So I'd like to give the floor to Robert.
He's research director and associate professor at on campus, which is based in the anthropology department.
But he's also the director of the very brand new Dphil in Migration Studies, which will start to run in the coming academic year,
which is also interdisciplinary across development studies, anthropology and potentially in future, also other disciplines.
And he's also a member of some kind of college. So thank you very much.
Thank you for your invitation to speak to us.
I mean, I think the seminar, this particular piece of research is part of a bigger project on the impacts of forced migration,
on the impact of hosting refugees. Refugees Returning Home is a project that ran from about 2013 to 2016,
and it was funded by different as part of the growth and labour market income program and is doing work with is about race.
Now in order to to set the stage first of all, once you have every guest in one place you're talking about long term solution.
There are three things that you can do with them.
You can integrate them locally and for the most part, focus on one that you don't want to be is to say you can be the result of them.
Economic policy can send them to a third country. And of course, that means depending on third conflicts, you know,
the biggest resettlement program is a that is dates and obviously going to trial has reduced significantly.
And the third option, which is where we put in primary law,
because it would be the one preferred by everyone, is that you should do coverage on refugees back off.
So driven by the issue and this is a one which we're going to explore.
And when we started thinking of all of these, the first thing that came to mind was just look at the I mean,
there's a lot of evidence on the return migration return after about what happens when people go back off.
And for the most part, it's very good news. So migrants in general, they go back home, they have knowledge of new markets.
They might have learning about new business strategies, techniques of production.
They might gain some skills in their language.
Now you have transnational curriculums because they have been living in another country.
And most of these resources say that they're more likely to return or they have more likely to bring innovation.
There's something going for economic data, topic zero support for democracy.
All of these things then think is with the return of maybe so substantial evidence of these positive effects.
Now in the displacement context then is different.
So that that is that these are areas where some of the displacement bottlenecks is they made for one of the start.
I mean a lot of these people when they are in your country, they have four sections of labour market access or mobility waiting camps.
So the idea they're going to acquire some new skills I going to bring home is not there.
So that possibility is not there. And return is often disorganised, it's often seldom so, sometimes just the three things.
So that's just one of these aspects. Obviously they're affecting returning to countries are having affected by conflict and may not be prepared.
So population increase resulting from preterm flows might lead to competition for spare resources,
social support allowed and therefore to have incentives before.
So people might also look at the risk. Going back home might cause these problems.
But this is something that hasn't been quantified. So one of the things that we have knowledge to quantify often what you can eat is is true.
How long does it take to have some home births?
I know what to keep in mind is that Richter You can have a lot of people returning home every year.
So this is just we collected the five year period. So you take, for instance, that we know 1990, 1994, about 8 million people return home.
I forget how immediate refugees return home.
That has been decreasing over time because protracted displacement has been increasing.
But if you hear those questions about Syria and some of these conflicts, a lot of the discussion is about when can we send refugees back home?
I and if you think about countries from countries Afghanistan do not into some big of Rwanda,
Sudan and of course these countries deferring the population size.
But at some point these countries receive over 350,000 people by refugees back in a single year.
And the one thing that we got going in the past, we have explored the consequences of return for returnees, and most of the evidence is based on that.
So if I had a refugee. Abroad and the personal returns home.
Most of the evidence is about comparing that individual to the people who actually stay.
But what happens to those communities of origin that are receiving the revenues?
Thus let's explore and that is what we are going to be doing in the project.
So we are going to look at the case of a brewery. It is a company that experienced large scale outflow of migration and large repatriation.
We happen to be doing the data that we have collected in the country and we are going to focus on those state houses,
those who never left the country. And they may be more technical.
They will be able to use what I call features of the community of origin in order to to do our statistical analysis for litigation purposes.
Now let me give you some background on the case study. So with all the experience, a major conflict in 1993.
He has some of the same features of the Rwanda conflict but have different but essentially tensions between Hutus and Tutsis.
And when that conflict happened in 1983, about 10% of the population of Washington nationally displaced.
Many people were displaced internally and returned home after a while.
But there was a large international displacement and the main destination was Tanzania that at the time was the main safe haven for refugees.
And this is just to give you an idea. This is the number of the average for using Tanzania.
One point is that they were about 150,000 refugees there already in 1992.
Those are from a previous conflict in the 1970s. There's a spike when the conflict started, 1983.
Then there's a return home. Then there's the actual increase in the number of refugees.
And around the year 2000, there was a peace agreement signed.
But it took about nine more years after the peace agreement for the refugees to go back home.
I would use this figure like twice more because I'm going to make different points, but figures are going to change a little.
Now, one thing to keep in mind is that once they were in Tanzania, they wouldn't have given land for agricultural activities.
Many engaged initially in coastal employment. I love story a lot.
What happened then was implication hosting this for four years in front of you.
So we had the matter of that initial analysis.
But what happened over time was that the Brazilian government, about five years after, after their arrival, say, well, look,
you cannot leave camps limited to four kilometres around the camp and you cannot engage in economic activities outside the camp.
And this means you go back to the story of return migration,
and this means that they were not acquiring any skills that they were going to bring back home.
I think after a few years, the government decided that it was time to close the camps and then they returned the refugees to Britain.
And this happens here. So the peace agreements in the year 2000, around the year 2009, is when the period of return finishes.
I got to explain in a minute, but essentially the data that we collect is for this medium.
So we collect data for this period between 2009 and 2015.
And then there's another outflow of refugees for Burundi at the moment using another conflict situation that is happening.
I'm going to talk about that in a minute. But that is not going to be affecting that we are going to be discussing.
So everything. But then again, what only is going to happen in this period, whether for years where back off.
So what we did is we wanted to start it with.
The one thing to keep in mind is that at the moment that we are starting this, we are thinking that the country is peaceful.
So we are starting a company after. I know the term post-conflict might be a bit controversial among some of you,
but for us a post-conflict society is of this process of return has finished.
I would want to see how this people are settling. How are they doing compared to other people and how are the communities that are receiving them?
What is happening in the communities that are receiving death?
So we went to put all the we collected data in January and March 2001 and 2015, we collected data of 1500 households.
So this is a follow up.
We also interview 100 community leaders, one in each of the communities, and we are able to use all of that data in the analysis.
And the REINTERVIEW rate is very high because this there's not that much mobility across the country.
So we were able to find about over 90% of the houses.
So this is one of them, just for reference.
Bosnia is here. Rwanda and the DRC is on this side.
Each of these dots is the one community that we visited.
We interviewed 15 households in each of those communities, and we collected data for all the members of the House.
As I mentioned, the president announced in April that he was running for a third term in office and this was another wave of conflict abroad.
However, this announcement came in April 2015 and we finished the data collection in March 2015.
So I sometimes agree that there's no commonality between those two things, but we left the country just before the announcement of the president.
So in some sense, what we happen is that a country of ours and a country that is supposedly a
country that have returned to peace and in which there's no more civil strife.
I was a major that the Nazis were interested in those who never left the country.
So we limit the support to those people and we have almost 754,000 that we got to observe.
And that's where I think that was a mistake. Those leave from 87 different communities.
I am for technical reasons, we have to exclude. We can go to the country, the capital of the country from the Nazis.
So we're interested in different parameters. One is livestock.
Livestock work is the main source of malaria.
So this is what they have to make sure. Well, in this case, we are going to be literally adding chickens and cows.
So we have to create an index that's going to compare those foods, going to allow for a comparison of different type of animals.
So we use something called tropical life units. We are able to use measures of subjective well-being.
So how people are doing according to their own description.
And we are going to then go and look at different factors such as long assessed food security, health and insecurity, etcetera.
This is a risk measure. So so this is our alcohol free press.
And the main thing to know from here is that what we want to know is how that
share of refugees in this community is going to be affecting these outcomes.
So for us, these are people who never left. So how would you bring these people back from California?
Some or others from other countries around the region is going to affect everybody, of course, as well as economies.
This is where we start.
You can think about in the generic conflict context about, you know, this is going to have chronic impacts on the receiving community.
Of course, it might lead to conflict and ruin. Do you think?
We're going to show you the results for 2011 and 2050, so for both years.
And just to let you know, the share of returnees in the population, bodies from Seattle to 62%.
So that communities in which no one is returning, their communities in which two thirds of the residents are actually revenues.
One of the big things here is, is there going to be any bias in the analysis?
If you think about it, how does someone stay back from this 1992?
Can someone stay in Tanzania? So may be that the only the best, the most successful are people who return.
Or maybe they left the less really successful people returning.
The answer to that part is no. So everyone had to leave Australia at that moment.
I mean, maybe a few that would say yes. But in general, they have to leave the camps, so there's nothing about staying back home.
The second point is you have to go back to your country or to your community of origin because you can't get land there.
And this is why the big tensions, the peace agreement that led to the end of the conflict, so refugees can go back home and they can claim land.
But obviously, once they go home, that land has been used by older people.
There's the tension of, you know, you know, you have to share the land between the two of you.
But it's not a place, I think the lands of everybody's returning back home.
And there's this violence about I mean, this is all this evidence about exposure to conflict and violence being grounded.
How about the point that we have?
This is something well-established in this kind of forced migration literature, is if you come from a wealthy family with your family,
the likelihood that you're going to flee the country in the face of violence is higher.
So it means that the people that were in Tanzania was actually left the country
during the conflict where the wealthier families and the wealthier communities,
those communities with more outmigration were wealthier.
If you're looking for out what if I were you, then you use one word coping mechanism.
You might be internally displaced. You might use some other way to deal with violence.
But if you confront what you find, you need. So that means that the analysis when we see return, obviously you are going to have a lot more of these.
You have everyone was forced to return home to have more returnees in those communities in which more people left essentially Rwanda,
hot water them in the wealthier communities. And that's going to have implications for the result.
The way to go around that is to find some reason for which people are going to defer in their chances.
Communities are going to be further in their chances or having more or less refugees.
Okay. And that's why we use geographical factors for that.
So this means if you have two countries equally affected by violence, you get African factors.
And then how far east and south,
the distance to the border altitude of the place that you're looking at is going to have a big effect on whether you have displacement or not.
One thing is in Burundi, all this displacement was by food, so people were walking to Tanzania.
So this does play a key role. The graphic that features people.
So we use this graphic of features in order to identify our more.
I'm not going to talk.
Most of this is just to say that this geographical features actually seem to be strongly correlated with the level of displacements.
I again in community.
Now one thing you can argue is for this the graphical features are also potentially related to the same factors that you're trying to explain.
So they might be related to how much life do you have that these features might be related to how much land that you have.
It might be related to the class labour, how much of the you have.
So geographical features might be related to those factors. And one thing that we have is we have that information for the pre conflict period.
So from before the conflict, we know for those households that exist that have been how much livestock they have them and how much land they had,
then we can see if factors related to proximity to the border or that meaning know differences in the in the in the in the stroke
of the place in their biography are related to free water rights or free water on how much of the patients these households have,
whether they had finished primary school. We do that analysis and we find that these factors are not currently revealed,
very confident that by using these significant factors we are not bias in the results.
Now I'm going to show you the results. I want to start with livestock.
One thing about the results is that the numbers of data that I going to show you another to explain what they have.
I have the paper here with the actual interpretation of the estimates.
Just to let you know what they mean. But this is the estimate for our livestock.
And well, then so this is essentially for the year 2011.
It is a confusion that we are looking at the year for the year 2015.
And this is combined for a two year period. Now, we are talking about the meaning of the confusion there.
What you can see is that the confusion is double the size in 2015.
Okay. So that means that things such as life properties move back or from term is getting basically worse over time.
So these households, same households are worse off.
Doesn't things with more attorneys are worse in terms than in 2011.
The interpretation of that particular one four.
So based on this confusion right here is that if you increase the chair of returnees by one percentage points,
you are going to have a reduction in traffic at a lot of stock units of 0.01.
If you translate that in 20 words, like more about one chicken,
less per household but able household member, and that's about a 5% reduction regards to the average.
Now other point is how do people perceive themselves as they perceive themselves
to be worse off or better off after they have more police in the community?
I hear interestingly, contrary to the actual estimates that we have,
when we look at subjective well-being, there's a strong impact on the first round in 2011,
but that in fact is a lot more difficult reaching so far as more in terms of 15 and is not statistically significant.
So in terms of livestock, fairness seems to be getting worse.
There's a how do you feel about it? On the subject of wellbeing, it seems that in fact perhaps people have been getting used to it.
The fact is actually a smaller. Another thing that you gave us is while it may be the case that, you know, as I show you,
you remember from that first chart, some of these people returning in 1996.
Some of these people return in 2006. So they have returned in many different periods.
So maybe it is not just any returnees is just a recent rhythm is the ones that are having a big effect.
And we can do that. So because in the data, we know when people return.
So we can create a variable which is about the recent returnees.
Yeah, I've seen what happens when they're done.
Done. I don't want the return of this operations. But just to tell you that these hopefully are much larger than the previous ones.
And that means that the fact it's much stronger for those communities that are hosting recent returnees,
meaning those communities that have received large controls during the last ten years.
So the effect is more stronger for those communities. That's true for the actual effect.
That's true for the subjective well-being measure.
It is for both cases. It is. It is the case that those communities have received a lot are suffering far more.
Another important body of work for us was land.
So what is happening around? As I mentioned, people will go back and once they come back, they had a right for that to their land.
But most people, when they get back home, somebody have their land some place and family members have sold their land.
So obviously the government were very happy that they had to so much else.
So this people are happy away from their 15 years.
So there was this commissions that were put in place in order to solve this dispute.
And about 90% of the solutions of these problems was.
Now they have to share the land.
So one question is what happens to the access of this or the access to ease people who did immigrate when the revenues came back,
when they have a large influence. And the result is that before is negative and is also gets worse over time, I guess to interpret that.
So a one percentage point in the chair of refugees in the population is low income to leave
to a policy to five hectares reduction in landholdings for a stay here stay households.
That's about 4.44% reduction relative to the main source of the grazing land for those communities that actually have a lower return is is
something that we respect that for whatever I do that look at the conflict convexity might be something that down the line can lead to conflict.
There's also the question of food security.
So what happens to the food security of these communities that are receiving a large number of refugees?
It is the fact it's negative. The good news is that becomes insignificant in the second in the second period.
But essentially, this a one percentage point increase in the share of returnees in the community
leads to a one percentage point increase in the likelihood of experiencing full,
difficult food difficulties or on daily basis. So one percentage point higher come.
But often if they are on this list of one percentage points higher, a likelihood of food difficulties and we just have almost a 1 to 1 relationship.
But as I said before, that the relationship is only for the year 2011, for the year 2015.
Even if these households actually have less land and they are less like livestock.
Food difficulties don't seem to be a problem anymore.
One factor that we also look at is health and crime.
The aspect is important because there were a series of studies done at the time
during that and I forget what percentage of the all stories or those studies.
This was a community that was very poor in terms of health.
So the likelihood of the incidence of malaria, for instance, was very high.
These people are returning home. So are they bringing some of these things back home?
What are the implications of this? We don't see any significant impact.
So even if these Burundian communities abroad were suffering serious, serious health problems,
it doesn't seem that that translated into food or health outcomes for the local community.
Something else that we did with health, because we have children, we have small children under five years of age in the first round.
So we can see them when they are, let's say, five and when they are ten.
Five years later, we follow those children as we see those children in communities with more the
means were more effective because of have their height and weight or anything.
Doesn't seem to be the case. Crime is an important one.
So is this inflow of refugees leading to more crime?
So no previous studies.
We show how labour market opportunities are limited for these are refugees, but it doesn't seem to be the case that they are affected by crack.
Something else that we did was to explore what was the response of these households to the presence of refugees.
You can think about if you live in one community and suddenly the population
of the community doubled because their revenues moved to another community.
So they could be the longer stays we call them, who would be moving across community.
Or it might be the case that if there's a inflow of refugees into returnees, into your community,
maybe instead of just working the land, you change occupations to do something else, you can shift to a different occupation.
So we explore this positive potential possibilities, and there was no response.
There was no mobility.
And this is interesting because we already has very medium mobility across regions, among other reasons, because land is a scarce everywhere.
So if this country a community and they got to caravan with them.
It's not like you can just go to the next community and have fun somewhere else.
It's roughly the same thing across occupations. It's a very simple economy.
Think about economies. We see our times that with this migration, people are changing the jobs that they were doing before.
This is not the case and growth. Now let me give you the so-called solutions from our story.
I mean, the general wanted to be, but we wanted to talk about what's up at this party of evidence about what happens when you have.
But I think you have occasion for people to go back home. We know especially of what happens to refugees, how they compare with our people.
What we don't know, what happens to those communities that are actually receiving the the refugees,
the findings of the paper actually find some voice, some aspects.
Those communities receiving a lot of refugees have less livestock.
They have they are worse economic conditions, selective economic conditions.
This could be to a large degree, driven by the lack of access from the land agreements that they were on and the the resource regarding food security.
Now, one positive side of the story, if you want to call it positive, is that this food security aspect and in fact,
this objective was begun so this upper years for the second branch of the service.
At the beginning it was very big. Money disappears.
The livestock and land access aspect is remains.
Contact, in fact, gets worse over time. So it seems that households are adjusting in some way to this.
Now, one thing I want to end with this is to talk about what this is applicable to our situation.
So problem is a very specific caseload.
So is this that I'm telling you about applicable to other cases I have read previous?
In order for this to be true in my places, first of all, you need refugees who do not have access to a labour market or to chronic opportunities.
So essentially they're not getting any skills or creating any financial capital when they are abroad.
So basically that they're not bringing those skills back.
And in fact, you could argue that losing skills while they're abroad, if they're not, they probably got the active duty.
Obviously, some kind of a country with scarce natural resources.
So if you come back to a country that has a lot of resources,
so you make the case that you have these qualities of life just for security because you have a lower level of access.
And third, you need essentially that the reason that the refugees are returning is that the host country in some way I mean,
force it might be a strong way, but the whole country is pushing them.
So in this case, it's apparently voluntary return.
So they're not planning for after sense of return home. They will have preferred to stay in the in the in the country.
So you can have these three things. We have look at the case stories.
You can think about different case stories.
I mean, Somalia, Kenya, Somalia can be one of which people are limited in their communities and they can do terrifically.
Many of them are poor, if not forced, because of a push to their home on their return to a country which there's not much available.
Maybe Afghanistan has some of the similar features that this case.
So this is very specific to this particular set of situations.
And in this particular set of situations, refugee return is going to have negative consequences.
You can think about it from the political stability context.
It may also have implications for political stability.