Environmental Refugees- Obinna Okafor

8/3/2019 Environmental Refugees- Obinna Okafor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/environmental-refugees-obinna-okafor 1/27

Environmental Refugees in KenyaMitigating causes of environmental refugees



ABSTRACT

Environmental refugees are a growing problem. In 1995 the estimation was that there were25 million refugees due to environmental causes and this number could be doubled in the

year 2010 if not acted upon (Myers, 2002). Kenya is a country where the problem of

environmental refugees is occurring and the main question addressed in this assessment is:

What are possible measures to mitigate the causes leading to environmental refugees in

Kenya? This report is the result of a limited environmental system analysis performed for the

government of Kenya, limited in the way that only a part of the problem of environmental

refugees is taken into account. Population growth leading to unsustainable land management

is taken as main cause for environmental refugees, thereby for example ignoring climate

change or social factors as drivers.

In this analysis three different tools are used to perform the assessment. The first tool,

developing a causal diagram, is used to frame the problem and possible solutions. Derivedfrom this is that possible mitigation measures are birth policy, agroforestry, alternatives for

fuel wood, irrigation, building dams and desalinitation of sea water. Next, scenario analysis is

applied to elaborate more on the future state of Kenya from the year 2010 to 2030 in order to

determine which of the mitigation measures will, under future conditions, have the highest

effect. Eventually, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is performed to determine a rank from the

t f d t th l t f d l ti



TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... II

TABLE OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... II

TABLE OF TABLES .................................................................................................... II

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

2. Problem Formulation ................................................................................................. 2

3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Literature review ..................................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Environmental system analysis tools ....................................................................................................... 4

4 Results ......................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Causal Diagram ...................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Identifying, screening and designing alternatives ................................................................................... 6 4.3 Forecasting future states of Kenya (Scenario Analysis) .............................................................. ............ 7 4.4 Predicting the consequences of the alternatives ............................................................... ..................... 10 4.5 Comparing and ranking the alternatives. A Multi-criteria decision analysis ........................................ 10

5 Di i 13



1. Introduction

An increased number of people forced to leave their home, either temporally or permanently,because of the environmental degradation, such as soil erosion, deforestation, high salinity

of soil, desertification, among others. Environmental degradation is caused by natural factors

or anthropogenic factors emerging from the unsustainable use of natural resources. These

displaced people, who have to seek another place to live in order to survive because their

former sustenance base (ecosystem) cannot support their life anymore, are called

“environmental refugees” (Myers, 1997).

According to Myers (2002), over decades the number of environmental refugees increased

dramatically reaching 25 million in 1995, of which almost half were located in Sub-Saharan

Africa.

If current pressures on the environment continue as a result of population growth, the total

number of people who will be forced to leave their homeland could increase dramatically inthe next 30 year. This could lead to profound socio-economic, political and environmental

problems at local, national and international levels or even could lead to violence and conflict

(Myers, 2002).

In Kenya the number of environmental refugees is increasing as a result of both

anthropogenic and natural causes (El-Hinnami, 1985). Because of the socioeconomic and

i t l i t f th f i ti i l di t h



2. Problem Formulation

Addressing the problem of environmental refugees the objective proposed by theGovernment of Kenya is to study the effect of the unsustainable land management on

environmental refugees in Kenya, in order to propose possible mitigations measures.

For this purpose the following research question will be used: What are possible measures to

mitigate the causes leading to environmental refugees in Kenya?

This main question will be answered through answering the following sub questions:

1) How does unsustainable land management in Kenya influence environmental

refugees?

2) What are the possible mitigation measures to be implemented in Kenya?

3) How will the amount of environmental refugees develop in Kenya until the year 2030?4) What are the main consequences of the implementation of the measures to mitigate

the problem of environmental refugees?

5) What is the most preferred mitigation measure to the problem of environmental

refugees in Kenya?

Limitations



3. Methodology

3.1 Literature reviewThe concept ‘environmental refugee’ was first used by El-Hinnawi (1985) stating that

environmental refugees are people that are forced to leave their habitat because of

environmental disruption (e.g. deforestation, desertification, erosion or drought). Over time,

there has been an increase in number of environmental refugees. Two decades ago, it was

reported by the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP),

that “as many as 50 million people could become environmental refugees” (Tolba, 1989) if

sustainable development would not be embraced (Tolba, 1989). More recently, Myers (2002)

and Goffman (2006) referred to a potential estimate of 200 million of environmental refugees

within 50 years if global warming sets in and sea levels rise. According to Myers (2002) in

1997 there were at least 25 million environmental refugees located in sub-Sahara Africa,

Central America and some part of Asia. This number could double in 2010 if not before, asthere is a rapid increase in numbers of (poor) people pressing hard to already overloaded

sustenance bases (environment) (Myers, 1997). What can be seen is that although numbers

differ, there is agreement that the amount of environmental refugees will increase in the

future if not acted upon.

From the beginning of defining environmental refugee by El-Hinnawi (1985) discussions

b t thi d fi iti h b i B El Hi i (1985) i hi d fi iti did t



3.2 Environmental system analysis tools

Problem formulation: To find possible mitigation measures to the problem of environmental

refugees in Kenya, in order to support the Government of Kenya to deal with this, it is

important to look for the causes. In this assessment causes were brought up by members of

the team and discussed within till agreement was achieved.

Identifying, screening, and designing alternatives: Within the causal diagram also possible

mitigation measures are determined. Discussed solutions are written in the diagram in order

to be implemented later on in the scenario analysis and the multi-criteria analysis.

Forecasting future contexts or states of the world: One of the applications of scenario

analysis is to assess the implications of certain (policy) measures on the future state of the

environment (Swart et al ., 2004). In this assessment two limited qualitative exploratory

baseline scenarios on the future state of environmental refugees are used. The aim is to

explore two plausible futures for Kenya by the year 2030, by means of making assumptions

about changes in the main driving forces (economic development, population growth,

urbanization and climate change) leading to the problem of environmental refugees.

B ilding and sing models for predicting conseq ences D t th ti f th i t t



4 Results

4.1 Causal DiagramThe causes why people become environmental refugees are multifarious and complex. In

this assessment the focus is on population growth and the resulting unsustainable land

management, which lead to resource depletion and thereby causing an increase in

environmental refugees. Figure 1. shows the causal-diagram for this focus including possible

solutions.



deforestation rate in Kenya to be 1.6 % for 1980s. Deforestation and overuse of arable land

leads to wind erosion and desertification. Improper irrigation methods or systems, which use

high amounts of water, raise the soil salinity, in the arid and sub arid areas of Kenya, up to a

level where a land use for agricultural activities is not longer possible (Githaiga et al ., 2003).

These effects of unsustainable land use lower the availability of resources such as fertile

land and groundwater.

The decrease in resource availability increases the pressure on the local land users,

resulting in even more depletion. Others are forced to leave their homes, and migrate within

Kenya or abroad, due to a lack of resources and become environmental refugees.

4.2 Identifying, screening and designing alternatives

There are many solutions or mitigation measures to the causes of environmental refugees.

These solutions, which reduce the causes of environmental refugees, influence

environmental refugees directly or indirectly. Below are the solutions listed, discussed for this

assessment:

Agroforestry: Agroforestry is a way of practicing agriculture in areas where the microclimatic

conditions are not optimal (Lott et al ., 2009). It is a system using consistent trees and shrubs

t th ith diff t th l d it Thi l d it l b d f



survive, are causing deforestation of natural forests, erosion of lands and losses in soil

productivity (Bilsborrow, and Ogendo,1992). One of the causes of the increased population is

the lack of a family planning policy (Prata, 2009). According to Prata (2009), help of the

government, but mostly international aid in financial and human resources, can help

designing good family planning policies, in order to reduce the birth rate in Kenya. Moreover,

the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) clarified that a

family planning policy should be accompanied by programs which focus on poverty

eradication, equality between genders, women’s empowerment, strengthen of human rights

and male responsibility in sexual behaviour (Speidel et al ., 2009).

Alternatives for fuel wood: As mentioned in the causal diagram, the continuing use of fuel

wood in Kenya in both urban and rural areas has led to deforestation and will continue to

cause destruction of the forests, unless alternative energy resources are going to be

provided. Paraffin, gas and electricity are the alternative energy resources that can be used

instead of fuel wood. The ecological and health impacts will be less with the use of these

energy resources (Brouwer and Falcao, 2004).

Building dams: As Kenya has a great problem of water scarcity due to the desertification and

the salinitation, the government should make a plan to build a number of dams. Building

dams can help to store large amounts of water (Schiff and Winters, 2002), which can be

d b th l d i d i d



Table 1: Possible future scenarios (2010-2030) in Kenya.

Scenario 1

In scenario 1 the economic growth is very moderate in the first time step from 2010 to 2020.

This causes a bigger increase in population growth (Perman et al., 2003). In the second time

t (2020 2030) th i th t th ( d t ) l l d th



Scenario 2

In scenario 2 in the first time step (2010-2020) the economy in Kenya will slightly grow. The

assumption is that with an increase in economic growth, the population growth will decrease.

So over the time period 2010 to 2020 population growth will slightly decrease. Then, from

2020 to 2030, the economic growth will even be higher and thus population growth will

decrease even more (see Table 1) (Perman et al., 2003). Decreased population growth on its

turn, leads an increase in economic growth (Brander and Dowrick, 1994).

Because of the slight growth in economy from 2010 to 2020, people living in rural areas in

Kenya will be migrating to the cities for economic purposes, thereby leading to moderate

urban development in the cities. This urbanisation will keep developing moderately between

2020-2030 as the economy in the cities will be improving.

These determinant factors (i.e. population, economic growth, urbanisation and climate

change) will cause unsustainable land use in the first time step as a result of a moderate

increase in economy (i.e. intensive agricultural activities on less marginal lands) and the

urbanisation of cities, thereby reducing available land for precise agriculture practices in

2010 to 2020. From 2020 to 2030 urbanisation will slightly increase because the population

is still (slightly) growing but the economy is growing as well and thereby reducing the

pressure on the agricultural lands. This results in a decrease of unsustainable land

t



4.4 Predicting the consequences of the alternatives

Mitigation measures

In scenario 1 the biggest problem is the high population growth throughout both time periods

and that its related economic growth is only increasing moderately. These two important

factors lead to an increase in all the other drivers of environmental refugees (i.e. ULM,

desertification, wind erosion, salinitation and deforestation). For this reason using birth

policies in scenario 1 will most likely have the most impact. Nevertheless, it should be

questioned whether or not using birth policy is ethically acceptable. Beside this, to

successfully implement birth policy strong regulations are required. This might not be feasible

in democratic states (Winckler, 2009).

The other five solutions (i.e. agroforestry, irrigation, alternatives for fuel wood, building dams

and desalination of seawater) will also influence the amount of environmental refugees in

scenario 1. Though they all have an influence one is better than the other. The causes these

measures work on are all equal (i.e. they have the same slope in the scenario diagram

except for deforestation) Agroforestry seems the “best” solution of these five as it has its

impact at the beginning of the chain leading to environmental refugees. Although alternatives

for fuel wood and irrigation seem to work, they may have less impact as they both work only

on a small part of the problem (see Figure 1, p. 5).



Increasing water availability refers to a surplus on water disposable for using or a higher

water use efficiency. In this way the same amount of water can be used by more people.

Forest protection means that the amount and the quality of the forest remains stable.

High spatial scale of implementation is the potential of an alternative to be used in different

regions in Kenya.

Technical feasibility refers to whether or not the technique for implementing a possible

solution is available and its implementation is simple.

Acceptance of alternatives by population deals with if people accept the alternative. This is

determined by social and cultural values (beliefs).

Support sustainable economic growth means a increasing GDP per capita by economic

activities of the population without compromising the economic growth for future generations.

Cost of implementation refers to the total cost of implementing a mitigation measure.

Scoring the mitigation measures: Scoring is based in the performance of each measures

against each criterion, using the method developed for CIFOR (Table 2), where 1 is given to

the measures that are strongly unfavourable in relation to the criterion. Likewise, 5 is given to

measures in which their performance is really good.

Table 2: Method developed for CIFOR. S G l d i i



Table 3: Regular ranking of criteria.

1 3 5 7 9

Weakly

important

Less

important

Moderately

important

More

important

Extremely

important

Overall evaluation of the measures: To provide information to the Government of Kenya

about the preference of each measure to reduce the problem of forced migration due to

environmental factors in Kenya, using the CIFOR´s method (Table 2) an order from the mostpreferred to the least preferred measure is given. This is done by multiplying the weights and

scores for each of the mitigation measures.

The complete result of the Multi-Criteria Analysis is showed in annex 1. Measures with the

highest overall score are the most preferred to reduce the causes forcing environmental

refugees.

From the six compared possible solutions agroforestry got the highest overall score (overall

score 4.1) resulting in a “very favourable” option. Irrigation systems (3.4), alternatives for fuel

wood (3.3), birth policy (2.9) and building dams (2.8) are considered “acceptable” options,

whereas the desalinization of sea water (2.1) is the least preferred since it is an

“unfavourable” option in order to mitigate the problem.



5 Discussion

First the results of this environmental system analysis will be discussed and thereafter a

discussion will follow about the methods applied in this assessment.

Like the multi-criteria analysis shows agroforestry is the most preferred solution. This is

because it has a high potential for a sustainable land use. If the implementation is correct, it

protects in a great extent the natural resources like soil, forest and water. The

implementation is possible in a wide range of landscapes in Kenya and can support a

sustainable economic growth in the agricultural sector. So, because of its overall effect

(economy and environment) and easiness to implement this measure is most favourable for

mitigating the causes of environmental refugees.

Likewise, through irrigation systems it is possible to mitigate problems such as water scarcity

and degradation of soils. The performance of the measures against agroforestry is lower.Whether or not irrigation systems are profitable for a sustainable land use depends on the

performance of the system. Irrigation measures using high water amounts in the arid and sub

arid regions of Kenya forces soil salinitation, while drop irrigation systems are useful for the

implementation of sustainable land use.

The implementation of a birth policy can lead to ethical and social problems (difficult to

i l t i d ti t i ) Th f l bi th li ith l



As third limitation the assumptions done in the scenario analysis can be mentioned. The

scenarios are partly based upon assumptions of the team and partly on scientific evidence.

The idea behind this is to reflect how the situation in Kenya will be in the future under

different circumstances (e.g. different economic situations). Some of these assumptions

could well not be realistic for Kenya, but are used to get a clear division between the two

different scenarios.

To finish the discussion main recommendations for further research is to perform an

integrated environmental and social-economic assessment (interdisciplinary research) for

finding solutions to the problem of environmental refugees as the problem is also multi-

disciplinary.



6 Conclusions

Environmental refugees will continue to increase unless some drastic actions are taken tomitigate the driving forces. From the scenario analysis conducted is that the number of

environmental refugees can continue to increase drastically in the near future in Kenya, if the

current trend in population growth and unsustainable land management continue.

Unsustainable land management is causing environmental refugees by depleting the

resource base in an area (e.g. deforestation and desertification). Possible mitigation

measures for the government of Kenya for the problem of unsustainable land management

(driven by population growth and leading to environmental refugees) are the implementation

of birth policies, agroforestry, alternatives for fuel wood, irrigation, building dams and

desalinitation of sea water. In the future this problem will most likely increase due to

population growth. The question however is what the rate of this growth will be.

Implementing birth policies might have a big effect when population increases drastically, but

when population growth already declines these policies might turn out to be not effective at

all. Agroforestry, on the other hand has big effects on both future scenarios of Kenya,

likewise for irrigation.

Concluded can be that the most preferred measures for the government of Kenya to mitigate

the causes of environmental refugees by the year 2030 are agroforestry and irrigation. While

bi h li h i l i h hi l i d i h b diffi l d l



7 References

Bashir, J., Eyasu, E. and Mogotsi K. 2006. Role of agroforestry in improving food securityand natural resource management in the drylands: a regional overview. Journal of the

Drylands 1(2): 206-211.

Bates, D. C. (2002). Environmental Refugees? Classifying Human Migrations

Caused by Environmental Change. Population & Environment 23(5): 465-477.

Bilsborrow, R. E. and Okoth Ogendo, H.W.O. 1992. Population-Driven Changes in

Land Use in Developing Countries. Ambio 21(1): 37-45.

Brander, J. A. and Dowrick. S. 1994. The role of fertility and population in economic

growth. Journal of Population Economics 7(1): 1-25.

Brouwer, R. and Falcao, M. P. 2004. Wood fuel consumption in Maputo,

Mozambique. Biomass and Bioenergy 27: 233-245.

Cropper, M. and Griffiths, C. 1994. The Interaction of Population Growth and

Environmental Quality. The American Economic Review 84(2): 250-254.

El-Hinnawi, E. 1985. Environmental Refugees. Nairobi, Kenya. United Nations

Environmental Programme .

El-Kady, M. and El-Shibini, F. 2001. Desalination in Egypt and the future application

in supplementary irrigation. Desalination 136: 63-72.

Gi h i J M R d R M hi A N d Dijk S 2003 S f W



Myers, N. 1997. Environmental refugees. Population and Environment: Population

and Environment 19(2): 167-182.

Myers, N. 2002. Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st

century, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London: Biological

sciences 357(1420): 609 –613.

Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J. and Common, M. 2003. Natural Resource and

Environmental Economics . Pearson Education, Harlow.

Prata, N. 2009. Making family planning accessible in resource-poor settings. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Science 364

(1532): 3093-3099.

Sato, Y. and Yamamoto, K. 2005. Population concentration, urbanization, and

demographic transition. Journal of Urban Economics 58: 45 –61.

Schiff, M. and Winters, A. L. 2002. Regional cooperation and the role of international

organizations and regional integration . World Bank Policy Research Working

Paper 2872.

Speidel, J. J., Weiss, D. C., Ethelston, S. A. and Gilbert, S. M. 2009. Population

policies programmes and the environment. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society Biological Science 364 (1532): 3049-3065 .

S R J R ki P d R bi J 2004 Th bl f h f

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/search?author1=Sarah+M.+Gilbert&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/search?author1=Sarah+M.+Gilbert&sortspec=date&submit=Submit



Annex

Annex 1: Results of the multi-criteria analysis A - C

Annex 2: Results of the sensitivity analysis D - F



A

Annex 1: Results of the multi-criteria analysis

REGULAR RANKING AND RATING (WEIGHTING)

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5

Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating

Soil protection 7 15 9 19 9 15 8 13 6 7,5

Increasing water

availability9 20 9 19 9 15 8 13 5 5

Forest protection 5 11 8 16 9 15 7 13 6 7,5

High spatial scale

implementation

5 11 7 9 7 5 5 8 7 10

Technical

Feasibility7 15 8 12 8 15 9 15 7 10

Acceptance

alternatives by

population

1 2 7 9 8 10 8 16 8 20

Support sustainable

economic growth3 6 8 10 7 5 6 7 8 20

Cost of

implementation9 20 6 6 9 20 9 15 8 20



B

COMBINED WEIGHT

Ranking Rating Combined

Weight

(%)CriterionSum of

votes

Relative

Weight

Sum of

votes

Relative

Weight

Soil protection 39 13,49 69,5 13,9 13,70

Increasing water

availability40 13,84 72 14,4 14,12

Forest protection 35 12,11 62,5 12,5 12,31

High spatial scale

implementation31 10,73 43 8,6 9,66

TechnicalFeasibility

39 13,49 67 13,4 13,45

Acceptance

alternatives by

population

32 11,07 57 11,4 11,24

Support

sustainable

economic growth

32 11,07 48 9,6 10,34

Cost of

implementation41 14,19 81 16,2 15,19

TOTAL 289 100 500 100 100



C

PERFORMANCE MATRIX

Mitigationmeasures

Soilprotection

Increasing

water

availability

Forestprotection

High spatial

scale

implementation

Technicalfeasibility

Acceptance

alternativesby

population

Support

sustainableeconomic

growth

Cost of implementation

OverallScore

Agroforestry 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 3 4,1

Irrigation

system4 4 0 3 4 5 4 3 3,4

Birth policy 3 3 3 5 2 1 4 3 2,9

Building dams 2 5 2 2 3 3 3 2 2,8

Desalinization

of sea water 0 5 0 1 2 4 4 1 2,1

Alternatives

for fuel wood3 3 5 4 4 2 2 3 3,3

Weight (%) 13,7 14,1 12,3 9,7 13,4 11,2 10,3 15,2



D

Annex 2: Results of the sensitivity analysis

REGULAR RANKING AND RATING

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5

Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating

Soil protection 9 20 9 19 9 15 8 13 6 7,5

Increasing water

availability9 20 9 19 9 15 8 13 5 5

Forest protection 9 25 8 16 9 15 7 13 6 7,5

High spatial scale

implementation

1 5 7 9 7 5 5 8 7 10

Technical

Feasibility2 5 8 12 8 15 9 15 7 10

Acceptance

alternatives by

population

1 5 7 9 8 10 8 16 8 20

Support sustainable

economic growth2 10 8 10 7 5 6 7 8 20

Cost of

implementation2 10 6 6 9 20 9 15 8 20



E

WEIGHTING

Ranking Rating Combined

Weight

(%)CriterionSum of

votes

Relative

Weight

Sum of

votes

Relative

Weight

Soil protection 41 14,75 74,5 14,9 14,82

Increasing water

availability40 14,39 72 14,4 14,39

Forest protection 39 14,03 76,5 15,3 14,66

High spatial scale

implementation27 9,71 37 7,4 8,56

TechnicalFeasibility

34 12,23 57 11,4 11,82

Acceptance

alternatives by

population

32 11,51 60 12 11,76

Support

sustainable

economic growth

31 11,15 52 10,4 10,78

Cost of

implementation34 12,23 71 14,2 13,22

TOTAL 278 100 500 100 100



F

PERFORMANCE MATRIX

Mitigationmeasures

Soilprotection

Increasing

water

availability

Forestprotection

High spatial

scale

implementation

Technicalfeasibility

Acceptance

alternativesby

population

Support

sustainableeconomic

growth

Cost of implementation

OverallScore

Agroforestry 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 3 4,1

Irrigation

system4 4 0 3 4 5 4 3 3,3

Birth policy 3 3 3 5 2 1 4 3 2,9

Building dams 2 5 2 2 3 3 3 2 2,8

Desalinization

of sea water0 5 0 1 2 4 4 1 2,1

Alternatives

for fuel wood3 3 5 4 4 2 2 3 3,3

Weight (%) 14,8 14,4 14,7 8,6 11,8 11,8 10,8 13,2

Environmental Refugees- Obinna Okafor

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Refugees- Obinna Okafor