2547462

8/8/2019 2547462

1/28

Environmental Concerns and International MigrationAuthor(s): Graeme HugoSource: International Migration Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, Special Issue: Ethics, Migration, andGlobal Stewardship (Spring, 1996), pp. 105-131Published by: The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2547462

Accessed: 07/10/2010 10:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrations.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toInternational Migration Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrationshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2547462?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrationshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrationshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2547462?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cmigrations

8/8/2019 2547462

2/28

Environmental Concerns andInternational MigrationGraeme HugoUniversity fAdelaide

This article focuses on international migration occurring as a result ofenvironmental changes and processes. It briefly reviews attempts to con?ceptualize environment-related migration and then considers the extentto which environmental factors have been and may be significant ininitiating migration. Following is an examination of migration as anindependent variable in the migration-environment relationship. Finally,ethical and policy dimensions are addressed.

Migration on a permanent or temporary basis has always been one of the mostimportant survival strategies adopted by people in the face of natural or human-caused disasters. However, our knowledge of the complex two-way relationshipinvolving environmental change as both a cause and consequence of migrationremains limited. Moreover, how migration and environmental concerns interactand impinge upon economic development, social change, and conflict is littleunderstood. In a context where global environmental stress and degradation haveaccelerated and unprecedented numbers of the world's population are seeingmigration as an option, the need for research in this area is considerable. In recentyears there has been an increase in the attention directed at the relationshipbetween migration and the environment among both researchersand policymak?ers, especially in the lead up to, and aftermathof, the United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janiero in 1992(e.g., Kibreab, 1994; Suhrke, 1992, 1994; Richmond, 1993; United Nations,1994; The Population Institute, 1993; IOM, 1992). Chapter 5 of Agenda 21,which was adopted by UNCED, recognized the need to develop and disseminateknowledge of the links between changes in demographic processes like migrationand achievement of sustainable development (United Nations, 1993).Historically, the vast bulk of migration caused by environmental change hasoccurred within national boundaries, as have the environmental effects nitiatedby population movements. Nevertheless, the international dimensions of thisrelationship have been neglected until recendy. Moreover, it is argued here thatthis dimension is of increasing scale and significance in concert with the acceler?ating pace of globalization processes. Accordingly, the present paper focuses uponinternational migration occurring as a result of environmental changes andprocesses and the implications of increasing levels of population movementbetween countries for the environment. We begin with a brief review of someattempts to conceptualize environment-related migration and then consider theextent to which environmental factors have been, and are likely to be, significant

IMR Vol. xxx,No. 1 105

8/8/2019 2547462

3/28

106 International Migration Review

in initiating international migration. This is attempted through a considera?tion of the environment as both a direct and a contributory factor in causingsuch migration, especially South-North international migration. Attention isthen focused on migration as an independent variable in the migration-envi?ronment relationship, and the environmental consequences of internationalpopulation movements are discussed. Finally, some of the ethical and policydimensions of emerging international migration-environment trends andprocesses are addressed.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENMIGRATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGESThe migration literature is replete with typologies which differentiatemigrantsand migrations according to the relative permanency of the move, the distancetraversed, the nature of the boundaries crossed, the causes of the move, thecharacteristics of the movers, etc. One of the pervasive distinctions madebetween types of population movements is that between voluntary and forcedmigrations which dates back 60 years to Fairchild's (1925) migration classifi?cation. Perhaps the most frequendy quoted typology of migration is that ofPeterson (1958), in which one of the most fundamental divisions employed isthe degree to which a move is ^forced." However, the distinction betweenvoluntary and involuntary migration is not as clear cut as it would appear atfirstglance. As Speare (1974:89) points out,

Inthe trictestensemigrationanbeconsidered o beinvoluntarynlywhen personisphysicallyransportedrom countrynd has no opportunityoescapefrom hosetransportingim.Movementunder hreat,ven he mmediate hreato ife, ontainsa voluntary lement, s longas there s an optionto escapeto anotherpartof thecountry, o intohidingor to remain ndhope to avoidpersecution.On the other hand some scholars of migration argue that much of thepopulation mobility which is conventionally seen as being voluntary occurs insituations which in fact the migrants have litde or no choice. Amin (1974:100),for example, in his discussion of migration in Western Africa states that

A comparative osts and benefitsnalysis, onducted at the individual evel of themigrant, as nosignificance.nfacttonlygives heappearance fobjective ationalityto a 'choice' (thatof themigrant)which nreality oes notexistbecause, n a givensystem, e (sic) hasno alternatives.

Indeed the early typology developed by Peterson recognized this degree ofoverlap between voluntary and involuntary movement and distinguished anintermediate category. He differentiated between ". . . impelled migrationwhen the migrants retain some power to decide whether or not to leave andforced migration when they do not have this power" (Peterson, 1958:261).These, in turn, are separated from free migration in which the will of themigrants is the decisive element initiating movement.

8/8/2019 2547462

4/28

Environmental Concerns and International Migration 107

Population mobility is probably best viewed as being arranged along acontinuum ranging from totally voluntary migration, in which the choice andwill of the migrants is the overwhelmingly decisive element encouraging peopleto move, to totally forced migration, where the migrants are faced with deathifthey remain in their present place of residence {see Figure 1). The extremes infactrarelyoccur, and most mobility is located along the continuum. The presentpaper is concerned with moves toward the forced end of this continuum.There is also some diversity n the literaturewith respect towhat particular typesof involuntary migration can be identified. Much of this centers around the issueof defining the term refugee.While the term refugee migration in some cases isused as a synonym for involuntary migration, others apply it only to a veryrestricted subset of all such movements. The 1967 United Nations Protocol onRefugees considers a refugee as "everyperson who, owing to a well-founded fearof being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of aparticular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationalityand is unable or, owing to such fear, s unwilling to avail himself of the protectionof that country" (Keely, 1981:6). However, this has been modified and extendedin practice by both the United Nations High Commission for Refugees(UNHCR) and individual Third World countries and regions. Nobel (1985:44),after an exhaustive discussion of contemporary refugee determination in ThirdWorld countries concludes that the common elements can be listed as follows:

1) Cases of well-founded fear of being persecuted for any of thereasons mentioned in the Geneva Convention and/or theStatute for the Office of UNHCR.2) Cases where lives, safety and freedom are threatened by eventsseriously disturbing public orders like external aggression,occupation, foreign domination, massive violations of humanrights or generalized violence in the whole or part of thecountry of origin.This definition, however, still only recognizes migrants who are forced to movebecause of political pressures or conflicts. Other commentators have adoptedwider definitions of refugee and forced migrations. A good example of such adefinition is that provided by Olson (1979:130).Refugeesdiffer romother,spontaneousor sponsored migrants,argely n thecircumstances f theirmovement ut of one area to another, nd theeffects hesehaveon them nthesettlementnd adjustment hasesoftheir elocation.Refugeesare forced o eavetheir omesbecauseof change ntheir nvironmenthichmakesit mpossible o continue ife s theyhave known t.Theyare coercedbyan externalforce o leave their omes andgo elsewhere.

This definition stresses the involuntary, forced nature of the move, theuprooting' suddenness of most refugee moves and the externality to the moverof the force or forces impelling the move. It also implies a substantial degreeof powerlessness among the movers in the decision to move and selection of

8/8/2019 2547462

5/28


FIGURE 1. A Simple Continuum ofInternationalMigration

llillliilii

destination. There is no consideration in this definition of the distance therefugees move or whether or not they cross an international boundary, althoughOlson points out "these spatial factors do affect refugees' adjustment afterflight." This definition is clearly more holistic and sees refugee moves as a subsetof all population mobility rather than of international migration.Olson's definition is also broader than that of the UNHCR with respect tothe nature of the external force or forces, the threat or presence of which impelsrefugee movements. Again the UNHCR definition is somewhat restrictive inthat it refers only to persecution, or fear of persecution, as initiating refugeemovement. Keely (1981:6) points out that this excludes people fleeing theravages of war, and who are usually considered refugees, although the broaderdefinitions in wider use usually include such groups. More commonly, personswho are displaced by civil conflict or war are also categorized as refugees. Somewriters, however, have extended the recognition of forces which create refugeemovements even further and go beyond the conflicts created by human agentsto include people displaced from their home areas by natural disasters. Olson(1979:130), for example, identifies the following five types of external com?pulsions that alone or in concert create refugees:? physical dangers (e.g., floods, volcanic eruptions, etc.);? economic insufficiency (e.g., drought, famine);? religious persecution;? ethnic persecution;? ideological persecution.More recendy the term environmental refugee has gained wide usage(Hinnawi, 1985; Jacobsen, 1988) to refer to people who have been forced toleave their home area because of environmental disruption. Such refugees,however, are not officially recognized by national governments or internationalagencies, and hence the term environmental migrants would seem preferable.This includes migrants who are forced to flee their home areas by the onset of(or fear of) a natural calamity or disaster, would incorporate the first twocategories of Olson's classification of external compulsions to migration listedabove, and covers not only the migrations initiated by the sudden and violentonset of floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc., but also the "silentviolence" (Spitz, 1978) of drought, famine and the onset of severe foodshortage associated with the gradual degradation of environments.Refugees, as conventionally defined, are distinguished from environmentalmigrants by the fact that the overt force impelling migration is conflict or the

8/8/2019 2547462

6/28


threat of conflict (Zolberg and Suhrke, 1984:2) - it has human rather thanenvironmental origins. It must be stressed, however, that we are referringhereto the immediate cause which triggersthe forced migration, not necessarily thedeeper underlying long-term determinants. For example, many natural disas?ters have their root causes in long- term political, social, economic or agricul?tural practices or policies. Nevertheless, in both types of forced movement,external pressures are paramount in initiating moves - without the suddenintroduction of particular external forces the move would not have occurred.As Kunz (1973:130) points out,It isthe reluctance ouproot neself,nd the bsenceofpositive riginalmotivationsto settle lsewhere,whichcharacterizesll refugee ecisions and distinguishesherefugee rom hevoluntarymigrants.

In fact, Kunz goes on to recognize two distinct "kinetic" types of refugeemovement in which the chief distinction is the strength of the external forcesimpinging upon the potential refugee: 1) anticipatory refugee movementsinvolve people moving before the deterioration of the military or politicalsituation becomes overwhelming, preventing an orderly departure; and 2) acuterefugee movements, where the emphasis is on unplanned flighten masse or inbursts of individual or group escapes in which the overwhelming objective is toreach a haven of safety. This differentiation is equally applicable to environ?mental migrants, and Richmond (1993) has divided environmentally inducedmigration into "proactive" and "reactive" movement on similar grounds.Some have argued that it is best not to refer to migrants forced to move forenvironmental reasons as refugees, given the specific legal connotations of theterm refugee {e.g., Hugo and Chan, 1990). Nevertheless, as Richmond(1993:2) correcdy points out, "the reality of external and internal migrationinduced mainly, or partly, by environmental factors cannot be denied." Onemajor difference between migration induced by political and civil conflict andthat caused by environmental factors is that it is rare that the latter affects anentire nation, so environmentally displaced persons can usually find refugewithin their national boundaries. On the other hand, people fleeing persecu?tion often are forced to flee from the entire jurisdiction of national govern?ments. Another significant difference is that while political refugee movementis often an uncomplicated response to fear of persecution, environmentalmigration is often the result of a complex set of multiple pressures of which anenvironmental event is only the proximate cause.Richmond (1993:11) argues persuasively that it is necessary to go beyondmore descriptive typologies of environmentally induced migration and tounderstand the dynamic interaction of the multiple causal factors that cangenerate such movement. Whether or not environmentally induced migrationoccurs, the scale and composition of the movement and where it is directedwill be shaped by many elements: predisposing conditions such as the nature

8/8/2019 2547462

7/28


of the biophysical environment; structural constraints; facilitating factors;precipitating events; and feedback effectsof the migration.Richmond's model, a simplified version of which is presented in Figure 2,recognizes first f all that certain contexts are more susceptible to environmentaldisruptions likely to force outmigration than others. These, forexample, wouldinclude: ecologically fragile ecosystems which, when subject to excessive crop?ping, forest removal or other human use impacts, become less productive; areasat high risk of natural disaster - earthquake zones, low lying areas subject toinundation, etc.; marginal agricultural or pastoral areas subject to frequentdrought; and areas of poverty where the residents do not have the accumulatedreserves to prevent, ameliorate, or cope with the onset of a natural disaster.Hence the predisposing factors for environmental migration can be envi?ronmental but also are related to population pressure upon natural resources,the way in which the environment is being exploited by people, and the wealthof the occupants of the area. In general, these predisposing conditions are morelikely to occur in less developed than in more developed countries.Environmentally induced migration is likely to be precipitated by a particu?lar environment-related event which effectivelyforces people to move. Table 1is a list of factors identified by Richmond (1993) as being likely to precipitatereactive migration which has direct or indirect environmental implications. Hestresses that these factors are not independent of one another. Whether or notan event-producing disruption to the environment actually produces migra?tion, however, is partly influenced by the predisposing conditions mentionedearlier. It also will be shaped by a range of constraints and facilitators tomigration which exist in the area affected. These include the existence or lackof escape routes not only in the form of transport networks but also kinshipand social networks which mean that some environmental migrants can moveto an area where they have relatives and friends who can support them. Thepresence of such networks undoubtedly acts as a facilitator to such movementwhile their absence would constrain movement.Richmond (1993) stresses the importance of feedback effects in considera?tion of environmentally induced migration. The migration itself may havepositive effects on the origin area through reduction of pressure of populationon the local environment and hence reduce the likelihood of the occurrenceof an environmental disaster. Similarly, environmental policies introduced asa result of those disasters may influence migration. Hence, in Indonesia theerosion of uplands causing flooding and siltation in lowlands has resulted in apolicy of sedentarization whereby people who have practiced a type of slashand burn, shifting cultivation in the upland areas have been resettled insedentary agricultural communities in lowland areas. This has affected some 4million people (Hugo, 1988).Conceptualizing environmentally induced migration as a subset of forcedmigrations draws attention to the neglect of this type of movement by

8/8/2019 2547462

8/28


FIGURE 2. A Simple Model ofEnvironmentallynduced Migration

FeedbackEffects

PredisposingConditions

PrecipitatingEvent PolicyResponse

Facilitators andConstraints to

Migration

Migration

Source:odifiedndimplifiedromdeasnRichmond1993).

researchers and policymakers alike. Jacobsen (1988:6, 1989:30) summarizesthe situation thus:Most governmentso notrecognize nvironmental eclineas a legitimate ause ofrefugeemovements,hoosing o ignore he ssue.Neither he U.S. StateDepartmentnor the UN High CommissionerforRefugeesforexamplecollects data on thisproblem.Yetthe number fenvironmentalefugees estimated ytheauthor obeat east 10 million rivals hat fofficiallyecognized efugeesnd issure o overtakethis attergroup nthedecadestocome.

While the last point may well be overstated, the thrust of these strong remarksmust be accepted - researchers and policymakers have neglected the signifi-

8/8/2019 2547462

9/28

112 International Migration ReviewTABLE1

Typology fEnvironmentally elatedDisastersNaturallynducedisastersNIDs)Hurricanes TornadoesEarthquakes VolcanicruptionsFloodsfreshwater) Floodssaltwater)Fires ElectrictormsDroughts FaminesTechnologicallynducedisastersTIDs)Chemical NuclearPollutionair) Pollutionwater)Explosions Building ollapseDams floods,tc.) Mining ccidentsFactoryccidents SoilExhaustionEconomicallynduced isastersEIDs)Deforestation CropFailureMineral xhaustion Species xtinctionPopulationlearances RelocationPoliticallynducedisastersPIDs)War external) War internal)Apartheid Ethnic leansingExile PersecutionTotalitarianism AnarchySociallynduced isastersSIDs)EcologicalxtremismFanaticismClassWar

Animal ights ctivismExcommunicationShunning_

WhirlwindsAvalanchesHail andSnow tormsLightningPlaguesOil SpillsPollutionsoil)RailorAirplanerashPower utsUrban erelictionFisheryxhaustionHumanRedundancyStructuraldjustmentTerrorismHolocaustRights iolationsExtremism/IntoleranceGreen rusadersJihadBoycott_Source:ichmond1993).

cance (both in numerical and human suffering terms) of environmentallyforced migrations.Obviously one of the major barriers to research in environmentally inducedmigration is the lack of available relevant data. This is understandable sincecollection of data is accorded low priority in societies experiencing environ?mental crises. As Dirks (1980) has pointed out:While thebiology fstarvation as beenanalyzed n considerable etail, here xistslittle ystematicnowledge bout socialbehavior. he imbalancehas been attributedto certainstumbling locksimpeding ield tudychaotic onditions, hepriorityfthe reliefmissions, herepugnance fseeking ata amidsthumansuffering.

As has been reviewed elsewhere (Hugo, 1984:12-14) a number of studies haveemployed innovative, imaginative and sensitive approaches to collect data in suchcrisis situations where conventional sources have been absent or severelydeficient.Nevertheless, it is important that due consideration be given in areas susceptibleto such movement to inclusion of relevant questions regarding environmentally

8/8/2019 2547462

10/28


induced population mobility in censuses and other large-scale data collectioninitiatives. Too often the questions included reflect nternational recommenda?tions and not the specific local conditions and needs of local people.ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AS A CAUSE OF MIGRATIONThe response of leaving an area on a permanent or temporary basis in the faceof a life threatening environmental crisis is, of course, eminendy rational andhas been a most important survival strategy throughout human history.However, the situation in the mid-1990s with respect to such movementswould appear to differ somewhat from the historical experience in a numberofways: the scale and pace of environmental change has increased substantially;differences between countries in ability to cope with these changes haveincreased; whereas in the past the migration destination options for environ?mental migrants have overwhelmingly been to move within their country oforigin, international destinations are of increasing significance. These propo?sitions will be expanded upon in this section.

Considering first the environmental forces impelling acute or reactivemigration, a global survey of natural disasters for the period 1947 to 1980found that the overall number of disasters is increasing over time and that adisproportionately large share of all lives lost (86%) in such disasters occurredin Asia (Shah, 1983). Since 1980 environmental pressures have continued toincrease due to increased population growth leading to greater consumptionof resources, pressure on agricultural land, pollution, etc., increased industri?alization, and massive technological changes increasing the capacity of peopleto reshape environments. While it is true that global awareness of the need toadopt sustainable development policies and practices has also increased, therecan be no doubt that the incidence of environmental disasters also has increasedas have the associated population displacements.To substantiate this contention we focus on the Asian region, which containsmore than half of the world s population and is experiencing rapid economicand social change. The United Nations Disaster Research Organization News forthe period 1976-1994 was scanned for reports of all major environmentalcatastrophes that occurred in Asia over the last two decades along with thevolume of associated environmentally induced migration. While these data arefarfrom comprehensive, they are indicative of the scale of the phenomenon ofsuch population movement, although it must be reiterated that the vast bulkof the refugees were resetded or otherwise accommodated within their ownnations. The data are summarized in Figure 3 and show that over the last twodecades there has been a trend toward increasing numbers of people displacedby environmental disasters in Asia, although there is considerable variationfrom year to year in the numbers involved. Figure 4 shows the numbers ofAsian environmental refugees by country. As would be expected, the largest

8/8/2019 2547462

11/28


FIGURE 3.Millions300

Asia: Population Displaced byNaturalDisasters, 1976-1994

1 JL_? I I iSource:ompiledromNDROews,976-1994.nations of China and India (with 37.8% of the world s population) dominate,although the incidence in the much smaller nation of Bangladesh (1995population of 119.2 million) is very substantial.Nevertheless, some of the largest displacements of environmental refugeesoccurred in the largest countries in Asia. In 1976, China experienced its worstearthquake since 1556. Centered on Tangshan, some 730,000 people wererendered homeless (Breeze, 1980:103). In 1994, one-fifthofChinas uplands wereidled by floods and drought, creatinga mass migration to urban areas (Kaye, 1994).The construction of China's Three Gorges Dam will displace 1.3 million people(Huus, 1994). In Bangladesh, frequent cyclones, floods and tidal surgeshave takenconsiderable toll of human life as well as causing massive population shifts.Whenever atural alamitiesikefloodshitBangladesh,eoplemigraterom hecoun?trysideourban reas.Anunusualncreasefbeggarsndpeople ooking orworkncitiesand towns spart fthe ftermathfdroughtnd floods. hisyear, iveuccessiveloodssubmerged early 4 million cres, estroyinghehomes ndhopesofover 0 millionpeople.Theyclaimed 00 lives, 5,000 headofcattle,nd washed wayhalf millionhomes.{Population:UNFPA Newsletter,0, II, November1984:2)In India alone it is reported (Kayastha and Yadara, 1985:79) that 15 millionpeople are affected by natural disasters each year. This involves some 2.5million being rendered homeless and 4 million having to migrate elsewhere toseek food and shelter.

8/8/2019 2547462

12/28


It is apparent that environmentally induced migrations are especially markedin Africa. As Jacobsen (1988:11) has pointed out:Of all thecontinents, frica, landwherepoorsoils ndvariable ainfallosea harshclimatefor griculture,as spawnedthemostenvironmentalefugees.Most camefrom heSahel,a belt thatspansseveralagro-ecologicalones and stretches est toeast acrosssome nine countries romMauritaniaand Senegalon into the Sudan.DesertificationsacceleratingntheSahel,theworld's argestreathreatenedythewholesale oss of arable and-

The droughts of 1968-1973 and 1982-1984 led to millions of environmentalrefugees. In the first of these, there were a million environmental refugees inBurkina Faso alone. Table 2 shows the numbers displaced bythe end ofthe seconddrought.With reference to the simple model depicted in Figure 2, there are a number ofdevelopments in contemporary less developed countries (LDCs) which haveexacerbated the predisposing conditions and increased the incidence of precipi?tating events for environmentally induced migration:? Population growth has continued to increase pressure on agricultural land

although significant fertilitydeclines have occurred in Asia and LatinAmerica and in limited parts of Africa. This has forced more people tosettle in and cultivate marginal areas, making them more subject toflooding, erosion, desertification and other environmental degradation.? Continuation ofhigh incidence ofpovertyhas meant that both individualsand nations have not the resources to initiate environmentally sustainablepractices. For many there is a total preoccupation with survival.? Concerted efforts o increase food production through the green revolutionhave seen some spectacular increases in output, but often at the expense ofenvironmental concerns. Hence, clearing practices, heavy use of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides have all often had undesirable environmentaloutcomes.? Many LDCs have liberalized their economies to encourage foreign invest?ment, especially in manufacturing, and multinational companies havetaken advantage of cheap labor to establish factories. In many cases,environmental controls on such developments are less comprehensive thanin more developed countries (MDCs), and certainlythepolicing ofexistingregulations is usually weaker so that environmental pollution from suchactivitycan be considerable.? In many LDCs the ability to enact legislation for environmental sustain-abilityand to police existing legislation is restrictedbylimited infrastructureand corruption. Accordingly, it is difficult to control deforestation, airpollution, water pollution, land degradation, etc., in the face of increasingpressures on exploitation of the environment created by growing popula?tion, increasing involvement of foreign enterprises,etc.

8/8/2019 2547462

13/28


FIGURE 4. Asia: NumberofPersonsDisplaced byEnvironmentalDisasters,1976-1994

NUMBERF EOPLEISPLACED350.000,0001.AFGHANISTAN2.BANGLADESH3.BURMA/MYANMAR4.CAMBODIA5.CHINA6. NDIA

7INDONESIA8 IRAN9.JAPAN10KOREA11. AOS12. EPAL

13. AKISTAN14. HILIPPINES15.RIANKA16. HAILAND17. IETNAM

Source:ssembledromNDROews,976-1994.

TABLE2Displaced Population nSelected AfricanCountries, eptember985Country People isplaced SharefPopulation_(Percent)_Burkina asoChadMaliMauritania

Niger_

222,000500,000200,000190,0001,000,000

31131216Source:acobsen1988:13).

8/8/2019 2547462

14/28


? Climate change may become a significant factor in impelling environ?mental migration. The expansion of the hole in the ozone layer, globalwarming, and anticipated increases in sea levels would have significantpopulation displacement implications. For example, a report by the U.S.National Academies ofSciences and Engineering and Institute ofMedicine(1991:24) concludes thatwhile understanding of complex global climaticsystems is limited, some radical changes which will increase global tem?peratures must be considered plausible:- As high altitude tundra melts, CH4 would be released, increasinggreenhouse warming.- Increased freshwater runoff n high latitudes and reduced differentialsin temperature between poles and equator could radically changeocean currents, leading to altered weather patterns.- There could be a significantmelting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,resulting in a sea level several meters higher than it is today.The report concludes that,while migration is likely to be an importantresponse to climate change, in the United States it is unlikely that

climate-driven migration will be on a scale that cannot be managed.However, it is not sufficient to consider the migration-environment rela?tionship only in terms of migration induced as a response to the occurrence ofparticular environmental events. As Suhrke (1992:5) points out:Froma broaderdevelopment erspective,nvironmentalegradation ppearsas aproximate ause ofmigration. he underlyingauses arefound n increasing opu?lationpressuresn land and thepatterns f resource se. Demography ndpoliticaleconomy,notherwords, re most alient ausal factors. et these bviouslynteractin criticalwayswithspecific nvironmental ariables. ometimes heresult s stressofa kind that eads to massiveoutmigration.ut tounderstandwhy, tis necessaryto focuson thebroaderdevelopment rocess.

Similarly, Richmond (1993:8) argues. . . whenenvironmentaldegradationeads tomigrationtisgenerallys a proximatecause linkedro questionsof economicgrowth, overty, opulationpressure, ndpolitical onflict.

Bilsborrow (1991), in his case studies of Indonesia, Guatemala, and Sudan,depicts environmental degradation as one of a cluster of causes of outmigra?tion. He suggests that environmental changes induced migration through their"social" effects by 1) reducing income; 2) increasing the risk of incomereduction in the future; 3) making the environment less healthy.The model outlined in Figure 2 emphasizes the fact that although a particularenvironmental event may be the trigger that actually initiates a substantialpopulation displacement, it is the predisposing conditions which are often cru?cially important in determining one or more of the following: the nature andseverityof the actual precipitating event, which is usually some form of environ-

8/8/2019 2547462

15/28


mental disaster or disruption; whether or not migration results; the nature andscale of that migration. Hence in many cases, especially in LDCs, the deeperunderlying causes of environmental migration are not environmental butrelated to political, economic, social and demographic processes. Thus policyinterventions need to address the more fundamental causes of the movementratherthan the triggeringevent which initiated the migration.It would seem that environmental degradation is increasingly becoming acontributory cause of population mobility in LDCs. It is linked to the economicpush being exerted by poverty, population pressure on resources, unemployment,underemployment, lack of access to services, etc. in rural areas of many LDCs.Migration is usually not simply a response to a single cause or event but to aconstellation of often interlinked forces. As agriculture becomes more commer?cialized and mechanized in LCDs, declining demand for and displacement oflabor is exerting considerable outmigration pressure, and this is being exacerbatedby increasing environmental disruption.ENVIRONMENTALLY INDUCED MIGRATION-INTERNAL VERSUS INTERNATIONALThe bulk of migrants displaced by environmental disruption move withinnational boundaries, and international environmental migration has been verylimited. However, there are a number of arguments which could be advancedto suggest that over the next decade environmental factors will become moresignificant in impelling international movements.The firstsuch argument would point to the increasing strength of environ?mental push factors in LDCs, especially the nonmetropolitan sectors of thosecountries. As was made clear at UNCED and in a number of comprehensivereviews (e.g., Suhrke, 1992, 1994; United Nations, 1994; Green, 1992), thesigns of environmental stress are continuing to increase in LDCs. A fewexamples will suffice to make this point (Green, 1992:12-17). Each year . . .? 17 million hectares of tropical forest vanish;? a billion tons of topsoil are lost due to soil degradation which has seen1.2 billion hectares of land losing much of their agricultural productiv?ity since 1945;? ifwater pollution continues at current rates, as much as one-fourth of

the world's freshwater supply could be unsafe for human consumptionby the end of the 1990s.Air pollution, desertification and loss of biodiversity also are increasing theirimpacts in LDCs. Despite global action following UNCED, there are few signsof a reversal in trends of environmental degradation in LDCs.Particular attention has been focused on global warming and its inevitablecorollary - rising sea levels (Birdsall, 1992). While there is some debate, it isanticipated that sea levels may rise one meter by the year 2100, affecting

8/8/2019 2547462

16/28


360,000 kilometers of coasdine (Suhrke, 1992). Since almost two-thirds of theworlds population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast and 30 of theworld s 50 largest cities are located on the coast, the potential for populationdisplacement from a significant rise in sea level is considerable. Indeed, somecommentators have painted future scenarios of millions ofpeople being forcedto move by sea level changes (Gleick, 1989; Kaplan, 1994). Kritz (1990:110)has reviewed the impacts of climate change and migration and concludes:While historical nd contemporaryases can be cited of climateexerting majorinfluencenmigration,limate er e sseldom heroot ause ofmigrationut ratherone more factor hatexacerbates healready ifficultonditionsunderwhichpoorpeople attempt ocopewiththeirchanging nvironments.

It is apparent that while significant population displacement is a likely resultof climate change, the effects have been exaggerated in the literature. As Suhrke(1993:11) points out:The social mpact s ndicated yestimates hat ver henext 0 years, 3-15 percentofBangladesh'spopulationwould be displaced n a worst ase scenario Jacobsen,1988:34). If thedisplacementccurs t a steady ate, hefirstinstallments' ouldbeofthe order f200,000-300,000 persons nnually.While a sizeablefigure,t s lessthanone-quarter fthe new arrivalswho annually nterBangladesh's abormarketdue topopular ncrease lone.

Moreover, in most such cases, it is within countries that the bulk ofpopulation displacement is likely to occur. This is not possible, however, insmall low lying island nations such as the Maldives and especially in several ofthe island nations of the Pacific (Connell, 1987). The scope for internalpopulation redistribution within such countries is limited, so there will bepressure for resettlement in another country. In many such nations there arestrong existing social networks set up with destination countries along whichdisplaced populations may travel (Moore and Smith, 1995).There are other emerging developments in international migration which inthe future may lead to environmentally displaced persons considering interna?tional as well as internal destinations. These relate predominancy to the forcesidentified in Figure 2 as facilitators elements which, rather than cause movement,make that movement possible or channel it in a particular direction once thedecision to move has been made. The sheer increase in the scale of internationalmigration, especially South-North migration in the last decade, has meant thatthe social networks linking potential migrants in LDCs with family and friendsin MDCs have proliferated exponentially. This has meant that the destinationoptions for people in LDCs pushed out of their homes by environmentaldisruptions are increasingly including international destinations.Another factor here and an often neglected element in the acceleration ofpopulation movement between nations over the last decade is the emergence anddevelopment ofan international immigration industry.This is an increasinglylargegroup of agents, recruiters,travel businesses, lawyers, etc., operating both within

8/8/2019 2547462

17/28


and outside legal structures to facilitate international migration of one kind oranother. As with the strengthening and spread of international social networks,the development of the immigration industry has acted as an importantfacilitator (Figure 2) of international migration.Hence it could be argued stronglythat environmental pressures will continueto increase in LDCs over the next decade and that such pressures will becomeincreasingly important in pushing people out of rural areas in LDCs. Environ?mental factors will become a more significantcause ofmigration out of LDC ruralareas, but mainly as a proximate and contributoryfactoramong a range ofpressureson people seeking to survive in such contexts, although the increasing incidenceof sudden environmental disasters will also periodically produce significant dis?placements ofpopulation. It is likelytoo that while most environmentally inducedmigration will take place within nations, a greater proportion will occur betweennations in line with globalization trends and proliferation of migration networksand increasing numbers of institutions, businesses and people facilitatinginterna?tional migration.While the bulk of our attention here has focused upon environmental pressuresand disciplines as a push factor initiating or contributing to migration, it shouldalso be mentioned that environmental factors can be a pull factor in attractingpopulation movements toward destinations perceived to have favorable environ?ments (Svart, 1976). Such movement predominancy affectsMDCs, and the bulkof it occurs within nations, as with the movement to the Sunbelt in the UnitedStates and from the southeast to northeastern Australia. However, such movementalso occurs internationally, especially among retirees,as is the case with the flowof northern and western Europeans to some Mediterranean nations.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRATIONIn considering the role of international migration as an independent variableimpacting upon the environment, a useful starting point is the equationdeveloped by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971) and Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1990:58)

I=PXAXTWhere /= Environmental ImpactP = Population Size and Growth

A = Affluence - per capita consumption of goodsand servicesT- Technology - quantity of resources consumed,environmental damage sustained and pollutiongenerated during production and consumptionper unit of goods and services.While this formula has been subject to criticism (Bartiaux and van Ypersele,1993; Hogan, 1992), it does emphasize the point that although population

8/8/2019 2547462

18/28


growth is an important element shaping the extent of environmental impact, it isnot the only one. Hence control ofpopulation growth does not offer "quick fix"for environmental problems. Clearly, although reduced population growth canassist in reducing environmental pressure, there is no simple linear relationshipbetween population density and growth and environmental degradation.International migration plays a role in influencing population growth andsize in the areas of origin and destination of migrants. Other things being equal(which of course they rarely are), emigration will reduce environmentalpressures at the origin and increase them at the destination. However, it isunlikely that international migration can occur on such a scale to be any long-term solution to environmental pressure problems in LDCs except in relativelyrestricted localized areas (Keyfitz, 1991).In the traditional immigration nations such as Canada, the United States andAustralia, debates about immigration have generally raged around the issues ofethnic composition of the intake and the economic consequences of the immi?gration. However, there are some indications of the environmental effects ofimmigration becoming an increasingly important element in that debate. To takethe case ofAustralia, in the 1980s therewere a few commentators who argued thatAustralia should dramatically reduce immigration levels because of environmentalconcerns that an expanding population will have detrimental effectsupon thenative environment, floraand fauna and upon the capacity of the nations resourcebase to accommodate that expansion (Birrell, Hill and Nevill, 1984; Day andRowland, 1988). However, in more recent times, concern about the environ?mental consequences of immigration has seen this issue emerge as one of thedominant arguments against expanding immigration levels.? The National Population Council (1992:109) reporton Population issuesand Australia's future stated, that"... the Committee has concluded thatnational ecological integritywould be best served by an active population

policy which resulted in a reduced rate of population growth."? A report by the House ofRepresentatives Standing Committee forLongTerm Strategies (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia,1994:149) on Australia's population carrying capacity recommendedthat the nation develop a population policy which explicidy takes intoaccount environmental costs of population growth.? Environmental arguments against immigration are being increasinglyaddressed in the Australian literature on population and environment(Smith, 1991; Bierbaum, 1991; Boyden, Dovers and Shirlow, 1990; ABS,1992; Clarke et al., 1990; Fincher, 1991; Industries Assistance Commis?sion, 1989).? A symposium of the Australian Academy of Science (1994) emphasizedthe environmental limitations of Australia and the pressing need to

8/8/2019 2547462

19/28


reduce population growth as part of the development of a policy ofEcologically Sustainable Development.? In 1995, the Premier of New South Wales called for a moratorium onimmigration to Sydney (the destination of more than half of the immi?grants arriving in Australia) because of the environmental infrastructureand service delivery costs imposed (The Australian, May 24, 1995).It is apparent, therefore, hat inAustralia the argument that immigrants exacerbateenvironmental pressures is gatheringstrength n the ongoing national debate about

immigration levels. It is suggested that high levels of immigration:? through enhancing population growth, increase consumption levels ofscarce national resources (especially nonrenewable natural resourceswhich have a limited finite supply such as oil) and increase overall levelsof environmental degradation;? through concentrating population distribution, in particular ecologicallysensitive or fragile subareas within the nation, exacerbate environmentalpressures and problems in those areas. Immigrant setdement in Australiais extremely concentrated in a few parts of the nation (Hugo, 1995).

Obviously there s a greatdeal ofscapegoating ofimmigrants in such arguments.They ignore the reality of the environmental impact equation provided abovewhich indicates that sheer population numbers are only one of the variablesimpinging upon the environment, along with per capita consumption levels andthe way in which the people use the environment in which they live. Limitationof population growth or immigration levels is obviously of its own not a solutionto such environmental problems. They cannot substitute forthe development andadoption ofpolicies and practices which reduce per capita consumption levels andwhich ensure that urban and rural environments are managed and exploited inways that are compatible with ecological sustainability. On the other hand, it iscrucial that environmental considerations be factored into the decisions made bythe Australian government about immigration levels because population growthis one of the factors impinging upon the environment. It is clear that in thetraditional immigration nations like Australia, the environmental consequencesof immigration are coming under much greaterscrutiny by government - and thecommunity more generally- and that theywill increasingly be a factorin shapingpolicy about the level of international migration gains forthe nation.Suhrke (1992:2) points out that the body ofresearchon the impact ofmigrationon the environment is considerably greater than that on the environment as acause of migration. Again, however, the bulk of the evidence relates to internalmigration, with litde examination of the ecological and environmental conse?quences of international migration. There are many case studies where expandingland setdement into marginal and fragile ecosystems in LDCs have led todesertification,deforestation and other environmental degradation (Suhrke, 1993;Bilsborrow, 1991, 1992; Allen and Barnes, 1985; Bilsborrow, 1987; Bilsborrow

8/8/2019 2547462

20/28


and DeLargy, 1991; Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Cruz, Zosa-Feranil andGoce, 1988; Georges and Bilsborrow, 1991; Hafher and Apichatvullop, 1990;Pichon and Bilsborrow, 1992). The expansion of agricultural setdement intohitherto untilled areas in some LDC contexts has led to severe environmentaldeterioration. This occurs both in government organized and sponsored landsetdement programs and especially where the setdement occurs outside ofgovernment controls and involves squatters. In Indonesia, for example, theecological impact of the governments Transmigration Program has beensubstantial (Secrett, 1986).One type of international migration which has attracted attention because of itsenvironmental impacts is refugeemovement The sudden unplanned influx oflargenumbers of people into a generallyspatiallyrestricted rea, often alreadyvulnerableto environmental degradation, can have devastatingenvironmental impacts (Stevens,1993). Gliimire (1994:561) has recendy summarized the situation:Deforestations one ofmany nvironmentalroblems acing efugeesndevelopingcountries.Others ncludethedepletion nd contamination fwater, vercrowding,poor sanitation,oil erosion nd pasturedegradation.n somecases,forestcoverageand other nvironmentalproblems xistedprior o thearrival frefugees;n otherstheproblemshave been exacerbated ytherefugees.windlingresource asehas alsoled to increasingonflictwith ocalpopulations ndmuchhardship orrefugees.

There are a number of studies which depict situations in Africa, and to a lesserextent Asia, where refugee setdement has resulted in environmental degrada?tion (Ek and Karadawi, 1991; Simmance, 1987; Christensen and Scott, 1988;Utting, 1992; Aguayo etal, 1987; Hugo, 1987).While it is apparent that international migration can and does have negativeenvironmental consequences, in some contexts there are considerable dangersthat the migrants involved can become scapegoats for a general failure to adoptsustainable policies of land and other resource use in the destination areas. InAustralia, a review (Clarke etal, 1990) of literature concerned with immigra?tion, population growth and the environment, concluded that Australians willbe better off in general using resource management policies targeted to dealwith specific resource and environmental concerns, rather than using immi?gration policies. This should not be taken to mean that population growth andimmigration are not of relevance in discussion about Australia moving towarda sustainable development strategybut rather as Toyne (1990) has pointed out,

It svital heimmigrationebate smoveddirectlynto hebroader ebate ver cologicalsustainabilitynAustralia. o long-termesolutiono thequestion fappropriateetimmigrationevels anbefound ntil hebroaderquestionsre ettled.Toyne makes the important distinction between short-term and long-termconsiderations:

A muchmoresophisticatedpproach othequestion fpopulationndsustainabilitysneededthanhas beenevidencednthedebate o date. tmustbeacknowledgedhat nthe hort un ver henext 0 years rso,environmentaleclinenAustralia anonlybe

8/8/2019 2547462

21/28


addressed hrough hanging ur lifestyles,onsumption atternsnd improvingurwastedisposal nd minimizationechnologies.n the ongterm henumber fpeoplewe wishto accommodatenAustraliawillplaya significantole n detennininghelevel of environmentalmpact nd demandfor carcenatural esources.SOME ETHICAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThe causes and effects of environmental deterioration in LDCs cannot bequarantined within the national boundaries of individual nations. It is clearthat much contemporary environmental degradation in LDCs has its real rootsin historical processes such as colonial exploitation which produced differentmodes of agricultural and pastoral activity to meet the needs of the colonialpower and differentpatterns ofpopulation growth and distribution from thosewhich prevailed in precolonial times. Similarly, international inequalities inpower, access to resources, unequal terms of trade, etc. have all been influentialin shaping patterns of land use and setdement in LDCs, as have the interven?tions of international companies and agencies. Moreover, the consequences ofdeforestation, pollution, etc. are not confined to single nations. The rapiddepletion of rainforests in a few countries like Brazil and Indonesia, forexample, has climate change and loss of biodiversity implications which areglobal. The clear message, not only from the 1992 UNCED but from as farback as the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment and the1987 publication of the World Commission on Environment and Develop?ment report, Our Common Future, is that achieving ecologically sustainabledevelopment demands action at the global level as well as the national andindividual levels. Successfully tackling many of the environmental problemsof LDCs and MDCs will require a global approach, and central to this is thepressing need to eradicate poverty so that people can have access to theresources to live sustainably. This will demand several redistributions fromMDCs to LDCs through changes in international power, trade and aidrelationships. In short, the environmental pressures which are increasingly thecause and consequence of population movements in LDCs should not be seenas exclusively the problems of the individual countries involved since thosepressures have been caused partly by forces outside of the country and theyhave consequences which extend beyond the borders of those countries.Migration is a logical and common immediate response to environmentaldegradation and disaster, but it is rarely a medium or long-term solution toenvironmental problems. This will only be attained via lower levels of popu?lation growth through substantial and sustained fertilitydecline and adoptingecologically sustainable ways of using the environment. Both of these goals areonly going to be achieved through overcoming poverty and powerlessnessamong the people living in regions subject to environmental disaster anddegradation. Only through improving employment opportunities for men and

8/8/2019 2547462

22/28


women, health, education, human rights and enhancing the status and rolesof women within such societies can long-term sustainability be achieved. Justas international processes have contributed to the creation of environmentalproblems in LDCs, long-term solutions will only be possible with significantinvolvement of the international community.Environmental pressures are undoubtedly an increasing element initiatingoutmigration from many rural areas in LDCs. However, environmental factorsare more significant as contributory and proximate causes of such migration,although "environmental refugee" migration is significant. The bulk of suchmovement is intranational, but just as other forms of migration in LDCs areincreasingly involving crossing international borders, it is likely that a largerproportion of environmentally displaced persons will move to other countries.However, such migration cannot be generally seen as a solution to environ?mental problems in LDCs because:? The vast scale of such movement is such that the sheer logistics of

moving and establishing such refugees in other nations is many timeslarger than any previous global migration (Keyfitz, 1991).? It does not represent a real and lasting solution to environmentalproblems, which can only come through eradicating poverty, reducingfertility,and adopting environmentally sustainable practices.International relocation may provide an enduring solution only in very specificcircumstances such as in small island nations influenced by a significant risein sea levels or in small regions devastated by an environmental disaster,,The fact remains, however, that there are significant displacements ofpopulation occurring in LDCs as a result of environmental disasters ordeterioration. Most of this displacement occurs within the boundaries of

nations and there is certainly no indication of a lessening of the numbers ofenvironmental migrants in LDCs. Hence it is imperative that the internationalcommunity look to short-term measures as well as the longer-term solutionsdiscussed above. As was indicated earlier, the people involved are certainly notcovered by international refugee protocols, and there is a pressing need forthisgroup of forced migrants to be systematically incorporated into an expandedinternational regime to assist people who are uprooted involuntarily from theirhome areas (Rogers and Copeland, 1993:132).CONCLUSIONThe growing appreciation of the global implications of environmental prob?lems is occurring at a time of a rapidly changing context in which internationalexchanges of population, goods, capital and information are accelerating at anunprecedented rate. Our understanding of the nature and significance of thecomplex linkages between migration and environmental change remains verylimited (IOM, 1992). It is clear, however, that the international dimensions

8/8/2019 2547462

23/28


of the migration-environment relationship are assuming increasing signifi?cance. This presents a considerable challenge to both policymakers and re?searchers. Rogers and Copeland (1993:135), in examining emerging policyissues related to forced migrations associated with political conflict, conclude:The 1990s is a timeofuncertainty,hangeand opportunity.While thechallengesthat onfronted he nternationalommunity ithrespect oforcedmigration eremorepredictable uring heCold War,certain pportunitiesor reventionctivitiesand for hecreation fsolutionswhichpresent hemselvesodaywerenot availableevena fewyears go. Our paperexpresseshehopethatgovernmentsworkingwitha UN systemhat s itselfundergoinghanges, nd withregional odiesandNGOs- will find thepoliticalwill and thenecessary esources o realize heconsiderableopportunitiesordealing reatively ith he newandold challenges osed byforcedmigration ue towar andpersecution.

It is the contention here that the world is facing a comparable situation withrespect to forced migration due to environmental disruption and there is a needfor international involvement. This should be both in the short term in dealingwith environmental migrants displaced by the sudden onset of disasters, butmore importandy in the longer term in working to eradicate poverty, reducepopulation growth and encourage the adoption of sustainable ways of usingthe environment which, ifsuccessful, will obviate the need for such migration.REFERENCESAguayo,S. etal1987 Social nd Cultural onditionsndProspectsfGuatemalan efugeesnMexico.Geneva:UNRISD/Colegio de Mexico.Allen,J.C. and D. F.Barnes1985 "The Causes ofDeforestationnDevelopingCountries/'Annalsof heAssociationofAmericanGeographers,5 2): 163-184.Amin,S.1974 ModernMigrationsn Westernfrica. ondon:OxfordUniversityress.Australian cademyof Science1994 Population 040 Australids hoice.Proceedings f the Symposiumof theAnnualGeneralMeetingoftheAustralian cademy fScience,Canberra.Australian ureau ofStatisticsABS)1992 Australidsnvironment:ssues nd Facts.Canberra:AGPS.Awanohara, .1982 "In theShadow ofDeath," Far Eastern conomic eview,p. 42-43. Oct. 15.Bartiaux, .andJ.vanYpersele1993 "The Role ofPopulationGrowth n Global Warming." n InternationalPopulationConference,ontreal 993, Volume. Liege: USSP. Pp. 33-54.Bierbaum, d.1991 TowardsEcological ustainability. repared or hePlanningCommittee,Centreforthe Environment nd SustainableDevelopment,FlindersUniversityfSouth Aus?tralia,Adelaide.

8/8/2019 2547462

24/28


Bilsborrow, . E.1992 "Population,Developmentand Deforestation:ome Recent Evidence."Paper pre?sented t theU.N. ExpertGroupMeetingon Population,Environment nd Devel?opment,New York.January.1991 "RuralPoverty, igrationnd theEnvironmentnDevelopingCountries: hree CaseStudies."Background aperpresented orWorldBank,WorldDevelopmentReport1991, Chapel Hill,NorthCarolina.1987 "PopulationPressuresnd Agricultural evelopment n DevelopingCountries:AConceptualFrameworkndRecentEvidence,"WorldDevelopment,5 2): 183-203.Bilsborrow, . E. and P.F. DeLargy1991 "LandUse,Migration ndNaturalResourceDeteriorationn theThird World:TheCases ofGuatemalaand Sudan." In Resources,nvironmentnd Population. d. K.Davis and M. Bernstam.Belgium: USSP Pp. 125-147.Birdsall,N.1992 "Another ook atPopulation nd GlobalWarming." olicyresearchworking aper,CountryEconomicsDepartment, he WorldBank,New York.Birrell, ., D. Hill andJ.Nevill, ds.1984 Populateand Perish?The Stressesf PopulationGrowth n Australia.Melbourne;

Fontana/Sydney.ustralian onservation oundation.Blaikie,P and Brookfield1987 Land Degradationnd Society ondon:Metheun.Boyden, ? S. DoversandM. Shirlow1990 Our Biosphere nderThreat:EcologicalRealities nd Australids pportunities. el?bourne:OxfordUniversityress.Breeze,R.1980 "The Building f a New Tangsham," arEastern conomic eview, . 103. March7.Christensen, . andW Scott1988 Survey fthe ocial and EconomicConditionsofAfghan efugeesnPakistan.Geneva:UNRISD.Clarke,H. R.,A. H. Chisolm,G. W. Edwards nd T. O. S. Kennedy1990 Immigration,opulationGrowth nd theEnvironment.anberra:AGPS.Clarke,J. ., P.Curson,S. L. Kayastha nd P Nag,eds.1989 PopulationndDisaster. xford:BasilBlackwell.Connell,J.1987 "ParadiseLeft? acific slandVoyagersnthe ModernWorld." n Pacific ridges: heNew ImmigrationromAsia and thePacificslands.New York:CenterforMigrationStudies.Pp. 375-404.Cruz,M. C. J., . Zosa-Feranil nd C. L. Goce1988 "PopulationPressure nd Migration: mplications orUpland Development n thePhilippines," ournal fPhilippine evelopment,6(1): 15-46.Day,L. H. and D. T. Rowland, ds.1988 HowManyMoreAustralians? heResourcend EnvironmentalConflicts. elbourne:LongmanCheshire.Dirks,R.1980 "SocialResponsesDuringSevere ood ShortagesndFamine,"Currentnthropology,21(l):21-44.

8/8/2019 2547462

25/28


Ehrlich, R. andA. H.1990 ThePopulation xplosion, ew York: imon and Schuster.Ehrlich, R. andJ.P. Holdren1971 "ImpactofPopulationGrowth," cience, 71:1212-1217.Ek,R. andA. Karadawi1991 "Implications fRefugee lowson Political tabilityntheSudan," Ambio,August.El-Hinnawi,E.1985 Environmentalefugees.enya:UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme.Fairchild,H. P.1925 Immigration: WorldMovement nd ItsAmericanSignificance.ewY>rk:Putnam.Fincher, .1991 Immigration,rbanInfrastructurend the nvironment.anberra:AGPS.Georges,M. E. and R. E. Bilsborrow1991 "Deforestationnd InternalMigration n SelectedDevelopingCountries."PaperpresentedtAnnualMeeting f heSouthernDemographicAssociation, acksonville.October.Ghimire,K.1994 "Refugeesnd Deforestation,"nternalMigrationQuarterlyeview,2(4):56l-568.Gleick,P.H.1989 "ClimateChangeand nternationalolitics: roblemsFacingDevelopingCountries,"Ambio, 8(6):333-339.Green,C. P1992 TheEnvironmentndPopulation rowth:ecadeforAction. opulationReports, eriesM., No. 10. Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkinsUniversity.Hafner, .A. andY.Apichatvullop1990 "Migrant armersnd theShrinkingorestsnNortheast hailand."In Keepersf heForest. d. M. Poffenberger.est Hartford: umarianPress.Pp. 187-219.Hardjono,J.1986 "Transmigration:ookingto theFuture,"Bulletinof ndonesian conomic tudies,22(2):28-53.Hinnawi,E. E.1985 EnvironmentRefugees.ew York:United NationsDevelopmentProgram.Hogan, D. J.1992 "The ImpactofPopulationGrowth n thePhysical nvironment,"uropean ournalofPopulation, :109-123.Hugo, G. J.1995 Understanding heremmigrantsive.Canberra:AGPS.1988 "PopulationMovement n Indonesia Since 1971," TijdschrifioorEconomischenSocialeGeografie,9(4):242-256.1987 "PostwarRefugeeMigrationn SoutheastAsia: Patterns, roblems nd Policies." nRefugees: ThirdWorld ilemma.Ed.J.R. Rogge.NewJersey:owan andLittlefield.1984 "The Demographic mpactof Famine." n Famine s a Geographicalhenomenon.d.B. Currey ndG. Hugo. Dordrecht:D. Reidel.Pp. 7-32.

8/8/2019 2547462

26/28


Hugo, G. J.and C. K. Chan1990 "Conceptualizing nd DefiningRefugee nd OtherForcedMigrations," outheastAsianJournal fSocialSciences,8 1): 19-42.Huus, K.1994 "More Dam Trouble,"FarEastern conomic eview,p. 70-72. Oct. 20.Industries ssistance ommission1989 TheEnvironmentalImpacts fTravel nd Tourism. anberra:AGPS.InternationalOrganization orMigrationIOM)1992 Migrationnd the nvironment.eneva: IOM andRefugee olicyGroup.Jacobsen, .L.1989 "EnvironmentalRefugees:NaturesWarning ystem," OPULI, l6(l):29-38.1988 "Environmental efugees: Yardstick fHabitability,"WorldwatchPaper86.Wash?ington:Worldwatch nstitute.Kaplan,R. D.1994 "The ComingAnarchy," heAtlanticMonthly 73(2):44-76.Kayastha, . L. and R. P.Yadara1985 "Flood InducedPopulationMigrationnIndia:A Case Study fGhagharaZone." InPopulationRedistributionnd Developmentn SouthAsia. Ed. L. A. Kosinski nd K.M. Elahi. Dordrecht:D. Reidel.Pp. 79-88.Kaye,L.1994 "The Reckoning," arEastern conomic eview, p. 24-30. Oct. 27.Keating,M.1994 The EarthSummitsAgenda orChange.Geneva: CentreforOur Common Future.Keely,C. B.1981 GlobalRefugeeolicy:The Casefora Development rientedStrategy.ew York:ThePopulationCouncil Public ssuesPaperson Population.Keyfitz, .1991 "Population nd DevelopmentWithintheEcosphere:One View oftheLiterature,"Populationndex, 7.Kibreab,G.1994 "Migration, nvironmentndRefugeehood."nEnvironmentndPopulation hange.Ed. B. Zabaand J.Clarke.Belgium: USSP. Pp. 115-130.Kunz,E. F.1973 "The Refugeen Flight:KineticModels and FormsofDisplacement," nternationalMigration eview,(2): 125-146.Moore,E. J.andJ.W Smith1995 "Climatic hange ndMigrationrom ceania: mplicationsorAustralia,ew Zealand

and theUnited tates fAmerica," opulationndEnvironment,7(2): 105-122.Mortimore,M.1989 Adapting oDrought: armers,amines ndDesertificationn West frica. ambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.NationalAcademy fSciences,NationalAcademy fEngineering,nstitute fMedicine,U.S.1991 PolicymplicationsfGreenhouse arming.Washington,C: NationalAcademy ress.NationalPopulationCouncil1992 Population ssues nd Australids uture:Environment,conomy nd Society. inalReport fthePopulation ssuesCommittee.Canberra:AGPS.

8/8/2019 2547462

27/28


Nobel, P.1985 "Refugeeeterminationnthe hirdWorld."Paper reparedor nitedNationsResearchInstituteor ocialDevelopments roject nPeopleAffectedyUprootedness.Olson, M. E.1979 "Refugees s a SpecialCase ofPopulationRedistribution."n Population edistribu?tion: atterns,oliciesndProspects.d. L. A. P Gosling nd L. Y. C. Lim.NewYork:United Nations Fund forPopulationActivities.Pp. 130-152.Oucho, J.O.1995 "InternationalMigrationand Sustainable Human Development in Eastern andSouthernAfrica,"nternationalMigration,3(l):31-54.ParliamentftheCommonwealth fAustralia1994 Australids opulation Carrying apacity:One Nation - TwoEcologies. anberra:AGPS.Peterson,W A.1958 "AGeneralTypology fMigration," mericanSociological eview, 3(3):256-266?Pichon,F.J.andR. E. Bilsborrow1992 "Agriculturalolonizationandthe Social DimensionsofDeforestationnthe Ecua?dorianAmazon." In The SocialDynamics fDeforestationn DevelopingCountries.Geneva:UN Research nstitute n Social Development.The Population nstitute1993 "Desparate Departures:The Flight fEnvironmentalRefugees." aperprepared orExpertGroup Meetingon PopulationDistribution nd Migration,Santa Cruz,Bolivia.January.Richmond,A.1993 "The Environment nd Refugees: heoretical nd Policy ssues."Revisedversion fa paperpresentedt themeetings f the nternational nion for heScientifictudyofPopulation,Montreal.August.Rogers,R. and E. Copeland1993 ForcedMigration-Policyssues n thePost-ColdWarWorldMassachusetts: uftsUni?versity.Ruzicka,L. T. andA. K. M.A. Chowdhury1978 DemographicurveillanceystemMatlab Volume . Vital ventsndMigration 975.Dacca: CholeraResearch aboratory.Secrett, .1986 "The EnvironmentalmpactofTransmigration,"heEcologust,6(2):77~86.Shah,B. V.1983 "Is theEnvironment ecomingMoreHazardous?A Global Survey, 947 to 1980,"Disasters,(3):202-209.Simmance,A.1987 "The ImpactofLarge-ScaleMovements nd theRole ofUNHCR." In Refugees:ThirdWorld ilemma Ed. J.R. Rogge.NewJersey: owanand Litdefield.Smith,J.W,ed.1991 Immigration,opulationnd Sustainable imits oAustralids rowth. delaide: Flin?dersPress.Speare,A.1974 "The Relevanceof Models of InternalMigrationforthe Studyof InternationalMigration."In InternationalMigration:Proceedingsfa Seminaron DemographicResearchnRelation o nternational igration. d. G. Tapinos.Paris:CICRED. Pp.84-94.

8/8/2019 2547462

28/28


Spitz,P1978 "SilentViolence:Povertynd Inequality,"nternationalocial Science ournal, 0(4).Stevens, .1993 "UNHCR and Environmentalssues."Paperpresented t Refugees nd Environ?mentalChangeConference, niversityfOxford, ondon. September.Suhrke,A.1994 "EnvironmentalDegradation,ndPopulationFlows,"JournalofnternationalAffairs,47(2):475-496.1993 Pressureoints: nvironmentalDegradation, igrationnd Conflict.ccasionalPaperNo. 3,UniversityfToronto ndtheAmerican cademy fArts ndScience,Toronto.1992 "Pressure oints:EnvironmentalDegradation,MigrationndConflict." repared ora conferenceorganized y heAmerican cademy fArts ndScience ttheBrookingsInstitution,Washington C, May 11-12.Svart, . M.1976 "Environmental referenceMigration: Review,"Geographicaleview,6:314-330.Toyne,P1990 "Damage ControltheNo. 1 Priority,"heAustralian,une1.UnitedNations1994 "Population nd theEnvironmentn DevelopingCountries:Literatureurvey ndResearchBibliography." aperprepared or hePopulationDivision oftheDepart?mentforEconomic and Social Information nd PolicyAnalysis.U.N. Secretariat,New York.1993 Report fthe UnitedNationsConferencen Environmentnd Development. io deJaniero, une -14, 1992, 1,SalesNo. E.93.I.8.UnitedNationsPopulationDivision1994 "Population nd theEnvironmentn DevelopingCountries:Literatureurvey ndResearchBibliography." ewYork:UnitedNationsSecretariat.Utting,1992 Trees, eopleand Power: Social DimensionofDeforestationnd Forest rotectionnCentral merica, npublishedUNRISD Report.July.Zolberg,A. and A. Suhrke1984 "Social Conflict and Refugees n the Third World: The Cases of Ethiopia andAfghanistan." aper presentedt the CenterforMigration nd PopulationStudies,HarvardUniversity, arch 22.

2547462

Documents

Transcript of 2547462