Refugees are one of the most vulnerable groups of people worldwide. They are deprived of a means of survival in their countries of origin by virtue of their flight into the countries of asylum, where their hope for survival is very minimal.

Considering that the majority of refugees in Africa are in a protracted refugee status, the need to avail them with long-lasting solutions to their refugee status are of paramount interest to the different stakeholders, hence the invention of the three traditional durable solutions.

These three options are resettlement, voluntary repatriation and local integration. Resettlement is the relocation of refugees from the country of first asylum into a third country. The option of resettlement is available to the most vulnerable refugees, who despite the fact that they have attained refugee status remain at risk or have other needs that cannot be met in their country of first asylum. Voluntary repatriation on the other hand is when a refugee re-avails himself or herself to the protection of their country of origin; meaning his or her reason for flight no longer exists and his or her country of origin has the ability and capacity to offer him or her protection. With local integration, a refugee is said to be locally integrated in his or her country of first asylum if he or she enjoys the same rights as the nationals of that country and especially the rights that would not have ordinarily accrued to him or her as a refugee. Some of these rights are political rights and land and property rights, among others.

Local integration as a durable solution has not been popular and it is always spoken of in comparison to resettlement and voluntary repatriation, instead of being looked at as an independent solution for refugees. Constant comparison with other, supposedly attractive durable solutions, makes local integration unattractive and unpopular to the refugees. Different countries have approached local integration differently.

Taking the example of the East African countries, refugees in these countries are in a protracted refugee status and are in dire need of a durable solution. In all three countries of Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, the popular durable solution has been resettlement. Currently in Uganda there is group resettlement for Somali refugees without thought to other durable solutions that could address the needs of particular group of refugees. It is important to consider other solutions other than resettlement because the people who do not qualify to be resettled need to be catered for too. Some years back Sudanese refugees in Uganda were resettled and when there was supposedly peace in South Sudan, some of the refugees were repatriated, however, this did not rule out the fact that some Sudanese refugees remained in Uganda and still stay in Uganda with valid reasons as to why they cannot return to their home country. So what is being done by the different actors for these people? Has local integration for such individuals been exploited? If not, then why not?

Credit must be given where it is due. Tanzania must be applauded for the bold and courageous move to grant citizenship to 162,000 Burundian refugees who had fled into Tanzania 38 years ago. The grant is the essence of local integration; the refugees can equally enjoy the rights that accrue to the citizens of that country and in this particular case, Tanzania. The biggest drawback in this courageous move is the fact that the refugees who were granted citizenship are expected to move from the places where they previously lived to new locations. This is seen as a drawback to local integration because these particular refugees had achieved economic, social and cultural integration in the areas they had been living and uprooting them from these areas stands in the way of local integration. What the 162,000 Burundian refugees will have is political integration in isolation of cultural, economic and social integration, which makes local integration incomplete for them in the first years of their integration.

The East African countries are not the only countries grappling with the issue of durable solution for refugees; the whole of Africa is affected. Taking the example of Egypt, refugees are treated very badly in regard to every aspect of life. Local integration is a solution that is unheard of as far refugees in Egypt are concerned. Sudanese refugees who have tried to integrate by establishing refugee schools have failed to get accreditation for such schools and this has frustrated their efforts and initiatives to locally integrate in Egypt. And following South Sudan independence and recognition as a state, it is widely believed that Egypt is not going to grant refugee status to any Sudanese and those in Egypt are expected to repatriate back to Sudan. So in such a scenario, how do you preach the gospel of local integration when the host state is opposed to the idea?

Another country that we could look at is South Africa. The asylum process in South Africa can be very frustrating; an asylum seeker can spend over three years just trying to present his or her case to the authorities in order to be considered for refugee status and sometimes when an individual finally gets an opportunity to appear before the authorities, he or she is denied status after this excruciating wait. For such a person, how do you start advocating for local integration in a country where they have been denied refuge? You can only talk about local integration in a given country where the refugee has been granted refugee status and such a refugee has established himself or herself and above all is in harmony with the host community. The host government also has to be accommodating to the extent that there would be no difference between such a refugee and a citizen of that state in terms of enjoyment of the rights accruing to the citizens.

The song ‘local integration as a durable solution for refugees’ has been sung for quite some time now. So many discussions have been held around the same subject matter and it is about time all this stopped and actual implementation of this durable solution started taking form and shape. It is not an easy thing to implement, but how about the different refugee actors start with baby steps? There is hope for many refugees and this lies in local integration. It is being forgotten and yet it is the ultimate solution for refugees, especially those in protracted refugee situations within the African continent.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Berna Ataitom is a child rights lawyer with the Refugee Law Project, Faculty of Law, Makerere University.
* This article forms part of the 'IASFM13: Governing migration' special issue, produced in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) and the Refugee Law Project, Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Kampala.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.