy and decision-making discussions to support their needs.
-
Adopt a spatial lens in forced displacement responses
Finally, there needs to be a spatial lens to an ‘urban-first’ approach to focus resources in localities where the most vulnerable congregate and where services are most strained, benefiting both refugees and IDPs, and hosts.
For example, UN-Habitat advocates city-wide urban profiling in humanitarian response to assess the spatial distribution and needs of displaced communities. However focus is also needed at neighbourhood level to engage with existing urban communities.
Amman’s green infrastructure projects have encouraged local and refugee communities to co-design and manage new parks and urban micro-forests, enhancing community wellbeing, biodiversity and climate action, as an example.
The need for understanding and political will
Many factors will influence implementation of an ‘urban-first’ strategy including the characteristics of the city itself – the urban poverty profile, extent of informal settlements and the informal economy, city government’s financing, and political independence from central control.
Also important is whether national and local policies towards refugees are broadly supportive or restrictive, and issues of security and xenophobia towards new arrivals.
An understanding of the displaced population is also needed, but this is often hindered by the absence of reliable data on a population that often tries to keep a low profile and avoid registration. Humanitarian agencies may collect data during the acute phase of a crisis, but this is rarely followed up with studies on degrees of inclusion and wellbeing deficits.
An ‘urban-first’ approach thus requires buy-in from humanitarian and development agencies, and a commitment to operating differently in future displacement crises. It also requires sustained political will on the part of hosting municipalities.
But as pressure mounts on aid budgets, a reorientation of displacement response is desperately required – one that works with urban systems to the benefit of all.
Further reading
The body of research covered in a special issue of Environment and Urbanization reveals huge potential for new initiatives that challenge the camp-based model of international and state-led humanitarian assistance, and which would enable local and grounded initiatives to form the basis of an urban response strategy.
