Brookings: Experts - Elizabeth Ferris

Colombia: Displacement and Peace

Elizabeth Ferris — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:02:00 -0400

Things are changing in Colombia. There is a palpable excitement in the air as the peace talks between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) begin to yield results. Recently an agreement was reached on the first of five issues to be included in an eventual peace agreement and hopes are high that by the end of the year, the peace agreement will be signed, sealed and delivered. But what will this mean for the 4-5 million internally displaced persons in Colombia? Will displacement finally come to an end? Will solutions be found?

Colombia has the world’s largest population of internally displaced persons, representing over ten percent of the country’s population. The Brookings Project on Internal Displacement has followed developments in Colombia for almost 20 years and has been involved in various research initiatives. However, this is the first time that the Project has participated in a conference on solutions to Colombian displacement.

The May 28-29, 2013 Conference was an impressive undertaking – almost 500 participants came together in the most inclusive process I have ever witnessed to tackle the difficult issue of solutions for IDPs. Jointly organized by the Colombian government, UNHCR and UNDP, the conference brought together representatives of displaced communities, mayors, national government officials from many different agencies, UN agencies, international and national NGOs, civil society representatives, diplomats, journalists, academics and others. The first day of the conference focused on learning lessons from international experiences and I was pleased to have been asked to contribute together with colleagues from UNHCR, the World Bank and the London School of Economics. But the second day was more interesting for me – to hear from six communities about their experiences with solutions – two cases each of urban resettlement, returns and rural resettlement. They recounted the difficulties of starting over – of moving to other locations, of returning to areas not yet totally secure, of learning how to make a living in a new environment. But they also gave hopeful accounts – of seeing their children playing freely without encountering discrimination and being able to re-establish their cultures. In all six cases, the support of local authorities, the national government and the international community had been essential.

Discussing solutions for Colombian IDPs was an uplifting experience. The national government is committed to supporting solutions, there is an ambitious legal framework in place (Colombia’s Law on Victims and Land Restitution (Law 1448 of 2011) and its 1997 law on internal displacement (Law 387), the government is devoting significant resources to the process of finding solutions the international community is playing a supportive role – and peace talks are yielding fruit. All of these are reasons for optimism. However, there are still many obstacles to overcome before we can celebrate the end of displacement in Colombia.

For example, there is still a gap between policy developments at the national level and the reality on the ground. One of the speakers, Alejandra Gelvez of the National Planning Department, gave an overview of the process for ending displacement and victimhood. It was a sophisticated analysis based on 83 indicators, blending quantitative measures such as access to health care with important qualitative indicators such as respect, satisfaction and justice. I was impressed with the analysis, the careful attention to sequencing, the deliberate role of the state in supporting IDP communities. And yet, during the coffee break, I talked with a mayor who said that all of these "beautiful indicators" were only discussed in Bogotá and were far from the reality in his community. I also spoke with an IDP community leader who reported that her community is still experiencing violence: massacres are still occurring, landmines are still maiming and killing children, people are still being displaced. Several community and local leaders said that the state is barely present in their communities and that the police are still viewed with suspicion.

While everyone I talked with was optimistic about the peace talks with the FARC, they also stressed that this will probably not mean the end of violence in the country. Other armed groups, such as the National Liberation Army (ELN) are not part of the negotiations. BACRIM, (short for ‘bandes criminales’ – ‘criminal bands’) used to describe new armed groups (mostly former paramilitaries) continue to displace people. And of course, there is displacement from other causes: from crime and delinquency but also from economic interests such as mining. A peace agreement with FARC, if reached, will be an important step forward for the country, but securing the agreement won’t automatically mean that internal displacement will end.

As we have written before, IDPs have rarely been involved in peace negotiations and are not included in the present negotiations with FARC. And yet, perhaps more than any other group, IDPs have a vested interest in the negotiations. Their ability to find lasting solutions depends on the establishment of peace. And, as Volker Türk, Director of Protection at UNHCR, argued, the establishment of lasting peace depends on finding solutions for IDPs. A few years ago, we examined the way 17 peace agreements had dealt with internal displacement and pulled out a number of good practices, including: the importance of recognizing IDPs as a category of concern, providing a definition of who they are, affirming their rights in displacement, their rights to a solution, and their rights to choose between three solutions: return, integration in their area of displacement or resettlement elsewhere in the country; and the existence of a monitoring mechanism to ensure their safety and well-being. I hope that those involved in the Havana negotiations recognize the importance of addressing displacement if a final agreement emerges.

As we begin thinking about Colombia post-conflict, it will be more important than ever to prioritize solutions for IDPs as an affirmation of their rights and as a contribution to long-term peacebuilding. There was a clear consensus at last week’s durable solutions conference that it is time to work seriously on solutions for Colombia’s displaced. This is an opportune moment to do so – even though conflicts continue to displace people in the country and peace is far from assured. But the process will require political commitment, creativity and the continued engagement of international actors.

As the Project has written elsewhere the key to finding solutions for IDPs is the political commitment of the government. Without that commitment, other actors – whether IDP communities, local civil society groups, or international agencies – have little chance of success. In Colombia, the national government has made clear its commitment to resolving internal displacement. I saw the conference as an affirmation by the broader community to do everything possible to support these efforts, even while recognizing that it will be a long and complicated process. I hope that the continuing violence in many parts of the country – particularly the Pacific coast – comes to an end and that the optimistic signs in Colombia are an inspiration for renewed commitment by all parties to ending decades of displacement in Colombia.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

International Perspectives on Solutions to Internal Displacement

Elizabeth Ferris — Tue, 28 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Editor's Note: This speech was given at the Conference on Durable Solutions for the Displaced Population: International and National Experiences (Conferencia Soluciones Sostenibles para Población Desplazada), in Bogotá, Colombia May 28-29, 2013.

I am pleased and honored to participate in this conference on solutions to displacement in Colombia.[1] The Brookings Project on Internal Displacement has been working on issues of internal displacement for almost 20 years and is co-directed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, a position currently held by Dr. Chaloka Beyani, a professor of international law at the London School of Economics. Although Dr. Beyani has not yet visited Colombia, like his predecessors Francis Deng and Walter Kälin, he is following developments in Colombia quite closely.[2] He asked me to convey to you his strong support for this conference and his fervent hopes that the conference makes tangible progress in finding durable solutions for Colombia’s many IDPs.

I have been asked to speak on international experiences in finding solutions for displacement, but before embarking on that task, I want to underline the importance of this particular historic moment. Colombia has been a model for governments of many different countries because of its strong judicial tradition, comprehensive legislation, the very important decisions by the Constitutional Court and now the Ley de Victimas y Restitución or Law on Victims and Land Restitution (Law 1448 of June 2011).[3] We have often cited Colombia as an example when working with other governments who are in the process of developing legislation on internal displacement. We hope to be able to share the experiences of this conference with other governments, international actors and civil society organizations who are seeking solutions for internal displacement in their own contexts.

The main factor in finding support for durable solutions for IDPs is political will. While resources are usually never enough, the importance of political will cannot be underestimated. Colombia today stands out because of its commitment to finding solutions. There are particular difficulties in Colombia because the conflict is not over. Even as we are meeting to find solutions for IDPs, new displacements are occurring. But, we believe that Colombia can continue to be a model for the rest of the world in the way in which it is mobilizing support – both within the country and internationally – for durable solutions.

What are solutions? How do we know when displacement ends?

Displacement is a life-changing event. While the often traumatic experience of displacement cannot be undone, IDPs need to be able to resume a normal life by achieving a durable solution. There are three durable solutions to internal displacement: sustainable reintegration at the place of origin; sustainable local integration in areas of displacement; and sustainable integration in another part of the country.

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement stipulate, in Principle 6, that “displacement shall last no longer than required by the circumstances.”[4] Drawing on existing international law, the right of internally displaced persons to a durable solution is articulated in Principles 28–30, which spell out the responsibilities of national authorities, and the role of humanitarian and development actors to assist durable solutions. Principle 28 recognizes that the competent authorities have the primary duty and responsibility to establish conditions, as well as provide the means, that allow IDPs to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or places of habitual residence, or to resettle voluntarily in another part of the country. Leaving IDPs in continued marginalization without the prospect of a durable solution not only violates their rights, but may become an obstacle to long-term peace, stability, and development.

Building on the Guiding Principles, the IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons aims to provide guidance – primarily to international and non-governmental actors , but also to governments and IDPs themselves – for achieving durable solutions following internal displacement in the context of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights and natural or human-made disasters.[5]

The 2010 Framework on Durable Solutions was developed over a period of several years on the basis of many studies and consultations. A pilot version was issued in 2007 and then revised to reflect the results of field testing. The initiative for the framework came from the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, working in close cooperation with both humanitarian and development agencies. In developing this framework, the first question addressed whether durable solutions should be linked to the cause of the displacement or to the needs of IDPs. There is often an assumption, for example, that when a conflict ends and a peace agreement is signed that displacement automatically ends. And yet there are many, many cases where the initial cause of displacement no longer exists, and yet IDPs are not able to find durable solutions. The framework is, therefore, based on the needs of IDPs – rather than on resolution of the causes of displacement.

The framework asserts that ‘a durable solution is achieved when internally displaced persons no longer have any specific assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement and can enjoy their human rights without discrimination on account of their displacement. This means that finding solutions to displacement does not require that IDPs have a certain standard of living or access to services but that they do not face discrimination because of their displacement.

As outlined in the Framework, a number of criteria determine to what extent a durable solution has been achieved. IDPs who have achieved a durable solution will enjoy, without discrimination:

Long-term safety, security and freedom of movement;
An adequate standard of living, including at a minimum access to adequate food, water, housing, health care and basic education;
Access to employment and livelihoods;
Access to effective mechanisms that restore their housing, land and property or provide them with compensation.

Let me make four points with respect to these criteria (which are spelled out in much more detail in the Framework). First is the importance of long-term safety, security and freedom of movement. People have to be safe and to feel safe in order for a durable solution to be achieved. In order for a decision on solutions to be voluntary, IDPs need to have a genuine choice between alternatives. For example, in Iraq today, there are reports of internally displaced persons returning to their communities not because they think it is safe and the best possible solution, but because their resources are running out or they are being evicted from their temporary homes. In these circumstances, the decision to return is not a voluntary one. Without security in their place of origin, IDPs cannot return. Over and over again, in situations as diverse as Iraq, Sierra Leone and Nepal, the principal impediment to finding solutions for IDPs is security. There are many cases where the presence of armed groups can create a serious obstacle to return, particularly when the armed groups were responsible for the displacement. Walter Kälin, the former Representative of the UN Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, noted that in these cases, it is necessary to either disarm these groups, to integrate them into the post-conflict armed forces, or relocate them to other parts of the country to give returnees a sense of security. Where impunity prevails, whether because of lack of political will to hold those responsible for crimes accountable or because of understaffing of law enforcement personnel, durable solutions for displaced persons are not possible and such impunity may create new tensions, endangering a fragile peace as in Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This overarching need for security is of particular concern in Colombia, where conflict and violence continue in some parts of the country.

Secondly, according to the framework, the key criteria are access to employment and effective mechanisms for restitution or compensation for property. Typically issues around restitution and compensation take a long time; IDPs can be considered to have found a durable solution before they have had their land returned, but they must have access to mechanisms for this restitution. Similarly, IDPs do not have to have found jobs before they can be considered to have found a solution, but they do need to have access to employment and livelihoods and not face discrimination because they were displaced.

Thirdly, the framework asserts that achieving a durable solution is a process rather than a particular end-point. Both integration into host communities and reintegration into communities of origin take time. They don’t happen on a given day, but, rather, develop over time. While governments and international agencies sometimes want to be able to say ‘we can close this file, we don’t have IDPs any longer,’ in fact the process of attaining a durable solution takes time.

And fourthly, there have been very few efforts to systematically apply these criteria to particular situations to determine whether durable solutions have been achieved. Yet, perhaps it is not possible to come up with quantitative indicators which would apply to very different situations of displacement. Together with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, we organized a research/consultation process on solutions in six countries, with a particular focus on local integration: Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Serbia, South Sudan, and Uganda.[6] There were major differences between these cases. In Burundi, 90 percent of the IDPs (who had been displaced for 17 or so years) wanted to integrate locally but the major impediment was security of tenure. They were afraid to return to their homes because of fears of their neighbors but were afraid of being evicted from their homes in their new settlements. In contrast, over 90 percent of Ugandan IDPs who had been displaced for 5-10 years, wanted to return home. The strong ties to their land meant that it was almost inconceivable for most to envision another solution. In both Georgia and Serbia (displaced Kosovar Serbs), there was no possibility of return because of political reasons, but governments were reluctant to support local integration because it was seen as abandoning hope of reclaiming territory. The possibility of integration as an ‘interim solution’ was actively discussed.

Read the full speech >>

[1] Government of Colombia, UNHCR and UNDP, Conference on Durable Solutions for the Displaced Population: International and National Experiences [Conferencia Soluciones Sostenibles para Población Desplazada], Bogotá, Colombia, 28-29 May 2013, www.acnur.org/t3/noticias/noticia/soluciones-duraderas-para-la-poblacion-desplazada-en-colombia

[2] For reports and statements by Deng and Kalin on Colombia, see Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, “UN Mandate,” www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp/un-mandate

[3] The decisions and law are available at: Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, “IDP Laws and Policies Index: Colombia,” www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp/laws-and-policies/colombia

[4] UN Commission on Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, 1998, www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp/gp-page

[5] Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Inter-Agency Standing Committee Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons, April 2010, www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/04/durable-solutions

[6] Elizabeth Ferris, ed., Resolving Internal Displacement: Prospects for Local Integration (Washington, D.C.: Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, June 2011) www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0601_protracted_displace_local.aspx

Downloads

International Perspectives on Solutions

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Soe Zeya Tun / Reuters

A Global Overview of the Growing Internal Displacement Crisis

Fri, 24 May 2013 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 24, 2013
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

2012 saw the highest rates of internal displacement on record, with 28.8 million people around the world displaced within their own countries by armed conflict, human rights violations and violence. This is an increase of 2.4 million people over the number displaced in 2011. This rise was partially due to high-profile conflicts in countries such as Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo which had severe humanitarian consequences. People newly displaced in 2012 joined the millions who have been waiting for durable solutions to their situation for years, sometimes decades.

On May 24, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) presented the findings of IDMC’s Global Overview 2012, which surveys the internal displacement situation in different countries around the world and analyzes the main causes that lead to the continued displacement of millions of men, women and children. Panelists discussed directions for more effective responses to this growing, but unmet crisis and explore the role of governments, civil society and the international community at large in ensuring protection, assistance and ultimately solutions for those caught in displacement. Panelists included: Joel Charny, vice president for humanitarian policy and practice for InterAction; Nancy Lindborg, assistant administrator for the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID; Elizabeth Hopkins, deputy assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the U.S. Department of State; and Frank Smith, head of department, Middle East, Europe, Caucasus, and Asia, IDMC. Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion.

Audio

A Global Overview of the Growing Internal Displacement Crisis

Mitigating Natural Disasters, Promoting Development: The Sendai Dialogue and Disaster Risk Management in Asia

Fri, 10 May 2013 10:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 10, 2013
10:00 AM - 5:00 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

The Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011 (3/11) had both immediate and long-term consequences. Over 20,000 people lost their lives in the triple disaster, hundreds of thousands were displaced and the economic costs were the highest ever to result from a natural disaster. Since the disaster, however, both Japan and the international community have sought to learn from this tragedy by drawing lessons for preventing, responding to, and rebuilding after natural disasters. Specifically, the Government of Japan and the World Bank launched the Sendai Dialogue in October 2012 as a way to re-conceptualize the role of disaster risk management (DRM) in development strategies, emphasizing the importance of building resilience against natural disasters.

On May 10, the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies and the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement co-hosted a discussion featuring experts on natural disasters and disaster risk management from the United States and Asia. Panelists representing the private, public, and international sectors sought to refine some of the topics considered at the Sendai Dialogue. They identified the lessons learned from 3/11; how these lessons can be applied to overseas economic assistance programs, focusing on DRM; the specific challenges of disaster risk management among Asian countries; and how DRM can be integrated and mainstreamed into development assistance across different platforms.

Audio

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

Displacement and Migration Policies: Exploring the Interconnections

Tue, 07 May 2013 13:30:00 -0400

Event Information

May 7, 2013
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

People leave their communities and their countries for many reasons. Sometimes they are forced to flee because of conflict or disasters; in some cases they cross an international border and are recognized as refugees. More often, they remain within the borders of their country and are known as internally displaced persons (IDPs). At the same time, even larger numbers of people leave their communities in search of economic opportunities or to join family members. Their positive contribution to the economic, social and cultural development of both sending and destination countries is today widely acknowledged. The international system distinguishes between those who are displaced and those who migrate voluntarily and between those who move within or across national borders. But in practice, the lines aren’t so clearly drawn, posing challenges to governments and human rights advocates.

On May 7, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement analyzed the interconnections between displacement and migration with reflections of U.S. and Swiss policy by Anne Richard, assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the U.S. Department of State and Ambassador Claude Wild, head of Human Security Division at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Chaloka Beyani, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of IDPs and co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, offered comments based on his observations in the field. Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, moderated the discussion.

Transitions and Durable Solutions for Displaced Persons: 21 Reasons for Optimism

Elizabeth Ferris — Thu, 02 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Presentation at the Transitions and Solutions Roundtable, organized by UNHCR and UNDP, Amsterdam, April 18-19, 2013.[1]

For at least thirty years, there has been talk of the need to bridge the ‘relief-to-development gap’ or, as it has been more recently described, the ‘transition from humanitarian action to development.’ The need to overcome the institutional divisions in the way we work has been tackled through many programs, initiatives, statements of commitment, meetings and speeches.[2] It has spawned a whole litany of terms and acronyms, from the ‘integrated zonal development approach’ to ICARA I and II, Quick Impact Projects, the Brookings process, the 4Rs, early recovery, etc. While there have been good analyses of the obstacles to overcoming this division,[3] it is hard not to feel cynical about the possibility of ever overcoming the divide between humanitarian and development actors.

But I’m going to step out of my comfort zone this morning and suggest that there are, indeed, reasons for optimism. In particular, I have come up with 21 reasons[4] why this might be the best time in 30 years to achieve progress in building bridges between humanitarian and development actors to work on solutions for displaced populations. I don’t think that any one of these reasons would be sufficient to drive major progress in addressing the gap or transition this time around. But taken together, these reasons suggest that this is a good time to be working on this issue and give grounds for optimism.

Twenty-one reasons for optimism:

1) Donor governments are taking the issue more seriously. Donors have always been interested in the issue, but this commitment seems to be becoming stronger – perhaps as a result of increased pressure on aid budgets and the increasingly protracted nature of humanitarian emergencies. This donor commitment is important for several reasons. Donors drive the international humanitarian system; when donors are interested in a particular issue, things can happen. Not only do donor governments influence the actions of multilateral institutions, but they also have large bilateral aid programs that can bring about change on the ground. In fact, one of the differences between development and humanitarian work is that multilateral institutions are much less important in development than in humanitarian work and thus bilateral programs of donor governments can have a direct impact on the ground. If donors can manage to get their own humanitarian and development departments to work together in supporting solutions to displacement in the field, things can change. Of course, while some governments are moving in this direction, in at least some donor government agencies, the gap between relief and development is alive and well.)

Donors are under increasing pressure to demonstrate results and to justify the large sums they are spending on humanitarian emergencies. The emphasis on demonstrating value for money and programmatic impact is increasing in part because of the economic difficulties facing many traditional donors. Foreign aid budgets among the traditional donors are almost all under pressure. There are questions of how long major humanitarian programs can be sustained – particularly as in cases such as Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya where there are now third-generation refugees. If these humanitarian expenditures are to be reduced, either responsibility needs to be transferred to development actors or solutions need to be found.

It’s still too early to tell, but the entry of more non-traditional donors (e.g. BRICS, Gulf states, military forces) also may be a positive sign in overcoming this divide, as many do not seem to draw the same distinctions between humanitarian and development assistance.[5] If this is indeed the case, then there is a need not only to engage with non-traditional donors but also to refrain from suggesting that they follow models where the divisions between humanitarian and development are tightly drawn.

2) The concept of resilience may offer common ground for development and humanitarian actors to work together, particularly in building local capacity to withstand adversity.[6] The Inter-Agency Standing Committee – the primary coordination body for humanitarian work – recently discussed its perspective on a resilience-based approach to humanitarian assistance with references to such issues as local ownership and integration, which seem to offer a common language for discussion between development professionals and humanitarians.[7]

3) There seems to be growing attention today to natural disasters and climate change in the humanitarian community. Given global trends in which disasters linked to climate change are likely to increase, we can expect that humanitarian actors will be called to respond to increasingly deadly – and costly – disasters in the future. In this field, there are better (though still imperfect) links between disaster risk reduction (DRR), response and recovery. At least there is widespread recognition of the importance of investing in DRR and of the need for development plans to include measures to mitigate the risk of disasters. Perhaps it is time for humanitarian agencies working in conflict situations to reach a similar recognition that working in concert with development actors can reduce the risk of future conflicts, stabilize post-conflict situations and contribute to durable solutions for displaced populations.

4) While it is difficult to draw many long-term positive lessons from the response to Haiti’s earthquake, the experience of many humanitarians clearly underscores the difficulties of finding solutions for displaced which don’t take into account broader development goals. Humanitarian agencies recognized that their ability to develop good humanitarian programs depended on development approaches such as the rule of law, poverty eradication, gender equity and environmental issues. As those involved in the Haiti response have moved on to work on other operations, we can only hope that they carry this lesson with them.

5) Humanitarian actors working with internally displaced persons (IDPs) often find themselves working more closely with development actors than when they are developing programs for refugees. National governments have a fundamental responsibility for the protection and assistance of those displaced within their borders and there is no way of bypassing those authorities to reach IDPs. In fact, a recent meeting to take stock of response to internal displacement agreed that a fundamental paradigm shift is needed to see IDPs as a development – and not exclusively – as a humanitarian issue.[8]

6) Within the humanitarian community, there is increasing interest in the situation facing refugees and IDPs living in urban areas.[9] Planning humanitarian response to displaced people living outside of camp settings perhaps inevitably involves working with a wider range of actors (e.g. urban planners, local governments, development agencies, multilateral development banks, etc.) than in camp settings. For example, providing water and sanitation in a refugee/IDP camp is often a very different task than ensuring that IDPs/refugees dispersed in a large city have access to clean water and to sanitation facilities. Assisting those displaced in urban areas usually means working with municipal authorities and investing in infrastructure and social services which benefit communities as a whole.

7) There is a growing realization that most of the world’s displaced are living in protracted situations lasting five, ten or more years. Dealing with long-term displacement (e.g. Darfur, Colombia, Pakistan) is a development issue. It is increasingly widely recognized that national development plans should take IDPs into account and that finding solutions for both IDPs and refugees requires the engagement of development actors. There are a few examples of national development plans that already include provisions on support for refugees and IDPs, which provide an important example for other states to follow. Finding solutions to displacement often involves issues such as restoration of livelihoods, the resolution of housing, land and property issues and the promotion of tenure security – all areas where development actors have more expertise.

8) There seems to be more concern about the role of affected governments in humanitarian response. For example, the Swiss government, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and ICVA are pursuing a dialogue between humanitarian actors and governments of disaster-affected countries.[10] Similarly, the IASC Principals have agreed on the importance of ensuring more effective engagement with governments in the cluster system as part of the Transformative Agenda.[11] If, in fact, humanitarian actors do make engagement with governments a priority, this could lead to the discovery of more common ground with development agencies who have emphasized the importance of local ownership and governmental buy-in as a basis for all their work.[12]

9) There are some interesting examples of good practice from Southern NGOs (e.g. Sarvodya in Sri Lanka[13]) that are development organizations by nature but became involved in disaster response in their own countries. These NGOs bring in their development expertise and sustain their engagement after international humanitarian agencies leave or reduce their presence. The growing experience and capacity of these NGOs is a cause for optimism. Local Southern organizations may be better placed to overcome some of the divides that characterize large international bureaucracies.

10) Stocktaking exercises undertaken by the World Bank have demonstrated that international development organizations have done more work with displaced communities and to generate/promote durable solutions than is often recognized.[14] By highlighting these experiences, we can recognize that the development community is not starting from scratch and that there is a foundation on which to build further cooperative efforts.

11) While humanitarian agencies often distance their work from broader migration debates, the current ongoing global discussions on migration and development offer a recognition that population movements are related to development.[15] Can we learn from such discussions about the relationship between displacement and development?

12) I think that there are signs that the development and humanitarian communities are making tentative steps toward speaking one another’s ‘languages.’ For humanitarian agencies, concepts of protection and human rights have long been central to both programs and discourse, but this is not a language that necessarily resonates with our development counterparts. However, concepts such as rights-based approaches to development and the previously-mentioned concept of resilience may offer possibilities of finding common ground for discussions between humanitarian and development agencies. For example, the UN Secretary-General has long emphasized the centrality of human rights in the UN’s development work,[16] the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has organized meetings on the right to development[17] and the IASC is engaging in discussions about the relationship of humanitarian work and human rights. There also seem to be signs of increasing possibilities for experts in humanitarian/human rights to contribute to discussions by development agencies.[18]

Three Issues of Growing Humanitarian Interest

13) Over the past 15 years or so, issues of housing, land and property (HLP) have come to be recognized in the humanitarian community as a critical concern, particularly in finding solutions for displacement. This is an area where the development community has long-standing expertise and there should be synergies to ensure that the HLP ‘solutions’ promoted for refugees/IDPs/returnees fit into broader tenure reform processes and land issues. I find it encouraging that UN Habitat is playing a more active role with humanitarian agencies, particularly around urban and protracted displacement. [19] The question arises as to whether humanitarian agencies should be developing expertise in these areas – or whether there is an opportunity to use the expertise that development agencies have acquired over many years?

14) Also over the past decade, there is growing recognition by humanitarians that the issue of livelihoods is central to humanitarian action[20] and I sense a certain ‘humility’ among staff of humanitarian agencies about their lack of expertise in this area. Income-generating projects are not the same as sustainable livelihoods. Again, the question is whether humanitarian agencies should devote the resources to acquire the necessary expertise to support livelihoods well – or if they should see this as an opportunity to learn from their development counterparts?

15) A third issue, emerging in the last 15 years has been growing interest – and perhaps even progress – in integrating displacement into transitional justice frameworks and ensuring that the displaced have the opportunity to participate in these processes.[21] At their core, issues of accountability and transitional justice are issues of governance and rule of law that fall into the broader development portfolio.

Three Upcoming Opportunities

16) In the development community, the wide-ranging debate and intensive consultation process about post-2015 development goals is an opportune moment to raise the concerns of the millions of displaced persons around the world who are often sidelined in development processes. At a time when many groups are mobilizing to build support for inclusion of their issues in these future goals, it may well be a timely opportunity for those working with refugees and IDPs to raise their voices in the debate.

17) Similarly, the fact that the UN Development Program is presently working on a four-year strategic plan offers an opportunity for a major development actor to recognize the importance of working on displacement as a part of its future development agenda.

18) And in yet another upcoming global initiative – the fact that the UN Secretary-General has announced that a humanitarian summit will take place in 2015 under the leadership of the Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – offers an opportunity to place on the agenda of that summit the issue of working more closely and more intentionally with development agencies in resolving displacement situations.

19) Recent research, for example by researchers such as James Milner, shows the value of investing in training, education and peacebuilding efforts (i.e. development work) among the displaced while they are still uprooted.[22] These investments have been shown to pay off in the pursuit of durable solutions (for example, the skills displaced persons gain while uprooted can facilitate reintegration, community development and state-building). Remember that when refugees returned in Central America, South Africa and Namibia, the skills of the returnees contributed to their communities and, at least in some cases, provided political leadership to their countries. Are development actors missing opportunities to build future leadership and capacity by not investing in refugees and IDPs while they are uprooted?

20) I sense a greater emphasis in the humanitarian world on evidence-based approaches and a search for indicators to measure the impact of humanitarian interventions and the effectiveness of different kinds of aid. This approach to humanitarian work – difficult as it is for many humanitarians to accept – could well bring them closer to development actors in the way they operate and assess their work.

21) Finally, I think it is a sign of hope that the international community is willing to try again, after so many failures, to bridge the gap! After so many efforts, there is now the Transitional Solutions Initiative being piloted in Colombia and Eastern Sudan and the Secretary-General’s Policy Committee Decision on Durable Solutions, which is presently being implemented in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and the Ivory Coast.[23] And I suspect that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of good examples from around the world where development actors have engaged to support solutions for refugees and IDPs. We need to hold up these good examples and learn from them. Perhaps the main reason that we need to try again is that displaced people – whether IDPs or refugees – will benefit when we overcome our bureaucratic divisions to work together.

[1] With thanks to my colleague, Megan Bradley, for her comments.

[2] Jeff Crisp, Mind the gap! UNHCR, humanitarian assistance and the development process, UNHCR Working Paper No. 43, May 2001, www.unhcr.org/3b309dd07.html; Bryan Deschamp and Sebastian Lohse, Still minding the gap? A review of efforts to link relief and development in situations of human displacement, 2001-2012, PDES/2013/01, February 2013, www.unhcr.org/512cdef09.html

[3] Ibid.

[4] My original presentation at the Roundtable included 20 reasons for optimism, but as a result of the discussions there, I added another reason and moved a few others around.

[5] Romilly Greenhill, Annalisa Prizzon and Andrew Rogerson, The age of choice: developing countries in the new aid landscape, Overseas Development Institute, January 2013, www.odi.org.uk/publications/7163-age-choice-developing-countries-new-aid-landscape

[6] See for example, DfID, Defining Disaster Resilience: What does it mean for DFID, 23 November 2011, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67451/Defining-Disaster-Resilience-summary.pdf; DfID, Saving lives, preventing suffering and building resilience, Policy paper, September 2011, www.gov.uk/government/publications/saving-lives-preventing-suffering-and-building-resilience; USAID, USAID Resilience Agenda: helping vulnerable communities emerge from cycles of crisis onto a pathway toward development, 2012, http://transition.usaid.gov/resilience/ResilienceAgenda2Pager.pdf; USAID, Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis: USAID Policy and Program Guidance, December 2012, http://transition.usaid.gov/resilience/ResiliencePolicyGuidanceBriefer.pdf

[7] IASC, “IASC Special Event: ‘Resilience: What does it mean in practice?’ - A Panel Discussion,” Feb. 2013, www.humanitarianinfo.org/IASC/pageloader.aspx?page=content-news-newsdetails&newsid=158

[8] Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, Taking Stock of Internal Displacement: Twenty Years On Report of consultation held at Château de Penthes, Geneva, 28-29 November 2012, November 2012,

[9] See for example: Crisp et al., “Displacement in urban areas: new challenges, new partnerships,” Disasters, vol. 36 Suppl 1, July 2012, pp. S23-S42; Jeff Crisp and Hilde Refstie, The Urbanisation of Displaced People, CIVIS, No. 5 — May 2011, www.urban-response.org/resource/6910; Eveliina Lyytinen, “A tale of three cities: internal displacement, urbanization and humanitarian action in Abidjan, Khartoum and Mogadishu,” New Issues in Refugee Research, UNHCR, 2009; Nassim Majidi, “Urban Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons in Afghanistan,” www.refugeecooperation.org/publications/Afghanistan/01_majidi.php; UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons, Chaloka Beyani, 26 December 2011, A/HRC/19/54; UNHCR Policy on Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas, 2009, www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=4ab8e7f72

[10] See IFRC, “International Dialogue on Strengthening Partnership in Disaster Response: Bridging national and international support,” www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/idrl/meetings-and-events/past-events/international-dialogue-on-strengthening-partnership-in-disaster-response/

[11] IASC, IASC Transformative Agenda 2012, www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/downloaddoc.aspx?docId=5970

[12] OECD, Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf

[13] http://www.sarvodaya.org/

[14] See World Bank, Forced Displacement: Overview of the World Bank’s Portfolio, Social Development Notes, no. 122, 2009.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1164107274725/3182370-1164201144397/Forced_Displacement_Overview_12-15-09.pdf

[15] See for example, relevant resources available at OHCHR’s website on the forthcoming October 2013 High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development:

www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Migration/SRMigrants/Pages/HighLevelDialogueonMigrationandDevelopment.aspx

[16] http://www.unssc.org/home/learning-product/human-rights-based-development

[17] http://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/Development/Pages/12thSession.aspx

[18] See for example, Walter Kälin and Nina Schrepfer, Internal Displacement and the Kampala Convention: An Opportunity for Development Actors, Geneva: IDMC, 2012 http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/%28httpInfoFiles%29/9FB27EB6E2D7E0ADC1257AF7003685A8/$file/WB-analytical-study-nov-2012-web.pdf

[19] See for example, the work of UN-HABITAT, www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=9

[20] See for example, Karen Jacobsen, The Economic Life of Refugees, Kumarian Press, 2005.

[21] Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and the International Center for Transitional Justice, Transitional Justice and Displacement, June 2012 (www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp/transitional-justice/tj-report).; see also, Roger Duthie, ed., Transitional Justice and Displacement (New York: Social Science Research Council, 2012), www.brookings.edu/about/projects/idp/transitional-justice/tj-book.

[22] James Milner, “Refugees and the peacebuilding process,” UNHCR Research Paper No. 224, November 2011

[23] Jeff Crisp, Mind the gap! UNHCR, humanitarian assistance and the development process, May 2001; UNHCR, Concept Note - Transitional Solutions Initiative UNDP and UNHCR in collaboration with the World Bank, October 2010, www.unhcr.org/4e27e2f06.html; UN Secretary-General, Policy Committee Decision on Durable Solutions, 4 October 2011, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1265299949041/6766328-1265299960363/SG-Decision-Memo-Durable-Solutions.pdf

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Reuters Staff / Reuters

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 01 May 2013 16:19:00 -0400

Natural disasters can be deadly and devastating but their frequency, intensity and unpredictability teach us valuable lessons. A look back at 2012 shows that, all around the world, it was a year of “recurring disasters.” From the drought in Africa’s Sahel to Pakistan’s third consecutive year of widespread flooding to Hurricane Sandy, Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, examines the consequences and lessons of last year’s disasters.

Video

Measuring Disasters' Full Impact

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Syria's Humanitarian Crisis Has No End in Sight

Elizabeth Ferris, Megan Bradley and Shelly Pitterman — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Political leaders seem to be unable to bring the violence and carnage in Syria to an end. As a result, the quality of life for those who struggle to survive in the midst of this war continues to deteriorate. With more than five million displaced persons and seventy thousand casualties, the situation is devastating. Co-Director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, Elizabeth Ferris examines the growing crisis with Shelly Pitterman, the Regional Representative for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Fellow Megan Bradley.

Video

Syria's Humanitarian Crisis Has No End in Sight

Authors

Trends in Natural Disaster Response and the Role of Regional Organizations

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:00 -0400

Event Information

April 22, 2013
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Global demographic trends suggest that more people are living in areas vulnerable to sudden-onset natural disasters even as scientists predict that the frequency and intensity of these disasters are likely to increase as a result of the effects of climate change. These trends, coupled with recent high-profile mega-disasters like Hurricane Sandy and the drought in the Sahel, are raising global awareness of the need to build the capacity of national governments, civil society organizations and international actors to prevent, respond to and recover from natural disasters. The Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement’s third annual Review of Natural Disasters outlines these major disasters in 2012 and key response opportunities, in particular the role of regional organizations. Although regional mechanisms are playing increasingly important roles in disasters, there has been remarkably little research on their role in disaster risk management.

On April 22, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement hosted the launch of its new report, “In the Neighborhood: The Growing Role of Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Management” and its Annual Review of Natural Disasters for 2012 “The Year of Recurring Disasters.” Senior Fellow Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement introduced the Annual Review of 2012 and moderated a discussion about the role of regional organizations in disaster risk management. She was joined by Rosa Malango from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Ian O’Donnell from the Global Disaster Preparedness Center of the American Red Cross, and Cletus Springer, director of the department of sustainable development at the Organization for American States.

Audio

Trends in Natural Disaster Response and the Role of Regional Organizations

Transcript

Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

20130422_natural_disaster_trends_transcript

In Disaster Risk Management, A Gender-Sensitive Approach is Smart

Elizabeth Ferris — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

A gender-sensitive approach to disaster risk management is smart, because women not only are among those most affected by disasters, but they also play significant roles in disaster response and risk reduction. At our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll share these and other findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Why do we need to consider gender in disaster risk management? Women and girls are typically at greater risk from natural disasters than men—particularly in low-income countries and among the poor—and as a result, a natural disaster can exacerbate existing inequalities and can lead to new forms of discrimination.

At the same time, women play significant roles in all stages of disaster and climate risk management, often at the frontline as responders and by bringing valuable resources to disaster and climate risk reduction and recovery. Also, their critical role in the social and economic well-being of their communities makes it crucial for them to be active participants in disaster risk reduction, response and recovery efforts.

Yet, in practice, disaster risk management policies and processes throughout the world largely exclude the important work already being done by women.

Disaster risk reduction that delivers gender equality is a cost-effective win-win option for reducing vulnerability and sustaining the livelihoods of whole communities.

—Margareta Wahlström, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction

The effective and meaningful participation of women in policymaking, programming and implementation is crucial to increasing success in all phases of disaster risk management. This participation, combined with timely and adequate attention to the gender aspects of disasters and climate change, can in turn lead to greater gender equality and strengthen the resilience of entire communities.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Image Source: © Hyungwon Kang / Reuters

The Hazard of Wildfires

Elizabeth Ferris — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Wildfires have been widespread in recent years, and are becoming a greater hazard, due to climate change and urban sprawl. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

Wildfires—defined by the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) as "uncontrolled burning fires, usually in wild lands, which can cause damage to forestry, agriculture, infrastructure and buildings"—have been a widespread phenomenon in recent years. The map below shows the number of observed fire occurrence readings from combined remote sensing products from 1996 to 2007¹.

¹ Data from MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) and ATSR (Along Track Scanning Radiometer). From Max A. Moritz, M.A. Parisian, E. Batillori, M.A. Krawchuk, J. Van Dorn, D.J. Ganz and K. Hayhoe, Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity, Ecosphere, June 2012, Volume 3, no. 6, Art. 49, p. 11., www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/ES11-00345.1

While these fires have not resulted in a large number of fatalities, their economic impact has been significant:

In the future, wildfires will be of even greater concern, due to the growth of urban sprawl and the effects of climate change. As more people begin to live in residential areas that border undeveloped wildland vegetation, the risk of destroyed homes and fatalities from wildfires increases. And a hotter and drier climate in many parts of the world, fuelled by global warming, provides more favorable conditions for wildfires—which, in turn, leads to loss of forest and forest degradation that drives further climate change.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

How Effective Are Regional Organizations in Disaster Risk Reduction and Management?

Elizabeth Ferris — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in disaster risk reduction and management, but how effective are they? Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

While regional organizations are playing an increasingly important role in disasters, there has been remarkably little research on their role in disaster risk management. In an effort to address this gap, Daniel Petz and I examined thirteen regional organizations, to see how they stack up against one another according to 17 indicators of effectiveness.

Here are our results (a glossary of acronyms appears at the end of this blog post):

As you can see above, the landscape of regional organizations is complex and diverse.

In most regions, governments and other actors see value in working together to prevent disasters and—to a lesser extent—to respond to disasters occurring in their respective regions. At the same time, regional organizations have worked out different mechanisms for encouraging collaboration, including frameworks for disaster risk reduction, regional military protocols, joint training exercises and regional insurance schemes. Also, technical cooperation mechanisms—such as early warning systems—have been established, but few regional bodies provide ways of channeling financial assistance after a disaster.

*Here are the acronyms for key terms we used above:

DRM = disaster risk management
DRR = disaster risk reduction
DM = disaster management

CCA = climate change adaptation
IDRL = international disaster response laws, rules and principles

and for the regional organizations we studied:

ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AU = African Union
CAN = Andean Community of Nations
CARICOM = Caribbean Community
CoE = Council of Europe
ECOWAS = Economic Community of West African States
EU = European Union
LAS = League of Arab States
OAS = Organization of American States
SAARC = South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SADC = Southern African Development Community
SICA = Central American Integration System
SPC = Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Hurricanes, Typhoons and Floods: Recurring Disasters in 2012

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

Hurricanes Sandy and Irene, typhoons in the Philippines, and floods in Pakistan are striking recent examples of recurring natural disasters. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll continue to share with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

After reviewing natural disasters in 2012, I was struck by the fact the several of the largest disasters of that year were preceded by similar events in 2011. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy followed on the heels of Irene on the U.S. East Coast; another destructive typhoon wreaked havoc in the southern Philippines, and Pakistan was hit by floods for a third consecutive year.

These recurring disasters were significant in terms of lives lost and numbers of people displaced...

... in terms of economic cost...

... and due to the sheer numbers of people who were impacted.

Recurring disasters undermine the resilience of affected individuals and communities, and call for long-term solutions that address livelihood issues and the welfare of those displaced. In addition, these disasters highlight the need for increased commitment to, and investment in, disaster risk reduction.

Implementing sound disaster (and displacement) policies can go a long way in mitigating the effects of recurring disasters, and in fostering the development of more resilient societies.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

The Impacts of Natural Disasters in 2012: A Look at Fatalities and Affected Population

Elizabeth Ferris — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400

In this post, I examine the impact of natural disasters in 2012 in terms of fatalities and affected population. Leading up to our event on April 22 (Earth Day), I'll be sharing with you some additional interesting findings from my annual disasters review with Daniel Petz and Chareen Stark.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Disasters2012.

While by most accounts, 2012 was an "average" year for natural disasters, millions were still affected worldwide.

2012 did not experience any mega-disasters, and death rates in 2012 were down to about a tenth of the decade's yearly average. According to the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines had the most fatalities—with 1,901—followed by a cold wave in Europe early this year:

In addition to fatalities, according to the EM-DAT data, some 106 million people were affected by disasters in 2012—many of whom were internally displaced—down considerably from the 209 million that were affected in 2011:

These numbers notwithstanding, 2012 is notable in that several of the biggest disasters last year were preceded by similar events in 2011. Examples include Hurricane Sandy in the wake of Hurricane Irene in the U.S., Typhoon Bopha on the heels Tropical Storm Washi in the Philippines, and floods for the third straight year in Pakistan.

As we will see in tomorrow's blog post, these "recurring disasters" can have a devastating impact on a community's resilience and raise important questions for policymakers.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Recurring Disasters: Are We Learning Lessons?

Elizabeth Ferris — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:00:00 -0400

For the past three years, we’ve compiled an annual review of natural disasters, highlighting not only overall trends for the year but drawing out lessons to prepare for future disasters. Given the fact that the frequency, intensity and unpredictability of natural disasters is expected to increase as a result of climate change, it is more important than ever that we learn from the past.

In looking back at 2012, we were struck by the ‘recurring disasters’ which occurred in different parts of the world. Hurricane Irene hit the northeastern United States in 2011 and then a little over a year later, Hurricane Sandy hit the same area. Typhoon Washi/Sendong in the Philippines was followed a year later by the deadly Typhoon Bopha/Pablo. And Pakistan experienced its third straight year of widespread flooding. When recurring disasters strike the same communities – communities which haven’t yet recovered from the previous disaster – the results can be devastating. The resilience of affected individuals and communities is undermined. Particularly when the communities are poor and marginalized (who tend to be more affected by disasters in any case), it can be hard to muster the energy and the resources to start over again. The devastation caused by recurring disasters in 2012 highlights the need for increased commitment and investment in disaster risk reduction. But we also know that it’s always easier to mobilize support for responding to a disaster than for taking measures to reduce the risk of future ones.

Statistically, 2012 was an ‘average’ year for disasters without the mega-disasters we saw in 2010 (Haiti) or 2011 (Japan). The deadliest disaster of 2012 was Typhoon Bopha/Pablo in the Philippines; the most expensive disaster was Hurricane Sandy in the US and Caribbean; and the disaster which affected the most people was the drought/food crisis in the Sahel region.

In this year’s review, we also looked at the role of regional organizations in disaster risk management – which is part of a larger research project we’re undertaking. Regional organizations seem to be playing an increasingly important role in the complex world of disaster risk management but have received very little attention. Regional organizations, we found, come in many sizes and shapes and they are involved in different kinds of work with disasters. For example, we found that all regions have developed framework agreements on disaster risk reduction or response. In most regions technical cooperation mechanisms – such as early warning systems – have been established. But few regional bodies provide the means for channeling financial assistance after a disaster.

We also looked at one particular type of disaster – wildfires. As evident in Australia, Russia and the United States, wildfires can destroy large swathes of forest. And yet, wildfires are not very significant in the overall scheme of disasters (with only 156 wildfire disasters reported over the past decade resulting in only 0.07 percent of global disaster fatalities.) But the combination of urban sprawl and a hotter and drier climate because of climate change in many parts of the world make it likely that we’ll see more wildfires in the future.

Finally, we looked at the gender dimensions of natural disasters. Natural disasters and climate change often exacerbate existing inequalities and discriminations, including those that are gender-based and can lead to new forms of discrimination. But women are not just victims; they play significant roles in disaster risk management. They are often at the frontline when disasters occur and they bring valuable resources to risk reduction and recovery efforts. When they are able to participate in the decisions that affect their lives, their families, and their communities, women have much to offer.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Remembering Iraq's Displaced

Elizabeth Ferris — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Looking at the past 10 years of Iraq's history through the lens of displacement reveals a complex -- and sobering -- reality. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, humanitarian agencies prepared for a massive outpouring of Iraqi refugees. But this didn't happen. Instead a much more dynamic and complex form of displacement occurred. First, some 500,000 Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) who had been displaced by the Saddam Hussein regime returned to their places of origin. Then, in the 2003 to 2006 period, more than a million Iraqis were displaced as sectarian militias battled for control of specific neighborhoods. In February 2006, the bombing of the Al-Askaria Mosque and its violent aftermath ratcheted the numbers of IDPs up to a staggering 2.7 million. In a period of about a year, five percent of Iraq's total population fled their homes and settled elsewhere in Iraq while an additional 2 million or so fled the country entirely. It is important to underscore that this displacement was not just a by-product of the conflict, but rather the result of deliberate policies of sectarian cleansing by armed militias.

The internally displaced were the most vulnerable -- and perhaps the clearest sign of the success of sectarian cleansing as entire neighborhoods were transformed. Sunnis and Shiites alike moved from mixed communities to ones where their sect was the majority. And while the displacement of Sunnis and Shiites was massive, proportionately the displacement of religious minorities was even more sweeping in effect.

Those who couldn't find shelter with families or friends, or without the resources to rent lodging, occupied public buildings and built informal settlements (slums) on the outskirts of Baghdad and throughout the country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi IDPs lived -- and continue to live -- in these informal settlements where living conditions are harsh and the threat of eviction is constant. This large-scale internal displacement also increased the pressure on the Iraqi government to provide basic services such as health, education, sanitation, electricity, food, and shelter.

As of September 2012, Iraq's Ministry of Displacement and Migration (MoDM) reported that there were still over 1.3 million IDPs. (However, if the earlier figures of 2.7 million were correct, one wonders what has happened to the other 1.4 million. Have they all truly integrated into their new communities or moved elsewhere in the country, or simply slipped further under the radar screen?) One of the few international agencies still monitoring displacement in Iraq, the International Organization for Migration, reports that few of today's IDPs expect to ever return to their homes. In fact, the percentage of those expressing a wish to return to their homes has dropped from 45 percent in 2006 to six percent in 2012, mostly because of the lack of security. And the sectarian dimension remains alive and well. Provincial political leaders view potential returns of IDPs through a sectarian lens, seeing returns of particular groups in terms of their impact on the communitarian makeup of their province and the balance of power between different communities.

For those who do want to return to their homes, the complex and extremely bureaucratic question of getting their property back is complicated and will, in the best of cases, take years. The Iraqi MoDM wants to "close the displacement file" by finding solutions for those displaced and has offered cash enticements to encourage people to return to their communities. But finding durable solutions for IDPs isn't so easy in Iraq, particularly given the difficult economic conditions. As the former Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of IDPs, Walter Kaelin, said two years ago, resolving displacement in Iraq is a political imperative, a development challenge, and a vital issue for reconciliation and peacebuilding.

While IDPs face difficult and uncertain living conditions inside Iraq, Iraqi refugees seeking safety in neighboring countries have faced their own vulnerabilities. With the exception of Palestinian Iraqis, the Iraqis who fled to neighboring countries have not lived in camps, but are dispersed within communities. This has made it difficult to accurately estimate their numbers, assess their needs, and deliver assistance. The Syrian government estimated that a million Iraqis had crossed into its territory and Jordan reported that it was hosting half a million Iraqis. However, the number registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and receiving assistance was far lower. Host governments have been generous in allowing the Iraqis to enter their countries but those policies have been ambiguous and the Iraqis have never had formal refugee status. (None of the governments hosting large numbers of Iraqis is a signatory to the 1951 U.N. Convention on Refugees.) Some of the Iraqis are legal residents. In some countries, they are registered but not allowed to work. Many Iraqis have gone back and forth to Iraq in circular migration patterns -- for example, to check on property or collect pensions.

The latest figures, based on government estimates, are that there are 1,428,308 refugees of Iraqi origin in Jordan and Syria of whom only 135,000 receive assistance from the UNHCR. Since the numbers peaked in 2009, some Iraqis have returned to Iraq. According to the UNHCR, an estimated 550,000 Iraqis returned to the country between 2008 and 2011, but most weren't able to return to their homes and instead joined the rank of IDPs. And some Iraqis have been resettled outside the region: more than 85,000 Iraqi refugees over the past decade -- 72 percent of whom have gone to the United States. Surprisingly, more than 3,000 Iraqis were resettled out of Syria last year -- a testament to the courageous UNHCR staff in Damascus and to the desperation of Iraqis wanting to escape the conflict in Syria. Refugee resettlement has worked, but it has been a lengthy and bureaucratic process; in some cases the enhanced security procedures have led to delays stretching for years.

Today Iraqi refugees throughout the region face dwindling donor support, particularly as the needs of Syrian refugees increase. For the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who remain in Syria, the situation is particularly dire. Some have been displaced within Syria. Some Iraqis have moved to other countries in the region (though they have faced an uncertain welcome by governments facing new inflows of Syrians.) Many -- perhaps 100,000 -- Iraqis have chosen to return to Iraq in the past year (though given the violence in Syria, it is hard to see this as a voluntary decision). Those that have returned to Iraq have either congregated in a hastily-constructed camp along the Iraq-Syrian border (which has often been closed) or have simply become IDPs.

Most of those who fled from their homes in Iraq -- whether because of the atrocities of the Hussein regime or the violence of sectarian conflict -- left their homes quickly. The journeys to other Iraqi towns or across borders to neighboring countries took hours or days, or in some cases, a few weeks. Many expected that the displacement was temporary and when things settled down, they would return. It's now been 10 years -- six years since the mass displacement triggered by the February 2006 bombing -- and solutions, safe and lasting solutions, appear as distant as ever. And there is little international pressure or attention on the Iraqi refugees and IDPs anymore. Perhaps 3 million people -- 10 percent of Iraq's population -- remain displaced. And forgotten.

Authors

Elizabeth Ferris

Publication: Foreign Policy

Earthquake, Tsunami, Meltdown - The Triple Disaster's Impact on Japan, Impact on the World

Elizabeth Ferris and Mireya Solís — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Two years ago today, a devastating 9.0 earthquake struck Japan’s east coast, followed minutes later by a massive tsunami with 100 foot waves. Japan’s legendary investment in earthquake-resistant design meant that only about 100 people died in the earthquake itself although almost 20,000 people lost their lives in the tsunami. The economic destruction of the "Triple Disaster" was massive: 138,000 buildings were destroyed and $360 billion in economic losses were incurred. This was the most expensive disaster in human history. Japanese response to the earthquake and tsunami was rapid, effective and life-saving. Some 465,000 people were evacuated after the disaster. But it was the meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant – the world’s worst global nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986 – which caused the most fear and provoked the greatest criticism of the Japanese government’s response.

The Triple Disaster had effects on Japan and on the world.

The economic, political, and social consequences of the Triple Disaster have changed Japan in fundamental ways. The uprooting of entire communities and the large infrastructural losses produced immediate disruptions in Japan’s extensive supply networks. These in turn caused dramatic drops in industrial production that imposed a toll not only on Japan’s economy, but also on the many other countries linked through these production networks. While Japanese companies creatively restored the supply chains in just a few months, the shutdown of the nuclear reactors has had far more damaging long-term economic consequences. Since 3/11 only two nuclear reactors have restarted operations, and the Japanese government has had to resort to large increases in oil imports to make for the gap in electricity supply. Consequently, since 3/11 Japan has experienced record trade deficits, in the order of $78 billion in 2012.

The social and political aftereffects of 3/11 are also formidable. A large citizen movement calling for the abolition of nuclear power in Japan developed in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. The enactment of more exacting safety standards and the development of new patterns of government regulation and monitoring of the nuclear industry have emerged as key topics in the national political debate. On a more positive note, the Triple Disaster also revealed Japan’s most valuable asset: the strength of its civil society. The world watched in awe as Japanese citizens who had lost everything, immediately sprung to help one another. The dignity, creativity, and orderly response of the Japanese population to this mega disaster is indeed the best measure of Japan’s potential. And just as a previous natural disaster, the Kobe earthquake of 1995, helped spur the NGO movement in Japan, March 11, 2011 has seen has seen the activation of scores of non-profit groups and the consolidation of a culture of volunteerism.

However, the reconstruction challenges remain daunting for Japan. Hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced, the quality of the nuclear cleanup continues to raise concerns, and the financial cost of rebuilding the Tohoku region is staggering (in its latest stimulus budget, the Abe government slated $18 billion dollars for this purpose). Japan’s energy future is also uncertain as the government has yet to issue a long-term strategy that clarifies the role of nuclear power in the country’s energy mix.

The effects of the Japanese disaster went far beyond Japan, of course. It served as a warning that even developed, well-prepared countries are not immune from terrifying disasters. It illustrated the extremely high economic costs of disasters occurring in developed countries and the vulnerabilities that come with urbanization and coastal settlement. It served as a wakeup call to the world that unanticipated disasters (or "black swans") happen and that those engaged in contingency planning need to be prepared for much more devastating disasters. Internationally, the fallout of the Fukushima meltdowns for the future of nuclear energy has been mixed. While immediately after the accident some governments announced plans to phase out of nuclear energy, others have continued their nuclear planning (although it’s probably true that all nuclear plants worldwide looked more seriously at their safeguard mechanisms in light of Fukushima). Japan’s tragedy has also led to a re-energizing of investing in disaster risk reduction strategies.

In October 2012, the Japanese government and the World Bank co-hosted the Sendai Dialogue to highlight the lessons learned from the disasters and to adopt comprehensive guidance for reducing risk in other parts of the world. To continue the learning of lessons from Japan for disaster risk management in Asia, we are organizing a day-long conference at Brookings on May 10, 2013 to examine the lessons from March 11, 2011, the challenges of disaster risk management in Asia and, more broadly, strategies for mainstreaming disaster risk management in development assistance. We hope in a small way to contribute to continued learning from Japan’s tragedy and to prevent further tragedies resulting from similar disasters which occur elsewhere.