Protecting Vulnerable Refugees: An empirical examination of the implementation practices of aid workers and state actors in Uganda

Executive Summary

This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.
vulner.eu). The VULNER research project is an international research initiative, which objective is to reach
a more profound understanding of the experiences of vulnerabilities of migrants applying for asylum and
other humanitarian protection statuses, and how they could best be addressed. It therefore makes use
of a twofold analysis, which confronts the study of existing protection mechanisms towards vulnerable
migrants (such as minors and victims of human trafficking), with the one of their own experiences on the
ground.
This research report presents some of the intermediate research results of the VULNER project, based
on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mecha-
nisms developed in Uganda by the office of the United Nations and High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) and international aid agencies, including how they are implemented on the ground through
the practices of the public servants and aid workers in charge.

The following research questions are addressed: What do the relevant domestic legislation, policy
documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how “vulnerabilities” are being assessed and ad-
dressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to as-
sess migrants’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal
and bureaucratic criteria? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand and perceive
the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the migrants they meet on a daily basis? How do they address these ‘vulnerabilities’
through their everyday practices? What is their stance on existing legal requirements towards ‘vulnerable’
migrants? Which loopholes do they identify?

To that end, a large number of Uganda legal sources and administrative guidelines were analysed.
Additionally, diverse regional and international Conventions were assessed. Some reports and policies
(e.g. National Development Plan II and III, reports on the progress of the Comprehensive Refugee Re-
sponse Framework) do not feature prominently in the report but were nevertheless informative in under-
standing the nature of protection accorded to refugees and asylum seekers.

Interviews were conducted with 26 key interlocutors involved in the humanitarian operations. These
included high profile key decision makers at headquarter level and street level bureaucrats at operational
level) and comprised both public servants and international aid workers. Participants were from UNHCR,
Office of the Prime Minister, Refugee Desk Kampala, Alight, Medical Teams International, Tutapona, Refu-
gee Welfare Councils, War Child Canada and Windle International Uganda, among others. These agencies
offer key protection services to asylum seekers and refugees in Uganda and have programs that prioritise
special groups/persons based on specific vulnerability criteria. Observations were also conducted in
limited spaces in Kampala at the Urban refugee desk and at OPM premises, where I was allowed to attend
the training of Refugee Status Interviewing Officers. 

The findings reveal that the formally prescribed architecture of protection (particularly, the identification,
assessment and referral of the most vulnerable protection seekers) is hybrid and collaborative. It follows
a whole-of-society approach and comprises both state and non-state aid workers at the local and inter-
national level who execute distinct aid programmes that are meant to complement those of other aid
agencies. This whole-of-society approach aims to address the needs of the most vulnerable in the
most holistic way possible, as well as generally, and in line with the Comprehensive Refugee Response
Framework. Uganda’s policies and its collaborative architecture of refugee protection are Uganda’s stron-
gest points and can be seen as an example that could be reproduced and tailored to other contexts.  

Additionally, where gaps clearly exist, some national aid workers confessed to going above the call to
intervene in cases where they felt that they could not simply look on and wait for bureaucratic procedure.
Such discretionary practices that determined when and how aid workers or civil servants intervened be-
yond agency guidelines were driven by emotions (frustration or empathy). This suggests that emotions
play a key role in aid workers practices and decisions in their assessments of vulnerable refugees.
Nevertheless, the findings revealed that factors such as constraints relating to funding, limited human
capacity, and contextual challenges unique to specific settlements make it difficult to attain the desired
protection goals in reality. The number of protection seekers that fits within the universal categories
prescribed in the UNHCR guidelines as well as those unique to diverse agencies protection man-
dates and who are therefore eligible for intervention programmes – exceeds what most agencies
can accommodate. The current pandemic has further exacerbated some of these problems (due to fur-
ther cuts to funding and aid staff).

The findings suggest that even though some of the vulnerabilities experienced by protection seekers are
within the law itself (such as the three-months timeline prescribed for granting and renewing temporary
registration cards or the interpretation of a ‘permanent place of abode’ by judges in refusals to grant bail
to refugees), many of the challenges are procedural and material. For example, spatiotemporal fac-
tors play a big role in exacerbating the vulnerabilities experienced by certain groups, such as those who
have fled for political reasons and are in geographic proximity to countries they have fled, or elderly peo-
ple who are at risk of having their food grabbed from them as they head from food distribution points.