ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND MIGRATORY DYNAMICS. ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES AND TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MIGRANTS: A HEURISTIC TYPOLOGY.

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND MIGRATORY DYNAMICS. ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES AND TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MIGRANTS: A HEURISTIC TYPOLOGY Abstract The debate around environmental refugees and climate change is high on the academic and political agendas, although no causal link between climate change and human migrations has been unequivocally established yet. Nevertheless, in a near future, millions of people could be dramatically affected by environmental transformations brought by climate change, both in developed and developing countries, the latter having less capacity to adapt or to mitigate the problem. It is argued that although there aren t environmental refugees at this moment, it is necessary to be prepared for changes in future climate, namely concerning the case of average sea level rise. In this paper, we intend to achieve some clarification on the debate around the concept of environmental refugees. It is asserted that the Refugees Convention of 1951 is not tailored to deal with this new challenge. We also argue that, although migrations are considered multi causal phenomena - with economic, political and cultural drives being the most important ones - environmental transformations, both present and projected, must now be considered as relevant in migratory studies. We propose a classification of environmental transformations considering, along a scale of time, four analytical types (natural, human, interactive and climate change transformations). In order to go forward, we intend to propose a heuristic typology that allows us to operationalize the concepts of environmental migrants and environmental refugee and, in doing so, to provide the basis for an analytical framework to study the interplay between climate change and the emergence of new migratory phenomena. Key-words: Environmental refugees, environmental transformations, climate change, migrations. 1

2 Introduction Amongst the several problems that climate change poses to sustainability, mass migration due to environmental transformations (ET) brought by climate change has been set as one of the most alarming challenges humanity will face. Some authors say that humanity faces unprecedented human security risks that could compromise human life in the planet, reinforcing the need to think about new strategies of sustainable development and new ethics of global responsibility (Sen 1999, Costa 2010). The United Nations Millennium Development Goals expresses similar concerns. 1 Also the 2010 Human Development Report (HDR) states that new approaches to development must be envisaged to cope with the new threats that endanger human well-being and freedom and to guarantee a sustainable progress 2. The International Organization for Migrations (IOM) underlines that since the 90 s the major impact of climate change could be about human migrations. 3 Since the decade of 1970 researchers and institutions have been discussing the impacts of environment in migrations, claiming that millions of environmental refugees (ER) will be affected. Institutions, like the 2001 World Disasters Report of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, estimated the current ER at 25 million 4. It further notes that in 1992 alone, the Red Cross attended about half a million people affected by natural disasters and that, six years later (1998), this figure had risen to over 5.5 million (Zoidberg nd). In 2005, the UN University s Institute for Environment and Human security warned that the international community should be prepared for 50 million ER by Norman According to those reports, the impacts are more severe in poor countries, with less capacity to develop mitigation and adaptation mechanisms, namely in what concerns 1 See See IOM - Migration Research Series, nº 31. Available in 4 See See 2

3 food security and demographic movements. In 2005, Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security of the United Nations University, confirmed the value of 50 million by the end of this decade, and noted that environmental degradation has already displaced more than 10 million people per year (Bogardi and Brauch 2005) 6. Myers, a professor at the University of Oxford, is quoted in UN this report, predicting that in 2050 there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by disruptions of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration, and by sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Recently, the Stern report (2006) stated that the climate change may be responsible for 200 million ER. In the same vein, and in 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reported that the Earth will warm between 1.8 and 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, which will result in, among other weather events, rising sea level up to 58 cm and the flooding of coastal areas and several small islands (IPCC, AR4 2007). Africa is among the most vulnerable continents. The IPCC report used the term Environmental Refugee in its First Assessment Report (IPCC, FAR 1990), saying that: Even a modest rise in global sea-levels could produce tens of millions of such refugees. Population movements from blighted agricultural regions could result in areas where crop productivity may be cut by prolonged drought or temperature stress on vulnerable crops. (IPCC, FAR 1990:5-10) The Second Assessment Report (SAR) changed from ER to ecological refugees (IPCC, SAR 1996:34). The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) does not use either of 6 Nomos: Baden-Baden. GECHS will also be holding a conference on the mainstreaming of human security, The International Conference on Human Security in Asia: Theory, Practice and Impacts will be held in Bangkok, October

4 those terms, but it connects the prospected sea level rise with that mass migration phenomenon, making a clear distinction between impacts that we are now feeling in environment and those projected for the future. The IPCC 2007 report states that climate change will have impacts on population settlement. Drought, intense tropical cyclone activity, increasing incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis) (IPCC, AR4 2007:13), and prospected see level rise will be part of the ET affecting human activity and patterns of settlement. However, some authors (Webster 2002; Reilly 2007) find the IPCC report relatively vague, particularly in what concerns the impacts of global warming in agriculture, namely in terms of agro-climatic ability of the lands and the consequent effects of delocalization of cultures (Pinto 2004; Reilly 2007) and, therefore, of people. Also some experts do not agree on the interpretation of the concept of ER. If, on the one hand, some authors establish a direct causal link between human-induced climate change and migratory flows - thus postponing the strategies of support to ER (El-Hinnawi 1985; Myers 1995, 2005; Stern 2006; Brown 2007). Others are more sceptics, considering that climate change doesn t have a clear anthropogenic nature and that there is no direct causal link leading to increased migratory flows. Global warming shouldn t be seen as a central push factor for migration (Black 2001). Richard Black is amongst those that consider incorrect the use of the term and the direct connection that it underlines in relation to environment as a cause for migration (Black 2001). Stephen Castles, a specialist on refugee studies, notes that Richard Black believes that while environmental factors do play a part in forced migration, they are always closely linked to a range of other political and economic factors, so that focusing on the environmental factors in isolation does not help in understanding specific situations of population displacement (Castles 2002:1). Global institutions, such as the Institute for Environment and Human Security of the United Nations University (UNU-EHS), are aware of the fuzziness of the concept. Renaud, an officer at the UNU-EHS and head of the Section on Environmental Assessment and Resource Vulnerability, stated that no one can disagree that there is a need to address these issues more scientifically and systematically, and that the fuzziness of the environmental refugee concept as it stands now, as well as the difficulty in estimating the number of people concerned or identifying migration routes 4

5 should not be a reason not to act and move forward with adequate policies (Renaud e al2007:16). The International Organization for Migrations (IOM) underlines that since the 90 s the major impact of climate change could be about human migrations. 7 Some of the IOM publications 8 have pointed to impressive numbers of environmental migrants/refugees. The IOM report on migration and climate change 9 states that, although migration due to environmental reasons is not new to humankind, we are now facing the possibility of interference of anthropogenic reasons on global climate processes. Although IOM, along with United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) that prefers to use the expression internally-displaced-persons (IDP), the IOM opted to use the term environmental-displaced-persons instead of ER ( Lopez 2006:388). The studies on migration reacted with scepticism to those numbers and two main academic groups, from several academic backgrounds, emerged and have started debating around the concept of ER. On one side, there are the so-called maximalist, who tends to consider environment as an isolate drive for migration, and, on the other side, the minimalists, who defend the multi-causality of migratory movements. Nevertheless, some of them agree that, along with economic, political and cultural reasons (that are considered as principal drives for migration), environment is also a relevant cause for migrations. What minimalists don t agree with is that environment can be seen as the main drive for migrations, producing millions of ER and, therefore, it doesn t make any sense to create another category of migrants. Since the debate started, organizations and academics have pointed out different numbers concerning this new category that vary from thousands to millions, as we will see ahead. Several authors criticize the fuzziness of those quantifications, saying that migration is a multicausal phenomenon and that is difficult to isolate environmental reasons as a drive for migration (Castles, 2002, Black, 2001). In spite of this ongoing debate, most scholars 7 IOM - Migration Research Series, nº 31. Available in 8 Ibidem 9 See

6 also agree on the need to include the relation between climate change and migration in the future research agenda. In this article we intend to assess and clarify two central aspects of the debate in order to establish a heuristic typology to operationalize the concept of environmental migrants (EM), i.e., migrants caused by ET. In the first part of this article, a brief historical assessment of the concept of ER will be done, allowing us, at the same time, to clarify the terms of the debate and their political implications. As we know, the refugees designation has started a debate around political and legal implications of forced migration due to environmental reasons (Lopez 2006). It is a political and legal discussion that brings to the debate the question of forced versus voluntary migrations and national and international political accountability. The relation to security matters was also raised in discussions about environment and mass migration (Homer-Dixon 1991); therefore a word on that relation will also be addressed. In the second part, we will propose a heuristic typology by using the idea of ET as a causal factor for migration. Environmental degradation and climate change impacts can be and are several times connected, but there isn t yet a clear and unequivocal scientific relation between environmental degradation and climate change. Therefore, a clarification is needed to distinguish those that move because of natural causes or human causes, from those that move due to environmental reasons unequivocally connected to climate change. This will help operationalize the concept of EM. In this paper we defend that ET must be considered as a relevant drive for the emergence of new types of migrants, such as environmental migrants. Migrations are normally considered as multi-causal phenomena with economic, political and cultural drives being the most important ones. We will address and try to simplify the confusion concerning the environmental factors that trigger migration and their relation with climate change, i.e., changes produced by human activity in the climate system. There are several factors affecting migratory flows that cannot be considered as directly resulting from climate change, although they are often taken into account in the quantifications for ER. Great projects like the building of great dams (e.g. the Three Gorges Dam in China), deforestation and drought due to intense 6

7 agricultural activity are amongst the factors that also affect migratory settlements but that don t result in new ER, as we will sustain. This will bring along the problem of causality and the relation between environment and climate change. IPCC projections deal with timing and uncertainty about climate change matters that are, somehow, transferred to the debate around ER, adding uncertainty and posing problems of operacionalization. In fact, what we can say is that on the top of environmental degradation problems, one has to add the prospected impacts of climate change. In this part of the article we will assess the question of projections, time and uncertainty, trying to show that the principle of precaution must be considered as relevant to migratory theories and global policy making, namely by starting to prospect new kinds of migratory flows for a relative near future. In the third part we will sum up the issues, conclude, and give some indications concerning policy-making. 1. THE DEBATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES This new category, which came by the hand of a photographer and environmental activist, Lester Brown (1976), and later on, in the 1980s, by the hand of a professor and consultant to the United Nations, El-Hinnawi, has since then become part of academic debate. El-Hinnawi defines ER as 'those people who were forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of disruptions that compromised its existence and / or significantly affected their quality of life' (El-Hinnawi 1985, in Myers and Kent, 1995:12). Later on, Jodi Jacobson (1988) of Worldwatch Institute defined them as being 1) those who are temporarily displaced due to environmental disruption, 2) those who migrate because environmental degradation has undermined their quality of life or put unacceptable risks to their health: 3) those who re-established due to the degradation of arable land that results in desertification or because of permanent changes in their habitat '(Jacobson in, Myers and Kent 1995:12). The book 'Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena' by the experts on refugees, Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent (1995), became a milestone in the institutionalization of the term ER (about processes of institutionalization of climate change and sustainable development related issues, see Costa, 2010). The book is a reminder of the lack of attention that is paid to the 7

8 problem of ER and, especially, to the factors that are behind it. The author defines ER as those "persons who can no longer guarantee a quality of life (livelihood) on their land due to drought, soil erosion and other environmental problems and, therefore, are forced to move to other locations regardless of the dangers that such movement can cause '(Myers and Kent 1995:12). Myers and Kent primarily aimed at 'putting numbers in the category' to provide empirical support to a category which, until then, had no studies to underpin it. One of the objectives of their work was to draw attention to the existence of a group of refugees who are not eligible by the United Nations (UN) in the same way as political refugees are. According to them, ER were increasing and organizations that were in the field had already identified large numbers of ER. Among others, they studied the cases of Mexico, Caribbean, Africa, Egypt, Bangladesh and China). Kent and Myers sounded the alarm. There was a vast number of people who were affected by problems that were not strictly political, economic, cultural or social but who, often suffering the action of all these factors of motivation (or part thereof), also feel the effects of environmental degradation, pollution and desertification, droughts, floods and other weather events that worsen the existing situation. They noted that beyond the 'traditional refugees', vast numbers of other displaced people were identified without any legal framework and, therefore, without any support. However, in their study, they considered ER all persons on situations in which there was some kind of link to environmental factors, which came to be seen as an 'alarmist' work, generating perverse effects in relation to the effective institutionalization of the new emerging category of environmental migrants, particularly in terms of international organizations that where already facing the problem of 'traditional' refugees and allocation of financial resources. The scientific community also reacted, disregarding the study. To catastrophic views that said that environmental degradation would cause massive displacement of populations from developed countries and serious security problems (Homer-Dixon 1991), opposed sceptical views that advocated that the migrations are not necessarily a consequence of environmental degradation. The scientific community was divided between two opposing perspectives. Astri Shurke designates them as maximalist - more related to the UN and the issues of refugees and the security -, and 'minimalist' - related to 8

9 studies of migration. That is, on the one hand, there are those who "see the changes in the environment as a contextual variable that may contribute to migration, but warn of the difficulty in drawing firm conclusions, due to lack of knowledge about these processes, and on the other hand, those who consider that 'environmental degradation has displaced millions of people and still generate more threat' (Shurke 1993:4). It was in the absence of concrete evidence that Myers and Kent (1995), under the auspices of the Climate Institute in Washington DC, developed their work, involving various government agencies, NGOs and research centres and adding numbers to the new category of ER. Despite the use of a wealth of data, the work has always had a strong political bias and claimed legal rights that were extended to the ER. This has always been viewed with reservation by the scientific community and in particular by scholars of migration that quickly reacted to alarmism and to the political agenda of Myers and Kent and his followers (Black 2001, 2008, Castles 2005). Indeed, in the eagerness to give expression to the category of ER and the drama of environmental migrants, Myers and Kent included in the new category all sorts of movements of people resulting from all kinds of environmental forcings (environmental degradation, natural disasters, manmade disasters, mismanagement of land use, adding to those the impacts of greenhouse gases on environment, particularly those, not visible yet, concerning the raise of average sea level, which is prospected by IPCC and other institutions to lead to an overwhelming number of migrants. In fact, the numbers are impressive. The authors relate that, in 1995, the ER were already at least 25 million (a total to be confronted with the 22 million traditional refugees); this figure could double to 50 million by the year 2010 (Myers and Kent 1995:1). They further note that in considering the possible effects of climate change and the consequent rise of average sea levels and flooding of many coastal areas, these numbers may increase and threaten to shift to some 200 million people by the year 2100 (Myers and Kent 1995:1). These figures and estimates created a backlash in the scientific community, particularly among scholars of migration. We consider that, instead of helping to focus efforts in investigating the phenomenon of ER, the debate centred on the validity and relevance of the category and estimates that have been advanced. In fact Myers and Kent complain about the way the issue of 9

10 ER was confined to the universe of 'peripheral concern, a sort of aberration on the normal order' (Myers and Kent 1995:8). Indeed, and except for some cases, the phenomenon that was the subject of debate became the construction of the category (and its numbers) and not the phenomena that the category encompasses. THE ARGUMENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY Another aspect that has created controversy is the relationship between those migratory flows and issues of national security. The debate is carried out mainly on the political dimension and articulation between the role of organizations of international intervention and national security. Among the supporters of the idea that we are on the threshold of an era in which environmental changes will lead to armed conflict is Thomas Homer-Dixon. Homer-Dixon examines various conflicts and seeks to establish a relationship between these conflicts and environmental degradation, but, according to other authors, including Richard Black and Jack Goldstone (in Castles 2005:167), this connection should be criticized because the relationship between security and environment is mediated by a number of other factors (political, economic, ethnic, military, etc.) that complicate the isolation of the relationship. Despite considering the existence of such conflicts (Goldstone 2001:31), several criticisms are made. There remains the idea that conflicts caused by environmental degradation (desertification, erosion, water shortages, etc.) do not have anything to do with those caused by wars and ethnic conflicts and can 'deflect' attention to the root causes of violent conflicts, which may be counterproductive and contribute to 'divert' military resources and financial support to other areas where conflicts are less important. Moreover, other authors argue, this relationship can cause reactions of racism and xenophobia on possible migration flows that would be seen as a sort of 'invasion' (Shurke 1993). Indeed, the relation to the issue of national security was also seen as a factor of alarmism that could generate more xenophobic reaction, decentralizing the attention of the specific situations of population displacement (Shurke 1993, Castles 2005:158), thus also creating rejection from experts on migration studies. Several works have been produced about this relationship (e.g. Goldstone 2001), but we consider, once again, that there is uncertainty regarding the relationship between environmental 10

11 impacts and its particular consequences and impacts on migratory dynamics. Making all sorts of environmental stress be considered as factors for migration doesn t allow us to distinguish those that migrate due to climate change from those that are characteristic of some areas and are enhanced by other more visible causes (wars, ethnic conflicts, economic interests, etc.). The line that establishes casual relationship between ET and migration remains undefined. POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES From the moment ER debates entered the law studies, the idea that an 'environmental refugee' must have the right to the status of a refugee became one of the most discussed issues in political-legal and international law (see Lopez 2006). The goal of creating an institutional framework for these "new refugees" was not met, and indeed was affected, due to confusion generated by the classification of ER. Stephen Castles refers that the alarmism and the fuzziness of ER doesn t favour a productive discussion on the question of the relationship between environment and migration, saying that the global forecasts and the associations of common sense don t contribute to a better understanding of these phenomena (Castles 2005: 163), instead they introduce more confusion. In a reaction to the debate of ER, the UNHCR stated clear what they think about the designation: The phrase refugee is a legal term. A person who has been determined a refugee will have satisfied the criteria under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1969 OAU Convention, or UNHCR s mandate. For this reason, a reference to an economic refugee is not a reference to a recognized term under international law, neither are climate refugee or environmental refugee. While often used, particularly in the media, it 11

12 would be incorrect to give the words a legal meaning that has not been endorsed by the legal community. (UNHCR 2009a:8) 10. The UNHCR also considers that ER definition could have impacts on a renegotiation of the 1951 Refugee Convention because it could potentially undermine the international legal regime for the protection of refugees and, thereby, contribute to the lowering of protection standards (UNHCR 2009a:9) for traditional refugees. But, even recognizing that there are indeed certain groups of migrants that are in need of assistance, the UNHCR clearly assumes that while environmental factors can contribute to prompting cross-border movements, they are not grounds, in and of themselves, for the grant of refugee status under international refugee law. Instead of using ER terminology, UNHCR prefers to address the problem through the idea of internally-displaced-persons (IDP) saying that, in some conditions, EM can be under the Convention Refugees Status if they are placed under IDP definition, for example, in situations of war and violence triggered by environment reasons. Again, though, when it comes to international migration due to environmental causes the UNHCR says that: Some cross-border movement scenarios may be dealt with within the existing international refugee framework, which has proven to be flexible over the past decades, but others may require new approaches, premised upon new forms of inter- State cooperation, international solidarity and responsibility-sharing. (UNHCR 2009a:2). However, the tentative to bring those persons affected by environmental reasons into the UN framework is behind the emergence of the concept. As stated by Aurelie Lopez, the Convection of Refugees of 1951, was not drafted with those persons in mind (Lopez 2006:387). We also argue that new responses must be drawn to the 20 th century challenges of climate change. We believe that there are three fundamental aspects that must be of concern. First, the Convection of Refugees of 1951 doesn t consider environment directly as a forcing factor leading to persecution; and being 10 Available at: change, natural disasters

13 persecuted is a condition to have the status of a refugee. In the case of ER the persecutor is so to say Nature itself. But in fact, in some cases, (e.g. nuclear or chemical pollution, or the construction of dams) the responsible factors can be clearly identified. In those cases there is the possibility of having direct accountability. But, again, this is not so (at least not yet) in what regards climate change impacts. Can we unequivocally say that Katrina hurricane was due to climate change? Or that the floods or droughts are clearly caused by climate change due to emissions of green house gases (GHG)? As stated by UNHCR, this creates confusion regarding the impact of climate change, environmental degradation and migration and persecution that is at the root of a refugee fleeing a country of origin and seeking international protection (UNHCR 2009:9); future developments showing unequivocal relation between climate change and migration will most probably change that scenario. The crucial factor of accountability for climate change and the scientific proof of an unequivocal connection between ET and climate change will be essential to determine accountability and change the framework within which the question of ER is being seen. Somehow, the Kyoto Protocol and the Clean Development Mechanism and, in a way, also the Millennium Development Goals are first generation instruments to deal with global responsibility. In fact, the idea behind the Clean Development Mechanism is to bring accountability to emissions of GHG. It deals with justice and human rights, which is behind the traditional refugees status issue, but now the challenges are not about war and political persecution. Instead, they are about global climate change, accountability and global justice. These new conditions must be considered and instead of trying to adapt the framework of the Convention of Refugees to new kinds of refugees such as ER, a new framework must be developed. Second aspect that should be considered in this new framework is the question of borders; only international flows can to be considered. To have the refugee s status one has to cross a national border. UNHCR uses the IDP to internal migrations. As stated by Lopez: 13

14 Environmentally-displaced-persons ( ) can usually count upon the protection of their state, even if it is limited in its capacity to provide them with emergency relief or longer-term reconstruction assistance (in, Lopez 2006:377). So, in a situation of migration due to environmental reasons the responsibility is mainly of the national state itself. UNHCR also states that: Some cross-border movement scenarios may be dealt with within the existing international refugee framework, which has proven to be flexible over the past decades, but others may require new approaches, premised upon new forms of inter- State cooperation, international solidarity and responsibility-sharing. (UNHCR, 2009a:2) The UNHCR also calls attention to the phenomenon of statelessness (UNHCR, 2009a:2). In fact, what if a country ceases to exist because of climate change unequivocally attributed to the rise of sea level that permanently affects livelihood, as for example is expected to be the case of little islands such as Tuvalu or the Maldives? In this case, no national assistance can be provided and we will face other challenges. As up to now we live in a world of borders, national and international migrations result from that state of international disposition of States. Therefore, it is also needed to think about ER status because IDP is not sufficient, and international borders (or the absence of them due to climate change and global responsibility) must be considered. This will also have implications in the units that are considered. The persecuted will be not only individuals but also countries. In fact, the traditional framework for refugees is centred on the individual; so in order to deal with the future (UNHCR 2009a:2) we will have to consider the phenomenon of statelessness, and probably not only in the point of view of adaptation measures as appears to be the focal point of UNHCR note released in 2009 with the title Climate change and statelessness: An overview (UNHRC 2009b). We consider that, although there is no unequivocal scientific connection between climate change and environmental impacts on livelihood, one has the necessary information to prevent future scenarios. It is not the individual but the country that is persecuted and the responsibility of that persecution is not from one single entity. Those that must flee because of climate 14

15 change affecting low land islands will have no national support because they will become stateless. We thus propose to consider not the individual but the State as a collective to be part of the condition to be taken as an ER. It is not the individual but the country that is persecuted and the responsibility of that persecution is not from one single entity. Several decades have already gone by since the problem of ER was brought for the first time. Now it is time to prevent the impacts of climate change on migratory dynamics because we have the information to do so, and if we don t, then the responsibility will be of those who had the information to stop the persecution and didn t do anything with it. 2. MIGRATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE Changes in climate have always been a pull factor, forcing populations into great displacements. Droughts, floods and extreme weather events have always existed, but, in the current setting, with problems of population growth, sustainability and the prospected changes in climate system, migration issues gain a new position under the spotlight. Although migrations are considered as multi causal phenomena with economic, political and cultural drives being the most important ones, in this paper, we argue that we now must also consider environmental transformations, present and projected, as relevant drives for the emergence of new types of migrations. Several authors have explored the economic dimension as a cause of migration (see Massey et al 1993). In fact, since Ravenstein (1985) classical theories on migration like the macro demand and supply of labour, the micro rational actors, the theories of dual labour market have mainly focused on the economic dimension. Later, inspired by the work of Wallerstein (1974) theories on migration started considering sociological and historical factors (Portes and Walton 1981, Castles et al 1989) as causes of migratory flows. Amongst others, theories of social capital networks of immigrants 15

16 have gained expression (Massey et al 1993, Portes 1998). Institutional theories of cumulative causation led to new approaches with political concerns and constitute an important advance as a generalization of previous theories (Massey et al 1993). But global theories that include the diversity of situations of migration are considered illusory and it is rather more appropriate to consider the existence of an integrated set of theories (Castels 2005, King et al 2008). Although the relationship between environment and migration shows to be ancestral, only recently did environment start to gain importance in migratory studies. For the 'minimalist' or 'sceptical' ones the question has always been about the confusion brought by the political dimension that the ER categories brings and the confusion caused when all types of migration (internal, external, circular) were set under the same category. This has caused an adverse reaction from scholars of migration, repelling them from the study of the relationship between environment, climate change and migrations. As Russell King notes, there are limitations in the theories on migration, namely with regard to how they deal with the issue of internal and external flows (King et al 2008). According to the author, those theories do not conveniently consider the issue of internal migrants, focusing on immigration (which involves cross-border flows) and leaving out the internal flows that often imply longer trips, with problems of integration of different cultures and also problems in terms of labour markets (see King el al 2008). Similarly, theories on migration do not properly insert the issue of environmental migrants, who mostly represent internal flows. Richard Black pointed out that very failure, specifically mentioning that the impact of climatic events on the population tends to originate internal and non-international flows, thus being difficult to measure, except by UN organizations on the ground and NGOs. Hence their statistical invisibility. Excluding the alarmist nature of certain projections Stephen Castles (as well as Richard Black) rejects, the author does not fail to mention that research on 'forced migration (and even on migration in general) needs to pay more attention to environmental factors' and that 'we must consider them as an part of broader processes of social transformation' (Castles 2005:169). Recurring to the idea of social transformations (Castles 2005), we intend to add to the 16

17 'traditional migration causes the ET (both natural and human-made ones) as representing a relevant factor. It is commonly said that the economic, political, socio-cultural and environmental dimensions interact in a complex way, which makes it difficult to isolate the latter as an effective and predominant cause of migration flows (Massey 1993, Black, 2001 Castles 2005). In fact, there is great confusion in the ascription of the factors that trigger migratory flows and this is due to the fact that it is difficult to isolate the environment (in reality, other drives too) as a triggering element. Usually, the environment is seen as an indirect cause. The question is, therefore, getting to know whether it is possible to consider environmental factors isolated as the main cause of migration. In the last decades, new configurations resulting from the problem of sustainability and climate change have been taken as relevant to the study of the impacts of environmental changes in the emergence of new migratory dynamics. Indeed, in a great part of the works, environment as a triggering factor for migrations is both assumed as due to natural causes (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc.) and as a result of environmental degradation and pollution, depletion of natural resources, drought and desertification, water stress, the construction of major works (dams), environmental disasters (Chernobyl) and, to this list of causes, it still adds up the projected impacts of climate change. Such a profusion and mix of environmental causes complicates the analysis of frameworks, and does not contribute to help clarify the relationship between environment and migrations. The existence of interactions within the environment is unambiguous and, in most cases, difficult to be perceived as the main cause. Human intervention often put at stake basic resources (e.g. water) which later will constrain local sustainability and economic and social development, generating disruptions in food and agricultural production, and affecting the quality of life. In these cases, the triggering factor of migrations is assumed as an economic one, but in its basis there are environmental changes. The perception of the causes of migrations is thus dependent on the ability to understand, in an immediate way, the complex interactions there exist between 17

18 environment, economy, culture, politics and society. The question lies, therefore, in knowing how to determine the degree of causality of environmental factors in migration flows. The development of knowledge about the importance of environment in sustainable development has taken important steps and helped clarify the complex relationship between environment and man. But only recently, from the moment climate projections of IPCC gained visibility, did people begin to pay more attention to the relationship between environment and migrations. ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSFORMATIONS AS DRIVES FOR MIGRATION To understand the extent to which ET are relevant to the study of migration we propose an analytical framework to study the relation between environment, climate change and migration. We will define different kinds of ET and, by using a chronological line; we will argue that different levels of causality arise as climate change process is more accurate and unequivocal. In what concerns migrants typology, we will propose two working definitions: environmental migrants (internal and external) and environmental refugees (see figure 1). Some presuppositions are needed first. We consider that, although there is more and more relevant scientific information about the process of climate change, linking the greenhouse effect to the increase of frequency of extreme weather events (e.g. hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.), there is still no scientific support that allows us to state that those phenomena are unequivocally attributable to the process of climate change and that they are a result of GHG s increase. Only when the impacts of climate change definitively and permanently prevent the populations from living in those places (e.g. the case of small islands), and a clear link between climate change and human responsibility is established, will it be possible to identify accountability and to support the existence of ER. The principle of precaution must, however, be taken into account. It is in this context that our proposal is inserted. Our proposal establishes the relevance of considering the ER as a form of migration that will occur in the future and which, therefore, require a political response (outside or within the framework of the UN). 18

19 Mixing the two time scales - past and future - creates the confusions in quantification. Therefore, we propose to establish a differentiation between the two time scales: one related to the present environmental impacts, and another one referring to projected environmental impacts, as shown in figure 1. Actually, there is climate inertia; what we are now measuring corresponds to the past effects of climate. The issue of ER is intrinsically related to the issue of projections, i.e., of what supposedly may happen to the climate in the future and, therefore, a clear definition of ER suffers from the same levels of uncertainty as those associated with the research on climate change. But even if there are no ER so far, we can still say that there are people who have been more or less affected by environmental changes, be they natural or due to human activity. Therefore, we consider pertinent to create the category of environmental migrants. Another aspect that hardens the study of the relationship between environment and climate change has got to do with spatial scales. The natural and human-made environmental changes tend to have local impacts. On the other hand, the processes related to climate change tend to have global impacts, such as the changing patterns of global temperature and the rise of the average sea level. Although there is an immense complexity between environment, climate change and migration, it is our intention to give a very simple heuristic typology in order to make it easy to test operacionalization in hosting and sending countries. We hope that this working typology will also allow further work in the determination of the relevance of ET as a drive for migration and of the types of environmental migrants. Different sociological research methodologies can be used to understand the relevance of ET as a cause for migration. It is necessary to capture migrants perception about the relevance of ET but also to understand how economic, social political and environmental dimensions interact to create conditions and perceptions to migrate, particularly if one considers that great part of economic drives for migration are not correctly measured and are in fact due to ET. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies intending to capture individual and social dynamics of cognitive perceptions toward environment must be developed taking new analytical approaches in consideration. 19

20 In order to construct our typology we will start by considering that there are present and future environmental impacts. We argue that EM correspond to the type of migration that is happening in the present and that there aren t ER at the present. But when the impacts of climate change unequivocally produce statelessness persons (the case of low land islands), and then we can admit the existence of ER. Important policy questions will arise from that phenomenon, as stated above. We defined EM as those people who, for reasons related to natural and human-made ET (extreme weather events, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, typhoons, pollution, environmental degradation, desertification, droughts and floods, forced displacement due to major works such as dams, etc...), found in migration, both internal and external, a way of responding to those threats. We defined ER as those people who have moved to other countries, due to the fact that their country became completely affected by climatic environmental transformations (CET) unequivocally related to the change of the climate system. The following figure illustrates our heuristic typology. Table 1: analytical framework and typology of environmental migrants Timeline Past Future Main types of flows Internal Environmental transformations Natural environmental transformations (NET) Internal environmental migrants Types of environmental migrants Environmental Environmental imigrants refugees Natural environmental transformations (HTE) Internal environmental migrants Interactive environmental transformations (IET) Internal environmental migrants CET no internal migrations External Environmental imigrants Less Environmental imigrants Environmental imigrants Environmental causuality Environmental refugees More Diffuse causes Primary cause We are aware of the fact that important interactions occur in the Earth System as a whole. But given the complexity of that system, we chose to consider, for analytical proposes, four structural kinds of ET. We will call the first one Natural Environmental 20

21 Transformations (NET). These are natural phenomena that occur in the Earth system, particularly those relating to the sub-systems of the geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, respectively earthquakes, floods and droughts which occur due to cyclic extreme climate events, among other natural phenomena not unequivocally attributable to human activity. In these cases there not a responsibility directly attributable to an entity other than Nature and the States are responsible for the negative impacts on populations and may have external help. The impacts are local ones. In these cases, the flows are characterized by being mostly internal and short time lasting, and they may generate circular pattern flows, more or less extended in time. African countries where people live in flood riverbeds are a good example. They can be pressure factors for external migration, particularly if associated with interaction factors (economic, political, social, etc.). It is difficult to measure the main reason for the move, seeing that, in most cases, the environmental reasons are converted into economic problems, this being commonly perceived as the main factor. We will call the second kind Human Environmental Transformations (HET). These are environmental phenomena that derive from human activity and that fall within the sub-biosphere system. They relate to human interventions that cause significant changes in the environment due to soil occupation (construction of dams, chemical or nuclear contamination, among others) and which originate migration flows. In these cases there is a responsibility directly attributable to an entity. There may exist external support 'negotiated' on a case-by-case basis. Their impacts are mainly local. The flows are characterized by being internal and tending to be permanent if the environment is inevitably affected, as in the case of dam construction (China-Three Gorges Dam) or radioactive contamination (Chernobyl, Ukraine) and chemicals (Bhopal, India). There may occur situations of environmental remediation to renew the habitability of the place. A third one concerns the Interactive Environmental Transformations (IAT). The more you can clearly understand the cause of the phenomena as being from impacts of climate change process, the easier it is to determine primary causality to factors. Their impacts can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis, through studies on their 21

22 respective places. Their underlying causes are harder to see clearly. The types of flows are identical to the previous ones, but they mainly result from feedback impacts related to land use that affect local making them more vulnerable to extreme climatic events. The types of flows vary according to the adaptation capability as well as to the resilience in the place, region or country. These are interactions between local conditions and global changes due to intensification of climate change process. A fourth kind of ET concerns the issue of climate change and the need to consider the precautionary principle. We designate these transformations as Climate Environmental Transformations (CET). They characteristically affect climate in a global way. The most extreme example is the rise of water levels. This fourth type depends on time function. The verification of the clear link between global warming and environmental impacts will mark the point from which this category should be taken in consideration. The verification of this type of ET will also mark the point from which the concept of environmental refugees will come to have a significant empirical support. The impacts are global and accountability can be historically attributed. The intensity of science s evolution (in this case climatic science) in the last decades is unprecedented. In the case of climate science that process is very evident. The complexity of the global climate system is very large and must take into account the functioning of other subsystems (atmosphere, geosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere) that are highly unstable, that produce feedback effects not yet known and, therefore, very difficult to be modelled. Despite the great progress attained in this scientific field, for example, through the introduction of new satellite technologies, considerable uncertainty levels do exist, making it more relevant to take into account the precautionary principle. CONCLUSIONS Research on the relation between environment, climate change and migrations is paving its way. The debate around ER is part of that process and along scientific research about the impacts of climate change in the environment it is necessary to study the human implications of those impacts (Reid et al 2010). Migratory studies are 22