Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
184
authorities, for example, provide supplemental cash assistance and housing to asylum seekers,
and give two years of support (with conditions) to recognized protection beneficiaries.
Provisions also exist in most countries to provide refugees and asylum seekers with access to
basic services such as education and health care. In all five case study countries, refugees had
at least some access to services provided through mainstream national health and education
systems. Practical barriers may, however, prevent their use. Fees can be a barrier to accessing
health services, although some countries have waived fees for some or all refugee populations,
and UNHCR and other organizations sometimes reimburse or cover fees.10 More importantly,
many mainstream services lack the space to take in additional clients, particularly at the
volume at which forced migration flows often occur. In most of the case study countries, with
the exception of Sweden, international agencies and non-profits thus also provide either
support or supplementary services that are open to refugees and asylum seekers in an effort
to relieve the burden on national systems.
The most significant challenge for most forced migrant populations, however, remains the
ability to earn a living in displacement. While reluctance to opening up labor markets remains
high in many countries, some including Uganda and Sweden have made livelihoods
development and employment a priority for refugee and asylum-seeking populations. Even in
more reluctant countries, like Turkey and Jordan, some limited and ad hoc efforts are
underway to assist refugees in finding opportunities to support themselves. Approaches to
labor market entry and livelihoods development are, however, extremely varied and have met
mixed success. In Uganda, all recognized refugees are granted a plot of land and tools to farm,
with the expectation that they will be able to use these to become self-supporting. In Sweden,
refugees are offered extensive language and work-skills training programs to support their
entry into the labor market. In practice, however, both approaches have encountered
obstacles, often stemming either from difficulties in the local economic context or the
capacities of refugees themselves. Not all refugees in Uganda, for example, have a background
in farming and many are in fact ill-suited to earn a living in this way. And in Sweden, the often
low education levels of refugees make it difficult to match them with employment
opportunities in the high-skilled Swedish economy in practice. Both cases speak to the need to
utilize approaches to livelihoods development that are targeted to both the capabilities of
refugees themselves and the local economic context.
Finally, outside of camps and settlements, housing remains a major gap. Where refugees live
can have a dramatic influence on their access to livelihood and work opportunities. Cities
provide the best economic prospects, and most refugees thus generally prefer the freedom
and economic opportunities urban environments provide, even over the services, amenities,
and security that may be more readily available camp environments. In Jordan, for example,
81 percent of Syrians are in urban areas.11 Yet many countries with large refugee populations
place restrictions on refugees’ freedom of movement, either by limiting the availability of
benefits outside of particular areas and camps or by restricting refugees’ residence to certain
regions. In Uganda, for example, social support is not generally available to refugees who
choose to move off of the settlements, and Turkey and Jordan limit access to services for
Syrians who move out of the region in which they are registered. Finding housing can be
particularly challenging for refugees who choose to chart their own course. Some countries do
have policies to provide assistance to refugees living in cities; in Morocco and Sweden, for
example, refugees can access the mainstream social housing system. But such systems are
often oversubscribed or simply do not exist even for natives in many asylum countries.
10Jordan, for example, offered free medical care to Syrians, although this practice has recently been changed.
11UNHCR, “Registered Syrians in Jordan.”