Refugees Deserve a Seat
at the Table

In late June, I had the honour of joining the Canadian delegation to the Consultations on Resettlement and Complementary Pathways (CRCP) conference in Geneva. As a refugee advisor, it was deeply moving to witness a growing global shift, one where refugee leaders are no longer just invited to observe but are beginning to shape the very policies that impact our lives.

This year’s CRCP brought together over 500 participants, including governments, NGOs, UN agencies, and more than 50 refugee leaders from diverse backgrounds. It was both inspiring and sobering. It reminded me how far we have come in creating platforms for refugee voices and how much further we must go to achieve meaningful participation and true co-leadership in “forging collaborative approaches to global resettlement.” 

This level of engagement was unimaginable when I was a refugee living in Indonesia. At that time, refugee participation in public discourse was almost non-existent as most were under constant surveillance and relied entirely on humanitarian aid for survival. For me, and many others, raising our voices came at a cost.

When I did use social and traditional media platforms to speak about the injustices faced by refugees in transit countries, I was met with intimidation and threats. I was told explicitly that refugees were not allowed to engage in politics or advocacy. Our role, I was reminded, was to quietly accept the limited food, accommodation, or occasional health services offered to us. Demanding rights or questioning policies was viewed as defiance.

Even today, in many countries, refugees who speak out risk arrest, detention, or deportation. Refugee-led organizations often lack legal status, funding, and political support. Meaningful participation remains a privilege, not a norm.

Refugee Participation

Refugee participation in global policy making is a relatively recent but transformative development. In 2019, Canada became the first country to include a refugee advisor in its official delegation to the Global Refugee Forum. The following year, the Refugee Advisory Network of Canada (RAN Canada) was developed and launched through the Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN) and formally endorsed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Composed of individuals with lived refugee experience, RAN Canada was designed to promote the meaningful participation of refugees in Canada’s engagement with the international refugee system.

Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Germany have since adopted this model and have gone further by embedding refugee leadership more directly within their government structures. In contrast, RAN Canada has remained largely peripheral with limited to occasional consultations with government representatives and invitations to meetings such as the CRCP. RAN Canada is also now facing an uncertain future without funding as it had been supported by a grant that ended in March 2025.

Paradigm Shift: Complementary Pathway

At the CRCP, the forum addressed a critical paradigm shift within the global refugee regime, now emphasizing complementary pathways to resettlement such as educational and labour mobility. While these programs offer opportunities for refugees with specific skills or educational backgrounds to study, work, and eventually settle in third countries, they are not accessible for most refugees, especially stateless and persecuted minorities such as the Rohingya, Hazara and others.

When fleeing conflict or genocide, very few refugees are able to carry diplomas, employment records, or official documents with them. Many are denied access to education altogether in host countries due to systemic discrimination and legal restrictions. According to UNHCR data, fewer than 5 percent of refugees globally access higher education, and even fewer qualify under the criteria for economic migration.

This shift is largely driven by a troubling reality: many resettlement countries are reducing their refugee quotas and adopting deterrence-based policies aimed at preventing refugee arrivals altogether. In most cases, these decisions are not rooted in lack of capacity but in rising xenophobia and widespread disinformation about refugees. The United States, once the world’s leading refugee resettlement country, has drastically cut its resettlement numbers in recent years and scaled back funding to many refugee support operations, significantly weakening global protection mechanisms.

Canada, traditionally a global leader in refugee resettlement and protection, appears ready to follow the same path given the government’s 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan has capped several programs, limiting the numbers of refugees. One of Canada’s best models has been the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) program, which allowed Canadians to offer hope to the most vulnerable refugees, who otherwise would not have a second chance at life. Tragically, this crucial program has been paused, with no timeline for resumption.

As the global refugee and displaced persons crisis continues to rise daily, the resources allocated for resettlement are shrinking. According to the UNHCR, more than 2.5 million refugees are in urgent need of resettlement, but fewer than 5 percent will likely be resettled and the rest will remain stranded in camps or urban areas without legal status, rights, or access to education and healthcare. Many will be trapped in indefinite limbo with no clear path forward.

While resettlement options are shrinking in the global north, some host countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia and some countries in Europe are showing increasing openness to locally integrate refugees. However, this does not mean that global responsible sharing is being realized across the entire world. Instead, the responsibility is being shared only by the countries that host refugees – most that have not signed the UN Refugee Convention.

Take Bangladesh, for instance, currently hosting over 1.3 million Rohingya refugees. As one of the poorest countries in the world, it lacks the land, resources, and infrastructure needed to integrate such a large population. While Bangladesh has shown remarkable generosity, it cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. With adequate international support, the country might be willing to absorb a few hundred of these refugees, while the remaining population is resettled elsewhere and the global community works toward durable solutions, such as repatriation.

Conclusion

The global refugee crisis demands more than incremental reforms; it calls for a fundamental rethinking of the international refugee protection system. For decades, decisions affecting refugees have been made primarily by donor states and members of the UNHCR Executive Committee (ExCom), with little to no input from refugees themselves. This model is no longer tenable.

Refugees are not simply victims of crises. They are also experts in their own experiences, and therefore powerful agents of change. Their participation in policy development is not just a moral imperative, but a practical necessity. When refugees are meaningfully involved, policies become more grounded, cost-effective, and responsive to real-world challenges. They help states and organizations avoid missteps, identify context-specific solutions, and build trust with communities. In doing so, refugee inclusion enhances the legitimacy of institutions and the durability of the solutions they propose.

The refugee crisis remains a crisis of exclusion from rights, from opportunities, and from decision-making. As the number of refugees and displaced persons continues to rise, the world cannot afford to treat refugee participation as symbolic or optional. This is a moment to move beyond tokenism and toward shared interests and action.

From Geneva to Ottawa, the message is clear: refugees are not waiting for permission to lead. They are already leading through grassroots organizing, policy advising, and community-driven solutions. Now it is time for institutions to catch up and reflect that leadership in their structures, funding, and frameworks. Only then can we build a refugee system that is just, effective, and sustainable.