03/12/2016

How Do We Deal With The Prospect Of Increased Climate Migration?

The Conversation




Natural disaster can displace entire populations. EPA/FRANCIS R. MALASIG
On average, one person is displaced each second by a disaster-related hazard. In global terms, that’s about 26 million people a year.
Most move within their own countries, but some are forced across international borders. As climate change continues, more frequent and extreme weather events are expected to put more people in harm’s way.
In the Pacific region alone, this year’s Cyclone Winston was the strongest ever to hit Fiji, destroying whole villages. Last year, Cyclone Pam displaced thousands of people in Vanuatu and Tuvalu – more than 70% of Vanuatu’s population were left seeking shelter in the storm’s immediate aftermath.
However, future human catastrophes are not inevitable. The action – or inaction – of governments today will determine whether we see even greater suffering, or whether people movements can be effectively managed.

Human impact
International law does not generally regard people displaced by disasters as refugees, and national responses are ad hoc and unpredictable, resulting in protection gaps.
However, on July 1, a landmark new intergovernmental initiative kicked off: the Platform on Disaster Displacement. Led by the governments of Germany and Bangladesh, and with Australia as a founding member, it addresses how to protect and help people displaced by the impacts of disasters and climate change, one of the biggest humanitarian challenges of the 21st century.
The Platform does not merely envisage responses after disasters strike, but also policy options that governments can implement now to prevent future displacements.
For instance, if effective building codes are put in place and enforced, then people will be safer. If disaster warning systems are installed, then people will have time to get themselves out of harm’s way.
The provision of prompt and adequate assistance after a disaster can also reduce longer-term, secondary migration. In a study of displacement following severe floods in Bangladesh, it was found that people who felt adequately assisted and compensated were less likely to move on.
The Platform on Disaster Displacement succeeds the Nansen Initiative on Disaster-Induced Cross-Border Displacement, led by Switzerland and Norway from 2012–15. Through its groundbreaking work, there have been huge leaps and bounds in global understandings about how people move in anticipation of, or in response to, disasters, and what kinds of proactive interventions can help to avoid displacement – or at least avert some of its negative consequences.
The Nansen Initiative’s chief outcome was the Protection Agenda, which provided a toolkit of concrete policy options and effective practices that governments can implement now, both to avert displacement where possible, and to protect and assist those who are displaced.
Strategies such as disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation can help to mitigate against displacement if disaster strikes. Temporary, planned evacuation can provide a pathway to safety and emergency support.
In 2015, Northern Australia was battered by two potent tropical cyclones within six hours on the same day, Cyclone Lam and Cyclone Marcia. NASA
Implementing long-term, sustainable development projects can enhance community resilience over time, creating new labour opportunities and technologies, and building capacity for self-help.
Governments also need to develop more predictable humanitarian and temporary stay arrangements to assist those displaced across a border after a disaster. They also need to ensure that those displaced internally have their needs addressed and rights respected.
Facilitating migration away from at-risk areas can open up opportunities for new livelihoods, skills, knowledge and remittances, at the same time as relieving demographic and resource pressures.

Planned response
Indeed, in this context, the Australian government has acknowledged that the promotion of safe and well-managed migration schemes is a key part of building resilience.
The Kiribati–Australia Nursing Initiative is a good example. Kiribati is a Pacific Island nation that is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and which lacks extensive educational and employment opportunities.
The Initiative enabled around 90 young people from Kiribati to train in Australia as nurses, providing them with an opportunity to secure a job in the healthcare sector either in Australia, overseas or back home.
On a larger scale, planned relocations can also help people to move out of harm’s way before disaster strikes, or to relocate to safer locations in the aftermath of a disaster if it’s not safe for them to go home. This requires careful consultation with those affected, ensuring that their rights and interests are safeguarded.
The Platform on Disaster Displacement will implement the Nansen Initiative’s Protection Agenda by building strong partnerships between policymakers, practitioners and experts.
While it does not intend to create new legal standards at the global level, it will encourage governments to build more predictable legal responses at the national and regional levels, including through bilateral/regional agreements relating to the admission, stay and non-return of displaced people.
The Platform is a significant opportunity. Governments that act now can make a major contribution to reducing future displacement and its high economic and human costs.
The UN Secretary-General recently highlighted the displacement risk posed by disasters and climate change, and emphasised the need for strengthened international cooperation and protection.
It is essential that the new Platform on Disaster Displacement continues this forward-looking agenda, placing the needs, rights and entitlements of individuals and communities at the forefront of its activities.

Links

Climate Change Will Stir 'Unimaginable' Refugee Crisis, Says Military

The Guardian

Unchecked global warming is greatest threat to 21st-century security where mass migration could be ‘new normal’, say senior military
People wait to receive aid at Guthail, Jamalpur, Bangladesh, where the river Yamuna’s water level is 118cm over the danger line. Photograph: Anik Rahman/NurPhoto/Getty Images
Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of “unimaginable scale”, according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the “new normal”.
The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency.
Military leaders have long warned that global warming could multiply and accelerate security threats around the world by provoking conflicts and migration. They are now warning that immediate action is required.
“Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century,” said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change and a former military adviser to the president of Bangladesh. He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. “We’re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people.”
Previously, Bangladesh’s finance minister, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, called on Britain and other wealthy countries to accept millions of displaced people.
Brig Gen Stephen Cheney, a member of the US Department of State’s foreign affairs policy board and CEO of the American Security Project, said: “Climate change could lead to a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. We’re already seeing migration of large numbers of people around the world because of food scarcity, water insecurity and extreme weather, and this is set to become the new normal.
“Climate change impacts are also acting as an accelerant of instability in parts of the world on Europe’s doorstep, including the Middle East and Africa,” Cheney said. “There are direct links to climate change in the Arab Spring, the war in Syria, and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency in sub-Saharan Africa.”
After Donald Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, won the US presidential election in November, Cheney said he expected senior military officials to impress upon Trump the grave threat posed to national security by global warming. “I’ve got to believe there are enough folks on the national security side that we can make a dent in this.”
R Adm Neil Morisetti, a former commander of the UK maritime forces and the UK’s climate and energy security envoy, said: “Climate change is a strategic security threat that sits alongside others like terrorism and state-on-state conflict, but it also interacts with these threats. It is complex and challenging; this is not a concern for tomorrow, the impacts are playing out today.”
Morisetti said climate change would mean the UK military will be deployed more often to conflict and disaster zones. The military leaders were speaking ahead of an event in London on Thursday.
In September, a coalition of 25 US military and national security experts, including former advisers to Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, warned that climate change poses a “significant risk to US national security and international security” that requires more attention from the US federal government.
In 2015, a UK foreign office report made a stark assessment of the dangers posed by unchecked global warming, including very large risks to global food security, increased risk of terrorism as states fail, and unprecedented migration that would overwhelm international assistance.
“Countries are going to pay for climate change one way or another,” said Cheney. “The best way to pay for it is by tackling the root causes of climate change and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. If we do not, the national security impacts will be increasingly costly and challenging.”

Links

Defence Must Regard Climate Change As A Serious Security Issue

The Australian - Anthony Bergin*

In September, US President Barack Obama signed a presidential memorandum on climate change and national security.
It establishes a policy that the impacts of climate change must be considered in the development of national security doctrine, policies and plans.
To achieve this, 20 US agencies and offices with climate science, intelligence analysis and national security policy development missions and responsibilities will collaborate to ensure the best information on climate impacts is available to prepare for unavoidable impacts.
The day the memorandum was issued, the US ­National Intelligence Council released its own report identifying how climate change could pose significant security challenges for the US over the next two decades, including stressing US military operations and bases and straining the capacity of US and allied armed forces to deliver humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
There’s now evidence that the tide’s also turning here: Defence is recognising the challenges posed by a changing climate and the closely related subject of energy sustainability.
Last year’s Defence white paper referred to climate change and its deleterious effect on both the strategic environment and on defence infrastructure.
Since Australia signed a statement of co-operation agreement with the US Navy in 2012 to share information on alternative fuels, the RAN has progressed from testing one Seahawk helicopter during RIMPAC four years ago, to three warships that took more than 4.5 megalitres of blended ­alternative fuel from US oilers during RIMPAC in August.
In May, Chief of Navy Tim Barrett approved the use of US Navy-sourced alternative fuel blends for RAN ships’ diesel as a replacement fuel for RAN ships manufactured via the US Navy-approved pathways.
Technical constraints for the two current pathways for producing RAN diesel from synthetic crude require that it must be blended with at least 50 per cent of diesel produced from fossil crude to meet Navy standards.
Defence on its own won’t shape the energy market, even though it spent $524 million on fuel in 2014/15 (just under 60 per cent air force, 33 per cent navy and the residual to army).
Defence use of liquid fuels is a drop in the ocean of the nation’s fuels consumption (industry and mining are much bigger users). But there’s no reason why Defence shouldn’t set an ambitious target in terms of moving towards alternative fuels by announcing it’s ready to receive cost-competitive blended products.
Perhaps the clearest statement on the way Defence is starting to think harder about climate change came in September from Lieutenant General Angus Campbell in his opening address to the Chief of Army’s exercise.
His speech had a focus on climate change. He said the top 10 most at risk countries with exposure to sea level rise by 2100 were all in the Indo-Pacific. More than 138 million people are at risk. More than 500,000 people live in the small Pacific and Indian Ocean island states that may become uninhabitable between 2050 and 2100.
An unstable planet, he said, was one of the three issues he believed central to the security challenges we’ll encounter in redefining boundaries for the 21st century land force. (The other two were what he called empowered individuals and assertive states, although he said there was some degree of interplay between the three drivers.)
The general said that while we didn’t know where the problem of climate change would take us, he said climate change was the “ultimate threat multiplier’’.
Campbell said armed forces had their role to play in response to climate change, not just in adopting best practice on environmental management and energy needs, but in increasing the use of Defence assets in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations. He said the scale of climate change problems, their unpredictability and the level of support required from land forces were key issues for Defence.
He should be commended for delivering this message: there’s no doubt some of our new capabilities such as the Canberra-class LHDs, future frigates, offshore patrol vessels and our air transport fleet will find climate change and its effects a key driver of activity over the coming decades. Within regions where resources come under strain, nationalism will surge and conflict can erupt.
But we’ve fair way to go when compared to our major ally. Last year the US Defence department issued a directive that dictates that climate change be incorporated into every aspect of US military training and preparedness.
The directive says Defence must be able identify and assess the effects of climate change and take those effects into consideration when planning. It must anticipate and manage risks that develop as a result of climate change to build resilience.
A point of interest for Australia is that the directive says the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will work with US allies and partners to optimise joint exercises and war games incorporating climate change considerations.
Defence should now appoint a senior military leader to act as a strategic voice for climate change national security issues, including preparedness and capability. The first step would be a review of climate change impacts on ­Defence.
One area for ­Defence to examine would be ­alternative jet fuels. Scientists are close to using eucalyptus trees to develop renewable jet fuel.
Eucalyptus oil contains compounds that can be refined through a catalytic process and converted into a high-energy fuel.
Defence could initiate a pilot program and team with researchers to grow its own jet fuel and revegetate arid and semi-arid bases and training ranges with suitable trees. It might partner with indigenous communities and provide jobs and iron out the ups and downs of commercial fuel prices.

*Anthony Bergin is senior research fellow at the ANU National Security College and senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.