Yet, another significant contribution to the debate on climate migration came from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which released a new report on “Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation and Environmental Migration” (the Report). While briefly referring to IOM ongoing projects relating to climate migration, the Report takes an original perspective when presenting climate migrations as an appropriate adaptation strategy, contrasting with the current international paradigm. International organizations often considered that a first-rank political answer to climate change should consist only in mitigation efforts, ie. measures taken to prevent or, at least, reduce climate hazards; that adaptation should be a second-rank solution to limit human vulnerability to unavoidable climate hazards; and that climate migration should be considered as a third-rank “solution” that one adopts only after a failure of both mitigation and adaptation efforts. Thus, considering migration only as a means of last resort, this paradigm may push populations to remain in locations threatened by increased natural hazards – while adaptation remained in any case deeply underfinanced.

At COP13 in 2007, States adopted the Bali Action Plan, recognizing that adaptation efforts should accompany mitigation ones and that both “pillars” are equally important to address ongoing climate change. Yet, migration was not considered as part of adaptation and remains excluded from climate policies – a mere reference by COP16 will probably not suffice to integrate migration strategies in adaptation plans. Now, the position of the IOM is promising, as the Report argues that, “while migration can be a manifestation of acute vulnerability, it can also represent a logical and legitimate livelihood diversification and adaptation strategy.” Going even further, the IOM highlights that “[m]igration as an adaptation strategy has already been used for millennia and is likely to be of growing importance in the future.” Thus, the IOM suggests that “orderly and managed population movements can result in a win-win solution for migrants and the countries of origin and destination.” To achieve sustainable development, the IOM suggests a five-step migration management cycle: after efforts to prevent migration or, when necessary, prepare to it “in order to minimize human suffering and the lost of livelihoods,” it advises States to commit in policies to manage migration, mitigate its impact at the place of destination and address it in view of finding a “durable solution.”

Nonetheless, besides this fair understanding of climate migration as a potentially successful adaptation strategy rather than always a failure thereof, it is unfortunate to realize that the IOM defines “migration” very narrowly in this Report. Temporary and internal migrations carried out only in reaction to an occurred natural disaster will necessarily be insufficient to respond to ongoing and irreversible phenomena like sea level rise, land degradation and worsening of extreme climate events. Accordingly, the approach adopted by the Report is insufficient for three reasons. First of all, addressing climate migration only in relation with disaster risk management and reduction seems to exclude any proactive policy attempting to promote early relocation from areas which, due to slow processes, are becoming highly vulnerable to extreme climate events. Scientific risk assessment would often allow early action and early, life saving decisions.

Secondly, the report focuses on internal displacements and only accessorily touches international ones. This fairly reflects a reality: most climate migrants stay in their own State, for lack of means and probably of will to go far. But this approach eludes thorny issues relating to trans-border climate migrations. Internal climate migrants are protected by the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (even though those are only soft law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights) and remain under the jurisdiction of their own State. Some climate migrants however need to leave the sphere of relative protection offered by their own State and to cross a border. In some highly densely populated countries like Bangladesh, it may be impossible to relocate internally the high number of persons negatively impacted by climate change. Similarly, entire territories of low lying small Island States such as the Maldives and Tuvalu may be affected, forcing its inhabitants to international migration. In a speech on “Protection Gaps and Responses” on December 8, 2010, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterre emphasized that, “through its acceleration of drought, desertification, the salinisation of ground water and soil, and rising sea levels, climate change […] can contribute to the displacement of people across international frontiers.” As Mr. Guterre noted, no international legal protection applies to international climate migrants. Due to this legal emptiness, climate forced migrants will be forced to migrate illegally and, once arrived in a destination country, will certainly be denied the respect of their most fundamental rights. If no action is taken, even documented climate migrants may be victims of widespread discriminations and they will suffer from not speaking the same language or not having the same culture.

Thirdly, one can hardly agree with the Report’s assertion that “[l]ooking for a durable solution in most cases of displacements induced by natural disasters or environmental degradation means ensuring sustainable return.” All scientific evidence shows that sea level will continue to rise for decades and extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and storm surges will be more severe and more frequent. Thus, “sustainable reintegration at the place of origin” may actually amount to turning climate migrants back to a dangerous place after media have left. How could a population be turned back to a territory that they left because of a natural disaster, if worse natural disasters are expected to happen there again, threatening once again those who survived the first disaster? Unlike displacements caused by punctual and exceptional environmental phenomenon (eg. seisms, volcanic eruptions), climate migrations are most often permanent in nature. In addition, the responsibility of developed countries at the origin of climate change should push them to offer climate victims the right to participate in generous relocation programs where their rights and dignity will be adequately protected, rather than forcing them to remain in increasingly affected territories.

Eventually, throughout the Report, one may wonder whether the IOM has adopted the right priorities of action in addressing climate migration. Preventing migration or displacement through enhanced climate resilience or in situ adaptation is an objective which must be pursued whenever achievable; but this may be the role of the UNFCCC, the Global Environmental Facility and the UNDP, together with regional organizations and States, rather than the IOM’s. Responding to humanitarian emergency is certainly part of the IOM’s mandate as defined in its Constitution, but other UN institutions are also in charge, under the coordination of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The IOM should play a role in protecting internal climate migrants since the UNHCR has adopted a narrow definition of internally displaced persons. Nonetheless, the IOM’s priority while addressing climate migrations should be the protection of international climate migrants. Those are in greater need for assistance by an international organization due to their lack of status. The IOM may find a great role in raising awareness on the opportunity of negotiated and controlled solutions as opposed to forced illegal climate migration flows, and in encouraging and facilitating negotiations between States on international relocation programs as an alternative to counterproductive border fencing policies. Eventually, it might want to advocate, along with G77 and nescient NGO community and now the UNHCR, for an international protection of climate migrants.

By Benoît Mayer, benutko@gmail.com

Soure: McGill

IOM has also released an associated background paper on Climate Change and International Migration. It is one of 19 background papers which have been prepared for the World Migration Report.

This year, the World Youth Report 2010 focuses on youth and climate change, and is intended to highlight the important role young people play in addressing climate change. It features a chapter on migration and is worth having a look.

Dr. Jane McAdam has published an article in the forthcoming (2011) 23(1) International Journal of Refugee Law entitled “Swimming Against the Tide: Why a Climate Change Displacement Treaty is Not the Answer”. Drawing on field work in Tuvalu, Kiribati and Bangladesh, Dr Jane McAdam will argue that advocacy for a new treaty addressing climate-related movement is misplaced for a number of reasons. Click here for the abstract and to read the entire article. Jane McAdam has also written an article for the Syndey Morning Herald titled “Number of climate refugees overstated”.

Finally, Reuters AlertNet has published a news article “Destitute climate migrants seen heaping pressure on neighbours”.

Below are some pictures from COP16 including the side event “Climate Change, Environment and Migration Alliance (CCEMA): understanding impacts and finding solutions”. This event was well attended, and covered issues such as migration as adaptation and rapid urbanization due to environmental migration.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference starts tomorrow in Cancun and runs for two weeks. I am travelling right now where internet is limited so I will try my best keep the blog updated. I will be in Cancun during the second week to attend and cover a few of the related meetings. Below are some of the migration and displacement side events happening at COP16. If you know of any other events please contact me and I will add them to this post.

Displacement and migration: Examples of initiatives and activities to support resilience and adaptation
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
Tuesday, November 30 – 18:30—20:00
This event will focus on national and sub-national level policy and programme implementation, including assistance in the development of policies on displacement and climate change; advocacy on displacement; and dissemination of tools that specifically target vulnerable communities such as refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants.

Climate change and forced migration (organized with Bread for the World and UNU)
Stockholm Environemntal Istitiute/IIED/IISD
Part of the “Development and Climate Days at COP-16″
Sunday, December 5 – Day Two – 1:30 pm – 3pm. By RSVP only.
- Chair: Koko Warner, UNU
- Ferdausur Rahman, Network on Climate Change in Bangladesh (NCCB)
- Peter Emberson, the Pacific Conference of Churches
- Isabel Cruz Hernández, Mexican Association of Credit Unions from the Social Sector
- Resettlement needs in Papua New Guinea, Sophia Wirshing, Bread for the World
- Africa presentation tbc

Rights for climate induced forced migrants : Responsibility of international community
Coastal Association for Social Transformation Trust (COAST Trust)
Monday, December 6 -16:45—18:15
There will be 2 billion displaced people due to climate induced problems, alone in Bangladesh these figure will be 30 millions by the year 2010, they should have rights to life and livelihood in view different UN convenants.

Climate Change, Environment and Migration Alliance (CCEMA): understanding impacts and finding solutions
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
Wednesday, December 8 – 15:00—16:30
IOM, UNU and other CCEMA partners highlight key questions and challenges for migration and displacement. Delegates and experts discuss proactive approaches for policy and practice in the context of climate change and adaptation, with relevant case studies.

Government delegates had in front of them the current version of the draft negotiating text under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). There is one entry that deals with climate change and mobility found on paragraph 4(f) on page 17 of the text and it reads:

4. Invites all Parties to enhance adaptation action under the Copenhagen Adaptation Framework [for Implementation] taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, [and whereby developing country Parties shall be supported by developed country Parties and in accordance with paragraph 6 below], to undertake, inter alia:
[...]
(f) Measures to enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation related to national, regional and international climate change induced displacement, migration and planned relocation, where appropriate;

The language used here has been streamlined even more from the previous version of the text presented in Copenhagen. Click here for a great summary of the entire meeting from Climate-L.org. The next meeting is set for August 2 in Bonn.