Thoughts so far...

Following three months of blogging, I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss how my understanding of the climate change-migration relationship has progressed. First and foremost, I think it is clear to see that environmental change is going to exert some scale of influence on displacement. Even climate sceptics have had to admit that this will be a highly likely scenario. However, this appears to be about as simple as it gets; looking into this discussion at any greater depth reveals a complex web of interrelated variables, paradoxical components and strong opposing views. I’ll admit that I rather naively approached the blog with a perceived grasp of the topic, which I quickly understood to not be the case. Below I have summarised some of the key take-home points I have picked up during this process.  

Complexity: My original aim had been to analyse, and rank, a number of cause and effect relationships; displacement with respect to sea level rise, drought and conflict. However even the supposedly obvious idea that an increase in sea level would lead to a direct displacement of people is misguided. There are so many other variables involved and so many different types of possible migration; voluntary/forced/trapped, temporary/circular/permanent, that it is almost impossible to contextualise a simple driver/response mechanism. Conflict was an even more tenuous relationship. Although I do think it is an important conversation to be had, I think care needs to be taken when it is being discussed. There is a risk of undermining the importance of significant socio-political factors, when searching for a ‘natural’ cause. 

Policy: The above discussion is probably one of the main reasons for the failings in this area, but it is vital that these are overcome if progress is going to be made. Legal recognition for environmental migrants is becoming increasingly more necessary, and it is equally imperative for it to be considered in the context of human rights. But a bottom-up approach should also be taken. Improved mitigation and adaptation strategies will enhance people’s resilience to environmental change, allowing them to make a personal choice on whether migration is appropriate for them.  

Injustice: The issue of climate injustice was made even more apparent to me when researching this topic. Not only are typically poorer countries generally at a greater risk from the extreme events likely to cause migration, but there is a direct inverse relationship between personal capital and vulnerability. As discussed, hurricane Katrina is one of many recent examples that clearly emphasises this point.

Comments(!): I have discussed how exasperating I have found reading the online article comment sections previously. It is not necessarily the nature of individual comments that concerns me, but more the overwhelming support that these ‘misconceptions’ are receiving. A common rhetoric is the ‘everything is being blamed on climate change’ viewpoint; a sentiment even more commonly attributed to the climate-displacement based articles. I actually think sensationalism in the media over the years with respect to climate change may have been partially responsible for this. It is also why I think that terms such as ‘climate refugees’ are inflammatory, as it feels like an intentionally negative term. Migration should not be consistently viewed in this negative light, otherwise its real potential as an adaptation strategy will be limited. I still think it is essential for this topic to continue being discussed in the wider media, but better care should be taken in determining as and when a climate driver should be suggested.

The migration patterns seen in Europe over the last couple of years may be a forewarning of what is to come. However, we have a real chance to be able to improve this. The climate fund agreed at COP21 could go a long way in improving the situation, but a policy focus is needed now, before the situation becomes too overwhelming to manage.  

(Image)

Climate Refugees and a Policy Discourse

Although considerable debate still surrounds the specifics of cause and effect relationships, there is an overwhelming consensus that environmental change does impose an influence on migration choices. With this in mind, I wanted to better understand the legal protection available for those who either choose, or are forced, to migrate under conditions of climate change. However, it became apparent very quickly that any support available was incredibly limited. This was something brought to light recently following the failed attempt of a Kiribati national to become the world’s first ‘climate change refugee’.

Within international law, there are no mechanisms allowing people to enter into a State against their will, unless they can be classed as refugees. Whilst the term ‘climate refugee’ is commonly cited in the media, literature and by NGOs, it actually has no legal foundations. In the 1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is defined as somebody who “has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” Thus, environmental displacement cannot be categorised in this manner.  

But is ‘climate refugee’ a term that should be given legal recognition? Hartman (2010) criticises this terminology, stating that it ignores the underlying political and economic causes of displacement in an attempt to ‘naturalise’ the issue, which could be seen to mask the necessary institutional response. This could allow natural disasters to be utilised as a scapegoat for incompetent or corrupt management systems. Additionally, Wisner (2009) also has concerns that such terminology may lead to the induction of political fear, particularly when migration is such a politically sensitive subject:

‘Words matter, and terms such as “environmental refugee” and “climate migrant” have been used in contexts that could accidentally give fuel to xenophobia and racism’

Although altering the current Refugee Convention to accommodate for those displaced by climate may be ineffective and inappropriate, it is imperative that a more appropriate solution is developed to plug this gaping legal hole. As Naser (2015) discusses, the multi-causal nature of migration should not be used as an excuse to ignore the immediate necessity for a climate-induced displacement protection framework. This framework should also help to establish a mechanism to integrate science within decision making, enabling the development of objective criteria. If migration is ever going to become a viable adaptation response to climate change, then these people need to be adequately recognised by international law. Otherwise, there is a risk that the human rights of those affected will be considerably undermined.

Floating Islands?

Motivated by the recent devastating flooding in the North of England, I wanted to briefly explore potential mitigation mechanisms. With sea level increasing, and 650 million people projected to be at risk from storm surges by 2100, attention towards this area will become ever more critical. I have previously discussed the pros and cons of migration in offering one such mitigation mechanism for these changes, but this drastic ‘worst case scenario’ solution is by no means the only option.

The IPCC proposed three strategies for flood protection in their first assessment; protection, accommodation and retreat. Protection refers to the typical hard engineering methods, such as breakwaters and sea defences. Accommodation describes a possible change in land use of areas within a coastal zone. This may dictate a change in agricultural habits, such as converting rice paddies to fish reservoirs, or changes to housing design. Retreat would regulate land use in areas considered to be vulnerable. These basic ideas have since been further developed and are represented in the diagram below.

Developed of the IPCC coastal adaptation strategy, from The Japan Academy (2013)

The latter solution has received recent support from Temmerman and Kirwan (2015), who recommends an ecosystem approach to coastal defence. It highlights the vulnerability of countries situated within vast river deltas, such as Bangkok, Shanghai and New York, to extreme flood events. They say that hard engineering approaches in these environments will become less plausible in the future due to inevitable energy price increases. Additionally, they interrupt natural delta processes, which may actually increase long term flood risk. Instead they propose that ecosystem-based engineering will provide much greater protection, with the restoration and retention of wetland environments enabling further natural land building processes. Projects of this nature have recently begun in Mississippi and the Rhine-Meuse delta. Depending on their success, more countries may look towards implementing this style of long term mitigation strategy.

The Pacific islands are even more vulnerable to rising sea levels and Anote Tong, the President of Kiribati, has recently been voicing his suggestions on how this risk could be managed. As I have mentioned previously, Kiribati are considering the role of migration within their adaptation strategy, but are also determined to maintain the island nation as a habitable entity. In his article, Tong suggests the country relocates to large floating islands, anchored to the sea. These would supposedly be able to support a population of 30,000 for a century. With reference to his slightly unusual idea, he says:

"It's radical, unprecedented, way out of the box, but in the absence of other options, unless you can come up with alternatives, I'm afraid that these are the options available to us."

Whilst this idea is no doubt unique, Tong raises an important point. The conditions we are predicted to face in the next century are unprecedented, and our current methods of adaption and mitigation may be insufficient to deal with this threat. Consequently, there is a constant demand for new and innovative ideas to reduce vulnerability to these threats which could offer a significant investment opportunity to those in the engineering industry.