|
Forced migration today affects more than 123 million people worldwide, including many communities that depend on farmed animals. During displacement, animals often become the only moveable assets, shaping decisions about routes, destinations, and how to travel. Yet, displaced people and their animals are often cast as threats to public health, triggering restrictive policies that bar animals from refugee camps or relief efforts. Forced to abandon their herds or pets, migrants lose not only sources of income and nutrition, but emotional support and resilience.
Although zoonoses, diseases transmissible between animals and humans, are frequently invoked to justify biosecurity measures, evidence linking forced migration to new outbreaks is weak. More often, disease emergence is tied to existing endemic pathogens, exacerbated by overcrowded, unsanitary, and stressful conditions. The real drivers, climate change, conflict, ecological disruption, and structural marginalization, play larger roles than movement per se. By contrast, the EU’s temporary decision to allow Ukrainian refugees to bring pets into host countries shows that thoughtful, humane inclusion of animals in migration policies can protect rather than endanger health. The One Health paradigm, meant to balance human, animal, and ecosystem health, holds strong promise in this arena. Yet too often it remains human-centred, treating animals as tools or risks rather than participants in interspecies wellbeing. To bridge this gap, our new blog published by CABI One Health argues for a richer ethical framework grounded in concepts like Ethics of Care and two-factor egalitarianism. Such a framework would help decision makers in crisis settings weigh complex trade-offs fairly, honoring the interconnected health and dignity of people and animals alike. Read the full blog post here: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/do/10.5555/blog-one-health-approaches-forced-migration/full/
0 Comments
This article was originally published by the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at the University of Cambridge. Read the original article here.
Our current animal-based food production system is largely based on the systemic exploitation of animals for human use. Farmed animals now account for the majority of global mammal biomass, with intensive farming dominating the sector. This model of industrial production not only raises serious animal welfare concerns but also presents significant risks to global health and security through zoonoses, diseases transmissible between animals and humans. As the vast majority of emerging infectious diseases is of zoonotic origin, the factors determining disease dynamics need to be adequately studied and addressed for global health security. Intensive animal farming involves high population densities, generally poor animal health and welfare, and low genetic diversity, all of which decrease immunity and resistance to disease. These conditions foster an environment where zoonotic diseases can emerge and spread rapidly. The ecological consequences are equally concerning. Industrial animal production is a key driver of deforestation, often to make way for pasture or to grow animal feed. This destruction of natural habitats breaks down ecological buffers, encroaches on wildlife areas, and increases the risk of zoonotic spillover events. Moreover, the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in such settings is a major contributor to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a growing global health crisis. As the industrial farming system is increasingly exported from Global North to Global South countries, there needs to be more attention to the health security risks and impact on animal and human welfare. These systemic risks of animal and ecosystem exploitation extend to the human workforce, particularly in the meat production and processing sectors. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly exposed these vulnerabilities. Meatpacking and food processing plants became global hotspots for infection, particularly affecting workers from low-income, immigrant, and precariously employed backgrounds. These individuals occupied low-status, high-risk jobs in the animal production sector that were physically and emotionally demanding. Despite the clear health risks, governments designated these operations as ‘essential’ during lockdowns, allowing and even encouraging them to scale up production to meet anticipated food shortages, often without adequate occupational safety and health protections in place. In some rural communities, infection rates near meatpacking plants were up to five times higher than elsewhere, in turn impacting food supply chains, economies and health systems. The pandemic showed that vulnerability to disease is shaped not only by biological risk factors but also, and often more critically, by structural and social inequalities such as poverty, precarious employment, and restricted access to healthcare. These systemic issues create significant protection gaps for workers in the animal production industry, where unsafe working conditions are often the norm. Immigration status and insecure employment further compound these vulnerabilities, through barriers to adequate social and health protection. In collaboration with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), CSER Research Affiliate Dr. Dorien Braam published a working paper that underscores how these intersecting inequalities contributed to the spread of COVID-19 within the animal production sector. The report highlighted how overcrowded housing, unsafe working conditions, and poor sanitation facilitated disease transmission, exposing deep systemic weaknesses, with meat-processing facilities becoming hotspots of infection due to inadequate health safeguards. Moreover, migrant workers were often excluded from public health planning and lacked access to basic healthcare services. These conditions not only endangered their health but also amplified broader public health risks. The paper stressed the urgent need to better protect migrant workers in industrial animal farming, particularly given the specific risks posed by intensive production. Animals in these systems are often stressed and immunocompromised due to crowded and unhygienic conditions. Similarly, workers in slaughterhouses are exposed to physically and psychologically taxing environments, which may reduce immunity and further increase vulnerability to zoonotic and other infectious diseases, making the intersection of animal and migrant worker exploitation a pressing concern for pandemic preparedness. To address these interconnected issues, the working paper outlines three core focus areas: (1) building the evidence base, (2) developing effective policies, and (3) implementing targeted programmes. Researchers are called upon to strengthen the evidence base of the migration–zoonoses nexus and collect disaggregated data, by age, gender, as well as legal and employment status, taking into account the health and working conditions of migrant labourers in the animal production sector, especially concerning zoonotic disease outbreaks. The evidence makes clear that interspecies exploitation, of both humans and animals, is deeply intertwined. Addressing these challenges requires integrating migrant workers into health research, surveillance systems, and public health planning, while adopting systemic, interdisciplinary approaches to disease prevention. Although systems thinking and frameworks such as One Health are increasingly deployed to address issues at the intersection of animal, human, and environmental health, these have largely remained anthropocentric. A more inclusive and equitable One Health approach, one that also considers animal welfare and social justice, is essential for addressing the root causes of zoonotic disease emergence, AMR, and ecosystem collapse. By embedding migrant workers into disease surveillance, national preparedness plans, and health interventions, and by redefining health to include welfare for both humans and animals, governments and stakeholders can strengthen resilience across food systems and local economies. Doing so will advance health equity and animal welfare, while improving global health security in the face of growing ecological and epidemiological threats. This article was originally published by the UK Centre for Animal Law (A-LAW). Read the original article here.
During my doctoral research conducted in Jordan and Pakistan into the role of animals in forced migration and zoonoses – diseases transmissible between humans and animals – the devastation as a result of the loss of animals killed as a result of conflict, during disasters and displacement, and because of road accidents and theft, was evident. Within displaced households, animals became central to determining displacement route, modality and destination location. Meanwhile, formal humanitarian responses rarely facilitated animals, and in response, people went to great lengths to retain access to their nonhuman household members, splitting up communities and households.[1] This risk-taking to retain access to animals during crises is increasingly recognized as a major challenge during complex emergencies.[2] Globally, countries and communities most affected by disasters and conflict are largely dependent on agriculture and animal-keeping livelihoods, however international humanitarian law (IHL) does not include protection for nonhuman animal species, considering animals as ‘objects’, lacking legal status.[3] While providing important protection, nutrition and rescue to affected populations, animals are thus not considered under international humanitarian law in their own right.[4] This is increasingly at odds with the status progressively appointed to animals in some jurisdictions as living beings capable of feeling pain and suffering, implying the opportunity for a legal humanitarian approach to the ‘animal turn’, an expression in academia reflecting a shift in the way animals are being thought about and researched, including an increased interest in animals, human-animal relations and animals’ role in society. A recent example is the pathbreaking ruling by the Islamabad High Court in Pakistan on Kaavan, the elephant held captive in substandard conditions in Islamabad zoo, and since ‘released’ to a sanctuary.[5] Humanitarian law, conceptualized in the global North, has remained anthropocentric, reflecting a hierarchy of human dominion over animals. These values have been exported to the global South through the animal-industrial complex, an important element of international development activities in animal-keeping communities, with far-reaching detrimental impacts to animal, ecosystem and human health and welfare. An example of these practices harming the rights of local communities, are nomadic pastoralist groups across the Sahel region. Shown to be one of the most environmentally sustainable land-use systems for the region, pastoralists continue to be forcefully (re-)settled, negatively impacting both human and nonhuman animal health and wellbeing.[6] The exclusion of animals from IHL builds on a tradition of exploitation and other harmful practices.[7] Existing animal welfare law in itself has been interpreted as a kind of ‘warfare’ law, regulating violent activities as part of a ‘war on animals’.[8] While minimal, animal welfare standards nevertheless acknowledge animals’ interests in their own rights, explicitly seeking to minimize animal suffering, which could be reflected in IHL as well. Current geopolitical developments are shifting the global legal order[9], and might present an opportunity to address some of these systemic gaps, and to build strong foundations for an improved and more inclusive protection mechanism addressing structural interspecies’ inequities. Scholars and animal welfare organisations have laid out practical steps for the inclusion of animals in disaster policies and responses, envisioning a more inclusive and equitable humanitarian legal framework through an improved framework rooted in interspecies’ care and solidarity.[10] Other emerging fields of international law such as international disaster relief law (IDRL), a legal framework to regulate and facilitate the humanitarian response to disasters[11], could benefit from the animal turn as well, as climate change is increasing the frequency and impact of disasters and humanitarian emergencies. Examples of potential inclusion mechanisms are described in detail by international animal welfare organisations[12], with some countries, for instance New Zealand, now actively including animals in disaster preparedness and evacuation plans.[13] As IHL continues to be (re)interpreted by a variety of actors[14], there are opportunities for improvement by including non-traditional stakeholders such as civil society and the private sector, including animal-keeping households. This may involve building on Indigenous Knowledge and local practices better suited to the context and different values towards nonhuman species[15], aligned with ongoing decolonialisation and localisation trends across the IHL sector. Contrary to dominant Eurocentric perspectives, Indigenous cultures generally consider humans as part of nature. Historical connection with the land they live on results in a more holistic relationship with local ecosystems, and a more harmonious use of resources, leading to better protection and conservation of nonhuman species, who may hold spiritual rather than merely ‘productive’ meaning.[16] An example are the Nharira in Zimbabwe, where nature’s role in the community’s customs and rituals supports the protection of wildlife.[17] While local communities are the primary humanitarian responders, Indigenous Knowledge is rarely included in humanitarian responses.[18] The IHL sector may learn from trends in international research, development and environmental management in the uptake of Indigenous Knowledge. Based on holistic Indigenous Knowledge and values towards nonhuman species, IHL could overcome conceptual barriers related to the legal personality of animals, and grant protection rights to animals and the more-than-human in nature. [1] Braam, D.H. (2022). Zoonotic disease dynamics in displacement: A multisite case study in Sindh, Pakistan and Mafraq, Jordan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.96083 [2] Dalla Villa, P. et al. (2020) Integrating animal welfare into disaster management using an ‘all-hazards’ approach. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics). 39 (2) :599-613. DOI: 10.20506/rst.39.2.3110. PMID: 33046916. [3] Peters, A. and Hemptinne, J. de (2022) Animals in war: At the vanishing point of international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross. doi:10.1017/S181638312200011X [4] Vultaggio, G. (2024) The unknown victims of armed conflicts. International Institute of Humanitarian Law (IIHL). Available at: https://iihl.org/the-unknown-victims-of-armed-conflicts/ [5] Saeed, A Case for Animal Sentience in Pakistan: “Kaavan” The Elephant’s Incredible Story: Islamabad Wildlife Management Board v. Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad [6] Braam, D.H., Bolajoko, M.B., Hammer, C.C. (2024) A One Health approach to pastoral (im) mobility, health, and disease: A qualitative participatory study in Plateau State, Nigeria. PLOS Global Public Health 4 (10), e0003637 [7] Twine, R. (2024) The Climate Crisis and Other Animals. Sydney University Press, Sydney, Australia. ISB (paperback) 9781743328996 [8] Stucki, S. (2023) Animal Warfare Law and the Need for an Animal Law of Peace: A Comparative Reconstruction, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 189–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad018 [9] International Crisis Group (2024) Ten Challenges for the UN in 2024-2025. Available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/sb12-ten-challenges-un-2024-2025 [10] Celermajer, D. and Sturman, A. (2024). Recasting Interspecies Care and Solidarity as Emergent Anti-Capitalist Politics. Chapter in: More Than Human Rights: An Ecology of Law, Thought, and Narrative for Earthly Flourishing, César Rodríguez-Garavito, ed. New York: NYU Law [11] IFRC (2024) International disaster response law. Available at: https://disasterlaw.ifrc.org/IDRL [12] IFAW (2022) Beyond rescue: animals in disasters – Europe. Available at: https://www.ifaw.org/international/resources/animals-in-disasters-europe [13] New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries/ Manatū Ahu Matua, Animal Welfare Emergency Management. Available at: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-emergency-management/ [14] Alexander, A. (2015) A Short History of International Humanitarian Law. European Journal of International Law, Volume 26, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages 109–138, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv002 [15] World Animal Protection (WAP) Animals in Disasters. Available at: https://animalsindisasters.org/for-policy-makers/for-policy-makers-1 [16] Arévalo, C. (2023) Protecting The World’s Wild Animals Through Indigenous Knowledge. Faunalytics January 18, 2023 [17] Mavhura, E., Mushure, S. (2019) Forest and wildlife resource-conservation efforts based on indigenous knowledge: The case of Nharira community in Chikomba district, Zimbabwe. Forest Policy and Economics 105 p83-90 [18] Adhikari, R. (2024) Why does the humanitarian system continue to ignore the indigenous knowledge of women-led organisations? Humanitarian Practice Network 85 (9). Available at: https://odihpn.org/publication/why-does-the-humanitarian-system-continue-to-ignore-the-indigenous-knowledge-of-women-led-organisations/ This article was originally published by Bliss, the official blog of the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam. Read the original article here.
After the COVID-19 pandemic, governing bodies, research institutes, and health organizations around the world reflected extensively on our (failed) responses to the pandemic, hoping to identify lessons that can be applied to the governance of future pandemics. As various bird flu strains are spreading across the world. Without understanding people’s behaviour and decision-making processes related to animals, it will be impossible to respond appropriately to the next pandemic. Only four years ago, much of the world came out of its first lockdown after the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe. People hastily stocked up on essentials, found coping mechanisms to deal with isolation, and showed their appreciation for healthcare providers working on the frontline. Many people died; many more fell ill. At the time, the pandemic had a profound impact on us, changing our behaviour and views of the present, past, and future. There has been much high–level reflection on the pandemic since then, for example about how we can prevent ourselves from making the same series of mistakes that led to the devastating pandemic and the significant loss of life, especially among marginalized populations lacking access to healthcare (something we wrote about in the Conversation in May 2020). The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) in January 2021 similarly remarked how our way of handling the pandemic as a collective can be seen as a ‘catastrophic moral failure’ with a profound impact on the world’s poor. In making this claim, he highlighted the impact of unequal access to healthcare, vaccines, and livelihood support. And now, our collective response to the current avian influenza (‘bird flu’) pandemic shows that we risk making the same mistakes we did then. Novel, much more deadly pandemics While some lessons may have been learned, there is increasing disquiet among professionals that the world has not learned enough, in the best case scenario, or, in the worst case, has blatantly ignored warning signs of novel pandemic threats, of which Avian Influenza (the H5N1 virus or ‘bird flu’) is currently the most likely candidate. There is good reason to take this virus seriously. Outbreaks have occurred sporadically throughout the past century; however, the current pandemic has arguably been ongoing since 1995, when it was recognized that the ‘epizootic’, or outbreak of animal disease, dwarfed the bird flu outbreaks until then. In the past months devastating images from Antarctica have shown that the disease has now affected virtually every ecosystem in the world. Besides the risk to humans, bird and other animal populations have been devastatingly affected by the disease, including some species which are already struggling for their existence. At the end of April 2024, an article in the Washington Post sounded the alarm: after two human casualties in the United States, the risk of a new, much more deadly pandemic seems to be edging ever closer. The writers mention the frustration among officials and experts that not more is done in terms of testing and data sharing, drawing parallels with some of the failures that occurred at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These conclusions dangerously ignore the fact that the disease has already caused the death of millions of non-human animals, in addition to 463 human deaths out of 889 human cases across 23 countries. Besides highlighting the geographic health inequalities through expressing only concern for human health in the Global North, they also ignore the realities of the biological interconnectedness of animals and humans whereby the majority of emerging infectious diseases are transmissible between animal and human populations. The result of this messaging is that animals are routinely blamed for disease outbreaks and are considered a disease ‘risk’, which ignores the fact that zoonoses spread largely as a result of human behaviour, such as through industrial intensive farming systems and deforestation. The COVID-19 pandemic initiated the global revisiting of existing approaches to the interlinkages of animal and human health, strengthening systems approaches such as Ecohealth, Planetary Health and One Health, the latter of which earned its very own high–level panel consisting of animal, human, and ecosystem health experts. The panel includes social scientists as well, as the importance of including social science to outbreak responses is increasingly acknowledged; now this needs to become more pronounced within One Health approaches. Towards a more inclusive approach What we can learn from reflections about the COVID-19 pandemic — a conclusion that should be guiding our response to Avian Influenza — is that no-one is safe until everyone is safe, including marginalized populations such as animals; understanding our relationship with the animal world is key to responding effectively, as well as to developing intersectoral and transdisciplinary responses. The negative impacts of animal and human disease are greatest in poor populations depending on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood; therefore, poverty reduction needs to be part of disease prevention activities. Facilitating testing for animal disease requires providing insurance and compensation to animal owners, who otherwise may lose essential livelihoods through diseased livestock. Most importantly however, industrial farming needs to be rapidly scaled down, which requires large-scale, and potentially costly, sustainable solutions for farmers. This will simultaneously address a range of increasing health challenges beyond the risk of pandemics, including the existential risks of anti-microbial resistance, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Without understanding people’s behaviour and decision-making processes related to animals, it will be impossible to respond appropriately to the next pandemic. And without more drastic measures to increase interspecies health equality, it is unlikely that we can prevent or respond effectively. This post is based on the findings and recommendations shared in two technical and policy briefs drafted by Praxis Labs and IOM, recently published by the IOM Migration Health Division (MHD).
Climate change, migration and zoonotic diseases are interconnected, posing some of the most pressing existential challenges of our time. Climate change affects the environmental factors that can promote or inhibit the survival, reproduction, abundance, and spread of diseases, vectors, and hosts, as well as the modes of disease transmission and the frequency of outbreaks.[i] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human-induced climate change will increasingly affect weather and climate extremes[ii], and droughts and floods have significantly increased over the past decades.[iii] Up to 1.2 billion people could become displaced as a result of climate change globally by 2050[iv], reflected by an unprecedented 89.3 million forced migrants in 2021, of which the majority internally displaced people (IDP) were displaced as a result of disasters.[v] Population movement as a result of climate change and environmental degradation impacts cross-species viral transmission risk[vi], with the resulting changes in land use considered the largest driver of zoonotic infectious disease emergence.[vii] Zoonotic diseases in turn represent a growing threat to public health, with an estimated 75 percent of newly emerging human pathogens originating in animal species.[viii] Vulnerabilities to zoonoses, not only depend on the prevalence of pathogens, but importantly on social determinants of health, such as poverty, living and working conditions. One group particularly at risk therefore are labour migrants, many of whom are employed in precarious jobs in the livestock production industry, a sector often considered undesirable by local workers. Zoonoses therefore exert significant pressure on the agri-food industry. Numerous reports highlighted the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 to workers in the meat-processing industries across Europe and the United States as a result of sub-standard and unsanitary working and living conditions.[ix] These challenges are described and addressed in two new briefs published by MHD, which provide key recommendations to policy makers and responders in migration contexts, to enhance protection for humans and animals. One Health The briefs cover two connected but separate areas: labour migrants in Southeast Asia, and climate related disasters in the Horn of Africa, while the focus of both briefs is the need for adopting systems thinking through a One Health approach. One Health aims to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration between those working in public health, veterinary medicine, environmental protection and other fields. It is defined as 'an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems, recognizing that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment are closely linked and interdependent'.[x] The One Health framework can provide a more comprehensive approach to zoonotic disease risk among migrants, as it allows for the inclusion of social determinants of health, such as poverty and marginalization, which particularly affect the most vulnerable migrant populations. Zoonotic disease risks and vulnerabilities are amplified or reduced along the spatiotemporal scale of migration. Population movement is associated with increased mixing of displaced, mobile and host human and animal populations, including through increased contact between domestic animals, wildlife, and humans, which in turn may lead to increased disease transmission between species. When animals and humans move into new environments, they may face new pathogens and vectors prevalent among local populations. Furthermore, crowded and unsanitary living conditions in relief and refugee camps increase vulnerability to infectious disease, which is also linked to malnutrition and long-term stress as a result of movement. Health services and staff may be affected during disaster and displacement, hampering an organized health response, the availability of quarantine and vaccinations, in turn exacerbating the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks.[xi] In the case of labour migrants, they often lack access to primary healthcare facilities[xii] and health insurance[xiii], while migrant and mobile population groups are largely excluded from regional and national infectious disease preparedness and response plans.[xiv] As a result, migrants are affected most severely by health threats, as well as gaps in public health responses. Moving forward The global response to COVID-19 and continuing re-emergence of zoonoses such as Ebola, highlight the need for improved action and focus on the protection of humans, animals, and the environment in the context of climate change, migration, and health. Projected increases in human and animal mobility and connectivity underline the need to address these threats simultaneously. Increasing evidence is available on the linkages between climate change and migration and climate change and zoonotic disease risks, including as a result of changing pathogen and vector environments, although the nexus of migration, climate change and zoonoses is not comprehensively understood and/ or addressed. To further improve the health and wellbeing of communities most affected by climate change-related migration, the importance of the presence of domestic animals, and trade-offs between access to animals, human health and livelihoods need to be better understood. The role of domestic animals in climate change related mobility and displacement, the impact on host communities, and the potential benefits of maintaining displaced communities’ access to animals in terms of livelihoods and health, need to be actively researched to better inform policies and programmes. [i] Wu et al, 2016. Impact of climate change on human infectious diseases: Empirical evidence and human adaptation. Environment International, 86, 14-23. [ii] IPCC, 2021, Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis [iii] UNCCD and FAO, 2020. Land degradation neutrality for water security and combatting drought, Bonn. [iv] Institute for Economics and Peace, Over one billion people at threat of being displaced by 2050 due to environmental change, conflict and civil unrest [v] IDMC, 2022. Global Report on Internal Displacement [vi] Carlson et al, 2022. Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk, Nature [vii] Bernstein et al, 2022. The costs and benefits of primary prevention of zoonotic pandemics, Science Advances [viii] Jones et al, 2008. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451:990-94 [ix] Finci et al, 2022. Risk factors associated with an outbreak of COVID-19 in a meat processing plant in southern Germany, April to June 2020, Eurosurveillance 27 (13); Herstein et al, 2021, Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission among Meat Processing Workers in Nebraska, USA, and Effectiveness of Risk Mitigation Measures, Emerging Infectious Diseases 27 (4); Pokora et al, 2021, Investigation of superspreading COVID-19 outbreak events in meat and poultry processing plants in Germany: A cross-sectional study, PLOS ONE 16 (6) [x] WHO, 2021. Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP's definition of "One Health" [xi] Braam et al, 2021. Identifying the research gap of zoonotic disease in displacement: a systematic review, Global Health Research and Policy [xii] World Bank, 2020. Potential Responses to the COVID-19 Outbreak in Support of Migrant Workers [xiii] Legido Quigley et al, 2019. Healthcare is not universal if undocumented migrants are excluded, BMJ [xiv] Wickramage et al, 2018. Missing: Where Are the Migrants in Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Plans? Health and Human Rights 20 (1) This article was originally published by the Migration Policy Centre at the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute. Read the original article here.
The movement of Ukrainian refugees and their pets across Europe’s borders unleashed an unprecedented solidarity with refugee animals, including the temporary lifting of transboundary veterinary requirements. Common responses to forced migration rarely facilitate or consider animals however; from basic shelter design, to refugee camp planning, and the provision of sanitation and food, animals are largely excluded. They are generally considered a risk to health by policy makers, as zoonoses, diseases transmissible between animals and humans, make up for over 60 per cent of infectious disease. However, this exclusionary approach has consequences. In order to better understand the role of animals in zoonotic disease dynamics in displacement, I conducted 14 key informant interviews with humanitarian, animal and public health experts, as well as 14 household interviews with Jordanian and Syrian livestock keepers in Mafraq Governorate. I found that rather than increasing zoonotic disease, the vulnerability to zoonoses primarily depended on pre-existing health inequalities, while animals were able to provide nutrition and livelihood opportunities to the displaced, improving their health status instead. Ignoring animals has consequences A few months ago, I presented on these findings at the Global Health Security conference in Singapore. Another researcher came up to me following my presentation, to share the challenges they faced trying to evacuate their dog from a conflict zone in Africa the previous year. Their challenges are not unique. Challenges experienced by forced migrants For all animal owners, pets are an essential part of their lives, primarily in terms of companionship. For those dependent on their animals as livestock however, their animals are even more central as sources of nutrition, livelihoods, (mobile) assets, and for cultural reasons. The findings of my research demonstrate that:
Challenges for Syrian refugees in Jordan Among Syrian refugees and their host communities in Jordan, determining the risks of zoonotic diseases was incredibly complex. After the collapse of Syria’s health and veterinary infrastructure, animal vaccinations, livestock quarantine, and border control were affected. In need of cash for moving and faced with limitations for their animals, Syrians sold off all their livestock before crossing the border. While government officials attributed outbreaks of zoonoses to refugee movements, the study showed that in fact, refugees were unable to bring any animals into Jordan. Instead, they tried to rebuild their livelihood through acquiring animals locally, but high-level political and practical barriers hampered their access to livestock assistance, increasing their vulnerability to animal and zoonotic diseases. Because Syrians were unable to bring their animals, rather than entering Jordan through formal channels, and thus with required vaccination checks and quarantine, some of these animals ended up being smuggled into Jordan via clandestine routes by opportunistic smugglers. As a result, both refugees and host populations may buy (back) smuggled animals, which may cause animal and zoonotic disease to spread to neighbouring countries and further throughout the region. COVID-19 highlights the risk of inequalities The findings of this research, conducted before and in the early days of the pandemic, have since only increased in relevance. COVID-19, a disease with zoonotic origins, highlighted the vulnerability of unequal global health systems and differing responses to infectious disease. The pandemic demonstrated both the ongoing threat of zoonotic pathogens to global health security, as well as the health inequalities faced by people and animals on the move. Zoonotic pathogens are estimated to affect over two billion people, causing 2.7 million human deaths annually. While repeated outbreaks of viruses such as Ebola and Nipah speak to people’s imagination, the most common zoonotic diseases are endemic: salmonellosis for instance, causes gastroenteritis through consuming contaminated food or water. Meanwhile, Rabies still causes approximately 59,000 deaths a year. People living close to their animals are at higher risk of zoonotic pathogens, however as my research shows, their vulnerability is determined by a range of complex interacting factors. Vulnerabilities in emergencies During COVID-19, refugees and migrants often remained excluded from primary healthcare and other services. For example in Greece, refugee camps were locked down, and elsewhere borders closed to refugee resettlement, leaving refugees even more vulnerable to disease. But this exclusion didn’t just impact refugees, it also impacted animals in displacement. Excluded from basic veterinary services, animal health in disaster quickly deteriorates, which impacts their keepers’ nutrition and wellbeing. As both people’s and animals’ immune systems weaken, diseases get a better chance to spread, including zoonoses, which are highly prevalent in the regions where the majority of forced migration occurs. What can be done? To protect animal, human, and global health, it is essential to better facilitate animals in forced migration. Animals need to be part of a holistic approach in responding to forced migration contexts. Not just to protect them and their keepers, but to safeguard and improve overall health, lives, and livelihoods. Zoonotic disease risks, and the underlying defining processes, call for sustained support to animals and humans, before, during and after displacement. The uncertainty around disaster and disease requires a flexible multi stakeholder and multidisciplinary approach. Importantly, improving human and non-human animal health in displaced communities requires addressing the structural processes that lead to inequalities, while empowering communities to increase their agency through more equitable resource distribution. Policy makers and humanitarian responders need to develop more inclusive policies and procedures that consider domestic animals in forced migration such as what was shown in the Ukraine response. This will help in preventing zoonotic disease risk, while supporting livelihoods for a more sustainable long-term solution to forced migration. This article was originally published by the University of Cambridge.
Read the original article here. Animals play a central role in many peoples’ lives, and the lifting of veterinary regulations to allow them to be moved to safety during the current humanitarian crisis in Ukraine is unprecedented. Dorien Braam argues for this approach to be replicated across other refugee contexts. A month into the Russian invasion in Ukraine, several journalists covering the refugee emergency have reported on the lengths that some refugees are taking to bring their pets across the conflict frontlines and international borders into relative safety. Ukraine’s neighbouring countries were quick to allow all refugees to bring their non-human animal household members without documentation, and non-profit organisations responded to the call to save animals caught up in the conflict or its border areas, even including farm and zoo animals. Meanwhile, reports highlighted how after an arduous journey from their lost homes in Ukraine, some refugees were forced to give up their pets upon arrival in emergency shelters, and while airlines provided free tickets across their networks to refugees, these excluded their beloved animals, eliciting an emotional public response. These wrongs were soon addressed by other countries across the European Union easing immigration and import regulations for the Ukrainian refugee population. Requirements for veterinary vaccinations and quarantine, developed to protect animal and human health, have now been lifted EU-wide. This focus and resource provision for the protection of refugee animals is unprecedented. The solidarity shown today is uncommon in other refugee contexts, where displaced populations face increasing challenges in crossing borders, with animals often completely banned. Lacking formal structures, independent charities are struggling to save the pets of Syria, while other domesticated animals such as livestock are consistently excluded from humanitarian refugee responses out of concern for public health. A more holistic view must be taken to lives, livelihoods and mental health. Animals can provide nutritious food and support mental health, particularly during displacement. The inconsistencies on how to deal with animal displacement uncover gaps in jurisdictions and expertise of humanitarian responders in complex emergencies. Evidence across global emergencies shows how animals, including pets and livestock, are excluded from relief and refugee camps out of public health concern, rooted in a lack of contextual knowledge and resources to provide veterinary support. This exclusion is counterproductive if it results in animal owners engaging in risky behaviours to retain access to their animals, which are often essential to their lives and livelihoods. Based on my research on zoonotic disease dynamics among displaced livestock keepers across continents, the risks taken often have unintended outcomes for the safety and wellbeing of both humans and animals, with negative consequences for food- and biosecurity. While the protection of human refugees remains a priority, the central role that animals play in peoples’ lives needs to be better acknowledged by policy makers and humanitarian responders. During displacement, livestock becomes an important decisive factor in terms of transportation, movement route and destination location. While animal health does have an impact on human health, with over 60% of human pathogens originating in animal species, there is little evidence of refugee animals increasing zoonotic disease outbreaks. Instead these are associated with the collapse and destruction of veterinary health services and border control. Emergencies are complex and fluid; however, humanitarian responses follow standardised protocols, based on collaborating professional silos rather than integrated relief services. Current policy and response frameworks remain anthropocentric, and are not well suited for the inclusion of animals in emergency responses. There is a need to expand policies, responses, and wider theoretical frameworks based on solidarity across species. Refugee policies and responses need to be more inclusive, based on the principles of solidarity and compassion with all human and non-human animals across contexts and origins. Responses need to further integrate sectors and involve a range of agencies including emergency services, law enforcement, environmental health, animal charities, and veterinary professionals. Importantly, better contextualisation and support of local stakeholders is required before, during and after the emergency. This must include the affected community, which is arguably more familiar with zoonotic disease risks than humanitarian responders working within an exclusionary framework. The welcoming response to Ukrainian refugees and their animals shows us that another humanitarian approach is possible. It is now time to extend this to all refugee contexts. This article was previously published by the International Organization for Migration (IOM/ UN Migration). Read the original article here.
Even as COVID-19 vaccines are being approved and started to being rolled out, the pandemic is far from over. Compared to the escalating case numbers in parts of the Global North, confirmed COVID-19 cases have remained relatively low in Somalia, with 4714 cases and 130 fatalities attributed to the disease by December 2020, which may be partially attributed to limited testing and reporting capacity. While it is too early to comment on the full impact of the pandemic in the country, it is possible to provide some insights into its secondary effects to livelihoods as a result of public health measures, which have become a primary concern for much of the population. Almost immediately following the confirmation of the fist COVID-19 case in mid-March 2020, a multisectoral emergency task force and isolation facilities were established, and health workers deployed at airports. Border crossings were closed, in-country movements restricted, and comprehensive Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies implemented, before curfews were put in place and large events prohibited. While most of these restrictions were lifted five months later, confirmed COVID-19 cases did not significantly increase since. Globally, the pandemic has not only impacted people’s health, but importantly work, income and education, disproportionally affecting the most socio-economically vulnerable populations, including migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). While public health measures such as lockdowns and human behaviour are often discussed as a determinant for disease risk, socio-economic factors have proven to be an important determinant of health. These disproportionally affect vulnerable populations are often unable to physically distance, ‘work from home’, and even before the pandemic lacked access to healthcare and personal protective equipment (PPE). Pre-existing poor health conditions, which put people more at risk of the disease, may be caused or exacerbated by crowded, poor living conditions and a lack of sanitation. These factors play a role in the risk of severe COVID-19 disease, the ability to adhere to preventive measures, and the impact of public health approaches to lives and livelihoods. As part of a collaboration between the University of Nairobi, Africa’s Voices Foundation (AVF) and the University of Cambridge, we conducted a remote qualitative study through semi-structured conversations with hard-to-reach IDPs (n=13) and host populations (n=22) in Baidoa and Mogadishu in Somalia, gathering people’s lived experiences and responses to the pandemic, using a two-way SMS system developed by AVF and Lark Systems. I share here some of our findings, which indicate that public health measures adopted in Somalia in response to COVID-19 limited people’s ability to cope, affecting their resilience against the impact of future disasters, including any further impact of the ongoing pandemic. Displacement pathways Disasters, environmental degradation and conflict have caused significant displacement in Somalia, both internal and cross-border. In a country with an estimated 15 million people, over 2.6 million people are internally displaced due to the ongoing complex emergency. While conflict has caused many to leave their homes, the majority (72 per cent) is displaced as a result of disasters caused by natural hazards exacerbated by climate change and environmental degradation. In 2020, after the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in the country by mid-March, rural areas were affected by floods and a locust infestation. Heavy rains in the summer caused hundreds of thousands more people to leave their homes. Even with internal movement officially restricted during the pandemic, our results show that new movement dynamics occurred. The loss of work and income due to public health measures caused additional displacement: “I lost my job and now I joined the IDPs of Baidoa” a school teacher told us in July 2020 during one of our conversations, having left his rural home and livelihood, asking for assistance. Another respondent left Mogadishu after losing his street vending job following lockdown and curfews, and returned to his birthplace Marka, from which he had been internally displaced in 2017 due to conflict. The Somali Diaspora is one of the largest sources of funding to the country, counting over two million people, including both refugees and migrants, with the majority living in neighbouring countries. COVID-19 disproportionally affected migrant workers globally, as their living and working conditions put them more at risk of the disease, and more likely to lose unstable jobs and income, often lacking unemployment benefits, while travel became impossible. As family members of our participants abroad were affected by COVID-19, either by losing jobs, falling sick, dying, or unable to return to the country, remittances were lost. “The person I relied upon for my income has passed away in the United Kingdom because of COVID-19”, shared a young mother who moved in with her in-laws in Mogadishu to be able to provide food for her infant child. Compound risks As authorities and supporting agencies feared uncontrollable spread of COVID-19 in Somalia, where many people live below the poverty line, strict measures were put in place to restrict movement and prevent crowding. It is however unclear to what extent these measures have been effective in limiting disease spread in Somalia. Our study showed that, even among our small sample, people had either been infected themselves or had family members who had been sick with COVID-19, indicating perhaps a much larger burden of disease than shown by official data. Most participants were well aware of risk of disease and related public health measures, however many considered the negative outcomes of these measures to be much more impactful, especially to the poorest populations, including the displaced. Many people, including restaurant staff, teachers and street vendors, lost their jobs and income: “I used to sell watermelon in the streets to earn a little, that has now stopped due to coronavirus (…), everyone is afraid of the virus because [it is] easily transmittable”, one IDP respondent let us know. Syndemics – two or more disease clusters exacerbating negative health outcomes - are common in displaced populations, as immunity against infectious disease is often impacted by the stress and exhaustion of displacement, exacerbated by malnutrition, living conditions and limited access to health services. COVID-19 can be considered a syndemic, as the disease is more severe for people with underlying health conditions, while it affects people from poor socio-economic backgrounds more severely, especially the displaced who often live in crowded and unsanitary conditions, with income depending on daily wage labour and movement, affecting their ability to isolate or quarantine. In Somalia, health services are limited. As pointed out by one of our host-population participants, COVID-19 is not the main concern for many people, but instead “one of the health challenges is that the hospitals don't have enough medicine [for other diseases]”. The blanket imposition of public health measures without considering local risk contexts exacerbates health and livelihood challenges to the most vulnerable populations, affecting jobs and remittances, while even resulting in new displacements. In complex emergencies where there is a lack of data on hard-to-reach displaced populations, it is essential to take into account their lived experiences, and the use of new technologies, such as the remote messaging modality we adopted for our study, can support the development of more inclusive responses. Acknowledgements This study was a collaboration between Dr Salome Bukachi at the University of Nairobi, Zakaria Sheikh and colleagues at Africa’s Voices Foundation, and Dr Sharath Srinivasan, Dr Luke Church, Dr Freya Jephcott and the author at the University of Cambridge. This article was written by D. Braam and P. Molnar and is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.
Despite the coronavirus pandemic, wars and conflicts have not stopped. While some countries have successfully grappled with the virus, in refugee camps the situation remains fraught. Researching the social epidemiology of zoonotic disease risks in displacement and international human rights law, we have seen firsthand the intersection between health and human rights. Susceptibility to zoonoses — diseases transmitted between animals and humans — is influenced by complex biological, environmental, socio-economical, political and technological processes. For the sake of global health, it is therefore important to ensure that people made marginalized have access to robust services, including health care. Conflict and disease transmission are often linked. For example, research has found that the collapse of health systems and disease control in Syria led to an increase in leishmaniasis, rabies and tuberculosis, including in refugee populations. When polio re-emerged due to a decline in vaccination rates, neighbouring countries rapidly responded. A few months ago, one of us returned from fieldwork in Jordan, studying the risks of zoonotic disease transmission among Syrian refugees, just before the country closed its borders. These concerns have become increasingly pressing as COVID-19 pushed humanitarian workers to mitigate the potentially devastating effects of the pandemic on refugees and migrants in incredibly challenging conditions. The risk of infection in refugee camps The risk posed by infectious diseases among vulnerable populations depends on a range of factors with political and socio-economic factors playing an important role. Poverty and inequality both influence the occurrence and severity of the disease. In refugee settings, these risks are exacerbated by overcrowding and unhygienic living conditions, while interpersonal relations within households and communities further impact risks of infection. Besides facing overpopulation, refugees often tend to have lower immunity levels due to limited quantities and quality of food, water, medical provisions and pre-existing conditions such as respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Unfortunately, the most effective responses to COVID-19 such as testing, social distancing and quarantine are nearly impossible to implement in many displaced populations due to overpopulation of camps and shelters and inadequate access to resources. In refugee camps, where families often share washing and sanitation facilities, disease control is difficult. Lockdowns and reduced access of health-care workers to regions with widespread poverty, in combination with a scarcity of essential supplies, are likely to exacerbate poor health. The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) warned of the challenges the organization faces in getting supplies to refugees from their network of regional stockpiled warehouses due to a lack of transportation. Worsening living conditions amid a pandemic In early April, the first cases of the novel coronavirus were confirmed in a Greek refugee camp on Lesbos, which has hosted hundreds of thousands of refugees since the start of the war in Syria. In early 2020, Lesbos saw an increase of hundreds of refugee arrivals a day. The refugees who remain stranded on the Greek island have strained relations with local residents, resulting in violence targeted at sites planned for new or expanded facilities and the departure of NGOs that provided essential food and medical services. These worsening living conditions in the camps and informal tented settlements greatly increase the risk of this population to COVID-19 infection. As the number of refugees increases, their protection against disease can only be safeguarded through resettlement into better living conditions and robust asylum procedures that protect human rights. However, the two UN agencies mandated to resettle refugees and migrants, UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration, stopped all resettlement travel indefinitely. Such measures are in direct contravention of the UNHCR’s own international standards. Furthermore, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of travel bans in pandemic disease control. Thousands of refugees will die if they remain in camps with no means of accessing vital health care. Political choices and people made vulnerable Migration and the global response are always political exercises. People on the move have long been seen as harbingers of disease that must be stopped at all costs. Xenophobia and racism is already rampant as the world looks for scapegoats for the current outbreak. While local initiatives such as homemade masks and COVID-19 helplines are stopgaps, we need a coordinated global response that strengthens universal access to health care including for people crossing borders and claiming asylum. Refugee camps are full of contradictions: they hold so much pain, yet also showcase the resiliency and complexity of the human spirit. By their very nature, they are a bridge between belonging and uncertainty, locking people in time and space. The conditions in camps make people vulnerable and exacerbate global health emergencies like the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Our response to the intersection between migration, the coronavirus and systemic barriers to health will determine how and when we get a grip of this disease, a decision which will eventually affect all of us. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.
Abu Bakr’s family had packed up their improvised tents in Sindh, south-east Pakistan, by mid-October 2019. Three months earlier, they had lost their houses and fields due to uncharacteristically heavy monsoon rains. Now they were returning to their village near the settlement of Mirpur Sakro to rebuild their homes. But any hope that the family could return to normality might turn out to be short-lived. The family lives off what it grows, selling any excess produce and the occasional buffalo at the market to obtain cash for supplies or healthcare. Except that by mid-March, many of Sindh’s markets were closed because of COVID-19. I met Abu Bakr during my ongoing research into the risks and vulnerabilities of displaced populations to zoonoses – diseases transmittable between animals and humans. In Pakistan, internally displaced populations such as Abu Bakr’s family often depend on movement to keep safe during the monsoon, for livestock grazing and the occasional seasonal work. As they share their living, cooking and washing spaces with their livestock, zoonoses are a real concern. Even if it’s rare for these diseases such as COVID-19 to move from animals to humans, endemic zoonotic and other infectious diseases are common among displaced populations. If people are displaced from their homes, they may become more vulnerable because of their changing environment, the limited availability of services such as healthcare, and the inadequate supply of food or its poor preparation. Displaced people are also more at risk of COVID-19, since prevention measures such as physical distancing are less effective in crowded relief camps where large households live in small shelters. Regular hand washing is often impossible without a sufficient supply of clean water. The lockdowns are disproportionally affecting the world’s poor and displaced populations in other places too. In Karachi, Afghan refugees have been unable to access work due to movement restrictions imposed by a curfew. The effect on their livelihood is increasingly becoming a risk to their health. In Jordan, host to one of the world’s largest refugee populations, the government closed its borders early in the pandemic. It also imposed strict curfews, restricting access to refugee camps from outside visitors, which affected how much aid was available to its inhabitants. Health trade-offs Some humanitarian agencies shut down non-essential programmes as a result of the pandemic. For example, nutritional programmes targeted at refugees and displaced people – essential to people’s immune response – were affected. Syrian refugees in the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan are struggling to meet basic needs as they can no longer leave the camp to work. Their poor nutrition will inadvertently increase their vulnerability to disease. It doesn’t help that livestock are often not allowed in formal relief camps, since they could contribute to people’s livelihoods and food, improving nutrition. In late March, the UN launched a US$2 billion (£0.9 billion) COVID-19 humanitarian response plan urging donors not to neglect funding to ongoing emergencies – including refugee and displacement crises. It stressed that providing basic healthcare and preventing overlapping health conditions are essential in limiting the severity of disease. But health programmes are already being affected by the crisis. In April, the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation advised countries to suspend mass vaccination campaigns. Early reports suggest that polio cases in Sindh have increased, a situation bound to worsen due to the lack of vaccinations. This could have far-reaching and long-term negative effects in the region. Other efforts to control disease will be affected by COVID-19 too, as healthcare systems get overwhelmed, limiting access to health clinics and the supply of medicines. In Jordan, humanitarian health support provided through urban health clinics to the refugees, most of them Syrian, living outside the camps, has been suspended. Abu Bakr’s family suffers from seasonal malaria outbreaks – important when one remembers that reduced access to anti-malarial health services and mosquito nets in west Africa during the Ebola outbreak caused more deaths than the virus itself. Look to the long term Indiscriminately implementing standard prevention measures against COVID-19 or other zoonotic disease in countries with limited resources, complex emergencies or high levels of displacement has life-threatening consequences. Government policies and humanitarian responses need to address immediate health needs, as well as long-term livelihoods and food supply. It’s long been an ambition of humanitarian and development agencies to include migrants, refugees and displaced people in the delivery and design of aid operations. Today’s restrictions on international and local movement reiterate the importance of shifting responsibility of humanitarian responses to local groups. In Sindh, local leaders are already actively increasing COVID-19 awareness among communities. Soon Abu Bakr will have to decide how to safely protect his family and their livestock from the monsoon floods as well as COVID-19. Trade-offs between health risks and livelihoods need to be carefully negotiated. One way to do this would be to use data on levels of poverty and coping mechanisms to contribute to models of how diseases spread. Wherever possible, researchers developing such models and responses to zoonotic diseases should get displaced populations to participate as much as possible. The weakest populations need to be supported to protect the global health of all of us. |
AuthorAll blog posts are authored by members of the Praxis Labs collective. All opinions expressed are the author's own. All rights remain with the author. Archives
October 2025
Categories |