More interestingly, “in the case of married couples, women do not migrate. This is a case of household, not individual, strategies, in which, due to traditional gender roles, men are the ones who must respond to adverse economic impacts from climate change by migrating.” Although, “single mothers are the women most likely to migrate in response to climate change, since they must generate income to maintain their families. The loss of income from economic depression forces them to migrate in search of work, and the same is true for many young women who provide economic support to their parents.”

From this study, we can see that responses to climate change are very household and community-based. In a livelihoods system like that of Africa, where some 80 percent of agricultural output is led by women, migration might be a much more common response, especially given the migration patterns seen by men/agricultural workers in Mexico. More studies would be needed in each impacted community in order to determine truly the differences in migration for men and women.

For further reference: In 2009, Lori M. Hunter and Emmanuel Davis of the University of Colorado, Boulder wrote a working paper on “Climate Change and Migration: Considering the Gender Dimensions,” where they looked at potential ways in which climate change may differentially shape both migration’s cause and consequence by gender. They used a livelihoods framework, in which they believed there were “two pathways through which climate change’s gendered migration impacts may manifest: 1) shifts in proximate natural resources and agricultural potential, as well as 2) increases in extreme weather events.”

Again, we see that the study of gendered migration is nuanced. Hunter and Davis acknowledge that extreme weather events might impact migration differently for men and women, and not just slow-onset impacts like that of drought, which the Mexico study focuses on.

In sum, there remain more questions than answers. Regardless, both of the studies above should be read and re-read in order to begin to “gain the nuance understanding necessary to inform policy mitigating climate change’s impacts,” as Hunter and Davis write.

In this paper and the reports to follow, we will discuss regional case studies in which the cumulative effects of climate change, migration, and conflict interact within a broad framework of political, economic, and environmental security challenges. Our objective is to develop a robust contemporary notion of sustainable security that effectively integrates defense, diplomacy, and development into a comprehensive policy designed to deal with today’s global threats while preventing future threats from occurring.

We delve into these recommendations in detail at the end of this paper but in this section we briefly explain how we believe the international community, the United States, its allies, and key regional players can together create a sustainable security situation to deal with climate change, migration, and conflict. Specifically they must:

• Conduct federal government institutional reform in the United States that addresses the development-security relationship and that prioritizes planning for long-term humanitarian consequences of climate change and migration as a core national security issue
• Develop strategies to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation on transboundary risks in different regions of the world
• Increase funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative
• Ensure better information flows and more effective disaster response for early-warning systems
• Support the best science to expand our understanding of specific circumstances such as desertification, rainfall variability, disaster occurrence, and coastal erosion, and their relation to human migration and conflict
• Identify regions most vulnerable to climate-induced migration, both forced and voluntary, in order to target aid, information, and contingency-planning capabilities
• View migration as a proactive adaptation strategy for local populations under pressure due to increased environmental change

A truly sustainable approach to security, then, requires us not only to look at the traditional security threats posed by the interaction between states, but also to understand that the security of the United States is advanced by promoting the individual well-being of people across the developing world, and by embracing collective responses to shared threats posed by climate change. We turn first to understanding the dynamics of those threats.

Read the report in its entirety here.

You can also watch the complementary video with Koko Warner of the United Nations University, U.K. Climate and Energy Security Envoy Rear Admiral Neal Morisetti, Anne-Marie Slaughter, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, and Senior Fellow Michael Werz of the Center for American Progress here:

A brief overview of the effects of climate change and the environment on migration opens the study, but the real meat comes in at page 36 when legal and policy implications are discussed. In sum, they suggest the European Union become a leader in determining solutions.

As at the international level the legal debate is unlikely to be solved in the near term, the EU may decide to be one of the pioneers in this field, in particular because there are already attempts at the political level to consider environmentally displaced individuals under the Common European Asylum Policy. In light of the above, we put forward the following

recommendations to the European Parliament  with the aim of offering different possible mechanisms to be considered by the EU in dealing with environmentally displaced individuals:

• EU may wish to start with the complementary protection regime first, as an ad hoc mechanism and depending on the further evolution to guarantee primary protection to environmental displaced individuals. The national provisions analyzed can be used as a model for the European legislator in amending the content of the Qualification Directive. As long as the reasons listed in the Article 15 shall be applicable to qualify for subsidiary protection, an amendment  to its paragraph (c) might include, in addition to armed conflict, also environmental disasters.
• There are strong arguments that, in the case  of  a  mass  influx  of  environmentally displaced individuals, the  financial and political mechanisms available under the Temporary Protection Directive might be applicable. However, a more flexible and at the same time more objective mechanism  to activate the directive should be considered, as the directive currently can only be activated upon a commission proposal and a related decision by the Council.
• A holistic approach covering all the aspects of environmentally induced migration is a more relevant approach, engaging a comprehensive instrument for environmentally displaced individuals that  would regulate the procedure and method, including the rights and obligations, for granting protection to victims of environmental displacement.
• The EU should consider ad hoc mechanisms informed by a rights-based approach and existing instruments regarding legal and irregular migration (for example prolongation of residence titles for third-country nationals whose countries have been affected by environmental disasters, postponement of removal, etc).
• The EU should promote the resettlement of individuals from countries that have experienced environmental disasters and further develop the Joint EU Resettlement Programme.

Under the Global Approach, third countries affected by climate change related phenomena should be assisted in order to support the national institutions in dealing with adverse environmental change. Measures may comprise strengthening the adaptation and resilience capacities of third countries to reduce the vulnerability of affected populations and enhancing the protection of environmental displaced individuals outside the European Union. The EU should consider providing support to local governments to address migration as an adaptation strategy and to facilitate migration while ensuring that the rights of the migrants are protected during the whole migration cycle. The mobility partnerships would be, in principle, a relevant instrument to bilaterally cooperate on all sorts of measures regarding environmentally displaced.

But many of those people are likely to move from areas affected by global warming into areas even worse afflicted – for instance, by moving into coastal cities in the developing world that are at risk of flood from storms and rising sea levels.

“Millions will migrate into, rather than away from, areas of environmental vulnerability,” said Sir John Beddington, chief scientific advisor to the UK government, and head of the Foresight programme. “An even bigger policy challenge will be the millions who are trapped in dangerous conditions and unable to move to safety.”

Scientists  found that between 114 million and 192 million more people were likely to be living in floodplains in urban areas of Africa and Asia by 2060, partly as a result of climate change.

People who are trapped by warming – either because they cannot move from their homes, or because they have moved but are unable to find better places to live – will represent “just as important a policy concern as those who do migrate”, the report concluded. “Environmental change is equally likely to make migration less possible, as more probable.”

Last year, according to the United Nations, 210 million people – about 3% of the global population – migrated between countries, and in 2009 about 740 million people moved within countries.

But the scientists also said that migration should not be seen simply as a problem – in many cases, it is a sensible solution to the environmental changes caused by a warming climate, and can be managed if governments make adequate preparations. “Migration can be a good option – it is a way of adapting to climate change,” said Neil Adger, professor of environmental economics at the University of East Anglia. “We should be planning for migration pro-actively, to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place for people.”

He said that equipping cities in developing countries with adequate infrastructure, including access to clean water, sanitation and energy, was a key concern. Funds devoted to helping countries cope with the effects of climate change should also be spent with this in mind, he said.

Although the scientists who wrote the report declined to put an estimate on the number of people likely to be displaced, they said it was “undeniable” that migration would be a major factor, and one that would be potentially destabilising to established governments.

Previous attempts to put an estimate on the number displaced have met with controversy – a prediction by the United Nations Environment Programme that 50 million people would be forced to migrate by climate change by 2010 was attacked by climate change sceptics, who said there was no proof of how many of the 210 million people who moved across borders in that year had been forced to flee by environmental conditions.

The Foresight programme scientists said there were many factors influencing migration, but that climate change was likely to become a much more significant factor in the next 20 to 30 years.

Trying to stop migration from global warming may be the wrong approach, the scientists warned. Andre Geddes, professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, said: “Policies that just seek to prevent migration are risky.”

Instead, governments should attempt to anticipate movement and find ways to improve conditions, both in the places people are likely to move to, and those they are likely to move from.

It offers ways to combat more damaging negative effects by: preserving and restoring rural livelihoods and natural amenities, focusing on food security by bolstering agricultural techniques that are less inefficient and water-heavy, and investing in community-based analysis and adaptation through existing mechanisms like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“For the near term, palliative actions such as humanitarian assistance and small-scale relocation seem much more likely than long-term preventative and adaptive action,” concludes the report. “Policy responses to the multiple impacts of climate change need to proceed on several tracks at once, with different temporal frameworks.”

Read more of its recommendations in-depth here.

In the Pacific Islands, this acute awareness of the potential impact of climate change comes not only from books and studies, but from first-hand knowledge and ongoing experiences with the effects of the world’s changing climate. The value and relevance of these experiences are not confined to the Pacific Islands, but are relevant for the world at large. This paper aims to conceptualize and distill some dimensions of these experiences, in light of the discussions and presentations made at the ‘Regional Workshop on Internal Displacement caused by Natural Disasters and Climate Change in the Pacific’ (May 2011) organized by the Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement in conjunction with the UN Humanitarian team in the Pacific. The synthesis report on the workshop’s proceedings contains additional information in support of the issues outlined and examined in the paper “On the Front Line of Climate Change and Displacement: Learning From and With Pacific Island Countries.”

In 2010, UNU-EHS and the MunichRe Foundation held a Summer Academy on “Protecting Environmental Migrants: Creating New Policy and Institutional Framework”, which aimed to develop policy options for decision makers to better address the needs of environmentally-induced migrants. The issue “Climate Change and Migration: Rethinking Policies for Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction” presents the outcomes of that Summer Academy and the selected papers of PhD students from different academic backgrounds. These papers cover various aspects of the complexity of protection issues for environmental migrants and analysis of current protection regimes. Using case studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, these papers identified legal and institutional gaps and explored possible policy options for decision makers.

Table of Contents
Section One: Improving National Governance and Regional Cooperation in Managing Displacement and Migration: Selected Case Studies

Rapid-Onset Disasters

• “Vulnerability and Population Displacements due to Climate-Induced Disasters in Coastal Bangladesh” by Dulal Chandra Roy
• “Community Resilience and Hurricane Ida: How Marginalized Salvadorans Lacking NGO and Governmental Support Cope with Climate Shock” by Elizabeth Tellman
• “United States Environmental Migration:Vulnerability, Resilience, and Policy Options for Internally Displaced Persons” by Michelle A. Meyer Lueck

Slow-Onset Disasters

• “Food Insecurity and Environmental Migration in Drought-Prone Areas of Ethiopia” by Aschale Dagnachew Siyoum
• “The Agulu-Nanka Gully Erosion Menace in Nigeria: What Does the Future Hold for Population at Risk?” by Chukwuedozie Kelechukwu Ajaero and Arinze Tagbo Mozie

Section Two: Improving International Law and Regional Cooperation on Migration to Enhance Development and Climate Change Adaptation: Selected Case Studies

• “Regional Labour Migration as Adaptation to Climate Change?: Options in the Pacific” by Fanny Thornton
• “Temporary Labour Migration for Victims of Natural Disasters: The Case of Columbia [sic]” by Nicole de Moor
• “Climate Change and Institutional Change in UNHCR” by Nina Hall

Read the full issue here.

Climate Change and Migration: Security and Borders in a Warming World (OUP, Sept. 2011) [info]
“Focusing on climate-induced migration from Africa to Europe, [Gregory] White shows how global warming’s impact on international relations has been significant, enhancing the security regimes in not only the advanced economies of the North Atlantic, but in the states that serve as transit points between the most advanced and most desperate nations. Furthermore, he demonstrates that climate change has altered the way the nations involved view their own sovereignty, as tightening or defining borders in both Europe and North Africa leads to an increase of the state’s reaches over society.”

The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (OUP, Sept. 2011) [info]
Included is the chapter “Climate Refugees and Security: Conceptualizations, Categories, and Contestations,” in which the authors “question the validity of the climate refugee category, arguing that far from providing succor and solace to the most vulnerable communities within the global South, the climate refugee is asubject of securitization. The most dominant perspective remains a realist (state-centric), militarist narrative, and the climate refugee is constructed, at best, as a victim of a global polity with no human agency–a political entity outside sovereignty–or, even worse, as an environmental criminal or terrorist” (p. 279).

Almost all districts across the Far West face losses of lives and property every year due to natural disasters. However, the impact can last well beyond the immediate event. Humanitarian actors have observed that the duration of displacement varies depending on the intensity and type of disaster: displacement following inundation of rivers is generally short term, while displacement resulting from floods and erosion is generally longer term.

Read the brief in full here.

“This new publication is a vital contribution to one of the major debates of our time,” said UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova, who on 1 July took over the chairmanship of the Global Migration Group. “We have all read startling headlines warning that climate change will force tens of millions of people to move. This book looks at the evidence for these claims, shows us the real issues at stake – especially those concerning human rights. It also provides some sobering guidance for policy and decision-makers at local, national and international level.”

The publication emphasizes that while increasingly important, climate change is only one of a range of factors that push people to leave their homes and sometimes their countries. Ignoring this “multicausality” has distorted and polarized public debate on the issue which has “become heavily politicized.”

“The doomsday prophesies of environmentalists may have done more to stigmatize refugees and migrants and to support repressive state measures against them, than to raise environmental awareness,” writes Stephen Castles, Associate Director of the International Migration Institute at the University of Oxford, in the book’s conclusion.

Nonetheless, the authors acknowledge that tropical cyclones, heavy rains and floods, drought and desertification, and sea-level rise are increasingly influencing migration.

The authors stress the need for more research, but also point out the necessity for practical action at all levels

Lack of substantial progress in international negotiations means that “it will be too late for mitigation strategies to prevent or even slow down imminent changes” and the major polluters “need to work together globally to provide financial, scientific and logistical support developing adaptation.” They suggest a number of options, such as diversification of economic activity; changes in government attitudes to rural-urban and cross-border migration, by abandoning restriction and criminalization, and helping people to move in conditions of safety and dignity; and a “new, fine-grained collaborative effort to understand the real challenges and to find solutions.”

Watch an interview with co-author Antoine Pécoud.

Purchase the book here.

Source: UNESCO