BY PACKY GRIFFIN
Packy Griffin is a Master of International Public Policy student specializing in Development, Climate, and Sustainability. He works for Deloitte Consulting’s Sustainability, Climate, and Equity practice, leading programs to address the challenges posed by climate change in the international development and public health realms.
Introduction
Transboundary migration is an anticipated consequence of climate change and its resulting resource scarcity shocks and stresses. Scholars have attributed climate change to major population movements and subsequent humanitarian crises and conflicts in recent years, namely the ongoing Syrian civil war.[i] As the effects of climate change manifest around the world, so too does transboundary migration in staggering quantities. While studying how climate change and resource scarcity can initiate or accelerate human migration, the inverse of the relationship also demands attention: the effects of transboundary migration on natural resources and environmental and infrastructure systems.
Millions seek opportunity or safe harbor across international boundaries. The increased demand on resources and systems resulting from migration creates challenges, especially where refugees and asylum-seekers resettle. Sudden spikes in population, as is often characteristic in refugee scenarios, portend heightened resource demands, threatening critical, interrelated water, energy, and food (WEF) supply and access. The relationship between water, energy, and food is known as the WEF Nexus, where actions in one sector can inadvertently affect one or both of the other sectors.[ii]
Protracted refugee situations can create or intensify strain on the natural environment or municipal systems, threatening water and food security, risking sanitation and public health, and degrading access to and availability of energy.[iii] Countless examples of resource scarcity leading to instability, social unrest, and conflict abound. Therefore, it is reasonable to envision migration-induced strain on the WEF Nexus ultimately leading to greater catastrophe and possible feedback loops. As a result, the interaction between transboundary migration and the WEF Nexus represents a security imperative that demands clear policies to anticipate mass inflows in resource planning.
This analysis aims to assess the implications for the WEF Nexus where migration[iv] occurs by exploring the characteristics of countries experiencing heavy inflows of refugees and asylum-seekers, particularly through case studies focusing on Türkiye, Pakistan, and Uganda. The objective of the analysis is to explore and understand where and how migration initiates and intensifies stress on WEF resources and systems.
MIGRATION AND THE WEF NEXUS
In 2020, 281 million international migrants – defined as any person who has changed his or her country of usual residence – existed worldwide, representing a threefold increase since 1970.[v] Migration can occur for myriad reasons, including economic opportunity as nearly two thirds of the total population represent labor migrants. However, persecution, armed conflict, violence, social unrest, human rights violations, or natural disasters can also result in displacement when persons are forced or obliged to leave their homes or places of habitual residence.[vi] Conflict, instability, and disaster have compelled more than 31.5 million people to flee across international boundaries as of 2022, reflecting a steady year-over-year trend in growing refugee and asylum-seeker populations.[vii]
Figure 1. Global refugee population totals by year (gross and as a function of world population)
According to the UNHCR, 27.1 million people worldwide qualify as refugees – persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of feared persecution, or a serious threat to their life, physical integrity, or freedom in their country of origin.[i] Another 4.6 million are categorized as asylum-seekers – persons who are seeking international protection.[ii] Refugee and asylum-seeker populations reflect an upward trend over the past several decades, reaching record highs in 2022 in total population and relative to the global population (Figure 1).[iii] While migration occurs in all regions of the world (Figure 2), 83% of refugees settle in low to middle income countries.[iv]
Figure 2. Global refugee and asylum-seeker populations (size of each bubble represents the size of the refugee + asylum-seeker population)
Türkiye, Pakistan, and Uganda are home to some of the world’s largest refugee and asylum-seeker populations (Figure 3), representing 25.1% of the global refugee population and 22.4% of all refugees and asylum-seekers in 2022.[v] Each hosts populations that largely originate from neighboring countries. Specifically, more than 3.6 million Syrian refugees and asylum-seekers account for approximately 92% of Türkiye’s migration inflow, and more than 1.5 million Afghans account for greater than 98% of the refugee population in Pakistan. Meanwhile, inflows into Uganda primarily originate from two neighboring countries, including 928K from South Sudan (61%) and 434K from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (28%).[vi]
Figure 3. Refugee and Asylum-Seeker Populations by Country – 2022
While fleeing from home or a place of habitual residence is often a choice forced upon populations, where refugees and asylum-seekers choose to ultimately settle is a nuanced decision. UNHCR and WEF Nexus Index data suggest that migration occurs regardless of WEF Nexus factors, as many countries with Nexus challenges experience high inflows (Figure 4). Türkiye, Pakistan, and Uganda rank 82nd, 134th, and 128th globally according to the WEF Nexus Index, respectively, demonstrating that resource scarcity or system deficiencies are not a deterrent to refugees and asylum-seekers.[vii] Rather, geographic proximity and navigability largely drive destination selection, as populations often settle in highly concentrated, informal settlements just across the border from the country of origin.
Figure 4. Comparison of Refugee + Asylum-Seeker Populations and WEF Nexus Index Scores by Country (size of bubble represents refugees + asylum-seekers per 1000 population)
Migration inflows and WEF Nexus factors do not demonstrate a direct relationship. Large refugee and asylum-seeker populations exist in countries with high and low WEF Nexus scores, though large populations are more common in countries with lower WEF Index scores (Figure 5). Migration inflows pose new WEF challenges, especially in countries already experiencing scarcity. The following case studies illustrate how Türkiye, Pakistan, and Uganda demonstrate the latter relationship where significant migration inflows and WEF Nexus challenges collide.
Figure 5. Comparison of WEF Nexus Index Scores and Refugee + Asylum-Seeker Populations by Country
CASE STUDIES
Türkiye
Figure 6. Provincial Breakdown of Syrian Refugees in Türkiye
In 2012, refugee populations in Türkiye began increasing drastically as a result of the civil war in neighboring Syria, escalating from fewer than 15,000 to over 2.5 million in just four years.[viii] Today, more than 3.6 million refugees are dispersed throughout the country,[ix] with large populations along the Southern border with Syria, in Istanbul, and around the capital Ankara (Figure 6).[x] As a party to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, Türkiye has agreed to international standards for the treatment of refugees and a definition of specific rights.[xi] In 2014, Türkiye’s Law on Foreigners and International Protection entered into force, formalizing the protections outlined in the 1951 Convention into national law.[xii] Both policies emphasize the principle of non-refoulement among other safeguards which protects refugees from forcible return to a country that poses serious threats to life or freedom.[xiii] However, in agreeing to the Convention, Türkiye has maintained geographical limitation, which it has exercised to grant limited “protected status” instead of full refugee status.[xiv] Additionally, the 2014 Law outlined obligations in addition to rights to which refugees must adhere and established the Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM) which oversees and directs migration policy.[xv]
Table 1. Türkiye WEF Nexus Index Scores
Refugees in Türkiye face a variety of WEF Nexus challenges, including high water stress (45.71% withdrawals of internal resources)[xvi] and high food price volatility.[xvii] However, the greatest challenge arises from the energy sector where reliance on energy imports threatens supply and costs that can be passed on to consumers. Türkiye imports more than 75% of its energy, rendering it captive to fluctuations in global energy markets.[xviii] Increased energy demand resulting from current and future refugee inflows will further exacerbate Türkiye’s import dependence, risking prohibitive energy prices, and in extreme cases, even concerns about reliability of supply. These effects on energy won’t be limited to refugee communities, as host communities and the general population would experience the same price and supply effects if not managed effectively. While its formalized policy has enabled Türkiye to better plan for large migration inflows and manage settlement of refugees within specific regions, demands on an import-dependent energy sector imply cost and supply consequences that could surpass the ability of the current policy environment to cope.
Pakistan
Figure 7. Distribution of Afghan Refugee Population in Pakistan
Pakistan is not party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, though it does observe the principle of non-refoulement in practice, choosing instead to manage refugee inflows and populations through the provisions of the Foreigners Act, passed in 1946. The law grants the government the authority to admit or deny foreigners and establishes a process by which refugees register with the government.[xix] Pakistan has used this registration system to manage the settlement and location of its refugee population, as well as grant freedoms and promote social cohesion to carriers of its Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC).[xx] Refugee populations are largest in the north near the border with Afghanistan, from which 98% originate. More than 30% of the refugee population is dispersed across 54 government refugee villages, while the majority outside of the villages live in urban or peri-urban settings (Figure 7).[xxi] Additionally, Pakistan proactively promotes integration of refugees into host communities and social cohesion through targeted humanitarian and development investments and income-generating opportunity creation through its Refugee-Affected and Hosting Areas (RAHA) Programme.[xxii]
Table 2. Pakistan WEF Nexus Index Scores
Despite extensive government efforts, refugees still arrive in a country with significant WEF challenges. Pakistan is under severe water stress – withdrawals totaled 108.65% of its internal resources as of 2019 – which compounds food and economic security challenges.[xxiii] Additionally, 21% of the population does not have access to improved sanitation facilities and 64% lack safely managed drinking water services.[xxiv] In the energy sector, approximately a quarter of the population still lacks access to electricity and demand from refugees can perpetuate or even deepen local or regional scarcity.[xxv] Finally, more than 12% of Pakistan’s population suffers from hunger[xxvi] and 26.1 million people remain undernourished.[xxvii] Meanwhile, domestic food prices are volatile. Though more restrictive than other policy frameworks, Pakistan’s system of refugee registration and resettlement of populations across government villages improves its ability to manage resources and promote productive co-existence with host communities. Pakistan’s policies represent a tradeoff between more liberal refugee freedoms and potential WEF Nexus stresses that could lead to further system degradation or even failure.
Uganda
Figure 8. Uganda – Refugee Statistics Map – May 2022
For decades, conflict and instability throughout East Africa have led to trends of displacement and migration, driving refugees toward Uganda due to its progressive refugee laws. Uganda is party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol and implements the UN’s Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) and Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), which emphasize the inclusion of refugees into national health, education, and economic systems.[xxviii] Uganda also codified specific protections in The Refugees Act of 2006, considered one of the world’s most pro-refugee policy frameworks for its open door provision for all asylum-seekers, prima facie asylum-seeker status for certain nationalities, freedom of movement and employment, and land endowment for subsistence agriculture.[xxix] These policies support refugees throughout Uganda whether self-settled or within government-organized settlements across 13 districts comprising 350 square miles primarily in the north near the borders with South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Figure 8).[xxx]
Table 3. Uganda WEF Nexus Index Scores
Uganda’s comparatively open policy toward refugees extends benefits for those seeking refuge from acute challenges in neighboring countries, but threatens to create or exacerbate strain on WEF systems. Water sector concerns are characterized by low usage of improved sanitation facilities (37% of the population) and safely managed drinking water services (17% of the population). This elevates the threat of water-borne disease or other infection, with the potential for knock-on effects that can overwhelm health systems.[xxxi] Additionally, food insecurity is high in Uganda. In 2019, 69.2% of the population suffered from moderate to severe food insecurity; 20.6% of the adult population suffered from severe food insecurity.[xxxii] Meanwhile, food price volatility in Uganda was nearly 3.5 times higher than the global average, indicating uncertainty and barriers to affordable food supplies that can intensify hunger, undernourishment, and malnutrition.[xxxiii] Finally, Uganda demonstrates promising adoption of renewable energy, but access to reliable electricity remains at 41.3% as of 2021.[xxxiv] Though its humanitarian approach to refugee policy has earned Uganda praise and enabled clarity in settlement and management of incoming asylum-seekers, added stress on WEF resources risks future system strain or failures.
CONCLUSIONS
Transboundary migration has many causes, not least of which involve resource scarcity and system failure represented by the WEF Nexus. Yet crossing an international border does not guarantee that refugees and asylum-seekers escape the consequences of WEF scarcity or stress. Nevertheless, the implication of WEF Nexus challenges does not deter refugees from seeking safe haven and opportunity as demonstrated in Türkiye, Pakistan, and Uganda. In fact, while migration patterns and WEF Nexus demonstrate no direct relationship, large refugee and asylum-seeker populations are more common in countries that exhibit low WEF Nexus Index scores.
The specific policy frameworks employed to moderate or manage inflows of refugees and asylum-seekers, ranging from strict registration and tracking of populations to more progressive guarantees of freedom and opportunity, pose major WEF Nexus implications. Increased demand for scarce resources and pressure on stressed systems risks more severe consequences and even supply and access failure. Because WEF resources and systems are finite and governed by infrastructure and ecosystem limitations, increased stress can reverberate within host communities and even throughout the general population. Left unchecked, WEF Nexus stresses could degrade further, risking instability, unrest, and possibly even conflict.
Policymakers are tasked with navigating the tradeoff between refugee policy and WEF Nexus consequences. Restrictive moderation and management of refugee and asylum-seeker inflows runs counter to humanitarian philosophies and the principles espoused in international law, including the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Conversely, adopting progressive refugee policy frameworks exposes host communities and potentially entire populations to the consequences of heightened demand on WEF resources. Choosing an appropriate strategy requires policymakers to deeply understand the close interconnectedness of WEF systems and the implications of sudden population increases, locally or nationally, that transboundary migration represents.
Photo Source: Pexels
REFERENCES
[i] Glossary. UNHCR.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Refugee Data Finder. UNHCR.
[iv] Figures at a Glance. UNHCR.
[v] Refugee Data Finder. UNHCR.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] WEF Nexus Index.
[viii] Refugee Data Finder. UNHCR.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] UNHCR Turkey: Provincial Breakdown Syrian Refugees in Turkey - May 2022.
[xi] “Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Turkey.” UNHCR.
[xii] Ibid.
[xiii] “The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.” UNHCR.
[xiv] “Turkey: Hundreds of Refugees Deported to Syria.” Human Rights Watch.
[xv] “Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Turkey.” UNHCR.
[xvi] “Level of Water Stress: Freshwater Withdrawal as a Proportion of Available Freshwater Resources.” SDG Tracker. UN Water.
[xvii] “Domestic food price volatility index, 2000 to 2014.” SDG Tracker. Our World In Data.
[xviii] Country Profile: Türkiye. IEA.
[xix] “Pakistan: Refugee Policy Review Framework Country Summary as at 30 June 2020.” UNHCR.
[xx] Ibid.
[xxi] Ibid.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii] “Level of Water Stress: Freshwater Withdrawal as a Proportion of Available Freshwater Resources.” SDG Tracker. UN Water.
[xxiv] FAO AQUASTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[xxv] “Electricity Access, 2020.” SDG Tracker. Our World in Data.
[xxvi] SDG Country Profile: Pakistan. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs – Statistics Division.
[xxvii] “Share of Population that is Undernourished, 2019.” SDG Tracker. Our World in Data.
[xxviii] Where We Work: Uganda. UNHCR.
[xxix] “An Assessment of Uganda’s Progressive Approach to Refugee Management.” The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
[xxx] Ibid.
[xxxi] FAO AQUASTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[xxxii] “Share of Population with Moderate of Severe Food Insecurity.” SDG Tracker. Our World in Data.
[xxxiii] “Domestic Food Price Volatility Index, 2000 to 2014.” SDG Tracker. Our World in Data.
[xxxiv] Country Profile: Uganda. WEF Nexus Index.