While Kenya’s Shirika Plan is heralded as a groundbreaking approach to socio-economic inclusion of refugees and a strategy to realize the objectives of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF), this article uncovers the uncertainties and challenges that remain for refugees regarding their daily lives, legal status and rights in Kenya. The plan prioritizes the economic potential of camps while largely overlooking refugees’ perspectives, voices and aspirations as well as their protection challenges. It primarily aligns with the Kenyan government’s economic agenda of attracting donor funds and broadening the tax base, yet lacks a clear roadmap for achieving its objectives.
“[A] paradigm shift that no longer views a refugee as a burden” according to Kenya’s Principal Secretary of Foreign Affairs Abraham Korir Sing’Oei, “one of the pioneering approaches globally on inclusion” emphasized by two humanitarian actors in Kenya, and “a model to the region and to the rest of the world” in the words of observers. These are just some of the examples illustrating the immense promises attached to the Shirika Plan, the latest response by the Government of Kenya (GoK) and UNHCR to the protracted refugee situation in the country. Announced in 2023 the plan aims to revamp the country’s approach to hosting refugees and asylum seekers. It seeks to transform refugee camps into integrated settlements with the goal to enhance socio-economic inclusion. The Shirika Plan, meaning “coming together” in Swahili, is a multi-year framework designed to shift Kenya’s refugee management towards providing opportunities for integration and self-reliance.
We are scholars focusing on Kenya’s refugee politics. In this piece, we draw on informal discussions with refugees living in Kakuma about the Shirika Plan as well as our own research experiences in Kenya. We take the most recent presentation of further details about the Shirika Plan during World Refugee Day 2024 to reflect on its promises and raise questions about its implementation, particularly its implications for refugees. We argue that the approach, at least as currently revealed, resembles a black box that fosters uncertainties for refugees in Kenya, exacerbating their already precarious living conditions.
The politics of hosting refugees in Kenya: developing new responses
Kenya has hosted refugees for over 30 years. As of end of June 2024, the number of registered refugees and asylum seekers exceeded 777,000, primarily from Somalia and South Sudan. Kenya’s current approach to hosting refugees follows a strict encampment policy that severely restricts refugees’ freedom of movement and access to work permits. Consequently, most refugees live in two large camp complexes in Dadaab in Garissa County and in Kakuma and Kalobeyei in Turkana County. The former currently provides protection and assistance to more than 383,000 refugees and asylum seekers, while the latter hosts roughly 290,000 refugees and asylum seekers. Similar to the majority of displacement situations worldwide, the lack of durable solutions has also led to a protracted situation in Kenya, forcing people to live in camps for years or even decades with few prospects for the future. Ongoing conflicts and insecurity in East Africa, the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region hinder return to countries of origin, while resettlement opportunities are scarce and local integration is restricted given the constraints on rights to work and free movement in Kenya.
To develop sustainable solutions to displacement, the GCR and its CRRF were introduced to promote global responsibility sharing and support host countries, while highlighting the economic advantages of hosting refugees. As a pilot country of the CRRF, Kenya initiated Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement in 2015 with UNHCR’s support to foster the socio-economic integration of refugees and host communities in Turkana region, shifting assistance from an aid-based to a self-reliance approach. However, its implementation remains challenging as difficulties persist such as restrictive refugee legislation, limited economic prospects, a shortage of capital, harsh environmental conditions, and inadequate access to water which hampers agricultural production.
Besides these policy developments, the GoK introduced a new Refugee Act in 2021, which took effect in February 2022, granting new rights and opportunities to refugees, including equal status with foreign nationals through new identity cards, the right to work and simpler processes of gaining a work permit as well as the opportunity for refugees from the East African Community (EAC) to relinquish their refugee status and become EAC citizens instead. Central to the implementation of the Refugee Act is the Shirika Plan, initially presented as Marshal Plan by the GoK and UNHCR, to address the protracted refugee situation in Kenya. Key component is the transition of Kenya’s camps into integrated settlements, moving beyond the provision of services solely for refugees in camps. Similar to the intents of Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement, it shifts from a humanitarian-led model to one that equally considers the needs of host communities, led by the GoK with support from international development partners and the private sector.
On World Refugee Day, June 20th, the Shirika Plan National Steering Committee revealed further details about the plan’s implementation. Set to begin in November 2024, it is a 12-year endeavor spanning across three phases: transition, stabilization and resilience, concluding in 2035. A key aspect is the administrative transformation of the Kakuma and Dadaab camps into municipalities where refugees live, work and engage in economic activities alongside host communities. The turn into municipalities aims to enable budgetary allocations for essential infrastructure and services in these areas.
However, for refugees in Kenya, the Shirika Plan primarily resembles a black box that fosters uncertainties in their already precarious living conditions. Despite additional insights provided during World Refugee Day, a draft shared with the steering committee and its current presentation to decision makers in Garissa and Turkana counties, there is no clear road map yet on how refugees are integrated in Kenya. This raises concerns among refugees and host communities alike about the plan’s impacts on their daily lives, legal status, rights and practical opportunities. Additionally, the plan’s underlying logic views refugees primarily as economic assets for driving development.
Practical implications of transforming camps
The core of the Shirika Plan is to transform existing camps into integrated settlements to include refugees and host communities in the socioeconomic development of Kenya. However, details of this transformation remain unspecified. A key challenge concerns the practicalities of transitioning camps into more open areas of integrated settlements as it requires expanding the current camp size, especially in Kakuma which has a high population density of 11,580 people per square kilometre. It necessitates more space for people currently living in overcrowded conditions with poor reception and sanitation. Yet, an expansion would require additional community land, which conflicts with the needs of the host communities – primarily pastoralists depending on grazing land. The setup of camps on community land has already reduced available grazing fields for livestock and negatively impacted the environment, making further land allocation for refugees unlikely to be accepted.
With the ongoing political instability in neighboring countries and the devastating impacts of climate change in the region, it is expected that the number of refugees in Kenya will keep increasing. This poses another challenge for camp transformation: will the GoK and its partners create new temporary emergency camps for new arrivals or fully rely on the existing settlements for both emergency humanitarian response and socio-economic integration?
Protracted refugee camps like Kakuma and Dadaab are complex, with established infrastructure, social networks and spatial organization. Having been in existence for at least three decades, essential services like schools, hospitals, and markets have developed within and around the camps, mainly serving the refugee communities, with some access for host populations as well. One of the possibly arising challenges of the planned transition is the transfer of managing some of these services to the national government. It poses risks given the GoK’s reliance on donor funding to implement the plan, while similarly facing austerity measures and tight conditions imposed by donors. As a result, the operation of critical social infrastructure, including hospitals, could be negatively affected.
Furthermore, spatial changes likely resulting from the plan could interfere with the established infrastructural system of the camp, which refugees have become accustomed to. Spatial transformations might impact the delivery of critical humanitarian assistance and disrupt refugees’ social networks. While most refugees stay in communities of shared cultural similarities within the camp, the spatial changes might lead to dislocation of families from communities where they have built their social networks in and enjoy a sense of security in an environment prone to occasional conflict. Therefore, the physical transformation of any piece of infrastructure within the camp must be critically examined to avoid negative repercussions on refugee lives. Moreover, given the lack of precedent for transitioning camps into settlements in the region, a comprehensive risk assessment of the plan is essential, focusing on its potential implications for individuals and communities. Unlike Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement which was designed from scratch, the Shirika plan seeks to effect its proposed changes in existing emergency spaces that have been inhabited by refugees for years up to decades and have grown without proper spatial planning.
Consequences for refugees’ legal status and rights in Kenya
A transformation of camps and refugees’ integration in Kenya is further expected to affect their legal status and freedom of movement. A key question is whether integration really means what is envisioned in the idea of local integration proposed as one durable solution by UNHCR, namely the chance to be naturalized as Kenyan citizens. The 2021 Refugee Act foresees to issue refugees with special identity cards having the same status as “Alien Cards” given to foreign nationals. This raises concerns about whether refugees will be treated equally with foreign nationals who move to Kenya voluntarily, despite facing much different realities, for example, in terms of financial abilities, or whether they will be given a special status that identifies them as refugees that eventually creates further barriers and stigmatization. Indications suggest that Kenya’s integration approach under the Shirika Plan does not aim for full integration in the country, and restrictions are likely to persist. For instance, Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavad emphasized: “By promoting the socio-economic integration of refugees, we are collectively preparing them for eventual voluntary repatriation to their home countries.” Thus, clear announcements towards refugees on what the envisaged idea of integration entails and what this means for their futures would reduce the high levels of uncertainty they experience.
Anxiety also concerns the issue of free movement. Does the Shirika Plan imply a complete abolition of encampment or is free movement restricted to the newly established settlements or the counties in which they are located? While the 2021 Refugee Act grants additional rights to refugees, many implementation questions remain unanswered. The GoK is still developing regulations to operationalize the act, while announcing the end of the camps. This raises questions about refugees’ rights to live and work across Kenya or only within the designated municipalities? As of now, the act limits refugees’ freedom of movement to “designated areas” and leaving these without permission can result in fines or imprisonment (2021 Refugee Act, Part VI). Also the Shirika Plan currently lacks details on refugees’ freedom of movement, suggesting that they would be limited to staying in and around the settlements in Garissa and Turkana counties, both of which are very remote locations in Kenya known for their harsh environmental conditions and economic deprivation.
This leads to another concern as the Shirika Plan, furthermore, is missing details on how exactly refugees will engage in socio-economic activities. Refugees in Kakuma, for example, question how their contribution to economic development will unfold practically. Despite its doubtless vibrant economy, it is unclear how over 250,000 people shall be able to sustain themselves in the extremely marginalized environment of Turkana county. In addition, refugees face daily restrictions and harassment when striving to be economically active, for example due to limited mobility and difficulties in obtaining the required permits. Given the practical limitations on becoming economically self-reliant under the existing conditions, there are uncertainties about the continuous provision of food aid amplifying concerns about the future. Does the implementation of the Shirika Plan from November 2024 onwards mean a withdrawal of food aid entirely? Refugees worry about potential consequences, especially for vulnerable populations, who are unable to provide for themselves due to, for instance, health issues, disabilities or care responsibilities.
Refugees as ‘agents of economic development’
While we agree that reforming the camps and policies affecting refugees in Kenya is necessary, it requires a comprehensive re-examination and redesigning of the idea of camps as spaces of care and control. This involves critical engagement that gets to the core of the notion of encampment, examining the underlying structural conditions that limit freedoms, restrict rights and condemn human beings to ‘bare life’. The proposed reforms under the Shirika Plan, however, primarily have an economic undertone revealing neoliberal tendencies that reduce refugees mainly to economic actors whose potential can be used for growth.
Such neoliberal tendencies have found recurrent reference in, for example, self-reliance and resilience approaches globally. In recent years, studies have underlined the positive economic impacts of hosting refugees in Kakuma, especially to the informal economy. In his latest speech promoting the Shirika Plan, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi argued that the inclusion of refugees would not only foster economic development but that it also “broadens the tax base.” Given the cynical concurrence with the #RejectFinanceBill2024 protests and the country-wide uprisings against the government, such statements largely limit refugees to their economic usability for host countries. In addition, expecting refugees to thrive in an already tough economic environment characterized by a debt crisis and high unemployment sets them up for failure. This purely economic view on refugees reveals problematic tendencies (e.g. Easton-Calabria and Omata 2018, Krause and Schmidt 2020), as it furthermore shifts responsibility for securing livelihoods onto refugees themselves, while humanitarian actors provide assistance with the aim to eventually reduce and withdraw their support as refugees are enabled to take care of their own fate. However, this risks neglecting refugees’ protection needs by only viewing them as ‘economic agents’, ultimately undermining their well-being and rights.
Despite these roles ascribed to refugees, they and host communities feel insufficiently included in the development of the Shirika Plan, exacerbating many of the mentioned insecurities. Their involvement comes only after draft plans are already made and presented, limiting their opportunity to sit at the drawing board making their concerns heard. Many lament the lack of earlier consultations being relegated to passive recipients. In November 2023, a section of leaders from Garissa county voiced their concerns about the poor engagement of the people and the leaders on the integration plan, which they deemed as a violation of the country’s constitution. Moreover, feelings of being sidelined from the benefits of the camp’s presence, especially by youth, might derail the plan’s progress.
Conclusion
The Shirika Plan mainly aims to transition Kenya’s protracted camps into integrated settlements, promoting refugees’ socio-economic inclusion and integration with the host communities. However, a critical analysis of the currently publicly known version of the plan reveals many open questions. These include significant practical challenges of reconstructing camps into settlements, the impacts on refugees’ lives and livelihoods, especially their rights and legal status in Kenya, and an overemphasis on their roles as self-reliant economic actors.
With our contribution we seek to move beyond the ‘hype’ surrounding the Shirika Plan and draw attention to the massive uncertainty that its discussion and potential implications have already caused among refugees living in Kenyan camps. With many questions unaddressed, there exist fears about an increasingly precarious future ahead – adding another limbo to the protracted displacement situation. Furthermore, the plan’s reliance on sustained donor support bears additional risks amid decreasing humanitarian funding and attention due to new global emergency crises, such as those in Ukraine and in Israel/Palestine.
Consequently, this contribution emphasizes that, rather than simply labelling camps as settlements, the GoK and its partners need to consult constructively with refugees and host communities on all issues concerning their lives, ensuring their perspectives are considered. This requires systemic changes that go beyond policy reforms but also include institutional modifications in key sectors such as security. Ultimately, fostering a spirit of brotherhood and cooperation within host regions as well as practicing solidarity on a global level are key to address displacement more sustainably.
*One of the authors of this contribution has lived experience of displacement and refugee status in Kenya. To prioritize care and safety and to avoid any negative repercussions, this individual has chosen not to disclose their name and uses a synonym instead.