Introduction

Alors que les études sur le sujet des migrations environnementales connaissent actuellement un développement rapide et éminemment souhaitable, un des principaux obstacles qui freinent ce développement est l’absence d’une définition consensuelle de cet objet d’étude. Ce problème est loin d’être purement théorique : l’établissement d’une définition se trouve au cœur de nouveau champ de recherche, qui aspire à une reconnaissance propre au sein du champ, bien plus large, des études migratoires. L’abondance des termes et concepts qui désignent ce type de migrants, de ‘réfugiés écologiques’ à ‘migrants forcés pour raisons environnementales’, illustre à souhait les débats qui entourent la question de la définition. Dans cet article, nous suggérons quelques raisons qui expliquent cette absence de consensus autour de ce qui apparaît au premier abord comme un problème simple et basique. Nous essayons également de montrer l’importance de cette question, et enfin, nous illustrons le rôle que les acteurs de terrain peuvent jouer dans l’établissement d’une définition.

Les raisons de l’absence de définition

La principale raison explicative de l’absence d’une définition des migrations causées par une dégradation ou un changement de l’environnement nous semble tenir à la difficulté d’isoler les facteurs environnementaux à l’écart d’autres facteurs de migration. De plus, ces facteurs environnementaux sont profondément imbriqués dans des contextes socio-économiques, politiques et culturels, dont ils dépendent. Une simple raisonnement logique mène à la conclusion qu’il est donc difficile d’isoler les migrations environnementales d’autres types de migration.

L’enchevêtrement des facteurs migratoires n’est pourtant pas le seul obstacle à la définition de la migration environnementale. Une autre difficulté majeure, lorsque l’on discute de la relation entre les dégradations de l’environnement et les flux migratoires, réside dans la confusion entre les migrations forcées et volontaires. La migration environnementale est-elle, par essence, une forme de déplacement forcé ? Peut-elle prendre la forme d’une réinstallation volontaire ? Qu’en est-il des programmes de réinstallation menés par certains gouvernements en prévision d’une dégradation de l’environnement, ou à la suite de celle-ci ? La distinction entre migrations forcées et volontaires a-t-elle encore un sens aujourd’hui ? La réponse à cette question emporte des conséquences essentielles pour l’établissement d’une typologie des migrations environnementales, et on ne saurait en faire l’économie.

Un problème fondamental qui a empêché les progrès dans la recherche d’une définition de la migration environnementale touche au manque de recherches empiriques qui examineraient les liens entre les problèmes environnementaux et les migrations. La recherche sur ce sujet est restée essentiellement théorique, et n’est guère nourrie par une masse critique d’études empiriques. Ce manque de recherches empiriques pourrait bien, en réalité, être la véritable raison de l’absence d’une définition, comme si l’on s’essayait à construire la définition d’un objet qui n’aurait pas encore été clairement été identifié.

Pourquoi cette démarche est-elle difficile ?

Dans la conceptualisation de la migration environnementale, la distinction initiale, et sans doute la plus évidente, est celle qui existe entre les dégradations brutales de l’environnement, et celle dont l’occurrence est davantage progressive. A l’exception de quelques cas évidents où une catastrophe naturelle, comme un tremblement de terre ou des inondations, est la cause immédiate d’un déplacement forcé, la migration environnementale se présente généralement comme une décision économique prise dans des situations où les populations sont directement dépendantes de l’environnement pour assurer leur subsistance, et où un changement progressif de cet environnement est à l’œuvre, comme dans le cas de la désertification. Lorsque les problèmes environnementaux induisent d’autres facteurs qui poussent à la migration, les facteurs environnementaux ne sont généralement pas considérés comme primordiaux, la distinction entre migrations volontaires et forcées se brouille, et il n’est pas clair que de telles migrations puissent encore être qualifiées de migrations environnementales.

La complexité accrue des flux migratoires actuels est une raison supplémentaire qui explique la difficulté de s’accorder sur une définition consensuelle. Les migrations circulaires et saisonnières, ou les déplacements internes, ne correspondent guère aux définitions communément admises de la migration, généralement décrite comme un mouvement de long-terme d’un pays à un autre. Les définitions de la migration elle-même, que celle-ci soit légale ou non, n’ont en réalité que bien peu à voir avec les réalités des migrations actuelles.

Pourquoi cette question est-elle sujette à controverse ?

Le manque de recherches empiriques dans le champ d’études a d’importantes conséquences sur le développement de ce champ lui-même. Lors du cinquième congrès du Panel International de Recherche et d’Avis sur les Migrations Forcées, Kibreab notait déjà que la ‘recherche sur les réfugiés a été largement aveugle aux questions d’environnement, (…) et qu’en l’absence d’un corps de recherche empirique conséquent, un certain nombre de mythes et d’idées reçues perduraient’ .

Ces dernières années, les recherches sur les migrations environnementales ont connu un développement considérable, principalement grâce à l’intérêt accru autour du changement climatique et de ses impacts potentiels. Malgré le lancement de projets de recherche empirique, tels que le projet EACH-FOR (Environmental Change and Forced Migration Scenarios) , la migration environnementale a été presque exclusivement traitée comme une conséquence à la fois logique et catastrophique du changement climatique. La recherche a souvent été confinée à des rapports liant le changement climatique à des questions de sécurité et de migrations forcées, tels que le récent rapport préparé par le Haut Représentant de l’Union Européenne pour la Politique Etrangère et de Sécurité Communes Javier Solana. Ces rapports ont largement éclipsé les travaux et débats en cours sur la migration environnementale, et la diversité des points de vue sur la question.

Les controverses scientifiques ont souvent recoupé des frontières disciplinaires. Depuis l’apparition des premiers textes sur le sujet dans les années 1970 et 1980, un fossé s’est creusé entre les chercheurs qui prédisent des vagues de ‘réfugiés environnementaux’, et ceux qui adoptent une position plus sceptique quant à la réalité de ces flux migratoires. Pour la facilité du lecteur et par souci de concision, nous décrirons ici les premiers, qui tendent à isoler les facteurs environnementaux comme un facteur migratoire majeur, comme ‘alarmistes’, tandis que les seconds, qui tendent à insister sur la complexité du processus migratoire, seront appelés ‘sceptiques’. Il est intéressant de noter que les chercheurs alarmistes proviennent généralement de disciplines touchant à l’étude de l’environnement ou de la sécurité, tandis que les sceptiques appartiennent presque tous au champ d’études des migrations forcées et des réfugiés. On ne sera pas surpris d’apprendre que les rapports qui lient le changement climatique aux questions de sécurité se rangent généralement du côté des alarmistes.

Ce débat commença dès l’apparition de l’expression ‘réfugié environnemental’, et a continué depuis. Déjà en 1993, Suhrke notait que ‘tandis que la littérature sur le changement environnemental et les mouvements de populations est relativement limitée, deux perspectives distinctes et opposées peuvent être observées. L’une, que j’appelle la vue minimaliste, considère l’environnement comme une variable contextuelle qui peut contribuer à la migration, mais prévient que nous manquons de connaissances sur ces processus que pour en tirer des conclusions définitives. L’autre perspective présente une vue maximaliste, et postule que les dégradations de l’environnement ont déjà déplacé des millions de gens, et qu’il faut s’attendre à des déplacements de plus grande importance’ . Quinze ans plus tard, le débat continue, et sensiblement dans les mêmes termes.

Nous pensons que ces controverses trouvent leur origine dans deux raisons différentes au moins. La première réside dans l’opposition classique entre spécialistes de l’environnement et des migrations, qui se traduit par une opposition entre alarmistes et sceptiques. Alors que les théories traditionnelles des migrations ignorent généralement l’environnement en tant que facteur migratoire, la plupart des théories sur la gouvernance environnementale ne font guère mention des flux migratoires. Combler ce fossé disciplinaire devrait être la première priorité d’un agenda de recherche dans ce domaine. La controverse traduit également une différence essentielle quant à l’objet véritable de la recherche : le champ de recherche concerne-t-il avant tout le changement climatique, ou les migrants ? Ce changement de perspective affecte et nourrit le débat d’une façon déterminante. Les migrants peuvent aisément être instrumentalisés pour sensibiliser le public aux risques du changement climatique, et susciter l’action politique.

Pourquoi est-ce important ?

Les chercheurs qui travaillent sur les migrations environnementales admettent volontiers que leur champ de recherche reste imparfaitement défini – mais est-ce vraiment un problème ? Nous sommes enclins à répondre par l’affirmative à cette question : sans une définition claire, il est impossible de savoir qui sont les individus qui requièrent protection et assistance, et il est également impossible d’estimer précisément le nombre de personnes déplacées à cause de facteurs environnementaux, ou qui pourraient l’être dans le futur.

Aujourd’hui, ces estimations varient entre dix-sept millions et un milliard de personnes. Sans estimations précises or une identification des groupes et individus concernés, il est difficile pour les décideurs de mettre en œuvre des solutions pratiques et durables pour ces migrants. De surcroît, les effets du changement climatique sont de mieux en mieux connus, et il apparaît que les dégradations environnementales qui y sont liées affecteront surtout les plus pauvres, dans de nombreuses régions du monde. Ceci suppose que des populations de plus en plus nombreuses seront affectées par des problèmes environnementaux à l’avenir, et la migration, dès lors, ‘peut être une des réponses mises en œuvre par ceux dont la subsistance est menacée par le changement climatique’.

La question de la définition est susceptible d’influencer les questions relatives au statut légal de ces migrants, et aux éventuelles compensations qu’ils pourraient recevoir. Si nous ne nous accordons pas sur une définition et une manière de distinguer et d’identifier ces migrants, ils risquent d’être demain définis simplement par la bonne volonté des Etats qui accepteront ces migrants à l’intérieur de leurs frontières, et les ressources éventuellement disponibles pour le paiement de compensations. Définir qui sont ces migrants est donc un question cruciale, sans quoi cette définition se restreindra aux individus qui auront la chance de bénéficier du bon vouloir d’hypothétiques pays d’accueil.

Quelques suggestions pratiques pour faire progresser le débat

Au-delà de la controverse scientifique que nous venons d’expliquer, il existe un besoin pressant, pour des raisons pratiques, de s’accorder sur une définition. Dans le cas des migrations environnementales, c’est ici que les milieux académique et politique se rejoignent. D’un point de vue académique, l’intérêt d’une définition réside dans une meilleure compréhension des facteurs qui influencent la décision migratoire. Quoique cette question présente également un intérêt pour les décideurs, ceux-ci ont aussi besoin de savoir quels droits accorder à ceux qui sont déplacés. Sans définition précise, les acteurs de terrain et les autorités ne peuvent développer des réponses politiques adéquates à cette question. Les migrants et déplacés qui répondraient à une définition ne sont pas clairement identifiés, et donc ne peuvent recevoir une assistance appropriée.

A ce sujet, bien que la plupart des travaux et recommandations politiques ont – à raison – mis en garde contre une possible confusion entre les personnes reconnues comme réfugiés selon les termes de la Convention de Genève et celles déplacées par des dégradations environnementales, nous pensons que la procédure de reconnaissance des réfugiés selon les critères de la Convention de Genève contient une série d’éléments qui peuvent contribuer significativement à la définition des personnes déplacées pour raisons environnementales. Ceci peut se faire au terme d’une réflexion conceptuelle sur le sens de la Convention de Genève, ainsi que sur les outils et instruments utilisés par les officiers des services de l’immigration dans le processus de détermination du statut de réfugié.

En ce qui concerne la question de la migration environnementale, la réflexion s’est jusqu’ici concentrée sur la nécessité de prouver que les facteurs environnementaux pouvaient être une cause unique et essentielle de déplacement forcé et de migration. La tâche des spécialistes des migrations et des acteurs de terrain consiste-t-elle à isoler la cause principale des migrations, et à ignorer les autres causes, notamment la série de facteurs qui sous-tendent et parfois induisent le facteur migratoire essentiel ? Dans le cas d’une réponse affirmative, les facteurs environnementaux risquent d’être souvent ignorés, dans la mesure où les dégradations de l’environnement sont souvent une raison qui sous-tend d’autres causes majeures de migration, plutôt que la raison principale en elles-mêmes.

Néanmoins, si l’on prend l’exemple de la définition d’un réfugié selon les termes de la Convention de Genève de 1951, amendée par le Protocole additionnel de 1967, il est intéressant de noter que, lorsque l’on détermine su une personne est un ‘réfugié conventionnel’ ou non, il n’est pas nécessaire de déterminer si la raison qui est la cause de la persécution (c’est-à-dire les opinions politiques, l’ethnicité, la nationalité, la religion ou l’appartenance à un groupe social particulier) est la principale raison du déplacement, mais seulement si cette persécution a eu lieu ou non. Dès lors qu’un lien entre la persécution et le déplacement est établi, l’officier de l’immigration peut procéder à la détermination du statut, sans devoir considérer si les opinions politiques de la personne, sa nationalité, son ethnicité, sa religion ou son appartenance à un groupe social étaient bel et bien la cause principale de la persécution dont était victime le demandeur d’asile. Un même raisonnement pourrait-il s’appliquer aux personnes déplacées par des dégradations de l’environnement ? Suffit-il de prouver la relation causale entre la dégradation de l’environnement et le déplacement, ou faut-il que cette dégradation donne lieu à un certain degré de souffrance, ou à une violation des droits de l’Homme, avant qu’une protection internationale de long terme (par opposition à un secours humanitaire d’urgence) soit mise en place ? Dans quelle mesure les migrations forcées provoquées par des facteurs environnementaux violent-elles les droits de l’Homme ? Dans ce sens, une réflexion sur les principes qui fondent la Convention de Genève peut aider la réflexion sur la protection à apporter à ceux qui sont déplacés par des changements de leur environnement.

Cette brève réflexion sur les différents instruments que peuvent utiliser les décideurs pour déterminer si une personne est un ‘migrant environnemental’ ou non peut nous aider à construire une définition de la migration environnementale. Ainsi, il devrait être possible de tester une définition en développant un schéma analytique pour les décideurs, dans lequel seraient intégrés les principaux éléments ou combinaisons de facteurs qui détermineraient d’abord si une personne affectée par des facteurs environnementaux est contrainte à la migration, et ensuite à quelle catégorie de migration environnementale cette personne appartiendrait.

Naturellement, dès qu’une définition serait déterminée et inscrite dans une convention existante ou à créer, d’autres outils pratiques continueraient à modeler et à renforcer cette définition. Ces outils pourraient être des principes directeurs (comme ceux relatifs aux personnes déplacées à l’intérieur de leur pays), des interprétations politiques ou juridiques, et notamment le développement d’une jurisprudence.

Conclusion

Les efforts des chercheurs pour définir la migration environnementale semblent motivés par deux raisons principales. Tout d’abord, la volonté, partagée par beaucoup, d’établir les migrations environnementales comme un champ spécifique au sein des études migratoires. Il est clair que les facteurs environnementaux ont jusqu’ici été négligés par les études et politiques migratoires, et que les migrations environnementales sont désormais envisagées comme un domaine de recherche prometteur au sein des études migratoires. Il existe néanmoins une tendance à considérer ce domaine comme un domaine qui échappe aux théories classiques des migrations, comme si les migrations environnementales étaient d’un genre nouveau et différent. Afin d’établir un nouvelle axe de recherche dans les études migratoires, il existe un urgent besoin d’une définition consensuelle. Mais, parallèlement, il y a également beaucoup à gagner à l’intégration des facteurs environnementaux dans les études migratoires : seules des études empiriques systématiques permettront d’atteindre cet objectif.

Ensuite, il existe une forte demande pour des chiffres, estimations et prédictions parmi les journalistes et les décideurs. Afin que leur recherche ait une pertinence politique, beaucoup ressentent le besoin de fournir une estimation du nombre de ceux qui sont déplacés pour raisons environnementales. Ces estimations, à l’évidence, doivent reposer sur une définition claire des migrants environnementaux. Plus cette définition sera large, plus les estimations seront hautes : il existe dès lors une tentation d’étendre la définition afin d’englober autant de migrants que possible. Définir trop largement la migration environnementale serait dès lors préjudiciable à ceux qui nécessitent la plus grande protection.

D’un point de vue politique, il est essentiel d’identifier ceux qui nécessitent une protection, et donc d’effectuer les distinctions suivantes :

entre ceux qui sont contraints à la migration, et ceux dont le mouvement est volontaire ;

entre ceux qui peuvent retourner chez eux, et ceux qui ne le peuvent pas ;

entre ceux qui migrent en prévision du changement de leur environnement (migration pro-active), et ceux qui migrent après (migration réactive) :

ceux qui franchissent une frontière, et ceux qui restent à l’intérieur de leur pays.

Finalement, il est important de considérer la manière dont les décideurs appliqueront toute définition de la migration environnementale, pour les raisons suivantes :

cela permettra d’approfondir la réflexion sur la définition même ;

il importe de s’assurer que toute définition puisse avoir une utilité pratique ;

enfin, cette question a des implications quant à l’identification de ceux qui devraient recevoir une protection, dans un futur accord international.

Traduit de l’anglais par F. Gemenne

Introduction

As studies on the topic of environmental migration are currently undergoing rapid and much needed development, one of the main obstacles hindering development is the absence of a common, widely agreed upon, definition. This is more than a mere theoretical problem ; establishing a definition lies at the very core of this new field of study that is eager to gain recognition within the broader discipline of migration studies. Put in other words : we do not know exactly what we are studying. Though this might seem a very blunt and perhaps excessive statement, one is forced to admit that there is no consensus about what is environmental migration. The abundance of terms and concepts referring to this migration, from ‘ecological refugees’ to ‘environmentally-induced forced migrants’ serves to illustrate this lack of consensus. In this paper, we highlight why there is no agreement on what initially appears to be a simple, basic problem ; attempt to show why there is a need to pay attention to this problem of definition ; and illustrate the important role of practitioners in helping refine a definition.

Reason for lack of definition

The main reason accounting for the lack of definition relating to migration caused by environmental degradation or change is linked to the difficulty of isolating environmental factors from other drivers of migration. Simple logical reasoning leads to the conclusion that it is therefore difficult to differentiate environmental migration from other types of migration. Building on this, one could easily argue that other types of migration are no better defined. If environmental factors are difficult to single out amongst other migration drivers, it can also be the case for other factors contributing to migration e.g. political, economic, cultural, and social drivers.

This intermingling of migration drivers, however, is far from being the sole obstacle to defining environmental migration. Another major hindrance when discussing displacement linked to environmental disruption lies in the confusion of forced versus voluntary migration. Is environmental migration inherently a form of forced displacement ? Can it take the form of voluntary relocation ? What about government resettlement schemes in anticipation of or following an environmental disruption ? Does the distinction between forced or voluntary matter ? These questions impact on typologies of environmental migration, and cannot be easily circumvented.

The fundamental problem of defining environmental migration is actually the lack of knowledge about environmental migration. Research in the area is almost exclusively theoretical, and not supported by a critical body of empirical studies. This lack of empirical research could actually be the very reason for the lack of a proper definition, as if we were trying to construct a research object before observing that object.

An examination of the current literature on this topic typically relates environmental migration to forced migration, an area of migration studies traditionally less studied, and mostly from a European perspective. The field of refugee and forced migration studies is indeed a new direction of research. Though the concept has existed for thousands of years, Mason notes that ‘the field of study that focuses on people who are forced from their homes and livelihoods dates only from the early 1980s’ (Mason 1999 : 1). Joly adds that it is indeed one area of migration which has been less studied, and that the debates ‘relate to the societal factors which lead to refugee movements and the motivation of refugees’ (Joly 2000 : 28). Despite increased activity in recent years (launch of specialised journals, creation of the IASFM, Master’s programmes in forced migration, etc.), the discipline is not yet recognised as a full-fledged discipline, and relies a lot on literature from other disciplines and grey literature. This is one of the reason why scholarly literature on the topic of environmental migration is so scarce : most of the research in the field qualifies as grey literature, and ‘many of the information producers are governments, international agencies, and non-governmental organisations’, producing literature with a ‘practical orientation’ (Mason 1999 : 7).

If the literature on refugees is relatively scarce and recent, literature on forced migration is even more scarce and recent : it is therefore more difficult to find information on other types of forced migrants, especially those induced by environmental change. In 1996 already, Koser noted the ‘disappointingly small number of papers’ presented on the topic at the Fifth International Research and Advisory Panel Meeting (Koser 1996 : 357), and appealed for further research in this area. More than ten years later, one has no other choice than admit this call is now more relevant than ever.

The scarcity of research in the field bears important consequences on the development of the field. In a keynote address at the same meeting, Kibreab noted that ‘research on refugees [had] been largely environmentally-blind […], and that in the absence of a body of empirical research, a number of myths and misperceptions still predominate[d]’ (Koser 1996 : 358). In that regard, the abundance of grey literature in the field cannot hide the lack of scholarly work.

Another problem of the literature is the absence of recent, comprehensive work on the topic. The most influential and comprehensive theories (Black 1998, Castles 2002, Kibreab 1997, Suhrke 1993, Homer-Dixon 1994) were developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, well before the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami in the Indian Ocean or Hurricane Katrina hit the USA in 2005. These two dramatic events shed new light on the issue, and raised a whole new range of concerns over it. Unfortunately, no significant scholarly work posterior to these two events exist, besides a recent working paper by Renaud et al. (2007) and paper by the IOM (2007).

Despite its scarcity, the relevant literature is also highly diversified. Diversified in its sources, but also in the disciplines various works belong to. Indeed, the study of these displacees is multi-disciplinary by nature, borrowing from environmental studies and migration studies, but also disaster management, anthropology or geography, to name but a few. This can be an asset pretty much as a difficulty. The various perspectives gained from different disciplines are undoubtedly an asset, but the associated internal divisions are a major difficulty. There’s a separation between the study of forced migration and the study of environmental change(s), and these two bodies of research virtually do not ‘speak to each other’. Therefore, they do not use the same concepts, the same definitions or terminologies, making it difficult to compare and confront their results. A major endeavour and challenge of this work is to bridge the research divide between these two bodies of research.

The diversity of research on the topic also translates into a diversity of viewpoints. The very existence of environmental migration is still debated, and the scope of the debate is, in itself, a matter for controversy. Interestingly enough, there’s no agreed upon definition or typology, leaving the door open for controversy. Once again, if this diversity of stances and approaches can be a richness, it can especially be a difficulty where scientific debates match with discipline divides.

Conceptualising environmental migration – why is it so controversial ?

Perhaps the most obvious initial distinction to make in defining environmental migration is the distinction between fast-onset and slow-onset environmental change processes. Aside from clear cases where sudden-onset environmental changes such as volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes or floods lead to forced displacement, the problem is that commonly, migration presents itself in the form of an economic decision on behalf of the migrant in cases where people are directly dependent on the environment for their livelihood and there is a slow-onset environmental change or degradation process such as desertification which causes livelihood stress. When environmental problems underlie other reasons for migration i.e. environment is a contributing factor but not a major factor, there is blurry line between whether such migration is forced or voluntary and it becomes questionable whether such migration can be called environmental migration.

The issue of ecological refugee is mentioned by Vogt in 1948 already, but the first mention of the term ‘environmental refugees’ in the literature is unclear : Kibreab sees its first occurrence in 1984, in a briefing document from the International Institute for Environment and Development (1997 : 21), while Black (2001 : 2) traces its origin in speeches and reports by environmentalist Lester Brown of the WorldWatch Institute, in the 1970s. There seems to be a universal agreement, however, to attribute the first official use of the term to El-Hinnawi (1985), in a UNEP report merely called ‘Environmental Refugees’. In the report, El-Hinnawi outlines the major stakes of environmentally-induced migration, and gives a first definition of what he calls ‘environmental refugees’ (ibidem : 4). As pointed out by many authors, this definition isn’t really satisfying, since it doesn’t allow us to distinguish between environmental refugees and other types of migrants, and neither does it provide any mean to distinguish between the environmental refugees themselves. As Bates points it out, “this definition makes no distinction between refugees who flee volcanic eruptions and those who gradually leave their homes as soil quality declines. So many people can be classified under the umbrella of ‘environmental refugees’ that critics question the usefulness of the concept.” (2002 : 466). Nevertheless, one has to admit that any new proposed definition still revolves around El-Hinnawi’s, and that authors haven’t yet been able to ‘break free’ from this definition, despite wide criticism. El-Hinnawi also attempted to provide a first classification of these ‘refugees’, distinguishing between three types of migrants :

those who have been temporarily displaced because of an environmental stress (usually a natural disaster) ;

those who have to be permanently displaced an re-settled in a new area ;

and finally people who migrate within their own national boundaries because ‘the resource base in their in their original habitat has deteriorated to such a degree that it can no longer meet their basic needs’ (1985 : 4)

These three types of migrants no longer draw on the classical distinction between forced and voluntary migrants, thus allowing for an inflation of the numbers of so-called ‘refugees’. As noted by Suhrke, ‘broad categorizations invite large numbers’ (1993 : 6).

Three years later, in 1988, a working paper by Jacobson, from the WorldWatch Institute, attempted to systematise the study of this new category of forced migrants. Jacobson proposed a similar typology to the one put forward by El-Hinnawi, distinguishing between temporary displacements associated with temporary environmental stress, permanent displacements associated with permanent environmental stress, and temporary or permanent displacement due to progressive environmental change (1988 : 5). This typology, however, seems flawed by a too heavy emphasis on the time frame of the displacement, neglecting other important variables, as well as by its omitting of the distinction between forced and voluntary migration. In a fashion similar to El-Hinnawi, she vaguely defined ‘environmental refugees’ as ‘people fleeing from environmental decline’ (ibidem : 6). Jacobson also identified some regions were environmental displacements were to take place, and estimated this number at 10 million. She also contended that the term was first used in reference to the Haitian boat people, arguing that land degradation in Haiti created these desperate people and their dangerous journey to south Florida.

Both reports were received with great interest in the field of environmental studies, and harsh criticism in the field of refugee studies : they had a ‘short-lived shock-effect on the public debate but were rejected as unserious by scholars’ (Suhrke 1993 : 6). El-Hinnawi was working for the UN Environment Programme, while Jacobson was a member of the WorldWatch Institute. The reports were therefore also perceived as an attempt to use forced migration to draw attention to environmental problems. In particular, the use of the word ‘refugee’, regardless of its legal meaning, was criticised. Suhrke and Visentin (1991) stated the definition provided by El-Hinnawi was ‘so wide as to render the concept virtually meaningless... Uncritical definitions and inflated numbers lead to inappropriate solutions and compassion fatigue. We should not, however, reject outright the concept of environmental refugees. Instead we should formulate a definition that is more narrow but more precise’. They proceeded to make a distinction between environmental refugee and environmental migrant. The latter is someone who ‘makes a voluntary, rational decision to leave a region as the situation gradually worsens there’, who moves from an area by choice. On the opposite, environmental refugees are ‘people or social groups displaced as a result of sudden, drastic environmental change that cannot be reversed’ (1991 : 77). Likewise, McGregor (1993) argued that ‘the category “environmental refugee” confuses rather than clarifies the position of such forced migrants, since it lacks both a conceptual and a legal basis’. She contended that this category involved a ‘false separation between overlapping and interrelated categories’ (1993 : 158). Mc Gregor’s criticism was actually rather aimed at the very concept of ‘environmental refugees’ rather than its definition.

Since the early texts on the topic, a clear divide has existed between those forecasting waves of ‘environmental refugees’, and those adopting a more sceptical stance vis-à-vis the reality of such migration flows. For the sake of facility, I will describe the former, who tend to isolate environmental factors as a major driving force of migration, as ‘alarmists’ ; and the latter, who tend to insist on the complexity of the migration process, as ‘sceptics’. Interestingly, alarmists usually come from disciplines such as environmental, disaster and conflict studies, while sceptics belong almost exclusively to the field of forced migration and refugee studies. Though it is not reviewed in this section, the grey literature usually sides with alarmists.

This debate originated with the coining of the expression ‘environmental refugees’, and has been ongoing since. Already in 1993, Suhrke notes that ‘while literature on environmental change and population movement is quite limited, two different and opposing perspectives can be discerned. One – which I call the minimalist view – sees environmental change as a contextual variable that can contribute to migration, but warns that we lack sufficient knowledge about the process to draw firm conclusions. The other perspective sets out a maximalist view, arguing that environmental degradation has already displaced millions of people, and more displacement is on the way’ (1993 : 4). Fifteen years later, this debate is still on, and pretty much in the same terms. Then, ‘unable to marshall a critical mass of social scientific, the scholarly discourse on environmental refugees nearly died’ ; continues Suhrke (1993 : 7).

Fortunately, her works, as well as those of Myers and Kent (1995), Black (1998, 2001) and Kibreab (1997), amongst others, were about to revive the debate in the strongest terms.

The alarmist perspective

The broad categories set up by El-Hinnawi (1985) and Jacobson (1988) had paved the way for an alarmist perspective, that would soon forecast impressive migration flows related to environmental change. Many scholars who adopted this perspective were initially interested in the environment-security nexus (Westing 1989, Homer-Dixon 1991). The linkage between environmental disruption and conflicts was the starting concern of this perspective, and soon enough refugee flows were mobilised as an exploratory variable to justify a causal relationship between environmental change and conflicts. Westing (1992) estimated that there were about 10 million ‘unrecognised’ refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, and predicted that this number was to increase substantially, at a rate of 2 million yearly. He outlined three categories of refugees : international recognised refugees, cross-border unrecognised refugees, and internally-displaced refugees (intrinsically unrecognised) – all three categories were set to increase, due to the increased frequency of natural disasters.

Homer-Dixon took the debate a step further, contending that environmental changes would lead to more numerous armed conflicts (Homer Dixon 1991, 1994). ‘How might environmental change lead to acute conflict ?’ (1991 : 77) is the central research question of his research, and, in a Malthusian perspective, ‘waves of environmental refugees that spill across borders with destabilizing effects on the recipient’s domestic order and on international stability’ (ibidem) is a key part of the answer. Homer-Dixon, however, also convokes other factors, such as vulnerability, more acute in the South than in the North. Population displacements are mentioned as a social effect of environmental change, but Homer-Dixon underlines the multiplicity of interacting physical and social variables, contending that ‘the term “environmental refugees” is somewhat misleading […] because it implies that environmental disruption could be a clear, proximate cause of refugee flows’ (ibidem : 97). He developed his research agenda in a subsequent paper, where he used three hypotheses to link six types of environmental change with violent conflict (Homer-Dixon 1994 : 6). The second of these hypotheses is that ‘large population movements caused by environmental stress would induce “group identity” conflicts, especially ethnic clashes’ (ibidem : 7). He tests this hypothesis with empirical evidence from Bangladesh, which experienced important migration flows to the adjacent Indian states. He concludes that, along with other contextual factors, ‘land scarcity in Bangladesh, arising largely from population growth, has been a powerful force behind migration in neighbouring regions and communal conflict there’ (ibidem : 23). Recently, UN General-Secretary Ban Ki-moon confirmed Homer-Dixon’s predictions, arguing in an op-ed published in The Washington Post that ‘amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change’ (Ki-moon 2007). The newly appointed UN chief added that the stakes were going far beyond Darfur, contending that conflicts in Somalia, Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso were rooted in similar ecological crises.

Amongst alarmist views, the most prominent whistleblower has undoubtedly been environmentalist Norman Myers. The reason for this is double : first, Myers has written extensively on the topic ; second, he dared forecast precise estimates, which echoed loudly in the media. Myers dramatically drew attention to the ‘fast-growing numbers of people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification and other environmental problems’ (Myers 1997 : 167). He states that there are ‘at least 25 million environmental refugees today […], mainly located in Sub-saharan Africa […], the Indian sub-continent, China, Mexico and Central America’ (ibidem). Myers also pointed out the environmental damages provoked by these migrants in fragile environments, aggravating the environmental decline. He identified several environmental causes that could provoke displacements, and tried to assess the extent of these displacements at two time horizons, 2010 and 2025, warning that ‘environmental refugees could become one of the foremost human crises of our times’ (ibidem : 181). Myers updated his estimates in 2002, forecasting that ‘when global warming takes hold, there could be as many as 200 million people overtaken by sea-level rise and coastal flooding, by disruption of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, and by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration’ (2002 : 609) and citing the Haitian boat-people as an example of environmental refugees.

Myers can certainly be credited for drawing worldwide attention to the topic of environmentally-induced migration. However, his work is largely based on common sense rather than on actual figures and estimates – a point that has been vigorously criticised by scholars adopting a more sceptical perspective.

The sceptical perspective

Kibreab (1994, 1997) criticised virulently the alarmist approach, which was increasingly accepted as ‘scientific truth’ (1997 : 20). According to him, the main rationale behind the concept of environmental migration was to depoliticise the causes of displacement, allowing states to derogate their obligations to provide asylum, since ‘environmental conditions do not constitute a basis for international protection’ (ibidem : 21). He perceived the concept as a threat to refugee protection, and an excuse for governments to justify restrictive asylum policies. According to him, the concatenated causal relationship between environmental degradation, population displacement and insecurity needs to be reversed, insecurity being the cause of population displacement and consequently of population displacement. The second part of Kibreab’s work is related to the environmental impact of refugee movements, leading to the conclusion that ‘environmental change and population displacement are the consequences of war an insecurity rather than their causes’ (ibidem : 33). Though Kibreab’s argument might be perceived as radical, it is important to note that it doesn’t contest the importance of environmental change in relation to migration, but rather the nature of its relationship with insecurity. Most of Kibreab’s argument was presented in a keynote speech at the Fifth International Research and Advisory Panel Conference on Forced Migration held in Eldoret (Kenya) in April 1996, only to be contradicted by other papers presented in the subsequent panels, citing empirical evidences of environmentally-induced migration, as reported by Koser (1996) –thus highlighting once again the vivacity of the debate in the field.

Without going as far as Kibreab, Black adopted a similar sceptical approach in a milestone book on the subject, Refugees, Environment and Development, published in 1998. The book asks the pertinent question of the very reason of the linkage between forced migration and environmental change. Noting that ‘one reason frequently given in recent years to explain mass population displacement is the growth of environmental problems’, Black wonders ‘in whose interest it is that environment degradation should be seen as a possible cause of mass displacement’ (Black 1998 : 1). He considers that it is ‘academically (or, rather, ‘theoretically’) interesting to consider relationships between forced migration and environmental change’ (ibidem : 4), but far from unproblematic. The book addresses both environmental causes and consequences of forced migration, drawing on several case-studies in Africa (Rwanda, Senegal River Valley, Forest Region of Guinea…) Black refutes Kibreab’s argument that the concept is just an excuse for Northern governments to enforce tighter asylum policies, given that most of the literature on the topic calls for an extension of the current refugee regime, rather than a restriction. However, he agrees with Kibreab that most of the ‘alarmist’ literature ‘serves only to differentiate a single cause of migration’ (ibidem : 12), and therefore could lead to restrictions in asylum policies in the North, which bears relative importance since most of these migration flows occur in developing countries. Black however notes that the origin of the concept lie in the environmentalist and ‘conflict studies’ literature rather than in asylum literature, and suspects that Myers’ concern is not migration, but the threat associated with climate change. He then assesses empirical evidence from the linkage between environmental change and forced migration, concluding that there is a ‘lack of evidence of simple causality’ between environmental change and forced migration, but rather a multiplicity of linkages and variables :

‘there is also a need to reconsider our approach to analysis of what are often complex and multidimensional linkages between refugees and environment. Rather than seeking evidence to isolate or “blame” environment as the cause of migration, or migrants as the cause of environmental damage, we need instead to ensure that relationships between people and environment, and dynamic changes in these relationships, are considered as a part [1] of any analysis of the causes or consequences of human movement, within their wider context.’ (Black 1998 : 50)

In a subsequent working paper for the UNHCR’s New Issues in Refugee Research series, Black further questions the very notion of ‘environmental refugees’, saying that the ‘linkages between environmental change, conflict and refugees remain to be proven’ (2001 : 3). He presents various empirical cases with little evidence of a direct causality linkage, stressing that migration can also be seen as a coping strategy, in the case of desertification for example. He sees however more justification in the concept of environmental migration in the case of brutal disasters, that need to be analysed in conjunction with human-induced environmental degradation. Black asserts that current statistics and case-studies on ‘environmental refugees’ are not ‘encouraging in terms of staking out a new area of academic study or public policy’ (ibidem : 11), and that these so-called refugees, as the title of his paper suggests, might therefore actually be just a myth. However, he concedes that environmental changes can be factors behind large-scale migration, but raises doubts over the possibility of defining these migrants adequately. He concludes with some reflections on a possible international protection regime for ‘environmental refugees’, asking if such a regime would rather help or hinder ‘the battle to focus the world’s attention on pressing environmental problems’ (ibidem : 15).

Castles, in another working paper for UNHCR (2002), ventures to compare Myers’ and Black’s arguments, and thus the alarmist and sceptical perspectives, trying to ‘make sense of the debate’, as the title of his paper suggests. The paper is based on a speech made the previous year at Green College, Oxford University [2]. It starts with an important call on the need to bridge the disciplinary divide between forced migration studies and environmental studies, which is precisely one of the goals of this thesis. Castles rapidly notices that the two approaches are difficult to conciliate, Black rejecting the ‘apocalyptic vision’ put forward by Myers (2002 : 2). He underlines a difference in the methodology of the two perspectives, Myers using wide-ranging estimates in a deductive perspective, while Black rather uses empirical studies at the national and local levels. In particular, he stresses that Myers does not provide figures on actual displacements, but only on potential displacements. The disagreement, however, is far from being merely methodological, and Castles points out that ‘general forecasts and common sense linkages do little to further understanding’, and that it is crucial to look at specific cases, and strengthen empirical research (ibidem : 4). He concludes from his comparison that ‘the notion of the “environmental refugee” is misleading and does little to help us understand the complex processes at work in specific situations of impoverishment, conflict and displacement’ (ibidem : 5). However, he contends that environmental factors are not unimportant in these situations, but are rather part of ‘complex patterns of multiple causality, in which natural and environmental factors are closely linked to economic, social and political ones’ – he calls therefore for ‘much more research and better understanding’ (ibidem). He sides with Black in arguing that the term ‘environmental refugee’ is ‘simplistic, one-sided and misleading, [and] implies a mono-causality that very rarely exists in practice’ (ibidem : 8). He uses the Indonesian transmigrasi as an example of the complex linkages between environment, conflict and displacement. Regarding a possible extension of the international refugee, he stresses the importance of a better, clearer definition, and warns that there’s currently no political consensus for extending the refugee regime, making him write that a notion like ‘environmental refugee’ could possibly be harmful for the current regime. He considers that scholars should do their utmost to defend the Geneva Convention, while at the same time call for improved international legal regime and institutions to protect other types of migrants, an assertion that sounds quite ambiguous.

Lack of agreement - why does it matter ?

Scholars in environmental migration admit their field of study is not yet clearly defined – but is it a real problem ? Let us play the devil’s advocate for a moment : one could argue that defining environmental migration does not actually matter that much, since migration itself has no universal definition. Migration is rather poorly defined and often defined according to the purpose for which it is to be used. For example, according to UN guidelines, a migrant is defined – for statistical purposes – as a person who has spent more than one year in a country that is not his or hers. As one can easily notice, this definition does not really account for circular migration or return migration, despite the fact that these migration patterns are probably amongst the most significant in the contemporary world. The same could be said for internally-displaced persons, or IDPS : it is widely recognized that the number of people moving within the boundaries of their own country is increasing at a fast pace, yet these are not considered as migrants according to the UN guidelines.

Therefore the important point here is not whether or not a definition matters, a definition does matter. The question then becomes for which purpose are we defining environmental migration. Without a clear definition, one can not accurately estimate the number of people displaced or required to migrate because of environmental factors. To date estimates vary between 17 million up to 1 billion. Without accurate numbers it is difficult for policy makers to plan for such displacees/migrants. If the number of environmental migrants worldwide remain quite vague and uncertain, so does the number of migrants : IOM estimates this number to be around 200 million, but it is not clear whether this figure accounts or not for internal migration or illegal migration.

A legal definition does not solve the problem either. Even though refugees are strictly defined by the Geneva Convention, refugee status is however granted by immigration officers worldwide on a case-by-case basis. A person denied refugee status in a country can be granted the same status in another country, depending on the guidelines set by each country for granting the status.

Migrants’ definition, either legal or not, have actually very little to do with the realities of today’s migration flows. This lack of an acute, precise definition reflecting the realities of migration is not perceived as an obstacle in migration studies though. So one is entitled to question the necessity of defining environmental migration : is the lack of definition really an obstacle to the study of these migration flows ?

We argue that the current struggle to define environmental migration amongst scholars is motivated by two main reasons. First, the willingness, shared by many, to establish environmental migration as a specific field within migration studies. It is clear that environmental factors have been neglected amongst migration studies and policies, and environmental migration is now widely acknowledged as one of the most promising research areas in migration studies. There is however a tendency to fence off this area, and consider it apart from classical migration theories, as if environmental migration was of another kind. In order to establish a ‘new’ stream within the migration discipline, some sort of a definition, that would set this type apart from other migration patterns, is definitely needed. Second, there is a wide appetite for numbers and forecasts amongst journalists and policy-makers. In order to make their research policy-relevant, many feel compelled to provide some estimation of the number of those who are ‘environmentally-displaced’. These numbers, obviously, need to rely on a clear definition of ‘who is an environmental migrant’. Larger definitions inviting bigger numbers, there’s a tendency to enlarge the definition as to encompass as many people as possible. These inflated numbers are then used by those who want to establish environmental migration as a distinct field in migration studies, as if those numbers could act as a justification for establishing a new field of research, separate from those pre-existing in migration studies.

How practical applications may help define

Beyond the scholarly struggle there is clearly a practical need to develop a definition. With respect to environmental migration, this is where the academic and policy world become mixed. For academic purposes the interest in developing a definition lies in understanding the factors underlying migration decisions. While this is also of interest and concern to policy makers they have an additional need to know what rights such a person is afforded. Without a precise definition, practioners and policy-makers are not easily able to establish plans and make targeted progress on this topic and those migrants/displaced persons falling within the definition are not clearly recognised and may thus not receive appropriate assistance. In this sense, while much of the scholarly debate and policy recommendations to date have rightfully cautioned against mixing those displaced by environmental causes with those defined as Refugee Convention refugees, there are many helpful elements of the process of defining someone under the Refugee Convention that can contribute in meaningful ways to defining people displaced by environmental migration. This can be done by reflecting conceptually upon the Refugee Convention as well as upon some of the tools refugee decision-makers use in making a status determination.

With respect to the question of environmental migration, the focus to date has been on somehow proving environmental factors can be a single major cause for displacement and migration. Is the onus on migration scholars and practioners just to single out the main cause for migration and displacement and ignore the other reasons e.g. more minor causes or factors which underlie and lead to the main reason for migration ? If so, then environmental factors will often be overlooked as environment degradation is often an underlying reason for major causes of migration rather than be a single major cause itself.

However, taking the example of defining a refugee under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (hereafter referred to as the Refugee Convention), it is interesting to note that in determining whether or not someone is a ‘Convention Refugee’ it is not necessary to determine whether or not the reason (political opinion, race, nationality, religion, membership of a particular social group) leading to persecution is the main reason for displacement, rather just whether or not it happened. Once a link is established then the decision-maker can go forth from there to grant the person status without considering whether or not the reason was the main cause leading to the persecution. Could and should the same be done for people displaced by environmental factors ? Is it enough to just prove the causal relationship between environment and displacement or should the causal relationship result in a certain degree of hardship or breach of human rights before some form of long-term international protection (as opposed to shorter term temporary humanitarian aid relief) can be issued ? In what way does forced migration due to environmental factors breach some form of human right (perhaps a question for lawyers to address) ? In this sense reflecting against the principle process of the Refugee Convention can help our thinking vis a vis environmental displacees.

Reflecting briefly on the different tools a decision-maker may use to determine whether or not someone is an environmental migrant or displaced person and putting ourselves in the shoes of a decision-maker and can help to both progress and refine a definition relating to environmentally induced displacement. For example, testing a definition by developing a flow chart for decision-makers can help identify core elements or combinations of factors that firstly, entail whether or not a person affected by environmental factors needs to migrate and secondly, what category of environmental displacement they might fall into.

Naturally, once a definition is determined and written into a new or existing convention further practical tools will continue to reshape and sharpen any definitions. Such tools might include guideline documents (e.g. the guidelines which UNHCR has issued about how the 1951 Refugee Convention should be interpreted or Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement), policy interpretations, legal interpretations especially the development of case law and further instructions issued by any relevant Executive Committee disseminating conclusions about particular issues and aspects of the convention as they arise

Conclusion : What’s the reason for the controversy ?

One could ask what is the reason for such a controversy in the scholarly literature. I argue that many different reasons lead to the current controversy. The first one lies in a classical opposition between environment and migration scholars, that translates into an opposition between alarmists and skeptics. Just as most theories on migration ignore the environment as a migration driver, most theories on environmental migration ignore migration theories. Bridging this gap should be the first priority of a research agenda in this field. This opposition also reveals an essential difference in the research focus ; is the research about climate change or migrants ? This change in perspective dramatically affects and nourishes the debate. Migrants can be used as a commodity to alert on climate change, while some might fear a watering down of refugee protection.

Finally, the issue of numbers and forecasts is important : as explained above, the wider the definition, the bigger the numbers. Drafting a definition too wide might not address the plight of those who need protection, while a definition that would be too narrow could be oblivious of the fact that people rarely move for sole environmental motives. Even migration flows that first appear as motivated by sole environmental factors also involve other factors, such as social vulnerability. The case of the displacements provoked by the hurricane Katrina in 2005 acts as a good example of this.

The fundamental reason for controversy is the attempt to set environmental migration apart from other migration. We would gain more in trying to integrate environmental factors in migration studies : in order to achieve this goal, more empirical studies are needed.

We tried to demonstrate to the issue of a definition was not that crucial for academic purpose, but it is essential from a policy point of view : what’s needed here is to identify those who need protection. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between :

those who are forced and those who move voluntarily

those who can return and those who cannot

pre-emptive and reactive migration

internal and international migrants.

Environmental migration is very diverse, and call for different types of policy response. Defining environmental migration too widely would be really damaging for those in need of the most protection.

From a policy point of view, the question is : who makes the distinction ? Who decretes that the people moved from environmental reasons ? On a case-by-case basis like in the refugee regime ? Shall we rely on individual trajectories or build a more collective pattern ?

This issue is likely to influence questions related to these migrants’ legal status and potential compensations. If we don’t come up with a definition, and with a way to distinguish and identify these migrants, they will just be defined by :

the extent of goodwill of the states, to take on migrants

the resources available to pay compensation.

Avoiding this is the very reason why defining who they are is so important.

Finally, it is important to consider how a decision maker will practically apply any possible definitions of potential environmentally displaced persons because :

this helps to refine our thinking about the actual definition

it is necessary to ensure any definition developed is useful in practice

this has implications for identifying who should or should not receive protection under any future convention.

Bibliography

Bates, D. (2002) ‘Environmental Refugees ? Classifying Human Migrations Caused by Environmental Change’, Population and Environment 23 (5) : 465-477.

Bell, D. (2004) ‘Environmental Refugees : What Rights ? Which Duties ?’, Res Publica 10 : 135-152.

Bilsborrow, R. (1991) ‘Rural Poverty, Migration and the Environment in Developing Countries : Three Case-Studies’, World Development Report. Washington, DC : The World Bank.

Black, R. (1998) Refugees, Environment and Development. Harlow (UK) : Addison Wesley Longman.

Black, R. (2001) ‘Environmental Refugees : Myth or Reality ?’, New Issues in Refugee Research working paper 34. Geneva : UNHCR

Burton, A. (Ed.) (2007) Human tide : the real migration crisis. A Christian Aid report. London : Christian Aid.

Castles, S. (2002) ‘Environmental change and forced migration : making sense of the debate’ New Issues in Refugee Research working paper 70. Geneva : UNHCR.

Conisbee, M. and A. Simms (2003) Environmental Refugees. The Case for Recognition. London : New Economics Foundation.

Cournil, C. (2006) ‘Vers une reconnaissance des “réfugiés écologiques” ? Quelle(s) protection(s), quel(s) statut(s) ?’ Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique 4 : 1035-1066.

El-Hinnawi, E. (1985) Environmental Refugees. Nairobi : UNEP.

Gonin, P. and V. Lassailly-Jacob (2002) ‘Les Réfugiés de l’Environnement. Une Nouvelle Catégorie de Migrants Forcés ?’, Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales 18 (2) : 139-160.

Hermsmeyer, H. (2005) ‘Environmental Refugees : A Denial of Rights’, Contemporary Topics in Forced Migration working paper 2. San Diego (CA) : Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, UCSD.

Homer-Dixon, T. (1991) ‘On the Threshold. Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict’, International Security 16 (2) : 76-116.

Homer-Dixon, T. (1994) ‘Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict’. Evidence from Cases’, International Security 19 (1) : 5-40.

Hugo, G. (1996) ‘Environmental Concerns and International Migration’, International Migration Review XXX (1) : 105-131.

International Organisation for Migration (1992) Migration and the Environment. Geneva : IOM and Refugee Policy Group.

Jacobson, J. (1988) ‘Environmental Refugees : a Yardstick of Habitability’ WorldWatch Paper 86. Washington : WorldWatch Institute.

Joly, D. (2000) ‘Some Structural Effects of Migration on Receiving and Sending Countries’, International Migration 38 (5) : 28-40.

Kibreab, G. (1994) ‘Migration, Environment and Refugeehood’, in B. Zaba and J. Clarke (Eds) Environment and Population Change. Liège (Belgium) : International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Ordina.

Kibreab, G. (1997) ‘Environmental Causes and Impact of Refugee Movements : A Critique of the Current Debate’, Disasters 21 (1) : 20-38.

Kliot, N. (2004) ‘Environmentally Induced Population Movements : Their Complex Sources and Consequences. A Critical Review’ in Unruh, J., S. K. Marteen and N. Kliot (Eds) Environmental Change and Its Implications for Population Migration. Dordrecht (The Netherlands) : Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Koser, K. (1996) ‘Changing Agendas in the Study of Forced Migration : A Report on the Fifth

International Research and Advisory Panel Meeting, April 1996’ ,Journal of Refugee Studies 9 (4) : 353-366.

Locke, C., W.N. Adger and P.M. Kelly (2000) ‘Changing Places. Migration’s Social and Environmental Consequences’, Environment 42 (7) : 24-35.

Magniny, V. (1999) Les réfugiés de l’environnement. Hypothèse juridique à propos d’une menace écologique. Doctoral dissertation in law, under the supervision of Prof. Remond-Gouilloud. Paris : Université de Droit – Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne.

Mason, E. (1999) ‘Researching Refugee and Forced Migration Studies : An Introduction to the Field and the Reference Literature’, Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 18 (1) : 1-20.

McGregor, J. (1993) ‘Refugees and the environment’, in Black, R. and V. Robinson (Eds.) Geography of Refugees : Patterns and Processes of Change. London : Belhaven.

Myers, N. (1997) ‘Environmental Refugees’, Poulation and Environment 19 (2) : 167-182.

Myers, N. (2002) ‘Environmental Refugees : a growing phenomenon of the 21st century’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B 357 : 609-613.

Myers, N. and J. Kent (1995) Environmental Exodus : An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena. Washington, DC : Climate Institute.

Renaud, F. et al. (2007) ‘Control, Adapt or Flee. How to Face Environmental Migration ?’, InterSecTions, Publication Series of UNU-EHS 5/2007.

Richmond, A. (1993) ‘Reactive Migration : Sociological Perspectives on Refugee Movements’, Journal of Refugee Studies 6 (1) : 7-24.

Richmond, A. (1994) Global Apartheid. Refugees, Racism, and the New World Order. Toronto : Oxford University Press.

Robinson, V. (1990) ‘Into the Next Millennium : An Agenda for Refugee Studies. A Report on the First Annual Meeting of International Advisory Panel, January 1990’, Journal of Refugee Studies 3 (1) : 3-15.

Suhrke, A. (1993) Pressure Points : Environmental Degradation, Migration and Conflict. Cambridge (MA) : American Academy of Art and Science.

Suhrke, A. (1994) ‘Environmental degradation and population flows’, Journal of International Affairs 47 (2) : 473-491.

Suhrke A. and A. Visentin (1991) ‘The Environmental Refugee : A New Approach’, Ecodecision 2 : 73-84

United Nations (1998) Recommendations relative to international migrations statistics. New York : United Nations.

Vogt, W. (1948) Road to Survival. New York : William Sloane Associates.

Westing, A. (1992) ‘Environmental Refugees : A Growing Category of Displaced Persons’, Environmental Conservation 19 (3) : 201-207.

Wijnberg, H. and S. Leiderman (2004) ‘The Toledo Initiative on Environmental Refugees and Ecological Restoration’. Toledo, 9-10 July.

Wood, W. (2001) ‘Ecomigration : Linkages between Environmental Change and Migration’ in Zolberg, A. and P. Benda (Eds.) Global Migrants, Global Refugees. New York : Berghahn, 42-61.

[1] Italics are in the original text.

[2] Ironically enough, Green College is also Norman Myers’ college at Oxford.

ISSN 808-997-90 | Textes placés sous licence CREATIVE COMMONS | Fil des publications

Site réalisé avec et avec le soutien des programmes Frontières & Discrets | par "Vi OWELL Co"