Thomas Hoerz is coordinator for RESCUE (Rational Energy Supply, Conservation, Utilisation and Education), a UNHCR/GTZ household energy project in the Dadaab area, Kenya, close to the Somali border.
RESCUE was initiated in late 1992 when UNHCR realised that providing food, shelter and medical care was not enough to care for a large number of refugees staying in a fragile environment for more than just a few months. No matter how sophisticated the supply machinery is, the basis for welfare and survival remains the natural environment. This holds true not only for the refugees but also for the local (Kenyan Somali) population. Survival in a pastoral economy is strongly dependent on an intact environment. It is therefore not surprising that the local population and administration were worried that the large humber of refugees might cause damage to the environment and that the survival of the local population might also be threatened.
The German Ministry for Economic Cooperation agreed to finance an environmentally-oriented project in areas hosting refugees and asked GTZ to come up with a proposal. The outcome was RESCUE, an improved stove dissemination project with a strong afforestation component.
Whose environment?
Although host governments try - if they have the choice - to settle refugees in thinly populated areas, there is nearly always an indigenous population which depends, to varying degrees, on the products of their natural environment. For Dadaab, which is situated in the semi-arid Garissa District of East Kenya, this means the survival of a mostly nomadic Somali-speaking local population.
The environment of this population needs protection and rehabilitation. The pattern of protection and rehabilitation measures need the input of locals before, during and after the stay of refugees. Any intervention to protect and rehabilitate the environment must finally be the responsibility of the indigenous population as interventions need to continue for several years after camps have been dissolved.
Whose responsibility?
The words `UNHCR has destroyed our environment - now they have to do something about it' are often heard in Dadaab market. `UNHCR's responsibility is the protection of refugees and the provision of basic needs such as water, food, shelter and medical care' is very often the answer. No-one talks in terms of the environment as the responsibility of the refugees. They are reduced to recipients of free handouts: figures in the supply logistics. The potential of refugees in terms of know-how and labour combined with their responsibility to `replace' the off-take from the natural environment could be the key to solving the worldwide environmental crisis in refugee hosting areas.
Sharing responsibilities for the environment
1.Host governments and local administration:
As the officials responsible for the long term development of the area,
governments and local administrations should develop guidelines to provide
the framework. Their expertise (eg in forestry departments) needs to be
used and strengthened to enable them to play a meaningful role in
protection and rehabilitation even after the refugees have left.
Government officials at all levels should communicate their national,
regional and local needs to refugee organisations.
2. UNHCR:
UNHCR could act as the catalyst for environmental interventions: fundraising, identifying of potential implementors and networking of partners involved (refugees, local population, host governments and NGOs). The provision of energy for cooking or the replacement of gathered energy like firewood must form part of the aid package: cooking fuel is as important as the food itself.
3. Implementing organisations:
Their main task is the development of concepts in close consultation with the other actors and the proper use of funds for implementation. They will also play a major role in fundraising with the backing of UNHCR.
4. Local population:
This group - which is concerned most and for the longest - needs to articulate priorities for the protection and rehabilitation of their environment. Their active participation can ensure sustainability.
5. Refugees:
It should be clear to any refugee that consumption of natural resources cannot be granted for free. Depending on individual ability, the work force and skills of refugees could be harnessed for large scale protection and rehabilitation activities.
Project area and target population
The project area was defined by UNHCR as three camps of the Dadaab area, namely Dagahaley, Ifo and Hagedera. These are the so-called consolidation camps which will exist when all the other camps are dissolved, provided the current trend of repatriation continues to reduce Somali refugee numbers in Kenya.
The target population was initially the population of these three camps. However, as the unfavourable environment and related problems are shared by both the local population and the refugees, it became clear during the early stages of the project that the local inhabitants (approximately 10,000) had to be included in the programme as key players in organising a sustainable programme of recovery.
Even though the Dadaab camps have past the emergency period, problems related to basic needs remain pressing, results have to be achieved fast, the lifespan of implemented measures is short and one is tempted to forget about sustainability. Merging the demands of GTZ principles on sustainable and well planned development and the demands of quick results and relief to the target group and environment at times is not easy.
The RESCUE approach
When RESCUE started its operations in mid 1993, a thorough research and planning phase had established the main assumptions of the project:
1. The most effective interventions to cope with the magnitude of deforestation in the Dadaab camps would be training in energy saving methods and dissemination of fuel efficient stoves.
2. The disseminated stoves could not be given for free: a certain value had to be attached to them. It was assumed that stoves given for free would end up in markets in Kenyan cities or would not be used.
3. The replanting of trees, given the limited funds, would have to concentrate on pilot afforestation (to determine the appropriate technology and costs), awareness building and training.
4. Without the active participation of the local population and the refugees, there would be no basis for sustainability.
5. Emphasis should be laid on those interventions that benefit returnees in their home country (mainly Somalia) like training, awareness building and the supply of portable stoves.
One way to reach the target group is through school children, who are easy to reach in the classroom and ready to absorb new ideas. Methods of fuel saving cooking will eventually be part of the standard curricula in Dadaab and refugee schools.
RESCUE has adopted two schemes for dissemination which have proved to be successful:
Stove for trees: for every five seedlings planted around homesteads, the family receives a stove of their choice, provided the trees are planted properly, regularly watered and well protected for at least one month.
Stove for work: for three days of labour in the greenbelts (of which there are 10 hectares), workers can obtain a stove.
Results
After one year of implementation, the results are convincing:
- Over 9,000 prefabricated stoves have been disseminated.
- Nearly 9,000 energy saving mudstoves at zero costs have been constructed in local and refugee households.
- More than 110,000 trees have been planted by refugees and locals around homesteads.
- Over 10,000 participants have been trained in workshops in energy saving methods and in the use and construction of efficient stoves.
- Four tree nurseries with a present output of 320,000 seedlings annually are operational.
- A production centre is operational and will produce some 15,000 improved portable stoves in the next two years.
- A total of 37 acres has been fenced (live fences) and planted with trees. The idea of live fencing with Commiphora africana, a thorny tree which is very common around Dadaab, was developed when the need for an effective and ecologically sound fencing method for greenbelts, tree nurseries and refugee camp block arose at the same time. (The security situation had deteriorated with frequent cases of rape at night within the blocks.) The solution was a fencing off of small units.
- Schools and agencies have been provided with seedlings and advice on how to `green' their compounds.
Impact
During the next phase, RESCUE will put more emphasis on monitoring the impact of its project. Distributing seedlings and checking them during the first month is not enough. An estimated one year of care is necessary, until the trees are fully established. For stoves, their rate of use can at present only be estimated.
A number of indicators will provide RESCUE with data to measure impact:
- rate of stove use
- survival rate of trees planted in home compounds after six months
- survival rate of trees in green belts
Even though the fuel saving potential of the stove types used is known, and we are sure that some firewood is saved, measuring the consumption of a random sample of users will give a definitive result. Based on 0.7 kg of consumption per day and per capita (a figure that has been verified during the initial research), the overall savings are estimated to be 15% or 11.5 tons of firewood daily.
Outlook
So far, RESCUE's project has only been slowing down the degradation process around the camps. To slow down further or to reverse the negative trend, four strategies will be followed:
- A continuous effort to further improve in quantity and quality the use of improved stoves and energy saving methods.
- Supply of fuel by either providing fuelwood from commercial plantations or by gathering dead wood from an enlarged collection radius of under-exploited woodlands around Dadaab. This would require motorised support as well as security from Kenyan police or army.
- A project to engage in massive afforestation with a target of 800 to 1,200 acres annually for a minimum of three years.
- The question of ownership of the stove production unit, the tree nurseries and the greenbelts to be resolved during the next phase.
Even though RESCUE is still far from reversing the negative trend, we believe it can be done. In similar situations, only an early joint effort by all groups responsible and the `four pronged approach' can prevent a major environmental disaster. So far, resource protection projects in refugee hosting areas have concentrated on only one or two options; the integrated approach has yet to be tested and implemented.
July 1997