5 - Nairobi

Summary

In Nairobi, the institutional context can be characterised as ‘contract’. UNHCR is open to working with refugee-led CBOs, and its implementing partners do work collaboratively with several. However, the terms of the collaboration are largely defined top-down. Tasks are sub-contracted to several CBOs and their staff by IPs. There are few opportunities for CBOs to access recognition, collaboration or funding on the basis of their own agenda or community priorities. This chapter explores how RCO leaders are largely engaged with international organisations as community ‘incentive workers’ rather than leaders in their own right. The refugee response can be characterised as ‘compliance’ as many CBOs wish to preserve their relationships with UNHCR and the IPs and so accept collaboration on the terms that are available. Congolese organisations like the Union of Banyamasisi Refugees in Kenya and Family of Banyamulenge, for instance, represent the needs of their communities with UNHCR. The LGBT refugee-led organisation CESSI, for example, receives financial assistance from UNHCR through the Danish Refugee Council. Despite the existence of multiple well-run RCOs in Nairobi, international NGOs often regard the degree of collaboration as limited by refugees’ capacity rather than a top-down landscape of assistance that restricts possibilities for RCO engagement.