a publication of the
Environmental Associates

Know Your Environment

Forced Out: The Effects of Involuntary Migration on the Environment

by Roland Wall, August 2003

  1. Introduction
  2. Environmental impacts of human dislocation
  3. Finding solutions
  4. Summary
  5. Conclusion
  6. References

Introduction

Yugoslav refugees Refugees flee war and violence in the former
Yugoslavia. Refugee movements are often
associated with immediate, concentrated
ecological damage
Photo courtesy: UNHCR

The United Nations estimates 19 million people have been forced by conflict or tyranny to leave their nation of origin. Another 24 million—though still in their native countries—have had to flee their communities in response to dire circumstances, such as civil war or famine.

The process is called "forced migration"—with people uprooted from their homes to escape violence, oppression and genocide—and it is one of the grim realities of the modern world. With it has come a large, semi-permanent population of displaced persons living in barely tolerable conditions under a shadow of poverty, illness and death.

Often these refugees (the general label for involuntary migrants) are forced to live a hand-to-mouth existence, foraging basic necessities from natural systems of the places to which they have fled. Because of this physical upheaval, in addition to severe human hardship, involuntary relocation has taken a significant toll on the environment. There is, in fact, a growing realization that mass flights of people can profoundly disrupt natural resources and regional ecosystems.

In many cases refugees are forced into camps—large improvised communities operated by relief agencies. In the process they are often cut off from the normal systems on which they had depended for basic necessities such as food, shelter, fuel and water. Under such circumstances, wild animals and plants become food, forests are stripped for firewood, streams become both sources of water and depositories of waste. When dislocations are sudden, and involve large numbers of people, the stress on the ecosystem of host countries can become significant.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) is the premier agency charged with providing humanitarian aid and settlement assistance to displaced persons around the world. Recently, the UNHCR has also begun to address the environmental impacts of forced migration. According to current High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers "We cannot ignore the environmental consequences of refugees and refugee operations." [1]

With forced migration occurring across national boundaries, no country can isolate itself from the effects. Growing populations, declining access to resources (particularly water) and intractable, multi-generational conflicts all add to the magnitude of the problem. Ultimately, some experts suggest this could even go full circle, with migrations causing environmental problems which, in turn, lead to more migration, as host populations flee environmental degradation.

Refugee crises are also symptomatic of larger social and political chaos, and the loss of social and civic institutions. Such basic institutions are critical for environmental protection, and their loss can pose just as serious a threat to the environment as pollution or over-consumption. Indeed, it can be argued that if a social system is unstable, it is probably incapable of living in harmony with natural systems.

In this issue we will examine the environmental implications embedded in the forced migration of human populations. The impacts of such relocations can range from the acute, specific damage that might occur when displaced populations are first struggling for survival, to long-term problems that are seen when refugees are repatriated. Addressing these problems will require a multidimensional effort that recognizes the larger environmental problems facing the world.

top of page

Environmental Impacts of Human Dislocation

In the mid-1990s, civil and political unrest in the tiny African nation of Rwanda resulted in some of the most horrific acts of genocide the world has seen in the past 50 years. Ultimately, these mass killings contributed to the start of a vast conflict across central Africa. So many nations became involved in the fighting that it has been dubbed the "African World War."

The first waves of refugees from this war commenced in July, 1994. Hundreds of thousands of Rwandans fled into Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), many crossing the border at the tiny village of Goma in Africa's "Great Lakes" region.. There, "cities sprung up virtually overnight as refugees cowered in hastily airlifted tents, flimsy twig huts or simply in hollows scooped into the ground." [2] Within 3 days an estimated 1.2 million people had arrived.

Food, fuel, water and shelter became critical, and the environment was exploited for all of these. Wood for fires and for building shelters, along with game animals, were taken from Virunga National Forest, the oldest wildlife sanctuary in Africa and a UNESCO World Heritage site. Other sensitive ecosystems were also subjected to deforestation and poaching. Water was drawn from Goma Lake, and untreated waste was dumped back in.

The result, was environmental devastation across the region. Within 3 days, 900 acres of trees were stripped off Mount Goma. By mid-July, cases of cholera—spread by polluted water—were ravaging the population. The ultimate death toll from waterborne illnesses is believed to have been in the tens of thousands. [3] Amid the epidemic, medical wastes were disposed of improperly, dumped in forests where they were spread by animals, endangering the health of both humans and wildlife. These problems were worsened because political factions were using the camps to carry out their own agendas; relief agencies were unable to control the situation in the camps and this led to even more exploitation of natural resources.

When this immediate crisis in the African Great Lakes region finally began to subside in the 1995, it was obvious to the UNHCR that much more serious consideration must be given to the environmental impact of forced migration and refugee camps. Studies were undertaken both of the specific circumstances in Goma , and of the general characteristics of refugee operations in relation to the environment. Several conclusions were reached, some obvious, others less apparent.

The refugee process is seen by experts as having 3 stages: emergency operations, "care and maintenance," and the move towards a "stable outcome"—usually either repatriation, relocation or integration into the host community. Although each of these phases has potential for environmental consequences, it is during the "emergency operations"—as was evident in the Congo—that the impacts on the environment are most dramatic and sudden.

Refugees in war-torn or otherwise disrupted areas usually must seek sanctuaries in the immediate vicinity of their own nations, frequently ending up in countries that are just as poor and politically unstable as the ones they left. Certainly this was the case in the Congo, with the refugee crisis a major factor leading to the larger war. Such flights from "bad to worse" can be seen in many other instances as well. Refugees from the Horn of Africa, for example, often end up joining the millions of internally displaced persons in violence-racked Sudan.

Flights of refugees are not planned, orderly events. Huge numbers of people may move suddenly in a matter of days, as happened in the African Great Lakes. On the other hand, the movements may be spread out over months or years. Refugees may concentrate in one area, as with Goma, or—like the cycles of refugees from Afghanistan—they may diffuse across a broad region of the world.

When large numbers of refugees have to move in a short time, they often end up in marginal or abandoned landscapes. Often, they are in regions of the host country that have been seen as too harsh for permanent habitation. In the Goma region, for example, much of the landscape is covered with dense volcanic rock that is resistant even to dynamite. Simply digging latrines became an insurmountable task, contributing to the poor hygiene.

Conversely, as was seen in the Virunga reserve, many of these impoverished host nations are also the locations of fragile and critical ecosystems. Often, these are ecosystems which are already stressed due to the combined effects of poverty and human exploitation. Both plant and animal biodiversity are often the big losers in such situations.

Biodiversity is a particularly valuable environmental component that nonetheless lacks obvious economic value. For refugees fleeing intolerable conditions with little more than what they can carry, natural biological goods and services are the easiest to access. "When you have lost so much and have little to look forward to, it is very difficult to tell someone not to cut a tree so that they might have shelter, or not to kill a wild animal for food.." [4] Moreover, since there is a shortage of data on the levels of biodiversity in most developing nations, many of the repercussions of these actions may not be understood by scientists until it is far too late to intervene.

A 1995 study [5] by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) identified two ways that sudden displacements of human populations can degrade the environment. First, the sheer number of people can "strain the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem" both in terms of the available resources and the capacity for waste disposal. Second, more generically, the logistics of providing for a large number of displaced people can become so complex that environmental issues are simply ignored. Both of these factors were evident in the Congo.

Carrying capacity is an ecological concept that refers to the maximum number of individuals of a particular species that can live in an area without causing environmental damage. In practice, the carrying capacity for any species depends on the amount of resources it uses and the amount of waste it generates, relative to the region's natural capacities. When populations of organisms exceed the carrying capacity of a region, there is usually an environmental crisis, ultimately leading towards a population "crash."

In this case, however, the species to which we are referring is our own. When human refugee populations are forced to exploit environmental goods and services in an unsustainable manner, they are effectively exceeding the area's carrying capacity. In both natural and human populations, as a carrying capacity is exceeded, competition for resources becomes sharper. Again, the problems at Goma give a vivid example of how such an environmental crisis might present itself during the emergency phase.

The ECHO study further divides the environmental impacts of forced migration into two categories - immediate impacts on the human environment (e.g. food shortages, water contamination) and long term effects on the "physical and natural environment." The UN uses a somewhat different system, identifying five categories of impact - deterioration of natural resources, irreversible effects on natural resources, impacts on health, social impacts and disruptions of the local population.

In practice however, the distinctions are somewhat artificial. It has become evident in studies of refugee situations that all environmental impacts are interconnected and all can ultimately translate into damage to the human environment. For example, in the early phases of refugee operations, the need for fuel and the resulting deforestation are among the most pressing environmental issues. Although deforestation by refugees is only a fraction of the clearing of trees that takes place around the world, it is often concentrated and extensive in particular regions. And while its effects on ecosystems can be devastating—as in the case of Mount Goma—it also has vast human impact.

According to the UN, [6] in clearing forests for wood, an average refugee camp depletes 1800 acres in its first year and 1200 for very year after. As a result "entire settlements have been completely cleared of all trees and shrubs. Inhabitants of 3 - 4 years old camps had to walk for several hours to find trees and shrubs to cut." Many camps such as this were located around Virunga National Forest; during peak periods, it is estimated as many as 20 to 30,000 people a day were taking wood from the forest. All told, over one third of the forest was impacted by wood cutting, with 35 million trees ultimately cut down.

Behind these simple numbers are a range of social, political and environmental implications. Tens of thousands of people fanning out across the countryside looking for burnable wood inevitably has social impact. It interferes with host communities that are dependent on the same resources and leads to conflicts with the local populations. Since often this task is performed by women, there are also real dangers of assault and rape faced in unsettled refugee situations.

In terms of human health, stripping trees from the countryside can lead to vast amounts of erosion, which—in addition to being a degradation of a natural resource—can contribute heavily to water quality problems. And the burning of wood in itself—often in inefficient stoves located in enclosed spaces—can become a significant threat to the health of the refugees. Again, this latter issue is particularly true for women who often tend the fires and perform cooking chores.

Thus, one single impact on the environment—deforestation—has a cascade of impacts on human health, natural ecosystems, and the social structure. The point here is that the environment is not simply plants and animals, nor can destruction of the environment only be seen academically as loss of biodiversity or degraded aquatic ecosystems.

Sergio Callemon, a UNHCR official in Kenya, made the following observation: "We tend to look at the 'environment' through a very narrowly focused telescope. The environment involves politics, protection, security, food and health-very obvious really when you think about it, but people often don't connect all the dots." [7] From this perspective, the distinctions between the "natural" and "human environment" become blurred, and avoiding damage to the natural environment becomes the crucial step to maintaining the human environment as well.

This relationship between the human and natural environment is evident enough when looking at human subsistence issues, particularly in artificial, (and stressful) camp settings—e.g. the clear connection between water pollution and cholera, the long term costs of deforestation. The problems in refugee camps strain some of the most basic elements of the human environment.

But the environmental impacts of forced migration are not limited to those during the emergency phase of operations, and by no means do all refugees end up in camps. Large cities may offer greater opportunities for income and support. Indeed, many of the UN's practices call for decentralized settling of refugees and integration into local populations.

Urban integration, however, is not a foolproof solution. This was seen in the west African nation of Guinea, where refugees from Sierra Leone and Liberia have fled throughout the past decade. Their integration has been considered a showcase of how a host country can extend assistance and at the same time not overtax it's resources. Other studies, however, note that important urban services in Guinea were severely strained by the influx of refugees into the nations metropolitan areas.

According to a report [8] by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) "No major urban centre [in Guinea] has escaped the demographic impact of the refugees." One town, Gueckedou, went from a population 20,000 a decade ago to 150,000 at present. Almost all of that growth was from refugee movement. Even in Guinea's capital city, Conakry, over ten percent of the population are refugees.

The result of this growth, with refugees far outnumbering the host population in many Guinean cities, has been a severe strain on urban supply and disposal capacities. The report notes that many cities are currently unable to handle the volume of solid waste, with attendant health problems from improperly disposed of garbage. "In most of the towns there is no efficient and viable system for the collection, transportation and disposal of all types of wastes, in particular solid wastes."

Outside of cities, in the smaller towns, the situation is even worse. Most small towns have no solid waste, septic, or water systems at all. The result has been contamination of both streams and wells, with recurrent epidemics of cholera and meningitis.

In addition to overburdening waste disposal, large influxes of refugees in urban areas are presented with the same logistics and supply issues faced by refugees in camps. In many of the cities in Guinea, "an already critical urban water accessibility situation" was exacerbated, forcing refugees to utilize unsuitable water sources, just as they might in camps. Nor are urban refugees less likely to use wood for fuel or making shelter than their rural counterparts; natural resources, particularly wood products have been severely depleted in the regions surrounding towns and cities.

Even when political crises are resolved and refugees are preparing to return to their homes, the potential for environmental problems continues. In nations like Afghanistan, where decades of war and famine have prompted millions to flee, many of the past social and civil institutions have disappeared over the years. The sudden return of a large proportion of the refugee population can create a situation not unlike that seen during the initial stages of refugee operations.

While repatriation is the ultimate goal of refugee operations, the point is to return refugees to a stable situation. When refugees suddenly return in high numbers, as with Afghanistan, both human and environmental needs can suffer. In the Afghan capital of Kabul, for example, a sudden influx of people and automobiles has burdened this once-still city with both congestion and air pollution problems.

On a larger scale, Afghanistan, like many nations that have known long-term war, has already had significant environmental damage. Drought and erosion—considered among the worst in the world—has rendered parts of the country uninhabitable, while deforestation has wiped out two-thirds of the nation's trees. It is unclear exactly what effect the rapid return of the population will have on these factors but it will almost certainly be negative.

To summarize, the forced relocation of human populations can impact the environment on many dimensions. The problems can persist from the time of early, "emergency" stages of a crisis all the way through to the repatriation or resettlement of the population. In both urban or rural settings, whether occurring in the artificial environment of a refugee camp or integrated into host populations, involuntary migration can have dramatic effects on both human and natural environments.

top of page

Finding Solutions

It is important to remember that refugee situations have environmental problems because of their speed and intensity relative to the area in which they are occurring. On a larger scale, the use of resources by refugees is dwarfed by that of normal consumption in industrialized nation. For example, the total resources used by all the refugees in Goma in 1995 was still only fraction of what any major Western city would have used in the same time period.

From that perspective, the "global ecological footprint" of refugees is a minuscule proportion of the world's resources. The problem is that the refugee's do not draw from the world's supply of resources—they draw from what is available locally. The local and regional ecological footprint of a refugee operation can quickly exceed that of the host country's permanent population.

Because of this, in many refugee situations, human needs must be met by importing resources at great expense from other areas—such as trucking in tanks of water or supplying precut firewood—or else they must be met by exploiting the environment. The practices are, by definition, unsustainable.

One critical response, therefore, to both the human and environmental dimensions of refugee crises is to move to practices that are more sustainable. Sustainable practices lessen environmental damage; they also make it easier for refugees to get control of their lives and return to more normal conditions, whether in the host country or on the return home.

In 1996, the UNHCR issued its first-ever "Environmental Guidelines," attempting to formalize some of the lessons learned from the Congo crisis. According to the guidelines [9], environmental problems related to refugee crises are caused by "the sudden imbalance between refugee population requirements and the area's environmental carrying capacity." In some cases, as with the development of refugee camps, the problems may be a "byproduct of different assistance activities".

To cope with the problems, the guidelines recommend following four basic principles which "apply to virtually all situations" involving refugees: (a) use an integrated approach, (b) practice "prevention before a cure" is needed, (c) practice cost effectiveness and net benefit maximization, and, (d)involve local participation. In general, these principles call for preparing in advance to prevent and mitigate environmental damage, to incorporate environmental protection into all aspects of refugee operations, to get maximum benefit from the resources that are used for environmental protection, and to make sure that local populations have a role in managing their own environment.

Because it is the emergency phase of refugee operations that pose the greatest risk to the environment, the guidelines call for a variety of early steps to offset damage. These includes pre-crisis contingency planning, clearly defined roles for local and international authorities in determining the environmental issues, the presence of an environmental coordinator throughout the emergency response, and the use of rapid environmental assessments prior to placing refugee camps in potentially sensitive areas.

The point here is to avoid irreversible environmental damage in the early phases of a refugee crisis. There is no question that environmental damage will occur, particularly if a large number of people are relocated. The goal is to limit damage in such a way that it can ultimately be repaired or mitigated. In the case of Goma, the decision to site camps so near to sensitive environmental areas initiated a chain of events that led inevitably led to irreparable damage. Impacts to both forests and biodiversity will probably be permanent in the absence of significant outside resources.

On the other hand, environmental damage is not necessarily permanent, and in many cases natural processes may restore conditions better than would be accomplished by human intervention. This goes to the issue of cost effectiveness. It is very important that relief agencies not put their limited environmental resources into correcting problems that will correct themselves. It is also important to prioritize which problems are the most likely to be irreversible and expend money to prevent or correct them.

Though environmental attention tends to focus on the emergency phase of operations, carrying capacity can be exceeded at any point in a refugee crisis. In fact, it is often during the so-called "care and maintenance" phase (when the refugee population has stabilized) that environmental problems can become the most acute. Earlier environmental problems can reach a crisis point over time, even as the long term presence of refugees begins to take a toll on the natural systems.

During these intermediate phases of refugee operations, the questions of impact on the host country become more complex, with issues such as water depletion, systematized firewood collection and possible attempts by refugees to cultivate areas near camps, an action that many host governments resist.

In order to cope with environmental stresses during the care and maintenance phase, the UN recommends longer term programs and a more comprehensive environmental action plan, involving the direct involvement of both refugees and the local community. It is also during these post emergency periods that programs could be put in place to teach refugees long term sustainability practices. This could lessen conflict with the host nation and provide benefits when the refugees are repatriated.

Finally, as a the immediate refugee crisis subsides, the focus of operations becomes the development of "durable solutions" to a forced migration. Environmentally, the UNHCR identifies three types of actions that are necessary - remediation and repair of damages resulting from refugee operations, minimizing environmental impacts from refugees returning to their own country, and/or integrating refugees into long-term arrangements in the host country that will be sustainable.

Though, as we saw with Afghanistan, repatriation of refugees to their home nation may have environmental consequences, remediation and restoration in the host country are probably the most important environmental actions when terminating a refugee operation. There are several reasons for this. Environmental damage left by refugee operations may threaten elements of the host nation's economy, and make the hosts unwilling or unable to provide refuge in future situations. As the guidelines note, "basic courtesy demands that these areas be rehabilitated to the greatest extent possible." There are several reasons for this. Environmental damage left by refugee operations may threaten elements of the host nation's economy, and may make the hosts unwilling or unable to provide refuge in future situations. As the guidelines note, "basic courtesy demands that these areas be rehabilitated to the greatest extent possible."

The Guidelines offer operational and technical recommendations that address many of the common problems that arise during each phase of refugee operations. Correctly siting and designing refugee camps is considered one of the most important early steps. It should be noted that the placement of the camp not only influences how refugees impact the environment; it also determines the effects environmental factors will have on the refugees. For example, poor drainage, flooding, dust and polluted water are all existing environmental factors that can be exacerbated by poor placement of the camps.

By the same token, refugees will be impacted by the environment if there are not sufficient resources available in the region of the camp to support the human population. Again, carrying capacity must be carefully considered when siting camps, particularly when looking at supplies of wood and water, the two factors which most frequently have environmental implications for refugees. Understandably, when setting up refugee camps choices of location may be limited. Nonetheless, sound environmental evaluation will at least allow some preparation for future problems.

The need for fuel and the prevention of deforestation from collection of fuelwood is probably the single most important, long term step in minimizing environmental damage from refugee operations. This can be done by a variety of means, depending on the particular situation. Tree planting programs and distribution of more efficient stoves have been the foundation of many refugee environmental programs. This must be done with some understanding of the culture and habits of the refugees, however, as early attempts failed because the stoves were not appropriate to the cooking techniques being used.

A variety of other techniques and methodologies are being introduced to supply the needs of refugees and mitigate the environmental damage of refugees operations. Some of these are clever and inexpensive, such as the use of three dimensional gardening to supply food or the distribution of simple solar cookers to offset the need for wood. Waste disposal need not be costly either; with proper techniques garbage and human waste can be utilized as fuel and fertilizer. Similarly, capture of rain—already a technique practiced in some refugee camps—provides access to uncontaminated drinking water.

Other solutions make use of more sophisticated technologies, such as satellite remote sensing to assess forest resources, or solar photovoltaic cells to supply electricity. There have even been efforts to develop standardized plans for "environmentally friendly" refugee camps which would incorporate a range of solutions and could be applied in a variety of locations.

Perhaps more important than technological approaches, though, is an understanding of the human behaviors that worsen environmental exploitation and the broad use of environmental education to overcome these behaviors. Overuse of firewood, for example may be the result of inefficient techniques; however, it may also be related to cultural factors that call for the use of open fires to cook. Similarly, there seems to be paradoxical tendency for people to be more environmentally responsible when resources are scarce. Often, environmental abuse is more pronounced in pristine lands. These sorts of counterintuitive behavioral issues should be taken into account when working with refugee populations.

Since both host nations and the native countries of refugees may already have significant ecological problems (such as the arid and dryland regions of Africa) it is important to focus environmental education on long term sustainabilty issues. Deforestation, water pollution, and erosion are all problems that are being faced in much of the developing world, not simply in refugee situations. However, when large influxes of refugees exceed the region's carrying capacity, the irreversible effects may extend far beyond the immediate situation.

Lessons learned in refugee settings, therefore, should be compatible with sustainable development in the region. Long range environmental plans for refugees should be designed to mesh with the other sustainable development plans, both for the host region after the refugees have left, and for the refugees' nation after they have returned.

top of page

Summary: Refugees and the Environment

Possible Environmental Effects of Forced Migration

Actions to Mitigate Environmental Impact of Forced Migration

top of page

Conclusion

The environmental problems faced by refugees are, to some extent, a microcosm of the global environmental situation. Like the global environment, solutions need to have both a technical and a human component. While it goes without saying that steps like recycling, erosion prevention, and tree farming might decrease the impacts of refugees, long term solutions will require holistic efforts that take into account both human needs and the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.

Post-refugee rehabilitation, therefore should be tied to the broader sustainable development goals for the region. The UNHCR calls for working closely with development agencies to further these goals. Rehabilitation should strive to do more than return the region to the "status quo," seeking some improvement over the earlier environmental conditions. One successful example of this was in Guinea where, other problems aside, the refugee relief efforts were credited with ultimately improving the region's water distribution system.

From this perspective, forced migration can be seen as just one of the environmental stresses faced by poor nations with unstable political systems. As with the larger problems a combination of technical and political solutions will required. Learning innovative ways to make better use of resources—whether through sustainable forestry, water conservation or a host of other techniques—is a crucial operational step in protecting the environment.

For such technical solutions to work however they must be embedded in social and political systems that will support and encourage their use. This requires systems for introducing technical expertise in a way that is sensitive to the knowledge base and cultural requirements of both the refugees and the host citizens. It requires that international agencies maintain a commitment to sustainable practices even during the emergency phases of a refugee crisis. And it requires that sustainability be embedded in contingency plans for refugee operations.

Ideally, the environmental impacts of refugee crisis would be minimized by minimizing the number of refugee situations. Short of that, the impacts would be lessened (though not eliminated) by integrating refugees quickly into a host country in decentralized manner, without ever building refugee camps. Both of these solutions are unlikely, the first because of the range of political conflicts occurring at any given time in the world, the second because logistical and political considerations may prevent any realistic integration of refugees.

Given this, environmental problems cannot be seen simply as part of a humanitarian emergency. Rather, these problems relate to correcting long term deficits in institutional capacity and resource management. Sustainable systems are important not simply for immediate environmental concerns, but for the long term welfare of the both the refugees and the host country. In the best case scenario, refugees would be quickly brought to a durable solution, and experience gained during the crisis would be used to improve the human and natural environments for all involved.

top of page

References

  1. Quoted in: Wilkinson, R. 2002. Living on the edge. Refugees, No. 127. UNHCR - Public Information Office, Geneva. [go back]
  2. Wilkinson, R. 2002. Cited above. [go back]
  3. Borton, J. Brusset, E. and Hallam A. (Overseas Development Institute) 1996. The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, May, 1996. On-line: www.reliefweb.int/library/nordic/ [go back]
  4. UNHCR, 2002. "The Environment in Refugee Operations: We Need to Care. An Interview with Mr Ruud Lubbers, UNHCR High Commissioner. On-line: http://www.unhcr.ch/un&ref/lubbers/environ.htm [go back]
  5. CRED-ECHO. (1995). Environmental impact of sudden population displacements: Expert Consultation on priority policy issues and humanitarian aid: Final Report. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels, 23-24 September 1995. [ID #131] [go back]
  6. UNHCR, 1997. Social and economic impact of large refugee populations on host developing countries. Date: 6 Jan 1997 | Standing Committee. Document symbol: EC/47/SC/CRP.7 [go back]
  7. Quoted in Wilkinson, 2002. Above. [go back]
  8. UNEP, 2000. Environmental Impact of Refugees in Guinea: Report to the Secretary General. United Nations Environmental Program, Nairobi, Kenya. [go back]
  9. UNHCR, 1996. Environmental Guidelines. United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, Geneva. [go back]

top of page