Environmental Degradation and Population Flows

So-called refugees have made their appearance in the academic literature and public discourse, accompanied by widely diverging definitions and predictions. Some scholars fear environmental degradation will produce waves of environmental refugees with destabilizing effects at home and abroad.(2) Much of the focus is on Africa, presumably the most vulnerable area, where, some argue, the general pressure of people on land and, in particular, deepening desertification have displaced millions of people and will displace more in years to come.(3) This paper attempts to systematize the links between environmental degradation and population movements by addressing three basic questions: First, is environmental degradation a cause of population movements, or is it even possible to isolate and analyze the impact of the environmental factor? Second, what kinds of population flows are associated with environmental degradation? More specifically, do they correspond to common concepts of migrants and refugees? Third, what are appropriate strategies of response to deal with the problems that may result? This paper will discuss only environmental degradation in the developing world. The consequences of environmental change are particularly severe -- and the problems most acute -- in poor agricultural communities, where production system are heavily dependent on natural cycles and means to insure against disasters are lacking.(4) DOES ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION CAUSE POPULATION FLOWS? Common forms of environmental degradation associated with out-migration include desertification, land degradation, deforestation and rising sea levels induced by global warming. Recognizing the importance of these processes, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development identified four fragile ecosystems: regions with severe deforestation, regions with severe desertification, low-lying coastal areas and vanishing islands in the Indian and Pacific oceans. There is considerable literature dealing with the effects of migration on the environment, including urban pollution attributable to migration-related growth and deforestation caused by new settlers, both readily observable phenomena.(5) The opposite causality is more obscure, and the literature is meager. Yet two different and opposing perspectives can be discerned. In one, which can be called the minimalist view, environmental change is a contextual variable that can contribute to migration, but analytical difficulties and empirical shortcomings make it hazardous to draw firm conclusions. The other perspective sets out a maximalist view, which posits that environmental degradation is a direct cause of large-scale displacement of people. The Minimalists The minimalists are primarily the migration experts.(6) In the general migration literature, environmental change does not figure as a separate, causal variable, although older theories did include natural disasters in the category of physical factors. Neoclassical analysts focus on economic factors and rational-choice analysis without allowing for environmental variables per se.(7) The same applies to migration theorists who, in a neo-Marxist tradition, emphasize the systemic conditioning of individual decisions to move.(8) Among demographers, the case-study literature fares little better. For instance, after observing the recent sharp increase in migration in Indonesia -- a nation with serious environmental problems and known for its large and complex patterns of population movements -- the eminent demographer Graeme Hugo concluded, Employment-related motives predominate in shaping how many people move, who moves, where they move from and where they move to.(9) Yet common sense, as well as catastrophes such as the drought in the Sahel of northern Africa, tells us that environmental change can cause out-migration by affecting structural economic conditions. …