the hyogo framework, disaster risk reduction and mobility

1

The Crisis Migration Project

May 2014

Institute for the Study of International Migration

Harris Building3300 Whitehaven Street NW

Third Floor, Suite 3100Washington, DC 20007

T 1 202 687 2258F 1 202 687 2541

E [email protected]

The Hyogo Framework, Disaster Risk Reduction and Mobility

IOM in Coordination with UNISDR1. Introduction

The importance of considering the linkages between migration and Disaster Risk ReductionThere is compelling evidence that disasters have an impact on migration and human mobility.1 At least in its most extreme form, the link between natural disasters and displacement is widely acknowledged in the media and among organizations and academics working on humanitarian, development, or migration issues.2 However, there are only a limited number of publications or policy documents and tools (Foresight, 2011, 137) dedicated to the linkages between disaster risk reduction (DRR) and migration (including migration crisis) and limited analysis of how the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015), the principal international DRR instrument, can contribute to addressing mobility issues related to some of the crisis situations discussed in the Institute for the Study of International Migration’s (ISIM) Crisis Migration Project Description.

Furthermore, even when acknowledged, the linkages between disasters and migration tend to be reduced to the humanitarian side of the phenomenon and in particular to the most visible displacement scenarios,3 related to dramatic events (see Table 1). But, as recently signaled in a Tufts University publication on humanitarian issues, “taken together, migration, urbanization, globalization, and state action related to climate change are changing the planet in unprecedented ways” (Walker 2012, 25).

Table 1: Summary of global estimates for new displacement, 2008-2012 (millions)

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TotalTotal 36.1 16.7 42.3 16.4 32.4 143.9

Source: IDMC, 2013, 11.

Against this background, recent research has highlighted that the nexus between disasters and mobility is much broader in range (types of linkages) and in scope (types of population and number of people concerned/affected). For instance, efforts have been made to look at the issue of mobility in the context of the impact of climate change. In these

Table of ContentsTable of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Part I: DRR and the Hygo Framwork for Action

3. Part II: Linking Migration and Mobility to DRR: general approach

4. Part III: Practical Cases of DRR along the Migration Crisis Management Cycle

5. Part IV: Lessons Learned and Concluding Remarks

6. References

1

2

4

8

15

18

Working Paper

2

studies, climate change is considered as an exacerbating factor of vulnerability and consequently an influencing factor in human mobility patterns, without necessarily referring to a visible sudden onset disaster (like a flash flood) but rather looking at slow-onset environmental degradation processes (such as desertification or sea-level rise) (Gemenne et al., 2011).

But beyond the climate change dimension, which seems to have been the preferred angle of recent academic research (IOM, 2012i), this paper argues that DRR offers more than a set of operational tools to respond to the migration consequences of disasters; it provides an analytical framework, which combined with a migration perspective, can help to better understand and frame current responses to migration crisis situations, from policy to operations. For instance, from a DRR perspective, measuring and accounting for the real cost of displacement as a result of a disaster can support governments in developing post-disaster strategies and planning.4

More specifically, this paper will explore:

• How a migration crisis approach based on a comprehensive typology of mobility related to environmental factors (including natural disasters and the impact of climate change) can help frame and develop objectives geared towards addressing forced migration in all its occurrences, including by building the capacities for resilience of communities.

• Which kind of contributions DRR can make to address some of the challenges associated with migration in crisis situations, and conversely the role migration (crisis) management5 can play within a DRR strategy.

• How a migration approach to DRR can support humanitarian and development response mechanisms,6 the growing investment in and development of adaptation mechanisms to address the consequences of climate change as well as the future of the DRR framework post-Hyogo and the possible place for migration (including displacement and relocation associated with crisis situations) in this new architecture.

2. Part I: DRR and the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005-2015) In December 2005, the UN General Assembly endorsed the Hyogo Declaration and Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA), adopted by the World Conference on Disaster Reduction earlier that year. The scope of the HFA encompasses disasters caused by hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks, and therefore reflects a holistic and multi-hazard approach to disaster risk management. The HFA calls for a more effective integration of DRR into sustainable development policies, planning and programming; for the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards and for a systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programs.

In addition to the strategic goals, the HFA also articulates five priorities for action:

1. Ensure that DRR is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation; 2. Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning; 3. Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; 4. Reduce the underlying risk factors; 5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

The HFA builds on over a decade of efforts by the international community to adopt a more holistic and sustainable development orientation to the challenges posed by natural hazards. In 1989, the UN General Assembly thus proclaimed the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), highlighting that “fatalism about natural disasters is

3


no longer justified.” Five years later, in 1994, having considered the outcome of the first World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction in Yokohama, its Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World and its Plan of Action, the UN General Assembly again recognized the close interrelationship between disaster reduction and sustainable development. This covered everything from prevention to early warning, response, mitigation, rehabilitation and reconstruction – including through capacity-building at all levels.

A few years on, in December 1999, the UN General Assembly endorsed the swift establishment of future arrangements for disaster reduction as well as functional continuity for the effective implementation of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) as the successor to the IDNDR with an inter-agency secretariat and an inter-agency task force.

During the following years, UN General Assembly resolutions on DRR further stressed particular parts of the work of the ISDR, for instance the need to better understand and address socio-economic activities that exacerbate the vulnerability of societies to natural disasters and to build and further strengthen community capability to cope with disaster risks. While emphasis was placed on vulnerable groups and groups of countries, the issue of displaced populations, by disasters or other forms of crisis, as a community requiring specific attention was not referred to in the context of the multi-lateral discussions on the topic.

The HFA presents an innovative format for a multi-lateral agreement. While it does not include any goals or targets, it does provide a rather extensive section on roles and responsibilities of governments, IGOs, the UN as a whole and its Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

Throughout the objectives and priorities for action, the HFA puts emphasis on vulnerable groups that should be taken into account when planning for DRR. One of its great innovations was to realize that DRR was rooted in good development practice. The HFA also recognized, for the first time in such a document, that climate change adaptation was also rooted in good development practice and in DRR.

While the HFA does not expressly mention this, good development is not only what governments must do but also what they allow and support at local and community levels. Thus, it includes the need to look at how different vulnerable groups on the ground are taking care of their risks, understanding risk and developing mechanisms to address risk.

The HFA does not address directly the challenges related to migration. It neither identifies disasters as a cause of migration nor does it identify migrants as highly vulnerable groups. The Framework does, however, call on governments to “endeavor to ensure, as appropriate, that programs for displaced persons do not increase risk and vulnerability to hazards” (UNISDR, 2005, 16).

Overall, global, regional and national efforts for DRR and reinforcing resilience are increasing. International momentum for DRR is apparent in discussions and planning around sustainable development, climate change adaptation, the Millennium Development Goals or more broadly in public and private investment strategies. However, progress in HFA implementation is uneven across the world and reflects broader economic and institutional differences among regions and countries, highlighting the reality that progress takes place against very different initial baselines and capacities and reflecting obvious differences in the institutional, political, and economic situations of countries.

In 2011, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that requested the development of a post-2015 framework for DRR. A draft should be finalized towards the end of 2014, to be ready for consideration and adoption at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in 2015.

4

What should a post-2015 framework on DRR look like? Many views and several options have been expressed, ranging from a more nuanced version of the existing HFA; some overall guiding principles; a set of normative standards; a framework with a target regime; a legally based instrument for DRR; or a combination of the above.

Whatever form a post-2015 framework takes, it should offer the opportunity for a better approach to the case of displaced populations. For these highly vulnerable communities, addressing the risk from natural hazards through preparedness and longer term resilience building should be rights based and driven by the needs of those affected. In the context of the UN, under its Chief Executive Board (CEB), a number of agencies, funds and programs are elaborating a strategic plan of action for DRR and resilience. This is expected both to accelerate efforts to address risk and resilience for the most vulnerable, and to guide the consultation towards HFA 2. These efforts towards coherence, accountability and leadership of international partners provide a further opportunity for addressing the case of displaced populations.

3. Part II: Linking Migration and Mobility to DRR: general approachThis section examines at the linkages between migration and DRR.

Theoretical approach: towards a proactive and pragmatic approach to mobility in crisisIn parallel to the ISIM initiative, IOM has coined the term “migration crisis” to describe “complex and often large-scale migration flows and mobility patterns caused by a crisis which typically involve significant vulnerabilities for individuals and affected communities and generate acute and longer term migration management challenges” (IOM, 2012b, 1-2). To comprehensively apprehend all aspects of mobility associated with a crisis, a “migration crisis” may be sudden or slow in onset, can have natural or man-made causes, and can take place internally or across borders. In the context of this paper, the focus will be on disasters as defined by the UNISDR.7 While the definition does not explicitly distinguish between natural disasters and man-made disasters, it is commonly understood in the DRR community that the focus of risk reduction relates to hazards which exclude violence or conflicts.8 (See the discussion in part III on the relevance of DRR in response to man-made crisis situations)

From this standpoint, there has always been a fundamental interdependency between migration and the environment. Schematically, there are three main types of environmental factors (sudden-onset disasters, slow onset disasters at an early stage, and slow-onset disasters at an advanced stage) (IASC, 2008; IOM, 2011b) which can lead to different migratory responses:

• The most direct interaction is highlighted by sudden-onset disasters and natural hazards, including geological, hydroligical, and climatic events, when loss of lives, homes and livelihoods, can lead to sudden, large-scale movements of people to the nearest safe haven.

• Migratory responses to slow-onset environmental degradation, especially at early and intermediate stages, are often temporary in nature and can serve as an adaptation strategy to environmental change.

• At advanced stages of environmental degradation (slow-onset disaster), when livelihoods can no longer be sustained, communities often resort to permanent migration to less affected areas or to urban and semi-rural centers. In the worst cases, relocation of affected populations either internally or to a third country may be needed.

Regarding the first type of linkage, a consensus has emerged that environmentally-induced displacement accounts for only a small portion of environmental migration (CARE International and UNU, 2012; IDMC, 2012). Experts consider that most environmental migration is, and will increasingly be, taking place in the context of slow-onset processes (Laczko and Aghazarm, 2009; Boncour and Burson, 2010).

5


To this initial mapping of the nexus between migration and environmental factors, the DRR framework offers an analytical tool to better understand exposure and vulnerability to environmental hazards, and consequently the affected populations’ level of resilience and potentially their response (or non-response) in terms of mobility. The DRR framework considers the underlying factors of vulnerability, and posits that “it is underlying risk drivers such as poor urban governance, vulnerable rural livelihoods and ecosystem decline that underpin the expansion of risk” (UNISDR, 2009b, 15). In general it asserts that livelihood vulnerability is in itself an underlying driver of disaster risk and poverty in many areas. Consequently, humanitarian and development actors have generally followed a community level approach, as articulated by development actors to frame the notion of (sustainable) livelihoods.9

Source IOM, 2013a

Linking the sustainable livelihoods approach to migration models (such as agent-based modeling)10 shows that within any given set of social and environmental circumstances, decisions to move or stay depend on incomes, social networks, local patterns of gender relations and the perceived alternatives to moving. The Foresight study further elaborates by looking at the inverse relationship between the ability to move (based on wealth and capital level) and vulnerability, to propose a model which also includes “focusing on those who are trapped or stay behind when others migrate” (2011, 29).11

6

Stranded populationsSuch a model understands that as migration requires resources of some sort (financial, physical, social, etc.), the most vulnerable people are often not able to move (IFRC, 2009; IOM, 2011b).12 It is therefore essential to note that whether a survival or adaptation strategy, or, as is often the case, something in-between, migration is not an option open to everyone. On the contrary, the most vulnerable – often the poorest – are least likely to be able to secure their livelihoods through migration used as a strategy to adapt to a changing environment or as an income or livelihood diversification approach. This inability to resort to migration can lead to people being trapped, as witnessed recently with the 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa, where the most vulnerable individuals die if no humanitarian relief is provided.13 In this context it also led to greater displacement, in particular of Somali populations seeking refuge in Kenya.14

Vulnerability approach: going beyond the dichotomy between forced and voluntary migration The vulnerability approach based on the livelihood conceptual framework presented above is also useful to address one of the main issues at stake, namely, the possibility or not to make a clear-cut distinction between voluntary and forced movements, which should help ensure that responses and efforts are directed towards those most in need. Academics and practitioners following this line of thought have tried to identify the space to develop a prescriptive approach in line with the existing regime defining cases of forced migration.15 Practitioners have, however, found that in reality this distinction is often blurred and hides complex situations; in particular that there is a gradation along the spectrum identified above, “with migration potentially a better alternative to displacement.”16 While essential in the context of a regime like the refugee regime, where the credibility of the system lies in its ability to make an individual assessment of the well-founded nature of the claim for international protection, in the context of environmentally-induced migration, this appears to be more difficult (McAdam, 2011).17

A number of institutions and organizations have taken a strong stand against such a prescriptive approach, emphasizing like IOM that “environmentally-induced migration is best understood as a continuum, ranging from clear cases of forced migration to clear cases of voluntary movement, with a grey zone in between. (…)For the most part, however, the distinction is not clear-cut. Migration is a multi-causal phenomenon: even in cases where the environment is a predominant driver of migration it is usually compounded by social, economic, political and other factors. Furthermore, the decision to move has to be analysed in the context of viable alternatives, which depend, inter alia, on individual, social and even cultural ability to cope with and adapt to climate shocks and stresses” (Walsham, 2010).

The discussion around these two positions goes beyond the scope of this paper as it hints at a more fundamental division between two approaches: one based on identifying categories that will be granted certain rights and another which seeks to identify needs within a given context. For the purpose of this paper the second approach, based on vulnerability and capacity, has been retained.

Migration crisis management from a risk reduction and mitigation perspectiveThese considerations allow a strengthening of the DRR approach (and possibly a post HFA), to focus on how to reduce risks in a given geographically delineated location, by using the above analysis to introduce a dynamic element taking into consideration human mobility, “from”, “to” or “through” this given location. Accordingly, a set of objectives at any stage of the mobility cycle can be further developed along the following lines:18

• Objective 1: Prevention of forced migration by building resiliance and addressing underlying factors of migratory pressure related to environmental degradation (HFA Priorities 1,3 and 4)19

• Objective 2: Preparedness for potential forced migration by increasing coping capacities and resiliance as well as planning to assist displaced and affected populations (HFA Priorities 2 and 5)

• Objective 3: Response to crisis situations with migration consequences, which may also be leading to stranded populations in need of humanitarian assistance (HFA Priority 5)

7


• Objective 4: Mitigation of the impact of displacement on host communities and the environment, for instance through stabiliation and attenuation measures in emergency response and recovery phase (HFA Priority 3)

• Objective 5: Addressing the medium and long-term consequences of forced migration during post-crisis recover phase and beyond to transition to sustainable development, including in particular by ending displacement situations through durable solutions (HFA Prioritities 1,3 and 4).

This series of objectives along the migration (crisis) management cycle links different mobility patterns with a risk reduction objective that can be related to the five HFA priorities. But to complete the picture, it is necessary to articulate the different response frameworks that have been elaborated by practitioners and to see how they intervene in relation to each phase of the migration (crisis) management cycle. The three most common frameworks are described as follows:

• Respondingtotheimpact of disasters through Disaster Risk Management (DRM);• Reducingriskandexposureto hazards through DDR; and • Addressingtheeffectsofachangingclimate on vulnerable populations through Climate Change Adaptation (CCA).

DRM, DRR and CCA are thus understood as complementary and providing the necessary framework, methodology and tools to build communities’ resilience and their capacity to cope with adverse conditions, while contributing to sustainable development (Mitchell and van Aalst, 2008). As a matter of fact, the UNISDR has made it a priority to integrate DRM and CCA in development planning (GFDRR, 2013a). It notes that since 2007, an increasing number of countries – including Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR) priority countries – “have strategically mainstreamed disaster risk management (DRM) into their national development strategies, including Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the World Bank’s Country Assistance Strategies” (GFDRR, 2013a). This mainstreaming activity is considered to have had a significant impact on national development strategies, with DRM increasingly becoming an essential pillar of Country Assistance Strategies and PRSPs.20 The remaining question is how further to anchor the human mobility dimension within these national development strategies (IOM, 2005).

Evolution of the policy and institutional debate As mentioned, there has been a strong revival in studies surrounding the issue of environmental migration, mostly driven by discussions on the impact of climate change on population movements preceding the Copenhagen summit in 2009. The momentum created by an expected new Protocol to replace the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012, led to an intensification of research to support evidence based policy linking climate change and migration (IASC, 2008). Different communities, based on their respective sensitivity and approaches, have started exchanging views as of 2008.21 Schematically, some have focused on the legal gaps revealed by potential cross-border displacement associated with climate change, the so-called “climate refugees,” while other have looked at the continuum of mobility related to environmental factors (Walker et al., 2012).

Today, one common denominator is that all of these initiatives are referring to the importance of investing in DRR and CCA. This was acknowledged first and foremost, at the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Cancún (COP 16) in December 2010 which adopted an agreement recognizing, first, the importance of DRR and second, the potential impact of climate change on the movement of people.22 The so-called Nansen principles, even though focusing on the legal dimension of displacement induced by climate change, also strongly emphasize the importance of DRR to respond to those challenges.23 Most recently, in a publication focusing on cross-border displacements induced by climate change, Walter Kälin and Nina Schrepfer highlight that “it is clear that there is no single approach that provides the solution to current challenges. Approaches must be multifaceted, containing internal and external components. In this sense, it is possible to shortly outline a holistic strategy” (2012, 58). They further list as one of the four elements of a strategy to address cross-border movements of

8

persons: “Preventing displacement through disaster risk and vulnerability reduction and other adaptation measures” (2012, 59).24

Cross-border population movements and stranded migrantsBeyond the general consensus on the importance of DRR in response to forced migration, there is also an increased awareness that natural disasters can generate population flows across borders. This much debated aspect of environmental migration calls for assistance and protection that displaced persons need once they have been forced to cross a border. Although those persons are protected under human rights and international migration laws, there is a general lack of specific provision regarding admission, temporary stay or status at the national or the international levels. Building such provision into national legislation is therefore paramount. The Nansen initiative launched on 2 October 2012 has been specifically designed to tackle this issue through a state-led process.25

Cross-border movement induced by natural disasters is not the only aspect of environmental migration where gaps have been identified. In terms of humanitarian response to large scale natural disasters, gaps also concern the assistance and protection provided to migrants stranded in their country of destination or transit as a result of a natural disaster. It takes into consideration in particular, migrants who may be defacto excluded from humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of natural disasters due to their irregular status; or migrants who have difficulty accessing aid, due to language and other barriers. In general, there is a lack of inclusion of migrants and mobile populations in broader international preparedness efforts for disaster risk management (e.g. epidemic and pandemic preparedness) or climate change adaptation.26

These problems are particularly acute in an urban context, which is characterized by complex patterns of mobility in the aftermath of a disaster, affecting the dynamics of displacement and the pursuit of durable solutions, as witnessed in Thailand during the great floods that affected the country, including its capital Bangkok, for months towards the end of 2011. The international community should therefore put greater emphasis on understanding the specific exposure and vulnerability of international migrant populations and integrating these concerns in risk reduction and management planning. In 2012, a number of initiatives highlighted those concerns, although not necessarily from the perspective of natural disasters but generalized to any crisis situations, such as the conflict in Libya in 2011. For example, IOM has focused its International Dialogue on Migration on the issue of “migrants caught in crisis situations” (IOM, 2012d, 2012e) and the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) has devoted a roundtable to the protection of migrants (GFMD, 2012). From an academic standpoint, the ISIM initiative also contributes to these efforts. For 2013, the momentum should be maintained with an expected roundtable on this issue at the 2nd High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development.27 However, it will be essential that those considerations move beyond the circle of organizations and fora specialized on migration issues to fit into other fora dealing with risk reduction issues (humanitarian, development, environment, and even peace and security platforms etc.) (IOM, 2012b, §11 to 18).

4. Part III: Practical Cases of DRR Along the Migration Crisis Management Cycle

Building on the previous relationships made between DRR objectives and phases of mobility, this part will focus on key aspects of these relationships identified through direct project implementation.28 It looks into:

• Prevention of (and preparedness for) forced migration including migration as a disaster risk and adaptation strategy (objective 1);

• Response and mitigation measures when forced migration occurs (objective 2, 3 and 4); and • Addressing the longer-term consequences of forced migration (objective 5).

9


DRR to prevent forced migrationThe lack of choice and the coercive nature of forced migration undermine people’s rights. To avoid this situation, forced migration should, to the extent possible, be prevented. The link with DRR is most obvious in the context of prevention, as reducing exposure to predictable or anticipated hazards is considered the most efficient and cost-effective method to prevent situations where people are forced to move (UNISDR, 2011). By extension, any activities which also look at disaster preparedness – which implies better response and lessening the impacts of disasters on affected populations when they occur – contribute to minimizing risks and to a culture of prevention. For instance, proper implementation of community based disaster risk management and use of early warning systems can greatly reduce the need for relocation (if proper measures have been taken prior to a flash flood for instance) or minimize the duration of the displacement situation.29 An illustration is the construction of temporary relocation shelters used by communities in cyclone and flood prone-areas that are built using DRR principles, including cyclone proof technologies to avoid the risk of secondary displacement.30

Integrating DRR into the objective of forced migration prevention provides additional tools including those related to DRM (in particular as a preparedness tool) and CCA. In this context, practitioners look at implementing these measures in situ – in disaster prone areas. Given that populations are often vulnerable to different types of environmental hazards, it is necessary to combine different types of tools while ensuring that they converge towards the same goal. This should be done by “creating coherence between DRR, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation strategies which would reduce duplication of efforts and save resources” (IOM, 2012c, 35). The concept of “sustainable development” coined by the international community at the Rio 1992 Conference on the environment31 and reiterated in June 2012 at the Rio+20 Conference32 also attempts to provide a common objective for different strategic frameworks (environmental, developmental, economical, humanitarian, legal, etc.). At the political level at least, it highlights the strong recognition of the need to invest in adaptation measures and in DRR in order to reduce people’s exposure to risk, increase their resilience and help them to adapt to a changing environment. Consequently adequate financial resources should be made available to meet those objectives. This argument is also valid when looking at the development agenda, in particular in light of the on-going discussions on the post-Millennium Development Goals (2015), where there is an opportunity to better articulate and integrate the migration as well as DRR objectives.33

Facilities such as the GFDRR established in 2006,34 the Global Environment Fund (GEF) established in 1990,35 and other pooled mechanisms including humanitarian funding mechanisms have been used to implement DRR, CCA and DRM in situ, thus indirectly supporting the objective of preventing forced migration. Regional and bilateral donors have also made a substantial contribution to this objective.36 However, none of these mechanisms directly articulate the migration dimension which often complicates access. In addition the funding architecture expected to derive from the UNFCCC agreement on financing adaptation (which includes a strong DRR dimension) is still under development.37 The funding situation thus continues to highlight a compartmentalization along classical dividing lines, such as humanitarian versus development, while most actors argue for the need of a comprehensive approach based on assessed vulnerabilities. The main shortcoming with compartmentalization is that it tends to exclude emerging or cross-cutting issues such as migration. The question is how realistic it is in an international system where accounting standards and good donorship principles require a clear allocation of responsibilities and a result-based approach for each dollar spent.

On the other hand, with the political insistence that States should be primarily responsible for the implementation of this objective of prevention, and following the logic of ownership promoted by the developmental approach, funding for DRR, adaptation and/or migration is likely to follow (and is in some instances already following) the same strategy where funds are channeled through governments which are responsible for the allocation.38 Accordingly, the most promising strategy to promote the inclusion of migration and human mobility in general is to advocate with concerned governments, as is already current practice in a number of countries.39 However this strategy does not resolve the

10

issue of migration often being a regional and even inter-regional phenomenon and thus requiring programs bringing together countries that share borders. For instance, in the Sahel, looking at resilience and mobility in environmentally affected areas also implies understanding the role of the increased urbanization of coastal cities in Western Africa (UNEP et al., 2011).

UrbanizationAs highlighted in the above example, urbanization has emerged as one of the key challenges of the century for sustainable development, with obvious consequences from a migration and risk reduction perspective. For the first time in history, the majority of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and by 2050, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) predicts that the urban population will increase by 72 percent with a slight decline in the rural population (UNDESA, 2012, 3). Cities, especially in developing countries, have seen unprecedented population growth; Bogotá, Dhaka, Kinshasa, Lagos, to name a few. Incidentally, two-thirds of all cities with over 5 million inhabitants lie in vulnerable coastal areas, with many of the world’s large and fast growing cities located at less than ten meters above sea level along coastlines. Some of these mega cities also play a vital economic role globally. The 2011 floods in Thailand, affecting the capital’s high-tech industries, had wide repercussions on the global economy. Large cities are becoming the destination of choice for mobile populations. All efforts to reverse such strong trends have failed: improving livelihoods and services in rural areas have often had the opposite effect of putting more people in a better position to choose to move to cities.

This level of urbanization is unfortunately not matched by an adequate level of urban planning, especially in developing countries. This is partially due to limited resources and lack of investment in areas inhabited by poor urban dwellers, among them rural migrants and even displaced persons finding refuge in cities as seen in many large urban settlements around the world.40 Rapid urban population growth often leads to the creation of huge slum areas. With the number of slum dwellers set to rise from one billion to two billion in the coming decades, the potential for urban humanitarian crisis is rapidly expanding (UN-HABITAT, 2003). A proportion of migrants are moving into such areas and find themselves in a situation of vulnerability. In slum areas and/or areas exposed to environmental hazards they disproportionately suffer water shortages, environmental degradation and bad waste management (UNICEF, 2012). As highlighted at the Rio+20 Conference in June 2012 (UNCSD, 2012b), a number of actors have been urging investments in “resilient cities”41 and better integration of vulnerable urban migrant populations into policy planning. Urbanization policies must step up to the specific challenges of continuing inward migration. In developing countries it will be essential to plan for urban infrastructure focusing on the special needs in areas where migrants live. Urban planning also implies properly enforcing national legislation on risk hazard mapping. In particular, if continued habitation in certain areas is deemed to be too dangerous, options for planned relocation must be explored.

Planned relocationPrevention is not restricted to adaption or DRR insitu. The extreme case is well known: small and low lying island states or the so-called “sinking islands.” More generally speaking, with predictions related to climate change in terms of both slow-onset disasters such as sea-level rise and sudden-onset disasters with the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, these scenarios where areas would become uninhabitable in the long run pose a great challenge.42 A number of states and organizations have been advocating for some years that solutions to this type of situation will require partnership and solidarity within countries and between countries (ADB, 2012, 73, §362) as the issue is often understood through the prism of planned relocations (Bradley and McAdam, 2012; Ferris, 2012). With this approach, the type of displacement anticipated due to changes in environmental conditions is, to a large extent, similar to displacements as a result of large-scale infrastructure and development projects. There is considerable literature on experiences in implementing planned relocation programs that can provide insights and examples of good practices (Cernea and McDowell, 2000). However, besides the high cost of these programs, the same studies also point out that the relocated populations are often less well-off than when they were in their area of origin, highlighting the

11


real difficulty of implementing sustainable relocation programs (Foresight, 2011, 178; Leighton, 2012; Hugo, 2011).

Therefore, recent studies consider that a better approach would be to think ahead, before a displacement situation occurs, and to look at the issue from a migration standpoint: allowing for greater mobility of people living in areas affected by environmental disasters can give them a better chance to move, settle and integrate elsewhere, in full respect of their right to freedom of movement (Boncour and Burson, 2010; ADB, 2012). In that sense, a better understanding is required of how migration works in helping people to move, without exacerbating their vulnerability and ultimately mitigating the risk of future displacement.

Mobility as an adaptation and risk reduction strategyMore importantly it has been proven that migration in itself can be useful to decrease vulnerability and build resilience, even when taking into account the challenges of migration (cost of moving, integration challenges, etc.). Facilitating migration as an adaptation and a risk reduction strategy can provide a way for individuals to “increase their long-term resilience to increased exposure to environmental hazards and changes and offers scope for ‘transformational’ adaptation” (Foresight 2011, 173). A 2012 report in Tajikistan (IOM, 2012g) shows that labor migration is the most important response and means of adaptation to environmental degradation. Indeed, the diversification of income through remittances can help reduce reliance on the environment for livelihoods (IOM, 2009, 24), especially in developing countries and least developed countries where remittances are important sources of income.43 A study conducted in the Western Sahel demonstrates that since the 1970s drought, migrants from Mauritania, Mali and Senegal contributed to development projects and maintained the resilience of their home communities by means of their social, financial, and cultural capital (Scheffran et al. 2011). This case illustrates that migration provides individuals with skills, knowledge, and social networks whereby they can help increase the resilience of home communities and their capacity to cope with environmental stresses, even from afar in the host communities. Migrants can also transfer knowledge and skills they have acquired upon their return.

To facilitate migration as an adaptation strategy implies changing the way migration is perceived: instead of considering migration as a solution of last resort, it can be acknowledged as a well-planned and managed risk reduction, development and adaptation strategy for populations in areas exposed to natural hazards, as well as the adverse impacts of climate change. At the national level, it implies including migration management in existing platforms such as National Adaptation Programs of Actions (NAPAs) and in more recently developed National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), both under the UNFCCC.44 Some countries have already included migration in their NAPAs and identify it as an adaptation strategy. These are mostly countries such as the Maldives, Tuvalu, and the Solomon Islands, where the high risk of flooding and sea-level rise renders population resettlement unavoidable (Martin, 2010). Inclusion of migration in NAPAs and NAPs can help channel funds into innovative types of adaptation activities, through the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), and the Least Developed Country Fund.

This being said, the links between migration, risk reduction and adaptation to climate change remain complex. As highlighted above, on the one hand, migration can be a solution and one adaptation strategy to environmental degradation and climate change; in this case policies can be put in place to facilitate human mobility. On the other hand, when slow-onset disasters disrupt traditional livelihoods, policies can be put in place to alleviate migratory pressures and stabilize local communities. If these two policy responses might seem at first contradictory – should migration be facilitated or should migration pressures be alleviated? – they are nevertheless part of the same strategy: to manage migration in order to make the decision to move or to stay, a true and informed choice.

DRR as a mitigation measure in response to disasters Humanitarian actors, providing assistance and protection to affected populations including displaced persons, have increasingly been reporting on and advocating for operationalizing the concept of DRR within the acute emergency

12

phase.45 In particular in the context of camp management, a key sector to assist the most vulnerable displaced persons, the relevance of DRR actions is well-known and is already enshrined in key reference documents, in particular the Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) toolkit.46 More broadly, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has worked in partnership with other Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) members to further develop best practices aiming at integrating environmental considerations into humanitarian actions which strongly rely on mainstreaming DRR.47

These kinds of best practices have been acknowledged and supported system-wide, including at the IASC level with a number of recommendations to further mainstream DRR in emergency responses.48 It comes under the understanding that it is “never too early to do DRR” (IOM, 2009, 61). The rationale which during the humanitarian reform process led to the creation of an Early Recovery cluster in 2005 is to support a well-managed transition from emergency response to the recovery phase. The ISDR through its participation in the IASC has been further advocating in that sense, in addition to a number of key partners including donors,49 NGOs and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC).50

In the context of DRR as a set of mitigation measures in response to disasters, the objectives are grossomodo divided as follows:

• Reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards and exposure to risks in temporary settlements;• Reducing the footprint of temporary settlement on the environment and local livelihoods; • Mitigating the impact of forced migration on the host communities.

Reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards and exposure to risks in temporary settlements From a migration crisis perspective, this objective seeks to avoid secondary displacement by providing targeted actions that would reduce the exposure to risks that could force people already displaced to move a second time. In Haiti, a few weeks after the 12 January 2010 earthquake which displaced 1.5 million people in makeshift settlements in and around the capital, Port-au-Prince, conducting risk assessments and hazard mapping in the camp most exposed to flash floods and/or mud-slides, enabled prioritization of areas for mitigation measures (drainage, retention wall etc.). In addition, it contributed to the implemention of preventive relocation to safer areas, in order to save lives and avoid secondary displacement. But such measures are also relevant for populations who have not been displaced. In Haiti, further efforts focus on the daunting task (98 percent deforestation and inadequate drainage system) of flood control in the most exposed areas of Port-au-Prince. These include: construction, rehabilitation and cleaning of drainage canals, treatment of ravines to reduce flooding, and beyond, long-term measures such as reforestation and planting of vetiver as well as soil conservation and terracing in the upper watersheds.

Stabilizing affected communities – displaced or not – through DRR measures can thus reduce the risk of post-disaster displacement for populations exposed to subsequent natural hazards. It can also reduce push factors to leave affected areas, especially among groups at risk. As recognized in IOM’s Migration Crisis Operational Framework, “crises may result in crisis-affected populations undertaking high-risk migration, creating opportunities for organized criminal groups, including traffickers and smugglers as traditional support structures are often disrupted in a crisis making the identification and protection of vulnerable persons challenging” (IOM, 2012b). In Bangladesh, as many as 400,000 migrants arrive each year to the capital, Dhaka, from rural and coastal areas where environmental hardship is increasingly common due to coastal erosion. The setting up of community information centers in disaster-affected areas can reduce the incentive to engage in dangerous migration practices51 although it does not address the push factors forcing people to engage in what is perceived as an income diversification strategy.52

13


Reducing the footprint of temporary settlement on the environment and local livelihoodsAffected populations in general and displaced persons in particular who find themselves in an alien environment with limited resources and fragile housing can engage in unsustainable exploitation of their immediate environment contributing to land degradation or deforestation while searching for means of subsistence. When providing assistance, simple measures such as energy-efficient stoves or solar cookers can greatly mitigate those risks. Incidentally, these measures can contribute to protection and safety; in many countries in the Sahel region it has been noted that solar cookers help reduce the risk of sexual and gender based violence which women are often exposed to when collecting firewood or searching for fuel. Other opportunities exist to further integrate DRR into sound management of natural resources and sustainable livelihood practices when responding to a disaster.

Mitigating the impact on host communitiesThe relevance of DRR measures to support mitigation efforts can be essential as a sudden increase in demographic pressure on livelihoods can heighten competition and lead to tensions between displaced and host communities. In general, working with receiving communities is an essential mitigation measure to manage relations between the communities and with those providing assistance and protection like the national/local authorities and civil society actors. In the context of DRR, community-based approaches have long been the norm as a way to put in practice principles of participation by affected communities and accountability to them. In the context of recurring or slow onset disasters, such as drought compelled by deforestation, it is essential to take into account the divergent interests of private farmers, ranchers and pastoralist communities to prevent the risk of conflict. By extension, this applies to any large-scale population movements to a new area, as a result of a sudden disaster but also in the context of environmental migration induced by slow-onset disasters and environmental degradation in the area of origin. Such considerations are also related to the previous points made in relation to urbanization.

Integrating DRR in durable solutions to end displacement situationsThe IASC framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons provides a useful tool to guide our efforts to link ending displacement situations with risk reduction.53 Rather than equating solutions with the physical location available to displaced persons (namely return, relocation or local integration), the framework focuses on the conditions that have to be met to consider that displaced persons “no longer have specific assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement” (IASC, 2010a, 5). The framework provides a solid rights-based approach to programming, creating a firm basis for mainstreaming DRR measures: “The need for human rights concern is related to conditions in areas of return, local integration or settlement elsewhere in the country that pose an obstacle to the IDP being able to choose a durable solution. For example, IDPs who fled a natural disaster cannot safely return to a flood-prone area until the authorities put in place dams or other appropriate DRR measures” (IASC, 2010a, 6).

The Durable Solutions framework gets even more explicit in linking with DRR: “In the case of return to or settlement in disaster-prone areas, DRR measures (early warning, preparedness, mitigation and adaptation) have been implemented to minimize, to the extent possible and reasonable, risks stemming from natural or human-made hazards. In many cases, it is not enough to rebuild the status quo before displacement since it offered insufficient protection. Instead, the national and local authorities and donors should be ready to make substantial investments to ‘build back better.’ National and local authorities will need to take measures to reduce the vulnerability of IDPs and the general population from recurrent natural hazards or secondary hazards” (IASC, 2010a, 29).

While it has often been assumed that return – which in most cases happens spontaneously – is the best option, humanitarian actors increasingly witness situations where it is not necessarily the best or the most practical solution. In some instances return should even be avoided. These include in particular return to at-risk areas (for instance risk of mudslides) or to areas prone to recurring disasters (such as flash floods). Predictions related to climate change, in terms of both slow onset such as sea-level rise and sudden onset with the increased frequency and intensity of extreme

14

weather events, suggest that these scenarios where return is not possible are likely to pose an ever greater challenge (see previous points related to planned relocations).

Land and property issuesReturn or any other durable solution may also be problematic when dealing with large scale displacement, and one issue which strongly comes out from the field is the need to look at housing, land and property (HLP) issues within the return process.54 For instance, poor security of tenure jeopardizes the possibility to return, while the generalized lack of information about who has what rights to what land and property can form a strong barrier to reconstruction and hence durable solutions. In cases of local integration, it is recognized that “unequal distribution of land can lead to integration issues for new migrants and hinder adaptation and DRR strategies” (ADB, 2012, 49, §230). This can be further compounded by exaggerated fears about the prevalence of land conflicts, and a general lack of understanding of how, in practice, communities and individuals managed their land and property relations in the pre-disaster period.

Although land issues often raise numerous challenges that go well beyond humanitarian considerations, it is essential to tackle these problems to implement efficient and durable risk reduction strategies. A number of solutions have been tested in response to some of these challenges, either by addressing the land tenure issue frontally and solving it once and for all or by looking at alternatives to allow meeting urgent shelter needs while paving the way for longer-term development solutions. One context where the property issue is most salient is in informal urban dwellings, as in the case of Haiti where addressing the residual cases still living in spontaneous displacement sites required an important investment in dealing with HLP issues (IOM, 2013a and 2012h). However, return to rural areas where populations are depending on land exploitation for livelihoods also requires a closer look at land tenure access and rights, as in rural Pakistan after the 2010 and 2011 floods.55

DRR in response to conflict induced displacement situationsAddressing forced migration situations can be challenging when looking at the interaction of environmental hazards and changes with conflicts. The correlation between environmental factors, migration and conflicts is a complex one as noted in a number of studies, including dedicated regional analysis (such as on the Sahel) (UNEP et al., 2011). Most seem to conclude that it is not possible to directly infer a causal relationship between the occurrence of environmental hazards and responses ranging from migration to localized violence (UNEP et al., 2011; OECD, 2012). That being said and as noted, “in several Sahelian countries, the factors of chronic food insecurity, state fragility and conflict/violence often reinforce one another” (Gubbels, 2011, 54).

Despite a political reluctance on the side of the DRR communities to promote DRR within a post-conflict context, there are obvious beneficial impacts of DRR in addressing forced migration in conflict scenarios. Some have been mentioned above in the section on mitigation measures. This positive impact is particularly valuable with protracted displacement situations where livelihoods depend on access to scarce resources. In most instances, as is the case with on going efforts to operationalize strategic plans in the Sahel, conflict prevention and conflict management tools to complement DRR have to be factored into programmatic response plans in order to detect and address potential deterioration of the situation which could lead to tension between and among communities (Gubbels, 2011).

The concept of “resilience” is increasingly being used among development and humanitarian actors, as recently highlighted during a high-level visit of the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Niger.56 It comes in handy in such complex contexts as it provides an umbrella concept strongly relying on a livelihood approach (vulnerability-based) which integrates DRR and adaptation to a changing environment with measures to deal with generalized insecurity and outbursts of violence (DFID, 2011). The concept of resilience allows taking a broad approach to what is a “disaster,” including natural ones as much as those caused by humans, from pollution to full-fledged conflict. This approach highlights the “need for common analysis that supports a coherent

15


approach to risk.”57

Integrating human mobility considerations in the resilience approach further highlights how vulnerability assessment based on a comprehensive view of livelihood can frame the issue. In the Horn of Africa, the approach looks for instance at how urban migration can be a promising means to address some of the challenges faced by pastoralist communities, though “only provided that it comes on the back of much larger investments in education and meaningful urban job opportunities” (Headey et al., 2012, 1). Following the same logic, a UNEP report on the Sahel further notes in its recommendations to “Use conflict and/or migration risk to prioritize investments and build donor commitment to long-term engagement in the Sahel: (…) Forced displacement can be minimized by investing resources in DRR and climate change adaptation to increase the resilience of affected communities while at the same time bolstering humanitarian action to meet the growing challenge of climate change. This includes measures to ensure adequate assistance and protection for people migrating as a result of environmental factors” (UNEP et al., 2011, 76).

5. Part IV: Lessons Learned and Concluding RemarksThe previous sections have highlighted both the relevance of mobility to strengthen the DRR framework and the relevance of DRR to address some of the consequences of complex disasters on human mobility, from forced to voluntary migration. This concluding section will revisit some of the main challenges to achieve this double objective as well as providing some recommendations to address them. It focuses on:

• Mainstreaming DRR into the global migration agenda and migration into the future DRR instrument;• Role of states and inter-governmental cooperation;• Funding considerations.

When looking at policy recommendations, it is also worth noting that while the paper briefly mentions some categories of persons on the move as a consequence of disasters, the analysis provided does not depend on the existence of specific categories such as refugees. In other words, an approach based on vulnerabilities rather than predetermined and often too narrowly constructed categories is sufficient and more conducive to apprehend mobility in relation to disasters. That being said, the issue of “protection gaps” identified by numerous actors is still very much relevant, as long as it is not understood only from a legal perspective. Protection of affected population is paramount and a key risk reduction objective, but protection can take numerous forms related to physical protection, humanitarian assistance and protection, social or community protection. Therefore, while it is important to support initiatives such as the Nansen Initiative which seeks to clarify some of the issues related to cross-border displacement, or IOM’s efforts to raise awareness of international migrants caught in crisis situations, the migration and risk reduction communities should make sure that broader issues touched upon in this paper (see below in particular) are not overlooked and are properly promoted in the relevant fora.

Mainstreaming DRR into the global migration agenda and migration into the future DRR instrumentThe wide range of projects, programs, strategies and other experiences that have extensively relied on and used DRR measures,58 as well as the number of policy documents and thematic analysis highlighting the positive contribution of DRR, even if not necessarily framed as a way to reduce or address forced migration, show its relevance but also its adaptability in numerous contexts. From a migration point of view, resorting to DRR to stabilize communities before, during or after a crisis situation is also essential in order to reduce unnecessary suffering and facilitate the recovery and reconstruction process. The above section refers to conflict situations where under the overarching concept of resilience, DRR can help strengthen livelihoods and foster better natural resources management. Numerous references to the complementarity between DRR and CCA have also been made in this paper. The role of the concept of resilience in further connecting different sectors of activities and develop a holistic conceptual framework to understand complex

16

exposure to man-made and natural disasters would also need to be tested and reviewed, in particular in the light of the on-going crisis situation in the Sahel region.

Essentially, it means mainstreaming DRR and its conceptual approach when developing responses to the challenges posed by migration crises. In its recently endorsed Migration Crisis Operational Framework, IOM has sought to achieve this outcome.59 “DRR and Resilience Building” is one of the 15 identified sectors of assistance in response to the mobility consequences of crisis situations along with transport assistance, shelter, camp coordination and camp management, as well as longer-term sectors (land and property, community stabilization, etc.) and specific migration management (emergency consular services). This successful attempt, supported by IOM’s 151 Member States, at mainstreaming DRR into operational response frameworks is however only part of the process. Sustainable mainstreaming calls for further research into developing multi-hazard assessment tools mindful of the cross-cutting issues of mobility, gender equality, health and security. Issues of particular relevance that would require further investigation include, interalia, land and property impact on durable solutions, the role of remittances in recovery or the impact of migration on urbanization.

Similarly, it is becoming urgent in the context of the post-HFA to ensure that migration and human mobility is factored into the on going consultations, so as not to miss an opportunity to strengthen a possible new framework with this essential dimension. Unfortunately, migration is often perceived negatively as a failure to adapt to environmental changes, while national adaptation strategies aim to mitigate the influence of environmental change on migration drivers. Forced migration, by all means, should be prevented through the implementation of CCA and DRR strategies. Nevertheless, the adverse consequences of disasters and their multifaceted impact on human mobility can never be fully mitigated. Nuanced messages are thus required as contributions to the Global Platform on DRR in 2013 and as part of the post-HFA consultation process to bring the mobility dimension into a new framework for action.

One example of a nuanced approach to mobility relates to facilitating the role of migration as part of DRR and CCA. Pilot projects have shown that it is possible to develop, where appropriate, temporary and circular labor migration schemes with environmentally vulnerable communities, particularly at less advanced stages of environmental degradation, while seeking to strengthen the developmental benefits of such migration for the areas of origin.

A second example is based on the recognition that while the link between migration and urbanization is not necessarily a causal one, mitigating unmanaged urbanization partly fuelled by rural–urban migration is a key challenge for DRR practitioners. Unmanaged urbanization is also considered to be one of the most pressing issues posed by climate change, due to the increased exposure to risks in urban settlements around the world (including low-lying cities in deltas exposed to sea-level rise, slum areas in flood-prone areas, poor implementation of anti-seismic building norms, etc.). To develop policy messages to tackle this challenge is therefore paramount, emphasizing for instance the need for comprehensive partnerships with the authorities and development actors with a focus on DRR.60

Role of states and inter-governmental cooperationThe above calls for better understanding the nature of disaster prevention and preparedness for its integration into national response strategies, from disaster management to development, poverty reduction or climate change adaptation. While effective DRR at the grass root level requires a community-based approach to ensure a minimum sustainability of the response, the role of states in steering this process is essential. It is based on the principle contained in Resolution 46/182 of the UN General Assembly from 1991.61 But, it raises the question, how will states respond to crises in high-risk areas while response capacities are adversely stretched by systemic vulnerabilities? Investing in national and local capacities to prevent and mitigate crisis situations, including their migration consequences, is therefore paramount.

The objectives include strengthening cooperation amongst different actors, and in particular fostering the relationship

17


between national authorities and local organizations is imperative at all stages. This cooperation is particularly salient within key interventions such as: assessing exposure to risk and planning for DRR, or when developing early warning systems reaching out to the most remote areas or the most marginalized segment of the population, as well as in managing displacement in disaster prone countries. In countries such as the Philippines, which are facing devastating cyclones every year and have invested in preparedness, humanitarian partners and authorities work hand-in-hand under national leadership. This allows for the set-up and maintenance of responsive coordination mechanisms,-and deployment of tools and capacities that can greatly facilitate the response.

To be effective, it also implies policy coherence at the national level by mainstreaming DRR and CCA into migration management policies and practice; which requires strengthening linkages with other relevant policy domains, such as development, environment and humanitarian portfolios. However, one issue is the existing gap between policy and actions often identified as an impediment in a number of countries reporting on HFA.62 Adequate resources and realistic planning need to back up DRR strategies. At the same time, these policies need to be based on accurate data which in turn can help evaluate and inform DRR efforts. Integrating mobility related information in addition to other relevant information can become a key challenge requiring the development of new dynamic models and evaluation systems to enable cost and benefit analysis of mobility factors. Those indicators could further complement HFA indicators and be based on a better contextualization of hazards – taking into account the type of settlement (rural, peri-urban, urban and associated population dynamics) as well as the environmental contexts (dry-land, low-lying areas, mountainous zones, etc.).

One additional consideration relates to the cross-border nature of human mobility, similar to the fact that natural disasters and environmental degradation do not stop at the border of one country. Better integrating this dimension highlights the need for cross-border cooperation on matters relevant to risk management and reduction, adaptation to climate change and human mobility patterns. For instance, institutional arrangements related to disaster risk management through civil protection agencies can help foster greater cooperation. At the regional level, platforms to exchange information and best practices as well as to agree on common standards and objectives can also greatly contribute to better response to the consequences of disasters, including in terms of human mobility. The issue of international migrant populations caught in crisis situations or exposed to natural hazards needs also to be featured more prominently in bilateral, regional and international fora. In addition to international organizations offering expertise to address this issue, there are different venues which can provide opportunities for developing concrete actions, ranging from the Regional Platform for DRR63 to Regional Consultative Processes focusing on migration issues64 as well as regional platforms focusing on climate change.65 Convergence and consolidation of these structures is therefore also recommended.

Funding considerationsMinimizing forced migration requires consistently investing resources in DRR and CCA to increase the resilience of affected communities, while bolstering humanitarian action with adequate resources, including measures to ensure adequate assistance and protection for people on the move as a result of environmental hazards. As pointed out, funding mechanisms at the global and regional levels are divided around thematic portfolios (humanitarian, development, adaptation, and the environment) which provide limited recognition of the human mobility dimension (with the exception of humanitarian instruments assisting displaced persons). Beyond the complexity of the issue, which can be an impediment to its integration, one of the problems identified is the lack of effective tools to assess and measure the costs and benefits of mobility (and in particular of forced migration) in order to support funding decisions. While a number of projects have been successfully piloted around the world and in different environmental contexts (low-lying areas, dry land, etc.), opportunities for scaling up or replication are still rather limited.

Another open question concerns the convergence of regional and global financing mechanisms and the ways in

18

which access will be facilitated for states and other actors – as part of a comprehensive approach to disaster risk. In a context of stretched financial resources and competing priorities it is also necessary to look beyond traditional donor mechanisms. Again, best practices exist in particular among DRR and development communities looking at alternative financing schemes involving the private sectors, especially local banking institutions. When financially viable, these initiatives tend to be more sustainable, as evaluations of micro financing have shown.66 Re-insurance for victims of disasters as well as land access and ownership are tracks to further explore and invest in.67

6. ReferencesArdittis, S. and F. Laczko2013 Migration and Development: Looking Beyond 2015. Available at: https://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/

home/what-we-do/migration-policy-and-research/migration-policy-1/migration-policy-practice/issues/februarymarch-2012/migration-and-development-looking-beyon.html (accessed on 14 January 2013).

Asian Development Bank (ADB)2012 Addressing Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific: Final Report. ADB, Philippines. Available at:

http://www.adb.org/publications/addressing-climate-change-and-migration-asia-and-pacific?ref=themes/climate-change/publications

Boncour, P. and B. Burson2010 Climate Change and Migration in the South Pacific Region: Policy Perspectives. In:ClimateChangeandMigration

-SouthPacificPerspectives (B. Burson, ed.). Institute of Policy Studies, Wellington, p. 5-28. Available at: http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/files/6666ee71bcb.pdf

Bradley, M. and J. McAdam2012 Rethinking Durable Solutions to Displacement in the Context of Climate Change. The Brookings-LSE Project

on Internal Displacement, May 2012. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/5/14%20displacement%20bradley%20mcadam/05%20displacement%20bradley%20mcadam.pdf

Budhani, A. and H. Gazdar2011 Land Rights and the Indus Flood, 2010-2011: Rapid Assessment and Policy Review. Oxfam Research Report, June

2011. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/rr-land-rights-indus-flood-020611-en.pdf

CARE International and United Nations University2012 Where the Rains Falls. Care and UNU, 2012. Available at: http://wheretherainfalls.org/

Cernea, M. M. and C. McDowell2000 Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees.World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C.

Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/HWYODJW0K0

Chakrabarti, P. G. D. and M. R. Bhat2006 Micro-financeandDisasterRiskReduction:ProceedingsofInternationalWorkshoponDisasterRiskMitigation:

PotentialofMicro-FinanceforTsunamiRecoveryNew Delhi, October 14-15, 2005, National Institute of Disaster Management in association with Knowledge World, 2006. Available at: http://preventionweb.net/go/659

19


Department for International Development (DFID), Government of the United Kingdom2011 Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. DFID, London, November 2011. Available at: http://www.

dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/Defining-Disaster-Resilience-DFID-Approach-Paper.pdf

1999 Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. April 1999. Available at: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0901/section1.pdf

European Union (EU)2013 Disaster Risk Reduction. Policies and Operations. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/prevention_

preparedness/dipecho_en.htm (accessed on 10 January 2013).

2012 Strengthening LRRD in the EU’s Financing Instruments. Directorate-General for External Policies, European Parliament, August 2012. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=vL88iQgvCV&dl

Ferris, E. 2012 Protection and Planned Relocations in the Context of Climate Change. UN High Commissioner for Refugees,

August 2012. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5023774e2.html

Foresight, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, Government of the United Kingdom2011 Migration and Global Environmental Change: Future Challenges and Opportunities. Final Project Report.

The Government Office for Science, London. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/migration/11-1116-migration-and-global-environmental-change.pdf

Gemenne, F., P. Brücker and J. Glasser2011 The State of Environmental Migration. Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales

(IDDRI) and International Organisation for Migration (IOM). Study No. 7, 11 December 2011. Available at: http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/STUDY0711_SEM%202010_web.pdf

Global Environment Fund (GEF)2013 About GEF. Available at: http://www.globalenvironmentfund.com/ (accessed on 7 January 2013).

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)2013a Integrating DRM and CCA in Development Planning. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/MDRM (accessed on 4

January 2013).

2013b About GFDRR. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/node/1 (accessed on 7 January 2013).

Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD)2012 Roundtable 3.2: Migrant Protection as Integral to Migration Management. Background

Paper, GFMD, Mauritius. Available at: http://www.gfmd.org/en/gfmd-2012/rt-preparations http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/node/156-

Green Climate Fund2013 Green Climate Fund. Available at: http://gcfund.net/home.html (accessed on 7 January 2013).

20

Gubbels, P.2011 Escaping the Hunger Cycle: Pathways to Resilience in the Sahel. The Sahel Working Group (SWG), September

2011. Available at: http://www.e-alliance.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/Publications/Food/2012/Escaping_the_Hunger_Cycle_English.pdf

Headey, D., A. S. Taffesse and L. You2012 Enhancing Resilience in the Horn of Africa: An Exploration into Alternative Investment Options. International

Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Ethiopian Development Research Institute (EDRI), November 2012. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/enhancing-resilience-horn-africa-1

Hugo, G.2011 Lessons from Past Forced Resettlement for Climate Change Migration. In Migration and Climate Change

(Piguet et al., eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.260–288. Available at: http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/papers/Hugo_PERNcyberseminar_2011.pdf

Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)2010a IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. The Brookings Institution - University

of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Washington, D.C., April 2010. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/4/durable%20solutions/04_durable_solutions

2010b Handbook for RCs and HCs on Emergency Preparedness and Response. IASC, Geneva, 2010. Available at: http://reliefweb.int/report/world/handbook-rcs-and-hcs-emergency-preparedness-and-response

2008 Climate Change, Migration and Displacement: Who will be affected? Working paper submitted to UNFCCC Secretariat by the informal group on Migration/ Displacement and Climate Change of the IASC, 31 October 2008. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/smsn/igo/022.pdf

2007 Inter-Agency Contingency Planning Guidelines for Humanitarian Assistance. IASC, 5 November 2007. Available at: http://www.washcluster.info/?q=content/iasc-contingency-planning-guidelines-humanitarian-assistance-0

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC)2013 Global Estimates 2012: People Displaced by Natural Hazard-induced Disasters. IDMC, Geneva, May 2013.

Available at: http://www.internal-displacement.org/publications/global-estimates-2012

International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC)2012 World Disasters Report 2012: Focus on Forced Migration and Displacement. IFRC, Geneva, 2012. Available at:

http://www.ifrcmedia.org/assets/pages/wdr2012/download/index.html

2009 World Disasters Report 2009: Focus on Early Warning, Early Action. IFRC, Geneva, 2009. Available at: www.ifrc.org/Global/WDR2009-full.pdf

2008 A Framework for Community Safety and Resilience. IFRC, Geneva, 2008. Available at: http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/preparing-for-disaster/risk-reduction/building-safer-and-resilient-communities/

International Organization for Migration (IOM)2013a Compendium of IOM Activities in Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience. IOM, Geneva, July 2013. Available at:

21


http://www.iom.int/cms/drr-compendium

2013b Regional Consultative Processes. Available at: https://www.iom.int/cms/rcp (accessed on 11 January 2013).

2012a Resolution No. 1243: IOM Migration Crisis Operational Framework (Adopted by the Council at its 523rd meeting on 27 November 2012). Resolutions Adopted by the Council at its 101st Session, MC/2362, Geneva, 8 December 2012, p.12-14. Available at: http://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/About-IOM/governing-bodies/en/council/101/MC_2362.pdf

2012b IOM Migration Crisis Operational Framework. Council Document MC/2355, IOM, Geneva, 15 November 2012. Available at: http://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/About-IOM/governing-bodies/en/council/101/MC_2355.pdf

2012c Climate Change, Environmental Degradation and Migration. International Dialogue on Migration, No. 18. IOM, Geneva, 2012. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/RB18_ENG_web.pdf

2012d Moving to Safety: Migration Consequences of Complex Crises. Background Paper, International Dialogue on Migration 2012: Managing Migration in Crisis Situations, Intersessional Workshop, Geneva, 24 and 25 April 2012. Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/microsites/IDM/workshops/moving-to-safety-complex-crises-2012/Background-Paper-EN.pdf

2012e Protecting Migrants during Times of Crisis: Immediate Responses and Sustainable Strategies. Background Paper, International Dialogue on Migration 2012: Managing Migration in Crisis Situations, Intersessional Workshop, Geneva, 13 and 14 September 2012. Available at: http://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/What-We-Do/idm/workshops/protecting-migrants-during-times-of-crisis-2012/Background_Paper_EN.pdf

2012f Migration, Climate Change, and the Environment: Partnerships. Available at: http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/what-we-do/migration-and-climate-change/partnerships.html (accessed on 2 January 2013).

2012g Environmental Degradation, Migration, Internal Displacement, and Rural Vulnerabilities in Tajikistan. IOM, Tajikistan, May 2012. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/Tajikistan2012EnvReport_ENG.pdf

2012h Land Rights: Overcoming Land Tenure Barriers. IOM Haiti, August 2012. Available at: http://www.iomhaiti.info/en/pdf/factsheets-august12/Factsheet_OLTB_August_2012.pdf

2012i People on the Move in a Changing Climate: A Bibliography. IOM, Geneva, 2012. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=41_7&products_id=895

2011a Environment, Climate Change and Migration: IOM’s Approach and Activities. IOM, Geneva. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/IOMClimateChangeInfosheet_final.pdf

2011b Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Environmental Migration: A Policy Perspective. IOM, Geneva. Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/env_degradation/DRR-CCA-Policy-Paper-Final.pdf

2011c Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in IOM’s Response to Environmental Migration. IOM,

22

Geneva. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/DDR_CCA_Infosheet.pdf

2011d Glossary on Migration. International Migration Law, No. 25, 2nd edition. IOM, Geneva. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/Glossary%202nd%20ed%20web.pdf

2011e Third Global Meeting of Chairs and Secretariats of Regional Consultative Processes on Migration (RCPs): Enhancing Cooperation on Migration through Dialogue and Capacity-building. Summary Report, IOM, Geneva, 2011. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=41_7&products_id=771

2009 Compendium of IOM’s Activities in Migration, Climate Change and the Environment. IOM, Geneva, 2009. Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/env_degradation/compendium_climate_change.pdf

2005 Mainstreaming Migration into Development Policy Agendas. International Dialogue on Migration, No. 8, Geneva, 2005. Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/IDM_8_EN.pdf

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)2012 ManagingtheRisksofExtremeEventsandDisasterstoAdvanceClimateChangeAdaptation.A Special Report of

Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (C.B. Field et al., eds) Cambridge University Press, New York. Available at: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/

International Rescue Committee (IRC)2013 Urban Refugees. Available at: http://www.rescue-uk.org/what-we-do/urban-refugees (accessed on 7 January

2013).

Jäger, J., J. Frühmann, S. Grünberger and A. Vag2009 Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios: Synthesis Report. Environmental Change and Forced

Migration Scenarios (EACH-FOR). Available at: http://www.each-for.eu/documents/EACH-FOR_Synthesis_Report_090515.pdf

Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS)2010 Unregistered but Tolerated: Somali Refugees in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In JRS East Africa Newsletter, Issue No.48,

November 2010. Available at: https://jrsea.org/assets/Publications/File/JRSEA_Newsletter_48.pdf

Kälin, W. and N. Schrepfer2012 Protecting People Crossing Borders in the Context of Climate Change Normative Gaps and Possible Approaches.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees, February 2012. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4f38a9422.html

Laczko, F. and C. Aghazarm2009 Migration, Environment and Climate Change: Assessing the Evidence. IOM, UNU and CCEMA, Geneva, 2009.

Available at: http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/migration_and_environment.pdf

Leighton, M.2012 Population Displacement, Relocation, and Migration. In The Law of Adaptation to Climate Change: U.S. and

InternationalAspects (Gerrard and Fischer Kuh eds.). Available at: http://auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/

23


Leighton%20Population%20Displacement%20Relocation%20and%20Migration%20Ch%2020%20in%20The%20Law%20of%20Climate%20Adaptation%202012%20(2).pdf

Macal, C. M. and M. J. North2010 Tutorial on Agent-based Modelling and Simulation. JournalofSimulation, No. 4, 2010, p. 151-162. Available at:

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jos/journal/v4/n3/full/jos20103a.html

Martin, S. F.2010 Climate Change, Migration and Adaptation. Climate Change andMigration, Study Team on Climate-Induced

Migration, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, June 2010. Available at: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/7106

McAdam, J.2011 Climate Change, Displacement and the Role of International Law and Policy. International Dialogue for Migration

2011: The Future of Migration – Building Capacities for Change. Intersessional Workshop on Climate Change, Environmental Degradation, and Migration, Session III: Protecting and assisting environmental migrants: Building and strengthening frameworks and capacities29–30 March 2011. Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/microsites/IDM/workshops/climate-change-2011/SessionIII-Paper-McAdam-Session.pdf

Mitchell, T. and M. van Aalst2008 Convergence of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review for DFID. 31 October 2008.

Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/7853_ConvergenceofDRRandCCA1.pdf

Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century2011 Chairperson’s Summary. Oslo, June 2011. Available at: http://d2530919.hosted213.servetheworld.no/expose/

global/download.asp?id=2274&fk=1629&thumb=

Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) et al.2008 The Camp Management Toolkit. NRC, Oslo, 2008. Available at: http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9295458.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)2012 Security Implications of Climate Change in the Sahel. Sahel and West Africa Club. Available at: http://www.oecd.

org/swac/topics/securityimplicationsofclimatechangeinthesahel.htm (accessed on 2 January 2013).

Oxfam International (OI)2009 OI Humanitarian Policy Note on Disaster Risk Reduction. OI, March, 2009. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org/

sites/www.oxfam.org/files/oi-humanitarian-policy-disaster-risk-reduction-apr09.pdf

Pavanello, S., S. Elhawary and S. Pantuliano2010 Hidden and Exposed: Urban Refugees in Nairobi, Kenya. HPG Working Papers, ODI, March 2010. Available at:

http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/4786-urban-refugees-nairobi-kenya

PreventionWeb2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011. Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/

english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/index.html (accessed on 2 January 2013).

24

Scheffran, J., E. Marmar and P. Sow2011 Migration as a Contribution to Resilience and Innovation in Climate Adaptation: Social Networks and Co-

development in Northwest Africa. Applied Geography, xxx, 2011, p.1-9. Available at: http://www.zef.de/module/register/media/9892_Scheffran-Marmer-Sow_2011_Migration%20as%20a%20contribution%20to%20resilience%20and%20innovation%20in%20climate%20adaptation.PDF

Sparks, D.2012 Aid Investments in Disaster Risk Reduction: Rhetoric to Action. Global Humanitarian Assistance, Briefing Paper,

October 2012. Available at: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Aid%20investments%20in%20disaster%20risk%20reduction%20-%20rhetoric%20to%20action%20-%20Dan%20Sparks.pdf

The Sphere Project2011 The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. Third Edition,

2011. Available at: http://www.sphereproject.org/handbook/

United Nations Children’s Fund2012 The State of the World’s Children 2012: Children in an Urban World. UNICEF, New York, February 2012. Available

at: http://www.unicef.org/sowc/files/SOWC_2012-Main_Report_EN_21Dec2011.pdf

2011 UNICEF Humanitarian Action Update: Horn of Africa Crisis. 24 July 2011. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/hac2011/images/UNICEF_Humanitarian_Action_Update-_Horn_of_Africa_Crisis-_Addendum_-_24_July_2011.pdf

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 1992. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/

pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_5153A80E5D000D9118833F33BE125378F1050100/filename/RIO_E.PDF

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD)2012a The Future We Want. Rio de Janeiro, 2012. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/

2012b Vulnerability of Urban Migrants: Challenges and Responses. Side event by IOM, UNHCR, UNISDR, 20 June 2012. Available at: http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&nr=433&type=1000&menu=126 (accessed on 7 January 2013).

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)2012 World Urbanization Prospects - The 2011 Revision: Highlights. ESA/P/WP/224. New York, March 2012.

Available at: http://esa.un.org/unup/pdf/WUP2011_Highlights.pdf

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)2012 UNEP Year Book: Emerging Issues in our Global Environment. UNEP, Nairobi, February 2012. Available at:

http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_FULLREPORT.pdf

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) et al. 2011 Livelihood Security: Climate Change, Migration and Conflict in the Sahel. UNEP, Geneva. December 2011. Available

at: http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/Introduction/EnvironmentalCooperationforPeacebuilding/EnvironmentalDiplomacy/SahelReport/tabid/55812/Default.aspx

25


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)2013a National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Available at: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/

items/2719.php (accessed on 9 January 2013).

2013b National Adaptation Plans. Available at: http://unfccc.int/adaptation/cancun_adaptation_framework/national_adaptation_plans/items/6057.php (accessed on 9 January 2013).

2013c Approaches to Address Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts. Available at: http://unfccc.int/adaptation/cancun_adaptation_framework/loss_and_damage/items/6056.php (accessed on 11 January 2013).

2011 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, Cancun, 29 November to 10 December 2010. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=4

United Nations General Assembly2012 Sixty-seventh session, Second Committee, Agenda item 22 (b) Globalization and Interdependence: International

Migration and Development, A/C.2/67/L.15/Rev.1, 12 December 2012.

1991 Resolution 46/182: Strengthening of the Coordination of Humanitarian Emergency Assistance of the United Nations, A/RES/46/182, 78th plenary meeting, 19 December 1991. Available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/46/a46r182.htm

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)2012 2012 UNHCR Country Operations Profile – Thailand. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e489646.

html (accessed on 7 January 2013).

2011 Crisis in Horn of Africa: A Worsening Humanitarian Situation. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4e1ff4b06.html (accessed on 4 January 2013).

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)2003 The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, 2003. Available at:

http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=555&cid=5373

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)2013a Our Mandate. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/mandate (accessed on 10 January 2013).

2013b Regional Platforms. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/regional-platforms (accessed on 11 January 2013).

2012 About. Making Cities Resilient. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/about (accessed 10 January 2013).

2011 2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction: Revealing Risk, Redefining Development. UNISDR, Geneva, 2011. Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/home/download.html

26

2009a 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. UNISDR, Geneva, 2009. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf

2009b Risk and Poverty in a Changing Climate. Summary and Recommendations: 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. UNISDR, Geneva, 2009. Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/9414_GARsummary.pdf

2009c Outcome Document: Chair’s Summary of the Second Session Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, June 2009. Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/10750_GP09ChairsSummary.pdf

2005 Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction. A/CONF.206/6, UNISDR, Hyogo, 15 March 2005. Available at: http://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Final-report-conference.pdf

United Nations News Centre2012 In Niger, Top UN Officials Stress Response to Food Crisis Must Build Future Resilience. 18 February 2012. Available

at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41292#.UO7-5eT7LSg (accessed on 10 January 2012).

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)2012 Philippines: Tropical Storm Washi. Situation Report No. 18, 17 February 2012. Available at: http://cpwg.net/

wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Philippines-Tropical-StormWashi-Situation-Report-OCHA-17February2012.pdf

2011 Humanitarian Requirements for the Horn of Africa Drought: July 2011. New York, 4 August 2011, Available at: https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/CAP/HRD_2011_Horn_of_Africa_SCREEN.pdf

2009 Official Statement by Mr. Kasidis Rochanakorn, Director, OCHA Geneva to the 2009 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, 17 June 2009. Available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/policies/v.php?id=10111

Warner, K. et al.2012 Where the Rain Falls: Climate Change, Food and Livelihood Security, and Migration. Global Policy Report of

the Where the Rain Falls Project. CARE France and UNU-EHS, Bonn, November 2012. Available at: http://reliefweb.int/report/world/where-rain-falls-climate-change-food-and-livelihood-security-and-migration

Walker, P. et al. 2012 Climate Change as a Driver of Humanitarian Crises and Response. Feinstein International Centre, Tufts University.

Available at: http://sites.tufts.edu/feinstein/files/2012/07/18089.TU_.Climate.pdf

Walsham, M.2010 Assessing the Evidence: Environment, Climate Change and Migration in Bangladesh. IOM, Bangladesh, 2010.

Available at: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/events/docs/Assessing_the_Evidence_Bangaldesh.pdf

World Bank (WB)2012 Project Signing: US$12.5 Million Fund to Build Climate Change Resilient Communities. World Bank Press

Release, 6 August 2012. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2012/08/06/project-signing-

27


us12-5million-fund-to-build-climate-change-resilient-communities

World Food Programme (WFP)2011 Hunger Looms Amid Drought In Horn Of Africa. Rome, 29 June 2011. Available at: http://www.wfp.org/stories/

hunger-looms-amid-drought-horn-africa (accessed 4 January 2013).

Endnotes1. Note that throughout the article the term “migration” is used following IOM’s definition of the term, which includes all aspects of human mobility, including forced migration such as internal displacement, or planned solutions such as relocation. Migration: “The movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border, or within a State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition and causes; it includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants, and persons moving for other purposes, including family reunification” (IOM 2011d, 62).2. In 2012/2013 alone, world media attention was caught by a number of high visibility events such as the April 2012 avalanche in Pakistan, the drought in the Sahel that began in May 2012, the earthquakes and subsequent landslides that affected Afghanistan in June 2012, Hurricane Sandy that hit the Caribbean and the United States in November 2012, Typhoon Bopha that hit the Philippines in December 2012, or the many wildfires that raged in Australia in January 2013.3. The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) notes that “disasters associated with climate extremes influence population mobility and relocation, affecting host and origin communities (medium agreement, medium evidence)” (IPCC, 2012).4. For example, UNISDR’s 2011 Global Assessment Report on DRR identifies that “Extensive disaster losses and their downstream impacts on health, education, structural poverty and displacement go unaccounted for in most countries, hiding the real cost of disasters” (UNISDR 2011, 6). 5. For more information on the linkage between DRR and migration crisis, please refer to the IOM Migration Crisis Operational Framework (IOM, 2012b).6. Note: it is also a way to highlight that DRR alone is not the solution, but in combination with other response frameworks including Disaster Risk Management, Climate Change Adaption, or Sustainable Livelihoods enables the gap between humanitarian and development responses to be bridged.7. A disaster is defined as “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. Comment: Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation” (UNISDR 2009a, 9).8. A hazard is defined as “A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: The hazards of concern to DRR as stated in footnote 3 of the HFA are ‘… hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks.’ Such hazards arise from a variety of geological, meteorological, hydrological, oceanic, biological, and technological sources, sometimes acting in combination. In technical settings, hazards are described quantitatively by the likely frequency of occurrence of different intensities for different areas, as determined from historical data or scientific analysis” (UNISDR 2009a, 17).9. The livelihoods approach – now often referred to as “sustainable livelihoods” – originates from development studies aiming to “put people at the centre of development,” by acknowledging and assessing the multiple dimensions of poverty to increase the effectiveness of development assistance. The approach, strongly anchored in a multi-level and multi-sectorial assessment, has been adopted by actors working in recovery and used in emergency contexts, particularly in relation to food insecurity. The livelihoods approach is considered to be as applicable in rural areas as in peri-urban and urban contexts; in response to man-made disasters as much as to natural disasters. The following definition captures the broad notion of livelihoods and is used by several organisations: UN Development Programme (UNDP), International Recovery Platform (IRP), the British Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS): “Alivelihoodcomprisesthecapabilities,assets(includingbothmaterialandsocialresources)andactivitiesrequiredforameansofliving.Alivelihoodissustainablewhenitcancopewithandrecoverfromstressesandshocksandmaintainorenhanceitscapabilitiesandassetsbothnowandinthefuture,whilenotundermining

28

thenaturalresourcebase” (DFID, 1999). The “Sustainable Livelihoods Approach” (SLA) concept and framework adopted by DFID in the late 1990s (building on work by IDS, IISD, Oxfam and others) have been adapted by different organizations to suit a variety of contexts, issues, priorities and applications. Core to the livelihoods approach are a set of principles that underpin best practices which can be applied to any intervention aiming at sustainable development. As confirmed by livelihoods practitioners, including IOM, a livelihood project must be: people-centred; responsive (adaptable to external factors/shocks); participatory; multi-levelled; conducted in partnership; sustainable; and dynamic.10. Agent based modeling (ABM) is an approach to model “complex systems composed of interacting, autonomous ‘agents’. Agents have behaviours, often described by simple rules, and interactions with other agents, which in turn influence their behaviours. By modelling agents individually, the full effects of the diversity that exists among agents in their attributes and behaviours can be observed as it gives rise to the behaviour of the system as a whole. By modelling systems from the ‘ground up’—agent by-agent and interaction-by-interaction—self-organization can often be observed in such models. Patterns, structures, and behaviours emerge that were not explicitly programmed into the models, but arise through the agent interactions. The emphasis on modelling the heterogeneity of agents across a population and the emergence of self-organization are two of the distinguishing features of agent-based simulation as compared to other simulation techniques such as discrete event simulation and system dynamics. Agent-based modelling offers a way to model social systems that are composed of agents who interact with and influence each other, learn from their experiences, and adapt their behaviours so they are better suited to their environment” (Macal and North, 2010).11. For more details refer to Box 1.3: Focusing on those who are trapped or stay behind when others migrate (p.29), Figure 1.3: Foresight’s conceptual framework for the “drivers” of migration (p.33), and Figure 1.4: Six human mobility outcomes arising from environmental change (p.35) (Foresight, 2011). 12. According to Foresight, regarding mobility outcomes “There are six broad outcomes, where environmental change influences migration, of interest to policy makers. These outcomes include migration and displacement but also non-migration, and hence are termed ‘mobility outcomes’. These all represent challenges to policy makers, though there is not a presumption that migration should be reduced in all instances” (2011, 108).13. According to WFP, “around 9 million people in the Horn of Africa need humanitarian assistance as severe drought combines with high food prices and conflict to push the poorest and weakest close to the edge of survival” (2011). A UNICEF Humanitarian Action Update on the Horn of Africa Crisis similarly reported that “Population-wide death rates are above the famine threshold with more than two deaths per 10,000 people every day or four child deaths per 10,000 children every day. Across Somalia, out of a total 3.7 million people, as many as 1.85 million children are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance” (2011).14. UNHCR reported that as the Horn of Africa region “faces its most severe drought in 60 years, the Somali exodus is growing fast,” with daily arrivals to Kenya and Ethiopia ranging from 1,300 to 1,700 persons per day in each country (2011). Similarly, UNOCHA (2011) reported that Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti “are seeing significant inflows of refugees fleeing the drought in Somalia” and additionally stated that the arriving Somali refugees were “already in a very bad physical state when they begin their journeys, people – particularly women and children – are arriving in camps in Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia in appalling health condition and overwhelming the already-stretched response capacity and resources on the ground.” 15. According to Kälin and Schrepfer, “Voluntary and forced movements often cannot be clearly distinguished in real life but rather constitute two poles of a continuum, with a particularly grey area in the middle, where elements of choice and coercion mingle. However, law must always draw clear lines, and must therefore necessarily qualify movement as either voluntary or forced. (…) ‘Voluntary’ - contrary to what the term suggests - does not mean to be able to decide in complete freedom. Rather, voluntariness requires certain room with realistic options to decide upon. ‘Forced’ on the other hand characterizes movements that are not based on a free decision between realistic options” (2012). 16. According to Foresight “The division between migration and displacement is reasonably well established in policy terms and is reflected in the existence of separate policy organizations and legal regimes dealing with each phenomenon at both international and national level in most countries, even if the distinction between migration and displacement is often itself quite blurred. This dual approach translates well to the context of environmental change, with certain changes to the environment, for example storm surges or sudden-onset events, more likely to lead to displacement, whilst other changes, such as a gradual process of drought or land degradation, are likely to lead to increases in migration. Variations of this dual approach have previously been applied to the topic of migration influenced by environmental change, with ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ responses to environmental change conceptualized as existing at opposite ends of a continuum. This report builds on this approach to show that there are powerful linkages between the two types of migration, with migration potentially a better alternative to displacement” (2011, 34-35).17. As McAdam has stressed: “Crucially, the focus in any analysis should be the nature of potential harm, not its cause. In a human rights analysis, whether the source of that harm is attributable to climate change or other socio-economic or environmental pressures is immaterial (and misplaces the focus of the inquiry); what matters is the harm likely to be faced by the individual if removed” (2011). 18. For more details please refer to Figure 1: Understanding the migration management cycle in IOM’s Policy Perspective (2011b, 4).

29


19. In reference to the HFA’s five priorities: (1) Ensure that DRR is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation; (2) Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning; (3) Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels; (4) Reduce the underlying risk factors; and (5) Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.20. According to GFDRR “DRM is now acknowledged as a (co-)pillar in CASs for Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Maldives, Mozambique, the Philippines, Seychelles, Uzbekistan and Yemen as well as the regional strategies for the Pacific Region and Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. Strategies in which DRM is identified as a sectoral or cross-cutting issue include, but are not limited to, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica and Madagascar. Both natural disasters and climate change are strategically recognized as risks to a country’s economic development in Armenia, Ethiopia, Panama, Tonga and other countries prone to natural disasters” (2013a). 21. Examples include the creation of the IASC informal group on Migration, Displacement and Climate Change co-chaired by IOM and UNHCR, as well as the Climate Change, Environment and Migration Alliance (CCEMA), a multi-stakeholder global partnership which aims to mainstream environmental and climate change considerations into migration management policies and practice, and also to bring migration issues into the world’s on-going environmental and climate change discourse. Members include IOM, UNEP, UNOCHA, among others. 22. The Cancún Agreements encouraged all parties “to enhance action on adaptation under the Cancún Adaptation Framework (…) by undertaking inter alia, the following: (…)(e) Enhancing climate change related DRR strategies, taking into consideration the HFA, where appropriate, early warning systems, risk assessment and management, and sharing and transfer mechanisms such as insurance, at the local, national, sub-regional and regional levels, as appropriate;(f) Measures to enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation with regard to climate change induced displacement, migration and planned relocation, where appropriate, at national, regional and international levels” (UNFCCC, 2011).23. More specifically, point 2 of the Chairman’s Summary of the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement in the 21st Century, states that “The world is now on its way to change the climate beyond its natural variability. Without concerted, decisive action, and stronger international cooperation, we face a high risk of environmental, economic, and social disruption that would fundamentally change living conditions for large parts of the globe. The implications for human welfare and security, and for our strategies for adaptation, DRR, humanitarian aid and protection of displaced people, could be far-reaching. While long-term responses to climate change need to be developmental at their core, an immediate focus should be the elaboration of mechanisms and strategies to manage disaster risk” (2011, 1). It additionally states under Principle V that “Prevention and resilience need to be further strengthened at all levels, particularly through adequate resources. International, regional, and local actors have a shared responsibility to implement the principles enshrined in the HFA 2005-2015: Building Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disaster” (2011, 5).24. Kälin and Schrepfer’s four elements for a strategy regarding climate-related cross-border displacement are the following: “1. Preventing displacement through disaster risk and vulnerability reduction and other adaptation measures; 2. Managing migration as adaptation measures; 3. Providing temporary protection status for persons displaced to other countries and permanent admission in cases where return turns out to be impermissible, impossible or cannot be reasonably be expected over time; and 4. Organizing resettlement/relocation for populations of low-lying small island states and other states losing substantial amounts of their territory” (2012, 59). 25. The Nansen Initiative is a follow-up to the Nansen Conference on Climate Change and Displacement that the Norwegian Government hosted in Oslo in June 2011, and was launched by the Government of Norway and the Government of Switzerland to address the need for normative and institutional measures to protect persons forced to leave their country as a consequence of natural disasters. 26. Assistance and protection gaps in responding to needs of crisis-affected migrants and mobile populations and the lack of their inclusion in preparedness efforts are not limited just to natural disasters, but are observed in any type of disaster, including man-made disasters, such as conflict (IOM, 2012a, 2012d, 2012e). 27. During the 67th session of the UN General Assembly in December 2012, it was agreed that Roundtable 2 of the HLD “will focus on measures to ensure respect for and protection of the human rights of all migrants, with particular reference to women and children, as well as to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons and to ensure orderly, regular and safe migration” (UN General Assembly, 2012).28. For more details on responses and projects that address mobility and climate change, please refer to CompendiumofIOM‘sActivitiesinMigration,ClimateChangeandtheEnvironment (IOM, 2009) or IOM and IDDRI’s publication TheStateofEnvironmentalMigration (Gemenne et al., 2011).29. For more details on community-based DRM and early warning systems and their role in preventing forced migration, please refer to section “Enhancing community-based protection before, during and after forced migration“ (IFRC 2012, 59-65) and “Chapter 2: Early warning: a people-centred approach and the ‘last mile’“ (IFRC 2009, 39-67).30. IOM builds evacuation centres and temporary shelter using DRR methodolgies in various disaster-prone countries, such as Haiti, Pakistan and

30

the Philippines. For example, in response to the displacement caused by Tropical Storm Washi that hit the Philippines in February 2012, IOM was responsible for coordinating and building rain-resistant temporary bunkhouses (UNOCHA, 2012). 31. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) took place in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and culminated in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which consists of 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world (UNCED, 1992).32. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) took place in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro and was the follow up to the UNCED, culminating in a nonbinding document, “The Future We Want,” in which governments renewed their political commitment to sustainable development (UNCSD, 2012a).33. Migration plays a large role in development and, as we are approaching 2015, timetabled for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), it is crucial to look at how migration could be factored into a new global development framework, especially as new issues are gaining importance, such as climate change and urbanization. As argued by Ardittis and Laczko, migration was not factored into efforts to attain the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). For example, they point out that understanding how environmental change affects mobility and vice versa will impact the achievement of MDGs, notably MDG 7 “Ensure environmental sustainability” (Ardittis and Laczko, 2013).34. The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) “is a partnership of 41 countries and 8 international organizations committed to helping developing countries reduce their vulnerability to natural hazards and adapt to climate change. The partnership’s mission is to mainstream DRR and climate change adaptation (CCA) in country development strategies by supporting a country-led and managed implementation of the HFA. GFDRR’s Partnership Charter, revised in April 2010, sets its original mission, rationale, and governance structure” (GFDRR, 2013b).35. The Global Environment Fund (GEF) “invests in businesses around the world that provide cost-effective solutions to environmental and energy challenges. The firm manages private equity dedicated to clean technology, emerging markets, and sustainable forestry” (GEF, 2013).36. One of the outcomes from the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, which took place in Geneva in 19 June 2009, was that “there is support by many participants to target the equivalent of 10% of humanitarian relief funds to DRR work. Similarly, a 10% figure has been proposed as a target share of post-disaster reconstruction and recovery projects and national preparedness and response plans” (UNISDR, 2009c).37. The Green Climate Fund “was designated as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention” and was created “to make a significant and ambitious contribution to the global efforts towards attaining the goals set by the international community to combat climate change. The Fund will contribute to the achievement of the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)” (Green Climate Fund, 2013).38. The World Bank uses this country-led strategy, by which it awards grants to Governments, who then allocate funds to NGOs, CSOs, international organizations, etc. to implement the project. For example, the World Bank recently awarded a USD 12.5 million fund to the Government of Bangladesh to build climate change resilient communities, from which the Government then channels funds to NGO-implemented sub-projects. The World Bank on its part, “supports the Government to ensure that the projects are implemented with due regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness and that due diligence requirements are performed“ (World Bank, 2012).39. For example, the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) is a document between a government and the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) that includes a strategy, outcomes, activities and roles and responsibilities for the United Nations and how it can contribute to achieving national development priorities.40. According to UNHCR, “more than half of the world’s refugees live in the slums of some of the world’s biggest cities, such as Bangkok in Thailand, Amman in Jordan, and Nairobi in Kenya” (IRC, 2013). In Nairobi, Kenya, there are 370,000 refugees (Pavanello et al., 2010), primarily from Somalia and Ethiopia. In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, there are refugees from Somalia, Sudan, and Eritrea and “according to official government estimates there are 160,000 undocumented Somalis residing in the Ethiopian capital” (JRS, 2010). In Bangkok, Thailand, there are, according to UNHCR, more than “2,000 urban refugees and asylum-seekers from 40 different nationalities (…), with the number growing at an approximate rate of 60 persons a month” (2012).41. In May 2010, UNISDR launched the MakingCitiesResilient:“MyCityisgettingready!” campaign which, based on the HFA, aims to address issues of local governance and urban risk (UNISDR, 2012).42. Examples in ADB’s 2012 final report include the eastern Pacific, “Anticipated climate change over the next half century in the eastern Pacific will encourage large numbers of residents in the islands to move from small islands to larger ones or overseas.” (36, §165) or when people become stateless due to climate change (67, §325).43. The WheretheRainFalls project, a three-year program aimed “to increase understanding of the complexities of changes in rainfall patterns and how they affect food security and human migration,” identified various adaptation and risk management strategies of affected households, and

31


concluded that “migrant remittances facilitate investments in education, health, and assets that enhance the welfare of the household in ways that make it less susceptible to rainfall stressors” (Warner et al., 2012).44. National adaptation programs of action (NAPAs) “provide a process for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to identify priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate needs to adapt to climate change – those for which further delay would increase vulnerability and/or costs at a later stage” (UNFCCC, 2013a). National adaptation plans (NAPs) are formulated and implemented by LDCs and build “upon their experience in preparing and implementing NAPAs, as a means of identifying medium- and long-term adaptation needs and developing and implementing strategies and programs to address those needs” (UNFCCC, 2013b). 45. Many international agencies, NGOs and donors, such UN agencies, CARE, Oxfam, IFRC, the EU, SIDA, etc., have been increasingly mainstreaming DRR into their programming, cluster activities, and humanitarian responses. For example, UNOCHA’s official statement at the 2009 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction stated that it “strongly believes that being ready to act by strengthening preparedness for effective response at all levels is essential to saving lives, livelihoods as well as improving overall humanitarian response” (2009). In addition, according to a recent Global Humanitarian Assistance report, “following the HFA, a number of countries (…) now recognise DRR within their most recent development and humanitarian policies” (Sparks, 2012). Similarly, the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Directorate General (ECHO), revealed that “the integration of DRR components, activities and actions through humanitarian operations has to be considered an important part of a comprehensive humanitarian response” (EU, 2013).46. The Camp Management Toolkit, put together by NRC, IOM, DRC, IRC, UNHCR, and UNOCHA, dedicates an entire chapter to the Environment (Chapter 6), and also includes environmental considerations and DRR actions in other sections of the toolkit such as the ones dedicated to site selection for planned camps, camp closure, non-food item distribution (such as stoves and fuel), water, sanitation and hygiene activities, shelter provision and the promotion of health care and health education (NRC et al., 2008).47. For more information please refer to UNEP’s TrainingToolkit:Integratingtheenvironmentintohumanitarianactionandearlyrecovery, available at: http://postconflict.unep.ch/humanitarianaction/training.html or UNEP’s resources on its work regarding disasters and conflicts at http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/48. For example, in the IASC handbook for RCs and HCs on Emergency Preparedness and Response, it identifies the roles and responsibilities of the RC/HC to ensure that environmental considerations and risk reduction activities are taken into account during all phases of an emergency response (IASC 2010b, 114). Similarly, the IASC inter-agency contingency planning guidelines for humanitarian assistance recommend that emergency response actions should be promoted while “at the same time considering the need for early recovery planning as well as prevention and risk reduction concerns” (2007, 35).49. For example, in order to increase aid effectiveness by better understanding how to fill the gap between humanitarian aid and development aid, the European Union devised the “Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD)” concept and has revealed that the EU Strategy for DRR has become significant for the LRRD approach, as DRR supports both development and humanitarian instruments (EU, 2012).50. IFRC’s framework for community resilience and safety identifies “disaster preparedness as the link between emergency response, recovery and development” and thus includes DRR activities as being crucial components that address both immediate and long-term needs (2008). UNISDR’s mandate equally includes the incorporation of risk reduction from emergency preparedness, to response, recovery and sustainable development (2013a). Oxfam International also recognizes the role of DRR as bridging the gap between humanitarian and development responses, recommending in its DRR policy note that “Donors should make available new funding for DRR, which bridges the gap between development and relief work” (2009). Finally, the Sphere Project, which aims to improve the quality and accountability of humanitarian responses, identifies DRR as a cross-cutting issue that should be taken into account in all response phases, not just during immediate emergency relief, but also during preparedness and recovery. As it reveals, the Sphere Handbook “is useful in both the disaster preparedness and the early recovery phases which conceptually ‘frame’ humanitarian response but in reality need to be considered simultaneously” (2011, 10).51. IOM Bangladesh set up Community Information Centers in order to meet protection and security needs in areas affected by Cyclone Sidr that hit the country in November 2007 (IOM 2009, 195).52. Results from the Where the Rain Falls project revealed that almost half of the rural households that were studied rely on income from migration and that “migration is a major ‘coping strategy’ to address risk and unfavourable economic and environmental conditions” (Warner et al. 2012, 75).53. The IASC framework on Durable solutions for Internally Displaced Persons states that “The assessments should include a realistic account of the risks of renewed displacement in potential areas of return, local integration or settlement elsewhere in the country and objective information on the existing protection and (disaster) risk reduction mechanisms in place” (2010a, 16).54. The Housing, Land and Property (HLP) area of responsibility, under the global protection cluster, was created in 2007, is coordinated by UN-

32

HABITAT, and addresses a variety of issues from peace and stability to durable solutions to livelihoods and risk reduction.55. An Oxfam research report revealed that “access to land, for homesteads as well as agricultural use, is a key correlate of economic opportunity and social position in rural Pakistan. A majority of the households in the flood-affected regions of the country, however, do not own agricultural land, and by extension, enjoy diminished rights of possession over homestead land.” The report therefore looked at how the floods affected access to agricultural, homestead, and common lands, how entitlements to land rights were affected, in what way rehabilitation policies or programmes became more sensitive to the position of people who had low, weak, and precarious land entitlements before the floods, and what were the opportunities for the reversal of long-standing structures of inequality and hierarchy in respect to access to land, as a result of new flood-related interventions (Budhani and Gazdar, 2011).56. In February 2012, Emergency Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, and UNDP Administrator, Helen Clark, visited Niger and “have called on governments and donors to respond to the crisis in ways that will build resilience among local communities for the future” (UN News Centre, 2012).57. According to DFID, “Increasing efforts are being made in social protection, DRR and climate change adaptation, aiming to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable communities in developing countries. There is increasing attention being paid to issues such as the resilience of macroeconomic growth and ‘crisis-proofing’ progress towards the MDGs. At the same time, there has been a growing interest in how principles of resilience can be employed in conflict-affected and fragile states” (2011, 5). 58. Prevention Web (http://www.preventionweb.net/english/) is a website set up by UNISDR that contains all DRR-related resources, including publications, information on thematic or regional issues, official documents and frameworks, events, trainings, etc.59. IOM’s MCOF includes the following sector: “Sector 8: Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building: To reduce and mitigate the risk of displacement and increase the resilience of communities to cope with disasters in view of achieving sustainable development, by providing the necessary framework, methodology and tools to analyse the causal factors of disasters, reduce exposure to hazards and lessen the vulnerability of people and livelihoods” (IOM 2012b, 6).60. For example, the MakingCitiesResilient: “MyCity isgetting ready!” campaign emphasizes the importance of working with local authorities, highlighting that “Mayors and local governments are both the key targets and drivers for the campaign” (UNISDR, 2012).61. Point 4 of Resolution 46/182 states that “Each State has the responsibility first and foremost to take care of victims of natural disasters and other emergencies occurring on its territory. Hence, the affected State has the primary role in the initiation, organization, coordination, and implementation of humanitarian assistance within its territory” (UN General Assembly, 1991).62. According to the UNISDR’s2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction “Despite a manifest commitment to disaster risk management (DRM), few countries systematically account for disaster losses and impacts or comprehensively assess their risks. The political and economic imperative to invest in DRM remains weak, with few countries reporting dedicated national budget lines or adequate financing for risk reduction” (UNISDR 2011, 72). 63. Regional Platforms for DRR “are multi-stakeholder forums that reflect the commitment of governments to improve coordination and implementation of DRR activities while linking to international and national efforts (…)They provide an opportunity to exchange information and knowledge among national stakeholders, as well as determining the way forward for DRR action in a given region.” Such platforms exist for all regions: Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the Arab States, Europe and the Americas (UNISDR, 2013b).64. Regional consultative processes (RCPs) “bring together representatives of states, international organizations and, in some cases, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for informal and non-binding dialogue and information exchange on migration-related issues of common interest and concern” (IOM, 2013). In October 2011, the Third Global Meeting of Chairs and Secretariats of RCPs met in Botswana to discuss issues under the broad theme of “Enhancing Cooperation on Migration through Dialogue and Capacity-building,” which culminated in a report summarizing “common challenges and opportunities that RCPs face and to suggest concrete tools for capacity enhancement” (IOM, 2011e). Issues covered included “the interaction of RCPs with complementary mechanisms for international cooperation on migration, potential relationship between RCPs, the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) and the United Nations High Level Dialogue on Migration and Development (HLD), (…) and the potential of RCPS to contribute to evidence-based policymaking on contemporary migration challenges, including responses to migration crises in humanitarian situations; the migration, climate change and environment nexus; and the integration of migration and development into policy” (IOM, 2011e). 65. Some existing regional platforms focusing on climate change include the Regional Climate Change Adaptation Knowledge Platform in Asia or the European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT).66. Chakrabarti and Bhat (2006) analyze the role of micro financing for recovery after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004 and reveal that there is substantial evidence that micro financing plays an important role in recovery after natural hazards, by empowering people and supplementing livelihood restoration and sustainable development.

33


67. The WheretheRainFalls project argues that a “loss and damage mechanism should also support measures, such as safety nets, social protection, and affordable insurance or other risk management and transfer tools, which enable poor populations to retain or transfer risk in the face of increasing climatic uncertainty” (Warner et al., 2012, 118). In addition, the Conference of the Parties (COP), at the Cancún Climate Change Conference, “recognized the need to strengthen international cooperation and expertise in order to understand and reduce loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including impacts related to extreme weather events and slow onset events. In this context, the COP established a work program in order to consider approaches to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change (decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 25-29), as part of the Cancún Adaptation Framework” (UNFCCC, 2013c).

35


This paper has been prepared by Patrice Quesada, Transition and Recovery Officer at the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in collaboration with Dina Ionesco, Policy Officer on Migration, Environment and Climate Change at IOM and John Harding, UN Relations and Coordination Officer at the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Patrice Quesada has developed IOM’s policy and operational guidance on migration, risk and resilience as well as supported global and country level initiatives to integrate mobility in crisis and post-crisis responses towards sustainable development. Patrice is often deployed to humanitarian or recovery operations to support strategic planning and programme development and implementation (including Haiti, Pakistan, Libya, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo). Before joining IOM in 2008, Patrice worked for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Kosovo, Vienna and Copenhagen. Patrice holds a Masters in Philosophy, a Post-Graduate degree in International Relations and a Certificate in Business Administration. Dina Ionesco is Policy Officer, in charge of the Migration, Environment and Climate Change thematic portfolio at the IOM since 2011. Dina first worked with IOM from 2004 to 2008, as a Research Officer specialized on migration and development. Prior to joining IOM, Dina worked with the OECD from 1998 to 2004 on local development, job creation and entrepreneurship. Additionally, Dina worked in a human rights non-governmental organization, in academia and as an independent consultant, in the UK, Switzerland and Denmark. Dina holds a Post-Graduate Diploma in Business Studies from the London School of Economics (UK), a Masters Degree in European Studies from Sussex University (UK) and the Diploma of the Institut de Sciences Politiques de Paris (France). John Harding works on UN Coordination at the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). He has 15 years work experience in multi-lateral organizations in support to national and regional governmental efforts to build resilient societies. John Harding has contributed decision support mechanisms for enhanced risk governance, risk assessment and early warning systems. In 2009-2010, he served as the Political Advisor on Energy, the Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction to the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, President William Jefferson Clinton. Previously, he worked as Team Leader for the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR) at the World Bank in Washington DC.

About the Author

About the Project: With generous support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, ISIM launched

a three-year project in late 2011 to explore the migration implications of a broad range of humanitarian crises and

the associated protection needs of those affected by them. The project focuses on crisis-related movements that do

not fit within legal and institutional frameworks designed to protect refugees—those who have fled due to a well-

founded fear of persecution. The project’s recommendations will seek to identify principles and effective practices

on (1) the rights of those who move or remain trapped in the context of humanitarian crises; (2) the obligations of

governments; and (3) the responsibilities of international actors.

ISIM.Georgetown.edu/work/crisis/

ISIM, founded in 1998, is based in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and affiliated with the Georgetown University Law Center. Staffed by leading experts on immigration and refugee policy, the Institute draws upon the resources of Georgetown University faculty working on international migration and related issues on the main campus and in the law center. ISIM applies the best in social science, legal and policy expertise to the complex issues raised by international migration. It conducts research and convenes workshops and conferences on immigration and refugee law and policies. In addition, the Institute seeks to stimulate more objective and well-documented migration research by convening research symposia and publishing an academic journal that provides an opportunity for the sharing of research in

progress as well as finished projects.

Project Director:Susan Martin

[email protected]

Project Manager:Sanjula Weerasinghe

[email protected]

Research Associate:Abbie Taylor

[email protected]