Context
This document provides a detailed overview of recurring issues, lessons learned, and experiences of camp phase-out and closure from eight African countries focused specifically on environmentally responsible camp phase-out and closure planning, addressing environmental damage caused during the lifespan of a camp, and reducing environmental impacts of humanitarian responses. HLP rights are important to the environmental planning of camps because having a clear identification of ownership and responsibility is central to ensuring accountability and enforcement of environmental safeguarding.
The targeted audience for this document is any CCCM actors planning camp phase-outs and closure activities, as the lessons learned are generalizable to planning camp closures, clean-up, infrastructure handovers, and rehabilitation of hosting areas both in Africa and environmentally sensitive areas and in broader contexts.
Summary
UNHCR hosted a regional African workshop on Camp phase-out and closure to draw on the experiences of participants from Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and international agencies. These participants highlighted the following key recurring issues:
- Ownership of the camp closure process
- Lack of environment and camp closure prioritization
- Lack of Involvement of development agencies
- Local authority and community participation
- Environmental mainstreaming
- Lack of on-the-ground capacity
- Clear roles and responsibilities
- Capacity and resources
The main findings and recommendations from the workshop are organized around four key aspects of camp closure: 1) planning, 2) implementation, 3) environmental rehabilitation, and 4) monitoring and evaluation.
Phase 1 – Planning, provides a detailed overview of key issues related to camp closure, including when a camp closure should be developed, guidance on mainstreaming environmental concerns in camp management, and engaging government and private landlords in planning for camp closure, establishing the time of camp closure, and key lessons learned on planning for camp closure. Some of these lessons that could be integrated with HLP-responsive activities include: establishing agreements with landlords for the use of land for the establishment of camps at the outset and maintaining relationships, engaging government bodies from the onset of IDP crises, and sustaining relationships to help facilitate camp closure and rehabilitation. Camp closure planning workshops proved to be a useful forum for understanding stakeholder needs, and community leadership is essential for effective planning.
Phase 2 – Implementation, details guidance on implementing camp closure plans, including an outline of essential data required for effective camp closure, camp clean-up activities, guidance on handing over infrastructure, the role of environmental specialists, and demarcating burial sites. Key lessons on implementing camp closure that are relevant to addressing HLP and tenure security issues include: involving local government already in the planning phase helped facilitate handover, protected permanent structures from looting, and improved planning for future uses, planning camp consolidation at the beginning of peak repatriation season helped save financial and environmental resources and conflict resolution meetings were effective at increasing mutual understanding between IDPs and host communities.
Phase 3- Rehabilitation, is described as the phase of the camp closure process where efforts are made to either return the former camp area to its former environmental state or develop a plan to assist the land in being used for an alternative purpose. Interventions at this stage are longer-term and should be the stage where engagement with development agencies takes place. Topics covered in this phase include rehabilitation activities, the spatial extent of rehabilitation, and the role of community participation in rehabilitation. Key lessons learned from rehabilitation relevant to HLP include that addressing land tenure is critical in circumstances where displaced persons elect to remain, community environmental action plans can serve as a bridge between rehabilitation and long-term development (this could include an HLP component), and quick impact projects should be introduced at the same time or before development activities.
Phase 4- Monitoring and Evaluation focuses on the critical importance of learning from and within the community and provides a list of important factors for continued development efforts. The primary key lesson learned is that the full involvement of the community is required to develop local monitoring tools.
