Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Zimbabwe

He said - She said: Reflections on gender relations at Tongogara Refugee Settlement

Globally, experiences and realities of displacement continue to gain attention. In Zimbabwe’s Tongogara Refugee Settlement (TRS), there are about 23 157 refugees and asylum seekers, most of which come from the East and Horn of Africa region. Over time, TRS has become a pressure cooker of diversity, cultures, and beliefs where old and new traditions, values and practices emerge and overlap. Here, we reflect on some recent fieldwork carried out by the CGIAR FOCUS Climate Security Southern Africa team in November 2024 at TRS focusing on shifting gender roles and impacts on gender relations in forced displacement contexts.

How are cultural values and gender relations at TRS changing?

At TRS, men and women articulated differing perspectives on changing cultural values and gender relations. Male refugees stressed the differences between ‘before we came here [to TRS] ’ and ‘now we are living here [at TRS]’, suggesting a sense of loss and powerlessness. The key tensions identified related to evolving perceptions of household, division of labour, gender roles and responsibilities, alongside breadwinning and access to livelihood opportunities and money in the camp. In contrast, at the camp, we established that refugee women have privileged access to more livelihood opportunities through NGO initiatives such as World Vision which give them a chance to engage in activities like poultry, goat herding, agricultural projects and fisheries to support their families in comparison to male refugees. On this basis, the men argued that while some are accessible to all, many of the programs targeted women only. This disproportionate access to opportunities is negatively impacting gender relations in the camp, inducing family tensions, disunity and in some instances gender-based violence.

Particularly for displaced men, we found that it is difficult for them to adjust to this ‘new normal’ and accept their wives or partners to work outside the home since it goes against their cultural values. On the other hand, refugee women readily embraced this new form of independence and adjusted positively to working outside their culturally determined reproductive sphere. In contrast to refugee men’s narratives, refugee women argue that seeking livelihood opportunities was not intended to provoke their male counterparts but was a necessary step to improve their livelihoods in displacement settings where their monthly rations were not sufficient to cover their family needs hence the need to work and help their men with material provisions for their families.

How does national refugee policy play into these gendered dynamics?

The refugee governance framework in Zimbabwe is underpinned by an encampment policy which mandates asylum seekers and refugees to reside in TRS, the country’s only refugee camp. Till recently, TRS was known as Tongogara Refugee Camp, the shift from camp to settlement was described by NGOs working in TRS as part of shift in government policy to make it more of a ‘service center’ for both refugees and nearby host communities. Still the refugee policy does not allow refugees to seek employment, with a few exceptions for those with critical skills. Due to this policy, most male refugees we encountered in the camp were unemployed and struggled to fulfil the role of providers and breadwinners, a role which is ascribed as a primary responsibility for men from their cultural perspective. Women too, described the ‘no work’ policy as challenging since it meant they had to renegotiate traditional ways of supporting the family. Most importantly, they reiterated that this policy stripped refugees, especially men of their dignity which directly impacted on relations in the home, and with negative consequences for women given that refugee men’s frustrations often manifest through negative coping mechanisms e.g. gender-based violence.

Given that there are no formal legal employment opportunities at TRS, livelihood support often comes in the form of humanitarian social protection. TRS originally opened in 1984 for Mozambiquan refugees and is managed by Government of Zimbabwe and UNHCR. Different humanitarian service providers cover various protection needs ranging from food security (13.5kg maize meal per month per person), cash assistance (7 USD a month per person), firewood, water, sanitation, health and hygiene, education, shelter, child protection and gender-based violence and family reunification, among others.

Gendered Perceptions of livelihood opportunities at TRS

Despite the various livelihood opportunities at TRS, they are too limited to accommodate the thousands of refugees in the camp and are also not always sufficient in addressing basic household needs. Instead, from male refugee perspectives they advanced that humanitarian aid architecture has shaken up traditional ways of doing things, notions of respect and family dynamics. For male refugees, this change appears unwelcome, whereas for refugee women who are now also engaging in the bread-winning roles for the sake of their families’ survival, the change in roles is not something they are apologetic about. In fact, the opportunities presented to women at TRS are giving women a chance to exercise their agency and voice in what are traditionally male-dominated spaces back home. Women refugees did not view shifting gender roles vis-a-vis how they were transforming gender relations as intentional on their part to spite men but rather saw it as part of their larger effort to make do in situations of protracted displacement. They argued that this situation necessitated that they be innovative and create opportunities with the resources and capacities available to them.

Bridging the gap between traditional values and displacement needs: Policy Recommendations

Reflecting on what forced displacement has meant for gender relations highlights the significance of how displacement intersects with culture, identity and livelihoods to produce different outcomes based on gender. Our preliminary analysis illustrates that culture, though closely tied to identity is not fixed but fluid and to responds to changing circumstances. The situation at TRS has necessitated changes in refugees’ traditional gendered roles and dynamics to bridge the gap of needs they felt were not met adequately through the social assistance monthly package. It became clear that despite the desire to maintain cultural responsibilities and the gendered division of labour from their countries of origin, refugees, men especially, found it challenging to transform their cultural practices in the camp context. While women could still keep up with the traditional caregiving expectations simultaneously with productive roles, the men struggled to carry out their provider role. This failure by men, in some instances, led to negative coping strategies such as gender-based violence, crime, alcoholism, and infidelity, further challenging cohesion / peaceful existence among refugee men and women.

In many ways, these reflections from TRS emphasise the complexities that exist between cultural beliefs, displacement and how humanitarian interventions mediate refugees lived experiences in camps, often with unintended consequences. Both refugee men and women appear to be going through a process of readjustment when it comes to gendered dynamics and livelihoods; trying to, in their own ways, navigate the new context and realities after fleeing from their countries, with varying degrees of success and failure. From a policy perspective, it is important for policy makers to prioritise more flexible refugee employment pathways to promote self-reliance and more income-generating opportunities within the camp. Breaking down barriers for informal social protection initiatives is also crucial so refugees can initiate community-based self-help support groups without the fear of deportation. Beyond this, emphasising the importance of follow up within existing NGO projects reflecting on the overall presence and (unintended) impacts of NGOs at Tongogara Refugee Settlement is also a useful step towards promoting an environment that fosters self-determination.

A detailed analysis of shifting gender relations in forced displacements context will be explored in our forthcoming article (2025).

This work is carried out with support from the CGIAR Initiatives on Fragility, Conflict, and Migration (FCM) and Gender Equality (HER +). We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund.

Authors: Raramai Campbell, Joyce Takaindisa and Gracsious Maviza (Alliance of Bioversity International & CIAT)