In 2024, the global refugee crisis has reached unprecedented levels, with over 120 million people forcibly displaced as a result of violence and conflict. Many of these people will spend extended periods in refugee camps, often in low and middle-income countries. These protracted refugee situations (those lasting five or more years) place increased stress on host communities, leading to tensions over natural resources – such as wood, water, and land – as well as social services and other resources.
Refugee camps, originally intended to be temporary, short-term solutions to emergencies, are often ill-equipped to manage long-term displacement, and place strain on communities and the surrounding environment. This has led to blame directed at refugees for environmental degradation, overuse of resources, and competition for livelihood opportunities.
While these tensions have traditionally been framed as inevitable consequences of resource scarcity, a growing body of research argues that environmental resources can serve as pathways to peace rather than conflict. This perspective, known as environmental peacebuilding, offers a promising approach to fostering cooperation and conflict resolution between refugees and host communities.
Environmental resources can be key to promoting cooperation between refugee and host communities, departing from the securitised treatment of natural resources and presenting them as shared assets between communities, from which both groups can manage and benefit.
The case of Ghana, a country that has hosted refugees across a number of decades, exemplifies the consequences of inaction. A deteriorated refugee-host relationship led to the closure of Ghana’s largest refugee camp, Buduburam, in 2010. Meanwhile, conflicts over forest resources in Krisan have led to a fractured refugee-host relationship intensified by the perception that refugees, who face limited livelihood opportunities, overexploit resources.
However, this narrative ignores the fact that many refugees are eager to contribute to their host communities in meaningful ways. For instance, agroforestry and reforestation programs in refugee camps have proven to be effective in not only addressing environmental degradation, but also in building bridges between refugees and host communities. In Northern Cameroon, a reforestation project initiative successfully brought both groups to work together restoring degraded forestland, creating a sense of shared responsibility and reducing tensions.
Environmental peacebuilding initiatives such as community resource management bring refugees and host communities together to collaboratively manage shared resources. This approach helps to break down barriers and foster trust as they work together towards a shared goal. These spaces build mutual understanding that contribute to environmental conservation and social cohesion.
For refugees themselves, opportunities for agricultural production increase the consumption of nutrient rich food, develop communities, and have profound psycho-social benefits. For example, in Iraqi Kurdistan, refugees participating in camp greening and community agriculture projects reported a range of benefits from increased energy to the simple satisfaction of seeing something green – a feature often lacking from refugee camp planning.
Environmental peacebuilding presents a viable and sustainable solution to the conflicts that arise in protracted refugee situations. By shifting the focus from competition over resources to cooperation in managing them, both refugees and host communities can benefit. As the number of displaced people continues to grow due to climate change and other factors, environmental peacebuilding should be seen as a critical tool in promoting peaceful coexistence.
In the face of rising global displacement, the traditional approaches to managing refugee situations are no longer sufficient. By embracing environmental peacebuilding, we can create spaces for cooperation, address the root causes of conflict, and build a more sustainable future for both refugees and host communities.
Tom Cavanagh
Tom Cavanagh is a PhD student at the University of New South Wales where he studies the changing political economy of forest governance in post-conflict countries such as Cambodia, Liberia and Colombia. Previously, he worked with international organisations on forest governance and value chain development with a specific focus on legal timber production and sustainable forest-based livelihoods. Tom is also the co-chair of the Forest Interest Group at the Environmental Peacebuilding Association. He holds a Master of Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Sydney and a Bachelor of International Studies from UNSW.
