Brookings: Topics - Internal Displacement

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

Internal Displacement and Development Agendas: A Roundtable Discussion with Sadako Ogata

Tue, 14 May 2013 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

May 14, 2013
9:00 AM - 10:30 AM EDT

St. Louis Room
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Around the world today, there are more than 15.5 million refugees and over 28.8 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) uprooted by conflict, in addition to some 32.4 million displaced in 2012 from their homes due to natural disasters. These displacement crises are not simply humanitarian concerns, but fundamental development challenges. Forced migration flows are rooted in development failures, and can undermine the pursuit of development goals at local, national and regional levels.

Linking humanitarian responses to displacement with longer-term development support and planning is not a new concern. Beginning in 1999, for example, the “Brookings Process” – under the leadership of Sadako Ogata and James Wolfensohn – sought to bridge humanitarian relief and development assistance in post-conflict situations. But the challenge remains unresolved, and has acquired new urgency as displacement situations are becoming more protracted, and situations such as the Syrian crisis show no signs of resolution.

The Brookings Global Economy and Development Program and the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement held a roundtable on these issues on May 14, 2013 with Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, former Director of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, and Distinguished Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Megan Bradley, Fellow with the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, facilitated the roundtable, which followed Chatham House rules.

The roundtable addressed several key topics including:

The relevance of the concept of human security to addressing displacement and development challenges
Displacement as a development challenge in fragile states
Protracted displacement
Contrasts in the approaches and processes adopted by humanitarian and development actors

The event report provides a brief overview of the discussion.

Event Materials

Brookings IDP Roundtable with Sadako Ogata May 14 2013

Participants

Panelists

The Kampala Convention: Entry Into Force

Chaloka Beyani — Mon, 13 May 2013 09:30:00 -0400

The world’s internally displaced persons (IDPs) number in the tens of millions; the majority of them are in Africa. IDPs are often profoundly vulnerable and must contend with homelessness, hunger, human rights violations and violence. For years, the African Union has sought to help mitigate the plight of IDPs and now with the entry into force of the Kampala Convention, they have formulated and adopted a legally-binding instrument that can do more to help this population. Chaloka Beyani, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons and co-director of the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, says that the convention will also promote good governance, peace, stability and security.

Video

The Kampala Convention: Entry Into Force

Authors

Chaloka Beyani

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

Livelihoods, Gender and Displacement in Côte d’Ivoire

Eric Levron — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Note: The full version of this paper is available in French with an accompanying English overview.

Internal displacement is not a new phenomenon in Côte d’Ivoire. Conflict and displacement in Côte d’Ivoire are linked to competition for political power, the economic downturn, and a corresponding sharp increase in poverty in a country that had previously enjoyed a comparatively high standard of development.

In many ways, women have borne the brunt of the country’s conflicts and its protracted displacement situation. Displaced women suffered numerous human rights violations, and along with their families have struggled to re-establish sustainable livelihoods – both while displaced, and upon returning to their communities or seeking out another solution to their displacement. The conflict resulted in the destruction of the productive capital of thousands of households, and a marked increase in single-parent families due to the death of many men in the violence. Looting, destruction and land-grabbing have undercut the economic sectors (including subsistence agriculture and petty trade) that typically employ the poorest of the poor, particularly female heads of household. This has undermined the ability of many displaced families to recover from the economic losses associated with their forced migration, and to secure sustainable solutions to their displacement. Inequitable property inheritance practices and heightened risk of sexual and gender-based violence, particularly amongst internally displaced young women, further complicate the efforts of displaced women to make a living.

This research underlines the importance of understanding the gender dimensions of IDP livelihoods, taking into particular account household-level dynamics and the broader socio-economic context within which livelihood interventions are implemented. While many displaced women assume new roles as primary breadwinners for their families, this research suggests that the ability of displaced women to develop relevant adaptation strategies, particularly through the creation of sustainable livelihoods, depends in part on the socio-economic status of their households before the crisis. Without other employed household members, many middle class Ivorian women cut off from their area of origin or from their social networks encountered particular difficulties adapting and re-establishing means of existence – they are the main victims of a conflict-induced drop in social status. Women with access to support structures and who were economically active before the crisis – those aged 30 to 50 years – have been best able to develop and implement strategies to save money and improve their livelihoods.

Downloads

Authors

Eric Levron

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

Camps are Not the Answer to Syria’s Displacement Crisis

Megan Bradley — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:48:00 -0400

A few years ago, I visited some of the Palestinian refugee camps scattered across Lebanon. After spending some time in Bourj al-Barajneh camp in Beirut, I travelled to Wavel -- a highly impoverished but comparatively spacious camp in the rural Beqaa valley, where a Palestinian refugee boy asked me a question: Can you see the sky in Bourj al-Barajneh? I was surprised by this question, but upon reflection realized it is perfectly reasonable. Bourj al-Barajneh is notoriously overcrowded. After more than 60 years of displacement, tents have been replaced by packed apartment blocks and narrow concrete alleyways. Without permission to expand the boundaries of the camp, residents have had to build in and up, so that there are indeed many places in Bourj where you can stand outside and yet barely see the sky.

Despite these cramped conditions, residents of Bourj al-Barajneh and other camps have opened their doors to the 36,000 Palestinian refugees who were living in Syria, but have now fled to Lebanon. Thousands of Lebanese families, many with little room to spare themselves, are sheltering scores of the 400,000 Syrian refugees registered in Lebanon. In Jordan as well, "host families" are making a critical contribution by accommodating many of the 1.3 million refugees who have fled Syria since the uprising started in March 2011. Within Syria, the UN reports that approximately four million people are now displaced. Untold thousands have found shelter - however precarious - with extended family members, or even strangers.

Read the entire article here >>

Authors

Megan Bradley

Publication: The Atlantic

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

Creating New Norms? The Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement

Jane McAdam — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Editor's Note: This article was originally published by APMEN.

In October last year, the Norwegian and Swiss governments launched the Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement. It aims to build a consensus on key principles and elements regarding the protection of persons displaced across borders in the context of natural disasters that sets the agenda for future action at domestic, regional and international levels. It marks a tentative first step towards international policymaking in this field.

The direct genesis of the Nansen Initiative was a joint pledge that Norway and Switzerland made at UNHCR’s Ministerial meeting in December 2011 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Refugee Convention and the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Throughout 2011, UNHCR had spearheaded efforts to get States to agree to the formulation of a global guiding framework on displacement relating to climate change and natural disasters. It had hoped that most States would make pledges to that effect at the December 2011 meeting. However, only five States did (Norway, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Germany and Mexico).

It became very clear that States wanted to retain control over any developments in the protection space, and were prepared only to take tentative steps (if any at all). The Nansen Initiative, which will be operational from 2013 to 2015, is designed to promote a bottom-up approach to the issue.

First, a series of sub-regional consultations will be conducted to gather more information about the varying challenges faced – as well as good practices adopted – in different parts of the world. They will focus on the various phases of displacement: preparedness prior to displacement, protection and assistance during displacement, and solutions following displacement. The first consultation is to be held in the South Pacific in May this year. In identifying standards of treatment and good practices relating to cross-border displacement in the context of natural disasters, the meeting will also focus on issues of particular pertinence in the Pacific, such as customary land laws, the protection of cultural heritage and identity, and the impacts of increased urbanization.

Secondly, through a global dialogue, the Nansen Initiative hopes to develop a non-binding "Protection Agenda" based on three pillars: international cooperation and solidarity; standards for the treatment of affected people regarding admission, stay, status; and operational responses, including funding mechanisms and responsibilities of international humanitarian and development actors. It is envisaged that the Protection Agenda will serve as "a framework for further normative, institutional and operational development at different levels."

While the Initiative’s approach may be criticized as too tentative, it seems to be the only feasible strategy at this point in time. As its Envoy, Professor Walter Kälin, explained at the first Consultative Committee meeting, an absence of sufficient knowledge about what happens on the ground would make it difficult at this stage to draft a set of guiding principles adequately reflecting realities, and there was of course the practical obstacle, namely "the difficulty of getting governments on board with the idea of producing a normative framework right away."

Although the Nansen Initiative is State-led, there is a strong emphasis on its being an open, dynamic, and inclusive process that will actively involve non-State stakeholders. It is co-chaired by Norway and Switzerland and overseen by a Steering Group including Australia, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Germany, Kenya, Mexico and the Philippines. The composition of the Steering Group aims to ensure adequate and balanced representation from the Global North and South. A Consultative Committee comprised of representatives from relevant international organizations, NGOs, think tanks and academics informs and supports the process. The Envoy of the Chairmanship represents the Initiative and provide strategic advice, while a small Secretariat in Geneva provides logistical support.

The Nansen Initiative’s substantive focus is on disaster-induced cross-border displacement. It adopts the definition of disaster used by the UN’s humanitarian community: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Importantly, rather than conceptualizing a disaster as an event, the emphasis is instead on its consequences – the coping capacity of those affected. This is particularly important given the Initiative’s focus on both sudden-onset disasters (defined as hydro-meteorological hazards such as flooding, windstorms or mudslides, and geophysical hazards including earthquakes, tsunamis or volcano eruptions) and slow-onset disasters (defined as environmental degradation processes such as droughts and desertification, increased salinization, rising sea levels or thawing of permafrost). While the concept of a slow-onset disaster seems counterintuitive if one thinks of a disaster as an event that happens (like a flood or landslide), it makes sense when a disaster denotes diminished coping capacity.

However, slow-onset disasters only come within the ambit of the Initiative in their end phase (i.e. when droughts or rising sea levels create life-threatening situations), since this is when their effects may be very similar to those of sudden-onset disasters. The Initiative emphasizes that the relevant distinction should not be the character of the disaster but rather whether it triggers displacement understood as forced movement of persons as opposed to voluntary migration. In my view, this sits uncomfortably with scenarios where migration is a rational and desirable form of adaptation, such as in some small island States. Arguably, the greatest challenge lies in responding to the impacts of slower processes which pose risks to the sustainability of certain human settlements over the longer term. Without any sustained examination of what it means for migration to be a form of adaptation, it is inevitable that protection gaps will remain. It is crucial that the existence of the Initiative is not used as an excuse to delay policy development in these areas.

Of course, it remains to be seen precisely how States involved in the Initiative will conceptualize displacement and disasters, especially once the sub-regional consultations have highlighted the challenges faced in specific contexts (including in small island States). Could the idea of a creeping disaster be one way of incorporating anticipatory movement as a protection response? As the Initiative has already acknowledged, the legal challenge will be to identify the tipping point where the basically voluntary movement of persons turns into forced movement. Since, operationally, there may be considerable overlap between the two, it will be necessary to ensure that people displaced as a result of slow-onset disasters also receive protection and assistance.

Authors

Jane McAdam

Publication: Asian-Pacific Migration and Environment Network

Disappearing States?

Jane McAdam — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

The ‘disappearing State’ or ‘sinking island’ phenomenon has become a litmus test for the dramatic impacts of climate change on human society. Atlantis-style predictions of whole countries disappearing beneath the waves raise fascinating legal issues that go to the heart of the rules on the creation and extinction of States. These rules have never been tested in this way before. But while the potential loss of territory for environmental reasons is novel, much of this deliberation is taking place in the abstract. Underlying assumptions about why, when, whether, and how States might ‘disappear’, and the consequences, do not always sit comfortably with the empirical evidence. The danger is that this may lead to well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided, responses.

The criteria for statehood under international law are four-fold: a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other States. While all four criteria would seemingly need to be present for a State to come into existence, the absence of all four does not necessarily mean that a State has ceased to exist. This derives from the strong presumption of continuity of States in international law, which presumes that existing States continue even when some of the formal criteria of statehood start to wane.

In the context of climate change, it is often assumed that sea-level rise will ultimately inundate the territory of certain low-lying island countries, thus rendering it uninhabitable. It is true that small low-lying island States are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts, including loss of coastal land and infrastructure due to erosion, inundation, sea-level rise and storm surges; an increase in the frequency and severity of cyclones, creating risks to life, health and homes; loss of coral reefs, with attendant implications for food security and the ecosystems on which many islanders’ livelihoods depend; changing rainfall patterns, leading to flooding in some areas, drought in others, and threats to fresh water supplies; salt-water intrusion into agricultural land; and extreme temperatures.

However, the focus on loss of territory as the indicator of a State’s ‘disappearance’ may be misplaced. Low-lying atoll countries are likely to become uninhabitable as a result of diminished water supplies long before they physically disappear. In October 2011, for example, Tuvalu declared a state of emergency because of severe water shortages, necessitating an urgent humanitarian response (temporary desalination plants, rehydration packs, technical support, and water supplies) from Australia and New Zealand.

In international law terms, then, the absence of population, rather than territory, may be the first signal that an entity no longer displays the full indicia of statehood. But where would people go, and what would their legal status be?

Movement away from small island States is likely to be slow and gradual, rather than triggered by a sudden event. Although migration has long been a natural human adaptation strategy to environmental variability, the legal (and sometimes physical) barriers to entry imposed by States today considerably restrict people’s ability to move.

If people seek to enter another country without permission to do so, they may find themselves in a very precarious legal position, potentially without work rights, basic health care, or social services. They will generally not meet the legal definition of ‘refugee’, which requires a person to show a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of a particular attribute (such as religion or political opinion). Nor is it clear that they will benefit from complementary protection under human rights law (non-return to a risk to life or inhuman or degrading treatment) — although the more debilitated the home environment, the better chance they will have. Finally, it is unlikely that they would be recognized as stateless persons, since that legal definition is deliberately restricted to people who are ‘not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law’. Whether or not this could be met may depend in part on whether the ‘State’ is considered still to exist. In any event, though, the statelessness treaties are poorly ratified and few States have statelessness determination procedures in place or a protective legal status for such people.

The relocation of whole communities has been raised from time to time as a solution for small island States. But this is an option of last resort for most, and one which should be treated with considerable caution. This is because there is much more to relocation than simply securing territory. Apart from fundamental issues about identity and self-determination, those who move need to know that they can remain and re-enter the new country, enjoy work rights and health rights there, have access to social security if necessary and be able to maintain their culture and traditions, and also what the legal status of children born there would be. There is also the question of how to balance the human rights of relocating groups with those of the communities into which they move. The effects of dislocation from home can last for generations and have significant ramifications for the maintenance and enjoyment of cultural and social rights by resettled communities. That is clear from the situation of the Banabans on Rabi, who were relocated in 1945 from present-day Kiribati to Fiji.

This is why a key policy objective of some small island States is to enhance existing migration options to developed countries in the region. Managed migration is a safer mechanism for enabling people to move away from the longer-term effects of climate change, without artificially treating people as in need of international ‘protection’ (from a persecutory State). It can play an important role in livelihood diversification and risk management strategies. Furthermore, given that one of the biggest problems for small island States is overpopulation, increased migration could help to relieve population and resource pressure. This may mean that a smaller population could remain on the territory for longer.

Authors

Jane McAdam

Publication: Oxford University Press Blog