The Environmentally Displaced

`...throughout the world, there is copious evidence that the carrying capacity of many life-support systems is being overloaded to a breaking point, and where such systems have collapsed, the options for the poor are stark: either to flee, or to stay put and starve.' (Tolba, 1990)

Population displacement due to environmental degradation is not a recent phenomenon. Historically, people have had to move from their land because it had been degraded (through natural disasters, war or over-exploitation) and could not sustain them. What is more recent is the potential for mass movements caused by population growth, resource depletion and the irreversible destruction of the environment. Environmental disasters such as floods, droughts and earthquakes are displacing more and more people every year. People and governments of many nations are altering the physical environment in a way that makes it more vulnerable to disruption. For example, rapid rates of population growth and high levels of consumption in affluent states have resulted in the over utilisation and degradation of the land. As deforestation, desertification, global warming, and other threats appear, a new category of displaced people is being recognised - the environmentally displaced.

Examples of environmental change as a proximate cause of population displacement can be divided into five categories, as follows:
1. Natural disasters - these include floods, volcanoes and earthquakes. They are usually characterised by a rapid onset, and their human impact (destructiveness) is a function of the number of vulnerable people in the region rather than their severity, per se. Poor people in developing countries are the most affected because they are the most vulnerable. It should be noted that the severity of natural disasters - in terms of their human impact - has increased over the past 40 years (28 million affected in 1960s; 64 million in 1980s).
2. Cumulative changes - generally slowly occurring geophysical processes which are accelerated through the interaction with human activities. They include deforestation, land degradation, erosion, salinity, situation, water logging, desertification and climate warming.
3. Accidental disruptions or industrial accidents - inevitable by products of the industrial revolution. Chemical manufacture and transport, and nuclear reactor accidents are among the causes.
4. Development projects - including dams and irrigation projects and forced resettlement programs. In India, 20 million persons have been uprooted by development projects.
5. Conflict and warfare - environmental degradation is both a cause and effect of armed conflict. There is an increasing use of the environment as a `weapon' of war.

In their desperation, these ‘environmental refugees’ …feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt.

There were at least 25 million environmental refugees in the mid-1990s, and that this unrecognised category exceeded the then 22 million refugees as officially defined. The number of environmental refugees might well double by the year 2010, and could rise even more quickly as a result of global warming. As many as 200 million people could eventually be at risk of displacement.

Environmental changes and the natural and man-made disasters associated with them are forcing millions of people to flee their homes. This does not imply that environmental factors always lead directly to displacement. Rather, environmental pressure leads to land competition, impoverishment, encroachment on ecologically fragile areas and impoverishment. These events in turn cause political and ethnic conflicts which may precipitate violence and war – often the immediate cause of flight. The environmental refugees may end up in urban slums, or camps for internally-displaced persons within the country of origin. Millions, however, leave their country. They may seek refuge in neighbouring countries of the South, where they may cause further environmental problems and conflicts. But many, according to Myers will try to obtain asylum in the developed countries of Western Europe and North America. The issue of environmental refugees thus ‘promises to rank as one of the foremost human crises of our times’ (Myers, 1997, 175). The rich countries are closing the door, but it will be impossible ‘to hold back the rising flood’ of refugees. Refugee camps and shantytowns will become ‘breeding grounds for civil disorder, social upheaval and even violence’. There may be ‘substantial outlays to counter pandemic diseases and deficits of food, water and energy’. The result are threats to social cohesion and national identity, leading to ethnic tension and civil disorder (Myers and Kent, 1995, 151-3).

The causes of environmental displacement in such factors are desertification, deforestation, lack of water, salinisation of irrigated lands, and bio-diversity depletion. All of these are linked to rapid growth of population in less-developed countries as well as to global climate change. These macro-level changes lead to pressure on land and other resources. They also exacerbate the effects of extreme weather events, natural disasters and man-made disasters (like Bhopal or Chernobyl) (Myers and Kent, 1995). Based on these observations, Myers provides lists of the millions of people at risk of displacement from desertification, deforestation, rising water levels and so on.

Bangladesh, with its extremely dense population and its exposure to cyclones and flooding, appears as the quintessential example of environmental displacement. Yet, here, there are complex causes for impoverishment and flight, including land ownership patterns, ethnic divisions, economic development projects such as dams, and political conflicts. The action – or more often the inaction – of the Bangladeshi government is also a major factor causing forced migration (Lee, 2001, 73-83).

Lee’s study of the famine in North Korea which has claimed 2-3 million lives comes to further findings: the country was hit by unprecedented flooding and drought in the mid-1990s, but the real blame for starvation lies with the country’s military-first policies and inefficient command economy. Moreover, international food aid has become a political foot-ball: the regime seeks to use it as a bargaining counter in international relations, while diverting food for military purposes; donor countries try to use food aid as a lever to achieve political objectives concerned with stopping the development of nuclear weapons and bringing about talks with the South. In the meantime, North Koreans starve, or seek to flee to China, where they get a frosty reception.

Lee comes to the conclusion that North Korea illustrate Amartya Sen’s principle that the roots of famine lie not in lack of aggregate food supply, but in the failure of individuals’ entitlements to food. The problem is primarily political and social rather than environmental.

A reasonable conclusion is therefore that the notion of the ‘environmental refugee’ is one of the major causes of the complex processes at work in situations of impoverishment, conflict and displacement. This means that environmental factors are part of complex patterns of multiple causality, in which natural and environmental factors are closely linked to economic, social and political ones. This points out to the important role of the state: a strong, efficient state can deal with environmental problems much better than a weak and possibly corrupt state. The key problem then is not only environmental change, but the ability of different communities and countries to cope with it. This in turn is closely linked to problems of underdevelopment and North-South relationships. The issue is above all one of causality. Where Myers and Kent go into detail, they find a wealth of contributory factors: ethnic tensions, ineffective and mistaken government responses, economic problems and so on. The Rwanda disaster is often portrayed as a classical case of population growth putting pressure on scarce land, and thus precipitating ethnic conflict between the Tutsis and Hutu. Yet it could just as well be seen as a political struggle for power in which both ethnicity and natural resources played a major part.

Korean researcher Lee explores the ‘environment-security nexus’ and puts forward a ‘model of the causes of environmental refugees’ (Lee, 2001). She also looks in detail at a number of cases, including Bangladesh, Sudan and North Korea. In fact her model shows the complex interaction between ecological factors, human-induced disasters, governmental factors (such as inaction, incapacity and corruption, as well as harmful policies), and international factors.

Ultimately, policies which are relevant to the growing concern with environmentally-induced population movements must be directed towards alleviating the cause of those movements: the degradation of the natural environment. Environmental degradation is both a cause and effect of population displacement. Addressing environmental degradation also means addressing the `root' and `underlying' causes noted above. Because of the complex nature of environmental change, developing policies to deal effectively with populations displaced by environmental stresses must range from local level initiatives (eg erosion control) to international agreements (eg the Climate Change Convention). Other problems are apparent as well. These include:

a. Many anti-growth advocates promote greater restrictions on immigrant admissions because of the strain they place on the environment/resources of the receiving state.
b. There is an ongoing debate over the use of environmental restrictions on development assistance. Development agencies worry that environmental initiatives may be inconsistent with other development initiatives. This sentiment is echoed by many recipient governments, who claim that `environmental imperialism' is dominating the economic agenda of overseas development assistance.
c. There is also a debate on whether emphasis should be placed on the rights of individuals or on the collective right to sustainable environment, a right which includes future generations.

There is also important talks in terms of the environment as the responsibility of the refugees. Refugees should not be reduced to recipients of free handouts or figures in the supply logistics. The potential of refugees in terms of know-how and labour combined with their responsibility to `replace' the off-take from the natural environment could be the key to solving the worldwide environmental crisis in refugee hosting areas.

References:

Oxfam GB, Migration and Development, 2004

Tolba, M, 1990, cited in D Lazarus `New strangers at the door?', Refugees, 1981

Wijkman A and Timberlake L Natural Disasters: Acts of God or Acts of Man?, Earthscan, London, 1984
Lee, S.-w. (2001). Environment Matters: Conflict, Refugee and International Relations. Seoul and Tokyo: World Human Development Institute Press.
Myers, N. (1997). "Environmental Refugees," Population and Environment 19(2): 167-82.
Myers, N. and J. Kent (1995). Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arean. Washington DC: Climate Institute.

Castles, S., Environmental change and forced migration: making sense of the debate; Refugees Studies Centre, University of Oxford, 2002

International Conference: “MOBILE PEOPLES AND CONSERVATION: CROSSING THE DISCIPLINARY DIVIDE“, Jordan, 2002; Chatelard, G., European University Institute, Florence, Italy; Chatty, D., Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford; Colchester, M., Forest Peoples Programme; Newing Durrell, H., Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent at Canterbury, United Kingdom; Gonzalo Oviedo International Consultant on People and Conservation

UNHCR (2000). Global Report 2000: Achievements and Impact. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees