Humanitarian Security and Environmental Sustainability:
Balancing Upon a Fine Line
By Rustem Ertegun for the Chronicle
| Home | In This Issue | Archive | Français | Contact Us | Subscribe | Links |
| Article | ||
| In the Congo's Virunga National Park—a world heritage site of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) since 1979—an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 cubic metres of wood and grass had been collected each day by refugees during a five-month period. Some 71 square kilometres of the National Park were completely deforested. Even if refugee survival comes at the cost of increased soil erosion and loss of biodiversity—two of the quintessential by-products of deforestation—preventive measures lie on relentless moral ground. Riding the fine line between thoughtful resource management and the right to live is a delicate balancing act during complex humanitarian emergencies. The impromptu nature of mass population displacements forces humanitarian organizations to act promptly and elaborate policy within limited time frames. Accelerated decision-making processes must ensure that immediate humanitarian needs, especially in the initial stages of refugee operations, are met as quickly as possible. When environmental concerns are raised, the goal becomes to galvanize awareness of such issues throughout the refugee population and ensure that humanitarian practices reflect environmentally-alert policy. These measures can prevent costly clean-up projects and minimize environmental degradation. Yet, the damage done to local ecosystems often comes as a bitter afterthought to refugee operations. The impact on the environment of largely unanticipated human settlements seems to garner limited public scrutiny. Even cost-effective environmental protection projects can be labelled lavish, given the multitude of human crises worldwide that demand a humanitarian focus. Refugee crises largely occur in nations that are already resource poor. Since refugee migrations tend to be transitory and temporary, the displaced do not exhibit the same care for natural resources as local groups. It is often the case that local groups have long since elaborated their own relationship with the land, and sudden population surges violate their pre-ordained patterns of land use. The continual upheaval in the Great Lakes region of the Congo in the mid-1990s first highlighted the long suspected link between refugee movements and environmental degradation. The media frenzy during Rwanda's civil war raised awareness within the international community of its environmental impact. The ecological devastation there was astounding, as the unprecedented scale of the exodus revealed the destructive force of mass-scale flight and human upheaval. The demand for wood intended for cooking and construction can deplete surrounding forests at an alarming rate. Besides the use of fuels, such as wood, crop residue and dung, such practices release harmful pollutants that have been linked to acute respiratory infections, especially among children. According to the UN Children's Fund estimates for 2000, such infections killed approximately 2 million children under the age of five in developing countries. However, the connection between acute respiratory illness, deaths of malnourished children and deforestation is rarely made. During the Rwandan crisis, within three days, over one million refugees had poured over the border into Goma within three days. The sudden influx of such massive proportion was like a city rising out of nowhere, without the basic infrastructure needed to sustain human life. In the overcrowded camp, with contaminated water sources and a lack of sanitation disposal due to the region's impenetrable volcanic ground, a cholera epidemic decimated 10 per cent of the refugee population. If unmanaged, the production of excreta and other waste materials jeopardizes critical soil and groundwater resources. The provision of sufficient potable water and proper sanitation systems are key tenets to safeguarding camps from the outbreak of deadly epidemics. (See photo below: In 1994, the Kibeho camp for displaced people in Rwanda, where the need for large amounts of wood for cooking meals and building shelters led to the rapid destruction of natural vegetation in the immediate vicinity.)
Mass exoduses irrevocably strain the precarious balance between environmental preservation and the immediate need to sustain life, forcing local ecosystems to exceed their carrying capacity. Irrespective of aid, refugees and internally displaced people alike place added weight on an interconnected web of natural resources that may already be struggling to sustain the local community. The inherent competition between local groups and forced migrants over access to natural resources involuntarily polarizes social relations in refugee settlement areas. This is especially true in high-density camps where pre-established practices and norms are transgressed. When local communities are dwarfed by a large-scale human invasion, the exploitation of natural resources becomes harder to monitor and control, as environmental abuses tend to proliferate. This kind of conflict can affect a host country's decision to grant asylum and prevent the implementation of integration policies for refugees seeking long-term asylum. If local, dispersed integration is not an option then: camp populations below 20,000 are most environmentally sustainable; camps should be located at least 15 kilometres from protected areas or zones of ecological significance, and should be at least one day's walk from each other to reduce over-exploitation; camp areas should never be clear-felled; and clustered housing configuration should be arranged in a way that refugees can pool cooking resources between two or three households. Fulfilling even the barest of human needs can threaten environmental integrity; yet, people depend on the same natural resources to sustain life and, if possible, create wealth. Although global ecological deterioration may overshadow the refugee-environment link, environmental considerations pertaining to the elaboration of refugee policy should not be underestimated. The synergy between mass displacement and unregulated resource use has proven to be a largely detrimental force vis-à-vis the sustainability of natural resources. Evaluating and realizing the interrelatedness of conflicting human and environmental needs are key for orchestrating sustainable refugee assistance in an environmentally challenged twenty-first century. |
| Environmental Damage in Afghanistan |
| The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is leading five teams of experts in the assessment of how years of conflict have affected Afghanistan's environment. It is estimated that the country had lost up to 30 per cent of its forests since 1979, with less than 2 per cent of the nation remaining forested. Rangelands, watersheds and agricultural areas are also severely degraded. Afghanistan boasts a rich heritage of biological diversity, but its six protected areas cover less than 1 per cent of the land. During almost thirty years of conflict, its environment had been heavily damaged by military activities, refugee movements, the over-exploitation of natural resources, and a lack of management and institutional capacity. The tasks of the mission's assessment teams are to: |
| Home | In This Issue | Archive | Français | Contact Us | Subscribe | Links |