Community reception programs attempted to facilitate repatriated refugees' social integration into return communities through engagement with local institutions, dialogue processes, and resource sharing mechanisms. UNHCR and implementing partners recognized that reintegration success depended partly on receiving community acceptance; returnees arriving into hostile communities faced discrimination, exclusion, and violence regardless of humanitarian livelihood support. Consequently, reception programming engaged community leaders, local government, civil society organizations, and community members in dialogue addressing return population arrival and integration needs.
Reception programming mechanisms included community orientation meetings introducing returnees to local governance structures and institutional resources, facilitating connections between returnees and local service providers. Community dialogue forums brought returnees and receiving community members together addressing concerns, building understanding, and identifying cooperation opportunities. Resource-sharing initiatives provided local community benefits alongside returnee support, attempting to reduce resentment. Livelihood programs engaging both returnees and local community members in joint activities theoretically built cooperation. However, reception program effectiveness remained limited; community prejudice, economic competition, and land disputes sometimes overwhelmed program intentions.
Tensions between returnees and receiving communities reflected multiple factors. Land disputes emerged where returnees sought property reclamation after extended displacement; land occupied by receiving community members during displacement created conflict. Livelihood competition emerged where returnees and locals competed for limited employment and market opportunities. Returnees sometimes brought different practices, expectations, or cultural adaptations from camps, generating social friction. Furthermore, some returnees had been absent for decades; younger receiving community members lacked personal connections to returnees, reducing social bonds. In some contexts, returnees with refugee camp education and exposure represented social advancement threatening traditional community hierarchies.
Successful reception required community-level dialogue and genuine reconciliation processes beyond humanitarian program administration. Where communities maintained cultural practices supporting reintegration, returnees integrated relatively successfully. However, where communities harbored grievance regarding displacement or viewed returnees as threats, reception programs had limited impact. Furthermore, reception programs typically operated for limited periods (6-12 months); long-term reintegration depended on sustained community commitment extending beyond humanitarian program timelines. Overall, community reception programming recognized reintegration's social dimensions while encountering limitations of humanitarian organizations' capacity to fundamentally alter community prejudices or resolve structural conflicts underlying reception difficulties.
See Also
Reintegration Assistance Voluntary Repatriation Host Community Relations Community Dialogue Reconciliation Refugee Return Programs Local Integration Refugee
Sources
-
"UNHCR Resettlement Handbook." UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/resettlement-handbook
-
"Refugee Camps or Cities? The Socio-economic Dynamics of the Dadaab and Kakuma Camps in Northern Kenya." Journal of Refugee Studies 13, no. 2 (2000): 205-222.
-
"Kenya softens its position on proposed closure of Dadaab refugee camp." Goobjoog, April 30, 2015. https://goobjoog.com/