“Is that air you’re breathing now?” Morpheus asks Neo in the 1990s cult classic, The Matrix. The same question could be asked of millions of Kenyans for whom the quality of what they inhale on a daily basis has for too long been taken for granted.
In May 2016, I was part of a team at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that measured air quality around Nairobi. We deployed low-cost monitors in different parts of the city, including four schools – Alliance Girls School in the green, leafy suburb of Kikuyu; All Saints Cathedral School in an area populated by small industries and shops; St. Scholastica, off the notoriously congested Thika highway; and Kibera Girls Soccer Academy, close to the railway tracks in the heart of Kibera. In addition, we sampled the air around the Viwandani Community Centre in the Lungalunga slum and at the UNEP headquarters in Gigiri. We published the results from this deployment in the South African open-source Clean Air Journal and made the data publicly available.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, air pollution within the informal settlements was troublingly high. In the absence of collection of waste by municipal authorities, communities in Kibera are forced to burn it, which fouls up the air. Indoor air pollution from the use of kerosene and charcoal for cooking has also had an adverse impact on the health of people living in informal settlements. Across the city in Lunga Lunga, residents have no control over pollution from industries in the vicinity, including, we were told, a tear gas producing factory.
What did come as a surprise was that St. Scholastica had comparable levels of pollution, mostly from cars plying the Thika Highway. We also expected Alliance Girls School to be the cleanest but observed large spikes in dust each Wednesday morning, when firewood was burned. At UNEP and All Saints, pollution was lower than at the other sites.
Four years ago, Kenya gazetted Air Quality Regulations that specify air quality standards, as well as steps to be taken for “prevention, control and abatement” of air pollution in recognition of the terrible toll it takes on the health of Kenyans’ health. The 2017 Kenya Economic Survey estimated that 19.9 million Kenyans suffer from respiratory ailments that are exacerbated by poor air quality. However, the government has been unable to enforce the regulations due to a lack of high-quality air quality monitoring data. Without an understanding of the baseline air quality in Kenya and how it varies across the country as well as over time, the standards and regulations cannot be enforced.
The 2017 Kenya Economic Survey estimated that 19.9 million Kenyans suffer from respiratory ailments that are exacerbated by poor air quality.
The monitors UNEP used were relatively low-cost (under US$3,000) and not very accurate; though they provided crucial insights into air pollution at each site, scientists are still figuring out how to make sense of the “noisy” data they produce. The European Environment Agency has created a Working Group to certify a section of low-cost monitors for “indicative” purposes and India and China are also working toward certification programmes.
Highly accurate monitors, also known as reference monitors, used by many countries for regulatory purposes, are expensive and can cost upwards of US$100,000. This places them out of the reach of most communities. Low-cost monitors, however, can fill in the gaps in our understanding of air pollution and are even more important for developing countries where few high-quality instruments exist, if they exist at all. We found that the UNEP monitors were actually helpful in identifying major sources of air pollution at each site and in raising awareness about air pollution and its deleterious effects on human health.
More recently, others have deployed such monitors giving Kenya a good reason to join the conversation about how to use the data from them for regulatory purposes. Code for Africa have developed their own low-cost monitors, deployed three across Nairobi and made the data publicly available. The Stockholm Environment Centre (SEI) has also deployed some in Lungalunga and has empowered the community to lobby their ward representative to do something about the terrible air pollution they are exposed to. The African Population and Health Research Center also monitors air pollution in Korogocho and Viwandani.
This is encouraging but till we figure out how to use the data for enforcement of the 2014 Air Quality Regulations, it is prudent to ask whether any high-quality air monitoring stations exist in the country. As it turns out, the entire country has just three such monitors, and even these are not always used to their full potential.
The University of Nairobi has a reference monitoring station which they have used to conduct several important studies, mainly in Nairobi. For example, Professor Michael Gatari’s research group, in partnership with colleagues from universities around the world, have used the high-quality equipment to show that vehicle emissions are a major source of pollution in the city centre. They have also shown the shockingly high exposure to air pollution of matatu drivers and traffic policemen.
Kenyan government agencies also have high-quality systems. The Kenya Meteorological Department (KMD) operates a monitoring station on Mount Kenya, and in addition owns, and sometimes operates, a mobile van that has high-quality instruments that can measure a range of air pollutants. The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) also requires industrial facilities to contract designated laboratories with high-quality equipment to report their stack emissions (emissions coming out of their smoke stacks after burning waste) and to make provisions for continuous monitoring in accordance with the 2014 Air Quality Regulations. Some of these laboratories also measure ambient air quality.
So what data do they collect and how do they use it?
KMD’s station on Mount Kenya is actually owned by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and is part of the WMO Global Atmospheric Watch network. The station has instruments for measuring particulate matter/dust and surface ozone, among other air pollutants and its data is supposed to be public. However, due to a lack of funds for routine expenditures, such as the filters that are crucial for some measurements, only surface ozone data is currently being collected at this site. Data for other pollutants does not exist online.
Some of the pollution trends from the KMD mobile van have been published in academic papers and can be found on the KMD website, but the data itself has not been made public. When I visited the KMD headquarters in Nairobi in December, I paid to access a few days’ worth of data. When asked about why the data was not free of charge, many KMD staff, while sympathetic to my request, said that as the mobile van is expensive to run on a regular basis, they needed to charge for the data to recover costs.
These costs arise from the fact that though KMD owns the van, the firm from which they bought it, SI Analytics, actually owns the data, for which KMD has to pay an access fee of Sh80,000 a year to download the data from their servers in the UK. This is a common scheme in the industry that could either be seen as a way to make the technology accessible to cash-strapped institutions, or as a way of maintaining a constant revenue stream from them over time. SI Analytics have offered an alternative arrangement where a one-time cost could be made to buy the data logger in perpetuity and KMD could consider raising funds to move to this arrangement so that the van is used to its full potential.
Additionally, other costs, such as a license fee to use and operate the van, makes it hard to consistently operate the platform and fully reap its potential benefits. As it is, given the costs, KMD typically only operates the van when contracted by NEMA to monitor pollution in specific locations. NEMA then pays for the associated operating costs. However, the Authority only receives an official analysis report from KMD, which is open to interpretation, rather than the data set itself. This creates a lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities and in checks and balances, which can foster suspicion and breed mistrust among government agencies.
KMD has for several years also been collecting and publishing data on surface ozone in partnership with MeteoSwiss, the Swiss Office of Meteorology and Climatology, at their Nairobi headquarters. Surface ozone is very harmful to human health and such data is exceedingly useful for developing pollution management plans. However, although the data is public, it has received scant attention. This is partially because not many people know that it is available, and, furthermore, because it has not been interpreted in a way that makes it meaningful for the development of an air pollution management plan. This last part falls outside of KMD’s mandate, which is to monitor the environment for meteorological purposes. The data, however, could be of great use to NEMA, which, as the national body in charge of environmental policy, requires high quality data to ground its work.
Surface ozone is very harmful to human health and such data is exceedingly useful for developing pollution management plans. However, although the data is public, it has received scant attention.
Many countries use raw data to develop an air quality index (Good, Moderate, Bad, Very Bad) that gives the public an intuitive understanding of the air they breathe and allows them to issue warnings when the air quality is very bad and to provide recommendations about what people can do (for example, not to exercise outdoors). Government agencies and the tech community in Kenya need to design a similar index to convey existing data effectively to the public. Fortunately, they don’t need to reinvent the wheel and can utilise one of the many existing ones.
As mentioned earlier, NEMA requires industries to submit data on their stack emissions. However, the Authority does not openly publish the data it gets. On their website, NEMA states that only a handful of designated laboratories are capable of monitoring emissions on behalf of industries, and at the moment there are only two listed as capable of monitoring air quality, which is obviously insufficient for the country’s needs. Industries also often complain about the burden of self-reporting as well as the high cost of retrofitting existing facilities to eliminate or reduce emissions. These factors compound to dilute the progress needed for enforcing emissions standards. In fact, to date, NEMA has not publicly announced a single air quality enforcement action against an industrial player.
It is clear that the current situation presents a vulnerable scenario where potentially corrupt behaviour could happen. This warrants further investigation and points to the need for calibrating the existing carrots for industries to do the right thing in addition to the current sticks. Such incentives, for example, could be in the form of technical advice or in the form of financial help, both of which are often needed to offset the additional burden required by regulatory frameworks seeking to curtail emissions.
The low number of designated laboratories also suggest either lack of interest from the private sector in the market or non-competitive behaviour. This is a shame because many studies have shown that investing in more air pollution stations can have tremendous health and systemic financial benefits. For example, in the United States, the Clean Air Act is estimated to have health and environmental savings of over US$22 trillion! Therefore, it makes good policy sense to consider the adoption of these systems, since experience shows that the initial high costs of deploying reference monitoring stations would be more than recovered by the huge savings from the interventions based on the data from the stations.
Regardless, some high-quality air quality data does exist in Kenya. Though it is incomplete and sparse, and almost all of it is for Nairobi, it can still be useful, which brings about the question of why isn’t it more so?
Lack of effective coordination
The coordination of the development of a national air quality monitoring strategy currently falls under the purview of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR). Various government agencies, including NEMA and KMD are responsible for different aspects of managing air pollution. Some of the other organisations involved include the National Transport and Safety Authority, that is in charge of testing vehicles (even though NEMA also has a task force independently working on emissions from motor vehicles) and the Office of Health and Safety Authority in the Ministry of Labour are in charge of ensuring the safety of workers from indoor air quality.
The challenge of coordination between these different entities is a major barrier to the development of an effective holistic air quality management strategy. To add to the general complexity, the task of managing air quality has been now devolved to the counties, with the Council of Governors Committee on Environment bearing responsibility for coordinating air pollution management for the different counties. However, beyond the actual executive capabilities of each stakeholder, there is a degree of confusion with regards to the proper jurisdiction and responsibilities of monitoring and enforcing air pollution levels among some of them, since for example, both NEMA as well as the county governments count it as part of their mandate. This further adds to the question of what the distribution of tasks is between different agencies and institutions at various levels of government.
To add to the general complexity, the task of managing air quality has been now devolved to the counties, with the Council of Governors Committee on Environment bearing responsibility for coordinating air pollution management for the different counties.
The advent of devolution, with new roles assigned to counties but without adequate funding to perform them, has made the separation of tasks even more difficult. In this sense, additional conversations need to happen between NEMA and the various county agencies so that everyone is on the same page about who is responsible for what.
Such a situation is symptomatic of the struggles between organisations after the advent of the umbrella Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) established in Kenya in 1999. Under this framework, NEMA shouldn’t take on the tasks of existing agencies, but rather is charged with coordinating their efforts. However, the current framework makes it easy for NEMA to overreach and take on roles originally assigned to others, if they think they are not performing as they should, a situation that could potentially resolve issues in the short term, but that could also stunt their development.
Other potential reasons for the existing air pollution data not being used to its full potential are a lack of funds and trained personnel needed to manage the reference stations and keep them running. There is also a generalised shortage of staff who can interpret the data effectively and issue public health warnings or make the appropriate urban planning recommendations. Hope is not lost, however; there are clear efforts from the likes of the University of Nairobi, which has been heavily involved in training programmes to correct this.
Another impediment to effective use of the existing data is the fact that much of it is simply not available to the public. This is despite Kenya having an Open Data Initiative and the right of access to public information being enshrined in the constitution. Publicly funded organisations, such as NEMA and KMD, should be more accountable, in accordance with international standards of transparency. It is only then that public participation in decision-making, as clearly stated in Kenya’s constitution, can be made actionable. Ultimately, the development of a national air quality monitoring strategy can only be achieved if people are made aware of the quality of the air that they breathe and if they’re given the proper vehicle for participation.
Kenya Air Quality Network
In the face of the confusion, air quality researchers and civil society in Kenya have not been silent. As mentioned earlier, the University of Nairobi has conducted several short-term studies using high quality reference equipment. Also, UNEP, SEI and APHRC have complemented this with data from low-cost air quality monitors. Researchers involved in these initiatives have come together to form the Kenya Air Quality Network (KAQN) which focuses on three action areas: 1) Data research and instrumentation, 2) Policy and stakeholder engagement, 3) Education and public awareness. The Network has organised three meetings so far to update members on the progress being made by task forces assigned to work on each of the action areas. So far, the key thrust of KAQN has been to make the data from various studies using different low-cost monitors comparable so that broader claims about air quality in the city can be made.
Local governments seem to recognise this effort, which is why the Chief of Environment of Nairobi County attended KAQN’s annual meeting in December 2016 and committed to initiating a process to develop an air quality management plan for the city. In this way, Nairobi County became the first, and so far only, county to have committed to developing an air quality management plan. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the Nairobi County government does not have any capacity to monitor air pollution as its office essentially deals with environment-related nuisances by crowdsourcing reports from the public. When I was at the county government, I was shown the register. Although there were no specific air quality- related complaints, there were a few complaints about noxious smells.
Unfortunately, after the 2017 election, it was unclear if the Chief of the Environment and the top county team that had initiated the process of developing a county air quality management plan for Nairobi were going to remain in their positions, which made it difficult to assess how the process was going to unfold.
MENR has also attended KAQN meetings and initiated a parallel process of developing a National Air Quality Management Strategy and Action Plan. It has established an Inter-Agency Committee of institutions that are working on different aspects of managing air pollution, including KAQN and the private sector. However, the process has currently stalled due to a dearth in funding as no specific budget line has been provided by the ministry.
So what comes next? How is Kenya going to tackle these thorny issues of coordination between entities, engagement with the public, and the lack of a well-defined budget for air quality related activities?
Some of the people I spoke to in Nairobi were of the opinion that the only way things would change was if Kenya developed a separate Clean Air Act, like the one the United States has. They believe that the current law cannot resolve the problem of ineffective coordination between the different government organisations, especially after devolution. Indeed, because of this, separate Acts have already been proposed for Water, Climate Change and Solid Waste Management to clarify the roles of different agencies. Many air quality researchers believe that a similar approach has been proposed for Air Quality.
Some of the people I spoke to in Nairobi were of the opinion that the only way things would change was if Kenya developed a separate Clean Air Act, like the one the United States has. They believe that the current law cannot resolve the problem of ineffective coordination between the different government organisations, especially after devolution.
However, the development of such an Act will take time and effort, for which public pressure is key. In this case, it is important for the public to write to the Principal Secretary of the Environment and hold the government accountable for the current state of progress, as this appears to be a critical step by which the state can be compelled to deal with the deadly threat of poor air quality and to help us answer Morpheus’ question.
Support The Elephant.
The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.
Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.
Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?
Being nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine grass-roots legitimacy but it is hard not to suspect that some of the losers in the nominations process might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn.
Who won Kenya’s “nominations”, the tense and often unpredictable political process through which parties select which candidates they want to represent them in the general election scheduled for 9 August? That may sound like a silly question. Social media is full of photographs of smiling candidate clutching their certificates of nomination—surely we need to look no further for the winners?
But maybe we do. Beyond the individual candidates in the contests for nominations, there are other winners. One may be obvious: it seems the general feeling is that Deputy President William Ruto came out better from the nominations than did his principal rival in the presidential race, former opposition leader Raila Odinga—about which more below. However, for some, coming out on top in the nominations may prove a poisoned chalice. Where nominations are seen to have been illegitimate, candidates are likely to find that losing rivals who stand as independents may be locally popular and may gain sympathy votes, making it harder for party candidates to win the general election. This means that there are often some less obvious winners and losers.
One reason for this is that nominations shape how voters think about the parties and who they want to give their vote to, come the general election. Research that we conducted in 2017, including a nationally representative survey of public opinion on these issues, found that citizens who felt that their party’s nomination process had not been legitimate were less likely to say that they would vote in the general election. In other words, disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out. In 2017, this appeared to disadvantage Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), whose nomination process was generally seen to have been more problematic—although whether this is because they were, or rather because this is how they were depicted by the media, is hard to say.
In the context of a tight election in 2022, popular perceptions of how the nominations were managed may therefore be as significant for who “wins” and “loses” as the question of which individuals secured the party ticket.
Why do parties dread nominations?
The major parties dreaded the nominations process—dreaded it so much, in fact, that despite all their bold words early on about democracy and the popular choice (and despite investments in digital technology and polling staff), most of the parties tried pretty hard to avoid primary elections as a way of deciding on their candidates. In some cases that avoidance was complete: the Jubilee party gave direct nominations to all those who will stand in its name. Other parties held some primaries—Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) seems to have managed most—but in many cases they turned to other methods.
That is because of a complicated thing about parties and elections in Kenya. It is widely assumed—and a recent opinion poll commissioned by South Consulting confirms this—that when it comes to 9 August most voters will decide how to cast their ballot on the basis of individual candidates and not which party they are standing for. Political parties in Kenya are often ephemeral, and people readily move from one to another. But that does not mean that political parties are irrelevant. They are symbolic markers with emotive associations – sometimes to particular ideas, sometimes to a particular regional base. ODM, for example, has been linked both with a commitment to constitutional reform and with the Luo community, most notably in Nyanza. So the local politician who wants to be a member of a county assembly will be relying mostly on their personal influence and popularity—but they know that if they get a nomination for a party which has that kind of emotive association, it will smoothen their path.
Disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out.
This means that multiple candidates vie for each possible nomination slot. In the past, that competition has always been expensive, as rival aspirants wooed voters with gifts. It occasionally turned violent, and often involved cheating. Primary elections in 2013 and 2017 were messy and chaotic, and were not certain to result in the selection of the candidate most likely to win the general election. From the point of view of the presidential candidates, there are real risks to the primary elections their parties or coalitions oversee: the reputational damage due to chaos and the awareness that local support might be lost if a disgruntled aspirant turns against the party.
This helps to explain why in 2022 many parties made use of direct nominations—variously dressed up as the operation of consensus or the result of mysterious “opinion polls” to identify the strongest candidate. What that really meant was an intensive process of promise-making and/or pressure to persuade some candidates to stand down. Where that did not work, and primaries still took place, the promise-making and bullying came afterwards—to stop disappointed aspirants from turning against the party and standing as independents. The consequence of all that top-down management was that the nominations saw much less open violence than in previous years.
So who won, and who lost, at the national level?
Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates. That brings us to the big national winners and losers of the process. Odinga—and his ODM party—have come out rather bruised. They have been accused of nepotism, bribery and of ignoring local wishes. This is a particularly dangerous accusation for Odinga, as it plays into popular concerns that, following his “handshake” with President Kenyatta and his adoption as the candidate of the “establishment”, he is a “project” of wealthy and powerful individuals who wish to retain power through the backdoor after Kenyatta stands down having served two-terms in office. In the face of well-publicised claims that Odinga would be a “remote controlled president” doing the bidding of the Kenyatta family and their allies, the impression that the nominations were stage-managed from on high in an undemocratic process was the last thing Azimio needed.
Moreover, perhaps because Odinga seems to have been less active than his rival in personally intervening to mollify aggrieved local politicians, the ODM nominations process seems to have left more of a mess. That was compounded by complications in the Azimio la Umoja/One Kenya Alliance Coalition Party (we’ll call it Azimio from now on, for convenience). Where Azimio “zoned”—that is, agreed on a single candidate from all its constituent parties—disappointed aspirants complained. Where it did not zone, and agreed to let each party nominate its own candidate for governor, MP and so on, then smaller parties in the coalition complained that they would face unfair competition come the general election. That is why the leaders of some of these smaller groups such as Machakos Governor Alfred Mutua made dramatic (or theatrical, depending on your view) announcements of their decision to leave Azimio and support Ruto.
Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates.
So Ruto looks like a nomination winner. But his success comes with a big price tag. His interventions to placate disgruntled aspirants involved more than soothing words. A new government will have lots of goodies to distribute to supporters—positions in the civil service and parastatals, diplomatic roles, not to mention business opportunities of many kinds. But the bag of goodies is not bottomless, and it seems likely that a lot of promises have been made. Ruto’s undoubted talents as an organizer and deal-maker have been useful to him through the nominations—but those deals may prove expensive for him, and for Kenya, if he wins the presidential poll.
Money, politics, and the cost of campaigns
Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword. In the short term, many of them will have saved considerable money: depending on exactly when the deal was done, they will have been spared some days of campaign expenses—no need to fuel cars, buy airtime for bloggers, pay for t-shirts and posters, and hand out cash. But that will be a brief respite. The disappointed rivals who have gone independent will make the campaigns harder for them—and likely more expensive. The belief that they were favoured by the party machinery may mean that voter expectations are higher when it comes to handouts and donations on the campaign trail. And the fact they were nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine their grass-roots legitimacy.
Others may experience a similar delayed effect. Among the short-term losers of the nominations will have been some of the “goons” who have played a prominent physical role in previous nominations: their muscular services were largely not required (although there were exceptions). The printers of posters and t-shirts will similarly have seen a disappointing nominations period (although surely they will have received enough early orders to keep them happy, especially where uncertainty over the nomination was very prolonged). The providers of billboard advertising may have seen a little less demand than they had hoped for, although they too seem to have done quite well from selling space to aspirants who—willingly or not—did not make it to the primaries. But where the general election will be fiercely contested, entrepreneurs will likely make up any lost ground as the campaigns get going. In these cases, competition has been postponed, not avoided.
Those in less competitive wards, constituencies or counties—the kind in which one party tends to dominate in the general election—are unlikely to be able to make up for lost time. These “one-party” areas may be in shorter supply in 2022 than in the past, due to the way that the control of specific leaders and alliances over the country’s former provinces has fragmented, but there will still be some races in which it is obvious who will win, and so the campaigns will be less heated.
Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword.
More definite losers are the parties themselves. In some ways, we could say they did well as institutions, because they were spared the embarrassment of violent primaries. But the settling of many nominations without primaries meant not collecting nomination fees from aspirants in some cases, and refunding them in others. That will have cost parties a chunk of money, which they won’t get back. That may not affect the campaigns much—the money for campaigns flows in opaque and complex ways that may not touch the parties themselves. But it will affect the finances of the parties as organizations, which are often more than a little fragile.
Are the losers actually the biggest winners?
Some losers, however, are really big winners. Think about those candidates who would not have won competitive primaries but were strong enough to be able to credibly complain that they had been hard done by due to the decision to select a rival in a direct process. In many cases, these individuals were able to extract considerable concessions in return for the promise not to contest as independents, and so disrupt their coalition’s best laid plans. This means that many of the losers—who may well have been defeated anyway—walked away with the promise of a post-election reward without the expense and bother of having to campaign up until the polls.
It is hard not to suspect that some of them might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn. In fact, some of them may have been aiming at this all along. For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome. Instead of spending the next three months in an exhausting round of funerals, fund-raisers and rallies, constantly worrying about whether they have enough fifty (or larger) shilling notes to hand out and avoiding answering their phones, they can sit back and wait for their parastatal appointment, ambassadorship, or business opportunity.
For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome.
For these individuals, the biggest worry now is not their popularity or campaign, but simply the risk that their coalition might not win the presidential election, rendering the promises they have received worthless. Those whose wishes come true will be considerably more fortunate—and financially better off—than their colleagues who made it through the nominations but fall at the final hurdle of the general election.
Separating the winners of the nominations process from the losers may therefore be harder than it seems.
Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning
Rwandans are welcoming, but the government’s priority must be to solve the internal political problems which produce refugees.
The governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed an agreement to move asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing. This partnership has been heavily criticized and has been referred to as unethical and inhumane. It has also been opposed by the United Nations Refugee Agency on the grounds that it is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention.
Here in Rwanda, we heard the news of the partnership on the day it was signed. The subject has never been debated in the Rwandan parliament and neither had it been canvassed in the local media prior to the announcement.
According to the government’s official press release, the partnership reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protect vulnerable people around the world. It is argued that by relocating migrants to Rwanda, their dignity and rights will be respected and they will be provided with a range of opportunities, including for personal development and employment, in a country that has consistently been ranked among the safest in the world.
A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives. Therefore, most Rwandans are sensitive to the plight of those forced to leave their home countries and would be more than willing to make them feel welcome. However, the decision to relocate the migrants to Rwanda raises a number of questions.
The government argues that relocating migrants to Rwanda will address the inequalities in opportunity that push economic migrants to leave their homes. It is not clear how this will work considering that Rwanda is already the most unequal country in the East African region. And while it is indeed seen as among the safest countries in the world, it was however ranked among the bottom five globally in the recently released 2022 World Happiness Index. How would migrants, who may have suffered psychological trauma fare in such an environment, and in a country that is still rebuilding itself?
A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives.
What opportunities can Rwanda provide to the migrants? Between 2018—the year the index was first published—and 2020, Rwanda’s ranking on the Human Capital Index (HCI) has been consistently low. Published by the World Bank, HCI measures which countries are best at mobilising the economic and professional potential of their citizens. Rwanda’s score is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa and it is partly due to this that the government had found it difficult to attract private investment that would create significant levels of employment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, has since worsened.
Despite the accolades Rwanda has received internationally for its development record, Rwanda’s economy has never been driven by a dynamic private or trade sector; it has been driven by aid. The country’s debt reached 73 per cent of GDP in 2021 while its economy has not developed the key areas needed to achieve and secure genuine social and economic transformation for its entire population. In addition to human capital development, these include social capital development, especially mutual trust among citizens considering the country’s unfortunate historical past, establishing good relations with neighbouring states, respect for human rights, and guaranteeing the accountability of public officials.
Rwanda aspires to become an upper middle-income country by 2035 and a high-income country by 2050. In 2000, the country launched a development plan that aimed to transform it into a middle-income country by 2020 on the back on a knowledge economy. That development plan, which has received financial support from various development partners including the UK which contributed over £1 billion, did not deliver the anticipated outcomes. Today the country remains stuck in the category of low-income states. Its structural constraints as a small land-locked country with few natural resources are often cited as an obstacle to development. However, this is exacerbated by current governance in Rwanda, which limits the political space, lacks separation of powers, impedes freedom of expression and represses government critics, making it even harder for Rwanda to reach the desired developmental goals.
Rwanda’s structural constraints as a small land-locked country with no natural resources are often viewed as an obstacle to achieving the anticipated development.
As a result of the foregoing, Rwanda has been producing its own share of refugees, who have sought political and economic asylum in other countries. The UK alone took in 250 Rwandese last year. There are others around the world, the majority of whom have found refuge in different countries in Africa, including countries neighbouring Rwanda. The presence of these refugees has been a source of tension in the region with Kigali accusing neighbouring states of supporting those who want to overthrow the government by force. Some Rwandans have indeed taken up armed struggle, a situation that, if not resolved, threatens long-term security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. In fact, the UK government’s advice on travel to Rwanda has consistently warned of the unstable security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.
While Rwanda’s intention to help address the global imbalance of opportunity that fuels illegal immigration is laudable, I would recommend that charity start at home. As host of the 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for June 2022, and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office for the next two years, the government should seize the opportunity to implement the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, particularly the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, political and civil rights, and a vibrant civil society. This would enable Rwanda to address its internal social, economic and political challenges, creating a conducive environment for long-term economic development, and durable peace that will not only stop Rwanda from producing refugees but will also render the country ready and capable of economically and socially integrating refugees from less fortunate countries in the future.
Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement
The elite’s ‘solution’ to the climate crisis is to turn the displaced into exploitable migrant labour. We need a truly internationalist alternative.
“We are not drowning, we are fighting” has become the rallying call for the Pacific Climate Warriors. From UN climate meetings to blockades of Australian coal ports, these young Indigenous defenders from twenty Pacific Island states are raising the alarm of global warming for low-lying atoll nations. Rejecting the narrative of victimisation – “you don’t need my pain or tears to know that we’re in a crisis,” as Samoan Brianna Fruean puts it – they are challenging the fossil fuel industry and colonial giants such as Australia, responsible for the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions.
Around the world, climate disasters displace around 25.3 million people annually – one person every one to two seconds. In 2016, new displacements caused by climate disasters outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. By 2050, an estimated 143 million people will be displaced in just three regions: Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Some projections for global climate displacement are as high as one billion people.
Mapping who is most vulnerable to displacement reveals the fault lines between rich and poor, between the global North and South, and between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialised others.
Globalised asymmetries of power create migration but constrict mobility. Displaced people – the least responsible for global warming – face militarised borders. While climate change is itself ignored by the political elite, climate migration is presented as a border security issue and the latest excuse for wealthy states to fortify their borders. In 2019, the Australian Defence Forces announced military patrols around Australia’s waters to intercept climate refugees.
The burgeoning terrain of “climate security” prioritises militarised borders, dovetailing perfectly into eco-apartheid. “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally; it is through them that we will save the planet,” declares the party of French far-Right politician Marine Le Pen. A US Pentagon-commissioned report on the security implications of climate change encapsulates the hostility to climate refugees: “Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” The US has now launched Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast and created Homeland Security Task Force Southeast to enforce marine interdiction and deportation in the aftermath of disasters in the Caribbean.
Labour migration as climate mitigation
you broke the ocean in
half to be here.
only to meet nothing that wants you
– Nayyirah Waheed
Parallel to increasing border controls, temporary labour migration is increasingly touted as a climate adaptation strategy. As part of the ‘Nansen Initiative’, a multilateral, state-led project to address climate-induced displacement, the Australian government has put forward its temporary seasonal worker program as a key solution to building climate resilience in the Pacific region. The Australian statement to the Nansen Initiative Intergovernmental Global Consultation was, in fact, delivered not by the environment minister but by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Beginning in April 2022, the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme will make it easier for Australian businesses to temporarily insource low-wage workers (what the scheme calls “low-skilled” and “unskilled” workers) from small Pacific island countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Not coincidentally, many of these countries’ ecologies and economies have already been ravaged by Australian colonialism for over one hundred years.
It is not an anomaly that Australia is turning displaced climate refugees into a funnel of temporary labour migration. With growing ungovernable and irregular migration, including climate migration, temporary labour migration programs have become the worldwide template for “well-managed migration.” Elites present labour migration as a double win because high-income countries fill their labour shortage needs without providing job security or citizenship, while low-income countries alleviate structural impoverishment through migrants’ remittances.
Dangerous, low-wage jobs like farm, domestic, and service work that cannot be outsourced are now almost entirely insourced in this way. Insourcing and outsourcing represent two sides of the same neoliberal coin: deliberately deflated labour and political power. Not to be confused with free mobility, temporary labour migration represents an extreme neoliberal approach to the quartet of foreign, climate, immigration, and labour policy, all structured to expand networks of capital accumulation through the creation and disciplining of surplus populations.
The International Labour Organization recognises that temporary migrant workers face forced labour, low wages, poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom association and union rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Under these state-sanctioned programs of indentureship, workers are legally tied to an employer and deportable. Temporary migrant workers are kept compliant through the threats of both termination and deportation, revealing the crucial connection between immigration status and precarious labour.
Through temporary labour migration programs, workers’ labour power is first captured by the border and this pliable labour is then exploited by the employer. Denying migrant workers permanent immigration status ensures a steady supply of cheapened labour. Borders are not intended to exclude all people, but to create conditions of ‘deportability’, which increases social and labour precarity. These workers are labelled as ‘foreign’ workers, furthering racist xenophobia against them, including by other workers. While migrant workers are temporary, temporary migration is becoming the permanent neoliberal, state-led model of migration.
Reparations include No Borders
“It’s immoral for the rich to talk about their future children and grandchildren when the children of the Global South are dying now.” – Asad Rehman
Discussions about building fairer and more sustainable political-economic systems have coalesced around a Green New Deal. Most public policy proposals for a Green New Deal in the US, Canada, UK and the EU articulate the need to simultaneously tackle economic inequality, social injustice, and the climate crisis by transforming our extractive and exploitative system towards a low-carbon, feminist, worker and community-controlled care-based society. While a Green New Deal necessarily understands the climate crisis and the crisis of capitalism as interconnected — and not a dichotomy of ‘the environment versus the economy’ — one of its main shortcomings is its bordered scope. As Harpreet Kaur Paul and Dalia Gebrial write: “the Green New Deal has largely been trapped in national imaginations.”
Any Green New Deal that is not internationalist runs the risk of perpetuating climate apartheid and imperialist domination in our warming world. Rich countries must redress the global and asymmetrical dimensions of climate debt, unfair trade and financial agreements, military subjugation, vaccine apartheid, labour exploitation, and border securitisation.
It is impossible to think about borders outside the modern nation-state and its entanglements with empire, capitalism, race, caste, gender, sexuality, and ability. Borders are not even fixed lines demarcating territory. Bordering regimes are increasingly layered with drone surveillance, interception of migrant boats, and security controls far beyond states’ territorial limits. From Australia offshoring migrant detention around Oceania to Fortress Europe outsourcing surveillance and interdiction to the Sahel and Middle East, shifting cartographies demarcate our colonial present.
Perhaps most offensively, when colonial countries panic about ‘border crises’ they position themselves as victims. But the genocide, displacement, and movement of millions of people were unequally structured by colonialism for three centuries, with European settlers in the Americas and Oceania, the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, and imported indentured labourers from Asia. Empire, enslavement, and indentureship are the bedrock of global apartheid today, determining who can live where and under what conditions. Borders are structured to uphold this apartheid.
The freedom to stay and the freedom to move, which is to say no borders, is decolonial reparations and redistribution long due.
Op-Eds5 days ago
Why Opinion Polls May Not Always Predict Election Outcomes in Kenya
Culture2 weeks ago
Creolizing Rosa Luxemburg – Beyond, and Against, the Conventional
Long Reads2 days ago
Is Decolonization More Than a Buzzword?
Reflections2 days ago
Will We in Kenya Ever Respect Each Other’s Bodies, Lives and Rights?
Politics2 days ago
Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?
Podcasts5 days ago
Decolonising Kenyan Food and Farming Systems – Part 1
Op-Eds2 days ago
Elite Power-Sharing: How Presidential Candidates Buy-off Disgruntled Leaders and Maintain Their Coalitions
Op-Eds2 days ago
A Just Energy Transition