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 study 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).

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 study 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 study 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 researcher who led the study. Households of nationals said they could absorb about 800 trees, mostly as woodlots.

We asked further questions about how biodiversity could be maintained. The area is home to important indigenous Africa trees like the Shea Butter tree (Vitellaria paradoxa). And we enquired about trees to maintain soil fertility; part of the aim of Uganda’s generosity towards refugees is that they should be able to grow some of their own food.

Almost four years on, we’d like to encourage Parliamentarians around the world to see trees as a basic part of life-sustaining efforts in displacement crises. Even if refugees are in camps rather than settlements, there are always corners for trees. Witness efforts to green Cox’s Bazaar in Bangladesh and, among other things, prevent landslides.

A team from Coventry University4 studied our project and found that shade was the main reason refugees wanted trees. “At home we have a large mango tree next to our homes under which we can sit up to 15 people,” said Keji Reida, a young refugee from Yei in South Sudan told me. Her refugee settlement benefitted from a large number of trees from our project in 2018. Today jackfruit trees stand tall. Papaya trees are yielding fruit. And at least one refugee is earning from making furniture from the trees. He sells a bed at $7. The tree branches and stems are free. The main cost is nails.

We cannot claim to have satisfied all tree needs. But refugee plots where we have introduced trees are greener than those that we have not yet ‘treated’.

Our star performing tree for speed of growth is the indigenous species Albzia gummifera, which within three years soars over the grassed thatched homes of the South Sudanese. It prevents the walls of the largely mud-and-wattle homes from being eroded by pelting tropical rain.

Trees also slow wind speeds. “When you have trees, the strong wind cannot break the houses or crops,” explained Lilly Leiloba, one of our South Sudanese community-based facilitators for the project in a recent training.

Refugees are particularly interested in tree species that coppice – sprout more stems that can be used as poles when the main stem is cut. These they can sell or use to build and repair their homes. Every structure requires wood, including their kitchens, drying racks, latrines and bathing stalls, and animal hutches and enclosures for pigeons, ducks and goats.

We advise Parliamentarians who have refugees in their constituencies not to see them as a problem or to blame them for natural resource damage. Often landscapes are already degraded. Before the arrival of the refugees, West Nile had lost much of its natural vegetation to both the charcoal trade and to fire-curing tobacco.

A refugee influx may accelerate loss of tree cover. But it is also an opportunity to address environmental matters that may have been previously a low priority.

We ask you to be alert to the opportunities that refugee influxes can create for illegal deforestation. In West Nile, hundreds of kilometres of new roads have been built to service the refugee areas. These have unfortunately facilitated the extraction of precious hardwoods with high grade timber like Afzelia africana.

We also advise that you involve organisations like my own and botanists from the universities and herbarium of your country. It is not enough to facilitate the planting only of fast-growing exotics species like eucalyptus or Australian acacia. Our study found 80 indigenous species of tree of which 31 had edible parts, such as oils, leaves, nuts and, of course, fruit. Botanists will know which these are.

Sourcing nutrition from the bush has often been stigmatized and eating tree leaves seen as a behaviour only resorted to in famine. In fact, these are important sources of vitamins and minerals for rural communities, and some of the products have a local and regional market.

The fruit of species like Balinites aegyptiaca contains more micronutrients per weight than an orange. Many indigenous trees are also medicinal. A good area for supporting the growing of such trees is around schools, child friendly spaces, women’s centres, and health facilities where vulnerable people often congregate.

Protecting mother trees - the biggest and oldest trees on the landscape – is also vital. The system in West Nile has been to paint the trunks of important trees either red (never cut) or yellow (cut only with permission).

An article in Scientific American describes mother trees as “the glue that holds the forest together. They have the genes from previous climates; they are homes to so many creatures, so much biodiversity. Through their huge photosynthetic capacity, they provide food for the whole soil web of life.”

Finally, it is not just about raising and getting seedlings in the ground. That looks super for a photo opportunity. But assisted natural regeneration – also called also farmer-managed natural regeneration or FMNR – can be faster, easier, cheaper and better at bringing back the vegetation, particularly in arid and semi-arid areas.

This involves protecting 'wildlings' that come up on their own from seed or pruning sprouting stumps of trees that have been cut but still have healthy living root systems. By eliminating all but one or two strong stems, you encourage those stems to grow into what effectively becomes a new tall tree.

You have far less of the survival worries of planting seedlings, and there are no seedlings to transport, a big cost saving. A good resource is available from the Food Security and Natural Resources team at World Vision Australia.

Until recently the humanitarian community saw protecting the environment as secondary to life-saving activities like trucking in food or drilling boreholes. Rest assured that it has completely changed its outlook.

Organisations like the UN High Commission for Refugees and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are now deeply serious about “greening the humanitarian response.”

IFRC says this “is about extending the fundamental humanitarian principle of ‘do no harm’ to the environment and ecosystems which the people we seek to assist are reliant on, recognising that sustainability is generated through environmentally sound actions.” Trees are a big part of this.

UNHCR goes even further and says that climate change is contributing to refugees. “Climate change is a risk multiplier, or a threat multiplier, for other drivers of displacement.”

Whatever the circumstances of your constituency, please know that there are many resources out there to protect the environment as you host refugees. The climate and biodiversity crises are the defining challenges of our time. They are behind the COVID pandemic. Trees done right are an important part of addressing this. You will not be disappointed.

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) advances human well-being, equity and environmental integrity by conducting innovative research, developing partners’ capacity, and actively engaging in dialogue with all stakeholders to inform policies and practices that affect forests and people. CIFOR is a CGIAR Research Center, and leads the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA). The Global Landscapes Forum is led by CIFOR, in collaboration with its co-founders UNEP and the World Bank and Charter Members. Visit www.cifor.org

World Agroforestry (ICRAF) is the only institution that does globally significant agroforestry research in and for all of the developing tropics. Knowledge produced by ICRAF enables governments, development agencies and farmers to utilize the power of trees to make farming and livelihoods more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable at scales. ICRAF's work also addresses many of the issues being tackled by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically those that aim to eradicate hunger, reduce poverty, provide affordable and clean energy, protect life on land, and combat climate change. Headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, ICRAF operates six regional programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America and conducts research in more than 30 other countries around the developing world. Visit www.worldagroforestry.org

Cathy Watson is Chief of Partnerships for CIFOR-ICRAF, international not for profit organisations that envision a greener more equal and food and nutrition secure world.