By Sudeshna Chowdhury
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 1 2013 (IPS)

Untold thousands dead and thousands more stranded or missing – these are the latest figures from various reports on the devastation caused by flash floods in the Indian state of Uttarakhand.

Susan Martin. Credit: ISIM

According to the United Nations, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami displaced 2.2 million people in 12 countries. In Bangladesh, 4.4 million people were displaced by Cyclone Sidr and floods in 2007, estimates the world body.

And an estimated additional 200 million people will be displaced due to climate change and natural disaster by 2050, according to Refugees International.

Experts say that the assessment of damage in natural disasters becomes all the more difficult simply because of the underlying uncertainty that accompanies such calamities.

The international community has long been mulling over the impact of climate change on migration.  It is high time that climate refugees or environmental migrants get some serious attention, said Susan F. Martin, director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) in Washington, tells IPS correspondent Sudeshna Chowdhury.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How can climate change affect migration? Is it mostly internal displacement or is it large-scale country-to-country displacement?

A: The first point is that environmental factors are seldom the principal reason that people move. People generally migrate when environmental problems intersect with other factors, such as economic (loss of livelihoods), political (lack of governmental safety nets), and social (networks of people who have already migrated) ones.

There are four pathways through which climate change is likely to increase the propensity of human mobility in the context of these other factors:

Changes in weather patterns that contribute to longer-term drying trends that affect access to essential resources such as water and negatively impact the sustainability of a variety of environment-related livelihoods including agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc.

Rising sea levels and glacier melt that cause massive and repeated flooding that render coastal and low-lying areas uninhabitable in the longer-term.

Increased frequency and magnitude of weather-related acute natural hazards.

Competition over natural resources that may exacerbate pressures, which contribute to conflict, which in turn precipitates movements of people.

The first two are slow-onset processes that are likely to lead to gradual increases in migration.

The latter two involve acute events and are likely to lead to more immediate, large-scale displacement.

We expect most of these movements to be within the borders of countries but in some cases, the migration and displacement is likely to be across international borders.

Much of the international migration is likely to be into neighbouring countries – for example, Bangladesh to India. A minority of the movements will likely be to more distant countries. There are cases, however, in which whole communities and even countries may need to be relocated, particularly in the small island states facing significant levels of rising sea levels and no interior to which people can move.

Q: Are the displaced mostly farmers and workforce from the rural sector whenever we talk about migration due to climate change?

A: It depends on the specific ways in which the impacts of climate change manifest themselves. In situations of prolonged drought, for example, the displaced are likely to be farmers and others dependent on rain-fed agriculture.

On the other hand, intense and frequent cyclones and hurricanes may displace thousands of people from urban areas along the coast. Generally, though, the extent of displacement in both rural and urban areas is tied to the way in which governments and communities prepare for and respond to these events.

With advanced planning, communities can increase their resilience to adapt to the effects of climate change in situ.

Q: Critics often argue that it is too soon to take climate change seriously. What will you tell them?

A: Ignoring the migration implications of climate change has considerable risks. If we wait too long, more people will move in emergency circumstances with little choice of destination and few opportunities to protect themselves from harm.

Policies should avoid situations where affected populations are forced to move (distress migration) or move in emergency situations. Special attention should be paid to providing alternatives to irregular migration through targeted temporary and circular work programmes. In cases, however, where the impacts of climate change preclude return to home countries, the focus should be on permanent admissions.

Q: Has there been enough documentation that can establish the link between climate change and migration?

A: There are still many gaps in our understanding of the interconnections between climate change and migration. Perhaps the most important involves numbers. As of today, there are no credible projections of the number or characteristics of persons who are likely to migrate principally as a result of environmental change.

Many of the estimates that have been published conflate different forms of movement: short-distance movements, longer-distance internal movements, cross-border movements into neighbouring countries, and longer distance international movements.

The estimates do not distinguish between temporary displacement and permanent relocation within each of these forms of migration. Nor do they provide information about the gender, sex, age, or socio-economic characteristics of those who are likely to migrate in each of these categories. And, there is little information about the likely migration corridors – that is, projecting from where and to where people will migrate.

We need considerably more empirical research on communities already experiencing significant environmental impacts to help develop the evidence base needed to make more accurate projections, not only of overall levels of migration but, more importantly, of how migration is likely to manifest itself.

Q: Which are the regions to be worst affected by climate change?

A: Climate change will have impacts on both developing and developed countries. The difference is that developed countries generally have the financial resources to be able to prepare, respond and recover from the effects of climate change.

The impacts will be felt more acutely in poor countries and, especially, in those weak governance or experiencing conflict and political instability.

If the experience with the 2010 earthquakes in Haiti and Chile is a harbinger of what is likely to happen, particularly in acute events, it is worth noting that a much stronger earthquake in Chile led to little loss of life, largely because of building codes and other preparatory actions, whereas a weaker earthquake in Haiti led to devastating loss of life and displaced millions.

The natural hazard (the earthquake) was not the principal culprit; poor governance and poverty made people in Haiti much more vulnerable.

Excerpt:

Michele Bachelet (left), Executive Director of UN Women, addresses a press conference on the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), taking place at UN Headquarters in New York, Mar 4-15 2013. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By George Gao
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 17 2013 (IPS)

In her opening speech for the world’s largest conference on ending violence against women and girls, Michelle Bachelet summoned the spirit of 15-year old Malala Yousafzai, who’s skull was shattered on Oct. 9, 2012 by a Taliban bullet.

“It is for Malala – and for every girl and woman, and every human being – that we must come to a strong action-oriented agreement to prevent and end violence against girls and women,” said Bachelet, executive director of U.N. Women.

The Taliban singled out Yousafzai for advocating girls’ education. She miraculously survived the attack, as surgeons fitted her skull with a titanium plate.

The atrocity highlights a fact many diplomats and civil society members have taken to heart: that violence against women and girls undermines international development goals and U.N. values.

The 57th session of the Committee on the Status of Women (CSW57) took place at U.N. headquarters from Mar. 4-15 and addressed this issue. It resulted in an outcome document, adopted with consensus by member states.

On the heels of CSW57 is another series of diplomatic negotiations, for an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The U.N. has allotted 11 days from Mar. 18-28 for delegates to reach an agreement. Here, too, the issue of gender-based violence is on the table.

A sigh of relief, but the fight continues

Civil society organisations and U.N. member states were largely relieved that a document of “Agreed Conclusions” came through this year, after last year’s CSW session failed to produce one.

“It was a very difficult process because of the broad range of political interests and agendas that member states represent,” said Mavic Cabrera-Balleza, international coordinator for the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP).

This year, “we (successfully) lobbied for language on the link between violence against women and peace and security, women human rights defenders, sexual and reproductive health, small arms and light weapons,” she told IPS.

“(But) the final document was not as strong as we want it to be,“ she said.

Cabrera-Balleza noted that member states failed to “reaffirm” – and only “recalls” – Security Council resolutions 1325, 1820, 1888, 1889, and 1960 on women, peace and security.

“However, in negotiations with member states, you cannot play an ‘all or nothing’ game,” she explained.

Radhika Balakrishnan, executive director of the Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL) at Rutgers University, told IPS, “There were quite a few things we gained in this new document… which we might have lost if negotiations continued.”

“One of the successes was that (member states) weren’t able to invoke (traditional values and morals),” she said, noting that some governments had been trying to use “traditional values” – as well as “state sovereignty” – as a trump card against women’s human rights.

“But many issues that women’s groups have been fighting for, (such as) sexual orientation (and) gender identity, were lost in the document,” she noted.

Daniela Rosche, a policy and advocacy adviser in gender justice for Oxfam, told IPS that CSW57 established new norms, but did not address how to implement them.

“If you really want to do something to fight the surge of violence and take concrete steps to solve it, you need to also develop an ‘international action plan’, basically to operationalise the standards that are there,” she said.

“We couldn’t convince governments to commit to this,” she added.

“What would ensure accountability is (if they) set concrete targets,” she said, citing the annual Millennium Development Goals reports as an example.

Linking arms with gender justice

“The relationship between small arms trade and violence against women is in the (CSW57) document, and I think that’s very important,” said Balakrishnan of CWGL, who’s 16 Days Campaign highlighted the issue.

Widney Brown, senior director of international law and policy at Amnesty International, explained to IPS that while the CSW57 outcome document is not legally binding, it can be a powerful instrument for activists to pressure their governments.

On the other hand, “the Arms Trade Treaty will be law” if it goes through, said Brown. “But in terms of enforcement– it’s mostly a peer pressure mechanism.”

She noted, “In the Jul. 27, 2012 draft of the Arms Trade Treaty, there’s a reference to gender-based violence and violence against children.”

However, some governments will likely use the issue of gender-based violence as a bargaining chip.

“Anytime you have references to things like gender-based violence in international negotiations, there’s a group of states who are always going to be willing to say, ‘We’ll give you this, on the condition that you take (that) off’,” she explained.

“I think it will be in play again, and we’re going to have to be very vigilant against that,” she added.

Brown explained that Russia, Syria, Iran and Egypt have often impeded member states negotiations for women’s rights and gender equality – and may also act as barriers during ATT negotiations.

At CSW57, for example, the Vatican worked with Syria and some other member states to strip out any reference to gender identity. “This battle has been going on for years now,” she said.

“Fortunately, the NGO community is holding very strongly on why it’s important to talk about gender-based violence,” she stated.

Statement on CSW57 from the SGs office

On Mar.15, the spokesperson for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement welcoming the conclusions of CSW57:

“No matter where she lives, no matter what her culture, no matter what her society, every woman and girl is entitled to live free of fear. She has the universal human right to be free from all forms of violence so as to fulfil her full potential and dreams for the future.”