GREENING THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
GREENING THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE Utilising the power of trees to make farming and livelihoods more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable for refugees in Uganda Among all Commonwealth countries, Uganda has probably the most generous refugee policy. Refugees have the same rights as nationals, the only exceptions being that they cannot vote or join the National Army. Otherwise, they can live anywhere in Uganda in or outside a refugee settlement (they don’t call them ’camps’). They can work, send their children to Ugandan schools, use national health facilities and enjoy the right of movement around the East African state. There are good economic reasons why Uganda opted for this. A 2016 study1 by University of California, Davis and the UN World Food Programme found that “refugees’ purchases benefit local and national economies, and economic benefits exceed the amount of donated aid.” But Ugandans commonly explain their generosity by saying, “Many of us were refugees. We understand what they are going through.” Nowhere is the history of flight more evident than in West Nile in Northwest Uganda. Bordered by what are now South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, most of its population fled after the fall of Idi Amin in 1979, when rogue units of the army that ousted him took reprisals against local people for the tenuous reason that Amin was a West Niler. Everyone has a story. “I ran with my grandparents to Congo. My aunt was abducted. They were very rough,” says Joel Adriko about the poorly commanded soldiers and irregulars. The refugees returned home in 1987 after the current President, Yoweri Museveni, came to power. Today, however, the tables are turned, and it is Uganda hosting refugees, about 1.4 million mostly from South Sudan, one of several influxes caused by instability in that young nation. The biggest wave crossed the border 2016-17, and Uganda leapt into the limelight as it rolled out at massive scale its open arms policy. Joel Adriko was one of the many Ugandans who welcomed them. A forester from West Nile, his mother tongue is Lugbara, a Sudanic language similar to some of the languages spoken by the refugees. He joined a project run by my organisation, World Agroforestry (ICRAF).
Cathy Watson
We had rushed to West Nile as soon as we heard that large numbers were crossing into Uganda. We found the Office of the Prime Minister allocating plots of between 30 metre square and 50 metre square per refugee family in a wooded savannah. It had formerly been clan land where communities collected grass, firewood and other natural resources. We knew the refugees would rely on trees and that unless they obtained a tree supply that answered at least some of their needs, refugees and nationals would soon be in conflict. The World Bank, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and the Ugandan government had already conducted a study2 into the demand for wood in the neighbouring mega-refugee settlement of Bidi that echoed our thoughts. “Refugee and host households are highly dependent on forests and other woodlands as primary sources of woodfuel for cooking and income generation” it said, adding that average daily consumption of firewood by refugees and nationals was 1.6 kg and 2.1 kg per person respectively. Trees, it said, would be scarce within a few years if nothing were done. One of its recommendations was agroforestry - trees and woody perennials interplanted along boundaries and with crops for energy, food, and fodder. “This intervention,” it said, “should target the residential plots assigned to refugees and the cultivated fields of both host and refugee communities surrounding refugee settlements.” Emboldened by this funding but pretty determined to increase the deployment of trees and other nature-based solutions in the humanitarian space anyway, we obtained funding from UK Aid (via the FCDO, then called DFID) and we set up a large tree nursery and tree growing programme. But refugees have very specific needs, as does the local community. So we also did our own study3 into whether the two communities perceived an issue with trees. Sure enough, over 80% recognised that trees were being felled unsustainably - for firewood, timber and poles and brick baking. Happily, refugee households said they could absorb up to 50 trees, mostly on their boundaries. “It is possible to grow trees in these small spaces,” concluded Lalisa Duguma, the Ethiopian
is Chief of Partnerships for CIFOR-ICRAF, international not for profit organisations that envision a greener more equal and food and nutrition secure world.
162 | The Parliamentarian | 2021: Issue Two | 100 years of publishing
