Energy Access for the Most Vulnerable Groups

(1)

INOM

EXAMENSARBETE ENERGI OCH MILJÖ, AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP

STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2019,

Energy Access for the Most Vulnerable Groups

A Study on the Long- Term Effects of Energy Access in a Refugee Camp Context with Inclusion of the Host Community

MARIE STJERNQUIST DESATNIK

KTH

SKOLAN FÖR ARKITEKTUR OCH SAMHÄLLSBYGGNAD

(2)

TRITA TRITA-ITM-EX 2019:558

www.kth.se

(3)

(4)

1

Abstract

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development outlines 17 goals to end poverty and ensure the right to development for everyone. Previous research has found that 2/3 of the goals partly depend their success upon whether SDG 7 Ensure access to sustainable,

affordable and modern energy for all is achieved or not. Given that the Agenda targets everyone it cannot be achieved without reaching the most vulnerable groups, among these groups are migrants, refugees and those internally displaced. Low- and middle-income countries host 84% of this group. Almost 30% of refugees live in managed camp settings and it has been estimated that 80% of these have minimal or no access to electricity. For cooking needs a majority depend on traditional cooking with firewood and charcoal. In many cases this spurs tensions and at times conflict with the local host community, -who often also heavily depend on this resource. On the national level energy is often seen as part of the long-term development planning and as refugee camps and humanitarian setting are recognized as temporary by the host country this creates a vacuum. However, the reality is that 2/3 of all refugees are in protracted refugee situations and the average lifespan of a camp is 17 years. This thesis studied the links between energy and the nexus of

environment, social stability and economy in a refugee camp context, and outlined how different energy systems could impact the situations for both groups and also for the

relationship between these groups. This was done using the Long-range Energy Alternative Planning systems (LEAP) and by creating a Multi Criteria Analysis template. The case study of Kakuma camp in Turkana County in the North of Kenya was used. The results showed that there are positive and negative aspects related to all energy systems studied here (for household energy access both for electricity and cooking). A refugee camp is a highly complex setting, operating both under the authority of local actors and of international humanitarian actors. For electricity access, Solar Home Systems was found to be a good choice due to the fast deployment time and the low level of infrastructure needed. For already existing households PV Hybrid mini-grids are to be recommended. For cooking options, it was found that for Turkana county, rather than just focusing on GHG emissions it is vital to mitigate deforestation seeing the county’s vulnerability to land-use change.

However, changing from firewood and charcoal would affect the livelihood of the host community who depends on the income deriving from the charcoal business. This highlights some of the complexity of the study and the importance of knowing the local context before carrying out energy interventions in a refugee camp and surrounding area.

The author’s conclusion is that this methodology could be implemented on any camp setting seeing that modern and clean energy access poses many benefits to people across the world, whether in an urban, rural or refugee camp setting. The thesis found that the main barriers identified for electricity projects of scale are the current funding structure of humanitarian organizations and national government’s attitude towards the camp.

(5)

2

Preface

This thesis was written as a degree project of 30 ECTS within the master’s program in Sustainable Energy Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). The majority was conducted during a six months traineeship with the Coordination Unit for the Global Plan of Action at UNITAR in Geneva.

I want to start by expressing my utmost gratitude to my brilliant supervisor Francesco Fuso- Nerini for providing great guidance and academic inspiration during this process. I also wish to thank my team at UNITAR Thomas Fohgrub, Aimee Jenks and Mark Gibson for welcoming me into the team during six months and giving me an insight into the complex world of humanitarian actors. I also wish to extend my gratitude to all those people working within organizations and in the field who have been helpful and answered all my many questions.

Throughout my university degree this has been the most interesting and challenging project, mainly since this (energy access for vulnerable groups) is a highly complex topic and something that I personally feel passionate about. I choose it as I wanted to study the interlinkages between energy, political stability and human and environmental

development. I have only managed to touch upon certain aspects of this in this MSc thesis, but it is a start! I hope the reader finds this topic as interesting and important as I do, and that the thesis is easy to follow also for someone who is not familiar with the field of energy access.

(6)

3

1. Introduction

The international community has through the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development agreed on 17 goals and 169 targets to end poverty and ensure the right to development for everyone. SDG 7, Ensure access to sustainable, affordable and modern energy for all has been identified as one of the key enablers in order to achieve ⅔ of the other goals (Fuso Nerini et al., 2017). With a strong focus on leaving no one behind, the SDG report 2017 states that Eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity cannot be achieved without reaching the most vulnerable groups. Amongst these groups are migrants, refugees and those internally displaced (UN, 2017). By the end of 2018 70.8 million people were displaced as a consequence of natural disasters, conflicts and persecutions. This includes refugees (37%), asylum seekers (5%) and those internally displaced (58%), middle- and low-income countries host 84% of this group (UNHCR, 2019). The number is the highest ever recorded and the causes for it are complex with natural resource scarcity and climate change identified as hidden catalyzers. Global Humanitarian Overview 2019 states that water played a major role in conflict in at least 45 countries and that climate change could displace 140 million people globally by 2050 (OCHA, 2018 (1)). Furthermore, humanitarian crises affect more people, last longer and require more resources than before, it is therefore of utmost importance that the economic resources received by the humanitarian

organizations are used as efficient as possible (OCHA, 2018 (1)). Donors and aid organizations are acknowledging this and putting increased pressure on UN and other humanitarian organizations, however, possible monetary saving from energy efficiency measures and change of technologies have been widely overlooked (O. Grafham & G. Lahn, 2018). A majority of displaced people are hosted in less-economically developed countries, type of housing was known for 85% of refugees in 2017; of these about 30% live in

managed camp settings whereas 60% live in urban areas, in Europe 39% of the refugee population were female while the number for refugees in Africa is 51% (UNHCR, 2018 (1)).

Refugee camps are often located in remote demi-arid and marginally developed areas (Maereg Tafere, 2018). Sub Saharan Africa hosts 31% of the world’s refugees (by the end of 2017) (UNHCR, 2018). This is also one of the most vulnerable regions in the world in terms of socio-economic development. Although progress has been made, half of the world’s population living in extreme poverty (under 1.9 USD a day) lives in Sub Saharan Africa (WDI, 2017). Electricity access in the region is 43% and even lower in the camp settings, it is estimated that 80% of refugees living in camps have none or minimal access to electricity (Lahn &. Grafham, 2015). Furthermore, the continent is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and resource scarcity. To allow for development while mitigating climate change there is a strong need to provide energy access that is clean, reliable and affordable to all people- including those forcibly displaced.

1.1 Humanitarian versus Development Aid or Humanitarian and Development aid?

The terms development and humanitarian aid and assistance are distinct in the way that while actors in the development field are concerned with the national poor and

(9)

2 underdeveloped areas the refugee camps and community fall under the humanitarian aid assistance. The humanitarian coalition refers to the two as “Humanitarian aid is designed to save lives and alleviate suffering during and in the immediate aftermath of emergencies”

and “[] development aid responds to ongoing structural issues, particularly systemic poverty, that may hinder economic, institutional and social development in any given society, and assists in building capacity to ensure resilient communities and sustainable livelihoods.” (Humanitarian Coalition). A majority of the situations that falls under humanitarian aid last long passed the emergency phase. By the end of 2017, the global refugee population was 25,4, a 2,9 million increase since 2016 (UNHCR, 2018). Of these, two thirds were in what is referred to as “Protracted refugee situation”¹. The situation has hence moved passed the emergency response stage where the focus is on the most vital life saving assistance. In these situations a durable solution has not been achieved and is

unlikely to happen within the near future (UNHCR, 2018). It is well recognized within the international community that there is a need to provide assistance that can meet both immediate and longer-terms needs, however, this has proved difficult (GHO, 2018 (1), UNICEF et al,. 2011). In the case of refugees the humanitarian cluster (see figure 1) rather than the national government is responsible for the livelihoods of the refugees (although the set- up differs between national contexts). Being classified as humanitarian actors, the funding and projects are typically based on a yearly budget. Long term solutions such as energy interventions therefore become difficult and may look very costly at first glance.

This since aspects such as The Levelized Cost of Electricity usually is not being considered, but rather the capital cost; meaning that long term spending on fuel and maintenance of are not taken into account (O. Grafham & G. Lahn).

The Global Compact on Refugees was adopted in December 2018 to strengthen the international response to these types of emergencies and ease the pressure on host

countries. Under this the key elements for a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) were listed. The framework focuses on support to host countries and communities and to involve development actors at an early stage (UNHCR, 2018). The four key objectives are:

● Ease the pressure on host countries and communities;

● Enhance refugee self-reliance;

● Expand third-country solutions; and

● Support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity This research is concerned with the first two bullets as the scope lies on protracted displacement situations. So far 15 countries have officially rolled-out the CRRF, amongst them Kenya (used as a case study in this paper) (Global CCRF).

1.2 The Access Issue

On the national level energy is often seen as part of the long-term development planning and as refugee camps and humanitarian setting are recognized as temporary by the host country this creates a vacuum (Lehne et.al 2016). Hosting refugees in camps is the last

1 This means “a situation as one in which 25,000 or more refugees from the same nationality have been in exile for five consecutive years or more in a given asylum country” (UNHCR, 2018)

(10)

3 chosen solution where no other alternative is viable, it is chosen as a temporary setting until one of three alternatives can be achieved 1. Voluntary repatriation to country of origin 2. Resettlement in a third country or 3. Integration within the host community (UNHCR- Shelter, UNHCR-Solutions). The fact, though, is that most camps are not so temporary.

While there are conflicting numbers on average time spent in a camp, average lifespan of a camp is estimated to 17 years (Brett. M, 2017). UNHCR states in their SAFE 2014-2018 that they and other humanitarian organizations are becoming increasingly aware that fuel programs are unsustainable, both financially and environmentally” in another document the organization states "Energy for Sustainable Development is a major institutional priority and providing electricity to homes and businesses is one of the main goals for the UNHCR” (UNHCR, 2014, UNHCR, 2018 (2) ). So if UNHCR acknowledges this and is aware that a durable solution (in protracted situations) is unlikely to be achieved within the foreseeable future, how come sustainable long term energy planning is not applied to a larger extent? There seems to be a combination of reasons for this vacuum. The Global Plan of Action identifies five key challenges (GPA 2018):

1) Energy is not a formal priority in humanitarian assistance

2) Displaced people are not included in national or international energy access agendas 3) Energy in displacement settings is under-funded

4) Expertise and capacity to implement humanitarian energy solutions is limited 5) Data on humanitarian energy needs and solutions are limited and not widely shared When an emergency occurs many different humanitarian agencies, NGOs and donors are involved. This mix make coordination and joint approaches challenging ( Vianello, M. 2016) To improve coordination the International Humanitarian Coordination Cluster was created.

This consists of 11 different clusters, see figure 1 below. Neither environment nor energy or livelihood have their own clusters. The cluster was created to facilitate emergency response but protracted situations requires and receive 80% of all funding (GHO 2018 (2)). The GHO 2019 focuses on protracted crises and states [on protracted situations] ”These trends emphasize the need for closer collaboration between humanitarian and development actors to decrease vulnerability in the long term.” (OCHA 2018 (2)).

(11)

4

Figure 1: The Humanitarian Cluster²

1.3 Energy Access

Access to affordable, reliable and clean energy services has been identified as a key enabler in order for a country to achieve economic, social and environmental development (Reddy Sudhakara. B. 2015). Having not been included in the Millennium Development Goals this was acknowledged in the 2030 Agenda through SDG 7, Ensure access to sustainable, affordable and modern energy for all and 2012 was named the International year of Sustainable Energy for All. Fuso Nerini., et al. 2018 studied the synergies and trade offs between SDG 7 and the other goals. Their research found that (to mention a few) access to modern energy is vital to end poverty ,ensure food security, health care, education, water and sanitation, improved household incomes and resilient and urban livelihoods, aspects of SDG 1,2,3,4,5,7 and 9 (Fuso Nerini et al., 2018). This further proves the importance for policy makers to put energy at the centre of the development agenda. Globally, electricity access improved by 10% between 2000 and 2016, reaching 87%. Improvements in rural areas were made partly by deplication of off-grid solar but the fact remains that 87% of people that lack access live in rural and remote areas. Despite regional progress, Sub- Saharan Africa and Southern Asia represent the regions with lowest access, 43% and 86%

respectively (UN, 2017). Sustainable Development Goal 7 states energy access for all, but what does energy access mean? There is no universal definition for this and there is a significant difference between reliable and unreliable supply for example. The IEA defines household energy access as "a household having reliable and affordable access to both clean cooking facilities and to electricity, which is enough to supply a basic bundle of energy services initially, and then an increasing level of electricity over time to reach the regional average" (IEA, 2017, p. 21). Hence, the definition looks past electricity access and also includes cooking which in many poorer countries is the energy service most prioritized (as

2 https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/about-clusters/what-is-the-cluster-approach

(12)

5 it is a necessity). Access to clean cooking is not improving at the same rate as electricity access. Over three billion people worldwide use biomass and coal for cooking and the indoor air pollution associated with this causes four million deaths per year. The burden falls disproportionately on women and girls who tend to be the ones responsible for cooking. The IEA estimates that women on an average spend four hours cooking and 1.4 hours a day collecting fuel wood (IEA, 2017). Except for the negative health impacts there are severe environmental and climate impacts related to these fuels in form of CO2

emissions, soot and deforestation. In humanitarian settings the electricity access rate is even lower. It is estimated that 80% of refugees and displaced people living in camps lack access to electricity (Lahn & Grafham, 2015). Lehne et al., 2016 used an end-use accounting method to look at energy consumption for cooking and lighting by the globally displaced population. Outlining the baseline, they found that 7 million displaced people have access to electricity for less than 4 hours a day. To define the difference between energy supply, access to energy services and actual energy use ESMAP under the SE4All initiative has developed the Multi-tier Matrix for Access to Household Electricity Supply and cooking (ESMAP & SEforALL 2015). Under this, <4 hours correspond to tier 0, see table 1 below.

Most displaced people are just like many rural and peri-urban populations dependent on firewood for cooking. A majority of the food provided in camps must be cooked before eating, moreover, the way it is cooked will have a significant impact on nutrition i.e. health (Barbieri. et al., 2017). Often, WFP supplies the food (the food handout is in some settings now being replaced by cash based programs allowing people to buy their own food at local markets) and UNHCR the stoves and firewood ratios, these ratios are reportedly too small, leaving it up to the refugees to find supplementary firewood. Women and children walk long distances in order to find firewood and refugees often sell or exchange part of their food rations for firewood. The distances covered in order to procure firewood puts women at safety risk for physical and sexual violence, - a reason why UNHCR started with firewood distribution. Furthermore, firewood consumption causes overexploitation of natural

resources, deforestation and environmental damage with potential permanent impact on the local environment, in many situations this results in tensions and conflicts between the refugee and host communities.

(13)

6

Figure 2: Multi-tier Framework

1.4 Humanitarian Organizations and Energy Spending

Humanitarian actors in camp settings are dependent on energy access for a number of services; Compounds for the humanitarian workers in the field, offices, health facilities etc.

These services are today mainly run on diesel generators. Since many refugee camps are located far from large urban centers this means that most requisites need to be transported there, either by truck or flights, this additionally contributes to costs and GHG emissions.

One major issue in humanitarian operations is the sizing of the diesel generators. To be able and meet critical services at all times these are often oversized, meaning that diesel is being wasted and additionally physically damaged by running well below its capacity for a long time ( Grafham & Lahn, 2018). Technical expertise is required to find the best suited equipment (linked to GPA Key Challenge 4 in (1.1)). Overall it is estimated that 5% of humanitarian agencies’ expenditure is spent on diesel, petrol and maintenance of diesel generators (Grafham & Lahn, 2018).

1.5 The Refugee Population and the Host Community

This study focuses on the refugee camp and host community. Although no exact definition exists for what defines the host community, in terms of geographic area it is the community living close by the camp area and that has interactions with the refugee community on a regular basis. The refugee and host communities face similar problematics concerning firewood; the severe health impacts, the time spent looking for firewood and the security issues (especially for women), problematic is that many large refugee camps are located in areas with dry climate and hence scarce biomass availability . However, there are a few differences -worth noting before reading this is that this greatly differs from situation to situation as national refugee policies differ between countries. A majority of refugee camps

(14)

7 are located in low income rural areas where the national population is in significant need of development assistance. The cause for tension and conflict may arise not only due to scarce biomass resources but also based on an auguration that the refugees are better off than the local population. In a refugee situation there is usually a large influx of international

humanitarian organizations providing health care, education etc. these are services that the host community may not have reliable access to. On the other hand, even after having arrived in a camp refugees are in an especially vulnerable situation. Investing in improved energy solutions in camps may be politically difficult in areas where the host community cooks with solid fuels and inefficient stoves. It is therefore necessary that energy programs and interventions also include the host community and high-tech solutions should be avoided unless it is equally accessible to the local community (Vianello, 2016).

1.6 Overview of the Environmental Impacts of Camps in Protracted Displaced Situations

Influx of refugees results in situations similar to those of overpopulation, OECD defines this as following Overpopulation refers to the exceeding of certain threshold limits of population density when environmental resources fail to meet the requirements of individual organisms regarding shelter, nutrition and so forth. It gives rise to high rates of mortality and morbidity (OECD, glossary). The environmental impacts and the GHG emissions related to refugee settings have not gained extensive attention, partly due to the sensitivity of the topic. There has therefore historically been a lack of environmental policies among humanitarian

organizations and INGOs (Tafere, 2018). Furthermore, due to the short term and unpredictable funding mechanisms and the short term association with emergency

response, humanitarian organisations have struggled to develop and especially implement environmental policies ( Grafham & Lahn, 2018). With the Paris Agreement and the most recent IPCC special report it is clear that national governments need to do more in order to stay under the 1,5 celsius increase (UNFCC & IPCC, 2018). Furthermore, in a world where climate change and water insecurity are predicted to have a larger impact on crisis and displacement humanitarian bodies will have to start monitoring resources use and emissions related to their operations in order to improve the sustainability of their operations. Among other pledges this has been acknowledged by the United Nations commitment to become carbon neutral by 2020 (UN environment, 2017). In UNHCR’s environmental guidelines (2005) the organization notes that it has become clear that refugee-related environmental impacts can have severe impacts on health and well-being both for the refugees themselves but also for the local population. They state that

uncontrolled fuelwood collection and over-use of limited water supply may in the worst- case scenario result in irreversible impacts such as loss of biodiversity and long-term pollution of water supplies. (UNHCR, 2005). Firewood needs for cooking and timber have large environmental impacts. It is estimated that over 64,000 acres of forest are burned annually by the forcibly displaced ( Lahn, & Grafham, 2015). Barbieri et al. 2016 collected a number of examples where the radius to biomass around the camp increased over time;

● A study from the Sherkole camp in Ethiopia found that refugees on average spent 28 hours a week and local women 27 hours a week collecting fuelwood. This was found

(15)

8 to have caused certain tensions between the groups as the local women said that it after the arrival of the refugee women had become more difficult to find fuel wood.

● As a consequence of the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990s many people fled to Tanzania and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The average distance for finding firewood six months after the arrival was at a 5 km radius of the camps, additionally six months later this had doubled to 10 km or more.

Many organizations have the last couple of years noted that waste related to their

operations is a major source of emissions. This is related to the fact that camps are usually located in rural areas far from a good infrastructure and it may be unclear who is in charge of waste management in the camp. Maereg Tafere (2018) describes the complex

relationship between climate and displacement as a vicious circle “climate change and variability affects the intensity and frequency of hydro-meteorological disasters and conflicts, which consequently sparks displacement; displacement affects the environment, and the environment in turn influences the climate.” figure 2 (Maereg Tafere, 2018, p.192) (the author notes that not all displacements are caused by climate change). As impacts of climate change and environmental degradation are becoming more severe it will be more complex to identify the causes and catalysers for conflict, epidemics and natural disasters.

Furthermore, climate change is a cause for prolonged droughts in some areas affecting livestock and crop yields. This has severe impact on livelihood and food security for all those people depending on these services. In many places this pushes people to migrate from rural to urban areas. Furthermore, in places where armed groups and extremists are present the loss of livelihood opportunities may pose an incentive to join these groups (Nett

& Ruttinger, 2016). Since camps are treated as a lasting and temporary solution used when there is no other alternative there may be a lack of incentive from the refugee population to invest in environmental protection (Maereg Tafere, 2018).

(16)

9

Figure 3: The Climate-Displacement Vicious Circle*

* Maereg Tafere, 2018

1.7 Overview of the Economic and Social Impacts of Protracted Displaced Situations

A number of studies on the economic life of refugees as well as economic impacts of refugees on the local host community have been carried out in the past few years. One of the most famous work in this area is Refugee Economies: Forced Displacement and Development (Betts et al. 2016). The authors argue that what distinguishes a refugee's economic life from other citizens or immigrants’ economic lives is the institutional setting of “refugeehood”. The economic situation of refugees depend on their positioning between three different sets of institutions.

1. Them partly being under the authority of the state and partly under the authority of international organizations.

2. They lie between formal and informal sectors often having some access to the formal economy but facing more regulatory restrictions as compared to citizens.

3. They lie between national and transnational economies.

A determining factor to the specific refugee situation is the national context of the hosting country and it’s refugee policies. The authors argue that since more than half of all refugees live in protracted refugee situations and hence are beyond the emergency situation there is a need for durable and development focused solutions to strengthen the refugee

communities’ self reliance. Using the example of Uganda the authors prove the positive economic effects of refugees engagement with local markets. Uganda is a well known example of a country that has had open refugee policies allowing the refugees to leave the camp area(s) and interact with local markets. In many other countries, refugees are neither allowed to work nor interact with local markets and communities, the authors refer to this as them being “warehoused” while waiting for a chance to return home. As opposed to mainstream apprehension a number of studies have proven that some groups of refugees have significant purchasing power, in many cases higher suchlike than the local host community.

1.7.1 Job Creation -aspects of SDG 8

Depending on national policies, refugees may or may not be allowed to work outside of the camp (the latter is the case in Kakuma), however, it is possible for refugees to work within the camps. Energy access is vital as an end-use service for a number of jobs, these are referred to as induced jobs. Community services such as street lighting enables shop owners to stay open longer and people to leave their house after dark and visit shops, bars and restaurant for example. -Hence, it stimulates the local economy. MEI found that 86% of survey respondents in Goudoubo (Burkina Faso) said they would go out after dark if there was better street lighting (Corbyn & Vianello, 2018). Furthermore, the energy sector also

(17)

10 creates direct jobs, this requires certain skill sets to match the specific type of labour. Due to the fast growth in demand for solar home systems (SHSs), mini grids and productive use appliances in especially Sub Saharan Africa and Asia there is a shortage of professionals within installation, service and distribution of these technologies. Maintenance needs for solar panels related to dust, mud or sand on solar panels has the potential to create jobs within the camp. There is a need for capacity building within technical and maintenance professions in form of training and education (Power for All, 2018). Power for All in their Powering Jobs campaign illustrates this as followingly:

● SDG 4 Quality Education + SDG 7 Affordable and clean energy = SDG 8 Decent work and economic growth.

Pay-as-you-go business models allow affordability for energy services such as SHSs, the customer pays with their cell phone, first an up-front fee and then smaller instalments until the system is paid off (IRENA 2018). This requires access to a cell phone; Information and Communications Technology (ICT) are services that are provinen to be more and more vital for economic activities, especially so induced activities. This clearly requires electricity access for charging the phone. Studies focusing on refugee communities have shown that after cooking and lighting phone charging is the most demanded energy service.

1.8 Existing Literature and Gaps

Energy access for development has gained a great deal of attention the last couple of years - both within projects and in academia. A study made by Duke University reviewed 77,479 articles on the social dimensions of energy and development in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), the authors found that cooking services have gained the most attention, appearing in 54% of the studies. Only 19 studies touched upon the topic of migration.

Hence, the scientific articles concerned with the topic of energy access in humanitarian settings can be amounted to a handful, Lehne et al., 2016 estimated the current energy consumption of refugees and displaced population, Barbieri. et. al 2016 reviewed over 100 studies and gray literature concerned with cooking technologies in the context of

humanitarian setting, studying environmental, health, safety, education, livelihood and social issues related to these. Most studies are concerned with emergency response and services such as food, water, sanitation, shelter and health but energy as a key enabler for these services has not been fully recognized ( Lehne et.al 2016). Studies on protracted situations and the host community is mainly concerned with economic exchanges and some with conflicts related to xenophobia and environmental resources e.g. firewood (e.g. A.

Kumussa & J F.Jones 2014, Betss et al. 2016). Focusing on specific settings the World Bank has published a number of reports on the market and financial aspects of refugee camp and host community (e.g. Alixa-Garcia, J et.al 2017, World Bank, 2018). While a number of studies are concerned with the environmental and climate change impacts on migration (e.g. Hendrix and Glaser, 2007, Sascha-Dominik and Saned, 2013, barnett and Adger, 2007) few studies are concerned with the environmental impacts of migrants and refugee settings.

Maereg Tafere, 2018 studied the impacts on the environment from forced displacement, focusing on five countries in East Africa. International partnerships,development agencies and NGOs have been more engaged with the topic, MEI recently published The Cost of Fuelling HUmanitarian Aid, one of the first attempts to outline diesel spendings and potential savings for overall operations by the different humanitarian actors. Practical

(18)

11 Action provides a number of case studies on energy consumption in different refugee

camps, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Uganda and more. To attract actual investors a number of studies have looked at the willingness to pay for different energy services both for people in the camp and amongst the host community. (Practical Action, March 2018) studied clean cooking solutions and GIZ carried out a pre-feasibility study on solar hybrid mini-grids. The reports often include an economic study on the ability to pay for refugees linked to the feasibility of different energy system, hence proving the investment potential for private (or non-private) actors. Initiatives such as the Global Plan of Action, Moving Energy Initiative and SAFE seek to provide platforms for humanitarian organizations and actors for

knowledge exchange and collaboration to mainstream clean energy access as a part of their work.

1.9 Scope and Objective

Scope

To the author’s knowledge no literature has taken a holistic interdisciplinary approach on household energy access for the refugee and the host community while studying the long- term effects through energy modeling. The thesis will study the links between energy and the nexus of environment, social stability and economy in this context. It will outline how different energy systems could impact the situations for both groups and also for the relationship between these groups. From the energy planning point of view the author stresses that it is vital to know the social and cultural context, something that is often

forgotten or overseen in energy access and modeling studies. Furthermore, it is not possible for humanitarian organizations to have one energy access policy as the type of access

depends on the specific setting, regional circumstances and natural resources, this study therefore intends to create a framework that could be used for a specific camp and

surrounding, and applies it to the specific case of Kakuma camp in Turkana county, Kenya.

Objective

The objective of this thesis is to study the impacts of different energy systems on criterias related to technical, economic, social, environmental and institutional aspects concerning the refugee and the host community, -and the relationship between these groups. The Long- range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP) is used to study emissions and demand for different fuels under six different scenarios, at a time span of 2017 to 2030. Since many energy modeling programs are limited in functions including social and cultural criteria the LEAP study will be complemented by a Multi Criteria Analysis.

2. Case Study

The next section presents the socio-economic, environmental and energy situation in the Kakuma camps and Turkana county. First a short overview of Kenya is presented since possible energy interventions partly depend on national policies and targets, for more information on country level energy access and resources see appendix A.

(19)

12

2.1 Kenya

The country is located in East Africa and has a population of 48.6 million people (2016) and a population growth of 2,3%. Kenya enacted its new constitution in 2010 resulting in political, structural and economic changes for the country. The national poverty rate has declined from 46.8% in 2005-2006 to 36.1% in 2015-2016 (based on Kenya's official national poverty lines), the country was reclassified as a lower middle-income country in 2014³. Growth in the agriculture sector is the main contributor to poverty reduction, almost half of national households depend on the agriculture sector as a source of income (World Bank, 2018). The development plan Kenya Vision 2030 was launched in 2008 and aims to lead the country on the path to become “a newly industrializing middle-income country providing a high quality of life to all its citizens in a clean and secure environment”

(Government of Kenya, 2008). The Big 4 were announced in December 2017 in line with the 2030 vision and as goals for the second term of president Uhuru Kenyatta's. These are:

Enhancing Manufacturing, Food Security and Nutrition, Universal Health Coverage and Affordable Housing (World Bank, 2018).

2.1.1 Energy Access in Kenya

The country has achieved some impressive improvements in terms of energy access; from 56% in 2015 to 74% in 2018. With 78% in urban areas and 40% in rural (World Bank, Power Africa, 2018). Kenya Power aims to reach universal access by 2020. This is planned to be achieved through projects such as the Last Mile connectivity with ADB and Kenya Electricity Expansion Project with GBOP. There is great potential for Solar home systems (SHS), partly due to the large solar radiation but also due to a mature market and an

efficient distribution chain that can be installed throughout the country (UNDP, 2016). The number of supply systems for mini- and micro-grids remains limited. For total primary energy supply and national grid connections see appendix A.

2.1.3 Energy Policies and Targets (see more in appendix A)

The Kenya Off-Grid Solar Access Project (K-OSAP), a joint initiative by the World Bank and the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum (MOEP). The program is set to provide energy services to 14 underserved counties in Kenya through the following projects (focused on households) (REA & Kenya Power, 2017):

● Mini-grids in settlements areas/urban from 500,000 people downwards

● Stand-alone solar home systems for households outside settlements

INDC: The document notes that climate events such as droughts and floods are estimated to cause economic losses amounting to 3% of GDP. LULUCF are responsible for 75% of the country’s GHG emissions. The INDC highlights the importance but also difficulties related to allowing for economic development while reducing GHG emissions, it states that the national priority is poverty alleviation and economic development, but also states that the country places a high priority on response to climate change (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources , 2015).

Quantitative targets:

3 with a GNI of US$ 1,380 this puts it at the bottom of the classification group

(20)

13

· By 2030, 30% reduction of GHG emissions as compared to the BAU - conditional and dependent on foreign financial support

· Progress towards at least a 10% tree cover of total land area (from today’s 7% (Kenra, 2017))

2.1.4 Kenya as a Host Country (for more details, see appendix)

Kenya has two large refugee camps, Dadaab located in the eastern part of the country close to the Somali border and the Kakuma camp located in the northwest. As can be seen in figure 3 Dadaab almost solely hosts Somali refugees whereas the Kakuma camp is more diverse, although a clear majority is south Sudanese there are significant groups of

Ethiopians, Congolese and other nationalities represented (UNHCR, Jan 19). Figure 4 and 5 below show refugee and asylum seekers in Kenya by location, one can see that while the population in Dadaab has been changing quite dramatic to then reach lower levels in 2018 as compared to 2014, the population in Kakuma has slightly increased over the past four years. Population movements are dependent on factors that may be difficult to predict such as drought, climate events and political security. UNHCR has no systematic approach or guidance to calculate future sizes and demographics for persons of concern (PoCs),

however they have existing tools that are used routinely (UNHCR, 2018). Furthermore, in a camp setting people are likely to leave for urban centers in order to find jobs and live a freer life, these outflows are even harder to predict. There are also cases when people from the host community sign up as refugees in order to receive free firewood, the numbers can therefore be misleading. The lack of future projections naturally makes long term energy interventions tricky. UNHCR predicts scenarios for refugees based on a number of

assumptions, for Kenya General assumptions see appendix A. For the South Sudan situation that is of most importance to Kakuma these were the following:

● Risk of humanitarian crisis in South Sudan will likely remain very high. The country currently ranks 4th from the top in the INFORM index⁴ (UNHCR, April 2016). 2nd in 2018. (INFORM, 2018)

● Fighting is likely to continue in South Sudan. Existing protection of civilian areas will however decrease likelihood of major inflows of refugees to Kenya (UNHCR, April 2016). Figure 5 shows that this estimation was not fully accurate as there was a rather dramatic increase between 2016 and 2017.

● In addition, logistical challenges inside South Sudan will likely continue to pose a major hindrance to a large-scale influx to Kenya.

● Returns will be at a slow/low rate

These estimations proves that it with a certain degree of uncertainty is possible to estimate population movements, the inform index further allows for preparedness by countries.

4 INFORM is the first global tool for understanding the risk of humanitarian crisis and disasters. Based on three

dimensions of risk: hazards & exposure, vulnerability and lack of coping capacity dimensions it provides risk profiles for 191 countries. The tool can assist in decisions on prevention, preparedness and response. http://www.inform-index.org/

(21)

14

Figure 4: Location of Refugees and Asylum Seekers*

*UNHCR Infographics ( 30 November 2018)

Figure 5: Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Kenya by Location*

Figure 6: Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Kenya by Location*

*Created with data from UNHCR Kenya Statistics Package - October 2018

(22)

15

2.2 Kakuma Refugee Camp and Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement

The camp was established in 1992 to accommodate the arrival of the “Lost Boys of Sudan”, initially designed to accommodate 23,000 people, as of November 2018 it was home to 186,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers from over five different countries (UNHCR, Kenya) see figure 6. In November 2014 at the Turkana Roundtable on the integration of refugees and host community economies (co-organised by UNHCR and the World Bank) the county government raised that the current humanitarian aid delivery model is not suited for the socio-economic interactions between the refugee and host communities (Turkana County Government, 2018). Kalobeyei integrated settlement is designed for a more integrated community with refugees and host community living side by side. Kalobeyei Integrated Social and Economic Development Programme (KISEDP). It was opened in 2016 to accommodate the influx of a large number of south sudanese refugees. Seeing that 58%

of refugees are south sudanese the situation in Turkana county is highly dependent on the evolvement of the political situation in South Sudan. The refugee crisis is the largest in Africa and third globally (after Syria and Afghanistan). One in three South Sudanese people is forcible displaced either as a refugee or IDP (OCHA, 2018 (1)). Still, Kenya only hosts 5.2% of the total south sudanese refugee population (UNHCR, statistics).

Figure 7: Nationality of Refugees in Kakuma

Figure 8: Refugees and Asylum Seekers from South Sudan in Kenya Table 1: Refugee Population in Kakuma and Kalobeyei

(23)

16

Refugee population dec 2017 dec 2018

Kakuma 147,240 149,076

Kalobeyei 38,278 38,273

Total 185,518 187,349

2.2.2 Energy Access

In Kakuma 86% of households rank as Tier 0 or 1 for cooking and lighting access. Average spending per month on cooking, lighting and mobile phone charges are shown in table 2.

Although 95% of households receive firewood ratios every two months (10 kg per person) the spendings associated to cooking clearly shows that this is far from enough to satisfy the cooking fuel needs, (Practical Action). P. Otieno, D. Gazarwa, 2014 estimated that the

firewood supply meets less than 20% of the needs. It is common that those who do not have sufficient money to purchase firewood sell or exchange food rations for firewood, affecting household food security. In Kakuma and Dadaab the authors estimated that 25%

of food ratios was exchanged for firewood or other cooking fuel. Almost all charcoal consumed is bought from the host community, WFP estimated that 75% of the host community depend on firewood and charcoal sales for their livelihood income. The

refugees, however, cannot make use of this economic activity as they have limited access to the regional forestlands (P. Otieno, D. Gazarwa, 2014). The stoves used are generally highly inefficient; in Kakuma, 27% use three stone fire (firewood), 44% ISC basic wood and 23%

ICS basic charcoal and 6% other. Studies have shown consumer preference for charcoal but since firewood is distributed for free this creates a barrier for a fuel swift (Lahn &. Grafham, 2015). 60% of households report health issues related to smoke (Corbyn & Vianello, 2018).

For lighting and power, the situation is rather critical, 22% have nothing to light their homes, for fear of fire people have moved from kerosene in exchange for torches, 35% uses these, 24% solar lanterns, 12% diesel/mini-grids and 5% solar home systems. Torches have become very popular in the last couple of years due to their low price (around 0,25 USD) and non-direct harmful health impacts (as opposed to kerosene lamps) (The

Economist, Feb. 7th 2019). However, they have a short life time due to inefficient dry cell batteries, this means that waste of thousands of toxic dry-cell batteries discarded by users present a risk of contamination to land and water, they classify as tier 0 as they provide little light and are inefficient. Solar products for small scale electricity uses are rather well- spread within the camps, especially so for charging appliances either by sunlight (solar direct) or through a battery via solar panel. Phone access is becoming more and more important with pay as you go services such as M-Kopa. WFP has introduced electronic cash transfer ‘bamba chakula /get your food”to replace some of the food rations, this requires a mobile phone and gives refugees the freedom to decide on what food they want to cook hence improving the sense of autonomy, it is also highly important for refugees in order to stay in contact with people back home. Average possession is 1,6 per household. The importance of mobile phones is reflected in the monthly spending on charging. The MEI report found that more than one third expressed a willingness to pay for quality household

(24)

17 solar products, this reflects a customer base of 5,000 USD and a market worth 3000,000 USD.

Table 2: Energy Spending (Kakuma I) USD per month

Lighting 3,72

Phone charging 0,35

Cooking 4,99

% of median income 31

(Corbyn & Vianello, 2018)

Kakuma has a vibrant economy with marketplaces and a diversity of commerce industry e.g. carpentry, tailoring and mechanics. The market is similar to those in rural market towns in the county. Businesses usually have their own diesel powered mini-grid. To run the camp and assist the refugees a number of organizations are present in the camp. Offices,

institutions, businesses, water pumping and health facilities heavily rely on diesel generators with some solar penetration. A total of 800 people lives and work in five compounds. They mainly use diesel for cooling, ICT, media and lighting. 145 vehicles consume 522,000 L of diesel per year. Some of the compounds have been connected to the grid but transmission and distribution is not reliable resulting in power cuts every other minute. 60% of compounds use charcoal for cooking and 40% LPG (NORCAP, 2018). The diesel is either bought and transported from Nairobi or Kitale (Rift Valley) and then transported to Kakuma (Natalie Ndunda, UNHCR). The diesel is bought in bulks to save money and reduce transport. The consumption covers supply worth $5,5 million per year.

The system has proved to be reliable and satisfactory (O. Grafham, G. Lahn, 2018).

2.3 Turkana County

Located in the north west of Kenya it is one of 47 county governments and has a total population 1,15 million with a projected annual growth of 4%. Its 77,000 sq.km makes it the second largest county in the country. Turkana borders with Ethiopia in the north-east, South Sudan in the north-west and Uganda in the west. The region around Turkana lake is a world heritage. The most common type of housing is temporary houses referred to as manyatta, representing 91% of all households (Turkana County Government, 2018). The camps are located in the northwest of the county and the host community is estimated to 320,000 and are spread out over west Turkana Sub county (Nadia Ndunda, UNHCR).

Turkana is the poorest region in Kenya according to the Kenya Bureau of statistics. The county scores below the national average on human development index (HDI)⁵, Inequality adjusted Human Development Index (IHID)⁶ and the Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI). The county has been increasingly progressive in taking the refugee population into account

5 measured against a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living

6 In addition to HDI considers distribution of the achievements among the citizens

(25)

18

Figure 9: Location of Turkana

2.3.1 Climate

The climate is arid and semi-arid with high temperatures ranging between 20 and 40

celsius. Rainfall is unreliable and the country has experienced years of droughts followed by unpredictable high levels of rain resulting in flash floods and loss of livestock and pasture.

The combination of low rainfall and high temperature result in only 30% of the county’s region being classified as moderately suitable for agriculture activities. (Turkana

Government, 2013). The average temperature in Turkana is slowly rising -the minimum and maximum temperatures have increased between 2 and 3 degrees between 1967 and 2012 (Human rights watch 2015). Historically, droughts caused by natural events have occurred every 5 to 10 years, these now occur every 1 to 3 years, -impacting food security and livelihood activities related to farming. The droughts lead to food insecurities and the county is one of the five most affected in the country (UNDP, 2013). It is estimated that 50%

of the land is degraded. This threatens food and grazing land production, water, energy security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and livelihood resilience (CIDP 2018).

Environmental hotspots are those places that risk being impacted negatively by intensive human activities. The areas around the refugee camps and settlements are classified as such due to the high consumption of biomass and firewood. See appendix A for more county indicators.

2.3.2 Socio-Economic Situation

The main information on the socio-economic situation in the county can be found in the recently published Second County Integrated Development Plan 2018-2022. Mainly made up of a Nilotic community, traditionally these people have based their livelihoods on

pastoralism with a focus on cattle herding. Opportunities for livelihood in cattle herding are being threatened by droughts and availability of other economic opportunities are scarce.

54% of the households depend on livestock as their primary source of food and income (McDowell, 2016) a significant reduction in the past ten years. The low level of alternative income sources and the climate conditions leaves a large share of the population in poverty and with a high food insecurity. In search for alternative livelihood activities many of these

(26)

19 put extra stress on the environment. One of the main activity is logging of forest to sell as firewood or charcoal, charcoal manufacture has become a mainstay of the economy for many poor households (Watson and Binsbergen 2008). The poorer communities of Turkana depend up to 72% of their income from the sale of firewood and charcoal (Owino and Kemboi 2018 ) . Furthermore, the main markets for firewood are the refugee camps, estimated at 240 metric tonnes per year (Turkana county Government, 2018). This highlights the economic possibilities a refugee population can pose to the local

communities; however, it also shows the environmental and health disadvantages of this.

To combat deforestation and meet the NDC target of 10% forest cover the national

government banned logging in 2018, this had huge consequences for charcoal sellers and households as charcoal prices increased by 70% in one month. At an average, charcoal prices in Kenya have doubled since 2008. (Lynet Igadwah, 2018). However, despite this the host community continues to rely on charcoal harvesting for sale to the refugee population.

The prices vary with seasons between Ksh. 700-1500 during dry season to up to 2000 during raining season for a sack (Nadia Ndunda, UNHCR). The county has great conditions for beekeeping, but the bee population is threatened by environmental degradation, charcoal burning and pollution (UNDP, 2013). Road infrastructure within the county is poorly developed. This and low unreliable energy supply prevent the industry sector to fully develop. Furthermore, due to low education levels there is limited availability of skilled employees meaning that most industry jobs are imported (see section on oil below).

60% of the county has weak or limited telecommunications meaning a majority of the turkana people live without mobile networks (Turkana County Government, 2018). Poor road infrastructure is also contributing to food insecurity as it is a physical barrier to food access (Save the children & UNICEF, 2017). The five most common health problems in the County are:

Upper respiratory tract infections (24%) Confirmed malaria (18%)

Other respiratory diseases (18%) Diarrhea (11%)

Suspected malaria (11%)

2.2.3 Water Resources

Water resources are scarce, affecting both human health and livelihoods. 59% of

households have safe access to water through piped water, borehole or protected shallow wells, the rest obtain water from river springs and unprotected wells, sources that would need treatment before drinking. (Turkana Smart Nutrition Surveys, 2018). Following this scarcity water is also a major catalyzer for conflict in the area (Human Rights Watch, 2015).

2.3.4 Energy Situation

Specific data on household energy consumption is difficult to find. The CIDP 2018-2022 reports that 2% of the population has electricity access but there is nowhere to be found what the consumption or reliability i.e. tier this refers to. The county population mainly rely on firewood, charcoal, paraffins and solar lanterns for their cooking and lighting, high

(27)

20 income households use LPG for cooking. Approximately 60% of urban host population collect their firewood while the rest purchase, charcoal is mainly bought while 10%

produce their own charcoal (Practical Action). In Turkana, of the wood harvested 30% is used for charcoal production and 70% directly as firewood. The county is covered by the K- OSAP project, aligned with this is also the support of a transition towards improved

cookstoves (ISC). The focus is mainly on urban and peri-urban areas. A majority of

household use traditional stove technologies such as three stone fires and metal or ceramic jikos without metal liners. The county government is determined to improve energy access across the county. In line with the national policy they state that utilization of available resources will be prioritized, this include hydroelectric power, solar, wind, geothermal and sustainably sourced wood fuels. Development of renewable energy is also stated as a priority. As can be seen in figure 10 there are planned transmission lines to Lodwar and Lokichoggio, Kakuma and Kalobeyei town are situated in between these urban centres. A simple google map gives 241 km to drive between the towns and Kakuma town and

Kakuma camps(s) and Kalobeyei. The major challenges include the reliability of the power supply, poor transmission and distribution infrastructure and low per capita energy

consumption (Turkana County Government, 2018). For electrification plans of urban areas see Annex A.

Figure 10: Planned Transmission Line Turkwel-Lokichar-Lodwar 220 kV

Table 3: Planned Electricity Projects for Urban Centers in Turkana County

Urban centres 2017 (projections from

2010) 2020 (projections) Electricity access

Kakuma 42,991 48,047 ● planned mini grid

Lokichoggio 23,801 26,600 ● KPLC electricity

available: mainly diesel, some solar hybrid mini- grids

● Planned

(28)

21

transmission line

Rural 320,000-66794=

254,206 K-OSAP SHSs

(KNBS and Projections, projections by the County Planning Unit 2017)

As can be seen in table 3 many projects are currently being developed. The urban

population may be reached within the national target of universal access by 2020. However, only 19% of the county population lives in urban areas and this share is predicted to change little. Main challenges for the electricity generation in the county is the poor transmission and distribution infrastructure, the high cost of power, low per capita power consumption and low countrywide electricity access (Turkana County Government, 2018).

2.3.5 Energy Resources

Solar power is estimated at 4 to 6 kWh/m2 a day. Today only 0,1% of the population uses solar power (Turkana County Government, 2018). There are projects and plans to retrofit current diesel generators with power mini-grids with solar panels. Oil reserves were discovered in the county in 2012. The local government states that this is expected to significantly contribute to the wealth of the county. However, so far little of this prediction has been fulfilled- The discovery has resulted in an influx of job seekers in the region. This has created tensions between nomadic communities, oil engineers and bush patrols. Local communities expected the oil discovery to enable jobs, but the professional skills needed in e.g. drilling, seismic are rare in these communities. This has therefore not met the

expectations of the local population (Turkana County Government, 2018). The reserve is estimated to produce between 60,000 to 100,000 barrels a day, however, for a refinery to be economically feasible the reserve should produce at least 400,000 barrels a day (Ommar Mohammed, feb 19). This means that unless a larger discovery is made crude oil will be produced in Turkana and then shipped further. Hence, local demand for diesel and other oil products will not be provided by this reserve.

Energy Access for the Most Vulnerable Groups

Energy Access for the Most Vulnerable Groups

A Study on the Long- Term Effects of Energy Access in a Refugee Camp Context with Inclusion of the Host Community

MARIE STJERNQUIST DESATNIK

Abstract

Preface

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Humanitarian versus Development Aid or Humanitarian and Development aid?

1.2 The Access Issue

1.3 Energy Access

1.4 Humanitarian Organizations and Energy Spending

1.5 The Refugee Population and the Host Community

1.6 Overview of the Environmental Impacts of Camps in Protracted Displaced Situations

1.7 Overview of the Economic and Social Impacts of Protracted Displaced Situations

1.8 Existing Literature and Gaps

1.9 Scope and Objective

2. Case Study

2.1 Kenya

2.2 Kakuma Refugee Camp and Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement

2.3 Turkana County