Spatialization Within Humanitarian Praxis

The rationale for bringing people together within a defined area for their better protection is not difficult to grasp. Concentration of a vulnerable population enables the delivery of food, medical care, and basic services in situations where the essential materials for survival are otherwise hard to obtain.

Enclosure of a population in a clearly marked space can, however, create its own risks. Such containment may become a virtual prison or, at the least, a hindrance to livelihood strategies and the conduct of conventional social relations (Tefferi 2007). Disease can spread more easily in a congested space with limited infrastructure, and various risks associated with the enforced mingling of disparate groups can arise. In many humanitarian settings, encamped populations have been rendered a highly visible target for attack or exploitation (e.g., Lischer 2005). Flight, dispersal, and hiding may, in some situations, be a more effective means of self-protection. Over half the 14.4 million refugees “of concern” to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2014 were believed by that organization to live in urban areas: a fact that partially reflects the preference to avoid encampment (UNHCR 2015a). This preference has been evident, for example, in the recent mass exodus from Syria to neighboring Jordan where it is estimated that only around 20% of those crossing the border take up residence in the camps constructed to house them, despite the efforts of the authorities to contain the refugees (UNHCR 2015b). Globally, the numbers of self-settled displacees are no doubt considerably higher than the UNHCR figures when one takes into account internally displaced persons, Palestinians, and other refugees not addressed by UNHCR.

Given that the benefits of enclosing a population within a defined space are not automatic, and that dispersal has often proven advantageous, we should look beyond intrinsic factors to understand the growing employment of a spatialized approach to protection since the mid-twentieth century. Here the recent history of refugee encampment - the most obvious mode of spatialized humanitarian practice - is instructive. The evolving use of the displacement camp in the period since World War II has been driven by more than concern for refugees’ better protection, as Liisa Malkki has observed:

The segregation of nationalities; the orderly organization of repatriation or third-country resettlement; medical and hygienic programs and quarantining; “perpetual screening” and the accumulation of documentation on the inhabitants of the camps; the control of movement and black-marketing; law enforcement and public discipline; and schooling and rehabilita­tion were some of the operations that the spatial concentration and ordering of people enabled or facilitated. (Malkki 1995, p. 498)

As this range of functions indicates, encampment serves the needs of authorities as well as those of the displaced population themselves. Encampment also enables efforts to impart norms of behavior and disposition that are taken for granted as beneficial by (mostly Western-originating) organizations.

In the various functions that the camp enables, we see the relationship of organizations involved in establishing and managing such camps, such as UNHCR, to the agendas of host governments and donors. Common to these is concern to manage the movement of peoples who might otherwise make unwelcome claims on national resources or pose problems for social cohesion. Encampment also offers agencies charged with the welfare of displaced populations the opportunity to demonstrate their own efficacy, thereby strengthening their efforts to secure further funding. As Barbara Harrell-Bond has noted:

To attract money, refugees must be visible. It is difficult to count the numbers of self-settled refugees, and even if they could be identified, the policies of most refugee agencies are too inflexible to allow them to devise a programme which would assist a target population which is ‘mixed up’ with the local community. (1986, p. 8)

In short, encampment offers a number of advantages to humanitarian organiza­tions, the governments that host them, and the donors that provide their funding which extend far beyond the better protection and support of resident populations. The continued use of camps and other enclosed facilities cannot, therefore, be seen as an inevitable response to a protection crisis.

3