Poor States Hosting Refugees May Start Closing Borders, Warns NGO – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

Developing nations that shelter the majority of the world’s displaced population are facing a new threat: the possibility of tightening or even closing their borders. The Danish Refugee Council (DRC), one of the largest humanitarian NGOs operating in low‑income host countries, warned that ongoing cuts in Western aid could force these states to adopt stricter asylum policies. This article examines the latest statements from DRC Secretary‑General Charlotte Slente, analyses the potential impact on refugee‑hosting nations, and offers practical guidance for policymakers, donors, and civil‑society actors.

Analysis

Current Funding Landscape

Since 2020, several Western governments have reduced financial contributions to refugee assistance programmes. The United States, historically responsible for roughly 20 % of global humanitarian funding, cut its contributions by more than 40 % during the Trump administration and has not fully restored them under the current administration. European donors, including the United Kingdom and Germany, have also reallocated budgets toward defence spending, resulting in a measurable decline in multilateral aid to refugee‑hosting countries.

Reliance on Host‑Country Capacity

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that low‑income nations host about 75 % of the world’s refugees, a figure that translates to roughly 30 million people living in camps and settlements across Africa and Asia. These host governments rely heavily on external financing to provide essential services such as shelter, nutrition, health care, and education. When donor funding contracts, the fiscal pressure on national budgets intensifies, prompting discussions about limiting new arrivals.

Case Studies: Uganda and Chad

Uganda has been praised for its progressive refugee policy, which grants asylum‑seekers the right to work, move freely, and receive land for farming. However, according to a recent interview with Charlotte Slente in Geneva, Ugandan officials have begun to impose informal caps on new arrivals from Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia. While official statements from the Ministry of Disaster Preparedness are pending, on‑the‑ground reports from NGOs indicate a slowdown in processing new refugee registrations.

Chad currently shelters an estimated 900 000 refugees fleeing the Sudanese civil conflict. Slente’s field visit in November revealed overcrowded camps, insufficient water supplies, and a lack of medical personnel. The Chadian government has repeatedly appealed for increased international assistance, but donor fatigue has left many programmes under‑funded.

Potential Policy Shifts

If funding trends continue, host countries may consider:

• Introducing registration quotas or “one‑time” entry limits.
• Imposing stricter residency requirements (e.g., proof of employment).
• Raising fees for asylum applications or basic services.

Such measures could contravene the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, to which many African states are signatories. The legal implications are explored further below.

Summary

The Danish Refugee Council warns that continued reductions in Western humanitarian aid risk forcing low‑income refugee‑hosting states to adopt restrictive border policies. Evidence from Uganda and Chad illustrates early signs of this shift. Without a coordinated international response, the humanitarian consequences could be severe, potentially undermining global commitments to protect displaced persons.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Donor Governments

1. Re‑establish Predictable Funding: Adopt multi‑year budget commitments that allow host governments to plan long‑term programmes.
2. Targeted Support: Allocate funds to high‑impact sectors such as water, sanitation, and health, which reduce the fiscal strain on host states.
3. Performance‑Based Grants: Encourage transparency and accountability while safeguarding against abrupt funding withdrawals.

For Host‑Country Policymakers

1. Strengthen Domestic Resource Mobilisation: Explore tax incentives for private sector contributions and diaspora remittances earmarked for refugee assistance.
2. Maintain Legal Compliance: Review national asylum legislation to ensure alignment with the 1951 Refugee Convention.
3. Enhance Coordination: Establish joint task forces with UNHCR, NGOs, and community leaders to optimise service delivery.

For NGOs and Civil Society

1. Advocacy: Amplify refugee voices in national and international forums to counter narratives that justify border closures.
2. Data Collection: Produce real‑time monitoring reports on camp capacities and funding gaps to inform donor decisions.
3. Capacity Building: Train local officials on rights‑based protection standards and resource‑efficient programme management.

Points of Caution

While the prospect of tighter borders is concerning, it is essential to avoid overstating the inevitability of such policies. Several host countries, including Ethiopia and Kenya, have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to open‑door asylum practices despite financial constraints. Moreover, donor nations may adjust their fiscal priorities in response to advocacy and public pressure, meaning the situation remains fluid.

Comparison

Legal Implications

International refugee law, primarily the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, obliges signatory states to:

1. Not expel or return refugees to territories where they face persecution (non‑refoulement).
2. Provide access to asylum procedures without discrimination.
3. Ensure basic rights, including access to courts, work, and public education.

Any unilateral decision by a host country to impose caps or fees that effectively deny access to protection could be challenged before regional courts, such as the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, or through UN mechanisms. Additionally, donor nations that deliberately withhold funds earmarked for refugee protection might be scrutinised under the principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P), though legal precedent in this area remains limited.

Conclusion

The warning from the Danish Refugee Council highlights a critical crossroad for global refugee protection. With Western donor contributions shrinking, low‑income host states are under mounting pressure to consider restrictive measures that could compromise the rights of millions of displaced people. A coordinated response—combining stable financing, legal safeguards, and robust advocacy—is essential to prevent a cascade of border closures that would undermine decades of progress in humanitarian protection.

FAQ