Abstract
The social work profession is increasingly concerned with human movement due to environmental changes and has issued a call to develop appropriate interventions to support the vulnerable groups that tend to migrate. However, the scholarship in this area is lacking. In this brief note, we explore a case of environmental migration that was linked to drought in Kenya. We found that their experiences tend to be different than those that are highlighted or warned about in the literature. Through considering these differences, we propose several avenues for social work to support this population appropriately and ethically.
Keywords
Introduction
Environmentally induced human movement is expected to increase as a result of climate change (Morton et al., 2008). The rural poor in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to this form of migration due to a complex intersection of factors including chronic poverty, failing ecosystems, and lack of local, state, and international interventions (Morton et al., 2008; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2012). While support to these populations is of increasing concern to social work (International Federation of Social Workers et al., 2012; Kemp et al., 2016), the discipline’s engagement with this topic is limited. The purpose of this brief note is to add to the literature in this area through exploring a case of drought-related migration in Kenya. Following a description of the case, we outline important points of consideration for social work as it develops responses at the environment-migration nexus.
Case: Drought-related movement in Kenya
Around 80 percent of Kenya is arid or semi-arid (Zetter, 2011), yet the principal means of livelihood for the majority of Kenyans is based on access to productive land (Henninger and Landsberg, 2007). In fact in many areas of the country, the local economy is entirely dependent on consistent and adequate rainy seasons. Because of climate change, these rains are increasingly scarce.
While the future impacts of climate change are predicted to be catastrophic, the increasing frequency of drought is already affecting 65 percent of the Kenyan population (Zetter, 2011). The latest major drought in 2011 was the worst in 60 years in the Horn of Africa region. The drought contributed to the worst food security crisis in Africa in 20 years and it is estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people died during the crisis (Tisdall, 2012). In Kenya it affected 13 million people, and over 4.5 million Kenyans and refugees within the country were in need of assistance (Slim, 2012).
The humanitarian crisis that resulted was not solely due to the drought. Rather, the drought brought to light several weaknesses within Kenyan state services. In contrast to Ethiopia, which had no related deaths, Kenya did not have early warning systems, a national drought relief plan, or collaborative agreements with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that were providing relief (Slim, 2012). Instead, the national drought relief policy was to ‘hope for good March rains’, in reference to the next rainy season (p. 10).
During this time, the first author was working in Kenya with a local environmental NGO, and met many Kenyans who were moving away from the rural areas that were affected by the drought. She initiated a study to explore the processes of migration and social network changes in the host and home communities. An advisory board made up of Kenyans in the study population was formed to guide study processes. Through interviews and ethnographic observations, participants discussed their movement related to environmental problems. Particular focus was placed on the experiences of poor Kenyans, who are most likely to be disproportionately impacted by environmental changes.
While all participants fit general definitions within the social work field related to environmentally induced displacement/migration (Kemp and Palinkas, 2015), participants found this line of questioning odd. They explained that they and their family members had been transitory between the rural and urban areas for many generations. If the weather supported farming, they lived in the rural villages and farmed. If there was a period of drought, they temporarily moved to the cities. They did not engage in this migration process as an emergent response; they weighed their options over a period of time and chose to move when they felt it was necessary. In addition, like in many countries worldwide, young adults in the study often said they moved to the cities as a coming-of-age experience, although the drought was considered a push factor. These were considered normal movement patterns; they did not consider themselves on par with their neighbors who were Somali refugees or internally displaced people from past post-election violence.
The study participants often reported that their resettlement processes, whether temporary or permanent, were mundane. This is not to imply their migration was an easy process for them. They were experiencing severe poverty and lacked education and skills for economic mobility. However, they often reported actions that people would take to resettle (i.e. develop a job search network, ask around for housing options, etc.) and that if they struggled, they could rely on each other or move back home. They did not consider themselves permanently separated from their home community, despite moving away.
Finally, it is significant to note that many community members did not move, even during times of severe drought. In fact, there was a clear distinction between those who moved and those who did not. The men of working age tended to move and were expected to remit money and resources. The women, children, and elderly remained in their hometowns. Thus, even a deadly drought did not cause the community to migrate in totality; rather, the community sent members to garner resources to weather the environmental problem.
Discussion
Interest in social work approaches for environmentally induced movement is increasing (see Kemp et al., 2016). However, it is challenging to develop action without depth of understanding. The experiences of participants in this study illustrate three key points of learning for the development of social work agendas within this emergent topical area. These include that (1) environmental changes are one of many migration drivers, (2) there is great diversity in the type of movement that may occur as a result, and (3) immobility in the context of environmental change is also of critical concern.
Complex migration drivers
Drivers of migration are complex, even for populations that appear to have one push factor, like ‘environmental migrants’. In the case, drought did not act as a singular driver of migration in Kenya. Rather, environmental change was paired alongside other forces, including the ineffectiveness of government responses, poverty, lack of adaptive capabilities, and individual desires. This finding supports the argument that it is futile to search for purely environmental forms of migration or to identify the world’s first true ‘climate refugees’ (Bardsley and Hugo, 2010; Black et al., 2011; Brown, 2008; Castles et al., 2014; Findlay, 2011; Terminiski, 2012). Instead, the challenge when working with these populations is to understand the intersection of complex migration drivers and the ways in which they either facilitate or obstruct desires for movement and adaptation in place (Black et al., 2011; Castles et al., 2014; Obokata et al., 2014). Holistic understanding is needed for the development of appropriate interventions, rather than singular-focused support that is not useful.
Diversity of migration patterns
Relatedly, attention must be paid to the diversity of potential movement outcomes. In cases of slow-onset climate changes like the drought in Kenya, movement may be similar to well-established migration patterns in an attempt to diversify livelihoods when needed. Circular rural–urban migration is common in developing countries where income-generating activities often rely on the local environment, a strategy that we may see increase with climate change, as the quality and quantity of natural assets diminish in many of these same communities (Castles et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2014). Thus, great caution should be exercised in research, practice, or policy that attempts to problematize such movement. For example, well-intentioned policies that attempt to prevent circular migration, such as establishing environmental migrant camps, may undermine agency and self-determination (Drolet, 2013) and may also diminish opportunities for historically and culturally grounded livelihood patterns (Bardsley and Hugo, 2010; Oliver-Smith and De Sherbinin, 2014).
At the same time, many other types of movement occur, including dislocations in response to sudden onset climate change events and planned relocations. Movement may be internal or international; permanent, temporary, seasonal, or circular (Afifi, 2011; Findley, 1994; Fleury, 2016). These types of movement also fall along a wide continuum between being voluntary and forced (Doevenspeck, 2011; Geddes et al., 2012; McAdam, 2012). Despite these wide-ranging experiences, this population is often broadly characterized as one of refugees and in need of permanent relocation and international legal protection. This will be needed in some instances, such as for populations that live on low-lying islands that are being permanently flooded by rising oceans; but in other instances, like the Kenyan case, individuals do not self-define as refugees or displaced, nor do they identify needing the types of services available for refugees. Thus, developing well-intentioned interventions for this population that are not needed, such as a resettlement process, may create harm through separating community members.
Attending to immobility
A third key point illustrated by this case is that migration drivers interact with individual characteristics and cultural norms, creating patterns of both movement and immobility (Alston et al., 2014; Fleury, 2016; Sharmin and Samiul Islam, 2013). In Kenya, migration was a gendered and aged experience, as male adults of working age moved while the children, women, and elderly community members did not. Other individual characteristics that impact migration patterns include class, caste, ethnicity, health, education, labor skills, and language (Black et al., 2011; Findley, 1994; Fleury, 2016; Hunter et al., 2015; Massey et al., 2010; Radel et al., 2010; Robson and Nayak, 2010). As with those who move, there is great diversity among those who stay, including those who are forced to stay and those who choose to do so (Black et al., 2011). Understanding how environmental change impacts these populations is an equally critical, yet neglected, issue at the nexus of environmental change and human movement (Black et al., 2011; Geddes et al., 2012; Hunter et al., 2015; Warner et al., 2010).
Implications for social work
These key points establish that movement in relation to environmental change is the result of a complex interaction of factors with a range of outcomes. This diversity presents significant challenges to the development of policy and practice, as one-size-fits-all agendas are unlikely to be successful (McAdam, 2012). Social workers, including those who are local to communities experiencing this type of movement as well as those who are working in the international arena, are well positioned to contribute to this critical task. By drawing on key perspectives such as ecological and systems theories that center person-centered approaches within systems (Gitterman and Germain, 2008), the profession can develop holistic research and practice proposals that attempt to further understand and address this complexity, rather than minimize it.
An often-suggested policy strategy is to advocate for the protection of ‘environmental migrants’ under refugee laws. However, the circumstances surrounding many environmentally induced movements lack easily identifiable sources of causality and degrees of volition, which are critical components to existing protection frameworks for refugees, the internally displaced, and other vulnerable populations on the move (McAdam, 2012). Thus, establishing an ‘environmental refugee’ category of protection may not lead to support for many of these populations. Instead, we suggest advocating policy connections across related domains such as human movement, poverty, and need for diverse livelihood strategies, particularly during times of environmental stress. Furthermore, at the micro or community levels, these groups can be supported through addressing the related drivers, such as poverty alleviation and the need for sustainable development. As social workers have long worked in these areas, their leadership in this interdisciplinary field is critical.
Finally, it is paramount that we uphold our ethical commitment to the principle of self-determination. Without this foundation, well-meaning top-down policies may undermine agency or actually cause harm. This is especially true given that many affected populations exist where social work is less developed, and many professionals will be working as outsiders in every way.
Conclusion
The implications of climate change and human movement are problems of wellbeing and social justice, relevant and worthy of professional social work attention. As a contribution to the emerging body of social work scholarship on this topic, our brief note shares lessons learned from fieldwork in Kenya on drought-related migration. Through this example, we illustrate key points of learning and implications for developing social work agendas. We conclude that our efforts as a profession must pair our sense of urgency with patience for understanding diversity of experience. This balance is critical to an ethical and successful response.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.