RPN 18 published January 1995

1. Population movements and the environment by Dr Steve Lonergan

`...throughout the world, there is copious evidence that the carrying capacity of many life-support systems is being overloaded to a breaking point, and where such systems have collapsed, the options for the poor are stark: either to flee, or to stay put and starve.' (Tolba, 1990(1))

Population displacement due to environmental degradation is not a recent phenomenon. Historically, people have had to move from their land because it had been degraded (through natural disasters, war or over-exploitation) and could not sustain them. What is more recent is the potential for mass movements caused by population growth, resource depletion and the irreversible destruction of the environment. Environmental disasters such as floods, droughts and earthquakes are displacing more and more people every year. People and governments of many nations are altering the physical environment in a way that makes it more vulnerable to disruption. For example, rapid rates of population growth and high levels of consumption in affluent states have resulted in the overutilisation and degradation of the land. As deforestation, desertification, global warming, and other threats appear, a new category of displaced people is being recognised - the environmentally displaced.

Causes of environmentally-induced population displacement

Examples of environmental change as a proximate cause of population displacement can be divided into five categories, as follows:

1. Natural disasters - these include floods, volcanoes and earthquakes. They are usually characterised by a rapid onset, and their human impact (destructiveness) is a function of the number of vulnerable people in the region rather than their severity, per se. Poor people in developing countries are the most affected because they are the most vulnerable. It should be noted that the severity of natural disasters - in terms of their human impact - has increased over the past 40 years (28 million affected in 1960s; 64 million in 1980s).

2. Cumulative changes - generally slowly occurring geophysical processes which are accelerated through the interaction with human activities. They include deforestation, land degradation, erosion, salinity, siltation, waterlogging, desertification and climate warming.

3. Accidental disruptions or industrial accidents - inevitable byproducts of the industrial revolution. Chemical manufacture and transport, and nuclear reactor accidents are among the causes.

4. Development projects - including dams and irrigation projects and forced resettlement programs. In India, 20 million persons have been uprooted by development projects.

5. Conflict and warfare - environmental degradation is both a cause and effect of armed conflict. There is an increasing use of the environment as a `weapon' of war.

Causes of environmental degradation

Since population displacement is posited as an effect, it is important to identify the causes of environmental degradation. Such causes can be classified into three groups, with socio-economic `filters' acting at one - or more - levels.

1. Structural problems or root causes - for example, a narrowly focused economic system; non-adaptive institutional structures; and inadequate planning systems.

2. Socio-economic filters - impoverishment; conflict; and population growth.

3. Underlying causes - unnecessary and inefficient use of resources; inadequate controls on the use of the environment; poor protection of indigenous lifestyles; lack of choice over resource use; disempowerment of women; and population displacement.

4. Surface causes - mining of renewable resources; rapid extraction of non-renewable resources; and discharges of harmful substances to surface and groundwater.

5. Symptoms - land degradation; resource depletion; water pollution and so on.

Environmental effects of population movements

Population movements can be viewed as both an effect and a cause of environmental degradation. The ecological impacts of large refugee movements have only recently received serious attention but it is increasingly acknowledged that large influxes of people can have significant environmental implications for the receiving region. Any modification of ecosystems can produce a variety of disturbances, the degree of which depends on both the intensity of the interference and the fragility of the existing ecology itself(2)

. Refugee movements tend to produce uncontrolled modifications which can lead to serious disruptions of ecological systems, and the ecological impact of mass movements can be very severe. Many nations' refugee influxes in the past decade have destabilised the local ecology and have caused a rapid depletion of scarce vegetation(3)

. The use of wood by refugees for fuel and home construction requires millions of trees, often in sensitive areas susceptible to ecological damage. The cattle refugees often use for sustenance also have great impacts on ecosystems, trampling small trees and bushes and over-grazing the land. Many refugee camps are now surrounded by vast stretches of barren land no longer capable of supporting life. The environmental stresses caused by population displacements are overwhelming the capacity of some developing nations to deal with them.

Rural to urban migration also results in ecological problems in urban areas. Migrants often locate on the fringes of urban areas where environmental services are poor, placing a greater burden on the environment. Governments are finding it increasingly difficult to provide adequate water and sanitation services to these areas. As cities grow, water must be transported from greater distances, and the production of waste - human, industrial and municipal - in turn, affects water supplies. As Campbell notes, large cities are perhaps the most striking example of areas which have grown rapidly out of proportion with their ecological settings and where `resource consumption and degradation has taken a serious toll on the health and safety of all residents, as well as future development prospects for urbanised Third World countries'(4)

.

Present environmental policies and policy prescriptions

There exist a range of policies which focus on reducing the human impact of environmental stresses, although most apply to (or can be afforded by) developed countries only, whereas the problems identified above are concentrated in the poorest parts of the world.

Ultimately, policies which are relevant to the growing concern with environmentally-induced population movements must be directed towards alleviating the cause of those movements: the degradation of the natural environment. Environmental degradation is both a cause and effect of population displacement. Addressing environmental degradation also means addressing the `root' and `underlying' causes noted above. Because of the complex nature of environmental change, developing policies to deal effectively with populations displaced by environmental stresses must range from local level initiatives (eg erosion control) to international agreements (eg the Climate Change Convention). Other problems are apparent as well. These include:

a. Many anti-growth advocates promote greater restrictions on immigrant admissions because of the strain they place on the environment/resources of the receiving state.

b. There is an ongoing debate over the use of environmental restrictions on development assistance. Development agencies worry that environmental initiatives may be inconsistent with other development initiatives. This sentiment is echoed by many recipient governments, who claim that `environmental imperialism' is dominating the economic agenda of overseas development assistance.

c. There is also a debate on whether emphasis should be placed on the rights of individuals or on the collective right to sustainable environment, a right which includes future generations.

Policy prescriptions fall into three general categories. The first deals with the symptoms of the problem; the second with the causes; and the third with institutions. They are, admittedly, quite general but should provide a focus for future discussion on the issues presented above.

1. Recognise the plight of the environmentally displaced and include them within the criteria for assistance. This has been the focus and objective of many writings. Although they cannot be described as `Convention Refugees' under the strict definitions of the 1951 Convention on Refugees, they can, for instance, be allowed into Canada as `quasi-refugees' under this government's 1976 Immigration Act(5).

2. Place a major emphasis on promoting sound environmental policies, reducing the degradation of the natural environment and the rate of resource depletion that creates environmentally displaced populations. While this is a lofty and seemingly unattainable goal, it should be clear that it is not simply a matter for environmental agencies but must be addressed by all agencies. Such an emphasis might include:

a. careful assessment of aid projects to determine which are environmentally sound (What is essential is that the links between local empowerment and impoverishment, population, and environmental degradation, are recognised and acted upon. This means that development projects do not merely use local knowledge and expertise in setting up projects, but that these projects are constructed on existing social organisations (CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency - is already attempting to do this, by adopting principles of sustainable development in their programmes.)

b. a focus on environmental education and training, including agricultural cooperatives, to promote sustainable agriculture

c. promotion of research in:

- identifying the most vulnerable regions of the world

- determining the role of environmental degradation and resource depletion as a causal factor in population displacements

- assessing the environmental impacts of displacees on receiving regions (particularly cities in the developing world)

3. International responses should include:

a. resolving the Third World debt crisis (which many believe is a major cause of the rapid rates of resource depletion in developing countries in recent years)

b. putting greater pressure on international lending institutions such as the World Bank not only to consider the environmental and social impacts of projects but also to assess their implications for population displacement specifically (A case in point is the recent assessment of the Sardar Sarovar project in India, in which the Bank had an independent review of the project based on environmental impact concerns. In recent months, the Bank has shyed away from any projects which involve displacing significant numbers of people.)

c. considering the relationship between foreign trade, development assistance and environmental practice

d. working with the Commission on Sustainable Development, IDRC, the International Institute for Sustainable Development and others to put the issue of environmental degradation and population displacement on the international agenda



Dr Steve Lonergan is director of the Centre for Sustainable Regional Development, University of Victoria, Canada.

1. Tolba, M, 1990, cited in D Lazarus `New strangers at the door?', Refugees, 81, December.

2. Simmance, A J F, 1987, `The impact of large-scale refugee movements and the role of UNHCR' in J R Rogge (ed) Refugees: A Third World Dilemma, New Jersey, Rowan and Littlefield.

3. Crisp, J, 1990, `Human rights and refugees', Refugees, 77, July-August, pp 31-4.

4. Campbell, T, 1989, `Urban development in the third world: environmental dilemnas and the urban poor' in H J Leonard (ed) Environment and the Poor: Development Strategies for a Common Agenda, Washington, Overseas Development Council (p 166).

5. See paper on p .. by JoAnn McGregor on the use of the term `environmental refugee'.

Return to Top of Page

July 1997