Migration and Disasters From the Great Fire of London to the Fukushima Disaster

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-

2012

36,1 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

11/03

Earthquake

2km radius Evacuation

3km radius Evacuation

12/0310km radius Evacuation

20km 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

16/06

Spots 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 scattered

Frequency 2-3 times 4-5 times

Psychological 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