Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
Migration and DisastersFrom the Great Fire of London to the Fukushima Disaster
Environment and Migration
The disaster – migration nexus“Disasters are very political events.”
James Lee Witt, former director of FEMA, April 1996
Disasters are the most obvious and most brutal form of environmental displacement
Also its most visible form Often thought to induce only temporary
displacement Disaster management was also the first attempt
to develop environmental policies Number of displaced:2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008-
201236,1 M 16,7 M 42,3 M 16,5 M 30,3 M 141,9 M
Source: IDMC
The foundations of disaster responses Disasters were initially thought to be acts of God The role of the state was Noachian: rescue as many
victims as possible
Inital policies were reactive and national Shift towards Disaster Risk Reduction Shift towards increased international cooperation
Issues at stake Resettlement – Permanent migration Human Rights Humanitarian assistance Reconstruction
Resettlement and permanent migration:From the Great Fire of London to Katrina
The Great Fire of London 1666
First case of people being resettled after a disaster
Started in a bakery shop People trapped in Saint-Paul’s Cathedral People escaped through the 8 gates of city Perceived as a divine revenge against the English
Evacuation procedures were chaotic Police closed the gates of the city so that
people would fight the fire Mayor of London fled the day after the fire
started Refugee camps were set up in the North of
London No emergency relief – provisions were for sale Unrest in the camps – fear of a civil war if
refugees were to return to London Hence they were encouraged to resettle in the
North
Hurricane Katrina 2005
One of the worst disasters in US history:
About 2,000 fatalities 75 % of homes in New Orleans destroyed 1,200,000 people evacuated on the Gulf Coast US$ 85 billion damage Disaster mainly due to the levee breaches One quarter of New Orleans population without car Help didn’t arrive before Setember 3rd, four days after
the disaster
Evacuation Mandatory evacuation ordered by Mayor
Nagin on August 28. Overall quite successful: 85 % evacuated About 60,000 were stranded in the city
Because they had no car Because they were ill, old, or disabled Because they had pets Because they didn’t know where to go Because they were unwilling to leave
… Or simply because they didn’t have the money
A social disaster Despite the collective dimension of the tragedy, the
evacuation process was an individual process.
The most vulnerable were far less off Many were stranded in the city. Those evacuated had no choice of their destination This affected their ability to cope while away
A difficult return Only two thirds of the population have returned to the
city Katrina Diaspora Impact on race relations
Factors driving/hindering the return Extent of the damage Job prospects Family, friends, neighbors Crime Fear of another hurricane Love and optimism for the city Uncertainty about city redevelopment
Race relations City used to be 70% black, and is now 60% white. Issue of voting rights Conspiration theories:
Levees blown up Return slowed down
> City has dramatically changed.
Naming the victims The Refugee controversy Victims were all portrayed as black and
poor. Nunberg (2005): ‘Refugee’ twice more
likely to be used than ‘evacuee’ when used in conjunction with ‘black’ and/or ‘poor’
Wording unanimously rebutted by thevictims
« I can’t stand people calling me a refugee, I am an American and I love America »
No really appropriate term: the controversy questions our capacity and legitimacy to categorise people
Human Rights and Humanitarian assistance
The Indian Ocean Tsunami, 2004
Killed 230,000 people across 14 countries, including many tourists
An estimated 2 million were displaced – mostly in India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka (about 500,000 displaced each)
Prompted a humanitarian response from UNHCR and IOM
Human rights tend to be little enforced during disasters
Humanitarian assistance tend to be uneven, and focused on emergency relief
Trafficking issues, with women most affected.
Reconstruction
The Haitian Earthquake
Affected 3 million people, left one million homeless. Death toll unknown, could be up to 350,000.
Which role for migration policies in the reconstruction process? Temporary visas and labour schemes Temporary Protection Status How to deal with in-migration
An overview of disasters worldwide
A constant increase of vulnerability
Which policy responses?From charity to solidarity Growing importance of prevention
Paradigm changes Technological scientism rejected in favour of risk
management Determinism rejected in favour of vulnerability
A top-down approach to disaster risk reduction: resettlement
Mutualisation of risk National emergency agencies Damage compensation
Internationalisation of disaster management In the aftermath of Lisbon, ships were loaded with
supplies and sent from England, Hamburg and Sicily
World War I: Relief Comission for Belgium launched by Herbert Hoover
1932: The International Relief Union Founded by Italian Senator G. Ciraolo Treaty signed by 42 countries Civil equivalent of a military alliance International assistance is no longer a matter of goodwill
and charity, but rather of common responsibility
1943: United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) Later split between UNICEF, UNHCR and WHO
1994: Yokohama Strategy: disaster prevention and development more important than disaster response
Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
Two platforms for coordination: UNISDR IASC
The role of international organisations Interventions by UNHCR increasingly frequent
Justified by moral and practical imperatives, but also strategic considerations
Remain unplanned (on a case-by-case basis) and outside of the agency’s mandate.
Interventions by IOM more formalised and systematic Broader mandate Complementarity or competition with UNHCR?
Operational guidelines on human rights and disasters by IASC Soft law, four types of protection:
Life and security Rights related to basic necessities Other economic and social rights Other political and civil rights.
Migration and industrial accidents
The triple Fukushima disaster
The DEVAST Project
Disaster EVAcuation and riSk percepTion in democracies
Fukushima
Miyagi
Iwate
Tokyo
Tohoku region
Fieldwork sites
The Catastrophe
A triple disaster Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 Followed by a tsunami with waves up to 40 metres
Timelag of 40 minutes after the disaster Most important tsunami in Japan since 16th century Previous experience of tsunamis proved a key factor of
vulnerability 15,000 direct casualties and 3,000 missing
The tsunami flooded the generators of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant In operation since 1971, owned and managed by TEPCO No ventilation system
Reactors of the plant. Source: TEPCO.
Reactors 3 and 4. Source: TEPCO.
Radiations related to the Fukushima accident
Source: Prof. Hayakawa, University of Gunma, 18 June 2011
Contrasted evacuations
Futaba
Naraha
11/03Earthquake
2km radius Evacuation3km radius Evacuation
12/03 10km radius Evacuation20km radius Evacuation
15/03 20-30km Shelter indoors
22/04
20-30km Shelter indoors or Evacuation by own means
Areas with more than 20mSv per year
Evacuation within 1 month
16/06Spots with more than 20mSv per year
Recommended for Evacuation
Iitate
Katsurao
Kawauchi
Ookuma
Minami-soma
Hirono
Tomioka
Namie
Tamura
A step-by-step evacuation process
(22 Apr – 30 Sep 2011)
(30 Sep 2011 - present)
Restricted Area Restricted Area
Evacuation-Prepared Area
Deliberate Evacuation Area
Deliberate Evacuation Area
Specific Spots Recommended for
Evacuation Specific Spots Recommended for
Evacuation
Evacuation zones
About 350,000 evacueesA tale of two evacuations
Tsunami
Evacuation with warning
Evacuation with a plan
Evacuation with knowledge Evacuation to pre-
fabricated houses Number decreasing with
time
Nuclear accident
Privileged evacuees
Improvised by local authorities
No information provided
Scattered across Japan
Number increasing with time
Tensions and discriminations Evacuees from the tsunami and from the nuclear accident
are not entitled to similar compensations.
Evacuees from the nuclear accident face discrimination across Japan Doomed population
Self-evacuees No compensation nor assistance Tensions with the community Divorces
Return and reconstruction
A highly politicised question Tsunami evacuees have a clear perspective of
return Democratic process that respects individual choices Re-invention of communities, innovative projects
For regions that were irradiated, return has become a political project Uncertain perspectives of return Attempts to decontaminate the territory Controversies about the acceptable radiation levels, lack
of trustworthy information Collective choice, encouraged and politicised Gloom economic prospects
In a nutshell
Tsunami Nuclear AccidentLocation Within the city Far and scatteredFrequency 2-3 times 4-5 timesPsychological Stress
Acute immediately after and subdue over time
Uncertainty lingers and increment with time
Current Issues RelocationReconstruction
DecontaminationDecision on Return
Taboo Word ‘Lost Victims’ ‘Return’, ‘Radiation’, ‘Voluntary Evacuation’
Transparency of Information
High Low
Destination of Grievance
Municipality government
Central governmentTEPCO
Decision-Making
Voluntary/Democratic
Top-Down
Data and research materials available to allhttp://www.devast-project.org
An issue overshadowed by climate change The impacts of industrial accidents on
migration are typically not considered.
They can be very important however Ex: Chernobyl and the closing of an area situated
withing a 50 sq km radius of the power plant
As a result, compensations are usually not paid, and populations at risk not protected Exception: the Seveso directive in the EU