Settlement Policies for Syrian Refugees in Lebanon and Jordan: An Analysis of the Benefits and Drawbacks of Organized Camps

Abstract

Six years after the eruption of the Syrian conflict, Lebanon and Jordan adopted divergent policies in hosting over two million Syrian refugees. Whereas Jordan has allowed organized camps, Lebanon adopted a non-encampment policy, leading refugees to spread informally in almost 2000 locations, with only a few camps authorized. This study examines the reasons that led to the adoption of these policies in both countries and their effects on the refugee and host populations. It also analyzes the conditions of refugees in organized camps in both contexts through two comparative case studies: first, in Zaatari, a camp in Jordan with almost 80,000 refugees and, second, in the Union of Relief and Development Associations (URDA) camp in Lebanon, which hosts about 2000 refugees. Data was collected during fieldworks in Jordan in 2015 and in Lebanon in 2015, 2016, and 2017 through field observation and discussions with 41 actors, including camp managers and refugees. The results show that most refugees in Zaatari live in harsh conditions in a context of inequality and restricted freedom. Refugees in the URDA camp live in more favorable conditions and receive increased security, aid, and free services. Whereas previous assessments have established that urban refugees in Jordan enjoy better conditions than those in camps, and urban refugees in Lebanon often live in poor conditions, in constant fear, and in insecurity, empirical findings showed here challenge the paradigm that strongly criticizes encampment. They suggest that, in specific conditions, organized camps can represent a better solution than refugee settlements in urban areas.