Refugee Influx and Environmental Impact in South Asia

Refugee related environmental problems have their origin in the sudden imbalance created by the refugee population and the environmental carrying capacity. This is made more serious by the absence of ameliorative environmental actions. South Asia also experiences a wide range of environmental damage due to deadly conflicts. Environmental degradation is a worldwide phenomenon - virtually every nation is experiencing some form of habitat destruction or degradation.

There are two links between the refugees and the environment. First, migration due to environmental problems leading to the creation of a category of environmental refugees; and second, the impact of refugee influx on environmental processes. The influx of Bangladeshi refugees into northeast India during the late 1970’s led to a 12% loss in the total forest cover. Environmental problems associated with refugees in South Asian states are normally due to the consequences of high refugee concentrations. A report by the Green Belt organization suggests that ‘only 23 camps were set up in Afghanistan during 1998. But within two years the number increased to 61’.. In the absence of mitigating measures, physical deterioration of the surrounding environment soon takes place, generating other problems for the local population.

Environmental concerns take a back seat to humanitarian concerns at such times of crises but the close links between the well being of human populations and a healthy environment are increasingly being recognized. In the north of Sri Lanka, a perennial hot house of conflicts and displacement, more than 30 camps are operating as hundreds of thousands of people do not wish to return home. As the state wrestled with camp rehabilitation and resettling the returning refugees into fragile ecosystems, the surrounding regions were gripped by ongoing conflict, and the environmental issues produced by war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Afghanistan began to leave their home as a result of the “war against terror” launched by the US, presenting a massive environmental challenges on several fronts. During the birth of Bangladesh from East Pakistan in 1971, millions of peoples moved out into northeast India and even Nepal. These mass flights of civilians had a major impact on the surrounding countryside in which they sought safety.

Refugees and their environment may have only a modest impact on the earth’s overall physical well-being, but a recently released 450 page report entitled Global Environmental Outlook, paints a very bleak picture for the future unless governments, big business and development organizations radically change their ways. On a global scale, however, the impact of refugees on the environment is not significant. At the height of the ethnic unrest in Sri Lanka in 1984-1986, around 270 square kilometers of forest was affected, of which 167 square kilometers was severely deforested by the IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons). An environmental impact assessment carried out in Afghanistan in 1994, when the refugees returned to their homeland, showed a reduction of 58 per cent in the woodland cover around camps. Yet, countries like Bhutan and the Tibet experience higher levels of habitat loss each year due to uncontrolled logging and clearance of land for agriculture - 900 and 800 square kilometers of forest per annum, respectively.

These figures are not intended to dispute the fact that concentrated groups of displaced people do have a negative impact on the environment, but merely to help put things in perspective. For most countries, the loss of any forest cover may be a major issue because of habitat degradation, loss of ecosystem functioning, often leading to reduced levels of income or a lower quality of life. Reversing the loss or environmental damage in such a case is a costly and not always a practical solution. There is no uniform response to such needs: each refugee operation requires a distinct approach, tailored to the specific conditions and requirements of that time. The requirements for protecting the environment vary therefore, from one country to another and from one situation to another, depending on local social, cultural and environmental conditions as well as opportunities and constraints. This has become a political hot potato with some governments increasingly vocal in their demand that the international community must foot the bill for cleanup and rehabilitation projects even when it is unclear if refugees were the cause of environmental degradation in the first place. Such dilemmas come at a particularly critical time in the refugee and environmental crises.