Refugee-led organisations (RLOs) play a vital role in displacement response, but they could have far greater impact if they received more funding. The humanitarian system must adapt to recognise and finance RLOs within the localisation agenda.

Refugee-led organisations (RLOs) are chronically underfunded; they’ve long been excluded from funding opportunities and the international refugee response writ large. A recent study to capture the quantity and quality of funding channelled to RLOs, found that just USD 26.4 million reached RLOs in 2022.[1] To contextualise the scale of the failure to fund RLOs, the same study found that total direct and trackable funding for local and national NGOs reached USD 463 million. Similarly, funding for Refugee Response Plans, UNHCR-led regional plans designed to coordinate the response to large refugee situations, totalled USD 6.4 billion, in the same year.

Much of the funding going to RLOs is driven by private philanthropies, and 83% of funding received by RLOs passes through at least one intermediary. This means that, in many cases, RLOs lack formal relationships with key decision-makers in humanitarian response, such as government donors. As a result, RLOs are being excluded from many of the decisions that impact their work and the communities they are trying to support.

The importance of funding RLOs and the challenges they face

The failure to fund RLOs is happening despite RLOs’ unique ability to articulate and best respond to the needs of their communities in efficient and effective ways. There is demonstrable evidence to suggest that RLOs are more likely to lead responses that are accountable, legitimate and impactful and that they are vital to the provision of basic services, community-building activities, and advocacy for the rights of displaced populations in both urban and refugee camp settings.[2] Failure to recognise the important role that RLOs play in their communities, and humanitarian response more broadly, prevents them from accessing the necessary funding to expand their programmes and support their communities effectively.

RLOs face a series of challenges when trying to access funding. A key challenge is the misconception that RLOs are ‘too risky’ to fund, through narratives that RLOs are small, informal actors that are less able to respond or remain unbiased in their operations. For instance, the Kalobeyei Initiative for Better Life, despite being one of Kenya’s largest RLOs, faces difficulties securing substantial and long-term funding due to its RLO status. The director emphasises that RLOs’ distinctiveness lies in their size and informality, and they resist being transformed into mini-NGOs solely to access funding.

There are often questions about the capacity of these organisations to manage large funding grants or deliver programmes as effectively as other humanitarian actors. This has resulted in a lack of trust and perceived accountability issues surrounding RLOs and has contributed to strict and somewhat prohibitive due diligence requirements. Administrative issues such as complex submission processes, a lack of access to information about funding opportunities, and English language as the default, also present time-consuming and resource-intensive obstacles for RLOs. It is important to understand these challenges in order to find solutions and start to redress the balance in funding opportunities.

Bringing RLOs into the localisation agenda

Over the last decade, the humanitarian sector has seen a number of high-level system reform agendas that aim to localise humanitarian responses. It is well recognised that meaningful participation of refugees and other affected people is critical to improving humanitarian responses. Under the Grand Bargain, there is a high-level commitment to transfer power and resources to local and national actors. Yet, against the backdrop of these agendas, there is a notable failure to fund RLOs, with funding to RLOs still a fraction of the total value of humanitarian assistance globally. In part, this is due to the failure of the localisation agenda to present refugees, and by extension RLOs, as key members of civil society and legitimate and capable actors in the response.

The Global Compact on Refugees fails to outline the ways in which RLOs can be formally recognised and supported as key actors in humanitarian response. Recognition of RLOs as important contributors in global localisation and refugee leadership instruments would ensure that refugees can actively participate in shaping the interventions that affect their lives.

A reluctance on behalf of the humanitarian system to address the unequal power dynamics and to change is also contributing to the lack of funding for RLOs. Those in charge of humanitarian funding need to work differently rather than expecting RLOs to adapt to an outdated and top-down funding system.

From rhetoric to action

There have been some positive developments in giving RLOs recognition and embedding their existence into the wider localisation agenda. These include greater recognition of RLOs in policy discussions (aided by the new shared definition of RLOs), donors prioritising direct funding to RLOs, policy dialogue processes including RLOs in discussions, and funding locally-generated research by refugees which will inform policy.

A definition of RLO
In 2023, UNHCR published its definition of RLOs: “an organisation or group in which persons with direct lived experience of forced displacement play a primary leadership role and whose stated objectives and activities are focused on responding to the needs of refugees and/or related communities”. This definition, and its subsequent uptake and use, has been significant in the recognition and formalisation of RLOs. However, it should be noted that whilst UNHCR stated this definition was formed as part of a consultative process it has received some criticism.[3]

This shared definition is important for donors and their partners as it provides a common framework of understanding as well as entry points for formal engagement with RLOs within partnership contracts. Additionally, a common and widely accepted definition of RLOs will enable donors to improve available data on how much funding they receive and, importantly, allow for advocacy for funding increases and accountability for donor’s funding practices.

Targeted funding for RLOs
Some government donors have started to provide specific targeted funding for RLOs. Last year the Netherlands piloted a programme grant through a tender subsidy framework on Migration and Displacement for support to RLOs and in-country partners. It was framed as “direct funding, in the form of a contribution or core funding, which must have the sole purpose of strengthening local leadership and ownership, and therefore benefitting the locally and independently led initiatives of in-country partners.” This type of funding is critical because it is flexible and multi-year, it will support RLOs to build on their institutional capacity, programmes and policy-advocacy work.

In a meta-synthesis study of five external impact evaluations covering RLO-run programmes in Lebanon, Iraq, Colombia, Indonesia, Egypt and Uganda, the RLOs evaluated were found to have access to at least some flexible funding. This funding enabled them to enhance their organisational capacities and support them towards having efficient systems and organisational policies.

A space at the table
There is a growing recognition of, and engagement with, RLOs and refugee leaders in the policy and advocacy space. Such engagement is important, as it enhances RLOs credibility as important actors who cannot be left out of policy discussions. As one refugee leader stated: “in any system where funding is being distributed and policy is being made or influenced, the voices of those affected need to be centred.”

At the global level, more than 320 refugee leaders were invited to be part of last year’s Global Refugee Forum (GRF), four times more than at the first GRF in 2019. An increased number of donor governments also included refugees as part of their national delegations. In the 2019 GRF, only Canada had a refugee advisor embedded in their national delegation. In 2023, 13 governments included refugee advisors in their delegations.[4] More could be done to improve access to global policy forums, like the GRF, in future iterations – for example, through supporting travel arrangements including visa applications.

At a more national level, Switzerland, one of the co-hosts of the GRF 2023, pledged to set up an advisory body for refugees in Geneva to advance meaningful engagement of refugees hosted in the country. This is in addition to the Refugee Parliament that was set up in 2020 in Geneva by a Swiss NGO and supported by UNHCR, the Swiss government and other partners, to provide a platform for refugees to exchange learning, cooperate with each other and initiate different projects in relation to the challenges they face while hosted in Switzerland.

There was also a multi-stakeholder pledge on improved partnerships, protection and localisation which saw 61 States and 160 non-State actors pledging to advance partnerships and localise responses with partners such as refugees and RLOs.

Research about RLOs and involving refugee researchers
In order to continue to build trust and encourage donors to increase funding for RLOs the evidence base needs to be stronger. Researchers with lived experience of displacement are well placed to gather evidence and there is now a growing body of locally-generated evidence by refugee researchers and other partners documenting the existence and impact of RLOs. A recent mapping study of RLOs in Kenya, shows the number of existing RLOs (over 150), their diverse nature, impacts and the challenges they face. Such studies are important as they provide crucial insights and recommendations to donors and government authorities seeking to engage with RLOs.

There are also efforts by actors such as the Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS), which recently launched a partnership with the Refugee-Led Research Hub (RLRH) and Maseno University to connect locally-generated evidence and research done by refugees to policy processes in Kenya. Such an initiative should be highlighted; often policies and legislation related to refugees are developed by policymakers, and even donors, without taking into consideration the analysis and evidence generated by refugees or persons with lived experience of displacement. This initiative will help to shift the power and narrative towards researchers with lived displacement experience from the Global South.

Recommendations

The research offers a series of recommendations to address the failure to fund RLOs. First, it is important to acknowledge RLOs as separate and distinct actors in the localisation agenda. This recognition will in turn impact their ability to access funding.

Second, Donors need to support RLO’s to access and manage funding directly, and normalise funding partnerships with RLOs by drawing attention to their existing partnerships. Donors can become more open to RLO partnerships by streamlining and simplifying funding processes and scaling up some of the innovative approaches being pioneered by philanthropic institutions and RLO intermediaries. This includes offering dedicated and tailored support to applicants and more flexible submissions (including in multiple languages).

Third, all stakeholders need to challenge the prevailing misconceptions and narratives around RLOs and implement processes for RLOs to call out tokenistic and unfair partnerships without being penalised.

Ultimately, government donors and humanitarian organisations must embrace the evolving refugee landscape and make efforts towards reforming their internal structures and guidelines, so they are better placed to engage with and fund RLOs.

 

Alexandra Spencer
Senior Research Officer, Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI, UK
a.spencer@odi.org

Rufus Karanja
National Programme Officer, Migration & Protection, Switzerland Development Cooperation

Andhira Yousif Kara
Consultant Researcher and Refugee Advocate
annkakaliya@gmail.com
linkedin.com/in/andhira-kara-a72121a1/

Caitlin Sturridge
Senior Research Fellow, Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI, UK
c.sturridge@odi.org

 

[1] See ODI (2023) The failure to fund refugee-led organisations: why the current system is not working, and the potential for change bit.ly/odi-failure-fund-rlos

[2] Asylum Access (2021) Building Equitable Partnerships: Shifting power in forced displacement bit.ly/equitable-partnerships

[3]Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law (2023) Defining refugee-led organisations: An analysis of UNHCR’s 2023 definition bit.ly/research-brief-defining-rlo

[4] Refugees Seat (2024) ‘Great leap forward or status quo?’ bit.ly/R-SEAT-reflections-2023-grf

 

READ THE FULL ISSUE