UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
REFUGEE-HOST INTERACTION: CASE OF KRISAN REFUGEE
SETTLEMENT IN GHANA
BY
SAMUEL KOFI MILEDZI AGBLORTI
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
GEOGRAPHY AND TOURISM OF THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN GEOGRAPHY
'.
CLASS NO
.'
NOVEMBER, 2006
ACCESSION NO.
I
CAT.CHECKEO FINA CNECK
THE LIBRARY
"~"\VERSITY OF CAPE COAST
DECLARAnON
Candidate's Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own original work and that no
part of it has been presented for another degree in this university or elsewhere.
Candidate's Signature:~~ Date. .\.4-~..~~~~.~~~
Name..G.~~~.~....\6.'?.8 ...M\!-:-:Q?:-l. .....tr.~ .~.':-:-:~"I .1.
Supervisors' Declaration
We hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the thesis were
supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of thesis laid down
by the University of Cape Coast.
Principal Supervisor's Signature:.~ Date I.it. ::.~ .1 .•"":.~~ f
Name:.~~ ft~~!'??:~.-:.~.~ .
co-sup,evi,o'~i,e, ·fl ;D,te..!.'f.~0.i~. ~p.
Nome . . M Mel.'. ··· ..·9·· &ktY.tG··········· ..
11
making. This could be done through education and the institution of periodic
meeting for I'takeholdcrs.
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and organisations have contributed in diverse ways to
the successful completion of this study. It is prudent to extend my gratitude to
such individuals and organisations.
I ,vish to place on record the contributions of my supervisors, Professors
Kofi Awusabo-Asare and Albert Machistey Abane. These two individuals ,viII be
remembered for their constructive criticisms which shaped this work to its present
fonn. They are my role models and they really inspired me to reach this level. I
am forever indebted to them.
This work would not have been completed ,vithout financial assistance
from some individuals and organisations. Notable among them are my elder sister
and brother Ms. Florence Dugble and Mr. Thomas Dugble; and Frederick
Aboagye, a very good friend. My thanks also go to my in-laws, Mr. and Mrs.
Semevoh for their timely intervention that helped in the final stage of this work. I
have appreciated their effort very much. I singularly wish to acknowledge the
financial support from my ,vife, Ms. Phidelia Semevoh throughout my study at
the University of Cape Coast. She stood solidly behind me during the difficult
times. She threw every pesewa that came her way into this work. Thank you very
much for being there for me. Financial support was also received from the Flora
..
and William Hewlett Foundation and the NUFU Project, a collaboration between
the Department of Geography and Tourism, University of Cape Coast and the
Geography Department of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim.
v
I am grateful to Dr. Wisdom Akpalu, the brain behind this study. To Eric
Amuquandoh, James Eshun, Ekow Afful-Wel1ington, Augustine Tanle, Dr.
Oheneba Akyeampong, Dr. Ah."wasi Kumi-Kyeleme, Kwaku Boakye, Ishmael
Mensah, Julian Ayeh, all senior members of the Department of Geography and
Tourism; and Mr. and Mrs. Kissah-Korsah for their inputs. I also acknowledge the
contributions of the administrative staff of the department, especially Ms. Vivian
Ayemin. To my course mates, Akua Korantema Damptey and Kobina Esia-
Donkoh and Emmanuel Amegashie Jnr. my Field Assistant I say a big thank you
for all the help you have offered me.
My final thanks go to the former Camp Manager of the Krisan Refugee
Settlement, Mr. Frederick Ampofo, and all the refugees, especially those who
took part in the data collection exercise for their time and cooperation.
VI
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my wife, Phidelia and my daughter, Edem for their love
and patience.
VlJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content
Declaration
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List ofPlates
List ofAcronyms
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Problem Statement
Objectives
Hypotheses
Rationale ofthe Study
The Study Area
Location and Establishment of the Krisan Refugee Settlement
Population
Internal Administrative Structures of the Refugee Camp
Socio-Economic Activities
Vlll
Page
11
111
v
V11
viii
xiv
XVI
XV11
XV111
1
3
7
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
Agriculture
Tourism
Cultural Activiti,~~
Chapter Organisation
CHAPTER TWO: ACTIVITIES OF REFUGEES IN HOST
COMMUNITIES AND SOME CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
Introduction
Patterns and Trends in World Refugee flows
The Refugee Situation in Africa
The Refugee Situation in Ghana
Policy Issues and Refugee Law in Ghana
The 1969 OAU Convention on the Status ofRefugees
Conceptual Issues
The Concept of Evolutionary History
Livelihood in Conflict: A Conceptual Approach
Refugee Goals
Refugee Resources
Refugee Strategies
Refugee Policy
A Conceptual Framework for Refugee Integration
Agricultural Activities of Refugees in Host Communities
Other Economic Activities of Refugees in Refugee Hosting Areas
IX
15
15
16
16
18
19
21
26
27
27
30
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Social Dynamics ofRefugees in Refugee Hosting Areas
Impacts of Activities of Refugees on Host Populations
Negative Intpacts of Activities of Refugees on Host Populations
Refugees as Threats to Physical Resources
Pressure on Cultural and Social Infrastructure
Benefits of the Presence of Refugees
Security in Refugee Settlements: Threats or Strengths
Gender, Age and Sex as Factors in a Competitive Environment
Economic Status as a Determinant of One's Share of Business
Activities of AID Agencies
Implications of the Literature Review to the Study
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ISSUES
FROM THE FIELD
Introduction
Target Population
Research Design
Determination of Sample Size
Sampling Procedures
Research Instruments
Pre-Field Activities
Reconnaissance Surveys
Training ofField Assistants
x
39
39
40
41
42
44
47
49
51
53
56
58
58
61
62
62
65
67
67
68
Pre-Test 68
Field Work 68
Data Management and Analysis 69
Editing 69
Coding 70
Data Analysis 70
History ofthe Study 70
Problems and Limitations 72
Summary 73
CHAPTER FOUR: SOCIa-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
RESPONDENTS AND ISSUES OF PERCEPTION
Introduction 74
Socio-Demographic Background 75
Education, Marital Status and Age Distribution of Respondents by Sex 75
Religious Affiliation ofthe Respondents 80
Reasons for Leaving and Origin of the Refugees 81
Mode ofTransport and Origin of the Refugees 82
Choice ofDestination 84
Immediate Goals ofthe Refugees by Sex and Origin ofthe Refugees 86
Determinants of Change in Goals ofRefugees 90
Issues ofPerception 93
Hosts' Perceptions of Refugee Behaviour by their Sex and Age 93
Xl
Level ofEducation and Nature ofPerceptions of Refugees
Reasons for Positive Perception ofRefugees
Reasons for Negative Perception of Refugees loy Hosts
Perceptions ofRefugees about Host Population
Ability to Speak Local Langu~ge and Interactions
Discussion and Conclusion
CHAPTER FIVE: REFUGEE-HOST ACTIVITIES AND RELATIONSHIP
IN THE REFUGEE HOSTING AREA
Introduction
Resources ofRefugees
Integration ofRefugees in the Emergency Phase: Community Action
Observed Changes in the Host Communities as Reported by the Host
Population
Perceived Impacts of Community Activities on the Refugees
Specific Impacts of Community Activities on the Refugees
Specific Effects ofActivities ofHost Population on Refugees
Sex, Age, Educational Level and Number ofDependants by Whether
Refugees Earned Additional Income
Other Activities ofRefugees
Host-Refugee Relationship at the COIllll1unity Level
Relationship at the Individual Level
Refugee-Host Relationship
xu
95
96
98
99
100
101
103
104
105
106
114
115
118
120
121
122
123
125
Host Population-UNHCRINGO Rchtionship
Refugcc-UNHCRINGO Relationshir
Discussion and Conclusion
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS
AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Summary of Findings
Policy Implications
Recommendations
Further Research
Validation of Conceptual Framework
Conclusion
References
Appendix A: Coding of Variables
Appendix B: Questionnaire for Host Population
Appendix C: Questionnaire for Refugees
Appendix D: In-depth Interview Guide for Refugee Leaders
Appendix E: In-depth Interview Guide for Community Leaders
Appendix F: In-depth Interview Guide for Implementing Agencies
in the Refugee Settlement
Appendix G: Calculation of Sample Size
xiii
126
128
130
132
133
136
137
138
139
140
141
148
149
160
171
176
181
186
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pag~
1. Population ofHost Communities from 1948-2000 13
2. Persons of Concern to UNHCR by Region and Category in 2003 19
3. Global ~Refugee Trend from 1993-2002 20
4. The Ten Largest Refugee Flows in the Wodd at the End of 2003 22
5. The Ten Largest Global Refugee Arrivals in 2003 23
6. Protracted Refugee Situations in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1980-2001 24
7. Distribution ofRefugees by Country of Origin 60
8. Sample Size Distribution ofRefugees by Sex and Country of Origin 63
9. Sample Size Distribution of Host Population by Community and Sex 64
10. Age Distribution ofRespondents by Sex 76
11. Educational Level ofRespondents by Sex 77
12. Marital Status of Respondents by Sex 78
13. Reasons for Leaving and Origin of the Refugees 82
14. Mode ofTransport and Origin of the Refugees 83
15. Reasons Why Refugees Chose Ghana as an Asylum Destination 85
16. Immediate Goals of the Refugees by Sex and Origin of the Refugees 87
17. Results of Logistic Regression 91
18. Age and Sex of Interviewed Hosts by their Perception of Refugee
Behaviour 94
19. Educational Level of Hosts and Nature of Perception of Refugees 96
20. Refugees' Perception ofHospitality of Hosts 100
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
m~n h~
1. Map of Study Area 11
2. A Conceptual Framework for Refugee Integration 36
3. Religious Affiliation of Respondents 80
4. New Goals of the Refugees 89
5. Reasons for Perceiving Refugees Positively 97
6. Reasons for Perceiving Refugees Negatively 99
7. Specific Changes in Social Relations 108
8. Specific Changes in Economic Activities 11 0
9. Changes in Environmental Condition 111
10. Causes ofMisunderstanding between Individuals and Refugees 124
11. Description ofRefugee-Host Relationship 126
12. Causes of ConflictlMisunderstanding 129
xvi
LIST OF PLATES
~~ Pa~
1. A Shop in the Krisan Refugee Settlement 12
2. The Researcher and Some of the Refugees during the Fieldwork 61
3. The Burnt Warehouse of the UNHCR in the Krisan Refugee
Settlement
xvii
72
CAR:
CRS:
DRC:
ECOWAS:
GRB:
GRC:
HN/AIDS:
ICARA:
IDI:
IDP:
IRC:
JSS:
NADMO:
NGO:
OAU:
PNDC:
RAD:
SPSS:
SSS:
UCC:
UK:
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Central Africa Republic
Catholic Relief Services
Democratic Republic of Congo
Economic Community of West Africa States
Ghana Refugee Board
Ghana Red Cross
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome
International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa
In-depth Interview
Internally DisplacedPerson
International Rescue Committee
Junior Secondary School
National Disaster Management Organisation
Non-governmental Organisation
Organisation of Africa Unity
Provisional National Defence Council
Refugee Aid and Development
Statistical Product for Service Solutions
Senior Secondary School
University of Cape Coast
United Kingdom
XVlll
UN:
UNHCR:
UNIDO:
USA:
Unitc.:d Nation';
Unjted l'latiow: lIigh (;omrnb;ion li)r I~r;flll~(;r;';
United Hationl IndU';triallJe'/e!opmr;nt ()ri~ani(;ati(}n
United Statc.:'; of f.rnerlc;;!
CHAPTER ONE
'INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
The 1951 Convention on the Status ofRefugees defines a refugee as any
person who, "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of
race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country" (UNHCR,
1979; Cited in Schultheis, 1989:8). These people have crossed national
boundaries and are, therefore, alien to the new environment in which they find
themselves. Whereas immigrants and illegal migrants are 'drawn' to a country,
refugees are 'driven' (Owusu, 2000). In the words of Owusu (2000: 1),
"refugees seek not to better their lives but to rebuild it; to gain some part of what
is lost". But this statement is debatable especially in cases where refugees
sometimes use their ingenuity to better their lives.
Forced displacement and refugee flows m particular are visible
symptoms of deeper problems in the institutions and structures of many African
countries and the world as a whole (Schultheis, 1989). This observation is
confirmed by the number of forced displacements that were caused by political,
ethnic, religious and other forms of conflict in developing countries in general
1
and sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
Keller (1975; Cited in Stein, 1986) has outlined ten stages of refugee
experience. These are perception of threat, deciding to flee, the period of
extreme danger and flight, reaching safety and camp behaviour. One only
decides to flee if there is some perception of insecurity. The rest are repatriation,
settlement and resettlement, the early and late stages of resettlement, adjustment
and acculturation and finally residual stages, and changes in behaviour caused
by the experience. These stages still characterize the refugee experience till
today and probably constitute the content ofbeing labelled as a refugee. Refugee
camps, all over the world, have been characterized by anxiety, a situation
described by Knudsen (1983; Cited in Chan and Loveridge, 1987:746) as
"meaningless, uncertain, waste of time, boring and passivizing". The direction
of refugee-host interactions is therefore, to a large extent, controlled by this
statement. This is because refugees are capable of doing anything whether
legitimate or illegitimate when they are hard pressed by unpredictable
environments.
The pervasiveness of forced displacement in nearly all parts of the world
within the 20th Century has made observers refer to the century as one for
refugees (Owusu, 2000). The world has witnessed widespre~d displacement and
large numbers of people. For instance, mention could be made of the refugee
influxes in the Great Lakes region of East and Central Africa and those of the
West African sub-region in the early 1990s. This could be attributed to ethnic
violence and political instability that have plagued the world, especially
2
developing countries, during the period. In vicw of the role interactions between
refugees and host populations play in refugee survival, there is the need to study
refugee-host interaction a::ross a broad spectrum of issues.
This study is therefore, on refugee-host interaction in an area in Ghana. It
identifie~ refugee-host interactions at three levels - social, cultural and
economic. These interactions - intermarriage, issues of livelihood, language
problems etc. - are necessary for the welfare of refugees and are likely to be the
antecedents of whatever coping strategies that refugees adopt to survive in their
new environment. Apart from this, healthy interaction is a key factor in
temporarily integrating refugees into the host community pending the
implementation of a "durable solution"- repatriation, integration or
resettlement.
Problem Statement
According to Jacobsen (2003: 72), "refugees' pursuit of livelihoods can
increase human security because economic activities help to recreate social and
economic interdependence within and between communities and can restore
social networks based on exchange of labour, assets and food". Human security
as used here refers to economic, civil and political security. Sometimes, the
.
activities of refugee populations have implications for both the refugees and the
host populations because of the number o·f refugees involved. A case in point is
a village in Ngara District of Tanzania with a local population of about 10,000,
which hosted more than 400,000 refugees within its boundaries (Whitaker,
3
1999). In sucb situations where refugees outnumber the host populrtions, the
impact of refugee activities and those of organizations involved in the welfare of
refugees on host communities, especially the physical environment, cannot be
overstated. Among the social interactions between refugees and host population
I is the issue of intermarriage. Harrel-Bond and Voutira (1992) have indicated
that the most common method of survival for refugees who are scattered among
the host is to intermarry with the hosts. Marriage is used as a strategy to cope in
the new environment because the indigenous spouse is more stable and therefore
will be better positioned to offer the necessary assistance to the refugee spouse.
This is likely to improve refugee-host peaceful co-existence. In this situation,
refugee women who migrated with their partners will be disadvantaged as they
are already married. The men, on the other hand, might be affected or not
affected if they wish to practice polygyny.
Economically, refugees usually take advantage of existing employment
opportunities in the host community. This is often in the informal sector, since
refugees are usually not allowed to take employment opportunities in the formal
sector. Where refugees take advantage of economic opportunities in the informal
sector, they compete with the host community in this respect because they serve
as a source of cheap labour (Whitaker, 1999). Zackariya and Shanmugaratnam
(2003) found out that displaced Muslim women who were taking casual jobs on
farms in southern Sri Lanka posed threats·to the local labour force because they
were charging less and were therefore preferred by farm owners to locals who
also depended on this source of income for their livelihood. There was also
4
gender dimension to these threats since farm owners found it easier to control
women than men probably because of women's physical <iisposition. Contrary
to tilis finding, Whitaker (1999) found out that in western Tanzania, which
hosted over 400,000 refugees from Rwanda, Burundi and Congo D.R. between
1993 and 1998 it was the men who took up casual jobs on farms sometimes far, ,
from the camps whilst the women were left to take care of the family and/or to
take up casual jobs on farms around the camps. This may be due to the distance
between the farms and the camp. This situation where refugee labour is
preferred to that of the host could result in conflicts since refugees have to
compete with the local people for these opportunities and, therefore, has the
potential of threatening refugee-host co-existence.
Refugees are also likely to influence some of the cultural practices of the
host community. Language usually serves as a major cultural diversity between
migrants in general and the host community. Bihi (1999)' describes cultural
identity as an important asset enabling refugees to cope with many adversities,
to find support from others, and to help them function as normal human beings.
He concluded that refugees should be able to choose whether they maintain their
cultural identity or not. But are these interactions always simple and of benefit to
both refugees and their host? These interactions are sometimes complex and of
benefit to only one party.
Where refugees from a neighbouring country are camped just near the
border, one would expect the cultural difference to be minimal and any attempt
by the refugees to maintain their culture is likely to have a minimal effect on
5
their interactions with the host. This argument is, however, based on the premise
that refugees and host share the same culture but are only separated by artificial
border lines drawn by colonial masters as in the cc.se of many African countries.
Problems associated with refugee status can be classified into three:
those relating to conditions in the origin which made people flee (Valtonen,
2004), those encountered at destination which mostly concern how to survive in
a new environment and lastly the plan for the 'future'. The issue of survival at
refugee destinations is a major problem facing refugees. This issue is
characterized by different refugee activities, some legitimate (e.g. agricultural
activities) others not (e.g. prostitution).
A major factor that affects the success of refugees in their new
environment is how their activities are able to fit into the socio-cultural
circumstances of the host community. Thus, the level of acceptance of refugee
activities is a function of refugee-host peaceful co-existence. Often the activities
of refugees tend to be illegal partly because of restrictions in the policy regimes
within which they are expected to operate. For instance, policies often prevent
them from taking opportunities in the formal sector. Besides, some refugees take
advantage of their situation to carry out what borders on criminal activities.
These have the potential of threatening refugee-host peaceful co-existence.
Among some refugee women sex becomes a 'currency' with which they are
expected to pay for things ranging from passing school examinations to crossing
a border (UNHCR, 2004).
Knowing how refugees and host populations interact and the
6
implications of these interactions 011 poth of them is essential for temporarily
integrating refugees into host communifies. The activities of refugees often form
the bulk of their coping mechanisms, making refugee-host interaction a complex
one. Sustainability of these activities is thus, viewed in the framework of socio-
cultural norms of the hOst.
Objectives
The main objective of the study was to assess the nature of the interactions
between refugees of the Krisan Refugee Settlement in the Western Region of
Ghana and the host communities and the implications of such interactions on
both the host communities and the refugees themselves. Specifically, the study
sought to:
• explore the perceptions of the host population of refugee behaviour;
• assess the nature of refugee activities on both the host community and
the environment; and
• analyse the nature of refugee-host interactions In their new
environment.
Hypotheses
The study was guided by the following hypotheses:
I
i
•
•
Host population's educational level has no significant relationship with
their perception of refugee behaviour; and
Refugees' socio-demographic background (number of years as a refugee,
7
age, educational level, marital status, status of place of residence before
displacement and number of dependants) has no significant relationship
with whether refugee f,oals have changed.
Rationale for the Study
In 1999, Africa had 6 million displaced persons, of whom 3 million were
refugees (Owusu, 2000). The remaining 3 million consisted of two million
internally displaced persons (IDPs) and one million former refugees who had
returned home. According to Owusu (2000), the challenge of understanding,
managing and resolving the variety of refugee situations worldwide confronts
international actors: governments, non-governmental organiz"ations (NGOs),
relief agencies, multinational organizations, host populations and the refugees
themselves.
Available literature indicates that studies on African refugees have
tended to address practical issues such as the allocation of resources within
refugee communities and the administration of emergency and rural settlement
policies. Research on African refugees have been limited to the Eastern African
regions: Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Angola where until recently
most of African refugee flows were concentrated and received significant
international media attention. The limited interest in West African refugees is a
clear manifestation of the relative recencyof 'refugeeism' as a national problem
(Owusu, 2000). According to the UNHCR (1999), in 1988 there were only
twenty thousand refugees in the West African sub-region. The number shot up
8
1-
to seven hundred thousand by 1994. Thus. the mgent need Il)l' West ,AIi'ican
refugee studies cannot be overemphasized. In Ghana. the l3udumbmam camp
seems to be the olle that has attracted attention of researchers (Owusu••~(1()()).
Any study on refugees of other camps (such llS Krisan Rcfugcc Scttlemcnt) in
Gllana will add to the already scanty Iitcratme on refugees1in Ghana in particular
and West African sub-region in gcncral.
Also, the issue of refugecs having signi Iicant impact on host
communities (both natural and cultuml environmcnt) situatcs the study in thc
contcxt of human-cnvironmcnt intcll'c1alionships. one of thc fom traditions of
geography (Pattison, 1964). By the natmc of the conditions sml'Ounding thcir
displacement, activities of refugees have always had implications for thc natural
as well as the human environment. The above makcs thc study a gcographical
study worth pursuing.
The Study Area
The study area is the Krisan Refugec Scttlcmcnt and the Sanzulc, Krisan
and Eikwe communities (rigure I). Thc rcfugee scttlcmcnt is about a kilomctrc
from thc Krisan villagc. Krisan Rcfugcc SClllcment. a camp in Nzcma East
District of the Western Region, was initially located on thc land of both Krisan
and Sanzule and was eonscquently namcd as Sanwle-Krisan Rcfugcc
Settlement until it was moved to its ClUTcnt location on the land of Krisan hcncc
the name Krisan Refugee Sclllcmcnt. Though thc pcople of SanzlIlc havc ovcr
the years claimed that thc camp has no official name as at now and detcst thc
9
mentioning of the name Krisan Refugee Settlement, this name still dominates
official literature on the camp.
Location and Establishment of Krisan Refugee Camp
Located off the Takoradi-Elubo trunk road along the Alabo Kazo-Eih.-we
road, Krisan village is sandwiched between Sanzule and Eikwe, both coastal
communities (Figure 1). The Krisan Camp was initially set up in 1996 to
accommodate Liberian refugees who were driven out by civil strife and
persecution (UNHCR, 2004). The centre began to host Sierra Leonean refugees
in 1997 when political unrest resulted in some of its citizens seeking refugee
status abroad. Togolese refugees, who form about thirty-nine percent (517) of
the refugee population at the time of this study, now dominate the camp.
The camp has semi permanent structures (buildings constructed of
cement blocks and roofed with corrugated iron sheets) that point to the fact that
it has been in existence for some years. Tents and other structures that normally
characterize the early period of refugee arrival have been replaced with houses
built with cement blocks and roofed with corrugated iron sheets. Access roads,
though not tarred, connect the various segments of the camp.
10
legend
--Road
Go ViIIege
*" Study oress
a 2,5
kilomDtres
5
le!Jend
c=:J 1IVestern regIon
a District capitel
~ Studycrec
Figure 1: Maps of Ghana, Western Region and Nzema East District
showing the Study Area
Source: Geographic Infonnation Systems Unit, UCC; 2006.
The camp has a clinic that attends to refugees. The nearness of the camp
to the Catholic Hospital at Eikwe (2 kIn) is an asset since serious medical
situations can be quickly sent there for prompt attention. There is a school
11
,
,
ilII
II
II
1/
11
I'
II
II
!I
"
I;
ilI,
!I
I
:1
'I
Ij
manned by refugee teachers. Few sporting facilities are available and include a
football park and a basketball pitch. A first sight of the camp points to a typical
African village where things (Ire hierarchically organized. Small table shops
selling essential goods such as milk, soap and rice dotted the settlement (Plate
1).
Plate 1: A Shop in the Krisan Refugee Settlement
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
12
Population
Although, the current population of the locality is not available, the
population ofKrisar, during the previous censuses of 1948, 1960, 1970 and: 984
show corresponding population sizes of 344, 487, 557 and 697 (Table 1). The
estimated population for 2000 is less than 1,000.
Table 1
Population of the Host Communities from 1948-2000
Community
Sanzule Krisan Eikwe Total
Year M F T M F T M F T M F T
1948 566 344 273 1183
1960 638 487 1208 - 2333
1970 294 346 640 227 330 557 342 500 842 863 1176
2039
1984 529 711 1240 227 380 697 489 612 1101 1335 17033038
2000 774 843 1617 441" 437" 885"" 751 1026 1777 1960 2306 4279
• Calculated by using the 1970-1984 inter censal growth rate
"" Calculated by using the average ofthe three inter censal growth rates
Source: Ghana Statistical Service, 1987, 2002; Census Office; 1971.
Table 1 shows a steady increase in the population of the host
communities since the 1948 Population Census. The highest increase (97%) was
13
recorded in the 1948-1960 inter censal period. The popula~ion, however,
decreased significantly (13%) in the 1960-1970 inter-censal period. In the next
inter-cens.l! period (1970-1984), the population of the host communities
increased by nearly half (49%). Another significant increase of 41% was
recorded between 1984 and 2000. In all the periods the proportion of females
was always higher than that ofmales.
Internal Administrative Structures of the Krisan Refugee Camp
Administratively, the camp manager is responsible for the day~to-day
affairs of the camp on behalf of the Ghana Refugee Board. Currently, the camp
is divided into four administrative units known as Welfare Committees headed
by Chairpersons. The sole responsibility of these committees is to seek the
welfare of the refugees. Their main activities include settling disputes between
refugees and mediating between refugees and camp management. The Executive
bodies of the Welfare Committees serve as the coordinators between the
refugees on one hand and the Ghana Refugee Board and its implementing
agencies on the other. The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and the National
Disaster Management Organization are the current agencies operating in the
camp. The Country Office of the UNHCR only functions as a collaborative
agency assisting the national agency responsible for refugees.'
14
Socio-Economic Activities
Agriculture
Agriculture (fanning and fishing) is the main occupation of the people of
this district, employing about 70% of the total population with about 4,000
I
people engaged in fishing. This figure excludes fishmongers (Nzema East
District Assembly, 2004). This primary activity is the predominant occupation in
the rural areas of the district. The district is forested due to the heavy rain that is
experienced in that part of the country. Axim, the district capital, is the wettest
part of Ghana with an annual rainfall figure of about 190 centimetres (Dickson
and Benneh, 1988). Crops cultivated include coconut, which is processed into
coconut oil for sale, cocoa, oil palm and rubber.
Tourism
Tourism occurs in the district (Nzema East District Assembly, 2004).
With a coastline of about 70 kilometres, the tropical climate provides a
destination for sun seekers. The district is home to Fort 8t. Antonio, one of the
oldest historical monuments in West Africa, built by the Dutch in 1515. Other
tourist attractions include the Boboayinsi Island with a lighthouse (in Axim, the
district capital) and MTo!1l1, the birthplace of Ghana's first president Dr. Kwame
.
Nkrumah. The Tropical Rainforest, the long coastline (70km), the navigable
Ankobra River, the Anhllyame Mysterious Rocks and the Crocodile Pond at
Baku are potential tourism sites. Apart from the tourism potentials of the district
itself, the adjacent Jomoro District has tourism facilities which create
15
1-
employment opportunities in the infonnal se~tor. For example, during one of the
reconnaissance surveys, a Sierra Leonean refugee claimed that he has been
sending his art works to Belli, a town in \he Jomoro District where tourists
register before embarking on a trip to NZlIlezlI, a village built on water.
Cultural Activities
The indigenous people are the Nzemas, a sub-group of the Akalls. Their
main language is Nzema although Fanti and Twi are also spoken. Their culture
does not differ significantly from the other Akan groups. Their cultural festival
is the Kundum, which is celebrated between September and October each year.
This occasion serves as a tourism period and refugees and host population do
take advantage of the market created during this festival.
Chapter Organization
The whole study is organized into six chapters. The first chapter deals
with the introduction to the study. This includes background issues of refugee-
host interaction in general and some specific activities in particular. The second
chapter is devoted to the review of relevant literature as well as conceptual and
theoretical issues. This includes empirical evidence of refugee-host interaction
and policy issues ranging from local to international perspectives.
The third chapter outlines the· research design and other issues
concerning data and methods employed in the study. Among the specifics are
the study area and issues of sampling. Data collected from the respondents are
16
i I
analyzed in chapters four an<.l fiye. Socio-demographic hacv.ground of
respondents are analysed in chapter four. The fifth chapt(;r analyses refugcc-ho~t
actiyities and relationship in the F~fugee Hosting Area (RHA). A synthesis of
the main issues emerging from chapters four and fiye are outlined in the sixth
chapter. It also includes a summary of main issues, recommendations and the
implications of the main findings for policy making and further research.
17
CHAPTER TWO
ACTIVITIES OF REFUGEES IN HOST COMMUNITIES AND SOME
CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
Introduction
The total population of concern to the UNHCR (refugees, internally
displaced persons, returned refugees who still need help to rebuild their lives,
stateless persons and others and all asylum seekers in general) declined from
20.8 million in 2002 to 17.1 million in 2003 (UNHCR, 2004). The proportions
of refugees in these totals were 10.6 million and 9.7 million for 2002 and 2003
respectively. In 2002, the number of refugees constituted 51 % of the population
of concern to the UNHCR whereas that of 2003 was 57%. The decrease in the
absolute number of persons of concern is the result of refugees having access to
durable solutions - voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement in a
third country - especially voluntary repatriation. About half (53%) of the world's
refugees are currently assisted by UNHCR (UNHCR, 2004). The focus of this
chapter is to review both empirical and theoretical discourse on the activities of
refugees and their host, which will then form the basis of understanding refugee-
host interaction in the study area.
18
1 ,
I', I
j'
I
Patterns and Trends in World Refugee Flows
Problems of forced migrants, especially those of refugees have attracted
the attention of all facets of society. The sources of attention are as diverse as
the geographical spread of the incidence offorced migration (Table 2).
Table 2
Persons of Concern to UNHCR by Region and Category in 2003
Category
Region Refugees Asylum Internally Stateless Returned Total
Seekers Displaced and other Refugees as at
i
I
I
I i
II
Persons Persons
2004
Asia 3,635,700 48,800 1,565,400 224,200 713,700 6,187,800
Africa 3,135,800 166,100 571,600 66,500 345,100 4,285,100
Europe 2,207,100 366,500 1,038,500 594,600 35,600 4,242,300
North
America 585,600 392,500 978,100
Latin
America &
Caribbean 38,300 7,200 1,244,100 26,500 300 1,316,400
Oceania 69,600 4,400 400 74,400
Total 9,672,100 985,500 4,419,600 912,200 1,094,700 17,084,100
Source: UNHCR, 2004.
19
Table 2 shows ~he distribution of persons of concerned to UNHCR as '.it
the end of 2003. Every region of the world has, one time or the other, been a
refugee origin or a de,tination. Asia and Africa are the largest producers (:r
recipients of persons of concern to the UNHCR. The least was recorded in the
Latin }\merica and the Caribbean sub-region. There has I been a general
downward trend in the world refugee population since 1993, though this was not
regular (Table 3).
Table 3
Global Refugee Trend from 1993 to 2002
I'
I
Year Number
1993 16,305,525
1994 15,733,691
1995 14,896,087
1996 13,357,087
1997 12,007,850
1998 11,480,860
1999 11,687,226
2000 12,116,835
2001 12,116,835
2002 10,593,957
Source: UNHCR, 2004.
20
This downward trend was interrupted in 2000 when the total number of refugees
rose slightly from the previous year's figure of 11,687.226 to 12,129,572 in
2000 (UNECR, 2004).
The Refugee Situation in Africa
The trend in Africa has not shown any marked differences from the
global situation. The seriousness of the refugee situation in Africa is due partly
to the numbers involved and the concentration of recent refugee flows in Africa.
Though the number of refugees in Asia is currently larger than that of Africa
(Table 4), there are two characteristics of Africa's refugee situation. First, six
African countries were among the ten largest origins of refugee flows in 2003
(Table 4). This is an indication of how current the refugee situation in Africa is.
Secondly, Africa also ranked highest in terms of asylum destinations (UNHCR,
2004).
21
Table 4
The Ten Largest Refugee Flows in the World at the End of2003
l~cl1ntryof Origin Main Countries of Asylum Total
Afghanistan Pakistan, Iran. 2,136,000
Sudan Uganda, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya 606,200
1
Democratic Republic (DR) of
Congo Central African Republic.
Burundi Tanzania, D.R. Congo, Zambia, 531,600
South Africa and Rwanda.
D RCongo Tanzania, Congo, Zambia, Burundi, 453,400
Rwanda, Angola and Uganda.
Palestine Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, 427,900
Algeria.
Somalia Kenya, Yemen, United Kingdom (UK), 402,200
Ethiopia, Djibouti,
United States ofAmerica (USA).
Iraq Iran, Germany, Netherlands, Djibouti, 368,500
UK.
Vietnam China, Germany, USA, France. 363,200
Liberia Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, 353,300
Ghana, USA.
Angola Zambia, D. R. Congo, Namibia, 329,600
South Africa.
Source: UNHCR, 2004.
22
Similarly, Africa was still high on the list of countries with the ten
largest flows ofrefugees in 2003: nine countries out oftell (Table 5).
Table 5
The Ten Largest Global Refugee Arrivals in 2003
Origin Main Countries of Asylum Total
Sudan Chad, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia 112,200
Liberia Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ghana. 86,800
D.R. Congo Burundi, Zambia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda. 30,000
Cote d'Ivoire Liberia, Ghana. 22,200
Somalia Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania. 14,800
CAR Chad 13,000
Burundi Tanzania, Zambia, Rwanda. 8,100
Angola D.R. Congo, Namibia. 1,500
Russian Federation Georgia 390
Rwanda Zambia, Uganda. 360
Source: UNHCR, 2004.
Table 5 also indicates that African refugees seek asylum in African countries.
The only situation that is likely to change is where refugees are resettled.
Refugees usually do not have enough resources to enable them settle in
countries of their choice and are, therefore, content with seeking asylum in
adjacent countries or within the same sub-region.
Sub-Saharan Africa has a long history as an origin and a destination of
23
refugees. This situation is as a result of the various political, etlmic, secessionist
and resource conflicts that have plagued the sub-region over the five or so
decades. Table 6 shows the protrach:rl refugee situation in the sub-region.
Table 6
Protracte'd Refugee Situations in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1980-2001
Country oforigin Main host countries in Beginning Number of
Sub-Saharan Africa year (total refugees at the
years) end of2000
Angola Zambia, Namibia, DRC, 1980-2001 400,000
South Africa, Congo (20)
Brazzaville
Burundi Tanzania, DRC, 1980-2001 420,000
South Africa (20)
I.
Chad Sudan, CAR. 1980-2001 53,000 II
I
I
(20)
DRC Congo, Tanzania, 1980-2001 350,000
CAR, Zambia, Rwanda, (20)
S. Africa
Eritrea Sudan 1970s-2001 350,000
(+30)
Ethiopia Sudan, Kenya, 1970s-1994 40,000
Somalia (+25)
Liberia Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire 1989-2001 200,000
24
The table indicates continuous refugee presence of more than 20,000 in
neighbouring host countries for more than 8 years. Africa'l refugees are
.
concentrated in the Great Lake region of Eastern and Central Africa. Countries
in this region were the major refugee producing and receiving countries. This
explains the dominance ofthe region in ternlS of studies carried out on refugees.
25
The Refugee Situation in Ghana
According to the United States (U.S) Committee for Refugees and
Immigrants (2(;03), Ghana hosted over 40,000 refugees by the end of 2002. This
figure included 35,000 refugees from Liberia, about 5,000 from Sierra Leone
; and nearly one thousand from Togo. During the same period about 3,000 asylum
seekers entered the country (U. S Committee for Refugees and Immigrants,
2003). A documentation exercise by UNHCR recorded 48,034 refugees and
asylum seekers (UNHCR, 2004). During this period not only did Ghana receive
asylum seekers but she also generated some refugees and asylum seekers with
about 10,000 Ghanaian refugees found in Togo by the close of 2004. These
refugees were generated by the ethnic conflicts that erupted in the northern
regions of the country in the 1990s. Besides, nearly two thousand Ghanaians
were also seeking asylum in Western countries for various reasons, some of
which were political during the 1980s.
Ghana continues to be a safe haven for refugees in the West African sub-
region and beyond. Hatch (1970: 16) generalises this in his statement that "there
is a tradition and practice of hospitality in the continent, so that an African is
always an African. If he ,leaves one society he will be accepted in another". A
manifestation of this is the varied nationals that seek refugee status in the
country. As at 20th June, 2005 (World Refugee Day) there were twelve different
African nationalities at the Krisan Refugee Settlement.
26
t
I
I
I
Ii
!
I
!
!
I!
Policy Issues and Refugee Law in Ghana
The first global attempt at the definition of a refugee defined the concept
(refugee) with reference to state of affairs rather than the idtntity of the country
of origin. However, universal application was ruled out by a clause which
restricted the Convention to events that occurred before 1951 (Suhrke and
Zolberg, 1999). An optional clause in this Convention further limited the
geographic scope to events in Europe. The Euro-centric restrictions were
removed by the 1967 Protocol.
Refugee policy, unlike immigration policy, more often arises from the
legal and moral obligations incumbent upon open societies by virtue of their
membership of the international community (Suhrke and Zolberg, 1999). The
international refugee law obligates states not to reject foreign asylum seekers if
such rejection entails their being returned to a place where they are in danger of
being persecuted (Suhrke and Zolberg, 1999). This is referred to as the 11011-
refolllement principle. Apart from the UN Convention, there are regional
documents that determine who a refugee is and how they should be treated.
These documents were fashioned in a way to cater for some deficiencies in the
UNHCR documents. Among them are the 1969 GAD Convention for African
countries and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration for Latin America.
The 1969 OAU Convention on the Status of Refugees
The GAD Convention of 1969 recognizes the UN Convention of 1951,
which \vas modified by the 1967 Protocol, as the basic and universal instrument
27
f-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
relating to the status of refugees. The GAU Convention, whilst accepting the
"well-founded fear of persecution" that fonned the basis for the UN Convention
went further to include those fleeing from W.lf and civil conflict. The
Convention is most recognized for having extended the conventional concept of
a refugee beyond the narrow scope of limiting those qualified as refugees to
events before 1951 (Rankin, 2005). It is not out of place to think of this
inclusion as an indication of the high prevalence of wars in particular and crises
in general on the African continent. This has, consequently, introduced a process
of group detennination of refugee status on a prima facie basis as compared to
the individual status detennination procedures under the UN Convention. This
collective determination of status has been the widespread imposition of
restrictions on the freedom ofmovement of refugees in Africa.
In 1992, the government came out with a refugee law [provisional
National Defence Council (p. N. D. C.) Law 305D] which led to the
establishment of the Ghana Refugee Board (GRB), the government agency
responsible for refugee activities in Ghana. This law specifically recognizes that
asylum seekers who qualify as bona fide refugees should, under no
circumstances, be rejected but added that potential refugees should go through
due process before being accorded a refugee status. It consequently authorizes
that anybody or group of persons who entered the country i1le~ally be declared
prohibited immigrant(s), and thus, could be detained or be imprisoned unless
such person or group of persons applied for such status within fourteen days of
their arnval in Ghana (Government of Ghana, 1992). The law requires that
28
I
I
I
!
I,
1
1-
I
qualified refugees in Ghana be 'entitled to rights and be subject to the duties
specified' in the UNHCR's documents on refugees. The law mandates the
Secretary to the Ghana Refugee Board to designate places and areas in Ghana
where he deems appropriate for refugees to live.
While recognizing the need for the GRB to withdraw the refugee status
of any person or group of persons as it deems fit, the law also creates an avenue
for the affected person(s) to seek redress through the filing of an appeal within
fourteen days of being notified of the GBR's decision. But the decision of the
Secretary to the board regarding issues of appeal is final and the affected
person(s) shall cease to be a refugee and any protection due such person(s) and
their families shall also cease after fourteen days of notifi.cation of the
withdrawal of refugee status. Though the refugee law was largely informed by
the UN 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, there are some articles within
the two documents that are different. Whereas the UN Convention requires that
host countries allow refugees to choose there place of residence, the Refugee
Law stipulates that the place of residence of refugees shall be decided by the
Secretary to the Ghana Refugee Board.
Also, the UN Convention mandates countries that are signatories to it to
treat refugees as other aliens in terms ofwage-earning employment. It stated that
where aliens are not allowed to engage in wage-earning employment to protect
indigenous labour, refugees should be allowed to do so. But this seems to be of
theoretical interest since refugees in Ghana are not allowed to work in the
formal -sector. The law allows refugees to be accorded the right to basic
29
I
I
I
!
II,
I
I
I
education. One visible item of refugee camps in Ghana is the establishment of
basic schools usually manned by refugee professionals and not under the control
of the Ghana Education Service. As in many developing countries, laws are
theoretical documents that, in practice, are interpreted differently by indigenous
people. It will therefore not be surprising to see some of these provisions Imeant
to make life bearable for refugees not being observed to the latter.
Conceptual Issues
The importance of conceptual issues in directing studies of this nature
cannot be overstated. They serve as anchor for studies by setting their limits and
informing the data collection instruments to be used. Some relevant conceptual
frameworks reviewed with the intention of situating the study within their
confines are the Concept of Evolutionary History, Conceptual Approach to
Livelihoods in Conflict and Conceptual Framework for Refugee Integration.
The Concept of Evolutionary History
This concept was proposed by Belsky (1995; Cited in New Zealand
Ministry of Education, 2004). Though very brief, its review has become
necessary because of its dimension of various environmental demands. This
concept views behaviour of people as responding to different environmental
conditions and thus, allows us to examine how behaviour changes over
generations in response to different environmental demands. Activities that
refugees are involved in their various places of origin may be different from
30
their activities in the host communities as a result of the fact that they find
themselves in a different environment. This offers explanations for the role of
cultural differences in th\~ interactive process for example, and is perhaps a way
of looking at the developmental paths of societies/cultures. The model could be
used to ~xplain the spatio-temporal changes in the strategies ~nd activities of
refugees. The concept, however, failed to explain interaction between different
populations.
Livelihoods in Conflict: A Conceptual Approach
This framework was used by Jacobsen (2003) to determine the impact of
pursuit of livelihoods by refugees on the human security of host. communities.
Livelihoods here refer to the 'means' used to maintain and sustain life. 'Means',
on the other hand 'connotes resources including household assets, capital, social
institutions, and networks (kin, village, and authority structures) and the
strategies available to people through their local and transnational communities'
(Jacobsen, 2003: 74). According to Jacobsen (2003), forced displacement
usually tends to worsen existing vulnerabilities and create new ones. For
example, displacement can result in other forms of vulnerability such as gender
and age. The loss of husband and children for some women may result in social
and economic marginalization whereas loss of cultural adomnients, clothes and
head coverings can also affect women's identity and even restrict their mobility
and participation in relief programmes like food distribution. This is likely to,
seriously, affect women's activities and thereby reduce their interactions with
31
I
I·
I
I
:
I
the host communities. In the case of men, loss of livelihoods as a result of
displacement may increase their risk for military recruitment, either fClrced or
voluntary, whict could threaten security in refugee hosting areas (Jacobsen,
2003).
Sustainability is an important feature of livelihOod frameworks (DFID,
2000; Scoones, 1998; Lautze, 1997; Cernea, 1996; cited in Jacobsen, 2003).
Jacobsen's framework de-emphasizes the sustainability aspect and emphasizes
the need to reduce vulnerability and risks that arise as a result of conflict; these
are immediate concerns in any emergency situation. She refers to the pursuit of
livelihoods, which underpins all interactions with the host community, as the
availability, extent and mix of resources; the strategies used to access and
mobilize these resources; and the goals and changing priorities of refugees. The
framework, therefore, integrates refugee goals, resources, strategies and policy
environment as essential components.
Refugee Goals
Initial goals of refugees are usually basic in nature. In any human
institution higher goals are only desired if lower goals in the hierarchy are
achieved. Immediate goals of refugees are likely to include the need for physical
safety from violence, the threat of violence or intimidation; reaucing economic
vulnerability and food insecurity; find a place to settle; and locating lost family
members. These goals underpin the activities of refugees and shape refugees'
interactions with host communities. Jacobsen (2003) observed that if the basic
32
Igoals C'f refugees are achieved and refugees still remain in protracted situations,
new goals would become priorities. These new goals may intluenee refugee-host
interaction in different directions. Also, as refugees are expose:! to new cultures
and experiences including that of humanitarian community, they learn about
their rights, acquire new skills and even increase their resource base. These
invariably change their goals, which in turn affect their interactions with the host
population.
Refugee Resources
Like the host population, refugees also have resources, some of which
they bring along, others they acquire at their new destination. These may include
access to economic, social and cultural resources such' as household assets,
capital and social institutions and networks (kin, village, authority structure).
These resources could come from both local and transnational communities. In
local communities, refugees are likely to be prevented from accessing resources
such as land, employment in the formal sector and housing probably because of
restrictions in the legal regime within which refugees are supposed to operate.
Refugees may also have some resources that are not available to the local
people. These may include transnational resources provided by ether refugees
and co-nationals abroad consisting of financial resources as well as social capital
from refugee networks and those from humanitarian agencies. Refugee networks
encourage information flow and enable trade and relocation, and human capital
creation in the form of education or skills not available in the host community
33
I-
i'
\
"
"I. '
, ,
i
,
\
):
(Jacobsen;'2003). All these can enable refugees gaip economic advantage over
the host population.
Refugee Strategies
Refugee strategies refer to the range of activities engaged in by refugees
to access and mobilize available resources. In the host community, refugees
develop coping mechanisms and strategies that take advantage of available
resources and opportunities (Jacobsen, 2003). These strategies include those
activities permitted and supported by host government and aid agencies and
those that are illegal such as prostitution and smuggling, which can harm both
refugees and host community.
Jacobsen sees refugees' pursuit of livelihoods in two domains - the
official space allowed for refugees, usually camps or organized settlements; and
outside camps or organised settlements. In this first space, refugees can engage
in programmes that are initiated by relief agencies or agricultural activities
supported by host government. The other domain, outside camps or organized
settlements, refugees take advantage of existing opportunities in the host
community such as casual jobs on farms. This could be a source of worry since
refugees may have to compete with indigenous people who were earlier on
taking these opportunities. Refugees, thus usually move behveen these two
domains using resources in both. They therefore have an edge over the host
population which is likely to be concentrated in their own sphere.
34
t,
I
I
t I
t)
I
.
I
I
Whatever refugees do in host community is generally determined by refugee
policy environment within the host community.
Refugee Policy
Refugee policies and laws in the host country provide the general
framework within which refugees are expected to operate. These documents
outline the norms in the refugee hosting communities. Whether refugees go by
these rules and regulations is a matter of morality and the desire of an individual
refugee to function properly in the host community. Among policy factors
preventing refugees from having a smooth interaction with host community are:
• Host government's desire that refugees be allowed only as
temporary guests (no permanent residence);
• Poor standards of protection and physical security for refugees;
• Restrictions on freedom of movement and settlement; and
• Restrictions on property rights and employment (Jacobsen,
2003:79).
As a result of refugees' attempt to improve their living standards, they
(refugees) are often found going contrary to the laws governing their stay in the
asylum country.
35
I
I
IA Conceptual Framework for Refugee Integration
This Refugee integration framework was proposed by Valtonen (2004)
when she attempted conceptualizing refugee settlement processes in Finland
(Figure 2).
! I
:In settlement
The pursuit of
Settlement Goals and
Substantive Citizenship
Rights
Full participation in
Pre- flight
Economic, Political, Social
Struggle for
and Cultural Spheres
Human I--. H IntegrationRights in
The concurrent struggle for
Country of
conditions that facilitate Goal
origin
Attainment and Substantive
Citizenship:
Emancipation.
Parity
Interdependence
Cultural Integrity
Figure 2: A Conceptual Framework for Refugee Integration
Source: Valtonen, 2004: 87.
.
Three stages identified under this framework are the Pre-flight period,
the In- settlement and Integration periods. The pre-flight period involves the
struggle against human rights abuses and other structural problems that
characterize developing countries. These are the very reasons that cause people
36
to flee. Whilst in settlement, refugees endeavour to pursue their settlement goals
and other substantive citizenship rights. These ideals entail the struggle for
emancipation, parity, interdependence and cultura"\ integrity. Attaining these
ideals put refugees in a position to fully integrate into the host community. This
is a gradual process making the integration process not a straight forward one.
Another issue that is likely to prolong the process is the changing refugee goals.
As immediate goals are achieved, it is not uncommon to see refugees setting
other goals for themselves. This consequently makes the integration process a
complex one.
A satisfactory performance at this stage ushers in the integration period
which signifies a situation where refugees are able to participate in economic,
political, social and cultural spheres of the host community. This is the zone of
interaction between refugees and host population. This framework was adopted
for the study based on the features discussed above.
Agricultural Activities of Refugees in Host Communities
Sometimes, camps/settlements are purposely sited in rural areas to boost
local economies. This is ,intended to make land available to refugees for the
cultivation of crops. For example, the settlement of Rwandan refugees in
Uganda and Tanzania were purposely designed to take advantage of an
underutilized region, where these settlements were seen as a component of a
regional development strategy (Zetter, 1995; in Jacobsen, 2001). However,
Kibreab (1989) has observed that UNHCR's policy of integration through /
37
" i
I
r
i
i
I,
i'
;I'
I,'
agricultural settlements is failing and at a very high cost (In Harrell-Bond,
2002).
Where refugees do net have access to land, they work as labourers on the
farms of locals as noted by Whitaker (1999) and Zackariya and
Shanmugaratnam (2003). Bucha (1988; In Brun, 2003) argues that displaced
farmers represent one of the groups that have experienced the greatest rapture in
their livelihoods because of displacement, and for Cernea (1996, 2000; In Brun,
2003) landlessness is a major cause of impoverishment among displaced rural
populations.
Other Economic Activities of Refugees in Refugee Hosting Areas
Brun (2003) noted that although internally displaced persons in Sri
Lanka were not able to carry their shops with them, they brought along their
business skills when they were displaced in the early 1990s. These
entrepreneurial skills put refugees and internally displaced persons in a position
to favourably compete with the host population and this is one of the factors that
are likely to change local economies. Whitaker (1999) has noted five changes in
the local economy of western Tanzania as a result of the influx of Rwandan
refugees. Apart from agriculture, there have been changes in environment,
market economy, infrastructure and development of resources 'and way of life.
According to her, the influx of refugees and relief resources into Western
Tanzania has altered economic opportunities for both refugees and the host
communities. The increased local market has led to the upsurge in business and
38
\
.1
I
,
I'
trade conducted by both refugees and local hosts. She, particularly, mentioned
that in many cases refugees were perceived as better at doing business than their
local hosts. The T3.llZanians attributed refugee success to better entreprenwrial
skills although it may have been driven by the relative marginalization of
refugees from agriculture (Wilson, 1985; in Whitaker, 1999).
Social Dynamics of Refugees in Refugee Hosting Areas
The presence of large refugee populations will, inevitably, alter the
social environment in refugee hosting areas. Apart from raising the status of
villages as a result of refugee influx, activities such as attending social functions
(e.g. weddings and funerals) together and even competing in soccer and other
sports activities were documented in western Tanzania (Harrell-Bond and
Voutira, 1992; Whitaker, 1999). Indeed, Whitaker (1999) found out that
Rwandan and Burundian refugees in Tanzania were sometimes asked to perform
dances at local ceremonies. These interactions not only help refugees and host
populations to entertain themselves but, more importantly, serve as an avenue
for improving refugee-host relationships.
Impact of Activities of Refugees on Host PopUlations
Refugee activities and those of relief organizations haye both positive
and negative implications for host populations. It has been recognized that
refugee migrations bring both costs and benefits to host countries (Baker 1995;
Kuhlman 1994; Sorenson 1994; all in Whitaker 1999; UNHCR, 2004). The
39
~
,
1
r.
;
II,
I,
I'j I"
,
j
I,
I
!
i
magnitude of refugee impact on host populations is influenced by age, gender,
physical ability, economic status and number of refugees involved. It was in
response te, the observed impact of refugee activities, especially 0,] first asylum
countries, that delegates attending the 24th meeting of the UNHCR Standing
Committee in June 2002 urged the global bod~ to undertake an analysis of
implications of the long term presence of refugees in order to address its
consequences and ease the burden on host countries (UNHCR, 2004).
Negative Impacts of Activities of Refugees on Host Communities
Refugees and internally displaced persons are often perceived as
environmental degraders (Haug, 2003). Black (1994; cited in Blac~ and Sessay,
1998) notes that this perception may be based on three factors: that refugee
presence in a zone increases population-resource ratios; that refugees are poor
and it could thus be argued that they are 'exceptional resource degraders'; and
thirdly the assumption that refugees may ignore, be unaware of, or be excluded
from the regulatory structures that are important for sustainable resource use.
However, Kibreab (1997, in Haug, 2003) notes that environmental degradation
before people have been forced to migrate or after they have been displaced is
more a problem of misguided government policy than putting the blame on the
activities of the poor. It has to be noted that degradation of the environment is a
feature that is associated with any human society. Refugee presence, therefore,
is not solely responsible for environmental degradation of any form but rather
worsens already existing situations.
40
I.
I
I
I
i
I
'I
Ii
I
I'
1.
1
I
,J
!
i
, .
L
I
·i
I
II
; ,
Refugees as Threats to Physical Resources
The issue of refugee presence mounting excessive pressure on local
resources has been widely discussed in the literature (see Whitaker, 1999). This
has been mentioned as one of the obstacles to local integration, although
whether refugees are allowed to integrale locally depends, to a large extent, on
who benefits and who loses from the continued presence of refugees and
whether the interests of various actors, particularly the powerful ones, are being
sufficiently served. Jacobsen (2001) outlined a number of ways in which
refugees destroy local resources in an attempt to survive. These include (1) the
destruction of fields and orchards, as witnessed in the forest region of Gambia
where wild palm groves were destroyed and exploited by refugees from Liberia,
which led to a decline in the production of palm oil and an increase in the retail
price; (2) deforestation and destruction ofplant cover, when refugees clear forest
for farming or to obtain wood for construction or for charcoal burning; and (3)
the overuse and destruction of rangeland when refugees bring along their
livestock. Black and Sessay (1998) note that the environmental impact of
refugee populations depends on three factors: the number of refugees involved,
the time period over whic:h they remain in the host country, and the form of
settlement (i.e. whether in specially created 'camps' or 'settlements' or more
dispersed settlement in local villages). In dispersed settlements,.as in the case of
urban refugees, their impact on the environment is not as conspicuous as in the
'camps' and 'settlements' which are characterized by widespread degradation.
41
\
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I'
I
I'
!;
)
I
, Ii
,Food shortage has been mentioned as another burden in RHAs,
especially during the early stages of the arrival of refuge~s. Whitaker (1999)
noted that the sharp increase (50%) in the }Jopulation of Kagera and Kigoma
regions of western Tanzania after the influx of Rwandan and Burundian
refugees put enormous pressure on the local population and significantly
threatened food security. In western Tanzania, a man who cultivated an acre of
sugar cane had his farm cut down because the farm was along the route used by
the refugees (Whitaker, 1999). The same man had his six acre cassava farm cut
down to pave way for camp construction. These are clear evidences of the
destructive activities of refugees. Theft of food crops was also high among
refugees. The local population claimed that refugees scouted for crops ready to
be harvested during the day when they were hired to work on farms only to
return in the night to harvest them, a situation which they claimed made hiring
refugee labour a cost rather than a benefit (Whitaker, 1999).
Pressure on Cultural and Social Infrastructure
Refugee influx is a threat to indigenous culture. This could lead to a total
collapse in cultural values of the host population. Respect for the elderly, a
major feature of an African society, was compromised in the Western Tanzanian
situation. This was a result of economic opportunities createcf by the refugee
presence which were not the preserve of any age group. Thus, the ability to take
advantage of existing opportunities depends on one's ingenuity and other
physical characteristics such as strength. As young men and women engage in
42
'I
t,
r.
:
I
economic activities and become eC0nomical1y viable one would expect them to
ignore social norms and values that hitherto, were the main characteristics of the
traditional society. Where refuge.~ population outnumber local population,
substitution of indigenous values with that of refugees is common. This is not a
phenomenon peculiar to refugee influx only but can be associated with any bther
economic opportunity that might come to an area such as construction works.
Social infrastructure and development resources are not left out. During
the refugee influx in Tanzania schools were damaged when refugees slept in
classrooms, burned desks as firewood and filled latrines (Whitaker, 1999).
Health facilities were overstretched. These have implications for the health of
both the local population and the refugees. Where the refugee concentration is
high, which is usually the case in camps, the outbreak of diseases in epidemic
proportion cannot be ruled out. Any attempt to prevent such a situation is likely
to divert resources meant for oL.'er sectors of the host economy. Green (1994; in
Whitaker, 1999) noted a situation where a contractor's equipment meant for the
construction of a highway in Ngara district was moved instead toward camp
construction. As these activities become pervasive one would expect resentment
to set in the host populatiqn and any attempt to, 10cal1y, integrate refugees will
be resisted. Apart from this, there is the issue of insecurity, a feature that has
characterized refugee settlements over the years.
43
,
f,
(
I
{
4
I
J
j
I
, !
I
/Benefits of the Presence of Refugees
The issue of regarding refugees as liabilities to host communities has
been contested extensively in the literature. Apart from the traditional burdens
that refugees are identified with, such as 'exceptional resource degraders' (Black
and Sessay, 1998) and problems of security (Harrell-Bond, 2q02; Jacobsen,
1999), there has been a counter argument that sees refugees as resources that
could be used to propel the economies of host countries. There is evidence to
attest to this fact, which has the potential of softening the stance of host
countries to open their doors to refugees. Also, recent literature suggests that
benefits to refugee hosting communities can outweigh the costs if structures are
instituted to promote joint development (Dryden-Peterson and ~ovil, 2003).
When refugees are allowed to participate in the local economy, they contribute
labour, skills and other resources. This improvement in local economy is more
pronounced especially in regions that are underdeveloped and under-populated
(Bakewell, 2000; Callamard, 1994; Zetter, 1995; all in Jacobsen, 2001).
.-----------.-- .---.
The first benefit of the presence of refugees is the availability of
additional human resources, a critical factor in any development process.
Refugees are seen as a source of cheap labour in refugee hosting areas. This is
based on the premise that refugees are people in dire need of essential services
and therefore will take any offer. It has to be noted that the relationship between
hosts and refugee labourers is perhaps not always an exploitative one. According
to Whitaker (1999) many Tanzanians recognized the humanitarian needs of
Rwandan refugees, though, and hired them even in low seasons when their
44
I
t
(
(
I
labour was not required. Refugees are known to be responsible for increases in
agricultural production in the Tanzanian situation after the initial emergency
phase. Whitaker (1999) found out that there had been a tremendous incr ease in
food production between 1993 and 1996 with the presence of refugees (banana
ptoduction went up from 396 metric tons in 1993 to 651 metric tons in 1996 and
. ,
beans production gone up from 19 metric tons to 38 metric tons within the same
period). Apart from refugees' contribution to the direct increase of food
production, they also facilitate the growth of other businesses.
Larger refugee flows, over the years, serve as market for local industries.
Not only do refugees themselves create the necessary market but other people
such as workers of humanitarian agencies and the influx of media personnel also
help in this direction. The creation of market as a result of unprecedented
increase in local population has the potential of changing the status of refugee
hosting areas. Mention could be made of the Tanzanian situation where the
destiny of a typical rural area was changed for the better as a result of the arrival
of refugees (Whitaker, 1999). Where refugee numbers are relatively larger than
that of the immediate community, spill over effects are experienced in nearby
communities. This situati?n can change the fortunes of a rural community,
which hitherto, might have been characterized by primary activities. As a result
of the large market base, investment opportunities could come from
neighbouring countries, although it has to be noted that the presence of refugees
in many instances is supposed to be temporary. With the influx of non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), one would expect reduction in
45
I
I
,
i
. i
.'
I
I
r
unemployment in the refugee hosting area, since job opportuniti~s are created in
the refugee hosting area. Creation of job opportunities could also attract more
people tJ the refugee hosting area making competition fo!" available job
opportunities keener. This brings the issue of 'who has what skill' to the fore, a
source of worry to indigenes if the refugees have better skills and take up most
jobs.
Refugees are people from varied backgrounds and so are their skills.
Jacobsen (2001) has noted this as one of the reasons why the presence of
refugees is likely to boost local economies. This is in consonance with Harrell-
Bond's (2002) observation ofTibetan refugees in Nepal. According to her, these
refugees brought their carpet-making skills to Nepal and the tra~e has, today,
become the highest foreign exchange earner for Nepal, ahead of tourism. One
significant aspect of this trade is that refugees started the carpet-making business
immediately they arrived in Nepal, ruling out partially or completely any
dependence on relief services during the emergency phase (Hagen, 1980; 1984;
Jacobsen, 2001; all in Harrell-Bond, 2002). A study by Macchiavello (2003)
found out that 30% of refugees in Uganda who took part in the study had their
first degree suggesting that refugees are not just unskilled people from the rural
areas. A similar situation was witnessed in Guinea where Liberian refugees were
able to cultivate rice in the marshy areas, a practice not used in Guinea.
Apart from the above, refugees through their networks are able to attract
remittances into host countries. Refugees like other populations might have
some of their kinsmen migrating to other parts of the world especially the
46
,
i
I
(
,
",
I'
I't,
"j:
I:
./
,
Ideveloped world. These people serve as sources of support. Even in some
instances a major means of displaced people coping with life is to let some
people from the household migrate to Europe and oiher developed world to
work and remit those behind as noticed with internally displaced people in Sri
Lanka (Brun, 2003). Also, refugees who have access to resettlement packages to
advanced countries remit those family members behind. These remittances can
boost local economies and particularly create jobs in the refugee hosting area
since refugees' disposable income would have increased.
Security in Refugee Settlements: Threats or Strengths
Another issue that is probably a key factor necessitating t~e isolation of
refugees into camps or settlements is the security problems associated with
'refugeeism'. The presence of refugee camps usually poses major threats to state
security (Mills and Norton, 2002). As noted by Jacobsen (1999), many refugee
camps today are places of insecurity and outright danger for both refugees and
relief workers and by virtue of their destabilizing effect for those living around
the camps. She lamented that despite these threats the attention of the
international humanitariaI1 community is rather directed towards physical
assistance in terms of biological needs in the initial emergency phase. Provision
of physical needs should be done hand-in-hand with the protection of refugees.
Host countries also need to put in place measures to properly screen potential
refugees to separate bona fide refugees from former combatants, who are likely
to threaten peace and stability in refugee settlement areas. Mills and Norton
47
,,
I
!
,
,
. :
I
f
i·
(2002)· observed that the refugee camps in eastern Zaire allowed militants to
have a base from which they carried out attacks against the new Rwandan
govemment. Mahiga (1997; In Milner, 200\11 also found out the presence of
former Rwandan genocide perpetrators mingling with genuine Rwandan
refugees in camps in Wester? Tanzania. Thus, the willingness of a country to
accept refugee influx is a function partly of the country in question's ability to
deal with security problems of refugees and partly to pledges from the
international humanitarian community.
Malki (1995) described refugee camps as 'hotbeds of political foment'
(in Harrell-Bond, 2002:19), therefore making it 'impossible to convince a
neighbouring govemment that the country of asylum is not sanctioning
political/military mobilization'. Thus, the presence of refugees has the potential
of creating political tension between asylum country and its neighbours,
especially where the refugees originated from these neighbouring countries.
Refugee presence in an asylum country could be regarded either as a deliberate
attempt by the asylum country to create a base from where the country of origin
of the refugees could be destabilized or the refugees regarded as unwanted
guests who are potential s~urce of instability. But as noted by Jacobsen (2001:
15) "camps aggravate security problems but not all security problems are caused
by camps". Which of these apply to a refugee hosting country. depends on the
relationship between the two countries (country of asylum and that of origin)
before the displacement of the refugees.
48
\
I,
Host countries are not the only targets of insurgence from refugee camps
but humanitarian workers are also sometimes attacked by militants in refugee
camps. A case in point was the tragi,; death ofUNHCR humanitarian workers in
East Timor and Guinea (Martin, 1999). This has serious implications for the
rendering of humanitarian services and protection of 'true refugees', especially
. : .
during the early stages of refugee influx where these services are badly needed.
This underpinned the call by the international community for a basic training in
security techniques for humanitarian aid workers. As a result, many
humanitarian agencies such as the International Rescue Committee (IRC) are
scrambling to develop policies and protocols which will maximize the security
of its staff assigned to insecure environments (Martin, 1999).
Host countries, most of which have their own security problems, now
have to double their efforts in curbing internal insurgence and those from
refugee camps. This reason underlies most African countries' refusal to accept
refugees, let alone allow local integration as a means of solving the protracted
refugee situation that has characterized the continent over the years. This
statement is premised on the fact that every African country is a potential
refugee hosting country.
Gender, Age and Sex as Factors in a Competitive Environment
There is evidence that suggests that the benefits of refugee presence are
not something that is shared to people irrespective of their gender roles, age and
sex. This points to the role of gender, age and sex as determinants of one's share
49
,
f
I
(
,
.J
r,
l
I
of benefits. Where low paying jobs are in high demand during emergency
situations, men are found to be quickly taking these jobs to make sure they
remain high on the economic ladder. The cultivation of banana, beans and
maize, which in Tanzanian culture belong to women, was quickly taken over by
men when; these produce became expensive during the refugee 'influx period
(Whitaker, 1999). This clearly suggests that it is not an issue of a particular job
or crop being the preserve of women because of its content but rather the reward
that accompanies it. This was demonstrated in Western Tanzania where
Whitaker (1999) found that women are less likely than men to gain access to
beneficial opportunities created by the refugee influx. They rather tend to suffer
more from environmental degradation associated with refugee presence.
Gender disparity was also noted in marriage. Indigenous wives were
compelled to accept any folly from their husbands as found in the Tanzanian
situation. Availability of potential refugee wives posed serious threat to many
local marriages. Least provocation from a Tanzanian wife was enough for her
husband to go in for a refugee wife who was considered cheap (sometimes you
do not even have to pay a dowry) and readily available (Whitaker, 1999). As a
result, local wives were compelled to always obey their husbands even when
they were being cheated (Whitaker, 1999).
UNHCR's principle of treating refugees of all ages egual has been a
source of worry in refugee populations as it threatens traditional authority
structures. Turner (1999) has documented how the equality created by UNHCR
and its implementing agencies in refugee camps in Tanzania has challenged the
50
THE LIBRARY
1l\.lIVERS1TY OF CAPE COAST
"
I
I
old order of hierarchical arrangement prior to displacement. This ideology of
treating refugee~ as equals irrespective of their age often disregards authority
structures and strves as a recipe for disrespect in refugee camps. It otTers the
youth a level playing field to compete favourably for any opportunities in
refugee camps. Turner (1999) has specifically noted with shock the positions (as
street leaders, NGG workers, political leaders and successful businessmen) held
by young men in Burundian refugee camps in Tanzania. The youth, because of
their physical disposition, are better placed when it comes to taking
opportunities. This consequently improves their economic status which is a key
factor in decision making at all levels in refugee camps. This issue of equal
opportunities does not only challenge the existing power structures in refugee
camps but also likely to threaten internal cohesion as 'old authorities' resist the
activities of the 'new forces'.
Economic Status as a Determinant of One's Share of Business
Though the negative impacts of refugee influx situations are felt by all,
the 'so-called' benefits of refugee presence, as a matter of fact, are enjoyed by
those who are better prep~ed economically to take advantage of the situation.
There is evidence that suggests that even the negative impacts are felt more by
people who are economically vulnerable. People who are economically better
off in host communities are more likely to take advantage of economic
opportunities in emergency situations. This is because such people have created
the necessary platform needed for a take-off in such ventures.
51
,.
f,
r
I
r
'-A
Whitaker (1999) has observed that the wealthy in the host communities
in Tanzania were able to use their start-up capital to build pfClfitable shops and
restaur.mts and even invested in other businesses such as tran5port. Some even
rented their properties including buildings and cars to relief organizations at
very high prices. Proceeds were then invested in more lucrative ventures. Not
only had those with strong financial background benefited from the situation but
farmers who had surplus food crops also benefited by selling their surpluses for
prices that had never existed. They then took advantage of the cheap refugee
labour to expand their fanns. This suggests that in such situations one needs to
be better off in any way before you can benefit.
The 'poor' are not only unable to take advantage of emergency situations
to better their lives but they are also made worse off by conditions created by
such situations. As in developing countries, when there is a disaster of any fonn
the poor are the most affected because they are already vulnerable. The poor
could be particularly affected as a result ofhigh inflation rate, a characteristic of
refugee influx situations. The high prices for food crops sometimes compel
some of them to sell all their produce, increasing the possibility of famine in
their own homes. Rapid upsurge in prices of commodities could threaten the
very survival of the poor. Poor hosts have to pay so much for essential goods
like salt and sugar (Whitaker, 1999). It has to be noted, huwever, that the
number of refugees involved has a direct bearing on how the rich and the poor
are affected by refugee influx situations. The magnitude of the impact on both
the poor and the rich is a function of the number of refugees involved in relation
52
\
r
(
\~
.
F
r
./
I
1 .
to the host population. The magnitude of the change in social, physical and
economic conditions in the host community depends, to a large extent, on the
number of refugees concerned. The poor may therefore not always be
disadvantaged. There is evidence that the poor, especially those living in
communities near refugee settlements, are able to take advantage of the drop in
daily wage to expand their farm holdings (Whitaker, 1999).
Indigenous people who depend on daily wage by working as farm
labourers are threatened by low wages charged by refugees. Where they are not
thrown out of work their negotiating strengths are completely eroded and this
has serious implications for refugee-host relationship. This is because indigenes
who are thrown out of work as a result of cheap refugee labour are likely to
perceive refugees negatively, which then affect their interactions. In all, people's
economic dispositions and ingenuity in emergency situations are .largely
responsible for the way they react to these situations. For example, indigenes
with the needed capital to start some business will see the market created by
refugees as an avenue to make profits whereas those whose opportunities were
taken by the refugees will perceive them the other way.
Activities of AID Agencies
There is an increasing pressure on the donor community-to recognize the
fact that relief assistance to refugees should seriously consider the needs of host
populations. Refugee relief programmes have been linked with local
development policies by the Refugee Aid and Development (RAD) theories
53
\
r
I
I
I'
I·
since the 1980s (Betts, 1981, 1984; Gonnan, 1993; cited in Whitaker,1999).
Rein (1993) has argued that "economic development and assistance to refugees
are inseparable issues...because the 'refugee' is an indicator of world system
dynamics" (in Malkki, 1995:506). This made the call on the humanitarian
community to mainstream refugee assistance into local development policies I
stronger if 'local integration' of refugees is to be a preferred choice for refugee
hosting countries. There was also an assertion by the International Conference
on Assistance to Refugees in Africa (ICARA) in 1984 that refugee assistance
should be development-oriented and should take into account the needs of the
host population (Whitaker, 1999). In spite of all these theoretical assertions,
little has been done in linking refugee aid to development in refugee hosting
communities. May be, as rightly pointed out by Jacobsen (2001), refugees are
temporary guests and questions of development and human capabilities are put
on hold. Investment in the development arena in host communities is not seen as
a priority to the humanitarian community. A case in point was the reluctance of
donors to include refugees in district development plans for the implementation
of the Self-Reliance Strategy meant to locally integrate refugees in Uganda
(Dryden-Peterson and Ro~i1, 2003).
Even where reliefprogrammes are linked with development programmes
m host communities, this is grounded in politics rather .than a realistic
assessment of the changing needs of the community. As Macrae (1999) noted,
"the entitlement of populations to official relief or development resources
depends not only upon the national political context but the interpretation of that
54
'f
t,
f
~
,
context by international political actors" (Pp: 5). Another argument that seems to
strengthen the 'relief model' to the disadvantage of the 'development
perspective' was the assertion ;,y Crisp (2003) that a major characteristic of
most of Africa's protracted refugee situations is that they are located at
peripheral border areas of asylum countries which are insecure and with harsh
climatic conditions thereby making such places unattractive to central
government and development actors in terms of investment. This assertion is
likely to ward off any potential investor. On the basis of this, it could be argued
that where the host government is reluctant to invest in these regions, there is no
moral justification in persuading donors to do so.
Refugees are supposed to be worse off than the host population as a
result of their limitations to access physical and other natural resources. In
situations where refugees are better-off as a result of aid from humanitarian
agencies local populations become resentful (Bakewell, 2001). As a result, any
little misunderstanding between refugees and locals which, under normal
circumstances could be overlooked, is blown out of proportion. Refugees who
come with some resources in addition to the assistance from donor agencies are
better placed to compete f!lvourably with their hosts and even in some instances
are economically better off. This is in contrast to the view held by host
communities that refugees are strangers with no resources and, therefore, should
be worse off. Host populations sometimes hold the view that because of rations
from aid agencies refugees charge lesser as farm labourers, a situation that
55
't,
I
I
I'.
,
ji
r
I .
I·
makes the local labourers redundant. This was observed by Zakariya al'.d
Shanmugaratnam (200:\) in a study of internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka
It is clear that t:le presence of AID agencies would have varied impacIs
on refugees and host populations. Both refugees and host populations usually
take advantage of relief programmes initiated by humanitarian agencies. The
magnitude of impact on individuals depends on the ingenuity of the individual to
take advantage of whatever opportunities that are created by AID agencies as
well as the individual's level ofvulnerability.
Implications of the Literature Review to the Study
Though the literature review might not have been exhaustive, it has
nevertheless brought out the serious issues relating to the topic which have
implications for both refugees and hosts. The direction of whatever implication
there may be depends on how the individual was able to manipulate the situation
or the vulnerability of the individual. Interaction is all about getting to know
people better and this in tum influences people's subsequent relationships. Thus,
interactions could only have two kinds of effect - negative or positive. Where
host communities suffer, severely in temlS of physical deterioration in the
emergency phase of refugee presence, indigenous people are compelled to create
a negative image of refugees which consequently affect all future dealings with
refugees. This may set the tone for conflicts.
The various consequences of refugee-host interactions reviewed were
intended to direct the study in general and the analysis in particular. The
56
..
f
r
I
;
ti~\Il\l'Wl'l'k~ ,\.'\'Il-"'l'd 1:l'\wwlly \I\~"k IIIl' ~l\"\\' li"'II~l'd. l'1Il' nll~\\'\l I'I' 1111'
i\\tl'I',wliw I'l\"'l'~~ n~ di~"II~~l'd ill IIw li\\'I;\I\lIl' nll,''''nl li'l :1 111111\111):11
1"'I\\l'al'i~,'\\ "'1111 wllnl 1'\'\1~li\\~ ill till' ~tlllly ~1I\'n n\\d tl"'ll'ti'I\' i\\I\IIII\~ n
lIi~I'm;~il'\\ I'l' til\llil\l:~' TII\l~, nl'arl til'l\\ 1:\\'i\\1: till' tll"\III,tknl n\\d "I\\I'II\I'nl
1'\'i,kIWI' 1'1' I'l'till:I'I'-II,,~t i\\knll'li,,\\, till' Ilt\'\:ltlll\' nl~I' I'\\\\'hk~ 11\l' 1'~\d'rl\I\\\\d
ti'l' a\\ ItHkl'l1I n\\nly:;i~ "rl\'k\'nlll I~~\II'~ 1\\ 1111' dU1l'kn: tllllt ti'II\'""
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ISSUES FROM THE FIELD
Introduction
This chapter outlines the various methods that were used to achieve the
objectives of the study. Primary data were collected from respondents using
questionnaires and interview guides whilst literature from academic sources and
data from the UNHCR and its implementing agencies constituted the secondary
source.
Target Population
Two main categories of people constitute the population of interest. These
are refugees in the Krisan Refugee Settlement and the indigenous population of
Sanzule, Krisan and Eikwe communities. These settlements are adjacent coastal
communities that interact directly with the refugees. Though the refugee camp is
sited on the land of the people of Krisan, it has become necessary to include
Sanzule and Eikwe for the following reasons:
• First, the old refugee camp was sited at Sanzule and the, refugees have a
long standing relationship with the people of Sanzule and this
relationship still exists.
58
I:.
,
• Second, both Krisan and Eikwe are under the jurisdiction of one local
authority with one assemblyman who represents the electorate of the
area. Besides, the only hospital iu the area is at Eikwe making Eikwe a
key area in the interactive process.
In addition to these tWo populations (host communities and refugees), the'
personnel of UNHCR and its implementing agencies were also targeted for
interview. These organisations included Ghana Refugee Board (GRB), which
was being represented in the camp by the staff of the National Disaster
Management Organisation (NADMO), the Catholic Relief Services (CRS),
Ghana Red Cross (GRC) and Women Initiative for Self Empowerment, a gender
based non-governmental organisation.
Due to the fluid nature of the number of refugees in the camp as a result
of new arrivals on one hand and repatriation and resettlement of refugees on the
other, figures used in this study were those available as at 2005 World Refugee
Day (20th June, 2005). As at that date there were 1321 refugees at the camp.
Currently, there are refugees from eleven African countries at the camp. These
eleven countries are Togo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Congo, the Congo
Democratic Republic, Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire, Chad, Somalia and Eritrea.
Nationals from Togo constituted the largest proportion of refugees (39%) and
the least of one refugee each were from Eritrea and Somalia. :fu between these
two extremes are the rest of the countries with refugee populations ranging from
as low as three to two hundred and ninety (Table 7)
59
•f
r
I
I
Table 7
Distribution of Refugees by Country of Origin
_----::----=-----------
Country
Togo
Liberia'
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Congo & Congo, DR
Rwanda
Cote d'Ivoire
Chad
Somalia
Eritrea
Source: Ghana Refugee Board, 2005.
60
Total
517
290
234
204
35
20
16
3
1
1
I'
!
I
Plate 2: The Researcher (Arrowed) and Some of the Refugees 'During the
Fieldwork.
There was no data available on sex and age distribution of refugees in the camp.
It was therefore not possible to get the number of the various sexes and their age
distribution.
Research Design
Quantitative and .qualitative techniques were employed in the study.
Quantitative techniques were used to select respondents from both the host
population and refugees. Qualitative techniques were also used to select and
solicit information from the leaders of refugees and indigenes as well as
UNHCR and its implementing organisations operating in the camp.
61
I
i .•
.
Ii.
Determination of Sample Size
The desired sample size was calculated to be 359 using Fisher's et al
(1998) fonnula (see Appendix G for the descril.ltion of variables in the fonnula
and the calculation). In order to create a level playing field for the two
categories of respondents to ease analysis, the sample size was divided into two
equal parts. Thus, 180 respondents each of host population and refugees were
selected for the study. This number excluded the opinion leaders of the host
communities and the refugees who were purposively selected
Sampling Procedures
For the refugee category, a multi-stage sampling procedure was
employed in the selection of respondents. The entire refugee population was first
divided into groups based on nationality. These country-specific quotas were
again divided into two - men and women. With the help of the register used for
distributing rations, random numbers table was used to select the respondents
until the required number of males and females for each country was achieved.
Since the study targeted only adults (18 years and above), the required sample
size (180) was exceeded to allow for replacement should a minor be selected.
The number of respondents to be selected from a particular country was initially
detennined based on the proportion of refugees from each country compared to
the total refugee population.
These country-specific quotas were again divided into two - men and
women. Refugees from Chad, Eritrea and Somalia were arbitrarily chosen
62
,.
'f
p
because their numbers were so sm;\\l that no meaningful selection could be
made. Table 8 shows the distribution ofthe refugee sample.
Table 8
Sample Size Distribution of Refugees by Sex and Country of Origin
Country Male Female Total
Togo 35 35 70
Liberia 19 19 38
Sierra Leone 16 16 32
Sudan 14 14 28
Congo & Congo, DR 2 2 4
Rwanda 1 1 2
Cote d'Ivoire 1 1 2
Chad 1 1 2
Somalia 1 1
Eritrea 1 1 i
I
Total 91 89 180
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
Togo had the highest number because of their dominance at. the camp. The
remaining countries followed in that order. The leaders of the recognised four
Welfare Committees in the camp at the time of the study were purposively
selected and interviewed.
63
A combination of non-probability and probability sampling methods
were used to select respondents from the host population. These were thought to
be appropriate in order to ensure some level of representativeness. Using the
chalking and listing done to facilitate the activities of the National Health
Insurance Scheme (NHIS), individual houses were selected randomly from the
listed houses. Sixty- two houses were selected from Eikwe, 32 from Krisan and
56 from Sanzule. These figures were arrived at based on the populations of the
various communities expressed as proportions of the sum total of the three
communities. Any adult member met accidentally was interviewed from the
selected houses bearing in mind the equal representation given to males and
females. It was not possible to use a probabilistic method throughout because
there was no pre-information about the host population that could facilitate the
use of such method. Also, it was thought that anybody who resides in the host
communities could give the necessary information needed for the study since
interaction with the refugees was not a preserve of any individual or group.
Respondents were, subsequently, accidentally selected from the
randomly sampled houses provided they were 18 years and above at the time of
the data collection exercise. The chief or his representative and the
Assemblyman of the communities were purposively selected as the leaders of
the communities. These two personalities represent both traditional and the
current political authorities in the communities (see Table 9 for the sample
distribution).
64
.
~..
.
. ;
I
I
Table 9
Sample Size Di~tribution of Host Population by Community and Sex _
Community
Sex Sanzule Krisan Eikwe Total
Male 34 19 37 90 I'
Female 34 19 37 90
Total 68 38 74 180
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
The last category of respondents was UNHCR and its implementing
agencies. Officers in-charge of these organisations were purposiv~ly selected as
they were considered to be able to provide information on the role their
respective organisations were playing in the interactive process.
Research Instruments
Two data collection techniques were used in the study. These were
questionnaire and in-depth interview (illI). Different questionnaires were used
to collect data from the randomly sampled refugees and the host population.
Issues covered in the questionnaire for refugees were captured under six sections
(Sections A to F). Section A covered issues relating to refugees' reasons of
displacement, how they made their journey to Ghana and their immediate goals.
The second section covered demographic and general background characteristics
of respondents. These included age of respondents, their educational background
65
,I
I,
and marital status. Sections C and D were on issues of refugee activities in host
community and the perceived impact of these activities on the host community.
'::'he last two sections explored the relationships between refugees on one
hand and host population and UNHCR and its implementing agencies on the
other. Issues explored included various activities that refugees engaged in to
survive in their new environment, types of resources needed for their activities
and the sources ofthese resources (see Appendix C),
The questionnaire for the host population was similar to the first two
sections dealing with general issues and background characteristics. The general
issues ranged from knowledge ofrefugee presence in host communities to issues
of host population's perception of refugees. The next two sectiqns dealt with
host population's activities and the perceived impact of such activities on
refugees. The rest explored how the hosts were relating with refugees and
agencies operating in the camp (Appendix B).
The illI guide for the refugees was divided into six sections. The first
section covered questions on reasons for displacement and mode of transport to
Ghana. The second and the third sections considered issues concerning
resources in both the host communities and the refugee settlement. Specific
issues included resources in both refugee camp and host communities, The
fourth section solicited information on the activities of the refugees in the host
communities. The last two sections sought information on the relationship
between refugees on one hand and the host and the implementing agencies
involved in welfare activities on the other. Questions ranged from the assistance
66
offered to refugees and the host communities to their perception of refugee and
host activities (see Appendix D).
The discussion guide for host opinion leader~ was organised into five
sections. The first section sought information on hosts' awareness of refugee
presence and community response. There were questions on people's first
impressions about refugees and if this had changed over the years. The next two
sections covered issues relating to the use of resources by both refugees and host
communities. Sections four and five were about the relationship between host on
one hand and refugees and implementing agencies on the other (Appendix E).
The discussion guide for the implementing agencies was similar to those of the
community opinion leaders and the refugee leaders (see Appendix F for the
details).
Pre-Field Activities
Reconnaissance Surveys
There were reconnaissance surveys to identify the likely issues that
needed to be addressed before the data collection exercise. Three of these
surveys were conducted at the Krisan Refugee Settlement. The. Camp Manager
was the contact person in the camp and he coordinated activities during the
study. The others were at the country office of the UnitM Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Ghana Refugee Board and the
Ghana Immigration Service. The field office of the UNHCR based in Sekondi,
which was responsible for the Krisan Refugee Settlement, was also visited.
67
Permission was finally sought from the Ghana Refugee Board, the statutory
body responsible for refugee activities in Ghana.
Training ofField Assistants
Two field assistants were engaged to help in the data collection exercise.
They were taken through the questionnaires. The training exercise was meant to
build consensus on questions, bearing in mind the objectives of the study. All
the in-depth interviews were conducted by the researcher himself. The intention
behind this was to minimize, as much as possible, inconsistencies that might
arise as a result ofusing more than one interviewer for the in-depth interview.
Pre-Test
Pre-test was carried out using Togolese refugees who were scattered
along the border villages of the Akatsi District in the Volta Region. These
refugees were not living in any organised camp but were rather staying with host
households. Ten refugees (five women and five men) and ten members of the
host community, with the same sex distribution, from Ave Hevi were
interviewed. Based on the pre-test some of the response options were expanded.
Field Work
The actual fieldwork started with. the host population on the 20th of
August, 2005. The exercise with the host took some 40 days. The entire team
started with the administration of the questionnaire on the first day of the visit.
68
I •
.
1'-
Tl\i:-; \\'n~: ill\l'l\lit'd hI l,tIllhit' II~ l\i~a~III:~: l'II\1'I')',IIW, i::::lIl':: 111\11 IIlId ::1 ,1111"'11:: Itl
\1\1'111. TIll' \wo lil'ld n::::b;llIlIt:: l'lllltilllll'l11l1l' l\1I1'::th\lIl1l1ill' IIdlllilli::lllllillIl whil:11
1111' 1'l':-;I'ml'lll'l' lllllllillistl'l'l'd 11\l' IIHh'plh illll'll'il'W:I, :\:1 1I\l' dllill "lllkl'lillll 11'11111
WII:-; pl'l'pllr\lll'. 10 ~llIl't wit II 11\l' I'l'I\W,I'I':: IIl1d 1I\l' illlph'llll'lllilll: 1I1WIWil"'I. II liol
hl'llh~ Ollt ill IIIl' 1'lI111p Oil 11\l' .1,1i Ill' NII\'I'lllIIl'I'. ~~()IlS, Thhl h'd III Ihl' :llIIilH'IHlhlll
Mal'l'Il, ?,()()(, IIl1d IOllk 11ll011ll'1' 0111' 1Il0llth III l'lIlllpldl'.
nllln Mnllll'~I'I\II'1I1 111111 AlllllyNIN
The 111111 Iy:dll pl'lll~eim Ii lllllwed II ill 11Il'1 IIn'd 1\ IIllllll 1!lIll1pli::illl! I,d lilill!,
elldill!'., IIl1d deveillpill/'. II H'11I1\1' Ill' 1II1I1Iy::i:llllld 11111111)/ IIII~ 11I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIyl:lll, 'I'hl':ll'
step:: were slr\elly I\lllllwed 10 1~lIiIllI'11 Ihlll Ihl' dllill 1\'1'1'11 plOpl'r1y l~h'II11I'd 10
clISlIl'e 1IIIIIIily 1'1:,'1111111.
\1:«111I11 ,~
Dlltll eollcelcd 1'1'0111 tho liold wl'n: dll~I!lwd 1111' 1!01Ilph!ll!I\l1:111 OI'I!OIIIl'llllllIlld
fill' illlel'lllli eOllt:l:lll'lIl'Y ill 11\1' I'CIlPOIIIII:II, 'I'IIill Willi dOllo lIy:
• "i/i'!'I'III'I': SOIlIO 'I11l1111iollil ill Ihn n:III:1I11!h 1111111'111110111 WI~IO 101.111'd, 1\ WII!I
thcl'dill'll pO/lllilllc 10 illl\:1' 11111 1I1!!IWCI' 10 II Pllllkllhll 'IlIl'lIlillll 1111111 \hn
II II/lWeI' pl'ovido IiII'll I'dllll:d 'I\Il1111ioll, IIoWI1I'111' 1'1111\ WI!!I lilliI'll 11111 III
i1l1l0dlll:O lIew 1'1'1'01'1I,
All Iho ilHll:plh illll:lvieWIi '1'1'1'11 CIllldlll:ll:d ill 11,1I1~lilih 111I1)',I1I1I',I~, Thin 1I111111~ IIw
11'IIIIIII:riptioll Iell!l dil'lil:1I11 lIilll:11 II11m: WWI 110 IlI1l'd 10 1111111111111: illio 11,III',li,lll
language before transcription. The transcription was carefully done not to
introduce any error.
Coding
Templates for the questionnaires were laid after the pre-test using the
Statistical Product for Service Solutions (SPSS) software. The data were
subsequently coded after the data cleaning exercise. Responses for the few open
..
ended questions were tallied to check the frequency ofparticular responses. This
made it possible to code responses to these questions.
Data Analysis
The analysis was in two sections - the socio-demographic characteristics
of the respondents and the main issues involved in the interaction. Frequency
distributions, cross tabulations and other descriptive statistics were used to
describe the data. The binomial logistic regression was used to test hypotheses.
The odds ratio remains the most common way of interpreting logistic regression
analysis albeit other concepts such as the significant level or the P value. The
odds ratio indicates the number of times an event is likely to occur. The P value
on the other hand, predicts the probability that an event is occurring or not
occurring.
History of the Study
Two major events occurred during the study period which had
70
implications for the study. The first was a feasibility study by United Nations
Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) to examine the possibility of
establishing 50me income generating activities in the host cor,lmunities.
Activities being considered were the establishment of a nursery to supply oil
I palm seedlings to farmers to form an outgrower scheme and subsequently
providing an oil mill for the harvest from the oil palm plantations. This project
was intended to provide employment for the host population. Apart from it
generating incomes for the host population in the long run, it also had the
potential to directly improve relationship between the host and agencies working
in the camp as hosts will regard these agencies as partners in development,
thereby improving relationships.
The second event was a revolt by over five hundred refugees, who later
invaded the border town of Elubo, citing poor feeding and accommodation as
reasons for their action (Achiaw, 2005a). They were forced back to the camp by
officials ofUNHCR, NADMO and the security services only for them to beat up
their colleagues who failed to join the revolt to Elubo. They also vandalised the
office ofUNHCR in the camp including the store room where rations were kept
pending distribution (Achiaw, 2005b). They set ablaze the warehouse of the
UNHCR in the camp (Plate 3) and burnt one pick-up belonging to the Catholic
Relief Services. As a result, six refugees were arrested. This ~dversely affected
the relationship between the refugees and agencies working in the camp. The
event delayed the research work.
71
1. •
;"
~~~~~
~~;'t;$f~ ..
Plate 3: The burnt warehouse ofthe UNHCR in the Krisan Refugee Camp
Source: Field Survey, 200('
Problems and Limitations
As with any human endeavour, the data collection exercise encountered
some problems. These were the refusal of the chief of Sanzule to take part in the
study and the riot at the refugee camp. The chief of Sanzule thought the study
was being used to entrench ownership of the camp to the peqple of Krisan. He
contended that the former camp was sited on the land of Sanzule therefore the
present camp should not be called Krisan Refugee Settlement. Rather, it should
be called Sanzule-Krisan Refugee Settlement. All attempts by the research team,
the Camp Manager and Assemblyman to convince him to respond to the
72
, ,
J. ,-,
:"
interview proved futile. But the Assemblyman of the Sanzule community was
very receptive and was instrumental in educating the people of Sanzule about
the purpose of the study. Locating some of the houses selected in the sample
was also difficult due to the haphazard manner in which the numbering was
done. Apart from these, the administration of questionnaires in the host
communities was smooth.
Apart from the riot in the camp that delayed data collection, the exercise
in the refugee settlement was generally smooth. There were instances the
research team found it difficult to locate some of the respondents. They were
finally located on a ration day because everybody was supposed to be
represented in person. But once they were located they were willing to respond
to the questionnaires, an indication that they had some problem that they would
like to share with people. The whole exercise had been worthwhile.
Summary
In all, the data collection exercise took about 70 days. Response rate was
100% since the questionnaires were administered by the field assistants. Two
major events that occurre? in the Refugee Hosting Area during the study period
were discussed in order to know their relevance to the study. The chapter was
concluded with problems and limitations among which were the refusal of some
key stakeholders to respond to the research instruments and the difficulty in
locating some of the respondents. These problems were solved with the help of
the Camp Manager and his staff and the refugee leaders.
73
i.
CHAPTER FOUR
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
AND ISSUES OF PERCEPTION
Introduction
Background characteristics of a group ofpeople play an important role in
how they interact among themselves and with other people as well as how they
perceive issues. As noted by Whitaker (1999), the sharing of burdens and
benefits of refugees by host populations is influenced by sex, age and class. In
rural refugee hosting communities those who benefit from interactions are the
better-off and the more visible hosts (Chambers, 1986). These people are well
positioned before such influxes and are better prepared to take advantage of
opportunities created. Conversely, the poor and the vulnerable hosts are not only
deprived of their share but, more importantly, lose the opportunities available to
them before such influxes (Bron, 2003). People's background characteristics
combine in varying degrees to influence the way they relate among themselves
and with other people. The focus of this chapter is two-fold. First, is to outline
the background characteristics of the host population and tlle refugees. This
subsequently forms the basis for the analysis of issues of interaction in the next
chapter. Second, is a discussion on issues of perceptions as they relate to both
refugees and host population.
74
i •
I,l'
, ...;
Soci'J-Demographic Background
Education, Marital Status and Age Distribution of Respondents by Sex
Ages of the host population interviewed ranged from J8 to 67 years with
a mean of 34 years. Out of the 180 hosts interviewed, about 42% were aged
thirty years or less while 13% were more than 45 years. The ages of the refugees
ranged from 18 to 64 with a mean of about 35 years (Table 10). There were no
differences in the number of both sexes since the selection was of equal
allocation except for the refugees where 91 and 89 males and females were
respectively selected.
The largest proportion of males interviewed (24%) in the host
communities were in the age group of35-39 while that offemales (24%) were in
the age group of25-29. Generally, concentration of host population interviewed
was between the ages of 20 and 49. Significantly low percentages were recorded
for below 20 and above 49 years (Table 10).
A similar trend was recorded for the refugees. Here, the concentration
was between 20 and 44 years (Table 10). The 24-29 age group recorded the
largest number of females and males (30% and 18% respectively). Apart from
the 60-64 age group for female hosts and 55-59 age group for refugee males, all
of which recorded 0%, the lowest proportion of respondents was in the 65+ age
group for all respondents (Table 10).
75
t,
.'
;.
Table 10
Age Distribution of Respondents by Sex
Age group Host population Refugees
Male Female Male Female
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Less than 20 3 3.3 3 3.3 3 3.3 5 5.7
20-24 10 ILl 9 10.0 10 ILl 16 17.7
~
25-29 19 2Ll 22 24.4 27 29.5 16 17.7
30-34 10 ILl 19 20.0 15 16.7 14 15.6
35-39 22 24.4 15 16.7 10 11.0 14 15.6
40-44 8 9.0 8 9.0 18 19.6 11 13.4
45-49 9 10.0 9 10.0 3 3.3 4 4.4
50-54 6 6.7 2 2.2 2 2.2 4 4.4
55-59 1 Ll 2 2.2 0 0.0 2 2.2
60-64 1 Ll 0 0.0 2 2.2 2 2.2
65+ 1 Ll 1 Ll 1 Ll Ll
Total 90 100.0 90 100.0 91 100.0 89 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Access to formal education was lower for the host population than the
refugees. All the interviewed refugee males had access to formal education
which was not the case for the host population. For the female category of both
populations, 24% of female hosts had no formal education as against 19% of
76
female refugees. There were also disnarities within the same target population.
For the host population, males were more likely to :lave access to formal
education than females, confirming the common knowledge in developing
countries that education of males is preferred to that of females. For example,
52% of males interviewed in the host population had access to Middle/ISS
education as against 38% for the females (Table 11). About 51% and 32%
respectively of refugee males and females had second cycle education. This is
an indication that the refugees had some skills which could be used to earn a
living in asylum destinations if allowed to operate within these economies.
Table 11
Educational Level of Respondents by Sex
Host population Refugees
Male Female Male Female
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
None 11 12.2 22 24.4 0 0.0 17 19.1
Primary 17 18.9 27 30.0 10 11.0 18 20.2
Middle/ISS 47 52.2 34 37.8 27 29.7 25 28.1
Sec.lSSS 8 8.9 5 5.6 46 50.5 28 31.5
Higher 7 7.8 2 2.2 8 8.8 1 1.1
Total 90 100.0 90 100.0 91 100.0 89 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006
77
Union through marriage is known to be a strong factor that can improve
relationships between people of different physical, social. economic or political
background. It is a force that unites people. Marriage, as an institution, allows
people to see things differently. Thus, in the same community with similar
characteristics, one is likely to see married people interacting differently from
those who are single. Table 12 shows marital status of the respondents by sex.
" Table 12
Marital Status of Respondents by Sex
Host population Refugees
Male Female Male Female
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Single 29 32.2 25 27.8 41 45.1 10 11.2
Married 50 55.6 49 54.4 49 54.4 55 61.8
In-cohabitation 1 1.1 1 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0
Separated 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 3.4
Divorced 9 10.0 14 15.6 17 18.7 1 1.1
Widowed 1 1.1 1 1.1 4 4.3 20 22.5
Total 90 100.0 90 100.0 91 100.0 89 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
More males were single than females for both populations (32% and
28% for host population; and 45% and 11% for refugees). Forty-seven percent
78
of refilgees and 55% of host population were married. Thirty percent of the
hosts and 28% of the refugees were single. The proportion of married males in
the ho:;t population was similar to married females (56% and :'4% respectively).
However, this was different for the refugees where the proportion of married
males (62%) was about twice the proportion 'of married females (32%) [Table
10]. For the host population, divorce was slightly higher among the females
(16%) than males (10%). Refugee males were more likely to divorce than
refugee females. A wider range of about 18% was recorded (Table 10).
Married respondents were asked whether their spouses were from the
other population. The data indicate that none of the host had a spouse who is a
refugee. Conversely, four refugees had married from the host population. This
figure though marginal, indicated that there was some form of social interaction
between refugees and their host which bad translated into marriage. To ascertain
the nature of intermarriages between the refugees and the host population, the
Assemblyman for Sanzule was contacted. He indicated that there were
intermarriages between the indigenes and the refugees and subsequently showed
a woman he claimed to be married to a refugee. Coincidentally, this woman
happened to be one of the sampled hosts and was interviewed but she denied
having a refugee husband. A respondent indicated that:
.
There were marriages between tbe refugees and us. There are
all forms of social interaction. There are few marriages but
casual relationships are many. I for one, I have one lady among
the refugees whom I will talk to later to see if I could marry
79
her.
This is an area for further research, including peop:e's perceptions about
marriage.
Religious Affiliation oftbe Respondents
Catholic (47%) and Protestant (34%) churches were the dominant
religious groups in the host population and the refugees (see Figure 3).
Hostpopulation Refugees
DNo religion
ONa reigion
• Catholic
17% 1% 19% lCaltDlic1%
.."C~~.46% DTraditional oProlestantDCharismatic/Other4% 21% Christian oCrnnsrmtic.Qh:r1% 34% Christian
• Muslim
I Musim
DProtestant
Figure 3: Religious Affiliation of Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2096.
Adherents of the Islamic religion accounted for 17% of the sampled refugees
whilst only 4% of the sampled host population were Muslims. Traditional
religion accounted for 1% of the host population while none of the sampled
refugees belonged to this religious group. A fifth ofthe host population said they
were Charismatic/Other Christian while nearly one third of the refugees were
80
, .
i.
members of the same group. Protestant populations in the two groups werc 34%
for refugees and 27% for host population (Figure 3).
Reasons for Leaving and Origin of the Refugees
Literature on refugees gives various reasons why refugees are forcibly
displaced from their countries of origin. Among the reasons are political
instability and ethnic and religious conflicts (Whitaker, 1999). Refugee flows in
developing countries and sub-Saharan Africa in particular are often the result of
these causes. Refugees in the Krisan Refugee Settlement were asked the cause
of their displacement, the mode of transport to Ghana and why they chose
Ghana as an asylum destination.
Eighty-five percent of the refugees said they left for Ghana as a result of
political instability. Fourteen and one percent of the refugees were displaced
respectively as a result of tribal and religious conflicts. Apart from Chad,
Rwanda and Sudan refugees from all the other countries left their countries of
origin because of political instability. This manifestation confirms the political
intolerance in sub-Sahara Africa in particular and the developing world in
general. Religious conflict was only reported by a refugee from Chad while
89% of the refugees from Sudan were displaced as a result of tribal conflict
(Table 13).
81
Table 13
Reasons for Leaving and Origin of the Refugees
Causes of displacement
Country of Political Tlibal Religious Total
Origin instability (%) connict (%) connict (%) (N)
Togo 100.0 0.0 0.0 70
Liberia 100.0 0.0 0.0 38
Sierra Leone 100.0 0.0 0.0 32
Sudan 10.7 89.3 0.0 28
Congo
Brazzaville 100.0 0.0 0.0 4
Chad 50.0 0.0 50.0 2
Cote d'!voire 100.0 0.0 0.0 2
Rwanda 50.0 50.0 0.0 2
Eritrea 100.0 0.0 0.0
Somalia 100.0 0.0 0.0
Total (N) 153 26 180
(%) 85.0' 14.4 0.6 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Mode of Transport and Origin of Refugees
The idea of consideIing mode of transport to Ghana is to examine
whether proximity played a role in the choice of mode of transport of the
82
refugees. Table 14 shows the distribution of mode of transport and Oligin of the
refugees.
Table 14
Mode of Transport and Origin of Refugees
Mode of transport
Country of By road (%) By air (%) By sea (%) On foot (%)
origin
Chad 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Congo
Brazzaville 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cote d'Ivoire 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Eritrea 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Liberia 34.2 0.0 65.8 0.0
Rwanda 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0
Sierra Leone 28.1 34.4 37.5 0.0
Somalia 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Sudan 89.3 7.1 0.0 3.6
Togo 37.1 0.0 0.0 62.9
Total (N) 81 14 40 45
(%) 45.0 7.8 22.2 25.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
83
Forty-five percent of the refugees came to Ghana by road while 25%
arrived on foot. The rest arrived by air (8%) and by sea (22%). Refugees from
Chad, Congo Brazzaville and Cote d'Ivoire all arrived in Gh.ma by road. The
journeys by road from Chad and Congo Brazzaville could imply that refugees
had temporary stoppages on their way since these countries are far away from
Ghana. Some of the refugees from Togo and Sudan came to Ghana on foot.
Two-thirds of Togolese refugees came by road while relatively small proportion
of Sudanese refugees (4%) also came on foot. Sierra Leonean refugees used the
other three modes of transport (by road, 28%; by air, 34%, by sea, 38%).
Mode of arrival in Ghana could imply whether refugees arrived on prima
facie basis where their statuses as refugees were determined as a group. This
category of refugees were likely to arrive by sea or by air and might enjoy
organised trips as witnessed during the beginning of the Liberian crisis where
the trips were organised by the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS). These modes of transport were more likely to reach the asylum
country without many hindrances. Refugees who came to Ghana by road and on
foot were likely not to come under any protection.
Choice of Destination
The friendly attitude of Ghanaians, especially to foreigners has been
widely discussed in the literature (see Dick, 2002; Owusu, 2000). About 79%
(143) of the refugees interviewed indicated that they chose Ghana as an asylum
destination because of their priority for peace and safety. Female refugees were
84
I.
more likely than male refugees to choose asylum destination bascd on peace and
safety as a reason (82% for females and 77% for males) [Table 15]. About 9%
and 11% of the sampled females and males respec~jvely said they came to
Ghana because at the time of their crises Ghana was the only option available to
them (see Table 15). Some refugees also considered language as a factor for
their choice of Ghana. About 3% of sampled refugees said they chose Ghana
because they could speak English, the official language of Ghana. Two females
and four males were in this proportion. This proportion of the respondents,
though relatively small, pointed to the importance oflanguage in interaction.
Table 15
Reasons Why Refugees Chose Ghana as an Asylum Destination
Reason Frequency Percentage
Male Female Male Female
Peaceful and safe 70 73 76.9 82.0 i.
Only available option 10 8 11.0 9.0
Nearness 6 5 6.6 5.6
Speaking the same language 4 2 4.4 2.3
Other reasons 1 1 1.1 1.1
Total 91 89 100.0' 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
85
Six percent of the sampled refugees, on the other hand, thought Ghana is
near to their country of origin. This, they said, made Ghana the obvious choice.
The stable political environment in Ghana over the last two and half decades
coupled with the international recognition of Ghana in peace keeping has made
Ghana an attractive place for refugees. Generally, the responses of the two sexes
do not differ significantly.
These reasons could influence how refugees relate with their host. For
example, a refugee who thought he/she came to Ghana because that was the only
option at the time could create problems for the host. Those who cherished
Ghana based on some ideals, were likely to operate within the social regulatory
structures in the host community.
Immediate Goals of the Refugees by Sex and Origin of the Refugees
Human beings, no matter the circumstance in which they are in, have
some ambitions. Similarly for refugees, not withstanding the uncertainty
surrounding their departure had some goals that they hope to achieve. These
goals were likely to influence whatever activities that they engaged in or even
their interactions with both host and agencies operating in the camp. Refugees
were asked to give their immediate goals. Table 16 gives the details of their
responses.
86
I,
Table 16
Immediate Goals of the Refngees by Sex and Origin of Refngees
Country Shelter (%) Food (%) Physical Locating Reducing
of origin safety (%) lost family economic
members 'vulnerability
(%) (%)
Chad 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Congo
Brazzaville 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.0 0.0
Cote d'Ivoire 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0
Eritrea 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Liberia 8.9 2.2 21.1 8.3 0.6
Rwanda 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
Sierra Leone 6.7 0.0 17.7 10.6 0.0
Somalia 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Sudan 12.2 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.6
Togo 19.4 0.6 37.8 5.0 0.0
Total (N) 92 7 178 44 2
(%) 51.1 3.9 98.9 24.4 1.1
Note: Multiple responses
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
87
Immediate goals given by the refugees were basic: about 99% (J 78) of
the refugees mentioned desire for physical safety as their goal when they arrived
in Ghana. The rJecd for shelter ranked second with 51 % (92). The rest were
'locating lost family members' (24%), 'to get food' (4%) and 'reducing
economic vulnerability' (1 %) [Table 16]. Refugees from'Togo are more likely to
set shelter as a goal than refugees from any other country. Physical safety was a
common goal to alI the refugees with refugees from Togo again leading in
percentage followed by Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan in that order. Only 1%
(2) of the refugees set reducing economic vulnerability as an immediate goal
whereas 24% and 4% respectively considered locating lost family members and
food as immediate goals.
Some of the refugees, however, indicated that their goals had changed
smce they arrived in Ghana. Those who reported a change in their goals
accounted for 76% (136) of the total refugees interviewed. The new goals of the
refugees were re-building of life, improving upon one's life, plan for a
permanent integration in the host community and plan for resettlement in a third
country (see Figure 4).
88
80
70
Q) 60
C)
ctI 50
....
a; 40
~ 30
~ 20
10
O~~~=======~
1
New goals
Figure 4: New goals of the Refugees
Note: Multiple responses
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
o Improve upon
my life
iii Re-building my
life
o Plan for
resettlement in
a third country
o Plan for
permanent
integration
Seventy-nine percent of the refugees had plans for resettlement in a third
country as their new goal. Only 3% of the refugees had plans for permanent
integration in the host community as a new goal. Sixty-one and twenty-nine
percent respectively had re-building and improving upon their lives as their new
goals. No refugee gave preparation for voluntary repatriation as a new goal. The
high demand for resettlement in a third country has implications for the other
durable solutions - local integration and voluntary repatriation. Such attitudes
could frustrate efforts by UNHCR and its partners to r~patriate refugees
voluntarily. For example, refugees from. Togo were being asked to return
because things have normalised in their country but they persistently maintained
that Togo was still not safe.
89
I I
I.
Determinants of Change in Goals of Refugees
Apart from refugees being in protracted situation which could influence
them to change their immediate goals (Jacobsen, 200.1), the literature is silent on
determinants of change in goals of refugees. This study attempted analysing the
potentials of background characteristics to influence change in the initial goals
of refugees. This was based on the premise that people's background
characteristics could influence their perceptions and aspirations. The binomial
logistic regression model was used to analyse how these variables affected the
change in refugee goals. This model was chosen because of its suitability for
dichotomous dependent variable (i.e. yes or no in this case) and its capacity to
analyse a mixture of continuous and discrete variables (Tabachn1ek et aI, 1996;
In Tanle, 2003).
The background variables used were age, educational level, marital
status, number of years as a refugee, status of place of residence before
displacement and number ofdependants (Table 17).
90
Table 17
Results of Logistic Regression
Explanatory B S. E. Wald Sig. Exp(B)
variables (P) (Odds ratio)
No. of years
as a refugee 0.425 0.425 1.128 0.288 1.588
Age -0.337 0.474 0.507 0.477 0.714
Educational level 1.086 0.649 2.798 0.094 2.963
Marital status -0.512 0.449 1.303 0.254 0.599
Status ofplace of
residence before
displacement -0.054 0.554 0.009 0.922 0.947
No. ofdependants -1.591 0.461 11.905 0.001 0.204
Constant -0.405 0.456 0.790 0.374 0.667
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
These variables were transformed to make them dichotomous. For the
metric variables (age, number of years as a refugee and number of dependants)
their mean values were used. For age, values below the mean were coded as 1
and those above O. The minimum value of 1 to the mean of6 ',,:as coded as 1 and
above that as 0 for the number of years as a refugee. Number of dependants was
similarly coded with 0-2 as 1 and above 2 as O. The nonmetric variables
(education, marital status and status of residence before displacement) were
coded as two options. No formal education was coded as 0 and formal education
91
as 1. The others were marital status which had married as 1 and others as 0 and
status ofplace of residence before displacement with 1 for urban and 0 for rural.
Appendix A shows the details oH,e transformation.
Of all the explanatory variables used only 'number of dependants' was
significant at the 95% confidence level (Table 17), implying that the number of
: '
dependants influences changes in the goals of refugees. Thus, the hypothesis
that socio-demographic background has no significant relationship with whether
goals of the refugees have changed was rejected. The negative coefficient of -
0.405 indicates an inverse relationship between number of dependants and
change of goals. That is, the less the number of dependants the more the
likelihood that refugees will change their initial goals. The other explanatory
variables (age, educational level, marital status, number of years as a refugee
and status of place of residence before displacement) were not significant at the
95% confidence level.
The odd ratios show how each of the explanatory variables influence the
change in goals of the refugees as compared to a reference category. The
likelihood of number of years as a refugee influencing change of refugee goals
was 1.588, indicating that refugees who have stayed in the camp for more than
six years are more likely to set new goals than those less than six years.
Refugees with formal education were as 2.963 times likely to ;et new goals than
those without formal education.
92
I
T
Issues of Perception
Hosts' Perceptions of Refugee Behaviour hy their Age and Sex
Data available illclicate that about 47% of the host respondents had t
positive perception about the refugees in the camp (see Table 18). Nearly 24%
had neutral perception about the refugees, citing the fact that refugees are like
any other human beings and are likely to behave either way depending on the
circumstance.
Out of the 90 females interviewed, approximately 49% of them had
positive perceptions about the refugees in the camp whilst about 29% of them
reported negative perceptions. Similarly, 46% of the 90 males interviewed had
positive perceptions about the refugees as against 29% for negative perceptions.
Proportion of males who had neutral perceptions about the refugees was slightly
higher than that of females (25.5% and 22.2%). The percentage differences
between the sexes in terms of perceptions were significantly small (4.3% for
'positive' perception in favour of females, 0% for 'negative' perception and
3.3% for 'neutral' in favour of males) [Table 18].
93
Table 18
Age and Sex ofInterviewed Hosts by their Perception of Refugee Behaviour
Age group Perceptions by age Tohd (N)
Positive (%) Negative (%) Neutral (%)
<20 50.0 33.3 16.7 6
20-24 47.4 31.6 21.0 19
25-29 58.5 24.4 17.1 41
30-34 32.1 35.8 32.1 28
35-39 45.9 35.2 18.9 37
40-44 43.8 31.2 25.0 16
45-49 47.4 21.0 31.6 19
50-54 37.5 12.5 50.0 8
55-59 33.3 66.7 0.0 3
60-64 100.0 0.0 0.0
65+ 100.0 0.0 0.0 2
Total (N) 85 52 43 180
(%) 47.2 28.9 23.9 100.0
Sex
Male 45.6 28.9 25.5 90
Female 48.9 28.9 22.2 90
Total (N) 85 52 43 180
(%) 47.2 28.9 23.9 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
94
In tenns of age, the 25-29 age group was more likely to perceive
refugees positively than any of the age groups. OVl?'r half of them (59%)
perceived refugees positi\-ely while 24% perceived the refugees negatively. Host
population in the 30-34 age group were the least likely (32%) to perceive
refugees positively (Table 18). Age of the host population seemed to have little
or no influence on the perceptions ofrefugees by hosts.
Level of Education and Nature of Perceptions of Refugees
People's perception about events or a group of people depends, to some
extent, on their experiences. Fonnal education is one such experience. It is
expected that the level of education of hosts could influence how they perceive
refugees.
In all, 47% ofthe host population perceived the refugees positively while
29% and 24% had negativ<; a."1d neutral perceptions of refugees respectively (see
Table 19). The trend for the proportion of hosts perceiving refugees positively
was similar (between 40% and 50% for all the levels of education). Significant
proportions of the host population, at all levels of education, had neutral
perceptions of refugee behaviour (21 % for no fonnal education, 20% for
primary, 23% for Middle/JSS and 36% for Sec/SSS/Higher).
95
!
i
, '
I
Table 19
Educational Level of Hosts and Nature of Perceptions of Refugees
Level ofeducation Perceptions Total
Positive (%) Negative (%) Neutral (%) (N)
None 48.5 30.3 21.2 33
Primary 45.5 34.1 20.4 44
Middle/JSS 49.4 27.2 23.4 81
Sec.lSSS/Higher 40.9 22.7 36.4 22
Total (N) 85 52 43 180
(%) 47.2 28.9 23.9 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
The Chi Square statistic (X2) was used to test the null hypothesis (Ho)
that there is no significant ;'elationship between educational level and perception
of refugee behaviour. The calculated X2 was 6.114. However, the X2 critical
value at 0.05 level of significance with a degree of freedom of 8 was 15.507.
The decision rule was to reject Ho if X2 calculated was greater than X2 critical
value. Hence, the data available did not call for rejection of the null hypothesis
that there is no significant relationship between educational level and perception
ofrefugee behaviour.
Reasons for Positive Perceptions of Refugees
Four reasons were given for perceiving the refugees positively. These
were -'sympathising with refugees', 'no human being is perfect', 'livens up
96
communitics' and 'friendliness'. Eighty- (mc perccnt of those indicating
positive perception said refugees wcre friendly (Figure 5).
100
I 81 o Sympathise with
80 . them
Q)
• No human being isCl .
m 60 I--- perfect
-cQ) o Livens up0 40 l-I-
Q) communitiesc..
20 ,.. I--- o Friendliness;;} 0 4
0 I . .
1
Reasons
Figure 5: Reasons for Perceiving Refugees Positively
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Nine percent of the hosts perceived refugees positively because they
sympathised with them while 6% of them considered no human being as perfect
and therefore perceived refugees positively. To another 4%, the presence of
refugees livens up the host communities hence their positive perception of them
(Figure 5). The dominance of friendliness as a reason for perc~iving refugees
positively is a good indication for interactions as people's ability to form
networks is part of their social capital. Sympathising with refugees could also
influence interactions positiveiy. An opinion leader had this to say:
First, when they came we were entertaining some fears that because of the war
97
they might tonnent us here but as time went on we started to feel very sorry for
them because we knew the war in Liberia at that time. We could hear or even we
saw some pictures ofhow some peop:e were maltreated so we felt for them.
Reasons for Negative Perception of Refugees by Hosts
Refugees being regarded as people who foment trouble emerged as the
reason with the highest percentage for the negative perception of refugees. Out
of 52 respondents who had negative perception of the refugees, 69% (36) of
them reported that refugees were trouble makers. This is in consonance with the
literature that refugee camps are hot beds of fomenting trouble and a threat to
life and property (Malki, 1995; Jacobsen, 1999; Mills and Norton, 2002 and
Harrell-Bond, 2002). For 14% (7) of the respondents, refugees were
environmental degraders (e.g. charcoal production) hence they perceived them
negatively.
About 15% (8) of the host said refugees were capable of doing anything
when hard pressed, a situation which made them perceive refugees negatively
while 2% (1) gave arrogance of refugees as the reason for perceiving them
negatively (see Figure 6). The percentages given are all antecedents for
interactions and suggest that the hosts' interaction with refugees might follow
the same trend.
98
Trouhlesome
til
§ Environmental d~graders
til
:g Capable of doing anything
0::
Arrogance
I
...,
,
,
I t4
!
I US
1
~
o 20 40
Percentage
60 80
Figure 6: Reasons for Perceiving Refugees Negatively
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Perceptions of Refugees about Host Population
The refugees had various perceptions of the host. On a scale of 'very
good', 'good', 'indifferent', 'bad' and 'very bad', about 4% and 3% of male and
female refugees respectively rated the host population's hospitality as very
good. A significant proportion of female and male refugees (46% and 39%
respectively) were indifferent about the hospitality of the host population (see
Table 20). This has implications for host-refugee co-existence as interactions
could also be viewed similarly. Female refugees were more likely to perceive
hospitality of host population as good than their male counterparts, a situation
that could let them interact positively with host population. Tlie table also shows
that only 4% of female refugees perceived hospitality of host to be very bad as
against 14% for male refugees.
99
Table 20
Refugees' Perception of Hospitality of Hosts
Response Optiom Male Female Total
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Ihdifferent 35 38.5 41 46.6 76 42.5
Good 28 30.8 37 42.1 65 36.3
Very Bad 13 14.2 4 4.5 17 9.5
Bad 11 12.1 3 3.4 14 7.8
Very Good 4 4.4 3 3.4 7 3.9
Total 91 100.0 88 100.0 179 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Ability to Speak Local Language and Interactions
Refugees were acked if their ability or inability to speak the local
language affected their activities at the camp. Out of 177 respondents who could
not speak the local language 89% reported that this had negatively affected their
interactions with the hosts (see Table 21). About 11% were of the view that this
had no effect on their activities. These refugees might probably come from a
country where English is the official language and could therefore interact with
the host using English language. Inability of refugees to speak the local
.
language could therefore affect interactions negatively since language forms an
important aspect of culture, identification which helps refugees to cope with
adversities in their new environment (Bihi, 1999).
100
T~& LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE CDA5T
Table 21
Effects of Inability to Speak Local Language on Refugee Activities
------
Has inability to speak local language affected refugee activities")
Response
Yes
No
Frequency
157
20
Percentage
88.7
11.2
Effects of inability to speak local language on refugee activities
Access community resources 157 100.0
Negotiating daily wage 155 98.7
Ability to form networks 145 92.4
Transacting business in the local market 119 75.8
Source: Field Survey, 2006. N=l77
Discussion and Conclusion
The fact that 58% of the refugee population was less than 35 years at the
time of the study is an indication of the youthful nature of the population. With
an average of six years as refugees implied that 58% of the refugee population
was below 26 years at the time of their arrival in Ghana. This, coupled with the
finding that refugees with Middle/JSS and Sec.lSSS education dominated the
refugee population, could have implications for the refugee po~ulation in terms
of skills development through education.
The change in goals of the refugees could also have implications for
camp administration. For example, the three main new goals of the refugees are
preparation for resettlement in a third country, re-building and improvement
101
\\1','1\ "1\C'S lit'\', Rl'!'IIJ;""s m;\y 1'1\g;\~;" ill din~'r"1\1 ;\,'Ii\'ili,'s 11\ 1'\ll':'II:11h'(' ,'I
l11esl' [;,,;\1:;, 1~1'11\);el's' dl'si,,<' I~\r rC:;\'llk1\1<'1\\ is lik,'I\' \ , 1'1\1 1'l\':;~"\I" ,'1\ ,';\1\\1'
:\dministr;\ti'\1\. :-;imil;\r!y, 1\'"111111.111\); ;\1\.1 i1\\111'<\\'I1\); 1\1"'1\ I'I\<"S li1~' ,"'1\1.1 inll'l\'
Ihl' 1\<'1'.1 (" 1':"1';\1111 1\1ll"S i,ll'.\n\\, 11;\:;1' i1\ ;\ ""1\1\,\1 "t' 1\'sll'l.'le,1 empl"yllll'1\1
"1'1"'1'1111\ iIiI'S.
II h:\s al:;" hl'I'1\ \'sl:\lIlisl1l'd Ih;\1 tI\l' 1\lIml",1' lIt' ,h'I'I'l11\;\11ts I't' :\ \'('Iilgl'"
h:\s ;l1\ inl)\1l'1\,'I' ,11\ \\'l\\'tlwl' Ihe 1';\l'li,'1I1;\1' 1\'litt;"I' \\'ill St't \Il'\\' ~;"al:; 'II' Ih\1.
RdllgCI':; \\'ith I~'\\' dq"'1\d:\11t:; :\1'(' m'Ire likdv (,\ :;,'( 1\l'\\' gl\;* 111;\1\ tlh\:;e \\'ill1
m:\11Y ,h'I'CIlll:\11I:;, '1'l1i:; has iml'lil'ati'\1\:; I~Ir \':\l'i'\II:; ;\\'li"ltl,':; e1\p,:\~',,'d 11\ lIy
l'l'lllgl'I':;. R,'lllgl'eS \\'llh t~'\\' .1"1"'1\.1;\11\:;, In attempl (,\ :\<'1111'\'1' l11eir 1\1'\\' gll;\\:;,
may im',\I\'\' i1\ di\'\'I':'l' al'li"itil':;.
III "
CHAPTER FIVE
REFUGEE-HOST ACTIVITIES AND RELATIONSHIP IN THE
REFUGEE HOSTING AREA
Introduction
According to Zimmennann (1933), "resources are the bases of both
security and opulence; they are the foundations of power and wealth. They
affect man's destiny in war and peace" (In Peach and Constantin, 1972: 1). By
implication, resources play an important role in people's lives and subsequently
their interactions. Both target groups had a certain level of resource endowment
which was crucial to their respective roles in the interactive process. Apart from
tangible resources where the host population was likely to be far ahead of the
refugees, both populations could have similar levels of intangible resources.
Refugees have resources from diverse sources. Whereas the
humanitarian community is considered as a regular source of assistance to
refugees, they (refugees) also have transnational networks (Jacobsen, 2003).
This analysis is focused on the resources of the refugees as they were the
strangers in the host communities. The chapter examines the resource
endowment of the respondents and how this aids interactions and affects the
environment (social, cultural and economic) in the host communities, and the
103
-,. \)
Integration of Refugees in the Emergency Phase: Community Action
As in every emergency situation, there is the need for host assistance to
solve initial problems. About 54% of the host sample reported that the
communities initiated some steps to assist the refugees in the early stage of the
crisis. Supporting this view, an opinion leader commented that:
When they came they did not have any source of water so we
allowed them to share our bore hole with us. When we went to
the sea and some of them came to the shore we supplied them
with fish because we felt for them. Later on the District Chief
Executive acquired land for them to be making garden. Some of
our townsmen volunteered to help some of the refugees who
were making farms, so we share resources together.
However, 46% of the sampled host had not observed any steps taken to
assist the refugees. They c0ntended that there were no formal communal efforts
to assist the refugees. Rather, they acknowledged the diverse roles of individuals
in assisting the refugees. Those who reported that there was an attempt to assist
the refugees outlined the various ways through which refugees were assisted.
Among them were 'letting refugees have access to natural resources in the
communities (3%)', 'access to social amenities (95%)', 'meeting refugees
frequently to show sympathy (51 %)' and the 'provision ("If shelter for the
refugees' (1 %) [Table 23].
105
Table 23
Ways in which Host Population helped Refugees in the Initial Stages
Allowing refugees access to resources in the host communities could set
the tone for healthy interactions as refugees might be compelled to reciprocate
this gesture. Meeting refugees to show sympathy recorded the second highest
with 51%. However, the marginally low percentages of access to natural
resources and providing shelter (3.1% and 1.0% respectively) could be an
indication of the fact that these means were not readily available or in short
supply in the host communities, especially natural resources, therefore refugees'
unrestricted access could lead to confrontation.
Observed Changes in the Host Communities as Reported by the Host
Population
According to the host population, various changes have occurred in the
host communities as a result of the presence of the refugees. Among them are
changes to economic, social and environmental conditions. Six major changes
were reported by the host communities (Table 24). The three highest reported
106
areas of change were social relations (94%), economIc activities (94%) and
environmental conditions (87%). These were followed by changes in security
situation (46%), religious worship (9%) and respect for the elderly (4%) [see
Table 24]. The first top three changes were key areas as far as interactions were
concerned. The direction Of these changes - positive or negative - could
detennine the way of interactions. Specific issues of these changes were
discussed in the next section.
Table 24
Changes in the Host Communities as a Result of the Presence of Refugees
Changes Frequency .Percentage
Changes in social relations 170 94.4
Changes in economic activities 169 93.9
Changes in environmental conditions 157 87.2
Changes in security situation 82 45.6
Changes in religious worship 16 8.9
Changes in respect for the elderly 7 3.9
Source: Field Survey, 20Q5.
The sampled host identified five fonns of change iii social relations
namely creation of more social networks (90%), availability of potential spouses
(68%), emergence of new ways of doing things (6%), adulteration of indigenous
values (15%) and the possibility of compelling indigenous children in public
107
schools to speak Engl;sh language (38%) as this was the common language
among the refugees (Figure 7).
11l
Q)
OJ
l:: 1
III
..c:
()
o 20 40 60 80 100
• Compelling
indigenous
children to
speak En.9lish
o Adulteration
of indigenous
values
o Emergence of
new ways of
doing things
• Potential
spouses
Percentage
Figure 7: Specific Changes in Social Relations
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
Creating more social networks implied improvement in social capital.
One respondent intimated that through social network with one refugee he had
inherited ten student mattresses when the refugee in question was resettled in
Australia. The income from the rental of these mattresses was his main source of
livelihood currently. Also, the common knowledge in the host communities was
that those who had refugee spouses were likely to relocate wjth the refugees if
they had the opportunity to be resettled in a developed country. These two
changes, they observed, could therefore improve and sustain healthy interactions
between refugees and the indigenes.
About 6% and 15% reported emerging new ways of doing things like
108
dressing and changing of indigenous values considered to be outmoded. About
38% of host reported that the presence of the refugee ~hildren was compelling
their wards In schools to speak English language. They held the view that
English was the common language spoken by the refugees and therefore the
only language through which their wards could communicate with their
counterparts in the refugee camp or in schools. The presence of the refugees was
helping their wards especially those in school to improve upon their proficiency
in English as this is the language of instruction in schools in Ghana.
Respondents contended that the instant increase in population had
created the needed market for their produce (97%). An assembly member
maintained that the presence of the refugees was a major boost for economic
activities. He indicated that there was ready market for their produce. As
observed by Jacobsen (2001) and Whitaker (1999), the presence of populations
such as refugees usually creates market for local industries. Ten percent were of
the view that the presence of refugees had created competition for economic
resources and job opportunities (Figure 8).
109
1ZJ
I100 97
.'
"
f
00 I- "
00-I-
40-l- I
ZJ f---
"1 1 I I0
Increase in M:rejob Keen a:rrpetitioo Keen a:rrpetitioo
rraket q::p:xtlrities fcrjc±6 fcrecaoTic
resa.rces
Figure 8: Specific Changes in Economic Activities
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Environmental degradation is another area that is always affected by
presence of refugees. au of the 157 respondents who noted changes in the
environment, 99% reported deforestation as a result of harvesting of fuel wood
to be a major environmental degradation issue. Other means of deforestation,
according to respondents, were 'farming on marginal lands' (43%) and
agricultural lands taken for residential purposes (3%) [Figure 9].
110
120
. : .
, 99.4':i
;
100 . .','
..
, . .
'f' -I.·' ' '. Ii,t~ .}
. 1
.'
.
..
80 .-
f
..
.
"
.
00 .
",','
.
' .
42.7 1
D- ... . .40 ...
20 . .'
• ••••••
.
..
.
2.5
.
.' ':. '. . . ' .
0
Falling on rrarginal cefa'estation fiom Agric. lands fa-
lands har\esting fuellMXld residential purJX)Ses
Figure 9: Changes in Environmental Condition
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
Some of these causes of environmental damage could be attributed to the
various coping mechani::~ns adopted by refugees to survive in their new
environment. Charcoal production was mentioned as the leading reason for the
harvesting of fuel wood. According to the chief of Eikwe, this was a source of
worry to the indigenous people as their forests were being destroyed. He
summed up everything in the following statement:
The problem now is environmental degradation that characterizes
their activities. You know, because of livelihood practi,ces such as
burning charcoal, they cut trees indiscriminately and that is a
bother to us. They have entered the small forest reserve that we
have, fell trees indiscriminately. Sometime ago we arrested some
of them and sent them to the Camp Manager and they were
111
warned.
These sentiments were confim1ed by one camp official who went further
to blame refugees from Togo for tHe persistent deforestation resulting from
charcoal burning. He observed that some refugees did charcoal production at
midnight in order to 'avoid being caught. This activity was indeed, one of the
reasons given for perceiving refugees negatively. Haug (2003), Black and
Sessay (1998) and Jacobsen (2001) have asserted that refugees and internally
displaced persons are environmental degraders. A refugee leader commenting on
deforestation said:
There was a time that charcoal supply from UNHCR was not
forthcoming. That was the time that some of the refugees went
into nearby forest to burn charcoal. But now I think the camp
administration has asked those involved to stop immediately. But
whether they stop or not is what I cannot say.
Encroaching on agricultural lands for residential purposes was also
acknowledged by one opinion leader. According to him a coconut plantation
was destroyed to give way to the construction of the first camp at Sanzule. He
lamented that this situation affected the income of the owner of the plantation
negatively even though there was some form ofcompensation.
Proliferation of many religious groups and the turning of churches into
income generating ventures were identified as some of the changes in the area.
Prior to the arrival of the refugees the activities of religious bodies were not as
pervasive as today. Approximately 63% and 13% of the respondents indicated
112
proliferation of churches and the tuming of churches into income generating
activities respectively. With diverse nationalities in thE. camp one would expect
religious activities to be a unifying factor. However, depending on how they are
used, they could similarly create problems as each denomination intensifies its
drive for membership. Refugees would also want to use religion I as a tool for
stabilising themselves after the trauma they went through during displacement.
Thus, the presence of many religious groups could playa positive role in this
direction.
Security has also become an issue. Stealing of farm produce was the
main issue raised by respondents. Out of the 88 respondents who observed
changes in security situation in the host communities, 98% of.them mentioned
stealing of farm produce as a major problem. Threat to local stability was
reported by only one male respondent.
The siting of the refugee camp just before the host communities was
mentioned by one female respondent as positive. According to her, the area
around the camp used to be a hide-out for serial killers. Since the establishment
of the camp, people can now go about their normal duties around that area
without any fear of being killed. This report, though marginal, has given another
dimension of security situation in refugee camps. It contradicts traditional
perceptions of refugee camps as places of insecurity (Mills and Norton, 2002;
Jacobsen, 1999,2001; Malki, 1995; and Martin, 1999).
Even though stealing of farm produce was mentioned as a source of
worry, there were indications that the indigenes seemed to take it as normal of
113
people who did not have anywhere to tum to when in need. One traditional
authority summed it up as:
Initially they were troublesome because they did not have any
work to do. You know, when people don't have anything to do
they will definitely find ways of living, whether 'legitimate or not.
Thus, they were initially involved in petty theft cases· such as
stealing farm produce. But for a 'serious' burglary none of them
was caught in such act. For the petty theft, they have stopped but
the problem now is the environmental degradation.
Seven respondents reported that respect for the elderly had been eroded due to
the presence of refugees. They blamed interactions between the.refugees and the
youth in the host communities to be responsible for this. One respondent
indicated that there is no respect for the elderly in the refugee camp.
Perceived Impact of Hosts' Activities on Refugees
Activities of host communities affect refugees in different ways. About
98% of the respondents and opinion leaders reported that the activities of the host
communities affected rc::fugees in some ways. They indicated that refugees had
unrestricted access to the local economy which is dominated by fishing industry.
Approximately 2% thought activities of the host communities had no influence
on refugees in any way. Of the 177 respondents 94% said the impact on refugees
was a positive one. Refugees are allowed to work in the fishing industry as
labourers. Some of them (refugees) are hired to split firewood to be used in
114
smoking fish. This is ajob that the indigenous people do not like.
Specific Impact of Community Activities on the Refugees
Among specific impacts were 'access to resources and 'access to
employment in the infonnal sector (see Table 25). Employment in the infonnal
sector was the main impact of indigenous activities on refugees. It accounted for
about 96% of responses. Refugees had access to wage earning activities in the
infonnal sector. Access to employment in the fonnal sector was marginally
reported (1 %).
Table 25
Impacts oflndigenous Activities on Refugees
Yes No
Freq. % Freq. %
Do indigenous activities affect refugees? 177 98.3 3 1.7
N= 180
Fonn ofimpact Freq.
Access to employment in the infonnal sector positively 170
Access to resources positively 34
Access to employment in the fonnal sector positively ")
Note: Multiple responses
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
115
%
96.0
19.0
1.0
Nineteen percent of the refugees interviewed thought the activities of the
host population affected the access of refugees to p;saurces. Restrictions within
the politico-cultural regime in the host communities have not made it possible for
refugees to have access to resources. For example, cultural prohibitions could
deny refugees access to and ownership of landed properties. Refugees benefited
from the local economy by engaging in activities in the informal sector since
refugees are not allowed to work in the formal sector. Fishing and farming are
some of the activities in the informal sector. They earn some income by working
in the informal sector.
Refugees were asked if their activities affected the host population in any
way. Approximately 80% were of the view that their activities had no effect on
the indigenous people. When asked to explain, 96% contended that they were
not allowed to work in the formal sector so their activities had no effect on the
host population. To them, their activities could only affect the host population if
they were allowed to compete in the formal sector. However, 28% of them
pointed out that their activities affected the host in two ways: First, their
activities had expanded the local market base and increased the labour force in
the host communities; second, their activities put pressure on local resources
such as the forest reserve (See also Whitaker, 1999; Jacobsen, 2e01; Black and
.
Sessay, 1998).
Refugees identified six activities ofthe host population that had affected
them (see Table 26). These were farming, fishing/fishmongering, petty trading,
tailoring/dressmaking, hairdressinglbarbering and craftsmanship. About 98% of
116
the refugees were affected by the fanning activities of the host, working as faml
labourers on the fanns of hosts. Fishing/fishmonger.ng was reported as the
major activity (99%) that had affected the refugees with petty trading being
reported by 59% of the refugees. Refugees also work as labourers at the beach.
They (refugees) patronise the shops of petty traders by either buying provisions
from them or selling their rations to them. The rest were marginally reported
(7% for hairdressinglbarbering, 1% for tailoring/dressmaking and 1% for
craftsmanship).
Table 26
Specific Activities of Host that Affected Refugees
Activity Response
Yes No Total
1req. % Freq. % Freq. %
Fanning 177 98.3 3 1.7 180 100.0
Fishing/fishmongering 179 99.4 1 0.6 180 100.0
Petty trading 107 59.4 73 40.6 180 100.0
Tailoring/Dressmaking 2 1.1 178 98.9 180 100.0
Hairdressing/Barbering 13 7.2 167 92.8 180 100.0
Craftsmanship 0.6 179 99.4 , 180 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006. N= 180
117
Specific Effects of Activities of Host Population on Refugees
Fanning activities of the host population provi~ed employment: 13% of
refugees indicated th3t fanning provided them with employment and [oJd
(Table 27). One refugee maintained that fanning activity of host competed with
them in the local market. This refugee might probably be involved in fanning
and therefore saw fann produce from the host as competing with them in the
local market.
Table 27
Specific Effects of Hosts' Activities on Refugees
Fanning
Effect Frequency Percentage
Provide us with food 177 100.0
Provide employment 23 13.0
Compete with us in local market 1 0.6
FishinglFishmongering
Provide food 179 100.0
Provide employment 17 9.5
Compete with us in accessing resources 9 5.0
Compete with us in local market 1 0.6
Petty Trading
Provide food 107 100.0
Compete with us in local market 55 51.4
118
Table 27 continued
Compete with us in accessing resources 2 1.9
Tailorin!:/Dressmaking
Provide employment 50.0
Compete with us in accessing resources 1 ! 5.0
Hairdressing/Barbering
Provide employment 12 92.3
Compete with us in accessing resources 7.7
Craftsmanship
Provide employment 1 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
AIl the refugees (177) who were affected by activities of the host reported that
they obtained food and :ish from the host population. The Assemblyman for
Sanzule summed up in the following statement:
.,. Even at all when we went to the sea and some of them came to
the shore we supplied them with fish because we felt for them.
Moreover, they are human beings like us. Later on the District
Chief Executive acquired land for them to make farm. Some of
our townsmen volunteered to help some of the refuge.es to make
their farms....
Fishing activity as source of employment ranked second with 10% of the
refugees. Thus, the refugees contributed labour to the informal sector (Bakewell,
119
2000; Callamard, 1994; Zetter, 1995 all in Jacobsen, 2001; and Brun, 2003). In
all, 107 refugees recognised that petty trading hy host provided them with
resources for sustenance. Approximately 51 % .md two percent, however,
thought this activity also affected competition in the local market and for
accessing resources.
Sex, Age, Educational Level and Number of Dependants by Whether
Refugees Earned Additional Income
There is evidence in the literature that refugees do not always depend on
rations or monies from humanitarian agencies alone. Although not alIowed to
work in the formal sector, they sometimes work in the info~al sector. Three
percent of the refugees earned additional income from sources such as external
and internal social networks. Of the six respondents, five earned additional
income from social netwdrks whilst only one earned additional income from a
religious organisation. Three refugees earned additional income from external
social networks whilst for the other two, additional income was from internal
networks. The current study attempted to find out whether refugees' ability to
earn additional income is influenced by sex, age, educational level and the
number of dependants. The binomial logistic regression model was used to
establish whether there is relationship between these variables. The variables
were first transformed to make them dichotomous (see Appendix A). Table 28
gives the output ofthe binomial logistic model.
120
Table 28
Results of Logistic Regression
Explanatory B S.E. Wald Sig. (P) Exp (B)
variables (Odds ratio)
Sex -2.461 1.247 3.896 0.048 0.085
Age -1.788 1.072 2.780 0.095 0.167
Educational level 17.042 9591.833 0.000 0.999 2.5E+07
No. ofdependants 2.579 1.096 5.535 0.019 13.183
Constant 4.861 1.314 13.693 0.000 129.095
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Of the four explanatory variables, sex and number of dependants were
significant at 95% confidence level with a P value of 0.048 and 0.019
respectively. This indicates that sex and number of dependants have some
relation with earning additiOnal income. The odds ratios show that refugees with
many dependants are 13 times more likely to earn additional income than those
with few dependants. Number of dependants was therefore a strong factor as far
as earning of additional income in the Krisan Refugee Settlement was
concerned. The odds r~tio of 0.085 for sex indicates a marginal difference
between males and females as far as earning additional income was concerned.
Other Activities of Refugees
As discussed in the literature, refugees sometimes take advantage of their
predicament to indulge themselves in unacceptable activities. For instance,
121
I'Vhitaker (1999) has observed that ~efugees in western Tanzania scouted for food
crops ready to be harvested in the day time when they were hired to work on
these farms only to return in the night to steal them. The host population were
asked if refugees indulge in any activities which could be considered to be
unacceptable. Approximately 79% of the host population reported that the
refugees involved in activities that were not acceptable to the host communities.
These are environmental degradation (50%) associated with encroachment of
forest reserve; stealing of farm produce (35%) and prostitution by refugee women
(15%). The last issue, if true could be worrying viewed against the backdrop of
HIV/AIDS. As noted by Cohen (2005), camps of internally displaced persons in
northern Uganda recorded HIV/AIDS incidence rates six times higher than that of
the general population. \¥hen asked about their reactions to these unacceptable
activities, 98% of the interviewed host population said they first report such
issues to the camp authorities. Some respondents also either said nothing,
threatened to report to the police or advise them to stop indulging III such
activities.
Host-Refugee Relationship at the Community Level
Only 9% of the respondents reported that the communities had some form
of conflict/misunderstanding with the refugees, indicating that the host
communities have had cordial relationship with the refugees. The
misunderstandings/conflicts were caused by 'stealing farm produce' (24%),
'squabbles during friendly games' (58%) and 'environmental degradation' (18%).
122
One opinion leaner responding to a question on refugee-host relationship had this
to say:
You see, Vole have a certain adage in our language which literally
translates to: 'Even those who were dead and gone want to be
more; how much more those of us who are alive'; when they
came they increased our population instantly. As I said earlier,
they have expanded our market base. We shall never think of
them going. Their continuous stay here will help us a lot so we
are not going to think of them leaving us. The moment they
leave we will be going back to our former days where we do not
have adequate market for our produce and this will bring
hardship. We don't want them to leave otherwise theywiII create
a vacuum that we wiII find difficult to fill. We want them to live
with us forever. E'1t painfully, many of them have left. Many of
our friends have gone and we are feeling their absence.
Those who reported some misunderstandings said they were all resolved and the
relationships returned to normal.
Relationship at the Individual Level
The study also explored relationships at the individual level. About 96%
had never had any conflict/misunderstanding with the refugees. Those who
reported of some misunderstanding mentioned 'indiscriminate disposal of rubbish
(14%)', 'disagreement over daily wage (43%)', 'disagreement over transport fare
(14%)', and 'not abiding by laid down regulations (29%)' as causes for the
123
misunderstanding (Figure 10). Refugees not abiding by local rules and
.'
regulations is similar to what Black (1994; In Black anl1 Sessay, 1998) considered
as one of the factors responsible for widespread environmental degradation in
refugee settlements.
50 d? a , ,
CI> 40 ' '
OJ 28.6 ;'.
~ 30 .
c: ,
' .
. 14.3 14.3CI> 20 .
(,) 1--:-, , ,
....
·1 I 'I,:' .'~CI> 10 I--:-Q..
1 1 ',I'0 ' . : , , ,
Not abiding by laid llsagreerrent over llsagreerrent over Indiscrirrinate
dow nregulations transport fare dai~wage rubbish disposal
Cause
Figure 10: Causes of Misunderstanding between Individuals and Refugees
Source: Field Survey, 2005.
Indiscriminate rubbish disposal and disagreement over transport fare each
registered 14% as a cause of conflict between refugees and their host. However,
all the respondents indicated that these conflicts/misunderstandirgs were resolved
.
without a third person. In general, respondents described host-refugee
relationship as cordial with 69% rating host-refugee relationship as 'very good'
and 31% rating it as 'good'.
124
Refug~e-Host Relationship
;,
About 8% ofthe refugees had ever had conflict/misunderstanding with the
host population. Discrimination by host among the various nationals of refugees
was the major (47%) cause of conflict/misunderstanding. This was followed by
'being referred to as a refugee' (27%). The rest were refusal to pay for rations
bought and attacking one's brother (7% each) and indigenes stealing firewood
that had been paid for (13%).
Only one of these conflicts was reported and resolved. Thirteen of them
were reported but have not been resolved and one not reported. Consequently,
refugees had mixed feeling of their relationship with the host (Figure 11). A third
of the refugees reported that the host were no more friendly as they used to be.
For instance, one refugee man said the host are no more receptive as they used to
be. This has serious implications for future interactions. Another third of the
refugees maintained t1: 1t refugee-host relationship was cordial in spite of the
uprising in the refugee camp. Twelve percent of the refugees considered their
relationship with the host as that ofmistrust whilst the rest (26%) said some hosts
were good to them but some were not. Those refugees who said some hosts were
good to them but some were not, were of the view that host population only react
to behaviours of refugees. Thus, they could be good to you if you behaved well. It
should be noted that these have the potential of influencing fi:ture interactions.
125
60
50
>- 40(,)
s::
~ 30
c-
al
...
u.. 20
10
o
1
Description of relationship
o No more friendly
• Some are good some are
bad
o Cordial
o Mistrust
Figure 11: Description of Refugee-Host Relationship
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
Host Popuiation-UNHCRINGO Relationship
In a study of this nature, it is necessary to understand the relationships that
exist among the stakeholders in order to have a deeper insight of issues. Based on
this, questions relating to host popuiation-UNHCRINGO relationship were asked.
About 6% of the respondents had ever had misunderstanding with the
organisations operating in the camp. All those who ever had a misunderstanding
with these organisations before were all from Sanzule, one of the host
communities. Sanzule was the first location of the camp before they moved to the
present site which is on the land of the people ofKrisan. When they were asked
what the cause(s) of the misunderstanding were, two issues were mentioned. One
was about who should claim ownership over the two buildings at the old camp
126
and the other was over the sharil\g of some items donated by the UNHCR to the
host communities. As a result the chief of Sanzule r~fused to take part in the data
coIlection even after much peJ"suasion.
According to the Assemblyman of Sanzule, they initiated the construction
of these buildings before the camp was sited there. The UNHCR then took over
the construction and completed them to be used by the staff of the organisations
operating in the camp. When the camp was moved to its present location they
decided to take back their buildings and this did not go down weIl with UNHCR.
The Country Representative of the UNHCR and some religious leaders in the
communities mediated before the issue was resolved. The buildings were shared
between the two of them - the Sanzule community and the. UNHCR. Secondly,
they said that the camp administration treated them differently from the other two
communities. In spite of these, the host perceived these organisations positively.
Nearly 81% thought tile host-UNHCR/NGO relationship was 'very good', 13%
viewed the relationship as good. However, 7% described their relationship as
'neutral'. These assertions were based on the interactions between the two parties
after the misunderstanding.
Though some of?osts were of the view that host-UNHCR/NGO relationship
was cordial, they maintained that the organisations needed to do more in tenns
of helping the communities in income generating activities. For example, the
chief of Eibve was not happy that the resettlement package where refugees were
sent to developed countries to stay there pennanently was solely limited to
refugees. He suggested that brilliant students from the host communities should
127
also be sponsored ~broad to purs~e higher education and possibly also be f;ettled
there. He explained how they were being treated in t;le following statement:
So, now we are like a signboard that reads School boys are going
to school. The school boy goes to school everyday but the
signboard wiII never go to school. School boy will finish school
and get a well paidjob but the signboard still remains there.
To him, the host population should benefit from any package meant for the
refugees. This could affect host population's relationship with refugees. This is
why relief assistance to refugees should consider the needs of host populations
as Hein (1993) argued that "economic development and assistance to refugees
are inseparable issues ... because the refugee is an indicator of world system
dynamics" (In Malkki, 1995:506).
Refugee-UNHCRlNl.O Relationship
Before the data collection exercise, a riot took place in the refugee camp
as a result of agitation by refugees for better conditions of living. In spite of this,
only 59% of the refugees reported having had conflict/misunderstanding with
the UNHCR and its partners. Conspicuous among the causes of the
misunderstandings was the problem over resettlement. This problem was
reported by 74% of the refugees. The dominance of this problem was an
indication of the seriousness that refugees attached to resettlement in a third
country as a durable solution. This has serious implications for the other two
durable solutions - voluntary repatriation and local integration. A refugee leader
128
who wac; reacting to whether I~eal integration was an acceptable option for
refugees explained that:
Tlove Ghana as a country but I wouldn't like to permanently
settle in Ghana. This is because the life I was brought up to live
is not what I am experiencing here. I have always prayed to my
God that local integration or voluntary repatriation should not
be my option. I preferred resettlement in a third country. But I
will visit Ghana because the people are good.
Other reasons for misunderstanding were abuse of refugee rights (6%), bad
condition in camp (2%), discrimination and not being involved in decision
making (1 % each). The rest were general mistreatment (4%) and insufficient
rations (13%) [see Figure 12].
80
70
60
>. 50u
c
Ol 40::J
c-
Ol 30..LL
20
10
0
o Abuse of refugee rights
• Bad condition in camp
o O\I:r resettlement
o Not in\Ul~d in decision
making
• Discrimination
o General mistreatment
Causes of misunderstanding
Figure 12: Causes of ConflictIMisunderstanding
Source: Field Survey, 2006.
129
1I'lnsufficient rations
In tenns ofrefugee-UNHC~GOrelationship, 58% (lOS) reported that
agencies in the camp were no more friendly. Appro;..:imately 26% (46) were of
the view that the friendly relationship that existed be."ore the uprising was still
there with 16% (29) admitting that the current relationship was that ofmistrust.
Whatever the current relationship between the host and the refugees, it is
important to note that this has serious consequences for future interactions.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study has shown evidence that environmental issues are important to
the host population. This was why some hosts perceived the refugees negatively.
These changes, especially those that affected the host communities negatively
influence host communities to reject any attempt to locally integrate the
refugees, thereby limiting the opportunities available for solving the refugee
problem. The ability of refugees to operate within the structures of the host
communities is essentially the basis for positive response from the host
population.
The finding that 82% of the refugees brought no personal assets/cash
with them to Ghana was worrying. This could make them vulnerable and
susceptible to abuse. In another dimension, it could influence their activities
negatively. For instance, this category of refugees is more· likely to engage in
unacceptable activities than those with something small, a situation that is likely
to receive negative response from host population.
Refugees' strong desire for resettlement as a duration solution in the face
130
131
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Studies on refugee-host interaction hold divergent views on the direction
of interaction. Whereas one school of thought argues that host populations
usually take advantage of the vulnerable situation of refugees and exploit them
(e.g. Brun, 2003), the other is of the view that the relationship between refugees
and their hosts is not always an exploitative one, but rather, host populations
sometimes sympathise with refugees and assist them (Dick, 2002; Whitaker,
1999).
It has also been observed in the literature that refugees aggravate existing
environmental conditions but could not be blamed for the totally deteriorating
environmental conditions in Refugee Hosting Areas (RHAs). Even where
environmental impact of refugee presence has been conspicuous, Kibreab (1997)
blamed misguided government policy rather than pushing the blame to the
displaced or the poor (In Haug, 2003). This chapter pr~sents summary of
findings, policy implications and recommendations.
132
Summary of Findings \~,
The main objective of the study was to assess the nature of interactions
between refugees of the Krisal1 Refugee Settlement and the host communities
and the implications of such interactions on both the host communities and the
refugees thems'elves. The rationale of the study therefore, was to understand
these interactions and subsequently examine their implications for refugee-host
co-existence. In all, 360 respondents were interviewed comprising 180 refugees
and 180 indigenes. Four opinion leaders from the host communities and five
officials from the refugee camp were also interviewed.
Results ofthe study are summarised as follows:
1. Seventy-nine percent of the refugees perceived Ghana· as a peaceful and
safe destination, and was the motive behind their choice of Ghana as an
asylum destination. Since 85%, 14% and 1% of the refugees were
displaced as a result of political instability, ethnic and religious conflicts
respectively, their perception of Ghana as a haven of peace and safety
could be justified.
2. The study found out that the goals ofthe refugees in the early phase were
basic. These goals were the desire for physical safety (99%), to get
shelter (51%), and locating lost family members (24%). The rest were
where to get food (4%) and reducing economic vulnerability (1 %). It was
also found out that these goals have changed. A little over three-quarters
(76%) reported that their goals since arrival in Ghana have changed.
New goals mentioned were plan for resettlement, plan for permanent
133
integration and improvement in one's life. These findings confinned
'"
that ofJacobsen (2003) that goals of refugees in the emergency phase are
basic in natur~ and these goals could change if refugees remained in
protracted situation.
3.' Background characteristics of refugees were responsible for the change
in goals. Number of dependants was found to have influenced the change
of goals of the refugee goals; implying that refugees with few
dependants are more likely to changes goals than those with many
dependants. Refugees with few dependants were more likely to change
goals ifthey remain in a protracted situation.
4. Sex of host respondents had no significant influence on their perceptions
ofrefugee behaviour.
5. Generally, indigenes had mixed perceptions of the refugees. Some
perceived them tJositively indicating that the presence of large numbers
of refugees had made the host communities lively. Some, however,
perceived them negatively, stating that refugees are people who foment
trouble. The recent riot in the camp could be an example of how
troublesome refugees can become.
6. About 97% of the host population interviewed observed changes in the
host communities which they attributed to the presen~e ofrefugees. They
particularly mentioned that they now had more social networks and
potential spouses, indications of the level of interaction between the
refugees and their hosts. Intermarriage was also reported; so was a
134
sudden increase in marketsize for goods.
7. Both refugees and hosts reported that interacLions were symhiotic. Whilst
the :,ost population saw refugee labour as indispensable in the informal
economy, refugees on the other hand, acknowledged their earnings from
these jobs as supplement to their rations: This easily restored social
networks based on exchange oflabour and improved interactions.
8. Some refugees from the Krisan Camp earned additional income from
social networks. The main sources of additional income were job
opportunities in the refugee camp and internal and external social
networks. The higher the educational level of a refugee, the better the
chances of earning additional income, especially .from available job
.opportunities in the camp.
9. Environmental degradation, stealing of farm produce and prostitution of
refugee women were activities that the host population considered
unacceptable. They maintained that these activities had the potential of
jeopardising the cordial relationship existing between refugees and the
host population. Refugees also had mixed reactions about relationship
with the host: While others thought host were no more friendly and there
existed a cloud of mistrust, others were of the view that relationship was
cordial but cautioned that discrimination and other derogatory remarks
about refugees could mar this relationship.
10. Hosts' relationship with UNHCRINGOs was generally cordial.
However, they complained about the neglect of the host population by
135
these organisations. ,c·
11. Refugees' relationship with the agencies was rather on the low side.
They mentioned disagreement over resettlemen,' package as the main
cause of conflict between the refugees and the camp administration. The
refugees' unrestricted desire for resettlement was worrying as this could
work against more durable solutions. The recent conflict might have
been responsible for this unhealthy relationship.
Policy Implications
Although there is a legal framework within which the activities of
refugees have been situated, there is also the need for' stakeholders to be
sensitive of contemporary refugee issues and to react accordingly. Changing
refugee goals calls for a new policy direction by government and other
stakeholders in order to accommodate the challenges associated with such
changes. It is important to note that these changes go with different activities,
some of which might not be legitimate. For example, the riot in the Krisan
Refugee Settlement occurred as a result of the refugees being dissatisfied with
the situation in the, camp and their strong desire for resettlement in a third
country. These were the results ofchanging refugee goals. One should not forget
that as refugees interact with humanitarian agencies and the host population they
may have a deeper insight of their rights and responsibilities.
The fact that some of the host perceived refugees negatively points to the
need for a thorough assessment of the situation in order to put in place necessary
136
measures to forestall any future r.lJnfrontation. Refugees may regard themselves
as people in transit and may therefore have little motivation to use the
environment responsibly. Host populations suffer the consequences of these
irresponsible behaviours of refugees. Hence, any solution or assistance to
refugees should necessarily include host populations. Any attempt to downplay
the importance of host populations in the refugee assistance equation wiII lead to
a total failure of such programmes.
Illegitimate activities of refugees are a threat to peaceful co-existence of
refugees and host populations. Policies should, as a matter of urgency, be
directed to solving such problems before they cause any misunderstanding.
Prostitution, stealing farm produce and environmental degradation were the
unacceptable activities reported by the host population.
Recommendations
There is the need to involve all stakeholders in determining who benefit
from what. For example, some refugee packages specify the particular national
who should benefit. A broad base decision-making body wiII remove any doubt
as to who benefits from such programmes. This wiII help stem the mistrust that
has characterised interactions between refugees and camp administration.
Humanitarian agencies should give host populations the same priority
that they give to refugees. It is only when refugees and indigenous people are
treated alike that the host wiII be willing to fuIly open its doors to refugees. On
the other hand, host communities need to be educated on the type of assistance
137
that they might be entitled to. The request by the traditional ruler that host
population should be given part of the resettlement ;>ackage is a matter of total
ignorance. Education will let them uvderstand the issues at stake and the sort of
benefit they should expect from the camp administration.
There is also the need for the Ghana Refugee Board to create an official
platform for all the stakeholders (refugees, host population and
UNHCRINGOs/Ghana Refugee Board) to discuss issues dispassionately. Such
forum will not only solve emerging problems but will, in addition, reduce the
level of mistrust among members. Here, each stakeholder's problem will be
discussed and solutions found to them.
The Ghana Refugee Board and the Nzema East District Assembly should
form a committee to examine the misunderstanding between the Sanzule
community on one hand and the camp administration and the other two
communities (Eikwe il..1d Krisan) on the other hand. The committee should
among others be mandated to resolve misunderstanding surrounding the name of
the refugee settlement.
Further Research
The study recommends further researches in the following areas:
• There could be a second look at refugee-host interaction in the Krisan
camp. This is because the data from the host population were collected
before the riot in the camp whilst those of the refugees were collected
after the riot. Carrying out a study after the riot may give host
138
population's perception :Jf refugees differently. Such a study should
consider the occupations of the refugees at their origins in order to
understand the charlge in livelihoods;
• Another study could consider the likely implications of the strong desire
of refugees for resettlement in a third country on both local integration
and voluntary repatriation as durable solutions; and
• Also, administration in the refugee settlement could be looked at III
details in subsequent studies.
Validation of Conceptual Framework
The framework adopted for the study considered factors responsible for
the displacement of refugees, problems encountered by refugees in an attempt to
fulIy participate in economic, political, social and cultural spheres of the host
community as necessary for refugee integration in host community. It has three
stages - Pre-flight, In settlement and Integration stages. The Pre flight stage
comprised the conditions in the country of origin which led to the displacement
of the refugees. These, according to data gathered from the Krisan Refugee
Settlement, were political, ethnic and religious in nature. These were struggles
for human rights in the country of origin. The current study thus, confirmed the
first stage ofthe Conceptual Framework.
In the host communities, refugees attempt to pursue settlement goals and
substantive citizenship rights. These include fuII participation in economic,
political, social and cultural spheres of the host economy. Refugees in the Krisan
139
Refugee Settlement participated i.f. the economic, social and cultural spheres of
the local economy, validating the framework in this respect. Refugees in the
camp earn income by working in the informal sector, attend funerals and other
social activities with the host population and take part ill cultural festivals.
However, they (refugees) were not able to participate in the political activities of
the host communities. This is because they are not permanently integrated into
the host communities and are therefore prevented by the legal regime within
which they operate in the host communities. It has to be noted that the original
framework was intended to explain the integration of resettled refugees. As a
result, the third stage - Integration - could not be realised as the refugees in the
Krisan camp are temporary guests who might leave the' host communities
anytime durable solutions are found to their problem.
Conclusion
The study explored host-refugee interaction in the Krisan Refugee
Settlement in Ghana in order to understand the perceptions ofhost population of
refugee behaviour. This forms the basis for understanding the implications of
these interactions for. refugee-host co-existence. The use of mixed methods for
the study was successful as some key informants within the target populations
had the opportunity to make further comments apart from the structured
instruments. As a result, the study was able to achieve the desired objectives in
spite ofthe riot that occurred in the camp during the data collection exercise.
140
~FERENCES
Achiaw, N. O. (2005a, 5th November). Five hundred refugees revolt. ..and evade
Elubl) border. Daily Graphic, p. 1.
Achiaw, N. O. (2005b, 9th November). Riot at Krisan Camp. Daily Graphic,
p. 1.
Bakewell, O. (2001). Refugee aid and protection in rural Africa: Working in
parallel or cross-purposes. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working
Paper No. 35. Retrieved November 5,2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCH/3ae6aOd04.pdf
Bihi, A. (1999). Cultural identity: Adaptation and wellbeing of Somali refugees
and relevance to New Zealand. Retrieved September 6, 2004, from
http://www.immigration.govt.nzlNR/rdonlyres/CAD3B28A-09D1-
4D6E9A3F7725324360BD/O/Refugeevoices08Bibliographypp395401.P
df
Black, R. & Sessay, M. (1998). Forced Migration, Natural Resource Use and
Environmental Change: the Case of the Senegal River Valley.
Intenzalional Jounzal ofPopulation Geography, 4, 31-47.
Brun, C. (2003). Not only about Survival: Livelihood Strategies in Protracted
Displacement. In N. Shanmugaratnam, R. Lund, and K. A. Stolen
(Eds.), In the Maze ofDisplacement: Conflict, Mig7'ation and
Change (pp. 50-75). Norway: Norwegian Academic Press.
Census Office. (1971). 1970 Population Census ofGhana. Accra: Census
Office.
141
Chambers, R. (1986). Hidden Los~..rs? The Impact ofRural Refugees and
Refugee Programmes on Poorer Hosts. International Migration
Review. 20 (2), 245-263.
Chan, K. B. & Loveridge, D. (1987). Refugees 'in Transit': Vietnamese in a
Refugee Camp in Hong Kong. International Migration Review. 21(3),
745-759.
Crisp, J. (2003). No solution in sight: The problem ofprotracted refugee
situations in Africa. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper
No. 75. Retrieved December 4, 2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/researchIRESEARCH/3e2d66c34.pdf
Dick, S. (2002). Responding to Protracted Refugee Situations: A case of
Liberian Refugees in Ghana. UNHCR Evaluation Reports. Retrieved
November 7,2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/pub1lRESEARCH/3d40059b4.pdf
Dickson, K. B. & Benneh, G. (1988). A New Geography ofGhana. Malaysia:
Longman Group Limited.
Dryden-Peterson, S/~d Hovil, L. (2003). Local integration as a durable
solution: Refugees, host populations and education in Uganda. New
Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 93. Retrieved December
1, 2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/researchIRESEARCH/3f8189ec4.pdf
Fisher, A. A., Laing, J. E., Stoeckel, J. E. & Townsend, J. W. (1998).
Handbookfor Family Planning Operations Research Design. New
142
York: Population Council
't·
Government of Ghana. (1992), Refugee Law (P.N.D.C.L. 305D). Accra:
Assembly Press.
Ghana Statistical Service. (1987). 1984 Population Census o.fGhana. Ghana:
Ghana Statistical Service.
Ghana Statistical Service. (2002). 2000 Population and Housing Census -
Special Report on Twenty Largest Localities. Ghana: Ghana Statistical
Service.
Harrell-Bond, B. E. (2002). Toward the Economic and Social 'Integration' of
Refugee Populations in Host Countries in Africa. A paper prepared as a
stimulus for discussion at the Stanley Foundation conference 'Refugee
Protection in Africa: How to Ensure Security and Development for
Refugees and Hosts' held in Entebe, Uganda from November 10-14,
2002.
Harrell-Bond, B. E. & E. Voutira. (1992). Anthropology and the Study of
Refugees. Anthropology Today. 8(4), 6-10.
Hatch, J. (1970). Historical background on the African Refugee Problem. In
H. C. Brooks & D. R. Percy (Eds.), Refugees South ofthe Sahara:
An African Dilemma, (pp. 11-26). Westport: Negro University Press.
Haug, R. (2003). Forced Migration, Environmental Change.and Long-Tenn
Development: Livelihood Security among Pastoralists in Northern Sudan
- Post-hunger development in a country at war. NORAGRlC Working
Paper Series, No. 19, Agricultural University ofNorway, As.
143
Jacobsen, K. (1999). A Safety-First Approach to Physical Protection in
d••-
Refugee Camps. ~etrieved December 2, 2004, from
http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/migration/pubs/rrwp/4_safety.html
Jacobsen, K. (2001). The forgotten solution: Local Integration for Refugees in
I 1
Developing Countries. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper
No. 45. Retrieved December 2,2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCHl3b7d24059.pdf
Jacobsen, K. (2003). Livelihoods in Conflict: The Pursuit of Livelihoods by
Refugees and the Impact on the Human Security ofHost Communities.
In N. Van Hear & N. N. Sorensen (Eds.), The Migration-
Development Nexus, (pp. 71-99). Geneva: International Migration
Organization.
Macchiavello, M. (2003). Forced migrants as an under-utilized asset: Refugee
skills, livelihoods and achievements in Kampala, Uganda. New Issues
in Refugee Research, working Paper No. 95. Retrieved December 2,
2004, from http://www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCHl3f818Aaa04.pdf
Macrae, J. (1999). Aiding peace and war: UNHCR, returnee integration and the
relief-development debate. New Issues in Refugee Research, Working
Paper No. 14. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCHl3ae6aOccO.pdf
Malkki, L. H. (1995). Refugees and Exile: From 'Refugee Studies' to the
National Order of Things. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 24,
495-523.
144
Martin, R. (1999). NGO Field Security. Forced Migration Review, 4, 4-7.
Mills, K. and l';orton, R. 1. (2002). Refugees and Security in the Great ~akes
Region ofAfrica. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from
http://homepage.mac.com/vicfalls/civilwars.html
Milner, J. (2000). Sharing the Security burden: Toward the Convergence of
Refugee Protection and State Security. Working Paper No.4, Refugee
Studies Centre (RSC), Oxford University, United Kingdom.
New Zealand Ministry ofEducation. (2004). Interventions for Refugee
Children in New Zealand Schools: Methods and Best Practice. Retrieved
December 15, 2005, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz
Nzema East District Assembly. (2004). Profile ofNzema East District. Axim:
Nzema East Dis.nct Assembly
Owusu, M. (2000). Reluctant Refugees: Liberian in Ghana. The Journal of
the International Institute, 7(3). Retrieved January 10,2005, from
http://www.umich.edu/-iinet/joumallvoI7no3/0wusu.htm
Pattison, W. D. (1964). The four traditions of geography [Electronic version].
Journal ofGeography, 63(5),211-216.
Peach, W. N. and Constantin, J. A. (1972). Zimmermann's World Resources
and Industries (3rd ed.). London: Harper and Row.
Rankin, M. B. (2005). Extending the limits or narrowing the scope?
Deconstructing the OAU refugee definition thirty years on. New Issues
145
in Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 113. Retrieved January II,
2005, from http://www.unhcr.org!rescarch/RESEARCH/425f71a42.pdf
Schultheis, M. J. (1989). Refugees in Africa: The Geopolitirs of Forced
Displacement. African Studies Review, 32(1) 3-29.
Stein, B. N. (1986). The Experience of being a Refugee: Insights from the
Refugee Literature. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from
http://www.msu.edu/course/pls/461/steinIMNREXPI.htm
Suhrke, A. and Zolberg, A. R. (1999). Issues in Contemporary Refugee
Policies. In A. Bernstein and M. Weiner (Eds.), Migration and
Refugee Policies: An Oven1iew (pp. 143-180). London: Continuum.
Tanle, A. (2003). Rural-urban migration offemales from the Wa district to
Kumasi and Accra: A case study ofthe Kaya yei phenomenon.
Unpublished master's thesis, University ofCape Coast, Cape Coast,
Ghana.
Turner, S. (1999). Angry young men in camps: Gender, age and class relations
among Burundians refugees in Tanzania. New Issues in Refugee
Research. Working Paper No.9. Retrieved January 7, 2005, from
http://www-jha.sps.cam.ac.uk/c/c009.pdf
UNHCR. (1998). 1997 Statistical Year Book. Retrieved December 8, 2004,
from htpp:llwww.unhcr,org!statistics.html
UNHCR. (2004a). 2003 Statistical Year Book. Retrieved January 10,2005, from
http://www.unhcr.org!statistics/STATISTICS44e96c842.pdf
UNHCR. (2004b). Profile ofGhana Country Office. Accra: UNHCR.
146
u.s. Committee for Refugees. (2e03). 2003 V{C'r1d Refugee Survey. Retrieved
November 7,2004, from http://www.refugees,org/data/wrs/03/
country_reports/AF3 LiberiaToSierraLe,)ne.pdf
Valtonen, K. (2004). From the Margin to the Mainstream: Conceptualizing
Refugee Settlement Processes. Journal ofRefugee Studies, 17(1), 70-96.
Whitaker, B. E. (1999). Changing Opportunities: Refugees and Host
Communities in Western Tanzania. New Issues in Refugee Research,
Working Paper No. 11. Retrieved November 7, 2004, from
http://www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCH/3ae6aOc70.pdf
Zakariya ,F. & Shanrnugaratnam, N. (2003). Moving into the Extra Household
Domain: Survival Struggles ofDisplaced Muslim Women in Sri Lanka.
In N. Shanmugaratnam, R. Lund and K. A. Stolen (Eds.), In the Maze
of Displacement: Conflict, Migration and Change (50-75). Norway:
Norwegian Academic.
147
APPENDIX, A
Coding of variables
The dependent variable Y, is equal to I if there was change of goals, and 0 if
there was no change of goals.
I
Dependent variable Independent variables
Age: 1=0-35; and 36 and above=O
1=Change of goals (for refugees) Education: I=Fonnal education; and
O=No fonnal education
Marital status: I=Married; and
O=No change of goals (for refugees) O=Others
Number of dependants: 1=0-2; and
0=3 and above
Number of years as a refugee: 1=1-6;
and 0=7 and above
Status of place of residence before
displacement: 1=Urban; and O=Rural
148
,WPENDIXB
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR HOST POPULATION
SECTION A- GENERAL ISSUES
No. Question Response Options Skip To
A! Host community Sanzule.............'................. !
Krisan................................2
Ei1:we .................................3
A2. How long have you been living in this [ J[ ]
community? (In completed years)
A3. I presume you are aware of the presence of yes.................................... !
refugees in this community? No.....................................2
A4. If yes, how long have you been aware of their [ J[ ]
presence? (In completed years)
AS. What form ofperception do people have about Positive...................... :........ !
refugees? Negative...............................2
Both positive and negative.........3
A6. Why do people think that way? ........................................
........................................
.......................................
A7. Have you ever been to the Krisan Camp? yes...................................... !
No.......................................2
---+O.A8
A8. If yes, what is the reason for visiting the To hire daily labourers.............. .1
camp? To sell my goods.......................2
To have a look at the refugees......3
.
To render services to refu:..........4
To look for ajob......................S
Other (Specify).......................6
.
A89 Ifno, why have you never been there? ..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
149
AlOa. What do you think about the refugees at';he They wil} increase our <:conomic
camp? burden .1
They wiII put pressure rm our
natural resources 2
They wiII degrade our environment.. ..3
They wiII put pressure on our
phy~ical infrastructure 4
Increase our labour base .5
Compete with us on the labour
front 6
They wiII expand our market.. 7
Other (Specify) 8
SECTION B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF HOST POPULATION
No.
BI. Sex
Question Response Options
Male l
Female 2
Skip To
B2. Age (In completed years) r H 1
B3. What is the highest level of school you None .1
have attained? Primary 2
Middle/ISS 3
Secondary/SSS 4
Higher 5
B4. In addition to your educational attainment Yes l
or in place of it, have you learnt any trade? No 2
B5. If yes, mention type oftrade
~O.B6
B6. What is your occupation?
Farming l
FishinglFishmonger 2
Petty Trading 3
TailorlDressmaker 4
150
THE l.IBRARY
II"JIVFRmTY OF CAPE COAST
II
B7. What is your religion?
B8. Marital status
B9. Ifmarried, where is your spot 'e from?
.I Hairdresser/Barber 5
Craftsman 6
Daily Labovlt~ 7
Tradesman 8
Employed in the formal sector. 9
Other (Specify) I0
No religion 1
Catholic 2
Protestant. 3
Charismatic .4
Muslim 5
TraditionaL 6
Other (SoecifvL 7
Single !
In co-habitation 2
Married 3
Divorced .4
Widowed 5
A refugee !
From the host communitv 2
151
"SECTION C' ACI1VITIES OFHOST POPULATION.
No. Question Response Option Skip To
Cl. Do members of your cominunity get Y~s ................................................... .1
in touch with the people at the camp? 1>.u ....................................................2
C2. If yes, who are they? Opinion Leaders .................................... 1
Traditional Authorities.............................2
I I
, Employees of Agencies working in the camp...3
Other (Specify)......................................4
C3. What is the nature of the interaction? Positive............................................... 1
Negative.............................................2
Both positive and negative........................3
C4. What are the attitudes of people to .........................................................
these interactions? .........................................................
.......................................................
C5. Do you get in touch with the refugees yes................................................... 1
in your job/daily activities? No...................................... :..............2 ~Q.C7
C6. Ifyes, in what form? Employed by camp management. .................... 1
SelIs wares in the camp................................2 .
Hires refugees to work on my farm...............3
Works with refugees in work place.............. .4
Have access to refugee resources in the camp...5
Other (Specify) .......................................6
C7. the services of
Yes..................................................... 1
Do you engage
refugees in any of these activities? No......................................................2 H·C11
C8. do find their services
yes..................................................... 1
If yes, you
beneficial? No......................................................2
. As farm labourers.................................... 1
C9. If yes, in what way do you consider
their services to be beneficial?
Washing my clothes................................. 2
Help in the home...................~ ................3
Carrying farm produce to the market. ........... .4
Taking care of livestock............................5
Other(Specify) .......................................6
CIO. Apart from these do you interact with
yes.................................................... 1
refugees in any way? No........................ · ............................2 ~.C13
152
CIl. If yes, mention these inte.-actions Scl"I fann produce to refugees ..................... I
Buy rations from refugees.........................2
Attend funerals and other social functions with
refugees.............................................3
Engage refugees in friendly games ..............4
Other (Specify) .................... ,................5
C12. Do refugees in their yes .................................................. !engage you
activities?
No ...................................................2
CI3. Mention some of these activities ............................................................
.........................................................
C!4. Do you fmd this relationship with the yes.................................................. !
refugees beneficial?
No...................................................2
C!5. Ifyes, in what ways? ............................................................
............................................................
C!6. Ifno, why? ............................................................
C!7. Have observed changes in
yes.................................................. !
you any
your area since the arrival of the No...................................................2 -.Q.D1
refugees?
C!8. Ifyes, what is nature ofchange(s)? Changes to Economic activities............... .1 ~Q.C!2
Changes to Social re!ations .....................2 ~.CI3
Changes to Environmental conditions.........3 ~.C!4
Changes to Religious worship..................4 4Q.C!5
Changes in Respect for the e!derly............5 -..Q.C!6
Changes in issues ofsecurity...................6 ~Q.C!7
Other (Specify)............................ '" .....7
C!9. What form(s) of change have Increase in market size........................... .1you
observed in economic activities?
Competition for economic resource~ keener. ..2
More job opportunities........... :................3
Competition for jobs keener..................... .4
Other (Specify) ......................................5
153
C20.
C21.
What fo.-m(s) of change have you
observed in social relations?
What formes) of change have you
observed in environmental
conditions?
Create more social networks 1
.'
110re potential spouses 2
Emergence of new ways of doing things 3
Adulteration of indigenous values .4
Other (Specifv) ..:.:.:.:.;..:.:.;..:..:.:.:.:..:..:.:::5_f-__--i
Farming on marginal lands .I
Deforestation as a result of harvesting fuel
wood 2
Agricultural lands taken for residential
purposes .3
Overgrazing 4
Pollution of water bodies 5
Over fishing , 6
Other (Specify) 7
C22. What formes) of change have you Proliferation ofmany religious groups 1
observed in religious worship? Breakdown in religious values 2
Churches as a income generating ventures 3
Other (Specify) .4
C23. What formes) of change have you Collapse in respect for elderly 1
observed with regards to the respect Improvement in respect for the elderly 2
for the elderly? Other (Specify) 3
C24. What formes) of change have you Stealing of farm produce l
observed in issues of security? Threat to stability oflocal community 2
Increase in armed robbery 3
Other (Specify) .4
154
SECTION D: PERCEIVED IMPACT OFTHE ACTIVITIES OF HOST POPULATION
ON REFUGEES
r-
No. Question Respollse Options Skip To
DI. Do you think the activities of the yes ........................................................... 1
community affect refugees in any -+Q.D4
No............................................................2
,vnv?
D2. If yes, in what form? Positive ...................................................... I
Negative.....................................................2
Both negative and positive................................3
D3. In what ways do the activities of the Affect access to resources negatively................... 1
community affect refugees? Affect access to resources positively....................2
(Choose as many as applicable) Affect access to employment in the informal sector
positively...................... '" ....... '" .................3
Affect access to employment in the
informal sector negatively................................4
Affect access to employment in the
formal sector positively...................................5
Affect access to employment in the
formal sector negatively....................................6
Other (Specify)................................ '" ...........7
D4. Do you think your activities as an yes............................................................ 1
individual affect the refugees in any No.............................................................2 -+QD7
waY?
D5. If yes, in what form?
Positive....................................................... 1
Negative.....................................................2
Both negative and positive................................3
D6. In what ways do your activities as an Affect access to resources negativeli:.................... 1
individual affect the refugees? Affect access to resources positively.....................2
(Choose as many as applicable) Affect access to employment in the informal sector
positively.....................................................3
Affect access to employment in the
informal sector negatively............................... .4
Affect access to employment in the
155
D7.
fonnal ,ector positively 5
Affect access to employment in the
fonnal ',c;:tor negatively 6
Other (Specify) 7
Do you know of any steps taken by Yes " . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . 1
individuals in the cOl11l1}unity to r--+ QD11
No 2 1
integrate the refugees?
D8. If yes, what are some of the steps Let them have access to all natural
that have been taken? resources in the community 1
Let them have access to all social
amenities apart from those in the
camp 2
Create favourable conditions for
refugees to seek redress .3
Meeting refugees frequently to show
empathy 4
Other (Specify) 5
D9. How successful have been these Very successful.. 1
steps?
D1O. Who initiated the process?
Successful. 2
Somehow successful. 3
Unsuccessful. .4
A total failure 5
Traditional authorities l
Local political leaders 2
Religious leaders 3
Other opinion leaders .4
.
Other (Specify) 5
Dll. Have refugees been involved in
activities that are not acceptable to
the host community?
yes 1
. --o.D14
No 2
D12. If yes, mention some of these ..
activities.
156
>:.'
Dl3. How has the host community I eacted .................................................................
to these unacceptable situations?
................................................................
D14. Has the community's contan with yes........................................................... 1
refugees led to any No.............................................................2
conflictlrnisunderstanding?
DIS. If yes, what is the nature of Quarrel over the use ofresources......................... 1
/ conflictlrni~understanding? IMisunderstanding over daily wage.....,........ '" ...... .2
Stealing offarrn produce........ '" ........................3
Other (Specify)............................................. .4
016. How was it handled? Reported and resolved...................................... 1
Reported but not resolved..................................2
Not reportedJPending.......................................3
Other (Specify)...............................................4
SECTION E: HOST POPULATION-REFUGEE RELATIONSHIP
No. . Ouestions Response Options Skip To
E.!. Have you ever had any yes.................................................1
conflictlrnisunderstanding with a No..................................................2
refugee?
E2. Ifyes, how many times? r l[ 1
E3. What was the cause of the last .......................................................
conflictlrnisunderstanding? .......................................................
E4. How was it handled? Reported and resolved...........................1
Reported but not resolved.......................2
Not reportedJPending............................3
Other (SpecifY) ....................................4
ES. If resolved, what was the outcome of Accepted......................•.................... 1
the resolution? Not accepted......................................2
Other (SpecifY)...................................3
E6. Who resolved it? AID agencyINGO................................ 1
Religious group...................................2
Ghana Refugee Board...........................3
The two parties themselves.....................4
157
E7.
E8.
E9.
tOther (Specify). '" 5
If not resolved, what has been the
implicat'ol' of the impasse for the host-
refugee relationship?
Describe the general refugee-host
relationship
I
How would you rate the relationship Very Good 1
between host population and refugees? Good 2
Neutral. 3
Bad .4
VeryBad 5
Don't know 6
SECTION F: HOST POPULATION-UNHCRINGO RELATIONSHIP
No. Ouestions Response Options Skip To
Fl. Have you ever had any yes........ ,.................................... 1
conflict/misunderstanding with the No..............................................2
implementing agencies?
.
F2. Ifyes, how many times? r lr 1
F3. What was the cause of the last ..................................................
conflict/misunderstanding? ...................................................
F4. How was it handled? Reported and resolved........................ .1
Reported but not resolved..................2
Not reportedlPending.......................3
Other (Specify)...............................4
F5. If resolved, what was the outcome of the Accepted........................................ l
resolution? Not accepted..................................2
Other (Specifv).......... ~...................3
F6. Who resolved it? Refugee groups.............................. l
Religious group.............................2
Ghana Refugee Board......................3
Two parties themselves .....................4
Other (Specify)...............................5
158
F9.
If not resolved, what has been the
implication of the impasse for the host-
agency relationship?I---+=~":'===:t:.:..-------l- ----------t-----j
FS. Was outcome of resolution accepted by yes .!
both parties? No :.:. :.:. :.:....:.;...::..:.:..:.:...:.::.:;.2::.-+- ---j
How would you rate host population- Very Good .!
UNHCRINGO relationship? Good 2
Neutral. 3
Bad .4
VeryBad 5
Don't know 6
FlO. Describe the general host population-
UNHCRINGO relationship
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation
159
API'ENDIX C
QUESTIONNAi RE FOR REFUGEES
SECTION A: GENERAL ISSUES
No.
AI
A2.
Question
When did you first come to Ghana?
Where were you before coming to
Ghana?
Response Options
Month year. .
Skip To
A3. What brought you to Ghana for the first Political instability I
A4a.
time?
How did you come to Ghana?
Tnbal conflict. 2
External aggression 3
Religious conflicl. .4
Other(Specify) 5
Byroad 1
Byair 2
Bysea 3
On fool. .4
Other(Specify) 5
Mb. Why did you come to Ghana?
AS. How long have you been living in
Ghana? (In cOlIlPleted years)
A6. Have you ever traveled outside Ghana
since you first came to Ghana?
A7. If yes, how many times?
A8. List places visited
[ ][ ]
yes 1
No 2
-----j-----...<
r ][ 1
I .
2 .
3 .
A9. Why did you return to Ghana?
AIO. Have yOU ever lived outside refugee Yes I
160
All.
A12.
camp in other parts of GhaJ.a?
If yes, list places where you have stayed
before?
Why have you returned to the camp?
No 2
I ..
2 .
3 .
A13. How would you rate the hospitality of Very Good ~ 1
your host community? Good 2
Indifferent. 3
Bad .4
VeryBad .5
A14.
A15.
A16.
What were your immediate goals when
you fIrst arrived here?
(Choose as many as applicable)
Have these goals changed since you
arrived here?
Ifyes, what are your new goals?
(Choose as many as applicable)
Shelter. '" 1
Food 2
Clothing 3
Physical safety.. '" .4
Reducing economic vulnenibility 5
Locating lost family members 6
Other(Specifv) 7
yes 1 f--t.- Q. BI
No 2
Re-building my life 1
Improve upon my life 2
Plan for permanent integration 3
Plan for repatriation '" .4
Plan for re-settlement in a third
country? 5
Other(Specify) 6
A16. Have this change in goals affected your yes .!
activities? No 2
A17. If yes, state three ways in which this 1.. .
change affected your activities. 2 .
3 .
161
SECTION B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
I-N~o:--.-I- -.9uestion
BI. Sex
Response Options
Male 1
Female 2
Skip To
B2. Age (In completed years) [ ] [ ]
I
B3. Country of origin .
B4. What is the highest level of school None 1
you attained? Primary 2
Middle/JSS 3
Secondary/SSS .4
Higher. 5
B5.
B6.
B7.
B8.
Where were you educated? .
In addition to your educational yes 1
attainment or in place of it, have you No. '" .. , '" " .. 2
learnt any trade before
displacement?
Ifves, type of trade?
What was your occupation before
displacement?
~ Q.B8
B9.
BIO.
What is your religious
denomination?
Marital Status
No Religion 1
Catholic 2
Protestant. 3
Charismatic .4
Muslim 5
Traditional. '" 6
Other(Specify) 7
Single 1
Married 2
Divorced 3
Separated .4
\Vidowed 5
In co-habitation 6
162
. ----- -----~---~-------~--- .._--- .
l.
BII If married where is your spouse from!
,
A refugee from sam.: country............ 1
A refugee from another country.........2
From host commumty................ '" ..3
Bl2. If a refugee, what is hislher nationality?
. ...............................................
B13. Status of place of residence before RuraL ........................................ I
displacement? Urban.........................................2
B14. Number ofdependants currently r' 1[ ]
B15. Can you speak the local language? yes........................................... l
No............................................2 -+ Q.BI8
B16. If yes, how would you rank your VeryPoor................................... l
knowledge of the local language? Poor..........................................2
Adequate....................................3
Good........................................ .4
Very Good..................................5
B17. In what ways has your ability to speak When I go to transact business in
the local language facilitated your the market.................................... l
interaction with the host community? In negotiating daily wage.................2
Affect my ability to form networks.....3
Affect my access to community
resources.....................................4
Other(Specifv)...............................5
B18. If no, do you think your inability to yes........................................... 1
speak. the local language has affected you No.............................................2 ---+0. C 1
negatively?
B19. If yes, in what ways are you affected by When I go to transact business in
your inability to speak the local the market. ...................................1
language? In negotiating daily wage..................2
Affect my ability to form
networks......................................3
.
Affect my access to community
resources..................................... .4
Other(Soecifv)...............................5
163
SECTION C: REFUGEE ACTIVITIES ANL> RESOURCES IN THE HOST
COMMUNITY1
No. Question Response Options Skip To
Cl. What are the resources available to you Land for agricultural purposes ........... l
in this community for your occupation? Water bodies...............................2
Employment in the formal sector.......3
(Choose as many as applicable)
,
Land for housing.......................... .4
Land for quarrying........................ .5
Other(Specify).............................6
C2. What are the resources that you brought Household assets ......................... l
with you? Capital for petty trading.................2
(Choose as many as applicable) Livestock. .................................3
Other(Specify) ............................4
C3. Apart from earned income, do you have Yes......................................... l
other sources of income? No..........................................2
C4. Ifyes, from which source(s)? From AID agencies....... :.............. 1
From Religious organizations..........2
(Choose as many as applicable) From social networks...................3
Other (Specify) .......................... .4
C5. If your answer to ~. C4 is 'Social Internal networks......................... l
Networks', which form? External networks........................2
Other (SpeciM...........................3
C6. Mention resources that are available to Land for agricultural purposes......... .1
you for survival in this community. Water bodies for fishing..................2
Employment in the formal sector. .......3
Land for housing.......................... .4
Land for quarrying.........................5
Other(Specify) .............................6
C7. Do you earn any additional income from Yes.......................................... l,
economic activities? No...........................................2 ~ Q.C14
C8. If yes, what work(s)/activities do you Farming..................................... l
engage in to earn income? FishinglFish mongering..................2
Petty trading................................3
(Choose as many as applicable) TaiioringlDress Making................. .4
Hair Dressing/Barbering..................5
164
Craftsmanship..............................6
Daily Labourcr. ...........................7
Tradesman..................................8
Other(Specify).............................9
C9. Does the host community allow these yes .......................................... 1
work(s)factivities? No...........................................2 -+ Q. C 12
CIO. If which of these activities Iyes, are Famling..................................... 1
allowed? FishinglFish mongering..................2
Petty trading................................3
(Choose as many as applicable) TaiioringfDress Making................. .4
Hair Dressing/Barbering.................5
Craftsmanship.............................6
Daily Labourer.............................7
Tradesman..................................8
Other (Specify) .............................9
Cii. Why do they allow such activities? As means of earning some income...... 1
(Choose as many as applicable) To provide labour for local industries...2
On humanitarian grounds.................3
Other (Specify)........................... .4
C12. Which activities are not allowed? Employment in the formal sector....... 1
Commercial fanning ......................2
(Choose as many as applicable) Owning your land.........................3
Putting up permanent building..........4
Other(Specify) .............................5
Cl3. Do you engage in any of these activities? yes........................................... 1
No............................................2
C14. If yes, do they harass you for engaging yes.......................................... !
in them? No............................................2
C!5. Why don't they allow such activities? To avoid competition ,,~ith host. ........ 1
To nlinimize environmental
(Choose as many as applicable) degradation.................................2
Local laws don't allow it.................3
Other (Specify)............................4
C16. Are you allowed to own property? yes .......................................... !
No...........................................2
165
C17. If yes, why? " To temporarily integrate ................ 1
As a means of earning some income..2
Other (Specify)...........................3
CIS. Ifno, why? To avoid conflict with host. ............. 1
To avoid competition with host. ........2
Local laws don't aIlow it. ...............3
Other (Specify) ............................4
,
SECTION D: PERCEIVED IMPACT OF REFUGEE ACTIVITIES ON THE HOST
COMMUNITY
No. Question Response Options Skip To
Dl. Do you think that your work/activities yes............................................ l
have some effect on the host No.............................................2 -"Q.D4
population?
02. Ifyes, in what way? Negative....................................... l
Positive.......................................2
Both positive and negative.................3
D3. Mention some of the si-ecific effects of Increased labour force ..................... l
your activities? (Choose as many as Expand local market........................2
applicable) Put pressure on local resources...........3
Other(Specify)...............................4
D4. !fno, why do you say so? . ......................................................
...................................................
DS. Has any aspect of your culture affected yes............................................ l
the host population in any way? No.............................................2 -+ Q.D9
D6. Ifyes, in what way(s)? By way ofdressing......................... 1
The food we eat.. ..........................2
.
Our language and how we speak in
general. ......................................3
Other (Specify)............................4
D7. Do you consider this as a threat to the yes...........................................l
local culture? No...........................................2 ~Q.D9
DS. If yes, is this likely to affect refugee- yes........................................... l
166
II
II
II
II
I'il
II
IiI'
,I
I:
iii,
Ii
,I
II
Ii
'I
IIIiilIiI,
'.I'
I!
i:
~ !
"j!
Ii
I'
"II
!j
II
II
P
'I!,
II,.
Ii
iI
il
ii
I'I
II
"I'II
1I
Ii
:1
'II,
I',:
ii
[I
I,
i,
i
i
I
host co-existence?
-
No....... _..................................2
D9. Do you think the local culture has yes .......................................... 1
-
influenced your culture in any way? No .................. .......................2 -+Q.D 11
DIO. If yes, in what ways? By way of dressing........................ 1
The food we eat. .............. , ............2
(Choose as many as applicable) Our language and how we speak in
generaL .....................................3
Other (Specify) ............................4
D11. How would you grade the effects of VeryGood.................................. 1
your activities on the host community? Good........................................2
Indifferent. ................................ .3
Bad.......................................... .4
VeryBad....................................5
Don't Know.................................6
Dl2. In what way(s) do the following activities of the host population affect you?
Acthitv Mfectvou In what ways
(a) Fanning yes.................................... 1 Provide employment. ...............................1
Compete with us in the local market.. .........2
No.....................................2 Compete with us in accessing resources .......3
Provide us with food.............................4
Other (Specify)...................................5
(b) FishingIFish yes.................................... l Provide employment. ...............................1
mongering Compete with us in the local market..........2
No...: .................................2 Compete \vith us in ascessing resources..... .3
Provide us \vith food.............................4
Other (Specify)...................................5
(a) Petty trading yes.................................... 1 Provide empl!'yment. ............................... 1
Compete ,vith us in the local market. .........2
No....................... ··············2 Compete \vith us in accessing resources .......3
Provide us with essential goods................4
Other (Specify) ...................................5
(d) yes....................... ············· 1 Provide employment.. .............................. 1
Tailoring/Dressmaking Compete \vith us in the local market.. .........2
167
No.....................................2 I Compete with us in accessing resources ......3
Apprenticeship opportunity.................... .4
Other (Specify) ....................................5
(e)Hairdressingl yes·· .. ·............................... 1 Provide employment.. .............................. 1
Barbering Compete with U5 in the local market.. ........2
NO.....................................2 Compete with us in accessing resources......3
!
Apprenticeship opportunity......... : ........... .4
Other (Specify)...................................5
(I) Craftsmanship yes.................................... 1 Provide employment. ....... , " ................ 1
Compete with us in the local market.. .......2
NO.....................................2 Compete with us in accessing resources.....3
Apprenticeship opportunity.................. .4
Other (Specify)..................................5
SECTION E: REFUGEE-HOST RELATIONSIDP
No: Question Response Options Skip To
El. Have you ever had any yes......................................... l
conflict/misunderstanding with host No..........................................2 -"Q.E8
population?
E2. Ifves, how many times? r If 1
E3. What was the cause(s) of the last conflict? ..................................................
(ifmore than one) .................................................
E4. How was it handled? Reported and resolved.................. l
Reported but not resolved..............2
Not
reportedlPending........................3
Other (Specify) .......................... .4
E5. Who resolved conflict/misunderstanding? AID agency/NGO........................ .1
Religious group..........................2
Ghana Refugee Board...................3
Two parties themselves..................4
Other (Specify).......................... .5
168
E6. If resolved, -was the outCJme of resolution yes..................... ................. .. 1
accepted by both oarties? No..........................................2
E7. If no, what become of ................................................
conflict/misunderstandin2!
...............................................
E8. Describe the general refugee-host ................................................
relationship
...............................................
I 1E9. What was the cause of the last but one ................................................
conflict?
.............................................
E10. How was it handled? Reported and resolved................... 1
Reported but not resolved...............2
Not reported/Pending.....................3
Other (Soecifv), ...........................4
Ell. If resolved, was outcome of the resolution yes.......................................... 1
accepted? No ...........................................2
E12. If no, what has been the implication of the ................................................
irnoasse for the refugee-host relationshio? ................................................
SECTION F" REFUGEE-UNHCRINGO RELATIONSffiP
-
.
No Questions Resnonse ODtions Skin To
Fl. Have you ever had any yes........................................1
conflict/misunderstanding with any No........................................2 -+Q.F8
implementin2 a2ency?
F2. If yes, how manv times? r H 1
F3. What was the cause of the last .............................................
conflict/misunderstandin2? .............................................
F4. How was it handled? Reported and resolved.................. 1
Reported but not resolved..............2
Not .
reported/Pending.........................3
Other
(Specify)................................ .4
F5. Who resolved the conflict/misunderstanding? AID agencyINGO........................ 1
Religious group .........................2
Ghana Refugee Board..................3
169
TII'lI ":IIII<" 11i1·1I1· ...II'·'..
(lIllI'l (:;l"'lily)
H,. II' re~,oll'Ll:. wa~; Ih.. 011 ICOli II' 01' lilt' "",Ohllioll \'1".""
.\
., ,I
, I
, aceeJ1lc.(~;IY11!,lh J!arlic~I'!
1'7. II' 110, whal 11iI~, h"(,ollll' or
l-lo" "
'·('lIdIlW·····
___ -.E0IlJli£~-'I.'i~'_,!I~le!1:la.'..lllille'! ()111t'1 (:;]11'1'11yl, . ,,,, ,, " .". ,, ,, " " ,",}
I'll. Ik;crihe Ihe l~elwlllll"'iwee.hll'olll'lalloll,.hi" , .. ",.", .. , .. " ... , .. """."." .. ,.'
nlfll/" .1'01/ 1'1":1' til ttl·"
17(1
.i
AilPENDIX J)
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REFUGEE LEADERS
"'arm up and Explanation
A. Introduction
Good day, Gentleman/Lady. My name is Samuel Kofi Miledzi Agblorti. I am a
student from the University of Cape Coast. I am conducting a study on Refugee-
Host Interaction in SanzulelKrisanlEilcwe Communities and the Refugee
Settlement.
B. Reasons for Study
I want to discuss with you issues concerning interactions between the Sanzule,
Krisan and Eilcwe Communities and refugees with specific emphasis on why
you are here, access and use of resources by both refugees and host population
and refugee experiences with host population. I will also discuss with you how
you consider your relationship with the host population and why you think such
a relationship with your host is important.
C. Procedure and Consent
(Explain use of tape recorder)
Information about this discussion will not be given to anyone. Although I do not
see any immediate benefits that this discussion may bring to you, I hope you can
help us understand how you are affected by your interactions with your host.
This discussion will be tape recorded after which a transcription will be made.
171
Infom1ation gathered from you wiIi be combined with those of other participants
so that information provided by you will not be identi lied with your name. You
may stop the discussion at any time that you want. Please do not hesitate to ask
me any question about this survey. I hope you will fiild the discussion
interesting.
Do you agree to participate in the discussion? Ycs [ ] No ....... [ ]
If yes, Sign .1 Thumb Print. .
Date .
172
1.
•
•
•
•
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Reason(s) of Displacement
Reasons for coming to Ghana. (Probe for specific cause(s) of
displacement).
Why Ghana and not any other country especially those with whom your
country share common border?
Did you traveled to Ghana alone or in the company of other refugees?
How did you travel to Ghana?
Are you here with any family member (Probe for spouse, children and
other dependants)?
•
2. Resources in Host Communities
Kindly mention some of the resources in this community which are
available to refugees. [By resources I am referring to land for agriculture
and other purposes, water bodies, financial assistance and social
networks such family and mends. Probe for more of the resources]
• Do you have access to these resources in the community? (probe for
resources that refugees have access to and find out the reason why they
are not allowed to access some if there is any).
3.
•
Resources in Refugee Settlement
Mention resources that you have brought with you. (probe for specific
resources)
173
• Tell me whether the host ~opulation also access resources in the refugee
settlement and those provided by humanitaria.n agencies operating in the
camp. (Probe .resources that host can access and those that they can not
and find out why)?
4. Activities of Refugees and Host in both Refugee Settlement and
T Sanzule/KrisanlEikwe Communities
• Mention some refugee activities in the host community and in the
refugee settlement and whether these activities are aIIowed or not. (Probe
for specific activities that are not allowed and why and if refugees are
aware ofthe activities that are not permitted).
• Also, teU me about the activities of the host population in the settlement.
Do you tolerate these activities or you are compeUed to accept them?
5. Refuge-Host Relationship
• How do you consider your contact with the host community? (probe
whether contact was considered as a means of re-building life and/or
improving life)
•
•
Mention those activities organized by the host population in which you
have participated. I mean activities such as funerals, wedding
ceremonies, cultural festivals, games etc. (Probe whether participation
was by invitation or not)
Why did you attend? With whom did you attend?
174
6.
•
•
•
•
•
MeT'tion whether there has 'iJeen any conflict between refugees and host
community. (Probe for type of conflict, whether conflict has been
resolved, who resolved conflict and whether both parties h,lVe accepted
the outcome of the resolution) Based on your experience with the host
would you consider local integration as a' workable durable solution?
(Probe for explanation)
Refugee-UNHCRINGO Relationship
Have you ever had any conflict/misunderstanding with the implementing
agencies in the refugee settlement?
Mention the last conflict/misunderstanding you had with any of the
implementing agencies.
What was the cause of this conflict/misunderstanding? (probe whether
this has been resolved, who resolved it and whether outcome of
resolution was accepted by both parties.)
If outcome of resolution not accepted what has become of
conflict/misunderstanding?
Thank you for your participation.
175
I
,
I
I
J
,
I
I
APPENDIXE
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS
'V.lrm up and Explanation
A. Introduction
Good day, Nana/GentlemanlLady. My name is Samuel Kofi Miledzi Agblorti. I
am a student from the University of Cape Coast. I am conducting a study on
Refugee-Host interaction in Sanzule, Krisan and Eikwe Communities and the
Refugee Settlement.
B. Reasons for Study
I will be discussing with you issues concerning interactions .between the Krisan
Community and refugees with specific emphasis on access and use of resources
by both refugees and Krisan Community and your experiences with refugees. I
will also discuss with you how you consider your relationship with the refugees
and why you think such a relationship with them is important.
C. Procedure and Consent
(Explain use of tape recorder)
Information about this discussion will not be given to anyone. Although I do not
see any immediate benefit that this discussion may bring t!' you, I hope you can
help us understand how you are affected by your interactions with the refugees.
This discussion will be tape recorded after which a transcription will be made.
Information gathered from you will be combined with those of other participants
176
------- '- ~--._-
so that infollllation providcrj by yOll will not bc idcntirlcd wilh yom namc. YOl1
may stop thc discussion at any time that yOll want. ,)lease do nol hcsitale 10 ask
mc any qucstion about this survey. I hope .I\'U will find thc discussion
intcrcsting.
Do you agrec to pat1icipate in Ihc discussion? yes ......... [ ] No ......... [ ]
If ycs, Sign / Thllmh Print. ..
Datc .
177
I
I
I I
I !
I II I
1.
•
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Presence of Refugees and Community Respnnse
I presume you are aware of the presence of refugees in Krisan village.
When did you first become aware? How did you become aware of their
presence? Did anybody discuss with you before they were brought in?
I
I
I /-'
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
!
I,
~
:1
I' 2.
(Probe to follow trend whether in favour ofrefugee presence or not).
• What was your first impression when you heard of their presence?
(probe for the perception of refugees: people fleeing persecution,
unfortunate victims).
• Have your perceptions about refugees changed or not? (probe whether
this change has affected interactions with refugees)
• How has the community responded to the arrival of the refugees? (probe
for specific measures put in place to respond to the needs of the refugees
in the early days of arrival)
Use of Resources in both Refugee Settlement and Host Community
• Do refugees have access to resources in the Krisan community? (probe
for resources that refugees are allowed to use and those that they are not
allowed to use and why)
• Do you have access to resources in the refugee sp:ttlement? (Probe for
resources that host population is allowed to access and those that they are
not allowed and why?)
178
• What are some of the chaiiges you h~ve observed since the refugees
came to settle here? Why do you say so? (probe for reasons).
r
3. Activities of Refugees and Host in both the Refugee Settlement and
Krisan Community
• Have you participated III activities organized by refugees in the
settlement? (probe for the last and last but one activity; e.g. marriage and
funeral ceremonies). How did you get involved? Why were you
involved? What was the outcome? What were your observations?
• Activities organized by community that some refugees have been invited
What were the reactions from both refugee invitees and community?
4. Host PopUlation-Refugee Relationship
• How would you describe the nature of the relationship between you and
the refugees? (probe for conflict and cordial relation).
• Have there been any conflicts between you and the refugees? (probe
whether conflict has been resolved, who resolved it and whether both
parties have accepted the resolution)
• Views on long term relationship between the refugees and the
community? (probe for explanation).
• In your view, is local integration a feasible durable solution? (probe
why?)
179
S, lIos1 I'oplll:llioll.' INII' 'IVN(;O Hdnllollshlp
• Ilnvl' Ylllll'\'l'1' hnd nil)' 1'1l1111l1'1Iilli::tllllil'l::11IIldill)', wilh Ihl' Ill11'1I'IlIl'IIIIII)',
nl',l'lll'ies ill lh,.~ rl'l111',l'l' Ill'llIl'llll'III'.'
• l'vlcillioll Ihl' l:li:1 1'11l1llklllllii:lllllil'l'illlll1llill/'. yllll 111111 wilh IIIIV Ill' 1111'
i IIIPkill l'll1ill/'. :I)',l'll\' iI~i:,
• Wh:ll wm: Ihl' \'lIwa~ Ill' 1I1i:: 1'11I1Ilicllilli:III1IlII'l':llllllllilll':l (1'11l1H' wlll'lllI'l
this hilS heell Il'IlOlvcd, who Icnoll'l'd il 111111 Whl'lhl'l' OIIIt'IlIlII' Ill'
resollllioll wm: l1l:l'l'pted hy holh 1'III'Iil~:I,)
• II' olllcoille 01' rcsollliioll 1101 lll'.I:Cl'lcd whlll hlln hl'I'OIIlI~ Ill'
COil f1 iellill ililllHICI'::I 11 IHI iIII'....
TlllIllk yOIl fill y01l1 1'1111 it:iplli iOll,
APPENDIXF
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES IN
THE REFUGEE SETTLEMENT
Warm up and Explanation
A. Introduction
Good day, Gentleman/Lady. My name is Samuel Kofi Miledzi Agblorti. I am a
student from the University of Cape Coast. I am conducting a study on Refugee-
Host interaction in Krisan, Sanzule and Eikwe Communities and the Refugee
Settlement.
B. Reasons for Study
I will be discussing with you issues concerning interactions between the Krisan
Community and refugees with specific emphasis on your role in this interactive
process. The dSl;ussion will centre on your interventions in both the refugee
settlement and the host community and how you think these interventions could
contribute to bringing refugees and host together.
C. Procedure and Consent
(Explain use of tape recorder)
Information about this discussion will not be given to anyone. Although I do not
see any immediate benefit that this discussion may bring to you, I hope you can
help us understand your role in the interactive process. This discussion will be
tape recorded after which a transcription will be made. Infomlation gathered
181
from you will be combin~dwith those of other particirants so that in fomlation
provided by you will not be identified w'th your name. You may stop the
.jiscussion at any time that you want. Please do not hesitate to ask me any
question about this survey. I hope you will find the discussion interesting.
Do you agree to participate in the discussion? Yes [ ] No [ ]
If yes, Sign .rrhumb Print .
Date .
182
DISCUSSION GUIDE
1. Activities ofImplementing Agency in hoth Refugee Settlement and
Host Community
• How long have you been involved in activities in the Refugee Settlement
and the Host Community?
• Mention some of the activities that you engage in. (Probe for the target
population for the various activities)
• Do you involve the host and refugees in planning your programmes?
• Mention specific interventions that the host and refugees benefited from.
(probe the for main target population of these interventions).
2. Perceived Impact of Agency Activities on the Environment
• Can you tell me some of the changes that have occurred in the physical,
social and cultural spheres? Were some of these effects anticipated? If
yes, what were they? (probe for unanticipated effects that have occurred
and how they are being addressed).
• Community reactions to interventions that have to use community
resources. (probe how community reacted when their resources were
used for refugee activities initiated by you).
3. Agency-Host Relationship
• Have your agency ever had conflict with Host Population? If yes, what
was the
183
cause of the conflict? Was conflict resolved? Who resolved conflict?
• How was it resolved? Was outcome t·f resolution acceptable to both
parties (Agency and Host)
• If outcome of resolution not accepted what happened to conflict? (probe
for state of relation between agency and host; e.g. mistrust, general
tension)
4. Agency-Refugee Relationship
• Have your agency ever had conflict with refugees? If yes, what was the
cause of conflict? Was conflict resolved? Who resolved conflict?
• How was it resolved? Was outcome of resolution acceptable to both
parties (Agency and Refugees)
• If outcome of resolution not accepted what happened to conflict? (probe
for state of relation between agency and refugees; e.g. mistrust, general
tension)
5. Mediation Role of Agency
• Have your agency ever mediated in the resolution of a conflict between
host and refugees? If yes, what was the cause of conflict? How was it
resolved? What was the outcome of the re1:olution? Was it accepted by
both parties? If not accepted by both what happened to conflict? (probe
for state of relation between host and refugees; e.g. mistrust, general
tension)
184
• What, in your view, is the way forward for refugees in this settlement?
(Voluntary repatriation, Local integration or Resettlement in third
country).
Thank you very much
IS5
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
APPENDIXG
CALCULATION OF SAMPLE SIZE
According to Fi8her et at (1998), the desired sample size is calculated l'y
7l f =
7l
1 +
7l
N
, where
nr = the desired sample size ( when population IS less than
10,000),
n = the desired sample size (when population is greater than
10,000),
N = the estimate ofthe population size.
But the desired sample size when the population is greater than 10,000 is given
by 7l ; where
n = the desired sample size (when population is greater than 10,000),
z = the standard normal deviation, usually set at 1.96 (or more simply
2.0), which corresponds to the 95% confidence level;
p = the proportion in the target population estimated to have a particular
characteristics. If there is no reasonable estimate, then 50% is used;
q = 1.0 - p;
d = degree of accuracy desired, usually set at 0.05 level or occasionally
at 0.02.
Therefore, for a population more than 10,000; the desired sample size will be
186
1/ =
(1.96 2 )(0.50)(0.50)
(0.05)2
n=3~A
But the population ofSanzule, Krisan and Eikwe and the refugees was 5,600.
Hence, with a standard normal deviation (z) of 1.96, a degree of accuracy (d) set
at 0.05 and a proportion in the target population with a particular characteristic
(p) at 50% which is equivalent to 0.5.
'q 'becomes
q = 1.0-0.5 = 0.5
The desired sample size (11f ) for the two populations can be calculated by
substituting 384 for 'n' in the formula for determining the desired sample size
when the population is less than 10,000.
Therefore,
11 f =
1 +
384
384
5,600
l1f =358.88Approximately359
187
THE LIBRARY
Ut!\Vr:UITY OF CAPE COAST