extending Refugee-Environment discussion through May 24th

[Jamon Van Den Hoek]

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks so much for the exchange thus far, and an extra thanks to our panelists. Since the discussions still have good momentum, we are keeping the Cyberseminar listserv discussion open through Monday, May 24th. Please feel free to post thoughts/replies over the next few days and we'll plan to formally conclude on Monday.

All best,

Jamon

[Ilan Kelman]

In considering various forced migration scenarios, we could expand the environmental ranges examined:

1. The polar regions https://polarconnection.org/polar-humanitarianism including the Arctic https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-12-2019-0353

2. Outer space https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/disaster-choice/202104/outer-space-humanitarianism

3. Underwater https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.120 (p. 33)

What data collection and monitoring challenges and opportunities emerge when considering forced migration scenarios beyond typical remits? What environmental impacts could occur from responses in these places? Thank you for any thoughts,

Ilan

1. Twitter @ILANKELMAN https://twitter.com/ilankelman 

2. Instagram @ILANKELMAN https://www.instagram.com/ilankelman 

3. LinkedIn https://uk.linkedin.com/in/ilankelman 

4. ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilan_Kelman 

5. Academia.Edu http://ucl.academia.edu/IlanKelman 

6. Blog https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/disaster-choice 

[Marge Fauvelle]

Dear Jamon,

Thank you for this extension - it has been a thought-provoking fortnight with a wealth of expertise. I'd like to share a couple of reflections in laypersons terms, based on my obervations from volunteering with South -> North refugees and listening to their stories and motivations for going forward through life after forced displacement. Their experiences feed into my wider analysis on how to avoid the rupture of forced displacement in the first place as well as what it all means for sustainable development.

It is a commonly misunderstood idea that refugees with the means will risk their lives and pay huge sums to reach OECD countries because they wish to take advantage of the economic benefits, work and social security (as well as joining family members). However, the attraction underlying this, and I believe the intuitive motivation, is the paradigm of personal and public safety and security (most of the primo-arrivants are nonetheless flabbergasted to realise how deeply embedded administration, legality, fiscality etc are). The attraction of the "Rule of Law"/formal economy framework should not be undervalued when researching South - > North migration, despite the downside of increased checks, controls etc.

What are the processes by which this paradigm of 'development' has been successfully built, in particular since the end of the second world war?  Banking, industry, public policy & programmes  etc... but as Jane has pointed out, demography also plays a part with low fertility, low mortality and low-moderate migration to mitigate low natural increase. Whether a population is large or small, it is stability that makes it attractive - greater solidarity between the generations is a key characteristic for balanced social and political (home affairs) governance.

Whereas younger population pyramids may be characterised by higher unemployment, social dissatisfaction etc. older population structures are regarded as a problem in OECD countries for economic reasons - even if they look enticing from outside. For many countries, migration has a balancing role between these two population poles.

I hardly ever meet refugees who made it to the EU legally - national positions and EU policies aiming to firm up border controls have the main impact of making black-market human trafficking increasingly lucrative. A lack of realistic migration governance (for conflict and environmental refugees) leads to a Catch 22 situation where smugglers are making the decisions about who crosses borders and for how much. No needs-based assessments, no equitability, no accountability - for whatever reasons, governments prefer to turn a blind eye rather than come up with a legal alternative. Establishing broader resettlement programmes and partnerships with receiving countries would go some way towards redressing this because the promise of a safe passage or a more comfortable camp would divert (some) refugees away from traffickers. The €20 million Euros pocketed by traffickers from Channel crossings last summer could certainly have been re-invested more humanely.

We probably all looked at the photos of Cox's Bazar and thanked goodness for our homes. There are no words to transmit the suffering and discomfort of millions of people every day as a result of forced displacement which can last for generations. As demographers do we have a role to play to mitigate this somehow? This is an anecdote: Reading about Syrian refugees in Arssal, Lebanon where 80% of children live in tents, that living conditions there are regarded as above average for refugees because shelters provide 5-7 square metres of space per person which is more than the Sphere technical indicator of 4.5 square metres. It is less than a prison cell. What does this mean for demographic measures of life expectancy, morbidity and for QoL?

Yes, environmental refugees are not included in the scope of official statistics for displaced persons - this is relatively recent and ongoing work by the EGRIS:  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-gq-18-004  I suggest that this group challenges that decision as the working group broadens to include new countries.

Dear Richard,
"giving power to people to control their own fertility" - this isn't the way that things pan out though. I have mislaid the reference but came across  study from rural Zambia about six months ago where 85% of girls under 20 had already had their first child and 80% of them hadn't particularly wanted a child. This case suggests that the FP conversation should not be limited to women. At least not in rural Zambia. Ref the forthcoming IUSSP Debate on FP on 01 June. Involving men has my vote.

Leading on from Colin's remarks, there are still 8 1/2 years to go with the SDGs. Based on the three circles model of sustainability where the environmental, social and economic (ie the power to exchange) dimensions overlap it is the economic circle that is currently driving development and creating the dichotomy of wealth and poverty. There is no monetary profit (i.e. economic growth) without an environmental impact somewhere in the value chain. Because 21st century humans have to trade to survive, and because their numbers (despite Corona and war) and consumption patterns are on the increase, the environment has to take the hit as can be seen from the simplest mirror graph of human population for the last 150 years plotted again biodiversity loss. And the wealthiest people/organisations are by the same token responsible for the largest amount of environmental damage. I wouldn't spend time calculating the carrying capacity of the planet - the problem is obvious. The urgency is to alleviate poverty and displacement, reduce / eliminate waste and pollution, protect habitable land mass and promote sustainable goods and services. I believe that the most effective way to achieve this is by promoting peaceful and demographically stable societies where people no longer need to have large families to survive (thanks to public health they don't have to anymore, but thanks to conflict, they still do) and where no individual or organisation can get away with targetting of civilian populations in geopolitical conflict or land clearance for other purposes.

Greetings to all from rainy Bank Holiday Belgium,

Marge Fauvelle

---

De : Jamon Van Den Hoek <vand...@oregonstate.edu>
Envoyé : vendredi 21 mai 2021 13:00
À : Population-Environment Research Network (PERN) cyberseminars <pernse...@ciesin.columbia.edu>
Objet : [PERN Cyberseminar] extending Refugee-Environment discussion through May 24th

 

--
The Population-Environment Research Network (PERN) Cyberseminar Discussion List
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PERNSeminars - List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pernseminars...@ciesin.columbia.edu.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/ciesin.columbia.edu/d/msgid/pernseminars/CAHasiqceJvOMF2fvy-LkEBN4a5BR5QAGVT6aiVuyLfqbiyKerw%40mail.gmail.com.