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

B. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MIGRATION

The impact of refugees or migrants on an environment, justifying the term "environmental refugees," can also be questioned. UNHCR identified three environmental impact issues that distinguish refugee situations: the disproportionately high population densities often created in refugee settlements; the tendency to site camps in environmentally fragile areas; and refugees' lack of incentive to conserve the environment, because the land where they are living is not theirs.73

The first point can be refuted with evidence from West Africa, where refugee settlement in the Youmou prefecture in Guinea, and the Podor and Matam departments in Senegal, were dispersed throughout both countries.74 Furthermore, even if there are high population densities, this does not necessarily imply environmental degradation.75 With respect to the second point, it is true that the geography of war and of mass migration tends to pay little attention to the geography of protected areas. Indeed, given that many protected areas already represent contested spaces, there seems more likely to be spatial correlation than spatial avoidance.76 However, refugees are not always settled on fragile lands, and again, there is little evidence of serious damage to protected areas caused by refugees. Finally, Gaim Kibreab rejects the notion that refugees lack incentives to conserve the land.77 he looks to the situation in Sudan, and points out that refugees are not the only group in that country to lack security of tenure, because of recent laws on land ownership throughout the African continent that have led to "land grabs" by the wealthy elite, and the turning of community-owned common lands into de facto open access resources. he also points out that most refugees move over a relatively short distance even though they cross an international border, therefore they are familiar with the land and resource management systems in the host area.78

The point to be highlighted is not that there is no link between the environment and migration, but that there is a lack of evidence that the environment can be a sole and substantive cause of migration, or that migration can have a direct and substantive impact on the environment. The problem is in isolating the environment as a cause, whereas in the majority of cases other factors are also at work. Similarly, there is a problem in isolating migrants as a cause of environmental damage, when again there are also other factors at work. If we cannot, therefore, speak of the environment or refugees as sole factors of cause or consequence, we cannot speak at all of "environmental refugees."

VIII. CONCLUSION

The term 'environmental refugees' is a legal misnomer. The note details why environmental damage or degradation is not recognized by Article 1 of the Refugee Convention as a valid legal ground for seeking asylum. Nor is it practical to advocate an extension of the definition to include environmentally displaced persons. If the term is meaningless in international law, wherein lies its significance? The answer is that the significance of the term lies in its application to environmentalist literature rather than asylum literature - highlighting the environment as a sole cause or consequence of large migration movements will increase interest in its protection. These causes and consequences are subsequently described and analyzed, and the conclusion reached is that while there can be a link between the environment and migration, there is a lack of evidence that the environment can be a sole and substantive cause of migration, or that migration can have a direct and substantive impact on the environment.