Spatial Dynamics of Migration in the Horn of Africa by Mitchell Sipus, International Development and Humanitarian Aid Consultant

1. Spatial Dynamics of Migration in the Horn of Africa
Mitchell Sipus
October 14, 2008

2. Introduction
The literature concerning economic and forced migration within Sudan, Ethiopia, and
Libya takes on a different dynamic than the preceding studies of North Africa and the
Middle East. With a continual focus on refugee camps and informal refugee settlements
within urban and rural locations, the dialogue appears to be rooted within policy concerns
for humanitarianism, economic development, and conflict prevention. In this manner, the
representation of the refugee takes on greater significance, as the migrant is attributed
with qualities of militarization, insecurity, dependency, and helplessness. The national
policies established to confront the demands of the migratory population consequently
appear to be formulated to prevent assimilation and to stem future migration as clearly
portrayed by the creation of refugee camps.
Although there is a clear basis for the existence of refugee camps as a means to curb the
adverse impact of a large refugee population, the establishment of temporary camps
creates additional problems. As refugee populations are dependent on the natural
environment for livelihood support and survival, natural resources must be properly
managed from the outset. The locations of these camps further affect the security of the
population, as harsh environments and a close proximity to dangerous territory
compromise the ability of the encampment to protect the population. This process further
supports the militarization of the refugees, undermining the capability of international
agencies to assist the refugee population. Yet it is clear that as these camps become
further engrained within the socio-economic landscape of the host nation, they develop
the capability to enhance the local economy as well. Such complex circumstances raises
the question: as these camps change to accommodate larger populations, how does the
state balance the insecurity of such settlements while absorbing the migrant community
into its own greater society?
City-Camps
According to Karen Jacobsen, it is typical for protracted refugee settlements to become
village-like settlements over time. “There are brick or cement buildings and houses,
roads, schools, health clinics, that serve the entire host community, restaurants and coffee
1

3. shops. Thriving street markets offer a multitude of goods, including illicit ones, that were
unattainable in the region before (Jacobsen 2002, 585).” Furthermore, it is a frequent
occurrence for members of lower social classes within the host nation to migrate toward
refugee camps to take advantage of improved health care and education opportunities.
Yet the primary intention of the encampment is to provide protection for asylum seekers.
When Ethiopian and Eritrean refugees settled in Sudan, the government was not
comfortable with allowing free self-settlement, yet was certain the asylum should be
provided. Thus encampment was initially seen as a practical solution since repatriation
was not foreseeable. More importantly, it made sure that refugees were settled away
from the border, assisting in their ability to become more self-sufficient (Kibreab 1996,
140).”
However, refugee camps are distinguished from typical urban and village settlements, as
they are often “characterized by crime and insecurity (Jacobsen 2002, 585).” Refugee
camps are may also fail to provide adequate water, shelter, and sanitation services leading
to a rapid growth of communicable diseases. Although there may be a population
perception of refugees transporting these diseases from their origin country, these risks
are more related to the over crowding and poor provision of services within the camps
(Shears and Lusty 1987, 786). Cleary while refugees provide a greater convenience for
facilitating agencies for the distribution of materials, while insulating protectionist
policies for the host nation, the degree discomfort and insecurity within such camps could
be considered a strong “push” factor for refugees to seek other forms of settlement.
Refugee Camps and Security
Founded with the intention to provide human security to vulnerable populations, refugee
camps often fail to properly accommodate this demand, as camps are frequently known to
assist in the housing rebel groups, paramilitaries, and discontented or violent populations.
With the settlement entirely dependent on aid, such camps are considered a safe haven
for violent groups to obtain supplies, to blend in with the victimized population, or to
even provide an opportunity for training or recruitment. Consequently, refugee camps
are easily perceived as tools for warfare, not humanitarian safe havens (Agier 2002, 319).
2

4. Large refugee camps are known to become breeding ground for militant and criminal
organizations because they are harder to control. Camps located near the border may
facilitate attacks by refugee militias. At times, it has also been observed that large
numbers of you men or idle youth among the refugees will lead to greater violence.
Finally, poor living conditions frequently encourage feelings of frustration and
discontentment, leading to increased militancy throughout the refugee population
(Lischer 2005, 9).
As aid workers have a limited capability to increase the security of the encampment, it
becomes necessary to distribute assistance throughout the population, an action known to
exacerbate conflict. By feeding militants and protecting their dependents, aid agencies
are known to inadvertently support the war economy and even provide the mechanisms
necessary for combatants to gain legitimacy on the political front. The influx of aid and
the inadequacy of security may eventually lead to a high level of political cohesion
among refugees. As long as a low state capability remains, increased political cohesion
among the refugees and an influx of aid may direct the population toward militarization
(Lischer 2005, 7). Clearly, the continual threat of violence or militarization undermines
the ability for refugee peoples to advance their situation, as the instability of their security
also undermines development their economic, environmental, humanitarian, and political
conditions.
Stabilization of Camps via Asset Based Development
While refugees might impose a variety of security, economic and environmental burdens
on host countries, the also “embody a significant flow of resources in the form of
international humanitarian assistance, economic assets and human capital.” Refugee
camps function as humanitarian spaces wherein foreign investment, in the form of
supplies and food aid, vehicles, and communication equipment are distributed through
aid organizations. These organizations provide refugees with opportunities for
employment and transport contacts with relief agencies. In addition, the refugee
populations and provide a new source of “human capital in the form of labor, skills, and
entrepreneurship, and they are conduits for remittance flows (Jacobsen 2002, 578).”
3

5. While various complications always reduce the probability for governments to
accomplish any development interests, the influx of refugees may provide an additional
set of resources to further this objective. Although insecurity may be characteristic of
borderlands, or territories surround refugee camps, the establishment of long term refugee
camps provides tools to further the reach of the state government within these territories
(Jacobsen 2002, 578).” Extended investment within the region through improvements in
physical infrastructure, water, health clinics, and school construction can provide
incentives for social development within refugee and host communities. Various
countries such as Kenya have been known for their implementation of environmental
programs and the development of transportation infrastructure to have gone beyond the
mitigation of adverse settlement impacts, but have actually diversified markets and
expanded entrepreneurship (Jacobsen 2002, 581).”
Conclusion
Even in the event of repatriation, the expanded investment within refugee camps provides
an array of lasting benefits. As the rehabilitation of the environment and then
reclamation of previously settled space is frequently paid for by humanitarian agencies,
the cost-benefit ratio is obviously in favor of the host government. In addition, the local
community inherits physical infrastructure, buildings, and roads. Most importantly,
through the creation of physical investment in an often marginalized territory, the
develop initiative becomes a disincentive for the continuation of violence or
militarization. An equitably distributed and diversified structural development initiative
is likewise shared equally by all regional inhabitants; balancing the flow of economic and
socio-political empowerment within the state. By taking advantage of the inflow of
social capital and working alongside relief organizations to maximize the development
capacity of international aid, it is clear that while the creation of refugee camps fails to
accommodate the needs of refugees or the host nation, the extended investment into the
development of refugee camps can provide long term benefits to all.
4

6. Works Cited
Agier, Michel. 2002. Between war and city: Towards an urban anthropology of refugee
camps” Ethnography London, SAGE Publications.
Jacobson, Karen. 2002. “Can Refugees Benefit the State? Refugee Resources and
African Statebuilding,” The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 40, No 4,
pp 577-596
Kibreab, Gaim. 1996. “Eritrean and Ethiopian Urban Refugees in Khartoum: What the
Eye Refuses to See,” African Studies Reivew, Vol 39, No. 3. p 131-178
Shears P. and T. Lusty. 1987. “Communicable Disease Epidemiology Following
Migration: Studies from the African Famine,” International Migration Review, Vol. 21,
No. 3, Special Issue: Migration and Health. P 783-795
Lischer, Sarah Kenyon. 2005 Dangerous Sanctuaries: Refugee Camps, Civil War, and
the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid. Ithica and London, Cornell University Press.
5