The nexus between climate change, migration and the Pacific

The effects of climate change will be felt first by the poor and the vulnerable. The vulnerable communities in the Pacific will be among the first to be displaced. Let’s take a look at why.

Tuvalu is a Polynesian island nation located in the Pacific Ocean somewhere between Hawaii and Australia. The nation consists of 9 coral atolls, which are small, circular, coral-reef islands and has a population of about 10,000 people. There is no location in the entire nation that is 3 metres above sea level.

Kiribati is a Micronesian island nation located in the Pacific Ocean, straddling the equator and the International Date Line. The nation consists of 32 atolls and one island and is the home to about 100,000 people. While the nation has one mountain, the majority of the nation’s land mass sits just two metres above sea level.

The size and elevation above sea level put the people of Tuvalu and Kiribati in a physically vulnerable position. Previous entries to this blog, however, indicated that environmental migration is the result of both the physical vulnerability to a disaster, and the person’s ability to cope. Tuvalu and Kiribati are poorly positioned to cope with the effects of climate change due to their existing social and economic vulnerabilities. Both nations experience over-crowding in the major cities. Both nations have concerning levels of underemployment, especially amongst their youth. One of the major contributions to both of these nations’ GDP, is aid. Beyond their colonial histories and existing political relationships (with Australia, New Zealand and the UK), neither of these nations have strong levels of political power. The tools with which the people and governments of Tuvalu and Kiribati may navigate and respond to the effects of climate change, are limited and questionable.

These two nations are already experiencing the effects of climate change. Severe storm surges on atolls where it is possible to throw a rock from one side to the other are a concern to those who live upon them. These storm surges are anticipated to increase in their severity. Further to this, the frequency of these storm surges are anticipated to also increase, which reduces the recovery time between disaster events. School and hospital buildings are continually needing to be repaired. Colonial habits of living close to the beach (as opposed to pre-colonial habits of living further away from the beach) increase the vulnerability of residents as well as increases the difficulty of adaptation.

Sea level rise is popularly attributed to the inhabitability of these nations. The reality is that these nations will become uninhabitable before they become inundated. It is more likely that these nations will become uninhabitable due to increased severity and frequency of storm surges, as explained above, and due to salt water contamination of fresh water stocks (an existing stress) and of arable land (also an existing stress). The ability of these atolls to sustain life is increasingly becoming reduced. It will become unsafe to live upon these atolls before these atolls conclusively become inundated.

What policies and laws recognise environmental migration?

Environmental migrants are in legal limbo when it comes to recognition (McAdam, 2009, 589). The reasons for this follow. Initially, the phenomenon was held under the heading “environmental refugees”. The term’s sense of urgency and displacement suited the interests of the early academics (see Essam El-Hinnawi (1985), Jodi Jacobson (1988) and Norman Myers 1997). Once the term was popularised by Essam El-Hinnawi in 1985, policy-makers and other academics dismissed the term as being legally unfounded. Some academics and lobbyists continue(d) to use the term based on the argument that the Refugee Convention should increase the scope of the definition of ‘refugee’ (McNamara, 2007; Biermann and Boas, 2008; Penz, 2010). The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) has since released a statement on behalf of the UNHCR rejecting this as a potentiality (IASC, 2008).

Based on this background, there is little to no policy and legal recognition of environmental refugees. Given that international law and policy makers have rejected the term and replaced it with the term “environmental migration”, the people affected by this phenomenon remain unrecognised in law and policy (Meyer, forthcoming).

What limited recognition does exist? The abovementioned document released by the IASC in 2008 also details what existing laws may cover environmental migrants. The IASC acknowledges that no law recognises and assists those moving across international borders due to environmental events, such as a hazard or disaster. The IASC also recognises that there is a lacking of legal criteria that may distinguish between voluntary and forced displacement due to such environmental events.

For those moving internally, there is some incidental recognition. According to the IASC, International Human Rights law and/ or Guiding Principles on internal displacement may protect people moving within existing borders. It is concerning, however, that International Human Rights law is called upon to assist environmental migrants given that commenters dispute the applicability of these laws to do so. This is due to the inflexible definition of ‘refugee’ in international immigration law and that “environmental migration” is used to replace “environmental refugee” (for more information, see Brooke Harvard, 2007). Furthermore, any instrument that may assist environmental migrants only does so out of coincidence. The Guiding Principles “identify the rights and guarantees relevant to the protection of the internally displaced in all phases of displacement”. The Guiding Principles only recognise environmental migrants incidentally; it is disputable whether the assistance and recognition of the Guiding Principles would be attentive of the unique needs of environmental migrants.

A concise examination of the laws and policies that recognise environmental migrants result in the reflection that environmental migrants are politically and legally vulnerable

Breaking down environmental migration

What is environmental migration? The point of departure here is what most people already know. Most people can relay the dictionary definitions of what is a “migrant” and what is “migration”. Most people also have a good understanding of what climate change is. These people thereby conclude that environmental migration is when people migrate because they’ve been displaced by environmental or climatic events, such as a flood.

And, mainly, these people would be correct.

But let’s break this notion down a bit more.

The term “environmental migration” is a highly politicised one. Breaking the notion “environmental migration” down helps us understand why this is so. If we begin with the above basic definition – a flood causes people to migrate and then they become environmental migrants – the following question arises: is anyone displaced by a flood or environmental disaster an environmental migrant? What is the difference between the people in Queensland that were displaced by the 2010-2011 floods and the people in Bangladesh displaced by 2010 floods? Were the Australians who were displaced environmental migrants, perhaps because they experienced loss and financial hardship? If not, why not? Is it because they received extensive financial compensation by the Australian Government? Does this indicate that being an environmental migrant has to do with the person’s financial situation as well as their misfortune of being displaced? Or has it less to do with their displacement and more to do with their social and financial security? And what is the role of the Government in this situation? Are Bangladeshis more likely to become environmental migrants because their Government is not always able to protect them from environmental disasters? Should the strength of the Government feature in determining who is an “environmental migrant”? We see we have conceptually come a long way away from the “flood displaces person and therefore they are an environmental migrant” definition. Yet, all of these questions are relative to the situation and, I argue, unanswerable at the macro level. We are no closer to finding an answer or a definition beyond the basic. Many academics and policy-makers struggle with these questions, and it is for these reasons, that the term “environmental migration” is contentious and politicised.

And what of movement? What about the people’s movement that renders them unique? Why does their financial situation and Governmental support only become relevant at the point they move due to an environmental disaster? What difference is there between a person whose home is flooded and thereby migrates as a result, and the person who (because they are sick, poor or old) is not able to move and thereby remains in the area? Should the person who moves be privileged over the person who does not move? We realise that the term “environmental migrant” does privilege the person who moves over the person who does not. Should it? Again, these questions are relative to the situation and unanswerable at the macro level.

After this short conceptual, almost philosophical, journey we arrive at a number of conclusions. An environmental migrant is termed as such because they have been displaced by an environmental event, such as a flood. Their level of Governmental protection affects their categorisation as an environmental migrant. Their financial situation also affects this. However, in order to be recognised as an environmental migrant, this person must move from their homelands. And if they were poor and without proper governmental protection, this is only recognised as concerning at the point they move due to environmental events. Furthermore, the concept “environmental migration” is relative to certain situations and difficult to define at the macro level. And, overwhelming, any answer that approaches the questions raised in this paper are highly political in nature, given that we are considering the mass movement of people.

These conclusions lead to further questions regarding the policy recognition of environmental migration. What policies or laws exist that recognise the above conceptual elements to the “environmental migration” phenomenon? The answer to that, dear reader, is in the next blog post.

Thanks for reading!

A background to the term "environmental refugee": part 2

The term "environmental refugee" is used in many newspaper articles, press releases and civil society releases. It is a term used all around the world. Many international institutions are developing policies that address the concerns environmental refugees may have.

However, in academic and policy arenas, the term is widely disputed. New research argues that the term has been rejected by academic authors (Meyer, forthcoming). 

This is based on the claim by academic, law and policy decision-makers that the term "environmental refugee"  has no legal claim to the term "refugee" and therefore is invalid. According to the Refugee Convention, a refugee is

        ...a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. (United Nations Geneva Refugee Convention, 1951)


According to the Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC), a smaller agency that works in cooperation with the UNHCR and which upholds many of the UNHCR's views, environmental factors such as a tsunami or desertification are not considered legitimate claims for asylum. In other words, a person can only be considered a "refugee" if they have experienced persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political organisation, and so on.

An environmental refugee is not a "refugee".

Photo credit: United Nations University

There is consequently very limited legal recognition of environmental refugees. There is very little policy or legal protection of environmental refugees.

In the next 40 years, small island states such as Tuvalu and Kiribati will be inundated. These entire nations will be flooded due to climate change induced sea level rise. But this is not yet recognised in law and policy where it matters.

A background to the term "environmental refugee": part 1

In the late 1980s, early 1990s, policy-makers and academics began to realise the significance of environmental degradation in relation to human movement. The literature commonly attributes the origin of the term "environmental refugee" to Essam El-Hinnawi in 1985; this is slightly incorrect, however. In fact, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) first used the word in a 1984 briefing document, whereby the environmental refugee was defined as a person or peoples who have exhausted the natural resources of their homelands due to mismanagement and evacuate due to this. It is interesting that the first definition of the term "environmental refugee" was not sympathetic to their cause and indicated that the responsibility be the refugee's own doing.

It was after this, therefore, that El-Hinnawi, researcher for United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), popularised the notion that an environmental refugee is a person who has forced to become a refugee and flee from environmental disasters. El-Hinnawi brought in the era of dramatised pictures of desperate refugees fleeing disaster and utterly distraught.

Photo credit: Permaculture Research Institute

 

Photo credit: Triple Pundit

I am critical of the representation of these people as victims and refugees who are completely helpless. These people are not completely helpless; they may be in help, but there are still things these people can do to survive.

Norman Myers is also a notable academic and policy adviser who's influence has resulted in the increasing popularity of the term "environmental refugee" and a growing social alarm at unprecedented numbers of refugees moving into safer lands of the often more developed.

The backlash was substantial.

 

 

 

 

*to be continued*

Can Sea Walls keep out the rising sea?

Can Sea Walls keep out the rising sea?

The "road"/ pile of dirt you see in the picture below is a sea wall. This sea wall has a clearance of, what, say, 2.5m? Maybe 3m? Can a sea wall really keep out the rising sea?

Tongatapu, Tonga: Can sea walls keep out the rising sea?
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2004 http://www.islandvulnerability.org/slr1989.html)

John Howard

The Forum Communiqué is an international organisation between Pacific Island Countries and neighbouring nation-states. Its importance and relevance reaches far across the political, social and geographic boundaries within the Pacific Region. What this organisation does is important and influential. Unfortunately, the Forum Communiqué, while influential, is not the strongest political power in the region.

Australia is.

And in 1997 Australia's then Prime Minister made a political move. Prime Minister John Howard, in 1997, insisted that the small island countries remove any reference in the Forum Communiqué to the need for countries to cut greenhouse gases. He didn't believe in climate change.

Well, side-stepping the climate-change-is-true/not-true argument for a moment, the consequences for these small island countries in the Pacific will cost them everything - literally. Greenhouse Gas emissions insulate the earth's atmosphere and add to the ever increasing temperature of the earth's climate. Let's not attempt to disprove this science without science PhDs. The subsequent cause of the earth’s temperature increase results in a levelled sea rise. This, in turn, is currently eroding away and systemically flooding the low lying island countries: 3 metres of sea rise and their gone.

 What did Howard gain by slowing down progress that might otherwise have averted the disaster these countries now surely will face? What benefit was there for John Howard?

Well, whatever it was it is now forgotten amongst the high-tide news-tales and scientific reports alerting us (as in the beginning of an apocalyptic movie) of climate change.

I'm disappointed, Howard.

14th September, 2013, Australia's election day, here we come.



Information sought from http://www.bobsercombe.id.au/uploads/OurDrowningNeighbours.pdf