The nexus between refugee settlements and environmental degradation in the Somali Region, Ethiopia – ReliefWeb

Environmental Impact of Refugee Settlements and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

The establishment and long-term presence of refugee settlements in ecologically sensitive regions present significant challenges to environmental sustainability and humanitarian efforts. This report analyzes the spatial impacts of refugee camps in Ethiopia’s Somali region, an area hosting over 268,000 refugees. The study provides critical evidence for policymakers to inform sustainable planning that mitigates environmental damage and supports the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.0 Study Objectives and Methodology

The primary objectives of the research were as follows:

1. To map refugee camps and assess their spatial impacts on land use/land cover, soil erosion, and progress towards Land Degradation Neutrality (a key target of SDG 15).
2. To identify zones of influence around the camps and recommend interventions for sustainable planning and management.

The methodology involved:

• Analysis of satellite imagery, rainfall, topographic, and soil data from 1985 to 2024.
• Creation of buffer zones at 0–5 km, 5–10 km, and 10–15 km around the camps using ArcGIS.
• Assessment of land use change and soil erosion rates using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).
• Evaluation of land degradation neutrality utilizing SDG indicators.

3.0 Key Findings

The analysis revealed severe environmental degradation directly linked to the refugee settlements, with the most acute impacts observed in the immediate vicinity of the camps.

• Land Cover Loss: Within the 0–5 km buffer zones, forests, shrublands, and waterbodies experienced a decline of 90–100%. This land was primarily converted for settlements and agricultural use.
• Soil Erosion: Erosion rates increased dramatically, shifting from low levels (0–7 t ha⁻¹) to severe levels (45–60 t ha⁻¹). The camps of Sheder, Awbarre, and Bokolmayo were particularly affected.
• Land Degradation: Degraded land expanded across all analyzed zones, significantly diminishing the ecosystem’s capacity for recovery and undermining Land Degradation Neutrality targets.

4.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The findings demonstrate a direct conflict between current settlement practices and the achievement of several SDGs:

• SDG 15 (Life on Land): The extensive deforestation, soil erosion, and expansion of degraded land directly contravene Target 15.3, which aims to combat desertification and achieve a land degradation-neutral world.
• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): The near-total loss of waterbodies in close proximity to the camps severely threatens water security for both refugee and host communities.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The degradation of natural resources, including vegetation and water, undermines the agricultural and pastoral livelihoods that both populations depend on, jeopardizing food security and economic resilience.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Increased competition over scarce resources like water and firewood can exacerbate social tensions between refugee and host communities, undermining efforts to foster peaceful and inclusive societies.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The study underscores the unsustainable nature of current settlement planning, highlighting the need for integrated approaches that consider environmental limits.

5.0 Recommendations for SDG-Aligned Interventions

To mitigate further degradation and align humanitarian action with sustainability principles, the following integrated policy and planning actions are recommended:

1. Conduct mandatory pre-establishment environmental impact assessments for all new refugee camps, analyzing land degradation risk, water availability, and biodiversity within at least a 15 km radius.
2. Integrate sustainable resource management directly into camp design and long-term management strategies. Key components must include:
   • Soil and water conservation programs.
   • Active reforestation and ecosystem restoration initiatives.
   • Promotion of sustainable land use practices.
   • Provision of alternative and sustainable energy sources to reduce reliance on biomass.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world. The article directly addresses this by assessing “land degradation neutrality” and finding that “Degraded land expanded across all zones.”
  • Target 15.2: By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally. The study’s finding that “forests, shrublands… declined by 90–100%” in certain zones directly relates to this target. The recommendation for “reforestation” further reinforces this connection.
  • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands. The article’s focus on ecologically fragile landscapes and the decline of various land covers and waterbodies highlights the relevance of this target.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  • Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes. The article’s finding that “waterbodies declined by 90–100%” within the 0-5 km buffer zones directly relates to the degradation of water-related ecosystems. The recommendation to assess “water availability” also connects to this target.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. The article critiques current settlement practices as potentially “unsustainable without integrated environmental consideration” and calls for “sustainable planning of refugee settlements,” which aligns directly with this target.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article implies a connection to this target by noting that “Competition over scarce resources may exacerbate conflict and reduce resilience,” highlighting the potential for social tensions between refugee and host communities. Promoting “peaceful coexistence” is a stated goal of understanding these impacts.

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

  • Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. The article’s recommendation to integrate “alternative energy” into camp management connects to this target, suggesting that reliance on traditional fuel sources like wood contributes to deforestation and land degradation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 15.3.1: Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area. The article explicitly states it analyzed “land degradation neutrality (SDG indicators).” It measures this through land cover loss, soil erosion rates, and the expansion of degraded land, which are the core components of this indicator.
• Changes in Land Use/Cover: The article measures the decline of “forests, shrublands, and waterbodies” and their replacement by “settlements and farms.” This serves as a direct, quantifiable measure of environmental change and is a key input for Indicator 15.3.1.
• Soil Erosion Rate: The study quantifies soil erosion using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), showing a shift from “low (0–7 t ha⁻¹) to severe (45–60 t ha⁻¹).” This is a direct indicator of land degradation.
• Indicator 6.6.1: Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time. The finding that “waterbodies declined by 90–100%” in the immediate vicinity of the camps is a direct measurement relevant to this indicator.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: reliefweb.int