When a country opens its doors to refugees and grants access to labor markets, schools, and social services in the context of steadily declining international funding, it does not equate to burden or responsibility-sharing. Instead, it signals a silent abandonment. Ethiopia's experience under the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) compels this uncomfortable but necessary question.
The Framework emerged from the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, endorsed by world leaders as a response to protracted displacement. In 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), placing the CRRF at its operational core. The CRRF focuses on operational frameworks for national-level implementation, whereas the GCR provides the global vision, a program of action, and follow-up mechanisms. While not legally binding, these frameworks were politically ambitious since host countries were to expand inclusion and protection, while the international community would share responsibility through predictable, additional, and sustained support.
The GCR/CRRF consists of four core ingredients: burden and responsibility sharing, the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) nexus, refugee inclusion, and support conditions for voluntary, safe, and dignified return. Central to these ingredients is the principle of global responsibility for hosting refugees. Burden sharing commitments emphasized concessional financing, grants, and long-term investments to ease pressures on host countries and improve conditions for both refugees and host communities.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Ethiopia's 2019 Refugee Proclamation is widely celebrated as one of the most progressive refugee laws in Africa. It marks a significant transition in the country's approach to refugee assistance by granting freedom of movement, work opportunities, and access to social services comparable to those enjoyed by citizens. With this reform, Ethiopia positioned itself as a global example of refugee inclusion and an early adopter of the CRRF, a concept which is later embedded in the GCR.
However, after nearly a decade, the reality in Ethiopia exposes a widening gap between promise and practice. Progressive policies and early compliance have not been matched by commensurate international support. On the contrary, donor expectations for deeper refugee integration and job creation have increased even as funding has declined. This contradiction is unfolding in a country grappling with underdeveloped public services, limited fiscal space, and severe youth unemployment, conditions that already drive mass outward migration for economic opportunities.
The conventional humanitarian assistance model for refugees in Ethiopia costs approximately USD 378 per person per year. The World Bank estimates that allowing refugees access to work could reduce this to USD 210 per year, and full socioeconomic inclusion to USD 78 per year--a nearly five-fold reduction under the CRRF/GCR approach. While often presented as efficiency gains, these figures signal a strategic shift toward declining international support and greater cost absorption by host countries.
Compared to pre-GCR humanitarian spending, this represents a dramatic reduction in international responsibility.
This shift explains the current funding situation in Ethiopia that is characterized by insufficient development financing and sharp reductions in humanitarian assistance. The shortfall which is estimated at nearly 65 percent has forced reductions or suspensions of life-saving services, transferring pressure onto national systems, land use, security structures, and fragile local economies. These indirect costs which are borne by national systems remain largely invisible and rarely acknowledged in global burden-sharing metrics.
The inefficiencies of the traditional humanitarian system--its protracted nature, high overhead costs, duplication of efforts, and limited sustainability--were among the factors that prompted the search for an innovative approach to refugee assistance. However, the root causes of donor dissatisfaction the pre-GCR/CRRF era were not adequately scrutinized. As a result, similar shortcomings persist, with insufficient transformative investment in job creation, infrastructure development, or local economic growth.
Although the GCR/CRRF aims to streamline aid, reduce humanitarian inefficiencies, and strengthen national ownership, in practice, it has increasingly shifted responsibility onto host governments by reducing external assistance. This contradicts the principle of global responsibility and burden-sharing.
Countries like Ethiopia are now expected to mobilize alternative financing by demonstrating further "refugee-friendly" reforms, such as the national strategy for enhanced refugee inclusion. However, the promulgation of progressive laws and unilateral efforts by the hosting countries alone cannot realize GCR/CRRF or compensate for declining global responsibility in the context of reduced donor commitments. Otherwise, the GCR/CRRF risks being forgotten.
Another persistent concern is that much of what is reported as GCR/CRRF financing is not genuinely new or additional. Funds are frequently reallocated or relabeled from existing development portfolios, reflecting reprioritization rather than expansion. Projects that predate the GCR are retrofitted to align with CRRF language, often adding little to host-country fiscal space.
For instance, the R3D Ethiopia Refugee Displacement and Development Digest (2019) reported over USD one billion in CRRF-related investments, yet most listed projects predated the GCR and were reframed to comply with its objectives. Similarly, UNHCR's reporting of USD 500 million for Ethiopia coincided with drastic reductions in basic services, increasing strain on local resources and, at times, social tensions. These examples illustrate reprioritization and relabeling rather than genuinely additional funding.
Funding also remains vulnerable to political landscapes, undermining predictability and reliability. Aid suspensions, trade restrictions, and political conditionalities have weakened Ethiopia's economic capacity. For instance, the suspension of AGOA eligibility since late 2021 significantly affected textile industries and export revenues, further constraining national capacity to increase employment opportunities and support refugee inclusion.
The consequence is a growing sense of abandonment among refugee-hosting countries. It is clear that the urgency that prompted CRRF through global engagement during the 2015 European refugee crisis has faded, and African refugee situations no longer command sustained priority. While development instruments such as the World Bank's IDA refugee sub-window provide some relief, they are insufficient and must not be substitutes for declining humanitarian aid.
The call to action is clear. CRRF and the GCR must strengthen solidarity and protection through inclusion, development investment, and shared responsibility. It must not be a framework for shifting responsibility onto host countries that are least able to carry it. Without sufficient and consistent funding, it risks becoming mechanisms of burden shifting onto those least able to bear it. Therefore, global actors must move beyond rhetoric and recommit to genuine burden sharing. Funding must be genuinely additional, multi-year, needs-based, and insulated from political volatility. Inclusion without support is not solidarity but substitution.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Furthermore, Africa must assert greater leadership in shaping refugee responses that reflect regional realities. A sustainable future requires a robust African-led refugee management approaches without disrupting the natural population movement dynamics and coping mechanisms of persons who cross the border during conflicts. Not all refugees who cross the border come to seek permanent encampment or prolonged dependency in another country and lose their ancestral heritages.
The current humanitarian practices that inadvertently incentivize protracted displacement must be openly questioned and reformed. The traditional humanitarian-led approach of actively searching for and registering every person who has crossed the border and forcing them to stay in protracted situations without initially allowing them to find their own solution must be openly examined. Reforms must be introduced to prevent humanitarian actors from inadvertently incentivizing prolonged displacement or dependency for the self-interest of avoiding an existential threat.
Dejene Kebede, MD, MPH, MBA, is a medical doctor with advanced training in public health and health services administration. He is a PhD candidate researching evidence-based practice in the context of Industry 4.0 technologies, with nearly two decades of experience managing public health programs in refugee operations, including involvement in the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework launched at the UN General Assembly in 2016.
