The Role of Brazil in Protecting Displaced Persons in Latin America: Regional Cooperation as a Good Practice

全文:

Introduction

Addressing serious international crimes, human rights violations, and the challenges surrounding migrant mobility are among the most pressing issues facing the global community today. This is particularly relevant to Brazil’s efforts to protect the rights of displaced persons, with a focus on issues such as refugee protection and humanitarian aid. As noted in academic research, the legal complexities involved in these activities highlight the challenges displaced persons face when navigating both national and international legal frameworks (Santos, 2024, p. 105).

Protecting displaced persons in Latin America is a multifaceted challenge requiring a nuanced approach that integrates national policies with effective regional cooperation strategies. This study examines Brazil’s role in addressing population displacement, focusing on the country’s contributions to regional cooperation and the implementation of practices that can serve as a model for other nations. Latin America’s experience, characterized by diverse drivers of displacement (including conflict, natural disasters, and climate change) and a history of innovative solutions such as regional solidarity—warrants a thorough examination of the roles played by state and non-state actors in addressing this issue. This article analyzes Brazil’s efforts in this context, specifically through the lens of its participation in regional frameworks and its adoption of initiatives that promote the well-being of displaced populations in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 17 (SDG 17).^[1]

Brazil’s response to the Venezuelan displacement crisis provides an important case study in this wider context. As of May 2024, an estimated 6.59 million Venezuelans have taken refuge in Latin America and the Caribbean, accounting for most of the global total of 7.77 million.^[2] Brazil, a primary recipient of this migration flow, implemented Operation Welcome in April 2018, through Federal Law 13,684/2018.^[3] This initiative, aimed at managing the influx of Venezuelans, particularly in the northern state of Roraima, highlights Brazil’s approach to addressing large-scale population displacement.

Drawing on long-term analytical research, this article examines Brazil’s Operation Welcome for Venezuelan migrants as a communicative model of the network society (Pacífico, 2022) and demonstrates how inter-institutional cooperation has enabled it to become an example of best practice. The study is qualitative and interdisciplinary in nature, drawing on insights from specialists in migration studies, international relations, international law, political science, and sociology (Poth, 2023). It draws on academic literature, document analysis, and data from various sources, such as the Brazilian Federal Police, reports from the Regional Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela (R4V) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), as well as a content analysis of media reports.

The study examines the alignment of Brazil’s programs with regional and international legal frameworks and its participation in cooperative initiatives in this area. It also assesses the impact of its policies on displaced populations. Employing a deductive methodology, the study moves from a broad examination of population displacement in Latin America to a focused analysis of Brazil’s contribution, including Operation Welcome (Operação Acolhida) as a potential model of best practice at both regional and international levels (Gilgun, 2019).

The theoretical and methodological foundation of the study comprises A. Betts’s concept of migration management and protection through persuasion,^[4] R. Zetter’s (2015) typology of protection for displaced persons, and A. Pacífico’s (2022) communicative model of network society. This framework enables a critical examination of protection mechanisms and an assessment of the effectiveness of protection strategies for displaced persons, both within the region and beyond, while highlighting the importance of cooperation and implementation of replicable best practices.

Displaced Persons in the Latin American Regime: Conceptualisation, Laws and Policies

Certain categories of vulnerable populations are enshrined in legislation, while others have yet to receive adequate recognition within national legal systems and public policy. This situation stems from the absence of either clear definitions for these categories or a standardized terminology in legally binding international instruments that would enable their identification and effective protection at the global level. For instance, displaced persons may be misclassified as refugees or assigned to other protected categories. Consequently, state obligations regarding their protection become ambiguous: individuals who do not meet the criteria for refugee status may fall outside the scope of both the refugee protection regime and other applicable international legal mechanisms (Owen, 2020; Brock, 2020). According to S. Krasner (1982), an international regime constitutes a set of rules, norms, principles, and decision-making procedures around which the expectations of participants in a given area of ​​international relations converge. In this sense, refugees have their own protection regime, established by the UNHCR in 1950. As the principal institution of this regime, the UNHCR is responsible for the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.^[5]

Following the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, various terms, definitions, and concepts emerged, complicating the task of international protection regime regarding all categories of displaced persons, particularly after the establishment of regional regimes in Africa, the European Union, and Latin America (McBrien, 2017).

Two agencies within the United Nations system are responsible for managing population migration: the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UNHCR. The former primarily deals with the protection of individuals who move within or outside their country of origin or citizenship, whether temporarily or permanently, but voluntarily. This encompasses migration for purposes such as education, tourism, marriage, and family reunification, as well as irregular migration. Some foreign migrants enter a new country without a standard visa or documentation and are classified as irregular or undocumented migrants.

The second organization, UNHCR, is responsible for providing assistance to refugees. Under the 1951 Convention, a refugee is a person who has left their country of origin or citizenship and is unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Additionally, asylum seekers (or applicants for refugee status, as termed in Latin America) are individuals who have applied for asylum or refugee status in another country, but are awaiting a decision. Some asylum seekers may also be classified as irregular migrants in the country of destination.

According to the United Nations definition (1998), internally displaced persons (IDPs) are individuals forced to move within their own country due to armed conflict, widespread violence, human rights violations, or natural or man-made disasters. Unlike refugees, they do not cross international borders.^[6]

A. Betts (2010) introduced the term “survival migrants” to describe people who are compelled to cross international borders, but do not qualify as refugees because they do not face the specific forms of persecution outlined in the legal definition. This category includes, in particular, individuals displaced by environmental factors, such as natural disasters, state instability, or the loss of livelihoods caused by factors such as climate change or environmental degradation. A. Pacífico and R. de Araújo Neto (2017) define “environmentally displaced persons” (EDPs) as individuals who have been forcibly displaced, either temporarily or permanently, either within their own country or across international borders due to environmental changes.

In this context, it is also necessary to consider stateless persons—individuals who lack legal citizenship and who may also fall into the categories of refugees, internally displaced persons, asylum seekers, or EDPs.

Overall, contemporary literature on migration and displacement distinguishes between migrants who move voluntarily and displaced persons who are forced to leave their homes. Consequently, the former group falls under the purview of the IOM, while the latter falls under that of the UNHCR. In practice, however, both UN agencies collaborate on the ground to address issues related to population movement, particularly in situations involving natural disasters that disrupt local social structures. These joint efforts are evident in Latin America, where the regional Cartagena regime has played a pivotal role in encouraging local authorities, at both the national and regional levels, to develop laws and policies protecting displaced persons, including migrants, refugees, stateless persons, and IDPs.

The current Latin American regime, comprising primarily national laws and programs as well as regional declarations, is known as the Cartagena regime or the “spirit of Cartagena,” inspired by the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. This declaration prompted Latin American countries to protect refugees and other displaced persons in the region (Pinheiro de Castro Simão, 2024) in accordance with the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, which affirms the right to freedom of movement and residence for all.

A major achievement of the 1984 Cartagena Declaration was the expansion of the definition of a refugee (relative to the definition in the 1951 Convention) to include those fleeing situations of serious public disorder or generalized human rights violations. Adopting this expanded definition, Brazil’s 1997 Refugee Law defined refugees in a similar manner, making Brazil the first country in the world to recognize as refugees those fleeing serious and massive human rights violations.^[7]

The Cartagena regime was updated every 10 years. In 1994, the San José Declaration on Refugees and Displaced Persons was published, emphasizing that human rights protections extend to refugees and other migrants, including economic migrants, before, during, and after their departure or return.^[8] The 2004 Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action reaffirmed the need to strengthen international protection for refugees and other migrants in the region (Gilbert, 2006).

Another significant step forward was the 2010 Brasilia Declaration, aimed at protecting refugees and stateless persons in Latin America. Under this document, states in the region are to recognize the importance of creating better alternatives for legal migration and migration policies that respect the human rights of migrants regardless of their migration status, including undocumented migrants and displaced persons.^[9]

Drawing on the principles of the “Cartagena spirit,” the 2014 Brazil Declaration and Plan of Action, adopted by acclamation at the “Cartagena + 30” conference, underscore the need to protect refugees, displaced persons (including those displaced for environmental reasons), and stateless persons, as well as those in need of humanitarian assistance and other vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the document places special emphasis on cooperation, solidarity, and the sharing of best practices to strengthen the protection of migrants and displaced persons in the region.^[10]

Finally, in 2024, the Latin American countries signed the Chile Declaration and Plan of Action (“Cartagena + 40”), committing to showing solidarity, ensuring protection, and finding sustainable solutions for refugees, displaced persons, and stateless individuals in the region. The document also proposes a comprehensive approach to displacement caused by natural disasters, placing special emphasis on those who are forced to leave their homes due to environmental reasons.^[11]

The region has faced several significant challenges, such as internal conflicts in Colombia, natural disasters in Haiti, and the multifaceted crisis in Venezuela. In terms of statistics, the primary source of tension in the region today is the political, economic, and social crisis in Venezuela, which has caused more than 10 million citizens to leave the country and the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) to exceed 3 million. It is important to note that 84% (6.5 million) of displaced Venezuelans remain within Latin America and the Caribbean; however, only Brazil has granted them refugee status in accordance with the international refugee protection regime and its own national legislation.^[12] An alarming situation has also arisen in Colombia due to the civil crisis: since 1985, more than 7 million Colombians have been forced to leave the country, and the number of internally displaced persons has exceeded 10 million.^[13]

The latest “hotspot” is Haiti (in the Caribbean), which is facing environmental, economic, social, and political challenges and vulnerabilities. According to the UNHCR, there were more than 362,000 internally displaced persons in Haiti, and by the end of 2023, nearly 50% of the country’s population of 11.4 million was in need of humanitarian assistance.^[14] In 2023, Colombia and Haiti accounted for 85% of all new cases of internal displacement caused by conflict and violence in the Americas.^[15]

As for internally displaced persons (IDPs), specifically, according to the 2024 report by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, there were 6.3 million IDPs in the region by the end of 2023: 6.25 million people had been forced to leave their homes due to conflict, and 50,000 due to natural disasters.^[16] This underscores the urgent need to find local solutions involving collaboration among various stakeholders to implement best practices, with a focus on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17.

Cooperation as a Regional Response to Migrants and Displaced Persons in Latin America

Each region has its own specific characteristics; therefore, solutions to migrant-related issues must be adapted to diverse regional conditions. Even the best practices applicable across the board require adjustment to account for local specifics. A “best practice” can be defined as a process or methodology that adheres to ethical norms and principles of fairness, is suitable for replication, and is recommended as a model. Practices related to refugees and other displaced persons can be considered “best practices,” while avoiding the imposition of social standards or cultural imperialism, if they are implemented flexibly and grounded in principles, such as respect for human rights and equality, advocacy, stakeholder participation, structured coordination, capacity building and resource utilization, a comprehensive refugee support system, program relevance, risk mitigation, and a sustainable approach to problem-solving (Dunda, 2022, pp. 60–61).

The authors substantiate the need for the involvement of various actors in ensuring comprehensive protection for migrants and displaced persons, drawing on the protection framework proposed by R. Zetter (2015). In his view, “the multiplicity of humanitarian and other actors engaged in protection issues has led to the fragmentation of the system for the effective protection of forced migrants” (Zetter, 2015, p. 62). The researcher classifies types of protection, distinguishing between status-based, needs-based, and rights-based protection (Zetter, 2015, p. 64).

Status-based protection relies on international legal instruments and regulatory frameworks that define categories of refugees and other displaced persons, such as the 1951 Convention and the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

Needs-based protection aims to address the vulnerabilities of individuals during the humanitarian or emergency response phase, regardless of their legal category or status, and is typically carried out by humanitarian organizations. The authors include the qualifier “typically” because, as illustrated by Brazil’s Operation Welcome for Venezuelan migrants and refugees, the initiative is coordinated by the military, demonstrating a humanitarian-military approach.

Rights-based protection is grounded in the premise that all individuals—regardless of their legal (or social or political) status—are entitled to protection.

Regardless of the type of protection employed, national governments develop laws and policies to ensure the safety of displaced persons within their territory, such as refugees, IDPs, people in refugee-like situations, and stateless persons. Although adapting international regimes to national contexts can be challenging (due to a lack of financial or technical resources, a lack of political will, etc.), A. Betts (2009) emphasizes the importance of such local-level adaptation, even without altering the global refugee protection regime.

A. Betts (2009) terms this process “regime stretching” (RS) at the local level; it is carried out through international negotiations (revising treaties and founding documents), institutionalization (signing, ratifying, and transposing treaties into national law, as well as interpreting the mandates of international organizations), and/or practical implementation (drafting laws and policies to incorporate international norms or organizational recommendations). This model can ensure the protection for migrants and displaced persons without altering the international regime itself, by simply adapting it to local conditions, such as regional or local specificities.

“Regime stretching” at the local level entails maintaining existing structures while simultaneously expanding their capabilities through cooperation, as appears to have occurred with Operation Welcome in Brazil.

At the level of institutionalization, “regime stretching” allows for the preservation of existing social policies while granting migrants and displaced persons genuine access to them. This occurred, for instance, with the adoption of Brazil’s 1997 Refugee Law within the framework of the Cartagena regime.

At the level of international treaties, “regime stretching” encompasses measures such as issuing entry visas and granting refugee status. Notably, Brazil was the only country in the region to recognize Venezuelan nationals as refugees, whereas other countries, such as Colombia, granted them humanitarian visas. It should be noted that visa issuance is a discretionary right granted and accepted solely by states, whereas refugee status falls under the international regime. Despite the challenges and constraints involved in persuading certain actors, specifically states and the private sector, to act in the interests of displaced persons, A. Betts (2009) recommends that other stakeholders (such as UN bodies, other international organizations, civil society, and even displaced persons themselves) employ a strategy of “cross-issue persuasion” (CIP). In this context, CIP refers to a process whereby non-state actors induce state cooperation by linking distinct issues, such as the protection and security of displaced persons with economic concerns, through a mechanism of “regime expansion” at the level of field-level implementation.

The actions of international and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) urging the state to develop and implement legislation and policies aimed at protecting individuals forced to leave their homes for environmental reasons serve as an example of this. Through the implementation of the CIP initiative, the state can ensure its environmental, social, and economic security by responding to droughts, floods, human rights violations, and administrative shortcomings.

In this context, cooperation among various actors within the CIP framework would be the most effective way to encourage local stakeholders to adapt the international regime to their national conditions, while simultaneously empowering displaced persons to play an active role in the negotiation process and transform them into agents capable of changing their own lives.

A. Pacífico (2013; 2022) emphasizes that the best way to ensure the full protection of migrants and displaced persons, in line with R. Zetter’s concept of adapting the international regime at the implementation level rather than altering the regime itself (Betts, 2009), is to adopt the Network Society Communicative Model (NSCM) involving all stakeholders.

This model relies on active participation of and dialogue among all actors, whom the author terms “implementation partners” (Pacífico, 2013; 2022). These partners include local and national government bodies, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, the scientific community, the media, and the migrants and displaced persons themselves. The model is grounded in M. Castells’ network society theory (2009) and B. Chimni’s dialogic model (2001),which draws inspiration from J. Habermas’s theory of communicative action (1989), as well as the concept of the communicative community developed by  K.O. Apel (1980) and A. Betts’s idea of ​​interconnectedness in global governance.^[17] Within this model, the UNHCR can act as a mediator in the NSCM dialogue, as rights protection is a core element of its mandate.

In this regard, A. Pacífico notes that, according to M. Castells’ network society theory, all participants in such a society are interconnected like nodes in a hammock; if one node comes undone or snaps, the entire hammock collapses, and all participants feel the consequences. Applying this approach to the protection of migrants and displaced persons, all partners are linked into a single network, where each plays a distinct role but works towards a shared goal (Pacífico, 2013, pp. 178–179; 2022). That goal is the protection of migrants and displaced persons within various international regimes (human rights, refugee protection, and humanitarian action).

Implementing Habermas’s theory of communicative action would mean that all actors capable of articulating a position should have the opportunity to “sit at the negotiating table” to voice and advocate for their needs and aspirations. Like J. Habermas, K.-O. Apel advocates for the creation of such a community, emphasizing communication among the various participants in the process. B. Chimni’s “dialogue model” (Chimni, 2001, pp. 152–168), conceived as a process of argumentation, highlights the pivotal role of NGOs in preparing and disseminating reports designed to encourage states to engage in mutual negotiations, first at the regional level and subsequently at the international level. This process aligns with A. Betts’s concept regarding the persuasion of parties on related issues during the field-level implementation of solutions. For A. Pacífico (2013; 2022), dialogue is a key element of this communicative model of the network society. Regarding the participants in this model, A. Pacífico (2013; 2022) primarily highlights the UNHCR as the key actor within the international refugee protection system. The UNHCR’s responsibilities include listening to all stakeholders, persuading states to translate proposals into national legislation, and monitoring the implementation of adopted decisions. Thus, the UNHCR is to serve as the coordinating body for this model. A. Pacífico (2013; 2022) also asserts that while states possess sovereignty, they simultaneously bear human rights obligations stemming from international treaties, the provisions of which have been incorporated into national law.

A. Pacífico (2013, p. 179; 2022) argues that states should establish close financial and political partnerships with local NGOs, allowing the latter to operate independently of the government while still adhering to state regulations. This is because, in the view of M. Castells, NGOs are the most powerful proactive and mobilizing force in information politics (Castells, 2009).

Finally, migrants and displaced persons themselves are an integral part of the NSCM model and must act as full partners in the process. They should also actively participate in daily life at the local level, particularly those most severely affected by forced displacement and the loss of their accustomed way of life.

All participants in the NSCM model must be enabled to negotiate effectively with one another, taking into account their respective roles and significance within the protection system, a system that should be organized in a way that “builds bridges rather than walls.”

The NSCM model proposed by A. Pacifico, alongside A. Betts’s concepts of “cross-issue persuasion” and “regime stretching,” can be adapted to local contexts to assist migrants and displaced persons across various regions of the world. Brazil offers a successful example of this approach. Positive outcomes were achieved there through regional inter-state dialogue, the exchange of experience and best practices, as well as discussions aimed at addressing challenges and formulating recommendations for implementing regional and international legal norms. Implementing the NSCM model would foster a sense of deep interdependence among participants (the system’s “nodes”) and help redress power imbalances (such as those between states and displaced persons), as even the least influential participants would gain the opportunity to negotiate with and persuade more powerful actors to take their needs and interests into account.

A. Betts  (2009) demonstrated that the UNHCR has at times managed to break cooperation deadlocks and reach mutually acceptable agreements at the negotiating table by employing an “issue-linkage” strategy, connecting refugee protection to the broader interests of states. A prime example is the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees (1989), which addressed the situation of “boat people” by curbing irregular departures, establishing the “first country of asylum” as a safe haven, creating a system for screening and processing asylum claims, facilitating resettlement or repatriation, and conducting a targeted information campaign. In other words, under the NSCM model, all stakeholders—refugees, asylum seekers, displaced persons, the UNHCR, the state (public sector), international organizations, civil society (NGOs), private companies, and the scientific (epistemic) community—must be interconnected and brought together in dialogue to find solutions to the challenges faced by displaced persons. The implementation of the NSCM model is only possible through cooperation aimed at sharing knowledge and experience among various regions and stakeholders. Strategies for the protection of migrants and displaced persons employed in Brazil, particularly in the context of implementing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17, serve as an example of this approach.

In 2015, the UN adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Resolution A/RES/70/1), which comprises 17 goals and calls on all countries to act within a global partnership to achieve them. SDG 17 is directly aimed at “strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.”^[18]

Brazil has developed and implemented a range of strategies to support migrants and displaced persons, covering aspects such as finance (SDGs 17.3, 17.4, and 17.6), capacity-building (17.9), policy and institutional coherence (17.14), multi-stakeholder partnerships (17.16), and data collection, monitoring, and accountability (17.18). These strategies are implemented at both the national and state levels across the country. There are 28 programmatic interventions at the national level, alongside regional initiatives: seven in the South, 10 in the Southeast, two in the Northeast, four in the Center-West, and 14 in the North (including six in the state of Amazonas and five in Pará). Within the framework of these 28 strategies, UNHCR and/or IOM are implementing four initiatives targeting migrants and displaced persons primarily in the North, South, and Southeast regions. More detailed information can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Strategies to Implement SDG 17 for Migrants and Displaced People in Brazil, 2023–2025

Title	Aim/Activity	Goal	Brazilian Implementation Partners	Contributing Partners	States of Brazil	Date
UNHCR	Increase community self-management and capacity to support integration and resilience	17.3 17.9	Local, National, and International NGOs, e.g. Local Caritas and Fraternity without Borders	European Commission, Government of Japan	AM, DF, MG, PR, PA, RS, RJ, RR, SC, SP	2023–2025
UNHCR	Strengthen government capacity to develop intersectorial intervention and policies, with displaced persons’ participation	17.9	Local, National, and International NGOs, e.g. Local Caritas and Fraternity without Borders	–	AM, DF, MG, PR, PA, RS, RJ, RR, SC, SP	2023–2025
IOM and Pan American Health Organization  (PAHO)	Strengthen capacities of border municipalities in the Brazilian Amazon to face challenges  of migration, climate change, and health	17.4	Brazilian Ministry of Health and of the Environment and Climate Change	Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund	AC, AP, AM, PA, RO, RR	2023–2025
IOM	Provide new evidence and strengthen capacities of Brazilian Municipal and Federal Government  to respond to challenges related to Internal Migration, Environment, and climate change	17.14	Brazilian Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change	IOM Development Fund	AM, PA, RR	2023–2024

Note. State abbreviations: AM — Amazonas, DF — Federal District (with capital Brasília), MG — Minas Gerais, PR — Paraná, PA — Pará, RS — Rio Grande do Sul, RJ — Rio de Janeiro, RR — Roraima, SC — Santa Catarina, SP — São Paulo, AC — Acre, AP — Amapá, RO — Rondônia.
Source: compiled by A.M.C.P. Pacifico and J. da Costa Santos based on: Q1 2024 Migration Trends in the Americas // IOM. URL: https://lac.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl2601/files/documents/2024-07/q1-2024-migration-trends-in-the-americas.pdf (accessed: 03.03.2025).

The strategies described above are primarily implemented in Brazil’s northern states, which are directly confronting the influx of Venezuelan migrants and displaced persons arriving across the country’s northern border. Since 2018, this influx has driven the launch of Operation Welcome. While coordinated by the Brazilian Army, the operation involves a wide range of stakeholders. These include UN agencies (notably UNHCR and IOM), relevant Brazilian government ministries, representatives from academia and research circles, the media, local and international NGOs, and the Venezuelan migrants and displaced persons themselves.

This initiative serves as an example of best practice, demonstrating the application of a “network society” communication model designed to ensure the protection of migrants and displaced persons. As F. Campomori, M. Casula, and Y. Kazepov note, “in the realm of asylum policy, social innovation can help meet refugees’ needs and foster goodwill among host communities, ultimately strengthening social cohesion in settlement areas” (Campomori, Casula & Kazepov, 2023, p. 158). This approach highlights the importance of innovative methods for addressing migration challenges and facilitating both the emergency reception and subsequent integration of migrants.

The Good Practice: Operation Welcome

In April 2018, the Brazilian government launched Operation Welcome (Federal Law No. 13.684/2018) in response to the growing influx of vulnerable Venezuelan citizens at the country’s northern border.^[19] This initiative played a key role in addressing the situation caused by the sharp rise in the flow of Venezuelans into Brazil: approximately 600 Venezuelan citizens were arriving in the state of Roraima daily. According to official data, about 40,000 migrants and asylum seekers were living in Boa Vista, the state capital, alone. However, unofficial estimates suggest that the actual figure was significantly higher, with around 100,000 Venezuelans present in Roraima by August 2018.^[20] This figure represented approximately one-fifth of the country’s total population, with many of these individuals living in extremely adverse conditions.

While Operation Welcome (Operação Acolhida) demonstrates Brazil’s response to the situation, it is important to view it within the broader context of the movement of Venezuelan refugees and migrants across the region. As previously mentioned, as of May 2024, the total number of Venezuelan refugees and migrants worldwide was estimated at 7.77 million, 6.59 million of whom were residing in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Brazil hosts a significant portion of this population: according to the latest available data, there were 568,058 Venezuelans in the country as of March 2024.^[21] These figures, detailed in Table 2, underscore the scale of the crisis associated with the displacement of Venezuela’s population and the ongoing need for humanitarian assistance.

Table 2. Estimated Number of Venezuelan Refugees and Migrants in Latin America and the Caribbean

Country	Number in 2023	Number in 2024	Difference
Colombia	2,875,743 (as of August 2023)	2,857,528 (as of January 2024)	– 18,215
Peru	1,542,004 (as of June 2023)	N/d	–
Brazil	510,499 (as of September 2023)	568,058 (as of March 2024)	+ 57,559
Chile	444,423 (as of December 2021)	532,715 (as of December 2022)	+ 88,292
Ecuador	474,945 (as of June 2023)	444,778 (as of March 2024)	– 30,167
Dominican Republic	124,141 (as of June 2023)	N/d	–
Trinidad & Tobago	36,218 (as of June 2023)	N/d	–
Guyana	21,676 (as of June 2023)	N/d	–
Aruba	17,085 (as of June 2023)	N/d	–
Curaçao	14,000 (as of June 2022)	N/d	–
Argentina	217,742 (as of January 2023)	164,024 (as of March 2024)	– 53,718
Bolivia	16,350 (as of September 2023)	18,006 (as of March 2024)	+ 1,656
Paraguay	5,234 (as of September 2023)	5,349 (as of December 2023)	+ 115
Uruguay	32,939 (as of June 2023)	39,689 (as of December 2023)	+ 6,750
Mexico	113,108 (as of June 2023)	N/d	–
Panama	58,158 (as of July 2023)	N/d	–
Costa Rica	29,405 (as of July 2023)	29,048 (as of December 2023)	– 357
Other countries	1,188,909 (as of May 2023)	N/d	–
TOTAL	7,722,579	7,774,494	+ 51,915

Source: compiled by A.M.C.P. Pacifico and J. da Costa Santos based on: Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela [Infographic] // R4V. URL: https://www.r4v.info/en/refugeeandmigrants (accessed: 02.03.2025).

The entities involved in protecting Venezuelan migrants and refugees in Brazil under Operation Welcome, organized in accordance with the communicative model of the network society, include:

• the federal government: the Office of the President and the Ministry of Social Development (coordinators); relevant ministries: the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Citizenship, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Family and Human Rights, Ministry of the Economy, Ministry of Labor, and Ministry of Regional Development,
• states (reception of Venezuelans, ensuring access to rights, and integration),
• municipalities (reception of Venezuelans, ensuring access to rights, and integration),
• the army (border control),
• judicial bodies and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (oversight of legal compliance and enforcement),
• international organizations (primarily the UN system): UNHCR, IOM, UN-Habitat, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, and UN Women,
• over 100 NGOs (international and national): Doctors Without Borders (MSF), World Vision, AVSI, Fraternidade sem Fronteiras (Brotherhood Without Borders), Rotary International, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Caritas International, various religious organizations, etc.

The objectives of Operation Welcome are divided into three main areas: border management, accommodation, and internal integration (relocation).

1. As part of the border managementprocess, migrants arrive at an initial reception point where they receive assistance in regularizing their legal status (processing documentation). This stage includes services such as vaccination, obtaining work permits, applying for visas or asylum, filling out necessary forms, and waiting for available spots in temporary accommodation centers.
2. Regarding accommodation, migrants can apply for placement in temporary reception centers (there are 14 such centers for families, indigenous people, and single men and women), where they gain access to food, clothing, medical supplies, and Portuguese language courses.
3. Internal integration (relocation) is carried out through the use of Air Force aircraft: following vaccination and the receipt of identification documents and work permits, migrants may choose a municipality for permanent residence. Forms of internal integration include institutional placement, family reunification, social reunification, and relocation based on a job offer.

On the one hand, the success of Operation Welcome is evidenced by the fact that more than 125,000 Venezuelans—received across 1,026 municipalities in every Brazilian state—have availed themselves of the opportunity for voluntary, safe, and organized relocation, which opened up new avenues for socio-economic and cultural integration through relocation assistance (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of the Program to Facilitate the Relocation of Venezuelan Migrants in Brazil, 2018–2024

Category	Data
Total migrants relocated	125,507
Transport methods	120,653 by air, 4,854 by land
Total receiving municipalities	1,026
Top receiving cities	Curitiba (7,816), Manaus (5,519), São Paulo (5,465), Chapecó (5,220), Dourados (4,248)
States with highest intake	Santa Catarina (27,212), Rio Grande do Sul (20,170), Paraná (13,073), São Paulo (13,073)
Migration support centers	12 locations including Boa Vista (Roraima), São Paulo (São Paulo), Brasilia (District Federal), Porto Velho (Rondônia) and Curitiba (Parana)

Source: compiled by A.M.C.P. Pacifico and J. da Costa Santos based on: Subcomitê Federal para Acolhimento e Interiorização de Imigrantes em Situação de Vulnerabilidade, OIM Migração // Governo Federal do Brasil (2024). URL: https://reliefweb.int/report/brazil/subcomite-federal-para-acolhimento-e-interiorizacao-de-imigrantes-em-situacao-de-vulnerabilidade-deslocamentos-assistidos-de-venezuelanos-abril-2018-janeiro-2024-pt (accessed: 03.03.2025).

On the other hand, the implementation of these measures, despite the legal progress achieved, entails a number of practical challenges, particularly regarding the long-term well-being of Venezuelan citizens in need of protection. A persistent major challenge is ensuring sustainable livelihoods for Venezuelan migrants and refugees. As noted by Cequea et al. (2024), many migrants struggle to effectively utilize their skills and knowledge in host countries due to precarious employment, lack of necessary legal status, substandard housing conditions, and vulnerability to various risks.

Although Operation Welcome has facilitated the relocation process for Venezuelans, their integration into the Brazilian labour market remains a significant challenge, especially for those who still lack official migration status. This issue is directly linked to the wider problem of a lack of livelihood opportunities, which could be considered as a key gap in the refugee response system.  Addressing this gap requires not only legal reforms but also the implementation of comprehensive socio-economic integration strategies that go beyond immediate measures for the relocation of people.

The strain on Brazil’s resources is also evident. The massive influx of arrivals has placed significant pressure on public services and infrastructure, particularly in border states such as Roraima and Amazonas.^[22]

Furthermore, the vulnerable situation of Venezuela’s indigenous peoples requires special attention. As noted by UNHCR, these communities face unique challenges, including food shortages, limited access to education, and increased discrimination resulting from the loss of traditional livelihoods.^[23]

Efforts to collect and integrate data should also be stepped up. Reliable information is crucial for effective policy implementation and resource allocation. Improving information-sharing mechanisms among government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and international bodies is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the situation and needs of the Venezuelan population in Brazil.

Finally, securing stable funding is critical to the long-term success of Operation Welcome. The Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (RMRP) for Brazil, which requires USD110 million in 2024, outlines the financial needs for supporting this program.^[24] Consequently, addressing the broad context of Venezuelan migrants and refugees in Brazil requires a multifaceted approach within the framework of the network society’s communication model, comprising the following measures:

• expanding livelihood opportunities for migrants through vocational training, employment support services, and entrepreneurship assistance,
• strengthening social service systems—particularly in healthcare, education, and psychosocial support—for vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples,
• improving data collection and analysis to inform policy decisions and resource allocation,
• fostering inter-agency collaboration to enhance coordination and service delivery efficiency,
• securing sustainable funding to ensure the long-term viability of the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan for Venezuela.

Addressing these objectives will enable Brazil to enhance the effectiveness of Operation Welcome, ensure a more sustainable and inclusive integration process for Venezuelan refugees and migrants, and replicate this model as a best practice for other countries.

Conclusion

Brazil’s implementation of Operation Welcome in response to the influx of Venezuelan refugees and migrants serves as a significant example of regional cooperation and the protection of displaced persons. Launched pursuant to Federal Law No. 13.684/2018, this initiative was a direct response to the escalating crisis in Venezuela, which led to a massive influx of migrants and refugees into Brazil, particularly the state of Roraima, where up to 600 people were arriving daily. The scale of population displacement was staggering. Against this backdrop, Latin America pioneered innovative solutions to displacement, having adopted groundbreaking refugee legislation in 1997 and actively fostered broad regional cooperation involving diverse stakeholders. Brazil’s Operation Welcome exemplifies this collaborative effort: it not only provides urgent humanitarian aid, but also facilitates the long-term integration of Venezuelan migrants and refugees into Brazilian society. This approach demonstrates Brazil’s commitment to addressing the needs of displaced persons through comprehensive, coordinated measures involving both state and non-state actors.

The success of Operation Welcome, despite some criticisms and lingering shortcomings, underscores the pivotal role of regional cooperation in mitigating the impact of large-scale displacement crises. By establishing a legal framework to protect the rights of displaced persons and creating conditions for their integration, Brazil has solidified its position as a regional leader in human rights protection. Furthermore, the initiative aligns with broader sustainable development goals, specifically SDG 17, which emphasizes the importance of global partnerships for achieving sustainable development. Although challenges persist, particularly given the ongoing crisis in Venezuela, Brazil’s experience with Operation Welcome offers valuable lessons to other countries in the region. The strategies implemented, covering everything from legal protection to socio-economic integration, serve as a model for addressing for future displacement crises. The importance of continued cooperation, a robust legal framework, and the successful integration of displaced persons into host communities cannot be overstated.

 

^{1 Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development // United Nations. URL: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal17 (accessed: 20.03.2025).}

^{2 Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela [Infographic] // R4V. URL: https://www.r4v.info/en/refugeeandmigrants (accessed: 02.03.2025).}

^{3 Presidência da República Secretaria-Geral Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Lei No. 13.684, de 21 de Junho de 2018 // Presidência da República. URL: https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=13684&ano=2018&ato=6f4oXW61UeZpWTdf2 (accessed: 04.03.2025).}

^{4 Betts A. Conceptualising Interconnections in Global Governance: The Case of Refugee Protection. RSC Working Paper No. 38. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, 2006. URL: https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/files-1/wp38-conceptualising-interconnections-global-governance-2006.pdf/@@download (accessed: 12.03.2025). See also: (Betts, 2009).}

^{5 The Convention enabled States to make a declaration when becoming party, according to which the words “events occurring before 1 January 1951” are understood to mean “events occurring in Europe” prior to that date. This geographical limitation has been maintained by a very limited number of States, and with the adoption of the 1967 Protocol, has lost much of its significance. See: United Nations. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2198 (XXI), 16 December 1966; entered into force 4 October 1967 // UNHCR. URL: https://www.unhcr.org/publications/protocol-relating-status-refugees (accessed: 28.02.2025).}

^{6 Further Promotion and Encouragement of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Including the Question of the Programme and Methods of Work of the Commission Human Rights, Mass Exoduses and Displaced Persons: Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Francis M. Deng, Submitted Pursuant to Commission Resolution 1997/39 // United Nations Documents. URL: https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 (accessed: 03.03.2025).}

^{7 Brazil: Law No. 9.474 of 1997, Establishing Arrangements for the Implementation of the 1951 Status of Refugees and Related Provisions // Official Gazette of the Federative Republic of Brazil. July 23, 1997. URL: https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1997/en/18339 (accessed: 04.03.2025).}

^{8 San José Declaration on Refugees and Displaced Persons // Refworld. December 7, 1994. URL: https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/rri/1994/en/69659 (accessed: 02.03.2025).}

^{9 Brasilia Declaration on the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons in the Americas. Brasília, 11 November 2010 // UNHCR. URL: https://www.unhcr.org/media/brasilia-declaration-protection-refugees-and-stateless-persons-americas-brasilia-11-november (accessed: 04.03.2025).}

^{10 30th Commemorative Anniversary of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees // UNHCR. URL: https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/where-we-work/americas/30th-commemorative-anniversary-cartagena-declaration-refugees (accessed: 20.03.2025).}

^{11 Cartagena + 40: Declaração e Plano de Ação do Chile consolidam a liderança da América Latina e do Caribe na proteção de pessoas refugiadas, deslocadas e apátridas // ACNUR Brasil. URL: https://www.acnur.org/br/noticias/notas-informativas/cartagena-40-declaracao-e-plano-de-acao-do-chile-consolidam-lideranca (accessed: 02.03.2025).}

^{12 Venezuela Situation Overview — Global Report 2024 // UNHCR. URL: https://www.unhcr.org/media/venezuela-situation-overview-global-report-2024 (accessed: 20.03.2025).}

^{13 Colombia Emergency // UNHCR. URL: https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/colombia-emergency (accessed: 03.03.2026).}

^{14 Advocacy Note — Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in Haiti (May 2024) // ReliefWeb. May 31, 2024. URL: https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/advocacy-note-protection-internally-displaced-persons-haiti-may-2024 (accessed: 02.03.2025).}

^{15 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). Global Report on Internal Displacement 2024 (GRID 2024). Geneva : IDMC, 2024. P. 83. URL: https://api.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/IDMC-GRID-2024-Global-Report-on-Internal-Displacement.pdf (accessed: 18.09.2025).}

^{16 Ibid. P. 81.}

^{17 Betts A. Conceptualising Interconnections in Global Governance: The Case of Refugee Protection. RSC Working Paper No. 38. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, 2006. URL: https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/files-1/wp38-conceptualising-interconnections-global-governance-2006.pdf/@@download (accessed: 12.03.2025).}

^{18 Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” // United Nations. URL: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/70/1 (accessed: 01.03.2025).}

^{19 Presidência da República Secretaria-Geral Subchefia para Assuntos Jurídicos. Lei No. 13.684, de 21 de Junho de 2018 // Presidência da República. URL: https://legislacao.presidencia.gov.br/atos/?tipo=LEI&numero=13684&ano=2018&ato=6f4oXW61UeZpWTdf2 (accessed: 04.03.2025).}

^{20  Venezuela Situation: Brazil. August 2018 // UNHCR. URL: https://data.unhcr.org/ar/documents/download/66667 (accessed: 18.09.2025).}

^{21 Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela [Infographic] // R4V. URL: https://www.r4v.info/en/refugeeandmigrants (accessed: 02.03.2025).}

^{22 Brazil Assistance Overview, October 2024 // ReliefWeb. URL: https://reliefweb.int/report/brazil/brazil-assistance-overview-october-2024 (accessed: 03.03.2025).}

^{23 Venezuela Situation Overview — Global Report 2024 // UNHCR. URL: https://www.unhcr.org/media/venezuela-situation-overview-global-report-2024 (accessed: 20.03.2025).}

^{24 Brazil: Fact Sheet, April 2024 // ACNUR Brazil. URL: https://www.acnur.org/br/sites/br/files/2025-01/202404-factsheet-brazil.pdf (accessed: 02.03.2025).}

作者简介

Andrea Pacifico

Paraiba State University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: apacifico@servidor.uepb.edu.br
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2744-7166

PhD (International Relations), Professor, Department of International Relations; Coordinator, Study and Research Centre on Environmentally Displaced Persons (NEPDA)

351 Baraúnas St, Campina Grande, Paraíba, 58429-500, Brazil

Johnatan da Costa Santos

Paraiba State University

Email: johnsantos@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7031-5361
SPIN 代码: 5093-8130

PhD (History), Researcher, Center for Research and Study of Environmental Migration

351 Baraúnas St, Campina Grande, Paraíba, 58429-500, Brazil

参考

补充文件