Which of the following illustrates potential negative impacts of humanitarian action on a protected area near an IDP camp?

• A. Increased poaching
• B. Deforestation as a result of fuelwood and shelter collection
• C. Release of waste or chemical substances into wetlands
• D. All of the above

Answer: (D)

When humanitarian action happens near protected areas, the operation’s footprint can inadvertently affect the ecosystem. Increased poaching can occur because the camp and its logistics create access routes and demand for wildlife products, drawing hunters and traders and stressing species already under pressure. Deforestation arises as people rely on fuelwood for cooking and shelter, and as staff or suppliers harvest trees, leading to habitat loss, soil erosion, and degraded ecological functions. Pollution risks come from camp waste and chemicals entering nearby wetlands through wastewater, solid waste, or spills, harming water quality and aquatic life and disrupting ecosystem services. Taken together, these pathways show how aid activities can generate multiple negative impacts in a sensitive area, so all of the above is the best representation of potential harms. Mitigation hinges on careful siting away from core habitats, using alternative energy, robust waste management, and close coordination with protected-area authorities to minimize these risks.