+ Devolution and Refugee Gemma Davies Affairs 16 September 2015 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

+

Gemma Davies

16 September 2015 Nairobi

Devolution and Refugee Affairs

+

ReDSS

• Partnership
• Advocacy
• Research/Evidence base
• Capacity building & joint

learning

Devolution and Solutions

+

 Two-part deliverable:

PART A. ANALYSING THE IMPACT OF DEVOLUTION ON REFUGEE AFFAIRS

• Opportunities of devolution

in solutions to displacement

• Building self-reliance
• Integrated service provision
• Local economic integration

PART B. A MANUAL ON DEVOLUTION ARCHITECTURE AND IMPLICATIONS

• Legal framework
• Institutional structures
• Intergovernmental relations
• Public financial management

Devolution in Kenya: Opportunity for Transitional Solutions for Refugees?

+ Position of National Actors

The Ministry of Devolution and Planning encourages county involvement in refugee affairs: « We advocate for county to have a stronger role – county should be involved as partners with the United Nations in refugee management. First because of its geography, second because of the question

• f land, third as counties

must manage resentment and tensions locally, and fourth, as security issues have negative impacts on the ability of the county to deliver services. » The Department of Refugee Affairs in Nairobi is concerned about competition on refugee management: « there is a push by county governments to get more involved (…) But they may not have the capacity in terms of protection, livelihoods and security, or education, health and hygiene programs. (…) Refugee management cannot be devolved. Host community issues are related to basic services and environment. These are areas that the county can be involved in, but not in other areas. » UNHCR Kenya’s management expressed a middle ground: « It is early to talk about devolution in refugee management – it has been two years only. The first signs are positive: we have locally elected interlocutors who see pros and cons of

• refugees. With

devolution, we have local partners at the local level to provide better integration, better equip refugees to go back to their country and build their skills. »

+ Refugees as Assets

REFUGEES AS A RESOURCE for LOCAL ECONOMIES: Voices from the Central Government

DRA Nairobi: « This is where we are loosing out. The US is a country built by immigrants. We have great minds and great entrepreneurs and

• schools. Eastleigh’s

economy is larger than 10 counties combined in terms

• f license

collections and

• taxation. »
• Min. of Devolution

and Planning on Dadaab’s unrecognised potential: « We think that it is temporary but these people are staying. Make Dadaab a normal town and you will have a big vibrant

• town. (…) Get

refugees to help in infrastructure and in developing

• towns. »
• Min. of Interior &

Co-ordination of National Development expressed a level of resistance at any potential for social

• r economic

integration advocating for the closure of the camps, seen as major security threat for Kenya.

REFUGEES AS A RESOURCE FOR LOCAL ECONOMIES

+ Position of County Authorities

From an economic perspective, refugees are seen as:

1.

Opening the counties to other markets;

2.

Diversifying the economy;

3.

Transitioning host communities from pastoralism to alternative livelihoods; and

4.

Transferring skills to the host economy (esp. Kakuma, Turkana) County authorities are opening up to discussions on the development potential of refugees’ presence on their territory.

THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF REFUGEES

+ Key take-aways in Garissa

The potential for devolution to support refugee management in Dadaab is reinforced by:

 A fait accompli of informal integration: the homogeneity of

the refugees and host community in north-eastern Kenya, refugee economy in Dadaab and informal trade in the camps

 Mind the Gap! Divergent national and county voices, the

possibility of providing incentives for county governments (fiscal, resource and programmatic incentives) to engage in local integration

 Go Local! Host communities know the economic value of

Dadaab as they see its immediate impact. Government actors need to be sensitized.

ECONOMIC WILL is there but lacking formal POLITICAL WILL

+ Key take-aways in Turkana

 Kakuma is well endowed  It now requires the human resources and capabilities to act on it  Refugees have an economic driving seat: supporting the local

economy

 Transition the local economy out of pastoralism, transferring skills  Coordination exists UN Joint Initiative for the Integration of Refugees

and Host communities is coordinating interventions with the County

 Aligning efforts with the county integrated plan, mainstreaming

refugees

 ‘Grey areas’ of county interventions show that in key sectors of

implementation – health, childhood education and water – refugees & hosts are served

 The impact of devolution on structures and infrastructure has been

the devolved government’s set up and on hospitals

Both the POLITICAL and the ECONOMIC WILL is there: Key CAPACITY GAPS EXIST

+

 Counties can engage on refugee affairs through resource

allocation, devolved aspects of refugee management: integrated service delivery, business permits

 NGOs call for counties to use a fraction of their budget for

integrated programmatic interventions

 Already happening – indirectly – in Turkana: shares of the

county budget benefit both host and refugee communities: the “grey areas” of county interventions.

1.

Community-based development

2.

Devolution for conflict resolution

3.

Sectoral entry points : Health & Education

Engaging with Counties: Entry Points

+

 OPPORTUNITIES: Providing incentives

 Fiscal and financial for Dadaab  Human capabilities for Kakuma

 CHALLENGES:

 Devolution process is ‘in progress’ and constantly changing  On admin & fiscal fonts: only hosts are considered  Missing interlocutor: CDCs

 THREAT

 Security-refugee nexus (rhetoric vs. reality)  Preferred (unique?) solution: repatriation

Devolution and Durable Solutions

+

 Counties are a receptive allies for refugees’ “local economic integration”

 MUST Re-package concept = local economic empowerment , self-reliance

 Opportunities exist: Devolution has a role to play in durable solutions.

To be strengthened around 3 axes:

 Economic perspective  Fiscal perspective is the missed opportunity / the missing link  Service delivery: formalising informal grey areas: focus on health and education

 How?

 Build evidence on the economic 2-way integration (KNOWLEDGE BUILDING)  Strike a balance and avoid “the race”/ competition (ADVOCACY)  Capacity building (PROGRAMMING)  A multi-level strategy from financial, to material and human resources

Conclusions and Recommendations

+ Exploring partnerships

 Research – shows entry points for exploring partnerships  Increasing the evidence base – the link with academia, think

tank institutes

 Working with the private sector: telecoms, service delivery,

active engagement

 A multi-lateral and multi-institutional approach – the only

way to achieve long term sustainable solutions

Exploring Partnerships