The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) joined forces in 2019, leveraging a combined 65 years’ experience in research on the role of forests and trees in solving critical global challenges.
Done right from the start, refugee crises can be managed to minimize damage to the environment and to the refugees themselves and their host communities. Two reports give guidance.
World Agroforestry has released two new reports to complete the trilogy of studies it conducted in northwest Uganda in 2018 under the project, Sustainable Use of Resources and Energy in the Refugee Context, funded by the UK Department for International Development. The purpose was to generate recommendations on environment-friendly hosting of refugees.
One report is a ‘think-piece’, the other a technical study. Both come loaded with insights and arise from efforts to promote agroforestry for energy, soil and other benefits in and around two settlements that host South Sudanese refugees in Uganda: Rhino Camp and Imvepi.
The Migration–Environment Nexus: the situation in Northwest Uganda
The thesis of this report is that refugees inevitably place strain on natural resources and ecosystems. However, severe damage can be averted if environmental thinking becomes part of humanitarian responses.
This may sound like a tall order. Saving lives is humanitarian workers’ primary concern. But the environment is in itself lifesaving, the report says.
Further, the authors emphasize that allowing the environment to deteriorate also deteriorates the ability to save lives and can even cause new threats: ‘People may begin to fight over the remaining resources.’
The core humanitarian sectors of water and health depend upon healthy, functioning ecosystems, they argue. And taking measures, such as catchment-based planning for water, as early as possible can make a vast difference to the well-being of populations caught up in the rapidly changing circumstances of a refugee influx.
Besides refugees’ urgent need for wood for shelter, warmth and cooking, other drivers like outsiders taking advantage of the turmoil can degrade natural resources too.
‘Law enforcement structures often become weak or non-existent,’ the authors note. ‘This opens the door for persons to exploit natural resources in any model they are capable of.’
The true value of natural resources is generally underestimated. From 2014 to 2017 less than 2% of the budget of the UN Refugee Agency in Uganda went on the environment although refugees rely almost entirely on trees for energy.
Were it to be monetized — taking FAO's estimate that a refugee in Uganda requires about 3.5 kg of wood a day for cooking — the value of woodfuel contributed by the country’s forests, woodlands and scattered trees to the refugee response has a staggering value of a USD 96 million a year.
The report concludes that ‘humanitarian response needs to embrace sustainable land management and restoration, if need be’ and recommends that every refugee setting includes three key aspects.
- A unit that responds to environmental issues from the start.
- Environmental impact assessments to reduce negative externalities.
- Land allocated to refugees to plant or regenerate their own sources of wood.
None of this is entirely new. Importantly, the joint Environment Unit of the United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has developed the Nexus Environmental Assessment Tool (NEAT), a screening tool to identify environmental concerns before a refugee intervention. Still, more is needed.
‘Nexus thinking is crucial,’ said lead author Lalisa Duguma. ‘We need to go beyond seeing issues in refugee-hosting areas as simply migration matters and see them instead as a challenge that we must address to ensure sustainability of the sociological systems that support life. This requires multi-faceted thinking that takes into account interdependent factors.’
This report examines the quantity and composition of biomass in the two refugee settlements and the buffer zone around them. It is based on an inventory that counted and identified every seedling and sapling and all standing trees on 234 circular plots and recorded their diameter at breast height (DBH), bole height, total height and crown diameter.
‘It may sound elaborate to a lay person but with that information we can predict the quantity of woody biomass available and how long it can support community needs,’ said Clement Okia of ICRAF Uganda. ‘It also gives guidance on investment needed to undertake restoration work.’
Shrubs and stumps were also captured.
‘Identifying stumps is usually difficult but it was done with support from local forestry experts and the community,’ the authors note.
Findings include considerable biodiversity in the form of 81 tree species. But extraction pressure is intense. Most stumps were of large trees (DBH greater than 20 cm), indicating a decline in mature trees. This is worrying as large trees offer the most ecosystem services and are the ‘mother trees’ that provide genetically diverse seeds.
The study sought to answer the question: how much woody aboveground biomass is available for refugees and hosts? After calculations that factored in calorific value, it was found to reach a total of around 1,423,345 tons across the two settlements and buffer zone.
This sounds considerable but, given the needs, the woody biomass within the two refugee settlements could be exhausted within four years, a terrifying prospect. Utilizing the biomass outside the refugee settlements in the buffer zone would extend this time period but create conflict with local communities.
The report concludes that urgent measures are needed to stem the loss of biomass and diverse species. It recommends several actions.
- Perform tree inventories prior to plot allocation so that appropriate options for management can be put in place by and for the refugees.
- Create a system for tree planting, growing, regeneration and protection with officials, refugee and host communities, support agencies and others.
- Achieve a consensus on priority areas to plant, regenerate and protect.
- Agree on how to control burning of biomass and contain livestock.
- Note endangered tree species and build awareness of them.
Read about the first study in this trilogy in this story. Download the report
Duguma L, Nzyoka J, Okia C, Watson C, Ariani C. 2019. Restocking woody biomass to reduce social and environmental pressures in refugee-hosting landscapes: perspectives from Northwest Uganda. Working Paper No. 298. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry (ICRAF).
See also: Humanitarians struggle to address environment: ‘It’s nice but it’s not crucial’
World Agroforestry (ICRAF) is a centre of scientific and development excellence that harnesses the benefits of trees for people and the environment. Knowledge produced by ICRAF enables governments, development agencies and farmers to utilize the power of trees to make farming and livelihoods more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable at multiple scales.
ICRAF is one of the 15 members of the CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food-secure future. We thank all donors who support research in development through their contributions to the CGIAR Fund.