Refugee integration in the intermediate term: a study of Nepal, Pakistan, and Kenya

As the world reels from the cascading effects of Cold War conflicts gone awry, wars have grown increasingly complicated and refugee situations have become ever more prolonged. Such protracted refugee situations challenge the “durable solutions” framework embraced by the UNHCR,1 which recommends one of three solutions for the refugee: local integration in the country to which the refugee has fled, return to the country of origin, or resettlement in a third country.
Protracted conflicts, however, keep refugees in limbo, where they are neither able to resettle in third countries nor return home. In the short and intermediate term, when refugees flee across a border, nearly all of them remain in the first country to which they have fled. Thus, while durable solutions have long been discussed as a means to resolve refugee crises, the increasing length of refugee stays suggests that refugees require solutions in the intermediate term.
Some intermediate solutions allow refugees to integrate better than others. Some refugees are able to pursue livelihood strategies in urban or rural settings amongst the local population. They rarely seek help from humanitarian or government agencies, and, more often than not, are below the radar screen of host governments. Other refugees reside in settlements, where they are prohibited from dispersing amongst the local population but may be given some land or other means for making a living. Others end up in restricted camps, where their capacity for self-sufficiency is virtually non-existent.