In 1970s, the issue of environmental change triggering human migration and the term environmental refugees was used for the first time in several speeches of Lester Brown from the World Watch Institute (Assan & Rosenfeld, 2012). However, made a reference Cardy (1994) from the United Nations Environmental Programme (hereafter UNEP) made a reference to his colleague El-Hinnawi, therefore being the first person proposing a definition on environmental refugees in 1985. Nevertheless, many other scholars have developed new terminologies and definitions, which is displayed in Table 4 below. This tabledisplays that each definition refers to certain characteristics that shape this group.
Table 4. Characteristics of definitions of environmental refugees or environmental migrants
Terminology Movement Origin Time period Causes Internal/ cross- border Author and source Environmental refugees Forced to leave Traditional habitat Temporary or permanently Environmental disruptions (man-made and natural) x El-Hinnawi (Cardy, 1994, p. 2) Environmental refugees To seek sanctuary elsewhere No longer gain a secure livelihood in their homeland Semi- permanent or permanent basis
Drought, soil, erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with the associated problems of populations pressures and profound poverty
Many being internally displaced , some may fled their countries Myers (Myers, 2001, p. 609). Environmental migrants Obliged to leave Their lives or living conditions Temporarily or permanently Compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment Move either within their country or broad The IOM (Laczko & Aghazarm, 2009, p. 19) Environmentally displaced people Obliged to leave their usual place of residence Their lives, livelihoods and welfare
x Serious risk as a result of adverse
environmental, ecological or climate processes and events
Displaced UNHCR (Boano, Zetter, & Morris, 2008, p. 8) Internal Displaced Persons Forced or obliged to flee or to leave Their homes or places of habitual residence
x To avoid the effects of human-made disasters Not crossed an international border Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (ECOSOC, 1998, p. 5) Climate Change Migrants Movement is triggered x x In part inclusively, by
the effects of climate change
x (Nishimura,
According to Boano (2008), El-Hinnawi defines three different types of environmental refugees; those as “temporarily dislocated” as a result of man-made or environmental disasters, those that are “permanently displaced” caused by severe environmental changes and those that migrate due to “gradual deterioration of environmental conditions” (Boano, 2008, p. 6). However, the IOM (2009) views this particular group as ‘environmental migrants’ because, as they argue, the term refugee relating to environmental change or climate change is “misleading and could potentially undermine the international legal regime for the protection of refugees” (IOM, 2009, p. 23).
In addition, Jacobson (1988) stresses the importance of categorization rather than defining environmental refugees. He divides these group into three different types: “1) those displaced temporarily because of a local disruption such as an earthquake or avalanche, 2) those who migrate because of environmental degradation that undermines their livelihood or threatens their health [and] 3) those who resettle because land degradation has resulted desertification or because other permanent and untenable changes in their habitat” (Jacobson, 1988, pp. 37-38).
In 2007, Renaud et al. developed a decision making framework in order to understand the migration flows caused by environmental change and to classify individuals who leave or are forced to leave their homes as a result of environmental reasons (see Table 5. “Identifying Categories of Environmental Migrants” below) (Renaud, Bogardi, Dun, & Warner, 2007, p. 31). They have also identified three types of types of environmental migrants; environmentally motivated migrants, environmental refugees and environmentally forced migrants (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011). The division between these three categories was made “by thinking about the situation of a person or group of persons at the point in time when they actually depart their usual place of residence i.e. at the time the flight or migration commences” (Renaud, Bogardi, Dun, & Warner, 2007, p. 31). The first type is environmental refugees “who flee the worst of an environmental impact on a temporary basis” (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011, p. e14). The second type is environmental forced migrants; individuals who migrate, “because of the consequences of loss of ecosystems services” (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011, p. e22). The third type is environmental motivated migrants “who may leave a steadily deteriorating environment in order to pre-empt the worst, [because] there is no emergency nor is it a last resort action to move, but rather it is a situation in which individuals or communities who foresee a continuously deteriorating environment may decide to move in order to avoid further deterioration of their livelihoods” (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi,
2011, p. e15). They have argued that this group migrates because of socio-economic aspects, which is the dominant factor in their decision making (e.g. every year farmers are confronted with extreme droughts that result in a constant deterioration of their land productivity caused by “land desertification” and will put them more in danger of growing poverty) (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011, p. e15).
Table 5. Identifying the Categories of Environmental Migrants
The Nature of Environmental Degradation
Inherent vulnerability of affected communities/ persons Direct gradual (e.g. land degradation, pollution) Indirect gradual (e.g. sea level rise)
Direct sudden (e.g. flood, typhoon, earthquake) Indirect sudden (e.g. volcanic ash fallout, drought) Type of assistance or help available/ Self-help (skills financial)
Low III III II II
needed expected to cope with the
State assistance Medium III III I-II II
environmental degradation at point
International assistance
High II-III III I-II II
of origin No assistance expected
Very High II II I I-II
I= Environmental refugee II = Environmental Forced migrant III = Environmental Motivated Migrant Source: (Renaud, Bogardi, Dun, & Warner, 2007, p. 31)
However, in 2011, Renaud et al. discussed that the third group must be seen as “environmental emergency migrants” hereby opposed to the table that has been established in 2007. The reason is that the environment becomes the dominant factor in their decision making rather than the economic-socio aspects. Therefore, they describe this group as “people who have to flee because of the swiftness of an environmental event and who to take refuge to save their lives” (e.g. hurricanes) (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011, p. e14). In addition, they further claim that this type of ‘environmental emergency migrants’ also includes individuals who have crossed an international border, but are still unprotected by any international UN Convention. The third type is environmentally forced migrants, which are “people who have to leave in order to avoid the worst of environmental deterioration [and] have may not have a choice to return to their former place of residence due to the physical loss of their land” (e.g. sea level rise) (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011, p. e14). The pressure to migrate or flee their homes or country is less compared to the second type, because the impact of the environmental change is slow-onset. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the environment is the dominant and main factor that triggers this group of people to migrate (Renaud, Dun, Warner, & Bogardi, 2011). Table 5 displays that the decision to migrate within or to a neighbourhood country is based on the nature of environmental degradation, whether it is sudden or gradual, and “the type of support available […] to the person departing” (e.g. self-help, state assistance,
international assistance and no assistance expected) (Renaud, Bogardi, Dun, & Warner, 2007, p. 31).
Subparagraph conclusion
The main problem is that the terms as displaced person, migrant and refugee “are often used synonymously and interchangeably, not only in common parlance but also in academic literature and government policy documents” (Gogarty, 2011, p. 169). According to Cardy (1994) one organisation viewsthem as environmental refugees while others view them as environmental migrants or other change the term environmental into climate, as shown above (Cardy, 1994). This also applies for the terms obliged, forced and induced within this subparagraph, which are used indiscriminately and therefore also have effect on the terms environmental and climate. In addition, another problem with the development of these terminologies and definitions is the different perceptions on whether these people have migrated voluntarily or forced (Dun & Gemenne, 2008). This study will be focused on the three different types of environmentally forced migrants, but all will fall under this terminology.
4.1.2 The different terminologies of climate change related to movement and displacement
As previously described, the different definitions have linked the concepts of environmentally forced migrants with forced migration and displacement to address that these persons are forced to leave their home or country. It is therefore important to address the different forced migration and displacement terminologies related to disasters, which are caused by climate change, because they will become one of the “biggest humanitarian challenges facing States and the international community in the 21st century” (The Nansen Initiative, 2015, p. 6). In addition, the forced displacement will destabilise development, violate human rights and will have impact on security issues (The Nansen Initiative, 2015). However, according to Warner (2010), here is a “lack of definitions for migration caused in part by environmental change and degradations” (Warner K. , 2010, p. 403). This is due to the fact that scholars have observed that environmental change is not the only factor that drives migration, which makes it difficult to identify the causes and consequences of environmentally forced migration and to define the different kinds of “environmental related migration” (Warner K. , 2010, p. 403)
According to the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration defined forced migration in general as:
“the movement of refugees and internally displaced people (those displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemic al or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects” (Hansen, n.d.).
Nevertheless, Baldwin has drawn the attention to the fact that, what he calls ‘climate-induced migration’, describes how “climate refugees [migrate] into areas [which are] already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict”, which will be further explained in paragraph 3.2.3 (Baldwin, 2014, pp. 122-123).
Furthermore, the International Displacement Monitoring Centre (hereafter IDMC) states that displacement can be seen as “a more reactive measure of last resort or a survival response to severe and immediate threats [while] migration is a longer-term strategic decision to move” to an area with improved livelihood conditions (Yonetani, 2015, p. 14). Figure 5 displays displacement (climate change impacts develop weather-related hazards) and migration (climate change impacts increase vulnerability that leads to the decision to migrate) (Yonetani, 2015).
Figure 5. Climate change, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation have impact on (forced) displacement of populations
Reiffers (2017) observes that forced migration and displacement exist of three types:
1. “conflict-induced migration”, which includes individuals that were forced to leave and
have fled their homes (by the cause of conflict or “prosecution on the grounds of nationality” for example).
2. “development-induced displacement” includes individuals that are obliged to leave their homes and displace themselves somewhere else as a result of national or international projects and policies that are focused to improve the development in that particular region.
3. “disaster-induced displacement” includes individuals that are displaced as a consequence of environmental change, man-made disasters or national disasters (e.g. earthquakes) (Reiffers, 2017, p. 372). The Platform of Disaster Displacement points out that these individuals end up in situations where they are often unprotected to the natural disaster and that “they are too vulnerable and lack the resilience to withstand the impact” of the disaster (Platform on Disaster Displacement, 2017). However, the IOM (2013) has described the third group as “environmentally induced migration” as
“[individuals] who predominantly for reasons of sudden or progressive change in the environment that adversely affects their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad” (Warner, et al., 2013, p. 10).
The Platform of Disaster Displacement has argued that there is also a fourth type (cross-border displacement) which “refers to situations where people flee or are displaced across border in the context of sudden-or slow-onset disasters” due to effects of climate change disasters. This type creates “cross-border displaced persons”, which refers to people that have crossed an international border caused by slow- or sudden- onset events/disasters, “or in the context of the effects of climate change” (Platform on Disaster Displacement, 2017).
From a political perspective, in 2010, the UNFCCC and its Conference of Parties (hereafter COP, which will be further explained in paragraph 3.4.2) Human mobility, according to the UNFCC, focuses on three types of population movement. The first one is “displacement, which happens “when people are forced to leave their homes or places of habitual residence” (The Advisory Group on Climate Change and Human Mobility, 2014, p. 3). The second one
migration, which happens, for most part, out of voluntary motives. Thirdly, planned relocation, which is organised and carried out by a nation-state to relocate individuals in a new location (The Advisory Group on Climate Change and Human Mobility, 2014, p. 3).
More importantly, Castles (2002) has drawn the attention to the fact that forced migration and displacement are not solely linked to environmental change or sudden hazards, but “rather they are a part of complex patterns of multiple causality, in which natural and environmental factors are closely linked to economic, social and political ones” (Castles, 2002, p. 5).
Subparagraph conclusion
In the previous subparagraph, there are different terminologies used to address individuals and populations that have been affected by sudden or gradual environmental change. This also applies for the different terminologies (e.g. forced, displacement, disaster induced displacement, and human mobility) that address the impact of climate change related to movement. This thesis focusses on primary on the cross-border displacement caused by environmental change/ disasters. The following subparagraph will explain the difficulties of developing a universal terminology.