Between spring and autumn 1999, approximately
440 000 refugees were hosted by Albania. The camps which provided shelters,
food, social services, etc. have impacted on all aspects of the environment
through the generation of diverse waste products and discharge of used
water. It is time for governmental and non-governmental organisations,
as well as international donors and the private sector to address the challenges
that ensue from environmental damages as the inflow of refugees and emergency
aid may sometimes be leading to further crises through their effects on
the local population.
An emerging area
The notion that international co-operation could simultaneously address the needs of emergency relief and environmental protection is relatively new. Indeed, only a few years ago, it was taken for granted that the urgent nature of emergency assistance would not allow environmental considerations to be taken into account in the planning or carrying out of relief operations. As a consequence, such concerns were systematically considered to be of secondary importance if not suspect because of their potential to diminish the effectiveness of emergency assistance.
Recent experiences have revealed a number of areas where preventive action aimed at safeguarding the environment can be taken - for example through better targeted procurement activities - without increasing the costs or decreasing the timeliness of emergency assistance. In addition, significant knowledge about the serious and long-term consequences that the inflow of refugees and emergency aid cause to the environment of the host country has been gained. Such impacts may also affect the host country's regular co-operation programmes, which may have to be reoriented to meet unexpected new needs.
Impacts caused by wastes
In Albania, refugee camps with solid shelters had a lower impact than those made up of tents because they hosted fewer refugees and consisted of permanent constructions with basic infrastructure for utilities. It allowed discharge of used water to be connected to local sewage systems. In 'tent camps', since many lacked any form of sewage treatment, the water was often discharged through drainage channels, as in the area of Durres and Spitalle. In other locations, used water was discharged into septic tanks, many of which exceeded their maximum capacity causing soil pollution and infiltration of polluted water into groundwater beds and nearby rivers.
The elimination of solid waste also caused serious problems. Camps and assembly centres located within cities were able to dispose of their waste by transporting it to dumping grounds. The worst problems were encountered with refugee camps built on the outskirts of small towns where solid waste was burned together with sanitary waste in open spaces. The quantity of the waste depended not only on the number of refugees but also on the type of food and other goods distributed by humanitarian actors to the refugees.
As a consequence of housing refugees, a few hundred hectares used for agricultural purposes were lost. Since Albania already has a very low percentage of farming lands, this is one of the most serious problems caused by the refugee camps. For instance, setting the camps up required large amounts of gravel - layers of approximately 60 cm - in some areas and waterproof material in others. A camp set up to host 612 persons in 1.3 hectares of land contains 2 000 cubic metres of gravel. This pollution is combined with considerable deforestation caused by a greater need for wood used for heating purposes. The depletion of nearby forests increased wood prices and created an economic burden for the local population that will be felt long after the crisis.
The environment and conflict resolution
In the future, horizontal issues like the environmental consequences of humanitarian disasters will have to be integrated in policy and humanitarian intervention planning. Indeed, current studies and lessons learned will provide a better understanding of potential for post-crisis environmental conflicts. Awareness-raising among international and local authorities is therefore central. In Albania, the crisis has further exacerbated a pre-existing conflict of interests regarding access to natural resources. This has been further worsened by the ignorance of international emergency aid and other actors like NATO and KLA troops of their impact on resource depletion. For local societies, this competition for scarce resources has had two effects: the weakening of social and legal controls on resource use and uncertainties about who is entitled to have access to what. In a situation of a brutal rush by different local groups for the appropriation of scarce resources, the risk of conflict is real.
As a consequence, these post-conflict scenarios have to integrate a revision of the actual compensation of losses caused by aid programmes in affected areas, which are totally unsatisfactory. Plans to defuse potential new environmental conflicts that further hinder the restoration and rehabilitation of degraded sites should be set up in the phasing out of international operators (humanitarian actors, military forces, etc.). Strengthening visibility, transparency of policies through the organisation of meetings and discussions with community representatives should be sought in order to reinforce local governance and social control. A good way to achieve that goal is a systematic training of local authorities and the establishment of standard procedures in order to prepare them in environmental conflict resolution and conflict prevention.
Franco La Torre, Responsible for Mediterranean
Activities, Ecomed
E-mail: ecomed@romacivica.net
For more information see http://www.oneworld.org/voice
