Intent Versus Impact: Is the Choice Between Encampment and Out-of-Camp a Factual Hard Policy Dilemma?

Executive summary Recent debates in the migration field have indicated that the deficiencies of specific policies are attributable to so-called hard dilemmas: mutually exclusive options that are incapable of being reconciled. The central question posed in this study is whether the choice between refugee encampment and out-of-camp policies (OCPs) which allow for freedom of movement constitutes such a dilemma for policy makers. Proponents of encampment policies argue that the loss of freedom of movement is a small price to pay for the efficient provision of adequate shelter, protection, and basic aid. Moreover, they argue that encampment reduces the risk of heightened criminality; the risk of conflicts spilling over borders; and the risk of competition for scarce resources or labor with members of hosting communities. Conversely, advocates of out-of-camp policies argue that freedom of movement helps refugees to become self-reliant and to integrate into host communities. They consider encampment policies to be detrimental, leading to aid dependence and a life in limbo. Ethiopia has explored both options to host its large group of refugees. For a long time, encampment was the main approach. Since the 2019 revised Refugee Proclamation, out-of-camp settlement is allowed but only under specific circumstances and for specific groups. Until today, the overwhelming majority of refugees still resides in camps. This paper analyses Ethiopia’s refugee policies on paper, and its impact on the ground. For this, we specifically examine the experiences of Eritrean refugees in both camp and non-camp settings in Ethiopia. Our analysis demonstrates that discrepancies between policy intentions on paper and actual impacts have been resolved in practice. A combination of encampment and out-of-camp policies can be effective. There is no need to make an either/or decision about which policy to adopt. Policies that combine the best of both worlds should be guided by a bottom up assessment that considers the agency of refugees and host communities. Based on our findings, we formulate some concrete policy recommendations on how to develop refugee policies. Recommendations: - Refugee policy makers in general and Ethiopia’s Refugees and Returnees Services (RRS) in particular, should explore encampment and out-of-camp policies as complementary options and not as two mutually exclusive alternatives. Giving refugees more freedom to follow their preferences and building on existing practices will help to unleash refugees’ potential and to integrate better into the host society. - It is detrimental to force beneficiaries of Ethiopia’s OCP to give up any institutional support they receive. The current practice contributes to unemployment and dependency in a country where around one in six citizens depend on humanitarian assistance. We therefore recommend that the OCP status should automatically include work permits. - We recommend the Ethiopian Ministry of Labor and Skills to allow OCP beneficiaries to engage in business or seek employment opportunities and we recommend the Ethiopian RRS to consider allowing refugees to settle in their preferred locations, in accordance with the provisions of the 2019 Refugee Proclamation. This would avoid the negative effects of joining the informal economy and competing with Ethiopian citizens. - To understand the impact of different refugee policies, researchers, and policy advisors should include both refugees and members of host and surrounding communities in their assessments, as the two are profoundly interdependent. - Generally, focusing only a preconceived objective when determining the way forward is detrimental to a nuanced understanding of policy impacts. Instead, policymakers worldwide must assess the actual impacts of their policies on the ground in an evidence-based and unbiased manner.