• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • A Forecast of Push and Pull: Climate Change and Global Migration

    March 10, 2010 By Julien Katchinoff

    “As we …talk about the interconnections between climate change and migration we need to look at the interconnections in a way that understands what’s positive about the processes of migration and what’s problematic,” said Susan Martin, Herzberg Professor of International Migration at Georgetown University, during a recent event on climate and migration at the Center for American Progress.

    Susan Martin joined Cynthia Brady, senior conflict advisor for the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation at USAID and David Waskow, director of the Climate Change Program at Oxfam America, to identify the catalysts for future population flows, offer pragmatic policy solutions, and discuss work to be done on the ground.

    While reminding the audience that climate-induced migration will tend to follow already existing patterns, Susan Martin broadly outlined four major intersections between migration and climate change impacts:

    “Slow” Migration Pressures:
    1. Drought or desertification resulting in a loss or depreciation of livelihoods.
      Result: Push working family members to migrate to domestic or international urban centers.
    2. Rising sea levels damaging fishing and agriculture opportunities.
      Result: Migration to inland regions to reduce future risk.
    “Rapid” Migration Pressures:
    1. Intensification of natural disasters and damage to infrastructure.
      Result: The coping costs increase to the point where they push large numbers of people to leave their homes. Most individuals migrate internally. Of the four intersections, this is currently the most common.
    2. Threats to the availability of food, water, and other natural resources.
      Result: Low or high intensity conflict, leading to migrations. The short timeframes and potentially large numbers of migrants involved make this driver the most problematic. Differing degrees of internal political stability are factors that can interfere for better or worse.

    Yet these relationships are not without controversy. “Environmentalists have tended to see the issue of migration as a way of getting attention to mitigation and have often talked about migration in very alarmist terms,” Martin said. “Migration experts, on the other hand, have been very skeptical about the interconnection.” Instead, they have argued that other push and pull factors outside of climate are much more significant to the migration calculation.

    Operating from the perspective that migration itself is an adaptation failure, David Waskow outlined several strategies that Oxfam deploys to help communities copewith uncertain futures:

    1. Building climate resilience and developing adaptation strategies: Proactive approaches are essential, as agencies and communities can address future threats with disaster planning and creating early-warning systems.
    2. Managing risk: The establishment of micro-insurance projects can cushion vulnerable populations against unexpected economic shocks.
    3. Resettling communities: The movement of rural populations to urban areas could result in tensions over land use and strains on urban governance and carrying capacities. As a result, this approach is left as a last recourse.

    Brady, though in agreement with Waskow concerning climate change’s threat to livelihoods and its role as a catalyst for conflict, suggested that there may be positive opportunities for managing climate risks. “The environment can and does provide an essential and effective platform for dialogue, communication, and confidence-building around shared interests,” Brady said. “It may be that certain conflicts actually lend themselves to the use of climate-related collaboration as a mechanism to resolve conflict or reduce tension between parties,” she said.

    Climate-related projects at the community-level, from adaptive early-warning systems to mitigating carbon storage schemes, hold the possibility to bring groups together in cooperative projects, build confidence, and defuse existing tensions. Transparent and participatory management of new investments may also increase trust in local and national governments with whom trust was previously lacking. While forestalling crises in the future, adaptation projects also hold the potential to unlock opportunities for peacebuilding and conflict resolution today.

    Photo Credits: Photo 1 courtesy Oxfam America. Photo 2 courtesy Center for American Progress.

    Topics: climate change, livelihoods, migration, population
    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

      Keith Kloor just posted a provocative take on his Collide-a-scape blog about Susan Martin's comments at this CAP mtg covered here. He cited this NSB post in making his points while taking us to task as well. http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/03/12/the-climate-reconciliation/comment-page-1/#comment-2241

      Here are my longish comments in response to his note.

      Thanks Keith for this post for it gives me a chance to add my reaction to Susan Martin’s identification of a real problem in the climate migration discussion but at the same time imprecise if not incorrect description of who is perpetrating the problem. I completely agree with her diagnosis that there has in some quarters been too much arm waving about floods of climate induced migrants (please let’s just drop the term refugees for a host of reasons). A willingness to assign very large numbers with weak methodology is counter-productive but dramatic. A strong (some would say disproportionate) interest in transboundary South to North flows has also dominated the debate when more precise research suggests rural to urban migration within country and within region along established paths is the most likely for the largest numbers. These are problems, especially in broader public bumper sticker debates that are real but increasingly recognized and in many serious quarters, increasingly muted or modified. So the problem identification is robust.

      However it is a much more complicated mix of people from a variety of sectors who have been better and worse on this issues. Dr. Martin suggested it was environmentalists on one side and migration experts on the other. My reading is that there is plenty of imprecision and arm waving in both camps. And importantly, other development, security, and foreign policy camps have been alternatively better and worse on this topic. These prominent voices, interested in different dependent variables, are not captured by the enviros vs. migration dichotomy.

      This discourse plugs into the larger problem of how climate and security linkages are used and abused. The range of first and second order risks are significant enough that the arm waving isn’t necessary and is counter-productive if there is oversell (remember The Coming Anarchy experience of the 1990s). The risk and precautionary principle approach rather than the scientific certainty before action is what is needed. Trying to stretch for the latter when dealing with matters of social, political, economic, and in this case security reactions to climate is just unnecessary and ceding the ground to those who would demand an impossible evidence level before acting.

    • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

      Here is the CAP summary and video of the whole event. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/proactive_climate.html

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: "Feminism materializes through investment in human capital and caregiving sectors of the economy...
  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: People who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy are often the ones who benefit from it. So please, say...
  • Water desalination pipes A Tale of Two Coastlines: Desalination in China and California
    Dr S Sundaramoorthy: It is all fine as theory. What about the energy cost? Arabian Gulf has the money from its own oil....

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000