Costs and Benefits of Forced Migration in Kenya: The Case of Kakuma Refugee Camp

Refugees can put enormous pressure on public resources in a country besides security threats that may be linked or associated with them. Besides, most of the refugees are often hosted in ecologically fragile areas and their continued stay without adequate planning could lead to environmental degradation. Kenya is likely to continue hosting refugees for the foreseeable future given the political situation in Somalia and Sudan, and the unfolding instability in Burundi. Given this state of affairs, it is thus critical to understand the costs and benefits of forced migration. This study seeks to assess the costs and benefits to Kenya for having refugees in Kakuma Refugee Camp. The study heavily relies on desk research and uses a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) framework. The results show that household consumption was substantially estimated in 2016 at US $ 56.2 million annually with consumption in the refugee camp amounting to about 30%. Estimates indicate that goods worth about US $ (350,000-400,000) monthly are purchased for purposes related to the refugee camp. Supplies for various goods and services demanded by refugees were sourced from Kakuma, Lodwar, Kitale and Nairobi, thus forming supply chains, which is a positive spin-off. The results strongly suggest that indeed the benefits are substantial for Turkana County although negligible /marginal for the overall country. Simulated Gross Regional Product has been growing by 3.4%, employment by 2.9% and income per person by 0.5%. Benefits come in the form of health facilities, nutritional status, and overall economy while costs are related to environmental degradation and, in some instances, security issues. A simulation of integration within a host scenario has yielded good results. It suggests that such refugees should be integrated, especially those with Kenyan spouses and/or established livelihoods. Finally, the environmental costs are real especially with a view to ecologically fragile areas. Governments, the UNHCR and NGOs ought to consider viable measures to mitigate negative impacts.