28

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

5 COUNTRIES WITH MOSTNEW DISPLACEMENT(conflict, violence and disasters)
Philippines

3,990,000

China

Conflict 236,000
Disasters 9,332,000
34.2% of the global total

Indonesia
MyanmarJapan

3,762,000
857,500
340,000
146,000

As in previous years, the East Asia and Pacific region
accounted for most of the internal displacement associated with disasters recorded worldwide in 2018.
Typhoons, monsoon rains and floods, earthquakes,
tsunamis and volcanic eruptions triggered 9.3 million
new displacements. From highly exposed countries suchas the Philippines, China, Indonesia and Japan, to small
island states and territories such as Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands and Vanuatu, the impacts varied significantly across the vast region.
The Philippines alone recorded 3.8 million new displacements associated with disasters, more than any othercountry worldwide. Pre-emptive evacuations organisedby the government to mitigate the impacts of typhoons
between July and December accounted for a significantportion. The most powerful, typhoon Mangkhut, triggered 1.6 million new displacements or around 40 per
cent of the national total. Monsoon flooding, volcanic
eruptions and landslides also triggered displacements
during the year.119
Armed conflict between the Filipino military and Islamistgroups, and other violence including clan feuds andland disputes, triggered 188,000 new displacements
in 2018, the majority in Mindanao region. There wasalso a positive development in efforts to bring peace tothe region with the signing of the Bangsamoro Organic
Law in July. The new legislation is intended to addresssome of the longstanding grievances that have fuelled
conflict in Mindanao for decades.120

GRID2019

There were 301,000 people living in displacement asa result of conflict in the Philippines as of the end ofthe 2018. They include around 65,000 in Marawi whohave been unable to return to their homes more thana year after the country’s military retook the city fromaffiliates of ISIL, because of the extent of the damage
and presence of unexploded ordnance (see Philippines
spotlight, p.32).
Almost 3.8 million new displacements associated withdisasters were recorded in China, particularly in southeastern provinces that were hit by typhoons. Despitethe fact that some of the storms were severe, including
the category five typhoon Maria, disaster management
authorities successfully reduced the risk of loss of life by
evacuating people from high-risk areas. China and thePhilippines between them accounted for much of theincrease in both regional and global figures for disasterdisplacement in the year.
Most of the 853,000 new displacements associatedwith disasters recorded in Indonesia were triggered bygeophysical events. A number of earthquakes struck theisland of Lombok in July and August, triggering 445,000
new displacements, and an earthquake and tsunami
in Central Sulawesi province a month later triggered
248,000. The event caused soil liquefaction and extensive damage and destruction of housing, particularlyin the coastal city of Palu and the surrounding area.
At least 1,754 people were killed. Another tsunami
following a volcanic eruption in the Sunda Strait resulted

29

In Myanmar, monsoon rains and flooding triggered
most of the 298,000 new disaster displacements
recorded during the year. All fourteen of the country’sstates and regions were affected, and a dam breachcaused by a swollen river in Bago region in August
triggered almost 79,000 new displacements.121 Around
42,000 associated with conflict and violence were alsorecorded. Many of these were triggered by an escalationin fighting between the military and the Kachin Independence Army in Kachin and northern Shan states.122
Inter-ethnic violence over disputed resource-rich areasof Shan state also triggered displacement, as did otherevents in Karen, Chin and Rakhine states.123
Around 146,000 new displacements were recorded inJapan, the result of typhoons, storms, monsoon rains
and floods, earthquakes and landslides. The country was
hit by an unusually high number of disasters in 2018 andthough it is generally well prepared, some weaknesses
in local disaster risk management and early warning
systems were exposed, particularly in terms of ensuring
citizens’ responsiveness (see Japan spotlight, p.30).
In the Pacific, an earthquake triggered more than
58,000 new displacements in Papua New Guinea.
Volcanic activity triggered most of the 13,000 recorded
in Vanuatu and floods most of the 12,000 in Fiji. A
series of deadly bushfires aggravated by record drought
conditions in Australia caused significant damage andtriggered around 10,000 new displacements.124
A number of countries have made significant progressin reducing disaster displacement risk, and regional
monitoring, preparedness and response initiatives havealso been strengthened.125 Many countries including
Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia have put disasterdisplacement high on their political agendas by developing and implementing disaster risk management laws
and policies. Pre-emptive evacuations carried out by
national and local authorities are among the measures
which, while they cause displacement, save lives andreduce the impacts of disasters.
Some Pacific small island states have adapted their laws
and policies to emerging climate change risks. Fiji, forexample, has developed planned relocation guidelinesthat take into account future risk.126 Vanuatu also developed a national policy on displacement associated withclimate change and disasters last year, an initiative that
other countries facing similar challenges would do wellto emulate.127

URBAN PERSPECTIVESThe East Asia and Pacific region has undergone rapid
urbanisation in recent decades.128 Often hailed as asuccess for reducing poverty and improving people’saccess to markets and basic services, urban growth has
also brought challenges, including inequality that fuelssocial tensions.129
The expansion of the region’s cities has also increased
disaster displacement risk, particularly in areas illplanned to withstand hazards’ impacts.130 Many arelocated in the tropical cyclone belt and the Pacific Ringof Fire, which is the world’s most active seismic andvolcanic zone.131 Given this degree of exposure, thecombination of early warning systems and robust urban
planning, building regulations and land management
will be key to reducing risk as cities continue to expand.
IDMC’s global disaster displacement risk model suggeststhat an average of more than 5.4 million people are likely
to be displaced by floods in the region in any given year
in the future, the highest level of flood displacement
risk globally (see Part 3). Many Pacific small island states
and territories such as Vanuatu, New Caledonia andPalau rank among the highest in the world in terms ofrisk relative to population size. Many Pacific cities haveexpanded in recent years, including informal settlements
on river banks and estuaries, peri-urban areas, waste
disposal sites and mangrove swamps. This has increased
not only exposure to hazards but also the vulnerabilityof populations and assets, which in turn drives up therisk and potential impacts of displacement.132
The policy developments mentioned above point in theright direction, but it is important to strengthen capacity
for implementation. Urban development planning thattakes disaster and displacement risk into account will
also be key, particularly given that East Asia and Pacific’s
annual urban growth rate is projected to be three percent, among the highest in the world.133

PART 1in 47,000 new displacements in Lampung province inDecember.

30
SPOTLIGHT

JAPAN
Disaster evacuations and theimportance of resilience
Located at the intersection of three tectonic plates andin the path of seasonal typhoons, Japan is prone toa range of hazards that have the potential to trigger
large-scale displacement and cause significant damage
to homes and infrastructure. Last year was no exception.
Storms, floods, flash floods, landslides, earthquakes andvolcanic eruptions triggered more than 146,000 new
displacements.
The country has, however, developed significant resilience to the disasters natural hazards can cause.134 Most
new displacements recorded were pre-emptive evacuations, which are an effective measure to reduce loss oflife when people are exposed to hazards. Japan’s ability
to manage disaster risk via early warning systems andevacuation schemes is generally effective at reducing
impacts, but last year showed that citizens are notalways as responsive as they could be.
Disaster displacement events in 2018 ranged from twopeople displaced by a landslide in Oita prefecture in
April to more than 30,000 by typhoon Prapiroon in earlyJuly.135 Less than three weeks after Prapiroon’s rains triggered widespread flooding and landslides in south-west
Japan, the same region was struck by typhoon Jongdari.
The government issued pre-emptive evacuation orders
for Jongdari, but research conducted in Hiroshima citysuggests that less than four per cent of people heeded
them.136 Some of those who stayed put became trappedby landslides and rising floodwaters and more than
170 people died, making Jongdari Japan’s deadliest
weather-related disaster in decades.137
When typhoon Jebi hit in August, citizens’ responsiveness was similarly low. Japan’s Cabinet Officeordered around 30,000 people to evacuate, but studies
conducted in Kobe prefecture after the disaster showedthat less than 10 per cent had followed the order. Power
cuts prevented some people from receiving the order,
while others were unable to hear it over the sound ofGRID
2019

the wind and rain. In some areas the order to evacuate
was issued after flooding had begun.138 Jebi was themost powerful typhoon to hit Japan in 25 years, andthe magnitude of the disaster did help to raise awareness about the importance of pre-emptive evacuations
among affected communities.139 Around half of therespondents in Kobe said they would evacuate nexttime if they received a similar order.140
Evacuations associated with earthquakes appear topaint a very different picture. A pre-emptive order toevacuate issued to 100 people before a 6.6 magnitude
earthquake that struck Hokkaido in September washeeded by 12,000.141 The earthquake triggered landslides that caused casualties and significant damage,including a power cut that affected 5.3 million people.142
The evacuation order was issued early enough, however,to allow people in the city of Sapporo to flee to safer
areas before it struck. This suggests that the Japanesepublic is more sensitised to the dangers of earthquakes
than those of flooding, in part perhaps because of theamount of media attention the former receive.
The government took steps to improve its disaster
response in 2018 with the pre-positioning of supplies
in evacuation centres, as opposed to sending themafter the event at the request of municipal authorities.143 It also recognised the phenomenon of “at-homeevacuees”, people who remain in their damaged homes
after a disaster but use facilities at evacuation centres
because of the disruption caused to the supply of water,electricity and other basic services. Some may also have31

A man in an evacuation
centre in Okayama
Prefecture, organised bythe Japanese Red Cross.
Photo: Japanese Red CrossSociety, July 2018

to rely on humanitarian assistance for food and nonfood items.144
Others seek shelter outside officially designated evacuation areas, and these “self-evacuees” tend not to be
included in disaster recovery efforts. Some people whoevacuated by their own means during the 2011 Great
East Japan earthquake, for example, faced significant
challenges in accessing housing and other basic services
earmarked for evacuees because they did not figure
in official government records.145 Addressing the issue
of at-home and self-evacuees would be an important
step in ensuring that all displaced people are able toachieve durable solutions. Not having provisions for
those who evacuate on their own can create inequalities in compensation mechanisms and increase the riskof protracted displacement.
The disasters that struck Japan in 2018 showed thateven in a well-prepared country there is still room forimprovement. With the very high level of exposure ofpeople and assets to hazards, the country will need tocontinuously invest in reducing disaster risk further andresponding more comprehensively to those displaced. A

number of challenges remain, including raising disasterrisk awareness at the local level and ensuring that early
warning systems are effective so that timely and welldisseminated evacuation orders are issued and heeded.
More comprehensive data on the movement of people
during and several months or even years after the eventis also needed. Beyond pre-emptive evacuations, there
is a lack of information on how long displacement lasts,
when people return or where they resettle or integrate
locally.

32

SPOTLIGHT

PHILIPPINES
Solutions still a distant prospect inMarawi, one year onGRID
2019

Marawi, a majority Muslim city of 200,000 people, is thecapital of Lanao del Sur province and the economic hubof the southern Philippines. Between May and October
2017, it was also the scene of the country’s longest
urban conflict, during which more than 1,000 people
were killed and 350,000 displaced. A year later, reconstruction of the city has begun and most people havereturned. Around 65,000 remain displaced, however,of whom around 14,000 are still living in evacuationand transitional shelters.146

similar to that of ISIL in Mosul and other Iraqi and Syriancities. They created a maze of improvised tunnels in thedensely-built city centre to evade airstrikes, engaged
the security forces and resisted a siege for five months.
The city’s roads were choked with traffic during thefirst three days of the battle as residents attempted toget out. Between 80 and 90 per cent eventually fled,some of them on foot.147

The conflict erupted on 23 May 2017 when the Filipino
security forces raided the home of the leader of the Abu
Sayyaf group, a local affiliate of ISIL. The Maute Group,
another local radical Islamist organisation and an Abu
Sayyaf ally, was called in to provide reinforcement. The
militants waged urban warfare unseen in the region but

By the time the fighting was officially declared over,after the leaders of both Abu Sayyaf and the Maute
Group had been killed, the city had suffered extensive damage. The financial and business district, which
accounted for 30 per cent of the urban area, wascompletely destroyed.148 The military escorted residents

33

In April and May 2018,
the Government of thePhilippines allowed
residents of Marawi City
to visit their homes, which
had been left in ruins
after the five-month longconflict. Photo © UNHCR/
Alecs Ongcal, April 2018

in to retrieve what they could from the rubble of theirhomes before the area was cordoned off. It remains
uninhabitable, and reconstruction will not begin until
the debris has been cleared and roads rebuilt, which isexpected to take at least 18 months.149
As many as 70 per cent of those displaced, or more than
270,000 people, were thought to have returned as ofthe end of 2018.150 In some areas deemed habitable,
however, returnees still have no electricity or runningwater, nor access to education or livelihood opportunities, which prevents them from rebuilding their lives.151
Others have had to go back to evacuation centres while
they wait for their homes to be repaired. The majority of
those still displaced are living with family or friends, butalmost 2,000 families live in 21 government-run evacuation centres where they face sanitation and waste
management issues.152
The government intends to transfer the people still
living in evacuation centres to temporary shelters, but
those already transferred say that families of six or moremembers have had to share a single room, which barely
constitutes an improvement on their previous conditions.153 Food security is another major concern, because
many IDPs have been unable to find work since theyfled. Lanao del Sur was the country’s poorest provinceeven before the fighting, and malnutrition levels wereamong the highest with half of its young population
affected.154
Resolving displacement in cities decimated by urban
warfare is a long and complex process that governments
in many regions are grappling with. The cost of rebuilding
Marawi has been put at around $1.2 billion, of which
the international community had pledged around $670
million as of November 2018.155 Reconstruction is likely
to take years, however, leaving thousands of people
displaced in the meantime. Their protracted displacement has the potential to fuel further conflict as theyoung and working-age, in particular, may grow tiredof slow and inadequate progress. A transparent reconstruction process that includes community consultation
will be key to quelling residents’ fears and frustration.