By Mohamed Hassan, Research Lead at RLRH
More than 300 refugee delegates participated, four times more than at the first GRF in 2019.” – the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
The Global Refugee Forum (GRF) is the most visible global gathering on displacement-related issues, taking place in Geneva every four years. It is a high-level meeting convened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in partnership with governments, international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), refugees and other stakeholders. It serves as a space for dialogue to evaluate the progress, pledges, and initiatives made by governments and stakeholders related to the implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees. Researchers from the Refugee-Led Research Hub (RLRH) participated in the 2023 GRF. Our objective was to share our research, seek funding for future research projects, connect with like-minded individuals and groups, and demonstrate the viability of RLRH’s professional model of engagement, part of which encourages organisations to hire refugees and centre their expertise in decision making. The 2023 GRF was particulartly special as it boasted a higher number of refugee participants than similar forums. According to UNHCR, with over 300 participating refugee delegates, the 2023 GRF had a fourfold increase in refugee participation compared to the GRF in 2019. Emphasising the value of meaningful participation, this claim was ubiquitous throughout the whole forum. But this raises an important question: Does an increase in refugee participants necessarily lead to more meaningful participation? A year on, this reflection piece explores and analyses the different forms of participation at the GRF from the perspective of researchers with lived experience of displacement, questioning whether some forms are more meaningful and effective than others.
Forms of Participation at the GRF
At the 2023 GRF, refugees attended the event as government delegates, refugee advisory council members, NGO-sponsored delegates, and refugee-led organisation (RLO) representatives, each carrying their own narrative and shaping the discourse in different ways. However, not all forms of participation are equal. Following Uwezo Ramazani’s writings, refugee participation can be categorised into three models: consultative, advisory, and professional. This categorisation is helpful because it allows us to measure the extent to which practices are meaningful. It also enables us to identify gaps and areas for improvement in refugee participation, ensuring that diverse and informed refugee experiences are adequately represented. This categorisation provides a framework for evaluating the impact and depth of participation on policy and decision-making processes.
The nature of the GRF is such that it sets the stage for the consultative model of refugee participation. Consultative participation models are employed in order to solicit inputs from a diverse range of refugee stakeholders, with the objective of obtaining a comprehensive and representative array of opinions and lived experiences. However, this approach often results in surface-level engagement. First, there is often a lack of follow-up, meaning that the insights and suggestions provided by refugees are not systematically incorporated into subsequent actions or policies. There is also often a disconnect with the implementation phase, where refugee recommendations are not translated into tangible changes or outcomes. Even when their insights or recommendations are implemented, refugees are often not involved in the eventual execution of initiatives, which can make the process of sharing their insights feel extractive. Lastly, the process of engagement can also suffer from lack of information, where refugees are not adequately informed about how their input will be used or what impact it might have, leading to a sense of disillusionment and disengagement.
The 2023 GRF constituted the first major refugee event in the post-Covid 19 world and over 300 refugee delegates were in attendance, a notable increase from the 70 refugees delegates present in 2019. Although this increase is commendable, the number is still relatively low given that the event had over 4,000 attendees. During the event, it was evident that the majority of refugee attendees were sponsored by NGOs. Supported by NGOs, a significant number of refugees aligned their voices with those of their sponsors, and assumed the role of advocates in pursuit of NGO objectives. There was an element of a benefactor relationship as the majority of sponsored refugees had formed relationships with these organisations as a result of prior support, training, or volunteer opportunities, and they perceive their participation at the forum as a way of giving back. However, this dynamic can undermine the principles of meaningful participation. If refugee participants primarily advocate for the agendas of sponsoring NGOs, this can limit their autonomy and diversity of perspectives presented. This dependency on NGOs can lead refugees to feel obliged to prioritise the objectives of their sponsors over their own needs and views, thereby compromising the authenticity and independence of their participation. Furthermore, such relationships can create power imbalances that prevent refugees from fully expressing their unique experiences and concerns, which ultimately undermines the goal of achieving meaningful participation in global discourse.
The advisory model involves refugees serving on boards or as individual advisors, offering sustained and in-depth input in decision-making processes. However, this model tends to favour well-resourced individuals. During the event some refugees participated as government delegates and refugee advisory council representatives from international organisations and think tanks. It was evident in the plenary sessions that refugees who were part of government delegations and advisory councils were often positioned as ‘evidence’ of successful inclusion policies and programmes. The narratives and inputs by refugees were framed within the perspectives of governments and councils. The advisory model thus risks self-censorship, as refugees may feel pressured to conform to, or align with, official narratives, fearing that criticism could affect their access to services and future opportunities. This dynamic also raises concerns that refugee advisors may be tokens or rubber stamps for government and advisory committee policies, rather than independent voices for their communities.
The above forms of participation rely on the goodwill of sponsors. They can result in a sanitised and sterilised discourse space, at once physically and intellectually detached from the very communities it purports to represent.
Often limited to high-skilled refugees, the professional participation model is considered by experts, practitioners and refugees themselves to be the deepest form of participation. The professional participation model involves organisations employing refugees in a range of roles, from field level to senior management. This model, as opposed to advisory roles or consultation models, offers refugees a deeper and more sustained influence on decision-making processes by recognising their professional expertise and lived experience. Nonetheless, few professional refugee participants were present at the GRF. In contrast to the common incentive worker model, where refugees are often hired on a temporary or voluntary basis with limited influence, the professional model legitimises refugees’ expertise and allows them to directly participate in the design of policies and programmes. Refugees in professional roles are more likely seen as legitimate representatives of their communities, increasing the potential for authentic engagement and more effective programme outcomes.
While the concept of the professional participation model is an under-researched area, emerging evidence suggests that it offers the deepest level of engagement. This model allows refugees to assume leadership or staff roles, fostering internal change, although not all refugees may have access to this model.
We argue that the professional model can bear the most impact, even though it requires more resources and intentionality to build grassroots pipelines and professional entry points at its inception stages. This impact of the professional model can go beyond participation to empower refugees to shape agenda and policies. Professional engagement promotes sustainability of the humanitarian response in its various forms, equity, and genuine empowerment that enables refugees to take on leadership roles and effect meaningful change. This model also normalises seeing refugees in positions of power, which can go a long way in challenging implicit biases in refugee programming and perception about refugee agency.
Conclusion
There is room for improvement in meaningful refugee participation in the next GRF. The UNHCR should develop clear, measurable indicators to assess the quality and diversity of refugee participation, encompassing thinking around the professional model of participation explored here. These indicators should move beyond assessing the rhetoric of attendance numbers and move towards analysing the depth and impact of refugee engagement through looking at criteria such as the number of refugees in leadership and decision-making positions in NGOs and humanitarian organisations within the refugee response sector. This is more likely to ensure that participation is meaningful and worthwhile, useful for all parties, and it further ensures sustained engagement with refugees and RLOs beyond the GRF.
