Environmental Causes and Consequences of Migration: A Search for the Meaning of "Environmental Refugees", The

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Winter 2004 by Keane, David

True refuge long last issueless scattered down four walls over backwards no sound. All sides endlessness earth sky as one no stir not a breath. Blank planes sheer white calm eye light of reason all gone from mind. Scattered ruins ash grey all sides true refuge long last issueless.

- Samuel Beckett, Lessness (1968)1

I. INTRODUCTION

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.2 In 1985, El-Hinnawi identified a new class of persons known as "environmental refugees." He defined environmental refugees as "those people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardized their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life."3 It is currently estimated that there are 10 million environmental refugees worldwide.4

El-Hinnawi focused on whether migrants were likely to return to their homes. He identified three broad categories of environmental migrants: persons who are displaced temporarily but who can return to their original home when the environmental damage has been repaired; persons who are permanently displaced and have resettled elsewhere; and persons who migrate from their original home in search of a better quality of life when their original habitat has been degraded to such an extent that it does not meet their basic needs.5 These categories have been confirmed by further studies as describing the principal causes of environmental migration. The international community has been urged to officially recognize environmental refugees and to better understand the causes of environmental migration.6

This note seeks to understand whether highlighting environmental damage and degradation as a single cause of migration, or as a single consequence of migration, has any benefit. The term "environmental refugee" will be examined from a legal perspective and from an environmental perspective. It will be asked whether the issue of environmental refugees is an environmental problem or a legal problem. The answer, that it is an environmental problem, will account for much of the confusion stemming from the term in international law. Finally, it will be asked whether highlighting environmental refugees, if not of benefit to the displaced persons, is of benefit to the environment.

II. THE CAUSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MIGRATION

It is difficult to distinguish the different causes of displacement because often displacement occurs as the result of a combination of different factors. There can be political, economic, and demographic factors involved. However, there is a consensus among scholars on five broad causes of displacement - natural disasters, long-term environmental degradation, development, industrial accidents and remnants of war. This note will briefly examine three of these causes -natural disasters, industrial accidents, and war.

A. NATURAL DISASTERS

The term "natural disasters" refers to events such as volcanic eruptions, droughts, earthquakes and all other types of disaster generated by an unstable natural environment. Natural disasters have been a major cause of migration throughout history.

In 1998, for the first time since records have been kept, natural disasters accounted for the displacement of more persons worldwide than wars or other conflicts.7 It is estimated that 144 million people per year are affected by natural disasters.8 Natural disasters tend to displace persons temporarily rather than permanently. The 1990s were declared the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction by the United Nations. However, the Geoscience Division of the Munich Reinsurance Group confirmed that in recent years natural disasters have increased significantly.9 This is in part due to the global temperature anomalies known as El Nino and La Nina.10 1998 was also the hottest year since record-keeping began 150 years ago.11

A fundamental point in relation to natural disasters is that they disproportionately affect Africa, Asia, and South America. Specifically, Bangladesh, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Iran, and India appear far more frequently than any other countries on the list of countries warranting humanitarian intervention maintained by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.12 Ninety-six percent of all deaths from natural disasters occur in developing countries.13 It is interesting to note at this point that it is anticipated that eighty percent of the world's population will live in developing countries by the year 2025.14 The impact of a natural disaster is often directly related to the income level of a particular country. The above countries are amongst the poorest in the world. El-Hinnawi, in his study of environmental refugees, compared the effects of earthquakes in Tokyo, Japan with those of earthquakes of a similar magnitude in Managua, Nicaragua. In Managua, people live in mud-brick houses on hillsides, while in Tokyo, there are strict building codes in place, as well as earthquake training. He concluded that the effects of earthquakes have been successfully mitigated in Japan.15 Kofi Annan closed the International Decade for Disaster Reduction by stating that "[i]t is a tragic irony that 1998, the penultimate year of the Disaster Reduction decade, was also a year in which natural disasters increased so dramatically . . . . We must, above all, shift from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention."16 Combating natural disasters requires a better policy alternative. Because natural disasters constitute only one of the many causes of environmental migration, the development of appropriate policy priorities depends on the quantification and classification of the broader problem of environmental displacement.17