In discussions on migration, a basic distinction is often made between ‘voluntary’ and ‘forced’

John R. Campbell and Richard D. Bedford
308
Kiribati and Tuvalu, but to date, none of these has been successful, although one case is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. There are cases of migration caused by long-term environmental degradation within Pacific countries. In the Carteret Islands (an atoll in Papua New Guinea, where there have been longstanding problems of coastal erosion and inundation, there have been attempts since the sat resettlement on the nearby much larger high island of Bougainville. These have largely failed because of the difficulty in obtaining sufficient land to derive a semi- subsistence livelihood on Bougainville. There is also uncertainty as to whether the problems faced on the Carteret Islands area result of climate change (Campbell 2010). Within the atoll countries there is considerable ambivalence towards the idea that they will become refugees and the term climate refugee is not a label that Pacific Island people themselves wish to accept (Farbotko and Lazrus 2012). Their overwhelming concern is that countries in other parts of the world should reduce their emissions and/or contribute to finding ways (and paying for the costs) for adapting to the effects of climate change. However, emitting countries have failed to agree on a regime to achieve these ends despite numerous conferences of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.
Migration and relocation
It is very important to distinguish between those people who choose to migrate, perhaps induced by environmental degradation, and those who are forced to migrate, which in the Pacific is likely to be in the form of forced community relocation because of lost human security. Migration induced by environmental degradation linked to climate change is likely to be similar in many ways to other flows of migrants choosing to leave their Pacific Island homes and settle elsewhere in their country or overseas. If such migration is considered to be a workable adaptation strategy to climate change, then the question arises as to who should be responsible for costs associated with transport, finding jobs and accommodation. This is likely to bean area of considerable debate given the difficulty inherent in isolating climate change as a specific migration driver.
The role of climate change in forced relocation maybe less difficult to isolate but it is likely to have a number of serious implications and associated problems. First, it requires that virtually) all inhabitants maybe required to leave their usual place of residence. On atolls, this may necessitate abandoning entire islands and, in some cases, entire nations, as foreseen by the Prime Minister of Fiji. Second, and in PICs this is extremely important, the critical and visceral link between communities and their lands will be severed (see section below. Third, unless entire communities can be resettled in a particular place, there will be serious societal implications due to fragmentation and loss of identity. Past involuntary resettlement schemes in the Pacific have been dogged by issues relating to cultural identity, sovereignty and ethnic tensions in addition to the issue of land (Campbell 2010).
Issues of migrant access for PICs in the context of climate change
The contemporary architecture of voluntary migration (economic, social or environmental) of Pacific Islanders has been recently reviewed by Burson and Bedford (2013) with reference to current immigration laws and regulations relating to temporary and permanent entry of migrants to other countries in the region as well as to major destinations on the Pacific Rim. Major pathways for international migration have been to the countries of existing or former

Climate change and migration
309
colonial powers. However, there is a group of countries with much more restricted access to former colonial powers or to countries on the Pacific Rim. These include the atoll countries of Kiribati and Tuvalu, as well as several of the larger Melanesian nations. With the exception of Papua New Guinea (Australia, these countries were all previously colonies of the United Kingdom. A major issue concerns what avenues will be made available to people who are induced or forced to migrate from these countries as a result of climate change.
Pacific Island solutions feasible or not?
There is quite a level of solidarity among PICs regarding the issue of climate change (Barnett and Campbell, 2010) but the feasibility of resettling climate change migrants in other Pacific countries needs to be carefully assessed. First, the capacity of many PICs to absorb large numbers of climate change migrants and relocatees is limited, because of both existing high population densities and/or high population growth rates, as well as low per capita income levels. Furthermore, sites for relocation would need to be secure from the effects of climate change. Countries with high levels of internal relocation or other domestic climate change migration may find it difficult to accommodate climate change migrants from elsewhere. In his Welagi speech, Fiji Prime Minister Bainimarama stated there were 600 communities in Fiji likely to need assistance in the face of climate change. Throughout the region, countries will need to prioritise their own climate change adaptation requirements, thus making it hard to become host countries fora large influx of refugees. The issue of costs of resettlement of relocatees from other countries would also need to be resolved, as to date, migration is not funded as an adaptation option by international agencies. The focus is on concrete adaptations, such as seawalls, to protect coastal areas and water tanks to offset the effects of increased droughts. Finally, and perhaps critically, will be the issue of finding land for resettlement purposes.

Download 437.72 Kb.

Share with your friends: