Migration & Insecurity: What is the threat?

I never expected to find the relationship between migration and climate change a simple one. However, after attending a fascinating talk on the subject at LSE, I find myself to be slightly overwhelmed by the multitude of new concepts that this blog has not yet considered. Occurring less than a week after the terror atrocity in Paris, the topic of the debate seemed to take on a new level of importance. It also meant that, unsurprisingly, the issue of human security within the context of forced migration was a dominant point of discussion.  

The idea that ‘climate refugees’ constitute a major threat to national security gained significant traction around eight or so years ago. As described by Hartman (2012), forced migration was said to pose a threat to established social order; inducing a strain on scarce resources, social welfare and infrastructure. Migrants were also said to be a catalyst for political violence. The US defence think tank, CNA, went as far as to consider it ‘the biggest security threat that the US faces’.

However the first time that the IPCC explicitly addressed the issue of security was in their most recent assessment. They stated that the changing climate will progressively threaten human security by:

1. Undermining livelihoods
2. Compromising culture and identity
3. Increasing migration, which people would rather have avoided
4. Challenging the ability of states to provide the conditions necessary for human security

As one of the speakers, Mary Robinson, discussed; we know that climate change is projected to increase displacement of people and we know that it will do this very dramatically if we do not take the necessary steps now. Human mobility in the context of climate change will affect all countries, with the potential for knock on effects for human security. It therefore requires an international response, and to be immediately integrated as a part of global sustainable development.

However, she also mentioned that human insecurity almost never has a single cause, but instead emerges from multiple interactions. Therefore, whilst the influence of migration can evidently not be ignored, it cannot be individually recognised. A similar viewpoint is discussed by Gemenne et al. (2014), who take this one stage further. They suggest that this type of conversation is incredibly timewasting and that raising the spectre of climate conflict and ‘climate refugees’ obscures the real areas of importance within climate policy. This is not to say that it is not an important issue to discuss, but that considering it alone is inefficient. Instead the potential vulnerability, which may subsequently arise, needs to be better understood, to enable an appropriate adaptive response.

There is no doubt that the relationship between climate induced migration and insecurity requires serious consideration. However, continuously framing it in such a negative light detracts away from the positive aspects that a ‘migration as adaptation’ strategy can produce a strategy that is likely to become ever more important throughout the coming century. With this in mind, it will be incredibly interesting to see how COP21 discuss a subject with such current extreme political sensitivity in a few weeks’ time.

Did ‘the real’ Noah’s Ark flood reconstruct early European society?

The concept of a nation being completely consumed by the waves is an alien one, and generally considered a new challenge for humans to confront. Whilst that may be true within modern society, historically, widespread forced migration in the aftermath of dramatic sea level rise appears to have occurred during the Holocene epoch. A study by Turney and Brown (2007) discussed the relationship between the catastrophic collapse of the Laurentide ice sheet, and a concurrent societal overhaul in Europe.

Between 8740 and 8160 BP, the ice sheet collapse released a dramatic deluge from Lake Agassiz in Canada. This became the biggest freshwater pulse in the North Atlantic for 100,000 years, and global sea levels rose by 1.4 m. It is also believed that this rise led to a breach of the Bospourous Strait, which had previously isolated the Black Sea as a freshwater lake, separate from the Mediterranean Sea. This initiated the event believed to be behind the biblical Noah’s Ark story; mass flooding of the Black Sea coastal areas.

The study used high precision marine dating to reconstruct the consequential shoreline changes to the Black Sea, and calculated a loss of nearly 73,000 square km of land over a 34-year period. This information was then correlated with available archaeological records of the area. The paper proposes that the coastal areas were originally populated by the first Neolithic, or farming communities. When sea levels rose, migration initially began as a direct result of the flooding, but there is evidence of high population pressure in neighbouring areas soon after the event. This appears to have initiated a second wave of movement and sparked an agricultural revolution. Originally, much of Europe was inhabited soley by Mesolithic hunter gatherers, but this point in history witnessed an abrupt transition to a sedentary, farming-based society. Therefore, Turney and Brown conclude that early Holocene sea level rise and the associated flooding played a significant role in the onset of the Neolithic across Europe.

This is just one example of the use of paleoscience to aid our understanding of past social change. Paleoclimate research has become, and will continue to be, an integral part of major debates concerning future adaptation and mitigation policies. The more complete our knowledge of the interactions between humans and past natural systems is, the more adequate our response is likely to be when similar pressures impose upon our modern society.

Australian support for Kiribati?

Damaged sea-wall defences in Kiribati Photograph: Elise Scott/AAP

Just as a quick addition to my previous post, I came across this article in the Guardian today discussing the Australian Labor governments position on migration from the Pacific Islands. The need to act now to facilitate smoother future relocation from the islands, if required, is discussed. However, they also ‘currently see the critical role for Australia as playing its part in reducing greenhouse emissions and in supporting (sic. Pacific Islanders) with adaptation efforts’, which aligns very well with the view point held by Kiribati. I decided to post this particular article because, as I mentioned in my previous post, the future of the Pacific Islands will be very dependent upon international support, particularly from its immediate neighbors. Therefore I would like to think that any positive discussions on the matter (however politically motivated these discussions may be) should be beneficial to those living in these high risk areas.   

Again however, I found my myself to be scrolling through the comments section at the end of the article and it is fairly safe to say that the sentiments of the opposition immigration minister spokesman, Richard Marles, are not echoed by the majority of those replying. Whilst I found many of the attitudes displayed to be fairly frustrating, it did make me think about the term ‘sensationalism’ which cropped up a number of times. Climate scientists are often criticised for attributing all global problems to climate change. Although I personally think climate change is a risk multiplier in many situations, I will try to evaluate my discussions on these very politically sensitive topics more critically throughout the rest of this blog. 

Kiribati: Adaptation and Mitigation

Funded in part by the World Bank, this strategy aims to reduce the vulnerability of Kiribati to sea level rise by managing inundation, protecting fresh water availability and raising climate change awareness. Sediment trapping has been achieved with sea wall building and mangrove planting, as this can help to limit the excessive erosion of beaches. Additionally, the installation of rainwater and groundwater harvesting systems aims to protect water resources even during periods of drought. The overarching aim of the programme was to show an alternative and viable response to complete relocation, the effectiveness of which was discussed by Donner & Webber (2014). They state that although their approach appears to be quite pro active, the strategies put in place thus far have been too tentative to make this a reality.  In spite of the reasonably effective short term solutions implemented to date, an absence of concurrent long term planning to protect the future existence of Kirbiati is highlighted. They also express their concerns for the availability of future funding for such a long term plan.    

Mangrove planting along the Kiribati coastline (Photo: Nic Maclellan/Oxfam)

‘Migration with Dignity’

Although still considered a last resort, a somewhat inevitable need for future relocation has been acknowledged by the government. In April 2013, President Tong made the following statement at a national high level public hearing on climate change.

‘The projection is that sea level rise will render our islands submerged and virtually uninhabitable...We’re not being defeatist, we’re trying the best we can in the circumstances, but what must be understood is that if we have to migrate we have to be ready.’

Consequently, the government have set up the ‘migration with dignity’ programme. This identifies areas with an ageing population in neighbouring countries, who would benefit from the relatively young I-Kiribati to fill labour needs. The seasonal overseas programme aims to provide the population with skills and cultural training, aiding an easier transition in the future. Additionally, the economic benefits of circular migration are helping to lower the vulnerability of the islanders receiving remittances; a secondary adaptive strategy. Although this particular aspect is very popular, it does not eliminate the common sense of disappointment and sadness felt by the people of Kiribati, about the prospect of losing their country.  

The nation is obviously determined to maintain Kiribati as a sovereign and habitable entity, the possibility of which seems dependant on external funding. The Pacific Islands do receive a comparatively larger amount of media attention which could help them to achieve more support in the future. I think it is the idea of a ‘loss of sovereignty’ that generates such an emotive response, and why similar examples such as Tuvalu are often considered to be on the ‘front-line’ of climate change. Places such as Bangladesh are likely to suffer a much greater magnitude of loss, but will probably not receive as much coverage comparatively. For this reason, I think it will be very interesting to see how any funding, specific to climate change adaptation and mitigation, is distributed in the future.