By Guled Ali
Ethiopia has positioned itself as a normative leader in refugee protection in Africa, hosting more than one million refugees and asylum seekers from South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, and Yemen. While its long-standing asylum practice reflects adherence to international protection principles, the persistence of protracted refugee situations has revealed the structural inadequacy of camp-based, humanitarian responses. In recognition of these challenges, Ethiopia adopted the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) in 2017, aligning national refugee governance with the objectives of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), and committing to a shift toward inclusion, self-reliance, and responsibility-sharing (Global Compact on Refugees – Ethiopia).
A central legal pillar of Ethiopia’s CRRF implementation is Refugee Proclamation No. 1110/2019, which replaced the restrictive 2004 refugee law. The revised proclamation significantly expanded refugees’ legal entitlements, including the right to work, movement and residence of refugees outside of camps, access to national education and health systems, civil documentation, and eligibility for out-of-camp residence. In comparative terms, the law places Ethiopia among the most progressive refugee-hosting states in the Global South, reflecting a deliberate move toward alignment with international refugee and human rights law (ECRE, 2019).
However, progressive legal frameworks alone have proven insufficient to resolve protracted displacement. In practice, the realization of rights under the proclamation has been constrained by limited administrative capacity, delayed secondary legislation, institutional fragmentation across federal and regional levels, and macroeconomic stress. Empirical assessments indicate that refugees continue to face barriers in accessing work permits, formal employment, business registration, banking services, and out-of-camp mobility. For instance, in Ethiopia, refugees are legally allowed to work, run businesses, use banking services, and live outside camps, but these rights are often difficult to realize in everyday life. Getting a work permit, for instance, can involve long and unclear procedures, and many employers are reluctant to hire refugees because of the extra paperwork or uncertainty about the rules. As a result, a large number of refugees rely on informal jobs that are low-paying and offer little security.
Starting a business is also challenging, as it requires documents like tax identification and proof of address, which are not always easy for refugees to obtain, especially for those living in camps. Although refugees can in principle open bank accounts, inconsistent requirements and limited awareness within financial institutions can make access uneven, forcing many to depend on cash or informal saving systems. Movement is another constraint: while some policies allow refugees to live outside camps, many still need permits to travel, and leaving a camp often means giving up access to basic assistance such as food and healthcare. Overall, despite progressive laws, refugees in Ethiopia continue to face practical barriers that limit their ability to build stable and independent lives and significantly limit the transformative potential of CRRF commitments (Refugees International, 2020).
A critical yet under-acknowledged dimension of Ethiopia’s refugee response concerns refugees’ own preferences regarding durable solutions, particularly resettlement to third countries. While resettlement is not an individual right under international law, it remains a core protection mechanism for refugees who cannot safely return or realistically integrate locally. UNHCR estimates that 2.9 million refugees globally require resettlement annually, while available quotas cover less than ten percent of this need (UNHCR, Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2026). Refugees hosted in Ethiopia constitute a significant share of this unmet demand, particularly among Eritrean, South Sudanese, and Somali populations.
Although systematic, large-scale surveys on refugee solution preferences in Ethiopia remain limited, the available qualitative research, resettlement submission data, and refugee advocacy consistently demonstrates that many refugees view resettlement as the only credible pathway to long-term legal certainty and protection. Importantly, research in Ethiopia shows that some refugees deliberately avoid local integration opportunities because based on informal discussions with refugees, a consistent pattern emerges in their preferences regarding durable solutions. Many express a clear inclination toward resettlement in developed countries, which they perceive as offering more stable long-term prospects, including access to quality education, improved livelihood opportunities, and stronger institutional protections. In contrast, local integration within host countries, frequently situated in lower-income contexts, is often viewed as comparatively limited in terms of economic opportunity and public services. This perspective highlights a broader structural reality: refugees’ preferences are closely shaped by global disparities in opportunity, rather than simply individual choice between available options due to perceived or actual trade-offs between integration and resettlement eligibility, revealing a deep trust deficit in the durability of in-country solutions (Abyssinia Law, 2019).
Local integration, while promoted under the CRRF and enabled in law, faces profound structural constraints. Refugee-hosting regions in Ethiopia are often characterized by high poverty rates, weak infrastructure, land scarcity, and limited labor market absorption capacity. In such contexts, refugee inclusion risks intensifying competition over scarce resources unless accompanied by sustained development investments benefiting host communities. For instance, many refugee hosting districts experience struggling youth unemployment, fewer livelihood opportunities, climate change related hazards, such as drought and floods, and overstretched basic services. Therefore, any inclusion without proper area-based solutions will not work in the long-term.
Evidence further suggests that local governments, who are key actors in integration, often lack clear mandates, fiscal autonomy, and technical capacity, undermining effective implementation (IDOS, 2021). In practice, these challenges include a a lack of specialized training, which can lead to reduction of collaborative efforts, challenges in visualizing local integration options and silos for local integration financing systems, all of which contribute to a decline in social cohesion among communities.
Voluntary repatriation, frequently framed as the preferred durable solution, is similarly constrained. Persistent armed conflict, political repression, and systemic human rights violations in countries of origin, most notably South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, and Eritrea, continue to negate the conditions required for safe, dignified, and sustainable return. Even where conflict intensity has declined, return areas often lack access to land, housing, livelihoods, and basic services, significantly increasing the risk of secondary displacement. UNHCR guidance underscores that voluntariness requires not only physical safety but also legal security and sustainable reintegration prospects – conditions that remain largely unmet for many refugees in Ethiopia (UNHCR, Voluntary Repatriation).
Taken together, Ethiopia’s experience highlights a central tension within the CRRF and GCR frameworks: progressive legal norms and policy commitments are necessary but insufficient in contexts marked by economic fragility, regional instability, and limited international burden-sharing. All three durable solutions: repatriation, local integration, and resettlement remain structurally constrained, underscoring the need for more realistic, evidence-based, and refugee-centered approaches to solution planning.
Short-Termism, Responsibility-Shifting, and the Marginalization of Host Communities
Beyond solution-specific constraints, Ethiopia’s experience highlights broader structural challenges with relevance for international refugee law and policy. Refugee responses remain dominated by short-term humanitarian programming. For instance, many of the programs/projects that are intended to elevate refugees out of poverty in a way that can be sustained in the long-term, are based on emergency programming funded by donors that run between 2-5 years. As such, these interventions are insufficiently integrated into national development planning which entrenches dependency rather than facilitating self-reliance. Durable solutions are often framed as the responsibility of governments and humanitarian actors alone, despite displacement being a whole-of-society challenge requiring active engagement from local authorities, host communities, civil society, and the private sector. Global funding reductions and declining political commitment have further weakened the international responsibility-sharing envisaged by the GCR, shifting disproportionate burdens onto host states already facing fiscal stress. At the same time, many interventions prioritize refugees while neglecting host communities, whose socio-economic conditions are often equally precarious, thereby undermining social cohesion. Therefore, considering area-based solutions is critical at this point to target all resident communities and make sure one left behind policy.
From Normative Commitment to Durable Practice
Ethiopia’s progressive refugee framework offers a strong foundation for creating meaningful and lasting outcomes. Realizing this potential requires translating policy into practice in ways that genuinely empower refugees and strengthen host communities. Central to this process is ensuring that refugees can make informed choices about their futures, with clear communication about pathways such as local integration, resettlement eligibility, and long-term legal status.
Effective approaches prioritize integrated service delivery, infrastructure development, and livelihood opportunities that benefit both refugees and host communities, This involves implementing shared systems and investments that serve all populations equally, including access to common schools, health facilities, water supply, and road networks, alongside inclusive economic programs such as vocational training, agricultural support, and small business development. Together, these approaches ensure that both refugees and host communities benefit from improved services and expanded livelihood opportunities in a coordinated and equitable manner rather than relying on parallel systems or camp-centric interventions. Humanitarian assistance must also align with long-term development and peacebuilding efforts, particularly in regions affected by conflict, displacement, or resource scarcity, ensuring a coherent humanitarian–development–peace nexus.
Operationalizing refugee rights including employment, mobility, documentation, and access to financial services requires the harmonization of secondary legislation. At the local level, strengthening government capacity and accountability is essential, recognizing municipalities and regional authorities as central actors in sustainable integration. Equally important is expanding global pathways, such as resettlement, family reunification, education, and labor mobility, as a tangible expression of international responsibility-sharing under the Global Compact on Refugees.
Conclusion
Ethiopia’s experience illustrates both the promise and the limitations of progressive refugee law in contexts of protracted displacement. While the CRRF and Refugee Proclamation No. 1110/2019 provide a normative framework aligned with international standards, structural constraints including economic fragility, limited local capacity, under-resourced host communities, and insufficient global responsibility-sharing, continue to impede the realization of durable solutions. Meaningful progress requires moving beyond legal commitments toward practical, evidence-based strategies that empower refugees, strengthen host communities, and integrate humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding efforts, via sustained international support, genuine refugee participation, and coordinated multi-level implementation. With this improvement, Ethiopia’s normative leadership can translate into durable and transformative outcomes for both refugees and the communities that host them.
Recommendations
To translate Ethiopia’s progressive refugee framework into meaningful and durable outcomes, the following measures are critical:
- Institutionalize refugee preferences in durable solution planning, ensuring transparent communication on the relationship between local integration, resettlement eligibility, and long-term legal status, and enabling refugees to make informed choices without indirect pressure.
- Adopt and scale area-based approaches in refugee-hosting regions, prioritizing integrated service delivery, infrastructure development, and livelihood creation that benefit both refugees and host communities, rather than parallel or camp-centric interventions.
- Operationalize the humanitarian–development–peace (HDP) nexus, aligning humanitarian assistance with long-term development planning and peacebuilding efforts, particularly in regions affected by conflict, displacement, and resource scarcity.
- Accelerate the adoption and harmonization of secondary legislation to operationalize rights related to employment, mobility, documentation, and access to financial services.
- Strengthen local government capacity and accountability, recognizing municipalities and regional authorities as central actors in sustainable integration and ensuring they are adequately resourced and empowered.
- Expand global resettlement quotas and complementary pathways, including family reunification, education, and labor mobility schemes, as a concrete expression of international responsibility-sharing under the GCR.
- Ensure meaningful refugee participation in policy design, monitoring, and evaluation, reinforcing refugee agencies, including the refugee-led organization (RLO) and improving the legitimacy and effectiveness of CRRF implementation.
Ethiopia’s revised Refugee Proclamation and CRRF commitments represent a significant normative advance in refugee protection law and policy. Yet without sustained international support, effective implementation mechanisms, area-based and nexus-oriented programming, and genuine engagement with refugee agencies, the promise of durable solutions risks remaining aspirational rather than transformative.
Guled Ali (MA, Disaster Management) is durable Solutions Specialist and researcher on forced displacement, currently working with ReDSS in Ethiopia. With over a decade of experience in forced displacement and humanitarian response, he brings deep field-based expertise in advancing sustainable, context-driven solutions for displacement-affected communities across East Africa and the Great Lakes region.
In addition, Guled is a member of the Emerging Scholars Network at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, contributing to critical discourse and evidence-based approaches in refugee protection and durable solutions.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.