Connecting Global Priorities Biodiversity and Human Health

Case study: Pressure on water resources: Syrian refugees in Jordan
ordan is one of the worlds most arid countries but, since 2011, potential threats to water and food
security have been exacerbated by the arrival of over 600 000 Syrian refugees. This population inux
has accelerated groundwater depletion and caused water tables to drop precipitously, increasing
salinization and rendering what little water remains less safe for human consumption.
ordanian households use an estimated 80 L of water per day on average, but communities in which
refugee camps have been established have seen the average supply drop below 30 L per day, with
accompanying declines in sanitation and a rise in disease incidence. As the quality and quantity of
limited water reserves continues to deteriorate, attention has turned towards demand and the poor
water conservation habits of Syrians, who are unaccustomed to living in a water-scarce environment
and are thus prone to wasting water.
Future eorts at water management must be implemented with long-term sustainability in mind in
order to preserve natural resources, support their restoration and maximize public health benets.
A holistic approach incorporating water demand management could also include the promotion of
simple and culturally appropriate conservation practices at the household level in order to reduce
water consumption and facilitate the possibility of groundwater replenishment.
Source: Mercy Corps 2014
(UfS 2013). The case studies below illustrate the
myriad impacts displaced populations can have on
biodiversity in their hosting areas.
While the examples given above illustrate
the detrimental effects that humanitarian
operations can have on biodiversity, ecosystem
functioning and sustainability, this need not
always be the case. It must be recognized that the
environments which displaced populations enter
are not necessarily pristine, but are usually already
undergoing various processes of degradation and
decline. It is not uncommon, though, for these
groups to be blamed for declining conditions
that predate their arrival, particularly where
environmental baseline data and monitoring are
unavailable (Oucho 2007).
The presence of Mozambican refugees in Malawi’s
Dedza and Ntcheu districts, for example, had little
discernable impact on soil fertility or the depletion
of many other natural resources (Barnett 2003).
Although most Mozambicans made use of tree
products – notably for fuelwood and construction
poles – little overall difference was noted in the
rates of forest coverage between refugee and
non-refugee affected areas. Refugees rarely felled
trees for fuelwood alone – collecting most of it
from the ground or as a byproduct of trees felled
for other purposes. The main environmental
change caused by refugees has been a decline in
woody biomass.
Localized instances of deforestation and
considerable variation in the extent of woody
biomass depletion throughout Dedza and Ntcheu
districts – even in areas subjected to similar human
pressures – demonstrate that the simple presence
of refugee communities does not necessarily
lead to biodiversity loss. This heterogeneity is an
outcome of interactions between various local
environmental and sociocultural factors, such
as the presence and enforcement of informal
regulations and established norms of resource
access (Barnett 2003). The ways in which refugee
livelihoods interact with the environment are
complex and diverse, with substantial differences
often discernable between, and within, specific
locations.
Refugees and IDPs can make a significant
contribution to conservation and rehabilitation
Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health
249