The LFDD - human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean: A review of national policy and legal frameworks

Serraglio, Diogo Andreola Working Paper The LFDD - human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean: A review of national policy and legal frameworks Discussion Paper, No. 22/2020 Provided in Cooperation with: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Bonn Suggested Citation: Serraglio, Diogo Andreola (2020) : The LFDD - human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean: A review of national policy and legal frameworks, Discussion Paper, No. 22/2020, ISBN 978-3-96021-136-5, Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), Bonn, https://doi.org/10.23661/dp22.2020 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/228832 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Discussion Paper 22/2020 The LFDD – Human Mobility Nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean Diogo Andreola Serraglio A Review of National Policy and Legal Frameworks The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean A review of national policy and legal frameworks Diogo Andreola Serraglio Bonn 2020 Discussion Paper / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik ISSN (Print) 1860-0441 ISSN (Online) 2512-8698 Except as otherwise noted this publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0). You are free to copy, communicate and adapt this work, as long as you attribute the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) and the author. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-96021-136-5 (printed edition) DOI:10.23661/dp22.2020 Printed on eco-friendly, certified paper Dr Diogo Andreola Serraglio is a consultant with the research programme “Environmental Governance” at the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Email: diogo.aserragl[email protected]m Published with financial support from the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). © Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik gGmbH Tulpenfeld 6, 53113 Bonn  +49 (0)228 94927-0  +49 (0)228 94927-130 Email: [email protected] www.die-gdi.de Abstract Although extreme weather events and slow onset processes have been increasingly linked to human mobility in distinct international governance spaces, research and policy on migration, displacement and planned relocation resulting from slow onset events remain focused mainly on sea level rise or specific hazards such as prolonged droughts. Land and forest degradation and desertification (LFDD), as a driver of population movements and its implications for long-term development policy, have received less attention. Considering the far-reaching impacts of these processes on human systems, this discussion paper aims to examine to what extent the LFDD – human mobility nexus has been integrated in existing policy and legal frameworks in African, Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries, identifying pathways towards improved management of population movements related to slow onset events. In this context, this discussion paper also presents national responses to the current COVID-19 pandemic, which has increased vulnerability in areas affected by progressive environmental changes. The analysis builds upon a review of policy and legal documents, and it sets the groundwork for an advanced research and policy agenda on human mobility in the context of LFDD. Even though efforts have been made to acknowledge the topic in African and LAC nations, the findings suggest the need for wider consideration of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in existing domestic frameworks. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Benjamin Schraven, Eva Dick and Mariya Aleksandrova for their valuable comments and suggestions on the early versions of this paper. This research is funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the Klimalog Project (www.klimalog.info). Bonn, December 2020 Diogo Andreola Serraglio Contents Abstract Acknowledgments Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1 2 Analytical and methodological frameworks 2 2.1 Understanding human mobility in the context of LFDD 2 2.2 Global governance of the LFDD – human mobility nexus 7 2.3 Methodological framework 11 3 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national climate policies and legislation 14 3.1 Africa 14 3.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 16 4 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national desertification agendas 18 4.1 Africa 18 4.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 19 5 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national biodiversity strategies and action plans 20 5.1 Africa 20 5.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 21 6 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national DRR agendas 22 6.1 Africa 22 6.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 23 6.3 Countries’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic 24 7 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national migration policies and legislation 26 7.1 Africa 26 7.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 26 8 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national refugee agendas 28 8.1 Africa 28 8.2 Latin America and the Caribbean 28 9 Policy gaps and recommendations 29 10 Conclusion 34 References 35 Annexes 43 Abbreviations CBD Convention on Biological Diversity COP Conference of the Parties COVID-19 coronavirus disease CPRP COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan DRR disaster risk reduction ExCom executive committee GCM Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration GDP gross domestic product GHG greenhouse gas IDP internally displaced person IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change L&D loss and damage LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LDN land degradation neutrality LFDD land and forest degradation and desertification LULUCF land use, land use change and forestry NAP national adaption plan NAProg national action programme NBSAP national biodiversity strategy and action plan NDC nationally determined contribution OAS Organization of American States OAU Organisation of African Unity REDD reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation TFD Task Force on Displacement UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNDRR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees WIM Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 7 [T]heir ability to avoid infection, receive adequate health care and cope with the economic, social and psychological impacts of the pandemic can be affected by a variety of factors, including their living and working conditions, lack of consideration of their cultural and linguistic diversity in service provision, xenophobia, their limited local knowledge and networks, and their access to rights and level of inclusion in host communities, often related to their migration status. (Guadagno, 2020) The current pandemic has affected human population movements in the context of LFDD in different ways. Given that many seasonal migrants rely on internal or cross-border movements to access work in the agricultural and livestock sectors, COVID-19 has threatened their income opportunities. These migrants tend to periodically move from degraded rural areas – with poor livelihood opportunities and weak income diversification – in search of better economic conditions through informal jobs. In this context, “restrictions to seasonal work can also affect the agricultural sector in various territories which rely on temporary labour, which may disrupt harvests and affect overall food security” (IOM, 2020a). In LAC alone, the pandemic has put nearly 14 million people at risk of hunger. It is estimated that the number of people experiencing severe food insecurity in the region will increase from 3.4 million to 13.7 million over the course of 2020 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR], 2020). Besides, people’s ability to flee natural disasters has been hindered by restrictions on movement in response to the pandemic. Lockdowns have hampered individuals’ capacity to move out of disaster-prone areas, such as those severely affected by LFDD (IOM, 2020a). As a result, “choices need to be made between respecting social distancing orders and protecting people against disasters, as both can be mutually exclusive” (Ionesco & Chazalnoël, 2020). At the same time, displacement may facilitate COVID-19 transmission, as social distancing is rendered impossible during evacuations and in displacement settings. The COVID-19 crisis has also implications for “trapped” populations, adding new layers of vulnerability in already fragile communities (Ionesco & Chazalnoël, 2020). These populations are frequently composed of marginalised groups living in degraded areas that are experiencing economic hardship and have limited access to basic services (FloresPalacios, 2020) – from housing to water sanitation, from food to social services and from education to social protection (IOM, 2020a; UN, 2020). Still, return migration has also been an emerging topic within the pandemic context, as restrictions on movement are preventing individuals from returning to their countries and communities of origin, despite having lost their livelihoods, either due to the pandemic or disasters (IOM, 2020a). 2.2 Global governance of the LFDD – human mobility nexus New layers of international governance have been set up around themes currently being debated, including human mobility in the context of climate and other environmental changes. These additional layers of governance represent an opportunity to recognise and reinforce protection and assistance to individuals exposed to LFDD and other climatic risks. Progress has been made in acknowledging the topic through the adoption of new frameworks and/or the reformulation of existing ones. their home countries [...], while returning [internally displaced persons] IDPs may face similar predicament in their home localities” (United Nations [UN], 2020). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 8 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Human mobility in the context of climate change was first expressly addressed under the international climate regime in 2010 at COP16 to the UNFCCC. The topic was raised again two years later during discussions related to the support of an L&D mechanism to tackle the impacts of climate change (United Nations General Assembly [UNGA], 2016).7 The inclusion of this subject in the climate agenda was further promoted with the adoption of the Paris Agreement during COP21. Decision 1/CP.21 (§ 49) required that the ExCom of the WIM establish a Task Force on Displacement aimed at developing recommendations to prevent and reduce forced migration processes driven by climate change (UNFCCC, 2015). The TFD’s first report was made available at COP24 (2018), remarking that the level of attention being given to human mobility had significantly increased since 2015. At the national level, the TFD recommended the adoption of specialised legislation, ensuring coordination among actors dealing with human mobility and climate change. The TFD report further suggested increased engagement in partnerships with affected communities and other stakeholders, the integration of human mobility into the formulation and implementation of national adaptation plans (NAPs), and the communication of efforts undertaken through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) (UNFCCC, 2018). The report also invites governments to enhance research, data collection and risk analyses as well as to share information to better map, understand and manage human mobility related to the impacts of climate change. Attention was given to the state of knowledge about displacement in the context of slow onset events, underlining the need for technical guidance to support countries in mainstreaming displacement in theirs NAPs and NDCs (UNFCCC, 2018). The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) The 1994 UNCCD remains the sole intergovernmental environmental agreement to expressly associate human mobility with environmental changes. Its preamble states that “desertification and drought affect sustainable development through their interrelationships with important social problems such as [...] those arising from migration, displacements of persons and demographic dynamics” (UNCCD, 1994). Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention reinforce the need for instruments to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of LFDD while “assisting environmentally displaced persons” (UNCCD, 1994). In doing so, the UNCCD is not restricted to environmental aspects but it is also “crucially a social agreement that is fully committed to the protection of the most vulnerable groups” (IOM & UNCCD, 2019). A study on “the role that measures taken to implement the Convention can play to address desertification, land degradation and drought as one of the drivers that causes migration” was requested during COP13 to the UNCCD (UNCCD, 2017b).8 The report, made available in 2019, examined LFDD as drivers of human mobility and illustrated how sustainable land management can minimise forced migration processes. The study emphasised the need to: i) protect and restore fragile ecosystems through participatory approaches, ii) establish dignified livelihoods and employment opportunities, and iii) address pre-existing vulnerabilities and inequalities (IOM & UNCCD, 2019). At the national level, the document recommended the implementation of domestic legal frameworks to tackle LFDD as drivers 7 See Decision 3/CP.18 (UNFCCC, 2013). 8 See Decision 28/COP13 (UNCCD, 2017b). The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 9 of migration in a collaborative and cross-cutting manner, maximising synergies across policy areas and preventing them from overlapping. The study also encouraged governments to foster research and data collection to better understand the LFDD – human mobility nexus and facilitate evidence-based policies (IOM & UNCCD, 2019). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Ratified in 1992, the CBD aims to reduce the rate of biodiversity9 loss at the global, regional and national levels, contributing to poverty alleviation and the maintenance of life on the planet (UNCED, 1992). In addition to the establishment of the 2010 Biodiversity Targets, the framework set specific strategies through the 2020 Aichi Targets, adopted at COP10 to the CBD.10 Besides acknowledging “the importance of addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss across all sectors of government and society” (Population Action International, 2011), Parties agreed to translate the overarching international framework into revised and updated national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) by 2012. Even though the Convention does not link population movements to loss of biodiversity – which often results from practices associated with LFDD – it embraced the so-called ecosystem approach as its primary framework for action. Defined as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way” (CBD, 2002), the ecosystem approach “recognises that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems” (Kim, 2018). Given that humans impact ecological systems and that, in turn, degraded ecosystems affect human well-being, people and the environment cannot be separated.11 The CBD has the potential to fill the existing gap in the LFDD – human mobility nexus through the integration of an ecocentric view under the ecosystem approach. Developments in this agenda have yet to realise the opportunities for “innovative, environmentally holistic and peoplecentred approaches that can be usefully applied for climate-related purposes” (Kim, 2018). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction – United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-203012 is a non-binding agreement that aims to achieve “the substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries” (UNDRR, 2015). It outlines seven targets to prevent and minimise existing disaster risks,13 as well as calls for the better 9 Biodiversity is “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part” (UNCED, 1992). 10 See COP10 Decision X/2 (CBD, 2010). 11 See the Malawi Principles related to the ecosystem approach, endorsed at COP5 to the CBD (FAO, 1998). 12 See Resolution No. 69/283 (UNGA, 2015a). 13 These are: i) reduce global disaster mortality; ii) reduce the number of affected people globally; iii) reduce direct economic loss in relation to gross domestic product (GDP); iv) reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services; v) increase the number of countries with national and local DRR strategies; vi) substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries; and vii) increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems (UNDRR, 2015). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 10 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) understanding of the topic and the strengthening of disaster risk reduction (DRR) management, improving resilience and enhancing disaster preparedness for effective responses in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction (UNDRR, 2015). In doing so, the framework underlines the resilience-building potential of all modalities of human mobility (Yamamoto et al., 2017). The Sendai Framework urges the protection of any individual on the move in DRR strategies, striving for the strengthening of both human and infrastructure resilience through the engagement of national governments, regional and international organisations, as well as relevant stakeholders addressing the topic (IDMC, 2017). References to human mobility are noted in provisions dealing with the improvement of disaster risk governance. In this regard, the framework suggests the formulation of normative instruments that effectively tackle human displacement in the context of disasters, presenting a twofold approach to human mobility: i) the impacts of disasters on displaced people and their role in DRR, and ii) the management of all phases of the displacement cycle – pre-disaster, displacement and post-crisis phases. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) The GCM was concluded in December 2018, and it is filled with references to climateinduced migration. By including a specific section on migration associated with “[n]atural disasters, the adverse effects of climate change, and environmental degradation” (UNGA, 2018), the non-binding cooperation framework “represents a turning point in global environmental migration policy as it articulates a wide and comprehensive understanding of these challenges” (IOM & UNCCD, 2019). Objective 2 of the GCM acknowledges the impacts of climate change as drivers of migration. It concentrates on mapping and developing strategies to minimise the effects of environmental factors on the decision to move. Objective 5 calls on countries to develop or build on existing national and regional practices for admission and stay of appropriate duration based on compassionate, humanitarian or other considerations for migrants compelled to leave their countries of origin owing to sudden onset natural disasters and other precarious situations [...]. (UNGA, 2018) In addition, Objective 23 commits countries to increase international and regional cooperation in areas from where irregular migration emerges due to consistent impacts of climate-related disasters (UNGA, 2018). Although the UNFCCC’s TFD recommendations offer details on how to avert, minimise and address the effects of climate change on human mobility, their focus is mainly on sudden onset events as environmental factors. The GCM has a broader approach. Besides including slow onset processes in the description on environmental factors, it encompasses all phases of forced movements and calls for a better understanding of them as well as their prevention in addition to regional harmonisation, coherence and long-term policies to address the issues. Importantly, the GCM’s Preamble mentions the UNFCCC and the work that has been developed by the TFD, inviting governments to review climate and migration national strategies in connection to the GCM. It emphasises the need to develop appropriate methodologies in order to gather better data and information, in particular regarding regional and national migration trends. The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 11 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) The international refugee law developed from the adoption of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, which removed both geographical and temporal limitations of the refugee concept.14 Despite listing grounds for granting refugee status, this framework did not exhaust every possible situation that could lead to properly defining a refugee. After the completion of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, two regional instruments stand out as facilitating the extension of the traditional refugee concept. These are the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, adopted by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, under the Organization of American States (OAS).15 Even though they were not designed to deal with forced cross-border movement associated with environmental issues, by extending the refuge concept, they enabled the implied incorporation of environmental adversities – including climate change – as a reason for granting refugee status. In 2008, the UN Refugee Agency released the report “Climate Change, Natural Disasters and Human Displacement: A UNHCR Perspective”, outlining that although climate change has been the subject of intense debates within the scientific community, insufficient attention has been given to the humanitarian consequences it will generate (UNHCR, 2008). Since then, UNHCR has shown a more comprehensive attitude towards forced cross-border movements, acknowledging that effective refugee protection relies on the ability to better understand broader human mobility patterns, such as the ones associated with the impacts of climate change.16 Nevertheless, there has been no decision on whether the classic refugee definition extends to individuals fleeing natural disasters: The lack of persecution means that such situations are not in themselves generally seen as a basis for granting refugee status. 2.3 Methodological framework This discussion paper examines how African and LAC countries have addressed the LFDD – human mobility nexus in six distinct policy and legal frameworks with particular relevance and potential to respond to the phenomenon. The assessment of existing national responses 14 Article 1(2) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees defines refugee as any person that “[...] as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (UNHCR, 1951). 15 The 1969 Convention stated that the refugee concept “shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality” (Organisation of African Unity, 1969). Similarly, the Cartagena Declaration included “among refugees persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order” (Organisation of American States, 1984). 16 See UNGA (2009, 2011, 2014, 2015b). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 12 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) enables the identification of policy gaps that can inform international and regional action agendas on migration in the context of slow onset events. National scope The paper targets African and LAC countries. Of the 55 African countries examined, 7 are in North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Tunisia), 19 in East Africa (Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Réunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Somaliland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), 8 in Central Africa (Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and São Tomé and Princípe), 16 in Western Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo) and 5 in Southern Africa (Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa). Of the 33 LAC countries, 8 are in Central America (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama) and Mexico, 12 in South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela) and 13 in the Caribbean (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Dominica). Dependencies and territorial extensions were not considered. Policy and legal frameworks This discussion paper focuses on global and national agendas for: i) avoiding and/or minimising LFDD as drivers of human mobility and the vulnerability of mobile and “trapped” populations; ii) managing the potential impact of LFDD on human mobility; and iii) addressing the residual impacts of LFDD on mobile populations, including economic and non-economic L&D. More specifically, the paper reviews national policies aligned with six global frameworks that may govern the LFDD – human mobility nexus: the UNFCCC, the UNCCD, the CBD, UNDRR, the GCM and UNHCR.17 These correspond to the following national legislations: environmental law, with attention being given to climate, desertification and biodiversity normative instruments; DRR law; migration and refugee laws. In addition, national contingency responses that were implemented to tackle the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in both regions were reviewed in the attempt to find any recognition concerning individuals who are prone to human displacement for environmental reasons and their vulnerability. Qualitative data analysis To verify to what extent African and LAC countries have integrated human mobility in the context of LFDD in their national agendas, the analysis builds upon selected official documents submitted to the international policy frameworks mentioned above, as well as domestic normative instruments. These were extensively scrutinised from a pragmatic 17 The selection of the six policy frameworks do not exclude the significance of other agendas dealing with the topic, such as the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 13 qualitative – mixed-method – approach, and assumptions emerged from the combination of different terms. Once expressions were identified, the content was further consulted to provide background and a detailed comprehension of the context at stake. The following keywords were used to detect references to human mobility: “migration”, “displacement”, “planned relocation”, “trapped”, “(re)settlement” and “(im)mobility” (including related words such as “migrating” and “migrated”, “displacing” and “displaced”, “relocating” and “relocated”). Mentions of LFDD were identified from the (in)direct acknowledgement of the following slow onset processes: sea level rise, increasing temperature, ocean acidification, glacial retreat, salinisation, land and forest degradation, loss of biodiversity and desertification. The same procedure was applied to determine the recognition of L&D, that is, “loss”, “damage”, “economic” and “non-economic” (including related words such as “lost” and “losing”, “damaging” and “damaged”), and correlated mechanisms, that is “reparation”, “compensation”, “risk transfer”, “insurance”, and “system”. All the selected official documents and normative instruments examined were gathered in online databases related to the policy frameworks at hand: 1. The UNFCCC repository allowed for the analysis of the NDCs (UNFCCC, s.a.-a) and NAPs (UNFCCC, s.a.-b). The “Climate Change Laws of the World” from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at The London School of Economics and Political Science (London School of Economics, s.a.) facilitated the compilation of national climate normative instruments. 2. The UNCCD “Knowledge Hub” simplified the collection of the national action programmes (NAProgs) and land degradation neutrality (LDN) targets (UNCCD, s.a.). 3. The CBD repository was used for the examination of the NBSAPs (CBD, s.a.). 4. National DRR normative instruments were assessed at UNDRR’s “Prevention Web – The knowledge platform for disaster risk reduction” (Prevention Web, s.a.). 5. The International Labour Organization and its “COVID-19 and the world of work – Country Policy” (International Labour Organization, s.a.) assisted in the compilation of national responses released thus far in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 6. National migration and refugee normative instruments were brought together through UNHCR’s “Refworld Database” (UNHCR, s.a.). Methodological limitations The development of this discussion paper was challenged by the relative lack of availability of scientific literature addressing the linkages between human mobility and slow onset events, more specifically LFDD. Often, the paper was hindered due to the inaccessibility of normative instruments, and it was also difficult to verify whether an identified document was the latest version passed or already in force. Consequently, given its non-exhaustive nature, the paper offers a general survey of some of the frameworks dealing with the topic. It should be considered as indicative of general trends in Africa and LAC, rather than a consolidated and well-established position. Diogo Andreola Serraglio 14 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 3 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national climate policies and legislation 3.1 Africa To date, references to human mobility in the African climate agenda are still generic – 15 NDCs (out of 50) and 6 NAPs (out of 6) cite the topic. Altogether, they are not sufficiently explored as instruments for considering the challenges posed by human mobility in the context of LFDD. Even though some countries have integrated this dimension in their official documents, the topic is usually addressed in the context of climate-related hazards such as droughts and floods. As such, there is little recognition of the linkages between migration, displacement, planned relocation and/or “trapped” populations and slow onset processes. Rural-urban migration – rural exodus – is generally mentioned as being responsible for disruptions in urban areas, increasing population pressures and impairing existing infrastructure and services. Nevertheless, such references do not detail the root causes of such movements, whether they are associated with LFDD or not. In addition to climate change, food, political and national (in)security are related to the reduction in the available amount of arable lands. Hence, the relevance of sustainable land and forest management is emphasised. The strengthening of initiatives to support the recovery and rehabilitation of land and reforestation could avert and minimise human displacement and other L&D related to LFDD. In this agenda, LFDD are brought within the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector and thus perceived in the context of mitigation measures.18 In the existing African NDCs and NAPs, L&D are linked to economic losses caused by extreme events – for example damages to critical infrastructure and loss of income and/or livelihoods – and less attention is given to non-economic losses, for example cultural heritage and social cohesion. Economic losses are also associated with infrastructure damages caused by armed conflicts. Although not directly related to the LFDD – human mobility nexus, the development of international compensation instruments, the incorporation of monitoring and reporting systems, as well as the implementation of insurance schemes to cope with extreme weather events are suggested as possible mechanisms to tackle L&D caused by the impacts of climate change. Somalia’s and Sudan’s NDCs, as well as Kenya’s NAP, make direct references to population movements linked to LFDD. Somalia’s contribution calls attention to the existing pastoralists and farming systems threatened by poor land management. Coupled with the impacts of a changing climate, unsustainable land use results in rural-urban migration and conflicts over natural resources. The document makes reference to “increases in injury and death as a result of drought, increase in incidence of conflict over diminishing natural resources such as water and grazing land, significant migration and displacement of people, and loss of primary assets such as livestock” (Republic of Somalia, 2016). Sudan’s NDC underlines that poor policy coordination has challenged sustainable land management 18 In this context, Rwanda’s second NDC states that “emissions from deforestation, agriculture, and land use, combined with strong expected emission growth from expected economic development and energy use are significant enough within Rwanda’s carbon footprint to demand a mitigation response” (Government of Rwanda, 2020). The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 15 in the country, resulting in “serious environmental problems, such as overgrazing, overcultivation, and reduced land productivity, which in turn have led to rural poverty and rural-urban migration patterns that cannot be sustained in the long-term” (Republic of Sudan, 2017). Kenya’s NAP points out that unsustainable land-use practices affect livelihoods, with climate change further destabilising land management: “[S]uch insecurity hampers economic development by discouraging household investment and increasing internal migration” (Republic of Kenya, 2017). The term “environmental refugee” was used in the context of sea level rise and the uninhabitability of coastal areas. Importantly, the plan seeks to tackle the impacts of climate change on LFDD through land reform and the implementation of insurance mechanisms. Besides enhancing climate resilience, the measures would strengthen social protections and expand economic growth. Similarly, the analysis of 27 normative instruments (Annex 1) passed by national governments indicates a limited incorporation of the human mobility dimension. In truth, nine decrees and laws make reference to population movements being a consequence of climate change. The phenomenon adds a layer of vulnerability in rural areas, which are already sensitive to LFDD and overdependent on natural resources, whilst migrants’ arrivals in metropolitan centres jeopardise available resources in these areas. To exemplify ruralurban migration, Uganda’s National Policy on Climate Change affirms that, “as the productivity of agriculture, forestry and fisheries decreases, people increasingly migrate to urban areas, leading to the formation of slums and their associated problems” (Republic of Uganda, 2015). As such, human mobility is often linked to food (in)security rather than LFDD per se. In short, national climate legislation in Africa essentially focuses on mitigation measures, in which LFDD appear within the LULUCF sector.19 Importantly, Lesotho’s National Climate Change Policy seeks to enhance social protections by managing climate-induced migration. Besides acknowledging that accelerated climatic variability has intensified both internal and cross-border migration flows, disrupting livelihoods, it admits that the lack of appropriate infrastructure and capacity to cope with the phenomenon “hinders government’s ability to deliver services, ensure domestic order, and protect the country’s borders from invasion and threats” (Kingdom of Lesotho, 2017). In addition to recognising migration as an adaptation strategy, the normative instrument suggests that population movements in the context of climate change may amplify political disputes, raising tensions in destination areas. The legislation aims to assist and prevent climate-induced migration by: i) mainstreaming migration into national development frameworks, ii) improving land-use management, and iii) investing in sustainable agriculture schemes in vulnerable areas (Kingdom of Lesotho, 2017). Likewise, besides reiterating that climate change interacts with distinct drivers of migration, Ghana’s National Climate Change Policy states that population movements can represent a significant adaptation measure when it is planned and proactive as well as amplify geopolitical problems, raising tensions in destination areas. Faced with the lack of an 19 Malawi’s National Climate Change Policy outlines that “mitigation against climate change through better land use, clean development mechanisms and reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), as it will yield positive local as well as global socio-economic and environmental benefits through increase in below and above ground carbon and reduced GHG emission” (Government of Malawi, 2012). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 16 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) institutional regulatory framework for human mobility management, the increase of irregular migration, conflicts over (natural) resources, and the inability of migrants to access basic social services, the following objectives and interventions were proposed: i) ensure equal opportunities to economic and social amenities at destination areas; ii) enhance resilience in both origin and destination areas; iii) invest in sustainable land management, curbing rural-urban migration; iv) facilitate flows of remittances and goods and services between source and destination areas; v) provide social protections for migrants; and vi) mainstream migration into national development frameworks, among others (Republic of Ghana, 2013). 3.2 Latin America and the Caribbean A limited number of countries in the LAC mention human mobility in their climate agendas – 8 NDCs (out of 34) and 7 NAPs (out of 9), whereas the topic is usually discussed in the context of disastrous events such as hurricanes, flooding and landslides. There is little recognition of the connection between population movements and slow onset processes – at most, these are related to sea level rise – and no direct references to human mobility in the context of LFDD.20 Notably, LFDD are often not acknowledged as an impact of climate change. Instead, it is brought within the LULUCF sector and thus perceived in the context of mitigation measures. Nevertheless, initiatives to support the recovery and rehabilitation of land and reforestation, such as adaptation that is based in ecosystems, are strongly encouraged. Similar to the African countries, L&D in the existing LAC NDCs and NAPs are only linked to economic losses caused by extreme weather events, and no attention is paid to noneconomic L&D. Some countries highlight that L&D are bound to have a greater impact on vulnerable groups and people living in extreme poverty. The development of international compensation mechanisms is suggested to tackle L&D caused by the impacts of climate change. However, these have not been linked to human mobility policies and interventions. Chile’s updated NDC aims at strengthening the capacity to adapt to climate-related risks and managing the impacts of “socio-natural disasters”. Among its adaptation actions, the NDC announced that “by 2021, guidelines on the effects of climate in the phenomenon of human mobility will be developed, in line with related international instruments” (Government of Chile, 2020). It acknowledges that the ability of local communities to respond to the impacts of climate change is key to reducing L&D associated with sudden onset events. LFDD are related to mitigation measures and the relevance of “addressing climate change, desertification, land degradation and drought through an adequate management of the vegetation resources [...], while promoting the recovery through reforestation, revegetation and sustainable management of native habitats nationwide” was emphasised (Government of Chile, 2020). 20 For instance, Saint Lucia’s NAP (2019) states that planned relocation associated with sea-level rise will enhance LFDD in the destination areas: “Sea level rise impacts – Relocation of critical infrastructure and communities, and associated costs and problems related to limited suitable areas. [...] Potential migration and land use change, adding pressure on inland forest reserves to provide land for various uses as coastal land is lost to erosion and inundation” (Government of Saint Lucia, 2018). The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 23 reduction. As such, disaster risk management activities are widely recommended. The implementation of interventions before, during and after the disaster period in a timely manner and with the involvement of all concerned actors is key to avoiding human displacement. These interventions should be implemented in a coordinated and integrated manner, taking into consideration not only social problems but also climate change-related risks. Some African countries promote DRR as being an integral objective of their environmental policies and plans, such as the ones related to LFDD. Namibia’s National Disaster Risk Management Plan lists DRR strategies to address camp coordination and management for IDPs. The plan proposed the following prevention actions: i) development of risk and vulnerability assessments; ii) mapping of disaster-prone areas for relocation; iii) camp coordination and management awareness-raising adapted to community level; and iv) early warning systems linked to population displacement and relocation as prevention measures. In addition, the following preparedness actions were selected: i) map options for durable solutions to displacement; ii) ensure the protection of properties left behind by displaced persons against destruction and arbitrary appropriation; and iii) awareness-raising about durable solutions to displacement. Furthermore, the following recovery strategies were envisaged: i) support for the closure of relocation centres and durable solutions to displacement; ii) support of livelihood opportunities for displaced population in the early recovery phase; and iii) the voluntary resettlement of IDPs in other parts of the country (Republic of Namibia, 2011). 6.2 Latin America and the Caribbean To date, 13 (out of 19) DRR normative instruments (Annex 4) duly passed by national governments acknowledge the “human mobility” perspective. Mentions are concentrated on procedures to be followed and measures to be taken in the event of disasters. Like in the African context, references to displacement are linked to evacuation responses, whereas references to planned relocation are either related to disaster preparedness or post-disaster recovery. Ecuador’s DRR plan includes human displacement and relocation in its definition of “(in)directly affected person”: directly affected persons are those who have suffered injury, illness, or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated, or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets. Indirectly affected persons are those who had suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time, due to disruption or changes in economy, critical infrastructure, basic services, commerce or work, or social, health and psychological consequences. (Republic of Ecuador, 2018)26 Given their disruptive nature, disasters are often correlated with the impacts of climate change. Nevertheless, the role of slow onset processes in triggering environmental hazards is hardly acknowledged in the DRR frameworks of the countries in the region. There is no acknowledgement that LFDD may result in disaster due to a rapid onset event, nor that LFDD may increase the vulnerability of communities and ecosystems to climate change, possibly causing a cascade of hazards and inducing displacement. 26 See Plan Nacional de Respuesta ante Desastre (Republic of Ecuador, 2018). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 24 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) L&D are only associated with economic impacts deriving from extreme weather conditions and, as such, are seldom linked to the LFDD – human mobility nexus. In this context, Dominica’s Climate Resilience and Recovery Plan (2020-2030), established as a result of Hurricane Maria’s devastating effects in the island, stresses that around 80 percent of the population (65,000 people) was directly affected, 65 people perished, more than 90 percent of homes were damaged or destroyed and 90 percent of crops and livestock were lost. [...] The impact of this near total devastation was estimate at US$1.3 billion, amounting to 226 percent of the GDP. (Commonwealth of Dominica, 2018) Again, disaster risk management is encouraged to anticipate, respond to and recover from the impacts of imminent disasters. However, the role played by slow onset events is not taken into account in the reasoning for establishing the DRR measures. Importantly, disaster preparedness would not only reduce environmental hazards that may be triggered by LFDD, but also avert human displacement in this context. Disaster response should go beyond immediate and short-term needs and provide effective, efficient and timely responses that encompass the LFDD – human mobility nexus. 6.3 Countries’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic Some of the countries examined in this discussion paper present provisions that address epidemics and pandemics27 in their DRR normative instruments.28 Known epidemics in Africa and LAC include the avian influenza, Ebola haemorrhagic fever, the human immunodeficiency virus and malaria. These tend to affect the disadvantaged, poor, rural and vulnerable populations of Africa and LAC, which have a higher disease burden and less access to health services. Both epidemics and pandemics can be addressed through the development of contingency plans and by structuring emergency health services. Success depends on the effective development of early warning systems through monitoring and training in emergency operations. In this context, “the ability to effectively respond to emergencies is strongly influenced by the extent to which such emergencies have been assessed in advance and prepared for with corresponding prevention and mitigation measures” (Government of Rwanda, 2012). Most African countries have declared a state of health emergency in response to the growing number of people infected with COVID-19. The review of seven specific measures (Annex 5) to control the spread of the disease shows that national governments aim to minimise the 27 Whereas epidemics are expressed through the sudden increase in the number of cases of a disease in a given area and/or among a group of people over a particular period of time, pandemics are described as global epidemics, that is, an epidemic that spreads to more than one continent. In an interconnected world, “epidemics due to a new influenza virus are likely to take hold around the world and become a pandemic faster than before” (Government of Rwanda, 2012). 28 See the Plano Nacional de Preparação, Contingência, Resposta e Recuperação de Calamidades e Desastres (see Annex 3, Republic of Angola, 2016); the National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy of Botswana 2013-2018 (see Annex 3, Botswana, 2013); the Stratégie Nationale de Prévention et de Réduction des Risques de Catastrophes de la République du Congo 2016-2023 (see Annex 3, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2016); the National Disaster Management Policy of Liberia (Republic of Liberia, 2012), and the National Disaster Management Policy of Rwanda (Government of Rwanda, 2012). The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 25 marginalisation of vulnerable groups and tensions between ethnic groups, specifying protection measures that ensure equal access to basic services for the whole population. The strategies target families and communities affected by the outbreak of COVID-19, with special attention being given to vulnerable groups: children, women, the elderly, people with disabilities, children in institutions, the chronically ill and, in some cases, “those in hard-to-reach locations or with poor access to services” (Government of Malawi, 2020). The wording of the sentence leaves room for the interpretation that people displaced in the context of LFDD, along with “trapped” populations, would be covered. Nevertheless, the documents analysed make no reference to environmental changes such as LFDD or to the impacts of climate change. Malawi’s national COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP) is the only one to expressly include migrants and refugees in its list of vulnerable groups. The document requests the organising of “community engagement activities with vulnerable population groups at higher risk due to mobility patterns (for example, traders, land transport agencies, communities along the borders, migrant workers, etc.)” (Government of Malawi, 2020). Similarly, most LAC countries have formalised a state of health emergency, establishing extraordinary actions to control the spread of COVID-19. From the investigation of 14 specific measures (Annex 5), it can be concluded that human mobility in the context of climate change – and, more specifically, LFDD – is not addressed. The documents focus on those who have completely lost their incomes and the most vulnerable, for example children, women, the elderly, people with disabilities, the chronically ill as well those living in extreme poverty. For instance, Panama’s Solidarity Plan aims to benefit persons belonging to “vulnerable families, to communities in multidimensional poverty, as well as individuals living in areas of difficult access” (Republic of Panama, 2020). Given that LFDD are commonly associated with food insecurity and poor living conditions, it can be presumed that this group of individuals are included in the protective measures. Nevertheless, no direct references to environmental changes such as LFDD or to the impacts of climate change were identified. Importantly, Ecuador authorised the extension of the visa regularisation process of Venezuelans within its national borders due to the socio-economic crisis that is devastating the neighbour country.29 In short, it enables Venezuela’s migrants to stay during the pandemic outbreak, whether the requirements of Executive Decree No. 826 of 2019, which was established to grant temporary residence permits for humanitarian reasons, are met or not. 29 In Annex 5, see Decree No. 1020 of 2020: “Extension del proceso de regularización de venezolanos” (Ecuador). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 26 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 7 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national migration policies and legislation 7.1 Africa Of 31 national (im)migration policies in Africa (Annex 6), only three regulate special cases that fall outside established migration categories such as travel, entry and stay in the country. These cases are usually authorised on the basis of individual circumstances, tend to be temporary and short-term, and depend on discretion. Whereas Algeria enables the “regularisation” of non-nationals facing critical situations,30 Ghana provides “emergency entry visas” that last up to 14 days.31 For its part, Angola grants short stays to “foreign citizens who, for urgent reasons, need to enter national territory” (Republic of Angola, 2007).32 In all cases, requirements and further details are not specified, thus placing the inclusion of slow onset climatic events at stake. As national (im)migration policies in Africa were enacted before 2017 – the moment that the GCM recommendations on human mobility in the context of climate change were being developed – there was no opportunity to draw on the guidance and norms put forward. The revision and adoption of new migration policies in the region – 23 African countries have not yet adopted specific legislation to deal with this legal framework – would enable the formulation of consistent approaches to address the challenges of population movements in the context of LFDD. 7.2 Latin America and the Caribbean A review of national (im)migration policies in 33 LAC countries (Annex 7) reveals that 16 of them regulate special cases that go beyond common (im)migration processes. These are usually applied on the basis of individual circumstances, depend on discretion and are granted on a temporary basis. In most cases, these categories “entitle the recipient to an immigration status of temporary residence, with all of the entitlements to work and services, along with the relevant obligations, specified in the national law of the country concerned” (Cantor, 2018). In this context, Belize, Colombia and Dominican Republic grant “temporary protection visas to any person without prejudice to the question whether he/she is a prohibited immigrant, if he/she considers the issue of such a permit desirable”.33 To date, no temporary protection permits associated with human mobility in the context of environmental changes – including LFDD – were identified in these countries. Hurricane Mitch in 1998 – the second-deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record in Central America, affecting Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama34 – led to the regularisation of entry 30 In Annex 6, see Law No. 08-11 of 2008, Article 12 (Algeria). 31 In Annex 6, see Law No. 1691 of 2001, Article 01 (Ghana). 32 In Annex 6, see Law No. 02 of 2007, Article 45 (Angola). 33 In Annex 7, see Chapter No. 156 of 2000, Article 18 (Belize); Decree No. 834 of 2013, Article 7 (Colombia); and Decree No. 631 of 2011, Article 43 (Dominican Republic). 34 In Annex 7, see Decree No. 24.457 of 1998 (Costa Rica), Decree No. 94-98 of 1999 (Nicaragua) and Decree No. 34 of 1999 (Panama). The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 27 visas and the stay of Hondurans displaced by the disaster.35 Human mobility in the context of sudden onset events was at once recognised, allowing the prompt response of national governments to assist affected people. Critical to this research, 13 countries in the region have adopted (im)migration law provisions regulating the situation of non-nationals whose cases disclose humanitarian considerations. Transitory measures were adopted by countries in the aftermath of the earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010, and it was explicitly stated that environmental disasters fall within the scope of the underlying concept.36 For instance in Argentina, transitory residence for “humanitarian reasons” can be granted to people who “cannot return to their countries of origin [...] due to the consequences generated by natural or man-made environmental disasters” (Republic of Argentina, 2010). Whereas Brazil’s “humanitarian reception” can be authorised to individuals from “any country in a situation of [...] major calamity or environmental disaster” (Republic of Brazil, 2017), Ecuador’s “protection for humanitarian reasons” can be granted to “victims of natural or environmental disasters” (Republic of Ecuador, 2017). Yet, “humanitarian residence” in Peru can be approved for “persons who have migrated for reasons of natural and environmental disasters” (Republic of Peru, 2017). Despite mentioning environmental disasters in the context of being granted humanitarian visas for protection, none of the documents examined is backed by official definitions of the term. The definitions leave room for broader interpretations, implying the inclusion of forced cross-border movements associated with both sudden and slow onset events. Given that humanitarian visas were applied strictly for the migration patterns that arose as a result of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, it remains to be seen whether this legal instrument will also be employed in the context of LFDD in cases where this triggers humanitarian crises. Bolivia is the only country in LAC that recognises migration in the context of climate change. Article 65 of its National Migration Law (Law No. 370 of 2013) addresses the topic from two perspectives: i) the protection and assistance of national and non-national citizens through the adoption of international agreements and guidelines, and ii) the admission of people threatened and/or displaced due to climate or other environmental changes. The legislation defines climate migrants as “groups of persons who are forced to displace from one state to another due to climate effects, when a risk or threat to their life may exist, whether due to natural causes, environmental, nuclear or chemical disasters or hunger”. Given that food insecurity is directly linked to LFDD, population movements related to the topic of this research would be encompassed by the provision. However, the law has not yet taken effect. Despite the definition of climate migrants, some of the topics pending regulation by decrees are: the criteria for admission and for staying within national borders; the means for dealing with the temporary aspects of visas; and the migration cycle as a whole. 35 It is to be noted that Honduras was the country most affected by the storm: It destroyed approximately 35,000 houses and damaged another 50,000, leaving up to 1.5 million people homeless. At that time, that represented 20 per cent of the country’s population. 36 In Annex 7, see Law No. 25.871 of 2010, Articles 23 and 24 (Argentina); Law No. 370 of 2013, Article 30 (Bolivia); Law No. 13.445 of 2017, Article 14 and 30 (Brazil); Law No. 938 of 2017, Articles 58 and 66 (Ecuador); Decree No. 44 of 2016, Article 12 (Guatemala); 2011 Migration Law, Article 37 (Mexico); Decree No. 1.350 of 2017, Article 29 (Peru); and in Annex 9, see Decree No. 8.001 of 2001 (Venezuela). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 28 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 8 Overview of the LFDD – human mobility nexus in national refugee agendas 8.1 Africa To date, 46 African countries are Parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Domestic laws regulating the granting of refugee status were identified in 39 countries (Annex 8) and,37 from that, 32 have incorporated the extended refugee definition from the 1969 OAU Convention. In these countries, people recognised under this complementary concept are refugees and entitled to all of the rights and benefits accruing under the 1951 Convention. African countries tend not to treat people fleeing climate-related disasters and other slow onset processes as refugees. The African Union argues that the scope of its extended refugee definition regarding protection does not include forced cross-border movements associated with environmental changes. There is no jurisprudence in the African continent allowing and/or confirming such an interpretation. As such, instead of factoring as an obligation under the 1969 OAU Convention, protection linked to LFDD would “derive from humanitarianism or even generosity” (McAdam, 2012). Some countries authorise the regulation of supplementary provisions concerning the reception and accommodation of asylum seekers in the event of a mass influx.38 The decision about whether a group or category of persons qualify for refugee status depends on discretion. Angola’s national refugee law provides temporary protection to refugees on a large scale, encompassing also those escaping environmental hazards.39 Article 32 affirms that Angola may grant refugee status to groups of persons who leave the country of origin or of usual residence, [...] as a consequence of serious armed conflict, occupation or foreign domination of his/her national territory or natural disasters, leading to large-scale refugee flows. (Republic of Angola, 2015) It is unclear whether the definition of “natural disasters” can be extended to LFDD, given its slow onset nature. 8.2 Latin America and the Caribbean Twenty-eight LAC countries have ratified the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol to date, and 17 have incorporated determination procedures concerning refugee status into their domestic laws (Annex 9).40 From that, 12 have also consolidated the expanded refugee 37 Despite being parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, Cape Verde, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Madagascar, Seychelles, and São Tomé and Princípe have not established national refugee laws thus far. 38 In Annex 8, see Law No. 10 of 2015, Article 32 (Angola); Law No. 1/32 of 2008, Article 81 (Burundi); Law No. L/2018/050/AN of 2018, Article 50 (Guinea); Law No. 21 of 2016, Article 42 (Togo); and Act No. 130 of 1998, Article 35 (South Africa). 39 See Law on the Right of Asylum and the Refugee Status, Law No. 10 (Republic of Angola, 2015). 40 Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, and Trinidad e Tobago have not yet established national refugee laws. The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 29 definition based on the one recommended by the non-binding 1984 Cartagena Declaration. As such, the policies of these nations provide all the rights and benefits established under the 1951 Convention to those people officially recognised under the broader concept. Some of the countries do not recognise all five specific elements in the expanded definition. For instance, the national laws of Belize and Peru do not mention generalised violence. In Mexico, other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order are applicable only to acts attributable to man. On the other hand, Brazil’s national law makes reference only to massive violations of human rights. Refugee standards in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Peru and Venezuela include provisions for temporary protection, which are to be granted in the event of a mass influx of people seeking international assistance. For its part, Mexico regulates the granting of complementary protection, extending assistance beyond the existing rules of international refugee law. Nevertheless, these special measures do not make any reference to forced cross-border movements in the context of sudden and/or slow onset environmental changes such as LFDD.41 Even though a small number of Haitians were recognised as refugees by Ecuador and Peru in the aftermath of the earthquake that struck the island of Hispaniola in 2010 (Cantor, 2018), LAC countries do not consider people fleeing from environmental hazards and other slow onset climatic processes to be refugees. Despite adopting the expanded definition suggested by OAS in 1984, regional countries “have tended to apply the situational concept as requiring a direct link to governmental or political circumstances” (Cantor, 2018). 9 Policy gaps and recommendations Human mobility in the context of climate and other environmental changes has been increasingly integrated into the debates for creating distinct intergovernmental policy frameworks at the global level, reflecting the significance of the topic and the challenges to address it. In this regard, it is of utmost importance that global policy discussions integrate the realities observed on the ground, and vice versa, that initiatives at the local, national and regional levels take into account the outcomes of policy discussions at the international level. (IOM & UNCCD, 2019) This section presents a short overview of the previous sections, highlighting how the distinct domestic agendas of Africa and LAC have been dealing with the LFDD – human mobility nexus. The UNFCCC and national climate policies and legislation The TFD’s first report, released in 2018, suggested the development of specialised legislation at the national level. This would ensure coordination among actors dealing with human mobility and climate change, the integration of the topic into the formulation and 41 In Annex 9, see Law No. 251 of 2012, Article 31 (Bolivia); Decree No. 36.831-G of 2011, Article 145 (Costa Rica); Law No. 27.891 of 2002 (Peru); and Decree No. 8.001 of 2001, Article 33 (Venezuela). Diogo Andreola Serraglio 30 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) implementation of NAPs, and the communication of efforts undertaken through NDCs. The examination of climate policies of African and LAC countries – NAPs, NDCs and domestic normative instruments – shows little acknowledgement of international guidelines concerning the climate agenda, particularly those related to human mobility in the context of climate change. Even though national legal frameworks have been redesigned since the ratification of the Paris Agreement and the establishment of the TFD, they barely consider any of the recommendations applicable to the topic. An exception is the amendment of Mexico’s General Law on Climate Change, which included the human mobility perspective in its new climate strategy. Overall, the national normative instruments of Africa and LAC hardly recognise the LFDD – human mobility nexus, signifying a lack of preparedness. The topic is usually addressed in the context of climate-related hazards, with little recognition of the linkages between population movements and slow onset processes. Similarly, although some of the countries highlight that L&D are bound to have a greater impact on vulnerable groups and people living in extreme poverty, L&D in the existing documents are only linked to economic losses caused by extreme weather events, and no attention is given to the LFDD – human mobility nexus. Even though efforts have been made to acknowledge population movements in the context of LFDD at the national level – for example the NDCs of Somalia and Sudan, and Kenya’s NAP – specific measures to prevent and manage human displacement and to recognise, protect and assist people affected by LFDD have yet to be developed. In this regard, Chile’s updated NDC should be taken as an example, as it provides provisions aimed at developing a guideline on the impacts of climate change on human mobility patterns, including slow onset processes such as LFDD. The national policies on climate change in Africa of both Lesotho and Ghana, as well as Peru’s Framework Law on Climate Change in LAC, are to be highlighted. These domestic normative instruments envisage the formulation of specific measures to prevent and respond to forced migration processes caused by the impacts of climate change, including LFDD. Some of the strategies proposed are: the mainstreaming of migration into development frameworks; the improvement of land-use management; and investments in sustainable agriculture schemes in vulnerable areas. Countries in both regions should use these policies as examples to enhance responses and address human mobility in the context of LFDD. By extending the mandate of the TFD for five years, the WIM can play a key role in the formulation and implementation of effective measures. As the ExCom activities are still in the development stage, “it becomes difficult to evaluate the task force direction in the future” (Ionesco et al., 2017). Efforts carried out under this agenda have been crucial to the consolidation of the topic at the international, regional and national levels. The TDF work plan can signify major progress in discussions associated with population movements linked to climate and other environmental changes, enabling a more systematic investigation of the LFDD – human mobility nexus. The UNCCD and national desertification agendas The original text of the 1994 UNCCD made reference to the LFDD – human mobility nexus, suggesting the development of international, regional and national instruments to tackle the impacts of LFDD while addressing population movements in this context. Importantly, the study requested at COP13 (2017), which was made available two years later, recommended not only the implementation of legal frameworks to cope with LFDD as drivers of migration The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 31 in a collaborative and cross-cutting manner, but also the facilitation of evidence-based policies at the national level. Almost all African and LAC countries acknowledge the linkages between population movements and LFDD in their NAProgs and LDN targets. They confirm that droughts and LFDD threaten national sustainable development and intensify rural-urban migration processes, exacerbating poverty in rural areas and increasing social pressures in cities. L&D are always related to the failure of agricultural practices, which leads to food insecurity, and indirectly associated with human mobility in the context of LFDD. Despite progress in recognising the topic, the discussion paper reveals the lack of specific measures to address the problem at the national level. In this regard, Ethiopia’s NAProg and its specific strategies to tackle the LFDD – human mobility nexus could be replicated by African and LAC countries in updated NAProgs and LDN targets. It can be concluded that the global desertification agenda remains under-explored when it comes to the establishment of effective responses to addressing human mobility in the context of LFDD. The UNCCD should further promote enhanced living conditions for communities affected by LFDD through the implementation of sustainable land management programmes that consider strategies to curb uncontrolled rural-urban migration and related issues. At the national level, the rehabilitation of degraded lands through ecosystem services and sustainable land management should be implemented with a view towards reducing the risk of forced migration. Maximising synergies across domestic policy areas – for example environment and migration national agendas – is key for the successful development of measures related to the LFDD – human mobility nexus. The CBD and national biodiversity strategies and action plans The institutional framework regulating biological diversity and related aspects at the global level has no provisions and/or recommendations for addressing human mobility, neither in the context of biodiversity loss nor LFDD. As a result, mentions of population movements due to the increased degeneration of natural ecosystems – which often results from LFDD – are still generic in the normative frameworks of African and LAC countries. Even though many of them acknowledge that loss of biodiversity hinders the livelihoods of vulnerable communities and often leads to rural-urban migration, strategies and action plans developed to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity assets do not include effective responses to tackle human displacement in this context. Importantly, the role played by LFDD in the process of biodiversity loss, as well as their interaction with migration patterns, needs to be further explored to enable shortand long-term solutions. By recognising that human beings are an integral component of the Earth’s ecosystems, the CBD has the potential to fill the existing gap in the LFDD – human mobility nexus. An ecocentric view under the “ecosystem approach” can provide innovative, holistic, peoplecentred responses that encompass the well-being and protection of those exposed to population movements induced by climate or other environmental changes. Given that biodiversity conservation and restoration through ecosystem services are often suggested, these should be put into practice with a view towards not only improving livelihoods and eradicating poverty through sustainable land management, but also curbing uncontrolled rural-urban migration processes. That is, strategies established with the purpose of promoting conservation and sustainable use of natural resources should also take the Diogo Andreola Serraglio 32 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) integrated management of lands into account, thus regulating human mobility in the context of LFDD. Better living conditions for vulnerable populations depend on enhanced synergies between UNFCCC, UNCCD and CBD strategies. Climate change, LFDD and biodiversity loss are interlinked global environmental problems – the increase in LFDD leads to a vicious cycle of biodiversity loss, climatic variability and, ultimately, human displacement. UNDRR and national DRR agendas References to human mobility in the Sendai Framework were identified in provisions dealing with the improvement of disaster risk governance. They suggest the formulation of normative instruments to tackle human displacement in the context of disasters, emphasising not only the impacts of environmental hazards on displaced people and their role in DRR, but also the management of all stages of the disaster cycle – pre-disaster, evacuation and post-crisis phases. Even though the mobility dimension is often integrated in African and LAC national DRR agendas, mentions are only linked to sudden onset events and mostly associated with evacuation responses. The role of slow onset processes such as LFDD in triggering environmental hazards and human displacement is hardly acknowledged. There is no acknowledgement that LFDD may result in disaster due to a rapid onset event, nor that LFDD may increase the vulnerability of communities and ecosystems to climate change. Perceiving slow onset processes as an integral part of cascading risks is key to addressing the LFDD – human mobility nexus in this policy framework. Similarly, the human mobility dimension should be acknowledged in the whole disaster cycle, not only during the evacuation phase. The implementation of interventions before, during and after the disaster period in a timely manner and with the involvement of all concerned actors remains essential to averting human displacement associated with LFDD. That would allow for a broader view on how slow onset events shape environmental hazards and interact with the whole displacement process. Lastly, disaster risk management measures would not only reduce environmental hazards that may be triggered by LFDD, but also avert human displacement in this context. These measures should be implemented in a coordinated and integrated manner, taking into consideration not only social problems but also other climate-related risks. COVID-19 response and recovery National DRR frameworks are also often responsible for presenting provisions to address epidemics and pandemics. Even though most African and LAC countries have declared a health state of emergency in response to the growing number of people infected with COVID-19, only a few of them have established extraordinary actions to control the spread of the disease thus far. Despite focusing on those who have completely lost their incomes and the most vulnerable, measures examined do not acknowledge migrants’ higher level of vulnerability and susceptibility to risk due to increased exposure to climate and other environmental changes. Given that LFDD are commonly associated with poor living conditions and food insecurity, it can be presumed – but not guaranteed – that this group of individuals are included in the protective measures. As such, those developing contingency The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 39 Puscas, I. S. (2018). Central and North America: Migration and displacement in the context of disasters and environmental change. IOM – Migration, Environment and Climate Change Policy Brief Series, 1(4). Retrieved from https://rosanjose.iom.int/site/sites/default/files/policy_brief_series_vol4_issue1.pdf Republic of Angola. (2007). Law no. 2 of 2007 – act on the legal regime of foreign citizens. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/country,LEGAL,,LEGISLATION,AGO,,476275ac2,0.html Republic of Angola. (2015). Law no. 10 of 2015 – law on the right of asylum and the refugee status. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/country,LEGAL,,LEGISLATION,AGO,,3ae6b4df8,0.html Republic of Argentina. (2010). Argentina: Decreto No. 616/2010 – Reglamentación de la Ley de Migraciones No. 25.871 y sus modificatorias. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/country,LEGAL,,,ARG,,4be2de512,0.html Republic of Brazil. (2017). Lei de migração No. 13.445 de 2017. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org.es/pdfid/592c6f744.pdf Republic of Ecuador. (2017). Decree no. 111 of 2017 – Reglamenta a la ley orgánica de movilidad humana. Retrieved from https://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/decreto_111.pdf Republic of Ecuador. (2018). Plan Nacional de respuestas ante desastres. Secretaria de Gestión de Riesgos. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/english/policies/v.php?id=58473&cid=53 Republic of Ecuador. (2020). Extension del proceso de regularizacion de venezolanos. Decree no. 1020 of 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/country-responses/lang-- en/index.htm Republic of Ethiopia. (2015). National action programme to combat desertification. Environmental Protection Authority. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/ethiopia-eng2000.pdf Republic of Ghana. (2002). National action programme to combat drought and desertification. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://climate-laws.org/cclow/geographies/ghana/policies/national-climate-change-policy-nccp Republic of Ghana. (2013). Ghana national climate change policy. Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from https://climate-laws.org/cclow/geographies/ghana/policies/national-climate-change-policy-nccp Republic of Kenya. (2002). National action programme: A framework for combating desertification in Kenya. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/kenya-eng2002.pdf Republic of Kenya. (2017). Kenya national adaptation plan (2015-2030): Enhanced climate resilience towards the attainment of vision 2030 and beyond. Retrieved from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/SLU-NAP-May-2018.pdf Republic of Liberia. (2012). National disaster management policy. National Disaster Management Agency. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/english/policies/v.php?id=59847&cid=98 Republic of Liberia. (2013). Liberian national action programme to combat desertification (2011-2018): Strengthening capacities for sustainable agriculture to reserve the trend of land degradation. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/Liberia-eng-2013.pdf Republic of Mauritius. (2017). National biodiversity strategy and action plan (2017-2025). Ministry of AgroIndustry and Food Security. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mu/mu-nbsap-v2-en.pdf Republic of Namibia. (2011). National disaster risk management plan. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/english/policies/v.php?id=60084&cid=119 Republic of Panama. (2020). Plan Panamá Solidario. Decree no. 400 of 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/country-responses/lang--en/index.htm Republic of Peru. (2017). Ley de Migraciones. Decree no. 1.350 of 2017. Retrieved from https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/decreto-legislativo-de-migraciones-decreto-legislativo-n1350-1471551-2/ Diogo Andreola Serraglio 40 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) Republic of Peru. (2018). Ley Marco sobre Cambio Climático. Ley no. 30.754, El Peruano: 18/04/2018. Retrieved from https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/normaslegales/ley-marco-sobre-cambio-climatico-ley-n30754-1638161-1/ Republic of Somalia. (2016). Somalia’s intended nationally determined contribution (INDCs). Retrieved from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Somalia%20First/Somalia's%20INDCs.pdf Republic of South Africa. (2004). National action programme: Combating land degradation to alleviate rural poverty. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/naps/south_africa-eng2004.pdf Republic of South Africa. (2015). South Africa’s second national biodiversity strategy and action plan (2015-2025). Department of Environmental Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/za/za-nbsap-v2-en.pdf Republic of South Sudan. (2018). National biodiversity strategy and action plan (2018-2027). Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ug/ug-nbsap-v2-en.pdf Republic of South Sudan. (2020). Governmental high-level note of measures to achieve the national LDN targets. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/files/ldn_targets/202003/South%20Sudan%20LDN%20Country%20Commitments.pdf Republic of Sudan. (2017). Intended nationally determined contribution (INDCs). Retrieved from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Sudan%20First/28Oct15Sudan%20INDC.pdf Republic of Uganda. (2010). National policy for disaster preparedness and management. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/sendai-framework/sendai-framework-for-drr Republic of Uganda. (2015). Uganda national climate change policy. Ministry of Water and Environment. Retrieved from https://climate-laws.org/cclow/geographies/uganda/policies/national-climate-changepolicy Republic of Uganda. (2018). National biodiversity strategy and action plan II (2015-2015). National Environment Management Authority. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ug/ug-nbsap-v2en.pdf Republic of Zimbabwe. (2014). National biodiversity strategy and action plan 2014. Ministry of Environment, Water and Climate. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/zw/zw-nbsap-v2-en.pdf Rigaud, K., Sherbinin, A., Jones, B., Bergmann, J., Clement, V., Ober, K., ...Midgley, A. (2018). Groundswell: Preparing for internal climate migration. Washington, DC: World Bank. The Global Knowledge Partnership on Migration and Development. (2017). Migration and remittances, recent developments and outlook special topic: Global. Washington, DC: Author. The Nansen Initiative. (2015). Climate-induced migration and displacement in Mesoamerica. Geneva: IDMC, UNHCR & Norwegian Refugee Council. UN (United Nations). (2020). COVID-19 and people on the move (Policy Brief). Retrieved from https://www.un.int/news/new-policy-brief-covid-19-and-people-move UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification). (1994). United Nations convention to combat desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa. Bonn: Author. UNCCD. (2017a). Global land outlook (1st edition). Bonn: Author. UNCCD. (2017b). The positive role that measures taken under the Convention can play to address desertification, land degradation and drought as one of the drivers that causes migration. Decision 28/COP.13. Retrieved from https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/sessions/documents/201907/ICCD_COP%2814%29_19-1910521E.pdf UNCCD. (2019). The global land outlook, Latin America and the Caribbean thematic report. Bonn: UNCCD & Economic Commission for Latin America. The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 41 UNCCD. (s.a.). Knowledge hub. Retrieved from https://knowledge.unccd.int/ UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). (1992). Convention on biological diversity. Rio de Janeiro: Author. UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. A/RES/69/283. Retrieved from https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendaiframework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030 UNDRR. (2020). COVID-19: A risk context. Panama City: UNDRR Regional Office for the Americas and the Caribbean. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2012). Slow onset events – technical paper. FCCC/TP/2012/7. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/tp/07.pdf UNFCCC. (2013). Report of the conference of the parties on its eighteenth session, held in Doha from 26 to 8 December 2012. Addendum part two: Action taken by the conference of the parties at its eighteenth session. FCCC/CP/2012/8/Add.1. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/08.pdf UNFCCC. (2014). Report of the conference of the parties on its nineteenth session: Addendum part two: Action taken by the conference of the parties at its nineteenth session. FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf UNFCCC. (2015). Report of the conference of the parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. FCCC/CP/2015/10. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/F CCC_CP_2015_10_Add.1.pdf UNFCCC. (2018). Report of the task force on displacement. Geneva: Author. UNFCCC. (s.a.-a). All NDCs. Retrieved from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx UNFCCC. (s.a.-b). National adaptation plans. Retrieved from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Pages/national-adaptation-plans.aspx UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). (2009). Resolution 10/4: Human rights and climate change. https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_10_4.pdf UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). (2011). Resolution 18/22: Human rights and climate change. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/A.HRC.RES.18.22.pdf UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). (2014). Resolution 26/27: Human rights and climate change. https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/26/27 UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). (2015a). Resolution no. 69/283. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A _RES_69_283.pdf UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). (2015b). Resolution 29/15: Human rights and climate change. https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/29/15 UNGA. (2016). International cooperation on humanitarian assistance in the field of natural disasters, from relief to development. A/71/329. New York, NY: Author. UNGA. (2018). Global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. Final Draft. New York, NY: Author. UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). (1951). Convention relating to the status of refugees. UNGA Resolution 2198(XXI). Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/excom/bgares/3ae69ef220/protocol-relating-status-refugees.html UNHCR. (2008). Climate change, natural disasters and human displacement: A UNHCR perspective. Geneva: Author. UNHCR. (2015). A toolbox: Planning relocations to protect people from disasters and environmental changes. Geneva: UNHCR & IOM. Diogo Andreola Serraglio 42 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) UNHCR. (s.a.). Refworld database. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/ United Mexican States. (2018). Decreto por el que se reforman y adicionan diversas disposiciones de la Ley General de Cambio Climático. Presidencia de la República. Diário Oficial de la Federación: 13/07/2018. Retrieved from https://climate-laws.org/cclow/geographies/mexico/laws/general-law-on-climate-change United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2019). Natural disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean 2000-2019. Panama: Author. Van der Geest, K., & Warner, K. (2019). Loss and damage in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group II): A text-mining analysis. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1704678 Warner, K., & van der Geest, K. (2013). Loss and damage from climate change: Local-level evidence from nine vulnerable countries. International Journal of Global Warming, 5(4), 367-386. Warner, K., van der Geest, K., Kreft, S., Huq, S., Harmeling, S., Koesters, K., & Sherbinin, A. (2012). Evidence from the frontlines of climate change: Loss and damage to communities despite coping and adaptation. Bonn: United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security. Yamamoto, L., Serraglio, D. A., & Cavedon-Capdeville, F. S. (2017). Human mobility in the context of climate change and disasters: A South American approach. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2017-0069 Annexes The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 45 Annex 1: Domestic climate regulatory frameworks – Africa Country Normative instruments Enactment Year Benin Law on Climate Change Regulation Law No. 18 2018 Burkina Faso National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change Decree No. 1189 2015 Dem. Rep. of Congo National Committee on Climate Change Decree No. 729 2010 Djibouti Order establishing the National Steering Committee on Climate Change Order No. 990277 1999 Gabon National Climate Plan - 2012 Gambia National Policy on Climate Change - 2016 Ghana National Climate Change Policy - 2013 Ivory Coast Programme National de Changement Climatique - 2014 Kenya Climate Change Act Act No. 11 2016 Lesotho National Climate Change Policy (2017-2027) - 2017 Liberia National Policy and Response Strategy on Climate Change - 2018 Madagascar National Policy on Climate Change - 2011 Malawi National Climate Change Policy - 2012 Mali National Policy on Climate Change - 2011 Morocco Politique du Changement Climatique au Maroc - 2019 Mozambique Estratégia Nacional de Mudanças Climáticas (20132025) - 2013 Namibia National Policy on Climate Change for Namibia - 2010 Niger National Policy on Climate Change - 2012 Nigeria National Policy on Climate Change - 2013 Seychelles Seychelles National Climate Change Strategy - 2009 Sierra Leone National Policy on Climate Change - 2015 South Africa National Climate Change and Health Adaptation Plan (2014-2019) - 2014 Tanzania Tanzania National Climate Change Strategy - 2012 Uganda National Policy on Climate Change - 2015 Zambia National Climate Change Response Strategy - 2010 Zimbabwe National Policy on Climate Change - 2018 Source: Author Diogo Andreola Serraglio 46 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) Annex 2: Domestic climate regulatory frameworks – LAC Country Normative instruments Enactment Year Argentina Ley de presupuestos mínimos de adaptación y mitigación al cambio climático global Law No. 27.520 2019 Brazil Política Nacional sobre Mudança Climática Law No. 12.187 2009 Colombia Ley por la cual se establecen directrices para la géstion del cambio climático Law No. 1.931 2018 Costa Rica Política Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático de Costa Rica (2018-2030) Decree No. 20 2018 Dominican Republic Política Nacional del Cambio Climático Decree No. 269 2015 Guatemala Política Nacional del Cambio Climático Governmental Agreement No. 239 2009 Honduras Ley de Cambio Climático Law No. 297 2013 Jamaica Climate Change Policy Framework and Action Plan Law passed 2013 Mexico Ley General de Cambio Climático Law No. 347.021 2018 Nicaragua Decreto para establecer la Política Nacional de Mitigación y Adaptación al Cambio Climático y de Creación del Sistema Nacional de Respuesta al Cambio Climático Decree No. 07 2019 Panama Política Nacional del Cambio Climático Decree No. 35 2007 Paraguay Ley Nacional de Cambio Climático Law No. 5.875 2017 Peru Ley Marco sobre Cambio Climático Law No. 30.754 2018 Saint Lucia National Policy on Climate Change and Adaptation Plan - 2003 Trinidad and Tobago National Policy on Climate Change - 2011 Uruguay Política Nacional del Cambio Climático - 2017 Source: Author The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 47 Annex 3: Domestic DRR regulatory frameworks – Africa Country Normative instruments Enactment Year Algeria Loi relative à la prévention des risques majeurs et à la géstion des catastrophes dans la cadre du dévelopment durable Law No. 04-20 2004 Angola Plano Nacional de Preparação, Contingência, Resposta e Recuperação de Calamidades e Desastres Decree No. 29 2016 Botswana National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy (2013-2018) - 2013 Cape Verde Estratégia Nacional de Redução de Risco de Desastres - 2017 Dem. Rep. of Congo Stratégie nationale de prévention et de réduction des risques de catastrophes de la République du Congo (2016-2023) - 2016 Djibouti Loi portant politique nationale de géstion des risques et des catastrophes Law No. 140/AN/06 2006 Egypt National strategy for adaptation to climate change and disaster risk reduction - 2011 Ethiopia National Policy and Strategy on Disaster Risk Management - 2013 Gambia National Disaster Management Policy - 2008 Liberia National Disaster Management Policy - 2012 Madagascar Loi relative à la politique nationale de géstion des risques et des catastrophes Law No. 2015-031 2016 Malawi Disaster Risk Financing Strategy and Implementation Plan (2019-2024) - 2019 Mali Plan national de contigence multirisques de préparation et de réponse aux catastrophes - 2010 Mauritius The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act Act No. 02 2016 Mozambique Plano Director para a Redução do Risco de Desastres (2017-2030) - 2017 Namibia National Disaster Risk Management Plan - 2011 Rwanda The National Disaster Management Policy - 2012 Seychelles Disaster Risk Management Act Act No. 15 2014 Sierra Leone Disaster Management Policy - 2006 South Africa Disaster Management Amendment Act Act No. 03 2003 South Sudan Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management (MHADM) Strategic Plan 2018-2020 - 2018 Tanzania Disaster Management Act Act No. 17 2015 Uganda National Policy for Disaster Preparedness and Management - 2010 Zambia Disaster Management Act Act No. 13 2010 Source: Author Diogo Andreola Serraglio 48 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) Annex 4: Domestic DRR regulatory frameworks – LAC Country Normative instruments Enactment Year Argentina Plan Nacional para la Reducción del Riesgo de Desastres (2018-2023) - 2018 Bolivia Plan de emergencia nacional para confrontar el fénomeno ‘El Niño’ (1997-1998) Decree No. 24.857 1997 Brazil Law establishing the National Policy on Protection and Civil Defence Law No. 12.608 2012 Costa Rica Plan Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo (2016-2020) - 2016 Dominica Dominica Climate Resilience and Recovery Plan (2020-2030) - 2020 Dominican Republic Protocolo nacional de actuación para la protección social frente a choques climáticos - 2018 Ecuador Plan nacional de respuesta ante desastre - 2018 El Salvador Ley de protección civil, prevención y mitigación de desastres Decree No. 777 2005 Grenada National Disaster Plan - 2006 Guatemala Política Nacional para la Reducción de Riesgo a los Desastres Agreement No. 06 2011 Haiti Action Plan for National Recovery and Development of Haiti - 2010 Honduras Ley de Contigencias Nacionales Decree No. 09 1990 Jamaica National Disaster Risk Management Act Act No. 01 2015 Panama Plan Nacional de Gestión de Riesgo de Desastres (2011-2015) - 2011 Paraguay Política Nacional de Gestión y Reducción de Riesgos de Desastres - 2018 Peru Procedimiento Técnico y Metodológico para la elaboración del Estudio Especializado de Evaluación de Riesgos de Desastres y Vulnerabilidad al Cambio Climático para el ordenamiento territorial Resolution No. 008 2016 St. Kitts and Nevis Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy and Plan - 2001 St. Vincent and Grenadines National Emergency and Disaster Management Act - 2006 Uruguay Política nacional de géstion integral del riesgo de emergencias y desastres en Uruguay (2019-2030) Law No. 18.621 2019 Source: Author The LFDD – human mobility nexus in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) 49 Annex 5: Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic – Africa and LAC Country Normative instruments Enactment Year Argentina Emergencia Sanitária Decree No. 260 2020 Barbados Emergency Management Act Chapter No. 160A 2020 Colombia Decreto por el cual se declara un Estado de Emergencia Economica, Social y Ecologica en todo el territorio Nacional Decree No. 417 2020 Costa Rica Medidas de Protección Social (IMAS) - 2020 Dominican Republic Programa Quédate en Casa - 2020 Ecuador Extension del proceso de regularizacion de venezolanos Decree No. 1020 2020 Ethiopia National Comprehensive COVID-19 Management Book - 2020 Ghana Coronavirus Alleviation Programme (CAP) - 2020 Guatemala Ley de Emergencia para proteger a los guatemaltecos de los efectos causados por la pandemia coronavirus (COVID-19) Decree No. 12 2020 Honduras Decreto de Estado de Emergencia Sanitaria Agreement No. 61 2020 Madagascar Plan d’Urgence Social - 2020 Malawi National COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP) - 2020 Mali Plan d'Actions pour la Prévention et la Réponse à la Maladie à COVID-19 - 2020 Mexico Acuerdo por el que se declara como emergencia sanitaria por causa de fuerza mayor, a la epidemia de enfermedad generada por el virus SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) - 2020 Nigeria Preparedness and response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at primary healthcare and community level - 2020 Panama Plan Panamá Solidario Decree No. 400 2020 Peru Dictan medidas complementarias destinadas a reforzar el Sistema de Vigilancia y Respuesta Sanitaria frente al COVID-19 en el territorio nacional y a la reduccion de su impacto en la economıa peruana Decree No. 29 2020 Saint Lucia Social Stabilization Plan - 2020 Senegal Programme de Résilience Economique et Sociale – Mobilisation nationale et internationale pour abonder le Fonds de Riposte et de Solidarité face à la pandemie du COVID-19 - 2020 Somalia Somalia Country Preparedness and Response Plan (CPRP) – COVID-19 - 2020 St. Vincent and Grenadines National Recovery Plan – Rising Stronger from the Ashes of COVID-19 - 2020 Source: Author Diogo Andreola Serraglio 56 German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) Annex 9: Domestic refugee regulatory frameworks – LAC Country Normative instruments Enactment Year Argentina Ley General de Reconocimiento y protección al refugiado Law No. 26.165 2006 Belize Refugees Act Chapter 165 2000 Bolivia Ley de protección a personas refugiadas Law No. 251 2012 Brazil Estatuto do Refugiado Law No. 9.474 1997 Chile Ley que establece disposiciones sobre protección de refugiados Law No. 20.430 2010 Colombia Por el cual se establece el Procedimiento para el Reconocimiento de la Condición de Refugiado, se dictan normas sobre la Comisión Asesora para la Determinación de la Condición de Refugiado y otras disposiciones Decree No. 2.840 2013 Costa Rica Reglamento de Personas Refugiadas Decree No. 36.831-G 2011 Dominican Republic Reglamento de la Comisión Nacional para los Refugiados Decree No. 2.330 1984 El Salvador Ley para la Determinación de la Condición de Personas Refugiadas Decree No. 918 2000 Jamaica Refugee Policy - 2009 Mexico Ley sobre Refugiados y Protección Complementaria - 2011 Nicaragua Ley de Protección a Refugiados Law No. 655 2008 Panama Decreto Ejecutivo No. 05 de 2018 – Que desarrola la Ley 5 de 26 de Octubre de 1977, por la cual se aprueba la Convención y Protocolo sobre El Estatudo de los Refugiados, deroga el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 23 de 10 de Febrero de 1998 y dicta nuevas disposiciones para la protección de las personas refugiadas Decree No. 05 2018 Paraguay Ley General sobre Refugiados Law No. 1.938 2002 Peru Ley del Refugiado Law No. 27.891 2002 Uruguay Derecho al Refugio y a los Refugiados Law No. 18.076 2006 Venezuela Ley Orgánica sobre Refugiados o Refugiadas y Asilados o Asiladas Decree No. 2.491 2003 Ley especial de refugios dignos para proteger la población en casos de emergencias o desastres Decree No. 8.001 2001 Source: Author Publications of the German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE) Discussion Papers 21/2020 Pahl, Stefan, Clara Brandi, Jakob Schwab, & Frederik Stender. Cling together, swing together: The contagious effects of COVID-19 on developing countries through global value chains (28 pp.). ISBN: 978-3-96021-133-4. DOI: 10.23661/dp21.2020. 20/2020 von Haldenwang, Christian. Digitalising the fiscal contract: an interdisciplinary framework for empirical inquiry (28 pp.). ISBN: 978-3-96021-132-7. DOI: 10.23661/dp20.2020. 19/2020 Fischer, Roger A. How the G7 reviews its work on development: A case study of internal accountability (47 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-130-3. DOI: 10.23661/dp19.2020. 18/2020 Römling, Cornelia, & Sarah Holzapfel. Monitoring in German bilateral development cooperation: A case study of agricultural, rural development and food security projects (49 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-129-7. DOI:10.23661/dp18.2020. 17/2020 Laudage, Sabine. Corporate tax revenue and foreign direct investment: Potential tradeoffs and how to address them (46 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-128-0. DOI:10.23661/dp17.2020. 16/2020 Cavatorta, Francesco, & Fabio Merone. Never-ending reformism from above and dissatisfaction from below: The paradox of Moroccan post-Spring politics (32 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-127-3. DOI:10.23661/dp16.2020. 15/2020 Eppler, Mirko, Stella Gaetani, Francy Köllner, Jana Kuhnt, Charles Martin-Shields, Nyat Mebrahtu, …Carlotta Preiß. Information and communication technology in the lives of forcibly displaced persons in Kenya (31 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-126-6 DOI:10.23661/dp15.2020. 14/2020 Hackenesch, Christine, Julia Leininger, & Karina Mross. What the EU should do for democracy support in Africa: Ten proposals for a new strategic initiative in times of polarisation (45 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-125-9. DOI:10.23661/dp14.2020. 13/2020 Never, Babette, Jose Ramon Albert, Hanna Fuhrmann, Sebastian Gsell, Miguel Jaramillo, Sascha Kuhn, & Bernardin Senadza. Carbon consumption patterns of emerging middle classes (42 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-124-2. DOI:10.23661/dp13.2020. 12/2020 Wehrmann, Dorothea. Transnational cooperation in times of rapid global changes: The Arctic Council as a success case? (29 pp). ISBN 978-3-96021-123-5. DOI:10.23661/dp12.2020. 11/2020 Erforth, Benedikt. The future of European development banking: What role and place for the European Investment Bank? (36 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-122-8. DOI:10.23661/dp11.2020. 10/2020 Kaplan, Lennart. Systemic challenges and opportunities of Franco-German development cooperation (64 pp.). ISBN 978-3-96021-121-1.DOI:10.23661/dp10.2020. [Price: EUR 6.00; publications may be ordered from the DIE or through bookshops.] For a complete list of DIE publications: www.die-gdi.de