The IASFM conference held in Kampala, Uganda from July 3-6 brought together a wide range of academics and practitioners working to mitigate issues that arise from forced migration and displacement – ranging from the legal, structural and political.

The conference also discussed the mechanisms which drive migration from development-induced displacement, environmental displacement (cyclical and man-made), conflict-induced displacement and socio-economic displacement.

For me, one of the most intriguing components of the conference was begot through discussions surrounding the role that socio-economical factors with regards to issues of forced migration and integration. The two starkest conversations that I had surrounded the notions of economic or labor migration as a potential durable solution and the challenges that surround distinguishing between host community and displaced community, which usually has the capacity to cause more bad than good. This debate further brought to light the need to tackle poverty (universally) as a mechanism for the eradicating the constraints felt by both refugee and host communities as opposed to coping with refugee issues as a siloed entity (unless the issues felt by the refugee community vastly differ from those of the impoverished host community.

While overall the conference awakened new insights and dialogues surrounding the venues for the improved welfare of peoples displaced throughout the world, which coincides with an idealistic path to peace – I wonder, what are the next steps? How to actualize the academic dialogue? Can theory become practice? And what does it take? Who does it take? Don't we learn that every communal need is different and to this end, participatory interventions, while often the most challenging, generally procure the most "durable" solutions?

With these questions in mind, I would like to expand upon the discussions I had and some of my new found insights.

Labor Migration as a Durable Solution?

While this is not a novel topic, in fact Katy Long's UNHCR article entitled "Extending protection? Labour migration and durable solutions for refugees" has engendered much deliberation on the topic. However, for me the notion that asylum seekers can utilize the networks of labor migrants as a mechanism for long-term stability, both economically and socially is rather bold and innovative.

While with any proposal there are things to weigh both with regards to the positive and negatives attributes I think the concept of labor migration may offer the congested and often protracted Southern refugee issue with a brazen channel for the empowerment of displaced persons and economic migrants alike. While the current options for durable solutions (third country resettlement, voluntary repatriation and local integration) often offer the best pathways for refugees – they do seem short-sided and extremely limiting.

As I mentioned in my previous post regarding durable solution: who is this solution really for (the refugee, the host country or the country of origin)? And at the end of the day, are solutions like third country resettlement only putting refugees back into the same situations of insecurity and poverty that they faced in their country of origin or in their first country of asylum. I strongly believe that if an Ethiopian woman is struggling in Kenya to care for her children, find food, shelter or work – how will these circumstances change if she moves to a country like the United States? It seems worrisome to me, because a move like this could come with larger issues of ostracism, exclusion and the inability to access work (usually with more staunch language barriers)?

While I do firmly believe that local voluntary repatriation often offers the best pathway particularly for peace – in protracted situations of violent conflict (such as Somalia) this is inherently not a tangible avenue for a long-term solution. However, I would argue that Kenya's encampment policy offers nothing close to a durable sustainable solution. Consider the state of crisis of Dadaab camp at the current moment with roughly 1,400 Somalis entering the camp daily. Furthermore, when a population is as large as the refugee population in Kenya (according to UNHCR roughly half a million people including refugees, asylum seekers, forced migrants and stateless persons) the concept of local integration seems far too vast to be a realistic option. This is not to negate its substantial and powerful potential to bring peace, cohesion and unity in smaller communities. However, the scope of the Kenyan refugee crisis (much like that of other Sub-Saharan African nations) is much too drastic and unrealistic when considering full integration as the sole and best option for the country.

So what about labor migration? How does this fit into the spectrum of durable solutions? Should it fit? Katy Long notes several important contributions that can be made through this avenue by way of providing a sustainable durable solution that I think are essential to share:

• It potentially offers a more substantial counter option to the traditional routes for durable solutions as it accepts contemporary circumstances of global mobility that is a reality of the shrinking asylum capacity in the North and the fragile nature of Southern states.

• The notion of labor migration may further afford a platform for a more realistic solution for states coping with protracted refugee situations (like Kenya – where local integration is a challenge and encampment is burdening the entire system).

• This potential solution recognizes the normalcy of human mobility and most intrinsically begets a platform for the individual agency of refugees to choose their own solution. Furthermore, this recognition would correct the notion that refugee migration is rooted in failed integration and practices such as this.

While all of Long's points are essential when considering the clandestine benefits rooted in the potential of labor migration there may also be pitfalls in relying on this as a solution too firmly:

• The traps that may exist with regards to human trafficking (an issue which I referenced in my blog – regarding the dangers and vulnerabilities that lie in this illusive but very real threat)

• The xenophobia that has historically been rooted with the concepts of economic migration, which even exist in the developing world...who can forget the fear of the Polish plumbers in France? Would this sort of solution only foster more large scale and dramatic issues of racism and cultural, social and economic exclusion?

• Questioning the available networks for this sort of mobility. While labor migration does exist and has for centuries what is the scale in which this could function and most explicatively what is the scope of this sort of process? Is it a regional entity? An international channel? And does this mean that the international community's reliance on MNCs needs to be expanded?

While the notion of labor migration as a "durable solution" is something in which derives both positive and negative associations – I think it is something truly worth considering, particularly for situations like that in Kenya which are dramatically suffering from a protracted refugee crisis that does not seem to have a realistic and tangible solution.

Furthermore, for me, this notion of choice and agency is of particular importance. Allowing refugees to make decisions for themselves will only enable the best mechanisms of protection and will limit the reliance on international and national aid organizations. Far too often I find myself frustrated with the fact that I am in charge of someone's solution – that their interview with me informs me to make the best decision for them. A refugee is a human and should be afforded the right to make their own decisions. Perhaps altering the current channels in an effort to make room for more defined routes for labor migration can not only provoke personal empowerment (and potentially alter the current refugee culture of dependency which has for centuries been enforced by the international community) but also take pressures off of international and national aid organizations which are burdened by the weight of protracted refugee climates, like the one in Kenya.

Changing the Focus from Refugees to Addressing Overall Poverty

While the issue of labor migration posed a truly fascinating concept with regards to dealing with the plight of protracted refugee situations (like the one that is seen in Kenya) another topic which struck me as obvious and absolutely crucial was that of the global need to address issues of poverty as opposed to individualizing and segregating the problems faced by host community and refugee community. This is not to negate issues that are faced by refugees solely – such as problems of xenophobia, ostracism from the local economy and security concerns – however since the majority of refugees live in lower-income communities it seems apparent that tensions can flare between host and refugee community when some are supported and some are not.

Coping with poverty issues in a comprehensive way, should inherently consider the demographics of the community, which will account for the refugee community as well. Currently, refugee interventions solely address the issues faced by their community which seems to fail short in recognizing others who are confronted with similar circumstances and challenges.

At RCK, I constantly struggle when refugees plea for a durable solution and for social assistance that is not afforded to the impoverished of Kenya. There is an expectation that we can offer them these services because they are refugees; however, if the Kenyan poor cannot access those services how can it be available for urban refugees? It seems inherently wrong to draw such a distinction between a population, one in which you are trying to unite and integrate successfully. Fostering a situation between the haves and have-nots only procures an environment of resentment, xenophobia and violence. Mary Anderson's notion of do no harm stresses that, "that distribution impacts of aid affects intergroup relationships, either feeding tensions or reinforcing connections." Herein lies the true issue of promoting the plight of refugees without constructively addressing the society which has fostered the conditions of poverty as well as attending to all of those affected. Furthermore, Loren Landau explains, "that effective strategies for promoting urban protection should be informed by the recognition that urban settlement is often, de facto, part of a long-term and even durable solution."

Ultimately, this method suggests that structural mechanisms within society and government have to be addressed in a collective manner to address the root of the issues. This links back to John Galtung's notion of structural violence which is inherently violence (usually through oppression and social injustices) carried out through the fabric of society and is "Violence is built into the social system and expresses itself in the unequal distribution of power and, as a result, unequal opportunities (i.e. inequality in the distribution of income, education opportunities etc.)." It seems that in coping with the problems of urban refugees, there needs to be a stronger consideration for the larger community and even social structure, which they have become a part of. Dealing with the structural mechanisms of society will allow a practitioner to improve situations for the local poor and the refugee community at the same time. This further erases issues begot from treating one group differently from another. To advocate for just one group often times leaves them ostracized from the community and brings about graver issues than those which already exist.

by Sarah Cechvala. Originally posted on her Georgetown blog.