When debate arises over the causes of environmental decline in Africa, some argue that refugees accelerate land degradation and the spread of desert conditions. A report by researchers from the University of Sussex, King's College (London) and the Cheikh Anta Diop University in Dakar challenges this assumption. From case studies in Senegal and Guinea, they conclude that the presence of large numbers of refugees is not the main reason why natural resources become degraded. Refugees do not, in general, use natural resources in more destructive ways than local people. Even so, environmental initiatives to reduce long-term environmental degradation should involve both refugees and local people.

International agencies are increasingly concerned at the potentially adverse environmental impact of large-scale population movements across international borders. Since 1989, around 60,000 refugees from Mauritania entered the vulnerable Sahelian environment of the Senegal River Valley in neighbouring Senegal. In Guinea, about 500,000 refugees from Liberia and Sierra Leone entered the Guinea Forest Zone between 1989 and 1995.

In both areas refugees have settled alongside local people and both pursue similar livelihoods, using natural resources in similar ways. Indeed, there appears to be a high degree of cooperation and harmony between refugees, local people and local government in both countries. Although refugees tend to have poorer access to agricultural land and other natural resources, they do have access to food aid from international agencies.In general, refugees do not use natural resources in a more wasteful or damaging way than local people in either Senegal or Guinea. Refugees normally respect local rules governing the use of natural resources. However, some changes have occurred in the natural environment.

For example, after the influx of refugees in the Senegal River Valley there was a reduction in the size of forests and an increase in areas of scrub and bare ground. Areas under cultivation also increased, but these changes were not directly caused by the influx of refugees. Indeed, local women have more impact on reducing tree cover as they use fuelwood for cooking, whereas refugees tend to use small amounts of animal dung. Other reasons why refugees pose little or no threat to their adopted environments were that they tended to be:

• involved in local structures (such as forest management committees)
• inclined to show respect for local rules
• present in relatively low numbers (in Senegal)
• dispersed over a large area
• closely linked by kinship ties to local people
• unlikely to seek conflict with local people over natural resources.

Policy recommendations in the study report suggest that authorities should:

• continue to provide food aid to targeted groups of refugees to avoid undue pressure on natural resources
• include both local people and refugees in environmental interventions, and not target refugees alone
• consult refugee and local populations about appropriate interventions to tackle environmental problems that pre-date the arrival of refugees, encouraging them to work together to find joint solutions.

Source(s):
Refugees and environmental change: The case of the Senegal River Valley, Department of Geography, Project CFCE, King's College London, by R.Black and M.Sessay (1995)
Refugees and environmental change: The case of the Guinea Forest Zone, School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, by R.Black (1995) in collaboration with the Département de Sociologie, Université de Conakry.

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK (1993-1995)

id21 Research Highlight: 1998-July-10

Further Information:
Richard Black
School of African and Asian Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1273 606755
Fax: +44 (0) 1273 623572
Contact the contributor: r.black@sussex.ac.uk

University of Sussex