Barriers withholding the Effective Implementation of Environmentally Sustainable Solutions to the Environmental Impact of Settlement Camps

(1)

Barriers withholding the Effective

Implementation of Environmentally

Sustainable Solutions to the

Environmental Impact of Settlement

Camps

A Thesis for the Erasmus Mundus Joint Degree Master’s in

International Humanitarian Action

By Elisa P. Vandermeer (S 3845788) September 2020

Supervisor: Dr. Steven J.N. Van Bockstael from the University of Groningen

This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Joint Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his own hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

(2)

2 Abstract

This thesis studies the extent to which barriers withhold the effective implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions to the environmental impact of settlement camps. The results are gained through interviews with environmental officers in settlement camps, camp coordinators in settlement camps, and researchers to the environmental solutions in settlement camps. Two participants of each of the interviewee categories were interviewed. All the participants had experience across the world, but they were mostly experienced in Eastern Africa and the Middle East.

The results showed support for the hypothesis that barriers negatively moderate the relation between the effective implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions and their effectiveness. The political barriers can hold back the implementation of solutions, because of regulations related to the residents of settlement camps, but do not necessarily impact the effectiveness of the implementations. Also, the funding barriers have an impact on the implementation itself. The funding barriers, however, also have an effect on the effective implementation of solutions, as the lack of funding can hinder the scope or development of a solution. Moreover, the social barriers can undermine the effectiveness of environmentally sustainable solutions, mainly due to the disinvolvement of the residents of settlement camps, which is a result of the social barriers. Furthermore, contextual barriers challenge the effective implementation of the solutions, as the technologies can have a different efficiency in different locations and situations. Lastly, organisational barriers have an overall impact on the effectiveness of environmentally sustainable solutions. All barriers are interconnected, influence each other and, therewith, can reduce the effectiveness of the solutions further.

Thus, it can be concluded that the barriers found can withhold the effective implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions to reduce the environmental impact to a great extent. The results indicate that the extent to which barriers withhold the effective implementation depends largely on the barrier, the extent to which the barrier is present, and the number of combined barriers.

(3)

3 Table of Contents Abstract ... 2 Table of Contents... 3 List of abbreviations/acronyms ... 6 Preface... 7 1. Introduction ... 8

1.1. Aim, objectives and research question ... 8

1.2. Definition of terms ... 9

1.3. Previous academic research ... 11

1.4. Justification of research ... 12

1.5. Methodology ... 12

1.6. Limitations ... 14

1.7. Ethical considerations ... 16

2. Literature review ... 17

2.1. Environmental impacts of settlement camps ... 17

2.1.1. Deforestation ... 18

2.1.2. Desertification ... 19

2.1.3. Unsustainable water resource extraction ... 19

2.1.4. Water pollution ... 19

2.1.5. Soil degradation ... 20

2.1.6. Solid environmental waste ... 20

2.1.7. Greenhouse gas emissions ... 21

2.2. Environmentally sustainable solutions ... 22

2.2.1. Afforestation ... 23

2.2.2. Solar power installations ... 24

2.2.3. Upgraded cooking stoves ... 26

2.2.4. Sustainable supply chains ... 29

2.2.5. Sustainable drainage systems ... 30

2.2.6. New organisational strategies ... 30

2.3. Implementation barriers ... 33

2.3.1. Short-term character ... 33

(4)

4

2.3.3. Lack of coordination and collaboration... 36

2.3.4. Shortage of resources ... 37

2.3.5. Standardisation unfeasibility ... 38

3. Conceptual framework ... 40

4. Results ... 42

4.1.4. Water management ... 45 4.1.5. Land management... 46 4.1.6. Waste management ... 47 4.2. Implementation barriers ... 48 4.2.1. Contextual barriers ... 48 4.2.2. Organisational barriers ... 48 4.2.3. Funding barriers ... 51 4.2.4. Social barriers ... 52 4.2.5. Political barriers ... 53

4.3. Effectiveness of environmentally sustainable solutions ... 55

4.2.4. Water management ... 56

4.2.5. Land management... 57

4.2.6. Waste management ... 57

5. Discussion ... 58

5.1.4. Water management ... 60 5.1.5. Land management... 61 5.1.6. Waste management ... 61 5.2. Implementation barriers ... 62 5.2.1. Contextual barriers ... 63 5.2.2. Organisational barriers ... 63 5.2.3. Funding barriers ... 65

(5)

5

5.2.4. Social barriers ... 65

5.2.5. Political barriers ... 66

5.3. Effectiveness of environmentally sustainable solutions ... 67

5.3.4. Land management... 68

5.3.5. Waste management ... 69

6. Conclusion ... 71

6.1. Main research results ... 71

6.2. Constraints and limits ... 72

6.3. Recommendations ... 73

6.3.1. Humanitarian sector ... 73

6.3.2. Academic community ... 74

Bibliography ... 75

Appendices ... 82

Appendix 1. Interview structure ... 82

Appendix 2. Informed consent form ... 83

(6)

6 List of abbreviations/acronyms

CCCM Camp Coordination, Camp Management and Governance

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

EIA Environmental Impact Assessments

IDP Internally Displaced Person

kWh Kilowatt-hour

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

(7)

7 Preface

I have decided to write my thesis on the environmental impact, the environmentally sustainable solutions, and the implementation barriers, because I am passionate about the environment. The environment is quickly deteriorating, and if we do not do anything now, it will be too late. Although I understand the argument of the humanitarian sector stating that it is dealing with human lives, in my opinion, it creates the challenge of putting future lives in danger by taking care of the current lives. I see the need for change in the sector, and I am convinced that it can do better. This has resulted in my topic, and eventually in this thesis.

My greatest support during the process of writing my thesis has been my mother. She has been there for me when my motivation was low and helped me to motivate myself. Moreover, she has proofread my whole thesis and was always ready to discuss my approaches to this thesis. For that, I am eternally grateful, because I am convinced she helped me to lift my thesis to a next level. Lastly, I would like to thank my supervisor for guiding me through this process.

(8)

8 1. Introduction

Over the last few years, forcibly displaced people have been high on the political agenda. One of the reasons is, that never before, the number of forcibly displaced persons has been this high. At the end of 2018, there were approximately 70.8 million forcibly displaced persons, of which 40 per cent lived in settlement camps (UNHCR, 2019a, p. 4; p. 62). Another topic high on the political agenda is climate change. People are increasingly worried about the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are causing the climate to change drastically in a short period of time (United Nations, n.d.-a). In September 2019, six million people around the globe have taken to the streets to demand climate action and solutions (Taylor, Watts and Bartlett, 2019).

The impact of the settlement camps on the environment have been proven multiple times and recent efforts work towards limiting the environmental impact of settlement camps. In 2018, the most recent Sphere Standards were released and included, for the first time, standards on environmentally sustainability. Additionally, in November 2019, a thematic sheet on the environment was released. To comply to these standards and limit, or even eliminate, the environmental impact, environmentally sustainable solutions are necessary (Sphere, 2019). Nonetheless, there are barriers that hamper with the effective implementation of these environmentally sustainable solutions. This thesis researches the extent to which these barriers limit the effectiveness of environmentally sustainable solutions of settlement camps.

1.1. Aim, objectives and research question

The aim of the research is to raise awareness about the necessity of implementing environmentally sustainable solutions into settlement camps worldwide, to change the status quo of settlement planning, to critically assess the effectiveness the environmentally sustainable solutions that are already in place, and what barriers are causing a reduced effect of the solutions. This is important since the creation of settlement camps are often during emergencies, and thus, there is no time to develop and implement environment friendly solutions while taking the barriers into account. Therefore, it is important to establish such solutions on beforehand, for a quick implementation.

To reach the aim of the research, several objectives are formulated below. The first objective is to identify and evaluate existing environmentally sustainable solutions for the environmental impacts caused by settlement camps. The second objective is to

(9)

9 identify the barriers that prevent the solutions from being implemented. The third objective is to analyse the effectiveness of the solutions. The fourth objective is to examine the extent to which the barriers hamper the effectiveness of solutions. The fifth, and last, objective is to make recommendations to decrease the environmental impact of settlement camps around the world using the currently existing solutions.

This aim and these objectives give the following research question: To what extent do barriers withhold environmentally sustainable solutions to be implemented effectively in settlement camps to reduce the environmental impact?

To answer the research question and to reach a conclusion, the study is divided in three sections. These three sections are divided into the current environmentally sustainable solutions in place, the barriers that withhold solutions from being implemented effectively, and the effectiveness of these solutions on the impact. These sections result in three sub-questions:

1. What environmentally sustainable solutions are already in place in settlement camps?

2. What barriers withhold the effective implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions in settlement camps?

3. How effective are the environmentally sustainable solutions in reducing the environmental impact of settlement camps?

1.2. Definition of terms

Before defining the terms in the research, the term ‘forcibly displaced persons’ should be explained to ensure complete comprehension. The term ‘forcibly displaced persons’ is a collective name for refugees, internally displaced persons and asylum-seekers (UNHCR, 2019a, p. 2). The United Nations (2018) define ‘forcibly displaced persons’ as “those who are forced to move, within or across borders, due to armed conflict, persecution, terrorism, human rights violations and abuses, violence, the adverse effects of climate change, natural disasters, development projects or a combination of these factors”.

Having explained who forcibly displaced persons are, the term ‘settlement camps’ can be defined, as forcibly displaced persons reside in different accommodation types. Some of them live in individual accommodation, while others reside in a collective centre, a reception/transit camp, a self-settled camp, or a planned/managed camp (UNHCR, 2019a, p. 62). This research uses the term ‘settlement camp’ to refer to all camps for

(10)

10 forcibly displaced persons, in which any official form of camp coordination, camp management (CCCM) and governance takes place. CCCM concerns the standardised coordination mechanism and can be applied to refugee and internally displaced people (IDP) situations (UNHCR, n.d.-a). Moreover, to refer to the forcibly displaced persons whom live in the camps, the term ‘residents’ is used in this study.

Understanding the environmental impacts of settlement camps is of essence when analysing its solutions. Bai and Bai (2014, p. 373) define ‘environmental impact’ as “any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s activities, products, or services.” Although this study uses this definition of ‘environmental impact’, only the adverse changes to the environment are analysed, and the organisations in this study are the settlement camps.

The term ‘sustainable solutions’ has increasingly been used over the last years. ‘Sustainability’ is defined as “a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do no diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare” (Meadowcroft, 2019). This definition already includes the environmental aspect. However, the term ‘sustainable solutions’ would not demarcate the scope of its meaning enough. When analysing the definition of ‘environmental solution’, it becomes clear that such solutions “are designed to solve an environmental problem” (Perciasepe, 2005, p. 7). Therefore, this study uses the term ‘environmentally sustainable solutions’ to refer to the solutions designed to solve environmental problems in a way that does not diminish the wealth, utility, and welfare opportunities of future generations.

Lastly, the term ‘effectively’ refers to the effectiveness of the environmentally sustainable solutions. Mentzer and Konrad (1991, p. 34) defined effectiveness as “the extent to which goals are accomplished.” In light of this definition, this research studies the goal to decrease the environmental impact of settlement camps. Shabani, et al. (2017, p. 1855) add “how well a company is performing” to their definition of effectiveness. This highlights the importance of the organisation’s performance in the accomplishments of goals. Combining both definitions gives the following definition of the term ‘effectively’ as used in this research: in a way the performance of the action accomplishes the desired outcome.

(11)

11

1.3. Previous academic research

Climate, the environment and forced displacement are currently in a vicious circle, in which variabilities in the climate, or climate change, are causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters and conflicts, which induce displacement. Displacement has a negative effect on the environment, which in turn affects the climate (Tafere, 2018, p. 192). Several studies have shown a range of different environmental impacts of settlement camps. Deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, groundwater pollution and its unsustainable extraction, and greenhouse gas emissions are some of the different environmental impacts observed (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 318; Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 195; Farishta, 2014, p. 12; p. 21; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Imtiaz, 2018, p. 18; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 4). To limit the environmental impact of settlement camp, environmental impact assessments (EIA) and environmental guidelines have been brought to life by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) since 1996 (UNHCR, 2009). However, Price (2017, p. 3; p. 5) argues that the EIAs are conducted far too late in the process and that practitioners are not implementing the environmental guidelines.

Despite the lack of widespread implementation, there has been done research to several solutions for these problems. Alternatives for energy generation are researched, such as solar energy and solar thermal panels, wind turbines and biomass energy (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 209; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15). Barbieri, Riva and Colombo’s (2017, pp. 198-199) study analyses alternatives to traditional cooking stoves, such as solar cookers and hay boxes. Others have studied sustainable water usage and wastewater management options, such as sustainable surface water drainage (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 150; Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke, 2016, p. 58). Several different waste management solutions are proposed by Haque (2019, p. 36174), and Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer (2017, p. 60). In other words, there are many options to make settlement camps more environmentally sustainable. However, during the implementation of these solutions, initiatives face several barriers, which causes most of the solutions to end up in small-scale, individual solutions (Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 10). These barriers mainly diverge for the different barriers, but the most occurring barrier is the temporary character and regulations of settlement camps (Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Gunning, 2014, p. 63; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 11; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 4).

(12)

12

1.4. Justification of research

Voices from the field often offer the reasoning that, on a global level, the environmental effects of one settlement camp are insignificant (Tafere, 2018, p. 198). However, camps are often located close to each other in environmentally sensitive areas (Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Tafere, 2018, pp. 198-199). This means that all the camps combined causing several environmental impacts in the already-degraded and/or sensitive areas threaten a larger zone. The fact that Sphere (2019) has added a section on environmental sustainability in their standards highlights the increasing importance of reducing the environmental impact of settlement camps. Nevertheless, in George’s (2019, p. 7) thematic sheet on the environment, it is mentioned that “accepting negative environmental impacts due to relief assistance as unavoidable and preferable to not providing assistance.” This, however, does relief humanitarian actors from their responsibility. There is a need to do better, but current practices are allowing humanitarian actors to stick to their old habits. In these old habits, as aforementioned, there is a lack of implementation of the environmental guidelines and the decision-making process is barely influenced by EIAs, as they are conducted too late (Price, 2017, p. 3; p. 5).

In the academic literature, a lot is known about the environmental impact of settlement camps, highlighting the need for change. Moreover, many environmentally sustainable solutions have been analysed and proposed to reduce the environmental impact of settlement camps. However, little literature of the conducted EIAs is publicly available (Price, 2017, p. 2). Moreover, there is some literature available on the current state of sustainable energy implementation, but literature on the state of other sustainable implementations is not or rarely available. Furthermore, there is little known about the barriers and their effects. Thus, there is a gap in the knowledge of the implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions, and to what extent the barriers hamper the effective implementation of these solutions.

1.5. Methodology

This study aims to gain in-depth insight in the extent to which the effective implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions in settlement camps in order to decrease their environmental impact are reduced by the barriers. In order to obtain such insight, the research uses a qualitative method in the form of interviews. Interviews are the most appropriate research method, as this study addresses a practical research

(13)

13 problem. Moreover, barriers during implementation of environmental solutions in settlement camps become clear through personal experiences and perspectives of professionals. Therefore, there is no straightforward answer to the questions. Interviews allow for opinions to be expressed and for solutions to be questioned. Thus, more in-depth information can be gained through interviews.

Participants to the research were selected based on their job positions. This research is based on participants with three types of positions: camp coordinators, environmental officers, and researchers in the field of sustainable settlement camps. First of all, two of the participants are, or have been, camp coordinators at a settlement camp. Although the participants came from a range of organisations, this position is called CCCM officer at UNHCR (UNHCR, n.d.-b). A CCCM officer at UNHCR has the responsibility to coordinate all action plans, and to cooperate with all stakeholders. Thus, they have an overview of the realities and possibilities within a camp and are able provide barriers faced during the implementation of solutions. Therefore, they are of value to this study. Secondly, two participants are, or have been, active as environmental officers at settlement camps. Environmental officers are responsible for the monitoring of the environmental impact of a settlement camps, the collaborations with technical sectors and other stakeholders in order to minimise the environmental impacts, and to propose solutions (UNHCR, n.d.-c). This study is in the field of an environmental officer. Therefore, they are valuable to this study, as they are able to provide information about the status quo, barriers, and the effects of solutions. Lastly, two researchers in the field of sustainable settlement camps are interviewed. Researchers are of value as they can provide information on the effects of the implemented solutions, new solutions that are being implemented, as well as the barriers they see within the field as relative outsiders. All six participants have experience in different locations, and therefore, the data acquired is more complete. The participants were working and/or had experience working in settlement camps in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Myanmar, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, and Uganda.

The first two types of participants were mainly found through LinkedIn. Searching online for the aforementioned positions and organisations active in settlement camps resulted in a list of potential participants. By connecting and messaging the potential participants, some of them responded and were willing to participate in an interview. Articles about environmentally sustainable solutions in settlement camps provided a range of researchers as potentials participants. Moreover, some of the

(14)

14 participants were found through referral by another participant. As the types of participants resulted in a limited amount of people, who sufficed the requirements, only 25 people were reached. The total response rate was 24%.

All interviews questioned the specific environmental impacts relevant to the specific camp locations, the solutions used/noticed for these impacts, the effectiveness of these solutions in reducing the environmental impact, and barriers faced when introducing and implementing solutions. The questions asked were generic to give as much space as possible to the participants, and to avoid influencing their answers. Nonetheless, the formulation of the questions and any additional questions depended on the position and experience of the participant. The structure of the interviews is to be found in appendix 1. The interviews were semi-structured. This allowed for the interviewer to ask additional questions, and for the participants to expand on their perspectives. The interviews took between 45 and 60 minutes and were conducted in English or Dutch, depending on the language skills of the participants. For the recording of the interviews, a phone was used. After an interview was conducted, the file was saved on an encrypted USB after which they were deleted from the phone. All participants agreed on beforehand for the interviews to be recorded. Due to the current COVID-19 crisis, all the interviews were conducted online through Skype or Zoom.

All the interviews were transcribed. Based on the transcription, text fragments important to this research were highlighted and coded. In table 1.1, an overview of all the coding categories is shown. The overview also shows how many of the participants mentioned these coding categories and which positions these participants had. The coding categories determined the topics as discussed in the results of this research.

1.6. Limitations

This research aims to give insights into the effective implementation of environmentally sustainable solutions, and the barriers that challenge the effective implementation. Therefore, this study focusses on the environmentally sustainable solutions implemented in settlement camps. Thus, it does not aim to invent or provide new solutions.

Since it is necessary to improve the practices in settlement camps around the world, the outcomes of this study are generalised and not applicable to only one location. Nonetheless, the locations of the settlement camps are mentioned throughout to provide an idea of the context of the solutions. This study is based on interviews with participants

(15)

15 in different job positions. Their positions and experiences shape their perspectives. However, the different perspectives of the participants based on their positions are not analysed. Lastly, there are many differences between the settlement camps for refugees and settlement camps for IDPs. For example, IDP camps have, in general, fewer resources to their disposal than refugee camps (Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28). Regardless, this study generalises its outcomes and does not examine the differences.

Coding category Mentioned by number of participants Number of camp coordinators Number of environmental officers Number of researchers Behaviour 4 2 2 0 Collaboration 6 2 2 2 Context 4 2 1 1 Duration 5 1 2 2 Education 5 2 2 1 Energy 6 2 2 2 Funding 6 2 2 2 Government influence 5 2 2 1 Integration 5 1 2 2 Land management 4 1 2 1 Water management 4 1 1 2 Organisation 6 2 2 2 Waste management 4 2 1 1

(16)

16

1.7. Ethical considerations

The privacy of the participants is the most relevant ethical consideration in this study, as the study does provide information on their job position and location. This is the only information made available due to their importance to the study. The job position of the participants represents their value to this study. Moreover, the location of the settlement camps, where they worked and/or have experience, is relevant to the possibilities of the solutions. All the participants were fully aware of the fact that this information would be made public. Prior to the study, full consent was obtained from all the participants through the informed consent form, as shown in appendix 2. The data obtained from the participants were the informed consent form, the interview records, and the transcripts. All were stored on an encrypted USB and handled confidentially to ensure their privacy.

This research was approved by the Ethical Committee. The approval letter is to be found in appendix 3.

(17)

17 2. Literature review

This chapter contains the literature review of this study. Firstly, the environmental impacts of settlement camps are examined. After this, the environmentally sustainable solutions to the environmental impacts found in the literature are discussed. This subchapter also considers the effectiveness of the solutions to create an idea of the potential of the solutions. Lastly, the barriers that withhold the effective implementation of these solutions are reviewed.

2.1. Environmental impacts of settlement camps

The environmental impacts of settlement camps are wide-ranging and differ from location to location. This means that there is not only one solution to all the environmental impacts and issues around settlement camps. Several impacts require several solutions. To be able to analyse these solutions, an overview of the environmental impacts should be made first. This short overview analyses the different environmental impacts on their causes and consequences. The overview creates somewhat of a baseline of the status quo in the settlement camps, which is necessary to assess the effectiveness of environmentally sustainable solutions (Farishta, 2014, p. 12). Moreover, it highlights the practices that should be improved.

Most of the environmental impacts are aggravated by the same general reasons. Environmental degradation around settlement camps is occurring because of the increased pressure on the environment due to the high concentration of people living in close proximity (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 151; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 9; Tafere, 2018, p. 199). Among the forcibly displaced population, there is an increase in the number of young people, who often do not have any means of livelihood, which increases the exploitation of resources (Tafere, 2018, p. 199). An exploitative use of natural resources causes the environment to deteriorate further (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 318; Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 194; Farishta, 2014, p. 21; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 9). The exploitative utilisation is increased by the incentive to stay temporarily in a settlement camp (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 325; Tafere, 2018, p. 199). Moreover, many settlement camps are in areas that are environmentally sensitive and close to protected national parks (Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Tafere, 2018, p. 199). Another reason for the environmental impacts to worsen is because of the shortage, or sometimes even lack, of basic need supplies (Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139;

(18)

18 Munoz, 2016, p. 15; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 11; Tafere, 2018, p. 199). In some cases, there is a lack of knowledge about alternative technologies (Gunning, 2014, p. 64; Munoz, 2016, p. 36; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 5; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 11; Tafere, 2018, p. 197). Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen (2016, p. 9) highlight the fact that current policies lack rehabilitation of the area once forcibly displaced people have left.

2.1.1. Deforestation

One of the most mentioned impacts of settlement camps on the environment in the literature is deforestation (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 327; Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017; p. 200; Gunning, 2014, p. 16; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Imtiaz, 2018, p. 17; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p 3514; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 11; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 9; Tafere, 2018, p. 195). Deforestation is a huge impact of settlement camps, as over 64,000 acres of forest is removed by forcibly displaced people globally on a yearly basis (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139). The collection of fuelwoods for cooking is one of the main causes of deforestation (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 327; Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200; Gunning, 2014, p. 16; Imtiaz, 2018, p. 16; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 22; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 9; Tafere, 2018, p. 195). Nonetheless, other causes such as the construction of shelters, firewood for lighting and heating, and the clearing of land for cultivation are also prevalent in the camps (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 327; Gunning, 2014, p. 16; p. 28; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 138; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 2; Tafere, 2018, p. 198).

The consequences of deforestation are severe as they have a worsening effect on other environmental degradation causes such as erosion, desertification, sedimentation, decline in ground water and loss of wildlife (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200). Imtiaz (2018, p. 16) even points out that the functionality of the vital role of the local vegetation in climate change adaptation and mitigation is deteriorating since the arrival of forcibly displaced persons in the area because of deforestation.

(19)

19

2.1.2. Desertification

Another negative environmental impact of settlement camps is desertification (Gunning, 2014, p. 16; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28). As mentioned before, desertification is exacerbated by deforestation (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200). Desertification, however, is also caused by small-scale farms expansion and the grazing of livestock (Gunning, 2014, p. 16). Moreover, settlement camps are often located in (semi-)arid areas (Tafere, 2018, p. 192). When more pressure is put on the natural resources in these areas, desertification is often a result. All these factors reinforce the desertification in the surrounding areas of the settlement camps.

2.1.3. Unsustainable water resource extraction

Settlement camps also negatively impact the water resource levels by unsustainable extraction (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200; Farishta, 2014, p. 9; Gunning, 2014, p. 16; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197; Tafere, 2018, p. 191; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 9). The unsustainable extraction, with depletion as its consequence, is often due to an insufficient water supply in the settlement camps (Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke, 2016, p. 54). According to Farishta (2014, p. 21), in Jordan, the abstraction rates of groundwater aquifers are above the safe yields. If the abstraction rates remain to exceed the safe yields, the aquifers could be permanently damaged and depleted. The irrigated areas in Irbed already declined from 9.4 per cent to 7.6 per cent (Farishta, 2014, p. 13). The unsustainable use of groundwater in settlement camps is aggravated by leaking water storage tanks (Farishta, 2014, p. 15). The surroundings of Kenyan settlement camps have also been showing signs of water depletion (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 334; Tafere, 2018, p. 196). Moreover, the high concentration of population and livestock around water points in the settlement camps of Uganda has caused an over-extraction of the aquifers (Tafere, 2018, p. 197).

2.1.4. Water pollution

Not only do settlement camps negatively impact the groundwater levels, they also cause pollution of water resources (Farishta, 2014, p. 9; Gunning, 2014, p. 16; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197; Tafere, 2018, 195; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 4). The Al Za’atari camp in Jordan is polluting the main aquifer due to wastewater leaking during the transport out of

(20)

20 the camps (Farishta, 2014, p. 9; p. 15). Moreover, there is a sewer overflow due to the inability of the wastewater treatment plants to sustain the current needs in Jordan (Farishta, 2014, p. 16). As a result, 80 per cent of the aquifers, used by the forcibly displaced people in Jordan, are contaminated (Farishta, 2014, p. 13). Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj (2018, p. 150) mention that contamination of water resources in the surroundings of settlement camps by wastewater increases in South Sudan due to flooding events.

2.1.5. Soil degradation

Soil degradation in various forms is also a recurring negative environmental impact of settlement camps (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 151; Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 318; Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Gunning, 2014, p. 16; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 28; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 4; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197; Tafere, 2018, p. 191). The most frequently mentioned form of soil degradation is soil erosion (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 150; Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200; Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 4; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197; Tafere, 2018, p. 195). However, other forms of soil degradation are also prevalent around settlement camps, such as soil salinisation (Farishta, 2014, p. 13; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197; Tafere, 2018, p. 196). The latter also affects the quality of the water resources (Farishta, 2014, p. 13). According to Balehegn and Hintsa (2018, p. 318), the degradation of land is because forcibly displaced people are likely to have exploitative modes of utilising the natural resources. This ranges from the water resources to the woodlands in the surroundings of the settlement camps.

2.1.6. Solid environmental waste

Solid waste has a significant negative impact on the environment in and around a settlement camp (Farishta, 2014, p. 15; Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 2; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 3; Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 58; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197; Tafere, 2018, 195). In Al Za’atari camp the average waste per capita per day is 0.85 kilograms (Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 61; p. 62). In Al Za’atari camp, 9 per cent of all the waste consists of cardboard, and plastic waste makes up for 12.85 per cent of the waste, which can be (partly) attributed to the packaging of humanitarian items (Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 2; Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 62). Regattieri, et al. (2018; p. 2) argue that the packaging turns into waste as soon as the products are taken from the packaging. Moreover, in many camps, the daily delivery

(21)

21 of bottled water creates extra waste (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 206). 10.22 per cent of the waste in Al Za’atari camp consists of textiles due to the enormous supply of clothes in camps (Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 63). 85.07 per cent of all the waste in Al Za’atari camp represent recyclable and compostable content (Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 62). Nonetheless, 28 to 50 tonnes of unseparated waste are collected regularly from the dumpsters around the camp (Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 60). Even though waste is supposed to be brought to waste disposals, some of the waste still ends up in the surroundings of a camp, and thus, also contaminating the water resources (Farishta, 2014, p. 15; Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 2; Tafere, 2018, p. 195). Moreover, when being brought to waste disposals, the handling of waste heavily depends on the facilities and capacities of the host country (Saidan, Drais and Al-Manaseer, 2017, p. 60).

2.1.7. Greenhouse gas emissions

The last negative environmental impact are all the greenhouse gas emissions due to heating and energy consumption, supply logistics, and traffic (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 195; Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 206; Gunning, 2014, pp. 12-15; Kempen, et al., 2017, pp. 1723-1725; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, pp. 2-4; Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 1; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 4). Although the estimated 13 to 14.3 million tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year caused by the energy use in settlement camps are only a small portion of the global emissions, the energy consumed is relatively low (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 139). Traditional cooking devices, often used for cooking, space heating and light, do not only emit CO2, but also black carbon (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 200). Another common practice to create lighting in settlement camps is the burning of kerosene, which also emits huge quantities of black carbon (Gunning, 2014, p. 12). Diesel generators, either centralised or stand-alone, are another common source of energy in settlement camps, which are known to emit greenhouse gases (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 206; Gunning, 2014, p. 15; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, pp. 2-4). Furthermore, in the emergency phase, fuel and water are often transported to the settlement camps by truck, which is a highly polluting practice (Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 4).

(22)

22 In conclusion, settlement camps have several environmental impacts in their direct surroundings and beyond. These impacts are deforestation, desertification, unsustainable water resource extraction, water pollution, soil degradation, solid environmental waste, and greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the specific impacts caused by a camp and the intensity are subject to location and customs within the camp. Therefore, it is important to consider these differences when implementing environmentally sustainable solutions.

2.2. Environmentally sustainable solutions

The opportunity to implement environmentally sustainable solutions in initial phases is in most cases neglected, as the need to save lives is prioritised, which often results in unsustainable practices (Gunning, 2014, p. 52; Munoz, 2016, p. 15; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197). Therewith, the delivery models used in the initial phases of the settlement camps influence the possibilities in later phases of the camps (Gunning, 2014, p. 52; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 4). Thus, the short-term, unsustainable practices are often continued on the long-term (Gunning, 2014, p. 52). Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen (2016, p. 4), however, argue that it is counter-productive to automatically accept the unsustainability of settlement camps. There are environmentally sustainable solutions still implemented in settlement camps decreasing their impact. Nonetheless, these are often unique, i.e. not, or barely, used elsewhere, and small-scale (Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 10). Sarkis, Spens and Kovács (2013, p. 205), however, argue for the importance planning, which would ensure that the environment is not consistently second, or on a lower rank, to the need to save lives. Furthermore, Farishta (2014, p. 15) did find that most of the impacts on the environment caused by settlement camps are reversible by implementing mitigation efforts.

Therefore, it is important to analyse environmentally sustainable solutions already implemented in (several) settlement camps and recommended or piloted solutions. As explained in the Introduction chapter of this thesis, environmentally sustainable solutions are solutions designed to solve environmental problems in a way that does not diminish the wealth, utility, and welfare opportunities of future generations. Some of these solutions are well-known and often used in the humanitarian field, others have only been piloted once or twice, or are only recommended by researchers but have not been piloted yet. To gain a complete overview of the solutions, all the different kinds of solutions found in the literature are analysed.

(23)

23 This subchapter also examines the effectiveness of such solutions and what hinders the effectiveness. There are some prerequisites for solutions to be effective. Residents of the settlement camps need to be effective participants to ensure the effectiveness of the solution (Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514). Moreover, the solutions need to consider the social, political and cultural context (Farishta, 2014, p. 26; Gunning, 2014, p. 41; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 325; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 36; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 22). According to Barbieri, Riva and Colombo (2017, p. 201), the complexity of multiple elements that comes with mitigating the environmental impact of displaced people need to be implemented into the solutions for them to be effective. Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso (2013, p. 3514) argue that it is necessary to consider all three aspects of the energy supply in settlement camps for an effective energy solution, the distribution in the proximity of the camp, the accessibility, and the sustainable supply.

2.2.1. Afforestation

Common practices are rehabilitation for natural resources projects, such as initiatives to plant new trees in the surroundings of a settlement camp by non-governmental organisations (NGO) (Balehegn and Hintsa, 2018, p. 325; Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, pp. 201-202; Hagenlocher, Lang and Tiede, 2012, p. 34; Imtiaz, 2018, p. 18; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 330; Munoz, 2016, p. 34). Sometimes, the NGOs plant the trees themselves, in some cases, the residents of the settlement camps are encouraged to plant new trees, and in other cases the NGOs provide tree seedlings to the residents (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 202; Munoz, 2016, p. 34). Imtiaz (2018, p. 18) even recommends assigning specific NGOs and governmental organisations to manage the issues of deforestation and to relocate the residents of the Rohingya camp in Bangladesh away from the protected forest area.

As deforestation is one of the main impacts of settlement camps, afforestation is a necessary and effective practice. Moreover, Doelman, et al. (2020, p. 1586) argues that afforestation on a global level has possibilities to mitigate climate change. However, according to Doelman, et al. (2020, p. 1583), one of the downsides is that fewer investments are made in other sectors, such as the energy or transport sector, when afforestation mitigation measures are in place due to the significantly lower costs of afforestation.

(24)

24

2.2.2. Solar power installations

Solar power is increasingly used in settlement camps around the world (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 198; Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 101; Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 207; Gunning, 2014, p. 8; p. 15; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 141; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514; Munoz, 2016, p. 35; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 1; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 21). Solar power is upcoming thanks to the cost-effectiveness of the technology compared to their traditional counterparts (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 101; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 141; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 3). Solar power is used for a range of different purposes in settlement camps.

First of all, solar powered street lights are becoming increasingly used in camps throughout the world (Gunning, 2014, p. 15; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 1). Additionally, according to Gunning (2014, p. 8), the non-food item kits that are distributed to households in settlement camps are increasingly including solar photovoltaic lanterns. In Goudoubo camp in Burkina Faso and in Kawergosk camp in Iraq, and many other camps, solar lanterns with a phone charger entrance have been distributed (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 101; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 1). In Nyarugusu camp in Tanzania, 43 per cent of the households have been reported to use solar panels (Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 22). Each solar photovoltaic lantern is estimated to save 0.092 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year when replacing a kerosene lantern with a yearly use of 36 litres of kerosene (Gunning, 2014, p. 28).

Secondly, solar power for institutional buildings are gaining field in the settlement camps (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 103; Gunning, 2014, p. 15; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 1). Some offices have solar panels as a back-up for the diesel generators to supply their internet connectivity and radio communication with energy. Furthermore, an increasing number of community centres have solar panels for lighting and air conditioning (Gunning, 2014, p. 15). Not only community centres, but also community medical centres and hospitals are powered by solar energy (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 103; p. 105). Hospitals and community medical centres in the Saharawi camps in Algeria were accompanied with a group of batteries and a charge controller, but the hospitals had an additional diesel generator. Moreover, vaccine refrigerators are increasingly powered with solar photovoltaic energy (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 103; Gunning, 2014, p. 15; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 6). In general, the use of solar photovoltaic energy reduces the use of diesel generators, and thus, results in emission reductions (Gunning, 2014, p. 28). This, however, has not been quantified. Analysing factors reducing the

(25)

25 functionality of solar panels helps creating an idea of their effectiveness. For example, although the quality of the components of the solar photovoltaic systems in the Saharawi camps were high, their effectiveness was compromised by lack of (decent) maintenance (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 103; p. 108). Due to overloading, the battery lifetime decreased drastically from a maximum of nine years to a maximum of three years (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 104; p. 107). The efficiency of the panels themselves was compromised due to the lack of easy access for cleaning and inspections, shading by external elements or their own support structure, and dusting from desert sand. Additionally, unsealed connection boxes lead to sand inside the connection boxes (Fuentes, et al., 2018; p. 104; 108). Other performance losses of the panels were due to incorrect interconnections between differently characterised modules, leading to hot spots and consequently reducing the lifetime of the modules from 20 to seven years (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 105; p. 108).

Thirdly, in some settlement camps, solar photovoltaic power is used for water pumps in settlement camps instead of diesel water pumping (Gunning, 2014, p. 15; p. 48; p. 64; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 1). This option, however, is implemented on a small-scale. Globally, 18 per cent of the boreholes have diesel motors, whereas only 2 per cent of the boreholes are equipped with solar-powered motors (Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 2). Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas (2018, p. 4) have researched the impact of changing to a solar-powered motor. The Al Za’atari camp in Jordan is currently on the energy grid of Jordan, but over a span of twenty years, they could decrease their emissions with 21,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent when switching to solar photovoltaic energy. For Dadaab camp in Kenya, which is not on the energy grid but runs on diesel generators, this is 30,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent. On a global scale, the greenhouse gas emissions coming from water pumping in the settlement camps can be reduced with one million tonnes over a time of 20 years.

Fourthly, solar photovoltaic power is used for purification process of water (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 209; Gunning, 2014, p. 15; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514). This decreases not only the greenhouse gas emissions that would have been produced by a diesel generator, but it also increases the water quality and useable quantity (Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke, 2016, p. 55; Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 206; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15).

(26)

26 Fuso Nerini, et al. (2015, p. 206) even present a new technology, the Energy and Water Emergency Module, which uses a hierarchy of sources. The module produces energy and clean water based on solar photovoltaic power and wind turbines (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 207). In case of a peak in the generated power, the excessive energy is stored in the batteries. This is used when the energy requirements are not met by the generated power through solar panels and wind turbines (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 208). A shortage of energy can be supplied through biomass, and lastly through fossil fuels (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 207). The resources used by the module vary per location. For example, in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) solar power accounted for 65 per cent of the generated energy and wind only 4.5 per cent; while in Stockholm (Sweden) solar power only accounted for 41 per cent and wind 10 per cent (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 209). Using 29.25 kWh and running for 13 hours, this module can produce a total of 3,421 litres of pure water per day, which is enough water supply for 228 persons per day (Fuso Nerini, et al., 2015, p. 209; Sphere Association, 2018, p. 106).

Lastly, solar thermal panels are used for the heating of water (Gunning, 2014, p. 15; p. 50; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514). Known cases are to be found in Palestine and Jordan, but also in Italy. Moreover, Gunning (2014, p. 50) mentions the use of solar thermal technologies to accelerate composting of the waste in latrines. In Italy, ten settlement camps were provided with a total of 152.5 m2_{solar thermal panels to} supply domestic hot water in the camps (Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3514). To enhance the warming process, the water flows through four thin stainless-steel tubes (Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3519). A plant of 11 panels covered 80 per cent of the domestic hot water demand and saved 0.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in the month July, the most productive month. The average of coverage per month is 42 per cent.

2.2.3. Upgraded cooking stoves

A wide range of upgraded cooking stoves are implemented and piloted in settlement camps all around the world (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 196; Gunning, 2014, p. 45; Imtiaz, 2018, p. 18; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 141; Munoz, 2016, p. 34; Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 22). The upgraded cooking stoves are used to reduce the use of firewood and black carbon and CO2 emissions. These results are mostly because the technology increases the thermal efficiency and/or cleaner, alternative fuels are used (Gunning, 2014, p. 45). Although the positive results are significant and considerable

(27)

27 amounts of energy can be saved, stove projects results are wide-ranging between a 30 to 70 per cent reduction of firewood collection and between 0.59 to 2.7 tonnes CO2 equivalent per stove per year (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 201; Gunning, 2014, p. 25; p. 27). Moreover, according to Barbieri, Riva and Colombo (2017, p. 201), the role of energy-efficient cooking stoves, although fundamental, should not be overrated. Partly, this is due to the possible increase in demand of cooking energy, when the upgraded cooking stove is combined with livelihood enhancement, because of the increase in the available income (Gunning, 2014, p. 24). Furthermore, in some cases, culturally inappropriate techniques were used, and thus, affected the acceptance of the stoves by the residents (Gunning, 2014, p. 25). Thus, the adaptability of techniques depends on the cooking practices of the residents (Gunning, 2014, p. 41). Other cases lacked a quality control system or training for appropriate use (Gunning, 2014, p. 25).

Several options and techniques are used in settlement camps to upgrade the cooking stoves. A distinction is made between improved cooking stoves, which are more fuel efficient, modern fuels cooking stoves, which use less-polluting fuels, and additional cooking stoves, which use no polluting fuels but are supplementary to other stoves (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, pp. 196-198).

Improved cooking stoves still run on firewood and/or charcoal, but with an improved efficiency. Well-known examples of improved cooking stoves are the micro-gasifier and the rocket stove, of which the latter is the most widespread (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 197). This stove can save from 30 to 60 per cent of fuel compared to a clay stove or a three-stone fire stove, respectively.

Modern fuels cooking stoves run on other fuels. For example, ethanol gel, dimethyl ether, electricity, vegetable oils, biogas, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 197; Gunning, 2014, p. 45). These fuels emit considerably less greenhouse gases than firewood and charcoal, and their thermal efficiency is rather high. LPG is the most used modern fuel in settlement camps (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo 2017, p. 197; Ossenbrink, Pizzorni and Plas, 2018, p. 2). Results of using LPG are substantial, as cooking with LPG saves 3.7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per stove per year compared to traditional cooking stoves (Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 26). Meaning that the distribution of 30,000 LPG stoves results in a reduced emission of 81,627 tonnes of CO2, and an additional 1,278 tonnes of methane (CH4) (Rivoal and Haselip, 2017, p. 30). Second after LPG stoves, ethanol stoves are often implemented in settlement camps (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 197; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 141).

(28)

28 For example, ethanol stoves were implemented in Shimelba camp in Ethiopia, which reduced the firewood collection with a percentage of 42 (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 201). Moreover, a 95 to 100 per cent reduction in the collection of firewood was seen in Kebribeyah camp in Ethiopia, which eventually resulted in the saving of 6600 tonnes of firewood per year and 6.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per stove per year.

Additional cooking stoves are used next to the use of another type of stove. Barbieri, Riva and Colombo (2017, pp. 198-199) elaborate on two types of additional cooking stoves. The first additional cooking stove is the hay box, in which partially cooked food can be continued to cook without additional fuels or heat (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 199). Using the hay box reduces the use of fuel by 40 per cent, but it is time inefficient and a bacteria risk. The second type of additional cooking stoves is the solar cooker, using solar power to heat food (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 198; Gunning, 2014, p. 47; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 141). Barbieri, Riva and Colombo (2017, pp. 198-199) describe three types of solar cookers: panel cookers, box cookers and parabolic cookers, of which the last one is more time efficient, but are still considerably less time efficient than traditional cooking stoves. Even though solar cookers are supplementary to fuelwood, new emerging innovations are increasing their potential. The provision of panel cookers in Ethiopia’s Aisha camp resulted in a 44 per cent firewood use reduction and the use of charcoal decreased with 78 per cent (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 199). Thus, the use of solar cookers does reduce the reliance on firewood but does not remove it completely. Moreover, the time inefficiency of the solar cooking stoves reduces the acceptance among the residents of settlement camps (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 204; Gunning, 2014, p. 47). Gunning (2014, p. 47) does highlight that an institutional solar cooker can be modular and relatively mobile. This, however, does require specific training for the maintenance and use of such cookers and space.

Lastly, centralised cooking is in the situations in which a cooking system is shared among a group of residents in the camp. Centralised cooking has a high efficiency, as it could save up to 80 per cent firewood, and their efficiency is 75 to 90 per cent higher than other stoves (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, 201; Gunning, 2014, p. 28). However, the implementation of centralised cooking is often unsuccessful due to the social effects (Gunning, 2014, p. 28).

(29)

29

2.2.4. Sustainable supply chains

Sustainable supply chains of settlement sites are essential to alleviate suffering, and are, thus, occurring increasingly (Kempen, et al., 2017, p. 1726; Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 8; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197). The transportation mode for the delivery of materials and products is one way to ‘green’ the supply chain (Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 198). Another way is to develop sustainable food chains, in which self-sufficiency and effectiveness are important (Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 16).

Kempen, et al. (2017, p. 1723; p. 1725) compared the environmental costs of locally sourcing (Kenya) versus the environmental costs of internationally sourcing (India) stainless-steel kitchen sets. The production of 1,000 sets in an international setting, emits a total of 3923 kilogrammes of CO2, and the transportation, by train, ship and truck, causes 140 kilogrammes of CO2 per 1,000 sets (Kempen, et al., 2017, p. 1723). The production of the locally sourced sets emits 363 kilogrammes of CO2 per 1,000 sets, and the transportation for 1,000 sets emits 162 kilogrammes of CO2 (Kempen, et al., 2017, p. 1725). Even though the transportation emissions are higher for the locally sourced sets, due to the factory having lower proximity to the steel supplier and higher scrap rates, the locally sourced sets are more environmentally friendly (Kempen, et al., 2017, p. 1726). This, however, shows the importance of researching the relief supply chain.

Not only the upstream supply chains are reviewed, but also the downstream supply chain is reviewed, which results in, for example, optimising the lifecycle of packaging (Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 8; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15). Regattieri, et al. (2018, p. 1; pp. 5-8) attend to the issue of packaging materials, specifically cardboard. The cardboard boxes could obtain other functions than their original function by adapting them to carton backpacks with a volume of 12 litres and a capacity up to 20 kilogrammes, carton cradles with a resistance up to 15 kilogrammes, or a carton stool with a resistance up to 80 kilogrammes (Regattieri, et al., 2018, pp. 5-7). Carton slippers are valuable in the camps, as many residents do not have any type of shoes (Regattieri, et al., 2018, p. 6). Creating new products from waste material beneftis the environment in two ways. On the one hand, it releases the pressure from the environment by avoiding it becoming waste. On the other hand, the creation of new products means that these products do not need to be purchased, which in itself is more sustainable.

(30)

30

2.2.5. Sustainable drainage systems

To ensure sustainable water use in settlement camps, wastewater collection, effective storm water management, and the reuse and treatment of wastewater should be incorporated in settlement camps by using sustainable drainage systems (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 150; Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke, 2016, p. 54; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 3). Several storm water, greywater, and blackwater techniques are analysed by Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke (2016, p. 55). Among the storm water management technologies are filter drains, tree pits and under-drained swales (Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke, 2016, p. 56). Furthermore, oil and grease traps and container-based technologies are examples of greywater management techniques (Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke, 2016, p. 57). Lastly, blackwater management technologies examined by Ajibade, Tota-Maharaj and Clarke (2016, pp. 57-58) are Urine Diversion Dry Toilets and constructed wetlands. The effectiveness of the different technologies is highly depended on the context (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 151). One of the main benefits associated with sustainable drainage systems are the flattening of the peaks during rainy seasons and dry seasons as the treated storm water can be used as an alternative water source (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 151; Farishta, 2014, p. 27). Additionally, the sustainable drainage systems are able to restore natural hydrologic processes (Ajibade and Tota-Maharaj, 2018, p. 151). The pollutants load in wastewater and storm water are reduced by the systems, and thus, the impacts on climate change decrease.

2.2.6. New organisational strategies

Currently, a number of environmental guidelines are in place, and EIAs have become a requirement (Price, 2017, p. 2; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 8; Tafere, 2018, p. 192). Nonetheless, the guidelines lack important subjects relating to the deterioration of the environment (Farishta, 2014, p. 25; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 3; Tafere, 2018, p. 197). Moreover, the quality of the conducted EIAs are largely unknown, and the priority lays with the crucial need to save lives (Price, 2017, p. 2; Tafere, 2018, p. 192; p. 194). Therefore, there is a growing consensus that a different approach to the organisation of settlement camps is necessary to reduce their environmental impact (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 202; Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 108; Gunning, 2014, p. 54; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 324; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3515; Munoz, 2016, p. 34; Lehne, et al., 2016, p. 142;

(31)

31 Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 198). The opinion on the degree of change in the organisational approach necessary, however, differs greatly.

The traditional top-down approach to the organisation of settlement camps receives criticism as camp designs consider the residents insufficiently (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 326). Instead, many support a bottom-up approach, using the ‘cycle of intervention’ (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 202; Beehner, 2015, p. 172; Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 327; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3515; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197). It is argued that the cycle of intervention ensures an efficient and safe layout of the camp by constant revaluation of the use of different aspects by residents (Farishta, 2014, p. 12; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3515). In other words, the cycle of intervention is the making of decisions based on evidence (Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15). Involving residents in the decision-making process, design, development and organisation of a settlement camp increase the long-term sustainability of decisions made (Barbieri, Riva and Colombo, 2017, p. 202; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 327; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 197). There are some examples of camps where there are possibilities for up decision-making. In Lagkadikia camp in Greece, for example, a bottom-up approach take place in the case of a few small decisions (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 333). Whereas in Kalobeyei camp in Kenya, the camp design is established based on a bottom-up approach (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 335).

Another proposed implementation is to involve market mechanisms inside the settlement camps (Beehner, 2015, p. 171; Gunning, 2014, p. 54; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 331; Munoz, 2016, p. 39; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15). Including a market mechanism could enhance the local economic development (Beehner, 2015, p. 171; Jahre, et al., p. 327). This can be done by inviting private-sector organisations into the camp, specifically concerning the energy supply within a camp (Gunning, 2014, p. 54; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 332; Munoz, 2016, p. 39). Moreover, sharing of resources, including market mechanisms, is essential to the sustainability of a settlement camp, according to Jahre, et al. (2018, p. 327). By sharing energy and water resources with the local communities, the resources can be delivered efficiently and sustainably. Another way to involve market mechanisms is by allowing development activities within the camp (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 331; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15). In Kalobeyei, 60 per cent of the total space was allocated for economic activities (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 331). Before deciding,

(32)

32 an EIA was conducted to ensure the suitability of the land for a settlement camp for agriculture. A regular income, which is enhanced by market mechanisms and economic development within resettlement camps, enables the sustainability of a camp, for example by making the implementation of sustainable energy provision more obtainable (Munoz, 2016, p. 36).

Furthermore, a (more) inter-sectional approach is considered to be necessary for the settlement camps to be less environmentally degrading (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 108; Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 236; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3523; Munoz, 2016, p. 34; Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 15; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 204; Tafere, 2018, p. 197). Resources, actors and activities can become interconnected by implementing an inter-sectional approach in settlement camps (Jahre, et al., 2018, p. 236; Micangeli, Michelangeli and Naso, 2013, p. 3523). For example, by combining the provision of improved cooking stoves with environmental education (Munoz, 2016, p. 34). For successful implementation of an inter-sectional approach, it should include improved coordination (Fuentes, et al., 2018, p. 108; Sarkis, Spens and Kovács, 2013, p. 204; Tafere, 2018, p. 197). Within the inter-sectional approach, Rivoal and Haselip (2017, p. 36) argue for a separate energy cluster to reduce the impact of the energy provision on the environment. Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen (2016, p. 15) propose the use of Metropolitan Solutions, which is defined by its inter-sectoral approach based on sustainable design principles, including nature-based solutions, ecosystem-services and circular economy. Metropolitan Solutions are designed for cities, to make cities liveable and healthy, climate resilient, resource efficient and food secure (Rooij, Wascher and Paulissen, 2016, p. 26). Applying Metropolitan Solutions to settlement camps would reduce their impact on the environment substantially.

In conclusion, many environmentally sustainable solutions have been invented and implemented in settlement camps. The solution of afforestation has proven to be an effective solution. However, it holds back the solutions that should prevent the deforestation. Among these solutions are solar power installation and upgraded cooking stoves. Many solar power installations have been installed, and even some innovative technologies have been developed for settlement camps. It has potential to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation substantially, but inadequate maintenance has a severe impact on the effectiveness of the solutions. There is a wide range of upgraded cooking stoves implemented in settlement camps, which have a potential to