“Villagisation” as a resilience strategy for Central African Republic refugees in southern Chad in response to the international aid crisis

Chad has opted for villagisation as an alternative host model for refugees from the Central African Republic in a context impacted by ongoing forced dis­placement, a camp-based humanitarian model losing its impetus and a drop in international funding. This approach aims to foster refugees’ socio-economic integration while reducing their reli­ance on international aid.

Forced displacement has marked Africa’s history, especially in the African Great Lakes region. More recently, it has in­spired other initiatives in central Africa. The 2000s saw Burundi implement a refugee return policy based on the Rural Integrated Villages model, bringing to­gether housing, social cohesion and agri­cultural recovery.^[1]Yolanda Weima, « Les limites liées au genre du programme de villagisation des rapatriés au Burundi », Revue Migrations Forcées, n° 52, mai 2016, p. 61-62, https://www.fmreview.org/solutions-fr This approach echoed an older idea promoted by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR): local settlement, i.e. enabling refugees to permanently settle in their host areas by means of land and agricultural work.^[2]Véronique Lassailly-Jacob, « Des réfugiés mozambicains sur les terres des Zambiens. Le cas du site agricole d’Ukwimi, 1987-1994 », in Luc Cambrézy et Véronique Lassailly-Jacob (dir.), … Continue reading These initiatives demonstrated that refugee hosting does not simply mean providing a roof over someone’s head, but also offering secure access to land and means of subsistence.

Since 2017, Chad has been trialling a new Central African Republic (CAR) refu­gee hosting model: villagisation. Unlike traditional refugee camps, which are of­ten isolated and expensive to run, this approach is based on a simple premise: immediately settling refugees in hosting villages or gradually converting ex­isting camps into standard villages. The aim is to facilitate refugee integration into Chadian society and prevent a pro­liferation of parallel organisations that maintain dependence. This approach is being implemented in a specific con­text: the classic humanitarian aid mod­el is in a state of crisis, international funding is dropping and the presence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is attracting increasing criticism, while refugee camps are showing their limi­tations, despite their initial protective role.^[3]Extensively described by authors such as Michel Agier: see Gérer les indésirables. Des camps de réfugiés au gouvernement humanitaire, Éditions Flammarion, 2008, … Continue reading Refugee camps are isolated from agricultural areas and markets. They hinder refugees’ ability to become economically self-sufficient and further marginalise them. In Chad, the situation is even more urgent: for years, the coun­try has been receiving a massive influx of CAR refugees at a time when traditional assistance mechanisms are running out of steam.

Villagisation is not a new idea. It is part of a broader history of population reunifi­cation policies implemented elsewhere in Africa, often for reasons regarding de­velopment or political control. It was the basis of the Ujamaa programme in 1973 in Tanzania, which settled five million small farmers in approximately 8,000 villages.^[4]. Véronique Lassailly-Jacob, « Migrants malgré eux – Une proposition de typologie », in Véronique Lassailly-Jacob, Jean-Yves Marchal et André Quesnel (dir.), Déplacés et réfugiés. La … Continue reading In the same vein, Burundi – already mentioned – but also Rwanda – with its policy of rehousing in villages carried out in 1996 –^[5]Global IDP Project, Ensuring durable solutions for Rwanda’s displaced people: a chapter closed too early, Norwegian Refugee Council, 8 July 2005, … Continue reading trialled their own models of villagisation, based on land reforms and agricultural modernisation.^[6]André Guichaoua, « Mobilité forcée dans la région des Grands Lacs », in Véronique Lassailly-Jacob, Jean-Yves Marchal et André Quesnel (dir.), Déplacés et réfugiés…, op. cit., p. 303-340.

Villagisation has often proved to be an instrument of control and state planning, rather than a simple rural development project. Consequently, it is an ambigu­ous concept as it has often led to forced displacement and enforced settlement. However, the Chadian version differs: de­signed as a response to the humanitarian aid crisis, it aims to integrate refugees. It therefore appears as an alternative. The Chadian version is not just a settlement solution; it is also a cohabitation model. Its local nature fosters social ties and paves the way to sustainable integration. However, the policy also poses challeng­es. In a country in which agriculture is the main source of subsistence, the ar­rival of refugees can increase pressure on the land and natural resources. The success of villagisation therefore hinges on the ability to arrange a fair division of land and resources and to invest in lo­cal development. It is in this context that some pilot projects, such as the conver­sion of the Amboko and Gondjé refugee camps into villages, are demonstrating that it is possible to build a shared fu­ture by focusing on solidarity and ru­ral development.

Villagisation: definition and contextualisation as an alternative to refugee camps

“The idea is simple: to ensure that refugees become fully fledged inhabitants, rather than keeping them in separate areas.”

Villagisation is a strategy that aims, from the outset, to host refugees in lo­cal communities instead of placing them in isolated refugee camps as in the past. In practical terms, it involves either set­tling new arrivals in hosting villages, or gradually turning some refugee camps into proper villages. The idea is simple: to ensure that refugees become fully fledged inhabitants, rather than keep­ing them in separate areas. Villagisation fosters deeper integration, unlike the classic refugee camp model. In a camp, refugees live in an enclosed space, often far from towns and villages, with their own services and markets. This facili­tates the coordination of humanitarian aid, but accentuates separation from the surrounding society. On the other hand, settlement in villages enables refugees to share in the host communities’ daily lives. They attend the same school as the village children, use the same health centres, and take part in the same income-generating activities. This is the case in southern Chad, which received 70% more CAR refugees over the 2017–2022 period, 64% of whom settled im­mediately in villages.

Access to land and means of subsistence constitutes another major differ­ence. In refugee camps, opportunities for growing crops, raising livestock or trading are limited by isolation and the small amount of land available. On the other hand, in a village, refugees find it easier to access agricultural land, get involved in local trade channels and find the resources to develop their own income-generating activities. Farming remains the main income-generating ac­tivity in southern Chad, so the village en­vironment provides genuine prospects of independence. Villagisation also has an impact on social relationships. Refugee camps concentrate significant humanitarian aid in a ringfenced area. This can sometimes cause jealousy or tension with the local communities. By encouraging cohabitation and trading, villagisation further bolsters solidarity and social ties between the refugees and inhabitants. Once again, this approach is not free from difficulties. Tensions may arise without fair and collaborative management. The success of villagisa­tion therefore hinges on the ability to arrange a fair division of resources so that both local and refugee communities benefit from it.

Villagisation as a response to the international humanitarian aid crisis

Villagisation transforms how refugees live their everyday lives and how they view their futures. Many gain access to a field or a small growing area or set up a lo­cal income-generating activity when they settle in villages. This may seem a simple change, but it is pivotal as growing their own food or selling some of their pro­duce gradually frees them from reliance on humanitarian distributions. A survival rationale is replaced by a rationale based on production, trade and longer-term projects. In the words of a female refu­gee, “I planted cassava when I was given a small plot. I now feed my family and sell the surplus at the market. Things are still difficult, but at least I am no longer totally dependent on the rations.”

One of the strengths of villagisation is its ability to draw on pre-existing resourc­es in local areas. In scenarios where the involvement of NGOs is sometimes crit­icised or limited, the traditional author­ities, village leaders and host families become the leading players in hosting refugees. Land sharing – either through leasing or free allocation – is a good ex­ample. These solutions often come from the grassroots and prove to be more sustainable, as they are based on local cooperation and negotiation, rather than external aid, which is perceived as an im­position. Indeed, that is the impression that we get from one farmer and mem­ber of a host community, who says, “We gave part of our fields to the refugees. Initially, some people did not agree, but when people saw that the harvests were also supplying the village market, many people grasped that everyone was benefitting from this approach.”

The current humanitarian context is af­fected by a drop in funding and grow­ing mistrust of international NGOs. Villagisation takes on special signifi­cance in this climate: it provides a mod­el in which both local communities and refugees build their resilience together. The infrastructure built in the villages, such as schools, health centres and wa­ter points, does not only benefit the new arrivals, but also all the residents. This type of investment consolidates regions and makes them less vulnerable to fluc­tuations in international aid by giving more space to local initiatives. On this point, the view of a village leader from Békan speaks volumes: “The refugees have provided labour, as well as ideas. We now have a health centre providing treatment for all thanks to them and the support of the authorities.”

Villagisation is not a miracle solution, but it offers a promising way forward. It is a model that is worth consolidating. It is tailored to local circumstances and designed as a sustainable response to prolonged crises.

Refugee villagisation experiences in southern Chad

The policy of villagisation has trans­formed the hosting of CAR refugees in southern Chad since 2017. The model has been applied for most of the new arrivals, whereas the refugee camp mod­el is increasingly falling out of favour.

Direct settlement in villages has been trialled since 2017 against a backdrop of a massive influx of new refugees. They have settled in villages in the Provinces of Mandoul (Maisso, Gon, Dembo, Bekourou, Bedegue, etc.) and the Logone Oriental (Békan, Dom, Mbitoye, Begone, Mballa, Kaga-Roangar, Daha 1 and 2, etc.). The approach aims to achieve swift integration: the refugees share in the lo­cal community’s everyday life and gain access to land, schools and local servic­es. This grassroots integration becomes more and more the favoured solution. However, integration remains a slow pro­cess: the refugees encounter difficulties gaining access to land, which hampers their ability to farm independently and limits their economic prospects.

For longstanding refugees, another strat­egy involves turning refugee camps into fully fledged villages. The Amboko and Gondjé refugee camps serve as models. The aim is to avoid having a parallel ad­ministration, to enable legal access to farmland and to encourage economic in­dependence. The conversion of refugee camps into villages further demonstrates the potential and challenges of villagisa­tion. In Amboko, the experience has ena­bled farming to be developed because of expanded access to land, providing ref­ugees with better crop-growing condi­tions. However, this agricultural success story is counter-balanced by ongoing land tensions between refugees and local communities, linked to competition for resources. In Gondjé, integration has a more economic dimension. The refu­gees are actively involved in trading due to the proximity of local markets. This dynamic fosters their inclusion in the local economic fabric and reduces their reliance on humanitarian aid.

In short, the different experiences of villagisation in southern Chad show a range of pathways. While some plac­es, such as Gondjé, manage to turn the presence of refugees into an economic opportunity, others, such as Békan, are still facing difficulties in access to resources. These contrasts highlight the fact that the villagisation model can only succeed if it goes hand in hand with fair land management and investment in lo­cal development.

Villagisation: a refugee hosting model that benefits everyone

Villagisation does not only transform refugees’ lives, it also refashions the lives of the host communities. In many villages, the arrival of new inhabitants comes with concrete investment: seed distribution, provision of agricultural equipment, support for small business­es and construction of social infrastruc­ture. This policy, funded by the European Union (EU) and the World Bank, has strengthened these local transforma­tions. The EU is contributing 21.5 mil­lion euros to the Inclusive Development Programme in Host Areas (DIZA), while the World Bank is supporting the Support Project for Refugees and Host Communities (PARCA), estimated at 60 million dollars. PARCA has enabled five schools to be built in southern Chad, for­ty teachers and inspectors to be trained, and a cash transfer programme to be set up for 10,000 vulnerable house­holds in three refugee camps (Amboko, Gondjé, Dosseye) and 180 surrounding villages. Each household receives 45,000 CFA francs [around €69] per quarter for two years, for a total of 3.6 billion CFA francs [around €5.49 mil­lion]. On the health front, the creation of centres, the strengthening of staff and the diversification of services have extended health cover to all residents.

Access to land remains at the heart of the villagisation model. Close to three quarters of refugees have a farm plot, but there are major disparities between dif­ferent locations: some benefit from a real productive foothold, while land tensions elsewhere make settlement more difficult. This hosting model provides refugees with much wider agricultural opportunities than camp life. On average, a village-based refugee has around two hectares of cul­tivable land, as opposed to one hectare for camp-based refugees. Apart from the issue of the growing area, the quality of the land allocated in the villages tends to be better, which fosters more sustainable crop production. This change is reflected in the everyday lives of many households, as is the case of this refugee living in a ref­ugee camp converted into a village: “I was able to plant corn when I was given a small field. I now feed my family without having to wait for the food handouts.”

“Relations with host communities involve both cooperation and friction.”

Relations with host communities involve both cooperation and friction. In some villages, such as Békan, refugees and local people farm together and supply the local markets, thereby bolstering the rural economy. However, elsewhere, land scarcity creates a feeling of injustice and fuels tensions. In this context, the traditional and local authorities play a key role in land management and in regulating social relationships. In Chad, these authorities (canton chiefs, village chiefs and local committees) are often the first mediators when tensions arise over access to land, water or grazing land. When a dispute arises, particularly over land ownership or inter-community violence, they work in coordination with representatives of the administration (sub-prefects, prefects) and sometimes with the security forces. In some cases, customary courts or joint consultation committees bringing together tradition­al authorities, refugee representatives, NGOs and state services are called upon to settle disputes. A village lead­er says, “There are times when the inhabitants say the refugees are taking too much land, but when people see the markets are better supplied, they under­stand it’s beneficial.”

So the difficulties do exist, but villagisa­tion indisputably fosters a dynamic of shared resilience. The refugees provide labour, know-how and fresh economic energy, while the hosts benefit, in return, from infrastructure (schools, health cen­tres and water points) and new business opportunities. This approach therefore helps reduce reliance on international aid, a requirement that has become a greater issue in recent months.

Villagisation paves the way to ever more independence by giving more space to community solidarity and local govern­ance. The model not only enables refu­gees to put down deeper roots in their host areas, but also helps local commu­nities increase their own crisis resilience. This observation is shared by a member of a local women’s association: “It’s no longer an ‘us and them’ situation. We face difficulties together and that changes the way we see each other.”

A model of integration and resilience to be shared and adapted

The experience of villagisation in southern Chad demonstrates that it is possible to move beyond the traditional refugee camp model to integrate refu­gees more sustainably. The success of this approach is based on strong local roots: traditional leaders, host families and community associations play a cen­tral role in sharing land, in conflict medi­ation and in organising community life.

However, this experience is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It primarily needs to be regarded as a source of inspira­tion for other contexts contending with long-term displacement. Any attempt to replicate the model must take into con­sideration the land, cultural, institutional and economic circumstances specific to each country or region. Several recom­mendations can be highlighted for prac­titioners and decision-makers:

• Facilitate access to land: right from the project design phase, make plans for clear agricultural land provision mech­anisms (giving, leasing or sharing land), paying equal attention to soil quality and available area;
• Bolster land mediation: continuously involve the traditional authorities, vil­lage committees and the administrative authorities in order to prevent or calm down tensions relating to land owner­ship or usage. This mediation should be regarded as a structural investment;
• Systematically include the host com­munities: involve the inhabitants at all stages (planning, building infrastruc­ture, local governance) to guarantee a perception of fairness. Schools, health centres and water points must simul­taneously meet the needs of both ref­ugees and local people;
• Support the local economy: support in­come-generating activities, stimulate rural markets and encourage agricul­tural cooperatives run by refugees and hosts to foster the transfer of know-how.

When all is said and done, villagisation should not be solely viewed as a settle­ment method, but instead as a genuine regional initiative. Its success hinges on collective commitment (humanitarian players, local authorities and community organisations) and astute adaptation to the social and environmental dynamics specific to each context.

Translated from the French by Gillian Eaton

Picture credit : CICR/Ronald Kradjeyo