Estimates

Global Estimates 2015People displaced by disasters

Global Estimates 2015People displaced by disastersJuly 2015

IDMC core project teamCoordinator/lead author: Michelle YonetaniData modeller and statistician: Chris LavellResearchers: Erica Bower, Luisa Meneghetti, Kelly O’ConnorCo-authorsIDMC: Sebastián Albuja, Alexandra Bilak, Justin Ginnetti, Caroline Howard, Frederik Kok, Barbara McCallin, Marita Swain, WesliTurner and Nadine WalickiPartners: Marine Franck at UNHCR, Ana Mosneaga at the UN University in Tokyo, Anton Santanen at the UN Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and Greta Zeender at OCHA/Office of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rightsof Internally Displaced Persons.With special thanks toThe International Organisation for Migration (IOM): Nuno Nunes, global CCCM cluster coordinator, and Aaron Watts-Jones andLorelle Yuen at Geneva headquarters, as well as country staff in Afghanistan, Angola, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana,Cambodia, China, Colombia, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan,Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Tanzania for displacement data contributions.And to Muhammad Abu Musa at the Nowabenki Gonomukhi Foundation and Sajid Raihan at ActionAid in Bangladesh; CarlosArenas at Displacement Solutions and Juanita López at the Adaptation Fund in Colombia; Damien Jusselme at JIPS in Geneva;Samira Mouaci at the OHCHR Haiti and Peter Kioy at IOM Haiti; Martin Sökefeld at the University of Munich; Bradley Mellicker atIOM Philippines; David Rammler at Fair Share Housing and Timothy Tracey at the Monmouth Polling Institute in the US.ContributorsIDMC: Dora Abdelghani, Martina Caterina, Guillaume Charron, Anne-Kathrin Glatz, Kristel Guyon, Melanie Kesmaecker-Wissing,Sarah Kilani, Johanna Klos, Anaïs Pagot, Elizabeth J. Rushing and Clare Spurrell.NRC: Nina Birkeland, Arvinn Gadgil and staff of offices in Afghanistan, Colombia, Somalia, Pakistan and Chad.We would also like to thank the following individuals and organisations for their support for our research on protracted displacement:Roger Zetter at Oxford University; Walter Kälin, Hannah Entwisle and Atle Solberg at the Nansen Initiative; Jane Chun atUNICEF; Hollie Grant at the University of British Columbia; François Gemenne at The Paris Institute of Political Studies (SciencesPo); Elizabeth Ferris and Megan Bradley at the Brookings Institution; Susan Martin at Georgetown University; Mo Hamza atCopenhagen University; Alice Thomas at Refugees International; Megan Passey at REACH Impact Initiatives; Graham Saundersat IFRC/global shelter cluster; James Morrissey and Marc Cohen at Oxfam; Dina Ionesco, Mariam Traore, Daria Mokhnachevaand Sieun Lee at IOM’s Migration, Environment and Climate Change (MECC) and Migration, Environment and Climate Change:Evidence for Policy (MECLEP) projects; Ahmadi Gul Mohammad at IOM Afghanistan; Sarat Dash and Jahangir Md Khaled at IOMBangladesh; Oudry Guenole at IOM Cambodia; Daniel Silva at IOM Madagascar; Stuart Simpson at IOM Micronesia; Camila Riveroat IOM Mozambique; Kieran Gorman-Best at IOM Myanmar; Prajwal Sharma at IOM Nepal; Katherine Smalley at IOM Pakistan;Conrad Navidad at IOM Philippines and Vedha Raniyam at IOM Sri Lanka.Editor: Jeremy LennardDesign and layout: Rachel NataliCover photo: A man holds a family photograph as he stands among collapsed buildings after a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struckLongtoushan township of Ludian county, Yunnan province. At least 398 people were killed and some 236,900 people were displacedfrom their homes according to the Ministry of Civil Affairs. Photo: REUTERS/Wong Campion, August 2014

With thanksIDMC’s work would not be possible without the generous contributions of its funding partners. We would like to thankthem for their continuous support in 2014, and we extend particular gratitude to the following contributors:Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs, EuropeAid, Liechtenstein’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway’s Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Sweden’s International Development Cooperation Agency, Switzerland’s Federal Department of ForeignAffairs, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the UK’s Department for International Development, the US Agency forInternational Development (USAID).Internal Displacement Monitoring CentreNorwegian Refugee CouncilChemin de Balexert 7–9CH-1219 Châtelaine (Geneva)Tel: +41 22 799 0700, Fax: +41 22 799 0701www.internal-displacement.orgPlease note: The displacement estimates provided in this report are based on data recorded in our disaster-induced displacementdatabase as of 1 June 2015. Our data is subject to revision and updating based on ongoing monitoring, research and feedback.Revisions to aggregate figures since the publication of the previous year’s report are reflected here.Unless otherwise stated, all figures of 10,000 and over have been rounded to the nearest 1,000; figures of less than 10,000 havebeen rounded to the nearest 100.The dataset for 2014 events is available for download from our website: www.internal-displacement.org/global-figuresFeedback is welcome and requests for guidance in the use and interpretation of the data are encouraged. Please contact us atglobalestimates@nrc.ch

5. Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Key findings and messages5.1 Conceptualising protracted displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.2 The data and knowledge blind spot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.3 Checking common assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505.4 The problem with assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505.5 Evidence to the contrary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515.6 Leaving no-one behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525.7 Spotlight cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Papua New Guinea: Manam islanders still displaced ten years after volcanic eruptionIndonesia: Sidoarjo mudflow displacement unresolved after nine yearsBangladesh: Six years after cyclone Aila, prolonged and repeated displacement continuesColombia: The long road to relocation for Gramalote’s IDPsHaiti: Chronic vulnerability and protracted displacement five years after the earthquakePakistan: Protracted displacement from flooded land in Hunza valleyJapan: Living in limbo four years after the Tohoku earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident disasterUS: Displaced people in New Jersey still seeking solutions after superstorm Sandy6. The post-2015 global policy agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Key findings and messages6.1 Sustainable development for all: Including those displaced by disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766.2 Down to business: Implementing the Sendai framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766.3 Heading for Paris: Displacement in climate change negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776.4 Towards Istanbul: Transforming humanitarian action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Annex A: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Annex B: The largest displacement events of 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Annex C: Protracted cases ongoing in 2014/2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

ACRONYMSAUBiHEM-DATEUHDIIDPIFRCIOMISOLSENGOSDGsSIDSUNUNFCCCUNHCRUSAIDAfrican UnionBosnia and HerzegovinaInternational disaster databaseEuropean UnionHuman Development IndexInternally displaced personInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesInternational Organisation for MigrationInternational Organisation for StandardisationLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceNon-governmental organisationSustainable Development GoalsSmall-island developing stateUnited NationsUN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUN Refugee AgencyUnited States Agency for International Development

FIGURES, TABLES AND MAPSFigure 2.1: How climate change, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation can influence displacement. . . . . . 15Figure 3.1: The global scale of displacement caused by disasters, 2008 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 3.2: Global displacement by type of hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 3.3: Displacement by scale of event. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 3.4: Modelled global displacement trend for 1970 to 2014 (relative to population). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 3.5: Global displacement and population by World Bank income group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 3.6: Displacement by World Bank regions and income groups, 2008 to 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 3.7: Displacement in countries grouped by Human Development Index values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 4.1: Displacement by macro-region, 2014 and 2008-2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 4.2: Displacement by region, as defined by the World Bank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 4.3: Countries with the highest levels of displacement, 2014 and 2008-2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 4.4: The 20 largest displacement events of 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 4.5: Displacement in China, India and the Philippines, 2008 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 4.6: Displacement by hazard type in China, India and the Philippines, 2008 to 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 4.7: Philippines - Timeline of displacement events in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Figure 4.8: Displacement in SIDS relative to population size, 2008 to 2014 (per million inhabitants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Figure 4.9: Displacement in fragile and conflict-affected states, 2008-2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Figure 4.10: Countries with new displacement associated with both natural hazards and conflict, 2014 and 2010-2014 . . . 43Figure 4.11: Drivers of displacement in Herat and Helmand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 4.12: Settlement intentions of displaced households in Herat and Helmand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 5.1: Eight cases of protracted displacement following disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Figure 5.2: Displacement timeline following the Manam volcanic eruption in 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Figure 5.3: Displacement patterns and vulnerability in flood-prone areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Figure 5.4: Movement of IDPs from areas affected by cyclone Aila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Figure 5.5: Total number of people displaced by the Haiti earthquake disaster from January 2010 to March 2015. . . . . . . 63Figure 5.6: IDPs’ reasons for leaving camps between July 2010 and March 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Figure 5.7: Comparing access to key goods and services pre- and post-earthquake (better or worse; % change) . . . . . . . 63Figure 5.8: Displacement following the Tōhoku disaster from nuclear contaminated areasand earthquake/tsunami affected areas, 2011-2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Figure 5.9: New Jersey families displaced following superstorm Sandy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Figure 5.10: People hardest hit in New Jersey one and two years after superstorm Sandy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Figure 5.11: Needs of the population hardest hit by superstorm Sandy by displacement status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Figure 5.12: Financial assistance allocated for the repair of homes damaged by superstorm Sandy– owners compared to tenants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Figure 5.13: Response to homeowner applications for financial housing assistance - by applicants’ race and ethnicity . . . . 72Map 3.1: Global population exposure to natural hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Map 4.1: Philippines regions affected by disaster-related displacement in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Map 4.2: Chinese provinces affected by disaster-related displacement in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Map 4.3: Largest displacements in India and neighbouring countries, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Map 5.1: Protracted displacement following disasters worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Map 5.2: Sidoarjo mudflow affected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Map 5.3: Ongoing displacement in the Hunza valley following the 2010 Attabad landslide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Map 5.4: Mandatory evacuation zones in Fukushima prefecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Table 3.1: Annual variance in disasters displacing more than a million people, 2008 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Table 3.2: Large displacement events in 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Table 3.3: Global population trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Table 5.1: Checking and challenging common assumptions about protracted displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Table 5.2: Number of Hunza valley IDPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Table A.1: Typology of natural hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

SUMMARYSince 2008, an average of 26.4 million people have been displacedfrom their homes each year by disasters brought on by naturalhazards- equivalent to one person displaced every second.The time is opportune to ensure the causes and consequencesof this urgent issue are better addressed. Policy makersare pushing for concerted progress across humanitarian andsustainable development goals, including disaster risk reductionand action on climate change. This annual report, the sixth of itskind, aims to equip governments, local authorities, civil societyorganisations and international and regional institutions withevidence relevant to these key post-2015 agenda.Our report draws on information from a wide range of sources,including governments, UN and international organisations,NGOs and media, to provide up-to-date statistics on the incidenceof displacement caused by disasters associated withgeophysical and weather-related hazards such as earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, floods and storms.The global data does not cover displacement related todrought and gradual processes of environmental degradation,nor does it reflect the complexity and diversity of people’s individualsituations or how they evolve over time.This year, we have dedicated a section to protracted displacementin the aftermath of disasters - a significant knowledgeblind spot that requires increased attention from governments,the UN, the International Red Cross and Red CrescentMovement and other international and civil society organisations.The key findings and messages from each section of thereport are summarised below.The global picture: scale, patterns and trendsLatest estimatesMore than 19.3 million people were displaced by disasters in100 countries in 2014.Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people have beendisplaced by disasters each year - equivalent to one personevery second.Displacement by hazard type17.5 million people were displaced by disasters brought on byweather-related hazards in 2014, and 1.7 million by geophysicalhazards.An average of 22.5 million people have been displaced eachyear by climate or weather-related disasters in the last sevenyears - equivalent to 62,000 people every day.The largest increases in displacement are related to weatherand climate-related hazards, and floods in particular.Climate change, in tandem with people’s increasing exposureand vulnerability, is expected to magnify this trend, as extremeweather events become more frequent and intense in thecoming decades.Variance from year to yearThe significant fluctuation from year to year in the numberof people forced to flee their homes by disasters is driven byrelatively infrequent but huge events that displace millions ofpeople at a time.Displacement trend from 1970 to 2014Latest historical models suggest that even after adjusting forpopulation growth, the likelihood of being displaced by a disastertoday is 60 per cent higher than it was four decades ago.1998 was a peak year for displacement, which correlateswith the strongest iteration of El Niño on record. Extremeweather events associated with it included hurricane Mitch,which devastated several countries in Central America.Trends in exposure and vulnerabilityThe occurrence of displacement closely mirrors people’s exposureto hazards around the world. Exposure is increasingbecause ever growing numbers of vulnerable people live inareas prone to hazards.Two key drivers of exposure and vulnerability are urban populationgrowth in developing countries, and economic growth.The urban population in developing countries has increasedby 326 per cent since 1970. This rapid growth has for the mostpart been unplanned and poorly governed, leading to highexposure and vulnerability. Middle-income countries bearthe brunt of the phenomenon.People in low-income countries are more vulnerable still,but relatively fewer people are exposed to hazards. That said,population projections suggest that exposure will increase inmany low-income countries over the coming decades.The relatively low vulnerability of high-income countries doesnot mean that they are not affected. Around 1.8 million peoplewere displaced in high-income countries in 2014, and this isexplained by three factors:» All countries are vulnerable to the most extreme hazards» Inequality within high-income countries makes displacementa particular concern for people less well off and thosesubject to discrimination and marginalisation» Effective early warning systems and disaster responsessave lives, but increase displacement among survivors as aprotective measureGeographical distribution and the biggest eventsDisplacement by region and countryAsia is home to 60 per cent of the world’s population, but accountedfor 87 per cent of the people displaced by disastersworldwide in 2014. 16.7 million people were forced to flee theirhomes in the region.8 Global Estimates 2015

Modelled global displacement trend for 1970 to 2014(per million inhabitants)The scale of global displacement by disasters, 2008-2014People displaced per million inhabitants6,0005,0004,0003,0002,0001,000Modelled trendPeople displaced (millions)504030201036.516.742.4Related to weather hazardsRelated to geophysical hazards32.4Average, 26.4m22.319.315.001970 1980 1990Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015200020082014IDMCannual data02008 2009 2010 2011 2012Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest decimal point.20132014» Eleven of the 20 countries worst affected by displacementover the last seven years are in Asia.Europe experienced double its average level of displacementfor the past seven years in 2014, with 190,000 people displaced,most of them by flooding in the Balkans.Displacement in Africa was three times lower than averagein 2014 in absolute terms, but many African countries experiencedhigh levels relative to their population size.» The highest level of displacement in relative terms in 2014was in Sudan, where rainy season floods displaced 159,000people.In Chile, one of the largest displacements of the year highlightedthe benefit of investment in disaster prevention andpreparedness. Around 970,000 people fled low-lying coastalareas in response to an 8.2 magnitude offshore earthquakeand tsunami warning in April. Most people were able to returnhome the following day.Developing countries are consistently the worst affected,with almost 175 million people displaced since 2008, accountingfor 95 per cent of the global total. The figure for 2014 was17.4 million, or 91 per cent of the global total.The big three: China, India and the PhilippinesChina, India and the Philippines experienced the highest levelsof displacement in absolute terms, both in 2014 and for the2008 to 2014 period.Disasters related to floods, storms, earthquakes and volcaniceruptions in the three countries accounted for 15 of the 20largest displacements in 2014.Multiple and repeated displacements in the same parts ofthe three countries point to areas of particularly high exposureand vulnerability.The Philippines was among the three worst-affected countriesin relative and absolute terms, both in 2014 and over the 2008to 2014 period.Large-scale evacuations prompted by two category-threetyphoons in the Philippines caused the largest displacementsworldwide for the second year running in 2014.Small but significant: impacts on small island developingstates (SIDS)Their populations are relatively small, but SIDS are disproportionatelyaffected by displacement associated with floods,storms and earthquakes.Between 2008 and 2014, they experienced levels three timeshigher than the global average, relative to their populationsizes.Twelve per cent of the countries where we recorded displacementrelated to disasters in 2014 were SIDS, of which five wereamong the 20 worst-affected countries worldwide in relativeterms.Cyclone Ian in Tonga caused the second largest displacementworldwide in relative terms in 2014. Only 5,300 people wereforced to flee their homes, but they accounted for five per centof the island’s population.Haiti and Cuba have had the highest levels of displacementamong SIDS over the past seven years in both relative andabsolute terms, caused by earthquakes, floods and storms.Multiple hazards in fragile and conflict-affected statesA complex mix of overlapping hazards contribute to displacementand determine patterns of movement and needs in fragileand conflict-affected countries. This makes an integratedanalysis particularly important as the basis for policymakingand planning.People displaced by disasters9

Countries significantly affected by displacement related toboth conflict and natural hazards in 2014 included India,Pakistan, the Philippines, South Sudan and Sudan.All fragile and conflict-affected states, as defined by the WorldBank, experienced displacement associated with natural hazardsbetween 2008 and 2014. More than 750,000 people weredisplaced by disasters in these countries in 2014 alone.Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacementfollowing disastersRelatively little is known about protracted displacement situationsfollowing disasters. They are poorly monitored and littlereported on. A sample we have collated of 34 ongoing casesaccounts for more than 715,000 people stuck in limbo, andpoints to the likelihood of hundreds of thousands more whohave not yet been recorded.The common assumption that displacement following disastersis short-term and temporary does not hold true in manycases. The cases we identified highlight the plight of peoplewho have been living in protracted displacement for up to 26years.People in such situations receive little attention and are likelyto be left behind in long-term recovery, disaster risk reductionand development processes. Better data and further researchis needed to create a solid evidence base for policymakers’and responders’ decisions.Hazards are diverse in their nature and dynamics. Some persistfor long periods and can become permanent barriers to return.The repeated impacts of frequent short-lived hazards on vulnerablecommunities can also lead to protracted displacement.Displacement following disasters is often fraught with complexand political obstacles to solutions. Obstacles frequentlyencountered include access to land and discrimination againstvulnerable and marginalised groups. Addressing the longlastingsocial and psychological consequences of displacementis as important as the physical rebuilding of homes andinfrastructure.Most of the cases of protracted displacement we identifiedare in low and middle-income developing countries, but thereare also significant examples in rich countries, such as theUS and Japan. Vulnerable and marginalised people in highincomecountries also risk being excluded from solutions.Governments should prioritise measures to advance solutionsand strengthen the resilience of people whose displacementrisks becoming protracted, or has already become so. They includepeople whose former homes have become permanentlyinaccessible or unsafe, informal settlers, poor tenants andpeople who face discrimination based on their class, ethnicity,gender or age. Interventions should be adapted to their specificneeds.When displaced people move on to another location duringor after the emergency phase of a response, their situationshould be verified. They should not be allowed to drop off theradar as “residual caseloads” when humanitarian priorities shifttowards longer-term recovery and development.Local authorities, civil society networks and community-basedorganisations should be mobilised and supported to help identifyand monitor cases of protracted displacement. This is important,given that many of those affected are all but invisible,because they are dispersed among wider populations and inurban areas.The post-2015 global policy agendaThe time is opportune for displacement associated with disastersto be better addressed in major global policy agendaand their implementation in the post-2015 period. They includethe Sustainable Development Goals, the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction, action on climate changeunder the UNFCCC and preparatory work for the 2016 WorldHumanitarian Summit.A comprehensive approach to displacement will help to forgestrong links and continuity between these initiatives, and supportthe implementation of global and national commitments.Displacement can no longer be considered as a primarilyhumanitarian issue, nor one that is specific to conflict situations.In most countries affected it has multiple and overlappingcauses, and addressing it requires close coordination ofhumanitarian and development policy and action within andbetween governments.The increasing number of people displaced and at risk ofbecoming trapped in protracted situations following disastersunderscores the urgent need to include people displaced orat risk of becoming so in sustainable and inclusive developmentmeasures.Improved monitoring and data on displacement is neededto measure the achievement of national and global policytargets for inclusive and sustainable development, disasterrisk reduction and management, and adaptation to climatechange.In order to prioritise resources and target responses to wherethey are most needed, a common framework for collecting,interpreting and comparing displacement data should beestablished between government and partner organisationsand across different timeframes.Special attention should be paid to collecting data disaggregatedby gender, age and specific vulnerabilities, and tomonitoring the situation of people caught in long-lasting orchronic displacement.10 Global Estimates 2015

1INTRODUCTIONSince 2008, an average of 26.4 millionpeople have been displaced from theirhomes each year by disasters broughton by natural hazards- equivalent to oneperson displaced every second.The time is opportune to ensure thecauses and consequences of this urgentissue are better addressed. Policy makersare pushing for concerted progress acrosshumanitarian and sustainable developmentgoals, including disaster risk reductionand action on climate change. Thisannual report, the sixth of its kind, aims toequip governments, local authorities, civilsociety organisations and internationaland regional institutions with evidencerelevant to these key post-2015 agenda.Our report draws on information from awide range of sources, including governments,UN and international organisations,NGOs and media, to provide up-to-datestatistics on the incidence of displacementcaused by disasters associated withgeophysical and weather-related hazardssuch as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,floods and storms. The global data doesnot cover displacement related to droughtand gradual processes of environmentaldegradation, nor does it reflect the complexityand diversity of people’s individualsituations or how they evolve over time.This year, we have dedicated a sectionto long-lasting and protracted displacementin the aftermath of disasters- a significant knowledge blind spot thatrequires increased attention from governments,the UN, the International RedCross and Red Crescent Movement andother international and civil society organisations.Section five of the report presentsour initial findings from a review ofliterature, interviews and other evidenceas a starting point for further monitoring.We discuss the issue alongside eightcase studies of current situations inBangladesh, Colombia, Haiti, Indonesia,Japan, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea andthe United States. These are summarisedin annex C along with a broader sampleof 34 ongoing displacement situations.Section three presents the globalpicture today. We provide estimates andanalyses of events in 2014 and over the2008-2014 period, and include the disaggregationof global data by hazard type,annual variance in displacement patterns,and the updating of our modelledhistorical estimates to show the trend indisplacement over a 45-year period. Thesection also examines global trends inexposure and vulnerability, focusing onurban population and economic growth.A girl stands on the outskirts of Belet Wayne IDP camp, Somalia. Belet Wayne, Somalia’s fifth largest city,is home to people displaced by floods that affected the region in late 2012. (Photo: UN Photo/Tobin Jones,February 2013) In October 2014, thousands more were rendered homeless by floods again.The geographical distribution of displacementacross regions and countries ispresented in section four. It examines thelargest events of 2014 and zooms in on theIquique earthquake and tsunami in Chileas well as the flood disaster in Bosnia andHerzegovina. Country and regional datais further analysed in relation to the threecountries most consistently affected bydisaster displacement globally, China,India and the Philippines. The sectionalso focuses on Small Island DevelopingStates (SIDS) as countries disproportionatelyimpacted by displacement, as wellas multiple hazards in fragile and conflictaffectedstates, including a special spotlighton the case of Afghanistan.In the concluding section of the report,we discuss the positioning of displacementassociated with disasters in key global policyagendas. These include a new globalframework on disaster risk reduction for2015-2030, which was adopted by UNmember states in March as a successor tothe Hyogo Framework for Action; negotiationsahead of the Paris conference on climatechange at the end the year (COP21);the final stages of work on proposals fornew Sustainable Development Goals tobe presented for endorsement in September;and preparations for the 2016 WorldHumanitarian Summit. A comprehensiveapproach to displacement will help to forgestrong links and continuity between theseinitiatives, and support the implementationof global and national commitments.The overall conceptual framework andthe terms and definitions that inform ouranalysis of displacement associated withdisasters are presented in section two ofthe report. Our methodology for data collection,the development of displacementestimates, modelling and other qualitativeresearch, as well as scope and limitationsof the report are further explainedin annex A1. A comprehensive list of thelargest displacements in 2014 is providedin annex B. Our full 2014 dataset is availablefor download from our website atwww.internal-displacement.org.1 | Introduction11

12 Global Estimates 2015Hail storm at the displacement campin Kibabi, Masisi, North Kivu.Photo: IDMC/M. Kesmaecker-Wissing,March 2015

2CONCEPTUALISINGDISPLACEMENTin the context of disastersThe terms and concepts that informIDMC’s collection and interpretationof quantitative and qualitative data ondisplacement associated with naturalhazards and the disasters they triggerare discussed below. They representevolving knowledge that draws on thewide range of sources we use for ourmonitoring and analysis generally, andfor this global report in particular.Standard or widely accepted internationaldefinitions are available for some,and these are expanded upon from theperspective of different types of naturalhazards, disasters and displacement.Others are more fluid and less specific.All need to be carefully interpreted accordingto the contexts and perspectivesfrom which they were developed and inwhich they are applied.Disaster is defined as the “seriousdisruption of the functioning of a communityor a society causing widespreadhuman, material, economic or environmentallosses which exceed the abilityof the affected community or society tocope using its own resources”. 1 They arethe result of a combination of risk factorsthat can be summarised as the exposureof people and assets to hazards, and theirpre-existing vulnerability to them.Hazard refers to the potential occurrenceof a natural or human-inducedphysical event or trend or physical impacts2 , that may pose a severe threat topeople and assets that are exposed tothem. “Natural” hazards are time-boundevents or gradual processes and conditionsthat originate in the natural environment.The intensity and predictability ofhazards varies greatly.Exposure refers to “[t]he presence ofpeople, livelihoods, species or ecosystems,environmental functions, services,and resources, infrastructure, or economic,social, or cultural assets in placesand settings that could be adversely affected.”3Vulnerability refers to “the propensityor predisposition to be adversely affected”.It encompasses a variety of conceptsand elements “including sensitivity or susceptibilityto harm and lack of capacity tocope and adapt”. 4Humanitarians tend to use the term“disaster”, or “natural disaster” in relationto crises triggered by or associated withhazards that originate in the natural environment,as is the usage in this report.While they are more likely to be aware ofvery intensive hazard events, such as amajor earthquake, less intense but morefrequent events can result in localiseddisasters for vulnerable communities,particularly if the hazards are recurrent.Disaster also applies to contexts wheremultiple types of hazard contribute toa disaster. Examples include the reactormeltdown and radiation leak fromthe Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant in the aftermath of the 2011 Tohokuearthquake and tsunami, and numeroussituations in which populations are alsoaffected by conflict.Slow- versus rapid- onsetdisastersDisasters and related hazards arecommonly categorised as either slow- orrapid-onset, but their dynamics are betterunderstood as a continuum. At one endsit short-lived trigger events or hazardssuch as earthquakes that occur with littleor no notice, and at the other graduallydeveloping and long-lasting processessuch as drought and river bank erosion,which act as stressors on people’s livingconditions and means to survival. Someindividual hazard types, such as floods,include events with different dynamics.Flash floods tend to occur with littleprior warning and pass relatively quickly,while other riverine floods develop moreslowly. Floodwaters may make areas inaccessiblefor months. Different types ofexplosive or effusive volcanic eruptionscan occur with little or no notice, whileothers can be predicted ahead of time,producing ash, toxic gases, fast movingfloods of hot water, debris and lava withinhours to days. Eruptions may continue tothreaten exposed areas over extendedperiods and require repeated evacuations.Other hazards may occur as a cascade,such as tsunamis, landslides, fires andaftershocks following a major earthquake,or flooding made more extreme when itfollows a period of drought. These dynamicshave a bearing on how displacementoccurs, as further discussed below.Displacement is the forced or obligedmovement, evacuation or relocation of in-2 | Conceptualising displacement in the context of disasters13

dividuals or groups of people from theirhomes or places of habitual residencein order to avoid the threat or impact ofa disaster. 5 It refers to situations wherepeople are forced to move by other peopleand organisations, including local ornational authorities, but also when peopleact of their own volition in response to thethreats and severe conditions they face.The continuum from voluntarymigration to forced displacementIn practice, displacement sits withina continuum including “(predominantly)forced displacement” and “(predominantly)voluntary migration”, as well as“(voluntary or forced) planned relocation”(Nansen Initiative, 2014). 6 Displacementtends to emphasise “push” factorsto leave and migration emphasises “pull”factors at the intended destination, whileeach is a mixture of both. Put another way,displacement is a more reactive measureof last resort or a survival response tosevere and immediate threats. Migrationis a longer-term strategic decisionto move to where there are safer conditionsand better livelihood prospects (seefigure 2.1). Movements at either end ofthe continuum may put vulnerable peoplein a more precarious situation thanif they had stayed in their place of originif they are not sufficiently protected andsupported. Well informed, prepared andmanaged movements, however, enablepeople to adapt to worsening conditionsand save lives.The difference between voluntaryand forced population movements isparticularly difficult to distinguish duringslowly evolving disasters. In the face ofrapidly developing hazards, people areoften forced to flee their homes with littlenotice in response to the immediatethreat. Others may be displaced later asthe disaster develops and new threatsevolve or initial coping strategies begin tofail. Their immediacy as shocks that triggeracute points of crisis make it easierto link them to any displacement caused.Large groups of people on the move soonbefore or after a hazard’s impact are alsoeasier to identify.Gradual and long-lasting hazardssuch as drought or processes of environmentaldegradation such as soil erosiontend to act indirectly as stressorson living conditions, along with a rangeof other socio-economic, political andcultural drivers of exposure and vulnerability.They allow people more time toconsider and take steps to avoid, mitigateand adapt to impacts on their homes,livelihoods and communities. They maychoose to migrate well before they facean acute crisis, which blurs the distinctionbetween forced displacement andvoluntary migration.For the poorest and most vulnerable,whose survival options may be severelycircumscribed by remaining in theirhomes, it could be argued that their decisionto leave always constitutes a formof displacement regardless of the hazardsthat contributed to it. In slow-onsetsituations, people may flee in smallernumbers and over longer periods of timein response to a gradual change in conditionsand are, therefore, less easy toidentify and track. Slowly evolving disasterssuch as the Sidoarjo mud flowin Indonesia (see section 5) may makereturn impossible even in the long-term,because they make land permanently irredeemable.Displacement riskAs with disaster risk, the risk of displacementcan be expressed in relationto hazards, exposure and vulnerability:The likelihood, severity and nature of ahazard or combination of hazards occurringover time. According to the bestscientific evidence, climate change isexpected to alter normal variability inthe weather and make some hazardsmore severe and frequent 7The exposure of people and theirhomes, property and livelihoods to hazardsbefore a disaster and both duringand after their displacement as theymove from one location to anotherPeople’s pre-existing and evolving vulnerabilityto the impact of hazards before,during and after their displacementThese factors not only increasethe likelihood of people becoming displaced.They also affect evolving threatsto their security and human rights whiledisplaced, the duration of their displacementand the obstacles displaced peopleface in their efforts to achieve durablesolutions. This is because displacementputs people at greater risk of impoverishmentand discrimination, and createsspecific protection needs. 16 Specificproblems they face include landlessness;joblessness; homelessness and worseninghousing conditions; economic, socialand psychological marginalisation; foodinsecurity; increased morbidity and mortalitythrough trauma and vulnerability toinsanitary conditions and disease; lossof access to common property; and thedisruption or destruction of social andeconomic support networks. 17 Many ofthese challenges are illustrated throughcases highlighted in sections three, fourand five of this report.Reducing displacement riskExposure and vulnerability are largelythe product of human activity and theycan be reduced by government andcommunity-based measures that reducethe risk of displacement. Such measuresinclude the application of building standardsto make homes and infrastructuredisaster resistant, and strengthening theresilience of communities and livelihoodsso that they are better able to withstandor adapt to the hazards they face. Landzoning may also be enforced to minimisethe development of settlements in areasthat face frequent, severe and increasingexposure to hazards. As a last resort,after all other options have failed andcommunity resilience has significantlyeroded, measures may also include thepermanent relocation of people’s homesaway from areas where their exposure tohazards is high. 18To be effective, approaches need tobe tailored to the specific contexts inwhich people are or may be displaced,and the different capacities and vulnerabilitiesof the communities, householdsand individuals concerned. Measuresshould also address the disproportionatelevel of risk faced by poor and marginalisedcommunities and households, whichhave fewest resources both to mitigatedisplacement and recover from it throughthe achievement of durable solutions (seesection five). 19How “natural” a hazard is as a contributingfactor to displacement is a complex14 Global Estimates 2015

Box 2.1: Slow-onset hazards and gradualprocesses associated with climate changeEven gradual and relatively modest changes in climate canaffect the frequency and intensity of hazards and communities’vulnerability to them (see figure 2.1). Higher temperaturesincrease the risk of both drought and episodes of heavyrainfall, also known as “extreme precipitation events”, whilerising sea levels make storm surges worse and increase therisk of coastal flooding. Lower agricultural yields associatedwith gradual changes in climate undermine rural livelihoodsand erode communities’ capacity to cope with shocks.Figure 2.1: How climate change, disaster riskreduction and climate change adaptation can influencedisplacement+Disaster risk reduction andclimate change adaptation- -+ExposureVulnerabilityPopulation++DisplacementSea level riseRising sea levels are expected to become a significantdriver of future displacement, particularly in small islandstates and low-lying coastal areas. The IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment Reportnotes that “it is virtually certain that global mean sea levelrise rates are accelerating”, with projected increases by 2100ranging from 0.35 to 0.70 metres.Rising sea levels will aggravate the effects of swell waves,storm surges and other drivers of severe sea-flood and erosionrisk. Wave over-wash is also confidently predicted to degradefresh groundwater resources. 8 IPCC’s report notes that tens ofmillions of people could find themselves at risk of permanentdisplacement as their home areas become uninhabitable.“Twelve million people could become displaced by sealevel rise by 2030 in four major coastal areas in the U.S.Globally, and without investment in adaptation measures,a rise of 0.5m in sea level implies a likely land loss of 0.877million km2 by 2100, displacing as many as 72 million people.A more extreme 2.0m change in sea level would resultin the loss of 1.789 million km2, displacing 187 million people,or 2.4 per cent of global population, mostly in Asia.” 9Such scenarios are not foregone conclusions. The scaleof displacement will also depend on the extent to whichcountries and communities adapt to the threats posed byrising sea levels. Making communities more resilient should+End of displacement+Weather-relatedhazardsDisplaced populationClimate changeimpactsreduce, or at least delay the onset of such forced movements.That said, research published since the IPCC report hasfound that a section of the western Antarctic ice sheet hasgone into “irreversible retreat”. 10 This could mean sea levelsare rising more quickly than previously thought, makingIPCC’s scenarios overly optimistic. For those unwilling torelocate, adaptation would not be a choice but a necessity.Displacement in small island statesAs with other hazards, the fact that sea level rise is one ofa number of inter-related and dynamic processes that influencepopulation movements makes it difficult to estimatefuture displacement associated with the phenomenon. TheIPCC notes, for example, that climate change and its impactsare taking place at the same time as increases in rural tourban migration. This often results in squatter settlementsin highly exposed locations that lack basic amenities, leavinginhabitants highly vulnerable to climate risks. 11In small island states, other gradual changes and processessuch as the warming of sea surface temperatures, oceanacidification and the depletion of oceanic oxygen also have thepotential to influence mobility patterns indirectly, given their impactson livelihoods. Such processes are expected to contributeto coral bleaching, threatening both fish stocks and tourism.Affected communities may also suffer the impacts onagricultural production of the salination of groundwater andsoil associated with rising sea levels and climate variability interms of drought and floods. This may force them to importmore food and drinking water, which in turn increases theirvulnerability to price spikes and pre-existing pressures tomigrate for economic reasons.The IPCC concludes that more research is needed on theimpact of rising sea levels and other climate change impactson small island displacement, and on the adaptation strategiesappropriate for different types of island under differentscenarios. 12 More sophisticated approaches are requiredto accommodate such complexity and respond to climatechange in a multidimensional way as one of a number ofstressors on small island states.The impact of different adaptation strategies on displacementand migration will be influenced by the scale of climatechange and human factors such as their cultural and socialacceptability and communities’ confidence in their effectiveness.13 Cultural attachment to place, economic opportunitiesand other human factors have influenced population mobilityin small island states as much, if not more than environmentalfactors. 14 In Kiribati and Fiji, spiritual beliefs, traditional governancemechanisms and short-term approaches to planninghave undermined adaptation measures. 15Ultimately, future displacement will be influenced by climatechange and environmental degradation and how humanschoose to address the processes. There is, however,still a great deal of uncertainty about the possible extent ofclimate change impacts, and even more about how humanswill respond to them.2 | Conceptualising displacement in the context of disasters15

Box 2.2: Dynamics and evacuation patternsassociated with rapid-onset hazardsNational and local authorities have the primary responsibilityfor implementing evacuations as a protective measure.Given that fleeing quickly from the dangers inherent ina rapidly unfolding disaster can be highly risky, especiallywhen large numbers of people are involved, such evacuationsshould be well prepared for in advance, including theidentification of safe refuge areas.People with limited mobility because of age, illness ordisability or sickness, and children who become separatedfrom their carers require particular attention to ensure thatthey are adequately protected. 24Evacuations are normally undertaken on the assumptionthat they will be short-lived, but return depends on the effectsof a disaster in home areas and prospects for recovery. Torespect human rights and be lawful, authorities must ensurethe safety and health of those affected or at risk, and allmeasures must be taken to minimise the scale and durationof displacement and its adverse effects. 25Well-executed evacuations of people living in exposed areasare a vital life-saving measure. 26 Governments worldwidehave recognised the importance of effective early warningsystems to monitor threats and ensure that timely notice isgiven to all those potentially exposed. 27 Evacuations mustalso take into account the nature of different hazards, whichdo much to determine the timing and dynamics of initialdisplacement patterns.In the case of tropical storms, evacuations tend to takeplace over the hours and sometimes days before they areexpected to make landfall, and/or over similar timescalesafterwards. The onset of hurricanes and cyclones can be predictedin time to allow for prior large-scale evacuations, butthey may change strength and direction at the last minute.Tornadoes often develop with little warning, so shelteringin situ, often underground, tends to be the safest option. Insuch cases, people can still become displaced in the storm’saftermath if they lose their homes or the devastation to theircommunities is so widespread that they are forced to moveelsewhere, at least temporarily.Tsunami warnings provide exposed populations with vitaltime to flee to higher ground. This may be a matter of minutesto hours, depending on how close they are to an underseaearthquake’s epicentre. 28 Earthquakes and flash floods givelittle or no notice of their onset, meaning that evacuationstake place during or after their initial impact. In contrast, earlywarnings of volcanic activity often allow people to evacuateunder less time pressure, but the exact moment of an eruptionis difficult to predict. This may mean that evacuees aredisplaced for weeks, or that they are allowed to return onlyto be evacuated again at a later date.Periods of heavy seasonal rainfall and riverine and stormrelatedfloods often affect heavily populated low-lying andcoastal areas. As they evolve, they may prompt successivewaves of evacuations over weeks and months, which alsomakes it difficult to distinguish between one disaster and thenext. We identified examples of all these dynamics amongthe displacements reported in 2014, the largest of which inboth absolute and relative terms are discussed in sectionfour.question. The human exploitation andmismanagement of the planet’s naturalresources is an important factor in manydisasters. The decision to dam or divertwater in response to heavy rainfall andflood risk may have immediate impacts ondisplacement, for example. In slowly developingand long-lasting situations, it is lesslikely that a specific hazard can be singledout as the main driver of displacement(see Afghanistan spotlight in section four).Models developed by IDMC and ClimateInteractive also show that the frequencyof drought in the Horn of Africa is a lesssignificant factor in undermining pastoralists’livelihoods and driving their displacementthan other issues, such as changesin government policy. 20 Emphasising thenatural aspect of hazards distracts fromthe role of human activity in the disastersand displacement they cause. 21 As such,an over-emphasis on hazards themselvescan be politically, practically and methodologicallyproblematic.At the same time, anthropogenic climatechange is expected to increasethe intensity and frequency of certainweather-related hazards and the vulnerabilityof some populations as their landand livelihoods become uninhabitable. 22The best scientific knowledge availablemakes clear the urgency of action to bothmitigate global warming and adapt to itshuman impacts, including displacement. 23The complex relationship betweenslow-onset hazards and displacement associatedwith climate change is discussedfurther in box 2.1.Patterns of movementFollowing their initial displacement,people’s trajectories are often complex,a fact seen at both the individualand community level, and within andamong households. It is not unusual fordisplaced people to move a number oftimes, whether in response to threats oropportunities that arise over time as theyseek to end the insecurity and uncertaintyof their displacement and re-establishtheir homes and livelihoods. The abilityto move to where assistance is availablemay indicate resilience. Governments andhumanitarian organisations may relocatepeople from initial shelter sites or evacuationcentres to more secure shelter whenit becomes clearer that displacement islikely to last longer than expected.Movements in response to new threatsto their safety and security in their placesof refuge, however, may constitute secondarydisplacement. Threats may includeexposure to further natural hazardsas a camp becomes flooded, for example,or through exposure to gender-based violenceor forced eviction. Chronic displacement,whether long-lasting, in repeatedcycles or both, undermines people’s resilienceand makes them more vulnerableover time. 2916 Global Estimates 2015

Repeated and frequent displacementRepeated cycles of displacement arefrequently observed in countries andareas exposed to natural hazards (seemaps in section 3 for example). Contraryto common assumptions, the early returnof people to their homes does not necessarilyindicate the end of their displacement.If recovery is beyond the means ofdisplaced families and the risk of furtherdisaster and displacement is not reduced,it does not constitute a safe and sustainablesolution.Long-lasting and protracteddisplacementLong-lasting and protracted displacementfollowing disasters, especially rapidonsetdisasters, is more prevalent thancommonly assumed 30 as shown by evidencepresented in section 5 and annex Cof this report. At the same time, the globaldata presented in this report does not followthe hundreds of new displacementsidentified each year to track how longpeople remain displaced for, what theirneeds are during displacement nor whatobstacles they face to achieving durablesolutions. Knowledge about the durationof displacement following disasters is adhoc and unconsolidated, as is more detailedidentification and analysis of casesof particular concern. 31 This constitutesan important gap that we have started toaddress more systematically as discussedin section 5.Definitions of protracted displacementvary across different organisations andperspectives and depend on the purposeand context in which the term is applied.They commonly include an element oftime as well as a notion of limbo or uncertaintyfor people facing significantobstacles to achieving solutions to theirdisplacement and for whom progress isslow or stalled. 32 The length of time thatpeople remain displaced can vary greatlyaccording to the specific context, andthresholds applied for the purpose of statisticalanalysis or research will tend to bearbitrary. 33 UNHCR data on displacementrelated to conflict applies the term to situationsthat have been ongoing for at leastfive years, 34 though it may be argued thatmany situations become protracted beforethat point. Length of time displaced isinsufficient in itself as an indicator of theseverity of the situation. For the purposeof the preliminary research presented inthis report, we have used a temporal valueto set the parameters of our analysis. Theminimum duration of one year was appliedas a timeframe commonly assumedfor the emergency response phase followingrapid-onset disaster, and withinwhich displaced people are expected tohave returned to their homes. This andother assumptions are also discussed insection 5.Displacement in terms of distancemovedThe distance people flee from theirhomes should not be taken as an indicatorof the severity of people’s situationswhile displaced. How far they move is determinedby a variety of factors, includingwhether areas near their homes are safeand accessible, and best able to accessassistance, be it from family and friends,the government or other providers.Staying as close to their homes aspossible is a common strategy that enablesdisplaced people to maintain theirsocial networks, protect their propertyand register their need for emergencyassistance. It may also, however, be theresult of a lack of better options or becausephysical, financial, social or politicalobstacles prevent them from moving furtherafield. 35 People in such situations arein essence both displaced and trapped, 36and as such they should be among thoseincluded for humanitarian assistance andprotection, particularly in the aftermathof a disaster that has caused significantdestruction.Internal and cross-border displacementThe vast majority of people who fleedisasters remain within their country ofresidence. As set out in the Guiding Principleson Internal Displacement, they aredescribed as internally displaced people(IDPs). 37 At the same time, in some regionssubstantial numbers of displacedpeople seek protection and assistanceabroad. 38 The global data on which thisreport is based covers only the incidenceof displacement, and not where displacedpeople flee to or where they eventuallysettle. As such, it does not allow us toquantify how many people may havecrossed an international border duringtheir displacement or how many settleabroad. Evidence gathered by the NansenInitiative on cross-border displacementis strongest for people displaced acrossborders in Africa in relation to droughtand floods, and in the Americas in relationto earthquakes and hurricanes inparticular. Examples from Asia are morerare, though disasters and environmentaldegradation have been linked to peoplemigrating abroad (see the case in section5 from Bangladesh). Little evidencehas been found of such displacementor migration from Europe. 39 As sea levelscontinue to rise it is expected thata significant portion of the populationsof small island countries and low-lyingcountries with extensive coastlines willbe forced to move abroad also. 40A durable solution to displacementis achieved a) when IDPs have found asettlement option through re-establishingtheir homes where they lived before thedisaster, through integrating locally in theareas where they have been displacedto, or through relocating and integratingelsewhere in the country, b) when theyno longer have specific assistance andprotection needs linked to their displacement,and c) when they can exercise theirhuman rights without discrimination. 41Whichever settlement option displacedpeople choose to pursue, theyoften face continuing problems and risksthat require support beyond the acutephase of a disaster. Achieving a durablesolution is a gradual and complex processthat needs timely and coordinated effortsto address humanitarian, developmentand human rights concerns.As such, an effective response todisplacement requires IDPs’ basic needsfor immediate protection and assistanceto be met in tandem with longer-termprocesses to ensure that solutions aredurable. Such an approach should includemeasures that reduce the risk offurther disaster and repeated displacement,wherever people choose and areable to settle. 42Further explanation of terms can befound in the methodological notes in annexA.2 | Conceptualising displacement in the context of disasters17

18 Global Estimates 2015Mount Kelud’s eruption in Indonesiadisplaced thousands and killed atleast seven people. Photo: IRIN/Contributor, February 2014

3THE GLOBAL PICTUREScale, patterns and trendsKey findings and messagesLatest estimatesMore than 19.3 million people were displacedby disasters in 100 countries in2014.Since 2008, an average of 26.4 millionpeople have been displaced by disasterseach year - equivalent to one personevery second.Displacement by hazard type17.5 million people were displaced bydisasters brought on by weather-relatedhazards in 2014, and 1.7 million by geophysicalhazards.An average of 22.5 million people havebeen displaced each year by climateor weather-related disasters in the lastseven years - equivalent to 62,000 peopleevery day.The largest increases in displacementare related to weather and climate-relatedhazards, and floods in particular.Climate change, in tandem with people’sincreasing exposure and vulnerability,is expected to magnify this trend,as extreme weather events becomemore frequent and intense in the comingdecades.Variance from year to yearThe significant fluctuation from year toyear in the number of people forced toflee their homes by disasters is drivenby relatively infrequent but huge eventsthat displace millions of people at a time.Displacement trend from 1970 to 2014Latest historical models suggest thateven after adjusting for populationgrowth, the likelihood of being displacedby a disaster today is 60 per cent higherthan it was four decades ago.1998 was a peak year for displacement,which correlates with the strongest iterationof El Niño on record. Extremeweather events associated with it includedhurricane Mitch, which devastatedseveral countries in Central America.Trends in exposure and vulnerabilityThe occurrence of displacement closelymirrors people’s exposure to hazardsaround the world. Exposure is increasingbecause ever growing numbers ofvulnerable people live in areas proneto hazards.Two key drivers of exposure and vulnerabilityare urban population growth indeveloping countries, and economicgrowth.The urban population in developingcountries has increased by 326 per centsince 1970. This rapid growth has for themost part been unplanned and poorlygoverned, leading to high exposure andvulnerability. Middle-income countriesbear the brunt of the phenomenon.People in low-income countries aremore vulnerable still, but relativelyfewer people are exposed to hazards.That said, population projections suggestthat exposure will increase in manylow-income countries over the comingdecades.The relatively low vulnerability of highincomecountries does not mean thatthey are not affected. Around 1.8 millionpeople were displaced in high-incomecountries in 2014, and this is explainedby three factors:» All countries are vulnerable to themost extreme hazards» Inequality within high-income countriesmakes displacement a particularconcern for people less well offand those subject to discriminationand marginalisation» Effective early warning systems anddisaster responses save lives, but increasedisplacement among survivorsas a protective measure3 | The global picture: scales, patterns and trends19

Figure 3.1: The global scale of displacement caused by disasters, 2008 to 2014People displaced (millions)50403020100WeatherGeophysical36.5m57%20.8m43%15.8m200816.7m91%15.3m42.4m90%38.3m15.0m92%13.9m32.4m98%31.7m22.3m92%20.4m9% 1.5m 10% 4.0m 8% 1.1m 2% 0.7m 8% 1.8m2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Average, 26.4m19.3m91%17.5m9% 1.7m2014Note: Differences in totals are due to rounding of figures to the nearest decimal point. Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015People displaced (millions)200150100500184.6m86%157.8m14%26.7m7 years3.1 The latest estimatesDisasters brought on by weatherrelatedand geophysical hazards forcedmore than 19.3 million people to leavetheir homes in 2014 (see figure 3.1). Thisestimate is based on 695 new displacementevents in 100 countries (see globalmap on the inside cover).Since 2008, an average of 26.4 millionpeople have been displaced by disasterseach year - equivalent to one person displacedevery second.3.2 Displacement by type ofhazardIn 2014, disasters associated withweather hazards, mostly floods andstorms, displaced more than 17.5 millionpeople, or 92 per cent of the global total.Storms were responsible for a higherthan average share of total displacement(see figure 3.2). The Atlantic hurricaneseason was relatively quiet, but the Pacificproduced the highest ever numberof storms ranked category four or higher,and equalled the modern record for thenumber of storms overall in a single season.1Most of the largest displacementsin 2014 were associated with weatherrelatedhazards. The three largest werecaused by typhoons and floods in thePhilippines and India (see table 3.1). Eightof the 20 largest disasters of the yearwere triggered by typhoons or tropicalstorms in Asia (see figure 4.4).Since 2008, an average of 22.5 millionpeople have been displaced by climate- orweather-related disasters. This is equivalentto 62,000 people every day.Climate change, on top of increasingexposure and vulnerability, is expected toexacerbate this trend further as the intensityand frequency of extreme weatherhazards increases in coming decades. 2Disasters related to geophysical hazards,primarily earthquakes and volcaniceruptions, displaced more than 1.7 millionpeople, or nine per cent of the 2014 total(see figure 3.2). Between 2008 and 2014,only three of the 37 disasters to displacemore than a million people were related togeophysical hazards - the 2008 Sichuanearthquake in China and the 2010 earthquakesin Haiti and Chile.3.3 Variance from year to yearAs can be seen in table 3.1, the totalnumber of people displaced varies greatlyfrom year to year, depending on the frequencyand size of the largest disasters.In 2014, 32 disasters displaced morethan 100,000 people, of which three displacedmore than a million. Together,those 32 accounted for 83 per cent of thetotal (see figure 3.3.b). This pattern wassimilar over the last seven-year period. In2008-2014, 34 disasters that displacedmore than a million people were responsiblefor two-thirds of the total (see table 3.1and figure 3.3.a). Such large-scale eventswere less frequent and relatively smallerin 2014, making the total for the year lowerthan the average of 26.4 million over theseven-year period.Displacements of fewer than 100,000people made up 95.4 per cent of theevents recorded in 2014, but only 17 percent of the total number displaced (seefigure 3.3b). A third of all events were verysmall, displacing fewer than 100 peopleeach, and their contribution to the globaltotal was negligible. At the same time, itshould be noted that small events tend tobe poorly reported in most countries andtheir true number is probably much higher.20 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 3.2: Global displacement by type of hazard2014 2008 - 2014Earthquakes8% 1.5mVolcanic eruptions 1% 245,000Earthquakes14% 25.8mExtreme temperatures 1% 958,000Storms29%53.9mFloods43%8.3mStorms48%9.1mFloods55%102mStorms Floods Wildfires Wet mass EarthquakesmovementsVolcaniceruptionsExtremetemperaturesDry massmovementsNote: figures rounded to nearest 1,000 or 100,000 Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015Table 3.1: Annual variance in disasters displacing more than a million people, 2008 to 2014YearVery large andmega eventsDisplaced(millions)HazardCountry2008 8 1.7 - 15.0 Earthquake, floods (4), storms (3) China (2) India (3), Myanmar, Philippines, US2009 3 1.6 - 2.5 Flood, cyclones (2) China, India (2)2010 7 1.0 - 15.2 Floods (5), earthquakes (2) Chile, China, Colombia (2), Haiti, Pakistan, Thailand2011 2 1.5 - 3.5 Floods (2) China, Thailand2012 8 1.4 - 6.9 Floods (5), storms (3) China (2), India (2), Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines (2)2013 6 1.0 - 4.1 Floods (2), storms (4) Bangladesh, China, India (2), Philippines (2)2014 3 1.1 - 3.0 Storms (2), flood India, Philippines (2)Figure 3.3: Displacement by scale of eventa) 2008-2014: Proportion of total displaced per year by event size100807%13%1%11%5%33%1%11%1%6%2%9%17%b) 2014: Displacement by event size compared withnumber of events at different scalesi. People displacedii. EventsPercentages604039%88%62%65%53%71%52%17% 3.3m52%10.0m95.4%663 events20041%20082009201023%201140%201218%201331%201431%5.9m4.2% 29 events0.4% 3 eventsVery small to medium events(fewer than 100,000 displaced)Large events(100,000 - 999,999 displaced)Very large events(1 - 3 million displaced)Mega events(>3 million displaced)Note: All percentages are rounded. Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 20153 | The global picture: scales, patterns and trends21

3.4 Displacement trend from 1970to 2014IDMC has used probabilistic modellingto generate coarse-grained displacementestimates going back to 1970. Wecontinue to develop the model, with arecent focus on increasing the size ofour data sample for the calibration of theestimates.The model is dependent on the qualityand availability of global data. A number ofimportant caveats should be kept in mind.Firstly, the sample sizes are too small tomake inferences about individual countries.Secondly, extreme hazards occur relativelyinfrequently. Those that occur onceevery 100, 500 or 1,000 years are unlikely tobe captured in four decades of data and bytheir very nature, they are hard to quantify.Meanwhile, its latest iteration alreadyprovides a reasonable approximation ofthe general historical trend and some validationof expected displacement patternsthat are also reflected in our data for 2008to 2014 (see annex A.2).Latest findings show that the totalnumber of people displaced in 2014,though lower than the average for thepast seven years, is part of a longer-termupward trend in displacement since 1970.Even adjusting for population growth,the average amount of displacement associatedwith disasters has increased by60 per cent in a little over four decades.(see figure 3.4.a). 3This is driven mostly by the increasingconcentration of people in exposedlocations, combined with their growingvulnerability. 4 More frequent and intenseextreme weather events associated withclimate change are expected to accentuatethe trend. 5Data behind the modelled trend alsoshows large variations year to year. Thisincludes a peak in 1998, when almosttwice as many people were displacedthan in any other since 1970. This is furtherdiscussed in box 3.1.Figure 3.4: Modelled global displacement trend for 1970 to 2014 (per million inhabitants)7,0006,000People displaced per million inhabitants People displaced per million inhabitants5,0004,0003,0002,0001,000019701980Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 20157,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,000Modelled trendb) Trend by associated hazard typeRelated to weather hazardsRelated to geophysical hazardsModelled trend1990200020082014IDMC annual data1,00022 Global Estimates 2015019701980Modelled trend1990200020082014IDMC annual data

Box 3.1: “Super” El Niño and displacement in 1998 - a year of extremesThis year, the planet has entered a new climatic period characterised by above average sea surface temperatures in theeastern and east-central Pacific Ocean. This natural phenomenon is known as the El Niño Southern Oscillation. It occursat irregular intervals of two to seven years and lasts for nine months to two years, and it has a significant effect on patternsof extreme weather and climate-related disasters. 6 There is no consensus on how iterations of El Niño will change as theglobal climate warms, but studies suggest that they are becoming more intense. 7The strongest El Niño ever recorded occurred in 1997 and 1998. 8 It ended suddenly in the first half of 1998 and wasfollowed by a period of below average sea surface temperatures known as La Niña. 9 Severe floods in Asia, an abnormallyactive tropical storm season in the Atlantic basin, hurricanes in Central America and the Caribbean and other events allcaused major displacements (see table 3.2).Table 3.2: Large displacement events in 1998Country Disaster Number of people displacedChinaSummer floods across several wide areas, includingthe South-central Yangtze river basin14 million 10India June to August floods across 12 northern states Eight millionDominican Republic Hurricane Georges, flooding and landslides 865,000 11Honduras Hurricane Mitch, flooding and landslides 2.1 million 12The scale of displacement in the countries affected also had much to do with pre-existing patterns of development anddisaster risk, and long-lasting displacement helped to increase this risk further in some cases. Honduras is a case in point.In Honduras, more than 440,000 people lost their homes to hurricane Mitch, and a year later 20,000 were still living inshelters. 13 Hundreds of families did so for up to four years, and though information is scarce and patchy, a number of peoplewere reported as still displaced ten years after Mitch struck. 14Some returned to their places of origin and rebuilt their homes using inadequate materials, continuing their exposureand vulnerability to future disasters. For others, return was not an option because of the extent of the devastation. Twentyfivecommunities whose villages were completely destroyed by land and mudslides relocated permanently elsewhere. 15The town of Morolica was one of the worst affected. A new town was built for its former residents five kilometres away,and seven per cent of the population relocated to urban areas or abroad. 16Mitch’s impacts were made worse by decades of unsustainable development and land use, and the poor design andlocation of public and private infrastructure. Honduras did not have a legal framework for land-use planning and buildingregulations until 2002. Poor preparedness and early warning measures, and the government’s inadequate responses tothe disaster were also factors.Half of the country’s population was living in extreme poverty before Mitch struck, and for some their level of povertyincreased in its aftermath. 17 Disasters have in the region also tend to increase food insecurity, and displaced families inHonduras suffered a serious nutritional crisis after the hurricane. 18In recognition of the country’s high exposure to natural hazards and the links between environmental degradation, highpoverty levels and increased vulnerability to disasters, the government has committed to strengthening existing legal andinstitutional frameworks to improve disaster risk management. The challenges to implementation, however, are great.As a new El Niño episode continues in 2015, how many people will be displaced by weather-related disasters and whereis unknown. It is not even certain that the phenomenon will play out as it has in the past. What is certain, however, is thatthere are now many more people living in hazard-prone areas around the world that may be affected. No matter howhazards manifest as a result of El Niño, changes in exposure and vulnerability have already increased the risk of disastersand displacement.3 | The global picture: scales, patterns and trends23

3.5 Trends in exposure andvulnerabilityDisplacement patterns are determinedby countries’ exposure and vulnerability tonatural hazards. Hazard patterns at theglobal level have not changed significantlyover the relatively short period coveredby our displacement data, but exposureand vulnerability are constantly shifting.Population growth in hazard-proneareas, particularly urban centres indeveloping countriesSignificantly more people are exposedto hazards and affected by disasters todaythan in 1970, and more people arebecoming displaced as a result. The primaryreason for these increases is thatmore vulnerable people are living in areasprone to hazards than ever before.Population exposure data indicateshow many people reside in areas thathave historically experienced floods,storms, landslides, earthquakes or otherhazards. Global exposure data is shownon map 3.1 below. As will be seen in section4, the distribution of displacementclosely mirrors population exposure.This data indicates how many peopleare exposed at a particular point in time,but it does not explain how things came tobe the way they are. For that we need tounderstand the processes and historicalfactors that drive exposure, including economicand population growth, particularlyin urban areas.As shown in table 3.3, the global populationhas grown by 96 per cent since1970. Urban populations have grown twiceas fast (187 per cent increase) and thegrowth rate of urban populations in developingcountries has grown faster still(326 per cent increase). In Haiti, Niger,Nigeria and South Sudan, for example,the urban population has more than doubledsince 2000.Most modern urban centres werefounded centuries ago based on considerationsof defence, agricultural viabilityand transport. These factors drove humansto settle in areas prone to hazards,along coasts and rivers, on floodplains and in seismically active areas.When urban growth in such areas is wellmanaged, the risk of displacement mayincrease only modestly. In many developingcountries, however, urban growthhas been rapid, unplanned and poorlygoverned, leading to high exposure andvulnerability.Map 3.1: Global population exposure to natural hazardsAverage no. of peopleexposed per pixel* No Data1.114019,0002,440,000Note: The UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) exposure data refers to the population as of July 2011 with a resolution of 30”(approx. 1 km at equator), which has been adjusted to match with UN official data using World Population Prospects. Source: UNISDR 2015Table 3.3: Global population trends 1970 2014 Percentage increaseWorld population 3.7 billion 7.24 billion 96%Urban population 1.35 billion 3.88 billion 187%Urban population in developing countries 0.68 billion 2.9 billion 326%Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 201424 Global Estimates 2015

While more resilient families may beable to manage their exposure to less intensehazards such as seasonal floods orsmall earthquakes, these events can be asignificant burden for the poorest familieswho have few resources to prepare forand recover from them and prevent theirrecurrence. For example, large numbersof people in the Philippines, India, Nigeriaand other countries live in coastal orriverine floodplains.Settlement in these areas is due to theirclose proximity to livelihood opportunitiesand the lack of available land in safer areas.In this precarious situation, they areexposed and vulnerable to frequent floodingand, due to the lack of viable alternatives,often choose to return to the samearea after having been displaced duringa disaster. Their situation becomes evenmore acute when displacement is repeatedand frequent, potentially trapping them in acycle of chronic poverty and disaster risk. 19Economic growthDeveloping countries accounted for91 per cent of global displacement in 2014and 95 per cent over the seven-year period(see figure 3.5). Among developingcountries, the link between economicdevelopment and displacement is underscoredby the fact that most displacementoccurs in middle-income rather than lowincomecountries. Lower middle-incomecountries make up 36 per cent of theworld’s population, but accounted for 61per cent of displacement in 2014 and 46.8per cent between 2008 and 2014. Lowincomecountries were also significantlyaffected, with around 1.4 million peopledisplaced in 2014 and 16.7 million peoplebetween 2008 and 2014 (see figure 3.5).Figure 3.6 shows that displacementlevels between 2008-2014 have been particularlyhigh in middle-income countriesin east Asia and the Pacific and southAsia. A similar pattern emerges when itis viewed relative to countries’ HDI rankings.Most displacement takes place incountries in the third and fourth quintiles,and comparatively little in those with thehighest and lowest levels of human development(see figure 3.7).Exposure has increased more quicklythan vulnerability has been reduced. Theurban population boom in middle-incomecountries means that rapidly increasingnumbers of people are exposed to hazards,and many of them remain vulnerable.A roughly equal number of peoplein Japan and the Philippines are exposedto typhoons, for example. However, as thisreport has shown, the Philippines experiencesmuch higher levels of displacementbecause its exposed population is morevulnerable to this hazard.Figure 3.5: Global displacement and population by World Bank income groupDISPLACEMENT2008-2014 201446.8%86.3m39%72.0m61%11.7m22.3%4.3mPOPULATION36%2.5b34%2.4b18%1.2bPeople in low-income countries aremore vulnerable still and relatively lessexposed. They account for less of theglobal population and have not yet seenthe rates of growth of middle-incomecountries. That said, population projectionssuggest that exposure will increasein many low-income countries over thecoming decades, particularly in Africa.Japan and high-income countriesin Europe and North America all havelarge populations exposed to hazardsbut relatively low levels of displacement.Nevertheless, some high-income countrieshave significant absolute levels ofdisplacement, with 1.8 million people displacedin 2014 (see figure 3.5).There are several reasons that high-incomecountries experience displacement.First, low vulnerability does not meanthat these countries are not affected byhazards - particularly large ones such asmajor tsunamis, category 5 cyclones andsevere earthquakes.Inequality within high-income countriesalso makes displacement a particularconcern for people less well off andthose subject to discrimination and marginalisation.Examples include people stilldisplaced in the US following superstormSandy in 2009 and others still displacedsince 2011 by the flood disaster in Canada(see section five on protracted displacementsituations).Lastly, in high-income countries, effectivelive-saving early warning systemsand disaster response result in fewer disasterfatalities but increase the numberof survivors who are displaced as a consequence.The case of Chile’s responseto the Iquique earthquake and tsunamiwarning in 2014 is a case in point, as furtherdiscussed in section four).5.2% 9.5m9% 16.7m9.4% 1.8m7.3% 1.4m12% 0.8bDeveloping countriesUpper middle incomeLower middle incomeLow incomeHigh income countriesNote: Figures are rounded to the nearest decimal pointSource: IDMC data as of 1 June 20153 | The global picture: scales, patterns and trends25

Figure 3.6: Displacement by World Bank regions and income groups, 2008 to 20147060People displaced (millions)50403020100East Asia & PacificSouth AsiaSub-Saharan AfricaLatin America & CaribbeanNorth AmericaEurope & central AsiaMiddle East & north AfricaUpper middle incomeLower middle incomeLow incomeHigh incomeFigure 3.7: Displacement in countries grouped by Human Development Index valuesa) Total number of people displaced, 2008-2014 b) Relative number displaced, annual average for 2008-2014compared with 20142008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20142008- 2014 average 2014806People displaced (millions)70605040302010People displaced per million inhabitants (thousands)54321001 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5HDI country quintileHDI country quintileNote: Quintile 1 represents countries with the highest levels of human development. Source: UNDP, Human Development Report 2014; IDMC data as of 1 June 201526 Global Estimates 2015

28 Global Estimates 2015A woman stands next to a destroyed hutfollowing Cyclone Hudhud’s devastatingimpact in India during October 2014.Photo (cropped): All Hands Volunteers,November 2014, https://flic.kr/p/pU64Y1

4GEOGRAPHICALDISTRIBUTION ANDTHE BIGGEST EVENTSKey findings and messagesDisplacement by region and countryAsia is home to 60 per cent of theworld’s population, but accounted for87 per cent of the people displaced bydisasters worldwide in 2014. 16.7 millionpeople were forced to flee their homesin the region.» Eleven of the 20 countries worst affectedby displacement over the lastseven years are in Asia.Europe experienced double its averagelevel of displacement for the pastseven years in 2014, with 190,000 peopledisplaced, most of them by flooding inthe Balkans.Displacement in Africa was three timeslower than average in 2014 in absoluteterms, but many African countries experiencedhigh levels relative to theirpopulation size.» The highest level of displacement inrelative terms in 2014 was in Sudan,where rainy season floods displaced159,000 people.In Chile, one of the largest displacementsof the year highlighted the benefitof investment in disaster preventionand preparedness. Around 970,000people fled low-lying coastal areas inresponse to an 8.2 magnitude offshoreearthquake and tsunami warning inApril. Most people were able to returnhome the following day.Developing countries are consistentlythe worst affected, with almost 175 millionpeople displaced since 2008, accountingfor 95 per cent of the globaltotal. The figure for 2014 was 17.4 million,or 91 per cent of the global total.The big three: China, India and thePhilippinesChina, India and the Philippines experiencedthe highest levels of displacementin absolute terms, both in 2014 andfor the 2008 to 2014 period.Disasters related to floods, storms,earthquakes and volcanic eruptions inthe three countries accounted for 15 ofthe 20 largest displacements in 2014.Multiple and repeated displacementsin the same parts of the three countriespoint to areas of particularly high exposureand vulnerability.The Philippines was among the threeworst-affected countries in relative andabsolute terms, both in 2014 and overthe 2008 to 2014 period.Large-scale evacuations prompted bytwo category-three typhoons in thePhilippines caused the largest displacementsworldwide for the second yearrunning in 2014.Small but significant: impacts on smallisland developing states (SIDS)Their populations are relatively small,but SIDS are disproportionately affectedby displacement associated withfloods, storms and earthquakes.Between 2008 and 2014, they experiencedlevels three times higher than theglobal average, relative to their populationsizes.Twelve per cent of the countries wherewe recorded displacement related todisasters in 2014 were SIDS, of whichfive were among the 20 worst-affectedcountries worldwide in relative terms.Cyclone Ian in Tonga caused the secondlargest displacement worldwide inrelative terms in 2014. Only 5,300 peoplewere forced to flee their homes, butthey accounted for five per cent of theisland’s population.Haiti and Cuba have had the highestlevels of displacement among SIDS overthe past seven years in both relative andabsolute terms, caused by earthquakes,floods and storms.Multiple hazards in fragile and conflictaffectedstatesA complex mix of overlapping hazardscontribute to displacement and determinepatterns of movement and needsin fragile and conflict-affected countries.This makes an integrated analysisparticularly important as the basis forpolicymaking and planning.Countries significantly affected by displacementrelated to both conflict andnatural hazards in 2014 included India,Pakistan, the Philippines, South Sudanand Sudan.All fragile and conflict-affected states,as defined by the World Bank, experienceddisplacement associated withnatural hazards between 2008 and 2014.More than 750,000 people were displacedby disasters in these countriesin 2014 alone.4 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events29

4.1 RegionsAs in previous years, Asia was worstaffected by displacement associated withdisasters in 2014. An estimated 16.7 millionpeople were forced to flee their homes,accounting for 87 per cent of the globaltotal (see figure 4.1). The region was alsodisproportionately affected relative to itspopulation size.Displacement in Europe accounted forless than one per cent of the global totalin 2014, with 190,000 people displaced.The figure was roughly double the annualaverage for the region since 2008,the result largely of severe flooding in theBalkans.In all other regions, displacement in2014 was lower than the annual averagebetween 2008 and 2014. In Africa thefigure was almost three time lower, with769,700 people displaced, or four per centof the global total.An estimated 1.6 million people fledtheir homes in the Americas, accountingfor 8.3 per cent of the global total, but theregion had the second highest displacementlevel in relative terms. In Oceania,39,200 people were displaced, accountingfor less than one per cent of the globaltotal, but the region’s displacement levelwas higher than in Africa and Europe inrelative terms (see figure 4.1).That regional figures for 2014 shouldbe well above or below the 2008-2014average is unsurprising. Figures are influencedsignificantly by large and megaeventsthat happen relatively infrequently.Given that some of these events onlyoccur once in 500 years, a seven-yearsample is tiny and not necessarily representative.World Bank definitions for geographicregions provide an alternative view of theglobal distribution of displacement associatedwith disasters. East Asia andthe Pacific stands out as the regionwith the highest displacement levels inrelative terms. South Asia, while still comparativelyhigh in absolute terms, is lessthan half the figure for East Asia and thePacific. Relative to population size, thedisplacement level in Latin America andthe Caribbean is much more prominent(see figure 4.2).Figure 4.1: Displacement by macro-region, 2014 and 2008-2014a) Total people displaced in 2014b) Average number displaced per year (2008-2014)86.5%16.7m8.3% 1.6m 10.0% 2.6m4.0% 769,700

Figure 4.2: Displacement by region, as defined by the World Bank1512a) Absolute number of people displaced2008- 2014 average20142008-2014 averagPeople displaced (millions)9630East Asia & PacificSouth AsiaSub-Saharan AfricaLatin America& CaribbeanNorth AmericaEurope &central AsiaMiddle East &north AfricaPeople displaced per million inhabitants7,0006,0005,0004,0003,0002,000b) Relative number of people displaced2008- 2014 average20141,0000East Asia & Pacific South AsiaSource: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015Sub-Saharan AfricaLatin America& CaribbeanNorth AmericaEurope &central AsiaMiddle East &north Africa4 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events31

4.2 CountriesThe number of people displaced bycountry varies significantly between andwithin regions. Eleven of the 20 countrieswith the highest numbers of people displacedin the period 2008-2014 were inAsia, with country totals ranging fromtwo million to 58 million. The remainderinclude six countries in the Americas,including the US, as well as Nigeria andNiger in Africa (see figure 4.3.a).Only three African countries – Ethiopia,South Sudan and Sudan – wereamong the 20 worst affected in absoluteterms in 2014. The region featuresmore prominently when displacement ismeasured in relative terms, accountingfor five of the 20 worst affected countriesin 2014 and six between 2008 and2014. Unusually, seasonal floods in Sudan,one of the world’s poorest and conflictaffectedcountries, was the only eventin a continental African country to beranked among the largest absolute andper capita displacements of 2014.Figure 4.3 Countries with the highest levels of displacement, 2014 and 2008-2014Thousands (per million inhabitants)250 200 15050 40Millions (people)30100205010002008-2014Thousands (per million inhabitants)0 50 100 150 200 250China PhilippinesIndiaHaitiPhilippines ChilePakistanCubaNigeria Sri LankaBangladesh PakistanColombia PalauUnited States ColombiaChileSamoaIndonesiaFijiThailand NamibiaMyanmar NigerJapanChadSri Lanka TongaVietnam MyanmarMexico South SudanHaitiBeninBrazilThailandCubaChinaNigerNigeria0 10 20 30 40 50Millions (people)Absolute scalea) Ranked by absolute number displaced b) Ranked by relative number displacedRelative scaleThousands (per million inhabitants)50 40 30543Millions (people)202101002014Thousands (per million inhabitants)0 10 20 30 40 50Philippines PhilippinesChinaChileIndiaTongaChileBiHIndonesia Marshall Is.Pakistan BoliviaJapan ComorosBangladesh Solomon Is.Malaysia ParaguaySudan South SudanBolivia CambodiaCambodia MalaysiaSri Lanka Sri LankaBrazil NicaraguaSouth Sudan JapanBiHSudanParaguay Cabo VerdeNepal PakistanMyanmar CroatiaEthiopia Somalia0 1 2 3 4 5Millions (people)Source: IDMC Disaster-Induced Displacement Database as of 1 June 201532 Global Estimates 2015

SPOTLIGHTBOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINADoubly displaced by conflict and disasterIn May 2014, Bosnia and Herzegovina(BiH) suffered its heaviest recordedrainfall in 120 years. The Bosna, Drina,Una, Sava, Sana and Vrbas rivers andtheir tributaries burst their banks, and thedeluge also caused a series of landslides.Around 90,000 people were displaced,and 45,000 homes in around 80 municipalitieswere damaged or destroyed. 2Further flooding and landslides hit manyof the same areas in August 2014, displacingsome people for a second time. 3More than 40,000 sought refuge in temporaryaccommodation. More than 70 percent of the areas affected had previouslybeen laid with landmines, some of whichshifted, and animal carcasses and heavymetals from industrial sites contaminatedthe water supply. 4In a display of neighbourly cooperationand support not seen since beforethe 1992 to 1995 war, volunteers from differentcommunities across the countrycame to help clear the debris and digout homes. Helicopters, boats, industrialwater pumps and emergency personnelwere brought in from other parts of theBalkans and beyond. In 2014, BiH andSerbia received more than $35 millionin international funding, around four percent of the $890 million pledged at a July2014 donor conference following the firstbout of flooding. 5Alongside the delivery of humanitarianand development assistance, reconstructionhas taken disaster risk reductionguidelines into account. Housingrisk assessments have been carried out,and measures to mitigate the effects offloods and landslides have been put inplace.Some of those displaced were particularlyvulnerable, including IDPs and returneeswho had fled their homes duringthe conflict, survivors of wartime sexualviolence and people injured by landmines.Reliable estimates for each group are unavailable,but reports suggest that 700homes belonging to “refugees” from thewar were destroyed, 6 and that more than1,500 people were evacuated from collectivecentres in Bijeljina and Doboj, whichmainly house IDPs. 7The floods also displaced more than1,000 families from BiH’s Roma minority,the country’s most disadvantaged group,which suffers serious discrimination. 8There is no indication as to whether anyof the Roma families had also been displacedduring the conflict, but they were“particularly heavily hit” given their preexistingsocio-economic vulnerabilities. 9Most if not all struggled to secure an incomeand decent housing even beforethe flooding and landslides.A number of factors make IDPs whofled the 1990s conflict more vulnerableto secondary displacement triggered bydisasters. Some have become less resilientover time, because they have notbeen eligible for government assistance.This is particularly true for Roma IDPs,many of whom lack the birth certificatesand other identity documents needed toapply. 10 Given that most lived in informalsettlements before the conflict, neitherdid they have the proof of tenure requiredto access property restitution or supportwith reconstruction. This made it harderfor Roma to rebuild their lives comparedto other IDPs.The fact that the government and theinternational community prioritised IDPs’return to their places of origin after thewar has also meant that those who didnot wish to do so, and chose not to live incollective centres, have been offered lessassistance. 11 In its absence, many of poorestamong them have settled in hazardproneareas. These are located in lowlandsnear riverbanks prone to floodingand on hillsides susceptible to landslides.More than 75 per cent of all housingunits built outside areas deemed residentialby spatial plans and zoning regulations,both before and after the war, wereconstructed without permits and were notformally registered. 12 As a result, residentsdo not have property rights and face thethreat of eviction. 13 The use of cheap constructionmaterials and unskilled labourmakes such buildings less resistant tonatural hazards, 14 and may even have contributedto the 2014 landslides. 15In the aftermath of the floods andlandslides, the process of selecting beneficiariesfor housing assistance targetedpeople with legally registered homes. Itdid not expressly exclude those living inunregistered buildings, but focused onunits that could be made legal. This alsokick-started a broad legalisation processin which spatial plans were amended toincorporate renovated dwellings.At the end of 2014, after issuing apublic call for people whose propertyhad been damaged or destroyed to come4 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events33

forward, the municipalities of Pascima,Slavinovići, Solina and Simin Han transferredland ownership to 25 families withoutcharge. Those with homes in areasprone to hazards were not eligible, however,leaving many IDPs who settled in suchplaces after the war doubly displaced. Inthe absence of data on this group, thereis no estimate of their number.National responses to disasters in BiHtend to be fragmented and inadequate interms of prevention. There is no nationaldisaster risk reduction policy, and responsibilitiesand capacities are delegated tothe entity, canton or municipality. 16 Theabsence of a state-level body responsiblefor the environment and water, andthe existence of separate laws for thewater sector in the Federation of Bosniaand Herzegovina and Republika Srpska,complicate the country’s participation inmultilateral environmental and water protectiontreaties and regional initiatives. 17Political rivalries also impede emergencyresponses and delay reconstruction.Deadlines for compliance with theEU flood directive - which includes riskassessments, mapping and the establishmentof risk management plans - havebeen missed, and an action plan for theSava river basin drawn up after floodingin 2010 was never implemented. 18 Many ofthe areas affected in 2010 were also theworst hit by the 2014 floods and landslides,and the government acknowledged atthe end of 2014 that “the largest problemwhich caused flooding disasters in BiH[sic] lies exactly in illegal construction andinadequate infrastructure maintenance”. 19The longstanding challenges inherentin assisting protracted and marginalisedIDPs multiply when left unaddressed.Up-to-date disaggregated data on theirneeds, capacities and locations is crucialto identifying those most at risk and addressingtheir protection and assistanceneeds. The impact of the 2014 floodingand landslides shows how the failure todo so increases their socio-economicvulnerability, leading to their secondarydisplacement.As such, the selection of beneficiariesfor assistance should include multipledisplacement as a criteria for vulnerability.Helping IDPs to achieve durable solutionswould also improve their resilience to futurehazards, and the simultaneous implementationof disaster preparedness andprevention measures would go a long wayto ensuring that the trauma of displacementis not relived.Bosnians wait for assistance, having been displacedby floods. Photo: EC/ECHO/EEAS/EU DelegationBiH, May 2014, https://flic.kr/p/nEELY934 Global Estimates 2015

Box 4.1 The Iquique earthquake and tsunami in ChileThe displacement associated with an 8.2 magnitude earthquake off the coastof Chile near the town of Iquique on 1 April was the only one of the 20 largestevents of 2014 not to have occurred in Asia. Chile sits on the so-called Ring ofFire, an arc of fault lines and volcanoes circling the Pacific basin, and as suchis prone to frequent earthquakes.The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre issued several alerts in Chile and othercountries in the region, and continued to monitor sea levels as hundreds ofaftershocks followed. Nearly one million people were evacuated from low-lyingcoastal areas, according to Chile’s National Emergency Management Office. 20Iquique was struck by tsunami waves of up to 2.11 metres, fires and smalllandslides were reported and 13,000 homes, many of them adobe and masonrybuilt, were damaged. 21 Considering the strength of the earthquake, however, thetsunami it triggered was relatively small and the overall damage caused relativelylimited. 22 Most people were able to return to their homes the following day. 23The earthquake was Chile’s largest since 2010, when one of magnitude 8.8caused the destruction of around 220,000 homes. Preparedness and mitigationmeasures were improved after the 2010 disaster, and the early warningand response systems put in place appear to have worked well for the Iquiqueearthquake. The measures include the sharing of information among countriesat risk. 24Emergency drills have helped to prepare local populations living in exposedareas, and the evacuations that took place before and during the Iquique disasterwere well-organised. 25 The extensive application of earthquake-resistantbuilding standards also helped to contain risk. 26Seismologists suggest that an even larger megathrust earthquake will occurin northern Chile in the future, but they are unable to say when it is likely to be. 27Meanwhile, investments in disaster risk reduction and preparedness remain anational priority along with continued regional cooperation in the operation oftsunami warning systems. 284.3 EventsIn figure 4.4, the largest displacementsof 2014 are ranked in both absolute andrelative terms to take differences in nationalpopulation sizes into account. Massdisplacements put enormous pressureon the capacities and resources of governments,local authorities and affectedcommunities. The largest of the year arefurther discussed below.Figure 4.4: The 20 largest displacement events of 2014a) Ranked by absolute number displaced(people)b) Ranked by relative number displaced(per million inhabitants)2,994,1001,823,2001,073,700972,500812,000740,200639,300628,000570,000542,000447,000403,000400,000367,000337,000289,000252,000247,100239,000236,900Source: IDMC estimates as of 1 June 2015Philippines: Typhoon Rammasun (Glenda)Philippines: Typhoon Hagupit (Ruby)India: Odisha floodsChile: Iquique earthquake (April)India: Jammu and Kashmir floodsPakistan: September floods (Kashmir & other provinces)India: Cyclone HudhudChina: Typhoon RammasunJapan: Typhoon HalongBangladesh: North-west floodsChina: 100 year stormChina: Floods in the South (July)Philippines: Tropical storm Lingling (Agaton)India: Assam and Meghalaya floods (Sept-Oct)China: Southern floods (second half of June)China: Typhoon MatmoChina: Typhoon KalmaegiMalaysia: East coast floodsChina: Floods in the South (first half of June)China: Ludian earthquakeChile: Iquique earthquake (April)Tonga: Tropical cyclone IanPhilippines: Typhoon Rammasun (Glenda)Marshall Islands: King tidesBosnia and Herzegovina: floodsPhilippines: Typhoon Hagupit (Ruby)Bolivia: Beni floodsSolomon Islands: Honiara floodsParaguay: Parana river floodsComoros: Anjouan and Moheli floodsMalaysia: East coast floodsSri Lanka: Monsoon floods in the north-eastCambodia: Mekong river floodsNicaragua: October floodsCabo Verde: Pico do Fogo eruptionJapan: Typhoon HalongCroatia: FloodsSudan: Rainy season floodsComoros: Mahale earthquakePakistan: September floods (Kashmir & other provinces)57,00454,71529,90023,60023,50018,20017,50015,70012,10011,9008,2005,6005,3005,2005,0004,5004,1004,1004,0004,0004 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events35

4.4 The big three: China, India andthe PhilippinesChina, India and the Philippines arethe worst affected countries worldwide inabsolute terms and regularly see the largestdisplacement events. They sufferedthe highest displacement levels both in2014 and across the 2008-2014 period andaccounted for 15 of the 20 largest eventsin 2014 (see figure 4.4.a).Relative to their population size, however,the scale of displacement in Chinaand India is less significant than in thePhilippines. Total displacement and singleevents in the Philippines have been amongthe largest in both absolute and relativeterms over 2014 alone as well as the sevenyears since 2008 (see figure 4.5).In keeping with the global and regionalpattern, the figures for all three countriesvary significantly from year to year (seefigure 4.5). Each country is also exposedto a range of different hazards. In thePhilippines, 81.6 per cent of displacementbetween 2008 and 2014 was triggered bystorms, while in India 82.6 per cent wastriggered by floods. Most of the displace-Figure 4.5: Displacement in China, India and the Philippines, 2008 to 2014a) Absolute b) RelativePeople displaced (millions)2015105ChinaIndiaPhilippinesPeople displaced per million inhabitants (thousands)80706050403020Philippines100200820092010201120122013201402008200920102011201220132014Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015Figure 4.6: Displacement by hazard type in China, India and the Philippines, 2008 to 2014CHINA INDIA PHILIPPINES914,800 2%132,600 0.4%538,400 2.2%10,60013,000 0.1%1,500

ment in China was also associated withfloods and storms, but earthquakes accountedfor 31.2 per cent (see figure 4.6).Repeated patterns of displacementand their impacts are also a key featureof each of these countries, where someprovinces and regions are frequently affected(see maps 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3). In Indiaand China, disasters tend to be more concentratedin specific regions. India experienceshigh levels of displacement alongits east coast, where communities areexposed to tropical storms from the Bayof Bengal, and in the Ganges, Brahmaputraand Yamuna river basins in the northand north-east of the country (see map4.3). China’s southern provinces sufferwidespread flooding each year during themonsoon season (see map 4.2). Disastersin the Philippines archipelago tend to bewidely distributed across its different regions,affecting a large proportion of itspopulation overall (see map 4.1). Thesepatterns are further discussed below.Typhoons in the Philippines: the largestdisplacements of the year againAs in 2013, disasters triggered bytyphoons in the Philippines caused thetwo largest displacements of the yearworldwide. Rammasun, known locallyas Glenda, and Hagupit, known locallyas Ruby, both made landfall as categorythree storms. 29 The severity of their impactswas very different, however, to typhoonHaiyan, known locally as Yolanda,which triggered a massive disaster inNovember 2013.Rammasun made landfall twice, in Albayprovince on 15 July and Quezon provincethe following day, and displaced almostthree million people overall. As manyas 1.08 million took refuge in evacuationcentres. 30 Just 106 lives were lost.Hagupit made landfall on Samar islandon 6 December, driving more than 1.8 millionpeople into evacuation centres. 31 Atleast 716,000 people were evacuated preemptively32 as the storm was forecast tobecome as strong as Typhoon Haiyan. Itfailed to intensify to that level however, 33and many residents were able to returnto their homes hours after the typhoonpassed. Just 18 lives were lost. 34In each of these cases, evacuationswere stepped up as a key measure toprotect people in the typhoons’ paths,including areas that had also been hit byHaiyan. Some provinces that are regularlyexposed to typhoons, such as Albay,have developed strong capacities indisaster management over the past 20years. “Evacuation rather than rescue” isemphasised by the local authorities. 35Recurrent displacement in thePhilippines with long-lasting impactsWhile evacuations are a necessaryprotective measure, the scale of displacementcaused by the two 2014 typhoonsrelative to the population of the affectedareas, and people’s repeated exposureto disasters, cause huge disruption andput enormous strain on local communitiesand authorities. Some areas, includingEastern Visayas, Mimaropa, Bicol, CentralLuzon, Calabarzon and the NationalCapital Region, were affected by bothstorms on top of Haiyan in 2013 (see thered areas in map 4.1). Thousands of peopleforced to flee their homes by Haiyanwere still displaced in 2015 (see annexC). 36 The occurrence of multiple significantdisplacement events in quick successionalso strain coping capacity (seefigure 4.7).Figure 4.7: Philippines - Timeline of displacement events in 201410,000,000People displaced (log scale)1,000,000100,00010,000TropicalstormLingling17 Jan400,000TyphoonRammasun15 July2.99mTyphoonKalmaegi12 SeptTropical stormFung-Wong19 Sept206,40077,40050,000Mayonvolcano19 SeptTyphoonHagupit6 Dec1.82mTropicalstormJangmi29 Dec155,700Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2014Note: Shows events that displaced >50,000 peopleRecurrent disasters and protracteddisplacement are of even greater concernwhen they occur in the poorest areas of acountry, or areas also affected by conflict.Both are the case on the island of Mindanao,which includes nine of the ten leastdeveloped provinces in the Philippines. 37It is also affected by armed conflict andclan-related violence. The governmenthas been fighting insurgent groups onthe island since the 1970s, and as of theend of 2014 there were 95,000 people displacedby conflict and violence.As of March 2015, there were also140,000 people still displaced followingtyphoon Bopha in December 2012. Theylive in temporary bunkhouses and tentsin Davao Oriental, Compostela Valley andsome parts of Caraga region (see annexC). 38 In 2014, Caraga was hit by three newdisasters, including tropical storms Linglingand Jangmi, which each displaced50,000 people or more.Away from Mindanao, the regions ofBicol, Calabarzon and Mimaropa were hitby four such events (see map 4.1).4 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events37

Map 4.1: Philippines regions affected by disaster-related displacement in 20140150 kmThe boundaries and names shown and the designationsused on this map do not imply official endorsement oracceptance by IDMC.LuzonStraitNumber of times affected*0 1 - 2 3 4* Events that displaced >50,000 peopleTyphoon Kalmaegi (Luis)Category 1, 12 Sept 2014Tropical storm Fung Wong (Mario)Cagayan19 Sept 2014TyphoonRammasunCategory 3, 15LUZONSouthChinaSea(Glenda)July 2014Typhoon Hagupit (Ruby)Category 3 , 6 Dec 2014ManilaCalabarzonMayon volcano19 Sept 2014BicolAlbayPhilippine SeaTyphoonHaiyan (Yolanda)SamarCategory 5, Nov 2013MimaropaTaclobanVISAYASCebu17 Jan 2014Tropicalstorm Lingling(Agaton)BoholMINDANAOTropical storm Jangmi (S e niang)29 Dec 2014Sulu SeaCagayan de OroMindanaoPulangiDavaoAgusanced per eventBRUNEIMALAYSIACelebes SeaINDONESIAINDONESIA38 Global Estimates 2015

China’s southern hotspotsTyphoon Rammasun left the Philippinesand tracked across south-east Asia,leaving a trail of flooding and destructionin several other countries includingChina, where 628,000 people were forcedto flee their homes. Typhoon Matmo alsodisplaced more than 250,000 people inprovinces along the east coast in July,and typhoon Kalmaegi a similar number insouthern areas in September. Guangdongprovince was affected by both storms.Floods associated with the monsoonseason also displaced hundreds of thousandsof people in China’s southern provinceseach year. In 2014, two major periodsof flooding in the first and second halfof June forced more than 600,000 peopleto flee their homes between them. Amajor earthquake also displaced around236,000 people, most of them in Ludiancounty in the south-western province ofYunnan.Many provinces were affected bya number of disasters during the year.Guangxi and Yunnan experienced nineevents that displaced 50,000 people ormore, and Guangdong and Guizhou eightevents (see map 4.2). The most repeatedlyaffected provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou,Guangxi and Guangdong faced differentkinds of hazards (see map 4.2).Map 4.2: Chinese provinces affected by disaster-related displacement in 2014Number of times affected by events*Top 3 largest events in ChinaNumber of IDPs04 - 6Typhoon Rammasun, July 628,0001 - 38 - 9Inland storm, May 447,000Monsoon floods, July 403,000* Events that displaced >50,000 people See annex B for all events that displaced >100,000 peopleHeilongjiangJilinXinjiangDisplacement events by type of hazardin the top 4 most frequently-hit provincesInner MongoliaLiaoningYUNNAN GUIZHOU GUANGXI GUANGDONG13%11%38% 38%25% 33% 56% 43% 57%63%25%ShandongEarthquakes Storms FloodsGansuShaanxiHubeiHenanAnhuiJiangsuShanghaiTibetSichuanLudianearthquakeChongqingGuizhouHunanJiangxiFujianZhejiangT.S. Fung Wong, 22 SeptYunnanGuangxiGuangdongTyphoon Matmo Category 1, 23 JulyDisclaimer:The boundaries and names shown and the designations used onthis map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by IDMC.HainanTyphoonRammasunCategory 518 JulyTyphoon KalmaegiCategory 1, 16 Sept4 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events39

Displacement caused by seasonalfloods and cyclone Hudhud in IndiaNorthern and eastern India suffered anumber of large-scale disasters causedby exceptionally heavy rains and riverinefloods in 2014. In September, the worstfloods to hit Jammu and Kashmir in 50years displaced around 812,000 peoplein urban areas of the state. Across thecontested line of control with Pakistan,hundreds of thousands more were displacedin Azad Kashmir.India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi,declared the disaster a national level crisis,but the government refused humanitarianaccess to the UN and internationalorganisations other than the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross. 39 Whenfloods brought further widespread destructionto Jammu and Kashmir in Marchand April 2015, many people were still toreceive the compensation promised bythe government for losses they had incurredthe previous September. 40In Assam, the fourth poorest statein the country, 41 floods in July were followedby worse flooding in Septemberand October, which also affected theneighbouring state of Meghalaya. Some367,000 people were displaced. Despitethe regular occurrence of floods in thisregion, few long-term measures havebeen put in place to mitigate flooding inthe Brahmaputra river basin. 42 The Inter-Agency Group of humanitarian NGOs inAssam also noted a relative lack of mediareporting on the situation in Assam andMeghalaya, describing it as “a disaster ofthe poor” and comparing it with Jammuand Kashmir’s “disaster of the middleclass”.43Further south in the state of Odisha,floodwaters engulfed vast areas of theMahanadi river delta in July 2014 and displacedmore than a million people. Massevacuations from low-lying areas wereundertaken. On 12 October, cyclone Hudhudmade landfall near the eastern portcity of Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradeshas a category four storm, bringing widespreadfloods and landslides. It triggeredMap 4.3: Largest displacements in India and neighbouring countries, 2014IndusPAKISTANJhelumChenabRaviSutlejNarmadaGilgitLSrinagarPUNJABRAJASTHANine of ControlHARYANAMAHARASHTRARiver floods,September (Pakistan)740,000 displacedJAMMU&KASHMIRHIMACHALPRADESHDELHINew DelhiYamunaArea occupiedby Chinaand claimedby IndiaJammu & Kashmirfloods, September812,000 displacedUTTARAKHANDUTTAR PRADESHMADHYA PRADESHGodavariTELANGANACHINAGangesFloods in the South,August (Nepal)43,000 displacedCHHATTISGARHNEPALGhagharaOdisha floods, July1.1 million displacedPatnaMahanadiODISHAVishakhapatnam(Land fall)CapitalInternational boundarySindhupalwchok districtlandslide, August (Nepal)40,000 displacedState boundaryAffected districts in IndiaAffected districts in neighbouring countriesEvents and displacement figuresBrahmaputraBIHARJHARKHANDCuttackPuriGangesJaipurFlood riskevacuations, August130,000 displacedBihar floods, August116,000 displacedSIKKIMWESTBENGALCyclone Hudhud,October (Cat. 4)639,000 displacedBayofBengalBHUTANGoalpara ASSAMMEGHALAYATuraWilliamnagarBANGLADESHTRIPURANew DelhiINDIAAssam & Meghalayafloods, Sept-October360,000 displacedAssam floods, July> 160,000 displacedARUNACHALPRADESHDisclaimer:The boundaries and names shown and thedesignations used on this map do not implyofficial endorsement or acceptance by IDMC.NAGALANDMANIPURMIZORAMAffected statesin 2014Brahmaputra basin floods/Downstream floods,September (Bangladesh)> 542,000 displacedMYANMARIrrawaddyKrishna40 Global Estimates 2015

one of the most costly disasters of theyear, causing losses of around $11 billion.Learning from experiences aheadof cyclone Phailin almost exactly a yearearlier, the Andhra Pradesh and Odishastate authorities increased their effortsto convince residents of coastal and hillcommunities that they should evacuatefor their own safety ahead of Hudhud. 44For thousands of people from the hilltribes, this was their first time to everleave their home areas. 45 The evacuationof around 600,000 people can be creditedwith helping to minimise fatalities. Whena huge storm hit the area 15 years earlier,10,000 people were killed. 45 State officialsput the death toll from Hudhud at 41 (seemap 4.3). 464.5 Small but significant: Impactson small island developing statesSIDS are usually among the worstaffected countries each year in relativeterms because of their size, location andtopography. Their mostly low-lying islandpopulations tend to be exposed to a rangeof hazards, particularly cyclones, floods,landslides, earthquakes and tsunamis,and when a disaster occurs it can affecta large part of the country.Over the last seven years, SIDS haveexperienced relative levels of displacementat around three times the averagefor all countries combined (see figure4.8.a). Haiti and Cuba have had the highestlevels of displacement among SIDSin both relative and absolute terms (seefigure 4.8.b).This pattern is also repeated in termsof the largest events of 2014 in relativeterms. Four out of the 10 largest eventstook place in SIDS, including disastersin the Pacific triggered by cyclone Ian inTonga, king tides in the Marshall Islands,floods in the Solomon Islands, and inthe Comoros Islands off the east coastof Africa also brought on by floods (seefigure 4.4.b).Cyclone Ian, a category five storm, becamethe most powerful ever to hit Tongaand caused the second largest displacementof the year relative to populationsize. An estimated 5,300 people wereforced to flee their homes, representingaround five per cent of the island’spopulation. 48 The government declared astate of emergency in Ha’apai and Vava’uon the day it made landfall. The Ha’apaiisland group suffered devastation acrossall sectors. Eighty per cent of its housingand many public facilities were damagedor destroyed. 49 Around 4,000 peopletook refuge in evacuation centres, mostof them set up in churches. 50Two months after the storm, 300 familiesin Ha’apai were still living in tents. 51Those in greatest need of housing assistance,as identified by the governmentand community, included households witholder members and members who havedisabilities, those with single or widowedparents, as well as large families andthose with little access to remittances.Reconstruction is underway, but 14months after Ian struck, more than 300people were still waiting for their homesto be rebuilt (see annex C). 52Figure 4.8: Displacement in SIDS relative to population size, 2008 to 2014 (per million inhabitants)a) SIDS compared with all other countries b) SIDS with the highest displacement levels0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000People displaced per million inhabitants (thousands)30252015105All othersSIDSHaitiCubaPalauSamoaFijiTongaSolomon IslandsMarshall IslandsCook IslandsComorosPapua New GuineaAbsolute scaleRelative scale02008 2009 2010 20112012 20132014Saint Vincent &the Grenadines0 50000 100000 150000 200000Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 20154 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events41

4.6 Multiple hazards in fragile andconflict-affected statesAcross the 33 countries the WorldBank defines as fragile and conflict-affected,53 51 per cent of their populationsor 500 million people live in poverty. Accordingto the Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development’s definition,which takes in more countries, thefigure is 43 per cent or 1.2 billion people. 54Natural hazards are a common andsignificant element of the complex landscapefor exposed and vulnerable populationsin such countries. All fragile andconflict-affected countries on the WorldBank’s list experienced displacementassociated with natural hazards and disastersbetween 2008 and 2014. In 2014alone, more than 750,000 people in 23fragile and conflict-affected countrieswere displaced (see figure 4.9.a).Given the complex mix of overlappingfactors that cause displacement in fragileand conflict-affected countries, collectingand disaggregating data accordingto hazard type is particularly difficult. Itis also potentially misleading in termsof understanding causes and predictingdynamics to consider hazard typesseparately.At the same time, considering bothtypes of data together points to the relationshipbetween different hazard typesand the complexity of displacement insuch contexts. The various factors thatlead to peoples’ displacement and determinetheir onward options and decisionsalso reflect this complexity, as illustratedbelow in the case of Afghanistan.Our data shows that between 2010and 2014, 13 countries suffered significantnew displacement associated withboth conflict and natural hazards. 55 In2014, significant numbers of people weredisplaced by conflict and natural hazardsin India, Pakistan, the Philippines, SouthSudan and Sudan (see figure 4.10.a). Asshown by the cases presented in section5 and annex C, fragile states are affectedby long-lasting displacement such as inHaiti, Myanmar and Zimbabwe.Figure 4.9: Displacement in fragile and conflict-affected states, 2008-2014a) 2014 compared to theannual averageb) States with the highest relative levels of displacement,2008-2014 (per million inhabitants)Displaced people (millions)1.51.20.90.62008-2014 average20140.30Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015HaitiChadMyanmarSouth SudanSolomon IslandsMarshall IslandsComorosMadagascarPapua New GuineaBiHAngolaSudanGambiaNepalCAR0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000Absolute scaleRelative scaleSomalia0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,00042 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 4.10: Countries with new displacement associated with both natural hazards and conflict, 2014 and 2010-2014a) 201410,000,000Conflict-relatedNatural hazard-relatedPeople displaced (logscale)1,000,000100,00010,000SouthSudanDR CongoPakistanSudanIndiaAfghanistanColombiaEthiopiaPhilippinesSomaliaNote: Countries with at least 250,000 people newly displaced related to conflict and at least 10,000 related to natural hazardsConflict refers to both armed conflict and generalised violenceSource of data: IDMC, conflict-related data as of 6 May 2015 and natural hazard-related data as of 1 June 2015b) 2010 - 201425Natural hPeople displaced (millions)201510Conflict-relatedNatural hazard-related50PakistanSudanNigeriaSouthSudanPhilippines ColombiaIndiaKenyaMyanmarSriLankaMexicoIndonesiaThailandNote: Countries with at least 250,000 people newly displaced related to conflict and at least 250,000 related to natural hazardsConflict refers to both armed conflict and generalised violenceSource of data: IDMC, conflict-related data as of 6 May 2015 and natural hazard-related data as of 1 June 20154 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events43

SPOTLIGHTAFGHANISTANBlurred lines between multipledrivers of displacementAfghanistan’s climate and terrain makeit highly prone to both slow and suddenonsetnatural hazards, including cyclicaldrought, earthquakes, floods, landslides,avalanches and extreme weather. Roughlyhalf of the country’s 400 districts aresusceptible and as many as 250,000 Afghansare affected each year, particularlyin the north of the country.The country ranks 176th of 177 on theNotre Dame global adaptation index,which assesses their vulnerability to climatechange and their ability to cope withits impacts. More than 35 years of armedconflict, environmental degradation andpoor investment in disaster risk reductionmean that its vulnerability to disasters isincreasing. 56Displacement in Afghanistan is drivenby a number of factors, including armedconflict, violence, serious human rightsviolations, disasters brought on by naturalhazards and development projects. 57 Ittakes place amid other dynamic populationmovements such as rural-to-urbanmigration and the mass return of refugees,which complicates the task of identifyingand assisting IDPs.Given the presence of internationalmilitary forces since 2004 and the resurgenceof the Taliban, the main driver ofdisplacement in recent years has beenconflict between Afghan National SecurityForces with international troopsagainst non-state armed groups. 58 Itseffects, however, are frequently madeworse by natural hazards and the disastersthey trigger, making it very difficultto identify one single factor behind IDPs’decision to flee their homes. The conflicthas also aggravated local tensions, suchas land disputes, leading to additional displacement59 , and impedes responses todisasters (see figure 4.11).Originally, we are from Herat.We lived in Koshakkona for 20years, but due to the droughtsin Koshakkona we moved toGulran district of Herat andstayed there for four or fiveyears. Due to the fightingbetween government andanti-government elements weshifted to our current location.Adult female IDP, Qala-e-Khonavillage, Helmand 60In spite of the overlap between peopleostensibly displaced by conflict and thosewho flee disasters, data about them isrecorded, tracked and assisted separately- the former by Afghanistan’s taskforceon IDPs, co-chaired by UNHCR and theMinistry of Refugees and Repatriation;and the latter by IOM and the AfghanistanNational Disaster Management Authority.Comprehensive information about IDPsdoes not exist and the picture is furthercomplicated by the lack of long-term assistancefor IDPs displaced by disasters.This has led significant numbers of peopleto report their displacement as relatedto insecurity in order to benefit from theseparate support available to those displacedby conflict. 61According to a 2014 study commissionedby IOM in Herat and Helmandprovinces, 55 per cent of IDPs identifiedinsecurity and armed conflict as the maindriver of their displacement. Thirty-twoper cent said they had fled a combinationof conflict and disasters, and 12.5 percent that their displacement was predominantlycaused by disasters, most often dryspells and drought. One per cent citedthe impact of “human made” hazards orhuman activity on their livelihoods, suchas international efforts to eradicate opiumpoppy, as the reason for their flight. 62IDPs who had fled to Herat from Ghorprovince said they had been displacedby a combination of tribal conflict, fightingbetween non-state armed groups,crop failure and ensuing food shortagescaused by drought. 63The study found that people who hadbeen displaced for longer periods of timewere more likely to want to integrate locally.64 It also revealed that the majorityof IDPs were undecided or unclear abouttheir settlement preferences, effectivelyleaving them in limbo regardless of the44 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 4.11: Drivers of displacement in Herat and HelmandOther man-made hazards 1%Natural hazards12.5%Both conflictand naturalhazards32%Conflict55%cause of their displacement (see figure4.12). It is also striking that very few IDPsconsidered returning to their places oforigin to be an option, including thosedisplaced primarily by natural hazards.Afghanistan’s first national policy onIDPs was adopted in November 2013, andapplies to all people forced to flee theirhomes as a result of military operations,Taliban abuses, disasters brought on bynatural hazards, development projects ora combination of causes. It also includespeople displaced by slow-onset disasterssuch as drought.The policy defines an IDP by the forcednature of their movement, rather than bya specific cause or agency mandate. Italso explicitly acknowledges that it “is notalways easy to clearly identify one factorthat forces families to flee”. 65 As such, itprovides an important tool to advocatefor a comprehensive and integrated responseto all drivers of displacement. Theinternational community should now supportthe Afghan authorities in their effortsto implement the policy effectively.Source: IOM/Samuel Hall Consulting, 2014. Data: IOM DTM, December 2013Figure 4.12: Settlement intentions of displaced householdsin Herat and HelmandPercentage of IDPs interviewed100Return to place of originSettle in third location806040200Integrate locallyUndecidedWaiting on one or several factors62% 68% 56% 71%13%25%Conflict3%27%Naturalhazards10%32%1%1%1%1%Both conflictand naturalhazards14%14%Otherman-madehazardsSource: IOM/Samuel Hall Consulting, 2014. Data: IOM DTM, December 20134 | Geographical distribution and the biggest events45

46 Global Estimates 2015A displaced woman, stranded at a hotelin Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Sheand thousands of First Nation peoplewere forced from their homes in 2011by floods around Lake St. Martin. Theychecked into Winnipeg hotels, assumingthey would return to their homes withina couple of weeks. Four years later, theyare still there.Photo (cropped): Wookey Films, 2014

5MIND YOURASSUMPTIONSProtracted displacementfollowing disastersKey findings and messagesRelatively little is known about protracteddisplacement situations followingdisasters. They are poorly monitoredand little reported on. A sample we havecollated of 34 ongoing cases accountsfor more than 715,000 people stuck inlimbo, and points to the likelihood ofhundreds of thousands more who havenot yet been recorded.The common assumption that displacementfollowing disasters is shorttermand temporary does not hold truein many cases. The cases we identifiedhighlight the plight of people who havebeen living in protracted displacementfor up to 26 years.People in such situations receive littleattention and are likely to be left behindin long-term recovery, disaster riskreduction and development processes.Better data and further research isneeded to create a solid evidence basefor policymakers’ and responders’ decisions.Hazards are diverse in their nature anddynamics. Some persist for long periodsand can become permanent barriersto return. The repeated impacts of frequentshort-lived hazards on vulnerablecommunities can also lead to protracteddisplacement.Displacement following disasters is oftenfraught with complex and politicalobstacles to solutions. Obstacles frequentlyencountered include access toland and discrimination against vulnerableand marginalised groups. Addressingthe long-lasting social and psychologicalconsequences of displacementis as important as the physical rebuildingof homes and infrastructure.Most of the cases of protracted displacementwe identified are in low andmiddle-income developing countries,but there are also significant examplesin rich countries, such as the US andJapan. Vulnerable and marginalisedpeople in high-income countries alsorisk being excluded from solutions.Governments should prioritise measuresto advance solutions and strengthenthe resilience of people whose displacementrisks becoming protracted,or has already become so. They includepeople whose former homes have becomepermanently inaccessible or unsafe,informal settlers, poor tenants andpeople who face discrimination basedon their class, ethnicity, gender or age.Interventions should be adapted to theirspecific needs.When displaced people move on toanother location during or after theemergency phase of a response, theirsituation should be verified. They shouldnot be allowed to drop off the radar as“residual caseloads” when humanitarianpriorities shift towards longer-termrecovery and development.Local authorities, civil society networksand community-based organisationsshould be mobilised and supported tohelp identify and monitor cases of protracteddisplacement. This is important,given that many of those affected areall but invisible, because they are dispersedamong wider populations andin urban areas.5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters47

The global data presented in this reportprovides a broad snapshot of recurrentand persistent patterns of displacementin exposed and vulnerable countriessuch as China, India and the Philippines(see section three). Knowledge and evidenceof such patterns and their complexityas they evolve over time, however,is only available from ad hoc reportingand studies. Current monitoring and datacollection is insufficient to serve as a robustevidence base for policymakers atthe national and global level.In order to begin building a global evidencebase from which to monitor protracteddisplacement, IDMC undertook aninitial scoping exercise over a four-monthperiod in the first half of 2015. It includedthe collection and review of literature andonline information, and interviews with32 experts at international and nationallevels (see annex A3).We found 66 examples of protracteddisplacement associated with disasters,loosely defined for the purpose of the exerciseas situations that had lasted for atleast a year and in which IDPs had madelittle or no progress towards achievingdurable solutions (see further explanationin section 2). We then filtered the samplefor ongoing cases, which yielded the 34detailed in Annex C.5.1 Conceptualising protracteddisplacementThere is no common definition for protracteddisplacement, though its descriptionby different experts and organisationspoint to general agreement on someof its significant elements. Many see it asa long-lasting situation in which progresstowards durable solutions, as describedby the Inter-Agency Standing Committeeframework, 1 is slow or stalled. 2 Defining itin terms of the length of time people aredisplaced is somewhat arbitrary. Many referto UNHCR’s conflict-related definitionof protracted displacement as lasting over5 years. 3 Others note displacement thatcontinues beyond assumed timeframesfor emergency funding and response. 4 Itcan also be characterised in terms of thesettlement options required by IDPs, suchas people unable to return to their formerhomes and awaiting relocation. 5 Somedefine it through the prism of their mainframework for analyses or sectoral focus,such as human rights violations and protection,6 disrupted access to livelihoods, 7health impacts, 8 or as a shelter andhousing issue. 9 Others have describedit in terms of the disruption of the socioeconomicfabric of a community and thesocial impacts on people’s identity anddefinition of home. 10 Concepts and definitionsare also discussed in section two.These different perspectives makecomparing situations more difficult, butthere is a clear consensus on the needto develop knowledge on the phenomenon.The 34 cases, eight of which arediscussed in more detail below, togetherwith our literature review and interviews,highlight it as an issue of particular concernfrom both humanitarian and developmentperspectives.5.2 The data and knowledge blindspotThere is a rapidly developing body ofresearch on the topic of displacementassociated with disasters and climatechange and the issue has received increasingrecognition in key global policyagendas in recent years (see sectionsix). That said, significant knowledgegaps remain, including on people livingin recurrent and protracted displacementfollowing disasters. 11International experts have highlightedthe phenomenon as “the issue forthe coming decade”, and one in need ofconcerted attention and action from theinternational community. 12 The discourse,however, has focused almost entirely onpeople displaced by conflict, 13 with onlythe occasional nod given to those fleeingnatural hazards and disasters. 14Table 5.1: Checking and challenging common assumptions about protracted displacementAssumptionChallenge1. Displacement associated with disastersis short-term and temporary, and as suchprotracted displacement is not an issue.2. The duration of displacement is determinedprimarily by the often short-livednature of the threat from a natural hazard.3. Displacement associated with disastersis less complex and less political, and soeasier to resolve than that associatedwith conflict.4. Protracted displacement is a problemfor developing countries in particular.The evidence from 34 ongoing cases and other past cases shows that return isnot necessarily safe or possible and does not imply that a durable solution hasbeen achieved. Repeated cycles of temporary flight and return may contribute toprotracted displacement and eventual settlement elsewhere.The consequences of rapid-onset natural hazards can continue for extendedperiods of time, and even become a permanent barrier to return. Some hazardsremain a physical threat over longer periods of time. Repeated exposure to frequentshort-lived hazards can have a similar effect to a long-lasting event.The drivers of disaster and displacement - exposure and vulnerability - arecomplex, and many of the obstacles to durable solutions in the aftermath of adisaster are inherently political. They vary from context to context, but includeaccess to land, discrimination and corruption.There is also evidence of protracted displacement in high-income countries,where the most vulnerable or marginalised people are disproportionately affected.48 Global Estimates 2015

Map 5.1Protracted displacement following disasters worldwide in 2014/2015Country, disaster, start year, number of people still displacedItalyL’Aquilaearthquake,200916,000PakistanAttabad landslideand flood, 20102,900Monsoon floods, 201231,000JapanTōhoku earthquake/tsunamiand nuclear accident, 2011230,000HaitiEarthquake, 201064,700United StatesSuperstorm Sandy, 201239,200NigeriaFloods, 2012Up to 16,500ArmeniaEarthquake, 198818,500BangladeshCyclone Aila, 200913,100PhilippinesTyphoon Bopha/Pablo, 2012At least 140,000Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda, 201313,300ColombiaGramalote landslide, 20102,900ZimbabweTokwe-Mukorsifloods, 201420,000IndonesiaSidoarjo mudflow, 200613,000Location of protracted situations recorded as ongoing in 2014/2015FloodsEarthquakeLandslide Volcanic eruptionStormMozambiqueFloods, 201326,000Papua New GuineaManam volcano eruption, 200415,000Sources: See annex C for listing of all events shownNote: Events with at least 9,500 people still displaced and/or further discussed in case studies are labeledAll figures are rounded to the nearest 1005 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters49

The international experts we interviewedtended to know of only one ortwo examples of protracted displacementassociated with disasters, and most oftenreferred to the 2010 Haiti earthquake.Among interviewees based at countrylevel,however, a pattern emerged. Thosewho said at first that they knew of no examplesbegan to recall situations as theinterviews progressed though they wereoften unable to provide evidence in documentedform.Local community-based organisationswere generally the best informed aboutthe often largely invisible people affected,and as such they will be vital in efforts tomonitor and research the issue.Displacement tends to be well reportedin the immediate aftermath of largerdisasters, but then to drop off over time.All of our interviewees confirmed the lackof monitoring of “pockets” of IDPs who falloff the radar in the aftermath of disasters,with ongoing situations documented onlyby the media or anecdotally.The phenomenon has received moreattention in Asia and the Americas thanin Africa and the Middle East (see annexC). As for displacement in general,reporting is also biased towards IDPs inofficial shelter sites or camp settings. Thesituation of people who end up living forextended periods with friends and familyor in informal settlements tends not to bemonitored at all. 15There is also an operational blindspot created by the limited availabilityand interoperability of information collectedabout IDPs and their needs by organisationsserving the same populationsacross different sectors of assistance, orat different points in time. It becomes particularlysignificant when the emergencyresponse is phased out and the role of thedevelopment sector comes to the fore asthe focus switches to recovery. 165.3 Checking commonassumptionsA number of direct or implied assumptionsabout displacement associated withdisasters, and protracted displacementmore specifically, emerged from our research.The following four are particularlycommon:1. Short term and temporary?It is often assumed, particularly inthe context of rapid-onset natural hazards,that IDPs are able to return to theirhomes relatively quickly, recover andget on with their lives. 17 According to areview of protection in humanitarian crises,“recovery from isolated, rapid onsetdisasters is more linear and expectedwithin 12 months, while conflict settingsare complex and often lead to protractedcrisis and displacement requiring longerterm programme response and funding”. 18Fifteen out of the 21 international intervieweesasked to describe the nature ofdisplacement associated with disasterssaid it was commonly seen as short-termand temporary, but many also questionedthe assumption.2. Short-lived hazards make for shortliveddisplacement?Different types of natural hazard createdifferent displacement dynamics (seesection three), but disasters are oftenreferred to without reference to thesedifferences. It is assumed that the impactsof rapid-onset hazards dissipateas quickly as they occur, making promptreturn possible. Little or no considerationis given to the extent and nature of thedevastation and insecurity in their aftermath,when a storm has passed, floodwatershave receded or the ground hasstopped shaking following an earthquake.3. Less complex and easier to solve?Most of the current literature and discourseon protracted displacement seesit primarily as an issue in the context ofconflict. It also assumes that disastersare less political if not apolitical, with theimplication that the displacement theycause is easier to resolve and so lesslikely to become protracted. 194. An issue for developing countriesonly?Our global estimates show that displacementassociated with disastersis widely distributed across the world,including both the richest and poorestcountries. Protracted displacement isoften assumed to be an issue for developingand fragile states only, which haveless capacity and resources to facilitatedurable solutions.5.4 The problem with assumptionsKnowledge blind spots are reinforcedby such broad generalisations, and avertattention from the phenomenon of protracteddisplacement. There is a dangerthat families and communities displacedfor far longer than expected following adisaster will be neglected, because respondersare simply not looking for them.The above assumptions also belie thecomplexity and long-term nature of recoveryprocesses and the particular challengesdisplacement poses in differentcontexts. This can have direct impactson policy and practice, as seen in the aftermathof superstorm Sandy when USgovernment funding to help IDPs meettheir short-term housing needs wasbased on the idea that they should beable to move back home within two years.In reality this was not always the case,leaving some struggling to pay their rent,taxes and mortgages while still living indisplacement. 20Emergency evacuations also tend tobe planned on the assumption that evacueeswill be able to return to their homesrelatively quickly. When return is madeimpossible or is significantly delayed, theuse of public buildings, including schools,as evacuation centres can quickly becomea problem as services need to beresumed. 21Given the limited knowledge andawareness of protracted displacement,examples tend to be treated as exceptionsto the rule, rather than evidence ofa widespread phenomenon. This in turncreates the risk that the needs of vulnerableindividuals, families and communitiesunable to achieve a durable solution totheir displacement will be overlooked.As increasing population exposureand vulnerability to hazards drive an upwardtrend in displacement, disasters andtheir impacts are also likely to be makingrecurrent and protracted displacementworse. As Professor Susan Martin ofGeorgetown University observes: “In thepast … these protracted examples wereexceptions to the rule … But now we areseeing a shift in terms of frequency andthe scale of devastation, and it’s hard tobelieve people can go back very quickly.” 22As disaster patterns change, currentassumptions need to change accordingly.The idea that the displacement50 Global Estimates 2015

they cause is short-lived feeds a reactiveapproach that provides relief but not solutions.Unmitigated risk leads to cyclesof repeated displacement and loss thaterode the resilience of those affected,leaving them unable to recover betweenone disaster and the next.5.5 Evidence to the contrary1. Short term and temporary?Displacement often lasts far longerthan assumed in the aftermath of disasters.All of the 34 cases listed in annexC have been ongoing for at least a year,and many of them for far longer. In PapuaNew Guinea, 15,000 IDPs displaced bythe 2004 eruption of the Manam volcanoare still living in temporary shelters morethan ten years later. Some who fled the1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey remaindisplaced after more than 15 years,and for as long as 26 years in the case ofthe 1988 Spitak earthquake in Armenia(see annex C).In relation to the “temporary” displacementassumption, return home is not alwayssafe and possible or permitted followinga disaster. This is the situation fordisplaced people in almost half (16 out of34) of the cases listed in annex C- includingthe examples discussed below from,Colombia, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan andPapua New Guinea.This assumption is derived from patternsof early return by people to theirhomes in the aftermath of many disasters,23 but such cases are context specificand should not be over-generalised. AsProfessor Roger Zetter, Oxford Universityobserves, “Even if the majority are ableto return, a small but significant minorityoften remain displaced” and “disappearbelow the horizon.” 24Nor does early return imply that a durablesolution has been achieved. Repeatedcycles of temporary flight and returnmay contribute to protracted displacementand eventual settlement elsewhere,as seen in the case from Bangladesh discussedbelow.2. Short-lived hazards, short-liveddisplacement?The protracted nature of displacementassociated with disasters is influencedby the ongoing threats posed by longlastingor frequent natural hazards. In Indonesia,the Sidoarjo mudflow developedfairly quickly in 2006, but it is still active.It has created a permanent impedimentto return and forced displaced familiesto relocate elsewhere. The lake formedafter Attabad landslide in Pakistan andthe nuclear contamination after Tohokudisaster in Japan are similarly permanentimpediments to return.Exposure to frequent, short-livedhazards can have a similar effect to asingle long-lasting one. In Bangladesh,protracted displacement is not just theconsequence of cyclone Aila in 2009, butof the cumulative impacts of repeated disastersand short-term displacements thathamper the capacity of families to recovereach time before another set back. In thePhilippines, “no build zones” were establishedin low-lying coastal areas affectedby typhoon Haiyan in 2013 on the basisthat they are so prone to repeated flooding,storms and landslides as to makethem uninhabitable. Displaced formerresidents, however, are still waiting to bepermanently relocated elsewhere. 25It is clear from many conflict-relatedsituations we monitor that people mayremain displaced for years after hostilitieshave ceased, and the same is trueof natural hazards. The devastation anddisruption they cause to people’s livesand livelihoods, and the psychologicalimpact on those affected, can prolongdisplacement significantly. More thanfive years after the 2010 earthquake inHaiti, at least 64,700 people in the capital,Port-au-Prince, are still living in temporaryshelters.3. Less complex and easier to solve?Many of the protracted displacementsituations we have identified highlight significantpolitical obstacles to solutions,including the favouring of economic interestsover IDPs’ needs and rights, thealleged misuse of resources, corruptionand weak governance. Disasters do nottake place in a political vacuum and thedrivers, as discussed in section 4, are relatedto processes of impoverishment andmarginalisation. Protracted situations andthe obstacles to solutions are often politicalin nature. Some of these cases arealso in countries affected by conflict, suchas Pakistan, Colombia and Bangladesh.Lack of access to land is the mostfrequently cited obstacle to solutions(in two-thirds of the cases listed in annexC) and land is more often than notan inherently political issue. The plight oflandless families displaced to or from informalurban settlements are highlightedin examples from Haiti, Bangladesh, andthe Philippines.Informal settlers are among peoplemost vulnerable to protracted displacement,whether they became informal settlersbefore or after a disaster as ConradNavidad, IOM Philippines explains: “If IDPsafter a disaster are unable to return orbe relocated, some of them end up asinformal settlers. This is common knowledge.If you ask informal settlers in metroManila, in the slum areas, why did youcome here … some would likely tell you‘we are victims of typhoons or natural disasters,and we couldn’t wait for solutionsfrom the government.’” Informal settlers’lack of tenure security can also lead totheir forced eviction, as was the case inKenya for people living in Embobut forest,where they had taken refuge followinglandslides (see annex C). Once dispersedamong the urban poor, IDPs are difficultto identify, making their needs invisibleto organisations who might otherwiseprioritise them for assistance. 26The tenure status of those who rentedrather than owned their homes beforetheir flight creates specific needs, whichmake them prone to neglect and prolongeddisplacement. 27 In the aftermath ofsuperstorm Sandy in the US, reconstructionassistance was allocated disproportionatelyto homeowners rather than tenants,even though the latter were morelikely to be in the lower-income bracket.4. An issue for developing countriesonly ?Most of the cases of protracted displacementwe identified are in low andmiddle-income countries. A few, however,reveal that poor and marginalisedpeople in high-income countries arealso affected. In such cases, displacementmay be a symptom of pre-existingpatterns of discrimination and inequality.A disproportionate number of peopleof colour from low-income backgroundsremain displaced in the US following su-5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters51

perstorm Sandy in 2009, and indigenous“First Nation” communities in Canada arestill displaced from their homes and wayof life on reservation land following the2011 Manitoba floods (see annex C).We don’t know when we aregoing to go home, or wherehome is going to be.Manitoba flood IDP, Treading Waterdocumentary 28Large protracted cases are found inboth the richest and poorest countries.230,000 people have been displaced formore than four years following the 2011Tohoku earthquake, tsunami and nuclearaccident in Japan, while in Haiti at least64,700 remain displaced for more thanfive years after the 2010 earthquake.5.6 Leaving no-one behind 29The sample of just 34 ongoing casesin annex C accounts for at least 715,000people in long-lasting and protracteddisplacement. This, in turn, points to thelikelihood of hundreds of thousands morewho have yet to be identified. Protractedand recurrent displacement drain resourcesat all levels, from household tointernational. They erode resilience andundermine the development prospects ofthose affected, and left unmitigated andunresolved they contribute to increasingimpoverishment and the risk of furthercycles of disaster.IDPs should not be assumed to haveachieved a durable solution when theyreturn to their former home areas or moveon elsewhere in the aftermath of a disaster.Nor should they be allowed to drop offthe radar when displacement continuesbeyond the timeframes set by governmentand donor policy or the limitationsof responders’ capacities and mandates.More robust evidence is needed withwhich to re-examine the broad assumptionsabout protracted displacement associatedwith disasters, and ensure theyare adapted to specific situations andcontexts. 30 As Professor Walter Kälin,Envoy of the Chairmanship of the NansenInitiative observes: “I don’t think you canfind a single situation where absolutelyeveryone can go back. There are alwayssome people who will not go back, andthis will always be linked to their situationbefore.” 31These “residual caseloads” includepeople with specific needs for protectionand development assistance. Displacedwomen following typhoon Haiyanin the Philippines, for example, were notconsulted on the prioritisation of householdsfor permanent housing assistance. 32Highlighted examples below show thatthey also include informal settlers andpoor tenants (see case from Haiti) andother vulnerable people who face discriminationon the basis of their class orethnicity (see case from US), gender (seecase from Bangladesh) or age (see casefrom Japan). An improvement in governments’data collection and monitoring oftheir situations would do much to avoiddisplaced people becoming forgottenand side-lined in sustainable developmentprocesses.52 Global Estimates 2015

5.7 Spotlight casesTo demonstrate the diversity andchallenges associated with protracteddisplacement in the aftermath of disasters,eight cases drawn from annex C aresummarised in figure 5.1 and discussed indetail in the following section.Figure 5.1: Eight cases of protracted displacement following disastersKey: number of IDPs (log scale)1,00010,000 100,000 1,000,000US: Superstorm SandyNote:Circle size = number of IDPs after initial disaster and stilldisplaced as of latest report in 2014/2015Arrow = length of time between initial hazard andlatest report in 2014/2015Japan: Tōhoku earthquake/tsunami and nuclear accidentPakistan: Hunza Valleylandslides and floodHaiti: EarthquakeColombia: Gramalote landslideBangladesh: Cyclone AilaIndonesia: Sidoarjo mudflowPapua New Guinea:Manam volcano eruption2005 201020155 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters53

SPOTLIGHTPAPUA NEW GUINEAManam islanders still displaced tenyears after volcanic eruptionPapua New Guinea (PNG) is prone toa range of natural hazards, includingdrought, floods, tropical cyclones, landslides,volcanic eruptions, earthquakesand tsunamis. It is also highly vulnerableto the impacts of climate change and risingsea-levels. An estimated 21,186 peoplewere displaced by natural hazards andthe disasters they triggered in 2014, withflooding being the main driver. 33One of the largest displacementscaused by a volcanic eruption in PNG tookplace in late 2004 when around 11,000people were forced to flee their homeson Manam island in Madang province. 34All were evacuated 15 kilometres to mainlandareas near the town of Bogia, wheremany were accommodated in temporarygovernment settlement sites or “care centres”,as they are officially known. Otherssought refuge with host communities. 35Given the risk of further volcanicactivity, Manam was declared unsafefor return and the authorities began toconsider alternative settlement optionsfor the island’s IDPs. Local integrationin the care centres was quickly deemedunsustainable because of a shortage ofland and resources, and rising tensionsbetween the displaced and local communities.The land on which the centreswere set up was said to be owned by thegovernment, which gave IDPs permissionto stay temporarily. Locals, however,claimed that they, not the state, were therightful owners. 36In 2006, the government identifiedland for the IDPs’ relocation in Andarum,around 50 kilometres from Bogia. Themajority agreed to move providing infrastructureincluding roads, schools andhealth centres was built and they wouldhave enough land to cultivate. Legislationwas passed and the government establishedthe Manam Resettlement Authority(MRA), tasked with taking the projectforward.A displaced woman from Manam island carries onwith everyday chores at the Mangem care centre,Bogia town, Madang province, Papua New Guinea.Photo: IDMC/Frederik Kok, October 201454 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 5.2: Displacement timeline following the Manam volcanic eruption in 20042004Volcaniceruption -11,000 peopleflee to carecentres onthe mainland2006Manam ResettlementAuthority set up to identifyand purchase land2008Tobenam care centre burntdown following clashesbetween IDPs and locals;some IDPs forced to returnto their island2010-2011Renewedvolcanicactivity2013Madang governor introduces billto establish the Manam RestorationAuthority ActPreliminary agreement on landacquisition between the Madangprovincial gov’t and thelandowners in Andarum2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152005Reports of diminishing supportand deteriorating conditionsin the care centresTension between IDPs andlocal communities, particularlyover land use issues, lead toperiodic violent clashes2007Interagency reportfinds that minimumstandards relatedto education, health,water, housing andnutrition are not metSources: IDMC interviews, 2014; ABC, 2012; OHCHR, 2011; IFRC, 20052010Manam resettlementtask force established torevive the process ofresettling Manam IDPs2014 2015Delegation of IDPs to Estimatedtravel to Port Moresby 15,000 peopleto present the Manam from ManamRestoration Authority remain in careAct to the chief centressecretary of PNGgovernment whocommits to adopt thebill soonLittle progress was made in the followingyears, however, and the projectremains stalled. The main obstacles havebeen a shortage of funds, a lack of politicalwill, bureaucratic delays and poor localtechnical capacity. In 2009 the MRA wasdisbanded with new legislation needed toset up a new body. The provincial governmenthas also had difficulties in acquiringthe land concerned. It concluded apreliminary agreement with the ownersin 2013, but as of early 2015 it had still notformalised the purchase and, more thana decade after their displacement, IDPswere still stuck in three care centres inand around Bogia. When IDMC visited inOctober 2014, the displaced populationhad reportedly grown to around 15,000. 37A few thousand people have returnedto Manam despite its lack of arable landand the absence of public services. 38Most did so between 2008 and 2009,following clashes between IDPs and thelocal population, and some returns weresaid to have been forced by the government.39 Further returns have taken placesince, driven by deteriorating living conditionsin the care centres and unresolvedtensions with local communities. Giventhe government’s failure to update itsdata on Manam’s IDPs, however, there isno clear picture of how many people arestill living in the centres and how manyhave returned to the island.Most of the houses in the care centresare in need of repair. Roofs leak and wallsare in poor shape, but IDPs say they areunable to access building materials fromthe forest because the resources belongto the locals. They are also short of food,and their livelihood options are limitedbecause what little land is available tothem for cultivation is infertile. Some ownlivestock and are able to fish, but manyare barely able to get by.Poverty and insecurity also impedetheir access to healthcare services. InJune 2010, 17 IDPs living in the Potsdamcare centre died of cholera. The deathscould have been prevented if an earlywarning system had been in place todetect the outbreak, medicine had beenavailable to treat the disease quickly andthe IDPs had been able to afford the 100kina ($40) it costs to reach the nearesthealth facility by boat. It is likely that malnutritionalso contributed to the deathtoll. 40The threat of physical attack restrictsIDPs’ freedom of movement, and somewomen say they are too afraid to leavetheir camps to seek medical care. An increasingnumber of infants and mothershave died during childbirth as a result. 41After ten years in living in displacement,the Manam island IDPs are still nocloser to achieving a durable solution.Local integration is not an option, andefforts to relocate them to Andarum havemade little progress. Many have lost hopethat it will ever happen. In the meantimeboth short and long-term solutions areneeded to ensure that their most pressingconcerns are addressed. They require immediateassistance in meeting their food,water, shelter and healthcare needs, andreducing the number of IDPs in the carecentres is also becoming urgent. Thegovernment needs to make good on itsrepeated promises to ensure that therelocation project really moves forward.Reports that the Manam RestorationAuthority bill could be introduced in parliamentin May 2015 offer a glimmer ofhope. 42 If adopted, the legislation wouldprovide a much-needed legal basis forthe relocation project and the allocationof adequate resources. The Madang provincialauthorities are also consideringfeasibility studies to assess its environmentaland social impact. 435 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters55

SPOTLIGHTINDONESIASidoarjo mudflow displacementunresolved after nine yearsIn May 2006 a mixture of mud, hot waterand steam erupted near a gas drilling sitebelonging to the private company PT LapindoBrantas. A mudflow spread quicklyto nearby villages, engulfing homes, farmlandand public infrastructure, includingschools and factories. By the end of theyear, it had forced more than 15,000 peopleto flee their homes. The local governmentset up temporary shelters for someof the IDPs, but most sought refuge withfriends and families.All efforts to stem the eruption andcontain the mudflow failed, and over thenext few years it continued to spread,albeit at a slower pace, reaching morevillages and displacing thousands morepeople. By 2014, it covered around 600hectares across three sub-districts, andhad displaced 38,700 people from 12 villagesand destroyed 11,241 buildings. 44The mud continues to flow to this day,and some scientists estimate that it maydo so for another 20 years. 45Controversy about the cause of thedisaster has impeded an effective responseto the needs of the people it hasdisplaced and other residents it has affected.The company claimed an earthquaketwo days earlier in Yogyakarta,around 250 km away, had triggered thephenomenon. A presidential decree issuedin 2007 established the Sidoarjomudflow management agency (BPLS),an ad-hoc national agency to overseethe response, including the allocation ofcompensation for lost land and property. 46BPLS instructed Lapindo to compensateIDPs from the area the mudflow initiallyengulfed, known as the red zone, butin 2009 Indonesia’s Supreme Court decidedit was a “natural” disaster and thatthe company had no obligation towardsthose affected in terms of providing finan-cial compensation. 47 Civil society organisationsand victims’ associations werehighly critical of the ruling, and underpublic pressure the company eventuallyagreed to assume financial responsibility.A further court ruling in 2014 determinedthat the company should pay compensationfor land and property lost inthe red zone, and that the governmentshould do so for the green, blue and orangezones, which were affected from2007 to 2013 (see map). 48 Compensationlevels have been deemed fair, with differentrates per square metre of paddy,dry land and built land. 49 As part of Lapindo’scompensation package, around4,000 homes have been built at relocationsites in Kahuripan Nirvana village, fourkilometres from Sidoarjo, with the valueof the property deducted from the totalamount the company owes. 50Following the economic crisis inArt installation at the Sidoarjo mudflow site by Dadang Kristiantoto commemorate the 8th anniversary of the disaster. 12 villagesare submerged below the surface, while steam rises from the stillactive source. Photo: IDMC/Frederik Kok, May 201556 Global Estimates 2015

Map 5.2: Sidoarjo mudflow affected areasSource ofcontinuousmudflowMud-covered area.12 villages submergedsince March 2007Note: Orange, green and blue shading indicates areas at risk with communities declared eligible for compensation by the governmentSources: Ikonos Quickbird Bapel BPLS 2008. Adapted from BPLS 552008, however, Lapindo’s payments toIDPs slowed and many instalments weremissed, which led to demonstrations. 51The delays and non-payments have preventedmore than 13,000 IDPs from thered zone from achieving a durable solution,nine years after the onset of thedisaster. They have received only an initial20 per cent of the compensation due. 52The long wait has led to a number ofassociated problems for around 5,000IDPs dispersed across the region andbeyond. Many have had to borrow moneyeither from banks or friends and family,and are unable to keep up with their repayments.To date they have received nogovernment help in restoring their lostlivelihoods, and have trouble finding workand supporting their families whetherthey have been compensated or not.Those still awaiting compensationhave been reluctant to update their identitycards with their new places of temporaryresidence for fear it will complicatetheir pending claims. Failure to do so,however, has prevented them from votingin elections and in some cases hamperedtheir access to healthcare services. 53Neither has BPLS provided compensationor help in dealing with the healthconsequences of the mudflow, despitea spike in respiratory problems immediatelyafter the eruption began and theemergence of other health issues includingabdominal illnesses. 54 Environmentalorganisations continue to advocate forthe government to recognise the highheavy metal content of the mud, whichis contaminating waterways outside thecompensation zones and affecting fishstocks, and to take action to reduce thepollution. 56In May 2015, following an audit of outstandingcompensation claims, the governmentis taking measures to bail outLapindo and thereby enable the companyto complete compensation payouts stillowed to displaced families. It has committedto loaning $66 million to Lapindoby the end of Ramadan on 17 July 2015to purchase land made uninhabitable bythe mudflow from IDP families at equivalentor above-market rates. 57 If paymentis finally received, it will provide somemeans to end what for many has beena nine-year wait to secure new housingand repay their debts.5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters57

SPOTLIGHTBANGLADESHSix years after cyclone Aila, prolongedand repeated displacement continuesSix years after cyclone Aila brought disasterto communities in the Ganges deltaregion of Bangladesh, many of the peopledisplaced are still to achieve a durablesolution. 58 The prolonged displacementof people in such a highly exposed andvulnerable region is not just the consequenceof the Aila disaster, but of the cumulativeimpacts of repeated disastersand short-term movements that hamperfamilies’ capacity to recover before thenext setback. 59Aila made landfall on 25 May 2009,flooding villages and fields with seawater.Hundreds of kilometres of embankmentsthat protect low-lying land from floodingwere destroyed, leaving villages inundatedlong after the cyclone passed. Over842,000 people were displaced, most ofwhom remained within Bangladesh, whilesubsequent cross-border movements ofdisplaced people into neighbouring areasof India have also been reported (see figure5.4). 60Early return and recovery were delayedas a result, 61 and months into theemergency response agencies on theground described a deteriorating situationfor IDPs and other affected communities.62 Around 200,000 people werestill displaced after six months, 63 living inmakeshift shelters on roads and embankmentsand “surrounded by unruly water athigh tide and at low tide by thousands ofhectares of desolate muddy land” 64 (seefigure 5.3).Between 2008 and 2014, IDMC estimatesthat more than 4.7 million peoplewere newly displaced by rapid-onset,weather-related disasters in Bangladesh.65 The Nowabenki Gonomukhi Foundation(NGF) 66 and its network of partnershave been monitoring displacementin areas affected by cyclone Sidr since2007. According to their reporting in May2015, as many as three million people havebeen displaced through losing their accessto habitable land due to the impact ofclimate-related hazards and environmentaldegradation, while the total numberof displaced are probably even higher. 67It is unclear how many people fromacross all of the areas affected by Ailaare still living in displacement six years on,but NGF’s community-based surveys provideinsight into the situation of some ofthe worst-hit communities. In Sutarkhaliand Kamarkhola villages on Polder 32 ofDacope Upazila in Khulna district, the cyclonedestroyed 100 and 90 per cent ofhomes respectively. 68 Six years later, 2,617families or 13,085 individuals - a quarter ofthe population of the two villages - are stillliving in makeshift shelters on embankmentswithin the same polder. 69 Only oneper cent of displaced families have movedout of the area. 70Communities across the delta are exposedand vulnerable to recurrent storms,tidal floods and the gradual process ofsaltwater intrusion that degrades the landon which many of their livelihoods depend.In 2010, tidal floods affected some of thesame populations displaced by Aila abouta year earlier, 71 and in 2013 around 15,000families from Polder 32 were forced totake refuge inflee to storm shelters for upto week by the onset of cyclone Mahasen.72 The extensive damage Aila causedto embankments has left their originalhomes even more exposed to flood risk,and some delta communities have beenevicted from their homes to make wayfor the building of new embankments. 73We repaired the dykes andour villages emerged from thewater. A week later, we arehomeless again.IDP from Dacope, hit again byfloods a year after Aila 74Displaced people in Dacope identify arange of obstacles to finding sustainablesettlement options. 75 The repeated disruptionof their traditional livelihoods byfloods and cyclones, and the limited alternativesavailable, has eroded householdsavings and many are unable to affordthe high cost of relocation and settlementelsewhere. Such a move is estimated tocost around $1,000, while average percapita income is $1,190. 76Landless people who were squattingon public or private land before Aila58 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 5.3: Displacement patterns and vulnerability in flood-prone areasBefore Cyclone Aila, people lived on landprotected by embankments. Some landlesspeople lived on embankments and roadsides.Immediately after the cyclone, many peoplemoved onto roads and embankmentsbecause their land was flooded.Six months after the cyclone, manyembankments were still broken and landflooded. Around 200,000 people were stillliving on embankments and roadsides.Some returned to their land during the daybut spent the night and/or high tide timeson higher ground.Note: Adapted from IFRC/UN-Habitat report, 2009Until the embankments are properly repaired,return to flood-prone areas will continue to bea highly limited and unsafe option. Six yearslater, many people still live in temporaryshelters on embankments and roadsides.struck are not eligible for governmentor NGO housing assistance, despitetheir obvious needs. 77 Eligibility for reliefand rehabilitation support is also a majorconcern for displaced families whomove away from their registered areasof residence as shown on their identitycards. 78 Some IDPs have also experienceddiscrimination in accessing governmentassistance on the basis that they belongto an opposition party. 79 This is contrary tointernational standards and constitutes aviolation of their human rights. 80In a region where livelihood optionsare very limited, the seasonal migrationof male family members to work as agriculturalor construction day labourers isa common coping strategy among IDPsliving in protracted displacement on embankments,including those on Polder32. 81 The women left behind live in precariousconditions and are vulnerable toa range social risks, including sexual andgender-based violence. 82In other affected areas, people unableto find solutions in their areas of origin havemoved more permanently to larger towns,the megacities of Khulna and Dhaka oracross the border into the Indian state ofWest Bengal (see figure 5.4). 83 Ninety-fiveper cent of the families from Gabura islandon Polder 15 who were displaced afterAila and the subsequent flooding haverelocated away from the area. 84 Variousstudies have highlighted links betweenthe destruction wrought by Aila and anincrease in the trafficking of women andchildren to megacities in Bangladesh andacross the border into India. 85The onward movement of people livingin chronic displacement situations in theirhome areas may be difficult to distinguishfrom voluntary economic migration, butgiven such severe vulnerability the notionof migration as a choice is “ofteninappropriate”. 86 Neither can people whorelocate to live in poor conditions andwithout access to basic services in informalurban settlements be considered tohave achieved a durable solution. Manycontinue to be vulnerable to natural hazards,violence, exploitation and eviction. 87The extreme exposure and vulnerabilityto displacement of millions of people inBangladesh’s low-lying coastal and riverbasin areas constitutes a major crisis, andthe government has increased its attentionto the issue significantly in recentyears, particularly in the context of climatechange. National civil society and grassrootsorganisations working with vulnerablecommunities have also done muchto raise awareness of the huge scaleand immediacy of the problem, and morethan 200 NGOs in Bangladesh organisedunder the umbrella of the Association ofClimate Refugees are developing solutions.88 Their work includes monitoringand reporting on climate-related displacement,and facilitating the safe and voluntaryrelocation of people away from lowlyingand exposed areas to safer locationswith better prospects. One example ofbest practice is the “new land” initiative byACR-Kurigram, under which private plotshave been pledged for IDPs to relocateto in other parts of the country.Given the scale of long-lasting andrepeated patterns of displacement, however,and the expected effects of climatechange, which will increase future risk,there remains much to be done.5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters59

Figure 5.4: Movement of IDPs from areas affected by cyclone AilaCyclone Aila-affected settlementsDestination areasDistance (km)Primary movementsSecondary/tertiarymovementsWestBengalINDIAJessoreDhaka130 km90 km60 kmSathbiraKHULNA15 kmBatiaghataChittagong& CHTAssasuniDaropeMonglaKoyraShyamnagarNote: The size of the circles indicates the approximate scale of the movement. Source: Adapted from Hasan Mehedi, CLEAN (NGO), July 201060 Global Estimates 2015

SPOTLIGHTCOLOMBIAThe long road to relocationfor Gramalote’s IDPsIn 2010 and 2011, a particularly intense iterationof La Niña, the cooling of the PacificOcean’s surface, caused heavy rainfallthroughout the Andes and intense floodingand landslides in Colombia. Amongthe many places severely affected, thenorth-eastern town of Gramalote in themountains of Norte de Santander departmentwas all but levelled by a landslide.All 2,900 Gramaloteros were evacuatedbefore the disaster struck, and four-anda-halfyears later they remain displaced.Most moved to the city of Cúcuta, 45 kilometresaway. 89Colombia has managed many relocationprocesses in preparation for, and inresponse to the onset of natural hazards,but Gramalote was unique in terms of theextent of the destruction it suffered, andthe fact that the landslide took placewhile the country as a whole was in thethroes of a disaster.The events of 2010 and 2011 shapedthe country’s response and set it on tracktowards better preparedness in the future.The systems put in place were developedwith a long-term view to mitigatingand managing risk, including the FondoAdaptación, or Adaptation Fund - an institutionwith budgetary and administrativeautonomy and a strong technical focus.Creating a new institution from scratchin the aftermath of a large-scale disasterwas no easy task, however, and it took 18months to get the fund up and running asa functioning entity.The delay set back the Gramaloteros’efforts to bring their displacement to anend, and they are still to achieve a durablesolution. Their cultural attachment to theirtown and land remains strong, however,and translates into a yearning for return.They feel the town is not just their place ofresidence, but a defining feature of whothey are. 90Around 35 families have returned to anarea of Gramalote that was not destroyedby the landslide, but it is considered unsafeand they have done so at their ownrisk and without official support. Otherfamilies have resettled in another areaon the outskirts of the town, through aprocess facilitated by the Catholic church.The Gramaloteros continue to receivehousing rental support in the form of cashand in-kind contributions of food items– they are the only community affectedby the disasters of 2010 and 2011 to doso – but the Adaptation Fund and localauthorities have moved at a snail’s pacein helping them find a permanent solutionto their displacement.Once the fund was up and running, itproved difficult to find a nearby site suitablefor the construction of a new town.Technical assessments were conductedand came close to identifying two locations,but they were ultimately dismissedas neither safe nor viable. The site finallychosen is located, as was Gramalote,on an Andean mountainside, meaningthat there is little infrastructure in placeto service a new town. New electricity,telecommunications, water and sanitationinstallations will be needed, alongwith access roads, housing, schools andpublic spaces.In May 2015, the Adaptation Fundpublished a comprehensive developmentand relocation plan for Gramalote, witha budget of $93 million to build the newtown and its associated infrastructure.Its timeframe includes the Gramaloteros’relocation by the end of the year, an ambitioustarget considering the extent of thepublic works required. 91That said, it must be hoped that implementationof the new plan will not takeas long as its development, so that theGramaloteros can at last re-establish theirlives and their identity in a permanent newhome.5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters61

SPOTLIGHTHAITIChronic vulnerability and protracted displacementfive years after the earthquakeHaiti has a long history of displacement,driven both by recurrent disasters andhuman rights violations, but the January2010 earthquake forced people to fleetheir homes on an unprecedented scale.As many as 2.3 million people were displaced,92 of whom 1.5 million took refugein camps and camp-like settings, most ofthem in and around the capital, Port-au-Prince (see figure 5.5). 93 More than fiveyears after the disaster struck, many haveyet to achieve durable solutions.The number of IDPs living in temporaryor transitional camps has fallen by 96 percent, but there were still 64,680 of themregistered as of March 2015 (see figure5.5). 94 Living conditions in the camps arevery poor, and a combination of overcrowdingand unsafe housing makes therisk of gender-based violence worse. 95There is far less information on the numberand living conditions of IDPs outsideof camps or their living conditions.Of the more than 1.4 million IDPs whohave left their camps since 2010, 1.1 milliondid so for unknown reasons and there isno information on their current situation(see figure 5.6). 96 They cannot, however,be assumed to have achieved durable solutions.A 2013 survey on the living conditionsof IDPs suggests that their accessto key goods and services, particularlyhousing, education, healthcare, water, securityand livelihoods, was worse than forthe general population (see figure 5.7). 97Forced evictions from camps havecaused significant secondary displacementsince the earthquake, mostly asthe result of private owners wishing toreclaim their land on which camps wereset up. 98 Many evictions have fallen shortof international standards on the right toadequate housing. They have involved thedemolition of shelters, violence and intimidationby the police or individuals hired byowners to force residents to leave andthose affected have lost assets and fallendeeper into poverty. 99 Many did not receivealternative accommodation. 100More than 60,000 IDPs have beenevicted from camps since 2010, and 176sites have been closed as a result. 101 Thenumber of forced evictions fell in 2014, 102 inpart thanks to advocacy efforts by the protectioncluster’s partners and various ministries.103 Forced evictions have also takenplace from informal settlements such asCanaan, Jerusalem and Onaville, wheremany previous camp inhabitants live. 104Since 2010, more than 260,000 lefttheir camps after receiving one-year rentalsubsidies to address the needs of themajority of IDPs who were tenants ratherthan homeowners. 105 Many beneficiaries,however, have had to leave their accommodationwhen their grant expired, forthe most part because they were unableto afford their rent without support. 106 Inthe absence of associated livelihood andincome-generating initiatives, the cashgrants offered only a transitional solutionfor many. 107IDPs’ chronic vulnerability and the protractednature of their displacement area reflection of the significant developmentchallenges Haiti faced before theearthquake and the high, ongoing levelof disaster risk. The country is one of theworld’s poorest, most unequal and mostprone to disasters. 108 Its ranking on the UNDevelopment Programme’s human developmentindex fell from 149th out of 187countries in 2009, to 168th in 2013. Takingthe unequal distribution of wealth intoaccount, this 2013 ranking falls to 171st. 109Lack of development and poor governanceincrease people’s vulnerability todisasters, hamper their ability to recoverand undercut the sustainability of interventions.In a context where state institutionsand their enforcement capacity remainweak, the situation is made worse bynew and repeated displacement causedby recurrent disasters, forced evictions,development projects and gang violence.110The country’s displacement campsare a symptom of a wider housing crisis.Some 105 000 houses were destroyedand 208 160 homes were badly damagedby the earthquake, adding to a pre-existingnational shortage of 700, 000 units. 111Reconstruction has been painfully slow.Only an estimated 37,000 permanenthomes had been repaired, rebuilt or builtby early 2015. 112Poverty and weak urban governancemake reconstruction particularly chal-62 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 5.5: Total number of people displaced by the Haiti earthquake disaster from January 2010 to March 20152.52,300,0002.0People displaced (millions)1.51.00.501,500,0001,370,0001,069,000806,000635,000595,000551,000519,000516,000491,000680,000Estimated peak number of people displaced in January 2010 (UN OCHA)Gap in available dataIDPs in camps and camp-like settlements from July 2010 (IOM DTM data)420,000390,000369,000358,000347,000320,000279,00020102011 2012 2013 2014 2015JAN JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN FEB APR JUN AUG OCT DEC MAR JUN SEP DEC MAR JUN SEP DEC MAR172,000147,000138,000104,00085,00080,00065,000Figure 5.6: IDPs’ reasons for leaving camps betweenJuly 2010 and March 2015Figure 5.7: Comparing access to key goods and servicespre- and post-earthquake (better or worse; % change)Reason unknown(spontaneous departure)1,142,500 people1 year rental subsidy268,700 peopleForcibly evicted60,570 peopleBetterPercentage changeResidents of significantly damaged areas of Port-au-PrincePeople never displaced People displaced100-10-20-30-40Source of data: IOM DTM, March 2015Worse -50LatrinesTransportEducationSafety and SecurityHousingHealthWaterCreditJobsSource of data: Brookings and IOM, 2014. Based on survey of 2,576 householdsin areas where 25% or more of households were destroyed. Survey conductedOctober to December 20135 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters63

Conditions have continued to deteriorate in theremaining camps where earthquake IDPs like74-year old Velina Saint Fleur are still living.Temporary tents have been left in shreds by rainand hurricanes.Photo: ECHO/Evelyn Hockstein, April 2014https://flic.kr/p/pZFubelenging. Uncontrolled urbanisation ofPort-au-Prince before the earthquake ledto the rapid expansion of informal settlements,most of them in areas highlyexposed to natural hazards such as floodsand landslides and with only limited accessto services. 113 Eighty per cent of city’spopulation was living in such areas whenthe earthquake struck, and they sufferedthe worst of the destruction it caused. 114The absence until 2014 of a nationalframework to guide reconstruction efforts,clarify building regulations, determineresidential areas and regulariseinformal settlements made it difficult forhumanitarian and development organisationsto engage in providing IDPs withpermanent housing solutions. 115 A shortageof suitable urban land and an unclearownership of land and housing presentedfurther obstacles, leading most respondersto focus on temporary solutions suchas transitional shelter and cash grantsfor rent. 116The few permanent housing initiativesundertaken have focused on homeownersto the exclusion of the overwhelmingmajority of IDPs who were tenants beforethe earthquake, and who had to resort tomakeshift housing thereby perpetuatingthe slum pattern with poor sanitary conditionsand vulnerability and exposure tonatural hazards. 117Achieving durable solutions for Haiti’sIDPs will require a combination of shorttermmeasures to mitigate the recurrenceof crises and longer-term developmentinterventions to reduce poverty and disasterrisk, strengthen the rule of law andrein in human rights violations such asforced evictions. The reinforcement of accountableurban governance at both thenational and municipal level would alsofacilitate IDPs’ integration into developmentplans, and the provision of affordablehousing for the most vulnerable.Amid the tremendous challenges inthis complex context, encouraging initiativesshould also be noted. These includethe gradual efforts to transform someinformal settlements, such as Canaan,and IDP displacement camps into newneighbourhoods with permanent housing,improved tenure security and betteraccess to services. 11864 Global Estimates 2015

SPOTLIGHTPAKISTANProtracted displacement from areas affectedby the Hunza valley landslide and floodsIn Pakistan’s mountainous Hunza valleyin Gilgit-Baltistan territory, more than2,000 people are still displaced afterthey were forced to flee their homes fiveyears ago when two related disastersstruck the area over the course of a fewmonths. 119On 4 January 2010 a huge landslidedestroyed parts of the villages of Attabadand Sarat, sweeping much of the formerinto the Hunza river. 120 Boulders and debriscarried from the Attabad area weredeposited in Sarat. Nearly 1,300 people,or 141 families were evacuated ahead ofthe landslide, 121 but it still took 19 lives. 122The second disaster ensued becausematerial loosened by the landslide cre-Table 5.2: Number of Hunza valley IDPsHazardLandslideLake formationVillage oforiginAttabadand SaratNumber of people still displacedat the end of 2010Number of people stilldisplaced as of May 2015Families Individuals Families Individuals141 1,269 100 900Ainabad 32 288 21 189Shishkat 150 1,350 100 900GulmitMore than61More than54910 90Ghulkin 7 63 0 0Hussaini 10 90 0 0TotalMore than401ated a natural dam a kilometre wideacross the Hunza river, behind which alake formed over the following months.Flow into the lake was further increasedby seasonal glacier melt in May 2010.Before the rising waters all but submergedthe villages of Ainabad, Shishkat,Gulmit, Ghulkin and Hussaini, 123 morethan 2,340 people, or 260 families wereevacuated, increasing the overall numberof IDPs to more than 3,600. 124 They tookrefuge in camps and with host families innearby villages.Those still displaced as of May 2015live in the villages of Altit, Aliabad, Karimabadand Hyderabad. The majority arestill housed in transitional shelters, andMore than3,609231 2,079Sources: Sökefeld M, The Attabad landslide and the politics of disaster in Gojal, Gilgit-Baltistan, 2012, p.185;IDMC interview, May 2015; number of individuals calculated from the number of families based on a familysize of ninethe remainder live with host families andin rented accommodation.The lake also submerged around 15kilometres of the Karakoram highway,the only road connection between thearea and the rest of the country, and betweenPakistan and China. 125 The loss ofthe highway affected 20,000 inhabitantsof the Gojal sub-district who, althoughthey were not displaced, were cut offfrom markets, education and healthcareservices in downstream areas such asAliabad and Gilgit. 126The Pakistani government providedemergency relief through its National DisasterManagement Authority, and the Chinesegovernment gave food assistance toboth IDPs and the 20,000 people in Gojal.The army also dug a spillway for the damto prevent the water level in the lake fromrising further and eventually to reduceit. Its effect has been limited, however,and draining the lake has proved a slowprocess. 127In mid-2011 the government paidcompensation to each displaced familyof 600,000 rupees ($5,600) for destroyedor submerged housing and 200,000 rupees($1,900) for lost land. The paymentsdid not reflect the actual losses incurred,however, because habitable and arableland in Gojal and Gilgit-Baltistan as awhole are expensive and in short supply.The formation of the lake has reduced theamount of viable land still further, which inturn has been a major factor in prolonging5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters65

Map 5.3: Ongoing displacement in the Hunza valley following the 2010 Attabad landslideArea buried by the landslideSettlementMaximum flooded area, July 2010Batura Glacier0 5 kmShimshal Riv eKarakoram highwayrFlooded portion of Karakoram highwayPasuTURKMENISTANTAJ IKIS TANCHINAPasuGlacier!BorithKharamabadAFGHANISTAN!Jammu &KashmirGhulkin GlacierHussainiZarabadP A K I S T A NGulmit GlacierGhulkinIRANINDIA90 displaced peopleHunza RiverNote: AAll r adisplacement b i a n S e a figures are as of May 2015Sources: N. Cook and D. Butz, November 2013;GulmitShishkat900 displacedpeopleAhmadabadM. Sökefeld, 2012; IDMC interview, May 2015900 displaced people190 displaced peopleSalmanabadSaratAttabadAinabadthe displacement of the remaining IDPs. 128The Pakistan Red Crescent Societyand Focus Humanitarian Assistance, anorganisation affiliated to the Aga KhanDevelopment Network, have also providedIDPs with assistance. 129 Focus distributedtwo months’ worth of aid from theWorld Food Programme, paid for with aUSAID grant. The Aga Khan Rural SupportProgramme set up a business revitalisationprogramme and a cash-for-workproject, and the government has providedschool subsidies. 130 Since 2014, two riverambulances have been transporting peopleto medical facilities downstream fromthe dam as part of a USAID programme. 131Overall, much less assistance was deliveredthan originally promised. Nor weredifferent programmes well coordinated,and government officials were accusedof corruption. 132 A series of protests wereorganised against the authorities’ perceivedinaction in draining the lake, anduntimely and inadequate assistance. InAugust 2011, police killed two protestingIDPs and injured another three, which triggeredfurther rallies and led to the arrestof a number of demonstrators on seditionand other charges. 133A Chinese state company is building anew section of road which, if it opens asplanned in August 2015, will complete theKarakoram highway again. This shouldhelp the valley’s inhabitants, includingthe remaining IDPs, to at least partiallyre-establish their former lives and livelihoodsby restoring their access to markets,services, education and employmentopportunities further south.They will also be able to work in thetransport sector and set up small roadsidebusinesses again, but opportunitiesto return to cultivating cash crops will belimited for a number of years to come. Thelake no longer covers much of the area’sarable land, but it has left it covered ina thick layer of sediment, making it verydifficult to farm. 13466 Global Estimates 2015

SPOTLIGHTJAPANLiving in limbo four years after theTōhoku earthquake, tsunami andnuclear accident disasterIn March 2011, a powerful earthquakeoff the east coast of Japan triggered anunprecedented disaster in the region ofTohoku. The magnitude 9.0 event wasthe strongest ever to hit the country, andcaused a tsunami on a scale expectedonly once in 1,000 years. 135 Most of the immediatedamage and losses were linkedto the tsunami, including the deaths of18,479 people and the inundation of theemergency generators needed to cool thereactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclearpower station. 136 The power failure led tothe meltdown of three reactors and theworst radiation leaks since the 1986 Chernobyldisaster in Ukraine.More than 470,000 people were forcedto flee their homes, and four years lateraround 230,000 are still displaced and unableto achieve durable solutions. 137 Highlevels of radiation, low levels of trust inofficial information and poor consultationwith the communities affected have delayedsolutions for IDPs who are unableor unwilling to return to their homes. Mostare from Fukushima prefecture, where164,865 people living near the damagednuclear plant were evacuated. Accordingto official figures, 116,284 were still displacedas of March 2015 (see figure 5.8). 138Wide areas around the damaged nuclearplant were still under evacuationorders as of October 2014, as shown inmap 5.4. In May 2015, the governmentannounced its intention to lift its ordersin remaining parts of areas one and twowithin two years, 139 but the number of peoplewho have returned or intend to returnremains low. 140 Many are still concernedabout radiation levels, and unsure as towhether they would be able to resumea normal life. 141 It is unlikely that return toarea three will be permitted for the foreseeablefuture.Some people living in parts of Fukushimanot officially designated evacuationzones left of their own accord becauseof increased radiation levels. There isno systematic data on those who did so,but research suggests that many weremothers with young children who fearedhealth risks, and who left their husbandsbehind to work and support their families.142 Mandatory evacuees from officialzones are eligible for compensation accordingto the category of area they left,with payments ending a year after theevacuation orders are lifted. In contrast,voluntary or unofficial evacuees receivelittle compensation and are not entitledto the same assistance. 143 This differingtreatment, anxiety about radiation risks,varying attitudes towards return and thegeneral instability of IDPs’ situations havecombined to create tensions within affectedcommunities and families, andhave led some couples to divorce. 144Many evacuees had to move a numberof times in the first six months after thedisaster, 145 which has also contributed tothe splitting up of members of the samehouseholds. Forty-seven per cent ofthose surveyed towards the end of 2011said they had moved three or four times,and 36 per cent five or six times. Someyounger adults have made their owntemporary housing arrangements, suchas renting apartments, while older generationshave stayed in the prefabricatedfacilities provided. Some IDPs have left forother parts of the country. 146Given their disrupted livelihoods anddispersed and divided communities, neithermandatory nor voluntary evacueeshave been unable to plan for the future,and prospects for a return to normality aredwindling. In the immediate aftermath ofthe disaster, evacuees’ primary concernwas when they would be able to returnhome. Four years on, however, it is primarilyolder residents, and particularly thosestill living in temporary housing, who longto return.5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters67

The mental and physical health ofIDPs has also deteriorated. A 2015 surveyof evacuees revealed that many fromboth inside and outside official evacuationzones were suffering from sleepingdisorders, anxiety, loneliness and depression.147 Fukushima is the only prefecturewhere the number of deaths resultingfrom health issues and suicides relatedto the disaster has exceeded the toll fromthe direct impacts of the earthquake andtsunami. 148 Older people are particularlyaffected, with those above the age of 66accounting for more than 90 per cent ofsuch fatalities. 149There are also many obstacles to IDPs’achievement of durable solutions in Miyagiand Iwate, the two prefectures worstaffected by the tsunami. Recovery couldstart sooner in these prefectures than inFukushima’s evacuation zones, but theyface their own contextual issues. Lessdata is available on the situation of IDPs inMiyagi and Iwate than in Fukushima, andthe latter has received much more politicalattention. 150 The number of evacueeshas dropped in both prefectures since itspeak in June 2011 151 , due in large part topeople moving away from coastal areas,particularly from towns whose centreswere razed. 152Many areas were already experiencingdepopulation before the tsunami, andthe disaster has increased this trend. Asin Fukushima, many younger residentsand families frustrated by the slow paceof reconstruction have moved to urbancentres in search of better housing, educationand work opportunities. 153A number of coastal municipalities inMiyagi and Iwate have begun the processof permanently relocating communitiesfrom tsunami devastated areas to higherground or inland, where they are less exposedto future risks. 154 The length of timeneeded to complete these schemes ismeasured in years rather than months. 155Collective resettlement schemes in Japanhave traditionally been designed with therelocation of smaller communities in mind,as in the case of mountainous villagesaffected by landslides. As of December2011, 37 municipalities had included collectiverelocation in their recovery plans,but only 26 eventually decided to implementsuch schemes. 156The plans were designed to preserveFigure 5.8: Displacement following the Tōhoku disaster from nuclearcontaminated areas and earthquake/tsunami affected areas, 2011-2015People displaced (thousands)200150100500164,865116,284Fukushima - IDPsfrom nuclearcontaminated zones43,096social cohesion, but one of the mainfactors behind municipalities’ decisionsnot to go ahead with them was the difficultythey faced in reaching a consensusamong the communities concerned andmany such schemes have left the localpopulation divided. Some residents, suchas those who previously worked in thefishing industry, were unwilling to resettleaway from the coast. 157 Others, particularlythose who lost family members, felttoo traumatised to rebuild their homes inareas the tsunami devastated. 158Cost and the availability of suitableland have also been significant obstacles.Many subsidies have been introduced,but relocation remains an expensive optionfor the struggling municipalities andmany of their displaced residents. The28,950Iwate - IDPs fromearthquake/tsunamiaffected areasSource of data: Fukushima prefectural government, 2015;Japan Reconstruction Agency, 2015128,1972011201569,561Miyagi - IDPs fromearthquake/tsunamiaffected areasacquisition of enough land suitable forlarge-scale relocation proved difficult incoastal areas with complex topography,and some schemes had to be redraftedseveral times as a result. 159 Only 48 percent of land development in relocationsites is expected to be complete by March2016. 160Relocation schemes have been putin place for a relatively small number ofcoastal communities from areas officiallydesignated as unsafe for reconstructionand habitation. Residents are freeto choose whether or not to participatein the schemes, but the basis on whichthey make their decisions are often inconsistentand unclear, with confusionbetween different administrative levelsof government and poor communication68 Global Estimates 2015

Map 5.4: Mandatory evacuation zones in Fukushima prefectureDate CityIitate VillageKawamata TownMinamisoma CityKatsurao VillageNamie TownJAPANTamura CityFutaba TownOkuma TownFukushimaDai-ichi NPSFukushimaKawauchi VillageTomiokaTownNarahaTownFukushimaDai-ni NPSArea 1: Daytime access permitted; government preparing to lift evacuation ordersArea 2: Daytime access permitted; evacuation orders to be lifted within two yearsArea 3: No access permitted; return unlikely for a very long timeNote: Areas 1 to 3 defined according to level of exposure to radiationSource: Adapted from Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, October 2014with the affected communities. 161 Somehouseholds who initially opted to relocatechanged their minds as the timeframefor the process lengthened and costsincreased. 162Those able afford it, most oftenyounger families, have started to rebuildtheir lives elsewhere or moved to moreurban and convenient locations, accentuatingthe shrinking economies and agingpopulations of rural areas. For thosewho remain, this raises serious questionsas to whether relocation will provide newhomes and create sustainable communitiesin places where people are bothphysically safer and also want to live.The uncertainty and anxiety of prolongeddisplacement and an unclearfuture looks set to continue for many ofthe communities affected by tsunami andthose from the areas of Fukushima contaminatedwith radiation. In both cases,addressing the long-lasting social andpsychological consequences of displacementremains as important as thereconstruction of infrastructure and environmentalremediation.5 | Mind your assumptions: Protracted displacement following disasters69

SPOTLIGHTUNITED STATESDisplaced people in New Jersey stillseeking solutions after superstorm SandyOver 39,000 people who fled their homesin east coast regions of the United Statesin October 2012 to escape superstormSandy are still in need of housing assistanceand longer term solutions. 163 Theirpredicament has lasted well beyond thetwo-year recovery period envisaged bythe state and federal authorities. 164In far more vulnerable countries hit bythe same storm, such as Haiti, protracteddisplacement might be expected giventhe country’s relatively weak capacity forrecovery. 165 The situation in the US showsthat poorer and more marginalised membersof the population in a high incomecountry are also more likely to face longterm challenges.Heavy rains, hurricane-force windsand extensive coastal flooding causedsevere disruption and damage to privatehomes, businesses and public infrastructurealong the eastern seaboard,in the Appalachians and across parts ofthe Midwest, forcing more than 750,000people to flee their homes at the peakof the crisis. 166 In the absence of a local,state or federal agency that monitors displacementcaused by disasters, there areno official estimates of how many peopleare still without solutions to their displacement.167Specific information about the plightof people displaced in the badly affectedstate of New Jersey, however, providesimportant insights into their ongoingneeds and the obstacles they face inachieving durable solutions. 168Of the 161,000 families (430,700 people)recorded as displaced in New Jerseythe day after Sandy struck, around 39,000families (104,300 people) were still displacedsix months later, according to thestate governor. 169 Two and a half yearslater, based on applications made forgovernment reconstruction assistance,14,650 families or around 39,200 peoplewho owned their destroyed pre-Sandyhomes are still in need of housing solutions(see figure 5.9). An unknown numberwho were tenants before Sandy severelydamaged their homes are similarly inneed. 170We cannot move one moretime to a home that’s not ours… Every day is 30 October2012 for us. We’re stuckwhere we were the day afterthe storm.Displaced woman, Belmar, NewJersey, 4 February 2015 171Many are living with family and friendsor in temporary rented accommodation,and some have had to move a number oftimes. 172 Some people living in damagedmobile home communities have been forciblyevicted and their trailers bulldozed. 173Many people who were not displaced orreturned quickly are still living in homesthat are damaged or do not comply withbuilding standards. 174Monmouth University’s polling institutehas tracked the experiences of the NewJersey residents hardest hit by the disasterover time. It defines “hardest hit” as those“who were displaced from their homes fora month or more, or sustained $8,000 ormore in damage to a primary home due toSandy”. Findings from a survey in October2014 show that only 28 per cent of peoplestill displaced after a year were able tomove back to their homes over the following12 months. Sixty-seven per centremained displaced after two years, andsix per cent said they would never returnto their original homes (see figure 5.10). 175The longer people are displaced for,the greater their needs become acrossa range of areas. 176 The greatest needamong all people surveyed was for moneyto rebuild their homes and retrofit themfor flood resilience. Among those stilldisplaced after two years, the need toreplace household items such as furnitureand appliances was far greater thanamong other groups (see figure 5.11).Those still displaced after two yearswere also in much greater need of financialassistance. Some were strugglingto meet their basic needs and feed theirfamilies, in many cases because theyfaced the double burden of paying bothrent and the mortgage on the former70 Global Estimates 2015

Figure 5.9: New Jersey families displacedfollowing superstorm SandyDisplaced families (thousands)180160140120100806040200161,000Oct 2012Dec 2012Feb 201339,000Apr 2013Jun 2013Aug 2013Oct 2013Dec 2013Feb 2014Apr 2014Jun 2014Note: Feb. 2015 figure includes home owners only and not tenantsSource of data: Oct. 2012 and Feb. 2013 - Governor of New Jersey, 2013;Feb. 2015 - Fair Share Housing Centre, Latino Action Network and NAACP, 2015Aug 2014Oct 2014Dec 2014Feb 201514,650Figure 5.10: People hardest hit in New Jersey one and twoyears after superstorm SandyBack inpre-Sandyhomes52%One year onStilldisplaced48%28%67%6%Two years onBack in pre-Sandyhomes between 12and 24 monthsStill displaced andwaiting to returnStill displaced andwill never returnSource of data: Monmouth University Polling Institute, 2014. Based on individual responses tosurvey questions both one year and two years after Sandy.Figure 5.11: Needs of the population hardest hit by superstorm Sandy by displacement statusHelp with replacing furniture and appliancesMoney to pay for home rebuilding or elevationHelp with making rent paymentsHelp with making mortgage paymentsHelp with utility payments (water, gas,electric)Legal assistanceHelp with mental/emotional counselingHelp applying for construction/rebuilding permitsHelp with cleanup/debris removalHelp with healthcare costs/coverageHelp with debt managementHelp with purchasing food/feeding your familyObtaining buyout of your homeHelp with employmentObtaining homeowners/renters insuranceFinding a permanent home to relocate toSource: Monmouth University Polling Institute, 2014.Based on individual responses tosurvey questions two years after Sandy.Still displacedBack in homeShort term (

assistance available and implementationprocesses at various levels of government.Some people have been waitingfor funds for two and a half years, andhave been offered no explanation as tothe delay. Those whose first language isnot English are at a particular disadvantage.According to one legal complaintfiled about housing discrimination, informationin Spanish was not posted untilafter the close of public comment periods,and in some cases contained inaccuraciesincluding incorrect deadlines for applications.181The initial distribution of recoveryfunds and assistance was biased towardshomeowners. Despite the fact that 40 perGetting people back in theirhomes is not a panacea forhealing all the mental healthconcerns of Sandy survivors.However, it is the biggestsingle factor we see in theseresults.Patrick Murray, director of the MonmouthUniversity polling institutecent of the homes Sandy damaged wereoccupied by tenants rather than propertyowners, this group received only 25 percent of the housing assistance availablein 2014. Given that African-American,Asian-American and Latino families, andlower income families across all ethnicitieswere more likely to be tenants, thebias entrenched pre-existing inequalitiesand discrimination. 182 After settlementof the complaint filed by the FairShare Housing Centre, the Latino ActionNetwork and the New Jersey NationalAssociation for Advancement of ColoredPeople, US (NAACP), the authorities havebegun to address the issue, as evidencedby an increase in assistance for tenantsto 33 per cent as of January 2015 (seefigure 5.12).The Fair Share Housing, Latino ActionNetwork, and New Jersey NAACP reportalso suggests discrimination on the basisof race and ethnicity in the allocationof funding for rehabilitation, reconstruction,elevation and mitigation projects forhomeowners. Applications from African-American families were initially rejectedtwice as often as those from their whitenon-Latino counterparts, and those fromLatino families were rejected 20 per centmore often. Eighty per cent of rejectedapplications were later deemed eligibleon reassessment (see figure 5.13). 183People like me have largelybeen forgotten in the recoveryeffort.Response of 71% of hardest hitpeople surveyed by MonmouthUniversitySuperstorm Sandy had a devastatingimpact on New Jersey, and huge progresshas been made in the state’s overall recovery.For the thousands of people stilldisplaced, however, the disaster is not yetover, and many say they feel neglected.Their feelings reinforce the need for stateand federal authorities to focus their attentionon those living in prolonged displacement,particularly given that manyare also some of the most marginalisedmembers of the affected communities.Figure 5.12: Financial assistance allocated for the repair of Figure 5.13: Response to homeowner applications forhomes damaged by superstorm Sandy – owners compared financial housing assistance - by applicants’ race andto tenantsethnicityShare of impact and allocation of funding to Renters and 100HomeownersShare of homesimpacted by SandyShare of NewJersey Sandyhousing fundingas of January 2014Share of NewJersey Sandyhousing fundingas of January 20158060%40%25%75% 67%33%Proportion of applicants (%)6040HomeownersTenants20Note: Funding for homeowners comes from the Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation andMitigation (RREM) programme, while funding for tenants comes from the Fund for Restorationof Multi-family Housing (FRM)Source: Fair Share Housing Centre, Latino Action Network and NAACP, 2015. Using FEMA data.0African AmericanLatinoWhite Non-LatinoWithdrawnRejectedWaitlistedFundedNote: State of New Jersey funding program for Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, Elevation andMitigation (RREM)Source: Fair Share Housing Centre, Latino Action Network and NAACP, 2015. Using FEMA data.72 Global Estimates 2015

74 Global Estimates 2015A girl still living on low-lyingembankments in Dacope, Bangladesh.Hit by Cyclone Aila in 2009,the area is still very vulnerable tohazards including cyclones and tidalsurges. Photo: Chirine El-Labbane/Nansen Initiative, April 2015

6THE POST-2015GLOBAL POLICYAGENDAKey findings and messagesThe time is opportune for displacementassociated with disasters to be betteraddressed in major global policyagenda and their implementation in thepost-2015 period. They include the SustainableDevelopment Goals, the SendaiFramework for Disaster Risk Reduction,action on climate change under the UN-FCCC and preparatory work for the 2016World Humanitarian Summit.A comprehensive approach to displacementwill help to forge stronglinks and continuity between these initiatives,and support the implementationof global and national commitments.Displacement can no longer be consideredas a primarily humanitarian issue,nor one that is specific to conflictsituations. In most countries affected ithas multiple and overlapping causes,and addressing it requires close coordinationof humanitarian and developmentpolicy and action within and betweengovernments.The increasing number of people displacedand at risk of becoming trappedin protracted situations following disastersunderscores the urgent need toinclude people displaced or at risk ofbecoming so in sustainable and inclusivedevelopment measures.Improved monitoring and data on displacementis needed to measure theachievement of national and globalpolicy targets for inclusive and sustainabledevelopment, disaster risk reductionand management, and adaptationto climate change.In order to prioritise resources and targetresponses to where they are mostneeded, a common framework for collecting,interpreting and comparingdisplacement data should be establishedbetween government and partnerorganisations and across differenttimeframes.Special attention should be paid to collectingdata disaggregated by gender,age and specific vulnerabilities, andto monitoring the situation of peoplecaught in long-lasting or chronic displacement.6 | The post-2015 global policy agenda75

Displacement associated with disastersis a global phenomenon with implicationsfor major areas of policy and action currentlyunder discussion. These includethe Sendai Framework for Disaster RiskReduction endorsed in March, the SustainableDevelopment Goals (SDGs) tobe adopted later in the year, negotiationsahead of the conference of the parties tothe UNFCCC in Paris at the end of it, andpreparations for the World HumanitarianSummit in May 2016.The relevance of displacement to allthese initiatives underlines the need forstrong links and continuity between them,global commitment to their implementationand national accountability for doingso. Their success will depend on theextent to which they provide a coherentframework for comprehensive, integratedand long-term approaches to the issue.Their outcomes will also rely heavily onsignatory governments’ ability to measureand demonstrate concrete progresstowards achieving their goals.6.1 Sustainable development forall: Including those displaced bydisastersThe Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) were established in 2001 to guidethe international community’s developmentagenda. World leaders are due toadopt their successor, the SDGs, at asummit in September. Preparations forthe summit represented an importantopportunity to put displacement on theagenda, and to better focus support forgovernments to ensure that related issuesare properly addressed in nationaland local development plans.During the final stages of preparingproposals on the SDGs and their associatedtargets, UN member states debatedthe inclusion of a stand-alone target forreducing the number of IDPs and refugees,including via long-term efforts tofacilitate the achievement of sustainablesolutions to their displacement. Ultimately,however, they were unable to agree onsuch an undertaking among the set of 17SDGs and 169 targets.In its absence, discussions have beenunderway to consider other ways of incorporatingdisplacement into the finalframework, including explicit referenceto IDPs in its definitions of vulnerableand marginalised groups. Displacementindicators may also be incorporated intoresilience targets 1.5 and 11.5:1.5: “By 2030, build the resilience of thepoor and those in vulnerable situationsand reduce their exposure and vulnerabilityto climate-related extremeevents and other economic, social andenvironmental shocks and disasters.”11.5: “By 2030, significantly reduce thenumber of deaths and the number ofpeople affected and decrease by [x]per cent the economic losses relativeto gross domestic product causedby disasters, including water-relateddisasters, with a focus on protectingthe poor and people in vulnerablesituations.”This could, in effect, provide a measureof the number of people displaced by theevents mentioned, and those who haveachieved durable solutions. Member statesmay also suggest that the SDGs’ centralcommitment to “leave no one behind”should explicitly include IDPs and refugees,a point already underscored by theUN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, in hissynthesis report on the post-2015 agenda. 1Reference to the devastating impact ofchronic and protracted humanitarian crisesand displacement on sustainable developmentmay also be included in the politicaldeclaration on the post-2015 agenda.No matter how and where displacementfeatures in the SDGs, it should berecognised as a global issue requiringa particular focus. Alongside countries’broader efforts to make progress towardthe proposed goals - whether on povertyreduction, health, nutrition and food security,education, income and gender inequalityor access to safe drinking water -they face the additional and considerablechallenge of responding to the needs oflarge numbers of people displaced bydisasters every year.From one perspective, preventing andresponding to displacement representsjust another in a long list of intractableproblems. From another, however, itaddresses an urgent global issue thatthreatens to undermine all of the SDGs.In other words, helping people displacedby disasters to rebuild their lives and livelihoodsforms a necessary part of makingprogress towards them.As signatory states embark on theirefforts to reach the SDGs, the monitoringand measuring of progress will bevital. Doing so will require agreement onglobal, national and sub-national baselines,benchmarks and definitions for theaggregation of data, and local to globalsharing of information. To enable themonitoring of people who face challengesand risks related to displacement that maylead to their exclusion from developmentgains, data should be collected by gender,age and specific vulnerabilities, and payparticular attention to those trapped inlong-lasting or chronic displacement.Work is already underway at differentlevels, including the UN StatisticalCommission (UNSC)’s recent global initiativeto address gaps in displacementdata and work on disaster statistics atthe regional level by the UN Economicand Social Commission for Asia and thePacific. As the secretary general’s specialrepresentative for disaster risk reductionhas said: “Access to information is criticalto successful disaster risk management.You cannot manage what you cannotmeasure.” 26.2 Down to business:Implementing the SendaiframeworkDisplacement is well positioned in theSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction2015-2030. Endorsed by 187 countriesin March, it contains four paragraphsthat mention the term, spanning the backgroundrationale and the issues of riskgovernance, preparedness, response andrecovery and reconstruction. Evacuationsare addressed in a separate paragraph,and relocation as a preventative measureis also mentioned, as are migrantsas a group whose participation at the locallevel should be supported. Sendai’spredecessor, the Hyogo Framework forAction, made only passing reference todisplacement issues.Priority two of the Sendai frameworkcalls on states to:“Promote transboundary cooperationto enable policy and planning for theimplementation of ecosystem-based76 Global Estimates 2015

A landslide devastated villages in Badakhshan province, Afghanistan on 2 May 2014. Over 6,300 people were displaced. Photo: IOM/Matt Graydon, 2014approaches with regard to shared resources,such as within river basinsand along coastlines, to build resilienceand reduce disaster risk, includingepidemic and displacement risk.”Priority four highlights the need to:“Promote regular disaster preparedness,response and recovery exercises,including evacuation drills, trainingand the establishment of area-basedsupport systems, with a view to ensuringrapid and effective response todisasters and related displacement,including access to safe shelter, essentialfood and non-food relief supplies,as appropriate to local needs.” 3The framework does not, however, specificallycall on states to collect data ondisplacement. One solution to this mightbe to incorporate displacement-specificindicators into national disaster loss databases.Another cause for concern isthat it lacks measurable benchmarks forassessing progress towards implementation.Rather than including quantitativetargets, its seven global objectives aimto reduce risks and enhance capacities“substantially”. 4UNSC and other bodies working withdisplacement and disaster risk data at theglobal and regional level have an importantrole to play in developing standards,baselines and benchmarks for monitoringthe framework’s implementation. Asthe region worst affected by disastersand their impacts, Asia and the Pacificwill have a strong voice in policy dialogueand reporting at the global level. Regionalefforts are underway by member statesand experts from the UN Economic andSocial Commission for Asia and the Pacific(ESCAP)’s statistics committee. Anexpert group has been tasked with developingcommon basic standards and acompilation guide for the disaster statisticsneeded to monitor progress towardsachieving the objectives of both the Sendaiframework and the SDGs. 5In the long run, the main challenge forSendai’s signatories will lie in the robustimplementation of the framework’s provisions.If the Hyogo framework servesas an indicator, states will have to makemore effort to reduce disaster risks effectively.Thus far they have made progressin life-saving areas such as earlywarning, evacuations and response, butthey have struggled to address driversof risk such as poverty, rapid and unplannedurbanisation, weak governanceand environmental degradation. If theyfail to make significant progress in theseareas, the inclusion of displacement inthe Sendai framework will have been apyrrhic victory.6.3 Heading for Paris:Displacement in climate changenegotiationsIn the 2010 Cancun Adaptation Framework,parties to UNFCCC recognised theneed to address displacement as part ofcountries’ efforts to adapt to the negativeimpacts of climate change. 6 Given thatthe Cancun framework still stands todayand is not time-bound, some have questionedwhy the anticipated agreement atthe Paris conference of parties (COP21)should have to reaffirm this.The fact is, however, that the Parisagreement will set the agenda for the comingyears. The increased risk of displacementtriggered by weather-related hazardsunderscores the need for the issue to beput firmly on that agenda. The agreementwill also establish both implicit and explicitguidelines on financing and action to miti-6 | The post-2015 global policy agenda77

gate the effects of climate change, and itwill be much easier to mobilise resourcesin support of issues included in it.The issue of displacement associatedwith climate change appears in thedraft text that will serve as a basis for theagreement. The agenda item related to“the work programme on loss and damageassociated with the negative impactsof climate change” includes a proposalto establish a “displacement coordinationfacility”. This has the potential toaddress a number of issues related topopulation movements, be they plannedor unplanned, voluntary or forced.The current proposal, however, isflawed in two ways. Not only would thesuggested facility duplicate some functionsof existing UN entities, but addressingdisplacement exclusively as an issueof “loss and damage” ignores the fact thatthere are many ways in which the risk ofit can be reduced through effective adaptation.The Paris agreement should encouragecountries to reduce the risk of displacementoccurring in the first place,facilitate responses when it does happenand ensure that IDPs achieve durablesolutions that remove them from cyclesof ongoing and worsening risk. It shouldalso consider displacement risk associatedwith efforts to mitigate greenhousegas emissions, something that has neverbeen addressed as part of the UNFCCC.6.4 Towards Istanbul: Transforminghumanitarian actionThe first World Humanitarian Summitwill take place in Istanbul in May 2016, andpreparations are reaching a crucial stage.Since the UN secretary general launchedthe initiative in 2013, nearly three yearsof regional and thematic consultationshave taken place involving governments,UN agencies, NGOs, universities, thinktanks and private companies from all overthe world. Many of them come to an endon 31 July 2015, but not before they havecaptured different perspectives on thefuture of humanitarian action and helpedto prioritise recommendations.The consultations have been guidedby four major themes - humanitarian effectiveness,reducing vulnerability andmanaging risk, transformation throughinnovation, and serving the needs ofpeople in conflict. All four are relevantto some of the challenges inherent indisplacement associated with disasters,and aim to build clear links between concurrentglobal development, disaster riskreduction and climate change processesaround a common thread of building resilienceto the changing nature of shocksand stresses.A number of recommendations relevantto disaster displacement haveemerged. They emphasise the need tobetter align humanitarian and developmentapproaches and action on disasterrisk reduction, and to invest significantlymore in the pursuit of sustainable solutionsto protracted displacement. Theyalso encourage governments to investmore money and effort in managingdisaster risk, including through the improvementand implementation of legalframeworks, and stress the importantrole of regional organisations in disasterpreparedness, and of civil society instrengthening local communities’ capacitiesand resilience.Regional consultations in Abidjan,Tokyo, Pretoria and Budapest recommendedthe strengthening of nationaland regional legal frameworks on displacement,and mentioned the KampalaConvention as a model. The conventionhas a number of provisions relevant todisplacement associated with disasters. Itcalls for the development of early warningsystems, disaster risk reduction strategiesand response measures in areasat risk of displacement. In line with theGuiding Principles, it also obliges statesto protect communities with special attachmentto or dependence on their land,such as pastoralists.Discussions leading up to the summithave also explored the interplay betweendisasters and conflict, and recognisedthat addressing them as separate issuesin countries affected by both leads toa poor analysis of the risk environmentand the range of solutions required. Otherdiscussions have covered risk financemechanisms to address displacement issues,recognising that insurance and risktransfer instruments can help to mitigatesome risks and even improve resilience.As this report shows, the scale andcomplexity of displacement in countriesunable to cope with the phenomenonputs considerable and growing pressureon the international system for humanitarianprotection and assistance. It isalso clear that displacement cannot beconsidered a purely humanitarian issue.The increasing number of people trappedin chronic and protracted displacementunderscores the urgent need for greaterinvestment in disaster risk reduction anddevelopment approaches that facilitatethe achievement of durable solutions.At this crossroads for key global agendasaddressing some of the world’s mostpressing problems, situating displacementaccurately within each of them canseem daunting. It should, however, beframed and addressed as an issue thatunderlies and cuts across a number ofglobal challenges. Preparedness and responseinitiatives must also be more effectivein prioritising stretched resourcesto reach the most vulnerable populationsin multi-risk environments.It is encouraging that so many governmentsand civil society partners are workingtogether on cross-cutting issues ofglobal concern. The very fact that forumsexist within which such issues can be addressedis a sign that there is political willto improve on the status quo.In terms of displacement associatedwith disasters, governments and theirpartners need to collect and report highqualitydata and use it to inform targetedresponses to what constitutes a growingglobal crisis. Such information will alsoenable them to gauge to what extent theyare succeeding in making a difference tothe tens of millions of people whose livesare turned upside down each year whenthey are forced to flee their homes.78 Global Estimates 2015

ANNEX AMethodologyIDMC’s annual Global Estimates report provides a quantified global view of displacementassociated with disasters brought on by natural hazards, based on the best dataavailable. Depth is addressed in a more anecdotal way, via case studies and otherspecific examples that provide insights into patterns, trends and qualitative issues.These notes detail the methodology we use to produce our global estimates, modelleddisplacement trends and research on protracted displacement.The annex is divided into three parts:1. the methodology used to create our global dataset, which measures the incidenceof new displacement for each year since 2008 and now includes 20142. the methodology used to produce the latest iteration of our probabilistic modelof average historical displacement and trends from 1970 to 20143. the methodology used to gather and analyse information about prolonged andprotracted displacementA.1The annual measurement ofnew displacement causedby disasters between 2008and 2014This part of the annexe refers only toour annual global estimates based on thedirect reporting of displacement events.As explained in section two, we definedisplacement as the forced movement ofindividuals or groups of people from theirhomes or places of habitual residence, asdescribed in the 1998 Guiding Principleson Internal Displacement.It does not matter how far or for howlong people are forced to move. We considerpeople rendered homeless or deprivedof their livelihoods but who remainclose to their original dwellings as displaced,whether they do so by choice orbecause they have no alternative accessto shelter and assistance. A rapid-onsetshock in the form of a natural hazard maytrigger such movements, as a result of itsdirect threat to, or impact on exposed andvulnerable people.This year’s report presents our latestfindings on displacement caused by disastersin 2014 and compares it with datafor the seven-year period from 2008 to2014. We encountered regular challengesin the collection, compilation and interpretationof data from different sources,including varying institutional mandates,research domains, terminology and definitions,and the variety of reasons organisationshad for collecting and publishingthe data in question.We have introduced new developmentsinto our methodology since lastyear’s report as part of our continuousefforts to increase the accuracy, qualityand consistency of our data. They includea new formula for the calculation of averagehousehold size, the use of UN namingfor countries and territories and updatesto the categorisation of different hazards.Scope, resolution and limitationsTypological: The classification of theevents behind our estimates and historicaltrend model refers to the original orprimary hazard that triggered the disasterand displacement. It covers disastersassociated with geophysical, meteorological,hydrological and climatologicalhazards that are rapid in their onset asidentifiable events though their dynamicsvary greatly. Some events fall on a continuumbetween rapid-onset and slowlyevolving events.Sub-types and “sub-sub-types” of hazardare also covered. Specific hazardsare often part of a series of cascading orinter-related hazards that take place overhours or months as a disaster unfolds,such as aftershocks and other secondaryhazards following a major earthquake, orfloods and landslides during or after aperiod of heavy rainfall.Our global data includes displacementassociated with all of the hazardtypes described in the non-exhaustivelist shown in table A.1, with the exceptionof drought. Drought and gradualprocesses of environmental degradationcan be significant drivers of disaster anddisplacement, but they are less directlyattributable as the primary trigger and arebeyond the scope of our methodology forproducing aggregated global estimates.We are developing different methodologiesto analyse slow-onset hazards andtheir contribution to crises and displacementas part of a complex mix of drivers- see section four of our 2014 GlobalEstimates report 1 - but we are not yet in aposition to provide global statistics.Annexes79

Table A.1 Typology of natural hazards*Hazard category Hazard type Hazard sub-type Hazard sub-sub-typeGeophysicalEarthquake, mass movement,volcanic activityGround shaking, tsunami,sudden subsidence, sinkhole,landslide, rock fall, ashfall, lahar, pyroclastic flow,lava flow, toxic gasesMeteorologicalStorm, extreme temperaturesExtra-tropical storm, tropicalstorm (includes hurricane/cyclone), convective storm,cold wave, heat wave, severewinter conditionsDerecho, hailstorm, thunderstorm,rain storm, tornado,winter storm, blizzard, sandstorm, dust storm, stormsurge, galeHydrologicalFlooding, landslide, waveactionCoastal flood, riverine flood,flash flood, ice jam flood,avalanche (snow, debris,mudflow, rock fall), roguewave, seicheClimatological Drought, wildfire Forest fire, land fire (bush,brush, pasture)*This typology is adapted from the classification system developed by the international disaster database (EM-DAT), maintained by the Centre for Research on theEpidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Brussels.Spatial/geographical: Using an inclusiveglobal scope, we recorded the incidenceof displacement induced by disasters in173 countries between 2008 and 2014, and100 in 2014 alone. We aggregate eventbasedestimates to provide national,regional and global estimates, but thedata does not allow for cross-event statisticalanalysis at the sub-national level.Nor is it currently possible to analyse thedata by other location-related variablesrelevant to understanding exposure tohazards and vulnerability, such rural andurban settings, mountainous, river basinand coastal areas. For the same reasoncross-border movements are also notidentifiable across the global data.We have increased our access to informationat the country level over thepast few years in a number of ways. Weundertake our own country missions, andwe cooperate with our colleagues in theNorwegian Refugee Council’s countryoffices and other organisations such asIOM and IFRC that have a local presence.Despite these efforts, our data compilationis still limited relative to the numberof countries where displacement isknown to have occurred. Our researchis also limited by the linguistic scope ofour in-house experts, who work primarilyin English, French and Spanish, and to alesser extent in Italian, German, Russianand Japanese. That said, our access to locallanguage sources has been improvedthrough a partnership with IOM and itsnational and international staff.For the purpose of this report, countriesare defined as independent nationstates, including their overseas territoriesand protectorates. For the few countriescovered where sovereignty is contested- Kosovo/Serbia, Taiwan/China and Palestine- separate information was availableand estimates were possible. Theinclusion or exclusion of these and othercontested territories does not imply anypolitical endorsement or otherwise onIDMC’s part.Though it does not change our estimatesper se, we have adopted the UNnaming of countries and territories moreprecisely this year, and three-digit InternationalOrganisation for Standardisation(ISO) country codes are included in ourdatabase.Temporal: Our data for each year since2008 includes all identified displacementsfor which information was available fromaccepted sources, and that started duringthe calendar year. It also includes afew events associated with disasters thatstarted at the end of the previous year.In such cases, it was sometimes difficultto ascertain whether figures referredto displacement that began in the previousyear or not, but we were careful tominimise the risk of double counting. Theconsideration of a range of reports thatdescribed the disaster context as wellas providing figures was helpful in thissense.The estimates for each event or disasterrepresent the new incidence ofdisplacement, or the number of peoplereported as having become displacedat any point during them. They do notcapture rates of return, the duration ofdisplacement, the pattern of IDPs’ movementsafter their initial flight or peopleliving in prolonged displacement from oneyear to the next.For the time being, we are only ableto report on repeated and complex movementsand protracted situations anecdotallyor via case studies. This representsan important gap in terms of identifyingdisplaced populations likely to be at particularrisk and in need of protection andsustainable solutions. To address the gap,this year’s report includes an additionalannex that lists current long-lasting or80 Global Estimates 2015

protracted displacement situations as astarting point for further monitoring.Demographic: We collect our data inways that aim to be as inclusive as possibleof all displaced people and withoutbias towards particular countries, populationgroups or in terms of where IDPstake refuge.The displaced population in any givensituation is far from a homogenous group,but disaggregated data is relatively rare.Analysis using key metrics such as genderand age is only possible for specificsituations or segments of the overall displacedpopulation. Higher quality data isusually limited to IDPs living in collectivesites or settings, where they are assessedin more detail for operational purposes.The paucity of data on those dispersedoutside official camps and collective sitesis another important gap. Were such informationmore widely available, the statisticalanalysis of patterns and trendsin IDPs’ differentiated needs in diversecontexts would be possible, which wouldin turn enable the ability of governments,humanitarian and development organisationsand donors to determine whereassistance is most needed.For the purpose of providing comprehensiveestimates, we base the overallestimate for an event on broader but lessgranular information sources if they areavailable. This seeks to include IDPs livingwith host communities and in other dispersedsettings, both within and beyondthe areas affected by a given disaster. Inmany cases, however, the only informationwe are able to identify refers to aparticular segment of the displaced population,such as those living in officiallyrecognised sites, and as such the figurewe record in many cases is likely to be anunderestimate.Event-specific dataWe only record new displacement inour annual datasets when the informationavailable allows event-specific estimatesto be made. We do not use figures thatwe are unable to break down, such asthose already aggregated at the nationallevel, for a whole year or by type of hazardor disaster. This enable verification andensures consistency and comparabilityacross the data captured.For this reason we did not include 2014estimates for South Korea and Angola,and they are not included in the 2014dataset. It is worth noting that for othercountries where alternative event-baseddata was found, official, pre-aggregatedstatistics gave a higher estimate of totaldisplacement than our own, most likelybecause some events were missing fromour data and/or because we underestimatedthe displacement involved in oneor more of that year’s events. This was thecase for aggregated data for 2014 fromChina and Nepal.Events caused by “unnatural” hazardsWe have excluded events related tohazards that were clearly not “natural”in origin from our 2014 data. In Iraq, forexample, we did not include the displacementcaused by flooding after IslamicState insurgents destroyed a dam. Giventhat the destruction was not a response todangerously high water levels behind thedam, we classified the event as conflictrelatedinstead. As discussed in section 2of the report on concepts and definitions,it is often difficult to determine whetherhazards are more natural or manmade,particularly where floods, landslides andwildfires are concerned.Defining a displacement event and itssizeOur data includes events of all sizes,ranging from a few records of only oneIDP to mass displacements of more than15 million people, but the sources availableand our methodology create a biastowards larger, more visible and morewidely reported events. Frequent smallscaledisplacements are included wheneverinformation is available, but suchevents are underreported.We only recorded displacements offewer than 100 people in 29 countries in2014, less than a third of those covered.From this, we can infer that frequent andwidely occurring small-scale events aresignificantly under-reported for mostcountries, as discussed in section 2. Datafor Pakistan and Timor-Leste came fromnational Desinventar disaster loss databases,and for Colombia and Indonesiafrom government-hosted online databases.US data was captured from theFederal Emergency Management Agency’ssituation reports. IFRC, IOM, nationalsocieties and the media yielded most ofthe data for the remaining countries.Our 2014 data includes a significantincrease in the recording of smaller-scaleextensive disasters. Highly detailed informationon small local events was aggregatedwhen they were clearly identifiableas related to a main weather system,flood season or other hazard, includingsecondary hazards such as landslidesduring a period of flooding. This type ofaggregation is widely used in the internationalreporting of disasters, and weapplied it to 71 events in nine countries in2014. 2 Detailed records of sub-events aremaintained in our database to facilitatemore granular analysis in the future.Our data also includes reported disastersfor which no displacement was recorded.If information was not available tocompile an estimate in accordance withour methodology, it was recorded as “nodata available”, while those for whichsources explicitly stated that no displacementoccurred were recorded as “zerodisplaced”. The difference is important tonote, because it is much more commonfor the scale of displacement associatedwith a disaster to be unknown than confirmedas zero.Defining the duration of a disasterDefining and classifying a disasterperiod can be challenging in terms of itsstart and end date, and its complexity beyondthe direct impact of the main hazard,where such a hazard is clearly discernable.In reality, a disaster usually involvesa number of sub-events and phases. Thisis particularly true of displacement acrosswide areas during successive periods ofheavy rainfall together with secondaryhazards such as landslides, or when similarevents happen in parallel or close successionin the same country or locality.As the Dartmouth Flood Observatorynotes: “Repeat flooding in some regions isa complex phenomenon and may requirea compromise between aggregating anddividing such events”. 2 The issue does notalter the overall estimate of the numberof people displaced, but it does affect thenumber of events recorded and the analysisof those events according to their size.Annexes81

Secondary displacementIn some cases, people fleeing a naturalhazard or disaster were already livingin displacement before it struck. If it wasclear, for example, that people alreadydisplaced by conflict were then forcedto flee again in 2014 by an event such asthe flooding of their camp, the new movementswere recorded as new incidencesof displacements related to a naturalhazard. It should be noted that the veryfew events of this type that we recordprobably under-represent the frequencyof secondary displacement related tonatural hazards as information acrossmost situations is hard to identify.Sources of informationWe regularly review the types of informationdifferent sources release onthe number, needs and characteristics ofdisplaced people, primarily by gatheringand monitoring secondary reports. Wesystematically seek a range of sourcesfor each country and each disaster. Forour 2014 estimates, we increased our researchcapacity and analysed data fromsources including government reportsand national disaster loss databases, IOM,IFRC’s disaster management informationsystem, UN Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) andother UN agencies, humanitarian clusterreports, the Asian Disaster ReductionCentre’s global unique disaster identifierwebsite and NGO reports.We also used reputable media outletsas a source of quotes from governmentofficials and local authorities, and localmedia reports provided an additionalsource for small events. IOM country officesprovided field data and/or gave usaccess to official sources that we incorporatedinto our data for 37 countries.If the original source of quantified informationwas unidentifiable, mostly in thecase of figures quoted in the media, werecorded it as “unspecified” rather thanreferencing the publisher.Selection and calculation of estimatesby event or disasterIn providing our global estimates, weaim to arrive at the best approximationof the total number of people displacedby a specific event or disaster, measuringthe incidence of displacement ratherthan the evolution of the number of peopledisplaced and their movements and situationsover time. Our analysis and interpretationof information from multiple sourcesincludes the cross-checking of reportedlocations and dates to ensure that figuresare associated with the same disaster andtime period, and that double counting isavoided or minimised. All new incidences ofdisplacement during a given event or disasterperiod are recorded, which requiresthe analysis of reporting dates and theconsideration of series of situation reports.The estimate per event is selectedaccording to the most accurate and reliablefigure provided or calculated basedon a single source, or combined sourceswhen it is clear that overlap and doublecounting can be avoided. The number oforiginal sources available (disregardingthose that re-publish original informationfrom elsewhere) varies from one or twofor smaller events to more than four forlarger events. Disasters widely coveredby the media or which continue for longperiods of time also tend to have moresources from which to draw.If displacement was clearly reportedbut no explicit figures were available onwhich to base an estimate, we did not includethe event in our data. When figureswere only provided in generic terms andmore precise data was not available, weapplied the following rule: “hundreds” =200; “thousands” = 2,000; “hundreds ofthousands” = 200,000Reporting terms that identifydisplacementA wide range of methods, definitionsand terms - such as evacuated, homeless,damaged and destroyed housing,fled, relocated and affected - are used forcollecting and reporting figures, and differentsources use them in different ways.Such variations arise in part because organisationshave different reasons forcollecting and reporting data in the firstplace. In operational settings, the term“displaced” is often applied more narrowlythan our definition. It may be used only forpeople staying in official collective sitesor camps, or those displaced a certaindistance from their homes.In some cases evacuees who move toshort-term evacuation centres are countedseparately from IDPs in camp-likesettings. In others, they are considered asubset of the displaced population. IDPsare sometimes considered a subset ofthe affected population, and sometimesadditional to it. Information describing thecontext and point in time at which displacementis reported, knowledge of typicalpatterns observed in similar contextsand the quality and reliability of differentsources are also taken into account.We interpret the data we collect usingthe same broad and inclusive definitionof displaced people across all eventsworldwide. Our definition assumes theyare part of the population affected by adisaster, but this does not imply that allthose affected have been displaced. Weconsider evacuees to be IDPs whetheror not their evacuation was pre-emptive,and we define people whose homes arerendered uninhabitable as displaced,regardless of how near or far from theirhomes they move and whether or not theyare able to return.We recognise that different situationscreate different needs, but our researchdoes not suggest that IDPs who fleefurther necessarily have greater needsor are more vulnerable. On the contrary,displacement over short distances maybe a better indicator of vulnerability, particularlyif it is recurrent, given that thoseaffected may be unable to make their wayto safer locations or places where theyhave better access to assistance.Evacuation dataIn addition to direct reports of peoplehaving been displaced, fled or been forcedto leave their homes, we often use dataabout mandatory evacuations and peoplestaying in official evacuation centres toestimate event-based displacement.On the one hand, the number of peoplecounted in evacuation centres mayunderestimate the total number of evacuees,given that some may take refuge atunofficial sites or with family and friends.On the other, the number of people orderedto evacuate may overstate theirtrue number, given that some will usuallynot heed the order. The potential for suchdiscrepancies is much greater when authoritiesadvise rather than order evacuation,and as a result we do not incorporatesuch figures into our estimates.82 Global Estimates 2015

Data on housing rendereduninhabitable and people madehomelessData on people rendered homelesspoints to a severe situation and the riskof prolonged displacement. Areas wherehomes and infrastructure have been severelydamaged or destroyed are unlikelyto be able to support early safe returns.The number of people made homelessmay be reported directly, but if not we inferit from the number of homes reportedas severely damaged or destroyed, multipliedby average household size. We donot use data on homes reported simplyas damaged, because the term tends tobe too broad to determine whether or notthey have been made uninhabitable.A new formula for calculating averagehousehold sizeNearly half of our event-based estimatesrely in part on calculations basedon houses rendered uninhabitable multipliedby average household size, butstandardised and up-to-date informationis not available for all countries. In its absenceit is not an easy parameter to enumerate,but given its importance we haveimproved this aspect of our methodology.We previously applied a rough butconsistent calculation by adding an“adults in household” constant of two tothe modelled fertility rate for 2010 to 2015.Our new formula, applied to our 2013 and2014 datasets, is as follows:1. If household data is available fromthe 2013 UN Statistics Division(UNSD) household size dataset,these figures are used - total population/totalhouseholds - otherwise:2. If household data is available fromthe 1995 UNSD household dataset,these figures are used - 1995 totalpopulation/total households - otherwise:3. If living quarter data is available fromthe 1995 UNSD household dataset,these figures are used - 1995 totalpopulation/total living quarters - otherwise:4. If fertility rate data for 2000 to 2005is available from the UN PopulationDivision is available, these figures areused - adding an “adults in household”constant of 1.7, otherwise:5. The previous formula using the modelledfertility rate for 2010 to 2015 plusan “adults in household” constant oftwo is applied.The process is honed further by prioritisingselected events and countries for additionalresearch to glean the most recentstatistics available from the websites ofnational statistics offices. For 2014, thiswas done for all disasters that displacedmore than 100,000 people and all countrieswith three or more event estimatesthat relied on household-level data.Where time permitted, the same researchwas done for countries with significantevents that displaced fewer than100,000 people but which met the secondcriterion. Official average household sizesfor Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cambodia, China,India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan,the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudanand the US were calculated in this way.Full technical notes on this part of ourmethodology are available on request.Reporting biasThere are a number of causes of biasin our source information and methodologythat should be noted:It is often difficult to determine whetherdisplacement data is reliable and comprehensive.Global reporting tendsto emphasise large events in a smallnumber of countries where internationalagencies, donors and media have a substantialpresence, or where there is astrong national commitment to, and capacityfor disaster risk and informationmanagement.Data on smaller-scale disasters is farmore scarce and on the whole significantlyunder-represented. The effectsof disasters on isolated and insecure areasalso tend to go relatively unreportedbecause access and communicationsare limited.There tends to be significantly moreinformation available on displacedpeople in official or managed collectivesites than there is on those livingwith host families and communities orin other dispersed settings. Given thatthe majority of IDPs usually fall into thesecond category, figures based on datafor collective sites only are likely to besubstantial underestimates.Reporting tends to be more frequent butless reliable in the most acute and highlydynamic phases of a disaster, whenpeak levels of displacement are likely tobe reached. It becomes more accurateonce there has been time to make morereliable assessments. This means thatestimates based on later evaluations ofseverely damaged or destroyed housingwill be more reliable, but they are alsolikely to understate the peak level ofdisplacement, given that they will notinclude people whose homes escapedsevere damage but who fled for otherreasons.Reporting bodies may have an interestin manipulating the number of peopledisplaced. It may be to maximise theamount of external assistance received,downplay the scale of a disaster if thegovernment may be held accountableor because international attention isdeemed politically undesirable.Improvements in the systematic collectionand sharing of reliable informationon displacement are essential if we areto continue to improve the quality of ourreporting and monitoring - a critical firststep in identifying needs, prioritising assistanceand informing longer-term solutions.Quality assuranceAhead of this year’s report, our eventbaseddatasets for 2008 to 2014 underwentfurther improvements in terms ofnormalisation and standardisation, whichhas increased the type and quality of analyticswe can run. Background informationcollected for all displacement events isnow archived, and preliminary estimatesfor all events that displaced 100 peopleor more were reviewed by a minimum oftwo in-house researchers. The thresholdof 100 was chosen to ensure that as muchdata as possible was of the best qualitywithin time constraints that did not permitthe review of every event.Reviewers checked the data recordedfor each event against its source documents,recorded discrepancies and commentedon the quality of the overall estimate.Revisions were made by the personwho originally entered the data. Eventsthat displaced 100,000 people or morewere reviewed for a third time by a differentreviewer to minimise the potentialAnnexes83

for errors. IOM field and liaison officesprovided extensive inputs to assist in theanalysis.To improve the quality and comprehensivenature of the data we use to produceour global estimates each year, wecollaborate with an increasing numberof partner organisations and incorporatelessons learned from previous years.Feedback on our work and suggestionsfor the future are always very welcome.A.2Modelling historicaldisplacementIDMC’s historical displacement modelincorporates 45 years of data from 1970 to2014. In tandem with our hand-screeneddataset covering 2008 to 2014, it providesa longer timeframe within which toexamine disaster-related displacementtrend. Now in its second year, we haverun several iterations using improved andexpanded data, and together with ongoingrefinements to our calculation methodology,each one has reduced sourcesof uncertainty and expanded the model’sdescriptive capacities. 3We undertake our trend-based analysiswith a number of important caveats inmind, most of which relate to the qualityand availability of the global data on whichthe model is based.Firstly, the sample sizes are too smallto make inferences about individual countries.Trends based on region, continent orother means of grouping countries withsimilar characteristics together are morelikely to produce accurate and meaningfulresults. This applies particularly to smallterritories and populations and thoserelatively unexposed to hazards, both ofwhich may only be recorded a few timesif at all, either in the seven-year datasetof our disaster displacement database, orthe 45-year dataset of historical model.Secondly, some hazards occur regularlyand with relative predictability, sometimesseveral times a year in a particularcountry or region, but others are far lessfrequent. Those that only occur onceevery 100, 500 or 1,000 years are unlikelyto be captured in four decades’ worth ofdata and by their very nature they are hardto quantify.Disaster loss variablesand datasets for modellingdisplacementAs explained in annex A1, we useddirect proxies for displacement in thecreation of our 2008 to 2014 dataset, includingfigures for evacuees, people renderedhomeless or those whose homeswere severely damaged or destroyed, andthose living in temporary shelters. Comparableand consistently recorded proxiesare not, however, readily available at theglobal level for the 1970 to 2014 period.Given this limitation, our historicalmodel augments such information thatis available with data on indirect disasterloss variables such as the number of peopleaffected and the number of peoplekilled. This kind of data is among the mostcommonly and accurately collected fordisasters over the long term. That said,data on homes destroyed, though lesscomplete, tends to be a particularly goodindicator of the number of people displacedin earthquake scenarios, and sois weighted more heavily for this hazardtype in the regression model coefficients.At first glance, disaster mortality mightseem a strange proxy for displacement,but statistical analysis shows that for certainhazards, such as floods, there is acorrelation between the number of peoplekilled and the number displaced. At thesame time, the number of people affectedby disasters has risen significantly since1970, but the data shows that mortalityacross all types of hazards increased onlyslightly. This points to improvements inpreparedness, early warning systems andother life-saving measures. Assuming thetrend continues, disaster mortality will becomea weaker proxy for displacement.We have already removed it from calibrationin cases where it is a poor fit for theregression model.We source additional global data fromthe EM-DAT international disaster loss database,4 national disaster loss databases, 5and datasets from the World Bank, 6 theUN, 7 Index for Risk Management and otherdemographic sources. 8 9 EM-DAT is themost thorough and widely cited source ofglobal data on disaster impacts.At the national level, 82 countries havedeveloped national disaster loss databasesusing the DesInventar methodology,which provides disaggregated and geospatiallyreferenced data on a number ofdisaster impacts and variables. 10 NationalDesInventar databases were first establishedin Latin America in the late 1990sto satisfy a need for high quality locallevelinformation with which to better understandpatterns across geographical,political and economic areas.Many contain highly detailed informationacross a wide range of categories,from damage to health facilities tosecondary and downstream economiclosses. Given, however, that each countryadministers its own database, there areslight variations in structure and more significantvariations in data entry, coverageand thresholds that determine whether ornot an event is included.In both the EM-DAT and national databases,mortality data is of better qualitythan that on people affected or renderedhomeless. Quality also varies from hazardto hazard. Homelessness data, forexample, tends to be most accurately representedfor earthquakes, and least welltrackedfor smaller floods. Disasters triggeredby storms and major floods haveboth the highest number of entries andlargest totals for people killed, affectedand left homeless. Given the larger samplesize, subsequent results and analysesfor such events are generally more robust.Disasters linked to frequently occurringand localised hazards such as landslidesand small seasonal floods receivesubstantially less attention because ofthe difficulties in collecting data on somany events, and differences in methodology.EM-DAT’s threshold for includingan event is 10 deaths or 100 peopleaffected, which means that the data willbe biased towards events in which one orboth metrics are met, and against thoseduring which just homes are damaged orlivelihoods disrupted. Similar issues andvariability occur across hazards and lossmetrics as well as databases.84 Global Estimates 2015

Modelling and calibration usingthe 2008 to 2014 datasetOur historical model is calibrated usingour high-quality 2008 to 2014 dataset, andimprovements to the calibration processhave refined the modelling substantially.This year’s calibration used a sample sizeof more than 800 paired entries, almostdouble the number used in 2014. The 2008to 2014 and historical datasets also nowhave compatible structures, extendinganalytical capacities and enabling directcomparisons between them.It is important to note that the overlappingyears between the datasets provideonly a limited sample, which may not berepresentative of the relationship betweendisaster impacts and displacementover the whole 1970 to 2014 period. In contrastto the event-based data of the 2008to 2014 dataset, annual disaster loss datafor the historical model is compiled by totalper hazard type and country. This is tokeep the size of the dataset manageableand, more importantly, to enable matchingby year, hazard and country between thetwo datasets. We are addressing theselimitations by continuing to research additionalyears and past events.The calibration model finds the best fitbetween the disaster loss figures and ourannual displacement estimates to producea mean average trend for the period.The modelled annual figures are subjectto high levels of variance and should notbe considered representative of actualdisplacement for those years.This is because calibration is limited todata points between 2008 and 2014, whileearlier years contain data points beyondthose the model considers in achievingits best fit. The model also seeks only torepresent average annual mean displacement,meaning that individual data pointsfit the trend as a whole. Extremes largelycancel each other out in the trendline.We ran three iterations in 2014. Thefirst, based on EM-DAT data, applied anaive multiplier across all hazard types.This had the benefit of providing a roughestimate without any significant varianceissues, but it failed to produce a goodfit in terms of underlying hazard, countryand annual data when compared with theevents in our 2008 to 2014 dataset.The second used regression coefficientsfor each hazard where possible,and generic values for hazard types withlimited samples. This meant the impactsof different hazards were weighted morerealistically. The third sought to addresssome of the challenges that arose in thesecond by using values relative to populationand increasing the sample size ofdisasters.Given the limited sample sizes, the underlyingdistribution of the proxy variablesover the 1970 to 2014 period was muchlarger than in the 2008 to 2014 datasetused for calibration. As a result, someentries appear as extreme outliers andskew the results. Several approacheswere taken to deal with the most extreme,including scaling values to mortality, affected,homeless and displaced figuresexpressed per million inhabitants.In the first half of 2015, we ran threemore iterations, eventually arriving at acomposite model. For hazard types withlarge sample sizes, such as floods andearthquakes, the regressions were runwith data corresponding to each typeof hazard. For hazard types with limiteddata, such as landslides, values were obtainedfrom a generic regression analysiscovering all the hazard types we identifyCalibration was done using coefficientsobtained from regression analyses betweenour annual displacement totals bycountry and year for 2008 to 2014, andequivalent annual mortality, affected andhomeless data by country from EM-DAT.Next stepsWe have identified several potentialareas of improvement for the next iterationof both the 2008 to 2014 and modelledhistorical datasets. We envisageexpanding the event-by-event coveragein the 2008 to 2014 dataset to also includedisplacements of more than three millionpeople over recent decades, and tofocus on hazard types for which samplesizes are highly limited. This will help toincrease the robustness of the calibrationalgorithm.Event-by-event matching between the2008 to 2014 and the historical data for aproportion of the largest entries will alsohelp to address the way in which verylarge events skew the model for specificcountries.We also intend to investigate the causalrelationships between underlying riskdrivers and displacement further, usingthe increased analytical capacities of bothdatasets. This will include comparison withdemographic, social, economic, land-use,governance and other variables. Ongoingimprovements in data management, reviewtracking and the archiving of sourcedocuments will continue to improve thedepth and breadth of our datasets.A.3Building understandingand evidence of protracteddisplacement followingdisastersIDMC conducted a scoping exercise toshed light on an important global blindspotin knowledge about displacementassociated with disasters - people livingin long-lasting and protracted situations.It had two objectives: to summarise currentknowledge about long-lasting andprotracted displacement associated withdisasters and to compile evidence of ongoingexamples of such situations.We used a range of methods toachieve our aims. We conducted a literaturereview of peer-reviewed journalarticles and news stories from mediaoutlets, and interviews with experts andpractitioners, including IOM field officestaff. A summary of our findings is presentedin section five of this year’s report,and the ongoing cases we identified arelisted in annex C.The issue is not addressed in ourglobal estimates for new displacement,nor is it monitored at the internationallevel, while people in such situations arelikely to be among the most vulnerableof the millions forced to flee their homeseach year. At the same time, the very existenceof the phenomenon is also calledinto question by the common assumptionthat displacement following disasters, andparticularly rapid-onset events, is shorttermand “temporary”, and that returnhome is the end of the story. We intendto continue building up and analysing theevidence as part of our global monitoring.Annexes85

Scope and limitationsDefining a long-lasting and protractedsituation, in which people continue to bedisplaced for longer than is normal or expectedand where little or no progressis being made towards achieving a durablesolution, is highly context specificand dependent on the perspective fromwhich this is considered, including thatof displaced people themselves. Giventhe international audience for this report,we have interpreted information basedon the timeframes commonly applied bygovernments and donor organisations fordisaster relief and early recovery, and atthe same time allowed the cases highlightedto question their appropriateness.Therefore, we focused on situations thathave lasted for at least a year, beyondthe timeframe commonly assumed emergencyfunding and response planning.Emphasis was also placed on situationsreported as ongoing in 2014/2015,the aim being to highlight cases of immediaterelevance and in need of attention,rather than those of more historicalinterest in terms of establishing lessonslearned.We looked for and found examples oflong-lasting and protracted displacementassociated with slow-onset as well asrapid-onset hazards and disasters. Ultimately,to be in line with the scope of thisreport, we chose to include only those forwhich the hazard event could be clearlyattributed as a direct factor driving displacement–that caused by the ongoingSidoarjo mudflow in Indonesia– in our list.The mudflow and its consequences arealso the subject of a spotlight in sectionfive of the report. Other research we havecarried out has shown that displacementassociated with drought other slow-onsethazards and processes can be long-lasting,and we will continue to investigateand analyse displacement related to suchsituations also.It should also be noted that, with a fewexceptions, our research relied on documentspublished in English. As a result,the cases listed in annex C are biasedtowards examples from English-speakingcountries or with a strong internationalpresence at the time of reporting.Literature reviewThe literature review focused on twotypes of source. The first was conceptualand thematic, providing overall analysesor syntheses of key issues. The secondwas case specific, focusing on particularsituations of long-lasting and protracteddisplacement. The two categories arenot mutually exclusive, however. Manysources that focus on a specific exampleof protracted displacement also haveimplications for conceptual framing andvice versa.The thematic category included anumber of overarching issues in the aftermathof disasters: the pursuit of durablesolutions; overcoming the obstacles thatlead to protracted displacement; shelterand land tenure; informal settlers and thechallenges of recovery in urban areas;populations awaiting relocation or resettlementwithin the country; comparisonsof displacement dynamics in conflict anddisaster situations; ethnographic analysesof disaster recovery; and psychologicalstudies of long-term impacts.Sources were aggregated from databasesof articles published in peerreviewedacademic and professionaljournals, including Disasters, ForcedMigration Review, the Oxford Monitorof Forced Displacement, the Journal ofRefugee Studies, Refugee Survey Quarterlyand International Migration Review.We also consulted research from thinktanks and other institutions that publishresearch online, including the BrookingsInstitution-LSE Project on Internal Displacement,the Oxford Refugee StudiesCentre, The Overseas Development Institute,IFRC and the UK government’sForesight project.Sources on specific cases were firstidentified from our country overviewreports. We then aggregated them viasearches on humanitarian informationservices such as ReliefWeb and IntegratedRegional Information Networks(IRIN). We also identified sources fromthe websites of international agenciessuch as IOM, the camp coordination andmanagement, protection and shelter clusters,IFRC and OCHA; and the websites ofinternational NGOs such as Oxfam, Care,Save the Children, the Solutions Allianceand Displacement Solutions. In addition,we did broader searches for media reportson World News Connection, GoogleNews and Google Search. These yieldedinformation published in newspapers andon news websites, radio and televisionprogrammes and blogs.To identify and aggregate sourcesacross databases, websites and searchengines, we used a variety of combinationsof keywords and phrases associatedwith disasters and protracted displacement:Disaster search termsDisasterNatural hazardClimateSpecific hazards - floods, earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, landslides,storms, typhoons, cyclones,hurricanes, mudflows, drought …Protracted displacement termsOne, two, five, ten years onRemain displaced, homeless,shelteredStill displaced, homeless, shelteredRemain in limboStalled durable solutionsNo solution near, in sightAwait resettlementNeglectIn all, we aggregated and analysed 118thematic and 328 case-specific sources.Semi-structured thematic interviewsWe identified potential key informantsby reviewing our list of academic and operationalcontacts from the humanitarian,development and human rights sectors.Interviewees were selected based on thelikelihood of their having direct knowledgeof situations, their ability to advise orfacilitate access to information, and theirconceptual work or expertise on the topic.They were also invited to suggest otherpotential contacts in a process known assnowball sampling.The interviews used a predeterminedset of questions to standardise discussions,while remaining flexible enough toallow for deeper consideration of topics inwhich the interviewees were expert. Thequestions began by gathering informationon their background to establish their perspectiveor theoretical approach. We thenasked how they would conceptualise protracteddisplacement, and whether therewere gaps in knowledge and reporting.86 Global Estimates 2015

We also asked each interviewee tothink of specific cases to flag for furtherresearch and potential addition toour database. The interviews concludedwith questions about additional sourcesto supplement the literature review andsuggestions of other potential contacts.We conducted 21 interviews with expertsat academic and research institutions,and practitioners in the fields ofhumanitarian disaster response, protection,human rights and development. Weinterviewed six key informants from UNagencies and other international organisations,six from university-affiliated researchinstitutes, four from internationalNGOs, three from the intergovernmentalNansen Initiative and two from think tanks(see acknowledgements at the front ofthis report).We also targeted 11 IOM country officesbased on references to protracted displacementidentified in their publications, includingAfghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia,Madagascar, Micronesia, Mozambique,Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippinesand Sri Lanka. Ten of the 11 offices knewof current cases in their countries. Someevidence was more formally documentedthrough the displacement tracking matrix(DTM) and official publications, while otherevidence was based on personal observationsand common knowledge, and wasmore anecdotal in nature. We also reachedout to a selection of in-country humanitarianprotection clusters and received additionalinformation from Haiti, Tonga, SolomonIslands, and Colombia.Logging ongoing casesThe literature review and interviewsyielded 66 cases of displacement associatedwith disasters that had lasted forlonger than one year. We then filtered thesample looking for examples that werestill ongoing in 2014/2015. This narrowedit down to 34 cases, which are detailedin annex C.We have added these cases to our database,along with others which have lessclearly defined start dates, and/or whichwe were unable to establish as ongoing.Together with further qualitative researchon the dynamic nature of protracted situations,they will provide a starting point forour monitoring and analysis of this typeof situation.Annexes87

ANNEX BLargest displacement events of 2014RankingCountry Hazard Affected areasFiguresource(s)*MonthTotaldisplacedpeople**Displaced permillion inhabitants***1 PhilippinesTyphoon Rammasun(localname Glenda)Manila and Southern Luzonisland, Bicol region and EasternVisayasGovt: NDR-RMCJuly 2,994,100 29,9112 PhilippinesTyphoonHagupit (localname Ruby)Landfall in Dolores, EasternSamar; other locations: Masbate,Sibuyan island, Romblon,Tablas island and OrientalMindoro in Eastern SamarGovt: NDR-RMCDecember1,823,200 18,2143 India Flood Odisha state; Jajpur, Cuttack,Sambalpur, Bhadrak and KeonjhardistrictsInternationalNGO: OxfamJuly 1,073,700 8474 Chile Iquique earthquakeandtsunamiNorth Pacific coastlineGovt: NationalDirectorof ONEMIApril 972,500 54,7155 India Riverine flood Jammu and Kashmir; worst affecteddistricts were Srinagar,Anantnag, Baramulla, Pulwama,Ganderbal, Kulgam, Budgam,Rajouri, Poonch and ReasiGovt: StateauthoritiesOctober 812,000 6406 Pakistan Riverine flood Azad Kashmir, Punjab, Gilgit-Baltistan, Sindh, PKP andBalochistanOCHA,NDMASeptember740,150 3,9977 India Cyclone HudhudCoastal districts of AndhraPradesh state - Visakhapatnam,Vizianagaram and EastGodavari; Odisha state - Gajapati,Koraput, Makangiri andRayagadathe worst affected ofeight districtsIAG/SphereIndia; Advisorto theAndhraPradeshgovernmentand Odishachief ministerOctober 639,300 5048 China Typhoon RammasunHainan province, Guangdongprovince and Guangxi Zhungautonomous region, Yunnanprovince; provinces in southernChina, Guizhou provinceIFRC July 628,000 4509 Japan Typhoon HalongMie prefecture JMA August 570,000 4,48888 Global Estimates 2015

RankingCountry Hazard Affected areasFiguresource(s)*MonthTotaldisplacedpeople**Displaced permillion inhabitants***10 BangladeshFloodNilphamari, Lalmonirhat,Kurigram, Rangpur, Gaibandha,Jamalpur, Sirajganj, Sunamjongand Sylhet districts: Bolha inthe southGovt August 542,000 3,41911 China Storm Provinces of Guangdong,Guizhou, Hunan and Jiangxi,Chongqing, Sichuan, Yunnan,Fujian and GuangxiUnspecified May 447,000 32012 China Flood Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangxi, Hubei,Sichuan, Yunnan and Anhuiprovinces, and ChongqingmunicipalityGovt: Ministryof CivilAffairsJuly 403,000 28913 PhilippinesTropical stormLingling (localname Agaton)Northern Mindanao, Davaoregion, Caraga, ARMM andSOCCSKSARGENGovt: NDR-RMCJanuary 400,000 3,99614 India Flood Assam state - Goalpara,Kamrup and Boko districts;Meghalaya state - Tura andGaro Hills districtsGovt: AssamStateDisasterManagementAuthoritySeptember367,000 28915 China Flood Nine southern provinces includingHunan, Jiangxi, Guangxi,Sichuan and FujianGovt (Media:Xinhua)June 337,000 24116 China TyphoonMatmoLiaoning, Jiangsu, Zhejiang,Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi, Shandongand Guangdong provincesGovt: Ministryof CivilAffairsJuly 289,000 20717 China TyphoonKalmaegiGuangdong, Hainan andGuangxi provincesGovt: Ministryof CivilAffairsSeptember252,000 18018 Malaysia Flood Kelantan (worst hit), Johor,Pahang, Perak and TerengganustatesGovt: UnspecifiedDecember247,100 8,18519 China Flood Guizhou, Chongqing, Sichuan,Guangxi, Hunan, Guangdongand Zhijiang provincesGovt:NationalCommissionfor DisasterReductionJune 239,000 17120 China Ludian earthquakeLudian county of Zhaotong cityin Yunnan provinceGovt: Ministryof CivilAffairsAugust 236,900 16921 PhilippinesTropical stormFung-Wong(local nameMario)Northern tip of Cagayanprovince on Luzon island; MetroManila and Bulacan and RizalprovincesGovt: NDR-RMCSeptember206,400 2,061Annexes89

RankingCountry Hazard Affected areasFiguresource(s)*MonthTotaldisplacedpeople**Displaced permillion inhabitants***22 IndonesiaFloodBekasi, Cianjur, Subang,Karawang, West Bandung andIndramayu districts in WestJava provinceGovt: BNPB January 196,700 77823 Bolivia Flood Beni department worst affected;floods across the countryIOM January 190,000 17,51424 IndonesiaSeasonal floodBatang, Pekalongan City, Pati,Jepara, Kudus, Pemalang, Demak,Cilacap, Semarang City,Kebumen, Purbalingga, Kendal,Banjarnegara, Brebes, Klaten,Purworejo districts in CentralJava provinceGovt: BNPB January 165,900 65625 India Flood Assam state - Barpeta, Bongaigaon,Dhemaji, Dibrugarh,Jorhat, Lakhimpur, Morigaon,Kamrup, Nagaon, Nalbari,Tinsukia, Sivasagar, Sonitpur,Golaghat, Udalguri and GoalparadistrictsGovt: AssamStateDisasterManagementAuthorityAugust 163,000 12826 Sudan Rainy seasonfloodKhartoum, Kassala, Gezira,Northern, Sennar, North Kordufan,South Kordofan, RiverNile, West Darfur and WhiteNile statesIFRC: SudaneseRedCrescentAugust 159,000 4,10227 China Cyclone FungWongZhejiang province and ShanghaiGovt: UnspecifiedSeptember158,000 11328 PhilippinesTropical stormJangmi (localname Seniang)Central and southern provincesGovt: NDR-RMCDecember155,700 1,55529 India Flood Bihar state Govt:DisastermanagementauthoritiesAugust 130,000 10230 China Flood Wuxi County in Chongqingprovince, Sichuan and GuizhouprovincesGovt: Ministryof CivilAffairsAugust 121,700 8731 SriLankaMonsoon floodNorth and north-east centralregionsUN, DMC,OCHADecember120,000 5,59532 India Flood Nalanda (worst affected),Saharsa, Supaul, West Champaran,Madhubani, Darbhanga,Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi, Patna,Sheohar, Araria, Sheikhpura,Khagaria and Gopalganj districtsin Bihar stateBiharInter-agencyGroupAugust 116,100 9190 Global Estimates 2015

* Text in parentheses indicates the original source cited by the publisher of the information. Only the source(s) selected for the final event estimate are shown. Theestimate for most events, especially those of larger scale, drew on multiple sources that were cross-checked before selecting the one that appeared to be themost comprehensive and reliable figure for the total incidence of displacement.** Figures rounded to the nearest 100*** Calculated as total persons displaced divided by national population and multiplied by one million.AcronymsBNPBBadan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana/National Disaster Management AuthorityDMCDisaster Management CentreIAGInter-Agency GroupIFRCInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesIOMInternational Organisation for MigrationJMAJapanese Meteorological AgencyNDMANational Disaster Management AuthorityNDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management CouncilOCHAUN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsUNUnited NationsARMMAutonomous Region in Muslim MindanaoSOCCSKSARGEN South Cotabato, Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani and General Santos CityONEMINational Emergency Management OfficeAnnexes91

ANNEX CProtracted casesongoing in2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationNo. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Duration ofdisplacement*Country DisasterTotal no. ofpeople displaced**StartdateReturn to some radiation contaminated and coastal areas notpermittedPolitical controversy related to nuclear plants, mistrust of governmentand private sector assessments of safe areasLengthy and expensive community relocation: lack of suitable land,shortage of construction workers and materialsHealth and social impacts: stress, trauma; deaths during displacement;family and community separation and breakdownMix of situations with different prospects for IDPs.Mar 2011 492,000 4 yrs 230,000 Source: Japanese ReconstructionAgency, March 2015. IDPs displacedby technological hazard as well asearthquake and tsunami.Habitable land for relocation unavailable or prohibitively expensive;limited capacity of local authorities leading to delays in construction;ongoing disaster risk (repeated typhoons/floods); pre-disasterlandlessness and povertyOngoing violence and armed conflict in Mindanao prevents returnto some areasDiscrimination against tenants and landless in shelter assistanceJapan Tōhokuearthquake/tsunamiandnuclearaccidentSource: UNHCR Philippines, March2015. Number of IDPs living ingovernment-established bunkhouses,transitional shelters or tent cities.At least140,000PhilippinesTyphoonBopha/PabloDec 2012 1,931,970 2 yrs, 3mths92 Global Estimates 2015

Country DisasterStartdateTotal no. ofpeople displaced**Duration ofdisplacement*No. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationHaiti EarthquakeJan 2010 Up to2,300,000(1,500,000in campsas of July2010)5 yrs, 2mthsAt least64,700Source: IOM's displacement trackingmatrix (DTM), March 2015. IDPs stillliving in registered camps only. Numberof people still displaced outsidecamps is unknown.Chronic poverty, state fragility and disaster riskExtensive destructionInvisibility of IDPs among urban poor;Complex, informal land tenure; Discrimination against tenants andinformal settlers; Forced evictions and camp closuresWeak linkages between humanitarian assistance and long-termdevelopmentUnitedStatesHurricaneSandyOct 2012 775,761(430,675in NewJersey)2 yrs, 4mthsAt least39,200Source: Fair Share Housing, LatinoAction Network, and New JerseyNAACP report, February 2015. Basedon 14,650 families in NJ who haveapplied, are eligible and are awaitinggovernment financial housing support.An underestimate as only includeshomeowners and not renters. Doesnot include those still in need of housingsupport but who did not apply.Land use and zoning barriers; lack of transparency and access toinformationLack of long-term assistance based on assumption that displacementis short-term and temporaryForced evictions of some low-income families in mobile home communitiesDiscrimination in share of initial recovery funds distributed to tenantsand homeowners; discrimination against African Americanand Latino homeowners seeking assistance to rebuild; discriminationin access to information for people with limited proficiency inEnglishPakistan MonsoonfloodsSept20121,856,570 1 yr, 9 mths 31,000 Source: Pakistan shelter cluster, June2014. Number of beneficiaries of transitionalshelters in 2014.Repeated exposure to hazards and flood displacementLack of land; limited technical proficiency for reconstruction; highcost of materialsDiscrimination towards those with limited literacy; discrimination inaccess for female heads of householdMozambiqueFloods Jan 2013 130,000 1 yr, 3 mths 26,000 Source: IOM Field Office interview,April 2015. Number of IDPs awaitingplots of land for relocation. Same IDPsfinally allocated sites in December2014.Exposure to additional hazards (recurrent floods); limited desirableland available in relocation sites; delays in relocation processContinued repeat displacement caused by recurrent floodsDiscrimination in access to services such as schools and hospitalsAnnexes93

Country DisasterStartdateTotal no. ofpeople displaced**Duration ofdisplacement*No. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationNigeria Floods Jul 2012 23,000 1 yr, 6 mths Up to 16,500 Source: Government of Nigeria, January2014. 165,000 people displaced byboth floods and conflict in IDP camps,which can not be disaggregated.Therefore, estimate used for ongoingdisplacement matches the totalinitially displaced by floods.Limited land; limited solutions because of multi-hazard environment;ongoing conflictNo return possible to areas of ongoing conflictZimbabweTokwe-MukorsifloodsFeb 2014 20,000 1 yr 20,000 Source: Human Rights Watch, February2015. Number of displaced peopleforcibly relocated to small plots ofland and unable to access livelihoodsor achieve durable solutions.Disputes over land ownership; misuse of humanitarian aid; lack ofcompensation; insecure livelihoods and lack of irrigation schemesLand remains flooded following dam construction; return impossibleIDPs forcibly relocated twiceReported human rights violations against IDPs include violentharrassment and coercion to accept smaller land parcels thanpromised through restriction of access to basic assistanceArmenia EarthquakeDec 1988 500,000 26 yr, 5mths18,500 Source: IDMC correspondence withlocal NGO Urban Foundation, May2015. Number of displaced householdsstill on the municipal waiting lists forhousing, multiplied by average householdsize. Some are tenants or in othertemporary housing. Vast majorityliving in domiks or converted shippingcontainers.Lack of political will; IDPs dispersed among urban poor who alsoneed housing solutions; lack of personal documentation required torelocateNo return possible because of the scale of destructionSome IDPs forcibly evicted in early 2000sDiscrimination in selection of beneficiaries based on Soviet orArmenian passportsItaly L'AquilaearthquakeApr 2009 70,000 6 yrs 16,000 Source: La Stampa Chronache, April2015. Number of people living in temporaryor unsafe/insecure houses.Lack of compensation; lack of political will; widespread destructionParticularly vulnerable groups include children who still attendclasses in temporary schools, and older people who remain in thecity centre but whose livelihoods are severely restricted in “ghosttown”94 Global Estimates 2015

Country DisasterStartdateTotal no. ofpeople displaced**Duration ofdisplacement*No. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationIndonesia SumatraearthquakeSept2009675,500 5 yrs, 6mths9,100 Source: Jakarta Post (citing the WestSumatra Office of the Manpower andTransmigration Ministry), March 2015.1,900 families multiplied by averagehousehold size. IDPs living withrelatives or in shelters, and awaitingrelocation by government.Remote location; delays in obtaining permits for land; ongoing exposureto hazards and delays in reconstruction during rainy season;lack of livelihood opportunities in relocation sitesNo return possible because of landslide; some IDPs reluctant tojoin relocation programmeAwaiting relocation by governmentHaiti HurricaneSandyOct 2012 32,000 1 yr, 7 mths At least8,500Source: Haiti shelter cluster, May 2014.Number of beneficiaries of transitionalshelters as of May 2014, but thereare more people in need of housingsolutions.Delays in reconstruction process; limited technical capacity; lackof landRepeated displacement for some already displaced by earlierearthquakeCuba HurricaneSandyOct 2012 343,230 1 yr, 3 mths At least 7,950 Source: Cuba shelter cluster, January2014. Number of beneficiaries of transitionalshelters as of January 2014,but there are more people in need ofhousing solutions.Delays in reconstruction process; limited resources available; highcost of rebuildingDominicanRepublicHurricaneSandyOct 2012 19,000 1 yr, 6 mths At least5,000Source: Dominican Republic sheltercluster, April 2014. Number of beneficiariesof transitional shelters as ofApril 2014, but there are more peoplein need of housing solutions.Delays in reconstruction process; high cost involvedKenya Landslide 2010 Unknown At least 4yrsUp to 4,200 Source: Embobut Task Force, February2014. Number of IDPs who tookrefuge in the forest alongside Sengewarindigenous populations, and wereforcibly evicted to clear land. Currentwhereabouts uncertain.Lack of land; government restrictions in forest areas; IDPs invisibleamong indigenous Sengewar populationForced evictions cause onward displacementNo return possible96 Global Estimates 2015

Country DisasterIndonesia MountSinabungvolcanoColombia GramalotelandslidePakistan HunzaValleylandslidesand floodTurkey MarmaraearthquakeStartdateTotal no. ofpeople displaced**Duration ofdisplacement*No. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationNov 2013 17,713 1 yr, 6 mths 3,500 Source: Jakarta Post (citing theMount Sinabung Disaster MitigationTaskforce of the National Agency forDisaster Management (BNPB)), January2015 and IDMC correspondencewith local contacts, May 2015. Numberof people still in evacuation shelters,staying with host families or in placesof worship occupying rented homes.Lack of political will; delays caused by government bureaucracyNo return possible because of ongoing volcanic activity; IDPsawaiting relocation and development of basic infrastructure in aprotected forest site identified by the governmentDec 2010 2,900 4 yrs, 6mths2,900 Source: Displacement Solutions andAdaptation Fund, May 2015. Numberof people awaiting relocation,currently living in temporary accomodationdispersed around nearbymunicipalities.Delays in reconstruction process; scarity of available land; difficultyin identifying site for relocationReturn considered highly unsafe because of further disaster riskPopulation in process of relocationJan 2010 3,600 5 yrs, 3mths2,900 Source: Correspondence with IOMPakistan and contacts at local NGOs,April 2015. Number of IDPs livingin temporary shelters or with theirrelatives in the vicinity of Aliabad,Hyderabad, Karimabad and Gulmithvillages.Limited land available; high cost of land; ambiguity over ownershipand responsibility; limited political will; limited funding directedtowards rebuilding highwayNo return possible to areas submerged by Attabad lakeSome IDPs awaiting relocationDiscrimination against IDPs and protestersAug 1999 250,000 15 yrs, 4mths2,700 Source: IDMC, December 2014. Informalsettlers who expected to becomeowners of their plot of land by theend of 2014, 15 years after their initaldisplacement.Lack of available land; lack of political will; IDPs invisible amongurban poorDiscrimination against informal urban settlers excluded from government’spost-disaster housing programmesAnnexes97

Country DisasterStartdateTotal no. ofpeople displaced**Duration ofdisplacement*No. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationCanada ManitobafloodsApr 2011 2,100 4 yrs, 1 mth 2,100 Source: Wookey Films, May 2015.Evacuees dispersed in hotels andtemporary housing in Winnipeg andManitoba.Political conflict between First Nation people, private actors andfederal and local government Little public supportReturn not a safe or sustainable option; awaiting relocation; plansfor rebuilding at a standstill Some returns to condemned homesand contaminated reserves due to harsh conditions in cityDiscrimination against indigenous communitiesFamilies weakened by separation, rise in substance abuse, andsuicideEthiopia NabrovolcanoeruptionDec 2011 Unknown 3 yrs 1,800 Source: IOM, December 2014. Numberof people who remain displaced threeyears after the eruption.Lack of political will; lack of funds; many other displacement situationstake centre stage, hampering responseSafe return not possible because of risk of further volcanic activityAwaiting relocationFiji CycloneEvanDec 2012 8,416 1 yr, 10 mths At least 1,250 Source: Shelter cluster, October 2014.Number of people receiving reconstructionassistance in 2014.Lack of funds; difficulty in obtaining construction materials; IDPsinvisible among urban poorSome still awaiting relocationColombia Floods May 2010 1,500,000 4 yrs, 5mths1,050 Source: Shelter cluster, October 2014.Number of IDPs awaiting housingsolutions, who recieved assistance in2014. Latest displacement figure refersto a smaller geographical regionthan the initial estimate.Lack of income generation activities; lack of landFurther floods cause onward displacement for someMontserrat(UK)VolcaniceruptionJun 1997 7,000 17 yrs, 7mthsHundreds tothousandsSource: Government of Montserrat,January 2015. Hundreds of evacueesliving without indoor running waterand toilets in Montserrat, in addition tothousands in "exile" abroad and whoface numerous challenges includingdiscrimination.Lack of funds; lack of available landSafe return possible because of damage and risk of further volcanicactivitySome now living abroad face discrimination and reduced rights interms of voting and access to education98 Global Estimates 2015

Country DisasterStartdateTotal no. ofpeople displaced**Duration ofdisplacement*No. of peoplestill displacedin 2014/2015Comment: Figures and sources Comment: SituationCanada AlbertafloodsJun 2013 100,000 1 yr 930 Source: Globe and Mail (Canadianmedia), June 2014. Number of peoplestill in "government-supported temporaryaccomodation", in hotels or livingwith family and friends a year after thefloodsLack of available land; lack of political willReturn not possiblePopulation awaiting relocationDiscrimination against indigenous populationsBolivia La PazlandslideFeb 2011 1,000 3 yrs,5mthsAt least 400 Source: Government of Bolivia, July2014. Number of people displaced anddid not have permanent solutions untilthey were encouraged by governmentto move to appartments in city centre.Lack of land; lack of political willPopulation awaiting relocationSome IDPs want to stay in landslide zone to be near schools andlivelihoods, despite government restrictionsTonga CycloneIanJan 2014 6,030 1 yr, 2 mths At least 300 Source: Radio New Zealand, March2015. Number of IDPs who remain displacedand are waiting for their homesto be rebuilt.Unclear tenure and consent for building as owners are overseas;lack of available land; delays caused by government bureacracySome IDPs in the process of relocationAustralia CycloneOswald/BundabergfloodsJan 2013 7,500 1 yr, 4 mths At least 50 Source: NewsMail (Australian media),May 2014. Most are living with hostfamilies or in temporary accomodations.Lack of available land; delays in rebuilding processMental health impactsMyanmar CycloneNargisMay20082,250,000 At least 6yrsSome(Unknown)Source: Multiple (unquantified displacement).Number still displaced in2014 or 2015 is unknown, but numeroussources say some IDPs have notachieved durable solutions.High cost of relocation; lack of sustainable livelihood options; lackof available landOngoing disaster risk and repeated displacementUnitedStatesColoradofloodsSept2013101,470 1 yr, 5 mths Some(Unknown)Source: BizWest North Coloradonewspaper, February 2015. Of thetens of thousands who were initiallydisplaced, "some" have still not returned.The exact number of those stilldisplaced is unknown.Delays caused by government bureacracy; legal disputesHigh cost of reconstructionSome IDPs awaiting relocation* Duration of time from initial hazard impact date until latest report in 2014/2015** Source: IDMC data as of 1 June 2015. Under “Total displaced”, figures in brackets are location-specific, i.e. they reflect a proportion of the total number of people displaced.Annexes99

REFERENCESSection 21. UNISDR, Terminology on DRR, 2009,available at http://goo.gl/vOFVwP2. IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, November20143. ibid4. ibid5. UN, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement,1998, available at http://goo.gl/uVW0DW6. Kaelin, W, The Nansen Initiative,Discussion Paper on the Relationshipbetween Climate Change and HumanMobility, April 20157. IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, November20148. IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, WorkingGroup II, chapter 29, available athttp://goo.gl/3M4oGw9. IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, WorkingGroup II, chapter 12, p.14, availableat http://goo.gl/7uWvQF10. The Guardian, Western Antarctic icesheet collapse has already begunscientists warn, 12 May 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/1l1UTr11. IPCC, Fifth Assessment Report, WorkingGroup II, chapter 29, available athttp://goo.gl/3M4oGw12. ibid13. ibid14. ibid15. Kuruppu N, Adapting water resourcesto climate change in Kiribati: the importanceof cultural values and meanings,Environmental Science & Policy,12(7), 2009, pp.799-809; Lata S andNunn P, Misperceptions of climatechangerisk as barriers to climatechangeadaptation: a case study fromthe Rewa Delta, Fiji, Climatic Change,110 (1-2), 2012, pp.169-186.16. ibid; Cernea M, Impoverishment Risks,Risk Management and Reconstruction:A Model of Population Displacementand Resettlement, 1996, available athttp://goo.gl/JBWB4m17. ibid, Cernea.18. Kaelin, W, Discussion Paper on theRelationship between Climate Changeand Human Mobility, The NansenInitiative, April 201519. IDMC, Urban informal settlersdisplaced by disasters: challenges tohousing responses, June 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/Nd3Uqw; IDMC,20. ibidHome sweet home: housing practicesand tools that support durable solutionsfor urban IDPs, March 2015,available at http://goo.gl/daEric21. IDMC and NRC, Assessing droughtdisplacement risk for Kenyan, Ethiopianand Somali Pastoralists, technicalpaper, 26 April 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/bVLigv22. IPCC, Climate Change 2014: SynthesisReport, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/CaSqqn23. ibid24. IASC, Operational Guidelines on theProtection of Persons in Situations ofNatural Disasters, January 2011, availableat http://goo.gl/Y2DQFZ25. UN, Guiding Principles on InternalDisplacement, guiding principle no.7,1998, available at http://goo.gl/uVW0DW26. IOM/CCCM, The MEND Guide:Comprehensive Guide for PlanningMass Evacuations in Natural Disasters,2014, available at http://goo.gl/xWejTS27. UN, Sendai Framework for DisasterRisk Reduction 2015-2030, 7 April2015, available at http://goo.gl/AGc9st28. ABC, How much warning do you getwhen a tsunami happens? 17 December2014, available at http://goo.gl/cMg7nV29. UN, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement,1998, available at http://goo.gl/uVW0DW30. IOM, Compendium of IOM’s Activitiesin Disaster Risk Reduction andResilience, 2013, p.231, available athttp://goo.gl/irgl4a; UK GovernmentOffice for Science, Migration andGlobal Environmental Change: FutureChallenges and Opportunities, 2011,p.48, available at http://goo.gl/hLa9aI31. Forced Migration Review, Disastersand displacement in a changingclimate: The state of evidence, May2015, p12, available at http://goo.gl/wDclJO; Brookings Institution,Disasters and Displacement: WhatWe Know, What We Don’t Know, 9June 2014, available at http://goo.gl/be9Qr032. Long K, Permanent crises? Unlockingthe protracted displacement of refugeesand internally displaced persons,October 2011, available at http://goo.gl/GCUIag33. UNHCR and Brookings-Bern Projecton Internal Displacement, Expertseminar on protracted IDP situations,21-22 June 2007, p.2, available athttp://goo.gl/b8rRQJ34. UNHCR, War’s human cost: Globaltrends 2013, 20 June 2014, p.12, availableat http://goo.gl/t33zpb35. For example, see IDMC, Briefing paperon flood-displaced women in SindhProvince, Pakistan, 2011, available athttp://www.internal-displacement.org/assets/library/Asia/Pakistan/pdf/Pakistan-Briefing-Paper-on-Flooding-2011.pdf36. UK Government Office for Science,Foresight: Migration and GlobalEnvironmental Change Final ProjectReport, 2011, available at https://goo.gl/IKpDm337. UN, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement,1998, available at http://goo.gl/uVW0DW38. Nansen Initiative, Cross-border displacementin the context of disastersand climate change: A protectionagenda, Draft for consultation, 08April 201139. ibid40. ibid41. IASC, Framework on Durable Solutionsfor Internally Displaced Persons,April 2010, http://goo.gl/8HxQhk42. ibidSection 31. Weather Channel, 2014 HurricaneSeason in Review: Eight Things We’llRemember, 1 December 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/JQaMA72. IPCC Special report on managing therisks of extreme events and disastersto advance climate change adaptation(SREX), 18 November 2011.3. IDMC, Disaster-related displacementrisk: Measuring the risk and addressingits drivers, March 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/NDQ6Wn4. ibid5. IPCC, Managing the risks of extremeevents and disasters to advanceclimate change adaptation (SREX), 18November 2011, available at https://goo.gl/Z5YcIJ; IPCC, Fifth AssessmentReport: Climate change 2014:Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability,available at https://goo.gl/R3X38W100 Global Estimates 2015

6. NOAA, Frequently Asked QuestionsAbout El Niño and La Niña, April 2012,available at http://goo.gl/dAx2eY7. Climate Central, Climate ChangeCould Double Likelihood of Super ElNiños, 19 January 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/G6zGJy8. ibid9. Golden Gate Weather Services, ElNiño and La Niña Years and Intensities,based on Oceanic Niño Index(ONI), updated 8 June 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/DQmPWw10. NOAA, Flooding in China, summer1998, 20 November 1998, available athttps://goo.gl/gsNwco11. NOAA, Top Weather and ClimateStories of 1998, 6 January 1999,available at http://goo.gl/edMNIX12. IFRC, Central America: HurricaneMitch, situation report no.04, 19 November1998, p.2, available at http://goo.gl/6IZLMT13. ibid; Associated Press, One year afterMitch, thousands still homeless inHonduras, 25 October 1999, availableat http://goo.gl/P3aKly14. Brookings-Bern, Displacement,Natural Disasters and Human Rights,17 October 2008, available at http://goo.gl/PQwCjo, and Barnes and Riverstone,World Bank 2010, available athttp://goo.gl/shMrGu15. World Bank/GFDRR, Disaster RiskManagement in Central America:Honduras, available at http://goo.gl/DedJV416. BBC, Honduras struggles 10 years afterMitch, 30 October 2008, availableat http://goo.gl/9dn92717. Ensor M O, The Legacy of HurricaneMitch: Lessons from Post-disaster Reconstructionin Honduras, Universityof Arizona Press, 2009, p.25; WorldBank/GFDRR, Disaster Risk Managementin Central America: Honduras,p.52, available at http://goo.gl/DedJV4; FAO, Analysis of the MediumtermEffects of Hurricane Mitch onFood Security in Central America,2001, p.58, available at http://goo.gl/RACAZK18. ibid FAO, p.1; Ensor M O, The Legacyof Hurricane Mitch: Lessons fromPost-disaster Reconstruction inHonduras, University of Arizona Press,2009, p.3919. IDMC, Global Estimates 2014, September2014, p.23, available at http://goo.gl/ssfBXQSection 41. World Bank, Harmonised list of fragilesituations, 2014, available at http://goo.gl/dOaDSNBosnia and Herzegovina spotlight2. UN, World Bank, EU; Bosnia andHerzegovina Floods, 2014: RecoveryNeeds Assessment, July 2014, p.16,available at http://goo.gl/ukHZtG3. BBC, Deadly floods return to Serbiaand Bosnia, 6 August 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/Pgj6Cy4. UN, World Bank, EU; Bosnia andHerzegovina Floods, 2014: RecoveryNeeds Assessment, July 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/ukHZtG5. OCHA, Financial Tracking Service,Balkans: Floods - May 2014, Totalfunding and outstanding pledges as of18 May 2015, available at https://goo.gl/KUJSZa6. Deutsche Welle, Reeling from thefloods, Bosnians’ anger surfaces, 7July 2014, available at http://goo.gl/G06Z0J7. OSCE, Information Note on Flood-Affected Municipalities in Serbiaand Bosnia and Herzegovina, EEF.GAL/6/15/Rev.2/Add.1, 8 May 20158. UNGA, Report of the independentexpert on minority issues, Rita Izsak,mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina,A/HRC/22/40/Add.1, 31 December2012, p.2, available at http://goo.gl/DyM2EH9. IOM, Impact of the Floods and Landslidesin Bosnia and Herzegovina onthe Affected Roma Population: FirstAssessment Results, June 2014, p.110. UN, World Bank, EU; Bosnia andHerzegovina Floods, 2014: RecoveryNeeds Assessment, July 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/ukHZtG11. Some authorities supported localintegration of IDPs by building themhouses.12. HRW, Second Class Citizens; DiscriminationAgainst Roma, Jews, and OtherNational Minorities in Bosnia andHerzegovina’, April 2012, p.4, availableat http://goo.gl/085aEq13. UN, World Bank, EU; Bosnia andHerzegovina Floods, 2014: RecoveryNeeds Assessment, July 2014, p.81,available at http://goo.gl/ukHZtG14. Recovery Needs Assessment,Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina,July 2014, pg. 81, availableat http://europa.ba/Download.aspx?id=1521&lang=EN15. WMO, Strengthening Multi-HazardEarly Warning Systems and RiskAssessment in the Western Balkansand Turkey: Assessment of Capacities,Gaps and Needs, 2012, p.34, availableat https://goo.gl/LE1Dkx16. ibid17. UNDP, WMO; IPA Beneficiary NeedsAssessment Bosnia & Herzegovina,September 2011, available at http://goo.gl/UywGJY18. ICPDR, Report on Achievements inFlood Protection in the Danube RiverBasin, 22 November 2010, p.32, availableat http://goo.gl/SMfExV19. Ministry of Security of BiH, OSCE,UNDP, RACVIAC; Conclusions andrecommendations of the RegionalConference “Floods in South EasternEurope – lessons learned and nextsteps”, November 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/X4g2HSSection 4 - continued20. UNESCO, Earthquake and tsunami inChile: Effective regional cooperationand preparedness save lives, 2 April2014, available at http://goo.gl/IpibSb21. EERI, M8.2 Iquique, Chile Earthquakeand Tsunami: Preliminary ReconnaissanceObservations,15 April 2015,available at https://goo.gl/LunqJN22. Al Jazeera, Magnitude 8 quake hits offcoast of Chile, 1 April 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/tZyMe323. RT News, 900,000 evacuated as 8.2earthquake rattles Chile, 02 April2014, available at http://goo.gl/tZRWW424. UNESCO, 2 April 2014, op cit.25. ibid; New York Times, Earthquake hitsoff North Coast of Chile, 1 April 2014,available at http://goo.gl/dqkp2A26. UNESCO, 2 April 2014, op cit.27. Nature, Continuing megathrust earthquakepotential in Chile after the 2014Iquique earthquake, 13 August 2014,pp.295-98, available at http://goo.gl/hN3orY (subscription required)28. Government of Chile, Statement madeat the Third UN World Conference onDisaster Risk Reduction (WCDRR),March 2015, available at http://goo.gl/R4jkAi29. Weather Network, Typhoon Hagupitmakes landfall in the Philippines, 6 December2014, available at http://goo.gl/ge605X; CNN, 38 confirmed deadas Typhoon Rammasun cuts acrossthe Philippines, 17 July 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/swbGVo30. NDRRMC, Final Report re Effects ofTyphoon Glenda (Rammasun), 13-17July 2014, available at http://goo.gl/7y5RqI31. NDRRMC Sitrep No.12 re Effects ofTyphoon “Ruby” (Hagupit), 9 December2014, available at http://goo.gl/zcXB5C32. NDRRMC, Sitrep No.7 re PreparednessMeasures for Typhoon “Ruby”(Hagupit), 7 December 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/0N50UZ33. “Super Typhoon 22W (Hagupit) WarningNr 013”. Joint Typhoon WarningCentre, 04 December 2014, availableat . Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Archivedfrom the original on 4 December2014. Retrieved 5 December 2014.101

34. NDRRMC, SitRep No.27 re Effects ofTyphoon Ruby (Hagupit), 19 December2014, available at http://goo.gl/vcCeBy35. BBC, Typhoon Hagupit: What did thePhilippines do differently?, 8 December2014, available at http://goo.gl/TtGiuI 736. Brookings Institution/IOM, Resolvingpost-disaster displacement: Insightsfrom the Philippines after TyphoonHaiyan (Yolanda), June 2015, p.28,available at http://goo.gl/W7SegX37. Human Development Network, HumanDevelopment in Philippine Provinces1997-2009, 29 July 2013, available athttp://goo.gl/1Om8iU; OPHI, Countrybriefing: Philippines, January 2015,available at http://goo.gl/l9502I38. UNHCR, Two years after, Bopha survivorsstill wait for a place to call home,20 March 2015, available at http://goo.gl/971t5L39. NDTV, J&K Floods ‘Crisis for theWhole Country’, Says PM; AnnouncesRs.1,000 Crore Aid, 8 September2014, available at http://goo.gl/Wk2Uhd; Forbes, When InternationalHumanitarian Aid Isn’t Welcome - ACase Study In Kashmir, 17 September2014, available at http://goo.gl/kgMKMU40. NDTV, Flood Alert in Kashmir, 6 BodiesFound After Landslides Triggeredby Rain, 30 March 2015, available athttp://goo.gl/Zn5Cjk; Reuters, Asmore flooding looms, Kashmir remainsvulnerable to disaster, 1 April 2015,available at http://goo.gl/CpfAp1;Floodlist, Kashmir Floods - OfficialsSay 44 Killed, 12,000 Homes Damaged,9 April 2015, available at http://goo.gl/K8IunP41. Ministry of Statistics, Indian states byGDP per capita, 16 March 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/AdkJgS42. One India, Assam Floods: WhyForgotten Assam not getting desiredattention from Modi Govt, 23 September2014, available at http://goo.gl/1JYjoK43. IAG, Coordination Meeting on Assamand Meghalaya Floods, 3 October2014, available at http://goo.gl/kRfCv944. Reuters, India evacuates 150,000as cyclone Hudhud intensifies, 11October 2014, available at http://goo.gl/r7TC5D45. ibid46. ibid47. United Nations Department of Economicand Social Affairs (UNDESA),available at:https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sids/memberstates.48. Tonga Department of Statistics, CensusStatistics 2011, available at http://goo.gl/fWBlzE49. World Bank, Survivors get back ontheir feed after Tropical Cyclone Ian,14 December 2014, available at http://goo.gl/yqzG5U50. IFRC, Tropical Cyclone Ian, informationbulletin no.1, 14 January 2014, availableat https://goo.gl/NVQctu51. Radio New Zealand International,300 Ha’apai families still in tents afterJanuary’s cyclone, 7 March 2014,available at http://goo.gl/IehanU52. Radio New Zealand International,Tongan govt offers land for Ha’apairesidents, 26 March 2015, available athttp://goo.gl/VYzb29k53. World Bank, Harmonised list of fragilesituations, 2014, available at http://goo.gl/dOaDSN54. World Bank, Fragility, Conflict andViolence Overview, undated, availableat http://goo.gl/9xjqR055. It should also be noted that a certainamount of double reporting is likely,given that the same people can beaffected by both conflict and naturalhazards.Afghanistan spotlight56. OCHA, 2015 Humanitarian NeedsOverview Afghanistan, November2014, pp.4-5, available at http://goo.gl/JGK9mo57. MORR, National Policy on InternallyDisplaced Persons, November 2013,pp.14-25, available at http://goo.gl/xhYsIS58. IDMC estimates that at least 156,200people were newly displaced by conflictand violence in 2014, while rapidonsetdisasters displaced 13,350. SeeIDMC, Global Overview 2015, March2015, p.82, available at http://goo.gl/V71f9I59. IDMC, Afghanistan country overview,25 March 2013, available at http://goo.gl/vUFUTx60. IOM/Samuel Hall Consulting, 201461. IRIN, Jumble of needs complicates aidto Afghanistan’s displaced, 18 February2014, available at http://goo.gl/adCwn662. IOM/Samuel Hall Consulting, DisplacementDynamics: IDP MovementTracking, Needs and VulnerabilityAnalysis Herat and Helmand Afghanistan,2014, p.16, available at http://goo.gl/iKHJ9r63. ibid, pp.16-1964. ibid, p.2965. MORR, National Policy on InternallyDisplaced Persons, November 2013,p.14, available at http://goo.gl/xhYsISSection 51. Brookings Institution-University of Bernproject on internal displacement, IASCframework on durable solutions for internallydisplaced persons, April 2010,available at http://goo.gl/MIgD8X2. Brookings Institution, Supporting DurableSolutions to urban, post disasterdisplacement. Available at http://goo.gl/9D4XpA ; BMC Public Health,Measuring impact: a cross-sectionalmulti-stage cluster survey to assessthe attainment of durable solutions inpost-tsunami Aceh, Indonesia, November2014, available at http://goo.gl/S0U3RG3. UNHCR, War’s human cost: Globaltrends 2013, 20 June 2014, p.12, availableat http://goo.gl/t33zpb4. Global protection cluster, Wholeof System Review of Protection inHumanitarian Crises, February 2015,available at http://goo.gl/kT6daA;IDMC, interview with Hannah Entwisle,Nansen Initiative, 25 February 20155. IDMC, interview with Beth Ferris,Brookings Institution-LSE, 4 March20156. Kenya Human Rights Commission,The truth about Embobut forest evictionsand a way forward, 21 February2014, available at http://goo.gl/DjVZSJ; HRW, Homeless landless anddestitute, 3 February 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/hPx3s07. IDMC, interview with Francois Gemenne,Sciences Po, 15 March 20158. Uscher-Pines, Health effects of relocationfollowing disaster: a systematicreview of the literature, March 2009,available at http://goo.gl/xJrRcH9. IDMC, interview with GrahamSaunders, IFRC, 7 April 2015; IFRC,UNHCR, UN-Habitat, Shelter Projects2013-2014, available at http://goo.gl/3Vy6UX10. IDMC, interview with Roger Zetter,Oxford Refugee Studies Centre, 26February 201511. IFRC, World Disasters Report 2012:Focus on Forced Migration and Displacement,2012, available at http://goo.gl/R11Sjg; Forced MigrationReview, Disasters and displacementin a changing climate: The state ofevidence, May 2015, p12, availableat http://goo.gl/wDclJO; BrookingsInstitution-LSE, Disasters and Displacement:What We Know, What WeDon’t Know, 9 June 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/be9Qr012. Brookings Institution-LSE, Ten Yearsafter Humanitarian Reform: How HaveIDPs Fared, 2014, available at http://goo.gl/DF2qUe; Brookings Institution-LSE,Mapping the Response toInternal Displacement: The Evolutionof Normative Developments, October2014, available at http://goo.gl/9D4XpA102 Global Estimates 2015

13. Federal Commission on Migration,Protecting Forced Migrants: A Stateof the Art Report of Concepts, Challengesand Ways Forward, December2014, available at http://goo.gl/qhJBAF; FMR, Unlocking protracteddisplacement, August 2012, pp.34-37,available at http://goo.gl/zdxboe; FMR,Protracted displacement: Understandingthe challenge, September 2009,p.3, available at http://goo.gl/yYLe5M14. Brookings Institution-LSE, Mappingthe Response to Internal Displacement:The Evolution of Normative Developments,October 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/9D4XpA15. Brookings Institution, Resolving postdisasterdisplacement: Insights fromthe Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan(Yolanda), 15 June 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/AKQ5xN; IDMC,interview with Conrad Navidad, IOMPhilippines, 23 April 201516. IDMC, IOM, DSWD, ISD, The evolvingpicture of displacement in the wake oftyphoon Haiyan: an evidence basedreview, May 2014, available at http://goo.gl/gtyGhx; IDMC, interview withDina Ionesco, IOM, 4 March 201517. IOM, Compendium of IOM’s Activitiesin Disaster Risk Reduction andResilience, 2013, p.231, available athttp://goo.gl/irgl4a; UK GovernmentOffice for Science, Migration andGlobal Environmental Change: FutureChallenges and Opportunities, 2011,p.48, available at http://goo.gl/hLa9aI18. GPC and IASC, Whole of SystemReview of Protection in HumanitarianCrises, February 2015, p.18, availableat http://goo.gl/kT6daA19. ibid; ODI, When disasters and conflictscollide: Improving links between disasterresilience and conflict prevention,February 2013, available at http://goo.gl/DuH7Ea20. Fair Share Housing Centre, NAACP,and Latino Action Network, The Stateof Sandy Recovery: Two and a HalfYears Later, Over 15,000 Families StillWaiting to Rebuild, February 2015,available at http://goo.gl/VBCCnn21. CCCM global cluster, The MENDGuide: Comprehensive Guide forPlanning Mass Evacuations in NaturalDisasters, pilot document, 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/n1G31Z22. IDMC, Interview with Susan Martin,Georgetown University, 13 April 201523. IDMC, interview with Alice Thomas,Refugees International, 1 April 201524. IDMC, interview with Roger Zetter,Oxford Refugee Studies Centre, 26February 201525. Brookings Institution and IOM,Resolving post-disaster displacement:Insights from the Philippinesafter Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda), 15June 2015, available at http://goo.gl/AKQ5xN26. IDMC, interview with Conrad Navidad,IOM Philippines, 23 April 201527. OHCHR, Right to adequate housing,2011, available at http://goo.gl/A8fDFg28. Wookey Films and Nüman FilmsProduction, Treading water: plight ofManitoba’s first nation flood evacuees,2014, available at http://goo.gl/pMo2jU29. UN General Assembly, Open WorkingGroup proposal for Sustainable DevelopmentGoals, point 17, 12 August2104, available at https://goo.gl/aqMCiL30. IDMC, interview with Susan Martin,Georgetown University, 13 April 201531. IDMC, interview with Walter Kälin,special envoy of the Nansen Initiative,17 March 201532. Brookings Institution, Resolving postdisasterdisplacement: Insights fromthe Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan(Yolanda), 15 June 2015, available athttp://goo.gl/AKQ5xNPapua New Guinea33. IDMC, Disaster-induced DisplacementDatabase, as of 29 June 201434. IFRC, Papua New Guinea: Manam andLangila volcanoes, emergency appeal,21 June 2005, available at http://goo.gl/1ZQeoW35. OHCHR, Protecting the human rightsof internally displaced persons in naturaldisasters: Challenges in the Pacific,April 2011, p.11, available at http://goo.gl/Rr1BFm36. Pacific Media Centre, Tragedy ofPNG’s Manam islanders ... refugees intheir own country, 15 January 2011,available at http://goo.gl/3Lj8co37. IDMC interviews in Bogia, October2014; ABC, Manam islandersdisplaced by volcano to re-settle, 26September 2012, available at http://goo.gl/6y22ch38. PNG Loop, Manam Islanders still landless,16 December 2013, available athttp://goo.gl/7HL4zb39. OHCHR, Protecting the human rightsof internally displaced persons in naturaldisasters: Challenges in the Pacific,April 2011, p.15, available at http://goo.gl/Rr1BFm40. Roswell et al, Concurrent Outbreaksof Cholera and Peripheral NeuropathyAssociated with High Mortality amongPersons Internally Displaced by aVolcanic Eruption, September 2013,available at http://goo.gl/bZ2vTN41. OHCHR, Protecting the human rightsof internally displaced persons in naturaldisasters: Challenges in the Pacific,April 2011, p.14, available at http://goo.gl/Rr1BFm42. Post-Courier, Manam resettlementto take effect sooner, 22 April 2015,available at http://goo.gl/nMedzX(registration required)43. PNG Loop, Work to resettle ManamIsland people, 27 March 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/XuGmtjIndonesia spotlight44. Jakarta Post, Victims still await fullsettlement after eight years, 30May 2014, available at http://goo.gl/9gXLDF45. BPLS, Teknis (Technical), 3 October2011, available at http://www.bpls.go.id/teknis46. Sidoarjo mudflow management agency(BPLS), 201147. Jakarta Post, Mudflow erupting afterseven years, 5 March 2013, availableat http://goo.gl/qc6Guz48. BPLS, 2013 available at http://www.bpls.go.id/bantuan-sosial; JAHSS,Human Insecurity Caused by the Lackof Governance: A Case Study of theSidoarjo Mudflow Disaster in EastJava, Spring 2014, p.31, available athttp://goo.gl/02qy0L; Jakarta Post,Government ordered to force Lapindoto pay compensation, 4 April 2014,available at http://goo.gl/dbjmTK49. IDMC interview, May 201550. JAHSS, Human Insecurity Caused bythe Lack of Governance: A Case Studyof the Sidoarjo Mudflow Disaster inEast Java, Spring 2014, p.42, availableat http://goo.gl/02qy0L51. ibid, p.36, BLPS Bantuan Sosial(Social Assistance), 2013 available athttp://www.bpls.go.id/bantuan-sosial52. IDMC, May 2015, op cit.53. ibid54. Jakarta Post, Lapindo mudflow victimscite cancer, hardships, 4 March 2013,available at http://goo.gl/iymmpP;IDMC interview, May 201555. Map adapted from BPLS, available athttp://goo.gl/vdMwbK56. IDMC, May 2015, op cit.57. Indonesian cabinet, Before Idul Fitri,Government Will Pay the LapindoBailout Funds of Rp 872 Billion, 18May 2015, available at http://goo.gl/sOFrO7Bangladesh spotlight58. Islamic Relief, Still feeling the toll ofCyclone Aila, 5 June 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/FGOPp659. IRIN, Bangladesh: Cyclone Aila survivorstake another hit, 7 April 2010,available at http://goo.gl/5XXKXd;UN, Cyclone Aila: Joint multi-sectorassessment and response framework,June 2010, p.6, available at http://goo.gl/DyMQuk; Walton-Ellery S, A Reviewof the Cyclone Aila Response 2009IFRC-led Emergency Shelter Coordi-103

nation Group, October 2009, availableat http://goo.gl/5K7QXh60. McAdam J and Saul B, Displacementwith dignity: international law andpolicy responses to climate changemigration and security in Bangladesh,Legal Studies Research Paper No.10/113, November 2010, available athttp://goo.gl/ki2tnl61. IRIN, Bangladesh: Cyclone Aila recoveryslower than Sidr, 23 July 2009,available at http://goo.gl/BkwNYQ62. Walton-Ellery S, October 2009, op cit.p.663. IFRC/UN-Habitat, Shelter projects2009: Bangladesh - 2009 - CycloneAila, undated, pp.41-42, available athttp://goo.gl/IMwpwY64. Displacement Solutions, ClimateDisplacement in Bangladesh: TheNeed for Urgent Housing, Land andProperty (HLP) Rights Solutions,May 2012, available at http://goo.gl/DqB1WZ65. IDMC, disaster displacement database,as of 20 May 201566. An Non-Governmental Organisationworking with Local GovernmentInstitutes/ Union Parishad, Associationfor Climate Refugees (ACR) andthe Cyclone Aila Parishad to collectinformation about the current ongoingprolonged displacement situation. NGFhas a Resident Field Investigator (RFI)in Polder 32 who visits visited each ofthe 20 displacement sites in Polder32 to collect information in collaborationwith local communities. Collectedinformation has been validated withthe LGIs/UPs.67. IDMC email correspondence withMuhammad Abu Musa, NGF’s directorof social development programmes68. Walton-Ellery S, October 2009, op cit.p.669. NGF, Situation report on Dacope, May2015, received via email70. ibid71. IRIN, Bangladesh: Cyclone Aila survivorstake another hit, 7 April 2010,available at http://goo.gl/5XXKXd72. NGF, Situation report on Dacope, May2015, received via email73. ibid74. IRIN, 7 April 2010, op cit.75. NGF, Situation report on Dacope, May2015, received via email76. NGF interviews with IDPs; BD News,Bangladesh’s per capita income$1,190, 21 May 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/AFAWBb77. NGF, May 2015, op cit.78. ibid79. ibid80. UN, Guiding Principles on InternalDisplacement, UN, 1998, principles3(1) and 4(1), available at http://goo.gl/yR5Lhy81. NGF, May 2015, op cit.82. ActionAid, Displacement and Migrationfrom Climate Hot-spots in Bangladesh:Causes and Consequences, August2012, available at http://goo.gl/OQzP0W83. CLEAN, Climate Induced Displacement:Case Study of Cyclone Ailain the Southwest Coastal Region ofBangladesh, July 2010, available athttps://goo.gl/k5Hchj84. ibid85. New Indian Express, Cyclone fuelsgirls trafficking from Sundarbans, 24August 2009, updated 15 May 2012,available at http://goo.gl/8mTFpw;ActionAid, Concern WorldWide, Dan-ChurchAid, MuslimAid, Islamic Relief,Oxfam GB and Save the Children UK,In-depth Recovery Needs Assessmentof Cyclone Aila Affected Areas, 25-31October 2009, available at http://goo.gl/tCWIaP86. McAdam J and Saul B, Displacementwith Dignity: International Law andPolicy Responses to Climate ChangeMigration and Security in Bangladesh,December 6, 2010, available at http://goo.gl/2ueQYs87. Displacement Solutions, May 2012, opcit.88. Displacement Solutions, Latest newson climate displacement in Bangladesh,10 June 2010, available athttp://goo.gl/OivqHXColombia spotlight89. This text draws on interviews with CarlosArenas, consultant with DisplacementSolutions, and Juanita López,advisor with the Adaptation Fund90. El Tiempo, Gramalote: el pueblo queno ha podido renacer, 20 May 2014,available at http://goo.gl/Ej8DMT91. Adaptation Fund and Ministry ofFinance, Plan de reseantamiento deGramalote, May 2015, available athttps://goo.gl/3EYbbBHaiti spotlight92. OCHA, Haiti: Two years after the devastatingearthquake, 11 January 2012,available at http://goo.gl/xXbZ0693. IOM, Displacement tracking matrix(DTM), Haiti, round 22 report, March201594. ibid. Note: 54,000 IDPs dropped out ofthe camp statistics in September 2013after the government reclassified thesettlements of Canaan, Jerusalemand Onaville as new neighbourhoodsrather than displacement sites (IOMDTM, v2.0 Update, 30 September2013).95. Amnesty International, 15 Minutes toLeave: Denial of the Right to AdequateHousing in Post-Quake Haiti, 9 January2015, available at http://goo.gl/PPRvnO96. IOM’s DTM refers to these departuresas “spontaneous returns”97. Brookings and IOM, Supporting durablesolutions to urban, post-disasterdisplacement: challenges and opportunitiesin Haiti, 2014, available at http://goo.gl/jiWdEQ98. UNHRC, Report of the SpecialRapporteur on the human rights ofinternally displaced persons, ChalokaBeyani Addendum Mission to Haiti, A/HRC/29/34/Add.2, 8 May 201599. Amnesty International, Nowhere to go:forced evictions in Haiti’s displacementcamps, January 2013, available athttp://goo.gl/A5lWyJ100. Amnesty International, 9 January2015, op. cit101. IOM DTM, Haiti, March 2015, op.cit102. ibid103. UNHRC, 8 May 2015, op.cit104. OHCHR/MINUSTAH, Report on theprotection situation in Haiti, January-June 2014, p.9 available at https://goo.gl/q3FFKx105. IOM DTM, Haiti, March 2015, op.cit106. Wolf Group, External evaluation of therental support cash grant approachapplied to return and relocationprograms in Haiti, 2013, availableat http://goo.gl/FyvWdk. See alsoUN-Habitat, Improving the impact ofrental subsidies, May 2013, availableat http://goo.gl/nA48L7107. UNHRC, 8 May 2015, op.cit, para.74108. UN, transitional appeal 2015-2016,March 2015109. UNDP, Human development report,2009; UNHRC, Report of the independentexpert on the situation of humanrights in Haiti, Gustavo Gallon, A/HRC/25/71, 7 February 2014; UNDP,Human development report, 2014110. OHCHR/MINUSTAH, 2014, op.cit ;IDMC, Haiti: A humanitarian crisis inneed of a development solution, 20December 2012, available at http://goo.gl/sIJZFx111. Amnesty International, Facts and figuresdocument, AMR 36/003/2014, 9January 2014 available at http://goo.gl/FIiVfi; Government of Haiti, Planstratégique de développement d’Haïti,Pays émergent en 2030. Tome I : Lesgrands chantiers pour le relèvementet le développement d’Haïti, May2012, p.161. Available at http://goo.gl/0tbNie112. Amnesty International, 10 facts aboutHaiti’s housing crisis, January 2015,available at https://goo.gl/m2yq32113. Amnesty International, 9 January104 Global Estimates 2015

2014, op.cit114. Amnesty International, January 2013,op.cit115. Brookings and IOM, 2014,op.cit; IDMC, Urban informal settlersdisplaced by disasters: challengesto housing responses, 5 June 2015,available at http://goo.gl/YHCmHz;DEC, Urban disasters - lessons fromHaiti, March 2011, available at http://goo.gl/YbxOa2116. Brookings and IOM, 2014, op.cit117. Amnesty International, 9 January2015, op.cit118. ibidPakistan spotlight119. Sökefeld M, The Attabad landslideand the politics of disaster in Gojal,Gilgit-Baltistan, 2012, pp.181, 185and 204, available at http://goo.gl/gVxt5b; Cook N and Butz D, The AttaAbad Landslide and Everyday Mobilityin Gojal, Northern Pakistan, MountainResearch and Development, November2013, p.374, available at http://goo.gl/DiVmlN; Reinhold B, Neue Entwicklungenin der Wakhi-Sprache vonGojal (Nordpakistan) (New developmentsin the Wakhi language of Gojal,northern Pakistan), 2006, p.57, availableat https://goo.gl/A5Wr2m; IRIN,Pakistan flood victims await unfulfilledpromises, 14 July 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/K2fjy4; Pamir Times,Constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistandiscussed at Bar Council meeting, 10September 2014, available at http://goo.gl/bRe2mZ; IDMC interview, May2015120. ibid Sökefeld M, 2012, p.181121. The Geological Survey of Pakistan,which had been monitoring the area,recommended the evacuation followingcracks appearing in the rocksabove Attabad. Cook N and Butz D,The Atta Abad Landslide and EverydayMobility in Gojal, Northern Pakistan,Mountain Research and Development,November 2013, p.372, available athttp://goo.gl/DiVmlN; IRIN, Pakistanflood victims await unfulfilled promises,14 July 2014, available at http://goo.gl/K2fjy4122. ibid Sökefeld M, p.185; IDMC interview,May 2015.123. Immediately after the landslide,volunteers of the Ismaili Council hadhelped these families dismantle theirhouses and move building material andbelongings to safer ground before thelake inundated their area. Sökefeld M,The Attabad landslide and the politicsof disaster in Gojal, Gilgit-Baltistan,2012, p.189, available at http://goo.gl/gVxt5b124. ibid, p.185 and 197; IDMC interview,May 2015; Another 20,000 peopleliving downstream of the natural damwere temporarily evacuated in 2010because the government feared thatit would break. They returned to theirhomes after several weeks, when itwas clear that this would not happen125. ibid Sökefeld M, 2012, p.177 and 184;Cook N and Butz D, The Atta AbadLandslide and Everyday Mobility inGojal, Northern Pakistan, MountainResearch and Development, November2013, pp.372, 374-375, availableat http://goo.gl/DiVmlN126. ibid, pp.182 and 188; ibid, p.372127. IDMC interview, May 2015. ibid SökefeldM, p.183128. ibid IDMC, May 2015; Sökefeld M,pp.177, 179 and 190; Cook N andButz D, The Atta Abad Landslide andEveryday Mobility in Gojal, NorthernPakistan, Mountain Research andDevelopment, November 2013, p.372,available at http://goo.gl/DiVmlN129. AKDN, Focus Humanitarian AssistanceProvides Relief for LandslideVictims in Hunza, Pakistan, 13 January2010, available at http://goo.gl/bB3lhl130. Sökefeld M, 2012, op cit., pp.182, 191-192 and 203131. Pamir Times, USAID boats in the AttabadLake, 2 February 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/Hflwjx132. Sökefeld M, 2012, op cit. p.192133. ibid, pp.193-196 and 204; Green Left,Pakistan: Baba Jan contests electionfrom jail, 25 May 2015, available athttps://goo.gl/NjpG06134. IDMC, May 2015, op cit.; Express Tribune,Attabad Lake: Teardrop miracle,25 May 2014; Sökefeld M, 2012, opcit. p.190Japan spotlight135. USGS, The March 2011 Tohokuearthquake: One year later what havewe learned, 9 March 2012, available athttp://goo.gl/7Si2Uj136. Asahi Shimbun, Great East JapanEarthquake: 15,890 people dead,2,589 people missing (Japanese), 6March 2015, available at http://goo.gl/oazcnH137. Japan Reconstruction Agency, CurrentStatus of Reconstruction andChallenges, March 2015, available athttp://goo.gl/NfUBLX138. Fukushima prefecture, Steps for Revitalisationin Fukushima, 21 April 2015,available at https://goo.gl/p6PBWp;Japan Reconstruction Agency, Changesin the Number of Evacuees, 8 April2015 (Iwate and Miyagi), available athttp://goo.gl/viUq5u139. Nittere News, Government decidesto speed up return of evacuatedresidents (Japanese), 12 June 2015,available at http://goo.gl/JZy3cQ140. Japan Reconstruction Agency,2014-2015 resident survey results formunicipalities affected by the nucleardisaster (Japanese), March 2015,available at http://goo.gl/6VSh4R141. Mosneaga A, Tackling ProlongedDisplacement: Lessons on DurableSolutions from Fukushima, policy briefno.1, 2015, UN University, Tokyo, availableat http://goo.gl/JiodxN142. Hasegawa R, Disaster Evacuationfrom Japan’s 2011 Tsunami Disasterand the Fukushima Nuclear Accident,study no. 05/13, IDDRI/Sciences Po,May 2013, available at http://goo.gl/g6ir9m143. Mainichi newspaper, ‘Voluntary’ evacueesof Fukushima nuclear disasterface unclear future, 17 April 2014,available at http://goo.gl/gC3CVx144. Aihara, The story of ‘nuclear separations’and ‘nuclear divorces’ (Japanese),22 July 2011, available at http://goo.gl/rqpGhv145. Fukushima University, Survey onthe recovery situation in the eightmunicipalities of Futaba prefecture2011-2012 (Japanese), available athttp://goo.gl/vbX6PF146. Science Council of Japan, Recommendationsfor addressing the livingconditions and livelihood recovery forlong-term evacuees displaced by theFukushima Daiichi nuclear power plantaccident, 30 September 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/PVd62n147. Fukushima prefecture, Overview ofFukushima Evacuee Survey Results(Japanese), 27 April 2015, available athttps://goo.gl/SHJC3l148. Fukushima prefecture, Steps forRevitalisation in Fukushima, 21 April2015, available at https://goo.gl/zgjTFy; Asahi Shimbun, 6 March 2015,op cit.; Japan Reconstruction Agency,Number of disaster-related deaths(Japanese), 26 December 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/QCtpwM149. ibid Japan Reconstruction Agency150. Brown A, Evacuees and Returnees– in Brief” in Safecast report,March, 2015, available at https://goo.gl/8HGuAg151. Japan Reconstruction Agency, 8 April2015, op cit.152. Kahoku Shinpo, Population decreaserecorded in more than 90% of the municipalities(Japanese), 2 March 2015,available at http://goo.gl/Bxphoz153. Ishikawa E, Transition challenges inthe recovery from the Great East Japanearthquake (Japanese), 6 March2015, Fukushima Global CommunicationProgramme working paper seriesno.6, UNU-IAS, available at http://goo.gl/AqXv7X154. Furukawa K, Tsunami damage followingthe Great East Japan earthquake:the case of collective relocation(Japanese), 2012, available at http://goo.gl/Vhiu35155. http://dl.ndl.go.jp/view/download/105

digidepo_8841940_po_076709.pdf?contentNo=1>156. Fukuda T, C u r r e n t s t a t u s a n d p e n d i n gis s u e s f o r g r o u p r e l o c a t i o n i n d i s a s t e rm i t i g a t i o n (Japanese), 2014, availableat http://goo.gl/lI4K1f157. Furukawa K, 2012, op cit.158. Hasegawa R, May 2013, op cit.159. Fukuda T, 2014, op cit.; Furukawa K,2012, op cit.160. Japan Reconstruction Agency, CurrentStatus of Reconstruction andChallenges, March 2015, available athttp://goo.gl/E3pZTu161. Araki Y and Hokugo A, An analysis ofthe relationship between the designationof disaster risk zones, the loss oflives and homes, and the amount ofinhabitable land in areas devastated bythe Great East Japan earthquake andtsunami, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/DaNaD8162. Ishikawa E, 6 March 2015, op cit.US spotlight163. Superstorm is the term widely usedin the US media. Sandy began as atropical storm over the Caribbean,and developed into a hurricane beforemaking landfall in the US164. Fair Share Housing Centre, NAACPNew Jersey and Latino Action Network,The State of Sandy Recovery,February 2015, available at http://goo.gl/KVk7gZ165. Shelter cluster, Haiti - 2012 - HurricaneSandy: case study, undated, p.21,available at http://goo.gl/qBlBdB166. IDMC disaster displacement database,estimate of 775,761 people as of 19May 2015, source: FEMA167. New Jersey 101.5, Number Of Sandydisplacedfamilies unknown, 5 November2014, available at http://goo.gl/ZWnNVP; IDMC correspondence withMonmouth University polling institute,May 2015168. Scattered evidence is also found inother states. See Long Island News,Sandy victim still displaced more than2 years later, 27 December 2014,available at http://goo.gl/q9jzRw(registration required); TWC News,A Queens Homecoming For FamilyDisplaced By Sandy, 14 April 2015,available at http://goo.gl/WXEXif169. Associated Press, 6 months afterSandy, thousands homeless in NY, NJ,27 April 2013, available at http://goo.gl/l40iWh170. Fair Share Housing Centre, February2015, op cit.171. Chicago Tribune, Jersey shore townaims to get last 2 families displaced bySandy back home, 5 February 2015,available at http://goo.gl/ZFSQlC172. ibid173. IDMC correspondence with Fair ShareHousing Centre lawyer David Rammler174. ibid175. Monmouth University polling institute,NJ Sandy panel: Recovery stuck in thesand, 28 October 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/nZHrHP176. Monmouth University polling institute,NJ Sandy panel: Impacted residents’needs have not diminished in part year,30 October 2014, p.4, available athttp://goo.gl/w7yEem177. Monmouth University polling institute,NJ Sandy panel: Survivor mentalhealth, 27 October 2014, available athttp://goo.gl/kytfFL178. Merdjanoff A, There’s no place likehome: Examining the emotional consequencesof Hurricane Katrina on thedisplaced residents of New Orleans,Social Science Research 42.5 (2013):pp.1,222–1,235179. Housing discrimination complaint filedby Fair Share Housing Centre, LatinoAction Network and the New JerseyNAACP180. Fair Share Housing Centre, February2015, op cit.181. Housing discrimination complaint filedby Fair Share Housing Centre, LatinoAction Network and the New JerseyNAACP182. Fair Share Housing Centre, February2015, op cit.183. ibidSection 61. UN General Assembly, Synthesisreport of the Secretary-General onthe post-2015 sustainable developmentagenda, A/69/700, 4 December2014. Available at http://goo.gl/pqeVDF2. UNISDR, Governments must recognisetheir stock of risk - MDG Report,21 September 2012, available athttp://goo.gl/14GzHM3. UN, Sendai Framework for DisasterRisk Reduction 2015-2030, A/CONF.224/CRP.1, paragraphs 28(d)and 33(h), available at http://goo.gl/QJ7z684. ibid, paragraph 185. UN ESCAP, First Meeting of theExpert Group on Disaster-relatedStatistics in Asia and the Pacific,October 2014, available at zhttp://goo.gl/qpi2qp6. UN, Cancun Adaptation Framework,2010, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, paragraph14(f), available at http://goo.gl/zk4nfQAnnex A1. IDMC, Global Estimates 2014: Peopledisplaced by disasters, September2014, p.42, available at http://goo.gl/nbHmYL2. Colombia, Guatemala, Indonesia,Myanmar, Pakistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, the UK and the US DartmouthFlood Observatory (DFO), Universityof Colorado, http://floodobservatory.colorado.edu/Archives/3. IDMC, Global Estimates 2014: Peopledisplaced by disasters, September2014, available at http://goo.gl/BavNZP; IDMC, The risk of disasterinduceddisplacement in South Asia,technical paper, April 2015, availableat http://goo.gl/ZOMWy34. CRED, EM-DAT international disasterloss database, available at http://goo.gl/5N4IkV5. DesInventar databases are availableat http://goo.gl/aX9WCj, administeredby Colombia’s OSSO Corporation, andhttp://goo.gl/I0XLuk, administered bythe UN6. World Bank data includes geographicand income based divisions (http://data.worldbank.org/about/countryand-lending-groups)as well as WorldGovernance Indicators ()7. UN data includes geographic divisions(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm),as wellas Human Development Index (HDI)and Inequality-adjusted HDI information(http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi)8. INFORM, Index for Risk Management,administered by IASC and the EuropeanCommission, available at http://goo.gl/VDYiZq9. Demographic data sources includesources used to compute nationalhousehold sizes: UN StatisticsDivision 1995 Household sizedata and 2013 Household sizedata (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode:50); 2012UN Population fertility rate information(World Population Prospects: The2012 Revision, United Nations PopulationDivision).10. UNISDR, Annual report 2014, p7, availableat http://goo.gl/x6ztxX106 Global Estimates 2015