When most people think of today’s global refugee crisis, they probably imagine masses of people trying to cross into a neighboring country or hundreds of tents lined up in refugee camps. But on this World Refugee Day, the reality is that most of the world’s refugees—and most internally displaced people—are not living in organized camps but rather are struggling to eke out a living on the margins of the world’s big cities. And most are living in protracted displacement. Estimates vary, but the average length of time a refugee has been displaced is between 10 years and 26 years. The real refugee crisis we face is that too many refugees have been refugees for far too long, and better solutions are needed.

The three traditional solutions for refugees—return, resettlement, and local integration—are all becoming more elusive. In 2016, less than 3 percent of the world’s refugees found one of those solutions. Only 2.5 percent of refugees (552,000 people) were able to return to their home countries that year and even fewer, 0.8 percent (or 189,300), were resettled through formal resettlement programs. An even smaller percentage (0.001 percent, or 23,000) were naturalized as citizens in 2016.

Prospects for solutions for those displaced in 2017 or 2018 are certainly no better; with the decision by the Trump administration to slash refugee resettlement numbers, we’ll be lucky if we see 100,000 refugees resettled globally.

The third traditional solution—local integration—is also becoming more difficult as host governments are reluctant to allow refugees to remain on a permanent basis. While many countries that neighbor refugee-producing states, in all regions, have accepted refugees as an expression of solidarity, it was usually with an expectation that their presence would be temporary. As the presence of refugees drags on (and international assistance is never enough to cover all of the costs), governments are justifiably worried about the economic, security, social, and political consequences of allowing the refugees to settle in and stay. As in the case of Turkey, the fiction is that refugees are a temporary phenomenon and will soon be returning home. Few governments allow refugees access to work permits, which means that most are unable to work legally in their host countries. 

But if the three durable solutions are not proving workable for the vast majority of the world’s refugees and the international community is unable to resolve the conflicts that caused the displacement in the first place, what is to happen? The answer seems to be emerging that they will remain where they are—in conditions short of full local integration—and that somehow they will get by. Increasingly, NGOs are turning to supporting refugees in becoming self-reliant so that they can “graduate” from humanitarian aid. Even when refugees are not legally able to work, many do so in the informal sector and NGOs are increasingly supporting programs of refugee livelihoods. Self-reliance—“the social and economic ability of an individual, household, or community to meet its essential needs in a sustainable manner”—is a worthy objective given the paucity of other solutions.

But how do you know if a refugee is really self-reliant? Refuge Point and the Women’s Refugee Commission (of which I am on the board and a commissioner, respectively) both began developing indicators to determine when refugees achieve self-reliance and are now working with 16 humanitarian actors in a community of practice to refine and pilot these indicators.

It’s tough to sustain yourself as a refugee, particularly when living in a country that really doesn’t want you to stay. And it’s tough when refugees aren’t able to secure work permits, but rather are working in what is euphemistically called the informal sector. A lot goes into supporting refugees to become self-reliant; as the recent meeting in Istanbul of the International Refugee Congress suggested, collaboration between refugees and the communities that host them can provide some suggestions. Today, the Self-Reliance Initiative is seeking to help five million refugees move towards self-reliance in the next five years. This is a worthy initiative. Most refugees want to be independent—after all, it’s never pleasant to depend on hand-outs, which are often erratic and insufficient. And it is clearly in donors’ interests to support self-reliance among refugees

I’m glad that organizations are working with refugees to support their self-reliance. Given the current state of affairs—where solutions are elusive, donor fatigue has set in, and nativist politicians decry the presence of refugees—self-reliance is better than depending on long-term care and maintenance programs. And perhaps they’re right that demonstrating refugees’ ability to contribute to their host countries will help to shift the political conversation in those countries and open up opportunities for formal economic inclusion.

But even refugees who are found to be self-reliant and thus no longer in need of humanitarian aid are living awfully close to the edge of poverty. One medical emergency or one abusive employer or one heavy rainstorm could push them out of self-reliance. And I also can’t help but reflect on how far this is from the three solutions originally envisioned by the founders of the international regime back in the early 1950s, where refugees were expected to return home, start a new life elsewhere through resettlement, or settle into a host country with all the benefits and rights of citizens. Self-reliance is only a partial solution, compared to those—nonetheless, given today’s realities, it is an important tool in helping refugees make the best of a bad situation.

      

The international refugee system, constructed in the aftermath of World War II, has enabled millions of refugees in every region to find safety in other countries. President Trump’s expected action to suspend all refugee resettlement to the United States and to impose additional restrictions on refugees from largely Muslim countries is a sad day for refugees and for cherished American values.

But these actions also threaten a carefully-constructed international system for responding to people fleeing persecution and conflict. This system was intended not only to protect the rights of those forced to flee violence but also to prevent refugees from threatening international peace and security. Today’s actions by President Trump, in the name of an “America First” foreign policy, threaten that system.

Beautiful despite blemishes

The system, grounded in the 1951 Refugee Convention and guided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has proven remarkably adaptable over the past six decades. Originally intended to assist those displaced by World War II, it has saved the lives of millions of women, children, and men fleeing communist countries, persecution by repressive governments, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and criminal gangs.

It has never functioned perfectly. Some countries never signed the Refugee Convention; some governments refused to allow refugees to enter their countries or forcibly returned refugees to countries where their lives were in danger; some have adopted increasingly restrictive definitions of refugees. Financial support to countries hosting refugees was never sufficient to cover their costs.

But somehow, frayed at the edges as it is, the system has continued to meet the needs of both refugees and the international community. The system was based on the concept of responsibility-sharing, reaffirmed in the New York Declaration less than six months ago. Responsibility-sharing means that the international community—and not just the countries where refugees happen to go—will step up.  Countries experiencing a sudden influx of refugees have been reassured by this international commitment that they will not have to bear the burdens alone. It is in our national and our collective interest to make sure that refugees are cared for and that massive arrivals of refugees do not threaten peace and security.

Dominoes falling?

America has always played a king-sized role in the international refugee system. It has resettled millions of refugees from regions in turmoil, not only providing a benefit to individual refugees but also expressing a concrete commitment to responsibility-sharing. American leadership has led other governments to make commitments to refugees, most recently in the September 2016 Leaders’ Summit.  In recent years, the United States has been in the forefront of efforts to address issues such as sexual and gender-based violence and the rights of LGBTI refugees. And over the years, the United States has expressed its commitment to humanitarian principles by assisting refugees on the basis of need and not because of their religious affiliation.  Lives have been saved and the international system has been supported because of U.S. leadership.

The actions by the Trump administration will close doors to refugees—whom federal law already requires undergo thorough vetting. This is a major problem, both for its direct effects and for possible ripples internationally. The move denies refugees the chance to start new lives in the United States and to enrich our communities. More broadly, it is another blow to an already fragile international system. If U.S. refugee policy excludes those fleeing violence in Muslim majority countries, why shouldn’t other countries impose similar exclusions? If future U.S. refugee policy is based on a narrow implementation of “America First,” why should Lebanon or Tanzania or a hundred other countries continue to receive refugees? After all, over 85 percent of the world’s refugees are hosted by developing countries with far fewer resources than the United States.  If the United States slams the door, why should other countries keep theirs open, and what would that mean around the world? If countries neighboring Syria, for instance, were to close their borders or to return Syrian refugees to a bloodbath, the results would be unconscionable from a humanitarian perspective, disastrous from a regional stability one, and deeply detrimental to U.S. and international interests.

      

Half of Syria’s population is now either an internally displaced person (IDP) or a refugee. The international community is still struggling to respond to this humanitarian catastrophe, now in its sixth year, with the resources of host governments, aid agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and a multitude of other actors stretched to the limit. In the absence of viable political solutions to the Syrian conflict, no end to the war is in sight—and funds to support an ever-increasing population of displaced persons are neither sufficient now nor likely to be sustainable in the future. Displaced Syrians—whom we should see not just as victims but as survivors—are taking matters into their own hands, leaving Syria in massive numbers and making treacherous journeys to seek safety elsewhere.

The Syrian tragedy is occurring against the backdrop of a global displacement crisis. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, almost 60 million people have been forced from their homes by conflict, violence, and persecution. And a large proportion doesn’t go home quickly. Finding solutions for long-term displacement has been on the global humanitarian agenda for years, but the international community is failing in this task, especially in terms of providing adequate support for refugees and IDPs to become self-reliant, resettling refugees, and planning for sustainable solutions.

All trends point to Syria becoming yet another protracted displacement crisis with profound implications for Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, the major host countries for Syrian refugees—as well as the EU and the broader international community. Can something be done about it?

Failed by our international structures?

We need to first recognize the implications of Syrian displacement for the international order. The ongoing conflict and the displacement it has caused demonstrate that international structures designed to prevent and resolve conflicts—including the United Nations and regional bodies—are not working, at least not in the Middle East. 

Ultimately, the solution to the Syrian IDP and refugee crisis is a political one, since it requires an end to the violence and destruction in Syria. It was only in late-2015, when the Syria conflict began to affect the security and stability of Europe, that high-level efforts were intensified to address the root cause of displacement. So far, a highly fragile and partial truce on the ground, paired with efforts by U.N. Envoy Staffan de Mistura to keep the warring parties at the negotiation table in Geneva, have not in any way lessened the challenges of extending humanitarian assistance to displaced Syrians. The dire humanitarian situation continues to call for burden sharing and international solidarity.

The dire humanitarian situation continues to call for burden sharing and international solidarity.

To date, the burden of protecting and assisting refugees has largely fallen on the shoulders of major host countries—primarily Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. The governments of these countries are providing a public good for the international community, and it is indeed disappointing that appeals by host governments and the U.N. system for more assistance received such scant attention—until large numbers of Syrians began to arrive in Europe. Even now, the resources that have been marshaled aren’t sufficient for the gargantuan task at hand, though Europe and the international community are realizing that they need a new formula for better burden sharing with host countries in Syria’s neighborhood. 

A how-to

It is against this background that we propose a New Global Approach for Syria in our new book (part of the forthcoming Brookings Marshall Paper series), “Consequences of Chaos.” This approach would bring together the governments of refugee-hosting countries, the U.N. and other intergovernmental agencies, regional bodies, international nongovernmental organizations, local civil society actors, and donor governments to consider and adopt a new system of burden sharing. The focus would be: 

• Reaffirming the principle that protecting refugees is an international responsibility; 
• Supporting common legal and policy approaches to Syrian refugees in the region that includes access to livelihood opportunities; 
• Reaffirming resettlement as a core component of refugee protection and assistance and re-tooling elements of resettlement policy to meet the needs of the most vulnerable refugees, in particular; 
• Providing a forum for creative thinking on solutions for internally displaced people; 
• Establishing a new relationship between humanitarian and development actors; 
• Engaging development actors such as the World Bank more effectively; and 
• Laying the groundwork for longer-term reconstruction and recovery efforts in Syria. 

We propose that developing this New Global Approach for Syria could be worked out through a consultative process with stakeholders over a six-to-twelve-month period. It would be jointly led by the U.N. secretary general and the president of the World Bank, and could culminate in a global meeting in early 2017. There is no shortage of creative ideas for strengthening all of these elements—from enhancing resettlement to strengthening coordination between humanitarian and development agencies. The main challenge, as always, comes in implementation, to be carried out by a range of actors, including by national governments and international organizations. If successfully implemented, the New Global Approach for Syria would offer a win-win outcome: foremost for Syrian refugees and IDPs, but also for major host countries as well as the EU, not to mention the broader international community. This new system of combining relief and humanitarian assistance with a developmental approach may form the skeleton of a template for managing the broader global refugee crisis, as well as help reform international humanitarian governance.

Some tentative steps have already been taken towards implementing such an approach. In early February, the “Supporting Syria and the Region” conference in London raised over $11 billion in pledges. In March, the UNHCR held a high-level meeting calling on governments around the world to substantially increase their own resettlement programs for Syrian refugees. A deal struck in March between the European Union and Turkey has received considerable criticism but might mark a turning point in terms of regional engagement with the issue. However, what is still lacking is a comprehensive and well-coordinated approach to addressing the Syrian displacement crisis that is in some sync with efforts to consolidate the truce in Syria, ensure humanitarian access to affected populations, and push for a political solution to the conflict.

      

As the research director for the Brookings Foreign Policy program (working under the leadership of Vice President Bruce Jones), I had the privilege of reading a great deal of my colleagues’ work over the course of 2015—from blog posts to policy papers to book manuscripts. As the new year begins, I want to share some highlights of the past year. Below, I give a very small sampling of the program’s impressive publication reel from 2015. We all hope it’s of interest!

Best wishes for 2016,

Mike O’Hanlon

Sultan Barakat argued that higher education, properly supported, is able to act as a catalyst for the recovery of war-torn countries in the Arab world. It can do so not only by supplying the skills and knowledge needed to reconstruct shattered economic and physical infrastructure, but also by supporting the restoration of collapsed governance systems and fostering social cohesion.

Tim Boersma wrote on carbon capture and sequestration technology, very important subjects in light of the recent Paris climate summit.

Richard Bush wrote on Hong Kong’s upcoming election—scheduled for 2017—and explained what it could mean for China and the United States. 

Electoral officers empty a ballot box at a polling station in Hong Kong, China November 22, 2015. Credit: Reuters/Tyrone Siu.

Dan Byman argued that U.S. policy in the Middle East focuses on too narrow a concept of counterterrorism. This, in his view, hinders America’s ability to secure its interests in the region. 

Steve Cohen, in his chapter “India and the Region” in “The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy,” argued that the “Raj” had its policy and structural antecedents in the Mughal empire. He added that the division of India wrecked the strategic unity of South Asia—perhaps permanently, due to Pakistan’s uncertain viability and doubtful willingness of both India and Pakistan to accommodate each other. 

David Dollar, with coauthors Wenjie Chen and Heiwai Tang, debunked a number of myths about China’s investment in Africa. They noted that China is still a small investor in Africa and that in many ways, its investment is similar to Western investment on the continent.

In his August 2015 essay, which several U.S. senators cited as influencing their position on the Iran nuclear deal, Bob Einhorn outlined the “battleground issues” that dominated the Congressional and public debate on the deal.

Vanda Felbab-Brown‘s fieldwork in 2015 included research trips to Somalia and Afghanistan, which resulted in two influential reports: one on Somalia for the United Nations Peacekeeping Office, and another on political and security processes in Afghanistan.

Felbab-Brown and Harold Trinkunas released the results of their global project on reducing the costs produced by drugs and drug policy. They discussed it with leaders in Bogotá, London, New York, Vienna, Beijing, Zhejiang, and Washington, D.C. 

Ibrahim Fraihat argued that Syrian and other refugees need solutions that come with dignity. They want to earn their living, not survive on handouts, he wrote. 

Cliff Gaddy and Fiona Hill produced the revised, updated and expanded version of their widely acclaimed book, “Mr. Putin, Operative in the Kremlin.” 

Shadi Hamid wrote an essay in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in which he offered a pessimistic take on a “clash of cultures” (rather than a clash of civilizations) between French Muslims and the broader French population. He asked whether liberal societies can or should come to terms with religious illiberalism, arguing that France should broaden, not further narrow, its conception of national identity. 

In a September 2015 report, Kemal Kirisci and Elizabeth Ferris discussed the challenges resulting from the Syrian displacement crisis, including the deepening social, economic and political repercussions.

Syrian refugees walk to the Akcakale border gate to return their homes in the northern Syrian town of Tel Abyad, in Sanliurfa province, Turkey. Photo credit: Reuters/Umit Bektas.

Philippe LeCorre wrote about Xi Jinping’s state visit to the United Kingdom, arguing that it was “a visit that reflected both David Cameron’s pragmatism—some said constant accommodation—and China’s rising European interest.” 

Suzanne Maloney published a new book, “The Political Economy of Iran Since the Revolution,” which argued that political competition and the regime’s reliance on populism have transformed Iran’s Islamic Republic, cultivating popular expectations for accountable government and undercutting the theocratic basis of the revolutionary state.

Will McCants worked hard to provide additional clarity on the Islamic State, publishing “The ISIS Apocalypse” as well as an extremely popular Brookings essay on ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Kathy Moon analyzed the political implications of South Korea’s rapid demographic shifts—dramatically low birth rates with the fastest rate of aging and new immigration trends that challenge Koreans’ mono-ethnic nationalist identity.

Ted Piccone stepped back from the swirl of news surrounding rapprochement between Cuba and the United States to unpack the remaining cultural obstacles to normalized relations between the two countries. 

Steve Pifer’s happiest day in 2015 was when Stanford approached the top of the college football rankings for a stretch, but among his most memorable writings from the year was an essay in which he explained how Russians, Republicans and the U.S. administration’s own reluctance undermined President Obama’s bold Prague vision for reducing nuclear threats.

Bruce Riedel wrote, as usual, on a range of subjects, but his Brookings Essay—“The prince of counterterrorism: The story of Washington’s favorite Saudi, Muhammad bin Nayef”—was perhaps the most special of all. 

Constanze Stelzenmüller explored the current state of the transatlantic relationship, arguing that while the United States and Europe still need to cooperate on a range of issues, Washington should not overstep. 

Finally, I enjoyed the chance to write with my good friend David Petraeus about an issue we both care deeply about, the case for sustaining the U.S./NATO commitment to Afghanistan.

      

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement and Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of International Migration organized an expert consultation on “Guidance on protecting people from disasters and environmental change through planned relocation.” An overview of the project is synthesized below.

Disasters displaced an average of 27 million people per year between 2008 and 2013 – a number which will likely increase as a result of two factors. First, climate change is expected to result in more frequent and intense weather events, sea level rise, and other hazards and environmental changes associated with a warming climate. Second, demographic trends of overall population growth and higher concentrations of people in coastal areas mean that natural hazards will likely affect more people in the future. In this context, moving and settling people in new locations might become an increasingly viable protection option. Many governments are already contemplating and implementing measures to move vulnerable populations out of harm’s way. However, the relocation of at-risk populations to protect them from disasters and the impacts of environmental change, including the effects of climate change carries serious risks for those it is intended to benefit, including the disruption of livelihoods and loss of cultural practices.

Determining when to relocate at-risk populations in order to protect them and to mitigate displacement will vary from context to context, depending on the nature of the hazard or environmental change and social, political, and economic factors. Governments may undertake relocation as an anticipatory measure where hazards threaten to render certain areas uninhabitable. Indeed, this type of intervention may be an effective measure to reduce disaster risk, as affirmed by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.

In Fiji, for example, the government is proactively assessing the vulnerabilities of rural communities in anticipation of the possibility that they may need to be moved. In the US, a number of Alaskan indigenous communities have sought government support to move for over a decade because environmental changes exacerbated by the effects of climate change (e.g. loss of sea ice, coastal erosion, melting permafrost) have made it difficult to continue living there. In other instances, governments may take reactive measures to relocate people following a large-scale disaster in order to protect them from future harm. For example, following the devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan in November 2013, the Philippines embarked on an ambitious plan to move 200,000 households—1 million people—to safer areas.

At the same time, in the context of climate change, planned relocation may serve as an effective adaptation strategy. The Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change, meeting in Cancún in 2010, encouraged enhanced action and international cooperation on planned relocation as one of three types of human mobility that should be considered within climate change adaptation measures. While considerable attention has been focused on migration and displacement, there has been less focus on planned relocation as an effective strategy for reducing disaster risk, enhancing resilience, and adapting to climate change. Analogous experience demonstrates that relocating people is a complex endeavor with the strong potential to violate basic rights and leave people much worse off. States faced with situations where planned relocation may be needed lack guidance on the basic principles and rights that apply to this powerful and challenging option.

This Guidance on Planned Relocation therefore sets out general principles to assist States and other actors faced with the need to undertake “Planned Relocation.” The aspiration is that these general principles will be helpful to States and supporting actors in formulating Planned Relocation laws, policies, plans, and programmes. This Guidance will be accompanied by a set of Operational Guidelines, to be developed in 2015-2016 which will include specific measures and examples of good practices to assist States in translating these general principles into concrete laws, policies, plans, and programmes. As part of this process, this Guidance will also be open for a second phase of comments from October 2015 and may be amended and rereleased during the second quarter of 2016.

      

Western media reports are filled with stories on the “migrant crisis,” as hundreds of thousands of mostly Syrian refugees search for ways to reach European countries that will allow them to enter. Make no mistake: This is indeed a genuine crisis, as over 400,000 refugees and migrants have already arrived in Europe this year (far more than the 265,000 that arrived in all of 2014). But if Europe is facing a migrant crisis with 400,000 arrivals, what does that say about countries in the region who have been hosting 4 million people—10 times the number arriving in Europe?

Encouraging integration, not handouts

The answer to the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe lies in Syria and in its neighboring countries. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, got it right when he warned: “Without peace in Syria and without massive support to the neighboring countries…we risk a massive exodus” of refugees from Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. We’re not too optimistic about prospects for peace anytime soon in Syria, but more can be done to support refugees in the region.

We just released a new report based on recent field work, where we looked at the response of the Turkish government to the almost 2 million Syrian refugees residing in the country. We found that Turkey has been deeply affected—economically, politically, and socially—by the Syrian displacement crisis, but has managed reasonably well. 

[C]learly much more is needed to make burden-sharing more than a catch phrase.

But as the crisis enters its fifth year, a different sort of approach is needed—less emphasis on building camps and more support for integrating Syrian refugees into Turkish society. Syrian children need to be in school. Syrians need support to learn Turkish. Breadwinners need the opportunity to access (legally) the labor market. 

The Turkish government rightly highlights the billions of dollars that it has spent to protect and support refugees, and clearly much more is needed to make burden-sharing more than a catch phrase. But there are steps that the Turkish government can take now, including:

• developing a comprehensive policy to guide refugees’ integration process and mobilize public support for it;
• deepening and expanding relationships with international agencies and nongovernmental organizations;
• improving its own transparency in order to win the trust of major donors;
• being wary of proposing safe zones which may put Syrian civilians at increased risk; and
• contributing however it can to efforts to finding a negotiated settlement in Syria. 

We acknowledge that none of these are easy tasks, of course. We would further acknowledge that Turkey needs and deserves the help of the international community in taking these steps. However, they are urgently needed in light of the protracted nature of the Syrian crisis. Ultimately, these steps which will go a long way in upholding the rights of Syrian refugees and giving them some reasons for hope. 

      

When I received the invitation some months ago to present a paper at an academic conference in Thessaloniki, I had no idea that the Syrian refugee crisis would be headline news in Greece. Thessaloniki is on the other side of the country from where the Syrians are washing up in their inflatable dinghies, but still the refugee crisis is ever-present in even casual conversations with professors and taxi drivers. Over 300,000 refugees have entered Greece since January. By comparison, 60,000 Central Americans crossed the border into the United States last year—a veritable crisis. The United States has around 360 million people. Greece has a population of 12 million.

A tent set up by a Greek NGO provides shoes and other supplies for refugees. Photo credit: Beth Ferris.

The Macedonian border is only 40 miles away from Thessaloniki, and this afternoon after the conference, I took a taxi with a British colleague to the border with Macedonia (or FYROM as it’s called here). There is no “camp” and the only tents are those of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and volunteers. Rather, there is an empty field stretching 50 feet or so to the border, dozens of police, and, incongruously, an ice cream truck. The border is quiet today—no refugees are in sight, but we are told that they come by the hundreds, sometimes thousands, at night or in the early morning on their way to Macedonia. From there, the head on towards the promised land of Germany or Sweden. 

We don’t see it, but the process seems surprisingly orderly. When the refugees reach the Greek islands, they are transported to the port near Athens and are then put on buses heading toward the Macedonian border. They get off the buses in the field where we stood, walk across the border, and then board trains headed for Serbia. “They don’t want to stop, they are determined to keep walking,” one NGO staff member tells us. “We try to identify vulnerable cases and to provide medical treatment when necessary, but they don’t want to stop—they want to keep walking.” 

“We had to do something,” [a Swedish doctor] said. “We had to do something.”

I’m impressed with the piles of clothing, medicines, and shoes that have been contributed for the refugees. We don’t hear much in the political analyses of the European migration crisis about the heartfelt spontaneous outpouring of hospitality exhibited by ordinary Europeans, but it is alive and well on the Greek-Macedonian border. There are Greek NGOs, of course, but also contributions by individuals—high school students and businesspeople who simply drop off food and diapers and bottles of water. I talked with a Swedish doctor who, together with friends and colleagues, organized a collection of supplies and medicines and simply showed up at the border here. “We had to do something,” he said, “we had to do something.” 

It seemed strangely barren and calm in that field near the Macedonian border, but it hasn’t always been this way. “It was awful in May,” one NGO staff member recalled. “The border was closed temporarily—there were just too many people coming for the authorities to handle and there weren’t enough trains. Frustration and anger grew—it was pouring down rain and there was no shelter. People sat in the rain and the mud with their crying children, waiting for the border to open, and the tension built up. Now things are moving.” 

The system that has evolved in the past month or two seems to work because the borders are open. But I wonder what happens if the Hungarians close their border and then the Serbians close their border and then the Macedonians close their border? What happens if the system becomes backed up? And what happens when winter comes?

“Why do people have to walk 3,000 kilometers?” a Greek professor asks our group. “Only the fittest and the strongest will make it. Is this the Europe we aspire to?” 

“Only the fittest and the strongest will make it. Is this the Europe we aspire to?”

Over half of the 300,000 refugees who have entered and crossed through Greece in the past six months, are Syrians, but there are also Iraqis, Afghans, Eritreans, and Somalis. They’re not staying in Greece—given the economic situation here, there isn’t much for them here. The double whammy of the austerity crisis and the refugee influx makes for a deadly burden. We talk with a government official who tells us about the burden on the sparsely-populated islands. “One island with only 50 Greek residents,” he said, “received 850 refugees in one day.” A military officer tells me that the island of Lesvos has 20,000 residents—and 35,000 refugees. How do people, even hospitable, welcoming people, cope with such numbers? 

How do people, even hospitable, welcoming people, cope with such numbers?

For Greece, it seems imperative to keep them moving—moving through Greece to Macedonia and then to Serbia and beyond. “Sometimes they don’t even know where they are when they get off the bus,” an NGO staff member notes. “We try to explain where they are and what they face. But they are so strong and so determined. They just keep on walking.” 

      

At the start of 2015, more people were displaced globally by conflict and human rights violations than at any time since World War II. Although many of those displaced, from countries such as Syria, Iraq, Colombia, Kenya, and Sudan, have survived grave human rights abuses that demand redress, the links between forced migration, justice, and reconciliation have historically received little attention. This collection addresses the roles of various actors including governments, U.N. agencies, NGOs, and displaced persons themselves, raising complex questions about accountability for past injustices and how to support reconciliation in communities shaped by exile.

      

The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre recently released their annual Global Estimates of People Displaced by Disasters, which reports that almost 20 million people were newly displaced by sudden-onset disasters in 100 countries in 2014.  Since 2008, an average of 26.4 million people have been displaced by disasters every year—equivalent to one person every second. Their careful analysis of regional and global trends (coupled with impressive infographics) is an important step forward in our understanding of how people’s lives are uprooted by disasters stemming from the effects of climate change. And for the first time ever, their report examines both people who were newly displaced by disasters and those who have been displaced for years. While there is an assumption that people who are forced to leave their homes because of floods or earthquakes will be able to return home quickly, the reality is different—as those affected by Hurricane Katrina can attest.

Similar challenges for developed and developing nations

I was once again struck by the realization that rich and poor countries face similar challenges with respect to displacement caused by disasters. Today, the climate change negotiations seem to be stalled in tense north-south negotiations (for understandable reasons given the fact that some countries, such as Pacific Island countries that have contributed very little to global warming, will suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change.) But when you shift the focus to look at disasters and displacement, it is clear that disasters affect people in all parts of our planet—from Miami to Manila, from Christchurch to Port-au-Prince—and that displacement has similar consequences for all affected people. 

In all regions of the world, those who are poor and marginalized often suffer disproportionately from the effects of disasters, in part because they tend to live on marginal land and their houses are more weakly constructed. They are also less likely to own their homes, which means that it is less likely they are eligible for assistance to rebuild their homes.

A few years ago, I wrote about the similarities between governmental programs to assist those displaced by Hurricane Katrina and by the Haitian earthquake. In both cases, people were still displaced years after the disaster, and in both cases, the U.S. and Haitian governments turned to rental subsidies to meet the housing needs of particularly vulnerable groups. IDMC’s new study turns an eye to a more recent disaster, superstorm Sandy, reminding us—and hopefully policymakers—that there are still more than 30,000 people in the United States who have not yet found solutions to their displacement.

Policymakers in developed and developing countries need to be proactive

Policymakers in both developed and developing countries are also going to be increasingly challenged by the need to relocate people to protect them from the effects of disasters. These planned relocations are already taking place. For example, the Philippines is presently working to permanently relocate a million or so people displaced by the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013. Communities in the U.S. have also been relocated following disasters, as highlighted in the National Building Museum’s current exhibit on “Designing for Disasters” where reference is made to the relocation of Valmeyer, Illinois. When this town was destroyed by flooding in 1993, the community was relocated to higher ground a few miles away. 

While relocating communities may be necessary, it is always an extraordinarily complicated process. Governments of disaster-prone countries, including the U.S., would do well to start thinking and planning about relocations now, before the next major disaster occurs. 

Both developed and developing countries are likely to face more displacement as a result of sudden-onset disasters in the future, particularly weather-related disasters which are most affected by climate change. Slow-onset disasters—such as drought and sea level rise—are also likely to force people, perhaps even more people, to leave their communities. The need to develop effective policies to  prevent, respond to, and recover from displacement caused by disasters offers hope for new forms of north-south cooperation. Developed and developing countries can learn a lot from one another and work together to find solutions for those who continue to be displaced long after the crisis is over.