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

Third, the maintenance of biodiversity is of particular international concern, resulting in many plans and conservation agreements that protect diverse areas such as forests and wetlands. The sudden arrival of migrants can disrupt such environmentally fragile areas. In essence, the immediate livelihood of people seeking to survive comes into conflict with longer-term and more global concerns of protection of endangered species or lands. However, these concerns can also be manipulated and used to prevent asylum seekers from crossing international borders. For example, both Turkey and Honduras have closed their borders to asylum seekers in the past, citing environmental damage as their justification.63 The politics do not always hinge on environmental concerns. It is politically convenient to blame refugees for environmental damage. However, there is a lack of evidence of significantly negative consequences from population displacement.64 The main purpose of environmental protection must be to ensure the social, economic and cultural survival of human populations.

VII. ARE ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES A MYTH?

It is currently estimated that there are 10 million environmental refugees.65 However, this figure is open to questioning, primarily on the basis that environmental factors are not always the root cause of migrations. It is damage to the environment that creates the category "environmental refugees," either as a cause or a consequence of migration. Is there evidence, therefore, of damage to the environment resulting in the migration of 10 million people? Or has damage to the environment resulted specifically from the migration of 10 million people? Or are there other factors at work?

A. THE ENVIRONMENT AS A SOLE CAUSE OF MIGRATION

Despite the breadth of examples provided in the literature, detailed arguments regarding why particular situations justify the title "environmental refugees" are scarce, whilst precise statistics are of questionable accuracy or non-existent.66 Thus, Homer-Dixon examined cases in southern Asia and concluded that Bangladeshi migrants had expanded the population of neighboring areas of India by 12 to 17 million.67 The migration is attributed to environmental scarcity. However, he also gives a number of other explanations for the figures, including the system of land inheritance, the standard of living in India, and the encouragement of migration by Indian politicians eager to gain new voters.68 Muinil Islam cites the example of the environmental refugees who have been moved to the inaccessible and sparsely populated Chittagong Hill Tract. However, he also points out that the resettlement program was "encouraged by the government to counter the insurgency activities launched by the tribal nationalities of these areas."69 Similarly, a Malaysian NGO, Sahabat Alam Malaysia, gave the example of the Orang Asli tribe who have suffered hardship due to tourist developments in the area. Little evidence, however, is given of actual displacement - one of the rare examples given is that of 300 members of the tribe displaced due to the construction of a dam.70 Some 4.1 million rural to urban migrants in Brazil in the 1960s, and 4.6 million in the 1970s, were described by Sanders as environmental refugees forced to move because of drought.7 ' However, he also admits that they were forced to move because of poverty.72