Course Title: Catastrophe Readiness and Response

Instructor Notes for Session No. 8

______

Course Title: Catastrophe Readiness and Response

Session Title: Mass Relocation

Author: Anthony Oliver-Smith, PhD

Time: 3 hours

______

Learning Objectives: (Slide 2)

By the end of the session (readings, lectures and exercises) the student should be able to:

8.1 Discuss characteristics and dynamics of mass relocation

8.2 Identify the causes and major forms that catastrophe driven mass relocation may take in the near future.

8.3 Identify and analyze key components of resettlement planning

______

Session Overview:

The purpose of this three hour session is to present an overview of the field of displacement and resettlement research, focusing on the development of conceptual approaches, policy positions and practice problems in the various forms of displacement and resettlement associated with catastrophic events. The range of forms that catastrophic forced displacement and resettlement are projected to take will be considered. Emphasis will be placed on developing an understanding of the factors that generate both the short and long-term risks and consequences in major dislocations, deriving understanding from data and perspectives from other forms of displacement and resettlement, including conflict and development caused relocations. The session will also identify and analyze the key components of resettlement planning as developed for infra-structural projects, assessing their utility for crafting appropriate standards and strategies for potential future mass relocation.

______

Readings:

Student Readings:

Cernea, Michael 1997. The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations, World Development 25(10): 1569–88.

Downing, Theodore and Carmen Garcia de Downing 2009 Routine and Dissonant Cultures: A Theory about the Psycho-socio-cultural Disruptions of Involuntary Resettlement and Ways to Mitigate them without Inflicting Even More Damage, In Development and Dispossession: The Crisis of Development Forced Displacement and Resettlement, edited by Anthony Oliver-Smith, Santa Fe and London: SAR Press and James Currey

Fried, Marc. 1963. Grieving for a Lost Home. In The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis, edited by Leonard Duhl. New York: Basic Books.

Levine, Joyne N, Ann-Margaret Esnards and Alka Sapat 2007 Population Displacement and Housing Dilemmas Due to Catastrophic Disasters, Journal of Planning Literature 22:1:3-15.

Najarian, Louis M., Armen K Goenjian, Devid Pelcovitz, Francine Mandel and Berj Najarian 2001 The Effect of Relocation After a Natural Disaster, Journal of Traumatic Stress 14:3: 511-526.

Oliver-Smith, Anthony 2005 “Communities after Catastrophe: Reconstructing the Material, Reconstituting the Social,” in Stanley Hyland (ed) CommunityBuilding in the 21st Century,Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Instructor Readings

Cernea, Michael M., and Christopher McDowell. 2000. Risk and Reconstruction: Experiences of Settlers and Refugees. WashingtonD.C.: The World Bank.

Colson, Elizabeth 1971. The Social Consequences of Resettlement. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Eriksen, John H. 1999. Comparing the Economic Planning for Voluntary and Involuntary Resettlement. In The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges, edited by Michael M. Cernea. WashingtonD.C.: The World Bank.

Garb, Jane L. Robert G. Cromley and Richard B. Wait 2007 Estimating Populations at Risk for Disaster Preparedness and Response, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 4:1: 1-17

Hansen, Art, and Anthony OliverSmith, eds. 1982. Involuntary Migration and Resettlement. Boulder: Westview Press.

McDowell, Christopher 2001 Involuntary Resettlement, Impoverishment Risks, and Sustainable Livelihoods, The Australasian Journal of Disasterand Trauma Studies, 2002-2 ( accessed 10/15/2007

Oliver-Smith, Anthony 2008 “Disasters and Diasporas: Global Climate Change and Population Displacement in the 21st Century, in Susan A. Crate and Mark.Nuttall (eds.) Anthropology and Climate Change: From Encounters to ActionsWalnut Creek, CA: LeftCoast Press.

Renaud, Fabrice, Janos Bogardi, Olivia Dun, and Koko Warner 2007 Control, Adapt or Flee: How to Face Environmental Migration? InterSecTions No. 5/2007 United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS)

de Wet, Chris. 2006. Risk, Complexity and Local Initiative in Involuntary Resettlement Outcomes. In Towards Improving Outcomes in Development Induced Involuntary Resettlement Projects, edited by Chris de Wet. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books.

Title Page: Mass Relocation

Mass relocation after catastrophe, involving the physical displacement and resettlement of people, is an extremely complex process, which if not properly planned and managed (with the full participation of affected people) may result in long-term hardship for the displaced as well as potential conflict with resident populations and environmental damage in locations in which they are resettled. The session will start with an overview of the field of displacement and resettlement research, focusing on the development of theoretical approaches, policy initiatives and practice problems in the various forms of displacement and resettlement. The range of forms that environmentally forced displacement and resettlement have taken and are projected to take will be considered.

Over the past half century, researchers on development induced displacement, refugee studies and disaster research (Hansen and Oliver-Smith 1982; Cernea 1996; Cernea and McDowell 2000; Turton 2003) have learned that involuntarily displaced peoples face many similar challenges. Although the places and peoples are geographically and culturally distant and the sociopolitical environments and causes of dislocation dissimilar, there emerge a number of common concerns and processes. Displaced people of all descriptions must cope with the consequent stresses and the need to adapt to new or radically changed environments. All may experience privation, loss of homes, jobs, and the breakup of families and communities. All may suffer the endangerment of structures of meaning and identity. All must mobilize social and cultural resources in their efforts to reestablish viable social groups and communities and to restore adequate levels of material and cultural life.

The session will therefore identify the key components of resettlement planning as developed across a number of fields, assessing the utility of various approaches for crafting appropriate standards and strategies for future catastrophe driven mass relocation. Central to these tasks will be the issues of rights, poverty, vulnerability and other forms of social marginality that are intrinsically linked to displacement. While the field of displacement and resettlement studies has achieved significant advances over the last half century, it must be recognized that deficiencies in planning, preparation, and implementation of involuntary resettlement projects have produced far more failures than successes. Therefore, the applicability of displacement and resettlement research to potential mass relocations will require refinement and development to deal effectively with these challenges A key element in any development of the field will, however, continue to be the recognition that the displaced must be seen as active social agents with their own views on rights and entitlements, which have to be considered in any displacement and in the planning and implementation of resettlement projects.

Slide-by-Slide Notes and Discussion

Defining Mass Relocation (Slide 3)

Mass relocation is composed of two processes:

1. Forced migration-Due to the occurrence of a disaster, including climate induced environmental change, conflict or development, people are forced to leave their place of abode because it has been rendered uninhabitable either temporarily or permanently;
2. Resettlement-the reestablishment of displaced peoples in a new location with appropriate settlement design, housing, services and an economic base to enable the community to reconstitute itself and achieve adequate levels of resilience to normal social, economic, political and environmental variation.

Mass relocation, also frequently referred to as forced migration or involuntary displacement and resettlement, refers to the uprooting of large numbers of people from their home locations. Although the term “mass” refers to large numbers, it is vague and not well defined in its application. Nonetheless, we should not fail to recognize that potential displacements of enormous size are projected for the near future. Even currently, the several hundred thousand people dispersed by the combination of Hurricane Katrina and an ad hoc and poorly conceived government response constitutes a mass displacement.

However different the driving forces and policies may have been, for forcibly uprooted people recovery and reconstruction take place in a new setting, generally far from familiar environments and people. In other words, getting to where they are going does not solve the problem. They may have stopped moving, but that is just the beginning of another process, resettlement. In all too many cases, resettlement, particularly when done at the community level, ends up becoming a secondary disaster. Therefore, when disasters, conflicts or development damage or destroy communities, uprooting people, displacing them far from homes and jobs, the process of recovery is made doubly complex. Some mass relocations will involve sudden rapid onset events that evoke at initial stages elements of emergency management strategies such as evacuation and temporary shelters. Other approaches to deal with mass relocations may resemble the resettlement of political refugees in strategies to integrate the displaced into existing communities. Still other forms will be the result of planned mitigation projects and will draw on models from development forced resettlement, community development and urban planning. Some mass relocations may involve several of these forms of displacement and resettlement.Finally, some mass relocations will constitute simply mass migrations, evoking very little formal institutional response. The topic of this course session thus requires inputs from all of the phases of emergency management, and many social, scientific and management disciplines.

In some circumstances, because catastrophes involve different time/space scales (lasting longer, encompassing wider areas), crossing ecological, jurisdictional, and national boundaries, impacting heterogeneous populations, they will require multiple strategies and inter- and multi-national efforts and cooperation. At the same time, mass relocation may involve masses of people, but responses will need to address culturally and socially defined constituent population groups. Regardless, uprooted people generally face the daunting task of rebuilding not only personal lives, but also those relationships, networks, and structures that support people as individuals that we understand as communities. The social destruction wrought by these phenomena takes place at both the individual level and at the community level. In most cases, solutions must be durable. There is often little hope of return.

Given the paucity of research on catastrophes and mass relocations, particularly in contemporary times, much of what follows is drawn from research and practice in the fields of refugee studies, disaster research, migration, planning and development forced displacement and resettlement.

Complexity and Causation (Slide 4)

Do environmental catastrophes cause mass relocation?

What evidence is needed to establish causality? In direct causal relationships A always causes B.

Seeking single causes for complex outcomes is usually difficult in any context.

Large disasters, A, increase the risk of B, forced migration.

Since the 1980s, researchers have linked the issue of catastrophic environmental change with human migration, explicitly designating as “environmental refugees” people who are forced to leave their homes, temporarily or permanently, due to the threat, impact or effects of a hazard or environmental change (El-Hinnawi 1985). Other scholars attribute the displacement of people to a more complex pattern of factors including political, social, economic as well as environmental forces (Wood 2001, Black 2001, Castles 2002). Natural disasters are seen to cause temporary displacement, but not some idea of authentic i.e, permanent, migration. Indeed, if permanent migration does occur as the result of a disaster, it is seen as more the result of deficient responses of weak or corrupt states rather than an altered environment as expressed in the form of a natural hazard impact. Certainly, Hurricane Katrina exemplifies this perspective. Black’s critique that focusing on environmental factors as causes of migration often obscures the role of political and economic factors is well-taken, and echoes the position held by most disaster researchers today that focusing solely on agents reveals little about the political or economic forces that together with agents produce disasters or, for that matter, any forced migration that might ensue.

Seeking single agent causality is always highly problematic. There are two fundamental questions regarding causality. The first asks what empirical evidence is required for legitimate inference of cause-effect relationships. The second suggests that if we are willing to accept causal information about a phenomenon, what kinds of inferences can be drawn from that information (Pearl 2000)? The key word here is “inferences.” Clear and direct relationships of causality are hard to come by. In the strictest sense of the word, if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In common parlance, when we say A causes B, as in smoking(A) causes cancer (B), what we should really say is that smoking causes an increase in the probability of cancer (Spirtes et al 2000). In other words, in the case of catastrophes, A increases the risk of B, or forced migration.

Therefore, it is difficult to point to the environment, even in catastrophes, as the single cause of anything. By the same token, eliminating the environment as the single cause of forced migration hardly warrantsdiscounting it as one of a multiplicity of forces at work in generating mass relocation. It is important to remember here that a catastrophe is also not defined in terms of its event aspect only, but in terms of both the processes that set it in motion and the post-event processes of adaptation and adjustment in recovery and reconstruction. Forced migration can be part of the process prior to the event or after, but it is not inevitable. We know that disasters are not caused by a single agent but by the complex interaction of both environmental and social features and forces.

By the same token, disaster outcomes are rarely the result of a single agent (i.e. a hurricane), but are brought about by multiple complex and intersecting forces acting together in a specific social context that is complex in its own right. Seeking single causes for a complex outcome is usually difficult in any context and particularly so with forced migration (whether the obvious “cause” is international or civil conflict, development projects, or natural or technological disasters).

In-Class Discussion (Slide 5)

The issue of causality raises a number of important issues. Establishing causality in mass relocation may become key in determining mitigation efforts. In some circumstances causality will determine jurisdiction and responsibility for assistance. Thus, establishing causality in mass relocation may lead either to meaningful efforts to mitigate drivers or no action at all. By the same token, responsibility for people dislocated by catastrophe may not be legally defined, leaving them bereft of any meaningful assistance. The instructor may ask students to address this issue based on the readings and class discussion.

Fundamental Questions (Slide 6)

• Identification of trends and patterns of catastrophe forced displacement and resettlement

• What are the specific forms of social vulnerability that make mass relocation from catastrophes probable?

• How will the policy discourse and practice of institutional players (states, international development and aid agencies) frame, define, and categorize catastrophe forced displacement and resettlement?

• How does vulnerability link with rights and entitlements and the capacity to reconstruct livelihoods? (adapted from Morvaridi and Chatelard 2004)

Understanding Mass Relocation (Slide 7)

• Displacement and Resettlement Studies-conflict, disasters, and development
• Conflict-camps, international and individual, family focused
• Disaster Induced Displacement: Evacuation, temporary shelters, reconstruction
• Development Induced Displacement and Resettlement-Constructing new settlements

The social scientific literature on displacement and resettlement is clustered around three themes: civil and military conflicts, disasters, and development projects. The relatively scant literature from disaster driven displacement focuses largely on temporary shelters, with a few cases dealing with permanent resettlement of small communities (Oliver-Smith 1990; Perry and Mushkatel 1989). The research from conflict driven uprooting, focuses largely on temporary camps, repatriation and individual and family refugee resettlement to foreign countries (Haines 1996, Martin et al 2005). The literature on development forced displacement and resettlement generally deals with resettlement of communities of varying size and sometimes entire regions affected by large scale infra-structural projects (Cernea 1990; 1996, Oliver-Smith 2009; McDowell 2001, Scudder 1981;Scudder and Colson 1982, de Wet 2006). It is clear that catastrophe driven mass relocation must draw on these other fields for insights into how best to understand and respond to the potentially large-scale displacements projected for the not too distant future. This research is also being complemented by a growing concern regarding Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) (Deng and Cohen 1999, Koser 2007).

In the United States, for example, refugee resettlement is entrusted by the government to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There is little attention paid to the idea of community of origin. There is, however, a debate between NGOs that favor resettling refugees with co-ethnics so that they can help each other with language and employment issues and those that believe in dispersing the displaced so that they will assimilate and learn English faster (Hansen 2005). The lack of attention to issues of community may stem from the position that Americans have become ideologically distanced from the idea of community as something people need. Americans have been portrayed as seeing themselves as eminently mobile, able to adapt easily to new homes, new jobs, and new networks. The degree to which that contention is true for Americans may be debated, but it is certainly not the case for many of the world's people. However, the discourse of displacement and resettlement in American society, that is, the choice of terminology and the scale or unit of analysis most frequently addressed, is at the level of individuals and families, whereas most large-scale displacement involves very frequently communities. This becomes significant particularly with regard to losses, because what often becomes lost is the community network that enabled people to access resources; not just material resources, but social and emotional support that in stressful times in the displacement of communities becomes all the more a significant issue. The community is more than the sum of the total number of individuals and the loss of community for displaced people, particularly when the loss is the outcome of aid policies that do not take community into account, can be devastating.