It's invaluable, expensive ... and controversial

It is probably the most precious commodity in a refugee's survival kit. Millions need it to help them eat. Others use it to ward of the sub-zero night time temperatures of a Balkan or Russian winter's night. The reconstruction of Afghanistan is dependent on it.

Which is why so much controversy surrounds the procurement and delivery of wood. Timber is not only invaluable, it is also expensive and has been at the center of innumerable environmental and political debates ranging from the destruction of virgin forestland to the prevention of refugee camp rape.

The majority of people in developing countries use wood to cook so whenever large refugee camps are established an immediate priority is to locate a source of timber. When waves of terrified people fled Rwanda to Tanzania and Zaire in the 1990s they solved the problem by raiding nearby game reserves and slashing through hundreds of square miles of forest.

Aid agencies attempted to halt the destruction by trucking in supplies, but the operations proved prohibitively expensive and only partially successful.

In Europe, millions of dollars were spent to buy and import heating wood for Kosovar refugees in 1999 and millions more have been earmarked to purchase wood from as far away as South Africa and Tanzania to help in Afghanistan's massive rebuilding program.

But many projects involving wood, no matter how well intentioned, become cautionary tales as well.

When Somalia collapsed in the early 1990s many civilians fled to the semi-arid landscape of neighboring Kenya and settled in a complex of three camps known as Dadaab. Women and girls spent their days scouring the nearby bush for firewood, but the area was also full of armed gangs intent on rape.

FIREWOOD PROGRAM

In an attempt to cut down on the number of sexual assaults by reducing the trips females made outside the camps and to lessen the environmental impact of their wood gathering excursions, the United States financed a $1.5 million firewood program to provide families with around 30 percent of their cooking needs free.

UNHCR is currently spending $800,000 to continue the project which is nevertheless mired in controversy.

One recent study concluded there had been little long-term environmental damage and that, carefully managed, there was enough firewood within a 30-kilometer radius to supply the refugees' needs.

A second study doubted the project's effectiveness in combating rape. While there was indeed a 45 percent decrease in the number of firewood related rapes at the time free wood was being distributed, it noted, there was a corresponding increase of between 78% and 113% in rapes in other locations and contexts.

Critics of the program argued the funds could be used more effectively in promoting greater camp security and community and cultural awareness about the issues. That approach, however, elicited howls of protest from refugee women, local officials and businessmen.

At one meeting, a shaken UNHCR official said, "The women were extremely vocal, shouting insults, talking about human rights and insisting the program was working. I think they wanted to lynch us."

The locals were equally indignant in defending the project. In a dirt-poor region, the firewood program is the biggest employer and it is a lucrative business for contractors. If it were halted for any reason, there would be a major impact on the local community as well as on the refugees.

These differing concerns all stem from the need to manage natural resources in a more rational manner. "This is like a highwire act," one aid official said. "It's very difficult to keep your balance between all the competing parties and it would be so easy to fall off the wire."

Source: Refugees Magazine Issue 127: "The Environment – A Critical Time" (July 2002). Download the complete issue in pdf format: low-resolution (830Kb) here or high-resolution (1.5Mb) here