Kakuma Experience- The Journey and Introduction to the world's oldest refugee camps
Introduction
This blogpost introduces the Kakuma refugee
camp and Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement research area. It highlights the
challenge of travelling to the camp and settlement and analyses how refugees in
Kakuma impact the neighbouring towns and communities. In addition, it focuses
on the refugee camp as a protection space and urban settlement. It examines the
everyday experiences of refugees and host communities in Kakuma and the
perceptions and interactions between them in a protracted displacement context.
The
journey to Kakuma Refugee Camp
Kakuma refugee camp and Kalobeyei Settlement
are situated in Turkana County, in Kenya’s remote and marginalised North-Western
region bordering Uganda to the West and South Sudan and Ethiopia to the North.
It is located about 700 kilometres from Kenya's capital city- Nairobi, and about
60 kilometres from the Kenya-South Sudan border. The two available means of
transportation to the camp are by road or taking a local flight from Nairobi’s
Wilson Airport or Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to Lodwar town-
the headquarters of Turkana County.
In addition, there are also direct weekly
flights from Nairobi to Kakuma by the United Nations (UN) Humanitarian Air
Service, ferrying humanitarian staff, dignitaries and refugees scheduled for
resettlement in third countries. The cost of direct flights by UN Air Service
is about 400 US dollars for a return trip, almost twice the amount someone
would spend on a bus ticket. For this ethnographic fieldwork, For this ethnographic
field study, the researcher opted to travel by road from Nairobi as it would
allow him to observe the socio-economic interactions of people travelling to
and from Kakuma, learn more about their experiences while travelling along the
volatile region and understand how the presence of the camp has impacted the
economy of the surrounding towns.
The journey started on Friday morning, 5 May
2023, from Nairobi by bus to the western town of Kitale[GO1] , where the researcher spent the night before
embarking on the last part of the journey the following day. Kitale town is about
380 kilometres from the capital and 420 kilometres from Kakuma. Most people
travelling to Turkana usually take a bus to Kitale, where they spend the night
before embarking on the last phase of the journey, partly because the journey
to Kakuma is long and cannot be covered in a single day. Other travellers,
however, decide to spend a night in Eldoret town or Kapenguria town in West
Pokot County, which borders Turkana to the South.
Kitale town is also a
significant transit point for the refugee travelling to Kakuma refugee camps in
Turkana, Kenya. At the time the researcher arrived in the western town, there
were around 1,600 refugees hosted at an already overstretched transit centre,
which could only accommodate 200 people. According to reports, most of the
refugees hosted in Kitale had fled from various camps in the neighbouring
country of Uganda (Jaola, 2023; Osinde, 2023; Xinhua, 2023). The refugees who were mainly from the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC), Burundi, Rwanda and South Sudan cited lack of food and
other necessities as the main reason for their flight from Uganda to Kakuma.
Interestingly, the refugees from across Uganda viewed Kakuma as a better option
than staying in Uganda despite the restrictions and socio-economic challenges
experienced by refugees already living in Kakuma refugee camps and Kalobeyei
settlement. For example, most refugees interviewed in Kakuma and Kalobeyei
settlement decried the low quantity and quality of rations received from the
World Food Programme and the poor reception and living conditions in the camp.
However, the second phase of the journey to
Kakuma is not as smooth and safe as the first. Besides the numerous road
diversions due to road construction activities along the magnificent
multi-billion infrastructure project- Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport
Corridor (LAPSSET)- the security situation is volatile. Just about 60
kilometres from the last town in West Pokot County is the highly contested
border town of Kainuk.
Border conflict, Banditry and security operation along the Kainuk-Lodwar Highway
Located in Turkana South along the boundary of
West Pokot and Turkana Counties, Kainuk town's exact location is politically
contested by the Pokot and Turkana communities, who both claim ownership of the
small town with a population of about 26,000 people (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019). This border contestation has led to frequent
armed attacks between the Turkana and Pokot people. Moreover, competition over
scarce natural resources like water and grazing land for both communities,
which are predominantly pastoralists, has led to frequent conflicts, cattle rustling
and banditry (Mkutu and Wandera, 2013).
The inter-community conflict in the Kainuk
area has also been exacerbated by the devastating impacts of climate change,
which drive Pokot and Turkana herders to encroach into each other's grazing
grounds, leading to deadly shootings (Trocaire, 2021). On several occasions, the bandits at Kainuk
have shot at buses transporting civilians and even military and police trucks,
leading to loss of lives. For example, in February 2023, a bandit attack along
the dangerous highway claimed the lives of four police officers and five
passengers (Etyang and Ombati, 2023; Mugambi, 2023).
As a result of the violence along this
critical highway, which links Kenya to South Sudan, the Government of Kenya
launched a security operation in Kainuk to flush out bandits and recover
illegal firearms possessed by civilians (Yusuf, 2023). During the researcher's journey to Kakuma,
three units had already been deployed to Kainuk- the Anti-Stock Theft Unit, The
General Service Unit and the Kenya Defence Forces. The security units were
further supported by a contingent of Kenya Police Reservists (KPR) and Regular
Police. Based on the data from Mkutu and Wandera (2013), Kainuk already had the highest number of
Kenya Police Reservists, demonstrating the high level of insecurity in the
region.
“Even if they increase the number of police officers, the security won’t improve, the police eat from the refugees more than the host community. The host community has nothing to give to them, and they know the law. Even if they go there…nothing will happen. We have realised that these government officers are getting rich because of these refugees.” (Host Community member in Kalobeyei area in Kakuma).
Moreover, across the vast county, many people
perceive the non-Turkanas as taking advantage of the Turkana marginalisation to
either extract their resources or achieve personal ends. In this regard, Sanghi, Onder and Vemuru (2016) argued that the Turkanas view themselves as
beleaguered hosts who “are also conditioned by an enveloping, and often
apparent, view of refugees as foreign usurpers of their land and resources and
the violent Other”.
Oil Mining in Lokichar and impacts on remote towns.
After Kainuk, the next vibrant urban centre is
the mining town of Lokichar, which is approximately 80 kilometres North and
about one hour's drive from Kainuk. Lokichar gained countrywide and global
attention in 2012 after the British oil company Tullow plc discovered oil
deposits in its surrounding areas (BBC News, 2012; Reuters, 2019). Based on the estimates, the Lokichar basin
contains about 560 million barrels valued at an estimated US dollars 25 billion
(Mkutu Agade, 2014).
Since the discovery of
oil about ten years ago, the economy and population of Lokichar town have grown
significantly. Once a small town with few huts scattered around belonging to
herders and small shops, the town is currently a thriving commercial hub with
hotels and restaurants, big wholesale shops and improved social infrastructure
like health facilities and schools. According to Nanok and Onyango (2017), the oil exploration in Lokichar has created job
opportunities for locals at the companies operating in the area and increased
the town's population as business people were drawn to the town due to its
economic potential from oil discovery.
However, the discovery
of oil in Lokichar also negatively affected the people and environment. Studies
conducted in the area established that more than half of the households in
Lokichar lost some access to land due to oil exploration, a significant number
witnessed reduced livestock, environmental degradation, increased poverty and
displacement (Nanok and Onyango, 2017; Cheptoo, 2022). Furthermore, the presence of oil in the area also
complicated the security situation in an already volatile region. According to
a study conducted by Kamais, Mwangi and Bor (2019), more than half of the residents of Lokichar linked
the increased insecurity in the region to the oil exploration in the area. In
addition, tensions have constantly emerged between the County Government of
Turkana and the national government about how the revenue from oil exploration
should be shared by both entities (Lutta, 2018; Akwiri, 2019).
In general, while
Lokichar might be a little far from Kakuma refugee camp, the politics of oil
exploration and its socio-economic impacts on the overall Turkana County is
critical in understanding how the Turkanas view the presence of oil and
refugees in their region and entitlement to benefits resulting from exploration
and hosting of Kakuma camps respectively. Just like in Lokichar, where locals have
sometimes violently demanded their share of the oil revenue (Obulutsa, 2013; Etyang, 2018), in Kakuma, locals have also, on some occasions, resorted
to violent tactics such as protests to demand benefits from the humanitarian
organisations operating in the area (Nabenyo, 2022). Moreover, the insecurity at Lokichar, situated along
the Lodwar Kitale highway, directly affects the movement of refugees,
especially those travelling by road to Nairobi or on other duties.
Lodwar Town: Turkana’s Commercial and Administrative Centre.
The next town after
Lokichar is Turkana County's commercial and administrative hub- Lodwar Town.
Located approximately 120 kilometres from Kakuma, Lodwar is the largest town in
North-Western Kenya and hosts the Turkana County Government’s headquarters. It
also acts as a gateway to neighbouring countries of South Sudan, Ethiopia and
Uganda. Historically, Lodwar town once acted as a transit point for colonial
administration, where political prisoners were moved to various detention facilities
in the North, particularly Lokitaung prison (Wanzala, 2016).
Lodwar town's growth
has increased over the years mainly due to the change in the governance system
in Kenya and the discovery of oil in neighbouring Lokichar town, leading to
rising levels of migration into the town (UN Habitat, 2022). According to KIPPRA (2022) Lodwar's population grew from 58,290 in 2019 to about
87,554 in 2020. Vemuru et al. (2016), however, attribute the population growth to the
changes brought by the adoption of a devolved system of governance in 2010 and
the presence of development and relief organisations, which have consequently
spurred the economic growth of the town and enhanced its political importance.
Regarding
infrastructure development, Lodwar town has an airport with daily local flights
to and from Nairobi, five-star hotels and the county's largest hospital- Lodwar
Referral Hospital. It also has good electricity connectivity, tarmacked roads
and a traders' market with several retail and wholesale shops along its
streets. Due to its critical role in the county's economy, it is common to meet
refugees from Kakuma operating small businesses or buying and selling goods
from Kakuma refugee camps. Therefore, it can be said that Lodwar and Kakuma's
economies are interdependent, and the economic impact of refugee presence in
Kakuma can be felt in Lodwar through workshops by humanitarian organisations, local
flights ferrying humanitarian workers, and goods and services exchange, among
others.
To demonstrate the
positive impacts of refugees in the Kakuma refugee camp on Lodwar’s economy, a
study conducted by Sanghi, Onder and Vemuru (2016) established that the overall Gross Regional Product
(GRP) of Turkana County increased permanently by 3.4 per cent due to refugee
presence. Moreover, the study also indicated that refugee presence in Turkana
County also leads to an increase in employment by 2.9 per cent and per capita
income by 0.5 per cent. However, these positive economic impacts of refugees on
Turkana's economy are not reflected positively in the perceptions of Turkana
people across the county. They are only limited to areas around Kakuma town. In
Lodwar, for example, those who perceive refugees as bad are more than those who
view them as good, further demonstrating the complexity of refugee-host
interactions and relations (Sanghi, Onder and Vemuru, 2016).
Kakuma: The town, People, Refugee Camp and the Settlement.
Located about one hour
drive North of Lodwar town, Kakuma is a vibrant cosmopolitan town with people
from diverse backgrounds engaging in commercial activities or working with the
local, regional and international donors and Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) providing humanitarian assistance and support to refugees in the nearby
Kakuma refugee camp and the surrounding host community (Montclos and Kagwanja, 2000).
It is estimated that
the population of Kakuma town ranged between 2,000 and 8,000 before the camp
was established in 1992 (Montclos and Kagwanja, 2000; Otha, 2005; Jansen, 2018). Today, with a population of approximately 103,000
people (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019), Kakuma town features several retail and wholesale
shops, supermarkets, a livestock and traders market, hotels and restaurants,
nightclubs, an airstrip, a level five hospital, a university campus, private
colleges and several private and public primary and secondary schools. Small
business traders also sell goods ranging from fresh farm produce, clothes,
charcoal, honey and animal products, among others, along the highway in the
town centre during the day and at night.
Compared to when the
researcher last visited Kakuma in 2021, there is a remarkable improvement in
the state of infrastructure around the town, particularly the newly expanded two-way
tarmac road passing through the town. Today, besides the expanded and improved
road networks around the town, streetlights have also been installed around the
town, thus enabling traders to operate businesses even at night. Therefore, the
town has become a 24-hour economy over the years.
Kakuma emerged as a
market and a transport town in the 1960s when some Somali traders set up shops
and businesses to serve the local communities and drivers transporting goods to
Juba in neighbouring South Sudan (Oka, 2014). This exchange of goods and services between the
Somali traders, local pastoral communities and drivers along the Kitale-Juba
highway later developed into an extensive business network covering Northern
Turkana and Southern Sudan (Oka, 2011).
To date, the economy
of Kakuma town has grown exponentially and is worth about US dollars 39.7
million, based on a 2018 study by the International Financial Corporation (IFC).
This growth was driven mainly by the area's refugee camp economy and relief and
humanitarian operations. In addition, the report by IFC further indicated that
there were around 232 shops spread along the road in Kakuma town and adjacent
streets. Kakuma town’s per capita household consumption in 2016 was about US
dollars 602, falling behind the national household consumption of US dollars
800 per year (IFC, 2018).
Social Stratification in Kakuma
Walking anywhere in
Kakuma town and its surroundings, an individual will encounter people from
different cultural backgrounds, most of whom come from the local Turkana host
community. While interacting with the people within Kakuma town and adjacent
villages, it is easy to observe their stark socio-cultural differences. The
presence of the camp and the economy of the town, which is driven mainly by the
humanitarian and relief funds in Kakuma, has created different social classes
in the area. Just as Jansen (2018) opined regarding the different social categories in
the camp, among the host communities in Kakuma, an individual’s societal status
in the host community depends on a clash of capitals where some have access to
resources while others do not. As such, there are four categories of social
status/class in Kakuma.
The categories include;
The
political class/ elites:
This
category comprises people who wield immense political power in Kakuma. It
features people who rose to their current societal position mainly from working
in NGO organisations operating in the area or through government appointment to
senior positions like area chiefs and community elders. These elites possess
powers to influence the development priorities of the communities and NGOs.
They also act as community Gatekeepers and are referred to as 'Big men' or
'Wakubwa’ (in Swahili) by the people living in Kakuma (Jansen,
2018).
They
also include politicians like the county Governor, area members of parliament
and the county assembly. In addition, most of those who fall in this category
have hugely benefited and continue to benefit from the presence of refugees in
Kakuma through contracts, employment, and business opportunities. Whenever the
government of Kenya threatens to close the camp, they are quick to oppose the
move due to the perceived loss of opportunities. Based on their involvement in
the humanitarian operation in Kakuma, elites usually politicise refugee issues
to achieve their political ambitions, such as elections.
The expatriates:
These
are people who primarily work in prominent and influential international NGOs
and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) such as the UNHCR, European Union,
and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), among others. Most are
non-Kenyans and hold senior managerial positions in humanitarian and donor
organisations or act as consultants.
The
other group falling into this category are the foreign researchers on field
study visits to the Kakuma refugee camp. In terms of their perception of refugees,
most view them as beneficial partly due to the opportunities arising from their
presence in the camp and because they are directly employed in organisations
involved in refugee operations. Based on the interviews conducted, most of them
view the hosts as heavily dependent on the refugee presence and entitled to a
portion of the support and assistance that goes to the refugees.
The urban dwellers:
Falling
in this category are mostly educated locals (Turkana people) and non-locals
(from regions outside Kakuma and Turkana County) drawn to Kakuma due to
perceived economic opportunities, such as jobs and business, arising from the
presence of the refugee camps. They primarily work with humanitarian agencies
as field officers or junior managers. In addition, some operate small and
medium-sized businesses in the town centre.
Based
on their perceptions towards refugees, most of them hold positive views about
the refugees due to the economic benefits they derive from the camp and
settlement. However, some who cannot reap the benefits of the camp and
settlement, such as the unemployed or underemployed, hold alternative views.
For example, they view non-locals (Kenyans and foreigners) as taking advantage
of the Turkana people (taking jobs and generally reaping the benefits of the
camp).
The
Pastoralists (Mraiya or Raia- Swahili for ordinary citizens)
The last
social category amongst the host community in Kakuma are the pastoralists,
occupying the lowest social status. To spot the pastoralist is very easy in Kakuma.
They commonly wear shorts, vests, a hat and a piece of clothing wrapped around
the waist for the men, while the women wear two pieces of clothes wrapped
around the waist and chest and some colourful beads around the neck, ankle and
wrist. In addition, it is also common to see male pastoralists with walking
sticks and guns to herd their cattle.
Most pastoralists are
uneducated, living in impoverished and remote areas and shelters, and still
practise the Turkana traditional culture, such as nomadic pastoralism, as a way
of life and source of livelihood (Agol et al., 2020). Moreover, they are the group mostly affected by disasters like
famine and drought, which occasionally displace them and cause massive losses
in livestock deaths. Because of their societal position, the pastoralists often
have no voice and rely on the urban and political class to champion their
rights and agenda.
Regarding their
perceptions towards refugees, on the one hand, some of them hold negative views
towards refugees, especially those who were forced to relocate to other areas
to create space for the establishment of the camps and the settlement. As such,
they see the camp and settlement as occupying their grazing grounds and threatening
their lives and livelihood, which is pastoralism. On the other hand, there are
some pastoralists who hold positive opinions towards the refugees, particularly
those who live closer to the camps and can sell some goods like animal products
and engage in manual and unskilled work such as cleaning, cooking, and
construction.
Overall, perceptions of
hosts towards refugees in Kakuma are nuanced and depend on many variables such
as someone's gender, economic status, employment status, distance from the
camp, and whether they are from Turkana County, Kenyan nationals or not.
According to Sanghi, Onder and Vemuru (2016), the Kakuma Turkana hold more
positive perceptions towards refugees than those staying in far areas from the
camp. In addition, the women report a higher positive attitude towards the
refugees due to the benefits they derive from the camp, such as providing
labour to refugees, like fetching water, doing housework, and selling goods
such as charcoal firewood, among others (Ibid).
Furthermore,
the hosts' perceptions towards refugees also depend on the government's refugee
policies. With the current policy of encampment, where refugees are subjected
to several restrictions such as movement and work-related restrictions, it is
impossible for those staying far away from the camp to develop more positive
perceptions towards refugees because their interactions are limited. This further
impacts the social cohesion between refugees and host communities in Kakuma and
Kalobeyei since one of the critical elements- interactions- is highly limited
and restricted.
Kakuma Refugee Camp and Kalobeyei Settlement: Protection Spaces and Urban Complexes
Kakuma refugee camp’s
story began around early 1992 when a group of about 12,000 young Sudanese boys
were brought to Kakuma from the nearby border town of Lokichoggio. The group
had previously been expelled from various refugee camps in Ethiopia and
returned to Southern Sudan before eventually walking around one thousand miles
to Kenya (Sanghi, Onder and Vemuru, 2016; Jansen, 2018). After staying in Lokichoggio for a few months, the young
boys, later known as 'the Lost Boys', were relocated to Kakuma and settled
about 1 kilometre from the town centre at the present-day Kakuma camp one.
Having ‘appeared almost
out of nowhere’ (Otha, 2005, p. 231), and with features of a
large town (Montclos and Kagwanja, 2000; Otha, 2005; Jansen, 2018), Kakuma refugee camp has grown over the last three decades
to become one of the biggest refugee camps in the world and one of the longest
lasting refugee settlement in Africa (Oka, 2014). Due to the increasing
number of refugees and asylum seekers displaced from the Horn of Africa and
Great Lakes regions by conflicts, violence and climate change impacts, the
camp's size has kept increasing, with new camps being created to accommodate
new arrivals.
The camp's population has
grown to about 270,000 as of July 2023 from approximately 58,000 in 1998 (Montclos and Kagwanja, 2000), comprising at least 15 nationalities. Put simply, there are
more refugees in Turkana West Sub-County than the local host communities, which
are about 239,000 (KNBS, 2019). In addition, refugees
account for 23 per cent of the total Turkana County population. To date, there
are four camps- Kakuma 1, Kakuma 2, Kakuma 3, and Kakuma 4- making up the
Kakuma refugee camps spread across an area of about 25 square kilometres. Each
camp is subdivided into zones and then blocks where different communities
reside.
The camps and the
settlement are managed and administered by the Department of Refugee Services
(DRS), which also conducts the refugee status determination (RSD). The UN
Refugee Agency's (UNHCR) role in Kakuma is mainly to offer protection services,
assistance and support to refugees through the distribution of food rations,
cash-based assistance to refugees, shelter and resettlement interviews, among
others. To ensure safety and security, the government has established various
police posts within the four camps and the settlement. In addition, the DRS has
created a community peace and protection team (CPPT) responsible for reporting
incidents of crimes to the camp authorities and acting as a link between the
authorities and the refugees regarding security service provision. However,
there is no physical barrier like a fence that separates the camp from the host
community. In some places within the camp, like the IOM compound, World Food
Programme compound and other humanitarian agencies, there are fences surrounding
the offices and secure entry points manned by private security guards and
police officers.
While the security system
within the camp and settlement has generally managed to keep the crime levels
down within the refugee communities, incidents of serious crimes are still
witnessed across the camp. During the researcher's time conducting research in
the camp and settlement, serious incidents like murder, robberies, and property
theft were reported. Through interviewing a few refugees, the researcher
learned that the insecurity does not always originate from the host community
but often from fellow refugees within the camp, mostly the unemployed youth.
This situation presents a paradoxical perspective of the camp as a space for
protection and sanctuary but also marred with violence from within and outside.
It is common to find
members from the same community residing in a particular zone within the camp without
necessarily mixing with other communities. According to the refugees, they
choose to settle where their kinsmen are because it provides them a sense of
community and security from violence and attacks from other refugee groups. This
type of settlement in the refugee camp challenges the understanding of the
composition of a refugee camp as not only culturally diverse but also
characterised by in-group separation, where different refugee groups try to
maintain their own culture by minimising contact with other cultures (Berry, 1980). The UNHCR, however,
allocates the refugees spaces based on their time of arrival and registration.
Within the camps, the
refugees maintain their socio-cultural beliefs and practices through the type
of houses and religious centres they build, hotels and the food served, and
dressings among others. A few metres from Kakuma town, there is the iconic
Ethiopian Orthodox church built by Ethiopian refugees around 2008 as a gift to
the town's converts to Orthodox Christianity. Similar churches and other places
of worship, like mosques, are also found in different places across the four
camps. There are also different markets in various camps that bear the names of
the dominant communities around them. For example, there is the Somali market
in Kakuma 1 in an area where the majority of the residents are Somalis from
Somalia, the Sudanese market in a Sudanese-dominated area, and the Ethiopian
market and Hotel (the famous Franco hotel) in an Ethiopian-dominated area in
the same camp. There are additional markets in other camps, such as Kakuma 2,
3, and 4 markets.
The camp also has notable
infrastructural facilities such as hospitals, boreholes, libraries, schools,
colleges, university campuses (Southern New Hampshire University), playgrounds,
electricity connections, and cultural centres. Several NGOs and humanitarian
agencies also have field offices within the camps, such as Jesuit Refugee
Services (JRS), the German Development Agency (GIZ), the UN Migration (IOM),
and the International Rescue Committee (IRC), among others. Government offices
are also located within the camps, like the Department of Refugee Services and
the National Police Service.
In general, interaction
within Kakuma refugee camps occurs in social places like churches, schools,
hospitals and markets. While the encampment policy has had adverse
socio-economic outcomes on both refugees and host communities, it is hard to
ignore the socio-economic interactions between the hosts and refugees within
the expansive camp. Studies conducted in Kakuma have established that refugees
benefit the host community economically (Sanghi, Onder and Vemuru, 2016; IFC, 2018). More particularly, the IFC (2018) study revealed that the
average household consumption in Kakuma camp is US dollars 16.5 million (Kenyan
shillings 1.7 billion). Although the household consumption in Kakuma camp is
still lower than the national average in Kenya, it is worth noting that the
refugee integration policy environment within which the camp operates is
restrictive and discriminatory towards refugees.
Moreover, there are
contradictions in the Kakuma refugee camp. First, while camps are usually used
to manage emergencies and are temporary, Kakuma has been in a state of
temporariness but with elements of permanence within it. For example, the fact
that the camp has been in place for three decades now indicates that there are
no durable solutions in sight, especially voluntary repatriation, which the
Government of Kenya favours. Furthermore, instead of the camp shrinking in
population and size, it keeps expanding and increasing in population. The
second contradiction is that the camp is a protection space for those fleeing
conflict and persecution, yet refugees still face severe danger and threats
within its surroundings. In addition, the reception conditions are also
inhumane as thousands of refugees are compelled to spend months in crowded UNHCR-branded
makeshift tents in a climatically hostile area with very little access to food,
water, and sanitation services.
Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement.
While the refugee policy
in Kakuma refugee camps can be said to be restrictive and discriminatory, the
Kalobeyei Integrated Settlement is an alternative attempt by the UNHCR and the
Government of Kenya to address the two adverse policy outcomes of restriction
and discrimination, by promoting more significant socio-economic interaction
and integration of refugees through area-based development approach.
The settlement is located
approximately 3.5 kilometres from Kakuma camps and was established in 2016
under the Kalobeyei Integrated Socio-Economic Development Plan (KISEDP) in an
area of about 15 square kilometres. Hosting around 59,000 refugees (UNHCR, 2023), the settlement is well
planned and has features of urban settlement like tarmac roads, bus stops,
electricity, well-built markets, solar-powered hospitals, schools, cultural
centres, agricultural farm plots, playgrounds, and stadium among others. The
quality of shelter provided in the settlement is different from and better than
in Kakuma, which is mostly mud walls. In Kalobeyei, the refugees live in
brick-walled houses organised into three villages: Villages 1, 2, and 3. The villages
are further subdivided into neighbourhoods and then compounds. Each compound
comprises 28 houses with a solar light post at the centre, kitchen gardens and
water points. In summary, there are residential and market areas in Kalobeyei,
which shows that there was keen attention to the design and planning of the
settlement (Betts et al., 2018).
In Kalobeyei Settlement, no
strict movements and employment restrictions are imposed on refugees like in
the Kakuma main camps. The refugees are allowed to move freely within the
settlement and trade with the host community members at the shared market
centres. While in Kakuma, there is a curfew from 7 pm till 6 am, in the
settlement, the refugees can move freely even at night. The refugee and host
communities' children go to the same schools and hospitals and even worship in
the same churches. At the UNHCR farms in the settlement, members of the host
community and refugees share farm plots and grow crops side by side. Moreover,
the refugees in Kalobeyei receive their assistance in the form of cash sent to
them electronically to their phones (Bamba Chakula-Swahili for Get your
food), which they can use to purchase food and other personal items from
authorised shops.(Betts et al., 2018; Betts, Omata and Sterck, 2020b).
Kalobeyei Integrated
Settlement was therefore established to promote greater socio-economic
interaction between the refugees and host communities to attain refugee
self-reliance. It also demonstrated the Government and UNHCR's commitment to
shifting from an aid-based model to a development approach which benefits both
the hosts and refugees. Today, the Government of Kenya is in the process of
developing a new national strategy for managing refugees in the country that
builds on the successes of Kalobeyei like better nutritional outcomes and
perceptions of independence. The plan is dubbed 'Shirika Plan' (Swahili for I
am involved) and aims to transform all camps in Kenya to integrated
settlements.
While the intention is
good, some flaws within Kalobeyei imperil its success if it's replicated in
other places like the Dadaab refugee complex in Garissa, North-Eastern Kenya.
Based on the field interviews with refugees living in Kalobeyei, there needed
to be more adequate involvement and participation of refugees in creating the
settlement. As such, when the time came for the relocation of some refugees
from the Kakuma camps to the settlement, most of them refused to cooperate,
while others who moved to the settlement later returned to the camps. This refusal
to move was occasioned by rumours within the refugee communities that Kalobeyei
was a permanent settlement, and those moved there would not get a chance of
being resettled to a third-developed country. Based on an interview with some
refugees and a UNHCR officer, the unpopularity of Kalobeyei among refugees is
understandable, considering that most refugees in Kakuma are hopeful of being
resettled to a western country at one point.
The harsh climatic and
economic conditions in Turkana County also contribute to the refugees'
rejection of being settled permanently in Kalobeyei. While the UNHCR promotes
drylands farming in the settlement, it does not yield much success due to the
infertile soil and harsh weather conditions. In addition, the amount given to
refugees -Kenyan shillings 2,000 (approximately 15 US dollars)- in the form of
cash-based assistance and other in-kind support can not sufficiently sustain
their lives in the settlement, where it is also hard to find jobs. The life of
a refugee in Kalobeyei is therefore difficult, prompting some of them to move
back to Kakuma main camps where there are more robust social networks (Betts, Omata and Sterck, 2020a) and much developed markets for small businesses.
The challenges experienced
by the refugees in Kalobeyei and the neighbouring host communities negatively
impact the integration efforts by development and humanitarian actors. For
example, the host community still faces widespread poverty and illiteracy,
which limits their ability to take advantage of the opportunities arising from the
settlement. Based on the interviews with some host community members, they
still perceive the refugees as being taken care of more than them, even though
they are equally suffering from severe economic challenges. Moreover, because
the hosts were also not adequately involved in the design and implementation of
the settlement plan and were even displaced from their homesteads to create
room for the settlement, some view refugees as the cause of their
socio-economic problems, including the widespread deforestation around the
settlement.
In general, the Kalobeyei
settlement differs from the Kakuma refugee camps' approach to refugee
management. While the encampment policy has been enforced for a long time in
Kakuma and has massive negative effects on refugees’ well-being and
socio-economic progress, Kalobeyei presents a chance to take advantage of
refugee-host interactions for the benefit of the refugees and the local hosts. However,
there are challenges with the KISEDP model as it is currently being implemented
since it has not yielded many positive outcomes for the refugees and hosts. In
addition, there exists a gap in understanding how the interaction and
perceptions of refugees and host communities towards one another influence the
success of the integrated settlement approach to refugee integration. Based on
the Kalobeyei plan, interaction and social cohesion between the host community
and refugees are enabling factors for the success of the settlement model.
In conclusion, the Kakuma
refugee camps and Kalobeyei integrated settlement are perfect case studies for
how refugee policies impact refugee integration in protracted refugee camps.
The context within which the camp exists is also essential in understanding the
interactions between refugees and hosts and how it impacts integration on the
local (Turkana West sub-county) and regional (Turkana County) levels. The
journey to Kakuma refugee camp and Kalobeyei Settlement is therefore critical
in understanding how distance from the camp and culture affect refugee
integration.
References
Agol, D. et al. (2020) ‘Turkana
pastoralists at risk: Why Education Matters’. International Institute of Social
Studies. Available at: https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/223899/1/223899.pdf.
Akwiri, J. (2019)
‘Kenya’s first crude oil export sparks demands over revenue sharing’, Reuters,
26 August. Available at:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-oil-idUSKCN1VG1FQ (Accessed: 4
September 2023).
BBC News (2012)
‘Kenya oil discovery after Tullow Oil drilling’, BBC News, 26 March.
Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17513488 (Accessed: 8
December 2022).
Berry, J.W. (1980) Acculturation
as varieties of adaptation. Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings.
A. Padilla (Ed.). Colorado: Westview Press.
Betts, A. et al.
(2018) ‘Self-Reliance in Kalobeyei? Socio-Economic Outcomes for Refugees in
North-West Kenya’. Available at:
https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/publications/self-reliance-in-kalobeyei-socio-economic-outcomes-for-refugees-in-north-west-kenya
(Accessed: 11 February 2022).
Betts, A., Omata,
N. and Sterck, O. (2020a) ‘Self-reliance and Social Networks: Explaining
Refugees’ Reluctance to Relocate from Kakuma to Kalobeyei’, Journal of
Refugee Studies, 33(1), pp. 62–85. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez084.
Betts, A., Omata,
N. and Sterck, O. (2020b) ‘The Kalobeyei Settlement: A Self-reliance Model for
Refugees?’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 33(1), pp. 189–223. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez063.
Cheptoo, K.A.
(2022) Effects of Oil Extraction on the Livelihoods Vulnerability in
Lokichar-Kochodin Basin, Turkana County, Kenya. Thesis. Kenyatta
University. Available at: https://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/24699
(Accessed: 4 September 2023).
Etyang, H. (2018) No
oil will leave Turkana without security and jobs, protesters say, The
Star. Available at:
https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2018-06-27-no-oil-will-leave-turkana-without-security-and-jobs-protesters-say/
(Accessed: 4 September 2023).
Etyang, H. and
Ombati, C. (2023) Three security officers killed, seven injured by suspected
pokot bandits. Available at:
https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/realtime/2023-02-11-three-security-officers-killed-seven-injured-by-suspected-pokot-bandits/
(Accessed: 31 August 2023).
IFC (2018) Kakuma
as a Marketplace: A consumer and market study of a refugee camp and town in
northwest Kenya. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. Available at:
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/0f3e93fb-35dc-4a80-a955-6a7028d0f77f/20180427_Kakuma-as-a-Marketplace_v1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=mc8eL2K.
Jansen, B.J. (2018)
Kakuma Refugee Camp: Humanitarian Urbanism in Kenya’s Accidental City.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Jaola, E. (2023) Kitale
refugee centre in crisis as child starves to death, Nation.
Available at:
https://nation.africa/kenya/counties/trans-nzoia/kitale-refugee-centre-in-crisis-as-child-starves-to-death-4229030
(Accessed: 16 September 2023).
Kamais, C.E.,
Mwangi, S.W. and Bor, E.K. (2019) ‘Security implications of oil exploration on
social activities in South Lokichar Basin, Turkana County, Kenya’, Journal
of African Studies and Development, 11(5), pp. 64–72. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.5897/JASD2019.0542.
Kenya National
Bureau of Statistics (2019) Kenya Population and Housing Census Volume II.
Available at:
https://housingfinanceafrica.org/app/uploads/VOLUME-II-KPHC-2019.pdf.
KIPPRA (2022)
‘Turkana County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) 2018-2022’. Available at:
https://repository.kippra.or.ke/bitstream/handle/123456789/2832/Turkana_CIDP_2018-2022.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
KNBS (2019) 2019
Kenya Population and Housing Census Volume I. Kenya National Bureau of
Statistics. Available at:
https://www.knbs.or.ke/download/2019-kenya-population-and-housing-census-volume-i-population-by-county-and-sub-county/
(Accessed: 8 December 2021).
Lutta, S. (2018) Turkana
agrees to oil revenue sharing ratios, Nation. Available at:
https://nation.africa/kenya/counties/turkana/turkana-agrees-to-oil-revenue-sharing-ratios-46070
(Accessed: 4 September 2023).
Mkutu Agade, K.
(2014) ‘“Ungoverned Space” and the Oil Find in Turkana, Kenya’, The Round
Table, 103(5), pp. 497–515. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2014.966497.
Mkutu, K. and
Wandera, G. (2013) The case of Turkana. Small Arms Survey, pp. 25–41.
Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10738.10 (Accessed: 31 August
2023).
Montclos, M.-A.P.D.
and Kagwanja, P.M. (2000) ‘Refugee Camps or Cities? The Socio-economic Dynamics
of the Dadaab and Kakuma Camps in Northern Kenya’, Journal of Refugee
Studies, 13(2), pp. 205–222. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/13.2.205.
Mugambi, H. (2023) Three
people killed after bandits spray matatu with bullets in Turkana, Citizen
Digital. Available at:
https://www.citizen.digital/news/three-people-killed-after-bandits-spray-matatu-with-bullets-in-turkana-n314188
(Accessed: 31 August 2023).
Nabenyo, E. (2022)
‘The politics of sharing aid with host communities’, Forced Migration Review
[Preprint]. Available at:
https://www.fmreview.org/sites/fmr/files/FMRdownloads/en/issue70/nabenyo.pdf.
Nanok, J. and
Onyango, C. (2017) ‘A socio-economic and environmental analysis of the effects
of oil exploration on the local community in Lokichar, Turkana County, Kenya’, International
Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 6(3). Available at:
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/171451/1/1006098852.pdf.
Obulutsa, G. (2013)
Tullow shares fall after protests over jobs at drilling sites, Independent.ie.
Available at: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/tullow-shares-fall-after-protests-over-jobs-at-drilling-sites/29706810.html
(Accessed: 4 September 2023).
Oka, R. (2011)
‘Unlikely Cities In The Desert: The Informal Economy As Causal Agent For
Permanent “Urban” Sustainability In Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenya’, Urban
Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development,
40(3/4), pp. 223–262.
Oka, R.C. (2014)
‘Coping with the Refugee Wait: The Role of Consumption, Normalcy, and Dignity
in Refugee Lives at Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kenya’, American Anthropologist,
116(1), pp. 23–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.12076.
Osinde, O. (2023) Overstretched
facilities at Kakuma as asylum seekers increase, The Standard.
Available at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001473348/overstretched-facilities-at-kakuma-as-asylum-seekers-increase
(Accessed: 16 September 2023).
Otha, I. (2005)
‘Coexisting with cultural “others”: social relationships between the Turkana
and the refugees at Kakuma, northwest Kenya’, in Pastoralists and their
neighbors in Asia and Africa. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Reuters (2019)
‘Kenya signs milestone crude processing deal with oil firms’, Reuters,
25 June. Available at:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-oil-idUSKCN1TQ1SF (Accessed: 31 August
2023).
Sanghi, A., Onder,
H. and Vemuru, V. (2016) Yes in my backyard? The economics of refugees and
their social dynamics in Kakuma, Kenya. Washington, D.C: World Bank Group.
Available at:
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/308011482417763778/pdf/111303-WP-Kakuma-Report-Yes-in-my-backyard-December-2016-PUBLIC.pdf.
Trocaire (2021)
‘The Nexus Between Climate Change and Land Conflict in Turkana County’.
Available at:
https://www.trocaire.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Policy-Brief-No.3-The-Nexus-between-Climate-Change-and-Land-Conflict-in-Turkana-County-_-Final.pdf?type=policy.
UN Habitat (2022) Socio-Economic
Development in Turkana West, Kenya. Available at:
https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/research_brief_volume_3_june_2022.pdf.
UNHCR (2023) KENYA:
Registered refugees and asylum-seekers as of 31 July 2023. Available at:
https://www.unhcr.org/ke/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/08/Kenya-Statistics-Package-31-July-2023-DIMA.pdf.
Vemuru, V. et
al. (2016) Refugee Impacts on Turkana Hosts: A Social Impact Analysis
for Kakuma Town and Refugee Camp Turkana County, Kenya. World Bank,
Washington, DC. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1596/25863.
Wanzala, J. (2016) Lodwar
in northern Kenya, offers both the rough and the smooth, The Standard.
Available at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/sunday-magazine/article/2000179238/lodwar-offers-both-the-rough-and-the-smooth
(Accessed: 4 September 2023).
Xinhua (2023) Kenya’s
refugee transit center overstretched amid new waves of arrivals. Available
at: http://www.china.org.cn/world/2023-05/01/content_85262950.htm (Accessed: 16
September 2023).
Yusuf, M. (2023) Kenya
Launches Operation to Weed Out Bandits, VOA. Available at:
https://www.voanews.com/a/kenya-launches-operation-to-weed-out-bandits/6964453.html
(Accessed: 31 August 2023).
[GO1]Kitale is also a reception and transit town for refugees moving from
Uganda to Kenya and from Kakuma to Uganda.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment