Migrants in Disasters, Specific Conditions of Vulnerability, Lorenzo GUADAGNO
•
0 gefällt mir•625 views
6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 Integrative Risk Management - Towards Resilient Cities. 28 August - 01 September 2016 in Davos, Switzerland
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Migrants in Disasters, Specific Conditions of Vulnerability, Lorenzo GUADAGNO
Ähnlich wie Migrants in Disasters, Specific Conditions of Vulnerability, Lorenzo GUADAGNO (20)
Mehr von Global Risk Forum GRFDavos
Mehr von Global Risk Forum GRFDavos (20)
Migrants in Disasters, Specific Conditions of Vulnerability, Lorenzo GUADAGNO
- 1. MIGRANTS IN DISASTERS SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF VULNERABILITY LORENZO GUADAGNO IOM - MIGRANTS IN COUNTRIES IN CRISIS INITIATIVE IDRC DAVOS – 29/8/2016
- 2. AMATRICE EARTHQUAKE • Migrants as volunteers various forms of support • Xenophobia instrumental use of migrant issues • Specific livelihood issues
- 3. GLOBAL MIGRATION TRENDS 0 50 100 150 200 250 Number of international migrants, in million 1990 2000 2010 2013
- 5. MIGRANTS IN THE SFDRR • References: 7, 27(h), 36(a)(vi) • Resilience actors for host and home societies • Impacts on migrants = local and distant impacts • Direct engagement by home and host governments • Empowerment of local authorities to include migrants in DRM
- 6. 2012 HURRICANE SANDY • 3m foreign born’s largest in the US • Some 530,000 undocumented • 20% in affected areas 50% in some neighborhoods • 60% affected, 40% displaced • Only 25% apply for assistance only 22% receive any • Do not qualify for assistance • Unemployment livelihood and housing insecurity • Abuses in reconstruction
- 7. 2011 THAILAND FLOODS • 3.5m foreign workers 1m concentrated in disaster areas • 600,000 directly affected • Isolation in industrial parks • No adequate assistance • Forced labor and abuses • Limitation of mobility • Return home Smuggling and trafficking
- 8. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF VULNERABILITY • Work and live in high risk areas • Sub-standard housing • Spatial isolation • Barriers to accessing information • Lack of local knowledge • Reduced social capital • Administrative/legal barriers to accessing assistance • Lack of consideration in preparedness/response • Informal, unprotected jobs • Reduced access to basic services • Abuses, exploitation, xenophobia • Lack of trust
- 9. ROOT CAUSES • Immigration policies and regimes • Prevention of abuses/violations of basic rights (labour, trafficking, housing) • Trust building and integration efforts at the community level • Prevention of xenophobic stances • Inclusive provision of public services • Inclusive access to basic opportunities
- 10. CONCLUSIONS • Challenge/opportunity to DRM Non-discrimination to fulfil mandate Sustainability of DRM work • Sector-specific changes Adapting service provision • Broader policy reform
- 11. IOM WORK
- 12. CONTACTS • lguadagno@iom.int • micicsecretariat@iom.int • https://micicinitiative.iom.int
Hinweis der Redaktion
- I will start with a very recent example – the five-days old Central Italy earthquake. Just like in other recent examples (just to remain in Italy the floods and landslides in Liguria in the last couple of years and the Emilia Romagna earthquake in 2012) there are reports of migrants (and in this case asylum seekers, as the affected area is hosting a reception centre) volunteering as part of search and rescue and rubble removal teams – as part of coordinated relief/response efforts. Even donations from asylum seekers in other parts of Italy to affected areas. These are recurrent “feel good stories” after earthquakes, which are recurrently presented as “opportunities to promote integration”. On the other hand, there have been examples of xenophobic rhetoric (even though coming from people outside the disaster area, notably the parson of a village in Liguria and the previous head of the Italian civil protection) who have insisted on the need to allocate to people affected by the quake resources and structures that are being used for assisting incoming migrants and asylum seekers. Lastly, this quake highlights once again the specific livelihoods issues migrants face. Many labor migrants in the area, in particular from eastern Europe, working unprotected, seasonal jobs or as domestic workers (shrinking, aging population) – both sectors likely to be particularly affected by the earthquake. People are left with little alternative than going back home for a few months. In previous examples (Emilia) migrants ended up being the last staying in displacement camps – due to lack of livelihoods and other shelter options.
- This kind of issues are recurrent during and after disasters. Migrants are a component of basically every society in the According to UN data, there are some 250 million migrants in the world. Some 50 million refugees. Not only SOUTH NORTH – INCREASINGLY SOUTH SOUTH and we’re seeing some serious NORTH SOUTH This does not include short term circulation, often not caught by mobility tracking systems – nor students/tourists/migration in transit that pose similar issues. Each with specificties. Also, some 750 million internal migrants – which face issues that are largely overlapping and often similar.
- In particular in cities (and large cities, global hubs) in which activities and opportunities concentrate. Foreign born – even more if you include second generations etc.
- In particular in cities (and large cities, global hubs) in which activities and opportunities concentrate. Foreign born – even more if you include second generations etc.
- October 27, 2012, losses for USD 65 billion, the second most expensive after Katrina in US history. Some of the hardest-hit areas contained large immigrant population. The foreign-born population of New York City is the largest of any city in the United States, at just over three million people. Of the foreign-born residents of New York City, 51.5 percent come from Latin America and the Caribbean; 27.5 percent from Asia; and 15.9 percent from Europe. 535,000 unauthorized immigrants and 374,000 unauthorized workers in New York City, comprising 10 percent of the resident workforce. Twenty per cent of the total population of Staten Island and Long Island, among the New York areas most heavily affected by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, was foreign-born at the time of the disaster. Migrants accounted for well over 50 per cent of the residents of specific neighbourhoods. The impact of the storm on their well-being was significant. 40 per cent of the migrants living in affected areas reported economic loss, one in three suffered from damage to home or property. In Staten Island, 60 per cent of the migrants reported damage and 40 per cent were displaced. However, only 22 per cent of those affected applied for relief, due to a lack of understanding of the system in the United States, and only 25 per cent of those who applied actually received assistance. Language barriers, administrative requirements and lack of organization hindered migrant access to support by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local charities. Many migrants avoided applying fearing the possibility of xenophobic incidents. “Non-qualified aliens”, including some groups of documented migrants (such as those with a “Temporary Protected Status” in light of the situation of their country of origin), could not access cash assistance or unemployment benefits. Other migrants were eligible for benefits because their children were citizens of the United States, but did not apply for fear of arrest and deportation, despite statements from national and local authorities that no immigration enforcement initiatives would be conducted. This, in turn, resulted in a number of unassisted children. Migrant communities were disproportionately affected by loss of income and livelihoods related to the physical destruction of homes and displacement: many migrants employed as domestic workers, for instance, no longer had a workplace. Reduced access to safety nets for migrant workers resulted in widespread unemployment (11 per cent of the migrant community) and economic hardship. Thirty per cent of migrants reported falling back on the payment of rents, and there were reports of migrant tenants being abused by landlords (through retaining security deposits or being forced to repair their home in spite of contractual obligations). For the 53 per cent of migrants in the low-income groups, the 50 per cent increase in rents in disaster-affected areas had devastating consequences on the availability of affordable accommodation, and resulted in migrants being more likely to live in unsafe conditions and overcrowded dwellings in the aftermath of Sandy. This led to further suffering as a wave of cold weather followed the storm. One year after the storm, the media reported that many migrant residents were still waiting for aid, and that non-English speakers were still receiving insufficient information on the recovery process. This sparked collective action and complaints with the State and National Government. On the other hand, the continuity of migrant business and activities, accounting for 22.4 per cent of New York State’s gross domestic product, was essential to the economic and social recovery of the whole region. In addition, thousands of migrant workers were recruited by businesses and individuals to support early recovery activities, including rubble removal and infrastructure rehabilitation. Up to 75 per cent of these informal, day labourers were undocumented, and many ended up facing further hazards linked to unsafe working conditions and exploitation by employers in order to access the opportunities linked with reconstruction. A survey of 11 workers’ rights organizations conducted by the City University of New York found that, despite increased outreach by the US Department of Labor and the state labor departments of New Jersey and New York, more than three quarters reported the occurrence of wage theft, and 64 percent reported significant workplace injuries during the cleanup period.
- Out of the 3.5 million noncitizens estimated to be living in Thailand, one million migrant workers were living in areas affected by the floods. Aid workers put the number of migrant workers stranded due to the disaster at 600,000. The floods significantly impacted industrial parks in Ayutthaya and Pathum Thani, which employ large numbers of migrant workers, often in unsafe living and working conditions. Severe flooding in these areas put many migrant workers temporarily or permanently out of work. Restrictions to movement and boundaries linked with migration status meant that many migrant workers did not come forward seeking assistance, because of fear to lose their work permits, being arrested or deported. Relief assistance to disaster-affected areas was provided by the Government, together with the International system and a number of non-governmental partners. However, migrants reported being deliberately excluded from assistance. About 120,000 migrant workers were reported to have crossed the border back to Myanmar. Reports of extortion and abuse by immigration officials, police and smugglers were widespread, with migrants charged for crossing borders to their home country. In other cases, displacement and flight out of their province of employment resulted into migrant being deported. Many of the migrants who had left the country, however, tried to go back to Thailand – often resorting again to smugglers in the absence of any formal reinsertion programme. Governments discussed a joint plan to regulate the population flow, but it is unclear to what extent it has been implemented. Other concerns were also linked to businesses not ready to re-employ migrant workers as recovery proceeded.
- Different people, different conditions (tourists, students, expats, etc)
- Normal time