Archive for the ‘Migrant Crisis’ Category

‘Now Is The Time To Show India Cares About Its Migrants’ – IndiaSpend

Bengaluru: With the government extending the nationwide lockdown until May 3, 2020, millions of migrant workers remain in financial, physical and emotional distress. This came through graphically in the chaotic scenes near a railway station in Mumbai on Tuesday, shortly after the Prime Ministers announcement, as thousands of workers gathered, some demanding food, others transport to their villages. Migrant workers in Surat, who have been protesting since the lockdown began, demanding to be sent home, also renewed their protests. As IndiaSpend has reported, the ongoing lockdown to contain COVID-19 has thrown the lives and livelihoods of millions of such workers into disarray.

According to a home ministry statement on April 5, 2020, some 1.25 million inter-state migrants are lodged in 27,661 relief camps and shelters, 87% state-run and the rest operated by NGOs. However, many more are not in camps. Both inter- and intra-state migrants are stranded without work, with rapidly dwindling resources, at their places of work or en route to their homes in rural areas. Those who managed to walk home are confronting both stigma (for fear they may be infected with COVID-19) and joblessness, while the village economy is reeling from the abrupt loss of remittances.

A new report released on April 15, 2020, and based on a survey of more than 11,000 workers by Stranded Workers Action Network, a volunteer group, said that about 50% only had rations left for less than one person, 74% had less than Rs 300 left, and 89% had not been paid by their employers at all during the lockdown. Most of them were daily wage factory/construction workers. The group was formed to attend to distress calls from migrant workers after the lockdown.

India is estimated to have some 120 million rural-to-urban migrant workers. Nearly 92% of the 61 million jobs created over the 22 years post liberalisation in 1991 have been informal. Moreover, joblessness has risen sharply in recent years.

In an interview with IndiaSpend, Benoy Peter, an expert on internal migration and executive director of Centre for Migration and Inclusive Development, a Kerala-based non-profit, says this is the time for India to show that it cares about its migrant workers and to immediately take measures such as ensuring food and decent living conditions, testing for COVID-19, and explaining properly to workers in their own language the intricacies of this virus. He argues that as the lockdown lifts, state governments should try to persuade migrant workers, without coercion, and by understanding their grievances and protecting their livelihoods, to stay back in urban centres so as to help revive both the urban and rural economies, to ensure better medical care for themselves in the event that they are infected with the virus, and to prevent COVID-19 contagion in rural areas.

Urban areas, he says, must show their preparedness to help them stay back and work. Peter also talks about the catastrophic impact of the lockdown on the informal economy, the future challenges it poses for the millions of inter- and intra-state migrants, and the strengths and drawbacks of Keralas response to the migrant worker crisis set off by the lockdown.

Peter, 44, leads a consortium of organisations in India as a contractor to the International Labour Organization for preparing a policy paper on internal labour migration in India. He was a member of a working group on Labour Migration to Kerala formed by the Kerala State Planning Board for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2017-2022). He was also part of an expert panel providing technical support to the fourth administrative reforms commission in refining welfare laws for marginalised populations in Kerala.

Edited excerpts:

The Prime Minister has been blamed for not addressing the migrant crisis in his address to the nation on April 14. There have been protests by migrant workers, and riots, in different parts of the country, including in Mumbai and Surat. Your thoughts?

He may not have directly addressed the issue, but he acknowledged that people have been affected [by the lockdown]. Otherwise he would have to take the blame.

Essentially, we were not prepared for the lockdown, and I do not think that people imagined so many migrants existed in urban centres without any support. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which is a rich urban body, reached out to NGOs to provide food. They realised that what happened in Surat could happen in Ahmedabad.

As a policy issue, internal migration is neglected. Now it has become visible and shocking to mainstream India.

Why were migrants overlooked?

They make the city run but are invisible to the system because there is not enough data on them and they are not part of the local political economy. Therefore, local elected representatives do not feel responsible for them. State governments and urban local bodies were not prepared for the situation.

[Even in normal times], most migrants have poor access to social welfare measures or social protection like healthcare or the public distribution system. Their dignity is compromised when they try to avail of government services.

Internal migration is not a policy priority in India. The estimates [of its scale] vary from 10 million to 150 million, which itself shows a lack of clarity. There are migrants who move for work permanently--usually, from educated and more privileged groups--and then there are those on the fringes. The latter migrate temporarily, usually forced to do so by lack of development or agrarian distress. Labour migration corridors from rural areas to centres like Delhi or Mumbai represent coping strategies for the rural poor.

But isn't it the responsibility of states to take care of migrants right now? Are migrants the unwitting casualty in a state-Centre tussle?

No, I do not think this is the case. The [central] home ministry, which is in charge of disaster management, has issued directions to use the state disaster relief fund to help migrant workers. NITI Aayog [the Centres policy think-tank] has written to NGOs that are part of its portal to work with the government. They need NGOs. The government got overwhelmed. The development sector has a role, which was underplayed.

Migrants are not an unwitting casualty. Any government that is serious about the economy knows that migrants play a role in our economy. There are more than 3.5 million people [migrants] in Kerala, and if they go back to their homes, how will the construction sector survive? States may not have enough resources and were not prepared.

What five steps could be taken right now to alleviate the distress migrants are undergoing?

Internal migrant labourers, most of them in the informal sector, contribute to nearly 10% of Indias GDP [gross domestic product]. This is the time to show to them that we care about them.

Until the end of the lockdown, we need to ensure that they have food and shelter, and that their health problems are addressed. We need to decongest their living facilities wherever required. Then, there are vulnerable groups within migrant groups like the elderly, those with disabilities and pregnant women, whose needs must be met.

We need active screening of workers using mobile medical units, and must plan and prepare to isolate workers if they are detected with COVID-19. Finally, we need to inform them about the disease in their own language and ensure that they understand it properly.

Governments or local authorities need to go to migrant workers and understand their grievances, and explain to them what can and cannot be done under the present circumstances.

What steps do you suggest once the lockdown is lifted, albeit gradually? This is the time for migrants to return home for the harvest season, yet contagion is a real worry, and many migrants may be in dire need of employment and money.

We need to mentally prepare them to stay back once the lockdown lifts so that they will be able to get back to work. Only if they work can their families receive money, which then gets circulated in the economy, including the village economy. The impact of this crisis on villages will be reduced if people can stay back and work in urban areas.

This will also help urban economies revive. The migrants will get better health facilities and treatment in cities than in villages, and most importantly, there is a smaller chance of infection travelling from a COVID-19 hotspot to a village. There are several migrants who would want to stay back in cities [and earn] because they owe money to a local money-lender or other local institutions.

At the same time, we need to accept that it is their right to go back and there should be no coercion. Urban areas must show preparedness to help them stay and work.

Had state governments been informed in advance of the March 25 lockdown, would they have been better prepared for a situation of millions of migrants trying to get back home?

A lockdown was inevitable. Our health infrastructure is concentrated in urban centres. If COVID-19 reaches rural India [on a huge scale] it will be catastrophic. The only way of arresting the spread of the pandemic was through prevention and by insulating rural areas.

However, the decision was taken without enough preparation. The four-hour notice may have been strategic, but it also showed how badly prepared we were for the problems that the poor and marginalised are now facing. Timely measures were not taken at the Centre and in the states to accomodate people in shelters and provide them food. The system [of governance] should have been especially sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable.

Some have commented on how differently migrant workers were treated from NRIs, who were given more time to come home before the lockdown. Has the working class been left to bear the brunt of the pandemic in a country where over 90% of the workforce is in the informal sector?

Migration is a fundamental right for citizens. Indians are allowed to travel, work and reside in any part of the country. [But] there has always been class discrimination. There are international and internal migrants. The latter belong to socially and economically disadvantaged groups like adivasis, dalits or religious minorities.

In every disaster, the marginalised are the most affected, among them migrant workers and refugees. Even within the informal sector, there are several vulnerable groups. If you are native or a local working in the informal sector, there are more resources at your disposal, including support from local governments, than for a rickshaw-puller in Delhi who is from Bihar, or nomadic groups selling wares in the city. A Rohingya refugee [from Myanmar] may be worse off than even a migrant worker.

They [dalits, adivasis, religious minorities] are not just marginalised in the cities, but also in villages. This lockdown has made these historically invisible internal migrants--such as urban workers and seasonal labourers--visible to mainstream India and their plight is out in the open for everyone to see.

How would you compare the lockdown to demonetisation, which also impacted workers in the informal sector, many of whom are migrants?

I fear that the impact of the lockdown will be much worse than that of demonetisation. Demonetisation took away cash and resulted in the stagnation of the economy, thereby affecting livelihoods. Demonetisation led to a drop in total production in the economy. The informal sector was severely affected due to it, but the formal sector was relatively better off.

The lockdown has an immediate and direct impact on livelihoods, and will have long-term impact on everyone, particularly migrant workers. Reduction in remittances [due to the lockdown and lack of employment and wages] will not only impact migrant households, but the entire village economy, because it depends on remittances from migrants, as I said earlier. There could even be acute malnutrition and starvation deaths. Besides, if there is wide-scale transmission of COVID-19 in rural areas, it will have a devastating impact. It could substantially increase rural mortality rates.

For industry, there will be some cushion [from the government], but imagine the impact on those without access to the public distribution system, those without a bank account or insurance, or even those who did not even know what happened [when the lockdown was announced] because they had limited access to information.

How do you look at the massive movements of people in the past few days?

There are three kinds of migrants now, due to the lockdown: those who have reached home, those who are still in the places where they work, and those who are in between, unable to reach their homes. Those stuck in between are in an unfamiliar place, largely without help and resources like money or food. Those who are still in the places where they work, at least know their surroundings and know where to access essentials like food and healthcare, but are not receiving wages. And those who have managed to get home after the lockdown are facing stigma. Being jobless, they may have to borrow from money-lenders at exorbitant interest rates.

China locked down millions in Wuhan. But Sweden and the Netherlands, for example, did not do so, and nor did Singapore initially, though it has done so now. India has enforced the largest and perhaps strictest lockdown in the world. How do you assess these varying approaches to tackling a pandemic?

It is a sum total of human development, not just population. Sweden, Netherlands and Singapore are at a higher level of human development. China and India are the most populous countries in the world, and have among the largest migrant populations living abroad.

India [followed by China] receives the highest foreign remittances, and migration is a way of life. There are even people from Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh who work as labourers abroad.

Any change in migration [of China and India] can be felt in the world, though internal migration [in India] is higher--manifold--than international migration. Given such a large number of migrants, both China and India would have had limited control over the dissemination of infection without a lockdown.

How has Kerala, which is estimated to have nearly 4 million inter-state migrant workers (in 2017), handled the volatile situation after the lockdown was announced, with migrants desperate to go home?

Kerala was probably better prepared for the lockdown compared to other states. There is a much more resilient and decentralised response this time, compared to the states response to the 2018 floods and landslides. Disaster management in Kerala comes under the revenue department, which has a weak system at the grassroots level, and local self-governments (LSGs) had a limited role. This time, the LSGs are leading the interventions.

LSGs are very grounded, with gender-balanced political representation from the locality, and know the area well. Primary health clinics, schools, anganwadis and animal husbandry are all under the LSGs, which helps in coordination. Learning from the floods [in August 2018], the government has understood that mass [relief] interventions must be under LSGs.

Are there any drawbacks?

Even in Kerala, migrant workers are experiencing political exclusion. The sensitivity that exists at the state level (ministers and senior bureaucrats) is not necessarily evident at the grassroots. The LSGs need to be sensitised to a greater degree about the problems of migrant workers so that there is no scope for xenophobia.

In Kerala, there are seven pockets where thousands of migrant workers live together. Different kinds of workers require different treatment. There are workers who are attached to employers and others who are foot-loose. Employers are expected to take care of their workers, but this is not the case with foot-loose workers. They have no one to turn to other than the government. Until recently, food distribution was not adequate, and there was a lack of clarity in instructions from the state government to the LSGs. Some LSGs made house-owners responsible for providing them with food. This is not feasible because it is not possible to feed so many people in a house (which often is the case with migrant workers) three times a day.

The issue in Kottayam [where migrant workers defied the lockdown and demanded food and transport back to their native places] received attention in the media. In responding to it, the government appointed a police officer as a nodal officer though it was not [intrinsically] a law and order problem. It should ideally have been managed by the social justice department, labour department and the LSG department.

Further, some of the assurances given to migrants are creating a negative effect because the locals feel that these workers are being prioritised at a time when everyone is distressed and frustrated due to the lockdown. So resentment is being expressed on social media against migrant workers.

Despite all this, at a policy level, at least on paper, Kerala is sensitive to the requirements of migrant workers. However, by calling them guest workers, the government seems to be reminding them to leave after their work is finished, which is discriminatory. They have the right to be here.

(Paliath is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.

Bengaluru: With the government extending the nationwide lockdown until May 3, 2020, millions of migrant workers remain in financial, physical and emotional distress. This came through graphically in the chaotic scenes near a railway station in Mumbai on Tuesday, shortly after the Prime Ministers announcement, as thousands of workers gathered, some demanding food, others transport to their villages. Migrant workers in Surat, who have been protesting since the lockdown began, demanding to be sent home, also renewed their protests. As IndiaSpend has reported, the ongoing lockdown to contain COVID-19 has thrown the lives and livelihoods of millions of such workers into disarray.

According to a home ministry statement on April 5, 2020, some 1.25 million inter-state migrants are lodged in 27,661 relief camps and shelters, 87% state-run and the rest operated by NGOs. However, many more are not in camps. Both inter- and intra-state migrants are stranded without work, with rapidly dwindling resources, at their places of work or en route to their homes in rural areas. Those who managed to walk home are confronting both stigma (for fear they may be infected with COVID-19) and joblessness, while the village economy is reeling from the abrupt loss of remittances.

A new report released on April 15, 2020, and based on a survey of more than 11,000 workers by Stranded Workers Action Network, a volunteer group, said that about 50% only had rations left for less than one person, 74% had less than Rs 300 left, and 89% had not been paid by their employers at all during the lockdown. Most of them were daily wage factory/construction workers. The group was formed to attend to distress calls from migrant workers after the lockdown.

India is estimated to have some 120 million rural-to-urban migrant workers. Nearly 92% of the 61 million jobs created over the 22 years post liberalisation in 1991 have been informal. Moreover, joblessness has risen sharply in recent years.

In an interview with IndiaSpend, Benoy Peter, an expert on internal migration and executive director of Centre for Migration and Inclusive Development, a Kerala-based non-profit, says this is the time for India to show that it cares about its migrant workers and to immediately take measures such as ensuring food and decent living conditions, testing for COVID-19, and explaining properly to workers in their own language the intricacies of this virus. He argues that as the lockdown lifts, state governments should try to persuade migrant workers, without coercion, and by understanding their grievances and protecting their livelihoods, to stay back in urban centres so as to help revive both the urban and rural economies, to ensure better medical care for themselves in the event that they are infected with the virus, and to prevent COVID-19 contagion in rural areas.

Urban areas, he says, must show their preparedness to help them stay back and work. Peter also talks about the catastrophic impact of the lockdown on the informal economy, the future challenges it poses for the millions of inter- and intra-state migrants, and the strengths and drawbacks of Keralas response to the migrant worker crisis set off by the lockdown.

Peter, 44, leads a consortium of organisations in India as a contractor to the International Labour Organization for preparing a policy paper on internal labour migration in India. He was a member of a working group on Labour Migration to Kerala formed by the Kerala State Planning Board for the 13th Five-Year Plan (2017-2022). He was also part of an expert panel providing technical support to the fourth administrative reforms commission in refining welfare laws for marginalised populations in Kerala.

Edited excerpts:

The Prime Minister has been blamed for not addressing the migrant crisis in his address to the nation on April 14. There have been protests by migrant workers, and riots, in different parts of the country, including in Mumbai and Surat. Your thoughts?

He may not have directly addressed the issue, but he acknowledged that people have been affected [by the lockdown]. Otherwise he would have to take the blame.

Essentially, we were not prepared for the lockdown, and I do not think that people imagined so many migrants existed in urban centres without any support. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, which is a rich urban body, reached out to NGOs to provide food. They realised that what happened in Surat could happen in Ahmedabad.

As a policy issue, internal migration is neglected. Now it has become visible and shocking to mainstream India.

Why were migrants overlooked?

They make the city run but are invisible to the system because there is not enough data on them and they are not part of the local political economy. Therefore, local elected representatives do not feel responsible for them. State governments and urban local bodies were not prepared for the situation.

[Even in normal times], most migrants have poor access to social welfare measures or social protection like healthcare or the public distribution system. Their dignity is compromised when they try to avail of government services.

Internal migration is not a policy priority in India. The estimates [of its scale] vary from 10 million to 150 million, which itself shows a lack of clarity. There are migrants who move for work permanently--usually, from educated and more privileged groups--and then there are those on the fringes. The latter migrate temporarily, usually forced to do so by lack of development or agrarian distress. Labour migration corridors from rural areas to centres like Delhi or Mumbai represent coping strategies for the rural poor.

But isn't it the responsibility of states to take care of migrants right now? Are migrants the unwitting casualty in a state-Centre tussle?

No, I do not think this is the case. The [central] home ministry, which is in charge of disaster management, has issued directions to use the state disaster relief fund to help migrant workers. NITI Aayog [the Centres policy think-tank] has written to NGOs that are part of its portal to work with the government. They need NGOs. The government got overwhelmed. The development sector has a role, which was underplayed.

Migrants are not an unwitting casualty. Any government that is serious about the economy knows that migrants play a role in our economy. There are more than 3.5 million people [migrants] in Kerala, and if they go back to their homes, how will the construction sector survive? States may not have enough resources and were not prepared.

What five steps could be taken right now to alleviate the distress migrants are undergoing?

Internal migrant labourers, most of them in the informal sector, contribute to nearly 10% of Indias GDP [gross domestic product]. This is the time to show to them that we care about them.

Until the end of the lockdown, we need to ensure that they have food and shelter, and that their health problems are addressed. We need to decongest their living facilities wherever required. Then, there are vulnerable groups within migrant groups like the elderly, those with disabilities and pregnant women, whose needs must be met.

We need active screening of workers using mobile medical units, and must plan and prepare to isolate workers if they are detected with COVID-19. Finally, we need to inform them about the disease in their own language and ensure that they understand it properly.

Governments or local authorities need to go to migrant workers and understand their grievances, and explain to them what can and cannot be done under the present circumstances.

What steps do you suggest once the lockdown is lifted, albeit gradually? This is the time for migrants to return home for the harvest season, yet contagion is a real worry, and many migrants may be in dire need of employment and money.

We need to mentally prepare them to stay back once the lockdown lifts so that they will be able to get back to work. Only if they work can their families receive money, which then gets circulated in the economy, including the village economy. The impact of this crisis on villages will be reduced if people can stay back and work in urban areas.

This will also help urban economies revive. The migrants will get better health facilities and treatment in cities than in villages, and most importantly, there is a smaller chance of infection travelling from a COVID-19 hotspot to a village. There are several migrants who would want to stay back in cities [and earn] because they owe money to a local money-lender or other local institutions.

At the same time, we need to accept that it is their right to go back and there should be no coercion. Urban areas must show preparedness to help them stay and work.

Had state governments been informed in advance of the March 25 lockdown, would they have been better prepared for a situation of millions of migrants trying to get back home?

A lockdown was inevitable. Our health infrastructure is concentrated in urban centres. If COVID-19 reaches rural India [on a huge scale] it will be catastrophic. The only way of arresting the spread of the pandemic was through prevention and by insulating rural areas.

However, the decision was taken without enough preparation. The four-hour notice may have been strategic, but it also showed how badly prepared we were for the problems that the poor and marginalised are now facing. Timely measures were not taken at the Centre and in the states to accomodate people in shelters and provide them food. The system [of governance] should have been especially sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable.

Some have commented on how differently migrant workers were treated from NRIs, who were given more time to come home before the lockdown. Has the working class been left to bear the brunt of the pandemic in a country where over 90% of the workforce is in the informal sector?

Migration is a fundamental right for citizens. Indians are allowed to travel, work and reside in any part of the country. [But] there has always been class discrimination. There are international and internal migrants. The latter belong to socially and economically disadvantaged groups like adivasis, dalits or religious minorities.

In every disaster, the marginalised are the most affected, among them migrant workers and refugees. Even within the informal sector, there are several vulnerable groups. If you are native or a local working in the informal sector, there are more resources at your disposal, including support from local governments, than for a rickshaw-puller in Delhi who is from Bihar, or nomadic groups selling wares in the city. A Rohingya refugee [from Myanmar] may be worse off than even a migrant worker.

They [dalits, adivasis, religious minorities] are not just marginalised in the cities, but also in villages. This lockdown has made these historically invisible internal migrants--such as urban workers and seasonal labourers--visible to mainstream India and their plight is out in the open for everyone to see.

How would you compare the lockdown to demonetisation, which also impacted workers in the informal sector, many of whom are migrants?

I fear that the impact of the lockdown will be much worse than that of demonetisation. Demonetisation took away cash and resulted in the stagnation of the economy, thereby affecting livelihoods. Demonetisation led to a drop in total production in the economy. The informal sector was severely affected due to it, but the formal sector was relatively better off.

The lockdown has an immediate and direct impact on livelihoods, and will have long-term impact on everyone, particularly migrant workers. Reduction in remittances [due to the lockdown and lack of employment and wages] will not only impact migrant households, but the entire village economy, because it depends on remittances from migrants, as I said earlier. There could even be acute malnutrition and starvation deaths. Besides, if there is wide-scale transmission of COVID-19 in rural areas, it will have a devastating impact. It could substantially increase rural mortality rates.

For industry, there will be some cushion [from the government], but imagine the impact on those without access to the public distribution system, those without a bank account or insurance, or even those who did not even know what happened [when the lockdown was announced] because they had limited access to information.

How do you look at the massive movements of people in the past few days?

There are three kinds of migrants now, due to the lockdown: those who have reached home, those who are still in the places where they work, and those who are in between, unable to reach their homes. Those stuck in between are in an unfamiliar place, largely without help and resources like money or food. Those who are still in the places where they work, at least know their surroundings and know where to access essentials like food and healthcare, but are not receiving wages. And those who have managed to get home after the lockdown are facing stigma. Being jobless, they may have to borrow from money-lenders at exorbitant interest rates.

China locked down millions in Wuhan. But Sweden and the Netherlands, for example, did not do so, and nor did Singapore initially, though it has done so now. India has enforced the largest and perhaps strictest lockdown in the world. How do you assess these varying approaches to tackling a pandemic?

It is a sum total of human development, not just population. Sweden, Netherlands and Singapore are at a higher level of human development. China and India are the most populous countries in the world, and have among the largest migrant populations living abroad.

India [followed by China] receives the highest foreign remittances, and migration is a way of life. There are even people from Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh who work as labourers abroad.

Read the rest here:
'Now Is The Time To Show India Cares About Its Migrants' - IndiaSpend

Without continued aid, the next migrant crisis will be people fleeing coronavirus not war View – Euronews

Coronavirus is currently tearing its way through the Western world. But the loss of life, destruction of the economy and paralysis of infrastructure will be exponentially worse in the developing world - and it could lead to a migrant crisis the likes of which Europe has never seen before.

Worst case scenarios in the UK mention perhaps half a million deaths, if no measure were put in place to stop the spread. This would be a tragedy never before seen in peacetime. This will pale in significance, however, once the disease starts to spread in places like sub-Saharan Africa, to say nothing of conflict zones like Gaza, Yemen or Iraq.

The Gaza Strip already has some of the poorest medical care and health outcomes of anywhere in the world. And the cramped living conditions - where 2 million people live in an area the size of Detroit (which has only a third of the inhabitants) - are the worst circumstances for attempting to contain an epidemic.

Added to this, Gazans are disproportionately young; almost half of them are under 14, and the median age is just 18. This matters because we know that children are the main carriers of the disease, spreading it to older, more vulnerable relatives.

When these crowded conditions are known to increase the likelihood of people transmitting infectious diseases, how are Gazans supposed to practise self-isolation when they are living in such an over-developped territory with only 50 or 60 ventilators available?

But Gaza is not the worst place in the Middle East to contract COVID-19. Yemens war-ravaged population will almost certainly be brought to its knees by the virus without intervention. The five-year war in Yemen has left 10 million people at risk of famine and has decimated the nations healthcare system. Even basic sanitation is often not available.

Access to clean water takes on a whole new dimension in the midst of this global pandemic. The advice in the Western world is to wash your hands regularly with soap and warm water - but this means nothing to the 40% of the world who do not have access to basic hand washing facilities.

The situation is similarly dire in Iraq which, despite quarantines and lockdowns, has a healthcare system that is poorly-equipped at the best of times. Iraqs body count will be exacerbated by the countrys porous border with the regional disease epicentre of Iran (the entire Iran-Iraq border is opened annually to facilitate pilgrimages for Shia Muslims).

Many in Europe and North America are understandably preoccupied with the health emergencies at home. It is only natural to be more concerned about what is happening on our doorstep; the virus, however, is borderless. And so are its most desperate sufferers.

Just as the Syrian conflict led to the largest mass migration since the second world war, the COVID-19 pandemic may lead to one even larger - and potentially more dangerous. Syrian doctors believe the virus has already taken hold in the countrys refugee camps.

As thousands, or perhaps even millions, die, the worlds most desperate people - many of them in sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East where there are already well-established people smuggling networks - will look for safety.

Whereas the last migrant crisis was driven by the need to avoid terror groups and airstrikes, the next one will be based on the need for basic healthcare. And unlike in the past, the migration bottlenecks of Libya and Turkey are unlikely to cooperate with Europe in holding back the tide - particularly if they themselves are facing their own epidemics.

Just as Europe has begun to flatten the curve of the outbreak, and begins to assess the economic and social fracture caused by the disease, it may be faced by a second wave - not only of the disease, but of the financial and societal strain caused by an influx of migrants.

Just as there have been reports of the super-rich fleeing their homes as the virus spreads, it is only natural that the super-poor will do the same.

The only solution is to support communities in these places before it is too late. International aid has become almost non-existent in this crisis. Even EU solidarity has disappeared, replaced by Chinese assistance which led to Italians chanting grazie Cine! and the Serbian President going so far as kissing the Chinese flag.

PR-driven aid is one thing; providing real opportunities to those most affected is something else. We can all do this by funding and working with aid agencies who are already on the ground to try and halt the outbreak in the Global South before it is too late.

The charity that I run, the Lady Fatemah Trust, uses our Mothernomics model to empower widowed mothers in places like Iraq to be economically productive. That productivity can save lives beyond their own. Recently, many of them have found employment manufacturing face masks to hold back Iraqs epidemic.

If COVID-19 cannot be stopped there, those widowed mothers and their orphaned children may soon be arriving at our doorstep in Europe. And that is something neither our governments nor our societies are prepared for.

____________

Are you a recognised expert in your field? At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

Visit link:
Without continued aid, the next migrant crisis will be people fleeing coronavirus not war View - Euronews

Refugees and migrants from Venezuela during COVID-19 crisis: as needs soar more inclusive measures and aid are essential – UNHCR

UNHCR staff build a temporary medical ward outside the Erasmo Meoz Hospital, in Ccuta, Colombia, as part of the stepped up response to COVID-19. The facility has the capacity to attend to 72 patients. UNHCR

With the coronavirus pandemic testing health care systems around the world, UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, and IOM, the International Organization for Migration, are calling attention to the challenges facing refugees and migrants from Venezuela.

At a time when the worlds attention is focused on COVID-19, and as governments and populations, particularly health workers, heroically come together to combat this virus, we should not lose sight of the needs of the millions of Venezuelan refugees and migrants, said Eduardo Stein, joint UNHCR-IOM Special Representative for refugees and migrants from Venezuela.

COVID-19 has brought many aspects of life to a standstill but the humanitarian implications of this crisis have not ceased and our concerted action remains more necessary than ever. We are urging the international community to boost its support for humanitarian, protection and integration programmes, on which the lives and welfare of millions of people depend, including host communities.

The current global public health emergency has compounded an already desperate situation for many refugees and migrants from Venezuela, and their hosts. Funding to support them is urgently needed.

Many depend on insufficient daily wages to cover basic needs such as shelter, food and health care; others have no roof over their heads. With growing fear and social unrest, Venezuelan refugees and migrants are also at risk of being stigmatized.

Governments in the region have been leading and coordinating the response to ensure those leaving Venezuela can access rights and documentation. But as national capacities become stretched to a breaking point, the wellbeing and safety of Venezuelans and their host communities is at risk.

Millions of refugees and migrants, and the communities hosting them, continue to need urgent support, particularly as the economic impact of the Coronavirus pandemic begins to be felt across Latin America and the Caribbean.

The coordination of the humanitarian response for refugees and migrants from Venezuela is conducted through a Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Platform (Response for Venezuelans-R4V), complemented by eight national or sub-regional platforms. Platforms are operating through a sector approach with the participation of 137 partners. In addition, WHO-PAHO leads the health-related aspects of the COVID-19 response.

The Regional Platform has activated a critical revision of all operations in the region to prioritize essential protection and life-saving actions and promote the inclusion of refugees and migrants in national programmes. In close coordination with WHO-PAHO, the R4V is also collaborating with national and local authorities to address the new challenges and deliver basic support to Venezuelan refugees and migrants, as well as to host communities.

While maintaining physical distancing measures, partners are implementing a number of prevention and response activities in the main locations where refugees and migrants from Venezuela are hosted. These activities ensure people can adequately access information, clean water, soap and appropriate waste disposal. Organizations are working around the clock to find innovative ways to continue supporting the most vulnerable individuals in the current context while also supporting national authorities to set up observation and isolation spaces for potential positive COVID-19 cases.

So far, the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP) launched in November 2019 to respond to the most urgent needs of refugees and migrants from Venezuela in 17 countries, as well as the local communities hosting them, has received only three per cent of the requested funds, which could put at stake the continuity of lifesaving programmes throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

For more information on this topic, please contact:

In Geneva:

In Panama:

For background information please consult the Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Platform website: R4V.info

Continued here:
Refugees and migrants from Venezuela during COVID-19 crisis: as needs soar more inclusive measures and aid are essential - UNHCR

The rights and health of refugees, migrants and stateless must be protected in COVID-19 response – UNHCR

A young Warao indigenous refugee from Venezuela washes her hands after an educational session on preventing the spread of the coronavirus, given by UNHCR and a partner NGO, Fraternidade, at a shelter in Boa Vista, in northern Brazil. UNHCR/Allana Ferreira

In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, we are all vulnerable. The virus has shown that it does not discriminate but many refugees, those forcibly displaced, the stateless and migrants are at heightened risk.

Three-quarters of the worlds refugees and many migrants are hosted in developing regions where health systems are already overwhelmed and under-capacitated. Many live in overcrowded camps, settlements, makeshift shelters or reception centres, where they lack adequate access to health services, clean water and sanitation.

The situation for refugees and migrants held in formal and informal places of detention, in cramped and unsanitary conditions, is particularly worrying. Considering the lethal consequences a COVID-19 outbreak would have, they should be released without delay. Migrant children and their families and those detained without a sufficient legal basis should be immediately released.

This disease can be controlled only if there is an inclusive approach which protects every individuals rights to life and health. Migrants and refugees are disproportionately vulnerable to exclusion, stigma and discrimination, particularly when undocumented. To avert a catastrophe, governments must do all they can to protect the rights and the health of everyone. Protecting the rights and the health of all people will in fact help control the spread of the virus.

It is vital that everyone, including all migrants and refugees, are ensured equal access to health services and are effectively included in national responses to COVID-19, including prevention, testing and treatment. Inclusion will help not only to protect the rights of refugees and migrants, but will also serve to protect public health and stem the global spread of COVID-19. While many nations protect and host refugee and migrant populations, they are often not equipped to respond to crises such as COVID-19. To ensure refugees and migrants have adequate access to national health services, States may need additional financial support. This is where the worlds financial institutions can play a leading role in making funds available.

While countries are closing their borders and limiting cross-border movements, there are ways to manage border restrictions in a manner which respects international human rights and refugee protection standards, including the principle of non-refoulement, through quarantine and health checks.

More than ever, as COVID-19 poses a global threat to our collective humanity, our primary focus should be on the preservation of life, regardless of status. This crisis demands a coherent, effective international approach that leaves no-one behind. At this crucial moment we all need to rally around a common objective, fighting this deadly virus. Many refugees, displaced, stateless people and migrants have skills and resources that can also be part of the solution.

We cannot allow fear or intolerance to undermine rights or compromise the effectiveness of responses to the global pandemic. We are all in this together. We can only defeat this virus when each and every one of us is protected.

Media contacts:

Read more here:
The rights and health of refugees, migrants and stateless must be protected in COVID-19 response - UNHCR

A COVID-19 test for the European Union – GZERO Media

Over the past decade or so, the European Union has weathered the global financial crisis, a migrant crisis, and the rise of populist nationalism. Sure, it's taken its fair share of bumps and bruises along the way, but the idea of a largely borderless Europe united by common democratic values has survived more or less intact.

Then came the coronavirus. The global pandemic, in which Europe is now one of the two main epicentres, is a still-spiralling nightmare that could make those previous crises look benign by comparison. Here are a few different ways that COVID-19 is severely testing the 27-member bloc:

The economic crisis: Lockdowns intended to stop the virus' spread have brought economic activity to a screeching halt, and national governments are going to need to spend a lot of money to offset the impact. But some EU members can borrow those funds more easily than others. Huge debt loads and deficits in southern European countries like Italy and Spain, which have been hardest hit by the outbreak so far, make it costlier for them to borrow than more fiscally conservative Germany and other northern member states. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, this imbalance nearly led the bloc's common currency, the Euro, to unravel.

Today, Europe has already unleashed some serious financial firepower to fight the current crisis, mainly through its central bank. But some of the other steps that may be necessary to prevent an economic collapse, like an EU bailout fund or crisis bonds, have reignited long-standing disagreements between North and South. A meeting of Eurozone finance ministers next Tuesday will be an important sign of whether Europe can pull together on the financial front.

The border crisis: In a bid to stop the spread of the virus, countries across the union have imposed border controls, some banning all entry to non-nationals. Although measures like this are technically allowed during emergencies like pandemics, they've caused huge traffic jams and disruptions to the flow of important goods. Relatedly, some member states have restricted shipping critical medical supplies with fellow EU-members, for fear that they will be needed at home.

When and under what circumstances these borders are relaxed again will be a very thorny political question, which raises concerns about whether one of the EU's great achievements the vaunted Schengen area allowing unhindered, passport-free travel across the EU will survive the crisis intact.

A crisis of democracy: Hungary's lurch towards "illiberal democracy" was the subject of serious hand wringing in Brussels well before the pandemic hit, but member states never took sufficient action to deter it. Now that the strongman Prime Minister Viktor Orban has used the crisis to grab nearly unlimited executive powers, Hungary has become an existential test of the EU's commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Other illiberal forces in Europe and beyond will be watching to see how Brussels and the other member states respond.

Bottom line: For now, the EU is holding together amid the biggest crisis in the continent's post-war history. But it's still early days. As the death toll and economic destruction mount, tougher tests of the EU's ability to function as a bloc, rather than a collection of states with competing interests, may be yet to come.

Go here to see the original:
A COVID-19 test for the European Union - GZERO Media