Mapping
A qualitative mapping of governance, institutional responsibility, and fiscal authority across displacement-related sectors in Southeast Asia.
Mapping
This mapping examines governance, institutional responsibility, and fiscal authority across multiple displacement-related sectors. It shows where responsibility is assigned, where public systems absorb displacement-related vulnerability, and where governance breaks across categories, territories, and time.
This Mapping is not a legal database, displacement data portal, or document repository. It is an analytical map of displacement governance architecture: how laws, policies, financing arrangements, registries, and public systems determine whether displaced populations remain included as they move across categories, territories, and time.
The purpose is not to score countries. It is to make visible the institutional fault lines that determine whether displaced populations remain connected to ordinary systems after status, location, crisis phase, or project boundaries change.
How to use it
Select a country, a governance layer, or a fault line. The explorer returns the same underlying governance entries, each linked to illustrative cases and sources where available.
The Mapping has two connected layers. Governance architecture entries map the laws, policies, registries, financing instruments, safeguards, delivery systems, and political economy patterns that shape displacement-related inclusion. Country profiles show how these architectures combine in specific national and regional settings.
Governance architecture
These entries link instruments, systems, registries, financing, and mandates to the continuity question: who remains included as status, location, programme phase, or project boundaries change?
40 mapping entries
The Bangkok Principles create a regional vocabulary for refugee protection, but they do not by themselves carry displaced people into national registration, financing, or service systems.
The Guiding Principles define IDP rights across displacement phases, but protection continuity depends on whether states translate them into budgets, mandates, data systems, and ordinary services.
The Action Agenda shifts internal displacement from humanitarian management toward development, prevention, and solutions, but success depends on whether states and partners embed IDP inclusion in ordinary planning and financing systems.
The Global Compact on Refugees promotes inclusion in national systems and more predictable responsibility sharing, but implementation depends on host-state choices, donor financing, and development-system alignment.
The Global Compact for Migration promotes rights-based and cooperative migration governance, but it separates migrants from refugees and leaves access to services, status, and protection largely dependent on domestic systems.
ESS5 governs displacement created by World Bank-financed projects, but its protections can end at the project boundary before livelihood, service, and territorial continuity are restored.
IFC Performance Standard 5 extends displacement governance into private-sector finance, but responsibility remains anchored to client risk management and project boundaries rather than public-system inclusion.
Thailand's migrant health insurance architecture shows how a public system can absorb non-citizens for health purposes while leaving legal status, portability, and broader social protection unresolved.
DTKS and SIKS-NG can connect households to social assistance, but displaced households can fall out when emergency lists, domicile records, and registry updating cycles do not align.
4Ps gives the Philippines a statutory social protection platform, but displacement creates continuity risks when household location, school enrolment, health compliance, or registry status changes.
AADMER creates a binding regional disaster cooperation framework, but displacement continuity still depends on national systems, local authorities, and post-emergency recovery architecture.
The Five-Point Consensus provides ASEAN's political framework for Myanmar, but it has not created a reliable protection, access, or assistance architecture for displaced populations.
Thailand's Universal Coverage Scheme demonstrates deep public-system absorption for citizens, while also revealing the categorical boundary separating citizen entitlement from non-citizen health inclusion.
Thailand's civil registration and statelessness framework can make non-citizens administratively visible, but service access and nationality pathways remain mediated by documentation category, residence history, and local administration.
Indonesia's disaster management law creates a national-local disaster architecture, but displacement continuity depends on how emergency records connect to recovery, social protection, housing, and local administration.
The Philippines DRRM Act institutionalises disaster governance across national and local levels, but displacement continuity depends on whether local systems can carry assistance beyond evacuation and emergency response.
The Marawi recovery architecture shows how conflict displacement can shift from emergency response to reconstruction while many households remain caught between return, compensation, housing, and local recovery systems.
Malaysia's foreign worker health protection architecture links some migrant health access to employment and insurance, but refugees, undocumented migrants, and people outside labour channels remain structurally exposed.
Myanmar's MCCT shows how early social protection systems can create resilience before crisis, but conflict, economic collapse, and administrative disruption expose the fragility of programme continuity.
The Bangladesh-UNHCR registration architecture gives Rohingya refugees operational identity for assistance and protection, but it does not create durable legal status, national inclusion, or portable membership.
The ASEAN migrant workers declaration recognizes migrant-worker protection as a regional concern, but access to rights remains mediated by national labour, immigration, recruitment, and social protection systems.
Indonesia's refugee regulation creates an administrative framework for handling refugees from abroad, but it does not establish a full asylum system, durable status, or ordinary service inclusion.
Thailand's border camp architecture has provided long-term refuge and assistance for Myanmar refugees, but protection remains territorially bounded and weakly connected to ordinary national systems.
The Philippines migrant workers law builds a transnational protection architecture for overseas workers, but its portability depends on recruitment regulation, consular reach, employer compliance, and destination-country systems.
Vietnam's residence reform reduces reliance on paper household registration, but access to services still depends on how digital residence data translate into portable administrative inclusion.
Cambodia's land law provides a legal architecture for ownership and concessions, but displacement risk emerges where tenure recognition, concession governance, and compensation systems fail to protect affected communities.
Lao PDR's resettlement decree recognizes people affected by development projects, but long-term inclusion depends on whether compensation and relocation restore livelihoods, services, and community continuity.
Thailand's accelerated statelessness resolution shows how administrative data can be converted into legal status pathways, but inclusion still depends on eligibility, local verification, and implementation capacity.
UNHCR registration can make displaced people visible for protection and assistance, but it does not automatically create domestic legal status, public service access, or fiscal responsibility.
Humanitarian cash can stabilize displaced households quickly, but without alignment to national systems it can remain a parallel residual rather than a bridge to sustainable inclusion.
ADB safeguards govern displacement within financed projects, but continuity depends on whether resettlement and livelihood restoration connect to ordinary public systems after project implementation.
The IDA Window for Host Communities and Refugees helps turn refugee hosting into a development-finance issue, but inclusion depends on host-state policy, project design, and whether financing strengthens ordinary systems.
The GCFF lowers the financing cost of refugee-hosting development projects, but it still operates through sovereign borrowing and project logic rather than automatic inclusion entitlements.
The OECD/EBA framework shows that legal access to social protection often exists on paper, while actual inclusion depends on data, financing, administrative capacity, and political economy.
Adaptive social protection strengthens systems for shocks, but displacement inclusion depends on whether registries, financing, and delivery rules can follow people across place and status.
The Sendai Framework strengthens disaster risk governance, but displacement protection depends on whether risk reduction, evacuation, recovery, and social systems are designed around people who move.
The Nansen Protection Agenda and Platform on Disaster Displacement address cross-border disaster displacement, but protection depends on states using migration, humanitarian, and protection tools without a dedicated binding status.
The IASC Durable Solutions Framework defines when displacement-related needs have ended, but implementation depends on whether governments and partners connect solutions to land, services, livelihoods, safety, and participation.
The Kampala Convention is the strongest regional legal instrument on internal displacement, but its impact depends on domestic incorporation, financing, institutions, and implementation.
Colombia's Victims Registry makes conflict displacement administratively visible and links victims to assistance and reparations, but fiscal capacity and implementation delays shape actual inclusion.
Country profiles
Use the country explorer to compare governance layers, recurring fault lines, and illustrative cases across Southeast Asia.