Refugees and local hosts
A livelihoods approach to local integration and repatriation

Many refugees in Africa avoid camps despite the offer of aid, preferring instead to integrate themselves with local communities in their country of asylum. What factors influence integration and what are the benefits?

An example of this trend is that of Angolan refugees in Zambia, the majority of whom have managed to stay in rural villages near the border with Angola for decades, despite the Zambian Government’s policy that all refugees should live in special settlements. In the eyes of local residents, these people who fled from Angola have long since stopped being refugees and become villagers like themselves. They share the same livelihoods based on subsistence farming, they live as neighbours in the same villages and their children go to the same schools. While the Zambian villagers have welcomed the Angolans and offered them protection and land, the Angolans have brought additional labour for agricultural production plus access to some of Angola’s natural resources, such as bush meat, fish and honey.

Research into their situation by the University of Bath found there were a number of factors aiding local integration:

• an abundance of land and water under the control of local chiefs – this enables the refugees to establish livelihoods as subsistence farmers
• the same ethnic group on both sides of the border – sharing the same culture, language, history and current relationships
• refugee movements following well-established patterns of forced and voluntary migration which pre-date the creation of the borders
• low capacity of the state to implement the law on refugee settlement, especially in remote border areas
• rural under-population means the increase in population is seen positively by chiefs and host villagers.

Despite this local integration, the Zambian Government and international agencies continue to see self-settled refugees as a chronic problem in the areas where they have settled, and as Angola moves towards a time of peace, repatriation is the preferred solution. In contrast, the villagers do not perceive a refugee problem; rather, they struggle with the problems of rural poverty. As Angola becomes peaceful, villagers of both Angolan and Zambian origin are considering migrating there due to its abundant natural resources. However, those who will remain in Zambia are fearful that the movement of people will further depopulate the border area.

The research suggests the following findings:

• In the right circumstances, the integration of refugees in rural sub-Saharan Africa can work and can bring benefits for both refugees and local hosts.
• Genuine integration means that the distinction between refugees and hosts will be necessarily blurred.
• Refugee integration does not mean the end of migration. Refugees may still choose to move back to their countries of origin if they see opportunities there – and they may be joined by some of their hosts.
• Repatriation is not a return to the pre-war situation with refugees automatically going ‘home’. After security, livelihood strategies play a crucial role in determining people’s movements.

Policy implications include:

• Integration through self-settlement should be given more recognition as a potential solution to refugee problems, alongside the current preferred solution of repatriation.
• Policies that perpetuate the distinction between refugees and hosts will undermine integration. In particular, during repatriation programmes, using bureaucratic methods for targeting aid to refugees rather than host nationals is likely to be ineffective.
• If repatriation is to be voluntary, preparation for repatriation programmes should consider people’s reasons for repatriating.
• Planning for repatriation should take account of the likely impact on the host country in terms of de-population and lost production.

Oliver Bakewell
54 Ridley Road
Forest Gate
London E7 0LT
UK

T +44 (0)20 8534 7824

oliver@bakewell.fsnet.co.uk

See also
‘Repatriation and Self-settled Refugees in Zambia: Bringing Solutions to the Wrong Problems’, in Journal of Refugee Studies 13(4):356-373, by O. Bakewell, 2000
‘Refugee aid and protection in rural Africa: working in parallel or cross-purposes?’, in Refugee Survey Quarterly 21(1/2):228-241, by O. Bakewell, 2002
New Issues in Refugee Research 35
www.unhcr.ch\epau

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.